The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 03/25/2008 R BCC REGULAR MEETING BACK-UP DOCUMENTS MARCH 25, 2008 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB) 0....,\,11.-;, , ''"~ . . r- , ()I',I~.~ .... AGENDA March 25-26, 2008 9:00 AM Tom Henning, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2 (Absent 3/26/08) Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4 (Absent 3/26/08) NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." Page 1 March 25-26, 2008 ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 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) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AIL ABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Pastor J.R. Pagan, International Worship Center 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and summary agenda.) Approved and/or Adopted with changes - 5/0 B. February 19,2008 - BCC/Tourist Development Council Joint Workshop Approved as Presented - 5/0 C. February 19,2008 - BCC/Land Development Code Meeting Amendments Approved as Presented - 5/0 D. February 26/27,2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting Approved as Presented - 5/0 E. March 4,2008 - BCC/Strategic Planning Workshop Approved as Presented - 5/0 Page 2 March 25-26, 2008 3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) 4. PROCLAMATIONS Added E. A. Proclamation designating April 2008 as Autism Awareness Month. Schedule to be accepted by Brian and Dawn Itzkowitz, by accepted by Kristi-Leigh and Bruce Lyon. Adopted - 5/0 B. Proclamation designating April, 2008 as Call 811 Before You Dig Month. To be accepted by Lynn Dafron, Embarq (Committee Chairman), Bob Martzloff, City of Naples (Committee Vice Chairman), Collier County Staff Members: Fred Sexton, PUD Engineering, Trudi Ramirez, Trans. Traffic Operations, Steve Shelton, PUD Wastewater, James French, CDES Operations and Regulatory Mgmt. and Everildo "Evy" Ybaceta, CDES Operations and Regulatory Mgmt. Adopted - 5/0 C. Proclamation designating April to be recognized as Water Conservation Month. To be accepted by Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director Adopted - 5/0 D. Proclamation recognizing April 7-11,2008 as National Work Zone Awareness Week. To be accepted by Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services Divison, Jay Ahmad, Trans. Eng. & Const. Management Dept. Director, Bob Tipton, Traffic Operations Dept. Director, Diane Flagg, Alternative Transportation Modes Director, John Vliet, Road Maintenance Director, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Dept Director, FHP Sgt. Dwayne Cooper and Sgt. Dave Contessa, as well as Sgt. Chris Gonzalez and Lt. Harold J. Minch from the Collier County Sheriff's Office. Adopted - 5/0 Proclamation designating March 30,2008 as National Doctor's Day. To be accepted by Dr. Fontana. (Staffs request) Adopted - 5/0 5. PRESENTATIONS Page 3 March 25-26, 2008 A. Recommendation to recognize Jecika DeLeon, Administrative Secretary, Transportation Administration, as Employee of the Month for March 2008. Recognized B. Presentation by DeAngelis Diamond Construction, Inc.; on the status of the Golden Gate Library Expansion. Presented C. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation by Clerk of Courts Dwight Brock regarding investments. Presented by Dr. Stuart Brown 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public petition request by Rene' Oliver to discuss the Dangerous Dog Law. Have DAS to review and submit recommendations/changes of the ordinance to the Board Withdrawn B. Public petition request to discuss use of second driveway on Green Boulevard. (As this item is an on-going Code Enforcement case, the Board will hear the item but will not discuss the item after it has been presented.) (Same subject matter as Item #lOF) C. Public petition request by Jim Kramer to discuss support for the platform of the American people. Presented D. Public petition request by Brian Jones to discuss temporary conditional use permit for Adventure Training Concepts, LLC. To be brought back at the next Board meeting - Approved 5/0 E. Public petition request by Lois Selfon to discuss Collier County to provide funding support for City of Naples Parks and Recreation facilities. Motion to bring back at future meeting to establish funding policy for Parks and Rec. operations - 4/1 (Commissioner Halas opposed) Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted. Page 4 March 25-26, 2008 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. ADA-2007-AR-12714, Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, represented by Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., is requesting an appeal ofBD-2007-AR-12154 denied by the Collier County Planning Commission on December 6, 2007. Subject property is located in Section 5, Township 48, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. Motion to remand back to the CCPC (specifically those members that voted against the petition) with statements of the legal basis for denial; to be brought back to the April 22, 2008 BCC Meeting - Approved 5/0 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. A Resolution approving with conditions Petition CCSL-2008-0 II AR-12598 requesting a variance from the Coastal Construction setback line (CCSL) to allow construction for seven picnic shelters, six chickee hut concession stands, replacement and expansion of an existing park entrance administrative office, and paved drop-offlane addition to the Park Road, all of which are located on property known as Delnor- Wiggins Pass State Park with a street address of 11135 Gulfshore Drive North and more particularly described as that fraction part of Lots I & 2, located in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida Resolution 2008 -74: Approving the State's Petition and for the State to work with the County regarding increasing parking and attendance - Adopted 4/1 (Commissioner Halas opposed) B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider adopting an Ordinance to establish a Job Retention Investment Program available to targeted, high wage local companies in order to preserve the existing targeted workforce and encourage the expansion of additional high wage jobs; the Ordinance has been prepared in accordance with the request by the Economic Development Council of Collier County and the prior direction of the Board of County Commissioners. (Tammie Nemecek, Economic Development Council) Ordinance 2008-16 and extending program to 2013 Adopted 5/0 Page 5 March 25-26, 2008 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS March 26, 2008 A. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council. Resolution 2008-76 Reappointing Judith Hushon, Appointing Allison Delaine Megrath and Paul Lehmann as regular members. Appointing Susan Leach Snyder as an alternate Adopted 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) March 26, 2008 B. A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners supporting House Bill 965 and Senate Bill 1660, exemption of certain personal information of employees working as paramedics and EMTs. (Commissioner Henning) Resolution 2008-77 Adopted 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) C. Contract extension for David Weigel, County Attorney. (Commissioner Henning's request) Approved 4/1 (Commissioner Halas opposed) 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. To review the written and oral reports of the Advisory Boards and Committees scheduled for review in 2008 in accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55. Advisory Board's include: Immokalee Area Master Plan and Visioning Committee, Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee, Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. (Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager) Motion to accept reports as presented - Approved 5/0 March 26, 2008 B. Recommendation to approve the purchase of property insurance for the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 in the amount of$3,571,427, a reduction of$510,262. (Jeff Walker, Director, Risk Management) Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) Page 6 March 25-26, 2008 March 26, 2008 C. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution (Initiating Resolution) of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, pursuant to Part II of Chapter 171, Florida Statutes (Florida's Interlocal Service Boundary Act) to commence the process for negotiating an inter10ca1 service boundary agreement regarding 22.04 acres ofland, more or less, described as the Senior Care Site, proposed to be annexed into the City of Naples. (Jim Mudd, County Manager) Resolution 2008-78 Adopted 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) D. This item to be heard at 2:30 p.m. To provide the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) a Resolution defining the County's position on lanes 5 and 6 on Interstate 75 and requesting that the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority (SWFEA) conduct a study to review alternative roadways to 1-75 that provide mobility between Collier County and Lee County. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services and Nick Casa1anguida, Director, Transportation/Planning) Resolution of Denial 2008-75 : Motion to deny any more support of the SWFEA, support staff in their pursuit of alternative options regarding 1-75 and to continue working with the regional MPO and FDOT- Approved 5/0 E. This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) evaluate and consider proposals from the various governmental agencies that have expressed interest in potentially managing and accepting Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) severed Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) North Belle Meade (NBM) Sending Land properties in a fee simple conveyance process as viable alternatives in juxtaposition to the proposed Community Development District (CDD) conveyance arrangement presented to the Board. (Joe Thompson, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department, CDES & Alex Sulecki, Program Coordinator, Conservation Collier, Administrative Services Division) Discussed at length with no action taken March 26, 2008 F. To receive approval from Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to allow the existing driveway connections on Green Boulevard, that serve as secondary access point to the residents of 15th Avenue SW, to remain until Page 7 March 25-26, 2008 such time the County improves Green Boulevard to a four lane urban cross section. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) (Same subject matter as Item 6B) Motion to approve a temporary permitting use on Green Blvd - Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) March 26, 2008 G. This item continued from the Februarv 26, 2008 BCC meetinl! and is further continued to the March 25, 2008 BCC meetinl!. Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat ofOlde Cypress Unit One (Olde Cypress PUD). The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. (Stan Chrzanowski, Sr. Engineer, Engineering & Environmental Services Department, CDES) Resolution 2008-79: Motion to Release Bond except for $100,000 until buffer is complete Adopted 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) March 26, 2008 H. Recommendation to approve the purchase of a 4.98 acre improved property (Parcel No. 147) and a vacant, 4.27 acre parcel (Parcel No. 146), both of which are required for the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project. Project No. 60168 (Fiscal Impact: $1,977,600.) (Jay Ahmad, Transportation/ECM Director) Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) March 26, 2008 I. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to amend and clarify the Countys Stormwater Funding Policy; Funding of Stormwater Management; Findings and Purpose; Capital and Operating Budget; Definitions; and providing an effective date. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) Resolution 2008-80: Adopted 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) March 26, 2008 J. Request that the Board of County Commissioners provide guidance to staff regarding the recently received application for a permit to allow for the installation of two signs for a Coffee Shop business located at 6345 Naples Boulevard, Pine Air Lakes PUD. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, CDES) Page 8 March 25-26, 2008 Motion to issue permit Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) March 26, 2008 Moved from Item #16B3 K. Recommendation to consider a request to modify Haldeman Creek Dredging Municipal Services Taxing Unit Ordinance No. 2006-60 by adding 5 parcels and modify Section Six-B to add or owners of residential or commercial property. Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Moved from Item #16K5 A. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider approving a Settlement Agreement and Release with Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC (owner of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development) to settle alleged claims, including an alleged Bert Harris Act claim purportedly arising from denial of an amendment to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County, Case No. 05-962-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, as well as amended Cocohatchee Bay PUD Document with attached Bald Eagle Management Plan Motion to continue to the April 22, 2008 BCC Meeting - Approved 5/0 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS March 26, 2008 A. Mr. Ochs - Public Petition Item #6E will be brought to the 2nd meeting in April so staff has time to gather information and prepare analysis B. Mr. Ochs - Quarterly meetings with the City of Naples now to meet monthly and to be moved as needed Page 9 March 25-26, 2008 C. Mr. Ochs - Motion to reconsider Item #17B - Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent); Motion to continue to the April 8th BCC Meeting - Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) D. Mr. Weigel- Regarding parks and recreation funding assistance for municipalities E. Mr. Weigel- Report regarding Haldeman Creek and Immokalee Beautification F. Commissioner Coletta - Meeting at St. Agnes Church from 5 PM to 7 PM, located at the corner of SR 951 and Vanderbilt Extension, regarding Wilson Blvd. Extension G. Commissioner Henning - Tasks assigned the Advisory Boards and straying from their assigned tasks - to be brought back to a future BCC Meeting when all Commissioners are present H. Go to Item #18 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 B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement to accept donated property for use as right-of-way on the Santa Barbara Blvd. Extension, Project #60091 (Potential Fiscal Impact: $132.00) Located on the east side of Davis Blvd and Santa Barbara Blvd 2) Recommendation to Award Collier County Bid #08-5050 Diesel Powered Refuse Loader to Wallace International Trucks. A replacement vehicle for the Road Department Moved to Item #lOK 3) Recommendation to consider a request to modify Haldeman Creek Dredging Municipal Services Taxing Unit Ordinance No. 2006-60 by Page 10 March 25-26, 2008 adding 5 parcels and modify Section Six-B to add or owners of residential or commercial property. 4) Recommendation to grant a special exception to The Shores of Berkshire Lakes concerning the communities request to pay the County's noise wall contractor on the Santa Barbara Boulevard Project to continue installing said wall from the limits of the warranted noise wall, easterly along Radio Road to the East boundary of their property. (Fiscal Impact: $0.00) Contract with Duratec 5) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve an interim impact fee for new dry storage construction at Calusa Island Marina until an approved alternative impact study is completed and the appropriate fee is determined. Failure to complete impact study will result in a lien being put on the property C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Recommendation to Award Bid Number 08-5039 for the installation of one fuel tank for the Carica Repump Station in the amount of $218,839 to Quality Enterprises, Incorporated. To replace the existing tank that has been in place since the 1980's 2) Recommendation to amend award of Bid Number 07-4181 for landscaping maintenance of Public Utilities Division facilities to rescind award to Florida Land Maintenance and award to Amera Tech Incorporated in the estimated amount of$142,312. Florida Land Maintenance refused to sign a contract 3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $48.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien. Resolution 2008-67 Page 11 March 25-26, 2008 4) Recommendation to approve Amendment 7 to Contract #03-3517 with Greeley and Hansen LLC for Professional Engineering Services for Water Main Projects in the amount of$230,520. Projects #70151 and#70152. For construction of 6.5 miles of water transmission mains through the utility corridor of Collier Blvd. D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to purchase a computer and additional operating supplies and appropriate $4,000 of reserve for cash balance of the University Extension Trust Fund. For operation of Master Gardener Plant Clinic and a new Sea Grant/Marine Science Outreach Program E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to submit a South Florida Program grant proposal to the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for $19,384 (of which $8,400 will be reimbursable) to fund a native plant restoration project at the Conservation Collier Otter Mound Preserve. For programs that conserve and protect endangered and threatened wildlife species 2) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to submit a Bureau ofInvasive Plant Management (BIPM) grant proposal to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for $132,000 to fund an invasive, exotic plant removal project at the Conservation Collier Railhead Scrub Preserve. For the removal of Melaleuca 3) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to submit a Bureau ofInvasive Plant Management (BIPM) grant proposal to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for $150,000 to fund an invasive, exotic plant removal project at the Conservation Collier/ Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Trust Starnes Property. For the removal of Brazilian Pepper Page 12 March 25-26, 2008 4) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Collier County Group Health and Flexible Reimbursement Insurance Plan effective January 31, 2008 to recognize the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program. As detailed in the Executive Summary 5) (Companion to Item #16G3: must be approved prior to Item #16G3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of Collier County Commissioners to execute a Statutory Deed for the conveyance of County owned property to the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency to implement provisions of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Master Plan and the Bayshore Neighborhood Focus Initiative for the construction of quality housing within the Coastal High Hazard Area as part of a CRA residential in-fill project: Site Address 2605 Van Buren Avenue. (Fiscal Impact: No impact to the County Managers Agency) Resolution 2008-68 6) Recommendation to authorize and consent to the re-assignment of Contracts No. 05-3826, "Furnish and Deliver Emulsions Polymer and 06-3898 "Chemicals for Utilities" from Calciquest, Inc., to Carus Phosphates, Inc., and to release Calciquest, Inc., from liability after the effective date ofthe Board's consent. Due to acquiring the assets of Calciquest, Inc. 7) Recommendation to award RFP #08-5019 and Agreement between Collier County and Building Systems Evaluation, Inc., dba Fire Sprinkler Systems Company, dba BSE for Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Testing, Inspection, Maintenance, and Installation for an estimated annual amount of$165,000. For fire sprinkler and alarm testing services for 2 years 8) To award a contract for voice and data cabling and communications related services. Awarded to CW Solutions as primary and Dura Tech Systems, OSP Management and Aztek Communications as secondary providers F. COUNTY MANAGER Page 13 March 25-26, 2008 1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Adopted Budget. Resolution 2008-69 2) Approve the necessary budget amendment from Ochopee Fire Control District reserves in the amount of$55,000 to purchase equipment for the purpose of bringing an existing fire truck up to full engine specifications and make a mid year adjustment to routine operational budget line items to address minor safety and compliance issues as required by the National Fire Protection Association and the Insurance Services Rating Organization. 3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution that supports proposed legislation (HB 525) addressing loss of federal entitlement benefits for inmates which would adopt the policy that they would remain enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid on a suspended status if incarcerated less than a year. Resolution 2008-70 4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution supporting and encouraging enactment of Senate Bill 1634, which requires Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) notification to counties and cities within a five-mile radius of a wastewater facility in violation of Part 1, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and identification by the DEP the source of sewage contaminants which result in health advisories prohibiting swimming in waters along Florida beaches. Resolution 2008-71 G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve a budget amendment in the amount of $54,083 to fund engineering, environmental and construction services for additional work for the mitigation project at Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve required by the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers permits for the Marco Island Executive Airport. Page 14 March 25-26, 2008 2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve the purchase of a residential (mobile home) lot in the Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project; to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a payment from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Fund (187) in the amount of $65,000 plus cost and expenses to complete the sale of subject property. Site address: 3105 Karen Drive ($65,000). a) Additional costs for title insurance, attorney's fees, closing services and recording fees 3) (Companion to Item 16E5) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency accept the conveyance of County owned land located within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and direct CRA staff to record the executed Statutory Deed from the County to implement provisions of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Master Plan and the Bayshore Neighborhood Focus Initiative providing construction of quality housing within the Coastal High Hazard Area as part of a CRA residential in-fill project: Site Address 2605 Van Buren Avenue. (Fiscal Impact $3,000) CRA Resolution 2008-72 H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Withdrawn 2) 3) 1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose. He attended the 4th Annual Freedom of the Press Luncheon at Naples Hilton on Wednesday, March 12,2008. $30.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget. Located at 5111 Tamiami Trail North Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. She attended the Marco YMCA Stan's Roast on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at Marco Marriott Resort & Spa. $150.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function servinig a valid public purpose. She attended the Page 15 March 25-26, 2008 Withdrawn 5) Charles Collier Luncheon and Presenation Thursday, March 6, 2008 at the Bellasera Hotel. $30.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. Located at 221 Ninth Street South in Naples 4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. She attended the 6th Annual Women in History Luncheon Friday, March 14,2008 at Hilton Naples. $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. Located at 5111 Tamiami Trail North Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. He attended the Grand Opening Celebration of the Isabel Collier-Read Medical Campus, March 18, 2008. $23.95 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. He attended the Physician's Regional - Collier Boulevard "Hospital Check Up" Cocktail Party and Presentation, March 20, 2008. $25 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. Located at 8300 Collier Boulevard 7) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. He attended the Chief Donald Peterson Retirement Celebration, March 9,2008. $14.88 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. Held at the Vanderbilt Country Club, 8250 Danbury Blvd. 8) Proclamation recognizing Connie Mack IV and thanking him for his extraordinary service to Collier County. Adopted I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. Page 16 March 25-26, 2008 J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of March 1, 2008 to March 7, 2008 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of March 08,2008 through March 14,2008 and for submission into the official records of the Board. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to Authorize the Making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Rose Somogyi, for Parcels 123 and 823 in the Amount of $47,499.00 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. John 1. Yaklich, et aI., Case No. 03-2259-CA, Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027 (Fiscal Impact: $45,405.00 if offer is accepted). 2) Recommendation to approve two settlements for road right-of-way parcels acquired through condemnation for the Oil Well Road Project #60044. (Fiscal Impact $15,057.00) For Parcels #112FEE and #116FEE 3) Recommendation to authorize a second Offer of Judgment for Parcels 838A and 838B by Collier County to property owner, Nancy L. Johnson Perry in the lawsuit styled CC v. Nancy L. Johnson Perry, Individually and as Successor Trustee, et aI., Case No. 03-2373-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027) (Positive Fiscal Impact of $9000, if accepted.) Due to improvements that were made within the property still privately owned 4) Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for approval of a resolution authorizing Palm Beach County to issue revenue bonds for the Children's Home Society of Florida, Inc. to finance or refinance certain projects in several Florida counties, including Collier County, and to authorize the Collier County Industrial Development Authority to enter into an interlocal agreement with Palm Beach County. Resolution 2008-73 Page 17 March 25-26, 2008 Moved to Item #12A 5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider approving a Settlement Agreement and Release with Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC (owner of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development) to settle alleged claims, including an alleged Bert Harris Act claim purportedly arising from denial of an amendment to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County, Case No. 05-962-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, as well as amended Cocohatchee Bay PUD Document with attached Bald Eagle Management Plan. As Detailed in the Executive Summary 6) Recommendation to approve four settlements for road right-of-way parcels acquired through condemnation for the Oil Well Road Project (Oil Well Road Project #60044). (Fiscal Impact $19,207.00) For the Parcels #149RDUE, #154RDUE, #159RDUE and #186RDUE 7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a budget amendment in the amount of$284,906.36, and direct staff to deposit these funds into the Court registry, in order to effectuate a November 22,2006 Order ofInterpleader and a February 15, 2008 Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment relating to the redemption of Tax Certificate No. 98-5482 (TDA #11983) and subsequent conflicting claims for surplus funds. 8) Recommendation that the Board approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Retention Agreement with the law firm Nelson Hesse, LLP to provide specialized legal counsel to the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority relating specifically to Orange Tree Utility Company's Petition for Limited Proceeding Rate Increase. 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL Page 18 March 25-26, 2008 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 bv Commission members. SE-2007-AR-12229, an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 07-34, for the Kaicasa Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to incorporate the inadvertent omission of Section 5.6.E and Section 5.8.C-G that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 27, 2007 and therefore constitutes a scriveners error. The subject property, consisting of 100 acres, is located along the north side of State Road 29, east of Village Oaks Elementary School, and is approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of State Road 29 and County Road 846. Ordinance 2008-15 March 26, 2008 B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to Fiscal Year 2007-08 Adopted Budget. Motion to reconsider - Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent); Continue to the April 8th BCC Meeting - Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) March 26, 2008 18. ADJOURN - Approved 3/0 (Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent) INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Page 19 March 25-26, 2008 ~ 2A AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING March 25, 2008 Item 4A: Brian and Dawn Itzkowitz will not be present to accept this proclamation. Kristi-Leigh and Bruce Lyon will be accepting this proclamation. (Recipient's request.) Add On Item 4E: Proclamation designating March 30, 2008 as National Doctor's Day. To be accepted by Dr. Fontana. (Staff's request.) Withdraw Item 6B: Public petition request by Barbara Segura to discuss use of second driveway on Green Boulevard. (Petitioner's request.) Add On 9C: Contract extension for David Weigel, County Attorney. (Commissioner Henning's request.) Item 16E7: The title on the index should read, " . . . . for an estimated annual amount of $165,000." (rather than $125,000). All back up material is correct. (Staff's request.) Item 16F3: The first line of this Resolution should read, "WHEREAS, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Part 435.1009 (rather than 1008) . . . .." (Staff's request.) Withdraw Item 16H2: Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. She attended the Marco YMCA Stan's Roast on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at Marco Marriott Resort & Spa. $150.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. (Commissioner Fiala's request.) Withdraw Item 16H5: Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the Grand Opening Celebration of the Isabel Collier-Read Medical Campus, March 18,2008. $23.95 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. (Commissioner Coletta's request.) Time Certain Items: Item 5C to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation by Clerk of Courts Dwight Brock regarding investments. Item 10A to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. To review the written and oral reports of the Advisory Boards and Committees scheduled for review in 2008 in accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55. Advisory Board's include: Immokalee Area Master Plan and Visioning Committee, Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee, Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. Item 10D to be heard at 2:30 p.m. To provide the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) a resolution defining the County's position on lanes 5 and 6 on Interstate 75 and requesting that the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority (SWFEA) conduct a study to review alternative roadways to 1-75 that provide mobility between Collier County and Lee County. Item 10E to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) evaluate and consider proposals from the various governmental agencies that have expressed interest in potentially managing and accepting Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) severed Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) North Belle Meade (NBM) Sending Land properties in a fee simple conveyance process as viable alternatives in juxtaposition to the proposed Community Development District (CDD) conveyance arrangement presented to the Board. (Joe Thompson, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department, and Alex Sulecki, Program Coordinator, Conservation Collier.) 4A PROCLAMA TION WHEREAS, Autism is a complex neurobiological disorder that typically lasts throughout a persons life and inhibits a persons ability to communicate and develop social relationships. and is often accompanied by extreme behaviorol challenges: antI- WHEREAS, 1 in 150 individuals is diagnosed with Autism in the United States, making it more common than pediatric cancer, diabetes, and AIDS combined: antI- WHEREAS, the diagnosis of Autism has increased tenfold in the last decade with a new child being diagnosed every 20 minutes ond 1.7 million individuals in the United States living with an Autism spectrum disorder: antI- WHEREAS, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have called Autism a national public health crisis whose cause and cure remain unknown: antI- WHEREAS, early diagnosis, reuarch, and intervention are critical components to provide families with necessary skills to support individuals diagnosed with Autism and related disabilities: antI- WHEREAS, April 2, 2008 is designated as the First Annual World Autism Awareness Day by The United Nations Genera/ Assembly. NOW THEREFORE- be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that April 2008, be designated as Autism Awareness Month and is proud to join Autism Speaks: local professionols and parents that are working diligently to combat Autism, increase funding for research, raise awareness about Autism and its effect on individuals. families and society, and to bring hope to all who deal with the hardships of this disarder. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 25th Day of March, 2008. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CO,::/COU17' FLORIDA (~..~~ ,- TOM HENMNG, CWRMAN ~;)iJ ~.~~-L /}wrt; 1= RDn/"1t' /"11=DIt' 48 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS. each year in Florida, lives are endangered: money and time are wasted: and property is destroyed because people fail to locate underground facilities before beginning excavation or demolition: and, WHEREAS, Governor Charlie Crist recently issued a proclamation endorsing the protection of underground utilities and the observance of "Call Before You Dig" month during the month of April, 2008: and, WHEREAS, "Call Sunshine", a one-call center that notifies participating utility agencies of plans to engage in excavation or demolition. is a free service to professional contractors and home owners: and, WHEREAS, Collier County advocates the enforcement and compliance with the Florida Statutes and local ordinances with regard to protecting underground utilities: and, WHEREAS, anyone planning any type of excavation or demolition should notify "Call Sunshine," and if a utility line must be located, locating perSOlllleI will be sent to mark the location of the buried line at no cost to the inquiring party: and, WHEREAS, Collier County recognizes Collier County and the City of Naples Underground Damage Prevention Task Force as that group of utility providers and local government agencies that are dedicated to the protection of underground facilities and the community's infrastructure through education and enforcement. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. that the month of April, 2008. be designated as CALL 811 BEFORE YOU DIG MONTH DONE AND ORDERED THIS 25th day of March, 2008 ATTEST: 4C PROCLAMA TION WHEREAS, water is a basic and essential need of every living thing; and, WHEREAS, the State of Florida, the 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 a 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 In Collier County, Florida and calling upon each citizen and business to help protect our precious resource by practicing water-saving measures and becoming more aware of the need to conserve water. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 2&h Day of March, 2008. BOARD OF COUN COMMISSIONERS :OZUN FLORI~A TOM HENNL 'G, CHA ;4N ATTEST: ~ 4D 4' PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Collier County recognizes that National Work Zone Awareness Week 2008 (April 7-11) provides an opportunity for making all travelers through roadway work zones aware of the need for safety: and, WHEREAS, 119 fatalities occurred within work zones in Florida in 2006. making Florida the state with the zM highest number of deaths in work zones: and, WHEREAS, more than one-thousand fatalities in work zones occurred nationwide in 2006, one work zone fatality occurred approximately every eight hours, with one work zone injury happening approximately every nine minutes: and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the traveling public to stay alert and pay attention to all signs and flaggers when entering and driving through construction work zones: and, WHEREAS, law enforcement in Collier County is strictly enforcing speeding and other infractions by motorists traveling through work zones with a special detail called ''Let them WorkH during this important awareness campaign: and, WHEREAS. speeding fines are doubled in construction work zones when workers are present: and, WHEREAS, the fltJtional slogan for this year's National Work Zone Awareness Week is "Slow for the Cone ZoneH: and, WHEREAS, when driving through work zones, everyone should expect the unexpected - traffic lanes may shift, crews may be working near the edge of pavement, and the driver in front of you may suddenly stop. so give yourself enough of a gap to not run into that drivers bumper. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that April 7 - 11, 2008, be designated as Work Zone Awareness Week and that the Board of County Commissioners does call upon everyone to pay close attention when traveling through construction work zones in order to do no harm and have no harm done - think safety first. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 25th Day of March, 2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA J 4E PROCLAMA TION WHEREAS. the Physician Led Access Network of Collier County (PLAN) is an initiative begun by the Collier County Medical Society to provide the safety net of access to healthcare for low-income, uninsured adults in our community: and, WHEREAS. PLAN is a community-based referral network that coordinates volunteer medical care for eligible. low-income adults in need of health services in Collier County: and, WHEREAS, PLAN coordinates quality healthcare for the underserved of our community: and. WHEREAS. PLAN is led by physicians and is a community partnership that brings together our physicians, community clinics. hospitals, diagnostic and laboratory facilities, and other healthcare providers through an integrated delivery system of care: and, WHEREAS. recently the health care providers of PLAN reached a milestone of three million, nine-hundred thousand dollars in donated care by the medical community of Collier County: and, WHEREAS, National Ooctor's Day is March 30'h and will be celebrated this week on Friday, MCII'ch 28th, in Collier County. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. that gratitude and appreciation is extended to the Collier County Medical Society and the Physician Led Access Network of Collier County for their donation of $3.9 million dollars in donated care and compassion in treating Collier's underserved. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 25th Day of March, 2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ~ TOM HENNING, CHAL AN ATTEST: ~. 7 A ! ~1 COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS To: Clerk to the Board: Please place tbe following as a: XXX Normal Legal Advertisement Other: (Display Adv., location, etc.) *********************************************************************************************** Originating DeptJ Div; CDES/Planning Person: Susan Istenes, Director Date: =1. ') -C8 Petition No. (If none, give brief description): ADA.2007-AR-127 14, Clancy-Koendarfer Boat Dock Extension Petitioner: (Name & Address): Ben Nelson, Jr., Nelson Marine Construction Inc, 10923 Enterprise Avenue, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space is needed, attach separate sheet) Hearing before BCC IlZA Other Requested Hearing date: March 25. 2008 Based on advertisement appearing 15 days before hearing. Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only it important): XXX Naples Daily News Other Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size:) Petition: ADA.2007-AR-12714. Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, represt:nted hy Ben Nelson ot Nelson Marine Construction. Inc.. is requesting an Appeal of BD-2007-AR-12154. Suhject properly is located in Section 5. Township 48. Range 25. Collkr County. Florida. Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: Does Petition Fee include advertising cost'! Yes 131-138326-649100. No It Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: Reviewed by: .d.l-AVl -rn ' ~ Department Head Approved hy: 3/r;/o;j Date . County Manager Date List Attachments: DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. For hearings before BeC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one copy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any nKessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: County Manager agenda file: to Requesting Division Original Clerk's Office B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. ........**......**.**.************************************************************************* FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: 3 --S --08 Date of Public hearing: 3--0-5 --og'Date Advertised: '3 -q-oO RESOLUTION 08-_ " 7 A A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2007.AR-12154. WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 6. 2007, FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFfER DESCRffiED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS. the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish. coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County adopted the previous Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 91-102) in October 1991 which was subsequently amended and included the regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which arc provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a new Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CepC), being duly appointed, on December 6, 2007, held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 17-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1. to authorize a 37-fo01 boat dock facility in an RSF-4 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC found as a matter of fact that the request did not meet the criteria required by LDC Section 5.03.06.E.l and accordingly denied the Petition; and WHEREAS, the new LDC omits Sections 5.2.11. and 2,6,21.3. of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, relating to the process by which a Petitioner may appeal a decision of the ccpe and thus causes a conflict pursuant to Paragraph Five, Conflict and Severability, of Ordinance 2004- 41, as amended (the new LDC); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph Five, Conflict and Severability, of Ordinance 2004- 41, as amended provisions of the previously adopted lDe shall apply in the event of such a conflict; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner duly appealed the decision of the CCPe pursuant to the Collier County LDC (omitted Sections 5.2.11. and 2.6.21.3. of Ordinance 91-102, as amended) to the Collier County Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals. Page I of 2 NOW, TIfEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 7A I k,', :; ..-;~ OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number ADA-2oo7-AR- 127 14, appealing the CCPC's denial of Petition Number BD-2oo7-AR-12154 pursuant to previous. but still effective, Sections 5.2.11. and 2.6.21.3. of Ordinance 91-102, as amended, filed on behalf of Saundra Clancey-Koendarfer by Ben Nelson, of Nelson Marine Construction. Inc.. for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 10, Block E. Little Hickory Shores, Unit No.2, according to the plat thereof, of record in Plat Book 3. Page 79, of the Public Records of Collier County Florida. Property Appraisers Parcel ID No. 559OOSQO(J09 be. and the same is hereby approved. thus reversing the cepe's denial of the Petition Number BD-2007-AR-12154, for a 17-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1., to authorize a 37-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 3. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LOC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this _ day of ,2ooS. ATIEST: DWIGlIT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA By: , Deputy Clerk By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN ved as to fonn Page 2 of 2 7 A i'!~ March 5, 2008 Attn: Legals Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: ADA-2007-AR-12714 Boat Dock Appeal Dear Legals: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Sunday, March 9, 2008 and kindly send the Affidavits of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Ann Jennejohn Deputy Clerk P.O./Account #131-138326-649100 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 7A Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2007-AR-12154, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 6, 2007, FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Petition: ADA-2007-AR-12714: Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, represented by Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., is requesting an Appeal of BD- 2007-AR-12154. Subject property is located in Section 5, Township 48, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. NOTE: All Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chair, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. 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 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk March 5, 2008 .eounty of Collier l_~ CLERK OF THE CIRCU~T COURT COLLIER COUNTY C:OURTl,JOUSE 3301 TAMIAMl T\RAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA '.HIOl-30fl4 -.. I. 7A Dwight E. Brock Clerk of Courts Clerk of Courts Accountant Auditor Custodian of County Funds Ben Nelson, Jr. Nelson Marine Construction, Inc. 10923 Enterprise Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition ADA-2007-AR-12714 Clancy-Koendarfer Boat Dock Extension Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9,2008. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ~ hlUk~.(. Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk Enclosure Phone- (239) 732-2646 W cbsite- www.c1erk.collier.t1.us Fax- (239) 775.2755 Email-collierclerklaJclerk.collier.t1.us 7A Ann P. Jennejohn To: Subject: legals@naplesnews.com ADA-2007-AR-12714 Boat Dock Appeal Attachments: ADA-2007 -AR-12714.doc; ADA-200? -AR-12?14.doc Please advertise the attached on Sunday, March 9, 2008. ~ ADA-2007-AR-1271 4.doc (24 KB) ADA-2007-AR-1271 4.doc (23 KB) Thanks again, Ann Jennejohn Senior Clerk to the Board Minutes & Records Department 252-8406 (ann.jennejohn@co II i erc lerk.com) 1 Ann P. Jennejohn 7A . ~t':~ , From: Sent: To: Subject: postmaster@collierclerk.com Wednesday, March 05, 200812:47 PM Ann P. Jennejohn Delivery Status Notification (Relay) Attachments: ATT1446720.txt; ADA-2007-AR-12714 Boat Dock Appeal 1";"1 U r:~....))1 L::J ATT1446720.txt (229 B) ADA-2007-AR-1271 4 Boat Dock Ap... h I T is is an automatical y generated Delivery Status Notification. Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination. legals@naplesnews.com 1 ADA-2007-AR-I2714 Boat Dock Appeal Page I ofl Ann P. Jennejohn 7A From: Perrell, Pam [PPerrell@Naplesnews.com] Sent: Wednesday. March 05, 2008 1 :55 PM To: Ann P. Jennejohn Subject: RE: ADA-2007-AR-12714 Boat Dock Appeal OK (Remember. Noon on Wed. is deadline for Sun.) Thanks. Pam From: Ann P. Jennejohn [mailto:AnnJennejohn@collierclerk.com] Posted At: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:47 PM Posted To: Legals - NDN Conversation: ADA-2007-AR-12714 Boat Dock Appeal Subject: ADA-2007-AR-12714 Boat Dock Appeal Please advertise the attached on Sunday, March 9, 2008. <<ADA-2007 -AR-12714.doc>> <<ADA-2007 -AR-12714.doc>> Thanks again, Ann Jennejohn Senior Clerk to the Board Minutes & Records Department 252-8406 (ann.jennejohn@coll i ere lerk.com) 3/5/2008 Th.Th, NAPLES DAILY NEWS Publislied Daily Naples. FL 3~102 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that they ser,e as the Assistant Corporate Seeretary of the Naples Daily. a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County. Florida: distributed in Collier and Lee eounties of Florida; that the attaehed eopy of the advertising, being a PUBLIC NOTICE in the matter or PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper I time in the issue On Mareh 9'1,. 2008 \lliant hlrther says that the said :'\aples Dail:-i :\cws is a newspaper Puhlished al '~apks_ in collier county, Florida and that th~ said n...'\\ srap.:r has hcrelofor.:: been continuously published in said (\)IJicr County, Florida~ distrihuted in Collier and Lee counties of florida, .::,...:11 dB)' and has b<en entered as second class mail matter at the post <lIIi..:e in :\aplcs. in said ('oilier County. Florida. for a period of I YC;lI" next pr<::..:cding the first publication afthe attached copy of advertisement; and affiant furthcr says that he has neither paid nor promised any person. firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertiscmt:nt for publication in tho.:: said newspaper ;' d ( Signature of affiant) _\,) )/ " Sworn to and subsenbed before me This 9'hDay or March 2008 ~ "' -0 ^--O- (Signature or notary publie) FEI )')-2578327 ,III (:~:: "'OnI.O "", "/"il;;;~Ond" I ;,,;~iO!l U!'\~(j2729 Ii ':;q;'I(()fj ;)1:,02J1009 H ,j ;. 7A g8':J,~,8~E~ 0 U N TY COlli'. COUNTY,: P,.,N-. I:H4IO- ~~;:!:;:.:,o 0::: ~~r~~ __~79 i~O~~T~I' ~~ IJr~nf;i'l'f..r:rJ'~ 1151 fi.lf~~D~~'f.: r-n: QDA'.O. .1'=:;; r.lli, t~._l::: rni*i<!~~n~hy alii be IImlteCS'to 5 mlnut.i~ on an~ Item. The s"ee- tlanot a/1 IndIVld.u.,' to ~~~roCM~ encouraged. If recog. nlze , " anti g PU . 0 nl. ,allon may, d, ,10mln~ ~~~ ~o, 'Pf., ~n .". .. COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS _'SA To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: Normal legal Advertisement XXXX Other: (Display Adv., location, etc.) ************************************************************************************** Originating DeptJ Div: CDES.lEnvironmental Services Person: Summer Araque Date: 2/29/08 Petition No. (lfnone, give brief description): CCSL- 2008-01/AR-12598 Petitioner: (Name & Address): State of Florida, Delnor Wiggins State Park, 11135 Gulf Shore Drive. Naples Florida Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (lfmorc space is needed, attach separate sheet) Hearing before Bee Requested Hearing date: 3/25/08 Based on advertisement appearing 15 days before hearing. Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): XXX Naples Daily News Other Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: ~ Legally Required The petitioner requests a Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) Variance of approximately twenty-five (25) feet to one-hundred-thirteen (113) feet seaward of the CCSL to construct a new administrative office on the park's primary entrance; future phases to construct up to seven wood-frame/metal roof picnic shelters ranging in size from 12' x 12' to 30' x 40'; six 10' x 10' chickee-style concession stands; and a paved drop-off lane addition to the park road, all of which are located on the property known as Delnor- Wiggins Pass State Park with a street address of 11135 Gnlfshore Drive North and more particularly described as that fraction part of lots 1 & 2, located iu Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County Florida. Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? XX Yes D No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: 131-178984-649110 JiSt~ ., /\ <'1-0:,-00 , Division ~ad - Approved by: Date County Manager Date DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. For hearings before Bee or BZA: Initiating person to complete one coy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: D Cnunty Manager agenda me: to Clerk's Office D Requesting Division D Original B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. ......................................................................... FOR CLERK'S OF~E ~E;NLY: Date Received: ~ 0 Date of Public hearing: 5) d!i/ ol Date Advertised: $1' , 8 A ., RESOLUTION NO. 08-_ A RESOLUTION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS PETITION CCSL- 2008-0l/AR-12598 REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE (CCSL) TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO CHICKEE HUT CONCESSION STANDS, REPLACEMENT AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING PARK ENTRANCE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AND PAVED DROP-OFF LANE ADDITION TO THE PARK ROAD, ALL OF WHICH ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS DELNOR-WIGGINS PASS STATE PARK WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 11135 GULF SHORE DRIVE NORTH AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS THAT FRACTION PART OF LOTS 1 & 2, LOCATED IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Division of Recreation and Parks requests a variance from the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) as required by the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 9.04.06, as amended, to allow construction of a new administrative office on the park's primary entry; two (2) chickee-style concession stands including chickee # 4A and 5; and a paved drop-off lane addition to the park road (Exhibit C); and WHEREAS, the proposed structures will extend twenty-five (25) to one-hundred-thirteen (113) feet seaward of the adopted CCSL; and WHEREAS, the buildings will extend further seaward than the building on the parcel immediately adjacent to the south ofthis property. WHEREAS, the subject property is located on the west side of Gulf Shore Drive immediately north of Vanderbilt Beach; and WHEREAS, the petition is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 9.04.06, as amended; and WHEREAS, the petition is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element. ~ SA COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Variance Petition CCSL-2008-01l AR-12598 shall be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All proposed improvements shall be designed in accordance with the standards of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Division of Beaches and Shores and an approved FDEP permit shall be obtained, and copies provided to Collier County Environmental Services Review Staff, prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Construction activities shall not occur within one-hundred (100) feet of the sea turtle nesting zone, defined by Collier County Land Development Code, between May I and October 31, of each year, during the sea turtle nesting season, until construction is completed, without first submitting and obtaining FDEP and Collier County Construction in Sea Turtle Nesting Area Permits. 3. The petitioner shall notifY the Environmental Services Review Staff one week prior to commencing construction seaward of the CCSL and shall again contact said Staff within one week following completion of construction seaward of the CCSL. 4. Outdoor lighting associated with construction, or development within three-hundred (300) feet of the mean high water line, shall be in compliance with Collier County Land Development Code. 5. All areas seaward of the CCSL, outside of the footprint of approved structures, shall be left in their natural condition, or landscaped using native coastal dune or strand vegetation exclusively. 6. All prohibited exotic vegetation within each project site shall be removed before issuance of certificate of occupancy for any building. The petitioner shall re-vegetate areas seaward of the CCSL that are bare after exotic removal with coastal dune vegetation. The re-vegetation shall be completed, according to a plan submitted to and approved by Collier County Environmental Services Staff prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 7. The petitioner shall install appropriate signs in the re-vegetation area indicating that beach users are required not to intrude into this re-vegetation area. 8. In the case of the destruction of any structures seaward of the CCSL, for any reason, to an extent equal to or greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the time of their destruction, any reconstruction shall conform to the provisions of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of reconstruction. Said reconstruction may require a new CCSL variance. 9. If construction has not commenced within 2 years of the approval of this variance, the petitioner shall consult with County staff to determine if any modifications will be required as a result of changes to the CCSL ordinances. 10. Minor revisions to this approval (including changes in sltmg and structures) may be approved, in writing, by Community Development Administrator, or his/her designee. ~ 8A i...,l,t , , This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DONE AND ORDERED this day of ,2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DATE: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BY: THOMAS HENNING, CHAIRMAN DEPUTY CLERK Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: ~8A -III March 5, 2008 Attn: Legals Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, FL 34102 Re: Petition CCSL-2008-0l/AR-12598 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park (Display Ad w/Map) Dear Legals: Please advertise the above referenced petition on Sunday, March 9, 2008 and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk P.O./Account # 131-178984-649110 'SA .1 ! ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 25, 200B, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed resolution is as follows: A RESOLUTION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS PETITION CCSL- 200B-01/AR-1259B REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE (CCSL) TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO CHICKEE HUT CONCESSION STANDS, REPLACEMENT AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING PARK ENTRANCE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AND PAVED DROP-OFF LANE ADDITION TO THE PARK ROAD, ALL OF WHICH ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS DELNOR-WIGGINS PASS STATE PARK WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 11135 GULF SHORE DRIVE NORTH AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS THAT FRACTION PART OF LOTS 1 & 2, LOCATED IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 4B SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CCSL-200B-01/AR-1259B: The petitioner requests a Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) Variance of approximately twenty- five (25) feet to one-hundred-thirteen (113) feet seaward of the CCSL to construct a new administrative office on the park's primary entrance; future phases to construct up to seven wood- framelmetal roof picnic shelters ranging in size from 12'x 12' to 30' x 40'; six 10' x 10' chickee-style concession stands; and a paved drop-off lane addition to the park road, all of which are located on the property known as De1nor-Wiggins Pass State Park with a street address of 11135 Gu1fshore Drive North and more particularly described as that fraction part of lots 1 & 2, located in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. NOTE: All Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chair, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included In the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days SA ., A . . prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with 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 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252-8380; Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) '" ~ ..... o - "" ~ " ,. n o R 29E R 30 E H(~DRY COUNTY , I s.,,_!< , C...'" ur CC\JNTY C.ft. e~~ 0.G.6L'" .oI;r RtOCl:RO " '"~ GOLDEN ,.. s.~. 8< '_7~ ,," . NAPlES " PR(PA""P"' ClS/C..o ~""~I"" DEP.R'.....T ,,,,,,,,,,,..tv OC,",lDPt.iENT "'0 D<"'~ONIO[~l'" Sl:RVlCES OO\l1SKIN 0>11'.\/2007 "U:,C"-l.'''.D'''' RJl E "O"M.COUNlY _ SA R 3Z E ColliEr County Florida HENPflYCOIJt<TY S,M_ M "~ U,S._., . ~ ~ ~ . m ~ :: , I I g: ~ " ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ W ~ Dwight E. Brock Clerk of Courts emmty of Co'11ier \,-_. CLERK OF THE CIRCU!T COURT COLLIER COUNTY (,COURT~OUSE 3301 TAMlAMI 1(~IL EAST P.O. BOX 413044_ NAPLES. FLORIDA .~~ 10 1-3044 *> , SA Clerk of Courts Accountant Auditor Custodian of County Funds March 5,2008 S tate of Florida Delnor- Wiggins State Park 11135 Gulf Shore Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: CCSL-2008-01lAR-12598 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 2008. Yau are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK CJ.uu ~.O (. Ann JennejoRn, 0 Deputy Clerk Enclosure Phone- (239) 732-2646 Website- www.clerk.collier.fl.us Fax- (239) 775-2755 Email-colIierclerk@cIerk.colIier.fl.us Ann P. Jennejohn _ 8 A To: Subject: legals@naplesnews.com CCSL-2008-01/AR-12598 Delnor-Wiggins Park Display Ad Attachments: CCSL-2008-01 AR-12598.doc; CCSL-2008-01 AR-12598.doc; Coll8x11 (2) 111307 .pdf Please advertise the attached as a display ad (with map) on Sunday, March 9, 2008. Thank you, ~ ~ ~''''. '". /'- ,.- CC5L-2008-01 \R-12598.doc (24 .. CC5L-2008-01 \R-12598.doc (25 .. Coll8x11 (2) 111307 .pdf (240. Ann Jennejohn Senior Clerk to the Board Minutes & Records Department 252-8406 (ann.jennejohn@co II i erclerk.com) 1 Ann P. Jennejohn , 8 A 1 /,,< From: Sent: To: Subject: postmaster@collierclerk,com Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:06 PM Ann P. Jennejohn Delivery Status Notification (Relay) Attachments: ATT1446214.txt; CCSL-2008-01/AR-12598 Delnor-Wiggins Park Display Ad Irl LU B A TT1446214. Ixl (229 B) CCSL-200B-Olj ,R-12S9B Delnor-W. This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination. legals@naplesnews.com CCSL-2008-01lAR-12598 Delnor- Wiggins Park Display Ad ~ 8 A Pa~~ 1 ~'l Ann P. Jennejohn From: Perrell, Pam [PPerrell@Naplesnews.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05. 2008 12: 11 PM To: Ann P. Jennejohn Subject: RE: CCSL-2008-01/AR-12598 Delnor-Wiggins Park Display Ad OK From: Ann P. Jennejohn [mailto:AnnJennejohn@collierclerk.com] Posted At: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:06 PM Posted To: Legals - NDN Conversation: CCSL-2008-01/AR-12598 Delnor-Wiggins Park Display Ad Subject: CCSL -2008-01/ AR-12598 Delnor-Wiggins Park Display Ad Please advertise the attached as a display ad (with map) on Sunday, March 9, 2008. Thank you, <<CCSL-2008-01 AR-12598.doc>> <<CCSL-2008-01 AR-12598.doc>> <<CoIl8x11 (2) 111307 .pdf>> Ann J ennejohn Senior Clerk to the Board Minutes & Records Department 252-8406 (ann.jennejohn@coll ierc lerk.com) 3/5/2008 Th.Th, NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published DaIl, Noples. FL l~ 1112 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida County of Collier Before tlie undersigned tliey serye as the authority. personally appeared B. LlI.D!>. who on oath says that they scn.'c as the Assistant Corporate Secretary oftlle Naples Daily. a daily newspaper published at Naples. in Collier County. Florida: distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida" thaI the attaclied copy of tlie odvertlSing, being a PUBLIC NOTIIT in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was publIshed in said newspaper I time in the Issue On March 9'h 211118 -\fliant furth":f S<l\S that th.: said :\apl<:s Daily :\..:ws is a n<.:wspap..:r Published at Napks. in c<ll1i.:r !.:ounty, Florida and that the said Ill.:\.\spapcr has hCfl.'1ofor.: b.:cn continuousl:>' puhlished in said Colli.::r Cuunl\. Florida: distrihuted in Collier and Lei.: (:ountics of Florida. c~u.:h da\ and has heen cnh:r..::J as s~'(ond class mail mailer at the posl oHil': in :'\ap1cs. in said Collier Cl)Unt~'. Florida, for a period of 1 \,<,ar n..:xt preceding tlk tirsl puhlicalion oflh", allach",d cory of adn.'J1iseml'nt and anianl fLn1hd says Ihal h" has neither raid nor promised any pcrs<lll. firm or corporalion any discount. rehale, commission or r.::fund for Ih" purpns..: of securing this adv..:rtis..:mcnt for puhli":(ltion in th..: said ne\vspaper /' [' /) .)' \ --....---.....-.-.--'----.-- ( Signature of a ffin nt) S\\orn 10 and subscribed before IlIe TIns 9'''-Da\ Of March 200g ~ ",' . C}{,o - (Signalure 0 nota'" public) 61": <Y~/!~a" """''----''''''-,;',: Of >:1-",'.. \ ,,10 "'.1.', ",';'Ji)"': "' ~ r 'J IV ',t(,,; :Ji':. ,,:>-,~,,',:$~ion UOJ8212G ..~:'E~~e:_.\:~~I~21~~:~~:.".~= _.~ FEI S9-2S7g127 a z S III Z Co) - ... .. i II. o UI Co) - ~ Z g a; .... ... .... '" .!! i I: - '5 E-- o.lJ E E 01: ~= .- 0 it ~ (!l 01 .5E'-S: .~sl EO.. ~ _9i~ ~ .~ 8.~ .e c; 01'1: rIl ::l 1:0" 8 :eLL.!Il o '5 ~5 TI CO_:;;:; c: I: I: la-.2 ~o,gzg co 01'" '. CD. c: ~= jj;. ID-I:"lij l!!"C -= asocF d) (1).__ rIl 1;j'<::EER =-Q~'!!!e 5i.g..:io. .~ o.gF ~ ~~u:~:: ll~~~~ (I)-EO%: ~ ~ ~~; (I) ~T1 ~F o"'E jj;...... . :;;:;::l"'C:~ OOOID _ zocoo<( 'SA __,_ .._'r'__'__ ~~!!! -e ~8~li~ ~ o .~lJ E!~! 'Q ~:I:j~ ! tngC(J Zu.o:;r: OWF-g i=(J ~~iS oa:g:z: (J~~ j!:CW~ ::::CJ!2 ":;r:..I:z: CJi=~(J !tn(JO ~~~;: a:OtiFo o.W u. o.a:tno A> Clzz <=. :;r: 001.& o -- 5';" g g.! ..I~a:\! fIJ ~i"'~(I)ct:.~ W ZZ~=51;j a: 00 C C (J(J ID e! as. 0. ":_~_-.:~~~: 'Eli ~~! as::l- '2.rIl ~ ClS1"C C'S .a '-'2 g itl)-- 'Ec:-g "'>OO't: 0"'l!!4 [ll E U .<::It ID. 0 .c .<:: \!!.- ..... os::..!! '0-'; 3:_ ... .It c: ID4 (1)_, .g~ ~, .!!l"C E It ~ r:: rIl a -0"'.-.<: _ 0 en.... -..... a"c $~ir::~ a..c. .:c 0...... ." ",Clo' C:O' o~- ~ c ....50.: *"'Q)Q :2i=~ ~ 0.0 Q -0 fIJ .1: .ofi'l .ji~l ~.~.~i IDa"" 0.(1)-81 .<:: ID' >... > I ~o "'. fJA . ~~._..,,'" ~~......... ........L runL1L l"4lJllLb t'H/.i~I~; NonCE NOTICE (). PU....9...EARI'" Notice is hereb. y given. that the Board of Coun CO...'ll.miU. jO"!:lI.., cCC.'~ Pllie~'. County win hold a pUblic hearing on . fl1he }' . Boardroom, 30l Floor, Administration Building, Celmer ..ogllty . ..... . . . t . Center, 3391 EastT~Trail, Naples, Floripa.~;~ting.III.~I\l'rt 9:.QO A.M. The titl, of thll ~l'e$Olution itp fQ/lo~,':, rW;A. ' ", <,: ',' ,",,' ,'~,' " -' ',' '.or. ;-",-:. ',,-:: ;J'i ' , A RESOLUTION APPAOVJflfGWlTH.CONDITI,*,PE1TJII()N GCSL- 2008-01/AR-12581REQUESTlNQ A VARIANOI A!lOM THleo~AL gg~~+=~~lg=.cW~8~J:g:Ef~ e~~~i=~~~::' :~l'C.~I~=~iX ~.. TO THE PARK =,Al.l.OFWMlctfMJ! L0t4#~ KNOWN AS DEL.NOR-WIGGlNS PAS$ STATE PNtK WlTJ;l A&1'AEET ADDRESS OF 1H35GQLfSHORE DRIVENQRTH 'ANOMORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS'THAT FRAQ'QQN PARf'OF'LOTS 1 & 2, LOOA~Q"'.SECT'~ 20, TQWtfSHJp';"'JOUT~~ 25 EAST, CQl.I.,IER.~N'I'Y, FLORIDA.' .1\'''''i~~,JF:'' .,'~ :.- -, 1 CCSL.~1/~1~: The petitioner. requests a eo.stal ~ Setback Line (C L.) ~nce of approximatelytwe~five (af}~tto one-hundred-thirteen (1 13)f~ seaward of the CCSI. t<tconstr~ . new . administrative office on the park's primary entrance; futUre phases to construct up to lieven wood-frame/metal roof picnic shl:ilter$J. gin !tom 12'x 12' to 30' x 40'; six 10' ~ 1l!'oAlc~ee-$tyle... . ..'IJa~ drop"off I~ addition to tt!ll PirIs ~..U,a6lj!(h~' i<nowri'lls'DeI"O"'~gtn.''fIIi.'i'StaaIl'.~tha ad Gulfahore Drive North and more particularly described as that fraction part of IeXs 1 8<~, IOCliltel'~dn~IOfl20, TOloVnl$h!P 48 South\~!lnge.~ ~~1..<?oUitlr. County, Florida.. .....' "'!~;?!:'" !==-~~r~_=r~~~~~~~~~to · lile..~.~lnqlvlQ\III ~wilt,lile fiml~ to ~mtrlptes onatilY Item. .' The wlec:tiOl'lofa"l~fyjd~'tO\speak on~alf of.a!lOrganizationor ~ is encouraged. If recognized by the Chair, aspokellPer$on for a. 9IX!I,l... .. ..... P Qr ., organization may be allotted 10 minutes tosplilaf< on an item. .J:~' .' ,-- , Per$ons wilihing to have written or graphic ml'rterialli included inth.{Board agenda packet!; must submit saidml'rterial a minimum of 3 weeksPJiorto the l'e$pective pUblic hearing. In iIflY case, written materials il'\t~ to be considered br the Board shall be submitted .to thl:i appropriate County staff a minimum 0 seven days prior to the. plibUc hearing. All material used in ' presentatiOI1l:l before t~ Board will become a perm;:lnent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision Of the Board will neec;l a record of thlil ProCsedlngs pertaining thereto and therefore. may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the prOCeedings is made, which record includes the testimonYaJ')d evidence. UpOf) which the appeal is based. If you are a person with 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 D,partment, located at 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Flo.rida34112, (239)252-8380; Assisted listening devices for the hearjng Imp;:lired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLUER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHTE, eROCK, ClERK By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk -,--.--..rTR1'-I--l-. 11.1 T....':nil'T..ii.....-r-~I-l---iliI~--T.Tiilr'-~.,.!,. --~.M!L-'~~-l I I I ., ,~,:~,:_' I . · ~"'-"-- I , " ~~~! ~ . ,.. _ ,,-r~. .. a . c.......,'c.v... !'" ," fllerlll. .. . . - . ~ ! ..".!'&,l'* \ ;:, i.'",_,~.;-,~~/ -""---..., _. ".~,,.,.,_.,"',,;.,I..~,. ",,' I. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE SA Prillt 011 pink paper. Attach tn original documellt. Onginal dOClIll1ellls should he hand delivcn:d In the Board Office. The completed rouling slip and original documents are to be hlfwanJed to tlll' Board Ulrice only after the Board has ICl"-en action onlhc ilelll.) ROUTING SLIP Complete rouling lines #1 through #4 as appmpriate for additional signi.lturcs, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the exceDtion oflhe Chairman's sit.mature, draw a line thrall 'h routiul! lines # I through #4, complete the checklist, and fOT\vard to Sue Filson (line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routin.e; order) I. Judv PUig CDES. Administration JMP Cef 4/7/2008 2. 3. 4. 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending 8('e approval. Normally the primar:',' contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed ill the event one orthe addressees above, including Sue Filson, need to contact staff for additional or missing infonnation. All original documents needing the 8CC Chairman's signature <in; to be delivered to the Bee office only after the Bee has acted to approve the item.) Name of Primary Staff Summer Araque Phone Number 252-6290 Contact Agenda Date Item was 3/25108 Agenda Item Number 8A Approved by the BCC Type of Document Resolution 6f3. - ~i N umber of Original I Attached Documents Attached INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is Yes N/A(Not aporooriate. (Initial) Aoolicable) 1. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufticiency. (All documents to be SBA signed by the Chairman, with the exception of mosl letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages fi'om contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and possibly State Otticials.) 2. All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's n/a Office and all other parties except thc Bee Chairman and the Clerk to the Board 3. The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date of BeC approval of the SBA document or the final negotiated contract date \vhichever is aoolicable. 4. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's SEA signature and initials are required. 5. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip SBA Resolution had should be provided to Sue Filson in the Bee office within 24 hours of BeC approval. to be revised & reviewed by Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain attorney and time frame or the Bee's actions arc nullified. Be aware of your deadlines~ therefore was nol provided \vithin 24 hours 6. The document was approved by the BCC on Marcb 25, 2008(enter date) and all SEA changes made during tbe meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Countv Attorney's Office has reviewed the ehan~es, if applicable. I: Forms/ County Forms! Bee Forms/ Original DoclIments Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.ll4, Revised] .26.05, Revised 2.24.05 MEMORANDUM Date: April 10, 2008 To: Summer Araque Environmental Services From: Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Resolution 2008-74 Attached, please find one copy of the document as referenced above (Agenda Item #8A) which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. If you have any questions, please call me at 252-8411. Thank you. , 8A SA RESOLUTION NO. 08-..2.4 A RESOLUTION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS PETITION CCSL- 2008-0l/AR-12598 REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE (CCSL) TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX CHICKEE HUT CONCESSION STANDS, UP TO SEVEN WOOD FRAME/METAL ROOF PICNIC SHELTERS, REPLACEMENT AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING PARK ENTRANCE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AND PAVED DROP-OFF LANE ADDITION TO THE PARK ROAD, ALL OF WHICH ARE LOCATED ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS DELNOR-WIGGINS PASS STATE PARK WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 11135 GULFSHORE DRIVE NORTH AND MORE PARTlCULARloY DESCRIBED AS THAT FRACTION PART OF LOTS 1 & 2, LOCATED IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Division of Recreation and Parks requests a variance from the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) as required by the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 9.04.06, as amended, to allow construction of a new administrative office on the park's primary entrance; future phases to construct up to seven wood-frame/metal roof picnic shelters ranging in size from 12' x 12' to 30' x 40'; six 10' x 10' chickee-style concession stands; and a paved drop-offlane addition to the park road for service access (as depicted in the attached Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the proposed structures will extend twenty-five (25) to one-hundred-thirteen (113) feet seaward of the adopted CCSL; and WHEREAS, the proposed structures will extend further seaward than the building on the parcel immediately adjacent to the south of this property. WHEREAS, the subject property is located on the west side of Gulf Shore Drive immediately north of Vanderbilt Beach; and WHEREAS, the petition is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 9.04.06, as amended; and WHEREAS, the petition is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element. 1 8A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Variance Petition CCSL-2008-01l AR-12598 is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. All proposed improvements shall be designed in accordance with the standards of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Division of Beaches and Shores and an approved FDEP permit shall be obtained, and copies provided to Collier County Environmental Services Review Staff, prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Construction activities shall not occur within one-hundred (100) feet of the sea turtle nesting zone, defined by Collier County Land Development Code, between May I and October 31, of each year, during the sea turtle nesting season, until construction is completed, without first submitting and obtaining FDEP and Collier County Construction in Sea Turtle Nesting Area Permits. 3. The petitioner shall notify the Environmental Services Review Staff one week prior to commencing construction seaward of the CCSL and shall again contact said Staff within one week following completion of construction seaward of the CCSL. 4. Outdoor lighting associated with construction, or development within three-hundred (300) feet of the mean high water line, shall be in compliance with Collier County Land Development Code. 5. All areas seaward of the CCSL, outside of the footprint of approved structures, shall be left in their natural condition, or landscaped using native coastal dune or strand vegetation exclusively. 6. All prohibited exotic vegetation within each project site shall be removed before issuance of certificate of occupancy for any building. The petitioner shall re-vegetate areas seaward of the CCSL that are bare after exotic removal with coastal dune vegetation. The re-vegetation shall be completed, according to a plan submitted to and approved by Collier County Environmental Services Staff prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 7. The petitioner shall install appropriate signs in the re-vegetation area indicating that beach users are required not to intrude into this re-vegetation area. 8. In the case of the destruction of any structures seaward of the CCSL, for any reason, to an extent equal to or greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the time of their destruction, any reconstruction shall conform to the provisions of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of reconstruction. Said reconstruction may require a new CCSL variance. 9. If construction has not commenced within 2 years of the approval of this variance, the petitioner shall consult with County staff to determine if any modifications will be required as a result of changes to the CCSL ordinances. 10. Minor revisions to this approval (including changes in sltmg and structures) may be approved, in writing, by Community Development Administrator, or his/her designee. 11. Structures must be designed and permitted pursuant to the Florida Building Code and must meet all design and elevation standards as mandated by current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Any variance to the mandated requirements must be petitioned separately from this petition. 2 8A This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DONE AND ORDERED this JS~ dayof rtlarch ,2008. DATE: ATTEST: DWIGHTE:'BROCK, Clerk , . ~",'" ',' . \\~,;; t;;l'.:"ilt:'JI ", ..f.l' ........'<> ,r~~\ _~.:.:~{~(4~ D "TY((f1ERK- Attest ail 'to OIl tl"lllll , jtfmall.-r..oo'l. ApprbVe<f1as to l'Nm and Legal Sufficiency: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item # ~A A9,enda "A \.'i~l-. D8~ ~~; ~b , ~L.... Depuly Clerk 3 8A COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (i) 88 To: Clerk tn the Bn.rd: Please pl.ce the rnUnwing.s.: X Nonnallegal Advertisement (Display Adv., location, etc.) o Other: Originating DeptJ Div: CDES/lmpact Fee Administration .....**.*********************************..********.....**....**...............****.**.****............*** Person: Amy Patterson Date: March 4, 2008 Petition No. (If none, give brief description): Petitioner: (Name & Address): Name & Address or any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space is needed, attach separate sheet) Hearing before: X BCC BZA Other Requested Hearing date: (Based on advertisement appearing 10 days before hearing. March 25. 2008 Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): X Naples Daily News o Other o Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FWRIDA, ESTABLISIllNG THE JOB RETENTION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, TO BE AVAILABLE TO TARGETED, illGH-WAGE LOCAL COMPANIES IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING TARGETED WORKFORCE AND ENCOURAGE THE EXPANSION OF ADDITIONAL illGH WAGE JOBS; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT; PROVIDING FOR PROGRAM ELIGmlLITY CRITERIA; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECfIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A TERMINA nON DATE. Companion petition( s), if any & proposed hearing date: Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? 0 Yes 0 No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: 131-138902-649100 3-'I-off Date List Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amendment DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. Fnr he.ring. bernre BCC or BZA: Initi.tlng person to complete one cny .nd nbt.in Division He.d .pprov.1 before submitting to County M.n.ger. Note: If leg.1 document is Involved, be sure th.t .ny n.c....ry leg.1 review, nr requOlt for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: o County M.n.ger .gend. file: tn Clerk's Office o Requ.sting Divisinn o Origin.1 B. Other hearings: lniti.ting Division h.ad to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. ***************..************.*.*.**...*****.********....*............*....*..***....*.*....*******........ FORCLERK'SOFFICEUSE~YI...o V t f Date Received: ~ Date of Public hearing: 'fl )6j b Date Advertised: S ORDINANCE NO. 2008 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISIllNG THE JOB RETENTION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, TO BE AVAILABLE TO TARGETED, IllGH- WAGE LOCAL COMPANIES IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING TARGETED WORKFORCE AND ENCOURAGE THE EXPANSION OF ADDITIONAL IllGH WAGE JOBS; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT; PROVIDING FOR PROGRAM ELIGmILITY CRrrERIA; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A TERMINATION DATE. WHEREAS, Collier County has historically depended on tourism, agriculture and construction as major components of its economic base. all of which are susceptible to economic cycles and downturns in the economy; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to promote and foster economic diversification through the creation and retention of high wage jobs in targeted industries; and WHEREAS, the creation of a Job Retention Investment Program will provide further incentives to encourage the retention of existing companies and employees and is critical to the overall economic diversification efforts of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a Job Retention Investment Program serves a valid public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. A new Article VI , Sections 49-60 through 49-64 of Chnpter 49 of the Collier COlmty Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby created to read as follows: ARTICLE VI. JOB RETENTION INVESTMENT PROGRAM Section 49~60. Aoolicabilitv This article annlies to the unincornorated area of Collier County. Florida and to all mcomorated areas of Collier County to the llI'eatest extent authorized by Article VIII. Section 1(n of the Florida Constitution as it may be imnlemented by an intefllOvemmental or interlocal am'eement. Section 49-61. Puroose The nurooses of this article are to: (1) orovide a nerfonnance~based nrOQI'artl offerinll fmancial incentives to elieible tanleted industries in Collier County to mitillate the effects of escalatinll relocation and exnansion costs: (2) orovide for the economic wellbeinll of Collier Page 1 of4 Underlined text is added; struek mre\:igfl text is deleted. . 8B County residents bv nrovidimr hi2h-walile emo]ovment oooortunities in Collier County: and (3) encouralle investment oooortunities for the exnansian of existint2 businesses. thus increasint2 and diversifvim.! the Countv's tax base. Section 49-62. Pro2'ram Elisdbilitv Criteria (a) To be considered elillible under this Pro2Tam a comoanv must meet all of the followimr criteria: 1. The comOaDY must have been ooeratinll in Collier Conntv for a minimum of two (2) Years. and at all times be in full comnliance with all aonlicable laws and re12ulations' 2. Particination in this ProlmUl1 is limited to the followiml industrY clusters: Aviation and Aerosnace. Health and Life Sciences. Cornouter Software and Services Manufacnu'llUl and Wholesale Trade and Distribution: L.:rhe comoany must meet the criteria and nart1cioate in the State of Florida ~ualified Tanleted Industrv (OTD Tax Refund Prmzram as set forth by Section 288.106 Florida Statutes: 4. The averalle walle of the retained iobs must be at least 115% of the averal!e walle for Collier Conntv: 5. The comoanv must retain a minimum affive (5) iobs' and 6 A minimum of 50% of the comoanv's revenue must be Ilenerated from outside of Southwest Florida (Sarasota. Lee. Charlotte. Glades. Hendrv and Collier County). Section 49-63. Job Retention Investment Prolmlm (a) General Reauirements. Pursuant to the orovisions set forth in this section. the County hereby establishes a Job Retention Investment Pro2I'am to orovicle incentives to retain snecified existinll lobs in Collier County. (b) Avv/ication Process. Anv entity seekinll elillibility and oavrnent throucl1 the Job Retention Investment Pro2I'am will file with the COWltv Manaller an aonlication for the Pro2I'am after receivinsz: the aooroval of the Economic Develooment Council of Collier County as an elisz:ihle oarticinant in the Pro~am. The aoolication must contain the followinll: 1. The name and address of the business owner: 2: The comolete address and lellal descrintion of the site where the business is located. or the comolete address and lellal descriotion of the nrooosed site if the business is relocatim!:: 3. The tvne of business beinll oronosed USinll Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS): 4. The number of full-time iobs beiruz created: 5. The number of full-time iobs beinli!: retained: 6. The averalZe walle of those iobs created and retained: Page 2 of 4 Underlined text is added; sWBl: W81:lga text is deleted. 8B 7. The amount of time that the existimz business has ooerated in Collier County. and 8. The date (month and vear) when the new iobs will be in nlace. Section 49-64. ImDlementation (3) Under this Job Retention Investment ProllTarn the elilZible comDanv may be awarded $1.000 'Oer existimz job retained. with a minimum of five (5) existinlZ iobs to be retained. The comoanv must meet the criteria and oarticioate in the State of Florida Oualified TarlZeted Industrv (011) tax incentive urolZram. (b) The eliaible COIIloanv under the Job Retention Investment Prmrram will enter into a Job Retention AlZ!eement with Collier County. which shall be oreoared by the County Attorney's Office consistent with this Article. An annual review and audit of oerfonnance under such Ag-reement shall be oerformed bv the County ManalZer or his desiQ11ee to determine whether there has been lZood faith comoliance with the tenns of the A'-!I'eement. Emolover shalllrive the County auditor full access to its business records and business oremises as reauired to certify the retained and created iobs. If the COWltv Manaller or his desimee finds. on the basis of substantial comnetent evidence. that there has been a failure to com'Olv with the terms of any such AliITccmcnt the AlZI'ccment may be revoked or unilaterallv modified by the County. Emolover shall be Iliven 10 business davs Drier written notice of any review and audit. In addition to an annual audit within 10 business dayS from the County's written reauest the Emolover will nrovide the County with all reouested documentation reauired to verify comoliance with the terms of the Ordinance or any AllJ'eement. (c) Job Retention Investment ProlZIUIIl funds will be naid. based on the munber of existiruz iobs retained. in caual amounts over a three Year time oeriod. Unoll creation of the new jobs. as reauired bv the State of Florida ~ualified Tar2eted Industrv (OTD tax incentive orolirnUIl. the comnany may submit a rcauest to the County Manager for navment of Job Retention Investment ProlZl'aIU funds alonll with documentation related to the retained jobs. Such documentation shall be verified bv the County Drior to the release of funds. Anv award under this nr021'am is subiect to the availability offundin2. (d) In the event that the comoany fails to comnlv with the terms of the Pr02l'aIU. including- failure to aualify or maintain Qualification for the State of Florida ~ualified Tarlleted Industry (OTD tax incentive nrollfaIIl. or any other default occurs. the default must be cured within thirtY (30) dayS from written notice beinll nrovided to the owner. The Board is entitled to recover all fees costs includinll attornev's fees and costs. incurred bv the County in enforcing the A'-!I'eement Dlus interest at the then maximum statutorv rate for final iudllI11ents calculated on a calendar dav basis until naid. (e) The orovisions of this Article will exnire and be void on October I 2013 unless continued bv a vote of the Board of County Commissioners orior to this date. Page3of4 Underlined text is added; stro.ek thrSligR text is deleted. 8-B I' 1 SECTION TWO. CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or any other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction. such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION THREE. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinances may be ce-numbered or ce-Iettered. to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of CoUier County, Florida, this _ day of , 2008. ATI'EST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA By: , Deputy Clerk By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Page 4 of 4 Underlined text is added; 5WHSl[ thr8~gh text is deleted. 88 I" , 88 March 5, 2008 Attn: Legals Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: Ordinance Establishing the Job Retention Investment Program Dear Legals: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Friday, March 14,2008, and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved, to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk P.O./Account # 131-138902-649100 88 :i.. NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE JOB RETENTION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, TO BE AVAILABLE TO TARGETED, HIGH-WAGE LOCAL COMPANIES IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING TARGETED WORKFORCE AND ENCOURAGE THE EXPANSION OF ADDITIONAL HIGH WAGE JOBS; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT; PROVIDING FOR PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A TERMINATION DATE. Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. 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 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. 88 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk 88 Ann P. Jennejohn To: Subject: legals@naplesnews.com Job Retention Investment Ordinance Attachments: Ord. Job Retention Investment Program.doc; Ord. Job Retention Investment Program.doc.dot Good Morning, Please advertise the attached on Friday, March 14,2008. ~ Thank you, Ord. Job Retention Investment ... Ord. Job Retention Investment ... Ann Jennejohn Senior Clerk to the Board Minutes & Records Department 252-8406 (ann.jennejohn@coll ierclerk.com) 1 88 Ann P. Jennejohn From: Sent: To: Subject: postmaster@collierclerk.com Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:16 AM Ann P. Jennejohn Delivery Status Notification (Relay) Attachments: A TT1441697 .txt; Job Retention Investment Ordinance [], ;,:,:.: ~ B ATT1441697.txt (229 B) Job Retention Investment Ordin... This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination. legals@naplesnews.com 1 Job Retention Investment Ordinance Page 1 of 1 88 Ann P. Jennejohn From; Perrell, Pam [PPerrell@Naplesnews.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05. 2008 9:25 AM To: Ann P. Jennejohn Subject: RE: Job Retention Investment Ordinance OK From: Ann P. Jennejohn [mailto:AnnJennejohn@collierclerk.com] Posted At: Wednesday, March 05, 20089:16 AM Posted To: Legals - NDN Conversation: Job Retention Investment Ordinance Subject: Job Retention Investment Ordinance Good Morning, Please advertise the attached on Friday, March 14, 2008. Thank you, Program.doc.dot>> <<Ord. Job Retention Investment Program.doc>> <<Ord. Job Retention Investment Ann J ennejohn Senior Clerk to the Board Minutes & Records Department 252-8406 (ann.jennejohn@ co II i erclerk.com) 3/5/2008 1'h.1'h, NAPLES DAIL Y NEWS Published Daih Naples. FL1.+ I iI2 RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2008 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida County of Collier FINANCE Before the undersigned they serve as the authority. personally appeared B. L~lll1b. \\110 on oath says that thc~ serve as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily_ a daily newspaper published at Naples. in Collier County. Florida; distriblllcd in Collier and Lee counties of Florida: that the attached copy of the advertising. being a 1.'1lllLlC NOT'q' in Ihe matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published ill said newspaper I time in the issue Ofl~ar:c.bH".,2()()~ \!liant further says that the said ~arks Daily" I\cws is a nc\\'spapcl Puhlishi."J at Narks. in collier COU1Jt~.. Florida and that the said IK\\Spapcr has herdorm.:: been continuousl", puolished in said Colli..:r County. F]orida~ distribut..:d in Colli~r and I ,~e counties of Florida. e<l<.-,h day and has b~~n ..:t1kr~d as s..:cnnd class mailmatt..:r at the post oftic~ in 'apks. in said ('ollieI' Count~'_ Florida. for a period of ] \-..:ar n..:xl pre..:..:ding th~ IiI's! puhlication ofthc attached copy of aJ\-ertis":lllL'Ilt: ;UhJ 'lrtiant fiJrtlh.:r savs that he has n..:ithcr paid nor promised an~- p<'::fSOIl. linn or ..:orroratioll allY disi.-,ount n:oatc. commission or refund for thi.' purpose of securing this advertisement fur puhlication ill thc said l1,,;\\SpapCf ,(j/ . \ , ( Signalure of affiant) S\\'orn to and subscribed before me This 1'+"'. DiI\ Of March 200X _AI >ell 1..n'lJ'h(;,.I) (Slg~f~f\ pub\iCl FEJ 50-257K127 .,...-...~""""'-"">- _"""',, J'i In"! JA.NeS .,~..; ~L~", -'~,' 0'- 6-"'029 /~~"'r';:("' c.of1ln';I:;s,inr:' :) , I',) , ?: ~ :~ ~ c=/OirT' -; h, 201 \ ~'f,~~~:'- ~~:",~e~:::~J ..__ 0110 ~.RHca .,tiII., II =J.r~ ~N~tlce Is hereby _given on TuesctaY., March 2 2008, m the Board. room/ 3rd Floor, Admin. Illstrathm BuUdlng, Col- ~~' Govemmllrlt ml T~, N~~"~~ the B04rd "of County_ 'ComldOlTllssth loners will con- r e elllCt:tnent of ft. County Ordinance. I me"n:e~'9na will COm. IltJ 01 a: :00 A.M. The e the Proposed Or. dlnance Is as follows: ~~' ORDINANCE OF THE CO~~~S~J~,,fi~N_~~ COLUER COUNTv FL~RIDA, ESTAII!JJHl/llcl ~sT~M~It'~ I~RgITg'\\\t..~A4E' LOCAL COMPANIES IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE EXfSTING r: ~ COURAG~ T . a.' . SlbN OF A.. . .'ON L.. KIQlllYAG~ .. . K,'rI~' ltiU,mit: P~V~,A ~RO.~, 'il'6i OfNG FOlI 1'IlG. .~"M ELIG''''trt CR(. TEil!A' PRO_~ INCl.UStON IN 'TIlt~' OF LAWS AND .OR I. NA-NCES; PAR.. VIO, g ~ffE: AA~DE~~~"b~a r;2f.. A TERMlllATloN CORIIS of the',PJ'OPOIJtd O',Clln,nee a'.(lnt,,. w th the Clttrlcto 'tne Boord and . ~ fo"_~' ,lilli, --". ' ID_and~ NOTE: ~IJ persons wiSh. Ing to speak on any ~~~ ~nty~:1 mlnlstrator DrIor to ~~ sentatlon of the lQehda Item to be addressed. Individual sPhkers wlll .0 U/lllted to S m"",... Dnl/ll(",,",__ tlon Of an' l~dlVlCJuat -to s~eak on behalf Of an ortJarilzatlon QI' grOt.lp Is encouraged, . If recog. nlzed by the ChaIrman a spOkesperson for,. group or organization maYbe aHotted-J&...mIn- utes to speak on an Item. Persons WI_hfng to have Written or QraPhle throater'als fncludtd Ih e Board aaener.' pack- ets must submit said materiel a mInJmum of 3 :-:'~kfvf'"'!r.,k"~re. In~_~ no. terlels Intencte4 to'''=' consl~ lhe~ shalf bt:. '. mk to Ihe a ..c_ staff a., ..,.... end ", . '.ttHi PUbllcP~8"ma. lorlal _In _nta tlons bIIortt the <Board will .ee.1!IO a. . .Hl:I1l. .... a.' nent Part.ottbiNiDaftf; Any PfT::IOfl' ,Who dlcld. ~:,_on record 'Of, .~ " 'd~ ~nl~' ',:' , ":" ,0 need, tot,' , '~ttt':t'l ver ~'-oJ'tI\e pro I,'~ whlc " Includes Ihe teOl~nv d Ovl' denee u n" :h the appeaJls-' " . Sa n If ,"'--,.-,"" laUt':'.~~!\'1th 'i!:f:r.Cl / '_. ~.ritliil!:ilt II> .r_. ..tJr,Jbe! , ' , . Of c..rtal" .m: _""0' p ..~ the...... ,~..nIY ~.tllllfi~~ . anagem"nt Depart- ren" looated at 3301 B~J?d,:,1 :iall :Ellt. FloHda lna:, 1.1ll~U; ~ ...,- llnenlng deVIC(!!s 'for the,' h1.,rlng Impafi'ed-'are IWallabi. In 1 the County Commls 5 oners' O~. - g8J~,g:ERiO U N TV ~Lgh,5~ER COUNTY, ~~ HENHlNG, CHA'R. 8'J'.I~HTE, g~OCK. ~ c~~ JenneJohn.-:Dep. : Mar. 14 No, 1678748/ ~.1',f, ~... 811 .}F \, ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original documents should be hand delivered to the Board OtT'ice. The completed routing slip and original documents are to be torwarded to the Board Office only!!kr the Boare has taken action on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, andlor information needed. If the document is already complete with the exceution of the Chainnan's sianature, draw a line throuo:h routinll lines #1 throuo:h #4, comnlete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson (line #5), Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routin2 order) 1. J \A ciu. r l..n' C{ LlJ-VY1lrl . ~ 31;11/ Dr C Of S - 2. (J ......J 3. 4. 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Nonnally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue Filson, need to contact staff for additional or missing infonnation. All original documents needing the BCC Chairman's signature are to be delivered to the BCC office only after the BCC has acted to approve the item. Name of Primary Staff Contact Agenda Date Item was A roved b the BCC Type of Document Attached INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "NI A" in the Not Applicable colunm, whichever is a ro nate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documeuts to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, fl..v? resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from (IT contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials. All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the IVO document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a licable. n r "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si ture and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours ofBCC approval. (),o Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain () 0 time frame or the BCC's actions are nullified. Be awar of our deadlines! The document was approved by the BCC on 2.$ (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorpnrated in the attached document. The Af Count Attorne 's Office has reviewed the chan es, if a Iicable. A>m 3- PGL tt~V5Dn ,)5-08' Phone Number 252 -S72-1 86 I NA I: Forms! County Fonns! BCC Forms! Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05 Agenda Item Number Number of Original Documents Attached ordin'lA1e..a..- I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 88t'1! ORDINANCE NO. 2008 - 16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE JOB RETENTION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, TO BE AVAILABLE TO TARGETED, HIGH- WAGE LOCAL COMPANIES IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING TARGETED WORKFORCE AND ENCOURAGE THE EXPANSION OF ADDITIONAL HIGH WAGE JOBS; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT; PROVIDING FOR PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR A TERMINATION DATE. WHEREAS, Collier County has historically depended on tourism, agriculture and construction as major components of its economic base, all of which are susceptible to economic cycles and downturns in the economy; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to promote and foster economic diversification through the creation and retention of high wage jobs in targeted industries; and WHEREAS, the creation of a Job Retention Investment Program will provide further incentives to encourage the retention of existing companies and employees and is critical to the overall economic diversification efforts of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a Job Retention Investment Program serves a valid public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. A new Article VI , Sections 49-60 through 49-64 of Chapter 49 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby created to read as follows: ARTICLE VI. JOB RETENTION INVESTMENT PROGRAM Section 49-60. Applicabilitv This article applies to the unincorporated area of Collier Countv. Florida. and to all incorporated areas of Collier County to the greatest extent authorized by Article VIII. Section 1/+"\ .....f't-hn. I:'l.........~A..... r'...........n-/-~1-n-/-:........... ",..,:t ..............., J....", :...........1r.____.....~+"',..J 1-.. "..... :.....+,,_~~.,,~__,,_+_1 __ :_..__1___1 88 County residents by proyiding high-wage employment opportunities in Collier County; and (3) encourage inyestment opportunities for the expansion of existing businesses, thus increasing and diversifying the County'S tax base. Section 49-62. Prol!ram Elil!ibilitv Criteria (a) To be considered eligible under this Program a company must meet all of the following criteria: I. The company must have been operating in Collier County for a minimum of two (2) years, and at all times be in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations; 2. Participation In this Program is limited to the following industry clusters: Aviation and Aerospace, Health and Life Sciences, Computer Software and Services, Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade and Distribution; 3. The company must meet the criteria and participate in the State of Florida Qualified Targeted Industry (QT]) Tax Refund Program as set forth by Section 288.106, Florida Statutes; 4. The average wage of the retained iobs must be at least 115% of the average wage for Collier County; 5. The company must retain a minimum of five (5) iobs; and 6 A minimum of 50% of the company's revenue must be generated from outside of Southwest Florida (Sarasota, Lee, Charlotte, Glades, Hendry and Collier County). Section 49-63. Job Retention Investment Prol!ram (a) General Requirements. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in this section, the County hereby establishes a Job Retention Investment Program to provide incentives to retain specified existing iobs in Collier County. (b) Armlication Process. Any entity seeking eligibility and payment through the Job Retention Investment Program will file with the County Manager an application for the Program after receiving the approval of the Economic Development Council of Collier County as an eligible participant in the Program. The application must contain the following: I. The name and address of the business owner; 2. The complete address and legal description of the site where the business is located, or the complete address and legal description of the proposed site if the hll"inf':"" ;<;;, rf':l()(,;lt;nO" 88 7. The amount of time that the existing business has operated in Collier County; and 8. The date (month and year) when the new iobs will be in place. Section 49-64. Implementation (a) Under this Job Retention Inyestment Program the eligible company may be awarded $1,000 per existing iob retained. with a minimum of live (5) existing iobs to be retained. The company must meet the criteria and participate in the State of Florida Qualified Targeted Industry (QT!) tax incentive program. (b) The eligible company under the Job Retention Investment Program will enter into a Job Retention Agreement with Collier County. which shall be prepared by the County Attorney's Office consistent with this Article. An annual review and audit of performance under such Agreement shall be performed by the County Manager or his designee to determine whether there has been good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Employer shall give the County auditor full access to its business records and business premises as required to certify the retained and created iobs. If the County Manager or his designee finds. on the basis of substantial competent evidence. that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of any such Agreement. the Agreement may be revoked or unilaterally modified by the County. Employer shall be given 10 business days prior written notice of any review and audit. In addition to an annual audit. within 10 business days from the County's written request. the Employer will provide the County with all requested documentation required to verify compliance with the terms of the Ordinance or any Agreement. (c) Job Retention Investment Program funds will be paid. based on the number of existing iobs retained. in equal amounts over a three year time period. Upon creation of the new iobs. as required by the State of Florida Qualified Targeted Industry (QTI) tax incentive program. the company may submit a request to the County Manager for payment of Job Retention Investment Program funds along with documentation related to the retained iobs. Such documentation shall be verified by the County prior to the release of funds. Any award under this program is subiect to the availability offunding. (d) In the event that the company fails to comply with the terms of the Program. including failure to qualify or maintain qualification for the State of Florida Qualified Targeted Industry (QT!) tax incentive program. or any other default occurs. the default must be cured within thirty (30) days from written notice being provided to the owner. The Board is entitled to recover all fees. costs. including attorney's fees and costs. incurred by the County in enforcing the Agreement. plus interest at the then maximum statutory rate for final iudl!ments. calculated on a 88 SECTION TWO. CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or any other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION THREE. INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinances may be re-numbcred or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by majorIty vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 2)'./h day of ~Q (ch ,2008. A TTESJ::-,',' . : . ~ '[_ DWIGHT E. BROCK" CLERK , '" '., .- (... BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ._ ....;" . . Attett II te.. stgllttwt .1,. A eputy Clerk . a Jef Chi 8 B ' \.,11 i !~~ STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 2008-16 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 25th day of March 2008, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 27th day of March 2008. DWIGHT E. BRQG'M' 1:1. ",. Clerk of co,+:tts.. a:rid~erk Ex-offici~to Board or County corrirhi~iorlers ,. ~ By:Martha Ver Deputy C " ,'- ,.;' ~ 9A ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Altach to original document Original documents should be h,md delivered to the Board Office. The completed routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded to the Board Oft1ce only after the Board has taken action on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines # I through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the excention of the Chairman's signature, draw a line through routinl11ines #1 throul!h #4, comnlete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routing order) I. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending BCe approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary comact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above. including Sue Filson, need to contact staff for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the Bee Chairman's signature are 10 be delivered to the Bee omee only after the Bce has acted to approve the item) Name of Primary Staff Kay Nell, CLA Phone Numher Extension 8400 Contact Collier Countv Attornev's Omce Agenda Date Item was March 25. 2008 Agenda Item Number 9A Approved bv the BCC Type of Document Resolution Number of Original I Attached Documents Attached I. INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/ A" in the Not Applicable column. whichever is a ro riate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sutliciency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters. must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been tully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne Jotiated contract date whichever is a 1 licable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si nature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours of BCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCC's actions are nullified. Be aware of 'our deadlines! The document was approved by the BeC on (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Count Attorne 's Office has re\'iewed the chan es, if a licablc. Yes (Initial) N/A(Not A Ii cable) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 0~) N/A I: Forms/ County Forms/ Bec Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03,04. Revised 1,26.05. Revised 2.24.05 9A RESOLUTION NO. 2008-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO APPOINT AND REAPPOINT MEMBERS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, Section 8.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code provides for the establishment of an Environmental Advisory Council, consisting of nine (9) members; and WHEREAS, there are currently vacancies and terms of two members will expire, creating additional vacancies on this Council; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties; and WHEREAS, Allison Delaine Megrath, currently serving as an Alternate, is seeking appointment as a regular member to this Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNlY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Judith Hushon, representing the Technical - Biology category, is hereby reappointed to the Environmental Advisory Council for a four year term, said term to expire on April 13, 2012. 2. Paul Lehmann, representing the Technical category, is hereby appointed to the Environmental Advisory Council to fulfill the remainder of the vacant term, said term to expire on April 13, 2010. 3. Allison Delaine Megrath, representing the Technical category, is hereby appointed to the Environmental Advisory Council for a four year term, said term to expire on April 13, 2012. 4. Susan Leach Snyder is hereby appointed as Alternate to the Environmental Advisory Council to fulfill the remainder of the vacant term, said term to expire on April 13, 2011. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: March 25, 2008 ATTEST: _ - DWIGHtE.BR()G~( Clerk BOARD OF COUNlY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA '- .-. ~AJ . -, ^ ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING S~9 B 11\i . TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original documents should be hand delivered to the Board Office. The completed routing slip and original documents are to he forwarded to the Board Office only after the Board has taken action onlhe item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines # 1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the excPntion of the Chairman's silDlature. draw a line throulZh routine lines #1 through #4, comolete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson (line #5'- Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routinl! order) I. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue Filson, need to contact stafffor additional or missing information. All original documents needing the BeC Chainnan's signature are to be delivered to the Bee office only after the Bee has acted to approve the item.) Name of Primary Staff Seun juJuy-- Phone Number )( ~ D01 Contact Agenda Date Item was O,? ,'2.-5.0<2, Agenda Item Number OJB Aooroved bv the BCC Type of Document R~v Number of Original l Attached Documents Attached 1. INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/ A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is a ro riate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date of BCC approval of the document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a licable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si ature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours of BCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCC's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! The document was approved by the BCC on (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Coun Attorne's Office has reviewed the chan es, if a licable. Yes (Initial) N/A (Not A licable) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. l: Forms! eounty Forms/ Bee Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised] .26.05, Revised 2.24.05 '98 I' RESOLUTION NO. 2008. 77 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING HOUSE BILL 965 AND SENATE BILL 1660, EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PERSONAL INFORMATION OF EMPLOYEES WORKING AS PARAMEDICS AND EMTs. WHEREAS, public safety personnel are put at risk daily with the job they do for the public and while off duty they should not have to fear retaliation from a past 911 call; and WHEREAS, EMTs and paramedics regularly deal with violent mental health patients, gang members, suspected child abusers and prisoners, which are only a few of the examples for potential retaliation and violence toward these public servants and their families; and WHEREAS, EMTs and paramedics are called on regularly to testify for the State Attorney's Office or for federal prosecutors and currently named defendants have access to all of this contact information, including addresses and phone numbers. Not only does the current Sunshine Law place public safety workers in danger, but this also places them at risk for identity theft; and WHEREAS, it is dangerous to have ANY public employee's personal information available to anyone without just cause, as the law stands today; and WHEREAS, over the last three years, legislation has been proposed to include EMT's and paramedics in the current law enforcement and firefighters exemption for the release of personal contact information. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Collier County supports Senate Bill 965 and House Bill 1660 and urges the Legislature to move this piece of legislation to the Committee on State Affairs to the floor of the House of Representatives for passage. This Resolution adopted this ~ day of vYl ~ motion, second and majority vote. , 2008, after ATTEST: . ", I' '",' DWIGHT E. BR(j)CK, CLERK '. I .\ . ~ ,'" " . "," '1 G By: '. '. ..,. . (). . .t~.~jerk ...., ....1-',. .' App~~vea"tojop~ .' .. . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIE~NTY, F ORIDA . By: .--.lr;r- TOM HENNING, CHAIRMA ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING JLI~ C TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document Original documents should be hand delivered to the Board omce. The completed routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded [0 the Board Office only after the Board has ral\cll action 011 till.: item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines # I through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the exec lion nfthe Chairman's si nature, draw a line throu 'h rOlltin lines #1 thrau h #4, com lele the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routin order) I. 2. Ii PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue Filson, need to contact staff for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the BCe Chairman's signature are to be delivered to the BCC office only after the BeC has acted to approve the 3. 4. item.) Name of Primary Staff David C. Weigel Phone Number 252-8400 Cootact Agenda Date Item was 3/25/08 Agenda Item Number 9C Approved by the BCC Type of Document Agreement Number of Original 1 Attached Documents Attached 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners Yes (Initial) N/A(Not A licable) 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office wPt ~f\ ~ VW \)\)\1 I. INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is a ro riate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a licable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si nature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours of BCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BeC's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! The document was approved by the BCC on (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Count Attorne 's Office has reviewed the chan es, if a Iicable. I: Forms/ County Forms/ Bee Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05 04-COA-OIOI6/623 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. , 9C MEMORANDUM Date: April 1, 2008 To: David Weigel County Attorney From: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Second Addendum to County Attorney Employment Agreement Attached, for your records is one (1) copy of the above referenced agreement, approved by the Board of County Commissioner's on March 25,2008. The original document will be kept as part of the Board's permanent records in the Minutes and Records Department. If you have any questions, please call me at 252-8406. Thank you. Attachments (1) _ 9C SECOND ADDENDUM TO COUNTY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Second Addendum to County Attorney Employment Agreement hereby amends, is attached to and is incorporated into the certain County Attorney Employment Agreement dated June 10,2003, and Addendum to County Attorney Employment Agreement dated October 9, 2007, by and between COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter "Employer") and DAVID C. WEIGEL (hereinafter "Employee"), and is dated this ;::;)'=>~ay of March, 2008. WHEREAS, Employer and Employee have entered into the County Attorney Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") and Addendum to County Attorney Employment Agreement whereby Employer agreed to employ the services of the Employee as County Attorney of Collier County; and WHEREAS, Employer and Employee wish to further extend the terms of the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereby agree as follows: I. RECITALS. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by reference. 2. AMENDMENTS: Termination Date: Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Agreement and Addendum, the Agreement is hereby extended from March 22, 2008 through the date immediately prior to the first day of employment of a successor County Attorney, unless this Agreement, as amended, is extended or renegotiated as provided therein. 3. REMAINING PROVISIONS. Except as modified hereby, the terms and considerations of the above referenced Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Addendum as of the date first 'above written." ,ATTEST: :DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk .~.~O_~ .tClllltlre .1~, WITNESSES: C1Jv~aU)/4~ >t'.-z.v'_..-u r ~;j Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ~~iJ f? /c~ Scott R. Teach Managing Assistant County Attorney 04-COA-01016/578 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIE COUN , FLORIDA . By: TOM EMPLOYEE . /',..1' . " '.I-'!J,I I 1.- t";' .~ ! / ~.t_-/~~/' ,~ David C. Weigel ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP 1 0 C TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT ro THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATIIRE ~'~~ Print dn pink papt.:f. \t1ar.;h h' ,'rigil)ai dOl,'ument (ingmai Jocllm~~n!S ~hould he hand ddi\L'r~d t(l the Anurd (Hl;ce rhe t.T1npkkd ";\',I!mg ~lip JIIII 'll'H!inal Jt)(lllllCllh ille to h..; !nn\ ,lll.bllO i]ll f~"illd I )Ifi..-,- -,1Ill:- illlllh..: Ihard has lahn adh\n oll;lll" ltl'lll. i ROUTING SUP Complete routing lines ill (hrough 'i4lL<; appropriate hJl ,idditl(,rul ~!gJ!aHues. u<:lt.;:s. .::.nd:ui' inluffili.luon lh,:'.:.ocll, if the document is already ..:omplete with the \:xception 0fthe ctmi~~~mlt'jfe, draw a line through muting Iines..!!.!!~llgh":,~~~p'~!~..!,!1e checklist.:..~ ~~~~....!.o Sue Fjlsol1 ill~ #5~__ Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date {List if! iOlltmj! udCf) ~---~ - 1. _.._~----- r- -, 2, 3. --- 4. - , 5. Sue Filson, EXfiuUy&,}Il-"r ' Board of County Commismoners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Otlice ---- .'--- PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMAHON (The primary contact is the holder of the original \Iocument pendjn~ I€'C' approval. Normally the prim8r1' comact is the person who createdJprepRred the executive summary. Primary contact intonnation is needed in the event one of the aJdre~sces ahove, including Sue Filson. need lo contact staff t()!' additional or missing information. All original documentll needing the Bee Chairman'~ signature an: to be ddi\'cred to the Bee llmCf only after the Bee has a'lcu to approve the lI,,:m.) _ Name of Primary StatT C onmct Agenda Date Item was A roved b lbe BCC Type of Document Attached ?~/, Phone Number , '* ,'\'f) $'j$) !1~:P Agenda Item Number Number of Original Documents Attached ,~ - -"II ) , \- [) '\",'10 INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Inilialtlle Yes column or mark UNI A~ ill tile Not Appllcablt column. whichever is a fO riate. Original document has been ,igned/initialed tbr legal sulliciency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exceplion of mOslletters, must be reviewed and 'igned by the OtTice of the County Attorney, This includes signature pages from ordinances, re,olutions. etc. signed by the County Attorney's Ollice and signature pages Ii'om contracts. agreements. etc. that have been tully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and possiblx. ~ Olli'!als.) _ 2, t' All hond\l'r;",," strike-through and revisions have been ini'.ialed b} the (""nty Attorney', __ om",: "nd all 0ther panie, except t~~ BCC Chaiman an~_~he Clerk to the Board l l'he Chairman''1 signature line date has been entered as th~ date of ACe arproval of the 'fr)(;u!1lcrll' cr ~he final ne 10tiated ('"Of1tr:;lct date 'Ahk;ht'"v'~'r ;s :)1' li'~Jbl~. "Sign here" labs are pJai..'cd on the appropriate pages indiclfing where the Chairman's si nature and initials are required. _'_~_.________ . _______ In most cases (some contracts are an exceptiO':' the origiilal document and this routing slip .;hould be provided to Sue Filson in the Bee omee within]4 hours ofBCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require fOr\'w'arding to Tallahassee within a certain time ti"ame or lhe Bee's actions are nullified. Be aware of )our deadlines! The documenl was approved by the Bee nn;;i,'\:) S (enler date) and all change. made during the meeling IIl1ve been illcorpo~in tbe attacbed dncumellt. Tbe Cnullly Attorney'. Omee has reviewed the cbllng"', ir applicable. I. 4. 5. 6, l, 1.1, ' ,nt"-l.;',/o;t"""I~' ,';f" 1:"Fi\nm/ ('ounty r'.lrrll~;/ Bee fl)mlSi {)riginaJ [)ocum~nls Routing Slip WWS Originai 9.03.04, Rcvi<;etll,~6.05. Rc~'is(tl2.24.U5 It'.r.rrp' If Ij 1fi, r ~!,,".....,j'1:ij)lll ,.! r 1 IlIlDlIl ~riiH lac RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 78 A RESOLUTION (INITIATING RESOLUTION) OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO PART II OF CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA STATUTES (FLORIDA'S INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY ACT) TO COMMENCE THE PROCESS FOR NEGOTIATING AN INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT REGARDING 22.04 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE SENIOR CARE SITE, PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF NAPLES WHEREAS, Florida's Interlocal Service Boundary Act (herein "the Act"), being Chapter 2006- 218, Laws of Florida, includes sections 171.20, 171.201, 171.202, 171.203, 171.204, 171.205, 171.206,171.207,171.208,171.209,171.21,171.211 and 171.212, Florida Statutes, approved by Governor Bush on June 14,2006; and WHEREAS, the Act's principal goals, as stated in the Act's section 171.201, are to encourage local governments to jointly detennine how to provide services to residents and property in the most efficient and effective manner while balancing the needs and desires of the Community; Also to establish a more flexible process for adj usting municipal boundaries and to address a wider range of the effects of annexation and to encourage intergovernmental coordination in planning, service delivery, and boundary adjustments and to reduce intergovernmental conflicts and litigation between local governments; Also to promote sensible boundaries that reduce the costs of local governments, avoid duplicating local services, and increase political transparency and accountability and to prevent inefficient service delivery and an insufficient tax base to support the delivery of services; and WHEREAS, as defined in the Act's subsection 171.202(7), this resolution is Collier County's "initiating resolution" to commence the process for negotiating an inter local service boundary agreement and which identifies the County's specified unincorporated area and the County's designated issues for discussion; and WHEREAS, as defined in the Act's subsection 171.201(8), an "Interlocal service boundary agreement" means an agreement adopted pursuant to the Act between a county and one or more municipalities, and which may include one or more defined independent special districts as parties to the agreement; and WHEREAS, as defined in the Act's subsection 171.202(3), the applicable "independent special districts" are limited to special districts as defined in Section 189.403, Florida Statutes, and that provide fire, emergency medical, water, wastewater, and/or stonnwater services; and WHEREAS, the Act's subsection 171.203(2) specifies that within sixty (60) days after receipt of this initiating resolution, the City of Naples shall adopt its responding resolution, wherein the City can identify an additional unincorporated area or incorporated area, or both, for discussion; Also the City may thereby designate additional issues for negotiation, and pursuant to the Act's subsection 171.202(15), may designate one other special district; and WHEREAS, as stated in the Act's subsection 171.203(2)(d), each qualified independent district that receives the County's initiating resolution can participate in the interlocal service boundary agreement negotiation process by adopting its resolution indicating such intent; and WHEREAS, as stated in the Act's subsection 171.203(16), the Act does not authorize one local government to require another local government to enter into an interlocal service boundary agreement, but when the process for negotiating an interlocal service boundary agreement is IOC WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act's subsection 171.203(1), Collier County's designated issues to be negotiated are listed below in the body of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, as defined in the Act's subsection 171.202(9), an "invited local government" means each invited county, municipality, or special district and any other local government designated as such in an initiating resolution, or in a responding resolution, that invites the respective local government(s) to participate in negotiating an interlocal service boundary agreement; and WHEREAS, Collier County's two (2) "Invited local governments" are the City of Naples (the County's designated "invited municipality"), and the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, an Independent Special District, as a "notified local government" or an "invited local government." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The above WHEREAS clauses are incorporated herein. 2. Collier County, as "the initiating county," hereby designates the City of Naples as the County's "invited municipality." 3. Collier County, as "the mltIatmg county," hereby notifies the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District of this Resolution as a "notified local government" or and "invited local government." 4. The County's designated land area, all of which is unincorporated, is described herein as the Senior Care Site, which land areas, according to the application for annexation, consist of 22.04 acres, more or less, and which acreage is depicted on the map attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A ("the descriptive exhibit"). Based upon the application for annexation, the legal description of this land area proposed to be annexed into the City of Naples is: SEE EXHIBIT "B" 5. The County's designated issues for negotiation are any and all issues concerning service delivery, fiscal responsibilities, and/or boundary adjustments. The interlocal service boundary agreement issues may include, but need not be limited to, the following: a. Identifying a municipal service area. b. Identifying an unincorporated service area. c. Identifying the local government responsible for delivery or funding of the following services within the municipal service area or the unincorporated service area including: 1. Public safety 2. Fire, emergency rescue, and medical. 3. Water and wastewater. 4. Road ownership, construction, and maintenance. 5. Conservation, parks, and recreation. 6. Stormwater management and drainage. 7. Garbage/trash collection and recycling. d. The interlocal service boundary agreement may establish a process and schedule for annexation of an area within the designated municipal service area, if any, consistent IOC f. The interlocal service boundary agreement may address other issues concerning service delivery, including the transfer of services and infrastructure. g. The interlocal service boundary agreement may provide for the joint use of facilities and the co location of services. h. The interlocal service boundary agreement may Include a requirement for a report to Collier County from the City of Naples of the City's planned service delivery, as provided in the Act's Section 171.042, or as othelWise may be determined by the Agreement. i. The interlocal service boundary agreement may establish a process by which the local government that is responsible for water and wastewater services shall, within thirty (30) days after any respective annexation of territory, apply for modifications to permits of the water management district and/or Florida's Department of Environmental Protection which are necessary to reflect changes in the entity that is responsible for managing surface water under such permits. J. As stated in the Act's subsection 171.203(8), in order to ensure that the health and welfare of the residents affected by annexation will be protected, all fire and emergency medical services shall be provided by the existing provider of fire and emergency medical services to the annexed area and remain part of the existing special district unless Collier County and the City of Naples reach an agreement, through the interlocal service boundary agreement or other legally sufficient means, as to which entities shall provide those emergency services. 6. As stated in the Act's subsections 171.203(1) (a), (b), and (c), the County Manager shall, by United States certified mail, send copy of this Initiating Resolution (a) to the City Manager of the City of Naples, (b) to the City Manager of the City of Marco Island, (c) to the Mayor of Everglades City, and (d) to the Chief Administrative Officer of the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, Chief Robert Shank. 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. ADOPTED th_.6 ~ day of r~~, I , 2008 after motion, second and majority vote favoring adoption. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ~.*~~_,O.G. 'loftltln 0111- By: . APprove~ as }1f~~iency: IOC /' ,,<;:~/. 1:1. . Q\ ;r;:, ./ '---------- IOC EXHIBIT "Boo LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Parcels 18A-3 through 18G taken from Exhibit "A" to Warranty Deed Recorded at O.R. Book 4032, page 3951 - 3725 18A-3 (Identification No. 16940840505): All that part of Lot 9 of Naples Improvement Company's Little Fanns Subdivision, lying south of Golden Gate Parkway, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 2, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and 18C (Identification No. 61940760009): The East 564 feet of the West 1,184 feet of Lot 8 of Naples Improvement Company's Little Farms Subdivision, less road right-of-way granted in Official Records Book 876, Page 1718, according to the map or plat thereof on file and recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 2, in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and 18D (Identification No. 61940800008): The East 470 feet of the West 1,654 feet of Lot 8 of Naples Improvement Company's Little Fanns Subdivision recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 2, in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and 18E (Identification No. 6194060004): All of Lot 8 of Naples Improvement Company's Little Fanns Subdivision, except the West 1,654 feet, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 2, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; the East and West boundary lines of said Parcel being measured from the West line of said Lot 8 (said West line of Lot 8 lying 25.00 feet East of the North and South 1/4 Section line of Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida); and 18F (Identification No. 61940520003): The East 338.24 feet of the West 958.34 feet of Lot 7 of Naples Improvement Company's Little Fam1s Subdivision, per Plat Book 2, Page 2, in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, less and except that portion deeded to the Board of County Commissioners described as: Commence at the Northwest comer of said Lot 7; thence North 89' 17' 39" East along the North line of said Lot 7 for a distance of 620.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continue along the North line of Lot 7 a distance of 41.60 feet to the point of intersection with the point of curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 813.94 feet and a central angle of 26' 13' 03"; thence continue Southwesterly along said curve an arc distance of 51.30 feet to a point; thence North 00' 39' 49" West 30 feet to the Point of Beginning. 18G (Identification No. 61940480004): North 1/2 of Lot 7, Less West 1,288.34 feet Naples Improvement Company's Little Farms Subdivision, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 2, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. AND Legal Description taken from Warranty Deed recorded at OR Book 4032, Page 1876 Parcel ID Number 61940440002: The East 270.00' of the West 1313.34' of the N 1/2 of Lot 7 as , measured from the West line of the SE 1/4 of Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Naples Improvement Co's Little Farms, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat T"ll__1_""" T'\ ........... 11'...... 1 ....... .. IOC . , Commencing at the Southwest comer of Stoney's Plaza as recorded in Plat Book 24, page 28 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, also being a point on the South line of Lot 7 of Naples Company's Little Farms as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 2, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; Thence along the South line of said Lot 7, N.89"49'23"E. for 938.25 Feet, to a Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; Thence leaving said South line of Lot 7 N.OO" 19' 14"W. for 333.05 feet to a Point on the North line of said Lot 7; Thence along the North line of Lot 7, N.89'36'47"E. for 60.16 feet; Thence leaving the North Line of said Lot 7 S.OO" 16 '23"E. for 164.84 feet; Thence N.89"36'03"E. for 270.03 Feet; Thence N.89"3T39"E. for 631.47 Feet to a Point on a meander line lying on the Westerly side of Gordon River; Thence along said meander line, the following two (2) described courses: I) Thence S.26"31 '13"W. for 102.98 feet; 2) Thence S.I2"56'24"W. for 82.05 feet to a point on the South of said Lot 7; Thence along the South line of said Lot 7 S.89"50'24"W. for 896.31 Feet to the point of beginning of the parcel described herein. 10D DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED IN THE MINUTES & RECORDS DEPARTMENT AS OF FEBRUARY 12, 2009. " IOE- CtJ.y-/-RejJOr-!er ." "~l ',,".'.. Where are we at the moment? Senders have TOR 1 and TOR 2 credit. Property has easement-restrictive covenants TOR lands have been removed from tax roles TOR lands have little mitigation potential No TOR lands have an approved Restoration Management Plan, i.e., none have qualified for TOR 3 Is TOR 3 important? Yes! It establishes the level of environmental responsibilities and, although "restoration goals have not been established in the Land Development Code," staff has determined that Florida Natural Area Inventory is insufficient for restoration management plan approval. Who manages? Who gets the bills? Property transfer and financial agreement must be in place before TOR 4 credit can be obtained When a government agency has accepted TOR 3 land; they, in essence, have assumed all responsibility to implement the approved Restoration Management Plan In perpetuity The accepting government agency must achieve Restoration Management Plan goals without additional taxation What does TDR 4 signify? It designates property transfer and acceptance all financial responsibility in perpetuity The government agency: Owns the land Must pursue active and aggressive management Must monitor, describe, implement and perform enhancement activities What does County currently fund? The first Fifteen percent of Conservation Collier tax money is earmarked for land management Financial responsibility could be complicated at program end or starting 2013 In 2013 land management responsibilities would draw away funds from other public health and safety programs unless a permanent land management trust fund is created and independently managed '7'< -o:? 3-17''-" v /.r.)~ :/ i-- , .. ~ -.' ~, j. 'District? Joe- o What would the additional increased cost be for county staff to add personnel to perform land management, e.g., initial site evaluation studies; periodic and systematic monitoring; design treatment plans; perform enhancement or habitat management, and present progress reports semi-annually for all owned parcels? o The county ordinance requires that Conservation Collier lands actually accomplish rare habitat, aquifer recharge, flood control, water quality protection, and listed species habitat. We can do that for you. In Conclusion, land management needs to be performed by an organization already specializing in land management for conservation properties and that's Collier Soil and Water Conservation District. We're prepared to assume those responsibilities now and you won't need to expand your organization. Thank you for your attention, "'~. .., , \'.. ."*'. Conservation Collier Project Manager, to manage Conservation Collier 1'" lands. . Second, we have significant experience performing a variety of land management conservation functions. o We have hands-on experience conducting on-the-ground evaluation studies, detailed vegetation studies and approved mitigation projects that satisfy the Universal Mitigation Assessment Method evaluation criteria. We have treated exotics to start the restoration process to restore base natural conditions. o This year we will be conducting a major study of the Horespen Strand Conservation Area where we are attempting to determine the amount of wetlands that has been lost and whether we can use this area for watershed, floodplain and wetland projects. o We are already in the conservation land management business and we can manage your properties too. . Third, we offer a cost effective alternative to county management of Conservation Collier properties. o Do you really want to create a real property management element within the Conservation Collier organization? o What's the current annual cost to operate Conservation Collier-- including all the salaries, employee benefits and administrative costs for the project manager, property appraiser, attorney, contract specialists, various contracts for studies, support personnel, etc.? o Do you want to duplicate these costs for a land management element when it could be contracted out to the Soil and Water Conservation ,~'., '.1\1. d'" I"~ Soil a. Water Conservation District For the record, I'm Dennis Vasey, Collier Soli and Water Conservation District Supervisor, Seat 3. I believe this is the first time a Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor has spoken to the Board of County Commissioners on the subject of land management since tile District was constituted in 1984. I'm here today to tell you in person what the Soil and Water Conservation District has already told the county in writing: We want to accept and manage approved TDR 3 sending parcels and we want to manage Conservation Collier properties. Why should you use us to manage these properties? · First, we are already performing land management functions. o We have been managing 212 acres of land In the Picayune Strand State Forest under a memorandum of agreement with Florida Department of Forestry and Florida Department of Environmental Protection since 2005. o We have purchased 2 parcels of land in Winchester Head with Soil and Water Conservation funds. o We have another 2 parcels donated for management in Horsepen Strand and will close on 2 more parcels in that area by the end of the month. o We are negotiating to manage a preserve in North Belle Meade. And, in January, we submitted a draft inter local agreement, to the RESOLUTION NO. 08-.J.L.. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN OLDE CYPRESS UNIT ONE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 32, PAGES 1 THROUGH 11; RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY; AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE OLDE CYPRESS MASTER PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, i.e, LOGAN BOULEVARD EXTENSION WITHIN TRACT R-I lOG WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on April 13, 1999 approved the plat of Olde Cypress Unit One for recording; and WHEREAS, the Developer has constructed and maintained the roadway and drainage improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended); and WHEREAS, the Developer is requesting final acceptance of the roadway and drainage improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Engineering and Environmental Services Section of the Development Services Department has inspected the roadway and drainage improvements, and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance is hereby granted for those roadway and drainage improvements in Olde Cypress Unit One, pursuant to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 32, pages I through II, and the Clerk is hereby authorized to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for those roadway and drainage improvements that are not required to be maintained by the Olde Cypress Master Property Owner's Association, i.e. that portion of Logan Boulevard within Tract R-l. Logan Boulevard was deeded to Collier County at O.R. Book 3398, Pages 1214 -1218. " i' ;l.~ I,' ,...... ...?il "" This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, this 2-S-tkdayof' t~rd-\ ,2008. \ Ln,. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER CO TY, F ORIDA erJ ty Clerk Approved as to fo and legal sufficiency: By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRM Ji=.7'W~ Steven T. Williams Assistant Collier County Attorney ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTItJ~IP , \~ ~~i>IJfa TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS sEAT'ridl '1 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original documents should be hand delivered to the Board Office. The completed routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded to the Board Office only after the Board has taken action on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, andlor infonnalion needed, If the document is already complete with the f . d h r hr exceotion 0 the Chairman's SIgnature, raw a line througr routine: Imes #11 ough #4, complete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson (line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routing order) 1. ----- 2. --------- 3. ---------- 4~ 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the ex.ecutive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue Filson. need to contact staff for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the Bee Chairman's signature are to be delivered to the Bee office only after the Bee has acted to approve the item.) Name of Primary Staff Contact Agenda Date Item was A roved b the BCC M A~ H Type of Document Attached Phone Number IJU Agenda Item Number Yes (Initial) N/A(Not A Iicable) ?vtC Number of Original Documents Attached ~~ ~\f' \)C11(( ~\J(< ~K I. INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/ A" in the Not Applicable column. whichever is a ro riate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts. agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a Ii cable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si nature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours of BCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCe's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! The document was approved by the BCC on . ":0 (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Count Attorne '5 Office has reviewed the chan es, if a licable. I: Forms/ County Forms/ Bce Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05. Revised 2.24.05 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. lOH , ' PROJECT: Vanderbilt Beach Road Extn. #60168 PARCEL No(s): 146 and 147 FOLIO No(s): 36913040008 and 36913120009 PURCHASE AGREEMENT (Extended Possession of Improved Property) THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this t2. C::. day of J..1 AE.C. \-\" 2008, by and between PAUL M. BREEHNE, JR., AND DAWN M. BREEHNE, husband and wife, whose mailing address is 790 21st Street NW, Naples, FL 34120, hereinafter referred to as "Seller"), and COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 (hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser"). WHEREAS, Seller owns certain improved property located at 790 21st Street NW, Naples, FL 34120, and more particularly described as: All of Tract 49, less the South 200 feet thereof, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No.7, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Pages 95 and 96, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. together with all buildings, structures and improvements, fixtures, built-in appliances, refrigerators, stove, dishwasher, washer, dryer, ceiling fans, floor coverings and window treatments, and Seller owns certain vacant property located at 791 21st Street NW, Naples, FL 34120 and more particularly described as: Tract 48, less the South 210 feet thereof, Golden Gate Estates Unit No.7, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 4, pages 95 and 96, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and as more specifically described as Lot B in the Lot Line adjustment document recorded in Official Records Book 1786, page 2051, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Property"); and Whereas, Purchaser requires the Property for right-of-way purposes as part of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project; and WHEREAS, S'etlerdesires to remain in possession of the residence, and has requested the right to occupy the premises until April 30, 2009, to which request Purchaser has agreed; and WHEREAS, Seller has agreed to sell and Purchaser has agreed to purchase the Property subject to the terms and conditions that follow. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises, the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby mutually acknowledged, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. AGREEMENT lOH and final settlement of all other costs and expenses incurred by Seller, including but not limited to moving expenses. Said Purchase Price was agreed upon by the parties hereto with full consideration having been given to the value of the extended possession. Attorney's fees, including any expert fees and costs, in the amount of $20,000.00 will be paid to Richard Yovanovich, Esq., c/o Goodlette Coleman & Johnson, P.A., 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 and shall be full and final settlement of all fees and costs. None of this Purchase Price is attributable to any personal property. 3. CLOSING A. The Closing (THE "CLOSING DATE", "DATE OF CLOSING", OR "CLOSING") of the transaction shall be held on or before one hundred twenty (120) days following execution of this Agreement by the Purchaser unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parties hereto. The Closing shall be held at the Collier County Attorney's Office, Administration Building, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Purchaser shall be entitled to possession as of Closing, unless otherwise provided herein. Seller shall deliver the Property in broom-clean and working condition, and free of all debris upon vacating the premises. B. Seller shall convey a marketable title free of any liens, encumbrances, exceptions, or qualifications. Marketable title shall be determined according to applicable title standards adopted by the Florida Bar and in accordance with law. At or before the Closing, the Seller shall cause to be delivered to the Purchaser the items specified herein and the following documents and instruments duly executed and acknowledged, in recordable form: 1. Warranty Deed in favor of Purchaser conveying title to the Property, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances other than: (a) The lien for current taxes and assessments. (b) Such other easements, restrictions or conditions of record. 2. Combined Purchaser-Seller closing statement. 3. A "Grantor's Non-Foreign, Taxpayer Identification & "Gap" Affidavit" as required by Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code and as required by the title insurance underwriter in order to insure the "gap" and issue the policy contemplated by the title insurance commitment. 4. A W-9 Form, "Request for Taxpayer Identification and Certification" as required by the Internal Revenue Service. 5. Such evidence of authority and capacity of Seller and its representatives to execute and deliver this Agreement and all other documents required to consummate this transaction, as reasonably determined by Purchaser's counsel and/or tille r:ommmv 10H Title Company is irrevocably committed to pay the Purchase Price to Seller and to issue the Owner's title policy to Purchaser in accordance with the commitment immediately after the recording of the deed. 2. Funds payable to the Seller representing the Purchase Price shall be subject to adjustments and pro-rations as hereinafter set forth. D. Purchaser shall pay all fees to record any curative instruments required to clear title, all Warranty Deed recording fees, and any and all costs and/or fees associated with securing and recording a Release or Subordination of any mortgage, lien or other encumbrance recorded against the Property; provided, however, that any apportionment and distribution of the full compensation amount in Section 2 which may be required by any mortgagee, lien-holder or other encumbrance-holder for the protection of its security interest or as consideration for the execution of any release, subordination or satisfaction, shall be the responsibility of the Owner, and shall be deducted on the Closing Statement from the compensation payable to the Owner per Section 2. E. Seller, at its sole cost and expense, shall pay at Closing all documentary stamp taxes due upon the recording of the Warranty Deed, in accordance with Chapter 201.01, Florida Statutes, unless the Property is acquired under threat of condemnation. The cost of a Title Commitment shall be paid by Purchaser along with the cost of an Owner's Form B Title Policy, issued pursuant to the Commitment provided for in Section 8, "Requirements and Conditions" (below). F. Real Property taxes shall be prorated based on the current year's tax with due allowance made for maximum allowable discount, homestead and any other applicable exemptions and paid by Seller. If Closing occurs at a date which the current year's millage is not fixed, taxes will be prorated based upon such prior year's millage. G. A Security Deposit in the amount of Five Thousand and NO/100 Dollars ($5,000.00) will be paid out of the Seller's closing proceeds into an interest- bearing account under Purchaser's control to be held during the Seller's occupancy in accordance with the provisions of Section 4B (below). 4. OCCUPANCY BY SELLER AFTER CLOSING A. Seller may occupy the Property after Closing until April 30, 2009 (the "Term"). In the event Seller and Purchaser agree to extend the Term, an additional sum will be required from Seller and shall be calculated by multiplying the number of months of this Extended Term by a monthly amount of $1,000.00. This Fee must be paid to the Purchaser in a lump sum, no later than thirty (30) days before expiration of the initial Term, whereupon Purchaser and Seller shall execute an addendum to this Agreement memorializing this Extended Term of possession. Purchaser's approval of such extension shall not be unreasonably withheld, provided however, that said extended occupancy shall not exceed a period of 6 months. B. At Closing, the sum of Five Thousand and NO/100 Dollars ($5,000.00) will be deposited into an interest-bearing account as security for any damages suffered hv thA PrnnArtv rll.rinn th~ ~QIIQr'c=. nrl"'-lln!:ln""\I /1l<::'C,...lll'"if\l n.onnc-it'" Tho Co.,.... ,rifu 10H C. When the Property is partly damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty not due to Seller's willful or negligent act or that of anyone on the Property with the knowledge or consent (actual or implied), of Seller, Purchaser will make repair as soon as reasonably possible. Purchaser shall also be responsible for the repair to fixtures or appliances in excess of the limit set forth in Section 4F (below), provided such repair is not necessitated by Seller's misuse, waste or neglect of the Property, or that of anyone on the Property with Seller's knowledge and consent (actual or implied). If the Property is rendered un-inhabitable due to fire, storm or other casualty, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate, with the sole duty of Purchaser then being to refund to Seller the security deposit, plus accrued interest. Purchaser shall not be liable for any damage or injury to Seller and his or her property by reason of any water damage sustained by Seller and his or her property, or by reason of the breakage, leakage, or obstruction of water and sewer lines or other breakage in or about the Property. D. Seller agrees to pay all utility services as they come due, including electricity, telephone, gas, cable television, water, sewer, and solid waste collection, and shall arrange for a final billing and payment of same at the time Seller vacates the Property, and acknowledges that Purchaser will deduct all such unpaid bills from the Security Deposit. Seller shall keep the property free from pests and insure that the air conditioning system is in operation to maintain a reasonable room temperature until the Seller vacates the property. E. Seller will use the Property only as its primary residence. Seller is prohibited from allowing persons, other than its immediate family members, to reside on the Property. F. Seller shall maintain the Property, including all Systems and Equipment, in clean and working condition at all times. Seller shall use all Systems and Equipment in a reasonable manner. Seller shall immediately make and pay for all required repairs to the plumbing, range, heating apparatus, washer-dryer, air conditioning, refrigerator, dishwasher and electric and gas fixtures, provided the cost of said repairs does not exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). Purchaser reserves the right to enter upon the Property and repair, at the Seller's expense, all damage or injury to the fixtures and appliances in the event Seller fails to effect repairs after 10 days' notice. Purchaser's election not to effect repairs shall not relieve Seller of its obligation to repair or subject Purchaser to liability for its election. G. Seller shall comply with all governmental regulations concerning the use of the Property and not permit or suffer any illegal activity or use, or permit to be made any disturbance, noise or nuisance whatsoever, which would be detrimental to the peace, quiet and comfort of other persons in the vicinity of the Property, or affect the insurance risk factor to the Property. H. Seller shall permit Purchaser's agent or employee to enter the Property at any reasonable time, upon 24 hours notice, during the term of this Agreement to inspect the Property or make any needed repairs. I. Seller will surrender possession of the Property at the expiration of the Term in as good a condition as of the Effective Date, reasonable wear and tear and acts of God excepted. Seller shall not be responsible to repair or reolace the items or lOH K. DEFAULT. Seller will be deemed in default of this Agreement if Seller fails to perform any of the covenants, promises or obligations contained in this Section for a period of ten (10) days after notice of such default. Upon Seller's default, County may terminate this Agreement upon twenty (20) days written notice to Seller, re-enter and take possession of the Property, whereupon the term thereby granted and all rights of Seller to occupy the Property shall terminate. The Seller shall remain liable for any damage suffered by the Property because of Seller's breach of any of the covenants of this Agreement, and such termination shall be without prejudice to the Purchaser's right to collect said damages. Purchaser and Seller shall have the right to pursue any and all remedies available under this Agreement or applicable law. L. Seller shall be required to maintain insurance on the Property during the entire Term, and any Extended Term, which policy shall include contents coverage of $100,000, premises liability with limits of $300,000, and loss of use coverage. Purchaser will be named as an additional insured and the policy premium for the Term of occupancy will be paid in advance at Closing. Seller will be required to provide a certificate of insurance prior to Closing. M. The terms and conditions contained in this Section shall survive Closing and are not deemed satisfied by conveyance of title. 5. PROPERTY CONDITION DISCLOSURES A. General. Seller represents that Seller knows of no facts or conditions materially affecting the value of the Property, except those which are readily observable by Purchaser, or which have been disclosed to Purchaser by Seller in writing and furnished to Purchaser prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. B. Radon Gas. Florida law requires the following disclosure: Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that, when it has accumulated in a building in sufficient quantities, may present health risks to persons who are exposed to it over time. Levels of radon that exceed federal and state guidelines have been found in buildings in Florida. Additional information regarding radon and radon testing may be obtained from your county health department. Seller has no knowledge of the existence of radon on the Property or any radon mitigation having been performed on the Property. C. Lead Based PainUPaint Hazards. If construction of the residence on the Property was commenced prior to 1978, Seller is required to complete, and Seller and Purchaser are required to sign and attach to this Agreement, the addendum entitled "Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards Attachment to Sales Contract: Disclosure of Information and Acknowledgement." D. Mold. Molds are commonly found both indoors and outdoors. Interior infestation by certain molds may cause property damage and health problems for some persons. Seller has no knowledge of any mold remediation having been performed on the Property. E. Warranty. Except as to any facts or conditions disclosed to Purchaser as required under Section 5A above, Seller warrants that all major appliances and equipment; sprinkler. well. septic. heatino. coolino. eler.trir.~1 ~nrl nlllmhinn "nrl 10H the Working Condition of the item, including corrosion; tears; worn spots; discoloration of floor covering or wallpaper or window treatments; missing or torn screens; nail holes; scratches; dents; chips; caulking; pitted pool surfaces; minor cracks in windows, driveways, sidewalks, spa/pool decks and garage, tile, lanai and patio floors; and cracked roof tiles, curling or worn shingles and limited roof life, so long as there is no evidence of structural damage or leakage. 6. INSPECTIONS A. Inspection Period. Purchaser shall have 60 days from the Effective Date (Inspection Period) to have the Property and improvements thereon inspected at Purchaser's expense as follows: (a) Systems and Equipment, by an appropriately Florida licensed inspection company or licensed contractor, and/or (b) radon gas, by a Florida certified radon measurement technician or specialist, and/or (c) lead- based paint and hazards, by an EPA-certified lead exposure risk assessor, and/or (d) termites or other wood-destroying organisms, by a certified pest control operator (collectively the "Inspection Items"). Upon reasonable notice, Seller shall provide access and utilities service to the Property to facilitate inspections. B. Election and Response. If any inspection conducted during the Inspection Period reveals: (1) that any Systems and Equipment are not in Working Condition, and/or (2) the presence of radon gas at a level in excess of EPA action levels, and/or (3) the presence of lead-based paint or paint hazards required abatement under HUD/EPA protocols, and/or (4) the existence of active infestation by termites or other wood-destroying organisms and/or visible damage caused by active or past infestation (collectively the "Defective Inspection Items"), Purchaser shall, within 15 days after expiration of the Inspection Period: (a) notify Seller of any Defective Inspection Items, and (b) furnish to Seller a copy of the inspection report(s) documenting the Defective Inspection Items, and (c) notify Seller of Purchaser's election either to: (i) receive a credit from Seller at closing in lieu of any repairs, replacements, treatment, mitigation or other remedial action necessary to bring the Defective Inspection Items into compliance with the relevant standards set forth above (the "Remedial Action"), or (ii) have Seller take Remedial Action at Seller's expense prior to closing. If Purchaser elects to receive a credit, the amount of the credit shall be equivalent to the estimated costs of any Remedial Action and shall be determined not later than the earlier of Seller's Response Deadline, or 10 days prior to the Closing. If Purchaser elects (i), Seller shall not be required to take any Remedial Action. If Purchaser makes no election, Purchaser shall be deemed to have elected to receive a credit at Closing. C. Not later than 15 days from receipt of the written notice and inspection report(s) from Purchaser ("Seller's Response Deadline"), Seller shall notify Purchaser whether Seller will give Purchaser credit equal to the cost of repairs or take remedial action, whichever is requested by Purchaser. If Seller refuses Purchaser's election by the Seller's Response Deadline, then Purchaser may terminate this Agreement within 10 days of Seller's Response Deadline. If Purchaser does not elect to so terminate this Agreement, Purchaser is deemed to have accepted the Property in the condition it existed on the Effective Date, except that Purchaser retains the rights set forth in Section 6.G. (Walk Through Inspection) below. If Seller fails to respond by the Seller's Response deadline, Seller shall be deemed to have accepted Purchaser's election and Purchaser may receive credit at Clo!;inn ::l!; !;At forth ::lhOVA 10H contained in accordance with HUD/EPA guidelines, and (4) any active infestation of termites or other wood-destroying organisms is exterminated or treated, and all visible damage caused by active or past infestation is repaired or replaced. Seller shall make a diligent effort to perform and complete all Remedial Action prior to the Closing Date, failing which a sum equivalent to 150% of the estimated costs of completing the Remedial Action shall be paid by Seller into escrow at Closing pending completion. F. No cost to repair or replace any Systems and Equipment shall exceed the fair market value of that item if it were in Working Condition. If the costs do exceed fair market value, than either Seller or Purchaser may elect to pay such excess, failing which, either party may terminate this Agreement upon written notice. G. Walk-ThrouGh Inspection. Purchaser (or a designated representative) may conduct a walk-through inspection of the Property prior to Closing and prior to possession, to confirm: (1) completion of any Remedial Action agreed to by Seller in Section 6.8 "Election and Response" above, (2) that the personal property items which are being conveyed as part of this Agreement remain on the Property, (3) that the personal property items which are not being conveyed as part of this Agreement have been removed from the Property, and (4) that Seller has maintained the Property as required in Sections 3 and 7. Upon reasonable notice, Seller shall provide access and utilities service to the Property to facilitate the walk-through inspection. H. Inspections durinG Occupancv. Purchaser may enter upon the Property with at least 24-hour notice to Seller for purposes of inspecting the Property for compliance with the terms of Section 4 of this Agreement or effecting repairs. 7. RISK OF LOSS Seller shall maintain the Property (including without limitation the lawn, shrubbery, and landscaping) in the condition existing on the Effective Date until Closing or the termination/expiration date of Purchaser's possession, whichever is later, except for ordinary wear and tear and any Remedial Action agreed to by Seller under Section 68 above. Any future loss and/or damage to the Property between the Effective Date and the Closing or end of Purchaser's term of possession, whichever is earlier, shall be at Seller's sole risk and expense, except as provided in Section 4. 8. REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS FOR CLOSING Upon execution of this Agreement by both parties or at such other time as specified within this Section, Purchaser and/or Seller, as the case may be, shall perform the following within the times stated, which shall be conditions precedent to the Closing: A. Within fifteen (15) days after the date hereof, Purchaser shall obtain as evidence of title an AL TA Commitment for an Owner's Title Insurance Policy (ALTA Form 8-1970) covering the Property, together with hard copies of all exceptions shown thereon. Purchaser shall have thirty (30) days, following receipt of the title insurance commitment, to notify Seller in writing of any objection to title other than liens evidencing monetary obligations, if any, which obligations shall be paid at closing. If the title commitment contains exceptions that make the title unmarketable. Purch::J~p.r ~h::J1I rtp.livAr tn thA !':AIIAr IAIrittAn nnlir-A nf ilc inlanlinn In 10" days after expiration of said thirty (30) day period, may accept title as it then is, waiving any objection, or may terminate the Agreement. C. Seller agrees to furnish any existing surveys of the Property in Seller's possession to Purchaser within 10 (ten) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. Purchaser shall have the option, at its own expense, to obtain a current survey of the Property prepared by a surveyor licensed by the State of Florida. No adjustments to the Purchase Price shall be made based upon any change to the total acreage of the Property unless the difference in acreage revealed by survey exceeds 5% of the overall acreage. If the survey provided by Seller or obtained by Purchaser, as certified by a registered Florida surveyor, shows: (a) an encroachment onto the property; or (b) that an improvement located on the Property projects onto lands of others, or (c) lack of legal access to a public roadway, the Purchaser shall notify the Seller in writing of such encroachment, projection, or lack of legal access, and Seller shall have the option of curing said encroachment or projection, or obtaining legal access to the Property from a public roadway. Purchaser shall have sixty (60) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement to notify Seller in writing of any such objections. Should Seller elect not to or be unable to remove the encroachment, projection, or provide legal access to the property within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of said notification, Purchaser, by providing written notice to Seller within seven (7) days after expiration of said sixty (60) day period, may accept the Property as it then is, waiving any objection to the encroachment, or projection, or lack of legal access, or Purchaser may terminate the Agreement. A failure by Purchaser to give such written notice of termination within the time period provided herein shall be deemed an election by Purchaser to accept the Property with the encroachment, or projection, or lack of legal access. 9. TERMINATION AND REMEDIES A. If Seller shall have failed to perform any of the covenants and promises contained herein, which are to be performed by Seller, except for those provisions in Section 4, within fifteen (15) days of written notification of such failure, Purchaser may, at its option, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of termination to Seller. Purchaser shall have the right to seek and enforce all rights and remedies available at law or in equity to a contract vendee, including the right to seek specific performance of this Agreement. B. If the Purchaser has not terminated this Agreement pursuant to any of the provisions authorizing such termination, and Purchaser fails to close the transaction contemplated hereby or otherwise fails to perform any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement as required on the part of Purchaser to be performed, except for the terms and conditions in Section 4, provided Seller is not in default, then as Seller's sole remedy, Seller shall have the right to terminate and cancel this Agreement by giving written notice thereof to Purchaser, whereupon $500.00 shall be paid to Seller as liquidated damages which shall be Seller's sole and exclusive remedy, and neither party shall have any further liability or obligation to the other except as set forth in Section 12, Real Estate Brokers, hereof. The parties acknowledge and agree that Seller's actual damages in the event of Purchaser's default are uncertain in amount and difficult to ascertain, and that said amount of liquidated damages was reasonably determined by mutual aqreement between the oarties. and said sum w;:!!'; not intl'!nrll'!rl to hI'! " mom"I!\! in lOH 10. SELLER'S AND PURCHASER'S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Seller intends for Purchaser to rely on the representations contained in this Section in entering into this Agreement and warrants the following: A. Seller has full right and authority to enter into and to execute this Agreement and to undertake all actions and to perform all tasks required of each hereunder. Seller is not presently the subject of a pending, threatened or contemplated bankruptcy proceeding. B. Seller has full right, power, and authority to own and operate the Property, and to execute, deliver, and perform its obligations under this Agreement and the instruments executed in connection herewith, and to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. All necessary authorizations and approvals have been obtained authorizing Seller and Purchaser to execute and consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. At Closing, certified copies of such approvals shall be delivered to Purchaser and/or Seller, if necessary. C. The warranties set forth in this Section are true on the Effective Date of this Agreement and as of the date of Closing. Other than those obligations that specifically survive closing, Purchaser's acceptance of a deed to the said Property shall be deemed to be full performance and discharge of every agreement and obligation on the part of the Seller to be performed pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. D. Seller and Purchaser agree to do all things which may be required to give effect to this Agreement immediately as such requirement is made known to them or they are requested to do so, whichever is the earlier. E. Seller represents that it has no knowledge of any actions, suits, claims, proceedings, litigation or investigations pending or threatened against Seller, at law, equity or in arbitration before or by any federal, state, municipal or other governmental instrumentality that relate to this agreement or any other property that could, if continued, adversely affect Seller's ability to sell the Property to Purchaser according to the terms of this Agreement. F. No party or person other than Purchaser has any right or option to acquire the Property or any portion thereof. G. Until the date fixed for Closing or as long as this Agreement remains in force and effect, Seller shall not encumber or convey any portion of the Property or any rights therein, nor enter into any agreements granting any person or entity any rights with respect to the Property or any part thereof, without first obtaining the written consent of Purchaser to such conveyance, encumbrance, or agreement which consent may be withheld by Purchaser for any reason whatsoever. H. Seller represents that they have (it has) no actual knowledge that any pollutants are or have been discharged from the Property, directly or indirectly into any body of water. Seller represents that during their time of possession the Property has not been used for the production, handling, storage, transportation, manufacture or disposal of hazardous or toxic substances or wastes, as such terms are defined in aoolic;:!hlF! I;:!w" ::Inri r<>nlll::ltinnc:: "r <on" "tho. "~t;,,;t,, th~t lOR I. Seller has no actual knowledge that the Property, and/or that Seller's operations concerning the Property, are in violation of any applicable Federal, State or local statute, law or regulation, or of any notice frorn any governmental body has been served upon Seller claiming any violation of any law, ordinance, code or regulation or requiring or calling attention to the need for any work, repairs, construction, alterations or installation on or in connection with the Property in order to comply with any laws, ordinances, codes or regulation with which Seller has not complied. J. There are no unrecorded restrictions, easements or rights of way (other than existing zoning regulations) that restrict or affect the use of the Property, and there are no maintenance, construction, advertising, management, leasing, employment, service or other contracts affecting the Property. K. Seller has no actual knowledge that there are any suits, actions or arbitration, bond issuances or proposals therefore, proposals for public improvement assessments, pay-back agreements, paving agreements, road expansion or improvement agreements, utility moratoriums, use moratoriums, improvement moratoriums, administrative or other proceedings or governmental investigations or requirements, formal or informal, existing or pending or threatened which affects the Property or which adversely affects Seller's ability to perform hereunder; nor is there any other charge or expense upon or related to the Property which has not been disclosed to Purchaser in writing prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. L. Seller acknowledges and agrees that Purchaser is entering into this Agreement based upon Seller's representations stated above and on the understanding that Seller will not cause the zoning or physical condition of the Property to change from its existing state on the effective date of this Agreement up to and including the date of Closing. Therefore, Seller agrees not to enter into any contracts or agreements pertaining to or affecting the Property and not to do any act or omit to perform any act which would adversely affect the zoning or physical condition of the Property or its intended use by Purchaser. Seller also agrees to notify Purchaser promptly of any change in the facts contained in the foregoing representations and of any notice or proposed change in the zoning, or any other action or notice, that may be proposed or promulgated by any third parties or any governmental authorities having jurisdiction of the development of the property which may restrict or change any other condition of the Property. M. Seller represents, warrants and agrees to indemnify, reimburse, defend and hold Purchaser harmless from any and all costs (including attorney's fees) asserted against, imposed on or incurred by Purchaser, directly or indirectly, pursuant to or in connection with the application of any federal, state, local or common law relating to pollution or protection of the environment which shall be in accordance with, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., ("CERCLA" or "Superfund"), which was amended and upgraded by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), including any amendments or successor in function to these acts. This provision and the rights of Purchaser, hereunder, shall survive Closing for a period of 12 months after the extended possession is terminated and the Sellers vacate the Property, and are not deemed satisfied bv conveyance of title. With a copy to: If to Seller: With a copy to: lOH Naples, Florida 34104 Telephone 239-252-8192; Fax 239-530-6643 Ellen T. Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney Harmon Turner Building 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 Telephone 239-252-8400 Fax 239-252-6300 Paul and Dawn Breehne 790 21 st St. NW Naples, FL 34120-1814 Telephone 239-304-1889 Richard Yovanovich, Esq., c/o Goodlette Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Telephone (239) 435-3535 Fax (239) 435-1218 The addressees, addresses and numbers for the purpose of this Section may be changed by either party by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein. For the purpose of changing such addressees, addresses and numbers only, unless and until such written notice is received, the last addressee and respective address stated herein shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes. Notice shall be deemed given in compliance with this Section upon receipt of automated fax confirmation or upon on the fifth day after the certified or registered mail has been postmarked, or receipt of personal delivery. 12. REAL ESTATE BROKERS Any and all brokerage commissions or fees shall be the sole responsibility of the Seller and shall be paid at Closing. Seller shall indemnify Purchaser from and against any claim or liability for commission or fees to any broker or any other person or party claiming to have been a procuring clause or engaged by Seller as a real estate broker, salesman or representative, in connection with this Agreement. 13. MISCELLANEOUS A. This Agreement may be executed in any manner of counterparts which together shall constitute the agreement of the parties. B. This Agreement and the terms and provisions hereof shall be effective as of the Effective Date and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors, successor trustee, and assignees whenever the context so requires or admits. 10H the context or the use thereof may require. F. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing signed by the party against whom it is asserted, and any waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be applicable only to the specific instance to which it is related and shall not be deemed to be a continuing or future waiver as to such provision or a waiver as to any other provision. G. If any date specified in this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the date to which such reference is made shall be extended to the next succeeding business day. H. If the Seller holds the Property in the form of a partnership, limited partnership, corporation, trust or any form of representative capacity whatsoever for others, Seller shall make a written public disclosure, according to s. 286.23, Fla. Stat., under oath, of the name and address of every person having a beneficial interest in the Property before Property held in such capacity is conveyed to Collier County. (If the corporation is registered with the Federal Securities Exchange Commission or registered pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, whose stock is for sale to the general public, it is hereby exempt from the provisions of Chapter 286, Florida Statutes.) I. This Agreement is governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. J. The Effective Date of this Agreement will be the date of execution of this Agreement by the last signing party. K. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto contain the entire agreement between the parties, and there are no promises, representations, warranties or covenants by or between the parties not included in this Agreement. No modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless made in writing and executed and dated by both Purchaser and Seller. L. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE to this Agreement. M. Seller may not assign, sublease, or license any rights arising under this Agreement without the written consent of the Purchaser. N. The parties hereto agree and acknowledge that this Agreement is not a lease but rather a contract for occupancy (extended possession) of the Property as a condition of sale which is not subject to Chapter 83, Florida Statutes. The parties do not intend to invoke any of the obligations or remedies contained in Chapter 83, and the terms and conditions contained herein shall be construed in accordance with the parties intent and shall be given their plain meaning without reference or application of s. 83.43, Fla. Stat., or any other portion of Chapter 83. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first above written. AS TO PJ.{RCHASER: DATED:'6 .-9lo- oQ IOU AS TO OWNER: DATED: ?-f~~? ~.~I Witness ( ign~t;e) r:, '^ \f\"\~ (\ \ (""~ me (Pri or.1Type) ) .~/ /. //- PAUL tlV'SREEHNE, JR. L Name (Print or Type) it Witness Signature) \~~')a!,~ ,1\,,\. ~~ DAWN M. REEHNE Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: . .'J .' i~/<- V It Jbz- Assistant County Attorney 1/'\ u- I lOB EXHIBIT "A" - LIST OF ACCEPTED DEFICIENCIES / ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP 1 0 I TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original d0cumcnts should be hand delivered to the Board Office. The completed routing slip amI original documents arc to be forwarded to the Board Oftice only aftf'f the Board has taken action on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the exccotion of the Chairman's signature, draw a line through routing lines # I through #4, corrmlete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson (line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routing order) 1. 2. 3. 4. Scott R. Teach, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5t1 3/25/08 County Attorney 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office 7. Scott R. Teach, Managing Assistant County Attorney County Attorney PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact infonnation is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue Filson, need to contact slafffor additional or missing information. All original documents needing the Bee Chairman '5 signature are to be delivered to the BCe olllcc only after the Bee has acted to approve the item.) Name of Primary Staff Jerry Kurtz, Principal Project Manager, Phone Number (239) 252-5860 Contact Trans/Stormwater Management Agenda Date Item was 3/25108 Agenda Item Number 10 I Approved by the BCC Type of Document Executive Summary and R~_~ Number of Original (3) Three Attached Documents Attached INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is appropriate, 1. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency_ (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc, that have been fully executed by all parties except the Bec Chairman and Clerk to the Board and possibly State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chaimlan and the Clerk to the Buard The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date of BCe approval of the document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is ap licable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's signature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the anginal document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BeC uffice within 24 hours of BCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCT's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! The document was approved by the Bee on March 25. 2008 and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated ill the attached document. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the chan es, if' a Hcable. Please record and return one executed ori iual document to Scott R. Teach, Mana in ACA Yes (Initial) SRT N/A(Not A licahle) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. N/A SRT SRT N/A SRT SRT I: Forms! County Forms! Bee Forms! Original Documents ROllling Slip WWS Original 9.0304, Revised 1.26.05. Revised 2.24.05 ((matter _ number>>! <<document_number>> MEMORANDUM Date: April 2, 2008 To: Scott Teach Assistant County Attorney From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Resolution 2008-80 and Attachment "A" clarifying definitions Attached please find one original Resolution, referenced above (Agenda Item 101), adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. An original Resolution will be held in the Minutes & Records Department as part of the Board's permanent record, and I have sent the third original to Jerry Kurtz in the Stormwater Management Department If you should have any questions, please contact me 252-8406. Thank you. Attachments (I) 101 I~I 101lfifij MEMORANDUM Date: April 2, 2008 To: Jerry Kurtz, P.E. Principal Project Manager Transportation/S tormwater From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Resolution 2008-80 and Attachment "A" clarifying definitions Attached please find one original Resolution, referenced above (Agenda Item 101), adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. An original Resolution will be held in the Minutes & Records Department as part of the Board's permanent record, and I have sent the third original to Scott Teach; Assistant County Attorney. If you should have any questions, please contact me 252-8406. Thank you. Attachments (1) 10' f~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending and clarifying the County's Stormwater Funding, Operation and Management Policy OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to adopt a Resolution to clarify the funding, operation and management of the County's stormwater systems. CONSIDERATIONS: In 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 91-27, establishing a Stormwater Utility for Collier County. Ordinance No. 91-27 established the "Storm water Utility enterprise fund" to account for all revenues, expenditures, assets, earnings of the utility, in which all revenues from the stormwater utility shall be deposited, and that such monies shall, in order of priority, (i) pay the costs of operations and maintenance, (ii) debt service, and (iii) extension and replacement of the system. On June 22, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved item lOG of the County Manager's Report entitled "Recommendation to adopt a Stormwater Funding Policy for the Capital Improvement Program to ensure adequate flood protection and water quality, estimated fiscal impact of $140 million from Collier County with a total of $346 million over the next 20 years." The Board concurred with an overall funding program that included proportionate cost share for stormwater improvements from Collier County, Big Cypress Basin of the South Florida Water Management District, Municipal Services Taxing Units (MSTUs) and other grants. On March 5, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 2005- 115 entitled "Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, directing that ad valorem revenues (generated from O. I 5 mills) shall be dedicated to Collier County's Stormwater Utility for fiscal year 2006 and for the next nineteen fiscal years." The Board directed that these revenues be deposited into "Fund 325 - the Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund." On January 25, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 2007-11 amending the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) that includes the Drainage Sub- Element of the Public Facilities Element. This portion of the GMP inventories the storm water management activities within unincorporated Collier County and establishes the goal of providing drainage and flood protection for existing and future development, minimize degradation of quality of receiving waters and surrounding natural areas and protect the functions of natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas. The County's Transportation Services Division is responsible for the management of the storm water drainage systems associated with County roadways as well as the Secondary Drainage system, and is responsible to assure compliance with the County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phases 11 MS4 General Permit. 101 On June 12, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to prepare and bring back to the Board for consideration a consolidated Stormwater Ordinance/Resolution that clearly defines responsibility for constructing, operating and maintaining stormwater facilities. On January 29, 2008, staff presented two alternative approaches for County Stormwater responsibilities and priorities (Item IOD). The Board continued the item and directed staff to further clarify the Stormwater Policy. Collier County has more than 130 lineal miles of canals, 41 water level control structures, and 3 pump stations that are operated and maintained by the County. This system of stormwater drainage facilities is referred to as the Secondary Drainage System. The network of roadside drainage facilities within County and State Transportation easements are operated and maintained by the County as part of the roadside Tertiary System. In addition, there are many neighborhood drainage systems that are privately owned and not maintained by the County. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes that to meet the needs of the community, it is important that the Secondary Drainage System be preserved and improved in order to provide adequate facility capacity to receive the discharge from neighborhoods and roadside tertiary drainage systems in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the County. Improvement of the secondary system will facilitate off-site flows from neighborhoods and in many instances, help resolve existing tertiary system deficiencies in the most cost-effective manner. Unfortunately, funding from MSTUs as identified in the 2004 Stormwater Funding Policy has not materialized and the Florida State Legislature has restricted the County's ability to generate future revenue from MSTUs by requiring an adjustment to the County-wide ad valorem tax to offset revenues received from any new MSTU, unless action is taken by the Board by supermajority vote to exceed the prior millage rate for ad valorem taxes. The attached resolution seeks to clarif'y that tax revenues generated by 0.15 mils or the Board approved funding from the County's ad valorem taxes are to be deposited into Fund 324 and Fund 325 to be expended for administration of the NPDES Phase II MS4 General Permit and for planning and design of stormwater projects for improvements and maintenance of the Secondary System. The Resolution focuses current funding towards improvement of the Secondary System with funding for improvements, and for maintenance of the Tertiary System only if such maintenance is the most effective and efficient means to resolve a Secondary System deficiency; or when there is a specific health, safety and welfare concern regarding the Secondary System or any Tertiary System. The Resolution also recognizes that the public funding in the County Stormwater Utility should not be used to fund problems with the tertiary system where such drainage problems are the direct result of action of the developer, the Homeowner Association or the individual property owner to alter their stormwater facilities approval when the property was developed. However, the County or Water Management District might have the need to fund or provide the proportional support for tertiary system improvements where action of the governmental entity created or contributed to the deficicncy. Rather than setting a preset proportionate funding for 101 tertiary improvements, each separate issue will be addressed by the Board, upon analysis by staff and input by the affected property owners on the funding split, if any, based on contribution to the deficiency. FISCAL IMPACT: The Stormwater Utility funds will be used to improve and preserve the Secondary Drainage System through maintenance and capital improvement projects receiving the discharge from neighborhoods and roadside tertiary drainage systems. Funds will also be used for administration of the NPDES Program. Funding for tertiary system improvements will be determined by the Board only after a determination by staff of a public health, safety and welfare concern and an analysis of the predevelopment responsibility for such deficiencies between governmental entities and the developer, associations or private property owners. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This resolution is consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution amending and claritying the County's Stormwater Funding, Operation and Management Policy. 2. Authorize the Chairman to execute same on behalf of the Board. Prepared By: Margaret Bishop, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Stormwater Section, Transportation Services Division Attachments: (1) Resolution; (2) 2007 AUIR Facility Summary Form; (3) Current Funding Policy Proportionate Fund Split 101 RESOLUTION NO. 2008 _ 80 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING AND CLARIFYING THE COUNTY'S STORMWATER FUNDING, OPERATION, AND MANAGEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, Collier County is responsible for many public Secondary and Tertiary stormwater system facilities in unincorporated Collier County; and WHEREAS, the effective management of the County's stormwater systems is to provide drainage and flood protection for existing and future development, to minimize degradation of the quality of receiving waters and surrounding natural areas, and to promote groundwater aquifer recharge areas; and . WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the need to provide adequate levels of funding to support management, planning, operation, construction, maintenance, repairs to and replacements of the above-referenced stormwater facilities, including compliance with the County's obligations regarding the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program; and WHEREAS, this Resolution is to amend and clarify the County's stormwater funding policy regarding management, planning, operation, construction, maintenance, repairs to and replacements of the above-referenced County stormwater facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Funding of Stormwater Management 1. To the greatest extent authorized by law, all of the County's applicable officers and employees are hereby directed that the dollar amounts of the County's ad valorem tax revenue dedicated to the County's Stormwater Utility will be deposited into Fund 325 and Fund 324. Definitions of terms are noted in Attachment "An which is made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Stormwater Utility primarily funds the stormwater program designed to improve the overall flood protection capability and water quality improvement capacity of identified deficient sections within the existing secondary system of Collier County , Tertiarv Svstem oroiects are proposed only when determined by staff to be the 101 (AUIR). Such projects shall be primarily focused on the County's Secondary System and be directed to increasing the cubic feet per second flow capacity for flood control and acre feet storage for water quality and acquifer recharge. 4 Improvements to the secondary system will, in many cases, resolve the current drainage problems within neighborhoods as the localized tertiary systems are able to more effectively be conveyed to the primary system and outfalls with less backflow onto neighborhood lands. 5. Public funding in the County Stormwater Utility should not be used to fund problems with the tertiary system where such drainage problems are the direct result of action of the developer, the Homeowner Association or the individual property owner to alter their stormwater facilities approved when the property was developed. However, the County or Water Management District might have the need to fund or provide the proportional support for tertiary system improvements where action of the governmental entity created or contributed to the deficiency. Rather than setting a preset proportionate funding for tertiary improvements, each separate issue will be addressed by the Board, upon analysis by staff and input by the affected property owners on the funding split, if any, based on contribution to the deficiency. Purpose of Funding Policv 6. This stormwater funding policy is intended to meet the demands of Collier County's rapid land development and population growth, and to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety and welfare of individuals by safe, reliable and economical administration, management, planning, construction, maintenance, repairs, replacements, and operation of the County's Secondary Stormwater System; and to fund the County's Tertiary Stormwater Systems when needed to facilitate operation of the functionally related County Secondary System. 7. Collier County Resolution No. 2005-115 provides for funding of "Fund 325 - The Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund," for implementation of the County's Stormwater Capital Improvement Program, by depositing proceeds from 0.15 mills or the Board approved dedicated millage of ad valorem tax revenues into Fund 325 until and including Fiscal Year 2025. 8. This Resolution is consistent with the dictates of Ordinance No. 74-50, as amended, "Water Resources Management" (Article II of Chapter 90 of the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances); Article 1I of Chapter 62 of the Code of Law and Ordinances, 111::'1...........,.1 n............nro-= U"r\t"",rot;r.n" (()rr1;no:m.....p Nn Rh_ 'JR ~<::. ~mp.nr1f':r11. ::Inn the. T ,ano 101 responsible for planning, operation, maintenance and capital improvements of all secondary watercourses. County staff will continue to pursue partial funding from the Big Cypress Basin for maintenance of the Secondary System as has been provided by the Basin in the past. 10. When a tertiary stormwater system issue warrants an improvement, a determination will be made by stormwater staff as to the issue's cause and responsibility. Funding of such improvements will be based on the Board of County Commissioners approval of a proportionate share contribution from parties deemed responsible, including and not limited to a community, individuals, developers, property owners association, etc. II. Money received from grants, developer agreements, Municipal Service Taxing Units/Benefit Units (MSTU/BU), donations, and other funding sources can be expended for all purposes regarding the County's stormwater systems as authorized by the respective budget approved by the Board of County Commissioners and as otherwise permitted by law. 12. If any Fund(s) referenced in this Resolution is/are hereafter renumbered, the renumbered successor in function Fund shall continue to be subject to this Resolution (as if not renumbered). Capital and Operating Budget. 13. The Board shall adopt a Capital and Operating Budget not later than the first day of each Fiscal Year. Each Budget shall specify the estimated revenues and estimated costs for the above-referenced stormwater Funds. The Capital Budget may include funding for general maintenance, specific maintenance proj ects, and specific stormwater projects including specific major repairs, specific major replacements, and/or specific System extensions. THIS RESOLUTION is hereby adopted after motion, second, and majority vote by the Board of Collier County Commissioners on this 25th day of March, 2008. ^'I'f" J A:' _.lAA .'.r\ ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, :~LillRLr . ATTEST: ., ,', DWIGHT E. BRO<::K, Clerk 10.' ATTACHMENT "A" Definitions "Capital Improvement" means a stormwater project designed and constructed to improve the stormwater Level of Service through the construction of stormwater facilities including providing drainage and/or flood protection for existing and/or future development, to minimize degradation of water quality of receiving waters and/or surrounding natural areas, and/or promote natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas. "Maintenance" means ordinary maintenance, including minor repairs and/or minor replacements required to keep the respective Stormwater System or part(s) thereof in a condition to function properly, or to prevent decline of pipes, culverts, canals, swales, ditches, control structures, and other stormwater facilities. The primary purpose of maintenance is to keep the Stormwater Facility functioning in the manner as designed. Improvements that increase the conveyance capacity or retention/detention capacity of the Facility are capital Improvements. "NPDES" - As used in this Resolution, NPDES is limited to the County's obligations under its "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II MS4 General Permit," which regulates discharges of stormwater into surface waters of the State of Florida from the County's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System ("MS4"). In Collier County the MS4 includes the Secondary System, and Tertiary Systems including County and State road drainage systems. "Primary System" means the Stormwater System that is neither the Secondary System nor any Tertiary System. The Primary System in unincorporated Collier County is administered, managed and controlled under the jurisdiction of the Big Cypress Basin of the South Florida Water Management District. "Secondary System" means the system of canals, ditches, swales, outfalls and other structures that are neither part of the Tertiary System nor part of the Primary System. The Secondary System typically receives stormwater from a Tertiary System or directly from a neighborhood's drainage system, and conveys such water directly into the Primary System watercourses or directly into a receiving water. The County's Secondary System is identified in a document created and up-dated from time to time by the staff of the County's Stormwater Department. . 101 that neighborhood into either the Secondary System, directly into the Primary System, or directly into a receiving water; or (b) Public maintained roadside stormwater system, including small roadside swales and retention/detention ponds, that provide stormwater connectivity from public roadway surfaces into either the Secondary System, directly into the Primary System, or directly into a receiving water. 12A . Red text -12113107; Blue text- JIl1/08; , ;"".' 1\ Purple text - 2/25/08 !iHif-:!:'\. a.\ j.;1 ('i.. r( ,hreoifi/1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement and Release") is made and entered into on this _ day of __._ ..,2008 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County") and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC ("Lodge"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on or around May 10, 2005, the County denied Lodge's Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment request, a request that more specifically asked for an amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the PUD in question is also sometimes referred to as the Cocohatchee Bay PUD;and WHER'E~ Lodge filed a petition for certiorari in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and 'I. - for Collier CouIity:Florida to attack the County's decisions concerning the proposed amendment to the PUD's Bald Eagle Management Plan, that case being styled Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC , " v. Collier County, Case No. 05-967-CA; and WHEREAS, on or around May 1,2006, Lodge submitted a notice of claim to the County purportedly, among other things, pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr" Private Property Rights Protection Act ("Bert Harris Act"), Section 70.001 et seq., Fla. Stat.; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 70.001(4)(c) of the BCD Harris Act, the County met at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2006 and authorized the making of a written settlement offer to resolve any and all claims J .odge had against the County; and WHEREAS, the .;ettJefrlent offer Elf1tl this Agreement and Release protects the public interest served by the n:;_.i!~ !:~~ue.. (\Ht~-Hy' I ,H"J~-,-)~",~_'h!'I;--';:'jj: :~1dt",' l ,j..';:)'" -)<Ind (ifHWfft---:\.hHtLtgt'H-lffi-t-.-Pi aft 1-{.+:'..ft> drn++H~ ! ;1+"jeJ "i.I-~;ll~~.S-:;-t}-f-H-\-~'c}!f~.'S '+c_h'l~+-Hn-'~'n\,CffHfH.t+':"1tt;_ti- '::'flh;+Pt-t'-Jl'('H+..; -IH- pn,l.'" h->::<i..~,'_l,:.!t!< (, '-,1 (' 2/28/08 revision 12A Red text-12113107; Blue te.xt- 1111108; Green text - JAK changes as per cepc direction I'lIrple text - 2/25108 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound, Lodge and the County mutually agree to the following: 1. The County and Lodge agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as "Whereas clauses" by reference into this Agreement and Release. 2. The settlement documents will consist of the original PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 \ill ill! 1 1. I ('I!J ..,I""iln. the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for ,j., h,. lr"l~J1(k'(: pun (ittacht>! .'lS Fxb_ihJI "B'" loJ_hc :wlt'n<!;,'~J PI Ir)) L'_,~) }~'h ; <; ,+I-~,:;~:,h,Jd-~n-ll,}s .\~-fet'-l-t'rtn+-H-nd, j<,..e+...:-L-ttte-H,::i-~':,..;h-t)-H---~ d ilg \l".~bi.)rn <.:tll: ..;~ i' .h:1...,:t !' 1 '~.-hjl':,il: ",j I. r~ :,',j;, Agreement and Release ">+it,,, expressly states the acceptable deviations in development standards from the original PUD. Absent an express term in this Agreement and Release, the original PUD will control. 3. The settlement shall be contingent upon three site development plans ("SDPs") that Lodge has submitted being approved by the County, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County as well as the development standards set forth in the original PUD and as may be varied by the express terms of this Agreement and Release. IR lieeOraaflee witH llaffi"rallh 17 of this ,'."reemeRt alld Release, hO\\eyer, tile llarties also all:ree that a reieetioR of an'; of the SDPs s13eeifieall\' relatiR" in liH\' way to doelm shall Hot fall witRin tRe eontiHii:eHey state a iH this llaraii:raoh aHa sllall iH HO v.ayalter the biHainh nature of th:, i\~meHl and ~e.lease. These three SDPs are identified as AR5282, AR5283 and AR5284. 4. The County will expedite the review of tjoe I" SDPs and all future building permit applications submitted by Lodge "'''','''''''''!+T''+i+ -jr-f'-::>-jft':t{'..-. The existing environmental impact statement ("EIS") does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are ~_"jsed to increase subc;tllntiaJly ameRded. IR tRis iRe'lance, a e;ubstaFltid "rn~ndlRe"t t<1 , 2/28/08 revision 12A Red text -12/13/07; Blue text- 1/11/08; tdeefi Inl .i.A ,1i'II/Rel III }lcr i (PI,!"", ,i,'1 . ....PIII'll/1! lext.-:: 2/25/08 ._......_~~.~...._~ '.." '..~Ih"f ."..,HI"'. "i''+''~'"'' ,., wetland impact beyond the impact ,.mr<;n!h permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five (5%) percent. 5. Lodge agrees to contribute $3 million to the County for affordable workforce housing. Payment shall be made at the rate of $600,000 for each of five (5) residential condominium buildings to be built by Lodge at the time each building permit is issued. This payment shall be a credit against any affordable workforce housing fee adopted by the County. If no fee is adopted or if the fee is less than the payment set forth, the County shall retain the excess payment. 6. Within fifteen (15) days of lhe ! "c_l_hE~'_ .JDQrl!..~~~~--tH.j<r~H Ii Settlement Agreement. tfle-aJ3llrova! of the latter of the three SOP-s. Lodge shall contribute the sum of $3 million to the County to fund Vanderbilt Drive corridor improvements and bridge enhancements. No impact fee credits shall be given for payment of this sum. Lodge recognizes that the County may request additional contributions up to the proposed road impact fees due for 590 dwelling units to assist the County in funding the construction of the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge enhancements. No such additional contributions shall be required, however, until the County provides evidence that all parties have spent $5,500,000.00 on the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge enhancements. Any such sums paid over the initial $3 million shall receive road impact fee credits. Nothing in this Agreement and Release, however, is intended to nor shall it restrict in any way the County's ability under applicable Jaws, ordinances or rules to require fifty percent (50%) of all transportation impact fees upon approval of the SDPs. ',' j, 1 i. ...;rnunc .:,)., i','j fnY'~ ('('IlH1'lI."lj:''1,.' ,'('!',;l.nwlicn !In''n '1, i:,",,; . ; ", ~ . , r>t i' ". I " T!nn;l rh.:' ~.~:l~"il'r nt' , .' 2/28/08 revision 12AI Red text-/2/13/07; Blue text- I/ll/08; (Jr!i"IIlnl r I h Purple text ~ 2/25/08 :,,:.'" (""('PC .-l:rY>;';)fJ )" J ""~ c tki,.:..~\i. 7. Lodge and the County agree that the Cocohatchee Bay PUD shall be exempted from the County's PUD sunsetting provisions within the LDC until ,I,: dt'J'l'H'::'I1 ~~ ~L~:.'l'~,:!'",''','::I_\~>~'-iL''''' ffie. krr latter of the three SDP,: L: >Ire appnweEl. At that point, the five year sunsetting provisions now if! effeet in the LDC bit'tl-bf){;-Section 10.02. J 3 ~ shall govern. Lodge still shall be obligated to provide annual PUD monitoring reports. 8. As each residential condominium building receIves the tlrst a ccrtiticate of occupancy or temporarv certificate of occupancy, Lodge shall record restrictive covenants on one-fifth (1/5) of what is known as the GC Parcel. and when all fiv,e covenants are recorded. thcv WRicR <tl the time the eHtire project is (ie';elopeEl will restrict the use of the entire GC Parcel to two (2) residential units and the uses described in the PUD for the golf course development area. The phasing diagram of this requirement is attached as Exhibit '. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all of the GC Parcel including without limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those portions allowed for the two (2) residential units. shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in Paragraph 5.3 of the PUD Prescrve Parcel. : ',. t)! ,)ri" 9. To fully satisfy its obligations to construct ,~,-'["'i'"",,~~ ."k".d~, along adjacent off-site public roads. Lodge shall constmct a pathway ten (10) feet in width on the -+ 2/28/08 revision 12A 1 Red text - /21/3/07; Blue text- /1//108; , J j, ,11111":'" "i'("r ('('P(' };rpcl;,'" Purple text - 21251IJ8 western side of Vanderbilt Drive (consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan adopted by the County in 2006) in lieu of building a sidewalk J'o,+,,,..t)' " on Wiggins Pass Road and a siee'J.alk 1:"'<+'''''1" '''h.:_'vctiK on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. The ,;idewalk pathway is depicted in Exhibit-. This construction ~f theJ).i!J:pway shall be accomplished by Lodge with Lodge's funds and shall eemmeRee "'peR the issuanee of the building permit for the first resiaeRtial eaRaamiRiHffi B"ilaing witHifl tHe CaeeHateflee Bay Pl'D Proj eel shall be completed .. . 'lL)~~n ~lk:~.>'lt~lIh.:~"~L1.i.!.,:-'_'__~L~1 , -,':'.I~l.b-~;l.\': ~_'J...~_::::"~L..r:,_\n~:: . )1.,i~:_~!!EGl!2' d,-r: i i 1(.llt: ,1 i ,,(,-'UL\l)h.: ~ ;I!~ the first residential condominium building within the Cocohatchee Bay PUD Proiect. 10. Building Five as shown on the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan attached" ~ . '" : to t ~ " '>+-1 . ,,' '" ".' ..,. shall be increased from fifteen (15) stories to seventeen (17) stories, but shall not exceed 175 feet in ' .eight ~ -.?f11ilk,: ";\ :"j,,.r' (- 1",i'tL. (' ~\ I itl j ,I.. -.r', J-."'o,L" -:'/1 ,,,,.,,,I.d I'Ll), ,;] Footnote 2 " ;~-k , '/ >~;~, ""_'I::' t~:'1::Httjl-1.-btH-fJ--f:__~~, t"! t-'~)-(H-~H{ I,~{- ~'n\;bL:-< t\+ ih-';:'-f) i (:).;; ij-, H L,~ r ;,~ <>-~..;: i \-';' ,'-. ~~I'" ,f," ',,~~:.:~,.:~,,~li;.---..:.";.,i '_"- i. (t5':- trttftttU:t!!tT:. t ~.Lthh.!.~_~et1.rthH-_!,:_~:L~~":t_), hg,b Rise Bllilaiaes as set facta ia Tallie 1 shall Be revised to allow the--miilimtiffi building separation '*l'!!!:!;i!1~.An!."I~ l+.I""'D~.J.1!lf LJ:'~ ,t1tHnt>J-+h,_I1,'i,;,hl ,+t~l'rttkit"t";H,.cltl~__J~", ftIiaiffillfJI seBllftItisa fur tHe flllBitllBle Bection af tile l311ilaiags "hall l3e eAe half of the sum af the height of tile hal3itable BoTtinA of the building, nnt to e)(cced one hundred f"et-.illj;~@!j!J.!j~aI the haBitaBle DonicR otjh~hillJdings. 'Cb!'.l"!i,!!trm!ffi huilding _,c!laratjD.l1J().Uii.:;I1J~i~ilili!1g,; ~~-=__~i_.lljr!h;tt-.htPt~-.~. ':'ftqH:J~:::!~~~: \1:+:~l:b-+\+'- t'h~:+tltt!.tn!trrn !)tUh;li,!}:~,L_~~PDr~!!11It-~ t+t' ili:1f~_n~~ struel<lfe' ta l3e one half of (h~2."m of (J1t?__~@_oL\h"'dQ~l.:jng.,;tn~l.!!!:~-'~ minimum ~t!1,-i-t:~:t_ J~"lf-,J~~'lrtJ~jJi!!~l~. !'l+~F1:t+~t)- 'd'~lh~' t~t.H~tl-ttl~'" .;l!rlH"~.~:\_tJ~:hdJ+-~-~f-~Jl~...,;jnl ".j" il!~ ; r~h~I!l" ,-T-!' 5 2/28/08 revision 12A Red text-12/13107; Blue text-Jlll/08; Gre,.'1I .Ie." 1.,IK cha"~e'!; i'et cepc diti'uiO!1 Purple text - 2125108 --_.,..,~,..,- tRe Raeitable P&I":liQli-"XJbe J".lildi,,!l.s I!9J~'(o;g-"_(Lone_Jw,,dred feet of@(I[ati8R fer the baeitable portio" of tHe b\lil~ II. The maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed by Lodge shall not exceed 590 units. Of these, a maximum of 590 units may sha+t be multi-family and constructed on the R Parcel. However, two (2) units of the 590 may be single family units to be built on the GC Parcel. The development standards for the single-family dwelling units on the GC Parcel shall be as set (ortl1 !II :)Cctiiln 3-.4 in jtk~ arnenQf'c.! yr,)'f), ;,Is.r.~~tLe.d nt:n:tn as F f{~I-~-)-'y<,_' ,n j+}f+R-d+~+ --!i.:tt-Lh'-ea ~)-, ~Ajd';'i4-tta:ltL{-e:et-;.. I'll ;-fi-f-H++tl-Httt!, - W';i'l-i:ft--- '"Y~+J- '~'{,.{'ft- }~'("-hf fHHt-;r'ii-fii-':i{+,;"l,,-tCk -~ h'rn- +nteffH_H- r,., (j,-/,i '\~c t'n l " ,:,n 1:-. vli"-t-I . :i0"(I,;'" ;;..;.,+" y;"':YH lj3'~~'1 ;<? p.,#,";" j-ll'-~ ;',e t-t'~; 'i~: Ltr'~ -- 7. -).:, :,~,,*t . ;~f ,-,{ ',". ",!' '<'" '-',>-+r - '., 1..(;..1' '!;~ H'\:';:~::<')f\ ,-),~ ; :H,~. n'liH-n H<,) t:H :-;:.'tt ;"'Ft'-. jl'~O-f---~~~r:l----- t)lH-l- ~;qliftr~- t~f~ ert-t_:~T--"'t+tg4~-k+p-t-l-~- -+:j-y.,--eHffi-~- HnH :_1-~i :h:i~H-!_~_~.,~le--lltH:i&<..."&t'-:,~Hll~r.-;'tt:' :it f: . t-"'.l+C::'l\: - a---~l}-i-nlfHU:H l-tlt -,~{'AJlttt--i-ri.-tff"- ,t~-1e-'+fi--l:+ft---ctil-d-.---d+t~ ~)nu-ndaf~-:";-t}-f :-1l-t'- P-t-LI f-P-"q+-&.-:;:~~-- }3ul ;Ji-J'lg-J-wtgh-r->hd-tln i>t;d"j-- -defi-fkantH~:diJ-h:-" ~ u 1 ~ ., .;;fi.i'c I:: :}. 12. What has been referred to as the R-I and R-2 Parcels shall be replaced by a single R parcel as set forth in the revised PUD Master Plan, attached to lh';..~.il1cndcd..X~J2 th" A~'*""+"'flt-;llltj..Kdei.l5~')if,,h;t.J.. The development standards for the R Parcel are as set forth in tHe HigH rise multi fami~,i',\ellin~ifm--.ill Table' f1 of Paragraph 3.5 of i, "1' ), ,n1. 0,;..](-11)0\>' (except as may be expressly modificd by the Agreement and Release). 13. If there are additional changes to the Bald Eagle Management Plan required by federal or state agencies, no further County PUD amendment process shall be required. The County acknowledges that the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan is in compliance with the County regulations. Lodge shall be cxcrnpt from any County regulations that may be adopted in h 2/28/08 revision 12A Red text -11113107; Blue text- 1111/08; r...."",,'! 118- Purple text - 2/25108 ."?.',,r't p("' ,j;,,,,,], f: -;oft the future applicable to the Bald Eagle and the County shall defer to the state and federal regulatory permitting process relating to the Bald Eagle Management Plan and issues related thereto. Lodge, however, shall be required to notify the County of any such changes required by state or federal agencies, which will then req uire an administrative change by the County to any of the previously approved SDPs under review or that have been approved by the County. Any change to the construction sequencing shall be considcred an insubstantial change to the SDP. . ,!,~i-~_,~,_(~ ; ~ !. " i; ;, f;', 1-+- Lodge shall and hereby does without limitation release, WaIve and forever discharge the County. its ~'\'"'''' wi! " ,,-,"f1..:!' elected 9L~llitoin1~d officials and employees, pv_ ",.,.~ ! ;'1 '}';' """, insurers, sureties, agents, attorneys, and representatives of any and all claims, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees. or charges of any kind that Lodge has or may have that arise from, or reference, relate or refer in any way, whether directly or indirectly, to the Cocohatchee Bay Project, PUD Ord. No. 2000-88, the related Bald Eagle Managcment Plan or any amendment or proposed amendment to the PUD Ord. No. 2000-88 or the Bald Eagle Management Plan through the date this Agreement and Release are approved and authorized by the Board for the Chairman's signature including without limitation all Bert Harris Act claims and the claim asserted in Case No. 05-967-CA. This release shall be immediately effective upon the County's approval of the 3 SDPs in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement and Release. ~ Tae Slate ,1JJlorida has claimed oWHer,;hi" of eerlain_127c9.2 acre:d!fJ,.ubmerged lallAs iReluded in the PCp. Lod!::e disPlltes the State's 0'\llership of the.;e submer!::ea lands. However. the stlbme~~. lands aLe. not neeessarv for t~__l1Loi<?ct approved b; the PLD. Therefore. Lodge agrees that the PUD shall be re... iseg_as_ 1'91 I ,,:.:;.s.: 7 I 2/28/08 revision 12A Red text -12/13/07; Blue text- 1/11/08; {,ic.il;,'..!' i,l; Purple text- 2/25/08 "1, ~:i/<' ( ~ ion a. PrOieCI den.,ll\" -is- increaoed fronLU.l d\"e1]ln~ unilS.J;ler acre to 1.16 Qy,gJllng ufllts per acre. b. Proiect acreag~ ls reduced from 532.09 acres to '101.7') aere,;. c. Proiect open space as set forth In +OOIe- 1 of the 1'\ 'D j,~_.~fLuQg<:Lfue:>B 30~,00 acres to 173.5 age,;, 16. In the event of a third party challenge to this Agreement and Release, the County and Lodge agree to work cooperatively to defend this Agreement and Release. In this regard, the County and Lodge shall each seek to become parties to any such challenge proceeding if one or the other of them is not named as a party in the first instance. The County and Lodge shall each bear their own costs and attorney's fees in any such proceeding. 17. If any third party challenge to this Agreement and Release should ever be successful. after exhaustion of all appeals or other requests for review or reconsideration or federal permit conditions prevent Lodge from being able to develop the project consistent with the fe\-,wd ,,,nen,kd PUD Master Plan then the County agrees to return all money provided by Lodge under this Agreement and Release upon sixty (60) days written notice from Lodge and to allow Lodge to retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. In addition, if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain required federal permits ll'L..lh,)P!'" a, _l!kllrl'.'.'r~!'derc'I,!c.c,ll.lLlhIS J\lCUmcl.!! clil,d m'S "f),':\'!:)f;,.' '''1,) '., ", 'd "," ''I'" (exclusive of any federal permits or approvals fer docks), Lodge likewise will be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this Agreement and Release within sixty (60) days of written notice from Lodge and Lodge shall retain the Bald Eagle Management Plan as permitted by this Agreement and Release to the extent allowed by law. 8 2/28/08 revision 12A Red text -12/13/07; Blue text-1/11/1J8; , " /. ,. i' Purple text - 2..25/08 ';':J n ',-'I (~' /Y;}i',/\.,::'rhn! 18. Nothing in this Agreement and Release or the settlement documents shall be construed or interpreted to confer any right to docks or any particular number of docks."'''' Ii:' j 'tn;. :c1-t.-Lh+t"t', \;.;{,..-~:t'I: .'ltJ.-7 '~f- i- 6-:) d'~':~!",,-:,~Ji '')- \ if- ,i'\;,d-5ft:-.-~_~1 ht~ ,- flt'-Htrt:r-'-~'Htl-j-eCt, -ftT-H.jt-1t-~J.e-t [i /, ;-'-;-.1;-<:- .if ~-<J ic.-.-r'Hj--\-i-~:-fI<:.~FH; i {-t-, t:'\-lr~~< 19. The Agreement and Release shall be binding upon Lodge's and the County's predecessors, successors, assigns, officers. i )/"'''': nl;~ employees. owners, E:~_~:'_:--,l'll, elected o.L appoim.eg officials, :\', (-'t !'-': :11, ',' :c, insurers, principals and representatives, who shall work together in good faith to accomplish the intent of this Agreement and Release. 20. This Agreement and Release shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. 21. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as this Agreement and Release. This Agreement and Release supersedes all prior discussions and representations and contains all agreements of the parties. 22. The County and Lodge acknowledge that this Agreement and Release is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision that my cxist in this Agreement and Release is to be construed against any party either based upon a claim that the party drafted the ambiguous language or that the language in question was intended to favor one party or the other. 23. The ffective ate of this Agrt:emenl and Release shall be the date upon which the' ;)1 I. . Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, nU '. ,d~~.!~ i' 11~ _.'d' execute') this document. 24. The County and Lodge acknowledge and assume the risk that additional, different or contrary facts to the facts which they believe exist may now exist or may be discovered after <) 2/28/08 revision 12A Redtext-12/13/07; Blue text- //11/1)8; r,,'" (, f r!!\ Purple text - 2/25/08 ''- ("{ '.,~,." this Agreement and Release has been entered into, and they agree that any such additional, differcnt or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, atrect or alter this Agreement and Release. The County affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the project as authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability of this Agreement and Release. Lodge affirmatively states that it is not aware of any facts that would prohibit the construction of the project as authorized by the PUD and this Agreement and Release or the enforceability of this Agreement and Release. 25. In the event of a breach of this Agreement and Relea~e, either party to this Agreement and Release may enforce its terms in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. In this respect, the County and Lodge shall request that the Court in Case No. 05-967-CA approve this Agreement and Release as part of a stipulated judgment and retain jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement and Release's terms and award any other ancillary relief for the breach should such be necessary. ATIEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLlER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: , Deputy Clerk By: __._.__ , Chairman WITNESSES: Signed Name Printed Name Signed Name LODGE ABBOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC BY: ITS: Printed Name Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Chief Assistant County Attorney 10 2/28/08 revision ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLf6 B 1 TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO _ THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNA TURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original documents should be hand delivered 10 the Board Office. The completed rouling slip and original doeuments are to be forwarded to the Board Office only ufter the Board has taken action on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate for additional sih'llalures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the excention of the Chairman's sip'nature, draw a line through routing lines #1 through #4, complete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson (line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in roulin!! order) I. ~ ---- 2. - 3. ------------- 4.~ 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Nonnally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary_ Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees ahove. including Sue Filson, need to contact staff for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the Bee Chairman's signature are to be delivered to the Bee office only after the BCC has acted to approve the item.) Name of Primary Staff ^ Contact \>EBB.E' II Rl'\St-I<o\..l1:, Agenda Date Item was A roved b the BCC Type of Document Attached Phone Number Agenda Item Number J')(;J -5V)~1 Yes (Initial) N/A(Not A Iicable) Number of Original Documents Attached 1. INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is a ro date. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BeC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties excc t the Bee Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date of BeC approval of the document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a licable. "'Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si nature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the Bee office within 24 hours of BeC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the Bee's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! The document was approved by the BCC on~c~~(enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Count Attorne 's Office has reviewed the chao es, if a licable. )J , ,\;,; JJ ~.l, '_J"; I\~' ;-.1' i~.. .', '-'N 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I Formsl County Formsl Bee Form~1 Original Documents Routing Slip WWS OriglnaI9.03.04. Revised 1.2605. Revised 224.05 16B1 PROJECT: Santa Barbara Blvd. Extn. #60091 PARCEL No(s): 127FEE, 129FEE, 129TCE FOLIO No(s): 00407360000 & 00407320008 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is made and entered into on this day of _ , 2008, by and between HIGHLAND PROPERTIES OF LEE AND COLLIER, LIMITED f/kJa HUBSCHMAN ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, whose mailing address is 2223 Trade Center Way, Naples, Florida 34109-2035 (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 (hereinafter referred to as "County"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, County has requested that Owner convey to County a fee simple interest in the lands described in Exhibit "A" (Parcel Nos. 127FEE and 129FEE) and a Temporary Construction Easement over, under, across and upon the lands described in Exhibit "B" (Parcel No. 129TCE), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property", which exhibits are attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, both parties desire to fulfill their commitments as set forth in Ordinance No. 03-50, Section 5.6 Transportation, Paragraph C, which states: "One hundred feet of right-of-way shall be provided between Davis Boulevard and the platted segment of Santa Barbara Boulevard. In exchange for the right-of-way dedication, the County shall provide an access easement between Tract "S" and Tract "R"..."; and WHEREAS, Owner agrees to convey to County Parcels 129FEE and 129TCE in fulfillment of its commitment, and County agrees to create said Access Easement between Tracts "s" & "R" in fulfillment of its commitment; and WHEREAS, Owner desires to cooperate with and to provide assistance to County, in advance of obtaining its approval for zoning (Taormina Reserve PUDZ-AR- 11100), by donating Parcel 127FEE to County for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements for the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Project; and WHEREAS, Owner recognizes the benefit to Owner and desires to convey the Property to County for the stated purposes, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances within 30 days from the effective date of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises, the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby mutually acknowledged, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. All of the above RECITALS are true and correct and are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below, and all Exhibits referenced herein are made a part of this Agreement. 16 B 1 '1 transportation impact fees for transportation concurrency vesting purposes, although the Owner shall be required to pay for all impact fees associated with the site, subject to the Board approval at the PUD re-zone. 5. County agrees that all sidewalks and bike lanes constructed as part of the Santa Barbara Blvd. Extn. project will be paid by County. 6. County agrees to construct a north bound, right turn lane into the site and a south bound, left turn lane into the site as part of the Santa Barbara Blvd. Extn. project in accordance with the construction plans prepared by Agnoli Barber & Brundage, Inc. Owner shall reimburse County for the actual costs of the turn lane construction within 90 days of request from County. 7. County reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to close or modify the south bound, left turn lane into Owner's site, after one (1) year of operation. Any such closure or modification will require approval of the Board. 8. Owner shall convey Parcels 127FEE, 129FEE and 129TCE to County, in a form acceptable to County, no later than thirty (30) days from the effective date of this Agreement unless otherwise stated herein. Said conveyance (Owner's delivery to County of a properly executed Warranty Deed and a Temporary Construction Easement) is hereinafter referred to as the "Closing." County shall record a Declaration of easement for the public access easement simultaneously with Owner's conveyance of Parcels 127FEE, 129FEE and 129TCE. 9. Prior to Closing, Owner shall promptly obtain from the holders of any liens, exceptions and/or qualifications encumbering the Property, the execution of such instruments which will remove, release or subordinate such encumbrances from the Property upon their recording in the public records of Collier County, Florida. Owner shall provide such instruments, properly executed, to County on or before the date of Closing. 10. The Closing shall occur within thirty (30) days from the date County executes this Agreement; provided however, that County shall have the unilateral right to extend the Closing Date pending receipt of such instruments, properly executed, which either remove, release or subordinate any and all such liens, encumbrances or qualifications affecting County's enjoyment of the Property. 11. County shall pay all fees to record any curative instruments required to clear title, all recording fees, and any and all costs and/or fees associated with securing and recording a release or subordination of any mortgage, lien or other encumbrance recorded against the Property. 12. This Agreement and the terms and provisions hereof shall be effective as of the date this Agreement is executed by both parties and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors, successor trustees, and/or assignees, whenever the context so requires or admits. 13. Conveyance of the Property by Owner is contingent upon no other provisions, conditions, or premises other than those so stated above; and this written ^...........____... :__I__-1~____ _II 16B1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first above written. AS TO PURCHASER: DATED: .3 - Q~J 0& ATTEST: . .. DWIGHT E. BROCK: Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLlER,~TY, FL RIDA , BY: :J'fJr-.- TOM HENNING, Chairman ~~. ~. :. J"" " O,C--. au.at.tOJ ~ .f~ 01:11" " " AS TO OWNER: DATED: f)-db.of HIGHLAND PROPERTIES OF LEE AND COLLIER, LIMITED f/k/a HUBSCHMAN ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership ~ BY:Aft ~ ~ 1-fA--t<..R.1 S () t-t-eJ e,SCH-rm,.--iJ---- Print Name Its: G/?l0t;.'7<-t4L f 1tR... ~ ts-f<- (Title) "])O()'"'~ A-. u.:loo 1:> Name (Print or T Name (Print or Type) Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: &J J A ell 0 Heidi ~ ';\shton-CiCko, Assistant County Attorney " FEE SlAiFU: INTEREST SECTION 9, 1681 EXHIBIT ~ ' page.-L of TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST FLORIDA COLLIER COUNTY, PARCEL NO. 127 FEE PROPERTY OWNER: HIGHLAND PROPER1Y OF LEE & COLLIER REFERENCE: O.R. lD87. PG. 841 FOLIO NO.: DD4D732DDD8 AREA OF TAKE: 1.57 AC. AREA OF REMAINDER: 8.74 ACRE5 " ):' 1= ~ I '"' ~ ~ o I I G::I-"'J..:- ::s'J:: .. ....S?P "'tlJ Ct:<( I eCt::~cit ~",ll..~)... I ...J~O)..::S:CQ III _~Q ~~~i5~ I Cllt) "'Cll - ~~ <(Q I ....Ct:W "'i:':::s~.e. ~ ll:ili I i:': ~ <: I 0\ "'- I I .... I <0 ....'" ~'" ::S..\. I 0::0:: tlJlIl <(Vi' O::"'~ 50 ",ll..u I ....'" ~oi''''' "'.... _u <( ~~~ 01' Woo i!:<: ",0"'- :So <:ll:l <:F:: 3.... &l i:':~ (Ij I I I I I I I QJ ~~8 <> '1 ~~3<~~ld .. 0 en co . (j r<)C\i0::a.. -" cd ~ ci';"' (jE;o O::x~ ii:L..ict o 8 + ... ~):' ~ eJ :::i J. c5 0 (,) ,,~ ....,J:: oll::s...>?p" lUtlJ "'<(8 ~~ ~Qd~o~r;; ~~ k.CI)Q.~)...g o~oi':S:cc~ ~:t: ~<(-~8~ ~~ eJ~;r.;;o~o ~~ a.. ~Cllu" 8 8 O~tX:I"=Ci50 2:2; g:31-~~~~ a~~~"'~~ <: 04,...:( t'l :s 0 co J:: 0 (:) + ~ :r: ~ :z: '" 0\ "'- 100.00' 8 + '" '" " PARCEL 129 FEE I PROPOsm R.O. W. . . N89':26;.O:O"F ',00.00. i 11!~ ~~ al! ~'" ~,; 15~ "~ ~ ",oS ~~ ~~ ~~ 11!~ ~~ ~~ ~ Wvi ,,~ 15 ~~ ~'" ,,~ ~~ w~ ~ f I ~ !r }II ~ '" c 8: al ~ ~f ~ I ~ ili I ~ <: I 0\ I I I ~ ~ 8 " 1 ~~ ~~ O~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~I"g P.D.B. ~I. ~~_ SJl.Q'.'JQ'(}".1I/ HIGHLAND PROPERTY OF LEE & COLLIER, LIMITED O.R. 1087, PG. 841 O.R. 2471. PG. 1768 FOLIO NO. 00407360000 '"" '-NORTHERLY LINE O.R. 1087, PG. 841 ~ N o SCALE: 1" = 80' @ ~ --.J eJ' :::; --.J 0_"'1l U"4-~o .:cIQ;)-~ (j . ~ l:J0..~!; -J,," 0 k.co-:c 00" d -..." ~ci '" c eJo 0; i3 a.. 0... o Ct: ll.. ~ <( ~ :r: "'" o 13 !:! ~ 5~~"C(i' ~~ ~ 80 . I<) F=CI:: Vl(; G:l <:. lljQO..q::O J::: ,~J:1'j Q::t<') OUw ~~ 0 CJ~ 0"''' Ct: .f>; 0..0; 2 ~~ J--O~I-~ oll ~ () g: "'- \ rSOUTHERLY UNE I O.R. 1087_ Pf:: .Ill"" .... CO ~'" ",l1:: ~lIf 00 ....'" 13.... 3:: ",' i!:~ :SF:: <:0 If! '"I ~ ~'" {iL , , FEE SIMPf.E 'NT ""'1;0 T 1681 EXHIBIT~ PageL of.-L. SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 127 FEE A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING A T THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE NORTH 00'58'38" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9 A DISTANCE OF 635.25 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN OR. 1087, PAGE 841, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00'58'38" WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 684.82 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE NORTH 89'26'40" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE LEA VING SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 00'58'38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 685.18 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89'39'02" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE A DISTANCE OF 100.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; CONTAINING 1.57 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS; SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. " 1681 EXHIBIT ~ PagelOIT:::. SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA P.O.C. NORTH QUARTER CORNER NORTHMEST CORNER SECT/ON 8, T SO S, R 26 E SECT/ON !i, T 50 S. R 25 E ! L SOUTH UHf OF SOUTHEAST OUARTffi, !;: I.() ~N s'9-5.f.'W E-26560f.6~S!lCT/0f0!~ ~ 5E-S..~GE:.!.6 ~. ~ 7 ~ - I NORTH UHf OF NORTHEAST QUARTrR ~ SECT/ON 8, 1lIP 50 5., RGE. 26 E. .,. C() ;" DA WS BL \1). " (S.R. 84) (75' R.O. w.) P.O.B. - - - - ~ - - -\- .. -\::!iRCEL lJO-FEE:-" -. ........--.1 PROPOSED R. O. If. 1 ~ N o PARCEL NO. 129 FEE PROPERTY OWNER: HIGHLAND PROPERTY OF LEE <5< COLLIER. LIMITED REFERENCE: O.R. 1087. PG. 841 O.R. 2471. PG. FOLIO NO.; 00407360000 AREA OF TAKE; 2.89 AC. AREA OF REMAINDER: 15.74 ACRES or I I I SCALE: 1" = 100' '" <0 ~'" ct:ct: '<lJi 50 o-tt) (1)0- <( "'", i!::<: :50 <:r::: ~ " -.J -.J '<0" :::::08 <("'0 '" ~0~ COQ!;/ ~ ~O Q)~O "'0 ~t<"):z <: .0 '<(Ct::::::J C/)O~ I- l:: " -.J -.J "'<0 -~lt) 0 <(".~ ct:"'o <0 <( . ~ co'" ct:Q <( .8 co- "'0 ~~:z <: .0 <(ct:- VlO~ I- l:: - 1768 SOUTH UN! or SOU1WWEST QUARTER~ SECT100 4. TlW'. 50 5.. RGE. 26 E. _ .~~lB:.op::..s. ~~5.:i!'. _. _. . . NORTH UHf OF NORTH~T OUARTERI SECT/ON 9. TMP. 50 5.. RGE. 26 E. NORTH QUARTER CORNER SECT/ON 9, T SO S. R 26 E +31." DO G 'jfj7jT . . r STlN SOUTH R.O.W. UN! ..~..~~l!~OP.~.~".!..~..........,..""1:'" -.. -..- _===I==~:~ri99.JOT~:~:;'-:,~ ') ) CIOQJ?7 - ;t:~0'I0'I 0 :t: dQ~~! 0 rifSri0 ,0 ~ ~d~ ~ o ~ I I I I 't Ol I I I I I I I I I ~ i ~ : :l I 8 ~ ~ ~'" :g ~~ 8 .. 5\'j g~'" ti~ <o~~ ~~ "'5\'j t:~ . 1-0;: 5 . E~..; ~~ ... P ~o ~ . 85" ~~ i ~ ~~ ~~ i ~; ~ ~~. '" '" ~~ 00 ct:Q '" . <:'" j::<X) (I)"' x'" UJ' '" o 100.00' o o + .. o .. i I ~ I ~ ~ ~ " ~ I I I ~ I ~ VI UJ",o i"; I ~.~ ~ o. C:i ~cta: "1. I -", sdi [j~~ ..... -: I ~Vl~ CO "'I a:i5~ ~ ~o I - i'1i:l 00 ct: 8 I 0 '< (I) ;!; CO o I ... ~ <: I <'i COOSTRUCTlON crnTERUNf: I AND SECTION UNf: . PI - 401+16.41 _--...fl~~-----t' 102.00' t O)~ii' C\lG:ti ::;1; ~ll'~ ~ ---{i}JC,----j ~. g' -, ",. -/ .!fI. ~. ~ 1 1 I I I 1 I ~i ~. :i \." ~I P. 8' ~I I~ - ~ :< ~ iil~ ~~ I;: '" <0 ~~ ~ur 50 0-'" ~'": i!::0l :5~ <:r::: " lJj ;~ ~ ~G "-0 0~-"'8 C~~~8 O:::~ .-l.O Lw ~ei~ ~ fSQ Q ~ a::-~ 0 Q::fl:()t::::-~ ,-.. 00 ,*0 20-t\l:Z: :3kl~ctQ G"'oO~ -'" J::-.J 16B1 EXHIBIT ...K.. page-.!:L of..5:- SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL NO. 129 FEE PROPERTY OWNER: HIGHLAND PROPERTY OF LEE & COLLIER LIMITED REFERENCE: O.R. 1087. PG. 841. O.R. 2471 PG. 1768 FOLIO NO.: 00407360000 AREA OF TAKE: 2.89 AC. AREA OF REMAINDER: 15.74 ACRES % ~ N o SCALE: 1" = 100' .... <a ~'" Q::Q:: <(Ui 5a ....It) "'.... :< l,joo i!:", l3g "'(.) l:l MA TCHLlNE U --J --J ::::g~ <<">8 Q:: .~ <<"'''' coO. 0 a: ~ C!) <<<00 co <a <00 ~1<)2: <=cio U'jo~ .... i1:: I I I I I I I I 1 I <0 o I l:::l",a li: .... I <000 ","'0. -", - I -.J <: 'q- ",,,,,,, U<na I '" 5<'" a:UJci I 0 I I I I tJ "'~ co~ '" -~ [jo u~ "'.. 1 << '-.. r Q.. ')..1 , I , , 11 c~ ."" FALLING WATERS BL\;!). (84' R.O.W.) FALLING WATERS REPLAT O!; PLA T BOOK 19, PGS. 4-7 (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD RIGHT-Or-WAY) (DEDICA TED BY PLA T) -----------------T------------------------- w ,; ~ ...." ::5,j. lllv; "''''-- ",o.u P:; "'.... ~_u h~ ",0'-' ",co o ....r-..~ ?-~::5,j.G:; ;::-,,1 ~-o. --J <<0. ct:!:!:!LlJvj:)):'-JR I ~j~C)O~Cl..to') 00",0.<0"'>-8' a::up:; ..<J.. ctl"t I Q...:g~~~OQ~: 3~i~~~~2~ SEE SHEET 1 OF .3 ;;; I 0 ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ 8 ~ I "-0 ~ O~_<O., VI I )..-~~8 ~ '" I-~Q,) C 0:::- -t\I t:~ I ki -J(j _~ ~ ,,0 g;eJo.~~ ~ "'~ I g::J"~ .8 -~ --J<O- Q80~d iil [jo I <: -C\j2:: u& ~ "'~ '<;( ~ci .0 -J . Q:::::J ~ I ~~ooe i :r:--J ::!: I 8 + 0 ~ !i ~ . m ~ ~<5 ~~ . ~ ~~ 8. ~!'i ~ 8 ~ ~ ~I VI ~ ~: 2: ~w "'~ ~I 8 ~ ~~ ~~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ill " ~ ~,; W,; "'~;< }:: .... ~o ~~ "''''" 81 III 1;~ 1;. -I~ ~. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ <( .. ~m '" ~ ~~ 5~ ~ '< 1-1:: 1-1=: CD ~~ ~~ i:!: '" U'j o o + '" '" " ~ 8 ~~ ~ ~::i ~ t3 1=:e5 ~li.i O~ Fl i~ . p ~S !~~w~__ j 7. ~I ~ BO.oo ;; PJ ~ ~~~Q g el 2 ~I ! "I' gt) ~: ~ .B~~'to":'~. J.22..o,o <5 ... ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~i8 ~Ici .c. o o + .... '" " 100.00' 8 + N '" " "-0 0~_<O8 )..._'ltf.OO f-~Q)r-...O Q:::- ....(0 ltj-Jd .~ ~ciCla:~ ",~,,- -8 Cl-JCO.... ,...oo~o ~t>....C\l:Z <t~a:: .0 -J . a:::::; t5I.uOQ~ _UJ ::C--J .... ~~ ",'" <(Ui 50 ....It) ~'": i!:'" l5~ ",,,,, ~ SOU7HeRL Y UNE O.R. 1087, PO. "., O.R. 2.71, PG. 1768 ~ 16B1 EXHIBIT ...6..: Page~ oiL SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 129 FEE A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING A T THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE SOUTH 00'58'38" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9 A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WA Y LINE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00'58'38" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 1,294.63 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. 1087, PAGE 841 AND O.R. 2471, PAGE 1768, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 89'26'40" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE LEA VING SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE NORTH 00'58'38" WEST A DISTANCE OF 107.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'01'22" WEST A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00'58'38" WEST A DISTANCE OF 506.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11'57'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 100.77 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00'01'22" EAST A DISTANCE OF 478.30 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE ARC OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCA VE SOU THEA S TERL Y AND WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 88'47'13" EAST A DISTANCE OF 97.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID NON- TANGENT CURVE: THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88'59'52" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 150.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00'58'00" WEST A DISTANCE OF 11.48 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WA Y LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89'02'00" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WA Y LINE A DISTANCE OF 209.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; CONTAINING 2.89 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS; SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. lbl11 EXHIBIT .JL page..l- of..3- SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL NO. 129 TCE PROPERTY OWNER: HIGHLAND PROPERTY OF LEE & COLLIER. LIMITED REFERENCE: O.R. 1087. PG. 841. O.R. 2471. PG. 1768 FOLIO NO.: 00407360000 AREA OF TAKE: 610 SQ. FT. AREA OF REMAINDER: 18.54 ACRES '" I I 1 P.O.C. NORTH OUARTf:R CORNER NORTHKEST CORNeR SECTION 8, T 50 5, R 26 E SECTION 9, T SO S. R 26 E ~ /' SOUTH UHf: OF SOUTH~ST OUAR1ER"""\ ~ It) ~N 8Ws4'WE26564-64-SC1cnON~ ~.5E....S...!!..GE:..3.6~.~ 7" ~ - I NORTH UHf: OF NORTHEAST QUARTER :g SECTION 8. n.P. .50 5., RGC. 26 E. ..,. OJ: in DAWS BLIot). " (S.R. 84) (75' R.O. w.) - - - - ~ - - -\- - ~RC[L lJO-Fii- - '-.J PROPOSfJ) R.O. W. 1 ~ N o SCALE: 1" = lOa' '" <0 ~'" a: a: -<", 50 ....'" "'.... -< "'0:; j!:~ 15", ;eo ljj (,) --J --J -:~:3; -00 -<",0 0:: . ~ -<'-'", en 0.. 0 '" ". ..., -15 en'" ~d ~"'l:2; '" . 0 ...:c0::::J I.I}O~ .... ~ o --J --J --:g :g ...,"'~ ","'5 <0 -< .~ lIl'-' ",0.. ..q: ~ g en- "'0 ~~<: '" .0 ...,,,,- "'O~ .... ~ -'- SOUTH UHf: OF SOUTHWEST QUARTER~ .... SEcnON .., lW'. 50 5.. RGE. 28 E. N 89-o2'OO~ E 2625.4/' . '-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'T' NORTH UNf: OF' NOR1HVEST OUARTERJ 0') SECTION 9. nw. 50 S., RGE. 26 E. NORTH QUARTER CORNER SECTION 9, T 50 S. R 26 E .. _ . J,-:nN;-SCU1H~O:~L1N'_ o o + ~ ~ ~\ ~I Z I [lj~ 1 "'w ~~ " il~ I ~~!l t;jll: . ~aw '<vi llOt-lt: ~~ ~~'" (Ii. 1 \.,~~ ~~ 01> ~~~ ~... . 8~~ ~~ I zllJgi ~G I ~l'i ~bl ~G '---i ~Ili '" '" ;::~ 0. adr '-'- ",,,, j:::'" ",'" x"' lU' Q: o 100.00' o o + ., ~ ~ :g c;; lU~o G1 ~:::o:~ .-: o . i:S "). ~ci~o.. 1 I" . ~ -SZ~~ ~ ~. G:i <C... 0) ....-1 I <.Jf::o ~ w' "'~.,. -<.1 1 ;:: lU oi a:)'I. ~ ~I 80 a: 8 I + '< tI) N III o I ., ~ ;e I <ii cONSTRUClION CENTERUN( 1 AND SCClION UNf . PI .. 401+16.41 .._..- .-..,- I _____\_.;~~-J ~~g:~ dCI'")""J a::ffia::0 a..da.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [j li:~ 0'lC! "'~ -~ ~~ "'~ ..., 0.. ~ kc::; /' / / t 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 k.a O~_"'O t~~~8 ,.",- -10 i::J -.1<.; .1'") :5 eso.. ~~ 0::; -f'.~ ~g a...:jCQr:::. ~8~~~ ..., "lloi .0 -.I . a::~ G,4.JOC'ie -'" J:--J I I '" <0 ~'" a: a: -<", 50 ....'" ~'": j!:0l ~~ ;e'" ~ SECTION 9, 16B1 EXHIBIT (<, Page..2- 01..3- TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA MA TCHLlNE SEE SHEET 1 OF 3 PARCEL NO. 129 TCE PROPERTY OWNER: HIGHLAND PROPERTY OF LEE &: COLLIER. LIMITED REFERENCE: O.R. 1087 PG. 841 O.R. 2471. PG. 1768 FOLIO NO.: 00407360000 AREA OF TAKE: 610 SQ. FT. AREA OF REMAINDER: 18.54 ACRES '" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tJ I "'w Q)~ I ~~ I <.>~ . ~ ,-,1 a.. {I I I I I II '" ~ N o <.> -.J -.J . <0 "- ~g~ '" O::<.jll'l "'(Q~ III " C>: .0 -':lIlo lIl<o lIld ~t<)~ '" .0 "<(0:::) V>01t l- t:: SCALE: 1" = 100' '" ~~ c>:C>: '<vi 50 1-'" l/)1- :< "ie.; j!:~ ~'" "'0 l:l :t:l.IIolilt S' . . , :5l::P~~ ~~~~ g~g~ ; ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~..._It1_ ~R;:;:~~ ::i-'............. 0 0 + I ~ ~ ~ t ~ I "'0 ~~ I .~ ~~ I 8, ~~ ,.. I ~ p 8 ~ ~ ~ !\iw g ~ ~~ ~ rs ~~ '" ~ ~,; a: ~~ '< ~~ C>: ~ '< ..." :l! 3~ '< ~~ Q';) V'lf&l ;:;~ III <:> ~3i~ t()~(j ",C>:a.. -", "'.... [jj::0) 0(1)0 ~ Q:: X 'It r- ~loli ~ o o o + ~ m " !\iW ~~ ~~ ~,; ~~ ~. ~~ ~ ~.,; ,,~ ~~ ~~ '" tt'~ O)~ "'~ -~ ;;jo <.>& C>:~ <( a.. "-a O~_lIlO ~~~~g - -", eJ -.10 .1rJ ~ eJ'a.. ~~ 0::::-...- 0 Cl. -J'........:O -.JlIl" aoo'<;j-o :<:u-C'\I<= :5~a;ctQ Q~Oo~ J:-.J '" ~~ c>:C>: '<vi 50 1-'" ~": j!:'" ~~ "'='" [;l (ij SOU1HERL Y UNE O.R. 1087, PG. 8., aR. 2471, Pc. 1768 .. N. .8~6'~~t.. !2P.po FALLING WATERS BLWl. (84' R.O.W.) N 00'58'J8- W 27.14' FALLING WA 7ERS REPLA T 0 I 0 .... PLAT BOOK 19, PGS. 4-7 + III " (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY) m I '" (DEDICA TED BY PLA T) I -----T------------------------- I W ~ "-a ~ OI:'_lIl" ::, I >-_'O;j-(Oo I-~Qjr-...g ~ ~ 0::- -(\,I 1-" 100.00' I lW-J(j .~ Cl (:j u::~ @S~Qa:~ ::5.\. C>: r-...C! 1-":- ::s.J.G:; i::'r--_ -~ -.JlIl- C>:<.>____ I-O:::Q.. -J <<{c. aOo~o O:::\:!:!l,lJcri:::;'):'-J~l a: ;;jo I <: U..... C'\l:Z l/)a..<.> ~:::lQ::C!)a~Q..t<}. ~~ :s~o:o:~ ~oil- OOVla..Ql~>-g. ~ -<.> o:::u~.-=l:IQl~1 0 <( I GlIJOOli.. ~~g 0 ~ a.. a..~I!:!~c>:~Cl'" + _lU N J:-.J <> '- Cl :< <(I~"'.L m I <:li.J~~~1- 0_ " ~ :;,:<Xl 'C(lu <<{J:::~2.:. ~~ :E~~~D:l~~e \ ~ I ~,....:-tL _ ulo::J. >- ~ .,; ~ ~ ~ ~~ h UI" ~u ~ilI ~~ ~ ~\jj""" ti~ ~~t :~:;i ~&2 " L, ~~~ ~ ---{~~~---_r~ ~ IRI~ I-JI-l ---.!:i~r~~ 1,1 I, '00.00 --~ ~ - . - ~ EXHlBnI..!.B 1 Pagelof....:L SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 129 TCE A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING A T THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE SOUTH 00'58'38" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9 A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WA Y LINE OF DA VIS BOULEVARD; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00'58'38" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 1,294.63 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. 1087, PAGE 841 AND O.R. 2471, PAGE 1768, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 89'26'40" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE LEA VING SAID SOUTHERL Y LINE NORTH 00'58'38" WEST A DISTANCE OF 27.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00'58'38" WEST A DISTANCE OF 65.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 6910'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 10.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'58'38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 57.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67'13'17" WEST A DISTANCE OF 10.77 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; CONTAINING 610 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, MORE OR LESS; SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 1684 MEMORANDUM Date: April 7, 2008 To: Kevin Hendricks, Right-of-Way Manager Transportation Department From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: The Shores @ Berkshire Lakes Privacy Wall Agreement Attached please find one copy of the document as referenced above, Agenda Item #16B4, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. If you should have any questions, please call me at 774-8406. Thank you, Enclosure ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIq 6 B 4 I r~ TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE ;11":1) 1!,_; 'I'i\i Ii:.,:":.] 'i'h" tl'_ I' Ii<': f\\;ll<{'d;. >.I" : :,-:.1(" !!"i, ,,1\ ,d'",-; iI~ ,~,\~Jrl1id.. 1':1,.' -:"111'11 'lk ,.r, "I' ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate fOf additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the exec tion ofthe Chairman's si 81ure, draw a line throu h routin lines #1 throu #4, com lete the checklist. and forward to Sue Filson (line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routin order) -------/ ----- 2. ----- ------ ------ 3. ----- 4. ~ 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue Filson. need to contact stafffor additional or missing information. All original documents needing the Bee Chairman's signature are to be delivered to the Bee office only after the BCC has acted to approve the item.) Name of Primary Staff ~If...:> f-fENN.lCt:::...S Phone Number .::l5~ . 584'-f Contact Agenda Date Item was ~. .;>. :S . .:2008 Agenda Item Number I(PB,-/ ADnroved bv the BCC Type of Document AG.~E:fo-lT Number of Original 1 Attached Documents Attached INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/ A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is Yes N/A (Not annronriate. (Initial) Applicable) 1. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office ofthe County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, 1<4-1 resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and possiblv State Officials.) 2. All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's /<./-{ Office and all other narties excent the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board 3. The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the W document or the final ne~otiated contract date whichever is applicablc. 4. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's ku si~nature and initials are reouired. 5. In most cases (some contracts are an exception). the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours of BCC approval. kll Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCC's actions are nullified. Be aware ofvour deadlines! 6. The document was approved by the BCC on 3...25 'OB (enter date) and all changes N/A is not made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The +J-I an option for Countv Attornev's Office has reviewed the chanl!es, if aDDlicable. line 6. I: Forms/ County Forms/ Bee Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05 ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: ROUTED TO: DATE RECEIVED: .....:0;...'... O&'_EC/h -0b83f .X5UNT~1:",~',f~ T FOR LEGAI5~ItlttWCIJl~ 9: I 7 DATE: MEl1ell.19,299g lLE-:>vBA'\\\ \"'-~ MA~I-I n,2008 TO: Office of the County Attorney, Attention: Ellen T. Chadwell FROM: Kevin Hendricks, Right-of-Way Acquisition Manager RE: The Shores at Berkshire Lakes Privacy Wall Agreement BACKGROUND OF REQUEST: I am forwarding this to you because you worked Wilshire Lakes noise wall agreement. This item HAS / HAS NOT been previously submitted under RPR # (CIRCLE ONE) 1684 " c""," , . -r--', ~.' C-l -"-'::2. r' .... - \"1" ~C ....-\-,. 0- --0-" ~..z,f; ,,-~ . . -.! ACTION REQUESTED: Please review and approve for form and legal sufficiency. Ple;;e Iso go ito~ Novus and review and approve. Thank you.. r . . I i / . ~ '. ~ l . * ~ V \~ , ~fl{r' ~ ~yJ~,1 V l~ Y' ( 0. ,f . r ' iJJY f\0 ri' r\ ~r ~. WJ'~ \~~ "'<~ dJ/\ tY0. .\\ \vI ~p vry~ \V r \ l~ un' v \ ~ if \b~ ~ \ \'\ ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: ROUTED TO: DATE .I~fE(VED: dg_Ecrn -0083'1 , ,XJJiVTY,i,rtdIfN\r REQUEST FOR LEGAJJ~Itltr'VI.Clj(~ 9: I 7 1684 p, DATE: March 10,2008 TO: Office of the County Attorney, Attention: Ellen T. Chadwell FROM: Kevin Hendricks, Right-of-Way Acquisition Manager r-' . ~ [f.~ ;.--- .~ ~:~.\ ~t< - ,::(\"..: 1 ~"1?': r-~' :':-\'---::. -1-"\ :!. 0 -- -. -11:--", C,,) ~:z: f-' I am forwarding this to you because you worked with me oilthe '::;; c) RE: The Shores at Berkshire Lakes Privacy Wall Agreement BACKGROUND OF REQUEST: Wilshire Lakes noise wall agreement. This item HAS I HAS NOT been previously submitted under RPR # (CIRCLE ONE) ACTION REQUESTED: Please review and approve for form and legal sufficiency. Please also go into Nom, ~d re"=""" opp='. Th""" "'".. c- ~ ~ rfA( \~~ ~\ \\\ ~ AfP(2,o ~ lS y 15 GC/ 3/ Z- '5 / o~ )084- 16B4 AGREEMENT -;;;:z-- -Ii..., ti THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this c.-......-J day of IHtI {:"J. , 2008, by and between THE SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES MASTER HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, whose mailing address is c/o R&P Property Management, 265 Airport Road South, Naples, FL, 34104 (hereinafter referred to as "Association"), and COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 (hereinafter referred to as "County"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Radio Road frontage of The Shores at Berkshire Lakes community is comprised of common element lands to which title is held by The Shores at Berkshire Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc., a Florida corporation not for profit, (hereinafter referred to as "Association"); and WHEREAS, County has conducted a study to determine whether or not portions of The Shores at Berkshire Lakes community meet the criteria for public funding of sound attenuation barriers ("noise walls") in connection with the 6-laning of Santa Barbara Boulevard; and WHEREAS, only a portion of The Shores at Berkshire Lakes community's frontage on Radio Road (between Station 259+70 and Station 265+92.70) qualified under said criteria for public funding of noise walls; and WHEREAS, Association desires to have the noise wall extended along its Radio Road frontage from the easterly terminus of the publicly funded noise wall to the eastern boundary of The Shores at Berkshire Lakes community; and WHEREAS, Association has agreed to fund a separate contract with the County's Santa Barbara Boulevard noise wall contractor to extend the noise wall from Station 265+92.70 to the eastern boundary of The Shores at Berkshire Lakes community (hereinafter referred to as the "Privately Funded Privacy Wall"); and WHEREAS, Association agrees to deed to County a fifteen (15) foot wide strip of right- of-way along Radio Road (see Exhibit "A," hereinafter referred to as "Right-of-Way") within which a Privately Funded Privacy Wall may be constructed; and WHEREAS, Association agrees to pay for the cost of recording the deed for the Right- of-Way in the public records and to pay all documentary stamp taxes in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, Association acknowledges that it will be responsible for continuing and perpetual maintenance of not only the interior but also the exterior surfaces of the Privately Funded Privacy Wall; and WHEREAS, Association acknowledges that County will have no obligation whatsoever for the maintenance and/or repair of the Privately Funded Privacy Wall; and WHEREAS, Association agrees to install and maintain landscaping and irrigation outside the Privately Funded Privacy Wall section consistent with the requirements of the Collier Countv Land Oevelooment Code (LOC) 1 6 B 4 i }.1 Agreement Page 2 2. Association shall convey to County the Right-of-Way free and clear of all liens and encumbrances within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Agreement. This conveyance is conditioned upon the completion of the Privately Funded Privacy Wall as proposed. In the event the Association is unable to permit and construct the Privately Funded Privacy Wall within twelve months of this Agreement and makes written request of the County, County will deed the Right-of-Way back to the Association. 3. Association shall pay all recording costs, documentary stamps, and costs associated with the release or subordination of all existing liens or encumbrances on the Right-of- Way. 4. Association may contract with County's wall contractor, separate and apart from County, for construction of a privately-funded privacy wall within the proposed Right-of- Way from Station 265+92.;70 to the eastern boundary of The Shores at Berkshire lakes Community. County is under no obligation to coordinate or facilitate the construction of the Privately Funded Privacy Wall. 5. In the event that Association elects to fund construction of the Privately Funded Privacy Wall referenced in Paragraph 3 (above), it shall first apply for a Collier County Right-of- Way Permit and agree to abide by all the conditions thereof. As an express condition of the Right-of-Way Permit, Association shall indemnify County against any claims arising out of the construction and future maintenance of the Privately Funded Privacy Wall by Association, its successors and assigns. Prior to commencement of wall construction, Association shall submit to the County's Transportation Division lDC- compliant landscaping and irrigation plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect, as well as plans and/or shop drawings of the proposed Privately Funded Privacy Wall, signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer, attesting to the wall's compliance with all applicable building codes. 6. After completion of the Privately Funded Privacy Wall, and all associated improvements, including landscaping and irrigation, Association will enter into a standard County landscape Maintenance Agreement for the perpetual maintenance of all improvements, including the wall, constructed within the Right-of-Way. 7. All design, permitting and construction activities are the sole responsibility of the Association and will be in compliance with all state and local laws and regulations. County makes no express or implied representations about the permittability of the Privately Funded Privacy Wall. The Association understands that certain code requirements need to be met and that transfer of the Right-of-Way may result in non- compliance with existing Preserve requirements. The parties hereto acknowledge the foregoing and agree that the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed, or are not intended, as authorization for the permitting of the Privately Funded Privacy Wall or a deviation or waiver of existing code requirements. 8. This Agreement and the terms and provisions hereof shall be effective as of the date this Agreement is executed by both parties and may only be modified by written amendment thereto. a Thi~ Anr.oornon+ i~ "'"",..i............... ............ ........ ....+1,..,....... ......_..:....:___ ___-I:.l.:___ __ ________ Agreement 1684 Page 3 fines incurred by or asserted against the County by reason or arising out of the Associations, it's agents, contractors, or employees' performance hereunder. 11. This Agreement is not intended to create any rights, benefits or entitlements in any person or entity who is not an undersigned party to this agreement. No third-party beneficiary claims may be asserted on the basis of this Agreement. 12. This Agreement is governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 13. All obligations contained herein shall survive the recording of the deed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written. AS TO COUNTY: DATED: .3/25/zC.OP' ( ato .19ft.tIn . h AS TO ASSOCIATION: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BOARD OF COLLIE BY: Tom MMISSIONERS RIDA . THE SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES MASTER HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. a Flor"da not for rofit corporation B The following Agreement was acknowledged before me, the undersigned authority, by LARRY CECE, as President of THE SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES MASTER HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, who (/.J is personally known by me or CJ provided as identification. . Q{Yl a Ill'..() (iJ, n /'" ""., 16B4 !.~ EXHIBIT A PARCEL 1: LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS-FOOT ROAD EASEMENT FOR NOISE WALL SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES A portion of Tract D, SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES, PHASE TWO-A, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 32, at Pages 60 & 61, and a portion of Tract A, Berkshire Pines, Phase One, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 29, at Pages 47 & 48 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Southwesterly corner of said Tract "0", Shores at Berkshire Lakes, Phase Two-A; thence run N 87 degrees 45' 03" E, along the Southerly line of said Tract "0", a distance of665.29 feet; thence run N 02 degrees IS' 09" W, a distance of 14.59 feet to the Point of Beginning of the Parcel of land herein described; thence run N 05 degrees 02' 19" E, a distance of 15.00 feet; thence run S 84 degrees 57' 41" E, a distance of 114.05 feet; thence run N 87 degrees 45' 02" E, a distance of 597.79 feet to the Easterly line of said Tract "A", Berkshire Pines, Phase One, the same being a point on a curve to the right, having a radius of 60.00 feet, a central angle of 16 degrees 12' 51", a chord bearing of S 25 degrees 19' 44" W, and a chord length of 16.92 feet; thence run along said Easterly line and the arc of said ClITVe an arc length of 16.98 feet to the. end of said ClITVe; thence run S 87 degrees 45' 02" W, along the Southerly line of said Tract "A" and the Southerly line of said Tract "0", a distance of 590.91 feet; thence run N 84 degrees 57' 41" W, a distance of 115.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearings shown hereon refer to Shores at Berkshire Lakes, Phase Two A, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 32 at Pages 60 & 61 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. NOTE: THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AS PROVIDED, DOES NOT CLOSE. PARCEL 2: The South IS feet of Tract A, Berkshire Pines, Phase One, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 29, Pages 47 and 48, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. NOTE: THE ENTIRE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL 2 IS CONTAINED IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 1. PARCEL 3: The South IS feet of Tract B, Berkshire Pines, Phase One, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 29, Pages 47 and 48, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Page 7 of7 1685 1~t1 MEMORANDUM Date: April 7, 2008 To: Lisa Koehler, Principal Planner Transportation Department From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Agreement for an Alternative Impact Fee Study with Calusa Island Marina Enclosed please find one (I) recorded copy of the document as referenced above (Agenda Item #16B5), approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. The Minutes & Records Department has kept the original document as part of the Board's permanent record. If you should have any questions, please call me at 774-8406. Thank you. Enclosure -ro Rec, 3f,n(o'? ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP I 6 B TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO 5 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Origilllll dpcul11('nls shoulJ be hand dclivl'Ted to the Board Office. rl1l' completed Touting slip and original documents arc to be forwarded to the Board Office only after the Board hils wkcn ul'tioll 011 tile item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the exception of the Chairman's signature, draw a line throu.e;h muting lines #1 through #4, corrmlete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson (line #5), Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routine order) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Nonnal1y the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact infonnation is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue filson, need to contact staff for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the Bee Chairman's signature are 10 be delivered to the Bee olllce only after the Bee has acted to approve the item.) Name of Primary Staff Nick Casalanguida Phone Number 252-6064 Contact Agenda Date Item was March 25, 2008 Agenda Item Number 16.8.5. Approved bv the BCC Type of Document Agreement for Alternative Impact Fee Number of Original One (I) Attached Study Documents Attached 1. INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is a ro riate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chairmau and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a licable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si nature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours ofBCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCC's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! The document was approved by the BCC on March 25,2008 (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Count Attorne 's Office has reviewed lhe chan es, if a licable, Yes (Initial NC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. r, U NA 0....1 f.ft ~ r f~ NC 11(.., I: Forms! County Fonns! Bee Forms! Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03-04. Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05 Ret." CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROllICE 4TH lLOOR EXT724D 4144496 OR: 4342 PG: 3471 RECORDED In the 011ICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, 11 03/27/2008 at Q9:27AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK RRC PEE 35.50 AGREEMENT CALUSA ISLAND MARINA IMPACT FEES 16B5 THIS AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 25th of March, 2008, by and between Maritime Venture I, Inc., with an address at 385 Angler Drive, Goodland, FL (hereinafter referred to as "Developer"), and COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "County"). R E C I TAL S: WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of Calusa Island Marina located at 385 Angler Drive, Goodland, FL otherwise described as per attachment A (hereinafter referred to as the "Development"); and WHEREAS, it is expected that the Developer will add 152 dry storage berths to Calusa Island Marina; and WHEREAS, County wishes adequate impact fees are paid for the expansion of this project; and WHEREAS, Developer, believes that his business is unique and does not specifically fall into an appropriate category for impact fees; and WHEREAS, as detailed below, the Developer shall conducted an approved alternative impact fee study. Within 90 days of the completed study, the impact fee rate will be adjusted without penalties to either party and the County will then issue a refund or an updated bill; and WHEREAS, County is willing to authorize the release of the Developer's building permits for an interim impact fee of $441.00 per berth and authorize an approved alternative impact fee study; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Administrator has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners for approval of this Agreement. WIT N E SSE T H: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. All of the above RECITALS are true and correct and are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below. 2. Within 90 days, the Developer will provide the addresses of his dry storage customers and lift logs from the past twelve months as well as the number of dry storage spaces occupied during that period. OR: 4342 PG: 3472 1685 ~, 3. During March 2009, the Developer will have a transportation consultant perform a mid- week tramc count for three days at the marina and document the number of occupied storage berths and provide updated owners/renters names addresses and lift logs for the new berths. 4. During March 2010, the Developer will repeat the mid-week traffic count for three days and, in addition, perform an origin/destination study in accordance with the procedures establish under the alternative impact fee study criteria and document the number of occupied storage berths and provide updated owners/renters names addresses and lift logs for the new berths. 5. Within 90 days of completion of the study, the impact fee rate will be adjusted without penalties to either party. The County will issue a refund or an updated bill for the new fee. 6. Failure on the Developer's part to conduct said study or to make any payment necessary from the impact fee study in 20 I 0, will result in a lien being placed on his property as outlined in the Impact Fee Ordinance 7. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. 8. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall only be amended by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or by their successors in interest. All notices and other communications required or permitted hereunder (including County's option) shall be in writing and shall be sent by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, and addressed as follows: To County: To Developer: Attn: Norman E. Feder, A.I.C.P. Transportation Division Administrator 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Maritime Venture I, Inc. Kris Dane, Registered Agent 1050 Borghese Lane, Apt. 703 Naples, FL 341 14 Phone: (239) 252-8192 Phone: (239) 394-2076 Notice shall be deemed to have been given on the next successive business day to the date of the courier waybill if sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery service. 9. Developer shall execute this Agreement prior to it being submitted for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This Agreement shall be recorded by the County in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within fourteen (14) days after the County enters into this Agreement. Developer shall pay all costs of recording this Agreement. Page 2 of3 OR: 4342 PG: 3473 1685 The County shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Developer upon request. 10. An annual review and audit of perfonnance under this Agreement shall be performed by the County to determine whether or not there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. If the Collier County Board of Commissioners finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement, the Agreement may be revoked or unilaterally modified by the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written. Attest: . DWIGHT E. BROCK, 'Clerk f BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLlER.JUNTY, F ORIDA By: :J'fJt TOM HENNING, Chairman By:fuuJ- ~7~' O.C. Att8i. II to Qe Dep t Clerk ........ -h AS TO DEVELOPER: Maritime Venture I, Inc. By: Kris A. Dane, President LUlj STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of'IYIIlA"" , 2008, by Kris A. Dane, as President of Maritime Venture I, personally known to me or has produced. FL. \J r,u..,." L <H<> as identification. ~~ ~!3 ,/ Notary Public Print Name: Ln"r~., ""}. Beard My Commission Expires: I D -';}'I-ID \ "i~ day Inc., who IS App v and J effre Chief ssistan ounty Attorney Page30f3 *** OR: 4342 PG: 3474 *** 001526 EXHIBIT "^" OR BOOK 0006B/ PAGE GOOOLANO M^RIN^ SITE LEGAL DESCRIPJION ^ parcel of land. lyIng in and being part of the plat o[ MARCO BEACH UNIT SIXTEEN, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6, Pages 112 t.hrough 118 of the Public Records: of Collier County, Florida, and pact of the plat of "ARee BEACH UNIT TWENTY, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6- A, Pages 16-A through 18-A ot the Public Records o~ Collier ,county, Florida, being more part.tcUrlarly deseribed as follows I Bnas ilt tne /:orthl'!i1nt t:'O(t'H!t Qf Se<:rlon 24, T<l\fnnhip 5) South, RiHlge 26 E~5't., Collier County, Florida, !laid corner beiw; or; the Easterly plat bourderv of aforesnid Harco Beech Unit Sixteenl thence run dlong s:lid f,3stetly plat boundaty SOS"20'4PT " distao,;e .,c 512,11 feet) thnnce leaving said Easterly plat boundacy SaS.23'.9~~ . dintAnce of 691.30 feet to an intCf.5ection with the southerly plat boundary afsaid Unit Sixt~en, thence along said Southerly plait bO\l~~:(; Lun, ~EZ.26127"H a distance ot: 15.61 feet! thence leav~ft~f \s,.HI' 'SOt,J,ither ~Y" plat boundary run ,NOS..2IU"W a distance Of,' 4'O3'.~3 tee:tl. thence H27"22'4S"E a :distance of 665.67 rf<~ttth(!-r1ce N32"12' SO"!!' 'Jl: distance of 24.10 :'feetJ thence N49'S3'o;Z"'E a distance of 25.20 feet) thence 'H80"04'lPE a dllst.,nce of lfL6Sfe~t, thence SS...O!J'2PE a distance of 18.54 f~et, tti*nl!4i. 539.01""14\.& a d1st-3nee of 24.51 feet, thence 5331H\ ''47''r a di$tant;1g of. !O-4',aa feetJ thenc:e NB3.4014S-E a distdlH.:.e' of'.13;t~S8 Ce~t!. tt/el1c'e fiOS"'11120.", a distance of 901.73 (ew~l the;nce S87"OVH'''W Adisthl1Ce of 27.85 feetl thence S89"12'30"W. dl$t~nc~ of )9.90 feet! thence 591"49'00.'" a distance ,of 27,~,:OH fee:':t; theJ\ce N84"'S4110.W ill distance of 33.20 teilt: thence N79.,Ut.1iS.W \J dh,'tance of 30.86 feet! thence N83112"i,2a.W a d1stance)<Itf 32',3U teet; thence N16.Cl':n-w a dist,1nQf" of 37.41 feet; thenc"e N77020'07.W a distance of 37.95 feeq thence H.67.31 t 5911)01; oli ,distance of 52.09 feetl thence "63.37115",W8 d.tdtance of 35.'S() feet, thence ,N53...J'36IW 4 distance' 0'( JO~,$~ feetl thence N43.00'19-'" a distance of 24.05 feet I thenCe-rtloJ"-jP;S""tta distance of 199.60 feet to an intersection W'ith' thi.!! S(}\Jth,ft'ly Right. of way Line: of . State Road No~ 92-1. (100' ....ide Right of Way) as shown on aforesaid plat of Marco Beach Unit Twenty, thence run the following courses along said Southerly Right of Way Line, ,54S.02143.E a distance of 186.86 feet to a point of curvature of a circular curve, concave to the Northeast and having a radius of 368.31 feetr thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 43.34'30- an arc distance of 280.11 feet to the point of tangency: thence 5880.37 '09-C a distance of 170.91 feet to the Easterly plat boundary of aforesaid Harco ,Beach Unit Sixteen, said plat bounda.ry also being the Easterly 'line of Section 13 of aforesaid TownShip 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Floridal thence SOS.20'~3.E along said JEasterly plat boundary and section line a distance of 1293.57 r1 feet to the Point of Beqinning. r,,',r(""'J ".','.'..~J il cou.:~;;j::8~:1;~t~~':~'L~fill"\ (~ JMi[.': C GilES, CL!;.I/K 16B5 l,~ ~ ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE 16C1 Prinl Oil pink poper. Allach In llrigill:11 t!(lClITllI:lll, ()I'iginal dOClIllll:IlIS sil,)llld hv h:JIld lklil'Cfcd III the IILl;1n1 ()Ilil't: The completed ['(lilting slip and original documen1s are to be forwilrdcd 10 tile I!uard (1lTkc \)lIly ant;! I Ill' Iloard lias 1<1I,CII ac!;oTl Oil the Ik111,) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #t through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the excention of the Chairman's siQT1ature, draw a line throul!h routiM lines # I throup"h #4, conmJete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson (line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in foutino order) 1. 2. 3. ~ ~ " 4. Colleen M. Greene Assistant County Attorne('\ '1, )1 /~G 04/08//2008 / \ I 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above. including Sue Filson, need to contact staCffor additional or missing information. All original documents needing the Bee Chairman's signature are to be delivered to the Bee office only after the Bee has acted to approve the item.) Name of Primary John P. Curran, Purchasing Agent Phone Number 252-6098 Staff Contact Agenda Date Item was March 25, 2008 Agenda Item i6.C.i Approved by the BCC Number Type of Document Contract #08-5039 "Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Number of Original Two (2) Attached Installation/Replacement" Contractor: Quality Enterprises USA, Documents Inc. Attached INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is Yes N/A(Not annrooriate. (initial) Annlicable) 1. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (AU documents to be CMG signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fuUy executed by aU parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and nossiblv State Officials.) 2. AU handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's CMG Office and all other narties excent the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board 3. The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date of BCC approval of the CMG document or the final neootiated contract date whichever is annlicable. 4. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's CMG sie:nature and initials are required. 5. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip CMG should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours of BCC approvaL Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCe's actions are nullified. Be aware ofvour deadlines! 6. The document was approved hy the BCC on March 25. 2008 (euter date) and all CMG changes made during the meeting have heen incorporated in the attached document. The Countv Attornev's Office has reviewed the cham'es, if annlicahle. I: Forms/ County Forms/ Bee Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS OliginaI 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05 16Cl MEMORANDUM Date: April 10, 2008 To: Jack Curran, Purchasing Agent Purchasing Department From Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Contract #08-5039: "Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Installation/Replacement" Contractor: Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. Enclosed, please find one original contracts as referenced above, (Agenda Item #16Cl) approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. An original document is being retained by the Minutes and Records Department for the Board's permanent record. If you should have any questions, please call me at 252-8411. Thank you. Enclosures ITEM NO.: ~ r 'P~ c. rWff;& c " ,UU~IT,( ATTOi'\1\![:' DATE RECEIVED: ,.. " \..1\ ,;. .'.~ 16Cl O~ i: 02 :,\/ ~ J( ()D 05 f:J J' FILE NO.: 2008 APfi -4 Pi'; ROUTED TO: DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Date: April 3,2008 'ffromas-Ilalmer_CJJ\\eJ2-.tr\ ~~ Assistant County Attorney John P. Curranr:k:- Purchasing Afent- 239-252-6098 To: From: Re: Contract #08-5039 "Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Installation/Replacement" Contractor: Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST: This contract was approved by the BCC on March 25, 2008; Agenda Item I6.C.I. This item has not been previously submitted. ACTION REQUESTED: Contract review and approval. OTHER COMMENTS: Please forward to BCC for signature after approval. If there are any questions concerning the document, please contact me. Purchasing would appreciate notification when the documents exit your office. Thank you. t'l (oJ ' MEMORANDUM FROM: Jeff Walker Risk Management Department John P. Curran~ ( Purchasing D~artment TO: DATE: April 3, 2008 RE: Review of Insurance for Contract No. 08-5039 "Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Installation/Replacement" Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. This Contract was approved by the BCC on March 25, 2008; Agenda Item 16.C.1. Please review the Bonds and Insurance Certificate in this Agreement for the above-referenced contract. If everything is acceptable, please forward to the County Attorney for further review and approval. Also will you advise me when it has been forwarded. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 6098. (~ ( a/l~l~' &l?" \sij{~7c:'-'J y-. 1-0 g cc: Pam Libby 16 C 1 Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Installationl Replacement COLLIER COUNTY BID NO. 08-5039 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Design Professional: Boyle Engineering Corporation COLLIER COUNTY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT 3301 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, Florida 34112 ,;- TABLE OF CONTENTS 16C A. PUBLIC NOTICE/LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT (PAGE 1 ONLY) B. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS C. BID, BID SCHEDULE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS D. AGREEMENT E. AGREEMENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A: Performance and Payment Bond Forms EXHIBIT B: Insurance Requirement Form EXHIBIT C: Release and Affidavit Form EXHIBIT 0: Contractor Application for Payment Form EXHIBIT E: Change Order Form EXHIBIT F: Certificate of Substantial Completion Form EXHIBIT G: Final Payment Checklist EXHIBIT H: General Terms and Conditions EXHIBIT I: Supplemental Terms and Conditions EXHIBIT J: Technical Specifications EXHIBIT K: Permits EXHIBIT L: Standard Details (if applicable) EXHIBIT M: Plans and Specifications prepared by Boyle Engineering Corp. and identified as follows: Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement as shown on Plan Sheets 1 through 16. EXHIBIT N: Contractor's List of Key Personnel PUBLIC NOTICE INVITATION TO BID COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16Cl Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement COUNTY BID NO. 08-5039 Separate sealed bids for the construction of Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement, addressed to Mr. Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director, will be received at the Collier County Government Complex, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building "G", Purchasing Department, Naples, Florida 34112, until 2:30 P.M. LOCAL TIME, on the 1st day of February, 2008, at which time all bids will be publicly opened and read aloud. Any bids received after the time and date specified will not be accepted and shall be returned unopened to the Bidder. A non-mandatory pre-bid conference shall be held at the Purchasing Department, Conference Room A, Purchasing Building "G" at 10:30 a.m. LOCAL TIME on the 23rd day of January, 2008, at which time all prospective Bidders may have questions answered regarding the Bidding Documents for this Project. All Bidders shall submit questions via the Collier County Purchasing Department E-Procurement: www.Colliergov.net/bid site under this bid number. The Engineer's Estimate for this project is Three Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($339,250.00). Sealed envelopes containing bids shall be marked or endorsed "Bid for Collier County Government, Collier County, Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement Bid No. 08- 5039 and Bid Date of February 1st, 2007". No bid shall be considered unless it is made on an unaltered Bid form which is included in the Bidding Documents on the E- Procurement site. The Bid Schedule and related Bid Documents shall be downloaded from the Bidding site prior to submittal. Electronic submittals must have completed documents uploaded and bid schedule completed on line. One contract will be awarded for all Work. Bidding Documents may be examined on the Collier County Purchasing Department website. Copies of the Bidding Documents may be obtained only at www.collierqov.net/bid. Bidding Documents obtained from sources other than the Collier County Purchasing Department may not be accurate or current. Each bid shall be accompanied by a certified or cashiers check or a Bid Bond in an amount not less than five percent (5%) of the total Bid to be retained as liquidated damages in the event the Successful Bidder fails to execute the Agreement and file the required bonds and insurance within fifteen (15) calendar days after the receipt of the Notice of Award. The Successful Bidder acknowledges and agrees that it shall execute the Agreement in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein. GC-PN-1 , cibCi The Successful Bidder shall be required to furnish the necessary Payment and Performance Bonds, as prescribed in the General Conditions of the Contract Documents. All Bid Bonds, Payment and Performance Bonds, Insurance Contracts and Certificates of Insurance shall be either be executed by or countersigned by a licensed resident agent of the surety or insurance company having its place of business in the State of Florida. Further, the said surety or insurance company shall be duly licensed and qualified to do business in the State of Florida. Attorneys-in-fact that sign Bid Bonds or Payment and Performance Bonds must file with each bond a certified and effective dated copy of their Power of Attorney. In order to perform public work, the Successful Bidder shall, as applicable, hold or obtain such contractor's and business licenses, certifications and registrations as required by State statutes and County ordinances. Before a contract will be awarded for the Work contemplated herein, the Owner shall conduct such investigations as it deems necessary to determine the performance record and ability of the apparent low Bidder to perform the size and type of work specified in the Bidding Documents. Upon request, the Bidder shall submit such information as deemed necessary by the Owner to evaluate the Bidder's qualifications. The Successful Bidder shall be required to finally complete all Work within One Hundred and Fifty (150) calendar days from and after the Commencement Date specified in the Notice to Proceed. The Owner reserves the right to reject all Bids or any Bid not conforming to the intent and purpose of the Bidding Documents, and to postpone the award of the contract for a period of time which, however, shall not extend beyond one hundred twenty (120) days from the bid opening date without the consent of the Successful Bidder. Dated this 11th day of January, 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: /s/ Stephen Y. Carnell Purchasing/General Services Director GC-PN-2 PART B - INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS Section 1. Definitions 16Cl 1.1 The term "Owner" used herein refers to the Board of County Commissioners, or its duly authorized representative. 1.2 The term "Project Manager" used herein refers to the Owner's duly authorized representative and shall mean the Division Administrator or Department Director, as applicable, acting directly or through duly authorized representatives. 1.3 The term "Design Professional" refers to the licensed professional engineer or architect who is in privity with the Owner for the purpose of designing and/or monitoring the construction of the project. At the Owner's discretion, any or all duties of the Design Professional referenced in the Contract Documents may be assumed at any time by the Project Manager on behalf of the Owner. Conversely, at the Owner's discretion the Project Manager may formally assign any of his/her duties specified in the Contract Documents to the Design Professional. 1.4 The term "Bidder" used herein means one who submits a bid directly to the Owner in response to this solicitation. 1.5 The term "Successful Bidder" means the lowest qualified, responsible and responsive Bidder who is awarded the contract by the Board of County Commissioners, on the basis of the Owner's evaluation. 1.6 The term "Bidding Documents" includes the Legal Advertisement, these Instructions to Bidders, the Bid Schedule and the Contract Documents as defined in the Agreement. 1.7 The term "Bid" shall mean a completed Bid Schedule, bound in the Bidding Documents, properly signed, providing the Owner a proposed cost for providing the services required in the Bidding Documents. Section 2. Preparation of Bids 2.1 The Bids must be submitted on the standard form herein furnished by the Owner (pages GC-P-1 to GC-P-13 as bound in these Bidding Documents). By submitting a Bid, Bidder acknowledges and agrees that it shall execute the Agreement in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Bidder shall complete the Bid in ink or by typewriter and shall sign the Bid correctly. Bid Schedules submitted on disk/CD shall be accompanied by a hard copy of the completed Bid Schedule which shall be signed and dated by the Bidder. The Bid may be rejected if it contains any omission, alteration of form, conditional bid or irregularities of any kind. Bids must be submitted in sealed envelopes, marked with the Bid Number, Project Name and Bid opening Date and Time, and shall be addressed to the Collier County Purchasing Department, Purchasing Building "G", Collier County Government Complex, 3301 Tamiami Trail, East, Naples, Florida 34112. GC-IB-1 16Cl If forwarded by mail, the sealed envelope containing the Bid must be enclosed in another sealed envelope addressed as above. Bids received at the location specified herein after the time specified for bid opening will be returned to the bidder unopened and shall not be considered. Section 3. Bid Deposit Reauirements 3.1 No Bid shall be considered or accepted unless at the time of Bid filing the same shall be accompanied by a cashiers check, a cash bond posted with the County Clerk, a certified check payable to Owner on some bank or trust company located in the State of Florida insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or Bid Bond, in an amount not less than 5% of the bidder's maximum possible award (base bid plus all add alternates) (collectively referred to herein as the "Bid Deposit"). The Bid Deposit shall be retained by Owner as liquidated damages if the Successful Bidder fails to execute and deliver to Owner the unaltered Agreement, or fails to deliver the required Performance and Payment Bonds or Certificates of Insurance, all within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the Notice of Award. Bid Bonds shall be executed by a corporate surety licensed under the laws of the State of Florida to execute such bonds, with conditions that the surety will, upon demand, forthwith make payment to Owner upon said bond. Bid Deposits of the three (3) lowest Bidders shall be held until the Agreement has been executed by the Successful Bidder and same has been delivered to Owner together with the required bonds and insurance, after which all three (3) Bid Deposits shall be returned to the respective Bidders. All other Bid Deposits shall be released within ten (10) working days of the Bid Opening. No Bid including alternates, shall be withdrawn within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the public opening thereof. If a Bid is not accepted within said time period it shall be deemed rejected and the Bid Deposit shall be returned to Bidder. In the event that the Owner awards the contract prior to the expiration of the one hundred and twenty (120) day period without selecting any or all alternates, the Owner shall retain the right to subsequently award to the Successful Bidder said alternates at a later time but no later than one hundred and twenty (120) days from opening, unless otherwise agreed by the Purchasing Director and the Successful Bidder. 3.2 The Successful Bidder shall execute five (5) copies of the Agreement in the form attached and deliver same to Owner within the time period noted above. The Owner shall execute all copies and return one fully executed copy of the Agreement to Successful Bidder within thirty (30) working days after receipt of the executed Agreement from Successful Bidder unless any governmental agency having funding control over the Project requires additional time, in which event the Owner shall have such additional time to execute the Agreement as may be reasonably necessary. Section 4. Ri!:lht to Reiect Bids 4.1 The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all Bids or to waive informalities and negotiate with the apparent lowest, qualified Bidder to such extent as may be necessary for budgetary reasons. GC-IB-2 16Cl Section 5. Sianina of Bids 5.1 Bids submitted by a corporation must be executed in the corporate name by the president, a vice president, or duly authorized representative. The corporate address and state of incorporation must be shown below the signature. 5.2 Bids by a partnership must be executed in the partnership name and signed by a general partner whose title must appear under the signature and the official address of the partnership must be shown below said signature. 5.3 If Bidder is an individual, his or her signature shall be inscribed. 5.4 If signature is by an agent or other than an officer of corporation or general partner of partnership, a properly notarized power of attorney must be submitted with the Bid. 5.5 All Bids shall have names typed or printed below all signatures. 5.6 All Bids shall state the Bidder's contractor license number. 5.7 Failure to follow the provisions of this section shall be grounds for rejecting the Bid as irregular or unauthorized. Section 6. Withdrawal of Bids Any Bid may be withdrawn at any time prior to the hour fixed in the Legal Advertisement for the opening of Bids, provided that the withdrawal is requested in writing, properly executed by the Bidder and received by Owner prior to Bid Opening. The withdrawal of a Bid will not prejudice the right of a Bidder to file a new Bid prior to the time specified for Bid opening. Section 7. Late Bids No Bid shall be accepted that fails to be submitted prior to the time specified in the Legal Advertisement. Section 8. Interpretation of Contract Documents 8.1 No interpretation of the meaning of the plans, specifications or other Bidding Documents shall be made to a Bidder orally. Any such oral or other interpretations or clarifications shall be without legal effect. All requests for interpretations or clarifications shall be in writing, addressed to the Purchasing Department, to be given consideration. All such requests for interpretations or clarification must be received at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the Bid opening date. Any and all such interpretations and supplemental instructions shall be in the form of written addendum which, if issued, shall be sent by mail or fax to all known Bidders at their respective addresses furnished for such purposes no later than three (3) working days prior to the date fixed for the GC-IB-3 opening of Bids. Such written addenda shall be binding on Bidder and ~h~ b~cle a part of the Bidding Documents. 8.2 It shall be the responsibility of each Bidder to ascertain, prior to submitting its Bid, that it has received all addenda issued and it shall acknowledge same in its Bid. 8.3 As noted in the Legal Advertisement, attendance by all bidders at the Pre-Bid Conference is non-mandatory. Section 9. Examination of Site and Contract Documents 9.1 By executing and submitting its Bid, each Bidder certifies that it has: a. Examined all Bidding Documents thoroughly; b. Visited the site to become familiar with local conditions that may in any manner affect performance of the Work; c. Become familiar with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations affecting performance of the Work; and d. Correlated all of its observations with the requirements of Bidding documents. No plea of ignorance of conditions or difficulties that may exist or conditions or difficulties that may be encountered in the execution of the Work pursuant to these Bidding Documents as a result of failure to make the necessary examinations and investigations shall be accepted as an excuse for any failure or omission on the part of the Successful Bidder, nor shall they be accepted as a basis for any claims whatsoever for extra compensation or for an extension of time. 9.2 The Owner will make copies of surveys and reports performed in conjunction with this Project available to any Bidder requesting them at cost; provided, however, the Owner does not warrant or represent to any Bidder either the completeness or accuracy of any such surveys and reports. Before submitting its Bid, each Bidder shall, at its own expense, make such additional surveys and investigations as may be necessary to determine its Bid price for the performance of the Work within the terms of the Bidding Documents. This provision shall be subject to Section 2.3 of the General Conditions to the Agreement. Section 10. Material Reauirements It is the intention of these Bidding Documents to identify standard materials. When space is provided on the Bid Schedule, Bidders shall specify the materials which they propose to use in the Project. The Owner may declare any Bid non-responsive or irregular if such materials are not specifically named by Bidder. GC-IB-4 16Cl Section 11. Bid Quantities 11.1 Quantities given in the Bid Schedule, while estimated from the best information available, are approximate only. Payment for unit price items shall be based on the actual number of units installed for the Work. Bids shall be compared on the basis of number of units stated in the Bid Schedule as set forth in the Bidding Documents. Said unit prices shall be multiplied by the bid quantities for the total Bid price. Any Bid not conforming to this requirement may be rejected. Special attention to all Bidders is called to this provision, because if conditions make it necessary or prudent to revise the unit quantities, the unit prices will be fixed for such increased or decreased quantities. Compensation for such additive or subtractive changes in the quantities shall be limited to the unit prices in the Bid. Subsequent to the issuance of a notice to proceed, the Project Manager and the Successful Bidder shall have the discretion to re-negotiate any unit price(s) where the actual quantity varies by more than 25% from the estimate at the time of bid. Section 12. Award of Contract 12.1 Any prospective bidder who desires to protest any aspect(s) or provision(s) of the bid invitation (including the form of the bid documents or bid procedures) shall file their protest, with the Purchasing Director prior to the time of the bid opening strictly in accordance with Owner's then current Purchasing Policy. 12.2 The Award of Contract shall be issued to the lowest, responsive and qualified Bidder determined on the basis of the entire Bid and the Owner's investigations of the Bidder. In determining the lowest, responsive and qualified bidder, the Owner shall consider the capability of the Bidder to perform the contract in a timely and responsible manner. When the contract is awarded by Owner, such award shall be evidenced by a written Notice of Award, signed by a Purchasing Agent of the Owner's Purchasing Department or his designee and delivered to the intended awardee or mailed to awardee at the business address shown in the Bid. 12.3 Award recommendations will be posted outside the offices of the Purchasing Department generally on Wednesdays and Thursdays prior to the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. Award of Contract will be made by the Board of County Commissioners in public session. Any actual or prospective bidder who desires to formally protest the recommended contract award must file a notice of intent to protest with the Purchasing Director within two (2) calendar days (excluding weekends and holidays) of the date that the recommended award is posted. Upon filing of said notice, the protesting party will have five (5) days to file a formal protest, said protest to strictly comply with Owner's then current Purchasing Policy. A copy of the Purchasing Policy is available at the offices of the Purchasing Director. 12.4 For Bidders who may wish to receive copies of Bids after the Bid opening, The Owner reserves the right to recover all costs associated with the printing and distribution of such copies. GC-IB-5 16Cl Section 13. Sales Tax 13.1 The Successful Bidder acknowledges and agrees that Owner may utilize a sales tax savings program and the Successful Bidder agrees to fully comply, at no additional cost to Owner, with such sales tax savings program implemented by the Owner as set forth in the Agreement and in accordance with Owner's policies and procedures. Section 14. Exclusion of County Permits in Bid Prices 14.1 To ensure compliance with Section 218.80, F.S., otherwise known as "The Public Bid Disclosure Act", Collier County will pay for all Collier County permits and fees applicable to the Project, including license fees, permit fees, impact fees or inspection fees applicable to this Work through an internal budget transfer(s). Hence, bidders shall not include these permit/fee amounts in their bid offer. However, the Successful Bidder shall retain the responsibility to initiate and complete all necessary and appropriate actions to obtain the required permits other than payment for the items identified in this section. 14.2 The Successful Bidder shall be responsible for procuring and paying for all necessary permits not issued by Collier County pursuant to the prosecution of the work. Section 15. Use of Subcontractors 15.1 To ensure the Work contemplated by the Contract Documents is performed in a professional and timely manner, all Subcontractors performing any portion of the work on this Project shall be "qualified" as defined in Collier County Ordinance 87-25, meaning a person or entity that has the capability in all respects to perform fully the Agreement requirements and has the integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance. A Subcontractor's disqualification from bidding by the Owner, or other public contracting entity within the past twelve months shall be considered by the Owner when determining whether the Subcontractors are "qualified." 15.2 The Owner may consider the past performance and capability of a Subcontractor when evaluating the ability, capacity and skill of the Bidder and its ability to perform the Agreement within the time required. Owner reserves the right to disqualify a Bidder who includes Subcontractors in its bid offer which are not "qualified" or who do not meet the legal requirements applicable to and necessitated by this Agreement. 15.3 The Owner may reject all bids proposing the use of any subcontractors who have been disqualified from submitting bids to the Owner, disqualified or de-certified for bidding purposes by any public contracting entity, or who has exhibited an inability to perform through any other means. 15.4 Notwithstanding anything in the Contract Documents to the contrary, the Bidders shall identify the subcontractor(s) it intends to use for the categories of work as set forth in the List of Subcontracts attached hereto, said list to be submitted with its bid. Bidders acknowledge and agree that the subcontractors identified on the list is not a complete list of the subcontractors to be used on the Project, but rather only the major GC-IB-6 16Cl subcontractors for each category of Work as established by Owner. Bidders further acknowledge that once there is an Award of Contract, the Successful Bidder shall identify, subject to Owner's review and approval, all the subcontractors it intends to use on the Project. Once approved by Owner, no subcontractor shall be removed or replaced without Owner's prior written approval. Section 16. Prohibition of Gifts No organization or individual shall offer or give, either directly or indirectly, any favor, gift, loan, fee, service or other item of value to any County employee, as set forth in Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes, Collier County Ethics Ordinance No. 2004-05, and County Administrative Procedure 5311. Violation of this provision may result in one or more of the following consequences: a. Prohibition by the individual, firm, and/or any employee of the firm from contact with County staff for a specified period of time; b. Prohibition by the individual and/or firm from doing business with the County for a specified period of time, including but not limited to: submitting bids, RFP, and/or quotes; and, c. immediate termination of any contract held by the individual and/or firm for cause. Section 17. Public Entity Crimes By its submitting a Bid, Bidder acknowledges and agrees to and represents it is in compliance with the terms of Section 287.133(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes which read as follows: "A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work; may not submit bids, proposals, or replies on leases of real property to a public entity'; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list." GC-IB-7 ~ COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION PURCHASING BUILDING "G" NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 (239) 252-8446 FAX (239) 252-6697 16Cl' www.colliergov.net/purchasing ADDENDUM DATE: January 24, 2008 TO: Interested Bidders FROM: Brenda Brilhart, CPPB Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: Addendum # 1, Bid # 08-5039 - "Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Installation/Replacement" Addendum #1 covers the following change for the above-referenced solicitation: QUESTIONS/ANSWERS -- Prebid Meeting January 23, 2007 Q: Will there be another date scheduled site visit? A: Friday, January 25, 2008, at 11 :00 AM. The Station will be open for one hour for review. Any questions which arise during this review should be forwarded to purchasing. Contact Stephen Lang to schedule. 252-6113 A: How will lead time for delivering tanks be handled in able to meet milestone dates in bid? Q: Owner will work with tank manufacture to assure delivery to meet milestones. Q: What is the capacity requirement of the temporary fuel system? A: Enough to have generator power available at all times. Q: How much fuel will need to be transferred? A: 10,000 gal or under Q: Environmental Testing of tank site once removed A: Responsibility of County for scheduling tank closure assessment, but awarded Contractor will be responsible for site day to day. Q: Is the pipe coated? A: No, all black steel. 16Cl Q: Is there an on-site water supply and if so, what size? A: The County will set meter and pay for water. Contractor is to use best management practices in water conservation. Q: What is consumption rate of generator? A: Calculate the burn rate at 50 gallons an hour. Q: Will the contractor have 24 hr access to site? A: All work should be conducted during normal working hours. Any work outside of that time must be approved by the owner, through the engineer. No working on Sundays. Awarded contractor must be a good neighbor, stay within the noise ordinance, no odors and no light pollution which would cause our neighbors any inconvenience. cc: Steve Lang, Project Manager 2 i:, :.16Cl CONSTRUCTION BID BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement BID NO. 08.5039 Full Name of Bidder Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. Telephone No. 239-435-7200 Fax No. 239-435-7202 State Contractor's License # OBCA57231, ECOOO]'612, CU0057398. PCCA56728 To: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter called the Owner) The undersigned, as Bidder declares that the only person or parties Interested in this Bid as principals are those named herein, that this Bid is submitted without collusion with any other person, firm or corporation; that it has carefully examined the location of the proposed Work, the proposed form of Agreement and all other Contract Documents and Bonds, and the Contract Drawings and Specifications, including Addenda Issued thereto and acknowledges receipt below: Addendum Number ], ...lill/OIl Contractor's ~ Date Issued Bidder proposes, and agrees if this Bid is accepted, Bidder will execute the Agreement Included in the Bidding Documents, to provide all necessary machinery, tools, apparatus and other means of construction, including utility and transportation services necessary to do all the Work, and furnish all the materials and equipment specified or referred to In the Contract Documents in the manner and time herein prescribed and according to the requirements of the Owner as therein set forth, furnish the Contractor's Bonds and Insurance specified In the General Conditions of the Contract, and to do all other things required of the Contractor by the Contract Documents, and that it will take full payment the sums set forth in the following Bid Schedule: NOTE: If you choose to bid, please submit an ORIGINAL and ONE COPY of your bid pages. GC-P-1 BID SCHEDULE Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement Bid No. 08-5039 USE ELECTRONIC BID SCHEDULE ON E.PROCUREMENT SITE UNDER THIS BID NUMBER. GC-P-2 16Cl .;, 16Cl MATERIAL MANUFACTURERS The Bidder Is required to state below, material manufacturers it proposes to utilize on this project. No change will be allowed after submittal of Bid. If substitute material proposed and listed below Is not approved by Engineer, Bidder shall furnish the manufacturer named In the specification. Acceptance of this Bid does not constitute acceptance of material proposed on this list. THIS LIST MUST BE COMPLETED OR BID WILL BE DEEMED NON-RESPONSIVE. MATERIAL MANUFACTURER 1. 2. 3. 4, _X~___ .-.ill?W Fueling._,.Gmnp.anenl:a- Day Tanks Siplp1p.y, Tnt" Tank Parts Morrison Bros. Co. 5. Dated 2/1/ 08 BY: TtH': GC-P-3 ::.16Cl LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS The undersigned states that the following Is a full an(.J complete list of the proposed Subcontractors It Intends to use on this Project with respect to the categories of work Identified below, and that such list will not be added to nor altered without the prior written consent of the Project Manager. The undersigned further acknowledges its responsibility for ensuring that the Subcontractors listed herein are "qualified" (as defined In Ordinance 87-25 and Section 15 of Instructions to Bidders) and meet all legal requirements applicable to and necessitated by the Contract Documents, Including, but not limited to proper licenses, certifications, registrations and Insurance coverage. The Owner reserves the right to disqualify any Bidder who Includes non-compliant or non- qualified Subcontractors In its bid offer. Further, the Owner may direct the Successful Bidder to remove/replace any Subcontractor, at no additional cost to Owner, which Is found to be non-compliant with this requirement either before or after the Issuance of the Award of Contract by Owner. THIS LIST MUST BE COMPLETED OR BID WILL BE DEEMED NON-RESPONSIVE. (Attach additional sheets as needed). Further, the undersigned acknowledges and agrees that promptly after the Award of Contract, and in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents, the Successful Bidder shall identify all Subcontractors It intends to use on the Project. The undersigned further agrees that all Subcontractors subsequently Identified for any portion of work on this Project must be qualified as noted above. Cateqorv of Work 1. 111ectric 2. _}l!lll!i!!g 3. Block 4. 5. Dated ? /1/08- , . BY: GC.P.4 Subcontractor and Address Tier Electric Naples, Florida AI' A Ctu:;t01n Fah __~aplea, Florida Atlantis Construction of.JIapleJl Naples, Florida Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. Idder 16Cl STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE OF BIDDER The Bidder is required to state below what work of similar magnitude completed within the last five years is a judge of its experience, skill and business standing and of its ability to conduct the work as completely and as rapidly as required under the terms of the Agreement. Proiect and Location Reference 1, Naples Airport Fuel Farm Expansion Naples, Florida Ervin Dehn, Director of Planning & Eng. City of Naples Airport Authority 239-643-1827 2. Pelican Bay Emergency Generator Fuel Tank Replacement Naples, Florida Oscar Martinez. P.E. Collier County Public Utilities Eng. 239-530-6214 3. -1L~~RF Electrical Power System Reliability Diesel Fuel Tank Naples, Florida David Schllli t " 'P _ lL Q. Grady Minor 239-564-3885 4. 5. 6. Dated 2/1/08 Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. Bidder BY: GC-P-5 TRENCH SAFETY ACT 16 c' . Bidder acknowledges that included in the various Items of the bid and In the Total Bid Price are costs for complying with the Florida Trench Safety Act (90-96, Laws of Florida) effective October 1, 1990. The Bidder further identifies the cost to be summarized below: Trench Safety Measure (Description) Units of Measure (LF.SY) Unit (Quantity) Unit Cost 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shoring 126 '$.258.00 I.F TOTAL $ 32,508.00 Extended Cost $ 32.508.00_ Failure to complete the above may resuit in the Bid being declared non-responsive. Dated Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. 'dder ? /1/0R . . BY: Paul J. Moriarty. 'VIce President GC.P-6 ',' 16 C 1 'If Upon notification that its Bid has been awarded, the Successful Bidder will execute the Agreement form attached to the Bidding Documents within ten (10) calendar days and deliver the Surety Bond or Bonds and Insurance Certificates as required by the Contract Documents. The bid security attached Is to become the property of the Owner In the event the Agreement, Insurance Certificates and Bonds are not executed and delivered to Owner within the time above set forth, as liquidated damages, for the delay and additional expense to the Owner, it being recognized that, since time is of the essence, Owner will suffer financial loss if the Successful Bidder falls to execute and deliver to Owner the required Agreement, Insurance Certificates and Bonds within the required time period. In the event of such failure, the total amount of Owner's damages, will be difficult, If not Impossible, to definitely ascertain and quantify. It is hereby agreed that it is appropriate and fair that Owner receive liquidated damages from the Successful Bidder In the event it falls to execute and deliver the Agreement, Insurance Certificates, and Bonds as required hereunder. The Successful Bidder hereby expressly waives and relinquishes any right which it may have to seek to characterize the above noted liquidated damages as a penalty, which the parties agree represents a fair and reasonable estimate of Owner's actual damages at the time of bidding if the Successful Bidder fails to execute and deliver the Agreement, Insurance Certificates, and Bonds in a timely manner. Upon receipt of the Notice of Award, the undersigned proposes to commence work at the site within 5 calendar days from the commencement date stipulated in the written Notice to Proceed unless the Project Manager, in writing, subsequently notifies the Contractor of a modified (later) commencement date. The undersigned further agrees to substantially complete all work covered by this Bid within One Hundred and Twenty (120) consecutive calendar days, computed by excluding the commencement date and Including the last day of such period, and to be fully completed to the point of final acceptance by the Owner within Thirty (30) consecutive calendar days after Substantial Completion, computed by excluding commencement date and including. the last day of such period. Respectfullv Submitted: _ Paul J. Moriarty , also deposes and says that it has examined and carefully prepared Its Bid from the Bidding Documents, Including the Contract Drawings and Specifications and has checked the same in detail before submitting this Bid; that the statements contained herein are true and correct. GC-P-7 .;. 16Cl (a) Corporation The Bidder Is a corporation organized and Vir~inia . which operates Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. officers are as follows: existing under under the laws of the State of the legal name of , and the full names of its President Howard J. Murrell Secretary Stacey L. Murrell Treasurer Manager 'The is authorized to sign construction bids and-eontracts-tortmr-company by actto" of-ittl--80al'd-0f-Oifeet-ors--ta'Kei1 '- , a-eertifiech;upy-ofwh1c1T1S""htmlto attact'rntJ\S'lrike Ol:lHR'Is-last-stllllellVe If nutcrpp'lieeele-), (b) Co-Partnership The Bidder is a co-partnership consisting of individual partners whose full names are as follows: The co-partnership does business under the legal name of: (c) Individual The Bidder is an individual whose full name is and if operating under a trade name, said trade name is DATED 2/1/08 legal entity GC-P-B OL~~-ryyLitQ- Witness Christina M. Hatch ~~6aUdiO ;j'. 16 C 1 I~ BY: ~uality Enterprises USA, Inc. Na e of Bidder (Typed) Moriarty Vice President Title 3894 Mannix Drive, Suite 216 Naples, Florida 34114-5406 Incorporated in the State of Virginia STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF Collier The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of February 2008, by Paul J. Moriarty . as Vice President of Qualitv Enterprises USA. Inc. . a Virginia corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/she is personally known to me or has produced N/A ,- as identification and did (did not) take an oath. My Commission Expires: 2/11/10 .,,;:'rA~'IP!r\ MARcn COttEN f>( MYCOMMI$SION # 00601526 '*. EXPIRES: February 11,2010 'fl. fkm!llltlTlVlJ NC\ll~ PlIb\kl UmlorwtllOlt '~~ (Signature of Notary) NAME: Marcie L. Cohen (Legibly Printed) (AFFIX OFFICIAL SEAL) Notary Public, State of 111 n,.id. Commission No.: UD 501526 GC.P-9 ','. .. 1601 i " BID BOND' I<NOW ALL MEN BY THE8i:: PRESENTS, that we Quality Euterprises USA, Inc. . (herein after called the Principal) and 'rravelers Casualt~and Surety Company of America . I (heraln called tile Surety), a corporation chartered and existing under the laws of the State of 'Connecticut with Its principal offices In the city of Hartford " and Buthorlzedto do business In the state of Florida' are held and firmly bound unto the Board of County CODlllIissi.oners of Collier County, Florida (hereinafter called the Owner), In the full and . just sum of -Five-Percent-of-'Amount-Bid---------- dollars ($ 5%-of:"Bid--- ) good and lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid upon demand of the Owner, to which payment well and truly to be made, the Principal and the Surety bind themselves, their heirs, and executors, administrators, and assigns, Jointly and severally and firmly by these presents, Where616, the Principal Is about to submit, or has sl.lbmltted to the Owner, a 13ld for furnishing all labor, materIals, equipment and Incidentals necessary ,to fl.lrnish, Install. and fully complete the Work on the Project known 8S Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement Bid No. 09-5039 NOW, THEREFORE, If the Owner shall accept the Bid of the PRINCIPAL and the PRINCIPAL shall enter Into the required Agreemeht with the Owner and within ten days after the dats' of a written Notice of Award in accordance with the terms of such Bid, and give such bond or bonds in l'ln amount of 100% the total Contract Amount as specified In the Bidding Documents or Contract Documents with good and sufficient surety for the faithful performance of the Agreemeht and for the prompt payment of labor, materials and supplies furnished In the prosecution thereof or, In the event of the fallum of the PRINCIPAL to enter into such Agreement or to give such bond or bon~s, and deliver to Owner the required certificates of Insural1ce, If the PRINCIPAL shall pay to the OBLIGEE theflxad sum of $__5%-of-Bid--- noted above as liqUidated damages, and not as a penalty, as provided In the Bidding Documents, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. J GC.P-10 . ., ;,:", " '. :<16C 1 IN TESTIMONY Thereof, the Principal and Surety hoWl;) cmlSsdthese presents to. . be duly signed and sealed this ist' day ef February } 2008. BY Principal (Seal) President and Surety Company Surety (Seal) Doug Local Resident Producln . Scribner gent for Travelers CasualtY-' and Surety Company of America GC-P.11 ..... ~16Cl BUSINESS CONTACT INFORMATION Quality Enterprises USA. Inc. (Firm's Complete Legal Name) Main Business 3894 Mannix Drive, Suite 216 (Address) Naples. Florida 34114-5406 '(City, State, ZIP) Contact Name Jaul .J. Moriarty Phone No. 239-1,35-7200 Title Vice President FAX No. 239-435-7202 Email address: pmoriarty@qe-usa.com and mcohen@qe-usa.com *********************~****************************************************************************** ADDITIONAL CONTACT INFORMATION Send Payments To (REQUIRED ONLY If different from above) (Company Name used as Payee) (Address) (City, State, ZIP) Contact Name Title Phone No. FAX No, Emall address: Office Servicing Collier County Account /PllIce Orders/Request Supplies (REQUIRED ONLY If different from above) (Address) (City, State, ZIP) Contact Name Title Phone No. FAX No. Emall Address: GC,P-12 16Cl THIS SHEET MUST BE SIGNED BY VENDOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Purchasing Department BIDDERS CHECK LIST IMPORTANT: Please read carefully, sign In the spaces indicated and return with your Bid. Bidder should check off each of the following Items as the necessary action is completed: 1. The Bid has been signed, 2. The Bid prices offered have been reviewed. 3. The price extensions and totals have been checked. 4. The payment terms have been Indicated. 5. Any required drawings, descriptive literature, etc. have been included. 6. Any delivery information required Is Included. 7. If required, the amount of Bid bond has been checked, and the Bid bond or cashiers check has been Included. 8. Any addenda have been signed and included. 9, The mailing envelope has been addressed to: Purchasing Director Collier County Government Center Purchasing Building 3301 Tamlaml Trail, East Naples, Florida 34112 11. The mailing envelope must be ~ and marked with: <:)Bld Number; <o>ProJect Name; <:)Opening Date. 12. The Bid will be mailed or delivered In time to be received no later than the specified openinq date and time. (Otherwise Bid cannot be considered.) ALL COURIER.DELlVERED BIDS MUST HAVE THE BID NUMBER AND PROJECT NAME ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE COURIER PACKET Qualitv Enterprises USA. Inc. Bi der Name Si na ure & Title Paul J. Moriarty; Vice President D TE: 2/1/08 GC-P-13 ,.. TRAVELERSJ POWER OF ATTORNEY WARNING:THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS \NVAUDWITHDUTTHE REO BORDER Farmington CllSlUlJty Company 1"Idellty and Guru'nnly Insnrnncc Company Fidelity and Gtulnmty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. Scnbonrd Surety Com))any St, Puol Fire Hnd Marllle Insul'1Incc Company St. Pnlll Guardhm Insnrance Company St. Panl Mercury Insnl'unce Company Travelers Ca<mlllty nnd Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Compuny of America United St~ltcs Fidelity and GuarAnty Company Attontey.Tn Filet No. 213480 cco.tifiClltcNo.002085113 KNOW ALL MEN 8Y THF.8F. PRESENTS: Tllllt Seaboard Surety Company is ,\ corporation duly organized ullller the Jaws of the Stutc of Now York, Ilmt Sf. Paul Pire and Mflrine lnsurance Compuny, 81. Pm11 Gmmlinn Insurance Company uno SL Palll Mel'cury Ill~urnnce Compllny <Ire corporations dtlly organized under the hlWll of the State or MinnesoLa, thut Ffll'mington CllsunJt)' Company, Travelers Casun!ty nnd Smely Company, anel Travelers Casllally und Surely Com pliny of Americn arc corporulions duly organized under the 11IWS of the Swte of Connecticlll. that Unitcd Stntc.'t Fidelily and Gunnlnt)' CompnllY is a corporation duly organized under the Imvs of the Slate of Mnryland, Ihat Fidelity and GUlIl'BUty Insmance Cumpany is a corporation duly organized under the 11Iws of tilc Strite of lown, nml thut Fidelity and Guaranty InS\lf<lIlCe Underwrircrs, Inc, is 11 corpomtion duly orgnnizeilunder the Jnws of the State of WiSCtlllSin (herein collectively called the "Companies"), and thaI the Companie,,, do hereby make, constitute ano appoint Mark C. Bundy, Nancy R, Chunta, William E. Crawley, Tammy A. Ward, and Terri Strawhand of tbe City of Virginhl 'Rf'i'1~L- , Stlllc of_ V;rginl~ ._. , theil' true and lawful Altorney(s)-in-Fact, cach ill their sepllnlte cllpacily if morc than one i~ named nbove, to sign, execute, ,~elll and m:knowledge nny and nil bonds, recognizances, conditional undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nnlme thereof 011 behalf of the Companies in their .QuSu)e&s oLgmlt"lmteeing tbe fidelity of persons, gwuanteeing the perfonmmce of contracts Ilnd executing or gunrnnlooing bonds und lllldertukings required 01' p(:pnt~dtjn lll'o/"dt1ons o,~"prqceedings allowed hy law, ,,'_~~\'\\' .,,--,' '". \'i.,..,";.')" ~, '-;\'A'. ':_'.~ \,,:C'.':; _,,<.~ .,.,.(:-.<~.:'~> IN WITNESS WHERI!:OF, the Companies have clIullcd thill inSU1\p\Cl;'l11,[o'be .&iSnethtln.d th~ln:cpri)or!ltc sellls to be hcrelo aJl1xed, this December 2006 "', ~,"' ".~ "," ,,,,A-"'~_ :', v dflyof ,~. "\'::' '\ ",. ~," " 7th . Farmington C~lIlUnlty ~Q~P.~ilil'y-':" \~",:~~.,),,: Fidelity and Guaranty l~urn,~I~{Gpln'patlr_,~,,_'" Fidelity ilnd Glluruuty Tnsui'rtpcc'Undcl'watCrs. Inc, Seaboard Surely Company St. Pl\lIlli'irc nnd Mal'illc Insurance Company St., PauJ Gllnrdian Insurance Company St. Paul MerclIry Insnrance Company 'l'rnvclcrs Casualty llnd Surety Compnny 'Ihtvelers CnsllnUy and SUl'ety Compnny of America United Stat~s [i'ldeHty and Gunrnnt)' Com pliny ~TY~ e~ ~ ~ Stoic of Connecticut City of Hartford :IS, fly: On lhi:; the 7th <Inyof December 2006, before me perS0l1llJly I\ppeared George W. Thompson, who acknowledged himself to he the Scnior Vice President of Filrmington CaMlalty Company, Fidelity und GUIll"llDIY Insurnllce Company, Pidelity llnd Gmlfll1lty Insurnnce Unc!erw!ite\'s, Inc" Seabc)llrd Surcty Company, St. Paul rire I\nd Mllrlnc Insurance Company, 51. PUlll G\ll\rdiall rnSUrllllCe Company, Sl. Palll Mcrcl1l'Y Insul'flOcc Company, Tmvelers Casualty llnd S\lrety Cumpany, 'j)'flvclcn Cilsl1alty and Surely COlllpnny of America, nnd United Stflte.~ Fidelity 1ll1d Guaranty Comp.my, find thnt hc, us sl1ch, being authorizcd so to do, executed the foregoing instrumenl for the p\IlVose,~ therein contlllncd by signing on behalf of the corporutions by himself us a dtlly authorized officer. In Wihlcss Whereof, I hereunto set illY hum\ nnd official seal. My Commission expires the 30th dny of J\ll1e, 2011, ~C1C:O':''''~~ 58440.5-07 Printed In U,SA WARNING:THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER 16 · WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATIORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER This Pow,,!' of ALlorncy is granted under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopt~ by tile Board~ of Directors of FnnningLon Casuulty Company, flidelity and Guaranty Insurance Comp,lIlY, Fidelity and OUftl1l11ty lnsun\nce Underwrilers, Inc., Seaboard Sllrely Company, St. Paul Pire Ilnd Murine Insurnncc Compan)i, 51. Paul Guardian lmurnnce Company, S1. Paul Mercury In~urance Complmy. TrnveJers Casualty and SUTety Compnny, Travelers CMunlty and SureLy Company of America. find United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, which resolutions nrc now in full force and effect, reading as follows: RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, fmy Vice Chairman, any Execmive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, flny Vice President, any Second Vice Prcsident, the Trellsurer, uny Assisl<1nt Treasmer, tbe Corpofflte Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Anol'lleys-in-Fnct and Agents to nct for and on be11alf of the Compllny and IUllY give such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authority may prescribe 10 sign with the Comp<1ny's name and seal witb the Company's seal bonds, recogruu.IOces, contracts of indemnity, I1Ild other writings obligatoty in the nature of II bond, recognizance, or conditiolllllllndertaking, and any of sAid ofllcers or the Roml of Directors alnny time may remove finy such appointee and revoke the power given him or her; and it is J:1~tJRTHER RESOLVED, thai the Chtlirman, the President, any Vice Ch<lirman, lmy ExeCl1(ive Vice President, any Senior Vice Presidellf OJ' tlllY Vice President may delegate all or any pltrt of the foregoing ll11thoriry to one or more officcrs or employees of this Compltny, provided that cach such delegation is in writing and It copy thereof is flied ill the office of thc Secretm'y; and il L~ II'UHTHRR RESOLVED, that !lny bond, !'L~cognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in the nlltUl'e of It bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking shall be valid and binding upon (he Company when (a) signed by the Pre~ident, fillY Vice Chninnlln, llny Executive yjce President, nny Senior Vice President or any Vice PICsident, any Second Vice President, the Tl'cmmrer, any AssislllJlt TI'CllSUrer, the Corporate Secl'Ctary or fillY Assisllmt Secretary and duly attested <In,1 sealed with the Company's seal by n Secretary or Assistant Secretary; or (b) duly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more AttorIJcys-in-F<lct and Agents pursuant to the power prescribed in his Of' her cerlificnte or their certificates of lluthority or by one or more Company officer~ Jlur~uullt to n written dclegfltion of authority; and it is FURTHER RI!:SOLVI-m, Ihnt the signature of each of the following ol1kcrs: Pt'csident, any ExecllIive Vice President, any Senior Vice PI'Csident, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice Prcsidellt, any Secretary, <lilY Assistant Secretary, lInd the seal (lfthe Company JURy be affixed by facsimile to flny power of ll\(Omey or to flny certificate relating tbereto Ilppoilltlng Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attoro.ey.~-in-Fl\ct f()r p\.J1'pooes only of executing lInd attesting bonds alld ulldertakings flud other writings obligntory in the Tlllture tbereof, lllld 1111Y sllch power of utlorney or certificute bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shull be valid <md binding tlpon the Compnny and any such power so exec\Hed <l1\d certified by such facsimile signature and fac,~imile seal shull be valid and binding 011 the Company in the future wilh respect to !lny bond or llll{lerstnnding to which it is <lttached, 1, Kori M. JohanflOn, the tlndel'signed, Assistant Sccretmy, of Farmington Castwlty Compllny, Pid~lity and Gum'anty Insurance CompHny, Fidelity and GuanmLy In~tlrlll\co Underwriters, Inc" Seaboard Surety Company, St. Paul Fire und Mnrine Inlmrmtce C9mpany, SI. P<llIl Guardian Insurance Company, St. Pnul Mercury Insurnnce Company, Trnvclers Casualty and Slll'ety Company, Trnvelel's Casualty and Smcty ~.~tnpally-off.merica,"-and United St<lte.~ Jiidelity and Guaranty Company do hereby certify th/lt the above flnd foregoing is a true /lad con'cet copy of 1[1e Power 6,f t\uorney exeCuted by snhj Compllniea, which is in full force and effect 11l1d lms not been revoked, IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and {('fflxed thesefl!S of'said Companies this ,~. day nf Februa"9'___~, 20 08 , Kori M. Johans ~y~ f8~ ~, ~ ~ \::s;J '10 verify the authenticity of this Power of Allomey, call 1-800-421-3880 or r.Oillact us ot www,travelersbond.cmn, Plel\~e refer to the Attorney-In-Fact number, the above-named individuals nnd the details of the bond to which the power is attachcd. WARN1NG: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY lS INVAUD WITHOUT THE RED BORDER 1 t- r 1 \..-' ...k, CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ("Owner") hereby contracts with Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. ("Contractor") of 3894 Mannix Drive, Suite 216, Naples, FL 34114, a Virginia Corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, to perform all work ("Work") in connection with Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement, Bid No. 08- 5039 ("Project"), as said Work is set forth in the Plans and Specifications prepared by Boyle Engineering Corp., the Engineer and/or Architect of Record ("Design Professional") and other Contract Documents hereafter specified. Owner and Contractor, for the consideration herein set forth, agree as follows: Section 1. Contract Documents. A. The Contract Documents consist of this Agreement, the Exhibits described in Section 6 hereof, the Legal Advertisement, the Bidding Documents and any duly executed and issued addenda, Change Orders, Work Directive Changes, Field Orders and amendments relating thereto. All of the foregoing Contract Documents are incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement (all of said documents including the Agreement sometimes being referred to herein as the "Contract Documents" and sometimes as the "Agreement" and sometimes as the "Contract"). A copy of the Contract Documents shall be maintained by Contractor at the Project site at all times during the performance of the Work. B. Owner shall furnish to the Contractor one reproducible set of the Contract Documents and the appropriate number of sets of the Construction Documents, signed and sealed by the Design Professional, as are reasonably necessary for permitting. Section 2. Scope of Work. Contractor agrees to furnish and pay for all management, supervision, financing, labor, materials, tools, fuel, supplies, utilities, equipment and services of every kind and type necessary to diligently, timely, and fully perform and complete in a good and workmanlike manner the Work required by the Contract Documents. Section 3. Contract Amount. In consideration of the faithful performance by Contractor of the covenants in this Agreement to the full satisfaction and acceptance of Owner, Owner agrees to pay, or cause to be paid, to Contractor the following amount (herein "Contract Amount"), in accordance with the terms of this Agreement: two hundred, eighteen thousand, eight hundred thirty nine dollars. ($218,839.00). GC-CA-l 16Cl I: Section 4. Bonds. A. Contractor shall provide Performance and Payment Bonds, in the form prescribed in Exhibit A, in the amount of 100% of the Contract Amount, the costs of which are to be paid by Contractor. The Performance and Payment Bonds shall be underwritten by a surety authorized to do business in the State of Florida and otherwise acceptable to Owner; provided, however, the surety shall meet the requirements of the Department of the Treasury Fiscal Service, "Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and as Acceptable Reinsurance Companies" circular. This circular may be accessed via the web at www.fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html#certified. Should the Contract Amount be less than $500,000, the requirements of Section 287.0935, F.S. shall govern the rating and classification of the surety. B. If the surety for any bond furnished by Contractor is declared bankrupt, becomes insolvent, its right to do business is terminated in the State of Florida, or it ceases to meet the requirements imposed by the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall, within five (5) calendar days thereafter, substitute at its cost and expense another bond and surety, both of which shall be subject to the Owner's approval. Section 5. Contract Time and Liauidated Damaaes. A. Time of Performance. Time is of the essence in the performance of the Work under this Agreement. The "Commencement Date" shall be established in the written Notice to Proceed to be issued by the Project Manager, as hereinafter defined. Contractor shall commence the Work within five (5) calendar days from the Commencement Date. No Work shall be performed at the Project site prior to the Commencement Date. Any Work performed by Contractor prior to the Commencement Date shall be at the sole risk of Contractor. Contractor shall achieve Substantial Completion within One Hundred and Twenty (120) calendar days from the Commencement Date (herein "Contract Time"). The date of Substantial Completion of the Work (or designated portions thereof) is the date certified by the Design Professional when construction is sufficiently complete, in accordance with the Contract [)ocuments, so Owner can occupy or utilize the Work (or designated portions thereof) for the use for which it is intended. Contractor shall achieve Final Completion within Thirty (30) calendar days after the date of Substantial Completion. Final Completion shall occur when the Agreement is completed in its entirety, is accepted by the Owner as complete and is so stated by the Owner as completed. As used herein and throughout the Contract Documents, the phrase "Project Manager" refers to the Owner's duly authorized representative and shall mean the Division Administrator or Department Director, as applicable, acting directly or through duly authorized representatives. B. Liquidated Damages in General. Owner and Contractor recognize that, since time is of the essence for this Agreement, Owner will suffer financial loss if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion within the time specified above, as said time may be adjusted as provided for herein. In GC-CA-2 16Cl such event, the total amount of Owner's damages, will be difficult, if not impossible, to definitely ascertain and quantify. Should Contractor fail to achieve Substantial Completion within the number of calendar days established herein, Owner shall be entitled to assess, as liquidated damages, but not as a penalty, One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) for each calendar day thereafter until Substantial Completion is achieved. Further, in the event Substantial Completion is reached, but the Contractor fails to reach Final Completion within the required time period, Owner shall also be entitled to assess and Contractor shall be liable for all actual damages incurred by Owner as a result of Contractor failing to timely achieve Final Completion. The Project shall be deemed to be substantially completed on the date the Project Manager (or at his/her direction, the Design Professional) issues a Certificate of Substantial Completion pursuant to the terms hereof. Contractor hereby expressly waives and relinquishes any right which it may have to seek to characterize the above noted liquidated damages as a penalty, which the parties agree represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the Owner's actual damages at the time of contracting if Contractor fails to Substantially or Finally Complete the Work within the required time periods. C. Computation of Time Periods. When any period of time is referenced by days herein, it shall be computed to exclude the first day and include the last day of such period. If the last day of any such period falls on a Saturday or Sunday or on a day made a legal holiday by the law of the applicable jurisdiction, such day shall be omitted from the computation, and the last day shall become the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. D. Determination of Number of Days of Default. For all contracts, regardless of whether the Contract Time is stipulated in calendar days or working days, the Owner will count default days in calendar days. E. Right of Collection. The Owner has the right to apply any amounts due Contractor under this Agreement or any other agreement between Owner and Contractor, as payment on such liquidated damages due under this Agreement in Owner's sole discretion. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Owner retains its right to liquidated damages due under this Agreement even if Contractor, at Owner's election and in its sole discretion, is allowed to continue and to finish the Work, or any part of it, after the expiration of the Contract Time including granted time extensions. F. Completion of Work by Owner. In the event Contractor defaults on any of its obligations under the Agreement and Owner elects to complete the Work, in whole or in part, through another contractor or its own forces, the Contractor and its surety shall continue to be liable for the liquidated damages under the Agreement until Owner achieves Substantial and Final Completion of the Work. Owner will not charge liquidated damages for any delay in achieving Substantial or Final Completion as a result of any unreasonable action or delay on the part of the Owner. GC-CA- 3 16Cl G. Final Acceptance by Owner. The Owner shall consider the Agreement complete when the Contractor has completed in its entirety all of the Work and the Owner has accepted all of the Work and notified the Contractor in writing that the Work is complete. Once the Owner has approved and accepted the Work, Contractor shall be entitled to final payment in accordance with the terms of the Contract Documents. H. Recovery of Damages Suffered by Third Parties. Contractor shall be liable to Owner to the extent Owner incurs damages from a third party as a result of Contractor's failure to fulfill all of its obligations under the Contract Documents. Owner's recovery of any delay related damages under this Agreement through the liquidated damages does not preclude Owner from recovering from Contractor any other non-delay related damages that may be owed to it arising out of or relating to this Agreement. Section 6. Exhibits Incorporated. The following documents are expressly agreed to be incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: Exhibit J: Exhibit K: Exhibit L: Exhibit M: Exhibit N: Performance and Payment Bond Forms Insurance Requirements Release and Affidavit Form Contractor Application for Payment Form Change Order Form Certificate of Substantial Completion Form Final Payment Checklist General Terms and Conditions Supplemental Terms and Conditions Technical Specifications Permits Standard Details (if applicable) Plans and Specifications prepared by Boyle Engineering Corp. and identified as follows: Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement as shown on Plan Sheets 1 through 16. Contractor's List of Key Personnel Section 7. Notices A All notices required or made pursuant to this Agreement by the Contractor to the Owner shall be shall be deemed duly served if delivered by U.S. Mail, E-mail or Facsimile, addressed to the following: GC-CA-4 Steve Lang, Project Manager Collier County Public Utilities Water Department 4370 Mercantile Avenue Naples, FI 34112 Tel: 239-252-6113 Fax: 239- Email: SteveLanq@collierqov.net 16Cl B. All notices required or made pursuant to this Agreement by Owner to Contractor shall be made in writing and shall be deemed duly served if delivered by U.S. Mail, E- mail or Facsimile, addressed to the following: Mr. Paul J. Moriarty, Vice President Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. 3894 Mannix Drive Suite 216 Naples, FL 34114 Tel: 239-435-7200 Fax: 239-435-7202 C. Either party may change its above noted address by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with the requirements of this Section. Section 8. PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES. 8.1 By its execution of this Contract, Construction Contractor acknowledges that it has been informed by Owner of the terms of Section 287.133(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes which read as follows: "A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list." Section 9. Modification. No modification or change to the Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the parties unless in writing and executed by the party or parties intended to be bound by it. GC-CA-5 Section 10. Successors and Assians. Subject to other provisions hereof, the Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties to the Agreement. 16Cl Section 11. Governina Law. The Agreement shall be interpreted under and its performance governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Section 12. No Waiver. The failure of the Owner to enforce at any time or for any period of time anyone or more of the provisions of the Agreement shall not be construed to be and shall not be a waiver of any such provision or provisions or of its right thereafter to enforce each and every such provision. Section 13. Entire Aareement. Each of the parties hereto agrees and represents that the Agreement comprises the full and entire agreement between the parties affecting the Work contemplated, and no other agreement or understanding of any nature concerning the same has been entered into or will be recognized, and that all negotiations, acts, work performed, or payments made prior to the execution hereof shall be deemed merged in, integrated and superseded by the Agreement. Section 14. Severabilitv. Should any provision of the Agreement be determined by a court to be unenforceable, such a determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other section or part thereof. Section 15. Chanae Order Authorization. The Project Manager shall have the authority on behalf of the Owner to execute all Change Orders and Work Directive Changes to the Agreement to the extent provided for under the Owner's Purchasing Policy and accompanying administrative procedures. Section 16. Construction. Any doubtful or ambiguous language contained in this Agreement shall not be construed against the party who physically prepared this Agreement. The rule sometimes referred to as "fortius contra proferentum" (pursuant to which ambiguities in a contractual term which appears on its face to have been inserted for the benefit of one of the parties shall be construed against the benefited party) shall not be applied to the construction of this Agreement. GC-CA-6 16Cl Section 17. Order of Precedence In the event of any conflict between or among the terms of any of the Contract Documents, the terms of the Construction Agreement and the General Terms and Conditions shall take precedence over the terms of all other Contract Documents, except the terms of any Supplemental Conditions shall take precedence over the Construction Agreement and the General Terms and Conditions. To the extent any conflict in the terms of the Contract Documents cannot be resolved by application of the Supplemental Conditions, if any, or the Construction Agreement and the General Terms and Conditions, the conflict shall be resolved by imposing the more strict or costly obligation under the Contract Documents upon the Contractor at Owner's discretion. **** GC-CA-7 16Cl IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date(s) indicated below. TWO WITNESSES: ~ RS TNESS Louis J. Gaudio Type/Print Name >J{o~~{r[i't/ Sl1~,qn .1. Srhl1l tz Type/Print Name Date: 4 \I.Q!O~, ~iQJt)i. ."'!;..'.OR 1 · . ,4 Approved J\~ 6rd'Form and Legal Sufficiency: <;," (~fY7~ Assistant County Attorney CONTRACTOR: By: ,/l/ Palll .1. Mori :=!rtyp Vi I'P Prpj;;d .1PTI,L- Type/Print Name and Title OWNER: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORID '~k BY: Item # \ IoL\ ~;~;da ~ Deputy Clerk GC-CA-8 EXHIB1T A PUBLIC PAYMENT BOND 16Cl Carica Pump station Fuel 'rank Replacoment Bond No. 105065886 Contract No, 08~5039 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That _Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., 3894 Mannix Drive, Suite 216, Naples, FL 34114 . as Principal, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America , as Surety, located at One Tower Square, Hartford, CT 06183 (Business Address) are held and firmly bound to The Board of County Commissioners of as Obligee in the sum of Two Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Iil'n\lbo"ba~l?ullty, FL and 00/100($ 218,839.00-- ) for the payment whereof we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, Replacement WHEREAS, Principal has entered into a contract dated as of the 26th day of March 2008, with Obligee for Contract: #08-5039 Carica Pwnp Station Fuel Tank in Collier County, Florida accordance with drawings and specifications, which contract is incorporated by reference and made a part hereof, and is referred to herein as the Contract. THE CONDITION OF THIS BOND is that if Principal: Promptly makes payment to all claimants as defined in Section 255.05(1), Florida Statutes, supplying Principal with labor, materiais or supplies, used directly or indirectly by Principal in the prosecution of the work provided for in the Contract, then this bond is void; otherwise it remains in full force. Any changes in or under the Contract and compliance or noncompliance with any formalities connected with the Contract or the changes do hot affect Sureties obligation under this Bond. The provisions of this bond are subject to the time limitations of Section 255.05(2). In no event will the Surety be liable in the aggregate to claimants for more than the penal sum of this Payment Bond, regardless of the number of suits that may be filed by claimants. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this instrument this 26th day of March 2008, the narne of each party being affixed and these presents duly signed by its Linder-signed representative, pursuant to alithority of its governing body. GC-CA"A-1 Signed, sealee] and delivered in the pl-esence of: 16Cl PRINCIPAL Witnesses as to Principal Christina M. Hatch BY: NAME: ITS: rises U~~~~ Murrell STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF Collier The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 26th day of March 20 08, by Howard J. Murrell ,as President of Qualitv Enterprises USA. Inc. ,a Virginia corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/she is personally known to me OR has produced N/A as identification and did (did notj take at'loath. , /)' J'l:/ / k,fii{i ll,ll~ZI-1--- (Signature of Notary) My Commission Expires: 2/11/10 ","':;'X'!~t;;.. MARCIE l. COHEN I.I !1"'~:~ MY COMMISSION # 00 501526 ~i~~4 EXPIRES: Februar/11, 2010 ".,.1f.,~l\"" 80ndedThru Notary Public Underrlllters NAME: M;::aTrip 1. r.nhpn (Legibly Printed) (AFFIX OFFICIAL SEAL) Notary Public, State of Florida Commission No.: DD 501526 ATTEST: SURETY: Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (printed Name) One Tower Square Hartford, CT 06183 (Business Address (Authorized Signature) WitneSSes to Surety (Printed Name) GC-CA-A-2 Ka 16Cl or~ ._~[. Witnesses As Attorney in Fact A. Ward (Attach Power of Atta Tammy A. War<!.~_~_~_ (Printed Name) 1080 Laskin Road. Suite 204 Virginia Beach. VA 23451 (Business Address) 757-491-1100 (Telephone Number) STATE OF Virginia Q9\Ji\I~H OF Virginia Beach City The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 26th day of March , 2008, by Tammy A. Ward , as Attornev-in-Fact of Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America Surety, on behalf of Surety. He/She is personally known to me OR has produced Driver License as identification and who did ~ take an oath. My Commission Expires: September 30. 2010 ~41 hL' ~6inawh..M) (Signature) Name: Terri K. Strawhand (Legibly Printed) (AFFIX OFFICIAL SEAL) Notary Public, State of: Virginia Commission No.: 247448 (i) Terri K. Slrawhand Commonwealth of Virginia Notary Public - Commission No. 247448 ~ My Commission Expires 9/30/2010 GC-CAA3 ~XHIBI'L~ PI,LBLlC PERFORMANCE BOND 16Cl Carica Pump Station FUGI Tank Replacement Bond No, 105065886 Contract No, 08~5039 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., 3894 Mannix Drive, Suite 216, Naples,__E1__, as Principal, and Travelers Casualty and Surety 34114 Company of America <1S Surety, located at One Tower Square, Hartford, CT 06183 (Business Address) are held and firmly bound to The Board of County Commissioners of Collier county'Ffs Obligee in the sum of Two Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars and 00/100 ($ 218,839.00-- ) for the payment whereof we bond ourselves, our heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns, jointly and severally. WHEREAS, Principal has entered into a contract dated as of the 26th day of . March , 2008, with Obligee for Contract No. 08-5039 Carica Pump Station Fuel Tank Replacement, Collier Count, FL in accordance with drawings and specifications, which contract is Incorporated by reference and made a part hereof, and is referred to herein as the Contract. THE CONDITION OF THIS BOND is that if Principal: 1. Performs the Contract at the times and in the manner prescribed in the Contract; and 2. Pays Obiigee any and all losses, damages, costs and attorneys' fees that Obligee sustains because of any default by Principal under the Contract, including, but not limited to, all delay damages, whether liquidated or actual, incurred by Obligee; and 3. Performs the guarantee of all work and materials furnished under the Contract for the time specified in the Contract, then this bond is void; otherwise it remains in full foroe. Any ohanges in or under the Contract and complianoe or noncompliance with any formalities connected with the Contract or the changes do no! affect Sureties obligation under this Bond, The Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no changes, extensions of time, alterations or additions to the terms of the Contract or other work to be performed hereunder, or the specifications referred to therein shall in anywise affect ils obligations under this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such changes, extensions of time, alterations or additions to the terms of the Contracl or to work or to the specifications GC-CA,A-4 This instlument shall be construed in all respects as a common law bond. expressly understood that the time provisions and statute of limitations under Section 255,05, Florida Statutes, shall not apply to this bond. It{ 6 C 1 In no event will the Surety be liable in the aggregate to Obligee for more than the penal sum of this Pelformance Bond regardless of the number of suits that may be filed hy Obligee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this instrument this 26th _ day of March , 2008, the name of each palty being affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to authority of its governing body. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: PRINCIPAL Witnesses as to Princi Christina M. Hatch NAME: ITS: USA, Inc. BY: Murrell STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF Collie!; The foregoing March President Virginia persQlJally kl1Q'!"n instrument , 2008, by to was 8cknowledged before me this 26th Howard J. Murrell of Ouali ty Enterpri ~es n~A, Tn,.. corporation, on behalf of the corporation. me OR has produced N/A as identification and did (did not) take an oath. r)'L '. " \.__<' '\/1 . .,;!.j U';I U iJ/L-- (Signature) day of , as , a He/she is My Commission Expires: 2/11/10 ..,.'...v'Ij;...., MARCIE L. COHEN {.?t::'''f:j MY COMMISSION # DD 501526 'ii'J.!ll!!.w EXPIRES: February 11, 2010 '~?1r;\t~~'__ Bonded Thru Nelary PU~IC Undarwnters NElme: Marcie L. Cohpn (Legibly Printed) (AFFIX OFFICIAL SEAL) Notary Public, State of: Florida Commission No,: DD 501526 GC-CA-A-5 ATTEST: SURETY: 16Cl Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (Printed Name) Qne Tower Square Hartford, CT 06183 (Business Address) (Authorized Signature) (Printed Name) OR ~~<< \'\ u n\dJ As Attorney in Fact ~ (Attach Power of Attorney) Cf- Tanony A. Ward (Printed Name) 1080 Laskin Road, Suite 204 Vir~inia Beach. VA 23451 (Business Address) 757-491-1100 (Telephone Number) STATE OF Virginia ~ OF Virginia Beach City The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 26th day of ~rch , 2008, by Tanon~ A. Ward ,as Attorney-in-Fact of raveiers ~asualty and ~urer a S t C~p~ny "f AmPTl ca ,Corporate ure y, 011 behalf of Surety. He/She is personally known to me OR has produced Driver License as identification and who did (lIIltJlWl) take an oath. ~1'4bi1~ (Signature) My Commission Expires: September 30. 2010 Name: Terri K. Strawhand (Legibly Printed) (AFFIX OFFICIAL SEAL) Notary Public, State of: Vir~inia Commission No.: 247448 Terrt K. Strawhand (i) commonwoolth of Virginia Notary PubliC . Commi6.ion No, 247448 ...... "" My CommiSSion Expires 913012010 GC-CA"A-6 ..... TRAVELERSJ POWER OF ATTORNEY WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. Seaboard Surety Company St. Paul Fire and Marine Insuranl'e Company Attomey.ln Fact No. 213480 16Cl St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company St. Paul Mercury Insurance Compan}' Travelers Casualty and Surety Campau;,.. Travelers Casualty and Suret)' Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company CertilicateNo. 002279715 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Seahoard Surety Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York. that 51. Paul Fire and Marine insurance Company, SI. Paul Guardian Insurance Company and Sf. Paul Mercury Insurance Company arc corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, that Farmington Casualty Company, Travelers Casually and Surety Compan:y, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America are corporations duly organizcd under the laws of the State of Connecticut that United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, that Fidelity and Guaramy Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the lav.,!s of the State of Iowa, and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively called the "Companics"), and that the Companies do hereby make, constitute and appoint Mark C. Bundy, Nancy R Chunta, William E. Crawley, Tammy A. Ward, and Teni Strawhand of the City of Virginia Beach . State of Virginia , their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above. to sign, execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, recognizances. conditional undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the Companies in their business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the performance of contracts and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in any actions or proceedings allowed hy law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Compao.ik-'i-have caused this instrument to he signed and their corporate scals to be hereto affixed, this December lUUIJ day of 7th Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and (;uaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. Seaboard Surety Company 51. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company e ~ ~ State of Connecticut City of Hartford ss. S1. Paul Guardian Insurance Company 51. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Compan)' Tra\'clers Casualty and Surel)' Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company .>,'~.... /"'';;~''.'''''-'''~1-~\ 1$."~'1ii"PO~Jl"{", l" \ ~~~E"i~W ~::P By: 7th December 2006 On this the day of . hefore me personally appeared George W. Thompson, who acknowledged himself to be the Senior Vice President of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company. Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.. Seaboard Surety Company, SI. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 51. Paul Guardian Insurance Company. SI. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surely Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company oj' America. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. and that he. as such. heing authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained hy signing on hehalf of the corporations hy himself as a duly authorized officer. In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. My Commission expires the 30th day of June, 2011. 58440-5-07 Printed in U.S.A. '<<\<JJ0. '-Maric (" c.j~ Tc\rC(lUll, ;'\iorary Puhlic WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER A CORO,. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE PRODUCER l'hCflP: :1/28/2008 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. 757-4':i6--(j';"'O t'-]:-:: 4 ,c:, ,-, :~ 2:) Rutherfoord 222 Central Park l\verne ite 1340 .lrgJnJ2 beach VA 73462 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURED Quality Enterprises CS^ Ine & Quality ~nvironment Co Ine 3894 Hannix :Jrive, Suite 7.16 Naples FL :14114-5406 INSURER A: Old Republ ic Cenera 1 ins L1 rance INSURERB:Arner l.can Jnt'} Specialty L.i nc INSURERC:~:vcrC'st~ NatioJlal Insurance CO INSURER D INSUR!:R E COVERAGES NAIC# IHI:; l)::-L~CIES:;'i" IN:-;tH{t\~JC!<~ LI::; 1'1'::-' N~;':~',' J 1 H ::', lANe I ['J(::; I\N Y :-<.]0 :)lJ i FU.:':::N':, , 'i<P_iJ:'~C:f\ 'J:; Hi\Y bi.' : :-~::_:LL' CH< Hhl' H~kl1.'::;, 1:,/:(: Ij::;;(!~:; AND '~:J['JDj iUN::; INSR' DO;LI LTR N RO' TYPE FIN U 1-~J.:;Lnv,,' Hi\\' '.,ikF ;1; 1.'1':''(';l, 1,<, ,)- ~,I-' 'H F HEI',N I: :;I)U:' 1'0 1 HI.' JNSUFI;, NAI'jL';l: JU:::l',-l'.j!:; YOE 'l!-it: PCiLiCY n:kJ (:'L l:\lJIU~.n~D. N];~_J N C'; ..".'.:'I' G)I~:'J\AC" OJ. r)"iL::k I}J_~IJlill<~J ,.,Jj"H I~L:;rl:;C~' 1'_' '{JJilCIf illl:; HI::; 1:\' IIHAt,IU': A~,':::','LI::;U BY .1-11"; 1-'ClI, 1_: I j,;,; UJ:::T1U-,~I::;U H.r::kc;H~ IS ',:1' JIoJ' I' Ie J-: ;-\~Cii;o,bG '.r. 1>1 :-:Hn'il'N Hid Hil}!:; :-;1:<:I::N Hl::L::l;Cl,l" HI rldl': C_ dl.1:-;. POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION DATE MMIDDfYY DATE MM/DDfYY lJ-iI::; POLICY NUMBER A 40U070? 7 ]/2007 ,! I /7008 EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES (Ea oGcurence) MED EXP (Anyone person) GENERAL LIABILITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS MAD!: IX : OCCUR II A GE'N'l AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER POLICY ix' jr8-i IX LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY X i ANY AUTO , ! All OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS , PERSONAL & ADV INJURY , GENERAL AGGREGATE i PRODUCTS. COMP/OP AGG A2CA4400(70) (I'Ll 112CA4~010702(VII) 7/1/2007 7/1/2007 7/l/ 008 7/1/~:00f' , i COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT i(EA.accident) BODIL_Y INJURY (Per person) HIRED AUTOS x X X Corrp Ued. X Cu 1. J Ded. BODll_Y INJURY (Peraccidenl) NON-OWNED AUTOS $1,000 :c 1 000 PROPER fY DAMAGE (Peraccidelll) GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY C EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY X OCCUR I I CLAIMS MADE 7lC61l0000JIl71 7/1/2007 7/1!21l08 EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION T, A2Cv;'4400070::' 7/1/21107 x T~~$r~JI~S EL EACH ACCIDENT E:L DISI:ASI: EA EMPLOYEE i/l/200P WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNERIEXECUTlVE OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? lIyes,d8scribcundcr SPECIAL PROVISIONS below OTHER E.L, DISEASE POLICY LIMIT r:PL13:; 10e3 7/l/21l07 7/1 !/1l08 , ,:-, )'~ , C ,~, " !:, ',I; ~ I J IJ B L'.k'_l.:r i'e-I- DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS '..d,,; m" 1.1, -"'r 1 ~ ' ;,;; '11: I, d , Ir I. Ii CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION LIMITS $1.1000,000 SlOO,OOO $ r;l COO 11,000,000 $ 2, 000,000 $2,ODO,OOCJ S] , 000,000 '5 EAACC I I $ II O,DOIl, 000 $10,000,000 $ $ $ AGG iOTH- ! ER $ ~)OO, 000 $ SOO, 000 1:,00 000 r>->l _d.iLI ,,1 "_': q r,,''-,jal 'c' f~oard e)f C):j~t_y Commissj'1nc'r~i elf Co~lier C,'Ul;ty, rl-:)r ~da 'LHH 'Tar;t:'..a",'. TraiJ Ei-i;~l :'-Jan les ''-1, 3411:!: :-;r:8l~LD i\Ni i)~ bJ::l:(W_~ '~ii!:; J::/.; 'NL_L ~.',tJL:'.">\' ')~ CERill"lCl\'j l'~, He.: :':Hi\L.. l"'Il't:<:tJ !-K' l HL 1>:~:1._.'l'.l:::<, !Hl': ,1;'130\1< 1:1~:::;~:Flm;l: i.<L1~;1~,S bE CANC;':."J', ':'1-\/\ '101,] ]If' ill': ;1',;), 'lr:~ 1:- :::1 ~NG 1 NSI;~:~::<-i, 'n ).1."".II!() '...,.',:L~l~N NC>';lCf:: 'C' 'Iii': ',~:!~. I'JI~MI':l' III~'; __1<:-_', bU .~'l\ Uk!': I~', I>J C!', Ie;;.,: ',:'IJ 'Jk It.H1_11i '~-ll" i ,';1 (,HJI; 1:1-"JI'i .,'.,(;,i:,;' '>_,-\ IZ'~ l'I'1:: ~:I\' i\~' 1 ','J., " ......,(J'-.. , ~/&-~,1r.~jj/~ .\ .~ @ACO D CORPORATION 19BB AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE .... ACORD 25 (2001/OB) [ 16Cl IMPORTANT If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s), DISCLAIMER The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between the issuing insurer(s), authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon. ACORD 25 (2001108) EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 16 C 1 1'" (1) The amounts and types of insurance coverage shall conform to the following minimum requirements with the use of Insurance Services Office (ISO) forms and endorsements or their equivalents. If Contractor has any self-insured retentions or deductibles under any of the below listed minimum required coverages, Contractor must identify on the Certificate of Insurance the nature and amount of such self-insured retentions or deductibles and provide satisfactory evidence of financial responsibility for such obligations. All self-insured retentions or deductibles will be Contractor's sole responsibility. (2) The insurance required by this Agreement shall be written for not less than the limits specified herein or required by law, whichever is greater. (3) Coverage's shall be maintained without interruption from the date of commencement of the Work until the date of completion and acceptance of the Project by the Owner or as specified in this Agreement, whichever is longer. (4) Certificates of insurance acceptable to the Owner shall be filed with the Owner within ten (10) calendar days after Notice of Award is received by Contractor evidencing the fact that Contractor has acquired and put in place the insurance coverages and limits required hereunder. In addition, certified, true and exact copies of all insurance policies required shall be provided to Owner, on a timely basis, if requested by Owner. (5) The Contractor and/or its insurance carrier shall provide thirty (30) days written notice to the Owner of policy cancellation or non-renewal on the part of the insurance carrier or the Contractor. Contractor shall also notify Owner, in a like manner, within twenty-four (24) hours after receipt, of any notices of expiration, cancellation, non-renewal or material change in coverages or limits received by Contractor from its insurer and nothing contained herein shall relieve Contractor of this requirement to provide notice. In the event of a reduction in the aggregate limit of any policy to be provided by Contractor hereunder, Contractor shall immediately take steps to have the aggregate limit reinstated to the full extent permitted under such policy. (6) All insurance coverage's of the Contractor shall be primary to any insurance or self insurance program carried by the Owner applicable to this Project. (7) The acceptance by Owner of any Certificate of Insurance does not constitute approval or agreement by the Owner that the insurance requirements have been satisfied or that the insurance policy shown on the Certificate of Insurance is in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. (8) Contractor shall require each of its Subcontractors to procure and maintain, until the completion of the subcontractors work, insurance of the types and to the limits specified in this Section unless such insurance requirements for the Subcontractor are expressly waived in writing by the Owner. -.. (9) Should at any time the Contractor not maintain the insurance coverage's required herein, the Owner may terminate the Agreement or at its sole discretion shall be authorized to purchase such GC-CA-B-1 16Cl coverage's and charge the Contractor for such coverage's purchased. If Contractor fails to reimburse Owner for such costs within thirty (30) days after demand, Owner has the right to offset these costs from any amount due Contractor under this Agreement or any other agreement between Owner and Contractor. The Owner shall be under no obligation to purchase such insurance, nor shall it be responsible for the coverage's purchased or the insurance company or companies used. The decision of the Owner to purchase such insurance coverage's shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of any of its rights under the Contract Documents. (10) If the initial or any subsequently issued Certificate of Insurance expires prior to the completion of the Work or termination of the Agreement, the Contractor shall furnish to the Owner, renewal or replacement Certificate(s) of Insurance not later than ten (10) calendar days after to the date of their expiration. Failure of the Contractor to provide the Owner with such renewal certificate(s) shall be considered justification for the Owner to terminate the Agreement. (11) All insurance policies required by this Agreement shall include the following provisions and conditions by endorsement to the policies: 11.1 All insurance policies, other than the Business Automobile and Workers Compensation policies, provided by Contractor to meet the requirements of this Agreement shall name Collier County, Florida, as an additional insured as to the operations of Contractor under this Agreement and shall contain a severability of interests provisions. 11.2. Companies issuing the insurance policy or policies shall have no recourse against Owner for payment of premiums or assessments for any deductibles which all are at the sole responsibility and risk of Contractor. 11.3. All insurance coverages of Contractor shall be primary to any insurance or self- insurance program carried by Owner applicable to this Project, and the "Other Insurance" provisions of any policies obtained by Contractor shall not apply to any insurance or self-insurance program carried by Owner applicable to this Project. 11.4. The Certificates of Insurance must identify the specific Project name, as well as the site location and address (if any). 11.5. All insurance policies shall be fully performable in Collier County, Florida, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Required by this Agreement? X Yes _ No (1) Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance shall be maintained by the Contractor during the term of this Agreement for all employees engaged in the work under this Agreement in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. The amounts of such insurance shall not be less than: a. Worker's Compensation - Florida Statutory Requirements GC-CA-B-2 b. Employers' Liability $100,000 Each Accident $500,000 Disease Aggregate $100,000 Disease Each Employee 16Cl 2L $1,000,000 Each Accident $1,000,000 Disease Aggregate $1,000,000 Disease Each Employee (2) The insurance company shall waive all claims rights against the Owner and the policy shall be so endorsed. (3) United States Longshoreman's and Harborworker's Act coverage shall be maintained where applicable to the completion of the work. Applicable X Not Applicable (4) Maritime Coverage (Jones Act) shall be maintained where applicable to the completion of the work. Applicable ~ Not Applicable COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Required by this Agreement? X Yes _ No (1) Commercial General Liability Insurance shall be maintained by the Contractor on an occurrence basis. Coverage will include, but not be limited to, Bodily Injury, Property Damage, Personal Injury, Contractual Liability for this Agreement, Independent Contractors, Broad Form Property Damage including Completed Operations and Products and Completed Operations Coverage. Limits of Liability shall not be less than the following: General Aggregate $ 300,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate $ 300,000 Personal and Advertising Injury $ 300,000 Each Occurrence $ 300,000 Fire Damage $ 50,000 General Aggregate $ 500,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate $ 500,000 Personal and Advertising Injury $ 500,000 Each Occurrence $ 500,000 Fire Damage $ 50,000 A General Aggregate $1,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate $1,000,000 GC-CA-B-3 Personal and Advertising Injury Each Occurrence Fire Damage $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $ 50,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 50,000 16Cl General Aggregate Products/Completed Operations Aggregate Personal and Advertising Injury Each Occurrence Fire Damage (2) The General Aggregate Limit shall apply separately to this Project and the policy shall be endorsed using the following endorsement wording. "This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: Commercial General Liability Coverage Part. The General Aggregate Limit under LIMITS OF INSURANCE applies separately to each of your projects away from premises owned by or rented to you." (3) The Owner shall be named as an Additional Insured and the policy shall be endorsed that such coverage shall be primary to any similar coverage carried by the Owner. (4) Coverage shall be included for explosion, collapse or underground property damage claims. (5) Watercraft Liability coverage shall be carried at the limits shown above if applicable to the completion of the work under this Agreement. Applicable X Not Applicable (6) Aircraft Liability coverage shall be carried at limits of $10,000,000 each occurrence if applicable to the completion of the work under this Agreement. Applicable X Not Applicable PROPERTY INSURANCE - BUILDERS RISK (1) The Owner shall purchase and maintain in a company or companies lawfully authorized to do business in the State of Florida and in Collier County, property insurance in the amount of the initial Contract Amount as well as subsequent modifications thereto for the entire Work at the site on a replacement cost basis without voluntary deductibles. Such property insurance shall be maintained, unless otherwise provided in the Contract Documents or otherwise agreed in writing by all persons and entities who are beneficiaries of such insurance, until final payment has been made or until no person or entity other than the Owner has an insurable interest in the property required to be covered, whichever is earlier. This insurance shall include interests of the Owner, the Contractor, Subcontractors, Sub-subcontractors and Material Suppliers in the Work. (2) Property insurance shall be on an all-risk policy form and, at the Owner's option, shall cover reasonable compensation for Professional's services and expenses required as a result of such insured loss. At the Owner's option, flood and windstorm insurance will also be purchased. GC-CA-B-4 1 ". r ..'. -..;<.., ....- (3) The property insurance provided by the Owner requires minimum deductibles and the Contractor shall pay costs not covered by the deductibles. The responsibility of the Contractor for any deductible associated with the all-risk policy described above shall be limited to a maximum of $5,000 for each occurrence unless higher deductibles are identified in Exhibit C of the Contract Documents. The responsibility of the Contractor for any deductible associated with the flood or windstorm insurance identified herein, if purchased by the Owner, shall be limited to a maximum of $5,000 for each occurrence unless higher deductibles are identified in Exhibit C of the Contract Documents. (4) This property insurance shall cover portions of the Work stored off the site after written approval of the Owner at the value established in the approval, and also portions of the Work in transit. (5) Boiler and Machinery Insurance. The Owner shall have the option of purchasing and maintaining boiler and machinery insurance required by the Contract Documents or by law, which shall specifically cover such insured objects during installation and until final acceptance by the Owner. If purchased this insurance shall include interests of the Owner, Contractor, Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors in the Work. (6) Waivers of Subrogation. The Owner and Contractor waive all rights against (1) each other and any of their subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, agents and employees, each of the other, and (2) the Design Professional, and Design Professional's subconsultants, for damages caused by fire or other perils to the extent of insurance proceeds actually received by Owner under property insurance obtained pursuant to this Exhibit or other any property insurance applicable to the Work, except such rights as they have to proceeds of such insurance held by the Owner as fiduciary. The policies shall provide waivers of subrogation by endorsement or otherwise. (7) A loss insured under Owner's property insurance shall be adjusted by the Owner and made payable to the Owner for the insured, as their interests may appear. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE Required by this Agreement? lL Yes _ No (1) Automobile Liability Insurance shall be maintained by the Contractor for the ownership, maintenance or use of any owned, non-owned or hired vehicle with limits of not less than: Bodily Injury & Property Damage - $ 500,000 ~ Bodily Injury & Property Damage - $1,000,000 Bodily Injury & Property Damage - $ 2,000,000 UMBRELLA LIABILITY (1) Umbrella Liability may be maintained as part of the liability insurance of the Contractor and, if - so, shall be in addition to and in excess of any Employers' Liability, Commercial General Liability, and Automobile Liability coverage's and shall include all coverage's on a "following form" basis. GC-CA-B-5 16Cl (2) The policy shall contain wording to the effect that, in the event of the exhaustion of any underlying coverage due to the payment of claims, the Umbrella policy will "drop down" to apply as primary insurance. GC-CA-B-6 EXHIBIT C RELEASE AND AFFIDAVIT FORM 16Cl COUNTY OF COLLIER STATE OF FLORIDA) Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared who after being duly sworn, deposes and says: (1) In accordance with the Contract Documents and in consideration of $ paid, ("Contractor") releases and waives for itself and it's subcontractors, material-men, successors and assigns, all claims demands, damages, costs and expenses, whether in contract or in tort, against the Board of County Commissioners of Coliier County, Florida, relating in any way to the performance of the Agreement between Contractor and Owner dated 2007 for the period from to , excluding all retainage withheld and any pending claims or disputes as expressly specified as follows: (2) Contractor certifies for itself and its subcontractors, material-men, successors and assigns, that all charges for labor, materials, supplies, lands, licenses and other expenses for which Owner might be sued or for which a lien or a demand against any payment bond might be filed, have been fully satisfied and paid. (3) To the maximum extent permitted by law, Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless Owner from all demands or suits, actions, claims of liens or other charges filed or asserted against the Owner arising out of the performance by Contractor of the Work covered by this Release and Affidavit. (4) This Release and Affidavit is given in connection with Contractor's [monthly/final] Application for Payment No, CONTRACTOR BY: ITS: President DATE: Witnesses STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of ,2007, by ,as cl ,a corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/she is personally known to me or has produced as identification and did (did not) take an oath. My Commission Expires: (Signature of Notary) NAME: (Legibly Printed) (AFFIX OFFICIAL SEAL) Notary Public, State of Commissioner No.: GC-CA-C-1 EXHIBIT 0 FORM OF CONTRACT APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT 16Cl (County Project Manager) (County Department) Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the OWNER) or Collier County Water-Sewer District (the OWNER) Bid No. Project No. Application Date FROM: (Contractor's Representative) Payment Application No. (Contractor's Name) for Work accomplished through the Date: (Contractor's Address) RE: (Project Name) Original Contract Time: Revised Contract Time: % % Original Contract Price: $ Total Change Orders to Date $ Revised Contract Amount $ Total vaiue of Work Completed and stored to Date $ Less Retainage $ Total Earned Less Retainage $ Less previous payment (s) $ AMOUNT DUE THiS APPLICATION: $ Retainage @ 10% thru[insert date] $ Retainage @ _% after [insert date] $ = Percent Work completed to Date: Percent Contract Time completed to Date Liquidated Damages to be Accrued $ ATTACH SCHEDULE OF VALUES AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION TO THIS APPLICATION CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION: The undersigned CONTRACTOR certifies that: (1) all previous progress payments received from OWNER on account of Work done under the Contract referred to above have been applied to discharge in full all obligations of CONTRACTOR incurred in connection with Work covered by prior Applications for Payment numbered 1 through _ inclusive; (2) title to all materials and equipment incorporated in said Work or otherwise listed in or covered by this Application for Payment will pass to OWNER at time of payment free and clear of all liens, claims, security interests and encumbrances (except such as covered by Bond acceptable to OWNER); (3) all amounts have been paid for work which previous payments were issued and received from the OWNER and that current payment is now due; and (4) CONTRACTOR has only included amounts in this Application for Payment properly due and owing and CONTRACTOR has not included within the above referenced amount any claims for unauthorized or changed Work that has not been properly approved by Owner in writing and in advance of such Work. By CONTRACTOR: (Contractor's Name) (Signature) DATE: (Type Name & Title) (shall be signed by a duly authorized representative of CONTRACTOR) Payment to the CONTRACTOR for the above AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION is recommended: By Design Professional: (DP's Name) (Signature) DATE: (Type Name & Tille) Payment to the CONTRACTOR for the above AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION is approved: By OWNER'S Project Manager: (Signature) DATE: (Type Name and Title) GC-CA-D-1 Gl o o }> 6 , N " ~ . ' r ",-m " 0 x z I; ~ <<.. ;~~ c:- ,,~ " ;;:.... . (fJ. ~ mm !l iii ;:J"_~ m;;: z =i 8 - 0 '" . 5'~ 3 - 0 CD (ii' 0' . ~ '" ~ 0 ~Q)::T 0 w~ 0> d " - S' (t) ~ j;! ~. ~ ~ 0 c - " r- 0 .. g.~Q. rn m .s, <1> -e en o S' 3 (') ~Q~ '" 'ij " 3 e .... " " 0 (\) ~. 0- Z -. 0 CD ~ " ~ ro 6 "lJ ~. .-+ ~ ::l 0 -. ~ _ 0 ",e , ~ ([) Ul 2t~ en (') 0>- <:< , g, &f I I >m -~ r-O "'0 c:c: 0> ~ mr- *~ m 0 " -i , "'''' " <1> ...." I ~ -i :<", I <1>'" "'m -. 2 c:< ~ I 00 en ~O !:a 00, >c: 0 D).CDI ....en :e :t i~ in' m> 0 m " .~ en" ;0 C <1>", -r " c: 'Ui'(tl z- (')(') 0 r- ",,, m> 0 m I "0 o::! ;;: 0 L --~~. >0 " I ....z r- ." men ~ ~ " I " :~;iil m 0 " 0 . ;. ~. r- " '" i-j @ m-i 0 .. . c: ~ !l m '" gc ;0:1: -< 12 Om R z en c ,0 a: 0 3 I!!i. 0 " . '<1> :3 " I" !!i. ;;: I I I IQ. >en I I @ o. ........ I ~ mo ,~ e ill", I I' ,,,, >m ;~Ig. !;;O Q <1> -I go 01 3 " " 0 o ~~I~ ~::J 0- co;g~ ~ ;;J " ~;;:om> " - I if (ii" ml!l;;lr- ~ " 0 5'0 (') !!i. fti 0" , ;;:m 'g-lill:' "", r(') ro<1> mm (fl' 3 ....z m.... "'0> ~~ I ....m , <1> " 0> ~CDI !!); :::J wi ;!;z ~]m en(') ",0> :<m _. 0 ~ '" " ~ m <1> <1> og. .... >~ " " _ 0 roC'. S;~ 0 " " Gl Q.o m e _ 3 " '[ '" ~ - m . " c ;;! ~~. 0 [ Z~ I ! > . w <1> Gl w . _W m " w - e ::;'" ::: <1> " =i~-t ~I :<>0 ::I:z:;;! m>r- r-Gl Om I 1 0:: '" 1i 'C oS lU :;; '0 e o - II) 0 l- I .. s w u c '" lU .5 1i lD w '0 '0 0 " CD 'i: 0 0 - .. Sa.. , '" In U C .- , _.c OJ I- + <l: >- ",'0 ~ = .. ::> U 0 S E 'S: e In (; C LL a.. - '0 '0 0 .. 'C OJ .:!: Gl '0 ..a.. ~ U In 0 &!:c U .. I- >-'0 '" .. = > <l: o .- ._ Gl > U .. Gl 0:0:: .. ~ U .. .- .Q o E > = .5z ~ Gl 8: = Ul c 0 ~ ~ U '" .. c 2 . .. c 16C j C") o .d:: u U l'J "C .. = c :;:l c o ~ c - :.c; :c >< w 16C1 EXHIBIT E CHANGE ORDER TO: Project Name: Bid No.: Change Order No.: FROM: Collier County Government Construction Agreement Dated: Date: Change Order Description Original Agreement Amount .................,...........,................,..........,.$ Sum of previous Change Orders Amount .......................................$ This Change Order Amount ...........................................................$ Revised Agreement Amount......................................................,.... $ Original Contract Time in calendar days Adjusted number of calendar days due to previous Change Orders This Change Order adjusted time is Revised Contract Time in calendar days Original Notice to Proceed Date Completion date based on original Contract Time Revised completion date Contractor's acceptance of this Change Order shall constitute a modification to the Agreement and will be performed subject to all the same terms and conditions as contained in the Agreement, as if the same were repeated in this acceptance. The adjustments, if any, to the Agreement shall constitute a full and final settlement of any and all claims of the Contractor arising out of, or related to, the change set forth herein, including claims for impact and delay costs. Prepared by: Date: Project Manager Recommended by: Date: Design Professional Accepted by: Date: Contractor Approved by: Date: Department Director Authorized by: Division Administrator Date: (For use by Owner: Fund Numbe~ ) Cost Center: Object Code: Project GC-CA-E-1 EXHIBIT F CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION 16Cl OWNER'S Project No, PROJECT: Design Professional's Project No. CONTRACTOR Contract For Contract Date This Certificate of Substantial Completion applies to all Work under the Contract Documents or to the following specified parts thereof: To OWNER And To Substantial Completion is the state in the progress of the Work when the Work (or designated portion) is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Contract Documents so that the Owner can occupy or utilize the Work for its intended use. The Work to which this Certificate applies has been inspected by authorized representatives of OWNER, CONTRACTOR AND DESIGN PROFESSIONAL, and that Work is hereby declared to be substantially complete in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents on: DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION A tentative list of items to be completed or corrected is attached hereto. This list may not be all-inclusive, and the failure to include an item in it does not alter the responsibility of CONTRACTOR to complete all the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents, The items in the tentative list shall be completed or corrected by CONTRACTOR within days of the above date of Substantial Completion, GC-CA-F-1 The responsibilities between OWNER and CONTRACTOR for security, operation, safety, maintenance] 6 G 1 heat, utilities, insurance and warranties shall be as follows: RESPONSIBILITIES: OWNER: CONTRACTOR The following documents are attached to and made a part of this Certificate: This certificate does not constitute an acceptance of Work not in accordance with the Contract Documents nor is it a release of CONTRACTOR'S obligation to complete the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Executed by Design Professional on ,2007 Design Professional By: Type Name and Title CONTRACTOR accepts this Certificate of Substantial Completion on ,2007 CONTRACTOR By: Type Name and Title OWNER accepts this Certificate of Substantial Completion on ,2007 OWNER By: Type Name and Title GC-CA-F-2 16Cl EXHIBIT G FINAL PAYMENT CHECKLIST Bid No.: Contractor: Project No.: Date: ,2007 The following items have been secured by the for the Project known as and have been reviewed and found to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. Original Contract Amount: Final Contract Amount: Commencement Date: Substantial Completion Time as set forth in the Agreement: Actual Date of Substantial Completion: Calendar Days. Final Completion Time as set forth in the Agreement: Actual Final Completion Date: Calendar Days. YES NO 1. All Punch List items completed on 2. Warranties and Guarantees assigned to Owner (attach to this form). 3. Effective date of General one year warranty from Contractor is: 4. 2 copies of Operation and Maintenance manuals for equipment and system submitted (list manuals in attachment to this form). 5. As-Built drawings obtained and dated: 6, Owner personnel trained on system and equipment operation. 7, Certificate of Occupancy No.: issued on (attach to this form). 8, Certificate of Substantial Completion issued on 9. Final Payment Application and Affidavits received from Contractor on: 10. Consent of Surety received on 11. Operating Department personnel notified Project is in operating phase. 12. All Spare Parts or Special Tools provided to Owner: 13. Finished Floor Eievation Certificate provided to Owner: - 14. Vendor Evaluation 15. Other: If any of the above is not applicable, indicate by N/A If NO is checked for any of the above, attach explanation. Acknowledgments: (Company Name) (Signature) (Typed Name & Title) By Contractor: GC-CA-G-1 By Design Professional: By Owner: GC-CA-G-2 16Cl (Firm Name) (Signature) (Typed Name & Title) (Department Name) (Signature) (Name & Title) 16C1 EXHIBIT H GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. INTENT OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 1.1 It is the intent of the Contract Documents to describe a functionally complete Project (or portion thereof) to be constructed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Any work, materials or equipment that may reasonably be inferred from the Contract Documents as being required to produce the intended result shall be supplied whether or not specifically called for. When words which have a well known technical or trade meaning are used to describe work, materials or equipment, such words shall be interpreted in accordance with that meaning. Reference to standard specifications, manuals or codes of any technical society, organization or association or to the laws or regulations of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Project, whether such reference be specific or by implication, shall mean the latest standard specification, manual, code, law or regulation in effect at the time the Work is performed, except as may be otherwise specifically stated herein. 1.2 If before or during the performance of the Work Contractor discovers a conflict, error or discrepancy in the Contract Documents, Contractor immediately shall report same to the Project Manager in writing and before proceeding with the Work affected thereby shall obtain a written interpretation or clarification from the Project Manager; said interpretation or clarification from the Project Manager may require Contractor to consult directly with Design Professional or some other third party, as directed by Project Manager. Contractor shall take field measurements and verify field conditions and shall carefully compare such field measurements and conditions and other information known to Contractor with the Contract Documents before commencing any portion of the Work. 1.3 Drawings are intended to show general arrangements, design and extent of Work and are not intended to serve as shop drawings. Specifications are separated into divisions for convenience of reference only and shall not be interpreted as establishing divisions for the Work, trades, subcontracts, or extent of any part of the Work. In the event of a discrepancy between or among the drawings, specifications or other Contract Document provisions, Contractor shall be required to comply with the provision which is the more restrictive or stringent requirement upon the Contractor, as determined by the Project Manager. Unless otherwise specifically mentioned, all anchors, bolts, screws, fittings, fillers, hardware, accessories, trim and other parts required in connection with any portion of the Work to make a complete, serviceable, finished and first quality installation shall be furnished and installed as part of the Work, whether or not called for by the Contract Documents. 2. INVESTIGATION AND UTILITIES. 2.1 Subject to Section 2.3 below, Contractor shall have the sole responsibility of satisfying itself concerning the nature and location of the Work and the general and local conditions, and particularly, but without limitation, with respect to the following: GC-CA-H-1 16Cl those affecting transportation, access, disposal, handling and storage of materials; availability and quality of labor; water and electric power; availability and condition of roads; work area; living facilities; climatic conditions and seasons; physical conditions at the work-site and the project area as a whole; topography and ground surface conditions; nature and quantity of the surface materials to be encountered; subsurface conditions; equipment and facilities needed preliminary to and during performance of the Work; and all other costs associated with such performance. The failure of Contractor to acquaint itself with any applicable conditions shall not relieve Contractor from any of its responsibilities to perform under the Contract Documents, nor shall it be considered the basis for any claim for additional time or compensation. 2.2 Contractor shall locate all existing roadways, railways, drainage facilities and utility services above, upon, or under the Project site, said roadways, railways, drainage facilities and utilities being referred to in this Sub-Section 2.2 as the "Utilities". Contractor shall contact the owners of all Utilities to determine the necessity for relocating or temporarily interrupting any Utilities during the construction of the Project. Contractor shall schedule and coordinate its Work around any such relocation or temporary service interruption. Contractor shall be responsible for properly shoring, supporting and protecting all Utilities at all times during the course of the Work. The Contractor is responsible for coordinating all other utility work so as to not interfere with the prosecution of the Work (except those utilities to be coordinated by the Owner as may be expressly described elsewhere in the Contract Documents). 2.3 Notwithstanding anything in the Contract Documents to the contrary, if conditions are encountered at the Project site which are (i) subsurface or otherwise concealed physical conditions which differ materially from those indicated in the Contract Documents or (ii) unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature, which differ materially from those ordinarily found to exist and generally recognized as inherent in construction activities of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, and which reasonably should not have been discovered by Contractor as part of its scope of site investigative services required pursuant to the terms of the Contract Documents, then Contractor shall provide Owner with prompt written notice thereof before conditions are disturbed and in no event later than three (3) calendar days after first observance of such conditions. Owner and Design Professional shall promptly investigate such conditions and, if they differ materially and cause an increase or decrease in Contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the Work, Owner will acknowledge and agree to an equitable adjustment to Contractor's compensation or time for performance, or both, for such Work. If Owner determines that the conditions at the site are not materially different from those indicated in the Contract Documents or not of an unusual nature or should have been discovered by Contractor as part of its investigative services, and that no change in the terms of the Agreement is justified, Owner shall so notify Contractor in writing, stating its reasons. Claims by Contractor in opposition to such determination by Owner must be made within seven (7) calendar days after Contractor's receipt of Owner's written determination notice. If Owner and Contractor cannot agree on an adjustment to Contractor's cost or time of performance, the dispute resolution procedure set forth in the Contract Documents shall be complied with by the parties. GC-CA-H-2 '" , n '"") l, I 3. SCHEDULE. 3.1 The Contractor, within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the Notice of Award, shall prepare and submit to Project Manager, for their review and approval, a progress schedule for the Project (herein "Progress Schedule"). The Progress Schedule shall relate to all Work required by the Contract Documents, and shall utilize the Critical Path method of scheduling and shall provide for expeditious and practicable execution of the Work within the Contract Time. The Progress Schedule shall indicate the dates for starting and completing the various stages of the Work. 3.2 The Progress Schedule shall be updated monthly by the Contractor. All monthly updates to the Progress Schedule shall be subject to the Project Manager's review and approval. Contractor shall submit the updates to the Progress Schedule with its monthly Applications for Payment noted below. The Project Manager's review and approval of the submitted Progress Schedule updates shall be a condition precedent to the Owner's obligation to pay Contractor. 3.3 All work under this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of all Collier County Noise Ordinances then in effect. Unless otherwise specified, work will generally be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No work shall be performed outside the specified hours without the prior approval of the Project Manager. 4. PROGRESS PAYMENTS. 4.1 Prior to submitting its first monthly Application for Payment, Contractor shall submit to Project Manager, for their review and approval, a schedule of values based upon the Contract Price, listing the major elements of the Work and the dollar value for each element. After its approval by the Project Manager, this schedule of values shall be used as the basis for the Contractor's monthly Applications for Payment. This schedule shall be updated and submitted each month along with a completed copy of the Application for Payment form signed by the Contractor's authorized representative and attached to the Agreement as Exhibit D. 4.2 Prior to submitting its first monthly Application for Payment, Contractor shall provide to the Project Manager the list of its Subcontractors and materialmen submitted with its Bid showing the work and materials involved and the dollar amount of each subcontract and purchase order. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any modifications to the list of Subcontractors submitted with Contractor's Bid and any subsequently identified Subcontractors are subject to Owner's prior written approval. The first Application for Payment shall be submitted no earlier than thirty (30) days after the Commencement Date. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if approved by Owner in its sole discretion, Contractor may submit its invoice for any required Payment and Performance Bonds prior to the first Application of Payment provided that Contractor has furnished Owner certified copies of the receipts evidencing the premium paid by Contractor for the bonds. GC-CA-H-3 16Cl 4.3 Unless expressly approved by Owner in advance and in writing, said approval at Owner's sole discretion, Owner is not required to make any payment for materials or equipment that have not been incorporated into the Project. If payment is requested on the basis of materials and equipment not incorporated into the Project, but delivered and suitably stored at the site or at another location, and such payment and storage have been agreed to by Owner in writing, the Application for Payment also shall be accompanied by a bill of sale, invoice or other documentation warranting that the Owner has received the materials and equipment free and clear of all liens, charges, security interests and encumbrances, together with evidence that the materials and equipment are covered by appropriate property insurance and other arrangements to protect Owner's interest therein, all of which shall be subject to the Owner's satisfaction. Thereafter, with each Application for Payment, Contractor also shall complete and submit to Owner as part of its Application for Payment, the Stored Materials Record attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D-3. 4.4 Contractor shall submit four (4) copies of its monthly Application for Payment to the Project Manager or his or her designee, as directed by Owner (which designee may include the Design Professional). After the date of each Application for Payment is stamped as received and within the timeframes set forth in Section 218.735 F.S., the Project Manager, or Design Professional, shall either: (1) Indicate its approval of the requested payment; (2) indicate its approval of only a portion of the requested payment, stating in writing its reasons therefore; or (3) return the Application for Payment to the Contractor indicating, in writing, the reason for refusing to approve payment. Payments of proper invoices in the amounts approved shall be processed and paid in accordance with Section 218.735, F.S. and the administrative procedures established by the County's Purchasing Department and the Clerk of Court's Finance Department respectively. In the event of a total denial by Owner and return of the Application for Payment by the Project Manager, the Contractor may make the necessary corrections and re-submit the Application for Payment. The Owner shall, within ten (10) business days after the Application for Payment is stamped and received and after Project Manager approval of an Application for Payment, pay the Contractor the amounts so approved. 4.5 Owner shall retain ten percent (10%) of the gross amount of each monthly payment request or ten percent (10%) of the portion thereof approved by the Project Manager for payment, whichever is less. Such sum shall be accumulated and not released to Contractor until final payment is due unless otherwise agreed to by the Owner in accordance with Florida Statute 255.078. The Project Manager shall have the discretion to establish, in writing, a schedule to periodically reduce the percentage of cumulative retainage held through out the course of the Project schedule. Owner shall reduce the amount of the retainage withheld on each payment request subsequent to fifty percent (50%) completion subject to the guidelines set forth in Florida Statute 255.078 and as set forth in the Owner's Purchasing Policy. 4.6 Monthly payments to Contractor shall in no way imply approval or acceptance of Contractor's Work. GC-CA-H-4 16Cl 4.7 Each Application for Payment, subsequent to the first pay application, shall be accompanied by a Release and Affidavit, in the form attached as Exhibit C, acknowledging Contractor's receipt of payment in full for all materials, labor, equipment and other bills that are then due and payable by Owner with respect to the current Application for Payment. Further, to the extent directed by Owner and in Owner's sole discretion, Contractor shall also submit a Release and Affidavit from each Subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or supplier in the form attached as Exhibit C acknowledging that each Subcontractor, sub-subcontractor or supplier has been paid in full through the previous month's Application for Payment. The Owner shall not be required to make payment until and unless these affidavits are furnished by Contractor. 4.8 Contractor agrees and understands that funding limitations exist and that the expenditure of funds must be spread over the duration of the Project at regular intervals based on the Contract Amount and Progress Schedule. Accordingly, prior to submitting its first monthly Application for Payment, Contractor shall prepare and submit for Project Manager's review and approval, a detailed Project Funding Schedule, which shall be updated as necessary and approved by Owner to reflect approved adjustments to the Contract Amount and Contract Time. No voluntary acceleration or early completion of the Work shall modify the time of payments to Contractor as set forth in the approved Project Funding Schedule. 4.9 Notwithstanding anything in the Contract Documents to the contrary, Contractor acknowledges and agrees that in the event of a dispute concerning payments for Work performed under this Agreement, Contractor shall continue to perform the Work required of it under this Agreement pending resolution of the dispute provided that Owner continues to pay Contractor all amounts that Owner does not dispute are due and payable. 5. PAYMENTS WITHHELD. 5.1 The Project Manager may decline to approve any Application for Payment, or portions thereof, because of subsequently discovered evidence or subsequent inspections that reveal non-compliance with the Contract Documents. The Project Manager may nullify the whole or any part of any approval for payment previously issued and Owner may withhold any payments otherwise due Contractor under this Agreement or any other agreement between Owner and Contractor, to such extent as may be necessary in the Owner's opinion to protect it from loss because of: (a) defective Work not remedied; (b) third party claims filed or reasonable evidence indicating probable filing of such claims; (c) failure of Contractor to make payment properly to subcontractors or for labor, materials or equipment; (d) reasonable doubt that the Work can be completed for the unpaid balance of the Contract Amount; (e) reasonable indication that the Work will not be completed within the Contract Time; (f) unsatisfactory prosecution of the Work by the Contractor; or (g) any other material breach of the Contract Documents by Contractor. GC-CA-H-5 16Ll 5.2 If any conditions described in 5.1. are not remedied or removed, Owner may, after three (3) days written notice, rectify the same at Contractor's expense. Provided, however, in the event of an emergency, Owner shall not be required to provide Contractor any written notice prior to rectifying the situation at Contractor's expense. Owner also may offset against any sums due Contractor the amount of any liquidated or non-liquidated obligations of Contractor to Owner, whether relating to or arising out of this Agreement or any other agreement between Contractor and Owner. 6. FINAL PAYMENT. 6.1 Owner shall make final payment to Contractor in accordance with Section 218.735, F.S. and the administrative procedures established by the County's Purchasing Department and the Clerk of Court's Finance Department after the Work is finally inspected and accepted by Project Manager as set forth with Section 20.1 herein, provided that Contractor first, and as an explicit condition precedent to the accrual of Contractor's right to final payment, shall have furnished Owner with a properly executed and notarized copy of the Release and Affidavit attached as Exhibit C, as well as, a duly executed copy of the Surety's consent to final payment and such other documentation that may be required by the Contract Documents and the Owner. Prior to release of final payment and final retainage, the Contractor's Representative and the Project Manager shall jointly complete the Final Payment Checklist, a representative copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit G. 6.2 Contractor's acceptance of final payment shall constitute a full waiver of any and all claims by Contractor against Owner arising out of this Agreement or otherwise relating to the Project, except those previously made in writing in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents and identified by Contractor as unsettled in its final Application for Payment. Neither the acceptance of the Work nor payment by Owner shall be deemed to be a waiver of Owner's right to enforce any obligations of Contractor hereunder or to the recovery of damages for defective Work not discovered by the Design Professional or Project Manager at the time of final inspection. 7. SUBMITTALS AND SUBSTITUTIONS. 7.1 Contractor shall carefully examine the Contract Documents for all requirements for approval of materials to be submitted such as shop drawings, data, test results, schedules and samples. Contractor shall submit all such materials at its own expense and in such form as required by the Contract Documents in sufficient time to prevent any delay in the delivery of such materials and the installation thereof. 7.2 Whenever materials or equipment are specified or described in the Contract Documents by using the name of a proprietary item or the name of a particular supplier, the naming of the item is intended to establish the type, function and quality required. Unless the name is followed by words indicating that no substitution is permitted, materials or equipment of other suppliers may be accepted by Owner if sufficient information is submitted by Contractor to allow the Owner to determine that the material or equipment proposed is equivalent or equal to that named. Requests for review of GC-CA-H-6 16Cl substitute items of material and equipment will not be accepted by Owner from anyone other than Contractor and all such requests must be submitted by Contractor to Project Manager within thirty (30) calendar days after Notice of Award is received by Contractor, unless otherwise mutually agreed in writing by Owner and Contractor. 7.3 If Contractor wishes to furnish or use a substitute item of material or equipment, Contractor shall make application to the Project Manager for acceptance thereof, certifying that the proposed substitute shall adequately perform the functions and achieve the results called for by the general design, be similar and of equal substance to that specified and be suited to the same use as that specified. The application shall state that the evaluation and acceptance of the proposed substitute will not prejudice Contractor's achievement of substantial completion on time, whether or not acceptance of the substitute for use in the Work will require a change in any of the Contract Documents (or in the provisions of any other direct contract with Owner for the Project) to adapt the design to the proposed substitute and whether or not incorporation or use by the substitute in connection with the Work is subject to payment of any license fee or royalty. All variations of the proposed substitute from that specified will be identified in the application and available maintenance, repair and replacement service shall be indicated. The application also shall contain an itemized estimate of all costs that will result directly or indirectly from acceptance of such substitute, including costs for redesign and claims of other contractors affected by the resulting change, all of which shall be considered by the Project Manager in evaluating the proposed substitute. The Project Manager may require Contractor to furnish at Contractor's expense additional data about the proposed substitute. 7.4 If a specific means, method, technique, sequence or procedure of construction is indicated in or required by the Contract Documents, Contractor may furnish or utilize a substitute means, method, sequence, technique or procedure of construction acceptable to the Project Manager, if Contractor submits sufficient information to allow the Project Manager to determine that the substitute proposed is equivalent to that indicated or required by the Contract Documents. The procedures for submission to and review by the Project Manager shall be the same as those provided herein for substitute materials and equipment. 7.5 The Project Manager shall be allowed a reasonable time within which to evaluate each proposed substitute and, if need be, to consult with the Design Professional. No substitute will be ordered, installed or utilized without the Project Manager's prior written acceptance which shall be evidenced by a Change Order, a Work Directive Change, a Field Order or an approved Shop Drawing. The Owner may require Contractor to furnish at Contractor's expense a special performance guarantee or other surety with respect to any substitute. The Project Manager will record time required by the Project Manager and the Project Manager's consultants in evaluating substitutions proposed by Contractor and making changes in the Contract Documents occasioned thereby. Whether or not the Owner accepts a proposed substitute, Contractor shall reimburse Owner for the charges of the Design Professional and the Design Professional's consultants for evaluating each proposed substitute. GC-CA-H-7 16Cl 8. DAILY REPORTS, AS-BUlL TS AND MEETINGS. 8.1 Unless waived in writing by Owner, Contractor shall complete and submit to Project Manager on a weekly basis a daily log of the Contractor's work for the preceding week in a format approved by the Project Manager. The daily log shall document all activities of Contractor at the Project site including, but not limited to, the following: 8.1.1 Weather conditions showing the high and low temperatures during work hours, the amount of precipitation received on the Project site, and any other weather conditions which adversely affect the Work; 8.1.2 8.1.3 personnel; Soil conditions which adversely affect the Work; The hours of operation by Contractor's and Sub-Contractor's 8.1.4 The number of Contractor's and Sub-Contractor's personnel present and working at the Project site, by subcontract and trade; 8.1.5 All equipment present at the Project site, description of equipment use and designation of time equipment was used (specifically indicating any down time); 8.1.6 Description of Work being performed at the Project site; 8.1.7 Any unusual or special occurrences at the Project site; 8.1.8 Materials received at the Project site; 8.1.9 A list of all visitors to the Project 8.1.10 Any problems that might impact either the cost or quality of the Work or the time of performance. The daily log shall not constitute nor take the place of any notice required to be given by Contractor to Owner pursuant to the Contract Documents. 8.2 Contractor shall maintain in a safe place at the Project site one record copy of the Contract Documents, including, but not limited to, all drawings, specifications, addenda, amendments, Change Orders, Work Directive Changes and Field Orders, as well as all written interpretations and clarifications issued by the Design Professional, in good order and annotated to show all changes made during construction. The annotated drawings shall be continuously updated by the Contractor throughout the prosecution of the Work to accurately reflect all field changes that are made to adapt the Work to field conditions, changes resulting from Change Orders, Work Directive Changes and Field Orders, and all concealed and buried installations of piping, conduit and utility services. All buried and concealed items, both inside and outside the Project site, shall be accurately located on the annotated drawings as to depth and in relationship to not less than two (2) permanent features (e.g. interior or exterior wall GC-CA-H-8 ] 6 r eij faces). The annotated drawings shall be clean and all changes, corrections and dimensions shall be given in a neat and legible manner in a contrasting color. The "As-Built" record documents, together with all approved samples and a counterpart of all approved shop drawings shall be available to the Project Manager or Design Professional for reference. Upon completion of the Work and as a condition precedent to Contractor's entitlement to final payment, these "As-Built" record documents, samples and shop drawings shall be delivered to Project Manager by Contractor for Owner. 8.3 Contractor shall keep all records and supporting documentation which concern or relate to the Work hereunder for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of termination of this Agreement or the date the Project is completed or such longer period as may be required by law, whichever is later. Owner, or any duly authorized agents or representatives of Owner, shall have the right to audit, inspect and copy all such records and documentation as often as they deem necessary during the period of this Agreement and during the document retention period noted above; provided, however, such activity shall be conducted only during normal business hours. 9. CONTRACT TIME AND TIME EXTENSIONS. 9.1 Contractor shall diligently pursue the completion of the Work and coordinate the Work being done on the Project by its subcontractors and material-men, as well as coordinating its Work with all work of others at the Project Site, so that its Work or the work of others shall not be delayed or impaired by any act or omission by Contractor. Contractor shall be solely responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures, as well as coordination of all portions of the Work under the Contract Documents, and the coordination of Owner's suppliers and contractors as set forth in Paragraph 12.2. herein. 9.2 Should Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the prosecution of or completion of the Work as a result of unforeseeable causes beyond the control of Contractor, and not due to its fault or neglect, including but not restricted to acts of Nature or of the public enemy, acts of government, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine regulation, strikes or lockouts, Contractor shall notify the Owner in writing within forty-eight (48) hours after the commencement of such delay, stating the cause or causes thereof, or be deemed to have waived any right which Contractor rnay have had to request a time extension. 9.3 No interruption, interference, inefficiency, suspension or delay in the commencement or progress of the Work frorn any cause whatever, including those for which Owner may be responsible, in whole or in part, shall relieve Contractor of its duty to perform or give rise to any right to damages or additional compensation from Owner. Contractor expressly acknowledges and agrees that it shall receive no damages for delay. Contractor's sole remedy, if any, against Owner will be the right to seek an extension to the Contract Time; provided, however, the granting of any such time extension shall not be a condition precedent to the aforementioned "No Damage For Delay" provision. This paragraph shall expressly apply to claims for early completion, as well as to claims based on late completion. GC-CA-H-9 16CI 9.4 In no event shall any approval by Owner authorizing Contractor to continue performing Work under this Agreement or any payment issued by Owner to Contractor be deemed a waiver of any right or claim Owner may have against Contractor for delay damages hereunder. 10. CHANGES IN THE WORK. 10.1 Owner shall have the right at any time during the progress of the Work to increase or decrease the Work. Promptly after being notified of a change, Contractor shall submit an itemized estimate of any cost or time increases or savings it foresees as a result of the change. Except in an emergency endangering life or property, or as expressly set forth herein, no addition or changes to the Work shall be made except upon written order of Owner, and Owner shall not be liable to the Contractor for any increased compensation without such written order. No officer, employee or agent of Owner is authorized to direct any extra or changed work orally. Any alleged changes must be approved by Owner in writing prior to starting such items. Owner will not be responsible for the costs of any changes commenced without Owner's express prior written approval. Failure to obtain such prior written approval for any changes will be deemed: (i) a waiver of any claim by Contractor for such items and (ii) an admission by Contractor that such items are in fact not a change but rather are part of the Work required of Contractor hereunder. 10.2 A Change Order, in the form attached as Exhibit E to this Agreement, shall be issued and executed promptly after an agreement is reached between Contractor and Owner concerning the requested changes. Contractor shall promptly perform changes authorized by duly executed Change Orders. The Contract Amount and Contract Time shall be adjusted in the Change Order in the manner as Owner and Contractor shall mutually agree. 10.3 If Owner and Contractor are unable to agree on a Change Order for the requested change, Contractor shall, nevertheless, promptly perform the change as directed by Owner in a written Work Directive Change. In that event, the Contract Amount and Contract Time shall be adjusted as directed by Owner. If Contractor disagrees with the Owner's adjustment deterrnination, Contractor must make a claim pursuant to Section 11 of these General Conditions or else be deemed to have waived any claim on this matter it rnight otherwise have had. 10.4 In the event a requested change results in an increase to the Contract Amount, the amount of the increase shall be limited to the Contractor's reasonable direct labor and material costs and reasonable actual equipment costs as a result of the change (including allowance for labor burden costs) plus a maximum ten percent (10%) markup for all overhead and profit. In the event such change Work is performed by a Subcontractor, a maxim urn ten percent (10%) markup for all overhead and profit for all Subcontractors' and sub-subcontractors' direct labor and material costs and actual equipment costs shall be permitted, with a maximum five percent (5%) markup thereon by the Contractor for all of its overhead and profit, for a total maximum markup of fifteen percent (15%). All compensation due Contractor and any Subcontractor or GC-CA-H-10 16Cl sub-subcontractor for field and home office overhead is included in the markups noted above. Contractor's and Sub-Contractor's bond costs associated with any change order shall be included in the overhead and profit expenses and shall not be paid as a separate line item. 10.5 Owner shall have the right to conduct an audit of Contractor's books and records to verify the accuracy of the Contractor's claim with respect to Contractor's costs associated with any Change Order or Work Directive Change. 10.6 The Project Manager shall have authority to order minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment to the Contract Amount or an extension to the Contract Time and not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Documents. Such changes may be effected by Field Order or by other written order. Such changes shall be binding on the Contractor. 10.7 Any modifications to this Contract shall be in compliance with the County Purchasing Policy and Administrative Procedures in effect at the time such modifications are authorized. 11. CLAIMS AND DISPUTES. 11.1 Claim is a demand or assertion by one of the parties seeking an adjustment or interpretation of the terms of the Contract Documents, payment of money, extension of time or other relief with respect to the terms of the Contract Documents. The term "Claim" also includes other disputes and matters in question between Owner and Contractor arising out of or relating to the Contract Documents. The responsibility to substantiate a Claim shall rest with the party making the Claim. 11.2 Claims by the Contractor shall be made in writing to the Project Manager within forty-eight (48) hours from when the Contractor knew or should have known of the event giving rise to such Claim or else the Contractor shall be deemed to have waived the Claim. Written supporting data shall be submitted to the Project Manager within fifteen (15) calendar days after the occurrence of the event, unless the Owner grants additional time in writing, or else the Contractor shall be deemed to have waived the Claim. All Claims shall be priced in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 10.4. 11.3 The Contractor shall proceed diligently with its performance as directed by the Owner, regardless of any pending Claim, action, suit or administrative proceeding, unless otherwise agreed to by the Owner in writing. Owner shall continue to make payments in accordance with the Contract Documents during the pendency of any Claim. 12. OTHER WORK. 12.1 Owner may perform other work related to the Project at the site by Owner's own forces, have other work performed by utility owners or let other direct contracts. If the fact that such other work is to be performed is not noted in the Contract Documents, written notice thereof will be given to Contractor prior to starting any such other work. If GC-CA-H-11 16Cl Contractor believes that such performance will involve additional expense to Contractor or require additional time, Contractor shall send written notice of that fact to Owner and Design Professional within forty-eight (48) hours of being notified of the other work. If the Contractor fails to send the above required forty-eight (48) hour notice, the Contractor will be deemed to have waived any rights it otherwise may have had to seek an extension to the Contract Time or adjustment to the Contract Amount. 12.2 Contractor shall afford each utility owner and other contractor who is a party to such a direct contract (or Owner, if Owner is performing the additional work with Owner's employees) proper and safe access to the site and a reasonable opportunity for the introduction and storage of materials and equipment and the execution of such work and shall properly connect and coordinate its Work with theirs. Contractor shall do all cutting, fitting and patching of the Work that may be required to make its several parts come together properly and integrate with such other work. Contractor shall not endanger any work of others by cutting, excavating or otherwise altering their work and will only cut or alter their work with the written consent of the Project Manager and the others whose work will be affected. The duties and responsibilities of Contractor under this paragraph are for the benefit of such utility owners and other Contractors to the extent that there are comparable provisions for the benefit of Contractor in said direct contracts between Owner and such utility owners and other contractors. 12.3 If any part of Contractor's Work depends for proper execution or results upon the work of any other contractor or utility owner (or Owner), Contractor shall inspect and promptly report to Project Manager in writing any delays, defects or deficiencies in such work that render it unavailable or unsuitable for such proper execution and results. Contractor's failure to report will constitute an acceptance of the other work as fit and proper for integration with Contractor's Work. 13. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE. 13.1 To the maximum extent permitted by Florida law, Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless Owner and its officers and employees from any and all liabilities, claims, damages, penalties, demands, judgments, actions, proceedings, losses or costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and paralegals' fees, whether resulting from any claimed breach of this Agreement by Contractor or from personal injury, property damage, direct or consequential damages, or economic loss, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentional wrongful misconduct of Contractor or anyone employed or utilized by the Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. 13.2 The duty to defend under this Article 13 is independent and separate from the duty to indemnify, and the duty to defend exists regardless of any ultimate liability of the Contractor, Owner and any indemnified party. The duty to defend arises immediately upon presentation of a claim by any party and written notice of such claim being provided to Contractor. Contractor's obligation to indemnify and defend under this Article 13 will survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement until it is determined by final judgment that an action against the Owner or an indemnified party GC-CA-H-12 16Cl for the matter indemnified hereunder is fully and finally barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 13.3 Contractor shall obtain and carry, at all times during its performance under the Contract Documents, insurance of the types and in the amounts set forth in Exhibit B to the Agreement. Further, the Contractor shall at all times comply with all of the terms, conditions, requirements and obligations set forth under Exhibit B. 14. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 14.1 Contractor agrees to comply, at its own expense, with all federal, state and local laws, codes, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and requirements applicable to the Project, including but not limited to those dealing with taxation, worker's compensation, equal employment and safety (including, but not limited to, the Trench Safety Act, Chapter 553, Florida Statutes). If Contractor observes that the Contract Documents are at variance therewith, it shall promptly notify Project Manager in writing. To the extent any law, rule, regulation, code, statute, or ordinance requires the inclusion of certain terms in this Agreement in order for this Agreement to be enforceable, such terms shall be deemed included in this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything in the Contract Documents to the contrary, it is understood and agreed that in the event of a change in any applicable laws, ordinances, rules or regulations subsequent to the date this Agreement was executed that increases the Contractor's time or cost of performance of the Work, Contractor is entitled to a Change Order for such increases, except to the extent Contractor knew or should have known of such changes prior to the date of this Agreement. 14.2 By executing and entering into this agreement, the Contractor is formally acknowledging without exception or stipulation that it is fully responsible for complying with the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 as located at 8 U.S.C. 1324, et seq. and regulations relating thereto, as either may be amended. Failure by the Contractor to comply with the laws referenced herein shall constitute a breach of this agreement and the County shall have the discretion to unilaterally terminate this agreement immediately. 15. CLEANUP AND PROTECTIONS. 15.1 Contractor agrees to keep the Project site clean at all times of debris, rubbish and waste materials arising out of the Work. At the completion of the Work, Contractor shall remove all debris, rubbish and waste materials from and about the Project site, as well as all tools, appliances, construction equipment and machinery and surplus materials, and shall leave the Project site clean and ready for occupancy by Owner. 15.2 Any existing surface or subsurface improvements, including, but not limited to, pavements, curbs, sidewalks, pipes, utilities, footings, structures, trees and shrubbery, not indicated in the Contract Documents to be removed or altered, shall be protected by Contractor from damage during the prosecution of the Work. Subject to the Section 2.3 GC-CA-H-13 16Cl above, any such improvements so damaged shall be restored by Contractor to the condition equal to that existing at the time of Contractor's commencement of the Work. 16. ASSIGNMENT. 16.1 Contractor shall not assign this Agreement or any part thereof, without the prior consent in writing of Owner. Any attempt to assign or otherwise transfer this Agreement, or any part herein, without the Owner's consent, shall be void. If Contractor does, with approval, assign this Agreement or any part thereof, it shall require that its assignee be bound to it and to assume toward Contractor all of the obligations and responsibilities that Contractor has assumed toward Owner. 17. PERMITS, LICENSES AND TAXES. 17.1 Pursuant to Section 218.80, F.S., Owner will pay for all Collier County permits and fees, including license fees, permit fees, impact fees or inspection fees applicable to the Work through an internal budget transfer(s). Contractor is not responsible for paying for permits issued by Collier County, but Contractor is responsible for acquiring all permits. Owner may require the Contractor to deliver internal budget transfer documents to applicable Collier County agencies when the Contractor is acquiring permits. 17.2 All permits, fees and licenses necessary for the prosecution of the Work which are not issued by Collier County shall be acquired and paid for by the Contractor. 17.3 Contractor shall pay all sales, consumer, use and other similar taxes associated with the Work or portions thereof, which are applicable during the performance of the Work. 18. TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT. 18.1 Contractor shall be considered in material default of the Agreement and such default shall be considered cause for Owner to terminate the Agreement, in whole or in part, as further set forth in this Section, if Contractor: (1) fails to begin the Work under the Contract Documents within the time specified herein; or (2) fails to properly and timely perform the Work as directed by the Project Manager or as provided for in the approved Progress Schedule; or (3) performs the Work unsuitably or neglects or refuses to remove materials or to correct or replace such Work as may be rejected as unacceptable or unsuitable; or (4) discontinues the prosecution of the Work; or (5) fails to resume Work which has been suspended within a reasonable time after being notified to do so; or (6) becomes insolvent or is declared bankrupt, or commits any act of bankruptcy; or (7) allows any final judgment to stand against it unsatisfied for more than ten (10) days; or (8) makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors; or (9) fails to obey any applicable codes, laws, ordinances, rules or regulations with respect to the Work; or (10) materially breaches any other provision of the Contract Documents. 18.2 Owner shall notify Contractor in writing of Contractor's default(s). If Owner determines that Contractor has not remedied and cured the default(s) within seven (7) GC-CA-H-14 16Cl calendar days following receipt by Contractor of said written notice or such longer period of time as may be consented to by Owner in writing and in its sole discretion, then Owner, at its option, without releasing or waiving its rights and remedies against the Contractor's sureties and without prejudice to any other right or remedy it may be entitled to hereunder or by law, may terminate Contractor's right to proceed under the Agreement, in whole or in part, and take possession of all or any portion of the Work and any materials, tools, equipment, and appliances of Contractor, take assignments of any of Contractor's subcontracts and purchase orders, and complete all or any portion of Contractor's Work by whatever means, method or agency which Owner, in its sole discretion, may choose. 18.3 If Owner deems any of the foregoing remedies necessary, Contractor agrees that it shall not be entitled to receive any further payments hereunder until after the Project is completed. All moneys expended and all of the costs, losses, damages and extra expenses, including all management, administrative and other overhead and other direct and indirect expenses (including Design Professional and attorneys' fees) or damages incurred by Owner incident to such completion, shall be deducted from the Contract Amount, and if such expenditures exceed the unpaid balance of the Contract Amount, Contractor agrees to pay promptly to Owner on demand the full amount of such excess, including costs of collection, attorneys' fees (including appeals) and interest thereon at the maximum legal rate of interest until paid. If the unpaid balance of the Contract Amount exceeds all such costs, expenditures and damages incurred by the Owner to complete the Work, such excess shall be paid to the Contractor. The amount to be paid to the Contractor or Owner, as the case may be, shall be approved by the Project Manager, upon application, and this obligation for payment shall survive termination of the Agreement. 18.4 The liability of Contractor hereunder shall extend to and include the full amount of any and all sums paid, expenses and losses incurred, damages sustained, and obligations assumed by Owner in good faith under the belief that such payments or assumptions were necessary or required, in completing the Work and providing labor, materials, equipment, supplies, and other items therefor or re-letting the Work, and in settlement, discharge or compromise of any claims, demands, suits, and judgments pertaining to or arising out of the Work hereunder. 18.5 If, after notice of termination of Contractor's right to proceed pursuant to this Section, it is determined for any reason that Contractor was not in default, or that its default was excusable, or that Owner is not entitled to the remedies against Contractor provided herein, then the termination will be deemed a termination for convenience and Contractor's remedies against Owner shall be the same as and limited to those afforded Contractor under Section 19 below. 18.6 In the event (i) Owner fails to make any undisputed payment to Contractor within thirty (30) days after such payment is due or Owner otherwise persistently fails to fulfill some material obligation owed by Owner to Contractor under this Agreement, and (ii) Owner has failed to cure such default within fourteen (14) days of receiving written notice of same from Contractor, then Contractor may stop its performance under this GC-CA-H-15 16Cl Agreement until such default is cured, after giving Owner a second fourteen (14) days written notice of Contractor's intention to stop performance under the Agreement. If the Work is so stopped for a period of one hundred and twenty (120) consecutive days through no act or fault of the Contractor or its Subcontractors or their agents or employees or any other persons performing portions of the Work under contract with the Contractor or any Subcontractor, the Contractor may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Owner of Contractor's intent to terminate this Agreement. If Owner does not cure its default within fourteen (14) days after receipt of Contractor's written notice, Contractor may, upon fourteen (14) additional days' written notice to the Owner, terminate the Agreement and recover from the Owner payment for Work performed through the termination date, but in no event shall Contractor be entitled to payment for Work not performed or any other damages from Owner. 19. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE AND RIGHT OF SUSPENSION. 19.1 Owner shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without cause upon seven (7) calendar days written notice to Contractor. In the event of such termination for convenience, Contractor's recovery against Owner shall be limited to that portion of the Contract Amount earned through the date of termination, together with any retainage withheld and reasonable termination expenses incurred, but Contractor shall not be entitled to any other or further recovery against Owner, including, but not limited to, damages or any anticipated profit on portions of the Work not performed. 19.2 Owner shall have the right to suspend all or any portions of the Work upon giving Contractor not less than two (2) calendar days' prior written notice of such suspension. If all or any portion of the Work is so suspended, Contractor's sole and exclusive remedy shall be to seek an extension of time to its schedule in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Contract Documents. In no event shall the Contractor be entitled to any additional compensation or damages. Provided, however, if the ordered suspension exceeds six (6) months, the Contractor shall have the right to terminate the Agreement with respect to that portion of the Work which is subject to the ordered suspension. 20. COMPLETION. 20.1 When the entire Work (or any portion thereof designated in writing by Owner) is ready for its intended use, Contractor shall notify Project Manager in writing that the entire Work (or such designated portion) is substantially complete. Within a reasonable time thereafter, Owner, Contractor and Design Professional shall make an inspection of the Work (or designated portion thereof) to determine the status of completion. If Owner, after conferring with the Design Professional, does not consider the Work (or designated portion) substantially complete, Project Manager shall notify Contractor in writing giving the reasons therefor. If Owner, after conferring with the Design Professional, considers the Work (or designated portion) substantially complete, Project Manager shall prepare and deliver to Contractor a Certificate of Substantial Completion which shall fix the date of Substantial Completion for the entire Work (or designated portion thereof) and include a tentative punch-list of items to be completed or corrected GC-CA-H-16 16Cl by Contractor before final payment. Owner shall have the right to exclude Contractor from the Work and Project site (or designated portion thereof) after the date of Substantial Completion, but Owner shall allow Contractor reasonable access to complete or correct items on the tentative punch-list. 20.2 Upon receipt of written certification by Contractor that the Work is completed in accordance with the Contract Documents and is ready for final inspection and acceptance, Project Manager and Design Professional will make such inspection and, if they find the Work acceptable and fully performed under the Contract Documents shall promptly issue a final Certificate for Payment, recommending that, on the basis of their observations and inspections, and the Contractor's certification that the Work has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, that the entire balance found to be due Contractor is due and payable. Neither the final payment nor the retainage shall become due and payable until Contractor submits: (1) Receipt of Contractor's Final Application for Payment. (2) The Release and Affidavit in the form attached as Exhibit C. (3) Consent of surety to final payment. (4) Receipt of the final payment check list. (5) If required by Owner, other data establishing payment or satisfaction of all obligations, such as receipts, releases and waivers of liens, arising out of the Contract Documents, to the extent and in such form as may be designated by Owner. Owner reserves the right to inspect the Work and make an independent determination as to the Work's acceptability, even though the Design Professional may have issued its recommendations. Unless and until the Owner is completely satisfied, neither the final payment nor the retainage shall become due and payable. 21. WARRANTY. 21.1 Contractor shall obtain and assign to Owner all express warranties given to Contractor or any subcontractors by any subcontractor or materialmen supplying materials, equipment or fixtures to be incorporated into the Project. Contractor warrants to Owner that any materials and equipment furnished under the Contract Documents shall be new unless otherwise specified, and that all Work shall be of good quality, free from all defects and in conformance with the Contract Documents. Contractor further warrants to Owner that all materials and equipment furnished under the Contract Documents shall be applied, installed, connected, erected, used, cleaned and conditioned in accordance with the instructions of the applicable manufacturers, fabricators, suppliers or processors except as otherwise provided for in the Contract Documents. If, within one (1) year after Substantial Completion, any Work is found to be defective or not in conformance with the Contract Documents, Contractor shall correct it promptly after receipt of written notice from Owner. Contractor shall also be responsible for and pay for replacement or repair of adjacent materials or Work which may be damaged as a result of such replacement or repair. Further, in the event of an emergency, Owner may commence to correct any defective Work, without prior notice GC-CA-H-17 16Cl to Contractor, at Contractor's expense. These warranties are In addition to those implied warranties to which Owner is entitled as a matter of law. 21.2 No later than 30 days prior to expiration of the warranty, the Project Manager, or another representative of the Owner, shall conduct an inspection of the warranted work to verify compliance with the requirements of the Agreement. The Contractor's Representative shall be present at the time of inspection and shall take remedial actions to correct any deficiencies noted in the inspection. Failure of the Contractor to correct the cited deficiencies shall be grounds for the Owner to disqualify the Contractor from future bid opportunities with the Owner, in addition to any other rights and remedies available to Owner. 22. TESTS AND INSPECTIONS. 22.1 Owner, Design Professional, their respective representatives, agents and employees, and governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the Project shall have access at all times to the Work, whether the Work is being performed on or off of the Project site, for their observation, inspection and testing. Contractor shall provide proper, safe conditions for such access. Contractor shall provide Project Manager with timely notice of readiness of the Work for all required inspections, tests or approvals. 22.2 If the Contract Documents or any codes, laws, ordinances, rules or regulations of any public authority having jurisdiction over the Project requires any portion of the Work to be specifically inspected, tested or approved, Contractor shall assume full responsibility therefore, pay all costs in connection therewith and furnish Project Manager the required certificates of inspection, testing or approval. All inspections, tests or approvals shall be performed in a manner and by organizations acceptable to the Project Manager. 22.3 Contractor is responsible, without reimbursement from Owner, for re-inspection fees and costs; to the extent such re-inspections are due to the fault or neglect of Contractor. 22.4 If any Work that is to be inspected, tested or approved is covered without written concurrence from the Project Manager, such work must, if requested by Project Manager, be uncovered for observation. Such uncovering shall be at Contractor's expense unless Contractor has given Project Manager timely notice of Contractor's intention to cover the same and Project Manager has not acted with reasonable promptness to respond to such notice. If any Work is covered contrary to written directions from Project Manager, such Work must, if requested by Project Manager, be uncovered for Project Manager's observation and be replaced at Contractor's sole expense. 22.5 The Owner shall charge to Contractor and may deduct from any payments due Contractor all engineering and inspection expenses incurred by Owner in connection with any overtime work. Such overtime work consisting of any work during the GC-CA-H-18 16Cl construction period beyond the regular eight (8) hour day and for any work performed on Saturday, Sunday or holidays. 22.6 Neither observations nor other actions by the Project Manager or Design Professional nor inspections, tests or approvals by others shall relieve Contractor from Contractor's obligations to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 23. DEFECTIVE WORK. 23.1 Work not conforming to the requirements of the Contract Documents or any warranties made or assigned by Contractor to Owner shall be deemed defective Work. If required by Project Manager, Contractor shall as directed, either correct all defective Work, whether or not fabricated, installed or completed, or if the defective Work has been rejected by Project Manager, remove it from the site and replace it with non- defective Work. Contractor shall bear all direct, indirect and consequential costs of such correction or removal (including, but not limited to fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys and other professionals) made necessary thereby, and shall hold Owner harmless for same. 23.2 If the Project Manager considers it necessary or advisable that covered Work be observed by Design Professional or inspected or tested by others and such Work is not otherwise required to be inspected or tested, Contractor, at Project Manager's request, shall uncover, expose or otherwise make available for observation, inspection or tests as Project Manager may require, that portion of the Work in question, furnishing all necessary labor, material and equipment. If it is found that such Work is defective, Contractor shall bear all direct, indirect and consequential costs of such uncovering, exposure, observation, inspection and testing and of satisfactory reconstruction (including, but not limited to, fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys and other professionals), and Owner shall be entitled to an appropriate decrease in the Contract Amount. If, however, such Work is not found to be defective, Contractor shall be allowed an increase in the Contract Amount and/or an extension to the Contract Time, directly attributable to such uncovering, exposure, observation, inspection, testing and reconstruction. 23.3 If any portion of the Work is defective, or if Contractor fails to supply sufficient skilled workers, suitable materials or equipment or fails to finish or perform the Work in such a way that the completed Work will conform to the Contract Documents, Project Manager may order Contractor to stop the Work, or any portion thereof, until the cause for such order has been eliminated. The right of Project Manager to stop the Work shall be exercised, if at all, solely for Owner's benefit and nothing herein shall be construed as obligating the Project Manager to exercise this right for the benefit of Design Engineer, Contractor, or any other person. 23.4 Should the Owner determine, at its sole opinion, it is in the Owner's best interest to accept defective Work, the Owner may do so. Contractor shall bear all direct, indirect GC-CA-H-19 16Cl and consequential costs attributable to the Owner's evaluation of and determination to accept defective Work. If such determination is rendered prior to final payment, a Change Order shall be executed evidencing such acceptance of such defective Work, incorporating the necessary revisions in the Contract Documents and reflecting an appropriate decrease in the Contract Amount. If the Owner accepts such defective Work after final payment, Contractor shall promptly pay Owner an appropriate amount to adequately compensate Owner for its acceptance of the defective Work. 23.5 If Contractor fails, within a reasonable time after the written notice from Project Manager, to correct defective Work or to remove and replace rejected defective Work as required by Project Manager or Owner, or if Contractor fails to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents, or if Contractor fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Contract Documents, Owner may, after seven (7) days written notice to Contractor, correct and remedy any such deficiency. Provided, however, Owner shall not be required to give notice to Contractor in the event of an emergency. To the extent necessary to complete corrective and remedial action, Owner may exclude Contractor from any or all of the Project site, take possession of all or any part of the Work, and suspend Contractor's services related thereto, take possession of Contractor's tools, appliances, construction equipment and machinery at the Project site and incorporate in the Work all materials and equipment stored at the Project site or for which Owner has paid Contractor but which are stored elsewhere. Contractor shall allow Owner, Design Professional and their respective representatives, agents, and employees such access to the Project site as may be necessary to enable Owner to exercise the rights and remedies under this paragraph. All direct, indirect and consequential costs of Owner in exercising such rights and remedies shall be charged against Contractor, and a Change Order shall be issued, incorporating the necessary revisions to the Contract Documents, including an appropriate decrease to the Contract Amount. Such direct, indirect and consequential costs shall include, but not be limited to, fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys and other professionals, all court costs and all costs of repair and replacement of work of others destroyed or damaged by correction, removal or replacement of Contractor's defective Work. Contractor shall not be allowed an extension of the Contract Time because of any delay in performance of the Work attributable to the exercise by Owner of Owner's rights and remedies hereunder. 24. SUPERVISION AND SUPERINTENDENTS. 24.1 Contractor shall plan, organize, supervise, schedule, monitor, direct and control the Work competently and efficiently, devoting such attention thereto and applying such skills and expertise as may be necessary to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Contractor shall be responsible to see that the finished Work complies accurately with the Contract Documents. Contractor shall keep on the Work at all times during its progress a competent resident superintendent, who shall be subject to Owner's approval and not be replaced without prior written notice to Project Manager except under extraordinary circumstances. The superintendent shall be employed by the Contractor and be the Contractor's representative at the Project site and shall have authority to act on behalf of Contractor. All communications given to the superintendent shall be as binding as if given to the Contractor. Owner shall have the right to direct GC-CA-H-20 16C1 Contractor to remove and replace its Project superintendent, with or without cause. Attached to the Agreement as Exhibit N is a list identifying Contractor's Project Superintendent and all of Contractor's key personnel who are assigned to the Project; such identified personnel shall not be removed without Owner's prior written approval, and if so removed must be immediately replaced with a person acceptable to Owner. 24.2 Contractor shall have a competent superintendent on the project at all times whenever contractor's work crews, or work crews of other parties authorized by the Project Manager are engaged in any activity whatsoever associated with the Project. Should the Contractor fail to comply with the above condition, the Project Manager shall, at his discretion, deduct from the Contractor's monthly pay estimate, sufficient moneys to account for the Owner's loss of adequate project supervision, not as a penalty, but as liquidated damages, separate from the liquidated damages described in Section 5.8, for services not rendered. 25. PROTECTION OF WORK. 25.1 Contractor shall fully protect the Work from loss or damage and shall bear the cost of any such loss or damage until final payment has been made. If Contractor or anyone for whom Contractor is legally liable for is responsible for any loss or damage to the Work, or other work or materials of Owner or Owner's separate contractors, Contractor shall be charged with the same, and any moneys necessary to replace such loss or damage shall be deducted from any amounts due Contractor. 25.2 Contractor shall not load nor permit any part of any structure to be loaded in any manner that will endanger the structure, nor shall Contractor subject any part of the Work or adjacent property to stresses or pressures that will endanger it. 25.3 Contractor shall not disturb any benchmark established by the Owner or Design Professional with respect to the Project. If Contractor, or its subcontractors, agents or anyone for whom Contractor is legally liable, disturbs the Owner or Design Professional's benchmarks, Contractor shall immediately notify Project Manager and Design Professional. The Owner or Design Professional shall re-establish the benchmarks and Contractor shall be liable for all costs incurred by Owner associated therewith. 26. EMERGENCIES. 26.1 In the event of an emergency affecting the safety or protection of persons or the Work or property at the Project site or adjacent thereto, Contractor, without special instruction or authorization from Owner or Design Professional is obligated to act to prevent threatened damage, injury or loss. Contractor shall give Project Manager written notice within forty-eight (48) hours after Contractor knew or should have known of the occurrence of the emergency, if Contractor believes that any significant changes in the Work or variations from the Contract Documents have been caused thereby. If the Project Manager determines that a change in the Contract Documents is required because of the action taken in response to an emergency, a Change Order shall be GC-CA-H-21 16t;1 issued to document the consequences of the changes or variations. If Contractor fails to provide the forty-eight (48) hour written notice noted above, the Contractor shall be deemed to have waived any right it otherwise may have had to seek an adjustment to the Contract Amount or an extension to the Contract Time. 27. USE OF PREMISES. 27.1 Contractor shall maintain all construction equipment, the storage of materials and equipment and the operations of workers to the Project site and land and areas identified in and permitted by the Contract Documents and other lands and areas permitted by law, rights of way, permits and easements, and shall not unreasonably encumber the Project site with construction equipment or other material or equipment. Contractor shall assume full responsibility for any damage to any such land or area, or to the owner or occupant thereof, or any land or areas contiguous thereto, resulting from the performance of the Work. 28. SAFETY. 28.1 Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work. Contractor shall take all necessary precautions for the safety of, and shall provide the necessary protection to prevent damage, injury or loss to: 28.1.1 All employees on or about the project site and other persons and/or organizations who may be affected thereby; 28.1.2 All the Work and materials and equipment to be incorporated therein, whether in storage on or off the Project site; and 28.1.3 Other property on Project site or adjacent thereto, including trees, shrubs, walks, pavements, roadways, structures, utilities and any underground structures or improvements not designated for removal, relocation or replacement in the Contract Documents. 28.2 Contractor shall comply with all applicable codes, laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of any public body having jurisdiction for the safety of persons or property or to protect them from damage, injury or loss. Contractor shall erect and maintain all necessary safeguards for such safety and protection. Contractor shall notify owners of adjacent property and of underground structures and improvements and utility owners when prosecution of the Work may affect them, and shall cooperate with them in the protection, removal, relocation or replacement of their property. Contractor's duties and responsibilities for the safety and protection of the Work shall continue until such time as the Work is completed and final acceptance of same by Owner has occurred. 28.3. Contractor shall designate a responsible representative located on a full time basis at the Project site whose duty shall be the prevention of accidents. This person shall be Contractor's superintendent unless otherwise designated in writing by Contractor to Owner. GC-CA-H-22 16Cl 28.4 Alcohol, drugs and all illegal substances are strictly prohibited on any Owner property. All employees of Contractor, as well as those of all subcontractors and those of any other person or entity for whom Contractor is legally liable (collectively referred to herein as "Employees"), shall not possess or be under the influence of any such substances while on any Owner property. Further, Employees shall not bring on to any Owner property any gun, rifle or other firearm, or explosives of any kind. 28.5 Contractor acknowledges that the Work may be progressing on a Project site which is located upon or adjacent to an existing Owner facility. In such event, Contractor shall comply with the following: 28.5.1 All Owner facilities are smoke free. Smoking is strictly prohibited; 28.5.2 All Employees shall be provided an identification badge by Contractor. Such identification badge must be prominently displayed on the outside of the Employees' clothing at all times. All Employees working at the Project site must log in and out with the Contractor each day; 28.5.3 Contractor shall strictly limit its operations to the designated work areas and shall not permit any Employees to enter any other portions of Owner's property without Owner's expressed prior written consent; 28.5.4 All Employees are prohibited from distributing any papers or other materials upon Owner's property, and are strictly prohibited from using any of Owner's telephones or other office equipment; 28.5.5 All Employees shall at all times comply with the OSHA regulations with respect to dress and conduct at the Project site. Further, all Employees shall comply with the dress, conduct and facility regulations issued by Owner's officials onsite, as said regulations may be changed from time to time; 28.5.6 All Employees shall enter and leave Owner's facilities only through the ingress and egress points identified in the site utilization plan approved by Owner or as othelWise designated, from time to time, by Owner in writing; 28.5.7 When requested, Contractor shall cooperate with any ongoing Owner investigation involving personal injury, economic loss or damage to Owner's facilities or personal property therein; 28.5.8 The Employees may not solicit, distribute or sell products while on Owner's property. Friends, family members or other visitors of the Employees are not permitted on Owner's property; and 28.5.9 At all times, Contractor shall adhere to Owner's safety and security regulations, and shall comply with all security requirements at Owner's facilities, as said regulations and requirements may be modified or changed by Owner from time to time. GC-CA-H-23 16Cl 29. PROJECT MEETINGS. Prior to the commencement of Work, the Contractor shall attend a pre-construction conference with the Project Manager, Design Professional and others as appropriate to discuss the Progress Schedule, procedures for handling shop drawings and other submittals, and for processing Applications for Payment, and to establish a working understanding among the parties as to the Work. During the prosecution of the Work, the Contractor shall attend any and all meetings convened by the Project Manager with respect to the Project, when directed to do so by Project Manager or Design Professional. The Contractor shall have its subcontractors and suppliers attend all such meetings (including the pre-construction conference) as may be directed by the Project Manager. 30. VENDOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Owner has implemented a Vendor Performance Evaluation System for all contracts awarded in excess of $25,000. To this end, vendors will be evaluated on their performance upon completion/termination of this Agreement. 31. MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC POLICY For all projects that are conducted within a Collier County Right-of-Way, the Contractor shall provide and erect Traffic Control Devices as prescribed in the current edition of the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), where applicable on local roadways and as prescribed in the Florida Department of Transportations Design Standards (DS), where applicable on state roadways. These projects shall also comply with Collier County's Maintenance of Traffic Policy, #5807, incorporated herein by reference. Copies are available through Risk Management and/or Purchasing Departments, and is available on-line at colliergov.neUpurchasing. The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining copies of all required manuals, MUTCD, FDOT Roadway & Traffic Design Standards Indexes, or other related documents, so to become familiar with their requirements. Strict adherence to the requirements of the Maintenance of Traffic ("MOr) policy will be enforced under this Contract. All costs associated with the Maintenance of Traffic shall be included on the line item on the bid page. If MOT is required, MOT is to be provided within ten (10) days of receipt of Notice of Award. 32. SALES TAX SAVINGS AND DIRECT PURCHASE 32.1 Contractor shall pay all sales, consumer, use and other similar taxes associated with the Work or portions thereof, which are applicable during the performance of the Work. Additionally, as directed by Owner and at no additional cost to Owner, Contractor GC-CA-H-24 shall comply with and fully implement the sales tax savings program with respecft~hf 1 Work, as set forth in section 32.2 below: 32.2 Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, because Owner is exempt from sales tax and may wish to generate sales tax savings for the Project, Owner reserves the right to make direct purchases of various construction materials and equipment included in the Work ("Direct Purchase"). Contractor shall prepare purchase orders to vendors selected by Contractor, for execution by Owner, on forms provided by Owner. Contractor shall allow two weeks for execution of all such purchase orders by Owner. Contractor represents and warrants that it will use its best efforts to cooperate with Owner in implementing this sales tax savings program in order to maximize cost savings for the Project. Adjustments to the Contract Amount will be made by appropriate Change Orders for the amounts of each Owner Direct Purchase, plus the saved sales taxes. A Change Order shall be processed promptly after each Direct Purchase, or group of similar or related Direct Purchases, unless othelWise mutually agreed upon between Owner and Contractor. With respect to all Direct Purchases by Owner, Contractor shall remain responsible for coordinating, ordering, inspecting, accepting delivery, storing, handling, installing, warranting and quality control for all Direct Purchases. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Contractor expressly acknowledges and agrees that all Direct Purchases shall be included within and covered by Contractor's warranty to Owner to the same extent as all other warranties provided by Contractor pursuant to the terms of the Contract Documents. In the event Owner makes a demand against Contractor with respect to any Direct Purchase and Contractor wishes to make claim against the manufacturer or supplier of such Direct Purchase, upon request from Contractor Owner shall assign to Contractor any and all warranties and Contract rights Owner may have from any manufacturer or supplier of any such Direct Purchase by Owner. 32.3 Bidder represents and warrants that it is aware of its statutory responsibilities for sale tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and for its responsibilities for Federal excise taxes. 33. SUBCONTRACTS 33.1 Contractor shall review the design and shall determine how it desires to divide the sequence of construction activities. Contractor will determine the breakdown and composition of bid packages for award of subcontracts, based on the current Project Milestone Schedule, and shall supply a copy of that breakdown and composition to Owner and Design Professional for their review and approval prior to submitting its first Application for Payment. Contractor shall take into consideration such factors as natural and practical lines of severability, sequencing effectiveness, access and availability constraints, total time for completion, construction market conditions, availability of labor and materials, community relations and any other factors pertinent to saving time and costs. 33.2 A Subcontractor is any person or entity who is performing, furnishing, supplying or providing any portion of the Work pursuant to a contract with Contractor. Contractor GC-CA-H-25 16Cl shall be solely responsible for and have control over the Subcontractors. Contractor shall negotiate all Change Orders, Work Directive Changes, Field Orders and Requests for Proposal, with all affected Subcontractors and shall review the costs of those proposals and advise Owner and Design Professional of their validity and reasonableness, acting in Owner's best interest, prior to requesting approval of any Change Order from Owner. All Subcontractors performing any portion of the Work on this Project must be "qualified" as defined in Collier County Ordinance 87-25, meaning a person or entity that has the capability in all respects to perform fully the Agreement requirements with respect to its portion of the Work and has the integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance. 33.3 In addition to those Subcontractors identified in Contractor's bid that were approved by Owner, Contractor also shall identify any other Subcontractors, including their addresses, licensing information and phone numbers, it intends to utilize for the Project prior to entering into any subcontract or purchase order and prior to the Subcontractor commencing any work on the Project. The list identifying each Subcontractor cannot be modified, changed, or amended without prior written approval from Owner. Any and all Subcontractor work to be self-performed by Contractor must be approved in writing by Owner in its sole discretion prior to commencement of such work. Contractor shall continuously update that Subcontractor list, so that it remains current and accurate throughout the entire performance of the Work. 33.4 Contractor shall not enter into a subcontract or purchase order with any Subcontractor, if Owner reasonably objects to that Subcontractor. Contractor shall not be required to contract with anyone it reasonably objects to. Contractor shall keep on file a copy of the license for every Subcontractor and sub-subcontractor performing any portion of the Work, as well as maintain a log of all such licenses. All subcontracts and purchase orders between Contractor and its Subcontractors shall be in writing and are subject to Owner's approval. Further, unless expressly waived in writing by Owner, all subcontracts and purchase orders shall (1) require each Subcontractor to be bound to Contractor to the same extent Contractor is bound to Owner by the terms of the Contract Documents, as those terms may apply to the portion of the Work to be performed by the Subcontractor, (2) provide for the assignment of the subcontract or purchase order from Contractor to Owner at the election of Owner upon termination of Contractor, (3) provide that Owner will be an additional indemnified party of the subcontract or purchase order, (4) provide that Owner will be an additional insured on all liability insurance policies required to be provided by the Subcontractor except workman's compensation and business automobile policies, (5) assign all warranties directly to Owner, and (6) identify Owner as an intended third-party beneficiary of the subcontract or purchase order. Contractor shall make available to each proposed Subcontractor, prior to the execution of the subcontract, copies of the Contract Documents to which the Subcontractor will be bound. Each Subcontractor shall similarly make copies of such documents available to its sub-subcontractors. 33.5 Each Subcontractor performing work at the Project Site must agree to provide field (on-site) supervision through a named superintendent for each trade (e.g., general concrete forming and placement, masonry, mechanical, plumbing, electrical and GC-CA-H-26 16Cl roofing) included in its subcontract or purchase order. In addition, the Subcontractor shall assign and name a qualified employee for scheduling direction for its portion of the Work. The supervisory employees of the Subcontractor (including field superintendent, foreman and schedulers at all levels) must have been employed in a supervisory (leadership) capacity of substantially equivalent level on a similar project for at least two years within the last five years. The Subcontractor shall include a resume of experience for each employee identified by it to supervise and schedule its work. 33.6 Unless otherwise expressly waived by Owner in writing, all subcontracts and purchase orders shall provide: 33.6.1 That the Subcontractor's exclusive remedy for delays in the performance of the subcontract or purchase order caused by events beyond its control, including delays claimed to be caused by Owner or Design Professional or attributable to Owner or Design Professional and including claims based on breach of contract or negligence, shall be an extension of its contract time. 33.6.2 In the event of a change in the work, the Subcontractor's claim for adjustments in the contract sum are limited exclusively to its actual costs for such changes plus no more than 10% for overhead and profit. 33.6.3 The subcontract or purchase order, as applicable, shall require the Subcontractor to expressly agree that the foregoing constitute its sole and exclusive remedies for delays and changes in the Work and thus eliminate any other remedies for claim for increase in the contract price, damages, losses or additional compensation. Further, Contractor shall require all Subcontractors to similarly incorporate the terms of this Section 33.6 into their sub-subcontracts and purchase orders. 33.6.4 Each subcontract and purchase order shall require that any claims by Subcontractor for delay or additional cost must be submitted to Contractor within the time and in the manner in which Contractor must submit such claims to Owner, and that failure to comply with such conditions for giving notice and submitting claims shall result in the waiver of such claims. 34. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 34.1 Contractor shall maintain at the Project site, originals or copies of, on a current basis, all Project files and records, including, but not limited to, the following administrative records: 34.1.1 34.1.2 34.1.3 34.1.4 34.1.5 34.1.6 Subcontracts and Purchase Orders Subcontractor Licenses Shop Drawing Submittal/Approval Logs Equipment Purchase/Delivery Logs Contract Drawings and Specifications with Addenda Warranties and Guarantees GC-CA-H-27 34.1.7 34.1.8 34.1.9 34.1.10 34.1.11 34.1.12 34.1.13 34.1.14 34.1.15 34.1.16 34.1.17 34.1.18 34.1.19 34.1.20 34.1.21 34.1.22 34.1.23 34.1.24 34.1.25 34.1.26 34.1.27 34.1.28 34.1.29 34.1.30 34.1.31 34.1.32 ~ ~! r 1 Cost Accounting Records Labor Costs Material Costs Equipment Costs Cost Proposal Request Payment Request Records Meeting Minutes Cost-Estimates Bulletin Quotations Lab Test Reports Insurance Certificates and Bonds Contract Changes Permits Material Purchase Delivery Logs Technical Standards Design Handbooks "As-Built" Marked Prints Operating & Maintenance Instruction Daily Progress Reports Monthly Progress Reports Correspondence Files Transmittal Records Inspection Reports Punch Lists PM IS Schedule and Updates Suspense (Tickler) Files of Outstanding Requirements The Project files and records shall be available at all times to Owner and Design Professional or their designees for reference, review or copying. 34.2 Contractor Presentations At the discretion of the County, the Contractor may be required to provide a brief update on the Project to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, "Board", up to two (2) times per contract term. Presentations shall be made in a properly advertised Public Meeting on a schedule to be determined by the County Manager or his designee. Prior to the scheduled presentation date, the Contractor shall meet with appropriate County staff to discuss the presentation requirements and format. Presentations may include, but not be limited to, the following information: Original contract amount, project schedule, project completion date and any changes to the aforementioned since Notice to Proceed was issued. 35. SECURITY If required, Consultant shall be responsible for the costs of providing background checks and drug testing for all employees that shall provide services to the County GC-CA-H-28 16Gl under this Agreement. This may include, but not be limited to, checking federal, state and local law enforcement records, including a state and FBI fingerprint check, credit reports, education, residence and employment verifications and other related records. Consultant shall be required to maintain records on each employee and make them available to the County for at least four (4) years. 36. Venue Any suit or action brought by either party to this Agreement against the other party relating to or arising out of this Agreement must be brought in the appropriate federal or state courts in Collier County, Florida, which courts have sole and exclusive jurisdiction on all such matters. 37. VALUE ENGINEERING All projects with an estimated cost of $10 million or more shall be reviewed for consideration of a Value Engineering (VE) study conducted during project development. A "project" shall be defined as the collective contracts, which may include but not be limited to: design, construction, and construction, engineering and inspection (CEI) services. Additionally, any project with an estimated construction value of $2 million or more may be reviewed for VE at the discretion of the County. GC-CA-H-29 16Gl EXHIBIT I SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. The Notice to Proceed will be issued only after the following documentation has been submitted to the Owner: a. Complete contractual documents, including payment and performance bonds and insurance certificate; b. Progress schedule per Section 01327 of the Technical Specifications; c. Submittal schedule; d. Draw (funding) Schedule, which shall consist of a monthly projection of the value of the work to be completed and materials stored for the entire duration of the project; e. Safety Program/Risk Management Program; f. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program; and g. Security Plan 2. The Progress Schedule and Draw Schedule shall be updated monthly and submitted with each Contractor Application for Payment. If both items are not submitted with Application for Payment, that payment will be will be withheld until both items are received and accepted by the Owner and Engineer. 3. Substantial Completion shall be further defined by the OWNER during the project kick-off meeting but at a minimum will include the completion of the work as shown in the drawings and specified in the technical specifications to a stage where: a. The new aboveground fuel storage system and its appurtenances are tested, inspected and fully operational in supplying the diesel fuel to the existing standby generators. b. The existing underground fuel storage system and its appurtenances are removed and disposed. c. All restoration work has been completed so that the facility is safe to be occupied and/or accessed for its intended purpose by the OWNER. d. The OWNER has accepted and approved the Certificate of Substantial Completion (Exhibit-F of the Contract Document) for this project. 4. Owner Furnished 12.000 Gallon Aboveqround Double-Wall Steel Fuel Tank: a. The Owner will furnish the new aboveground main fuel tank that the Contractor is responsible for installing in this project. The tank will have a fuel storage capacity of 12,000 gallons. The tank will be a Fireguard double-wall steel tank meeting UL-2085 standard. The material specification for the tank is shown in Section 13203 for GC-CA-I-1 16Cl Contractor's Reference. With the exception of ladder, walkway and fill/spill box, the Contractor shall be responsible for furnishing and installing the remaining tank accessories as shown in the drawings and specified in the technical specifications and to make a complete installation of the aboveground fuel storage system for the existing standby generators. b. The Owner's Project Representative will request the Tank Manufacturer to deliver the new aboveground tank to the project site. The Contractor shall be responsible for notifying in writing to the Owner's Project Representative of the requested delivery date at the Project's Kick-Off Meeting. The notification must be at minimum 30 days in advance of the requested delivery date. 5. Qualification: a. All general contractors bidding this work shall be Florida-Certified General Contractors (CGG) as required by Chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes and Pollutant Storage System Specialty Contractors (PSSSCs). GC-CA-I-2 16Cl EXHIBIT J TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS GC-CA-J-1 16Cl EXHIBIT K PERMITS GC-CA-K-1 16Cl EXHIBIT L STANDARD DETAILS GC-CA-L-1 16Cl EXHIBIT M PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE ON ELECTRONIC E-PROCUREMENT SITE FOR DOWNLOADING GC-CA-M-1 16Cl EXHIBIT N CONTRACTOR'S KEY PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THE PROJECT GC-CA-N-1 16C2 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2008 TO: John Curran, Purchasing Agent Purchasing Department FROM: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes and Records Dept. RE: Contract #07-4181 "Landscaping for Public Utilities Division Facilities" Contractor: Amera-Tech, Inc. Enclosed is one original contract, referenced above (Agenda Item #16C2) approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. The Minutes & Records Department has kept an original copy where it will remain as part of the Board's permanent records. If you should have any questions, you may contact me at 252-8406. Thank you, Enclosures (l) 16C2 ITEM NO.: 08 _ v~c-t:D~Jsy . , .,\~ (l~. \\-'\C ,\.... :\',;~\~'rr:;r10F,\'\iJ , \ \, \ '\ I ,I DA TE REC~rvED: ~ c. '") r'A ~,,: j J f'j~H\ - '- \..* FILE NO.: ROUTED TO: DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Date: April 2, 2008 TJ/o{tf.; fal~er 1?~ ~ A~sistant County Attorney tJ-- I To: From: John P. curr~L Purchasing nt 239-252-60 Re: Contract #07 -4181 "Landscaping for Public Utilities Division Facilities" Contractor: Amera-Tech, Inc. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST: This contract was approved by the BCC on March 25, 2008; Agenda Item 16.C.2. This item has not been previously submitted. ACTION REQUESTED: Contract review and approval. OTHER COMMENTS: Please forward to BCC for signature after approval. If there are any questions concerning the document, please contact me. Purchasing would appreciate notification when the documents exit your office. Thank you. tf/J/OY-~ r~p~~'~ /"-t -:t~ .~ ~ ~/C /IV~ 'f/oJ~ r!3!vl- ~/-~~ ^" . -r. J n ~j:~At;~ ~.@ L((iol- ~I ~/"'~ ~~~ ~vd 4/7 MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Walker Risk Management Department John P. Curr~L Purchasing Dc?Partment FROM: DATE: April 2, 2008 RE: Review of Insurance for Contract No. 07-4181 "Landscaping for Public Utilities Division Facilities" Amera-Tech, Inc. 16C2 This Contract was approved by the BCC on March 25, 2008; Agenda Item 16.C.2. Please review the Bonds and Insurance Certificate in this Agreement for the above-referenced contract. If everything is acceptable, please forward to the County Attorney for further review and approval. Also will you advise me when it has been forwarded. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 6098. ~pI- ? /f/z/i~ cc: Pam Libby 16C2 A G R E E MEN T 07-4181 for "Landscaping for Public Utilities Division Facilities" THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this 25 day of March 2008, by and between Amera-Tech Inc., authorized to do business in the State of Florida, whose business address is 17473A Jean Street, Ft. Myers, FL 33967, hereinafter called the "Contractor" (or "Consultant") and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Collier County, Naples, hereinafter called the "County": WITNESSETH: 1. COMMENCEMENT. The Contractor shall commence the work approved the Board of County Commissioners described as one time site repair requests and special assignments. This Agreement shall commence on the date of the issuance of a Purchase Order The contract shall be for a two (2) year period, commencing on March 25, 2008, and terminating on November 30, 2009. The County may, at its discretion and with the consent of the Contractor, renew the Agreement under all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement for three (3) additional two (2) year periods. The County shall give the Contractor written notice of the County's intention to extend the Agreement term not less than ten (10) days prior to the end of the Agreement term then in effect. 2. STATEMENT OF WORK. The Contractor shall provide Landscaping for Public Utilities Division Facilities (Area 3) in accordance with the terms and conditions of BidfRFP #07-4181 and the Contractor's proposal referred to herein and made an integral part of this agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties and any modifications to this Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Contractor and the County project manager or his designee, in compliance with the County Purchasing Policy and Administrative Procedures in effect at the time such services are authorized. 3. COMPENSATION. The County shall pay the Contractor for the performance of this Agreement pursuant to the unit price schedule offered by the Contractor in his bid, together with the cost of any other charges/fees submitted in the proposal. In addition, the Contractor hereby agrees that any requested parameters or items not included in Page I of6 16C2 the bid schedule shall be performed at a discount of 30% from the Contractors prevailing retail price list at the time of the order. In such instances, the Contractor shall submit a copy of the appropriate pages from said price list with the invoice for the non-bid items. Payment will be made upon receipt of a proper invoice and upon approval by the Project Manager or his designee, and in compliance with Section 218.70, Fla. Stats., otherwise known as the "Florida Prompt Payment Act". 4. NOTICES. All notices from the County to the Contractor shall be deemed duly served if mailed or faxed to the Contractor at the following Address: Amera-Tech, Inc. 17473A Jean Street Fort Myers, FL 33967 Telephone: 239-561-9184 Facsimile: 239-561-9478 All Notices from the Contractor to the County shall be deemed duly served if mailed or faxed to the County to: Collier County Government Center Purchasing Department - Purchasing Building 3301 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, Florida 34112 Attn: Steve Carnell, Purchasing/GS Director Telephone: 239-252-8371 Facsimile: 239-252-6584 The Contractor and the County may change the above mailing address at any time upon giving the other party written notification. All notices under this Agreement must be in writing. 5. NO PARTNERSHIP. Nothing herein contained shall create or be construed as creating a partnership between the County and the Contractor or to constitute the Contractor as an agent of the County. 6. PERMITS: LICENSES: TAXES. In compliance with Section 218.80, F.S., all permits necessary for the prosecution of the Work shall be obtained by the Contractor. Payment for all such permits issued by the County shall be processed internally by the County. All non-County permits necessary for the prosecution of the Work shall be procured and paid for by the Contractor. The Contractor shall also be solely responsible for payment of any and all taxes levied on the Contractor. In addition, the Contractor shall comply with all rules, regulations and laws of Collier County, the State of Florida, or the U. S. Government now in force or hereafter adopted. The Contractor agrees to comply with all laws governing the responsibility of an employer with respect to persons employed by the Contractor. Page 2 of6 16C2 7. NO IMPROPER USE. The Contractor will not use, nor suffer or permit any person to use in any manner whatsoever, county facilities for any improper, immoral or offensive purpose, or for any purpose in violation of any federal, state, county or municipal ordinance, rule, order or regulation, or of any governmental rule or regulation now in effect or hereafter enacted or adopted. In the event of such violation by the Contractor or if the County or its authorized representative shall deem any conduct on the part of the Contractor to be objectionable or improper, the County shall have the right to suspend the contract of the Contractor. Should the Contractor fail to correct any such violation, conduct, or practice to the satisfaction of the County within twenty-four (24) hours after receiving notice of such violation, conduct, or practice, such suspension to continue until the violation is cured. The Contractor further agrees not to commence operation during the suspension period until the violation has been corrected to the satisfaction of the County. 8. TERMINATION. Should the Contractor be found to have failed to perform his services in a manner satisfactory to the County as per this Agreement, the County may terminate said agreement immediately for cause; further the County may terminate this Agreement for convenience with a thirty (30) day written notice. The County shall be sole judge of non-performance. 9. NO DISCRIMINATION. The Contractor agrees that there shall be no discrimination as to race, sex, color, creed or national origin. 10. INSURANCE. The Contractor shall provide insurance as follows: A. Commercial General Liabilitv: Coverage shall have minimum limits of $1,000,000 Per Occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. This shall include Premises and Operations; Independent Contractors; Products and Completed Operations and Contractual Liability. B. Business Auto Liability: Coverage shall have minimum limits of $1,000,000 Per Occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. This shall include: Owned Vehicles, Hired and Non-Owned Vehicles and Employee Non-Ownership. C. Workers' Compensation: Insurance covering all employees meeting Statutory Limits in compliance with the applicable state and federal laws. The coverage must include Employers' Liability with a minimum limit of $500,000 for each accident. Special Requirements: Collier County shall be listed as the Certificate Holder and included as an Additional Insured on the Comprehensive General Liability Policy. Page30f6 16C2 Current, valid insurance policies meeting the requirement herein identified shall be maintained by Contractor during the duration of this Agreement. Renewal certificates shall be sent to the County thirty (30) days prior to any expiration date. There shall be a thirty (30) day notification to the County in the event of cancellation or modification of any stipulated insurance coverage. Contractor shall insure that all subContractors comply with the same insurance requirements that he is required to meet. The same Contractor shall provide County with certificates of insurance meeting the required insurance provisions. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. To the maximum extent permitted by Florida law, the Contractor/Vendor/Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless Collier County, its officers and employees from any and all liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and paralegals' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the Contractor/Vendor/Consultant or anyone employed or utilized by the Contractor/Vendor/Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. This indemnification obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge or reduce any other rights or remedies which otherwise may be available to an indemnified party or person described in this paragraph. This section does not pertain to any incident arising from the sole negligence of Collier County. 12. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be administered on behalf of the County by the Purchasing Department. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Contractor represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest, either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of services required hereunder. Contractor further represents that no persons having any such interest shall be employed to perform those services. 14. COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT. This Contract consists of the attached component parts, all of which are as fully a part of the contract as if herein set out verbatim: Contractor's Proposal, Insurance Certificate, Bid/RFP #07-4181 Specifi- cations/Scope of Services and Addendum/ Addenda. 15. SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION. It is further understood and agreed by and between the parties herein that this agreement is subject to appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners. 16. PROHIBITION OF GIFTS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES. No organization or individual shall offer or give, either directly or indirectly, any favor, gift, loan, fee, service or other item of value to any County employee, as set forth in Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes, Collier County Ethics Ordinance No. 2004-05, and County Administrative Procedure 5311. Violation of this provision may result in one or more Page 4 of6 16C2 of the following consequences: a. Prohibition by the individual, firm, and/ or any employee of the firm from contact with County staff for a specified period of time; b. Prohibition by the individual and/ or firm from doing business with the County for a specified period of time, including but not limited to: submitting bids, RFP, and/ or quotes; and, c. immediate termination of any contract held by the individual and/ or firm for cause. 17. IMMIGRATION LAW COMPLIANCE. By executing and entering into this agreement, the Contractor is formally acknowledging without exception or stipulation that it is fully responsible for complying with the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 as located at 8 U.s.e. 1324, et seq. and regulations relating thereto, as either may be amended. Failure by the Contractor to comply with the laws referenced herein shall constitute a breach of this agreement and the County shall have the discretion to unilaterally terminate this agreement immediately. 18. VENUE. Any suit or action brought by either party to this Agreement against the other party relating to or arising out of this Agreement must be brought in the appropriate federal or state courts in Collier County, Florida, which courts have sole and exclusive jurisdiction on all such matters. 19. OFFER EXTENDED TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. Collier County encourages and agrees to the successful proposer extending the pricing, terms and conditions of this solicitation or resultant contract to other governmental entities at the discretion of the successful proposer. 20. AGREEMENT TERMS. If any portion of this Agreement is held to be void, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable, in whole or in part, the remaining portion of this Agreement shall remain in effect. 21. ADDITIONAL ITEMS/SERVICES. Additional items and/ or services may be added to this contract upon satisfactory negotiation of price by the Contract Manager and Contactor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and the County, have each, respectively, by an authorized person or agent, hereunder set their hands and seals on the date and year first above written. Page 5 of6 ATTEST: Dwight E)~l\ggl<.j~erkofCourts '\\""_ -"',". ',-"'- "1' '^,'., BY:~"">" ...'....' ~.t.'...' hD. ~, D ~. . /- ~ ' at....... "> " /" ". ",' '.. ( ,.., .... . . . . . "-I" . .......,'..:r-- ;:1': ~ . ',." , :,.' .-,' -. '- ~. - , (]1;~(1 ~/hU F s Witness "r S . ) tTypel rint witness namet ~/u1Ui612~~-<>J ~ Second itness } . - D K"-\IU:-N ~. \'\..<>su..:.",-0 tTypel print witness name t .tvl Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ~/~ Assistant County ftorney Print Name Page 6 of6 16C2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER C./NTY, FRIDA . By: .J'fJt----. Tom Henning, Chairman Amera-Tech, Inc. Contractor By: (JJJi.L i 7IU Signature DCLle L Uhl. O\Alnev Typed signature and title Item # \ k c.. (f' Agenda 3~dS" ~O Date ~:d~~ amera~t h' ec ,7nC. 16C2 17473 ^ Jean Street Fort Myers, FL 33967 Phone: 239.561.9184 Fax: 239-561-9478 -~.:,,:: . " w .," . January 17,2008 Lawn Maintenance Proposal for Landfills, Recycle Centers and Lift Stations for Collier County Attention: Danette Huff, Landfills Fax: 239-455-5051 Jim Gammell, Lift Stations Fax: 239-591-1611 Jack Curran, Purchasing Fax: 239-252-6596 Presented by: Amera-Tech, Inc. 17473A Jean Street Fort Myers, FL 33913 Phone: 239-561-9184 Fax: 239-561-9478 Dale L. UbI, COO and Co-Owner Service our #1 Product Page I 16C2 1. Lawn Maintenance for landfills and recycle centers 1.) One time cleanup of Eustis and Immokalee . Eustis fenceline . 13 acres Eustis mow . 8.3 acre Immokalee hill . 13.1 acres 3 Ag hills TOTAL $ 800.00 $ 650.00 $ 400.00 $ 650.00 $2500.00 2.) Lawn maintenance for landfill areas . Eustis - 13 acres - 12x/yr $ 455.00 per mo. . Immokalee -21.4 acres -22x/yr $1375.00 permo. . Naples scalehouse - 39x/yr $165.00 per mo. includes shrubbery trimming and weed spraying . Naples cells 3 & 4 - 35 acres - 22x/yr $1925.00 pcr mo. SUBTOTAL $3920.00 per mo. 3.) Lawn maintenance for recycle centers . Naples Recycle - 39x/yr $ 395.00 per mo. includes shrubbery trimming and weed spraying . Cannestown Recycle - 24x/yr $ 450.00 per mo. . Marco Recycle - 39x/yr $ 365.00 per mo. includes shrubbery trimming and weed spraying SUB-TOTAL $1210.00 pcr mo. TOTAL $5130.00 per mo. ,. Page 2 16C2 II. Lawn Maintenance for Lift Stations (l08) - includes shrubbery trimming, fence maintenance and weed spraying 1.) 59 Small Jiftstations $1416.00 permo. . 18x/yr maintenance . $24/month per new small lift station 2.) 33 Submaster lift stations . 18x/yr maintenance . $3J.50/month per new submaster 3.) 16 Master lift stations . 39x/yr maintenance . $245.00/month per new master TOTAL $1040.00 per mo. $4065.00 per mo. $6521.00 per mo. Page 3 . . 16C2 , . PRODUCER Phone; 239-939-1010 Fax: Tim Shaw Insurance Group Inc. 4091 colonial Blvd. Ste 100 Fort Myers FL 33966 239-939-7172 DATE (MMJDDIYYYY) 12 10 2007 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFOROED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. ACORD.. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# 0178 INSURED Amera-Tech, Inc. 17473A Jean St. Fort Myers FL 33967 INSURERA: FCCI In uran INSURER B: INSURER c: INSURER 0: INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO l\LL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR DO -...., POUCY NUMBER POUCYEFfECTIVE POLICY EXPlRA nON UMITS A X ~NERAL UABIUTY GL 0006294-01 9/17/2007 9/17/2008 EACH OCCURRENCE $1 000.000 x... :3MMERCIALGENERALLIABILrTY PREMISES Ea oc $lnn.nnn _ CLAIMS MADE Ii] OCCUR MED EXP (Anyone poraon) '5 OOn - PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $1 000 000 - GENERAL AGGREGATE O.nno.ooo ;l'~AGG~E~EUMIT A?~~ER: PRODUCTS- COMPIOP AGG '2 000 noo v POLICY X 1;',!32r X LOC A ~TOMOBILEUABIUTY CA 0009500-01 9/17/2007 9/17/2008 COMBlNEDSINGLE LIMIT $1,000,000 x..... ANY AUTO (Eaacx:id&nt) - ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Porpersonl , - SCHEDULED AUTOS - HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (PerlllOC'denl) , - NON-aWNED AUTOS - PROPERTY DAMAGE , (Perlccident) =fGEUABIUTY AUTO ONLY - EAACCIDENT . ANY AUTO OTHER THAN EAACC , AUTO ONLY. AGG , :::J~SSlUMBRELL.ALIABIUTY EACH OCCURRENCE . OCCUR D CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE , . ~ ~EOUCT1BLE , RETENTION , , A WORKERS COMPENSA.TION A.ND 001-WC07A-58034 7/1/2007 7/1/2008 X r _WCSTATlJ.._1 lo;r,tl- EMPlOYERS' LIABILITY E.L. EACH ACCIDENT '1.000.000 ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERJEXECUTlVE OFACERlMEM8eR eXCLUDED? E.L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $1 onn. nno ~~rc~~pi~C;~NS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT " nno non OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHIClES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS 10 DAYS NOTICE OF CANCELLATION APPLIES FOR NON-PAYMENT OF ~REMIUM ERTIFlCATE HOLDER IS INCLUDED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH REGARDS TO THE GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE SHOWN ABOVE FOR ANY aRK ~ERFORMED BY THE NAMED INSURED AS REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRAcr. Collier county Government Purchasing Department - Contract# 07-4181 3301 Tamiami Trail, East Naples FL 34112 CANCELLATION * SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL *30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. CERTIFICATE HOLDER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE s&':~) @ACOROCORPORATION1988 ACORO 25 (2001/08) , \D Rec. 3J,n{f)~ ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT T01~ Prinlon pink pap}~a~' ~~~~c?n~>l~?g~~(~c~n~t~~'~!'~~'~~~~~~ te~n~]~~c;~~o~~~mUling slip a"d ,J,al I" documents are to be 1()rwarded to The Board Office only aftn the Board has taken action on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. Jf the document is already complete with the exee lion of the Chairman's 51 ature, draw a line throll h wulin lines # I throu #4, com lete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson line #5 . Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date List in raulin order) 1. 2. PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder oflhe original document pending Bee approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the evenl one ol'the addressees above, including Sue Filson, need to contact staff for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the BCC Chainnan's signature are to be delivered to the BCe office only after the Bce has acted to approve the 3. 4. item.) Name of Primary Staff Pam Callis Phone Number 403-2359 Contact Agenda Date Item was March 25, 2008 Agenda Item Number 16C3 Approved by the BCC Type of Document Executive Summary, Resolutr{or Number of Original I Attached Satisfactions Of Lien 0 Documents Attached 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners Yes (Initial 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office y~ .J)~ J)Q" 'Dc, j)6 j/(V 1. INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is a fO riate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Ollice and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all partics except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials. All handwritten strikecthrough and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has becn entered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a licable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si nature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours ofBCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCC's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines' The document was approved by the BCC on 3/25/08 enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Count Attorne '8 Office has reviewed the chan es, if a licable. I: Forms/ County Forms/ Bee Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 16C31f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $48.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien. OBJECTIVE: Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfactions of Lien for residential accounts where the County has received payment in full for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. CONSIDERATIONS: Resolution No. 94-694 adopted by the Board on September 20, 1994 provided for the recording of the list of 1993 delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessment and a mailing of a written notice of the imposition of each residential unit lien. Resolution No. 94-694 was recorded on September 22, 1994 in Official Record Book 1987, Pages 1514 through 1749 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain residential properties for the 1993 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. Resolution No. 95-475 adopted by the Board on August 22, 1995 provided for the recording of the list of 1994 delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessment and a mailing of a written notice of the imposition of each residential unit lien. Resolution No. 95-475 was recorded on September 14, 1995 in Official Record Book 2099, Pages 1338 through 1574 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain residential properties for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. Resolution No. 2000-236 adopted by the Board on August I, 2000 provided for the recording of the list of 1995 delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessment and a mailing of a written notice of the imposition of each residential unit lien. Resolution No. 2000-236 was recorded on August 8, 2000 in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain residential properties for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment. Collier County Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, provides the Satisfactions of Lien shall be approved by Resolution. The attached Resolution lists the three accounts that have paid in full for the 1993,1994, and 1995 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment Lien. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact for recording the Satisfactions of Lien and the Resolutions is approximately $48.50, which is to be charged to County Water/Sewer Operating Fund (408). 16C3 ;,..~ ~ GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management impact associated with these items. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached Resolution approving the three Satisfactions of Lien for the accounts listed in the Resolutions and authorizing the Chairman to sign the three Satisfactions of Lien for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 Solid Waste Collection Services Special Assessment Lien. PREPARED BY: Pam Callis, Revenue Supervisor, Utility Billing and Customer Service. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 _ 67 16C3 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1993, 1994, AND 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on September 20, 1994 adopted Resolution No. 94-694 authorizing the ::; ,::, :',,-' recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1993; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on August 22, 1995 adopted Resolution No. 95-475 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1994; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on August I, 2000 adopted Resolution No. 2000-236 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1995 and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, requires the Board to approve by Resolution and record in the Official Records Satisfactions of Lien on all accounts that have been paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90-30, as amended, the Board recognizes full payment and receipt of the 1993, 1994, and 1995 Service Year Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Special Assessments for the following accounts numbered below, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 94-694, 95-475, 2000-236, whereupon liens have been recorded on real property pertaining to the accounts identified herein. The Satisfactions of Lien attached hereto referencing the accounts identified herein are hereby approved and the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Clerk is directed to record this Resolution and these Satisfactions of Lien . ~i bo:I t-I C.,~, M = t- co:> _ .....:.J C<:t <.~ b<l :;><::l ~ 1 --., 7l' ::><l . ..-> c> ..p.. hj_-3 '.:> M<:I C, ~ Cl ...,:j I:;<J ;~ ~, = = ,.. -= .-3 t"1 = '0 == =~ -"_0 N= ~= -- = '_..)0 t.:::l ~I-" ...a:::::. o.:'=-:i~ ~ (-..- ...r-:=. .- ~ H===> = ..,. <.C> c:o .-...,., \....0 ~~--J ,.. ~ x.-. ~~c:> ~ ::0 ....... :00 c> to:! =~ ....;j~~ ~~ c...u = = ..,. = ~ "-> = ~~ ;"'fg t-w;:::j n~G') to- ca.... == = ~ ~ Co..> g..,. ~-..] :< ~n - I::-~ ~ = C> ... ~~ ~ ... ... =... = ~ N= =~ == BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER CO.}JNTY, F ORIDA ~ . BY: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN *** OR: 4342 This Resolution adopted thi~ day of m I1I?C H , 2008, after motion, second and majority vote. ATTEST: . i);, DWIGHT E. BRO'~K,.\=LERK 16 c 3 I~ PG: 3476 *** This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774-8400 *** 4144498 OR: 4342 PG: 3477 *** RBCORDBD In OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL 03/27/2008 at 09:30AM D~IGHT B, BROCK, CLBRK RBC !BE 10.00 cams 1. 00 Retn: CLBRK TO THB BOARD INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR BIT 1240 16C3 1~ Property Folio No. 68342480003 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: CATETE, JOSE LUIS LUCILA CATETE 66 ISLE ST THOMAS NAPLES FL 339610000 The Lien was recorded on the 22nd day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1987, Pages 1514 through 1749, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Dollars and Seventy Four Cents ($100.74) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PORT AU PRINCE LOT 66 OR 1860 PG 1561 Folio No. Project No. Account No. 68342480003 63000 27083 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this&5 day of tnfJReH ,2008. ) f,_" ~ ,,",:.,), ....,~~ ~ 0 < ,~ f-),ii<,",_. ATTEST:' "> BOARD OF CaAJNTY CCUMISSIONFRS This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774-8400 *** 4144499 OR: 4342 PG: 3478 *** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, !L 03/27/2008 at 09:30AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC m 10.00 coms 1. 00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE ITH FLOOR EXT 7210 16C3 j Property Folio No: 68342480003 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: CATETE, JOSE LUIS LUCILA CATETE 66 ISLE ST THOMAS NAPLES FL 339610000 The Lien was recorded on the 14th day of September 1995, in Official Record Book 2099, Pages 1338 through 1574, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars And Thirty Seven Cents ($104.37), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PORT AU PRINCE LOT 66 OR 1860 PG 1561 Folio No. Project No. Account No. 68342480003 64000 25577 Collier County, a political subdivision acknowledges receipt of payment in full cancels Lien. of the State of Florida, hereby satisfaction of the Lien and hereby The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 6(5 day of 11M RC If ,2008. ~. . \> ~'1 ;.; r, !if ATT.gdT: . ..- DVIilGHT E. BROCK\ CLERK ,. 1_.-. f\ _. _ I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER ~TY~RIDA . ~ ~ This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tarniami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 774-8400 *** 4144500 OR: 4342 PG: 3479 *** RECORDED In OFFICIAL RECORDS at COLLIER COUNTY, FL 03/11/2008 at 09:3DAM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK m FEE 10.00 coms 1.00 Rew: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 1140 16C3 ~ Property Folio No. 68342480003 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: CATETE, JOSE LUIS LUCILA CATETE 66 ISLE ST THOMAS NAPLES FL 339610000 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PORT AU PRINCE LOT 66 OR 1860 PG 1561 Folio No. Project No. Account No. 68342480003 65000 27122 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payrnent in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thi~ day of In f1 R C if 2008. , '";:;)/;'?4 ATTEST: BOARD OF CQUNTY G<jlMMISSIONERS MEMORANDUM Date: March 26, 2008 To: Ron Dillard, Senior Project Manager Public Utilities Engineering Department From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: EXHIBIT A-7 Amendment No.7 Contract No. 03-3517 with Greeley and Hansen, LLC for "Professional Engineering Services for Water Main Projects" Attached, please find three original contract documents, as referenced above, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 25, 2008 (Agenda Item #16C4) The Minutes and Records Department has kept an original for the Board's permanent record and a copy will be forwarded to the Finance Department. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 252-8406. Thank you. Attachments (3) 16C4 ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SJ~ C 4 ,r~ TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE (Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original documents should be hand delivered to the Board Office. The completed routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded to the Board Office only after the Board has taken action on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines # I through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the exception of the Chairman's signature, draw a line through routing lines #1 through #4, complete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson (line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routina order) I. - '- - 2. --..---....--.--, 3. ---- ----------"----------- ~ 1----..--. ~..._._._._.- _.---~. -----.-.-.--.----, 4. ---~--- -_.~_._-----_.~ --~.__.- -~. _.,__---1 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approvaL Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue Filson, need to contact staff tor additional or missing information. All original documents needing the Bee Chainnan's signature are to be delivered to the Bee office only after the Bee has acted to approve the item.' Name of Primary Staff Ronald F. Dillard Phone Number 252-5338 Contact Agenda Date Item was March 25, 2008 Agenda Item Number 16 (C)4 Apnroved by the BCC Type of Document Contract Amendment Number of Original 5 Attached Documents Attached Initial the Yes column or mark "N/ A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is Yes N/A(Not annronriate. (Initial) ADDlicable) 1. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, .111f)} resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and possibly State Officials.) 2. All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's N/A Office and all other narties exceDt the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board 3. The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the ~1,:ft. document or the final ne.otiated contract date whichever is apDlicable. 4. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's ?(9":). si.nature and initials are reauired. 5. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours ofBCC approval. X~:lt Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCC's actions are nullified. Be aware of your deadlines! INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST I: Fanus! County Forms! BCC Forms! Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04 16C4 EXHIBIT A-7: Amendment 7 to Contract 03-3517 "Professional Engineering Services for Water Main Projects" This amendment, dated /'1.. YC~ :2.S ,2008 to the referenced agreement shall be by and between the parties to the original Agreement, Greeley and Hansen LLC, (to be referred to as "Consultant") and Collier County, Florida, (to be referred to as "Owner"). Statement of Understanding RE: Contract 03-3517 "Professional Engineering Services for Water Main Projects" In order to continue the services provided for in the original Contract document referenced above, the Consultant agrees to amend the above referenced Contract as follows. Perform the additional tasks identified on the attached page. The Consultant agrees that this amends the original Contract and that the Consultant agrees to complete said services in the amount of two hundred thirty thousand five hundred twenty dollars ($230,520). All other terms and conditions of the agreement shall remain in force. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Consultant and the County have each, respectively, by an authorized person or agent, hereunder set their hands and seals on the date( s) indicated below. CONSULTANT: .~ bh-.A ..111 Greeley and Hansen LLC Co orate Secretary/Witness By: --1~{L GA..."I Dated: 1~'\;,",-,,"1:3. ~2. cob f . By: Title: Dated: i<1I~"i Hn\Aletl A.1,<,Nlcl-!0 -S-.... .rt. ""'<<"-y 3. "2LlO\C, CORPORATE SEAL ATTEST: OWNER: tluu ~O-C. IStEJrf. ~e I I"'~ '.1" . BOA~D 0 COUNT COMMISSIONERS COLLI COUN FLORIDA . By: .~ 16C4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONTRACT NO. 03-3517 County Road 951 and US 41 Water Mains Professional Services Agreement Amendment No.7 Greeley and Hansen LLC November 9, 2007 Amendment No.7 is for additional engineering services during construction related to the additional construction contract completion time provided to the Contractor and for night- time construction. The following are descriptions and additional engineering costs for Amendment No.7 additional tasks not included in the original Scope of Services or in Amendments 1,2,34,5, and 6: Task No. Task Description Additional Engineering Cost A.7.l-a 1,860 additional hours for providing construction observation services during the additional 147 days added to the Contractor's schedule. $137,280 A.7.I-b 1,260 additional hours for providing construction observation services during night time construction. $93,240 TOTAL FOR AMENDMENT NO. 7: $230,520 T &M Page 1 of I J6E5 MEMORANDUM Date: March 26, 2008 To: Jean Jourdan CRA Project Manager 2740 Bayshore Dr, Unit 17 Naples, Florida 34112 From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Agenda Item #16E5: Statutory Deed CRA Residential Infill Project Attached, is the original Statutory Deed for the above referenced project; (Agenda Item #16E5) approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. After recording, please return the original document to the Minutes & Records Department where it will be kept as part of the Board's permanent record. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 252-8406. Thank you, RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 68 16 E 5 !~ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONVEYANCE OF COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE A STATUTUTORY DEED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2605 VAN BUREN AVENUE. WHEREAS, the staff of Collier County (County) and the staff of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) have agreed to tenns for the conveyance of County owned-land; and WHEREAS, the conveyance of the County-owned land to the Community Redevelopment Agency will assist with the implementation of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Master Plan and the Bayshore Neighborhood Focus Initiative to acquire vacant lots to facilitate the construction of new housing that meets the Collier County Code; and WHEREAS, the conveyance of the County-owned land to the Community Redevelopment Agency is in accordance with Section 125.38, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, based on the facts and recommendations from Staff, now finds that the County's fee interest in 2605 Van Buren Avenue, more particularly described in the attached Statutory Deed, is required by the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency for the aforesaid use and is no longer needed or required by the County for a County purpose, and that the conveyance of same to the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency is in the best interest of the residents of Collier County, provided that the County receives reimbursement, from the CRA, of the associated costs incurred by the County paid to abate outstanding special assessments when the County took title to the parcel from the Society First Federal Savings Bank, together with certain electrical utility, access and other improvements as set forth in the attached Statutory Deed; and WHEREAS, by this Resolution the Board of County Commissioners desires to authorize its Chairman to execute the Statutory Deed attached hereto, and take such other actions needed to complete the conveyance of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: I. restated; The foregoing WHEREAS Clauses are adopted and incorporated herein as if fully 2. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereby directs and authorizes its Chairman, on behalf of this Board, to execute the Statutory Deed attached hereto, and hereby approves the conveyance of the property described therein and any acts needed to complete the conveyance of the property. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. ADOPTED this d___f) I ~y of /I}// ;(C.JJ favoring adoption. , 2008 after motion, second and majority vote ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROJECT: CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PARCEL: LOT 32 FOLIO: 29280960006 16E5 STATUTORY DEED 111 /)~ h THIS DEED, made this,;<5 day of /1//I;fC , 2008, by COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112, (hereinafter called the Grantor), to the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, whose mailing address is 2740 Bayshore Drive, Unit 17, Naples Florida, 34112, (hereinafter called the Grantee). (Whenever used herein the tenns "Grantor" and "Grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and their respective heirs, successors or assigns.) WITNESSETH that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars, ($10.00) to it in hand paid by the Grantee, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain and sell unto the Grantee, the following described land lying and being in Collier County, Florida: Lot 32, CRAIGS SUBDIVISION, AS PER PLAT THEROF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 27, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said Grantor has caused these presents to be executed by its Board of County Commissioners acting through its Chainnan, the day and year aforesaid. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS . . .... COLLlE7t<fY' F ORIOA. ill. rtt.w. '~~f~i{J (By:_ \] , Dep Clerk TOM HENNIN au n..~ a.aw.., (,T 1 ..J,. : (OfFICIAL SEAL) 16 f 6 '1 EXHIBIT A-I Form of Consent Contract II 05-3826 "Furnish & DcU\'cr Emulsions Pol,,'mt"r" .\nd Conlrac. 'I 06.38'18 "Chemicals for l)"tililic...'S" rhi.; Form ,)fConscnt, dH!ed March l.t 700; to rhct rt'fcr~nced ilgrcep1t~nT "'~Hijl he hy and hctv..ccn The parties to (he original Contract. Calciques1~ Inc. {to be referred to as. "('Ol1,,~,:t;1Ilr .i and Collier County Florida, (to he referred to as "County''). Slal.m.nt of l'nd....tanding R.: C'lt"ract dated June 14, :005, llCC Agenda Hem 16 c.~, by and between (,,,lei,!ucs! and Collier County referencing RFP ~(). 05<1826,'Fumish & Dctiver F:~lil'iir)n"i Polymer" and conlract dated ianllary 24, 2006, Agenda Item dIE rel,,,encing REI' :-Jo. 06- ;X9X, "Chemicals lilf Itililies", tn which Carus Phosphate,,;. Inc. has become 1. ~ucc(:s~u in interest hy :~5"ig"ment ,md 3$QJmption from Ct1rciqll~l:>L Inc, 1":'"..ignr~1.:nr.) ('oilier County continnll and consents to the Assignmcrrt and release t)f C<1lciqlJe"it. toc from liability from and after the clf~ctivc date of the c{:m~~nt of rhe A5'lignmcnT in tctum for Cams . ;~~~nc:< ass:,mp'i'\ll' '" ollJc""l1'her 11. 201J~. of all rights and dulle' ofe.leiquest Inc. um . '" ~~~,'~~REOf, the Contract",. ^nd the County have ~"ch, ,c'poctiveiy, oy all authorizcd .,.. " C;>"'1t~t;.: h1;P"ttmder ~t theIr hands and seal!!: on the datc(s) mdrcarcd below. .',....\~i '\'j:', I,<!;;';-:;;..., ~, - "'tI1!$T~ If' , (?- '~" i .'~:,_,.:,_ .0<:'- BOARD .~ . co o . ..~' .':.....,;. " ,"".... , . ....' SI,INC; !lY:' ~~ 'P.P.... ~ ~,.~.., . ',?r\~~,::,~,l.. - ."4,'.. ~\:e..~ tf\'''''..J....C""" Pridt ~aD1e and rirle OWNER: 11 Date: _ 1\'''\ 0" A d Legal "U~ 1-~' ) ..\ TrEST: By 9~~S?~ /~ 1 _ L I ~n~ '. SCi,;rctary;Witnes! __.~_._L~\.." ,V+ _..:-"':~~1--._..~-_.- , u.... \ ~ c i cJ.iS~illt Name and Title e:hu'R~-Ih e<L\fiI.~ 'Q1Q.-r- Printed Name Jnd TitJe ?h~\n~ (/.-zI1I,,~ ?", \""Q.[ Printed N<l111c [}"Ic:: Item # Agenda Date pL- 16f 7 ~i MEMORANDUM DATE: March 31, 2008 TO: Lyn Wood, Contract Specialist Purchasing Department FROM: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes and Records Department RE: Contract #08-5019: "Fire Sprinkler, Alarm Testing, Inspection, Maintenance and Installation" Contractor: Building Systems Evaluation, Inc. d/b/a Fire Sprinkler Systems, Co. Enclosed please find one original contract, as referenced above (Agenda Item#16E7) approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. An original has been retained in the Minutes and Records Department. If you should have any questions, you may contact me at 252-8406. Thank you, Enclosures (l) ITEM NO.: r-.~....,.~Cr-~) (it , ~ ,Vi __~, ,...'\1 '"'- ,_ ~ '-1' ,\ '\',' [- , "1 !"-'\'{ f\' ,'u\",1 , ..' \_,\.../\.,1 \ ' \ 16E7 H~1 DATE RECEIVED: FILE NO.: ,~ ,', ROUTED TO: ,-, ,,", :,',->; I \ : .:.~. ': (..C' " , DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Date: March 25, 2008 To: Office of the County Attorney Attention: Robert Zachary From: Lyn M. Wood, C.P.M., Contract Specialist '-{,'Ifv'-- Purchasing Department, Extension 2667 ~ Re: Contract: 08-5019 "Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Testing, Inspection, Maintenance and Installation" Contractor: Building Systems Evaluation, Inc. (BSE) d/b/a Fire Sprinkler Systems Co. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST: This contract was approved by the BCC on March 25, 2008, Agenda Item 16.E.7 This item has not been previously submitted. ACTION REQUESTED: Contract review and approval. OTHER COMMENTS: Robert, please forward to BCC for signature after approval. If there are any questions concerning the document, please contact me. Purchasing would appreciate notification when the documents exit your office. Thank you. C: Damon Gonzales, Facilities Mgmt cc~ ;. _ ??-D y- 16E7 i ~:~<iI; , MEMORANDUM DATE RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2008 TO: FROM: Ray Carter Risk Management Department Lyn M. Wood, C.P.M., Contract specialist'i~ Purchasing Department j./(- d ' March 25, 2008 RISK MAi'lAtiEMENI DATE: RE: Review Insurance for Contract 08-5019 "Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Testing, Inspection, Maintenance and Installation" Contractor: Building Systems Evaluation, Inc. (BSE) d/b/a Fire Sprinkler Systems Co. This Contract was approved by the BCC on March 25, 2008, Agenda Item 16.E. 7 Please review the Insurance Certificates for the above referenced contract and the attached letter. If everything is acceptable, please forward to the County Attorney for further review and approval. Also, will you advise me when it has been forwarded. Thank you. If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 2667. ~ $/eH'! oJ>' dod/LMW C: Damon Gonzales, Facilities Mgmt www.sunbiz.org - Department of State 16l!af 1 ot/tl{ Home Contact Us E-Filing Services Document Searches Forms H PreviOY$ on List N_e.llCtOIl List ReJYJn To List Events Name History. Entity Name: Detail by Entity Name Florida Profit Corporation BUILDING SYSTEMS EVALUATION, INC. Filing Information Docyment Nymber P93000087010 FEI Nymber 650456861 Date Filed 12/15/1993 State FL Statys ACTIVE Last Event CANCEL ADM DISS/REV Event Date Filed 10/05/2005 Event Effective Date NONE Principal Address 3056 PALM AVE STE 1 FORT MYERS FL 33901 US Changed 01/29/2007 Mailing Address PO BOX 2508 FT MYERS FL 33902 US Changed 01/29/2007 Registered Agent Name & Address WIGGINS, RANDOLPH JR. 3056 PALM AVE, STE 1 FORT MYERS FL 33901 US Address Changed: 01/29/2007 OfficerlDirector Detail Name & Address TitleDP KING, RICHARD 3056 PALM AVE, STE 1 http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action= D ETF! L&inq~ doc ~ number= P930000870 I... 2/5/2008 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State FORT MYERS FL Title DST NEWMAN, TERRI B 3056 PALM AVE, STE 1 FT MYERS FL 33901 Title DVP WIGGINS, RANDOLPH JR. 3056 PALM AVENUE, SUITE 1 FORT MYERS FL 33901 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2006 08/20/2006 2007 01/29/2007 2008 01108/2008 Document Images 01/08120013=ANNUAL REPORT 0112912007 -- ANNUAL REPORT 0812012006 =.ANNUAL REPORT 1010tj!2005 -- REIN$IALE:Jv1E_NT 0610912004 :0 Amendment 0211212004 -- REINSTATEMENT 0511412002 = ANNUAL REPORT 0510712001 -- ANNUAL REPORT 0511512000 -- 8f'JNUAL RJ::E'ORT Q412112000 -- Name Change 0510511999 ::ANNUAL REPORT 0212711998 -- ANNUAL REPORT 0113111997 -- ANNUAL REPORT 03/2211996 -- ANNUAL REPORT 0310911995 =.ANNUAL REPORT View image in POF format View Image in PDF format View image in PDF format View Image In POF format View image in PDF format View Image in POF format View Image in POF format View image In POF format View Image in POF format View image In POF format View Image in POF format View image in POF format View image in PDF format View image in PDF format View image In PDF format Note: This is not official record. See documents if question or conflict Events Name History Previous on List Ne.xt on List Return To List Horne Contact us Document Searches E-Filinq Services Forms Help Copyright and Privacy Policies 1 6pr10f 3 Ii Entity Name [ http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=D ETF IL&in~ doc __ numbet= P930000870 I... 2/5/2008 www.sunbiz.org- Department of State 16 E?~'~ Copyright @ 2007 State of Florida, Department of State. http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=D ETFIL&inq_ doc _ number=P930000870 1... 2/5/2008 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State 16gf 71 "i Home Contact Us E-Flllng Services Document Searches Forms H Previous on List Nexto.nLisl Return to List No Filing History Fictltlaus Name S Fictitious Name Detail Fictitious Name FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS co. Filing Information Dacument Number Status Filed Date Expiration Date Current Owners County Tatal Pages Events Filed FEI Number G00244900206 EXPIRED 09/01/2000 12/31/2005 1 LEE 1 NONE NONE Mailing Address 3056 PALM AVENUE SUITE 1 FORT MYERS, FL 33901 Owner Information BUILDING SYSTEMS EVALUATION, INC. 3056 PALM AVENUE STE 1 FORT MYERS, FL 33901 FEI Number: 65-0456861 Dacument Number: P93000087010 Document Images 09101/2000 c. REGISTRATION View Image In PDF farm at Note: This is nat afficlal recard. See dacuments if questian ar canfllct PreviouSQJLList Next an List Return to List No Filing History Flctltlaus Name ~ Home Contact us Document Searches E-Filing Services Forms Help Copyright and Privacy Policies Copyright (c) 2007 State of Florida, Department of State. http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/ficidetexe?action=D ETREG&docnum=G00244900206&rdo... 2/6/2008 www.sunbiz.org - Department of State Page 1 of 1 16E Home Contact Us i E-Flllng Services Document Searches Forms H filing History PrElyiOllSOn '-ist !IIj1xtonJ.,ist RElturn to List Fictitious Name S Fictitious Name Detail Fictitious Name BSE Filing Information Document Number Status Filed Date Expiration Date Current Owners County Total Pages Events Filed FEI Number Mailing Address 3056 PALM AVE STE 1 FT MYERS, FL 33901 Owner Information BUILDING SYSTEMS EVALUATION, INC. 3056 PALM AVE STE 1 FT MYERS, FL 33901 FEI Number: 65-0456861 Document Number: P93000087010 Document Images 05/19/2000 .=.REGISTRA TION 03/18/2005 -- RENEWAL G00139900164 ACTIVE 05/19/2000 12/31/2010 1 LEE 2 1 65-0456861 View Image In PDF format View Image in PDF format Note: This is not official record. See documents if question or conflict Filing History Pre"iOllsonList NElltl.on.bist RetumJol,.ist Fictitious Name ~ Home Contact us Document Searches E-Filing Services Forms Help Copyright and Privacy Policies Cop)/right (c) 2007 State of Florida, Department of State, http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/ficidet.exe?action=DETREG&docnum=GOO 139900 1 64&rdo.. . 2/6/2008 16 f 7 '~.. A G R E E MEN T 08-5019 for Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Testing, Inspection, Maintenance and Installation --i-0 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this ;:;.., day of fYlarcl) 2008, by and between Building Systems Evaluation, Inc., dba Fire Sprinkler Systems Company, dba BSE, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, whose business address is 3056 Palm Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida 33901, hereinafter called the "Contractor" and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Collier County, Naples, hereinafter called the "County": WIT N E SSE T H: 1. COMMENCEMENT. This Agreement shall commence on the date of approval of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. This Agreement shall be for a two (2) year period. The County may, at its discretion and with the consent of the Contractor, renew the Agreement under all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement for two (2) additional one (1) year periods. The County shall give the Contractor written notice of the County's intention to extend the Agreement term not less than ten (10) days prior to the end of the Agreement term then in effect. 2. STATEMENT OF WORK The Contractor shall provide fire sprinkler and alarm testing, maintenance and installation in accordance with the terms and conditions of RFP #08-5019, the Contractor's proposal and Exhibit A, Cost Proposal, referred to herein and made an integral part of this agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties and any modifications to this Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Contractor and the County project manager or his designee, in compliance with the County Purchasing Policy and Administrative Procedures in effect at the time such services are authorized. Repair Service All repairs under $750.00 found during inspection shall be completed same-day if parts are immediately available. If parts are not immediately available, parts shall be ordered same-day, and repair work shall be done within forty eight (48) hours after delivery of parts. The Contractor shall provide written "not to exceed" estimates on all repair projects over $750, including a schedule for completion of the repair. Upon written acceptance of the estimate by the County, the Contractor shall order any parts that are not stocked, and schedule work for within 48 hours of part delivery. Page 1 on 16E7 !~ This estimate shall include the estimated number of hours, hourly rate, number and types of employees required, estimated material cost and number of calendar days required for project completion. Contractor shall respond to requests for estimates for non-emergency work within two (2) days and provide written estimates within five (5) days. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to ensure they have all information to prepare accurate estimates. The County reserves the right to bid any job with an estimated cost of $50,000 or more. Emergency Work The Contractor shall be required to do emergency repairs at times other than normal working hours. The Contractor shall be in a position to be available on a twenty-four (24) hour basis, 365 days per year for such emergency work The Contractor shall provide the County with an on-call telephone number for emergency service. The Contractor shall have available an adequate staff of approved teclmicians to provide service taking into account vacation and other leaves. The Contractor shall respond on- site within one (1) hour for all emergency repairs in Naples and Marco Island area, and shall respond within ninety (90) minutes for the Immokalee and Everglades City area. Installation/New Work The Contractor shall provide written "not to exceed" estimates on all installation projects over $750. This estimate shall include the estimated number of hours, hourly rate, number and types of employees required, estimated material cost and number of calendar days required for project completion. Contractor shall respond to requests for estimates for non-emergency work within two (2) days and provide written estimates within five (5) days. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to ensure they have all information to prepare accurate estimates. The County reserves the right to bid any job with an estimated cost of $50,000 or more. 3. COMPENSATION. The County shall pay the Contractor for the performance of this Agreement the aggregate of the units actually ordered and furnished at the unit price, together with the cost of any other charges! fees submitted in the proposaL Any county agency may purchase products and services under this contract, provided sufficient funds are included in its budget(s). Payment will be made upon receipt of a proper invoice and upon approval by the Project Manager or his designee, and in compliance with Section 218.70, Fla. Stats., otherwise known as the ffFlorida Prompt Payment Acf'. 4. NOTICES. All notices from the County to the Contractor shall be deemed duly served if mailed or faxed to the Contractor at the following Address: Page 2 of7 16E71~ Building Systems Evaluation, Inc. 3056 Palm Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Attention: Richard M. King, President Telephone: 239-334-4217 Facsimile: 239-334-8096 All Notices from the Contractor to the County shall be deemed duly served if mailed or faxed to the County to: Collier County Government Center Purchasing Department - Purchasing Building 3301 Tamiami Trail, East Naples, Florida 34112 Attention: Steve Carnell, Purchasing/GS Director Telephone: 239-252-8371 Facsimile: 239-252-6584 The Contractor and the County may change the above mailing address at any time upon giving the other party written notification. All notices under this Agreement must be in writing. 5. NO PARTNERSHIP. Nothing herein contained shall create or be construed as creating a partnership between the County and the Contractor or to constitute the Contractor as an agent of the County. 6. PERMITS: LICENSES: TAXES. In compliance with Section 218.80, FH, all permits necessary for the prosecution of the Work shall be obtained by the Contractor. Payment for all such permits issued by the County shall be processed internally by the County. All non-County permits necessary for the prosecution of the Work shall be procured and paid for by the Contractor. The Contractor shall also be solely responsible for payment of any and all taxes levied on the Contractor. In addition, the Contractor shall comply with all rules, regulations and laws of Collier County, the State of Florida, or the U. S. Government now in force or hereafter adopted. The Contractor agrees to comply with all laws governing the responsibility of an employer with respect to persons employed by the Contractor. 7. NO IMPROPER USE. The Contractor will not use, nor suffer or permit any person to use in any manner whatsoever, county facilities for any improper, immoral or offensive purpose, or for any purpose in violation of any federal, state, county or municipal ordinance, rule, order or regulation, or of any governmental rule or regulation now in effect or hereafter enacted or adopted. In the event of such violation by the Contractor or if the County or its authorized representative shall deem any conduct on the part of the Contractor to be objectionable or improper, the County shall have the right to Page 3 01'7 16E7 suspend the contract of the Contractor. Should the Contractor fail to correct any such violation, conduct, or practice to the satisfaction of the County within twenty-four (24) hours after receiving notice of such violation, conduct, or practice, such suspension to continue until the violation is cured. The Contractor further agrees not to commence operation during the suspension period until the violation has been corrected to the satisfaction of the County. 8. TERMINATION. Should the Contractor be found to have failed to perform his services in a manner satisfactory to the County as per this Agreement, the County may terminate said agreement immediately for cause; further the County may terminate this Agreement for convenience with a thirty (30) day written notice. The County shall be sole judge of non-performance. 9. NO DISCRIMINATION. The Contractor agrees that there shall be no discrimination as to race, sex, color, creed or national origin. 10. INSURANCE. The Contractor shall provide insurance as follows: A. Commercial General Liability: Coverage shall have minimum limits of $lrOOO,OOO Per Occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. This shall include Premises and Operations; Independent Contractors; Products and Completed Operations and Contractual Liability. B. Business Auto Liability: Coverage shall have minimum limits of $500,000 Per Occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. This shall include: Owned Vehicles, Hired and Non-Owned Vehicles and Employee Non-Ownership. C Workers' Compensation: Insurance covering all employees meeting Statutory Limits in compliance with the applicable state and federal laws. Special Requirements: Collier County shall be listed as the Certificate Holder and included as an Additional Insured on the Comprehensive General Liability Policy. Current, valid insurance policies meeting the requirement herein identified shall be maintained by Contractor during the duration of this Agreement. Renewal certificates shall be sent to the County thirty (30) days prior to any expiration date. There shall be a thirty (30) day notification to the County in the event of cancellation or modification of any stipulated insurance coverage. Contractor shall insure that all subContractors comply with the same insurance requirements that he is required to meet. The same Contractor shall provide County with certificates of insurance meeting the required insurance provisions. Page 4 of? 16E7 11. INDEMNIFICATION. To the maximum extent permitted by Florida law, the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless Collier County, its officers and employees from any and all liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and paralegals' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the Contractor or anyone employed or utilized by the Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. This indemnification obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge or reduce any other rights or remedies which otherwise may be available to an indemnified party or person described in this paragraph. This section does not pertain to any incident arising from the sole negligence of Collier County. 12. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be administered on behalf of the County by the Facilities Management Department. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Contractor represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest, either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of services required hereunder. Contractor further represents that no persons having any such interest shall be employed to perform those services. 14. COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT. This Contract consists of the attached component parts, all of which are as fully a part of the contract as if herein set out verbatim: Contractor's Proposal, Insurance Certificate, RFP #08-5019 Specifi- cations/Scope of Services and Exhibit A, Cost ProposaL 15. SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION. It is further understood and agreed by and between the parties herein that this agreement is subject to appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners. 16. PROHIBITION OF GIFTS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES. No organization or individual shall offer or give, either directly or indirectly, any favor, gift, loan, fee, service or other item of value to any County employee, as set forth in Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes, Collier County Ethics Ordinance No. 2004-05, and County Administrative Procedure 5311. Violation of this provision may result in one or more of the following consequences: a. Prohibition by the individual, firm, and/ or any employee of the firm from contact with County staff for a specified period of time; b. Prohibition by the individual and/ or firm from doing business with the County for a specified period of time, including but not limited to: submitting bids, RFP, and/ or quotes; and, c. immediate termination of any contract held by the individual and/ or firm for cause. 17. IMMIGRATION LAW COMPLIANCE. By executing and entering into this agreementr the Contractor is formally acknowledging without exception or stipulation that it is fully responsible for complying with the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 as located at 8 use 1324, et seq. and regulations Page 5 on 16E7 >../ relating thereto, as either may be amended. Failure by the Contractor to comply with the laws referenced herein shall constitute a breach of this agreement and the County shall have the discretion to unilaterally terminate this agreement immediately. 18. VENUE. Any suit or action brought by either party to this Agreement against the other party relating to or arising out of this Agreement must be brought in the appropriate federal or state courts in Collier County, Florida, which courts have sole and exclusive jurisdiction on all such matters. 19. OFFER EXTENDED TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. Collier County encourages and agrees to the successful proposer extending the pricing, terms and conditions of this solicitation or resultant contract to other governmental entities at the discretion of the successful proposer. 20. AGREEMENT TERMS. If any portion of this Agreement is held to be void, invalid, or otherwise unenforceable, in whole or in part, the remaining portion of this Agreement shall remain in effect. 21. ADDITIONAL ITEMS/SERVICES. Additional items and/ or services may be added to this contract upon satisfactory negotiation of price by the Contract Manager and Contactor. 22. SUBSTITUTE PERFORMANCE. In the event the Contractor fails to perform any required service within the time schedule under the subsequent contract, the County reserves the right to obtain substitute performance. Further, the County reserves the right to deduct the cost of such substitute performance from the Contractor's payments. The Contractor may be exempt from this provision if such exemption is granted by the Contract Manager or their designee, in writing, prior to any delays or as a result of an Act of Nature. Page 6 of7 16E7 I~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and the County, have each, respectively, by an authorized person or agent, hereunder set their hands and seals on the date and year first above written. . ~I')I\,'(O ATTEST: , ,>"1' n DWightE.;B~'!~ieikQfCourts ~h!~...,'" . ~~p' CD~ .:r. l(i~ tType/print wit s namet Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ~ Print Name Page 7 of? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: . Tom Henningr Chairman Building Systems Evaluation, Inc. dba Fire Sprinkler Systems Company dba BSE Contractor By: Q ~; c.ha.rc\ t--\. \<; ~ ,\)t't'~;k+- Typed signature and tit Item# IGP) Agenda 3 - lC Date 0 ~ ~:~d3-3I-o'iJ fLL- 16[7 ... EXHIBIT A COST PROPOSAL Cost per year for ALARM Inspection services to the listed locations noted in RFP 1108-5019: Building "F" Building "H" Building alII Building "J" Building "Wn Collier North Regional Library Collier Central Library Vanderbilt Library Golden Gate Branch Library East Naples Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Immokalee Community Center Max Hasse Community Center Vineyards Community Center Veteran's Community Park Frank E. Mackie Park Golden Gate Park & Aquatic Center Clam Pass Recreation Center Eagle Lakes Community Park Golden Gate Emergency Services North Naples Emergency Services East Naples Emergency Services Immokalee Emergency Services EMS Heliport Marco Sheriff Sub-Station Community Development Services University Extension/Ag Building Immokalee DRILL Academy Medical Examiner's Building Golden Gate Sheriffs Sub-Station Sheriffs CID Building Golden Gate Service Center Dept. of Motor Vehicles/Tax Office i , $1,360.00 (2) panels $1,373.00 $1,709.00 $6,266.00 (11) panels $ 545.00 $ 47S.00 $ 437.00 $ 184.00 $ 227.00 $ 285.00 (2) panels $ 389.00 $ 195.00 $ 430.00 $ 207.00 $ 194.00 N/A, no longer provided by Collier County Government $ 161.00 $ 100.00 $ 166.00 $ 397.00 $ 229.00 $ 145.00 $ 319.00 $ 129.00 $ 223.00 $ 709.00 $ 212.00 N/A, no longer provided by Collier County Government $ 277.00 $ 185.00 $ 403.00 $ 272.00 $ 451.00 16E7 Cost per year for SPRINKLER inspection services to the iisted locations noted in RFP #08-5019: Building "F" Building "H" Building filII Building "Y' Building "W" Coliier North Regional Library Coliier Central Library Vanderbilt Library Golden Gate Branch Library East Naples Community Center Golden Gate Community Center Immokalee Community Center Max Hasse Community Center Vineyards Community Center Veteran's Community Park Frank E. Mackie Park Golden Gate Park & Aquatic Center Ciam Pass Recreation Center Eagle Lakes Community Park Golden Gate Emergency Services North Naples Emergency Services East Napies Emergency Services Immokalee Emergency Services EMS Heliport Marco Sheriff Sub-Station Community Development Services University Extension/Ag Building Immokalee DRILL Academy Medical Examiner's Building Golden Gate Sheriffs Sub-Station Sheriffs CID Building Golden Gate Service Center Dept. of Motor Vehicles/Tax Office $ 763.55 $ 663.80 $ 683.7S $ 563.65 $ 178.85 $ no sprinkler inspections required by code $ 284.35 $ 164.65 $ 643.85 $ 164.65 $ 164.65 $ 164.65 $ 164.65 $ 244.45 $ 164.65 N/A, no longer provided by Coliier County Government $ no sprinkler inspections required by code $ 164.65 $ no sprinkler inspections required by code $ 164.65 $ 164.65 $ no sprinkler inspections required by code $ 164.65 $ 164.65 $ no sprinkler inspections required by code $ 244.45 $ 439.05 N/A, no longer provided by Coliier County Government $ 164.65 $ 164.65 $ 164.65 $ 164.65 $ 164.65 16E7 Cost per hour per skilled worker for regular business hours, Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm . Service Technician $70.00 per hour . Journeyman $70.00 per hour . Helper/Apprentice $50.00 per hour . General Laborer $50.00 per hour Percentage of mark.up over actual cost for parts/materials: 10% PRODUCER (407)843-1120 Johnson & Company 801 N Orange Avenue ite 510 _,'lando, FL 32801 INSURED BUILDING SYSTEMS EVALUATIONS, INC. DBA FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS COMPANY 3056 PALM AVENUE FT. MYERS, FL 33901 FAX (407)843-5772 ATE (MMIDDIYYYY) 01/25/2008 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. .ACORD '" CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER A HARLEYSVILLE ATLANTIC INS. co. NAIC# 13382 INSURER B INSURER C INSURF.R D INSURER I: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PA1D,CLAIMS. -:-.-=- ~__,. .._.,,~. I~~~ f:,9,'1;~ TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRA TlON LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ ~ DAMAGE TO RENTfD .-..-. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY )RFMI~F'~ IF", n'-'curuncel-__ $ ___J CLAIMS MAOF': [J OCCUR MlcO FXP (Any nne person) $ -. m. ---- -- PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ - GENERAL AGGREGATE $ - GEN'l AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER PRODUCTS . COMP/or AGG $ I' .IIP"O nLOC ---.. -...-. POLICY .IECT AUTOMOBILE LIABIliTY BAOM5574 11/01/2007 11/01/2008 COMBINED SINGl.E LIMIT X ANY AUTO (E'<laccidenl) $ - --....-...-.... 1,000,000 ALL OWNED AUTOS BODilY INJURY ~ (per person} $ SCHEDULED AUTOS A - -~..~.~. HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY ~ (Per <lccident) $ NON-OWNED AUTOS -. --.... .-..--.- - PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accident) GARAGE liABILITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ =1 ANY AUTO .. OTHER THAN EAACC , AUTO ONLY AGG $ EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ =J OCCUR 0 CLAIMS MADE -. -- AGGREGATE $ ------..-.-... [ $ ....--- ~ -- - ..-- DEDUCTIBLE $ ----. -.'-.--'.--- RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND I WC STATU I IO:~' EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ..-.--- ANY PROPRIETOR/PAkTNER/EXECUnVE Ll. [I\CH I\CCIOf'NT , I .. -....-.. OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ~ISEASE - EA EMp'~~~ $ If yes, describe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below I: L. DISEASE" POliCY liMIT $ OTHER ACTUAL CASH VALUE A ,UTOMOBILE BADM5574 11/01/2007 11/01/2008 $500 DEDUCTIBLES PHYSICAL DAMAGE COMPREHENSIVE & COLLISION DESCRIPTION OF OPERA nONS I LOCA nONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS CERTIFICATE H"LDER I CANCELLATlnN Collier County Government 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAil ~_ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE lEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAil SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER,ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Todd L. Johnson/MIKE ACORD 25 (2001/08) FAX: (239) 334-8096 @ACORDCORPORATION 1988 This certificate is executed b Lib Mlltuallnsurancc Groll as rcs ects sm;h insurance as is afforded b those com anies CertificatcofInsurallcc 111is certificate is issued as II malterofinfonTlation only and confers 110 rights upon you the cenificatc holder Ilris ccrtilicalc is not all insurancc policy and docs not amcnd, cxtend, or alter the c afforded the olicieslistedbelow This is to certify that (Name and address of Insured) ~ Libertx ~ MutuaL Agricultural EmpJoYL'C Services (AES) a trade name rEO Services, ]nc" Services to Agriculture 1, LI,(' Services to Agriculture 11, U ,C 3660 Central Avenue Suite 4 Fort Myers, FL 33901 is, at the issue date of this certificate, insured by the Company under the policy(ies) listed below "111C insurance afforded by thc listed policy(ics) rs subject to all their terlllS. exclusions and \:onditjolls and is not altered bv anv reouiremelll,teml or\:ondition of an" COnlTilet or other dOCUlllClll with resped to which this cCl1iflcnte l11a 'bcisslIcd Exoiration Tvoe Uf./F.xn. nat-;~\' Policv Numbcr(s) Limits of Liabi~ Continuous" 11/01/2007/11/01/2008 WMi-15D-2HOl14-027 Covcra~t' uffordcd under \VC law of Employers Liability - th(' followill~ states: - Extended Hodil}' Injury Hy Accident X Policy Term FL $ 1.000,000 Each Accident Bodily Injury Hy I>iseasc $1.000.000 Policy Limit Workers Compensation Hodily InjulJ' By Disease $1,000.000 Each Person Ceneral Aggregate-Other than Prod/Completed Operations General Liability Products/Completed Operations Aggrc~atc H Claims Made Occurrence Hodily Injury and Property I)ama~e Liability Per Occurrence I Retro Date I Personal and Advertising Injury Per I)erson / Oreanization Other Liability Other Liability . Each Accident - Single Limit ~ B. I. and P. I). Combined Automobile Liability Each Person - Owned -.-'-- - Non-Owned Each Accident 01' Occurrence Hired Each Accident or Occurrence Workers Compensation for Employees leased to but not subcontractors of Building Systems Evaluations lnc DBA Fire Sprinkler Systems Co..lnc C- O M M E N T S NOliccofcanccllation. (not applicable wlless a nllmber of days is Cl1tered below) fieforclhesratedexpiration date the company will not canccl or rcdu'" lhe ill'l,rallceaff'}fded under the above policl~'S until at leas! JOdays notice of such cancellation has been rnaile<llo Office: Tampa, FL Phone: 800-282-62 I X ~ ;;;L. ~ Certificate Holder: RALPH HARNES Collier County Government Authorized Renresentative 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Date Issued: 11/28/2007 Prepared By: RC 08/09/2007 13:08 3524930402 NATURE COAST INS IA.COBi),. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE PROOUCE~ (352)493-2565 FAX (352)493-0402 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS Na~ure Coast Insurance, roC. ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGIfTS HOLDER. TlJIS CERnFlCA TE DOE' nn NW Hwy 19 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORD[ .'0 Box 1520 CIJiefl and, FL 32644 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE. IN9UREO 6uild,rig'.-Sys'tems Evalua-tion,~- Inc_ .. Fi rst Merc;;~y INSUREfl A Insur' .-. DBA BSE & !NSURER 13; DBA Fire Sprinkler Systems Cotrpaoy ---~---- -..--- INSURER C Palm Ave, Suite 1 - -- -.._-- 3056 IN8URER [I Fort: Myers ~ FL 33901 --_.._~~-- INSURER E O.tl. rE IMM/OO/YYYYJ 08/09/2007 A MATTER OF INFORMA nON t PON THE CERTIFICATE S NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ~! 1 BY TlJE POLICIES BELOW. alee Co~ NAIC# FMIC "OV"RAGES - THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE lISTEO 13ELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED A80VE FOR THE POLICY PER ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONOlTlQN OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTIiER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO V\1HICH THIS CE MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE. TERMS, EXCLJ POLICIES, AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, POUCY Expnv:~:nON- ---~-- . P.?!-~~Y Ef:l=Ii:;CTIVE 11~~~ ~~~'~ TYPE OF INSURANce POLICY NUM9ER I - GeNEr:lA.L LIABILITY FMMrOB86S 07/01/2007 07/01/2008 EACH OG( ~_.'U"'"."."" ~~ _~EMISE'~ .. - CLAIMS MADE r XJ OCCUR MED EXF' 1 ,'.-. A . _~ER~~~ -- .---' ..- GENEAA:~ ...._. ..-- ._,. -Tl'l AGG:r~Y LIMIT APPUES PER: PROOUCT PRO 1'--1 .--- X POLICY JECT LOC - ~TO"'IOellE lIABILITY COM6lNU ANY "UTO (E8aWOIll [- -- ALL GINNED AUTOS BODrLYliI/ - (Perporllm SCHEDULED AlJrOS -----.- HIRED AUTOS BOOll Y II~ .- NON-O"""-lEOO AUTOS (P9f9lccIC 1- ..-.-- f---- --- PROPER" (Per9Cclc8 ~RAGE LIABILITY AlJTOONl u___ AJIlYA1)TO OTHER r... AUTO ONL eXCeSSlUMBRElLA L....BILITY ~~H O~ --] OCCV~ o CLAIMS MADE AGGREG,~ -_._- -- ~ DEDUCT'." RETENTION . 1I\IORKi1!R:S COMPENSATION AND _L~f. E~PLOYER9" UABIUTY ANY PRQPRlETQRtPAATNERfEXECUTfVE E.L EACt<1 -. OFFICERIMEMBliO:R EXCLUDED? E.L. O'SE/~ rt~",do>t'crlbl3unOOr -. S ECIAL PROVISIONS btllffii' E.l.OISE/I. OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERAnONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES} E)(ClUSrONS AODED BY ENDORSEMENT 1 SPECIAL PROV1SI0~:G Irhe General Liability policy includes a Blanket Additiooal Insured Endorsement:_ JD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING TlFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR >ION$ AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH LIMITS , 1,000,000 ;"-_50,0~ 5,00( INCLUDE[ 2,000,000 . ?_' 000, OO( IRRENCE , l RENTED E.oa~) / nyon'OpOl"':ton) , !:. ADV INJURY GGREGATE , . - COMP/OP AGG $ SINGLE LIMIT . IRY , . ----.-- "IIRY 00' F , rr )AMAGl:C: " - EA ACCIDE~T , EAACC $ AGG $ Cl FlRENCE $ , , , . 81m),. I 10m iIMII3.IEf::< A ;CIDENT '$ ,~ , . EA EMPlOYE '$ :; ; " POLICY UMIT .$ CERTIFICAT L ER CA C Collier County Government 3301 lamiama Trail East: Purchasing Building G Naples, FL 34HZ SHOULD AMY OF TliE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICI :3 BE CANCel.lED 8EFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING If'JS.\tl :ER WlLLENOEAVOR TO MAll ~ DAYS WRlTIEN NonCE TO THl! CERllFI' :ATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, 8UTt:"AILURE TO MAll SUCH I'KJTICE5HAlL Ittlf'llEle 1'10 OBLlG.A1l0N OR llAElILfry ACORD 25 (2001/08) Todd Br ant Date: To: From: Re: MEMORANDUM March 26, 2008 John Yonkosky, Budget Director Management & Budget Office Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Resolution 2008-69: Amending FY07-08 Budget 16 F 1 " Attached, for your records you will find one (1) copy of the document, as referenced above, (Agenda Item #t6Ft), adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. [fyou should have any questions, please call 252-8406. Thank you. Attachment ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING si:I6 F 1 TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original documents should be hand delivered to the Board Office. The completed routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded to the Board Otlice only after the BO(lrd has taken aetion on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines # I through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or intormation needed. [[the document is already complete with the exception afthe Chairman's signature, draw a line throul!h routinl! lines # I throurrh #4, comnlete the checklist, and fonvard to Sue Filson (line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List ilUiM!'l:ing order) / ~ ,/ ~ ./ ~ ...- > K 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder afthe original document pending Bce approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue Filson, need to contact statf for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the BCC Chairman's signature arc to he delivered to the Bee olTice only after the Bee has acted to approve the item) Name of Primary Staff John Y onkosky Phone Number X8088 Contact Agenda Date Item was 3/25/08 Agenda Item Number 16FI Approved by the BCC Type of Document Resolution Numbet of Original 2 \J Ct.\", ) ". Attached Documents Attached \. ,~'"U....'-...J<I""""X.i;V"'s L INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column. whichever is a ro riate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters. must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibly State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties except the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne'otiated contract date whichever is ap licable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si 'nature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours ofBCC approvaL Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCe's actions are nullified. Be aware of your deadlines! The document was approved by the BCC on. .' (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated i the attached document. The Count Attorne 's Office has reviewed the chao es, if a licable. Yes (Initial) Yes N/A(Not A licable) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. fl.',! ~h'\ ps .\ Yes I: Forms! County Forms/ BCe Forms! Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9_03.04. Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05 RESOLUTION NO. 08- 69 16Fl j -, A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 129.06(2), FLORIDA STATUTES, TO AMEND THE BUDGET FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 2007-08 FISCAL YEAR. WHEREAS, Section 129.06(2). Florida Statutes, provides that the Board of County Connnissioners (hereinafter also referred to as "Boardll) at any time within a fiscal year may amend a budget for that year, and provides the procedures therefore; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, has received copies of budget amendments which provide for but are not limited to: revenue from grants, donations or contributions, or insurance proceeds for a designated purpose. WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is appropriate to amend the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 -08 by resolution pursuant to Section 129.06, Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the budget amendments to the FY 2007-08 Budget described below are approved and hereby adopted and the FY 2007-08 Budget is so amended. BUDGET AMENDMENT FUND NUMBER INCREASE (DECREASE) RECEIPT INCREASE (DECREASE) EXPENDITURE INCREASE (DECREASE) RESERVES EXPLANATION FOR APPROPRIA nON 112 08-0 15( 1 0/23/07 -16B I) $26, I 04 $26, I 04 Recognize contribution for landscaping and irrigation. 118 08-078(9/11107 -16F7) $8,403 $8,403 Florida Hazards Analysis Grant for report production. 121 08-039(4/24/07 -17F) $1,958,761 $1,958,761 HUD funds for projects from the Community Block Grant. 123 08-009(10/9/07 -16D22) $200,000 $200,000 Services for Seniors grant for Safe Havens Supervised Visitation. 123 08-013( 10/23/07-16DI7) $21,511 $21,511 Funds collected through co-pays to provide adult day care. 123 08-0 14( 1 0/23/07 -16D 15) $35,000 $35.000 Older Americans grant for case management. 123 08-065(12/11/07-1607) $150,000 $178,100 ($28, 1 OO)Older Americans Act for homemaking for elderly. 123 08-066(12/11/07-1607) $250,000 $254,300 ($4,300)Older Americans Act for nutritional education. 123 08-067(12/11/07-1607) $240,000 $243,800 ($3,800)Older Americans Act for home delivered meals. 123 08-068(12/11/07-1607) $80,000 $93,100 ($13,1 OO)Older Americans Act for respite for caregivers. 123 08-069(12/11107-16D7) $15.000 $15,000 Older Americans Act for USDA Nutrition Service. 123 08-070(12/11107-1607) $21,000 $21,000 Older Americans Act for USAD Nutrition Service. 129 08-064(12/11107-1607) $9,292 $9,292 Recognize State Library grant for Immokalee Help Project. 146 08-045( 11113/07-16F3) $9,014 $9,014 Recognize donation from estate of Della Reynolds. 16Fl 472 08-004((10/9/07-16C3) $78,500 $78,500 Florida Environmental Waste Disposal grant for recycling. 472 08-005(10/9/07-16C3) $79.732 $79,732 Florida Environmental Waste Disposal grant for recycling. 491 08-007(10/9/07-16Fl) $57,253 $57,253 Florida EMS grant for medical equipment BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to spread this Resolution in full among the minutes of this meeting for permanent record in his office. This Resolution adopted this 25'" day of March 2008, after motion, second and majority vote. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK,Clerk BOARD OfF 0 NTY CO MISSIONERS COLLIER CO TY, FL DA . -' frL- TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN By: Jef rey Kl tzkow Cheif Assistant C~unty Attorney \Item# ~J MEMORANDUM Date: March 27,2008 To: Debbie Wight, Assistant County Manager's Office From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Resolution 2008-70: Loss of Federal Entitlement Benefits Attached, for your records you will find one copy of Resolution 2008-70 as referenced above, (Agenda Item #16F3), adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. The Minutes & Records Department has retained the original Resolution where it will be kept as part of the Board's permanent record. Ifyou have any questions, please call me at 252-8406. Thank you. Enclosures (l) 16F3 ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLI16 F 3 TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Anach to original dncumcnL OriglllaJ (j'lculllcnls should he hand ddivcn:d to the Board ()f1kc Tile completed routing slip and original d\lcumcnts an: t(l he fOl"warded to the Board Orlice (m[v ,l!!l~:r the I{,}ard has ta".:n action nn the ile111,) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines # 1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or infonnation needed. If the document is already complete with the exceotioo of the Chainnan's si2tlature. draw a line throu2h routing lines #) throuM #4, comr:Jlete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson line #5l. Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routin~ order) I. 2. 3. 4. s. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval Normally the primary contact is the person who createdfprepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in the event one of the addressees above. including Sue Filson, need to contact staff for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the BCe Chairman's signature are to be delivered to the Bee office only after the Bee has acted to approve the item.) Name of Primary Staff "t-... Contact U Agenda Date Item was A roved b the BCC Type of Document Attached Phone Number Agenda Item Number Number of Original Documents Attached t.~ 3d'-3 \lof3 \ Yes (Initial) N/A (Not A licable) 1. INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/ A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is a ro riate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office ofthe County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other ies exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been enlered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne oliated contract dale whichever is a licahle. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si ature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours ofBCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCe's actions are nullified. Be awar of our deadlines! The document was approved by the Bec on (entcr datc) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporat in he attached document. The Coon Attorne's Office has reviewed the chao es, if a licable. ~ I: Forms! eOlmly Fomtsl Bee Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26,05, Revised 2.24.05 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 16F3 Resolution No. 2008 _ 70 LOSS OF FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT BENEFITS WHEREAS, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Part 435.1009 states that federal financial participation (FFP) is not available in expenditures for services provided to individuals who are inmates of public institutions; and WHEREAS, States being unable to assume the federal share of providing medical services to FFP eligible persons being held in county jails and detention facilities, tend to terminate or sometimes suspend eligibility; and WHEREAS, this immediate cessation of benefits occurs prior to the issuance of formal charges or conviction; and WHEREAS, counties must provide medical services to all persons incarcerated in local jails and detention facilities; and WHEREAS, as the result of this regulation to immediately cease FFP for medical benefits, all costs of medical care must be borne solely by counties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA requests and strongly urges Congress to amend necessary federal statutes to allow federal financial participation for medical benefits to incarcerated individuals until convicted and sentenced to secure detention. DULY PASS~ ~ND ENA$?~ Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, this c-n'day of , 2008. 3-cr-Pci BOARDrtF C UNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER C NTY, E RIDA . By: - ~ TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DATE: ATTEST: " DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLSflK .', '.. tAt1 11~ "',," Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ~!vI;Br~ IJC- Assistant Collier County Attorney Item# \(L>P7J 16F4 p~ MEMORANDUM Date: March 27,2008 To: Debbie Wight, Assistant County Manager's Office From: Ann Jennejohn, Sf. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Resolution 2008-71: FDEP Wastewater protection for public safety on beaches Attached, for your records you will find one copy of Resolution 2008-71 as referenced above, (Agenda Item #16F4), adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. The Minutes & Records Department has retained the original Resolution where it will be kept as part of the Board's permanent record. As directed in the Resolution, please forward to all memebers of the local legislation delegation. Please let me know in can be of any additional help. If you have any questions, please call me at 252-8406. Thank you. Enclosures (l) ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING s~6F 4 TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO ~ THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original documl:nls should be hand dclivCifcd to the BOIlrd Otlice rhe completed routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded to the Board Olliec only aftIT the 130ard has t.tkcn action 01; the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines # 1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the excention of tile Chairman's simuwre. draw a line thRlllPh routin~ lines # I through #4, complete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date 'List in routin- order) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder oflhe original document pending Bee approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact infonnation is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue rilson, need to contact staff for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the BeC Chairman's signature are to be delivered to the BCe office only after the BCe has acted to approve the item.) Name ofPrirnary Staff Contact Agenda Date [tern was A roved b the BCC Type of Document Attached Q, Phone Number 'f.-.~3~3 \GF"-i l Yes ([nitial) Agenda Item Number Number of Original Documents Attached ~ '!>~ I: Forms/ County Forms! Bee Forms/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05. Revised 2.24.05 L INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in tbe Not Applicable column, whichever is a ro nate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other ies exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval ofthe document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a licable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si ture and initials are re uired. [n most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours of Bce approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCe's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! The document was approved by the BeC on 'S 0 (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Coun Attorne's OfTlCe has reviewed the chan es, if a Ucable. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. '16F4 Resolution No. 2008 - 71 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AND ENCOURAGING THE ENACTMENT OF SENATE BILL 1634; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the protection of the health, safety and welfare of our citizens is a fundamental obligation of each Florida city and county local government; and WHEREAS, notification of the existence of nearby wastewater facilities in violation of Part 1, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, is a critical prerequisite to the protection of the health, safety and welfare of our citizens; and WHEREAS, identification by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) of the source of sewage contaminants which result in health advisories that prohibit swimming in beach waters of the State of Florida assists in the protection of the health, safety and economic interests of the citizens of the State of Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. That Collier County hereby supports the enactment of Senate Bill 1634, a copy of which is attached hereto, and encourages the Florida legislature to enact such Bill. SECTION 2. It is hereby directed that this Resolution of support be forwarded to all members of the local legislative delegation. SECTION 3. Effective date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. DULY PASSED ~D ENACTED bl( the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, this ~ day of -.11CArfu , 2008. DATE " 3~6'1':fJ8 ATTEST. ,;If' , .' DWIGHTE, Bl'{OCK, CLERK I . Ci.f:'( ,', ..~ ~';A1J ~, . , .0.(,. MtHt' II. to, , k ItIlLW-I..h . . Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ~O R Qitf cL~ Jen er A Belpedi Assistant Collier County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLlE~NTY, E RIDA . By: .:J1'Jt- TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Item # Agenda3 _ "X:-^g Date CI0 l) Date 3-00-0 Rec'd Deputy Cieri< .(, Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News ---.-----------------------------------------------+- -----------------~--- 16G 1'" COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEV. 2S00 N HORSESHOE DR NAPLES FL 34101 REFERENCE: 053926 594 B6952 45000S7160 PUBLIC NOTICECOLLIER 01'lil~;~0119.ll~.!\ \:<'" ' ',' PUBLIC NOTlCE ApneY " I..' COllllrcount;(r.ll'\\"~,,~~rr- . I 'In ~Ir~ ~Jal~~~=dlthe~ I.$i'=dol.""...~..'=': .~ .......... 'l.~. I.. ~gJl~ll. .ti.':;~~~~~t:a ~~ 'b_ . .._.=-~ ;'Ol: ~ ilia . ~'lZJIl....01T...T!."Eatfn =:f~~~.~I~il,.._ 0,1 F""'I~ .I. ~r1l\ He':=' ~l ~FL.3-01....~nu":"..~~19. rgr fUrther tntOnnatlon. col'ltKUbe FAA at _.~'wiNWJ!dM:IQp~\U1ti.'u;: ....rM ,.' ;;.~",',,'" ',~' ',""", ' ! '~-"""'-'~ State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that she serves as Assistant Co~orate Secretary of the Naples Daily News, a da11y newspaper published at Naples, in Collier Countr, Florida: that the attached copy of advertis1ng was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously publlshed in said Collier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 03/1S 03/IS AD SPACE: 46.000 INCH FILED ON: 03/IS/0B ______________M______M_________M_______M__________+___--------------------- Signature of Affiant ) ._~~ Sworn to and Subscribed bef~re me this ~ day of ~ 20 O~ Personally known by me ~\ ~rL G C\CkJY\J2.>O t:J~:'~y.~t':~ ...i~e \~~1!.,I;;\0f JUDY JANES Commission DD 675029 Erui:t):) May 16. 2011 ~ljnl)wTr:,~h;,,:,\'\illlI'~SOO"3SS.101& 1662 MEMORANDUM Date: March 26, 2008 To: Jean Jourdan CRA Project Manager 2740 Bayshore Dr, Unit 17 Naples, Florida 34112 From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Agenda Item #16G2: Agreement for Sale and Purchase of property located at 3015 Karen Drive, Naples, FL Attached, is the original Agreement for Sale and Purchase for the above referenced project; (Agenda Item #16G2) approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. After recording, please return the original document to the Minutes & Records Department where it will be kept as part of the Board's permanent record. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 252-8406. Thank you, 16u2 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE (FOR VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR CRA) . 1~ THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into thi~day of ,..lL21t by and between Mary E. Willkomm, a married woman as Grantors, whose mailing address is 227 Gulfshore Boulevard South, Naples, FI 34102 (hereinafter referred to as "Seller"), and Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, (hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Seller is the owner of that certain parcel of real property located at 3015 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112 (hereinafter referred to as "Property"), located in Collier County, State of Florida, and being more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. WHEREAS, Purchaser is desirous of purchasing the Property, subject to the conditions and other agreements hereinafter set forth, and Seller is agreeable to such sale and to such conditions and agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, and for and in consideration of the premises and the respective undertakings of the parties hereinafter set forth and the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby mutually acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: I. AGREEMENT 1.01 In consideration of the purchase price and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Seller shall sell to Purchaser and Purchaser shall purchase from Seller the Property, described in Exhibit "A". 1.02 Seller offers to sell the Property as represented and this Agreement will remain in effect without revocation until 5:00 p.m. on March 26. 2008. II. PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE 2.01 The purchase price (the "Purchase Price") for the Property shall be Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000), U.S. Currency payable at time of closing. III. CLOSING 3.01 The Closing (THE "CLOSING DATE", "DATE OF CLOSING", OR "CLOSING") of the transaction shall be held on or before ninety (90) days, following execution of this Agreement by the Seller, unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parties hereto. The Closing shall be held at the Collier County Attorney's Office, Administration Building, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. The procedure to be followed by the parties in connection with the Closing shall be as follows: 3.011 Seller shall convey a marketable title free of any liens, encumbrances, exceptions, or qualifications. Marketable title shall be determined according to applicable title standards adopted by the Florida Bar and in accordance with law. At the Closing, the Seller shall cause to be delivered to the Purchaser the items specified herein and the following documents and instruments duly executed and acknowledged, in recordable form: 3.0111 Warranty Deed in favor of Purchaser conveying title to the Property, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances other than: (a) The lien for current taxes and assessments. (b) Such other easements, restrictions or conditions of record. 1 Initialseller~ _~ 16G2 3.0112 Combined Purchaser-Seller closing statement. 3.0113 A "Gap," Tax Proration, Owner's and Non-Foreign Affidavit," as required by Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code and as required by the title insurance underwriter in order to insure the "gap" and issue the policy contemplated by the title insurance commitment. 3.0114 A W-9 Form, "Request for Taxpayer Identification and Certification" as required by the Internal Revenue Service. 3.0115 Such evidence of authority and capacity of Seller and its representatives to execute and deliver this Agreement and all other documents required to consummate this transaction, as reasonably determined by Purchaser's counsel and/or title company. 3.0116 The Property shall be free and clear of any improvements and debris. 3.0117 The water meter shall be removed from the property. 3.012 At the Closing, the Purchaser, or its assignee, shall cause to be delivered to the Seller the following: 3.0121 A negotiable instrument (County Warrant) in an amount equal to the Purchase Price. No funds shall be disbursed to Seller until the Purchaser or Title Company verifies that the state of the title to the Property has not changed adversely since the date of the last endorsement to the commitment, referenced in Section 4.011 thereto, and the Purchaser or Title Company is irrevocably committed to pay the Purchase Price to Seller and to issue the Owner's title policy to Purchaser in accordance with the commitment immediately after the recording of the deed. 3.0122 Funds payable to the Seller representing the cash payment due at Closing in accordance with Article III hereof, shall be subject to adjustment for prorations as hereinafter set forth. 3.02 Each party shall be responsible for payment of its own attorney's fees. Seller, at its sole cost and expense, shall pay at Closing all documentary stamp taxes due relating to the recording of the Warranty Deed, in accordance with Chapter 201.01, Florida Statutes, and the cost of recording any instruments necessary to clear Seller's title to the Property. The cost of the Owner's Form B Title Policy, issued pursuant to the Commitment provided for in Section 4.011 below, shall be paid by Purchaser. The cost of the title commitment shall also be paid by Purchaser. 3.03 Purchaser shall pay for the cost of recording the Warranty Deed. Real Property taxes shall be prorated based on the current year's tax with due allowance made for maximum allowable discount, homestead and any other applicable exemptions and paid by Seller. If Closing occurs at a date which the current year's millage is not fixed, taxes will be prorated based upon such prior year's millage. IV. REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS 4.01 Upon execution of this Agreement by both parties or at such other time as specified within this Article, Purchaser and/or Seller, as the case may be, shall perform the following within the times stated, which shall be conditions precedent to the Closing; 4.011 Within twenty (20) days after the date hereof, Purchaser shall obtain as evidence of title an AL TA Commitment for an Owner's Title Insurance Policy (ALTA Form B-1970) covering the Property, together with hard copies of all exceptions shown thereon. Purchaser shall have thirty (30) days, following 2 InitialSellerW 16G2 receipt of the title insurance commitment, to notify Seller in writing of any objection to title other than liens evidencing monetary obligations, if any, which obligations shall be paid at closing. If the title commitment contains exceptions that make the title unmarketable, Purchaser shall deliver to the Seller written notice of its intention to waive the applicable contingencies or to terminate this Agreement. 4.012 If Purchaser shall fail to advise the Seller in writing of any such objections in Seller's title in the manner herein required by this Agreement, the title shall be deemed acceptable. Upon notification of Purchaser's objection to title, Seller shall have thirty (30) days to remedy any defects in order to convey good and marketable title, except for liens or monetary obligations which will be satisfied at Closing. Seller, at its sole expense, shall use its best efforts to make such title good and marketable. In the event Seller is unable to cure said objections within said time period, Purchaser, by providing written notice to Seller within seven (7) days after expiration of said thirty (30) day period, may accept title as it then is, waiving any objection; or Purchaser may terminate the Agreement. A failure by Purchaser to give such written notice of termination within the time period provided herein shall be deemed an election by Purchaser to accept the exceptions to title as shown in the title commitment. 4.013 Purchaser shall have the option, at its own expense, to obtain a current survey of the Property prepared by a surveyor licensed by the State of Florida. No adjustments to the Purchase Price shall be made based upon any change to the total acreage referenced in Exhibit "A", if any. Seller agrees to furnish any existing surveys of the Property, if any, to Purchaser within thirty (30) days of execution of this Agreement. V. APPRAISAL PERIOD 5.01 Purchaser shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of execution of this Agreement (Appraisal Period) by the Seller, to obtain the required appraisal(s) in order to determine the value of the Property pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statutes 125.355. 5.02 If Purchaser is not satisfied, for any reason whatsoever, with the results of the independent appraisal(s), Purchaser shall deliver to the Seller within thirty (30) days from the expiration of the Appraisal Period, written notice of its intention to waive the applicable contingencies or to terminate this Agreement. If Purchaser fails to notify the Seller in writing of its specific objections as provided herein, it shall be deemed that the Purchaser is satisfied with the results of its investigation and the contingencies of this Article V shall be deemed waived. In the event Purchaser elects to terminate this Agreement copies of the appraisal reports shall be furnished to the Seller. VI. INSPECTION PERIOD 6.01 Purchaser shall have sixty (60) days from the date of execution of this Agreement, ("Inspection Period") by the Seller, to determine through appropriate investigation that: 1. Soil tests and engineering studies indicate that the Property can be developed without any abnormal demucking, soil stabilization or foundations. 2. There are no abnormal drainage or environmental requirements to the development of the Property. 3. The Property is in compliance with all applicable State and Federal environmental laws and the Property is free from any pollution or contamination. 4. The Property can be utilized for its intended purpose. 6.02 If Purchaser is not satisfied, for any reason whatsoever, with the results of any investigation, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller prior to the expiration of the Inspection Period, written notice of its intention to waive the applicable contingencies 3 InitialSeller~ 16G2 or to terminate this Agreement. If Purchaser fails to notify the Seller in writing of its specific objections as provided herein within the Inspection Period, it shall be deemed that the Purchaser is satisfied with the results of its investigations and the contingencies of this Article VI shall be deemed waived. In the event Purchaser elects to terminate this Agreement because of the right of inspection, Purchaser shall deliver to Seller copies of all engineering reports and environmental and soil testing results commissioned by Purchaser with respect to the Property. 6.03 Purchaser and its agents, employees and servants shall, at their own risk and expense, have the right to go upon the Property for the purpose of surveying and conducting site analyses, soil borings and all other necessary investigation. Purchaser shall, in performing such tests, use due care and shall indemnify Seller on account of any loss or damages occasioned thereby and against any claim made against Seller as a result of Purchaser's entry. Seller shall be notified by Purchaser no less than twenty four (24) hours prior to said inspection of the Property. VII. INSPECTION 7.01 Seller acknowledges that the Purchaser, or its authorized agents, shall have the right to inspect the Property at any time prior to the Closing. VIII. POSSESSION 8.01 Purchaser shall be entitled to full possession of the Property at Closing. IX. PRORATIONS 9.01 Ad valorem taxes next due and payable, after closing on the Property, shall be prorated at Closing based upon the gross amount of 2008 taxes, and shall be paid by Seller. X. TERMINATION AND REMEDIES 10.01 If Seller shall have failed to perform any of the covenants and/or agreements contained herein which are to be performed by Seller, within ten (10) days of written notification of such failure, Purchaser may, at its option, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of termination to Seller. Purchaser shall have the right to seek and enforce all rights and remedies available at law or in equity to a contract vendee, including the right to seek specific performance of this Agreement. 10.02 If the Purchaser has not terminated this Agreement pursuant to any of the provisions authorizing such termination, and Purchaser fails to close the transaction contemplated hereby or otherwise fails to perform any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement as required on the part of Purchaser to be performed, provided Seller is not in default, then as Seller's sole remedy, Seller shall have the right to terminate and cancel this Agreement by giving written notice thereof to Purchaser, whereupon one percent (1 %) of the purchase price shall be paid to Seller as liquidated damages which shall be Seller's sole and exclusive remedy, and neither party shall have any further liability or obligation to the other except as set forth in paragraph 13.01, (Real Estate Brokers), hereof. The parties acknowledge and agree that Seller's actual damages in the event of Purchaser's default are uncertain in amount and difficult to ascertain, and that said amount of liquidated damages was reasonably determined by mutual agreement between the parties, and said sum was not intended to be a penalty in nature. 10.03 Should any litigation or other action be commenced between the parties concerning the Property or this Agreement, the party prevailing in such litigation or other action shall be entitled, in addition to such relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum for its attorney's fees, paralegal charges and all fees and costs for appellate proceedings in such litigation or other action; which sum may be determined by the court or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 10.04 The parties acknowledge that the remedies described herein and in the other provisions of this Agreement provide mutually satisfactory and sufficient remedies to 4 Initial sellerl1Ut<..) 16G2 each of the parties, and take into account the peculiar risks and expenses of each of the parties. XI. SELLER'S AND PURCHASER'S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 11.01 Seller and Purchaser represent and warrant the following: 11.011 Seller and Purchaser have full right and authority to enter into and to execute this Agreement and to undertake all actions and to perform all tasks required of each hereunder. Seller is not presently the subject of a pending, threatened or contemplated bankruptcy proceeding. 11.012 Seller has full right, power, and authority to own and operate the Property, and to execute, deliver, and perform its obligations under this Agreement and the instruments executed in connection herewith, and to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. All necessary authorizations and approvals have been obtained authorizing Seller and Purchaser to execute and consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. At Closing, certified copies of such approvals shall be delivered to Purchaser and/or Seller, if necessary. 11.013 The warranties set forth in this Article shall be true on the date of this Agreement and as of the date of Closing. Purchaser's acceptance of a deed to the said Property shall not be deemed to be full performance and discharge of every agreement and obligation on the part of the Seller to be performed pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 11.014 Seller represents that it has no knowledge of any actions, suits, claims, proceedings, litigation or investigations pending or threatened against Seller, at law, equity or in arbitration before or by any federal, state, municipal or other governmental instrumentality that relate to this agreement or any other property that could, if continued, adversely affect Seller's ability to sell the Property to Purchaser according to the terms of this Agreement. 11.015 No party or person other than Purchaser has any right or option to acquire the Property or any portion thereof. 11.016 Until the date fixed for Closing, so long as this Agreement remains in force and effect, Seller shall not encumber or convey any portion of the Property or any rights therein, nor enter into any agreements granting any person or entity any rights with respect to the Property or any part thereof, without first obtaining the written consent of Purchaser to such conveyance, encumbrance, or agreement which consent may be withheld by Purchaser for any reason whatsoever. 11.017 Seller represents that there are no incinerators, septic tanks or cesspools on the Property; all waste, if any, is discharged into a public sanitary sewer system; Seller represents that they have (it has) no knowledge that any pollutants are or have been discharged from the Property, directly or indirectly into any body of water. Seller represents the Property has not been used for the production, handling, storage, transportation, manufacture or disposal of hazardous or toxic substances or wastes, as such terms are defined in applicable laws and regulations, or any other activity that would have toxic results, and no such hazardous or toxic substances are currently used in connection with the operation of the Property, and there is no proceeding or inquiry by any authority with respect thereto. Seller represents that they have (it has) no knowledge that there is ground water contamination on the Property or potential of ground water contamination from neighboring properties. Seller represents no storage tanks for gasoline or any other substances are or were located on the Property at any time during or prior to Seller's ownership thereof. Seller represents none of the Property has been used as a sanitary landfill. 11.018 Seller has no knowledge that the Property and Seller's operations concerning the Property are in violation of any applicable Federal, State or local 5 Initial selle~..}/.)) 16G2 statute, law or regulation, or of any notice from any governmental body has been served upon Seller claiming any violation of any law, ordinance, code or regulation or requiring or calling attention to the need for any work, repairs, construction, alterations or installation on or in connection with the Property in order to comply with any laws, ordinances, codes or regulation with which Seller has not complied. 11.019 There are no unrecorded restrictions, easements or rights of way (other than existing zoning regulations) that restrict or affect the use of the Property, and there are no maintenance, construction, advertising, management, leasing, employment, service or other contracts affecting the Property. 11.020 Seller has no knowledge that there are any suits, actions or arbitration, bond issuances or proposals therefor, proposals for public improvement assessments, pay-back agreements, paving agreements, road expansion or improvement agreements, utility moratoriums, use moratoriums, improvement moratoriums, administrative or other proceedings or governmental investigations or requirements, formal or informal, existing or pending or threatened which affects the Property or which adversely affects Seller's ability to perform hereunder; nor is there any other charge or expense upon or related to the Property which has not been disclosed to Purchaser in writing prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 11.021 Seller acknowledges and agrees that Purchaser is entering into this Agreement based upon Seller's representations stated above and on the understanding that Seller will not cause the zoning or physical condition of the Property to change from its existing state on the effective date of this Agreement up to and including the Date of Closing. Therefore, Seller agrees not to enter into any contracts or agreements pertaining to or affecting the Property and not to do any act or omit to perform any act which would change the zoning or physical condition of the Property or the governmental ordinances or laws governing same. Seller also agrees to notify Purchaser promptly of any change in the facts contained in the foregoing representations and of any notice or proposed change in the zoning, or any other action or notice, that may be proposed or promulgated by any third parties or any governmental authorities having jurisdiction of the development of the property which may restrict or change any other condition of the Property. 11.022 At the Closing, Seller shall deliver to Purchaser a statement (hereinafter called the "Closing Representative Statement") reasserting the foregoing representations as of the Date of Closing, which provisions shall survive the Closing. 11.023 Seller represents, warrants and agrees to indemnify, reimburse, defend and hold Purchaser harmless from any and all costs (including attorney's fees) asserted against, imposed on or incurred by Purchaser, directly or indirectly, pursuant to or in connection with the application of any federal, state, local or common law relating to pollution or protection of the environment which shall be in accordance with, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., ("CERCLA" or "Superfund"), which was amended and upgraded by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), including any amendments or successor in function to these acts. This provision and the rights of Purchaser, hereunder, shall survive Closing and are not deemed satisfied by conveyance of title. 11.024 Any loss and/or damage to the Property between the date of this Agreement and the date of Closing shall be Seller's sole risk and expense. 6 Initial Seller l)j l.<.J 16G2 XII. NOTICES 12.01 Any notice, request, demand, instruction or other communication to be given to either party hereunder shall be in writing, sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to Purchaser: Collier County Redevelopment Agency Bayshore/Gateway Triangle c/o David Jackson, Executive Director 2740 Bayshore Drive Naples, Florida 34112 With a copy to: David C. Weigel County Attorney Office of the County Attorney Harmon Turner Building 3301 Tamiami Trail ease Naples, Florida 34112 If to Seller: Mary E. Wilkonn 227 Gulf Shore Blvd. S. Naples, FI 34102 With a copy to: 12.02 The addressees and addresses for the purpose of this Article may be changed by either party by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein. For the purpose of changing such addresses or addressees only, unless and until such written notice is received, the last addressee and respective address stated herein shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes. XIII. REAL ESTATE BROKERS 13.01 Any and all brokerage commissions or fees shall be the sole responsibility of the Seller. Seller shall indemnify Purchaser and hold Purchaser harmless from and against any claim or liability for commission or fees to any broker or any other person or party claiming to have been engaged by Seller as a real estate broker, salesman or representative, in connection with this Agreement. Seller agrees to pay any and all commissions or fees at closing pursuant to the terms of a separate agreement, if any. XIV. MISCELLANEOUS 14.01 This Agreement may be executed in any manner of counterparts which together shall constitute the agreement of the parties. 14.02 This Agreement and the terms and provisions hereof shall be effective as of the date this Agreement is executed by both parties and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors, successor trustee, and assignees whenever the context so requires or admits. 14.03 Any amendment to this Agreement shall not bind any of the parties hereof unless such amendment is in writing and executed and dated by Purchaser and 7 Initialsell~ 16G2 Seller. Any amendment to this Agreement shall be binding upon Purchaser and Seller as soon as it has been executed by both parties. 14.04 Captions and section headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only; in no way do they define, describe, extend or limit the scope or intent of this Agreement or any provisions hereof. 14.05 All terms and words used in this Agreement, regardless of the number and gender in which used, shall be deemed to include any other gender or number as the context or the use thereof may require. 14.06 No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing signed by the party against whom it is asserted, and any waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be applicable only to the specific instance to which it is related and shall not be deemed to be a continuing or future waiver as to such provision or a waiver as to any other provision. 14.07 If any date specified in this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the date to which such reference is made shall be extended to the next succeeding business day. 14.08 Seller is aware of and understands that the "offer" to purchase represented by this Agreement is subject to acceptance and approval by the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. 14.09 If the Seller holds the Property in the form of a partnership, limited partnership, corporation, trust or any form of representative capacity whatsoever for others, Seller shall make a written public disclosure, according to Chapter 286, Florida Statutes, under oath, of the name and address of every person having a beneficial interest in the Property before Property held in such capacity is conveyed to Collier County. (If the corporation is registered with the Federal Securities Exchange Commission or registered pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, whose stock is for sale to the general public, it is hereby exempt from the provisions of Chapter 286, Florida Statutes. ) 14.10 This Agreement is governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. XV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 15.01 This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto contain the entire agreement between the parties, and no promise, representation, warranty or covenant not included in this Agreement or any such referenced agreements has been or is being relied upon by either party. No modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless made in writing and executed and dated by both Purchaser and Seller. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 16G2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed below. Dated prgjeCUACqUi~iOn Approved by BCC: ~ -(3l;-o AS TO PURCHASER: DATED: 3-~-[f; ATTEST: DWIGHT'E. SROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ti ~. BY: >i Do . . ~Clii Irr~ J bjj; ~1A =~ . .'. 4l.ft...' ty Clerk _ If".... .1- AS TO SELLER: DATED: .2/ Ii /0'1 I I WITNESSES: ~~ ~-- -. C.l/J (Printed Name) BY: _'~9~~c:C~) (ma ,,\ Ih ~ . _I. W tiff(. IJmrYl _ (Printed Name) Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ~ J~ { eldi F. Ashton Assistant County Attomey -- 16G2 EXHIBIT "A" Lot #7, Tarpon Mobile Estates, an unrecorded plat, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 100, Naples Groves and Truck CO's Little Farms No.2, according to the plat in Plat Book 1, Page 27, Public Records of Collier County, Florida thence south 89 degrees 26' 40" East 356.81 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence South 89 degrees 26'40" East 60 feet: thence South 00 degrees 09"50" West 139 feet; thence North 89 degrees 27'00" West 60 feet; thence North 00 degrees 09'00" East 139 feet to the Point of Beginning. Lot 100 of Naples Grove and Truck Co's Little Farms No.2 Subdivision and lot 100 of Naples Groves and Trucking Co's Little Farms No.2, Section 23, Township 50, South, Range 25 East, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 27, Public Records of Collier County, Florida are one and the same. 16118 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Collier County's 14th Congressional District has been capably and responsibly represented by Connie Mack IV since he was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 2004: and, WHEREAS, Congressman Mack assisted the County in securing about $3 million for six important projects that reflect the needs of our County's citizens in Fiscal Year 2008 and gained four authorizations for about $20 million in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) to pursue in upcoming years that will ensure the sustainability of our natural resources: and, WHEREAS, Congressman Mack has been a tireless and tenacious advocate for our public safety, transportation, cultural, and natural resources needs, working to ensure that Collier County remains an exceptional place to live, work and visit; and, WHEREAS, Congressman Mack, born and raised in Southwest Florida, has been a valued contributor to our community and effectively represents the needs of our citizens through his service on the House Transportation and Infrastructure, Foreign Affairs, and Budget Committees. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, recognizes The Honorable Connie Mack IV U.S. House of Representatives and thanks him for his extraordinary service to Collier County. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 25th Day of March, 2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COu, TY, FLORIDA ~ TOM HENNING, C, RMAN A~ST: 1611 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORESPOPNDENCE March 25, 2008 L MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Citizens Corps: Minutes of January 16,2008; Agenda of January 16,2008. 2) Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of January 24, 2008. 3) Development Services Advisorv Committee: Minutes of February 6, 2008. 4) Domestic Animal Services Advisory Board Committee: Agenda of February 19, 2008; Minutes of December 18, 2007. 5) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of January 30, 2008; Meeting Schedule for 2008; January 28, 2008. a) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council Subcommittee: Minutes of January 30, 2008, January 28, 2008. 6) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda of March 5-6, 2008; Minutes of January 7,2008. 7) Fire Service Steering Committee: Agenda of February 28, 2008. 8) Fire Review Task Force: Minutes of February 8, 2008; February 15, 2008. 9) Floodplain Management Planning Committee: Minutes of January 7, 2008. 10) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of November 29,2007. 11) Isle of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of February 7, 2008; Agenda February 7,2008. 16, 1 p"! 12) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee: Agenda of March 10, 2008. 13) Parks and Recreation Advisorv Board: Minutes of January 16,2008. 14) Pelican Bav Services Division Board: Agenda of January 9,2008; Minutes of January 9, 2008; March 5, 2008; Minutes of November 27,2007. a) Pelican Bav Services Division Board Budget Committee: Minutes November 27, 2007. b) Pelican Bav Services Division Board Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit: Agenda of March 5, 2008. 15) Planning Commission: Revised II Agenda of March 6, 2008; Minutes of January 3, 2008; 2007 Cycle 2 LDC Minutes of January 9, 2008; LDC Minutes of January 11, 2008; Special Session Minutes of January 11,2008; Regular Session Minutes of January 17,2008. ]6) Rura] Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee: Minutes of February 5, 2008. 17) Water and Wastewater Authoritv: Minutes of January 28, 2008. B. Districts: I) Cow Slough Water Control District: Annual Financial Report & Budget of September 30, 2007. C. Other: ]) Special Magistrate: Minutes of February 15, 2008. 16,1 1 A .r' '\; <,'C' Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee January 16,2008 Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Judy Scribner for Gerry Sugarman, RSVP Walter Jaskiewicz. Coast Guard Auxiliary Floyd Chapin, Community Emergency Response Volunteers Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross Doug Porter, Naples Ci vii Air Patrol Maria Ramos for Captain Alejandro Castillo, Salvation Army Voting Members Absent: (Excused Absence) Jerry Sanford, Collier County Fire Chiefs Assoc James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Lt. George Welch. Collier County Sheriff's Office V oting Members Absent: (Non-Excused Absence) Non-Voting Members Present: Jim von Rinteln, Collier County Emergency Management Joe Frazier, Collier County Emergency Management Rick Zyvoloski, Collier County Emergency Management Joe Irene, Neighborhood Watch Kathleen Marr. Health Department Misc. COffes Meeting called to order at 3:00 p.m. Date :!J. 25, B :tem#~ Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. ~ LJ~::') to' Approval of Minutes After a quorum arrived, motion to accept the minutes of the December 19,2007 meeting made by Floyd Chapin and seconded by Doug Porter. Approved unanimously. Threat Update Jim vonRinteln reported that there are no unusual threats on either the National or State levels - we are still at the Elevated Threat (Yellow) level. Everyone should remain vigilant. New Business Exercise Update Joe Frazier reports that the exercise is on schedule. It has been broken down to tabletop and .full-scale exercises. The tabletop will be held on March 26th and the full-scale is scheduled for April 29th and will be held primarily at the airport. Sarasota will be assisting with hazmat portion and Lee County will be working with hospitals and decontamination. Still looking for volunteers - victims do not need to attend the tabletop exercise. Judy Scribner is setting up training meetings for the volunteers, with Russ Rainey being the point of contact for tbe volunteers Joe F. will email tomembersanoticefortrainingbeingheldfrom9a.m.to 5 p.m. (correction to the 1:30-5 p.m. shared at the meeting) on March 17, 18 and 19 at Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, regarding suicide bombing. This is a one-day, free training being offered. 'r 16tl A Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee January 16,2008 Wildfire Season Per Rick Zyvoloski, the season is not looking good. La Nina synopsis is included in your handouts. This will persist through Spring, which means no rain and the potential for a bad fire season. Frost is bad for the fire season, as it dries things out. We are not expecting any significant rain in the near future. On February 14th from 9 a.m. to noon here will be a Wildfire Roundup at the Golden Gate Fire Station 73. This will include all stakeholders in order to coordinate and collaborate information, including Forestry, Fire, ete. Expect to get flyers out to residents of Golden Gate Estates and Forestry Department will be training some CERT members to offer free wildfire assessments in the Golden Gate area. Education and awareness will help to minimize the dangers. Old Business EOC Update Jim V. showed slides of a tour yesterday with Representative Richter at the ESC project. It is on schedule and within budget, and about 40% complete. There was an incident last week where a crane dropped a 30-40 ton piece of concrete. Two people were injured, fortunately, not seriously. The malfunction on the crane has been repaired. Jim is holding of on tours for a couple months. After the outside walls are put up, he will get group out there. Thanks to the Citizen Corps for your support! Flu Shots Mary Ann had a list of upcoming flu shot clinics available for the group. Per Kathleen Marr, these dates were added due to a surplus of flu vaccine this year. Other Rick also had a handout from his Local Mitigation group. This information is going to the State. Participants are filing for grants in their particular areas - would like better participation in this group. Reg Buxton voiced a complaint that there were no Advisory Board parking spaces available when he arrived on the campus and that there were no other Advisory Boards meeting today. Jim V. will speak with Security regarding this. Jim V. said that hurricane shelter managers are still needed. Training classes will be held at American Red Cross in the next few months, per Debbie Horvath. Please work with your organizations and encourage folks to take this training. Next Meeting/ Adiourn Next meeting currently scheduled to be held on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at the Board of County Commissioners chambers. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:20 p.m. made by Reg Buxton and seconded by Walt Jaskiewicz. Approved unanimously. Minutes submitted by Mary Azn ole '~, '/11 ;, Y7 pi Approved by Chair. 'I J Reg Buxton ,;;)/1", ' , d- 1//,/' Date 16 11 J Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda January 16,2008 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance -Opening Remarks -Roll Call Chairman Sheriff's Office CERV USCGA Red Cross Chamber of Commerce Fire Chiefs CERT CAP Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army EMS City of Naples PRMC Health Dept Everglades City NCH Medical Examiner City of Marco Island Neighborhood Watch EM 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update Sheriffs Office 3:15 New Business Chairman . Exercise Update Joe Frazier . Wildfire Season Jim von Rinteln 3:30 Old Business Chairman . EOC Update . Flu Shots Jim von Rinteln Mary Ann Cole 3:45 Next Meeting/Adjourn (February 207 ) Chairman 16 11 A t;\ \tfJ Memorandum To: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Collier County Board of County Commissioners From: Jim von Rinteln l A~ Emergency Managem~t Coordinator Thru: Dan Summers, Director Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services Date: December 18,2007 Subject: 2007 Election of Officers for the Citizen Corps Advisory Committee On December 19, 2007, during the Citizen Corps Advisory Committee regular scheduled public meeting the annual election of officers was held in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 02-56. The following results are forwarded for your records Reginald A Buxton, 11- Chairman Russell Rainey - Vice Chairman Jerry Sanford - Secretary If you have any questions please contact me at 252-8911. Emergency Management Department 16 11 A COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FLU & PNEUMONIA VACCINE CLINICS It's not too late to get a flu vaccination for the 2007/2008 flu season! We have added flu clinics to our original schedule. St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Farmer's Market) 1101 N. Collier Blvd., Marco Island January 16, 30 and February 13 from 8 - 11 am St. Paul's Episcopal Church (Farmer's Market) 3901 Davis Blvd., Naples January 26 from 9 - noon Edison College-Collier Campus (Community Service Fair) 7007 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples February 12 from 4 - 7 pm Golden Gate Community Center (Senior Expo) 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples February 13 from 10 am -1 pm Flu shots are $25 and Pneumonia shots are $35. For further information, please feel free to direct calls to Patty Hansen at the Collier County Health Department. Phone# 774-8203 Please make time for this important protection against seasonal influenza! 16 11 A "TI~ "TllNr)' Vf)IJll f)IIINIf)N! The Florida Benchmarking Consortium (FBC) is a group of Florida local governments that are collaborating on finding ways to make government more efficient. Collier County, in collaboration with Sarasota County and the Cities of Cape Coral and Venice, is hosting a focus group for FBe. At the focus group, input will be requested on how service quality should be measured. We will cover the following service areas: Police · Fire/Rescue · Streets Code Enforcement · Storm Water · Parks and Recreation Community Development · Water Please ioin us: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:30 AM n_ 12:30 PM Collier County Government Naples, Florida* We are looking for people from all areas of the community - especially those individuals who are active in local organizations, such as advocacy groups and neighborhood associations, who have an interest in performance measurement. r- . , ..::::: Florida Benchmarking Consortium ':~. Taking performance measurement to the next level J" For more information, please contact: Winona Stone, Collier County Manager's Office 239.252.8383 or winonastone@colliergov.net Nancy Ellis, PhO, Univ. of Central Florida 407.823.0713 or nancy@maiLucf.edu For more information on the Florida Benchmarking Consortium and Perfonnance Measurement, please visit our website at httD://www.flbenchmark.org. * Participants will be notified of the site location upon confirmation of registration. 16 J 1 A .:::i Florida Benchmarking Consortium Taking performance measurement to the next leilel Citizen Participation Focus Group Reqistration Information and Consent Form Please fill out the following information: Name: Address: Phone Number: Email Address: Consent to Participate I understand that I have been asked to participate in a citizen focus group to be conducted in Naples, Florida. The purpose of this group is for the Florida Benchmarking Consortium (FBC) to gain citizen views of current government services for Collier County. The focus group will include views on the following service categories. Please X or circle all service areas of particular interest. **.Police ...Fire/Rescue .**Code Enforcement .**Streets .**Stormwater Drainage .**Parks and Recreation ...Community Development ...Water and Wastewater I understand my participation in this focus group is completely voluntary and that I am free to withdraw my consent at any time without any consequence and that I do not have to answer any questions that I do not wish to answer. The information generated by the group will not identify the answers of specific participants unless permission is given. If you have any questions about the focus group, please feel free to contact Dr. Nancy Ellis at 407-823-0713. I have read the information above, I voluntarily agree to participate in the focus group. Name Date Please email or fax this form to Nancy Ellis at nancy@maiLucf.edu or 407.823.0744. For information on the FBC visit the website at: http://www.flbenchmark.org/ .... o o N Ie o~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ 9I AON ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ ~ ~ r.l r.l r.l ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ 61180 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Il-1d;lS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ r.l L I jJnv ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r.l r.l r.l ~ ~ r.l ~ r.l r.l OZ A[nr ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 unr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OZ Jdv ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ ~~~ 9I q;ld ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ 61 UBf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r.l ~ ~ ~ ~ r.l r.l r.l " ,: ,5i " Ci q .~ is ;'! o(l~ .Of ::E ... '" - ~ g ~ ~ '" .!l OIl <= ;- '" ~ .~ ::E '8 0 " ..: 'S: ,: <= :;::: 0 - u 8 <l) <L> C CJ :9 ..:: u CJ CJ .~ .~ <l) .- :5 '" <= ..:: ~ ::E '" Q~ .!l 0 'C S Q <; I~ -0 0 CJ - '" :E 0 :r: 'r:; '" - 0 OJ J:l .~ .- <= <= " '-0 ... 0 :r: - q <= oj ~ Co ~ .- <l) ff i': CJ '8 <l) ~ '" ~ .0 CJ a '" <l) 8 -0 '" CI a 0 ~ '" :8 it: ::E .<:: E '" " -0 ~ ~ .;;; - "" uff "" "'" 0 A: 0 OJ 0-; -0 -0 0 ~ -0 <l) 'C ~ ... ~ E 8 <= ""' 0 0 i=<: <l) <l) ci en 0 0 0 " '" ~ 0 0 <l) '" 'oj :r: u <l) - '" -0 .<:: ~ Ul ~ <= ff <l) <0 U ;. U U U '" -0 '" <l) U <l) on >, e ~ 4--< >-< ~ :E 8 "9 - CJ 0 U ... ] ... 0 0 0 ... '" '" ... " ~ ] <l) . ~ ~ '" u " ~ <l) ~ <l) <= ~ ;.::: .!:: ~ ~ >, z p ] ... ~ z e .- <l) ~ ~ ~ ;. "0 "0 ~ <l) 8 <l) "0 <l) ~ OIl :i <l) "0 '0 o <= 0 ::E ::E ;. <l) j :i " - 0 ..:: on Q u u u"," u u u "'" i:l:l i:l:l U Z <= u >-< -0 -g ~ on :0 " Igj - i os S OJ ... " CJ <l) <:> -= ::E :9 .- .- on E :r: u os CJ ell '" u 'a -= 'C ~ ... ~ 0 ..., '" ~ ~ 0 <l) " ..>, ~ u '" ] ... ~ 0 ... d' <l) " CJ ..!l 0 :a ~ ~ !; E 19 "0 s i< <l) CJ '" -0 <.> '" CJ i:l:l 'C " <l) " 0 u '" CJ U <= '" <= 1:: U N Q ::E ..>< i=<: ~ <l) on " ..:: <l)~ ~ " 0-; <l) on 8 :r: - .<:: ~~ ~ 'g .~ <l) ~ ;3: ..>< CJ -0 ~ '" - " <= .0 CJ .0 .0 ::l J: CJ '" <l) 'C 'i3 8 <l) U ::E j 0 P:l 0 0 .<:: 'C '" 0 .<:: ::l i=<: ~ i=<: i=<: on i:l:l i:l:l U "'" on ~ i:l:l U ~ Q . ! o U G>> r:-= G>> u C ftI 'a C G>> .. .. cr: en '\. G>> .a E G>> :E m c .- .. o > 161 1 A 16 11 A Collier County Hazard Mitioation Plan 2004 December 21 2007 ANNEX G COLLIER COUNTY LOCAL MITIGATION PROJECTS FINAL LISTING Grant Abbreviations: FMAP '" Flood mitigation Assistance Program PDM "" Predisaster Mitigation HMGP= Hazard Mitigation Grant Program EMP A = Emerl!encv Management Pro ram Assistance COffinetitive Grant # NAMElLocation DescriDtion Est.Cost Fundino Office Resn. Submitted SCORE I Community Emergency Radio Establish an emergency radio $13,OOOea. HMGP/local Conununity 2,830,950 Network system throue:hout the comtv. Associations. Golden Gate HS - Shelter Install wind protection and Retrofit pre-wire with emergency HMGP CC Emergency 2 generator switching $60,000 EMPA 12/07 961,800 (2925 Titan Ln., Naples equipment.... Goall,Obj. 1.1, PDM Management 34116) Goal 3 -Obi. 3..3 Golden Terrace Elementary Install wind protection and School-Wind Prot & Prewire pre-wire with emergency Collier County 3 (271144lhTerr. SW, Naples generator switching $60,000 EMPA Emergency 12/07 763,337.2 equipment.... Goall,Obj. 1.1. Management 34116) Goal3 Obi. 3..3 Immokalee High School- Install wind protection and L"t:~~iij Wind Prot & Prewire pre-wire with emergency CC Emergency 4 generator switching $60,000 12/07 683,189.2 (701 Immokalee Dr., equipment.... Goal I ,Obj. 1.1, Management Immokalee 34142) Goal 3 -Obi. 3..3 Immoka1ee MS - Generator Install wind protection and Switch pre-wire with emergency HMGP CC Emergency 5 (401 N. 9th St., Immokalee generator switching $60,000 EMPA Management 12/07 362,587.2 equipment.... Goal I, Obj. 1.1, PDM 34142) Goal3 Obi. 3..3 Install entry door and cupola protection and wind protection North Naples Fire 6 NNFD #40 - Wind Protection for 5 vehicle bay doors at No. $13,000 EMP A NNFD 350,772 Naples Fire District Station Department 40. Install entry door and cupola EMP A North 7 NNFO #42 ~ Wind Protection and wind protection for 5 bay $13,000 Naples Fire North Naples Fire 350,760 doors at No. Naples Fire Dept Department District Station 42. Install entry door protection EMPA/North 8 NNFD #46 - Wind Protection and cupola and wind $13,000 NaplesFire North Naples Fire 344,925.8 protection for 5 bay doors Department at No. Nanles Fire Station 46. Dept Install entry door and cupola CG/North 9 NNFD #44- Wind Protection protection and wind protection $16,000 Naples Fire North Naples Fire 285,000 for 5 bay doors at North District Naoles Fire District Station 44 District Pelican Marsh Elementary Install window and door 10 School - Wind Prot & Prewire protection at the main $60,000 HMGP CC Emergency 12/07 (9480 Airport Road, NN openings of school cafeteria. PDM Management 276,712.2 34109) Goal I, Objective 1.1 Install wind protection and Lake Trafford Elementary- pre-wire with emergency Collier County 11 Prewire for Genset & Shutters generator switching $60,000 HMGP Emergency 12/07 257,625 equipment.... Goal 1, Obj. 1.1, Management Goal 3 Obi. 3..3 Perform engineering assmnt, 12 Lely Elementary School ~ Install roof retrofit bracing, $60,000 ii' Collier County 12/07 242,350.7 Wind Protection and install additional window )~ Emergency Mgmt. orotection at Lelv Elementarv. MI - WW Treatment Plant- Install windscreen protection 13 Wind Protection on two membrane Bio- $70,000 HMGP Marco Island 09/07 214,758.0 Reactor skids. 14 Laurel Oak Elementarv School Install wind protection and $60,000 EMPA Collier County 12/07 196,562.2 ANNEX G-2 16 11 A Collier Countv Hazard Mitiaation Plan 2004 December 21 2007 - Wind Prot & Prewire pre-wire with emergency Emergency generator switching Management equipment....Goall,Obj. 1.1, Goa13 Obi, 3..3 Install wind protection and Big Cypress Elementary pre-wire with emergency Collier County 15 generator switching $60,000 EMPA Emergency 12./07 187,024.3 School - Wind Prot & Prewite equipment.... Goal 1, Obj. 1.1, Management Goal 3 -Db;. 3..3 Collier County Emergency Improve hi-wind survivability Services Complex - Wind by installing wind resistance iWilii\o" 16 Abatement improvements aimed at further $75,000 CC Emergency 12/07 86,671 (4600 Santa Barbara BI., protecting communications ';e~4ih~;i,? Management and the generator. Goal 3, Obj. Naples 34116) 3.1 & Goal 2, Obi. 2.2 Install pad, berm and electric 17 Naples Recycling Center for building being moved on $80K PDM CC Solid Waste Mgt 84,375 site to store hazardous waste. 18 Big Corkscrew IFRD Sta. 10 Replace four bay doors. $19.3K HMGP BCIFRD 73,261.2 Wind Retrofit 19 330 I Tamiami Tr. E, Building Film wind protection for floors $16K HMOP CCFacilities 73,031.25 F,Naoles 4 8 20 Marco Island EOC Wind protection -MIFD/EOC $70K . MIFRD 12/07 36,462.5 21 Isled of Capri DFO Heliport retention waiL $59K ill ICOFD 12/07 27,203.4 3301 Tamiami Tr. E, Wind protection for glass & 22 Buildings W, G, 0, B & K, $244K HMOP CCFacilities 12/07 21,616.95 Naoles doors. Retrofit existing structure to 23 Golden Gate Main Canal Weir enhance canal conveyance $800K HMGP and SFWMD/BCB No. 6 Retrofit capacity and provide flood BCB 18,640.5 protection 24 112 10th Av S.,Naples 34102 Elevate ChilWin Historical $185K Wl!fu.'i"ll,jj City of Naples 12/07 House above BFE ralW";:';.,~'f',):'" 18,154.30 ~W.eW Retrofit existing structure to 25 Faka Union Canal Weir No.7 enhance canal conveyance $870K HMGP and SFWMD/BCB Retrofit capacity to provide flood BCB 18,031 orotection Road Maint. Admin. Fac. Wind retrofit and generator W~lli"'~~':i1i 26 4800 Davis Blvd, Naples $60K "!!I!~1 ,L. Trans. Svs Div 12/07 17,168.0 34101 wirng iss.~,' Z7 Big Corkscrew IFRO Sta. II Strengthen siding and doors $60K HMOP BCIFRD Wind Retrofit and roof. 15,904.35 Armor the banks with rip rap 28 Annoring Cocohatchee Canal to prevent continuous erosion $3.0M HMGP and SFWMD/BCB Bame. problems and sedimentation of BCB 11,357.7 the canal N. Collier Regional Park Wind protection for several l>ii'u., ''''jj 29 15000 Livingston Rd. facilities @ the park and pre- $40K ,lrJI CCP&R 12/07 11,137.5 wire Gvm for o-enerator. l,l\i, ,,' ",.r Village Oaks Elementary Install wind protection and Prewire for Gen. & reinforce pre-wire with emergency Collier County 30 roofing generator switching $60,000 HMGP Emergency 12/07 0,870 (1601 SR-29., Immokalee equipment.... Goall,Obj. 1.1, Management 341421 Goal 3 .-obi. 3..3 Install wind protection and Pine Ridge Middle School - pre-wire with emergency Collier County 31 Wind Prot & Prewire generator switching $60,000 EMPA Emergency 12/07 6,870 equipment.... Goal I, Obj. 1.1, Management Goal3 Obi. 3..3 Calusa Park ES - Wind Prot & Install wind protection and Prewire pre-wire with emergency HMOP CC Emergency 3Z generator switching $60,000 EMPA 12/07 6,870 (4600 Santa Barbara BI., equipment.... Goal I, Obj. 1.1, PDM Management Naples 34116) Goal 3 -Obi. 3..3 Wind Retrofit Building H InstalllO,800 sq.ft. WHwa'L;i,~~i]4 CC Health Dept./CC 33 wondprotcction to all bldg $800K 12/07 4,320 (DoH, EMS HQ, & Lab) windows ofBldl!. H. in''cevi,ew. Facilities Dept. 34 3301 Tamiami Tr. E, Building Replace Generator $408K (not eligible CCFacilities 12/07 2,025.6 F, Naoles fa, HMGPJ ANNEX G-3 16 J 1 A Collier County Hazard Mitiaation Plan 2004 December 21 2007 The project will combine wetlands, habitats, trails, Acquisition & development of boardwalks, fishing piers, CC Trans. Services educational facilities, 35 Gordon River Water Quality extensive landscape and $19.2M FCT Division- 1,357 Park hardscape within a passive Stormwater park setting that will intrigue & educate nature enthusiasts. 36 Winchester Head property Purchase 200 acre depressional $9.165M Ad-valorem Conservation Collier 1,319,5 acauisition wetland for water storage. Lee Co. Electric Coop - Move Move overhead elect. facs. to ~m"~ii:igIilJ 37 underground in Marco Island. $5.9M : < et.;--tif:" LCEC 12107 99. Electric to Underground in MI (Obi Ll, 1.2 and Goal 3) j!!:J;i;\!i~ 38 North GG Estates Unit 53 Purchase property adj. to state- $14.5M Ad valorum Conservation Collier Land Acauisition owned conservation lands 819.0 America's Business Park Land Develop 83 acres for public 39 Acquisition access consistent $2 L200M Ad valorum Conservation Collier 95.55 w/conservation Q'oals. 4' Five Traffic Intersections Install five Mast Arm Traffic $500K HMGP CC TSD Signals 58.5 To plant a sea oat buffer 10 Barefoot Beach Sea Oats feet wide for approximately FMAPIHMG 41 Project 9,210 LF to replace the dune $163.36K p CC Tourism 12/07 NA system that has been damaged bv manv vears of storms. ANNEX G-4 QJ -. ..= lZl QJ .... Po. = eIJ 0 . . . . . . . . . - . .- = S - QJ .- 0 loo ,., = = .... - '" .c "=' CIl ..... ".. = 'iil > QJ a ~ ..= 0 ... QJ .... ~ ..= eIJ .....'..... -'......... = Eo< -- lZl = QJ lZl loo .... ~ .... c.j . . " . . ~.. , QJ rI:J 0 5 - .~ - .- ~ QJ ~ .... - .c '" .... ~ . <xl 5 l= rI:J CJ -= Ql ......... .- ... QJ Z .... Q rI:J = Po. ........- = ~ 0 QJ ~ 5 rJ'1 ~ rI:J N .... I U C.l 'l"""'i .- QJ "=' .... .... '" " '" ., '" ~ '" 0'" ~ '" ., '" " '" -= QJ ~ oi W ~ 0 0 I .-< I W I oi loo QJ [ [ [ [ ~ Q., = )f, ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ... :: Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Contact: Sandra Arnold Public Information Coordinator (239) 252-8308 www.collienwv.net Jan. 11,2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDA Y, JANUARY 16, 2008 3 p.m. The Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, January 16 at 3 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers, located on the third floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building, Building F, Collier County Government Center, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board of County Commissioners or quasi-judicial board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05, as amended, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. 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 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Jim von Rinteln at 252-8000. -End- January 24, 2008 TRANSCRlPT OF THE MEETING OF THE 16 I 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida January 24, 2008 f_~ ,', . ldt;1 ,'---'Z-'~ : .'. ~" (j'~'-"-'- 'I~~;"':""~'" . ..----~-. 2~yi~;" ~.. ?:' L~ COl0tta ' --" -.'---' LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code A Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, 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: "", ~.... ":,, r''''~ . i ; ;), CHAIRMAN: Sheri Barnett Larry Dean (Excused) Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) George Ponte Charles Martin Jerry Morgan ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Page 1 Misc. eon.: Date: h. Z-'S.R 1!emI:JV \' 0') 2... ~opies to: ~ January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. It iS~~O! sJI A would like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County meeting to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. 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 the verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call. MS. MARKU: Mr. George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Larry Dean has an excused absence. Ms. Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRlNG: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Charles Martin? MR. MARTIN: Here. Page 2 Jann2l j08 MS. MARKU: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence. A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. We have a quorum. Before I start, I wanted to make note that this is my last meeting. I have been happy to serve Collier County's Board for almost six years now, but my commission ends on the 14th of February. So I will be stepping down and letting someone else take over. Approval of the agenda? I made one note to Bendisa, I guess at the beginning, that we had one case that had a wrong code listed. MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There was a wrong code listed. MS. ARNOLD: The number, yeah. It has a couple of different changes. The one that you're referencing is Emma Houston; is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: That number should be 2007-114, rather than 82, as specified on the agenda. Also, we have two requests for continuances. One is your item 4-C- 7, Board of County Commissioners versus Jeff Macasevich. And the other one is 4-C-1 0, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Mary Edwards. Both will be added under the motions for continuances. So those will be one and two respectively. We have stipulations for 4-C-4, which will now become 4-B-1. That is Board of County Commissioners versus Audrey Jake. And we have another stipulation for 4-C-14, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Rico Jr. and Magda Munoz. That will become 4-B-2. We are also removing from the agenda item 4-C-11, Board of County Commissioners Carlos Pio and Melva Pio. And that is because the property is in the middle of foreclosure, so we are having to re-notice. Page 3 ) January 24, 2008 And then I'm adding an item under old busineJ 6./rie ruJts and regs are back again. - That's all the changes I have. MR. PONTE: May I introduce an item under new business, if there is time, to discuss the stipulations and the possibility of fining for people who fail to comply with the stipulations. I would like to discuss that under new business. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm going to give everyone a few minutes to get their packets in order and then we'll go to approval of minutes in just a few minutes. Is everybody set, including myself? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Approval of the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Move to approval of the minutes for November 29th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor -- I need a second, I'm sorry. MR. PONTE: I will second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 4 January 24, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. 16 I 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Move to motions for rehearing. Okay. MS. ARNOLD: You were provided a request from the respondent. And is the respondent here; Mr. Fogg? Stanley Fogg? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: I guess no one is here. UNKNOWN PERSON: There are some people in the hallway. MS. ARNOLD: I didn't see Colleen MacAlister out there. I don't know whether or not the board wants to consider the motion or continue it until she's here or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair, I make a motion that we table it for, let's say, an hour to give her time to get here. If they do not arrive by 10:00, then we'll hear the case or hear the rehearing. MR. KELL Y: I was wondering, just to save time, if we could maybe poll the board or something. Because I believe the request for continuance states all of the reasons why they want it. And I personally believe there is some validity there. If you would like, I could explain. MS. RAWSON: My advice would be to wait for the attorney. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KELLY: Well, then I second Gerald's motion then. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to table this until the attorney can be present in approximately an hour. MR. MORGAN: Second. Page 5 January 24, 2008 16 J 1 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There is a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll table it. So then we move to motions for continuance. We have two requests, the first one being Macasevich, Case No. 2006100314. Go ahead. Do you want to swear in the witness? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BONO: For the record, Investigator Mario Bono, Collier County Code Enforcement. This has been a motion for a continuance that was presented in due time for the continuance. The attorney for the respondent appears not to be here, and I leave it to the board to consider that continuance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Comments or questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would say -- personal thoughts on the case, the reason maybe he's not here is because he has got medical issues. MR. BONO: He does. Actually, I was at the house yesterday. The house has been pretty much closed up. And he was not -- there is no sign of him. His vehicle is not there. I was out to the house to confirm whether the violation was abated or not. It was not. At this point in time there appears to be extenuating circumstances. And obviously his attorney has Page 6 A January 24, 2008 corresponded with our office about that. 16 I 1 A MR. KELLY: Make a motion we grant the continuance. MR. PONTE: Second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A 60-day continuance. The next one is Edwards. And that is Case No. 2006080127. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning. MR. AMBACH: I believe -- I'm sorry. Investigator Chris Ambach, A-m-b-a-c-h, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe Ms. Edwards sent a letter in in regards to this case and a special master case actually that is going on at the same time on her property. The letter was forwarded on to Bendisa yesterday. I don't know the specifics of it, but she has asked for an extension due to health issues that she's having from -- I'm sorry -- for the OSM case. And I think she meant it to be for both cases. That property was posted within 24 hours, one for the OSM case and one for the CEB case. Right now we don't have an objection to giving her an extension. She's requested time to get healthy and to hire an attorney. So the County does not have an objection at this time to continue this case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She's apparently in Manor Care, which is an assisted-living or an assisted-care facility. Page 7 So anything from the board? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion. I will make a motion to continue for 60 days. MR. MORGAN: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: She is asking until February. MR. PONTE: I think just to take the pressure offher. MR. MORGAN: February or -- MR. PONTE: Sixty days. MR. MORGAN: Sixty days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Continued for 60 days. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I believe that concludes the continuance requests. We'll move to the stipulations. The first one being Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Audrey Jake, Case No. 2007050199. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MARSH: Good morning. For the record, John Marsh, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is Case No. 2007050199. 4797 North Road, Naples, Florida 34104. Folio No. 26480520100. Owner of property, Audrey Jake. January 24, 2008 16 11 A Page 8 16 I lTamAy 24,2008 This is a building or land permit case, violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B) (l)(d), converted pole barn into living space without obtaining Collier County building permit. Before reading the stipulation, I would like to state that the owner has filed for a permit by affidavit and has said some areas that needed readdressing, which she was working on correcting. The order has agreed to a stipulation as follows: Pay operational costs in the amount of$332.69. Abate all violation by: Applying for and obtaining all required Collier County building permits, have required inspections, and obtain certificate of completion for all permits within 120 days from this hearing or a $200 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Or respondent may obtain a demo permit and demo all additions and alterations to pole barn structure and obtain all inspections and certificate of compliance within 120 days of this date or a fine of $200 per day be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Ms. Jake isn't here today. However, I have a notarized statement from Ms. Jake that I would like to read. MS. ARNOLD: Put it on the visualizer. MR. MARSH: Okay. It is dated January 22nd, 2008. It says: I, Audrey Jake, state that I do understand the terms ofthe stipulation agreement regarding the permit violation of the property owned by me at 4797 North Road, Naples, Florida 34104, and signed the stipulation of my own free will. Dated the 22nd day of January, 2008. And it is signed by Ms. Jake. I witnessed it and it was notarized. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion to accept the stipulated Page 9 January 24, 2008 agreement as presented by the County and agreed to by the 16' 1" respondent. It MR. PONTE: I will second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you very much. MR. MARSH: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next stipulated agreement is Ricardo and Magda Munoz. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman, I do have two more that are going to be coming, if we can amend the agenda at this time. They are going to be items 15 and 16, both Board of County Commissioners versus Circle K Stores. So they will follow the Ricardo and Magda Munoz case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion? Make a motion to amend the agenda. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 10 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now we'll move to Case No. 2007100608, Board of County Commissioners versus Ricardo, Jr. and Magda Munoz, if! said that right. I hope. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. This is Department Case No. 2007100608. The stipulation has been reached and agreed upon between the County and the respondent. The respondent agrees that they will: Pay all operational costs in the amount of $270.28 occurred in the prosecution ofthis case, and abate all violations by, A: Remove any vehicles for sale from the property that are not personally owned, licensed and registered to the owners of the property in question within 48 hours of the date of this hearing or a fine of$100 a day will be imposed until such time as the vehicles are removed. Cease any use in whole or in part that is prohibited within RSF, residential single- family three zoning district, and the respondent must notify a code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection. This is a case -- the violations of Section 02.02.03 as described as using land in ways not permitted by the provisions ofRSF-3 zoning district. The property owner is using subject property for the commercial sale and display of vehicles. I have monitored this since the case's inception. They have not had vehicles on since it was originally done. This is a recurring violation. The respondent could not be here today. She was here to sign the stipulation agreement. She has a parent with severe Alzheimer's, so she felt it necessary to go home. She understood and agreed to the stipulation agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has this -- has this property come in front of us before or this respondent come in front of us before? 16 /1 A Page 11 January 24, 2008 MR. SNOW: Not for this, sir, no. But it is recurring. There was a notice of violation issued. A complaint was received and th~re were again vehicles on the property. l6 I 1 A MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PONTE: Investigator, when you were reading that I didn't catch -- I missed it, perhaps. Is there a stipulation in there that would prevent the respondent from doing this again? In other words, is there prohibition against future placement of cars in the same position? MR. SNOW: Well, we are asking them to cease in use in whole or in part. That's prohibited in this zoning district. So if they were to do this again, it would be a repeat violation. We would appear before you immediately. And obviously it would be up to the court to decide the severity of the penalties. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: Move to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Kitchell (sic). MR. SNOW: Thank you, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next case would be Board of Page 12 January 24, 2008 Collier County Commissioners versus Circle K Stores, 20WQ50,13ii. (Speakers were duly sworn.) l b 1 A MR. SNOW: Again, for the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Department Case No. 2007050136. The violations are of Section 04-41 of the Land Development Code as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(2)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(2)( d)(ix), 5.06.04 (C)(8)(b), 5.06.04(C)(8)(c), 5.06.04(C)(8)(d) and 5.06.04(C)(8)(e) and are described as signs erected without proper permits. The respondent is here today representing the property owner. And they have agreed to the following stipulations: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $289.46 incurred in the prosecution of this case; and abate all violations by obtaining required permits for signs if attainable or remove within 14 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until said signs are permitted or removed. All inspections through certificates of completion must be accomplished within 60 days of ATF, after-the-fact permit issuance. After-the-fact permit fees offoUT times the amount of the original permit are to apply. The permit number is to be affixed to said sign at the time of CO. And B: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Just a few case notes on this. I have been monitoring this. As of this morning I received an e-mail from an affiliate of the respondents that advised me that the permits should be issued this morning. They all have been applied for. I believe that they will be issued this week. I don't think that is going to be a problem as far as the 14 days are concerned. The signs have already been erected. I can't tell you if they are going to be permitted or not. The CO -- I don't do that. Sign review is going to have to take care of that and they will. Page 13 JY6/21' 20A8 But they look to be in a fairly good order. So I'm confident this can be done in the time stipulated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There's one little typo error on your document that you have in front of us right in front ofthe 60. Accomplish with 60 days. It should be within, I believe. MR. SNOW: Absolutely. Within. You're right. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So make that note. MR. PONTE: I have a question. Why is the time 60 days? It seems rather lenient. I had thought in terms of 10 days. MR. SNOW: Well, sir, for the inspections and COing, when after-the-fact permit fees are involved, code says that they have to get it COed within 60 days. It's normally a six-month permit, but that's why it's 60 days when after-the-fact permit fees are involved. That's what the Land Development Code says. MR. PONTE: Is this the one where there are banners and things of that nature? MR. SNOW: No, sir, they didn't have any of those. What they did is they -- I would assume that someone had taken over and they erected signs without permits. They hired contractors. They were out of county. They came from the other coast this morning, drove over in the fog. I'm assuming they hired somebody that didn't get the required permits. I suppose he can answer that better than I can what happened. But this has been an ongoing case. As soon as they realized the severity of the situation, they seemed to take care of it and understand that this was a serious matter and to do what they needed to do. MR. PONTE: Excuse me. So that the signs -- the offending signs that are cited here, the canopy signs, the ground signs, these have been removed? MR. SNOW: No, sir. They are in the process of getting final permitting and COing. MR. PONTE: Thank you. Page 14 JaIlflary 24, 2008 . J.6/1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm gomg to ask you a questIOn, but if I can get you to identify yourself. MR. HIGGINS: Joseph Higgins. Core States Engineering. We represent the property owners and the client, Circle K Stores. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: By that representation, here is my question. Do you have the authority to represent these people? MR. HIGGINS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. That was my question for you. MR. HIGGINS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No other questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I guess, both of you, I think, stay up here for the next case. MR. HIGGINS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Which is board of Collier County Page 15 January f60f81 Commissioners versus Circle K Stores, Case No. 2007040437. Do you want to swear them in again because it is a separate case? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Department Case No. 2007040437. This is a violation of Section 04-41 of the Land Development Code, as amended, and Section 05.06.04 (C)(8)(b), 5.06.04 (C)(8)(c), 5.06.04 (C)(8)(d), Section 5.06.04 (C)(8)(e), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(a), 10.06.02 (B)(2)( d)(ix), and are described as signs erected without proper permits. The respondent is represented here today and have agreed to a stipulation with the County. They have agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of$304.07 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: A, obtain required permits for signs if attainable or remove within 14 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until said sign is permitted or removed. All inspections through certificate of completion must be accomplished within 60 days of ATF permit issuance. After-the-fact permit fees of four times the amount of the original permit are to apply. A permit number is to be affixed to said sign. And B: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Again, we are at the same -- they have applied for all the permits on this property. As far as the signage concerns, some have been CO'd. Some are issued now. The ground sign is still-- I'm confident that's going to be done today. I have no qualms about saying it's going to be done within 14 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Again, the same question that I posed to you earlier. Please identify yourself. MR. HIGGINS: Joseph Higgins, Core States Engineering. A Page 16 January 24, 2008 Yes, I am here on behalf of the property owner and c!~e k 1 A Stores. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you have permission and authority on their behalf? MR. HIGGINS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you very much. MR. SNOW: Thank you. MR. HIGGINS: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chair, we have some information on the motion for rehearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Appropriate notice was not given, so we are going to pull this off the agenda and notify the attorney and the respondent and then put it back on a future agenda. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you very much. So we'll withdraw. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend, once again, the Page 17 January 24, 2008 agenda removing the motion to rehearing for Fogg. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That moves us to public hearings. And the first one being the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Emma Houston, CEB Case No. 2007-114. MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-114. I would like to ask if the respondent is present? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were presented a packet of evidence that I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion we accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. 1611 A Page 18 January 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. 16 1 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 4.02.01(A), table 2.1, 10.02.06 (B)(1)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e), 10.02,06 (B)(1)(e)(i) and Section 105.1 of the Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition. Description of violation: Two mobile homes on property which are approximately 18 to 24 inches from the rear property line in violation of setback requirements. Also, both mobile homes have been illegally converted from single-family units to multi-family without proper permits. And both mobile homes also have additions which are unpermitted. Location/address where violation exists: 415 South Third Street, Immokalee, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Emma Houston, P.O. Box 1275, Immokalee, Florida. Date violation first observed: July 18,2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 8, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 21, 2007. Date of reinspection: September 21, 2007. Result of reinspection: No corrective action taken. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator John Santafemia. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have both parties to be sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SANTAFEMIA: Okay. Good morning. For the record, John Santafemia, S-a-n-t-a-f-e-m-i-a, property maintenance specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 19 ta6Ujry f4, 2A08 This case involves the property located at 415 South Third Street, Immokalee, Florida. On July 18th of2007, I responded to that location to investigate a complaint that I received from a tenant who was renting one of the -- part of the mobile homes at that location from Ms. Houston. The tenant was complaining about numerous minimum housing violations in her unit. While I was doing that investigation and inspection of the property, I did notice a lot of inconsistencies with the mobile homes at that location. I went back to the office and I did quite a bit of research on the property; permits and such, zoning issues. And I discovered that I was unable to locate any permits associated with those two mobile homes regarding placement of them, conversion of them from single-family -- single units to multiple units. And also there were additions to the mobile homes involving the fronts and the roofs of both units. After doing all of my research, I did prepare a notice of violation for the zoning issues, which we are here for now, and the permit issues that was sent to Ms. Houston via certified mailing. We did receive back a signed green card, return receipt requested. I did have conversations with Ms. Houston regarding the property. I advised her what the issues were involving the permitting and land use issues. We also discussed the minimum housing issues. It is important to note that this case was continued from the November hearing. I do also have an open minimum housing case on this property which I have basically put on hold until this zoning issue is resolved. I don't want Ms. Houston putting more money into these units if they are not going to be allowed to stay or if she chooses to abolish them. I do have photographs to show you. Ms. Houston just walked in, so she did not have a chance to see these, if I can have copies. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead and give copies and I Page 20 January 24, 2008 will entertain a motion to accept the photographs as Collier County Board's case B. MR. KELLY: So move. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are those pictures okay with you? MS. HOUSTON: I can look at them now. I can look at them, but I can't make a big -- at this minute. I just walked in. Sorry. I missed my role. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Are the pictures of your property? MS. HOUSTON: Yes, ma'am. May I start speaking now, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. I think he needs to finish his case and then we'll turn it over to you, okay? MR. SANT AFEMIA: The first group of pictures that I would like to submit as evidence is -- I'm calling Composite A-I through 9 -- photos I through 9. These are going to be of mobile home that I have identified as number two in these photographs. MS. HOUSTON: I didn't get a chance to do this because I'm not a lawyer. But I brought him a paper stating that it's being worked on. And the lawyer that I have was not able to be here this morning because he was in like an extended -- like the court was yesterday and ~~ /1 A Page 21 January 24, 2008 they have intent to go on. So he could not be here. 16 I 1 A So I still have nothing. I can state my part of what he's trying to' express, that this property was given to me during a divorce. I had nothing to do with the permit or anything about it. I was, like, the second person getting this property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, ma'am. MS. HOUSTON: I do want the board to know that I had no intentions of violating anything because I was not the pre-owner ofthe property . CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll take all that into consideration, but we need to finish listening to what he has to say and then we'll give you time. MS. HOUSTON: I want that to be known before we go on. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SANTAFEMIA: This is the photograph on Composite A-I that I've identified. It shows the front of the two mobile homes on the property at that location. The second photo, number two, also shows Unit Two, which is the northernmost unit. The green -- the green unit. This photo is number three. It shows the north side ofthat mobile home, Unit Two, which shows -- if you look at the photograph, you can see where the mobile home stops and the additions start. This photograph, that's the south side of Unit Two. Photograph five shows you the roof-over that was put onto the single-wide mobile home and the addition. The gables are wide open on those. Photograph six also shows the same angle ofthe roof that was constructed on top of the mobile home. Photograph seven is the rear of Unit Two showing the setback violation. It varies from approximately 16 to 24 inches. It is hard to tell exactly where the property line actually is. The fence that is along that line is partially collapsed. You can Page 22 January 24, 2008 see there is a tree that is growing into it. That is actually pulhff, itjn A one direction or the other. Photograph eight, Unit Two, that is actually a photograph of a window on the inside of that unit in the addition part that was covered up as part of the addition that was put on. That's the original window for the mobile home. The area surrounding the wood is aluminum. That's the original siding of the mobile home. And photograph nine is another shot of the rear setback violation. The next group of photos is Composite B of Unit One. The first photograph shows the front of the mobile homes, again from a different angle. The second photograph will show just Unit One, the blue unit. The third photograph shows you the addition. It is very obvious where the mobile home starts and the additions begin. Photograph four is the -- again, the roof-over to that unit, Unit One. And photograph five shows you the rear of both units. You can see that as it goes down it gets very narrow towards that north side. Photograph six shows you again -- that's the north side of Unit One, which shows you the additions and the roof-over. It is very clear again where the mobile home stops and the additions begin. And seven is just the north side of Unit One and the south side of Unit Two. This next photograph, or it's actually an aerial, this I'm submitting as an individual photograph as evidence. I have identified it as C-l. It shows you an aerial of the property. Actually-- MS. HOUSTON: It's not. MR. SANT AFEMIA: -- the top of that photograph or that aerial picture is the north side of the lot. And I've identified the two mobile homes on there as One and Two, Two being the north end. And each unit currently houses two units in what was a single-wide mobile home. Page 23 Janrg Y'1008 As I said, I did serve a notice of violation to Ms. Houston with a A very detailed order to correct, as far as what I felt she needed to do. The issues of the mobile homes, I couldn't find any permits relating to them being placed there. They are in violation of the setbacks. The setbacks for that area -- I have actually researched. I have gone as far back as 1961, as far as County regulations are concerned. And at no point in time were the setbacks allowed to be that close to the property line. The minimum -- the least amount I can ever find was 10 feet from the rear. And, as I said, the order to correct was very specific. You know, she had a lot oftime to at least start something to take care of this problem and she has done nothing. Therefore, I did originally prepare this for this hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Now it is your turn. MS. HOUSTON: My name is Emma Houston. I came about this property in 19 -- totally after the divorce in 1995. It was given to me in -- before that, but the person who had the property kept it and they refused to give me the total control of the property and took all the rent for a long period of time. During my divorce when I got this property I know nothing of the permits, nothing of the setbacks because I don't know anything about setbacks. All I know is I got this property, which was only 35 percent of the property that we accumulated. And this is part of my divorce proceedings, my divorce. This property that we are talking about is the income for paying for the mortgages on the other buildings that may look better and is better. So this is the income that I get from this property to pay for my mortgages. As he stated, he came to the property after a young lady had ran up her rent three months. And because I asked her for my money, she got mad and so she called the code enforcement. He came out. I was Page 24 January 24, 2008 there when he came. I showed him where her house was. 16 if 1 A I was sitting in the yard during his inspection. And he took 30 minutes talking with her mostly and checking the apartment. After that, I started -- I got a letter from him in the mail stating the things to be done. I started on the things to be done, which cost me over $4,000 after going through a -- three months without working, on an accident, which I was not able to work for three months. I put in $4,000 more on the property. And when I called him to come, I said, my time -- could you give me a few days more. I need a guy to come and recheck the sewage lines because he was a guy that came before. And he stated that it was not time yet. But at that particular time I had already spent that money on -- additional money on the property. And this morning, as I come to you, Mr. Tyler is working on the process of permitting and the setbacks and courts. And he gave me this heading, and I don't have a copy of it, to show that I have started, you know, something on the property. And I have talked to -- and my lawyer, Me Garvin, he could not be here because he had the continuancy of a trial that he is taking care of. And that's where I sit. I have spent numerous money on this property because I -- in good faith I'm trying to keep it up the best that I know how. And this is all that I have to show because I work -- I work two jobs and also try to manage this property. And everything I have has gone into what you have seen. It may not seem much to you guys, but it is everything that I have. And I have worked hard to keep it up because I have been single for 15 years. And like we're talking back when I married this person, this stuff was there. And here we are. And I'm asking -- I know that you said that you have given me enough time, but may I state that when my __ Page 25 JanUf62i2108 A he did not state that when he got the papers from the Post Office, someone else got the papers. I was out of town. So when I got the papers was delayed because it was sitting there and I didn't pick it up when I did come back in town. Also, as he stated and you know, I came before you in November. I had a tragedy in my family. And most people will know because my name is Houston. And I have not -- I have done all I can to come up to what I'm supposed to do this morning. And I still have this person working and I have a lawyer that is going to be on it. And this is all I could state for now. But I still do think the code enforcement that is standing before you this morning, he -- in the past I have also had code enforcement and they have worked with me to show me, you know, and stood there with me. But I can say that he has done his part in the paperwork and that's all I can say. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Questions from the board? MR. MORGAN: Is there an encroachment on the adjoining property? I see a thin line and -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: The thin line is -- that aerial is from the property appraiser's website. That's what they identify as the property line. That's not 100 percent accurate. MR. MORGAN: Okay. Ifthat-- MR. SANTAFEMIA: We don't typically go by that. It would have to be surveyed. MR. MORGAN: That's what I'm saying. Because the way I see it -- MS. HOUSTON: I'm still asking for a continuance. MR. MORGAN: Excuse me. The thin red line is the line -- is the property line. The trailers C, D, A and B encroach on the adjoining property. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. Now, she does own one of those properties, I believe, back here. That is another mobile home that Page 26 January 24, 2008 actually has the same issue that's being investigated by a d~e!t I A inspector. But that's also her property there. MR. MORGAN: But still, all in all, the way I see it, the way this is drawn up, there is an encroachment. MR. SANT AFEMIA: There very possibly could be. It is hard for me to say. Like I said, those lines are not 100 percent accurate. Those red lines that you're referring to are not 100 percent accurate. They are put on there by the property appraiser's office. I'm not quite sure how they come up with that, but -- and in Immokalee that's very common to have encroachment issues like that. MR. MORGAN: In other words, you're saying the first priority is to get a boundary survey? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Correct. If! may just continue from there. And in response to Ms. Houston's comments, I think it is important that the board does realize that I actually -- the first part of her statement, I actually had a phone conversation with her on September 10th of2007, which was not long after she originally got the notice of violation regarding this issue. And I specifically told her not to put money into repairing the trailers until we were sure that they could stay. So if she chose to do that, it was against my advice. Because I knew that I didn't want her spending money on trailers that she may not be able to keep. MS. HOUSTON: I object. Can I object? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You can object. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. I object right there. When I called him, it was the day that was on my paper that I thought was the deadline. At that time I called him. Everything I had done at that property at that time was already done when he told me that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. SANT AFEMIA: Okay. MS. HOUSTON: And I called you. Page 27 Jaju6ryf212008 MR. MORGAN: The investigator had some sound advice. I A would get a boundary survey first before I spent five cents on any repairs to make sure that I was within my property line or right-of-way line. MR. SANT AFEMIA: She may actually be confusing the two cases. I don't know. I know that on that date -- because I have it written in my notes -- I actually called her and she was -- I don't know if you remember this. I think you said you were in church or something. And you said you didn't want to talk to me, but to call back and leave a detailed message on your answering service, which I did, which I said, do not put any more money into the -- MS. HOUSTON: Well, this is the time that I recollect. I called you to tell you to come and check because normally that's what an inspection do. When something goes wrong, the health department, anybody, once that correction has been done, they come back and check. Did you go back and check? MR. SANT AFEMIA: No. MS. HOUSTON: The first -~ MR. SANT AFEMIA: The corrections that you're referring to are not this case. MS. HOUSTON: No, it's not this case, but we are talking about it. Did you go back and check? MR. SANT AFEMIA: But that's not why we're here. MS. HOUSTON: I asked: Did you go back and check? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ma'am, what he's trying to tell you is that's two different cases. MS. HOUSTON: It is. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: His responsibility is in regards to this case. And in order for him to recheck you, you have to have moved the structures. Page 28 January 24, 2008 . Ih 11 A MS. HOUSTON: May I say somethmg? He brought-- MR. SANT AFEMIA: Let me clarify that for the board and for Ms. Houston. That case, she is referring to the Minimum Housing issues on that property. I already said that case was put on hold, so I haven't even followed up on repairs or anything. I told her, do not repair anything until this is resolved. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think what she's trying to say is she had already done some of the repairs before she got that information from you. And I have that understood and that's clear. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. MR. SANT AFEMIA: The other thing -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let's move forward -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: -- I did want to touch on was, you know, the ample time issue. If you read -- I know you have a copy of the order to correct. She was given a copy. You can see -- I mean, I gave her 45 business days just to hire somebody to determine whether or not they can stay there, the mobile homes. She could get a variance or whatever. And then another 45 days just to apply for a permit. I mean, if you look at the timetable, I actually thought I was giving her quite a bit oftime. And had she started anyone of these processes, she probably would not be here today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other -- yes, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Mrs. Houston, do you have a permit or any copy of an application for a permit? MS. HOUSTON: I have Mr. Tyler, construction engineer, that's working on it right now. MR. KELL Y: What about back when the changes were originally made? If they're single-family mobile homes -- MS. HOUSTON: I was not -- I was not in control of the Page 29 January 24, 2008 property. When I got these -- when I saw him, the adc!t'nJwls thft:'e. And if we were married today, it would have been about 30 years and have paid taxes on it time after time on this property with these trailers. MR. KELLY: Ultimately what the County is presenting us is basically that they were not able to locate any permits for the renovations that were made. MS. HOUSTON: I did not get a permit. I did not get a permit, okay? But as I stated -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you know if any permits ever existed? MS. HOUSTON: I do not know. MR. KELLY: Thank you. MS. HOUSTON: He checked the book. I have not gotten anyone to go into checking the book because that causes my -- I have to have the money for that. And I will have to do that, too. But he stated it wasn't. And ifhe said it wasn't, I'm truthfully (sic) that he knows what he's talking about. He has everything that he pulled, even some that are incorrect, but we'll take care of that. That's my lawyer's part, not my part. And I'm stating here today that I've got a lawyer. And I'm also stating that Mr. Tyler is working on the application of what state -- the permit. And as you know, that in the month of December is a busy time for people to do anything. Even though you know -- and in the month of December I went through a tragedy with my family. Everybody makes -- thinks, well, that's nothing. It is something for me when my kids have been attacked. It is really hard for me to even stand up here today, but I'm here. That's it. MR. LEFEBVRE: What would be the maximum amount of units that would be allowed -- in mobile homes that would be allowed on this property? Page 30 January 24, 2008 MR. SANTAFEMIA: She can actually, based on estiJagstt. A the total square footage of the lot and the zoning -- it is village residential zoning currently. She would be allowed to keep both mobile homes as single units if they were put in the right place. And, you know, part of the problem is that the additions to them were not permitted and they wouldn't be able to get permitted in their current condition. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are the additions encroaching on the setbacks? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. The additions are to the roofs, the roof-over and the fronts. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the fronts, okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Which is on the other side. MR. LEFEBVRE: On the right side? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Yes. And to address Mr. Kelly's question, just to touch on that, on the property card from the property appraiser's office they first noted on there these two mobile homes in 1991. MR. KELLY: '91 had good permitting records, so we would have known. MR. SANT AFEMIA: Like I said, I went back to 1964 in our records room through the old books. I hand researched everything. And I have all that documentation. MR. KELLY: Thank you. MR. MORGAN: My second comment was: From the photographs I saw a lot of safety items that needed to be addressed. Some of them are very serious. I wonder if someone has made an inspection prior to -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: Well-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's -- I believe that's the second case that he has that he has put on hold. MR. MORGAN: Okay. Page 31 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions?l'" I 1 A, MR. SANT AFEMIA: That would actually be my argu~eht 'fu resolve this as quickly as possible. She did get a continuance in November, the last hearing. But I just want to make sure the board does realize that there are people living there and there are minimum housing violations that are ongoing at this time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have one more question. Has there been any -- since she asked for a continuance in November, has there been any further communication on what her plans were to take care of this issue? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. My understanding - no communication with me. She has not made any attempt to talk to me. I periodically check the property, haven't found any permits, any new activity, as far as that goes. I think she might have been in touch with Ms. Marku relative to this hearing and stuff. I was under the impression that she wanted time to get an attorney. I was kind of waiting to hear from that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. When did you hire -- is it an engineer? MS. HOUSTON: He was approached the last part of December. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: When did you hire him? MS. HOUSTON: The last part of December when I -- I talked to him prior to that, but I didn't have my papers in hand. So I had to go back and get some description and some paperwork for him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'm going to close the public hearing. Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask a few questions? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: I'm just -- you've mentioned that you've made Page 32 January 24, 2008 some improvements to the property since the case was sta~k. '~icrA trailers were improvements made to? MS. HOUSTON: The one that -- which is exhibit-- MS. ARNOLD: There is an overhead. MS. HOUSTON: Exhibit A, because that's the one that he came in to ask me to do the necessary things to. MS. ARNOLD: Could you point to it on the screen? MS. HOUSTON: May I use your pencil, please? Okay. This is the one. This here. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So that is the one that you made improvements to where it is unit -- it is mobile home one and A; is that correct? MS. HOUSTON: Yes, yes. That's the one that he stated that these corrections was -- needed to be done. And that's what I did. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. What exactly did you do to that mobile -- that unit? MS. HOUSTON: I put a new refrigerator in there and new stove. We had a window that was repaired. The three windows was repaired. And the -- he stated that it was leaking. So I had someone to go and stop the leak. And he said that it was weak flooring in the unit. And we had that taken care of, too. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So you repaired the subfloors? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. The standing floor. I did not add a floor. MS. ARNOLD: Did you get a permit for replacing the window? MS. HOUSTON: Replacing the window? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MS. HOUSTON: We didn't put in a new window. We just repaired the window. MS. ARNOLD: What did you do to the window? MS. HOUSTON: We didn't -- we didn't move any boards to repair this window. Like, we just set a new window. MS. ARNOLD: You set a new window? Page 33 January 24, 2008 MS. HOUSTON: Yeah. 16 11 MS. ARNOLD: What do you mean by that? I'm sorry. MS. HOUSTON: We did not move boards. We just got the measurements and put the glass in the necessary places and whatever needed to be done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, I have to ask the question here. This is all Minimum Housing violations and that's not what this case is. So how is this pertaining to this case? MS. ARNOLD: I'm wanting to clarifY because she is indicating to you all that she has done all these improvements for this particular case. MS. HOUSTON: Only what he stated needed to be done. The paper -- he has a list what needed to be done and that's what I did. Only what he said. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think we are getting conflicting things is what I'm trying to say. That is Minimum Housing violations that he didn't bring forward today. This is on setbacks. MS. ARNOLD: I understand. I just wanted to clarifY what improvements she did to further on this particular case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Apparently nothing. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. And Ijust want to ask Mr. Santafemia a question, if! may. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: Which unit did you inspect in response to the complaint? MR. SANT AFEMIA: On that photograph right there, I inspected Unit D in mobile home two. MS. HOUSTON: I am sorry. That's D in mobile home two. MR. SANT AFEMIA: Also, if I may add, the notice of violation that was prepared for the minimum housing part of this property violations, she had the notice of violation for this case long before the other one. The other one was refused. I ended up having to post it Page 34 A January 24, 2008 well after this one was received. So she knew about these 1s(ye# 1 A before she got a specific -- MS. HOUSTON: I have to state I did not know. The only time I knew is when you sent it in the mail. MR. SANT AFEMIA: For the record, I have not done any inspections inside mobile home one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. HOUSTON: I still stated I did not know until after the fact of the young lady making the -- against me and you followed up a month after. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time I am going to close the public hearing and move to just the board. MS. HOUSTON: And I also-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, ma'am. That means that there is no more further discussion between the two of you. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm bringing it to the board. MS. HOUSTON: I would also like to state that I need a lawyer to represent me. He is not here today. And I still stand on that and I'm still asking for a continuancy. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think she's trying to ask for a continuance, but we just heard the case. MS. HOUSTON: No. I tried to ask for it at the beginning, but no one listened. That's what happens when you don't have a lawyer. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This is the first time you brought up continuance. MS. HOUSTON: Yes. 1 tried to --like I say, I thought I said it in the beginning my lawyer was not here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ma'am-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You did not. MS. HOUSTON: Well, my lawyer is not here, like I stated. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You did state your lawyer was Page 35 not here, that he was being held up -- MS. HOUSTON: And every time you have a lawyer that's not here, what can you do? MR. LEFEBVRE: In November we gave you a continuance for two months, which I feel is ample. This is the time to hear the case. We heard the case. MS. HOUSTON: I will still state -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand. MS. HOUSTON: -- I need my lawyer here. If you do it, you do it against my will and that's up to you. Y ou're the County, you're the board. I have nothing to say. I close my lips. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that there is a violation as stated in the charging documents. MR. KRAENBRING: I will second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would like to look to the County for their suggestions. MR. SANT AFEMIA: The County's recommendations in this case are that the property owner pay the operational costs of$333.13 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days ofthis hearing. They also request that the property owner must obtain any and all Collier County permits for additions to, conversions of, and placement of both mobile homes at the location described on the notice of violation dated 18 July 2007, and obtain all required inspections and J16 rlOOA Page 36 Jann 24,2008 certificate of occupancies within 90 days of this hearing or a fin! ot A $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, the respondent may obtain demolition permits for both mobile homes and completely demolish through the removal of all debris within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day any violation continues. The respondent must also notifY the code enforcement investigator, myself, within 24 hours when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KRAENBRING: Can you put that up on the board? MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that we accept the County's recommendations. MR. PONTE: I will second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MORGAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEFEBVRE: Aye. COMMISSIONER KRAENBRING: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. That's what we have ruled. MS. HOUSTON: Well, it is against my wishes and it is against me not being represented. And I have brought the proof that we are working on it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We took that into consideration, ma'am, when we made the motion. MS. HOUSTON: When I first came, I thought that we was working on a permit for the trailer being there. And we are not working on that now, okay? That's a different statement. Page 37 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This is what we told yl1(;r1u 1 have to do in order to come into compliance. MS. HOUSTON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You will have to follow through with it. If you disagree, you can take it up with your attorney and you have the right to appeal. MS. HOUSTON: Well, I-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. HOUSTON: Right now I'm blank what you ask me to do. First you ask me to get a permit for the trailer being there and against __ there was not enough room on the line. But right now you're asking more than that. So now you're putting double the work on me right now because I'm not represented. And that is not right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It is not because you're not represented, ma'am. You represented yourself. And you did a good job of it. You will get a copy of our order and then you need to comply with it the best you can. MS. HOUSTON: I can say I was not represented this morning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. (Mr. Kelly left the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Glen and Sharon Van Slyke. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-119. F or the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion to accept the County's packet as evidence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. A Page 38 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1.04.01(A), Rules of Construction, Applicability, and 2.02.03, prohibited uses. And violation of Ordinance 05-44, control of litter, weeds and exotics, Sections 5 - 7. Description of violation: Observed accumulation of vegetative litter on property, outdoor storage of commercial, private, and recreational vehicles on the property. Location/address where violation exists: 6067 Whitaker Road, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation and location: Greg (sic) and Sharon Van Slyke, 6046 Hollow Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: July 26, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 8, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 11,2006. (Mr. Kelly returned to the boardroom.) MS. MARKU: Date of inspection: July 30, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Susan O'Farrell. 16 11 A Page 39 January 24,2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I have both parties ~wom in, please. 1 6 I r A (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. VAN SL YKE: Have I stated my name? I don't think. Sharon Van Slyke for Glen. Glen, not Greg, Jr. Home address or violation address? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, we are just swearing you in that you're going to tell the truth. MS. VAN SL YKE: I do swear. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I promise we won't bite. MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. Thanks. MR. KRAENBRING: Just as a note, there is a difference between the charging document. It says Glen, then it says Greg. If you look at number four on the -- this copy. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: So it is Glen? MS. VAN SL YKE: Glen Douglas Van Slyke, Jr. MR. KRAENBRING: There you go. MS. Q'F ARRELL: The property appraiser's website shows the owner as Glen Van Slyke. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Thank you. For some reason I just had it as Greg. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Somebody put in the address Greg instead of Glen. MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, Environmental Specialist. I'm here today to talk about the case with Mrs. Van Slyke at 6067 Whitaker Road. Briefly, on July 26,2006 I observed numerous piles of vegetative debris and one very large pile of vegetative debris pushed to the side of the property. The property had been cleared of vegetation with no Page 40 January 24, 2008 principal structure. The storage of commercial and recrea~{?ta( 1 A vehicles to include: One dump truck with enclosed trailer and the name D. Yardbird with the phone number 793-2591 on the side, a company not owned by the property owner and operating without a valid occupational license; one open trailer; one speedboat and trailer; one work truck with BDI Electrical Contractor on the side; four personal vehicles; and two jet skis on a trailer. There was also one garage with a double door bay with roll-down door and entry door. I spoke to the men on the site who stated they were given permission by the owner to park the vehicles and dump landscape litter there. I researched the property, found out who the owner was, found out what permits were and were not issued, and served a notice of violation to Greg or Glen Van Slyke, whatever we want to know him as, with the order to correct the following violations: To cease and desist all non-approved and non-permitted uses on the property. I did ask him to apply for any necessary after-the-fact permits. However, that became a nonissue as the case progressed. And I asked him to hire an environmental consultant to restore vegetation to the cleared property, but then we also determined that may have been cleared historically and not the Van Slykes problem. And I asked them to remove the litter. Since this case started -- as you all know, I worked for engineering for three months, so I have come back and resumed the case. Mr. Scribner, our investigator supervisor, also was working on the case. So there is some time lapses there that we would like to account for and a lot of time given to Ms. Van Slyke to try to figure out what she was going to do with the property. I would like to remind the board that we are here today only to discuss the fact that she is using the property for her lawn and maintenance business in a property that is zoned agricultural. She does not have the right zoning to operate this business. Page 41 JamIg 2j' 1008 She also is using an occupational license on that business when A there is no principal structure. So that is the main focus of our case today. Ms. Van Slyke has cleaned up the litter. She has removed all of the recreational vehicles and she is not allowing people to store vehicles on her property anymore. The pictures that I would like to submit show a large amount of debris that has been pushed to the side, but she told me yesterday that she had someone come in to grade it and smooth that out. So if I could show these pictures now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let me have them submitted as Evidence B for the County. MR. PONTE: I have a question. MS. O'FARRELL: Ijustneed to show them to Ms. Van Slyke before we start. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Show them to her. MR. PONTE: I have a question about the photos. Because we are not going to be making a judgment about what we see on those photos, are those facts prejudicial and you could just lead us astray? The issue here is not what we're going to see on the photos. MS. VAN SL YKE: Well, actually the photos show the lawn service equipment on the property. MR. PONTE: Well, I'm going to ask you to -- before you show us the photos -- MS. VAN SL YKE: Excuse me. May I, I guess, object? You may see those photos. MS. O'FARRELL: I object. This is the County's turn to proceed here. MS. VAN SL YKE: I'm sorry, Susan. MS. O'FARRELL: It's my turn to speak today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You get to look at the photos, too, before we get to see them. Page 42 January 24, 2008 MS. VAN SLYKE: Okay. Sorry. 16 , 1 A MS. O'FARRELL: No, I'm not going to show the photos without you seeing them first, Mrs. Van Slyke. MS. VAN SLYKE: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. MR. PONTE: I just don't want the board to be propagandized in any way. MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. So I will only show you the photos that show the landscape equipment on the property. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Susan, can you repeat again what exactly we're going to be deciding today? It is not all of the items that are on the statement of violation and request for hearing? MS. O'FARRELL: She has abated the litter violation. She has abated the storage of the recreational vehicles. She is still storing the commercial vehicles for her own business. MR. KELLY: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: We are here to decide that the use of the property is agricultural and she is running a commercial lawn and maintenance business from that property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that on the charging document? MS. O'FARRELL: Pardon me? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's not on the charging document. MS. O'FARRELL: It says non-permitted uses. Prohibited uses in violation of ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The only -- the only ordinance that is not being charged or should be removed from the charging document is the 05-44, which is the control of litter, weeds, and exotics Sections 5-7. Correct, Susan? Page 43 MS. O'FARRELL: Correct. Exactly. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept Exhibit B, the photos, and let's see them. MS. O'F ARRELL: Wait a minute. I'm going to show those photos to Ms. Van Slyke. MS. VAN SL YKE: I stipulate to those. You can go ahead and show them, right? MS. O'FARRELL: Is that all right? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have to vote on it first. Did you have a question? MR. KELLY: No. I will second the question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. O'FARRELL: Everybody ready? And I'm not showing my fingernails today. Michelle is. She had hers done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a new Vanna. MS. VAN SL YKE: Excuse me. Are these from yesterday you mean? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MS. VAN SL YKE: I thought those were the first ones. MS. O'FARRELL: No. These were taken yesterday. MS. VAN SL YKE: I'm sorry. I misunderstood. MR. KELLY: Do you object to them? MS. VAN SL YKE: Oh, no. I wasn't clear that these were after I January 24, 2008 16 11 A Page 44 January 24, 2008 addressed this violation. sorry . MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. MS. VAN SL YKE: I don't object. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. These photos are showing that she is still in noncompliance. I have nothing further. If you would like to ask any questions or if you'd like to give Ms. Van Slyke a chance to speak. MR. KRAENBRING: I notice that there is a non-permitted structure on the property? MS. O'FARRELL: The structure was originally permitted because Mr. Van Slyke signed a notarized affidavit saying that he was going to use the property for a small nursery. The property was never used as a nursery. So although it is permitted, it is actually, I don't know, a County error in being permitted. It is a confusing situation because the occupational license was issued because they had the shed. But the occupational license is not valid because it's not zoned for that use. So it's -- we have all these -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The occupational license though has been in -- MS. O'FARRELL: Effect for a long time. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A long time. MS. O'FARRELL: And they just keep renewing it every year. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. And you said technically they shouldn't be able to get the occupational license because there isn't a primary structure? MS. O'FARRELL: There's no home. There's no structure on the property . CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There is a structure. The garage, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That could not be considered a I thought those were the ones before. I'm 16 11 A Page 45 January 24, 2008 primary structure? 16 I 1 A MS. O'FARRELL: That would be considered a structure that they could use if they were using the Right to Farm Act and if they had their agriculture exemption and they were doing a business that provided a farm product in that agricultural setting. MS. VAN SL YKE: Excuse me. I will stipulate to that, I guess. No, I won't. I'm sorry. I should be quiet. Excuse me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll let you talk in just a little bit. MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. I will calm down. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask Susan a question? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: Susan, does the occupational license have anything to do with the zoning approval? MS. O'FARRELL: No. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: The occupational licensing department does not check with zoning before they issue a license. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. It is your turn. MS. VAN SL YKE: Thank you. I guess, I'm here -- I am here today to -- this is -- this is a big decision for me. Seventeen years ago we lied to get our permit. I saw this paper on December 14th of2007. I had already filed my continuance, so took the remaining days after the holidays to start cleaning up the place and begin semi-retirement plans. And I apologize for my place ever looking like that. And I want to thank Susan for her professional manner. And I think that we're wasting -- is this where I should -- a lot of -- a lot of our staffs time. And I hate to say this because I don't know if it's the right forum for it. But unless you are prepared as I have been -- and it has taken me Page 46 January 24, 2008 a long time to do this. But this last part I had to do since the 1 t~ sf II A have been scrambling. And I just hope you'll understand my poSition because I have so many great things that we could do with that property . Because I have so many customers in Countryside that are, like, all together and in all my little neighborhoods. That's why I protested this so much. Because up until the 14th, I -- and I -- I didn't know about the permit until I talked to my contractor. And I have been talking to him for two years. Finally I said, Scott, was there anything? He said, I don't know. Maybe you signed some little paper that said you were going to start a tree farm. I don't know. He said, call me if you need an affidavit. So I have been flying back and forth on -- for personal reasons and I just -- this notice shows up in the mail and I'm a little nervous. And a friend calls and he's been picking up my mail. He says, you got something from Code. I thought that went away. Because when I was cited before in 2001, I mean, it was like Kathy walked onto the property and said, you can't have this building here. And she said, and you can't litter here. I said, well, I'll take care of the litter. I'll have Yahl Mulching come in. And I said, but you better go back and talk to the County about a permit or I will get a lawyer. And Susan will attest to this. I copped an attitude. So I got my violation, you know, in 2001. And I called Kathy and explained to her that Yahl Mulching couldn't get right there. And I'm working off the top of my head here. So, you know, not to the letter of the law. It's as close as we can remember. And I don't want to get anybody in trouble because Kathy was -- Code Enforcement does a great job. But Kathy came out. I explained to her that John was coming, Page 47 January 24, 2008 but he was -- I kind of ad libbed this part about the rains anAI6 JJ A flooding. He was worried about that, if you have read my stuff. And so she abated the issue. And I got receipts here that say -- I didn't pay for it until, like, August. We were trying. And I lied about that, too, because I was just -- I was so nervous. And I didn't mean to lie, but I put that in that packet. And I had that all prepared before I was going to come here. So, you know, you're trying to remember back. The main reason I'm here -- and I hope you understand, the only reason I did this was those pictures that Susan took. I had a lot of issues lately. I let a lot of things go that I never did before. I never let my customers down, I don't think. I try not to. So I know I'm getting emotional here and I try not to. But I just want you to know that when I found that permit I went to an attorney. Because -- and then I thought to myself -- no, not the permit, the affidavit thingy. When I found that in that record, that's when I was going to go get an attorney and that's when I was going to go pull out all my original papers and everything. Because then I knew I needed help. But I said -- you know, I have been going through this and I filed -- I did all this paperwork and I sent all those e-mails because this __ that affidavit is the only thing that really matters. It is a person's name on a piece of paper. And that's honesty. And that's what we need more of. And I hope you vote for me. And I don't even know what I'm asking for. MR. KELL Y: I have a question. MS. O'FARRELL: Mrs. Van Slyke, why don't you talk to them about the lawn service business and operating it off of the property? MS. VAN SL YKE: Can't they all -- have you read my stuff? MR. KELL Y: Yeah. Actually-- MS. VAN SL YKE: Can you just ask me questions? Page 48 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: I'm going to ask you questions. MS. VAN SL YKE: And I will try to be brief, but Susan knows I'm not good at that. MR. KELLY: This morning at breakfast I read your packet for the third time. My son and I -- he's only 13. He's not qualified, of course. But the two of us are bouncing these things back and forth. In the end I was, like, ready to go to bat for you. I actually saw some holes here and I was all prepared and highlighted and ready to go, but now I'm a little confused about -- don't take this the wrong way, because you said it. What did you lie about and what did you not? Because now I have to go back through. MS. VAN SL YKE: Well, we got the building permit. MR. KELLY: Okay. MS. VAN SL YKE: And we were certain -- and this is our dream. And I could show you a picture of that place. And this is what made me decide that because I have been going: Do I retire, do I not retire? Do I not retire? I have had the business sold for years to the -- to my foreman, who I sold a prior route to. In fact, I have a signed contract. MR. KELLY: Ms. Van Slyke, careful about too much information. MS. VAN SL YKE: What did you ask me? MR. KELL Y: Our job is to kind of sort through some of the stuff and get back to the facts. MS. VAN SL YKE: Facts. MR. KELLY: The occupational is still in your name. You don't want to be putting on record that you sold the business, but yet it is still in your name and all. MS. VAN SL YKE: Oh, no. The business is in my husband's -- I don't know. MR. KELLY: Just the facts. You did have a permit for the Page 49 January 24,2008 original structure? MS. VAN SL YKE: Yes. Licensed contractor. MR. KELLY: Great. And that structure is the one thing that's kind of up in the air. Even County is admitting that there is -- MS. ARNOLD: It is not up in the air. MR. KELLY: Oh, no, it's there. Don't get me wrong, but there is a zoning question whether or not that structure is technically going to qualify for a primary structure in order for you to operate a lawn maintenance business on agricultural property. MS. VAN SL YKE: I understand that. MR. KELL Y: The permit is there. You did get that. That structure is legal. MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Kelly, may I -- MR. KELLY: Please. MS. O'FARRELL: In order for Mrs. Van Slyke to operate a commercial lawn service maintenance business, she needs to go and get a conditional use permit. She needs to submit a site development plan and have it approved by the County so she can do that business on that property. And then that structure would count as her principal structure. But there is a process that she needs to go through in order to do that and it involves a conditional use permit. MR. KELLY: Great. But now we're hearing you sold the business and you're retiring. MS. VAN SL YKE: Oh, no. That was just talk. MR. KELLY: Okay. We take that into consideration on the record. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. It's because ofthe flying back and forth. I get ahead of myself. What my intention is and what has always been -- and I'd really like to show you this picture, i[I may. Susan, would you like to come over here and see? I haven't 16 11 A Page 50 January 24, 2008 shared this with you. Is that allowed or not? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, it's allowed. And then we'll decide whether or not we're going to enter it in as evidence. MS. VAN SL YKE: Yeah. I didn't go through the stuff yet very much. This is our original land appraisal report and I hope -- these are the pictures when we first started clearing the property. We tried to do the right thing. There is the barn. Wasn't it pretty back then? And this is what made us decide that we really wanted to keep this piece of property and the business on it. Do you want to see this? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Susan, do you have any objections to us seeing it? MS. O'FARRELL: No, I have no objection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Entertain a motion to accept that as evidence. I guess, we never really introduced her evidence that we have in our packet. We should do that first. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we accept the packet for the respondent. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KELL Y: Procedurally, if it is part of our packet that we are 1611 A Page 51 January 24, 2008 served with and we accepted it as part of the County -- 16 I 1 A MS. ARNOLD: No. The County -- you get two packets and then you have to have two motions. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And now we need to ask-- MS. VAN SL YKE: Excuse me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Wait a minute. I need a motion to accept the picture as evidence. MS. O'FARRELL: She is withdrawing the picture. MS. VAN SL YKE: Withdrawn. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. VAN SL YKE: Not speaking as an attorney, but I would like you to accept into evidence anything I prepared 15 copies of and delivered. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We just did that. MS. VAN SL YKE: So nothing else. And if you need anything else, I have got some stuff. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the County. What are we really looking at here? I have a description with a violation. And it is -- several of these are not -- we're not looking at -- which is vegetative litter on the property. We are not looking at that. The only thing that we're looking at is the storage of these two lawn mowers, recreational MS. O'FARRELL: Non-permitted use of the property. MR. PONTE: Licensed recreational vehicles? MS. O'FARRELL: No. They have been removed. MR. PONTE: They have been removed. Anything else, or is it just these two lawn mowers we are -- MS. O'FARRELL: The operation-- MR. PONTE: We've spent a lot of time looking at these two lawn mowers. MS. O'FARRELL: It's the operation of the business in an area Page 52 that is not zoned for that operation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Where is that listed? What is that? MS. ARNOLD: It's on the NOV, really. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's not listed in the statement though. Statement of violation wasn't -- it should have included all these things on the notice of violation. And we can alter that to include -- Jean, how do we handle that? Because all we really are looking at now, from what I can see, because -- the prohibited use and violation of Ordinance 5-44, which is control of weeds and litter -- MS. O'FARRELL: No, that is different. That's a run-on sentence. It is 2.02.03, prohibited uses and violation of Ordinance 05-44, which is the litter ordinance. MS. RAWSON: Didn't we just take out the prohibited use violation, Ordinance 5-44? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MS. O'FARRELL: That's not the prohibited use ordinance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We took out the violation of the Ordinance 5-44. MS. RAWSON: Control oflitter, weeds and the exotics. That's not an issue. So I think the only thing -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 2.02.03, is that where-- MS. O'FARRELL: That's the prohibited uses. MS. RAWSON: I think what we are talking about basically is only the accumulation of commercial vehicles on the property. MS. O'FARRELL: No. MS. ARNOLD: Can I please clarify something? The charging document has on there 1.04.01(A) and 2.02.03, which is dealing with the uses. But it failed to describe the violations appropriately. The notice of violation, which is right behind your statement of violation, has the description and corrective actions noted on there pertaining to the issues. We're saying we're striking the portion of the January 24,2008 16 i 1 A Page 53 January 24, 2008 statement of violation that refers to 05-44, which is -- it 16 .Jicl.atioAs of ordinance 05-44, control of litter, weeds and exotics, Sections 5 through 7. We're not considering that. There was other things pertaining to the storage -- the inappropriate storage that has been corrected by the respondent. The only thing that we are dealing with is the use related to the -- your landscaping business and the equipment associated with that use. Weare not dealing with the permit of that structure or anything like that. MS. VAN SL YKE: And i[I can correct you, Michelle. Here is another thing I was doing wrong. I only have my lawn maintenance license. I don't have a landscape license at all. I can't say that. I'm doing it wrong, aren't I? I'm trying to be truthful. I'm sorry. I will be quiet. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we didn't cite you for your occupational license, so you don't have to worry about that. If you know that you're doing it wrong, do it right next time before you get back. MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORGAN: Ms. O'Farrell, is this agricultural land? I see one thing. It says they signed kind of like an affidavit for a tree farm. I look over here and it says this is an application to return it to agricultural, it says, for the purposes of a nursery. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He's asking if it's agricultural. MS. O'FARRELL: It's agriculturally zoned. MR. MORGAN: It is? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. MORGAN: But they're operating their lawn service off the property? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. KELLY: Are you allowed to have commercial vehicles on Page 54 an agriculturally zoned property? MS. O'FARRELL: You're allowed to have commercial vehicles, but they can't be used for a commercial business unless you have a conditional use permit. MR. KELLY: And at the time this was originally started 17 years ago, did you need it then? MS. VAN SL YKE: That's my question. MS. O'FARRELL: I have a copy of a zoning map, if you want to put it up on the viewer. MR. KELLY: I don't think it's necessary. MR. PONTE: If these tractors or lawn mowers were in an enclosed area in a garage, a barn, then would it be legal? MS. O'FARRELL: No. Because she's still running a business from that property. And as Mrs. -- MS. VAN SL YKE: May I object, Susan. If they are my personal property, I can store them on that storage shed if I'm agriculturally zoned. MS. O'FARRELL: If she's not running the business. If she doesn't have employees coming to the property and then leaving the property with that equipment. MR. MARTIN: Susan, can we get to your recommendations? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. We have to go through a couple of things first. MR. KELLY: I'm thinking traditional agricultural. Let's say, for instance -- I'm not going to promote anyone, but there is a lot of local growers and they have sheds or pole barns or whatever you want to call them and they house their tractors and they also house transportation vehicles that get the product or the vegetables or whatever from there to the packing house. MS. ARNOLD: And they are allowed to do that on agricultural. The issue that we have today is the use is a landscape business that she is operating off of that property, which she is not allowed to do. January 24, 2008 16 11 A Page 55 January 24, 2008 CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: A landscape busineJ tm,l ulderA agricultural zoning. MR. KELLY: There you go. Thank you. MS. Q'F ARRELL: In further answer, those properties are allowed to do that if they're 20 acres or more. Under 20 acres they have more restrictive things. She is allowed to have a nursery on that property without going through any conditional use permit, without any other process, other than having her occupational license for that nursery. The difference is when it gets into a commercial, retail or wholesale. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: If she wanted to run a retail nursery off that property, she would need to get a conditional use permit. MS. ARNOLD: We're not dealing with a nursery. We're dealing with a landscape business. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, we're going to close it to the public hearing and go to the board. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that a violation does exist and I think that the respondent has sort of agreed with that to a certain extent. So I make a motion that a violation does exist and that we need to hear the recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? Page 56 (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The County's recommendation, please? MS. O'FARRELL: The County's recommendation is that the respondent cease and desist -- excuse me. That the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $623 .15, within 30 days ofthis hearing, incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: One, cease and desist all non-approved and non-permitted use on agricultural land known as 6067 Whitaker Road, Naples, Florida, to include outdoor storage of commercial, private, and recreational vehicles by the next business day following this hearing, or a daily penalty of $50 will be imposed as long as the violation persists. That was a daily penalty of $50 per day. The second was: Cease non-approved use of property for a lawn service business until appropriate approvals have been attained by the Collier County Zoning Department within 14 days of this hearing, or a daily penalty of $50 will be imposed as long as the violation persists. I have recommended that she remove all the litter on the property but, as we have discussed, she has abated that violation. And the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KRAENBRING: Susan, can you put that up -- MS. O'FARRELL: Sure. MR. KELLY: Susan, so all she needs is the conditional use permit and she can use this agriculturally zoned property for the business? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. She would apply for a conditional use permit, go through the process of that, which includes submitting a site development plan. MR. KELLY: That should take about 14 days? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Not the site development plan. January 24, 2008 16 11 A Page 57 Janu~ 24, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: She needs to stop using the prope~6fot Jat A purpose until she gets that completed. The conditional use permit, I believe, they go through several board hearings, don't they, 90 days to six months? MR. KELL Y: So she would have to rent a place, operate the business there until the land use was approved, if it was approved? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. KELL Y: And then she could bring it back? I guess it's probably not very fair to give her six months and allow her to try to work that out and continue to operate the business out of there? MS. O'FARRELL: I would oppose that based on the length of time that the case has gone on and the amount of back and forth. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then again, it existed for 17 years in this manner. MS. ARNOLD: Can you ask the audience to refrain from -_ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The audience needs to refrain from comments. I'm just trying to be fair, Susan. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. I think the fair thing to the County and to the citizens ofthe County is that she follow the rules like everyone else does. There's lots of landscape businesses out there that run their businesses. They rent storage spots for their vehicles and they go back and forth legally. Their employees go to the storage spot, which is not illegal, pick up the stuff and do their business. I think that that's what would be fair to the county and to other citizens who are following the rules. MR. KELLY: I have a quick question, but not directly related to this case. If you live in Golden Gate Estates, is that a separately zoned area that allows you to operate a lawn company out of your home? MS. O'FARRELL: No. Golden Gate Estates is zoned The Estates. You're still not allowed to operate a commercial business Page 58 January 24,2008 from your home without an occupational license from thl ~~J.ry. A And you may not have employees coming back and forth. MR. KELL Y: Most of the landscaping companies I know live out in the Estates. Maybe because I live there I see a lot. I'm just asking. Thank you. MR. PONTE: I have a problem with item one. I think it's too restrictive too fast and that the next business day is an unwarranted hardship, if you're talking in terms of seven days or 10 business days, rather than the next business day. I mean, there are employees that have to be notified, customers that have to be notified, what have you. I would just like to see that expanded to seven business days, 10 business days. MS. O'FARRELL: I think item one was pertaining to the unlicensed -- or the vehicles that she was allowing people to store on the property, which she has stopped doing already. MR. PONTE: You said the removal of the property -- removal of the vehicles? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. That has been abated. I didn't want it to happen it again though. Number two is really the most important one, which is where -- MR. KELL Y: We should strike number one. Number one does state commercial vehicle. MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. O'FARRELL: As of yesterday, I hadn't been able to get onto the property. I wasn't able to see that those vehicles were gone. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifwe strike it, then she could park her commercial vehicles there. And that's not the point. MR. KELLY: Right. But we'd have to strike everything else because it has already been abated. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, she's abated it. You'd only have to strike it because she abated it. It's just making sure that she doesn't continue it. Page 59 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: True. But it's not even on the charging dO.fument. We'd have to strike that, too. 16 I 1 A MS. ARNOLD: It is on -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The commercial vehicles are. MS. ARNOLD: The only thing that --litter is the only thing that we need to strike. MR. KELLY: Litter is the only thing? MR. PONTE: The easiest thing would be really just to extend it to a reasonable business time frame and say seven days or 10 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: To give her a place to find a storage place for her -- MR. PONTE: Exactly. Close down, notify employees, notify customers that everything is suspended for the time being. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He is talking about number one, instead of having to remove the vehicles. MR. KRAENBRING: It would make it consistent with item number two. MR. KELLY: Having moved businesses, that is not enough time to find another location, to negotiate -- MR. KRAENBRING: No. I think it should be for 14 days. MR. PONTE: More lenient. MR. KELLY: 30 to 60 days. I mean, you're a realtor, Joe. How long would it take to get a realtor, look at various properties, find one that is suitable? MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Kelly, I've also been involved in business doing this before. It shouldn't take her more than two weeks to find a storage facility. She doesn't need to buy a property. She doesn't even need to rent a property. She really just needs to go to a storage facility and get a spot. MR. KELLY: Like an open air storage? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. Of which there are many in Naples. Page 60 January 24,2008 MS. VAN SL YKE: For what? 16 I 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can she run a business out of that? MS. O'FARRELL: Uh-huh. MR. KELLY: Because the business that is still -- MS. O'FARRELL: She can run a business because it would be an industrial area. Any of the storage spots are going to be in an industrial area. She would be able to run the business. She could have her employees go back and forth. MR. KELL Y : Would the business have to change if she didn't have employees coming from a residential area? Could she still keep it at the home? MS. O'FARRELL: She has too much equipment to keep at her home. MR. KELLY: I know. But the business itself on the occupational and so forth -- and I know that's not an issue. The business operations could stay there. It's just to and from, the storage of the commercial vehicles, all those, could be off site? MS. O'FARRELL: That's all she's doing at the property. MR. KELLY: There you go. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So do you want to do it in 14 days? MR. KRAENBRING: For number one. MS. O'FARRELL: Number one change to 14 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we accept the agreement with the one change where number one is 14 days. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 61 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Ms. VanSlyke, basically what we've said is you have 14 days to find another location to store your commercial equipment, otherwise a penalty of $50 a day will be imposed until that stops. You have to cease using the non-approved property until appropriate approvals have been obtained by the Collier County Zoning Department within 14 days of this hearing or, again, a daily penalty of $50 will be imposed as long as the violation persists. You have already removed all the litter on the property. So we don't want it to come back. And then the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated. MS. VAN SL YKE: That's all very generous of you. But up until 4:30 this morning I wasn't sure that I could run my business out of that property; is that correct? I can run the business out of that property or not? MS. O'FARRELL: No. MR. KRAENBRING: For 14 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: For 14 more days you can, but you have to find another location. MS. O'FARRELL: But I still have the zoning for my building and my -- I used-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have ago zoning at that property, period. MS. VAN SL YKE: That's where I messed up. Because I thought because -- I didn't see the permit document before I was charged. And the only thing that I'm really asking here for is -- could you read that last page of the first packet? Because I have not even gotten into -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ma'am, we have done that. We 16 11 ~ 'I r, Page 62 January 24, 2008 are finished with that. We are telling you what you have to do now in order to come into compliance. MS. V AN SL YKE: Oh, I thought I could like-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. We're done. 16 I 1 A MS. VAN SL YKE: Oh, okay. Well, I just wanted to tell you-- CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: You can go to the County and you can ask -- MS. VAN SL YKE: I have to go to the County and ask? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You can get-- MS. VAN SL YKE: Okay. I can't run my -- so I can't run my business out of there? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You cannot run the business out of there. MS. VAN SL YKE: After 17 years? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have 14 days. MS. VAN SL YKE: Why? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because it's against the ordinances. MS. VAN SL YKE: But I admitted that I was in error, right? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We understand. MS. VAN SL YKE: So I can't -- because I didn't -- because I said I lied? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. MS. VAN SL YKE: Because I was an honest person because I said -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It has nothing to do with that, ma'am. MS. VAN SL YKE: I quit here because I haven't done the research on this part. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It has nothing to do with that. It means -- MS. VAN SL YKE: I screwed up. Sorry. Page 63 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, Susan and Michelle will talk to you. For that, I'm going to go ahead and adjourn for -- give you 10 minutes. So we'll be back at 10:58. (Recess.) 16 , 1 A (Mr. Martin is absent.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. In can get everybody's attention. My mic is not on, so I will just have to yell. Is the mic on now? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I will call the meeting back to order. And the next case we have is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Jean Claude Martel. MS. MARKU: For the record, it is Department Case No. 2007080353. F or the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the Board was sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, the Land Development Code, Section 1.04.00, subsection 104.01, paragraphs A and B. Section 2.02.00, subsections 2.02.02, paragraph B, subsection 2.02.03, prohibited use. Section 2.03.00, subsection Page 64 January 24, 2008 2.03.01, paragraph H, village residential district. Section 8.08.00, paragraph B. Section 9.03.00, subsection 9.03.01, paragraph D. Section 10.02.00, subsection 10.02.06, paragraphs B-la through to and including F. Description of violation: Unpermitted development and use of village residential zoned property in Collier County, known a~ 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. 16 I 1 A Location/address where violation exists: 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Name and address of the owner/person in charge of violation location: Jean Claude Martel, 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: August 13th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 17th, 2007. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: September 17th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: September 17th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. Could I have both parties please be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. PONTE: Excuse me, Investigator, before we begin. Just clarification for me, what is a VR property? MR. KEEGAN: Village residential. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead, please. MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case opened up on August 13th, 2007. I observed a couple of unpermitted structures on the property in question, 3190 Karen Page 65 January 24, 2008 Drive. Myself and Dennis Mazzone researched the propertylPulled the property cards, the permits. 6 I 1 A Some permits were pulled. They were expired. I do have the permit information on that, the expire dates, the issue dates, if we need them. August 17th, 2007 at a special magistrate hearing I went to issue Mr. Martel a notice of violation, which he refused. I did drop service. It was witnessed by Jeff Letourneau, one of our supervisors. From November -- from September 19th -- yes, September 17th I went on site. The violation remains. No permit actions. Nothing was happening. On the 28th of September, property was still in noncompliance. I prepared it for the Code Enforcement Board. October 17th I talked to Mr. Martel. He stated that someone is going to get hurt and that he doesn't want me on his property and wait and see the hearing date. On the 25th, the packet was returned to me by my director, Michelle Arnold, to give -- when I issued the notice of violation, Mr. Martel was incarcerated. So she returned the packet to me to give Mr. Martel more time to make up the difference. That was fine. November 26th, no permits were pulled. I resubmitted the case for the hearing. And as of this date, no action taken. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: I don't know. I have been over there like 1970. And I buy six more property on Karen Drive and a commercial property off Airport Road. I ain't got no money right now, like I said. My rent went down the tube. And we have a lot of cleanup to do over there and all that stuff. And I don't know what to say. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: In may approach, I showed Mr. Martel this before. It is just a graphic of what is in question that -- the reason we're here. Page 66 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Have you showed it tliJ, }vuA said? MR. KEEGAN: I showed it to him, Mr. Martel. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you put it on the overhead? MR. KEEGAN: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to accept it as evidence. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: This right here is the only structure that is permitted. MR. KRAENBRING: Which one? MR. LEFEBVRE: Point to it on the screen. MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry. This one right here. That's the only permitted structure. The rest of these were -- you know, were built. Some were pulled with permits and the permits expired. After six months, no inspections and, you know, there was no other movement on them. MR. KELLY: Are they occupied? MR. KEEGAN: It is homesteaded. Mr. Martel does live there. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has this property been in front of us before? MR. KEEGAN: It has been before the special magistrate. I don't Page 67 January 24, 2008 know ifit's -- 16 I 1 A MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Martel has been in front of us before? MR. KEEGAN: I have never taken him in front of the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, do you know if this is the same properties that he has been in front of us before? Because I know we've had a couple others that were on Karen Drive that he had a lot of debris and things that he had to get cleaned up. And there was also an unpermitted structure. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think that it's other properties that he has owned that has been before you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He mentioned he has several pieces of property. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he does. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. KEEGAN: The reason -- I mean, how we came upon this, the County did a bid-out. We had an order. And once -- it took 13 30-yard dumpsters to clean out the property. Once I got on to see exactly what was -- then that's when I took the action and opened up the case. I do have photos of the structures. I would like to submit eight photos. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Has he seen the photos? MR. KEEGAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I have a motion to introduce? MR. KELLY: Motion to introduce. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 68 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KEEGAN: Those just show some of the extensions. Both of these are an extension. Same thing. There's two extensions to the original mobile home. That is the original permitted mobile home right there. That's the side to one ofthe -- we called it, I guess, an open garage/carport kind of thing. It's being used for storage. That's just the back. That's the aluminum shed. That is the addition built onto the mobile home. A cinder block addition built onto a mobile home. That's the side of it. Another picture of the side of it. MR. PONTE: Are people living there? CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Martel is. MR. KEEGAN: These I had drawn up so it will show you actually the correct size and what is actually out there, if you would like. I don't know if it would make a difference. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any questions or comments from the Board? MR. KRAENBRING: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No questions, okay. Then I will close the public hearing and go to the -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Martel? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I asked him. He already spoke. He didn't have much to say. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, in light of that, I would like to make a motion that a violation does exist. 16 II A Page 69 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. 16 I 1 A CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: All in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. County's recommendation, please. MR. KEEGAN: The County recommends that the Code Enforcement Board should order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$265.34 incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining all Collier County after-the-fact building permits for all additions and improvements; must execute all issued permits so as to obtain all required inspections to the issuance of a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated; or, in the alternative, must obtain a Collier County demolition permit for removal of all not allowed, non-permitted additions and improvements and to request all inspections through to the issuance of a certificate of completion so as to restore premises to a state of compliance within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violated is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could you put that on the monitor, please. Page 70 January 24, 2008 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. 16 / 1 A MR. PONTE: I have a question for the investigator. Is there a particular reason that you have been so lenient in the amount of time to correct; 120 days? It seems a long time to me. MR. KEEGAN: It's pretty much standard with what we do with structures that long to go through the permits process. MR. KRAENBRING: George, I think when you look at the scope of the work that needs to be done here, this is probably a reasonable amount of time. I understand what you're saying about being lenient, but I think it is realistic in order to get it corrected. MR. PONTE: All right. Thank you. MR. KELLY: If anything, I think it's a little short. If you think about the survey that needs to be done and then you need to have an architect draw up plans and you have got to get the new permits because they are not going to allow him probably to extend the old ones since they are so old, that is quite a bit of work. MR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORGAN: I think 90 days is a sufficient amount oftime. MR. KRAENBRING: I'd have to disagree. I think the 120 and at that point, following Mr. Kelly's point, if the gentleman comes back to us and shows that he has been making progress and needed additional time just to get the work done, then we could address it at that time. But I wouldn't like to see the 120 days changed. I would keep it at that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd also like to see the operational costs to be paid within 30 days. MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: I will make a motion that we accept the County's recommendation with the changes of the operational costs be paid within 30 days of to day's date. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 71 January 24, 2008 MR. MORGAN: Aye. 16 I 1 A MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you understand, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case will be the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Naples Property Services, LLC, Case No. 2007050653. MS. MARKU: For the record, I would like to ask if the respondent is present. MR. SIRAGUSA: Yes. MS. MARKU: The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence. And I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I will entertain a motion to accept the County's packet of evidence. MR. PONTE: So move. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 72 January 24,2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? 16 11 (No response.) MS. MARKU: Okay. Violation of ordinances 2004-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(l )(a), I 0.02.06(B)(l)( c). Description of violation: Existing structure with interior and exterior alterations, and improvements without prior Collier County Zoning and Land Development review/approval. Location/address where violation exists: 865 95th Avenue North, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Douglas A. Wood, registered agent, 1000 North Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34102. Date violation first observed: May 21st, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 24th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 24th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: October 1st, 2007. Result of reinspection: No permits issued, no work performed. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Ronald Martindale. Could I have both the respondent and the Code Enforcement Officer be sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KELLY: I have got one question real quick. MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: On the statement of violation that we have for the case today it says that there's an existing structure with interior/exterior alterations, but on the notice of violation order to correct it said that there was a building -- existing building with interior/exterior damages or alterations that needed to be permitted, but it also says an accessory structure without Collier County permit. MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. A Page 73 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: That's all together in one? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. KELL Y: You might want to add that to the statement of violations then. MR. MARTINDALE: Okay. MR. KELLY: All right. MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, Investigator Ronald Martindale, Collier Code Enforcement. I would also like to submit this packet of photos of the site for evidence. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Has Mr. Wood (sic) seen it? MR. MARTINDALE: No. Just for clarification, this is not Mr. Wood. Mr. Wood was a registered agent. This is the actual property owner, Mr. Charles Siragusa. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. who? MR. SIRAGUSA: Charles Siragusa, S-i-r-a-g-u-s-a. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Siragusa. Let him see it first, please. And just verify whether or not this is the structure. MR. MARTINDALE: This is the shed. This is the structure. These are the two. MR. SIRAGUSA: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that the structure? MR. SIRAGUSA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I will entertain a motion to accept. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. 16 11 A Page 74 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MARTINDALE: This case was initiated in May of2007 as a referral to me from the planning department by Planner David Hedrick. He requested that I enforce the code in reference to the structure being altered and a freestanding structure being built without permits. The accompanying photos -- this will answer your question, sir. A and C aerials point to the addition to the original structure there. That's the original permitted structure. A has been -- the wall has been knocked out and that's been enclosed. And C, the wall has been knocked out and enclosed. And up there -- the light is not hitting it correctly, but B, the top corner, that is the accessory structure that has been built. All of these have been added at some date without permits approved, posted, subsequent inspections and CO. So they are not permitted, nor have they ever been. I served the NOV on the 24th of May at the law office of the registered agent. I was later contacted on the 31 st of May by Mr. Siragusa. And he was referred to David Hedrick to find out exactly what he had to do to come into compliance. On the 9th day of August, he also contacted Mr. Hedrick and I was e-mailed with a -- where he had requested a brief extension, which was allowed. On 10-10 of2007, I met with Mr. Siragusa; his architect, Bruce Cutler; my supervisor, Patty PetrulIi; investigations supervisor David -- I don't have the last name down here. 16 11 ~ , , Page 75 January 24, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: Scribner. 16 , 1 A MR. MARTINDALE: Scribner. Where it was explained to Mr. Siragusa and Mr. Cutler, his architect, who I believe is also present today, what was required to come into compliance. I checked back on the 29th of November with Mr. Hedrick, who had been in contact with Mr. Siragusa several times. Mr. Hedrick couldn't be here today because he is on medical leave. But at that time on the 29th of November he advised that he had had no further contact with the respondent. Therefore, I posted this -- I posted the property on the 17th of December and set up a packet for this hearing. MR. SIRAGUSA: If I may. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. SIRAGUSA: I would like to request a continuance of the hearing date for 120 days. The reason being that the violations can be corrected and they will be corrected. I purchased the property approximately three years ago. When I purchased it, I had no knowledge of these problems. I have not in any way modified the building, touched it. I have done nothing to it. So what you see is what I purchased. Shortly after I spoke with Mr. Martindale, I attempted to get several architects. I tried -- I found one architect who supposedly had found the person who had done the initial designs for the building and had the initial site plan, which would obviously make it much easier. That architect wasn't able to get the site plans. The architect who had originally done the work was out of state. It was very difficult to find an architect who would do this work, quite honestly, six or seven months ago because they were quite busy. Since then I have found an architect. He is here. He is Mr. Bruce Cutler. Since I received the notice ofthe violations, I have met with Mr. Cutler twice. I have with me preliminary plans that Mr. Cutler has Page 76 January 24, 2008 prepared. 16 I I A I would like, in support of the continuance, for you to listen to Mr. Cutler, in terms of what he has done and what will need to be done in terms of the amount of time that it's going to take to make the corrections. The one thing that is clear is the corrections can be made. The two structures that I now learn should not be there, A and C and B, can be removed. They will be removed. The structure can be returned to its original condition. Another reason that not much was done in the past several months is it was occupied by a day care center. So while it was occupied by a day care center, it would have been rather difficult to get an architect to go in and out and start determining what needed to be done. What I would like to do is if you would listen to Mr. Cutler and he can tell you what it is that needs to be done. And he also has the preliminary plans. If you could, we can give a copy to Mr. Martindale or Mr. Cutler can put them on the overhead. If you will, if you can just go to the overhead and just explain to you what needs to be done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let me stop for a second. Ifwe want to do a continuance, then we don't really need to go through all of that. MR. SIRAGUSA: I just wanted you to see that this is real. He's an A.A. architect. He really has done preliminary plans. I have spoken with him. I know he needs to meet with Mr. Hedrick, who is unavailable. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifwe decide not to go through the continuance, then we probably will listen to him. At that point we need to make a decision here. MR. KRAENBRING: Madam Chair, just a comment. The continuance I don't think is something that we should be considering now. We can have that written into the order that -- if you can do the Page 77 January 24, 2008 work in 120 days, fine. 1 f... I 1 We're probably going to need to hear from the architect. It' everyone is agreeing that this needs to be done, you have got plans set, then -- MR. SIRAGUSA: That's-- MR. KRAENBRING: -- that's about it. The fact-- MR. SIRAGUSA: May I respond? MR. KRAENBRING: Hold one second, sir. I'm not done talking yet. Find the fact that a violation does exist and allow the County to give them the amount oftime necessary to correct the violation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, did you have input? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I was just going to state that the County objects to the continuance. That ifhe believes that he can correct the violation, we would recommend any time that he indicates he can correct it within to the time granted on the order, ifthe board finds a violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Two things. First of all, before I make a motion to deny the continuance, maybe a stipulated agreement may be a way to go. They can work out a stipulated agreement for 120 days or a recommendation for 120 days-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And table this? MR. LEFEBVRE: -- similar to what Rich said. That means I would like to make a motion to deny the continuance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I will second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 78 A January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. We are not going to grant the continuance. Do you want to try to work out a stipulated agreement with them? MS. ARNOLD: What I was going to suggest since we've -- the investigator has already done his testimony. He wants to just have his architect tell us how much time he thinks it is going to take him or whatever. MR. KELLY: That's what I wanted to comment. We're already here. And we understand. I think the board is pretty sympathetic. If you have the guy here and he's qualified __ MR. SIRAGUSA: He can speak to it, but it's impossible to get the permits and do the work in 120 days. They cannot be done. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. SIRAGUSA: I'm not familiar with the Collier County permitting process, but I have spoken with Mr. Cutler. And it's impossible to do the work and to get the permits in 120 days. MR. PONTE: Excuse me, you're the one who suggested 120 days. MR. SIRAGUSA: Perhaps what I should have asked for is a continuance to come back with a permit. We are going to move to get the permits and apply for the permits as expeditiously as impossible. But what's not within my control or Mr. Cutler's as how quickly the Collier County Permitting Department will issue the permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We understand that. And we'll craft it accordingly. Let's go ahead and hear from your architect. MR. CUTLER: I haven't been sworn in. 16 11 A Page 79 January 24, 2008 (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MARTINDALE: First off, for the record, my name is Bruce Cutler, C-u-t-l-e-r. I'm a registered architect in the state of Florida. My number, again for the record, AROO 1 0992. What I would like to do is -- a couple of items I would like to have projected. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Then we have to enter it as evidence then, please. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. CUTLER: Before we go on, I'll just keep this sl~~' here. You know, we're all in agreement that this here is theofiginal building of about 800 square feet. Item A, which I consider the south addition, is about 160 square feet. It is my understanding it was an existing open area at one point. It was built -- it was built without a -- it was enclosed without a permit. And the same would apply to item C. Neither Mr. Siragusa or I know when that shed was built. We agree that that will be demolished, leaving the existing 800 square-foot building that has the number 865 on it. This section here. So we will keep that. 16 /1 A Page 80 January 24, 2008 But if we can look at the drawing that I have, the dem~giln ~lanA which I prepared. Turn that 90 degrees. If you can turn that around. MS. ARNOLD: This way? MR. CUTLER: Yes. Zoom that back a little bit. This dotted line here, we are going to take that down and then leaving this section to be modified. Now, we are -- it is going to involve a little bit more than just taking down the illegal, unpermitted appendages that were built. What I want to do is bring that central area -- that original building to code. To do that, if we would look at the next drawing. Again, this was drawn at quarter-inch scale, so it's ready to go right into construction drawings. We're going to need to address, you know, a new entry and a handicapped entry, as you can see on the side, which will be well within the setback. On that back part there is an existing exit. On the north end you see the north arrow. And I want to see if we need that exit. I will have to check with the -- with the code, the building department and so forth. We are going to rip out the existing bathroom. I know that's not an issue with this board, but just to give you an idea of what the scope and time that I'm going to need and what is going to be involved. We need to put a handicap-compliant and accessible toilet room, as well as the lighting, the electrical. I want to make sure that is all well and good and make sure we are okay with the air conditioning and so on. I'm also going to put a new storefront at the -- in the front that you can see. So typically we probably need at least a minimum of 90 days to go for permit. I would like to -- because what I don't know -- what is sort of the unknown at this point is see if we need a site development plan or an amendment of a site development plan. And that sometimes takes extra time. I wouldn't be in control of what time frame they would need. Page 81 Janrg 24, 2008 I mean, the actual construction drawings, I could probably 'dJtha~ within 45 days or so. You know, just to try to get in between all of the other drawings and -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: How long -- MR. CUTLER: -- other work that I have. What I don't know -- one moment. I don't know what the site -- you know, I would use an engineer that is more familiar with the site development or amendment process. I'm not sure what that is going to be at this time. But we would need to -- now, this is also a -- was a nonconforming structure. It is five feet from the west setback. That's the top ofthe screen there. And that's been acceptable. It is just -- you know, just to do the architectural drawings, I'm not sure what we need in terms of, like I said, the site development goes. I want to make sure that that is okay. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: I have a question for you. How long do you think it would take you to get everything ready to go in for -- MR. CUTLER: Permit? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- permit? MR. CUTLER: If it doesn't involve -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Worst case scenario. MR. CUTLER: Well, if it doesn't involve the site, you know, review process, I can do the drawings in about -- I would want at least 45 days just to -- again, the actual drawing time and preparation time doesn't take that long, but it's scheduling and working in between. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The reason I ask that is a lot of times, just to give you a familiarity of what we'll do in a case like this, we'll set a time frame where you have to go in to present for a permit. And then once you have obtained the permit, we give you "X" amount of times -- MR. CUTLER: To build it. Page 82 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- to get it completed. ~2t,J hlw A we handle that so that you don't have that issue that you guys are concerned about. MR. CUTLER: Okay. So you're not going to say, well, you have got so many days to abate everything completely. I would -- well, I would want at least 120 days to -- this is assuming we might need the site -- to address the site issues, go through the necessary paperwork. We were going to call Mr. Hedrick after this meeting. I assume he's not available at his office at this moment. I want to talk to him in the next -- try to reach him tomorrow or the beginning of the week. The question is I know he needs some lead time to meet. MR. MARTINDALE: In may, Mr. Hedrick will be -- he will be out until April, I believe, on medical leave. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is there someone taking his place? MR. MARTINDALE: I would refer him to Mr. Ross Gochenaur. He's David's supervisor. And they will provide him with someone else. MR. CUTLER: Okay . We'll write that down afterwards. Okay. So we would contact that office in the next couple of business days to set up a meeting, find out exactly what needs to be done. I have to give this to my engineer. I don't know how long any of the site review boards and -- how long they take. I don't think it would be much. We have an existing building. We are not adding to. The only addition we're doing is an outdoor, uncovered handicapped facility basically, you know, just to get in the building. Just to let you know, that floor elevation is about 18 inches above grade. So that's why we need the steps and, you know, take care of all that. So I would want at least 100 -- for permit, go to 120 days. That would take us until -- I would like, say, until -- let's see. I'm thinking Page 83 Januy 64/2108 A out loud here. I would like until June 1st anyway. That is a little more than 120 days. If you're more comfortable, this is 24th, we could -- at least until May 24th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. CUTLER: At least to have gone for permit. And then what will we do, just decide how much time you want to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll get into that in the board. We'll go through that. MR. CUTLER: So if you have any other questions-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody have any questions? MR. KRAENBRING: This building will not be occupied during that time? MR. CUTLER: No, no. It is not occupied now. Just to add, I was just given the go-ahead to start looking at the -- what we could do to the actual architectural part of it. I was just given the go-ahead to do that -- well, January 3rd was when I was -- when I was notified of this hearing and basically given the go-ahead to get started. I didn't want to do too much obviously until we ran it by you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I will close the public hearing and go to the board. Finding of fact. MR. KELLY: I would find that -- I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 84 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KELLY: My comment is this: I'm a little tom. The violation pertains to additions constructed without a permit. Testimony says that they are going to demo those violations. That's an over-the-counter lO-minute application. All of this other stuff would be to benefit the property owner, but it is not necessarily related to abating the violation. So I would like to be lenient, but at the same time keep in mind that we're just really concentrating about abating the violations. MR. CUTLER: Can I -- I think that I would have to interject something. I agree with Mr. Kelly. I mean, it would not take long to demo the building and go in for a demo permit. However, we are going to have open areas and I wouldn't want to see the building compromised. When this is demoed -- when this piece is removed, we are going to have -- this is all pretty much open. It will be open. That's an open space, which I probably didn't clarify that. That will be open. This will be open. Where you see the dark lines here, here and here will be open to weather. Now, I suppose we could blue tarp it, but I don't think we would -- I guess we were just trying to get this all done at once. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Very important. Thank: you. MR. CUTLER: I probably didn't clarify those open areas that would exist once the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Demolition was -- MR. CUTLER: Once everything was removed. MR. KELL Y: Thank you, sir. 1611 A Page 85 January 24,2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that's a pertinenfBct! 1 A because I think that would leave it open to then a safety hazard. MR. CUTLER: And vandalism. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And vandalism. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we find that -- just to take the temperature of the board here, 90 days, 120 days? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I wanted to go ahead and look and see what the County had proposed and then we can craft from that. MR. KRAENBRING: Sure. MR. MARTINDALE: Our recommendation is obtain all required permits, inspections all through the certificate of completion within 20 days or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. MR. PONTE: Is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 120 days? MR. MARTINDALE: I'm sorry? MR. PONTE: Does that read -- MR. MARTINDALE: I'm sorry. It is 120 days or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated or obtain Collier County demolition permit through certificate of completion within 60 days or a fine of $200 will be imposed. The respondent must notify myself, as a Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, within 24 hours of the compliance of the order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KELLY: Investigator, what is the operational costs? MR. MARTINDALE: Operational costs of$357.86, I believe. MR. KRAENBRING: Can you stick that on the monitor for us. MR. MARTINDALE: Sure. I don't have the operational costs on this because I just obtained those yesterday. It is $357.86. MR. CUTLER: Excuse me. So are you recommending 60 days? You have a-- MR. MARTINDALE: This was my initial recommendation. Page 86 Jan~ary. 24,2008 J. 6 , 1 '... CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We are going to work from tlttt. A We're not done. MR. CUTLER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MARTINDALE: The reason doing so is demo permits are relatively easy to obtain quickly. And that's why the 60 days, as opposed to the -- MR. CUTLER: Right. As I had said from the time we go through -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. Excuse me, you're done. It's up to us. Thank you. In our discussions -- I'm just going to say that we had mentioned that they needed to try to apply for the permits within 120 days and then from there we were going to -- after they had received the permits, give them "X" amount of days for completion. I know Mr. Kelly is looking -- MR. KELLY: Only because in the past when we have submitted -- when we had orders that called for a submittal date, many times the review process requires a back and forth action to where you have to correct your submittal and then resubmit. And they may -- you make it 120 days, but then a permit is not issued until three years later because somebody is dragging their feet and not resubmitting for an SDP amendment or whatever it might be. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I guess then we have the other option that they can come back and say they needed more time due to the fact that the -- problems with the permitting. MR. KELLY: It's a possibility, but there is also a variance issue on the setback. I mean, that could possibly get caught up in approvals and boards and everything else. MR. PONTE: Well, we have got so many variables here that might be. I think we ought to just take a line and say it's 120 days for everything here and then come back and take a look at it. What is the Page 87 January 24, 2008 report? Where are they 120 days from now? 16 11 A It has been suggested it might be less than 120 days depending on this or depending on that. May 24th was a suggested date by the architect. I think we just say 120 days and that's it, nice and clear, let us know where we are. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: George, I can see that for getting the permits and starting the inspection. But getting the certificate of completion, I mean, they have a lot of buildings to tear -- to tear down and they are going to -- MR. PONTE: The teardown will take no time at all. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. They are also going to revamp some of the structure itself. I don't know how we can say that they need to get inspections and CO within 120 days. That's where I'm having a problem. MS. ARNOLD: Can I interject? Just kind of going off of what Mr. Kelly indicated earlier about the demolition, if it is at all possible for them to remove those structures that were added without permits and then board up the openings that were suggested -- and the County has a boarding certificate process that is free that maybe we can address the security issues, as well as the exposure to the elements to board up those -- I'm looking to the architect because he is the one that maybe can answer whether or not that would resolve that issue, if you allow him to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. CUTLER: I don't recommend it. I would say let's just, you know, do it at once. You know, that way we don't have a problem with demoing everything and -- you know, like in the next few weeks and then taking time to finish the drawings and get -- if there are any SDP protocols necessary. I would rather leave that as a construction site for as little as possible and pretty much do everything in as tight of a frame as possible. I think demoing it and then leaving it boarded up for a Page 88 January 24, 2008 couple of months and then starting the construction phase t& lol A only -- I think that would be more of an eyesore than what you have got now. And you're creating more -- I think you're creating more problems than you're solving. I think it would be better aesthetically, safety-wise, protection of the elements -- MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Cutler, let me just ask you a question. How much time would you need for construction; for demolition and repair to the exterior? MR. CUTLER: Well, when we say repair, in the interior __ MR. KRAENBRING: Exterior. MR. CUTLER: Once we do all the architectural work on the existing 800 square feet? I would have to double check with my contractor to see how much time he would need. MR. KRAENBRING: Thirty days, 60 days? MR. CUTLER: Well, I would think 60 to 90 days would do it, but that is out of my control. MR. KRAENBRING: The thing is you're going to have a fair amount oftime to get your ducks in a row. 120 days, as far as to get together with your contractor. MR. CUTLER: I guess I would like that for -- Mr. Ponte is it? MR. PONTE: Yeah. MR. CUTLER: As he suggested, let's do as much as we can in the next 20 days, go at it full throttle and hopefully we're okay to have that permitted within 120 days or less. The reason I'm allowing more time is just there is kind of -- there is a question mark with the SDP Issue. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. CUTLER: Again, I would like to do this all at once, rather than piecemeal. MR. KELLY: Let me just air this out to the board for your consideration. It might not sound like it, but I'm really trying to help Page 89 January 24, 2008 the respondent. Because I honestly believe that the longel. Is I A board are caught into it and this order is restricting the time frame, I don't think the respondent is going to have the opportunity to do what he needs to do with this property. He's a businessman. He wants to get this renovation completed so he can rent that place. What I suggest we do is take care of the violations and get the board and the order abated and resolved so that there is no looming timeline, no every day we're being fined "X" number of dollars. He doesn't have a problem in case he wants to get financing because there's a lien against the property because we had to impose fines; whatever might come ifhe ever needed to get a variance or ifhe ever needed a site development plan. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Which means that he would have to go through the demolition process and board it up as the County has suggested. MR. KELLY: That's my suggestion. And then you take as long as you want to do, whatever construction you __ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's not what you want to do but, in fact, it might be more expedient for you. Because if we put into our order that you have 120 days to get your permits and get everything done and it doesn't happen, the fines are going to start accruing and then you're going to be back in front of us stating why it happened. And we'll have to decide whether or not we're going to make them go away. So if we can convince you to do it in a two-step process, realizing you're taking that risk, that is what we're looking at as your protection. MR. PONTE: I don't think that that is such a great idea. We have professional advice here suggesting -- it makes sense to me that it all should be done in one action and 120 days might get it done. It might not get it done in 120 days. But people who have come before this board many, many, many Page 90 January 24, 2008 times said, I can't get it done because I'm holding up in pUi4, 1m A having problems with that. Can I have an extension? I am sure it will be done in 60 days. And they get the extension. So I just think that we have some fixed dates and do it as simply as possible and easily as possible. Not start one job as demolishing and then trying to put up security items to keep the place secure. All of these don't exist as a problem right now. Let it be. Get to work. Do it in 120 days. If you can't do it in 120 days, come back here and say, we are stuck. We are waiting to get "X" permits. Okay. We've heard the case. We'll do it again. MR. MORGAN: I agree with my colleague here. Let the contractor be responsible for whatever he does. Would you be opposed, Mr. Martindale, to leaving out item number two? MR. MARTINDALE: Number two on the demo permit? MR. MORGAN: Yes. Let him take 120 days and complete his work. Let him take care of his business. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's only ifhe doesn't -- item two is ifhe doesn't want to do the item one. Gerald had a comment. MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree with part ofMr. Ponte's statement. And I don't agree with the part where -- just give 120 days. I think that we should leave it as is because it seems like there are some large openings that would have to be closed up. And the property is currently secured and going in you would probably have to build two by four walls and put up some kind of plywood, which could possibly compromise the structure and allow vandalism and so forth within the structure. So I think it should be left as IS. But I feel that we should possibly give some strict dates on when the items -- certain items should be completed. Meaning, to submit a complete submittal for permits and so forth in a certain amount of Page 91 January 24, 2008 time. And then once those are issued, everything is issued~~ehJn A amount of time to complete the work. I think that might be a way to define time frames and what needs to be done. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: That is kind of where I was leading with. MR. CUTLER: May I interject? MR. PONTE: That is micromanaging the project. And what we are to do is let the professionals get along with it and give them 120 days from start to finish. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, by doing this, this gives them the leeway. If there is something -- for some reason the County takes three months, it is not on their clock and they don't have to come back to us. So we will know when they have to have a complete submittal to the County. The clock stops there. And then once they are approved to go ahead and do the work, the clock starts again. And those periods are very finite and we will know exactly when those dates are. And we could start fining if they do not meet those time frames. MR. PONTE: It just seems that we're micromanaging the project. MR. MORGAN: I don't want to manage the contractor's project. He knows how he's going to execute his project. It's up to him because he is the architect. He has a contractor lined up. And they probably -- the investor Or the owner, he has a deadline that he wants the job finished so he can start recouping some of his money back. That's the worst thing in the world you can do is to try to manage a contractor's plan to execute his work. We don't know how he is going to do it. He knows how he's going to do it. MR. KELLY: I personally -- I don't agree. And I don't think that it is the best use of this board, the respondent, the architect, the Page 92 January 24, 2008 County, the contractor's time to come back for extensio16rtJne ~. back for requests for -- MR. PONTE: We don't know that there will be extensions. We don't know that it won't be completed in 120 days. MR. CUTLER: I have got to tell you, in may. Historically-- MR. KELLY: The architect himself has said-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're not really supposed to be interjecting now, unless we ask you a question. MR. KELLY: The architect has already said he can't do it in 120 days. MR. CUTLER: I can't promise 120 days. MR. KELLY: My suggestion is let them get the demo permit. It is three and a half sheets of plywood, judging by the dimensions that are on his own drawing. You know, let him paint it white or whatever color the building face is. MS. ARNOLD: Well, as part of our boarding certificate process, they are required to paint over it so it doesn't look like an eyesore. It is supposed to kind of blend with the original structure so that we are not dealing with something sticking out like a sore thumb. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We seem to be at an impasse, but I need to have a motion one way or the other and we'll see if they pass. MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Kelly, would you like to __ MR. PONTE: I will make a motion to accept the violation and the recommendation as has been forwarded by the County, with the exception that item two -- number two about demolition also read 120 days. MR. MORGAN: I will second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 93 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. 16 11 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. A MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: That one didn't pass. Let's move forward and entertain a different motion. MR. KELLY: I will take a stab at it. Pay operational costs of $357.86 within 30 days of this hearing. Two, abate all violations by securing a demolition permit, inspections and certificate of occupancy within 120 days or a fine of$200 per day. Number three, notify code enforcement within 24 hours that the violation has been abated so that they can verify. And the 120 days can be adjusted as needed. MR. KRAENBRING: And a certificate of completion? MR. KELLY: Completion, occupancy, whatever they call it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Just a question for the County. Would they issue a certificate of occupancy then once that demolition is completed? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. I will second. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry. Real quick, Richard. Michelle, if they just did the demo without the boarding permit, would I have to put in a boarding permit here as well, or is that all inclusive? MS. ARNOLD: No. It's a separate permit, but they can -- once they do their -- they can do it at the same time. Get the boarding certificate, as well as the demo permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You don't need to enter it in your MR. KELLY: As a formality, I will amend my motion to include a demolition permit and a boarding certificate. MR. KRAENBRING: Again, I will second that. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 94 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let's try again. Third time might be the charm. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm writing it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald is on his. MR. KRAENBRING: Can I say one thing? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. MR. KRAENBRING: One thing I liked about Mr. Kelly's motion was that it does offer the 120 days. Certainly they are going to be progressing towards getting all of their permits at that time. We're just saying that at minimum they should have their demolition permit. MR. KELLY: Agree. Nothing stops the respondent from continuing to work on their permits. Are we lobbying now? MR. KRAENBRING: I think we're coming to a consensus. That gives -- it sort of helps George with his issue of the 120 days, gets the work done, and then they can go ahead and proceed on. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think George's problem was opening it up and then boarding it up and then waiting for the permits to get through because it might take a long period of time. And we have no way of foreseeing that. I think that's what George's problem was with the case. MR. PONTE: Is, not was. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is. We haven't done that, so-- MR. KRAENBRING: I think -- Mr. Kelly's comment that it is just a few pieces of plywood that -- you know, I have been a 1611 A Page 95 January 241g8, contractor for a long time. It's probably used in the rest of the 1 construction. I don't think it's a hardship. And I think it does solve the problems with the timeline. MR. MORGAN: This is a simple job. Let the contractor plan his work. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's what we're doing, though. MR. MORGAN: I don't want to plan his work for him. He knows how he's going to execute his work. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think he's lobbying for his. MR. KRAENBRING: I understand. I think it is a matter of-- CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Gerald, are you done yet? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. I'm working. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: I think this is the first time in six years that I've been up here that we've had a complete deadlock. And it must be because it's my last day. MR. CUTLER: If I can -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not allowed to let you speak. We have closed the hearing. MR. KELLY: If I ask a question of the respondent, would that be allowed? CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: You can ask him a question, yes. MR. KELLY: No offense, I would actually like to talk to the respondent and not the architect, if you would. MR. SIRAGUSA: Yes. Thank you. MR. KELLY: Since you're the one cutting the check, you have heard both sides. Do you have an opinion? MR. SIRAGUSA: If you want to put a deadline on by which I have to apply for the permit, that's fine. Because I can make the application. The only issue I have is knowing when I will get the permit to do the building. MR. KELLY: Exactly. And part two of our order would be when the work would have to be completed. So if we said 120 days or Page 96 Jant6 2f,!008A 30 days to submit, whatever it might be, part two of that order is going to be and then 100 and so many days to get the work done. So we are still only talking about seven, eight months, nine months from now. MR. PONTE: So do you want to re-craft and say he has 30 days to get the permits and 120 days to complete? CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: He's crafting it. MR. KELL Y: You're still back at the possibility of, you know, a variance or a site development plan, resubmittals. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Not if you state in there, once they have obtained the permit. Go ahead, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: This may take some modification, massaging, but let me try this. That the respondent pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all fines by: One, within 90 days submit a complete package for permitting. Once the permit -- number two, once the permit is issued, respondent has 90 days to complete all work and receive a CO or certificate of completion. Three, respondent must noti:fy Code Enforcement Board within 24 hours of compliance in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. MS. ARNOLD: You need to say how many days after the permit was obtained. MR. LEFEBVRE: 90 days to complete all work and receive a CO. Is that something that we can __ MR. PONTE: I can live with that. I think that sounds good to me. MR. KELLY: The 90 on the construction part might be a little short. MR. PONTE: But you can start it earlier. I mean, ifhe gets the permits before 90 days, you start. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: No. Page 97 J~! rjOOA MR. PONTE: You don't have to go through the whole 180 days. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: The problem is the clock doesn't start until once he gets the permits, then he has 90 days to complete the building. MR. LEFEBVRE: This takes out the time where the County may, for some reason, take three months, four months. Now it takes it out of their control. They are not -- it is not on their time. MR. PONTE: Right. I support what you're suggesting. Could this -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, does he need a demolition permit though still in order to demolish those buildings? MR. CUTLER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we need to have that in that order, as well. Because in his process of building he has to have a demolition permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Number three would be: Obtain demolition permit. I mean, whatever way we want to __ MR. PONTE: No. I don't think you have to get that detailed. Just to obtain the permits. The required permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Once all permits are issued, respondent has 90 days to complete all work and receive CO or a certificate of completion. MR. PONTE: I think that is correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Maybe go to 120 days or something. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm asking for, before we go to motion, some consensus here where we can have it and the third time is the charm. MR. KELLY: That's okay. My point is going to be about the middle part. Like the dash in between the two time frames. We just automatically assume it's County that drags its feet. However, we have been -- we have had cases that were brought in front of us by the Page 98 January 24, 2008 County where there had been, you know, a submittal and th! ~_ I 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Respondent must be continually working. MR. KELLY: There you go. MR. PONTE: But we also know from our own professional experience, and even as you suggested, that the owner is a businessman and wants to turn this into an income-producing property as quickly as possible. So I don't think we'll have the dragging. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just to make sure that we don't, we'll put it in there just to cover ourselves. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to stress in number one is that a complete package by the respondent is to be submitted within 90 days, which now means __ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And all follow-up with the County must be completed. MR. KELLY: Follow through until permits are obtained. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Jean, have you gotten __ MS. RAWSON: I've deleted it and rewritten it about four times, but yes, I think I'm with you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you hear the part Sheri interjected? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Since you may have the most up-to-date version, can you just repeat, if that is possible, the-- MS. RAWSON: By applying for all Collier County permits and pursuing the same within 90 days. Once the permits are obtained by completing all work through, with related inspections, through to the issuance of certificate of completion within -- I think it is another 90 days? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 120 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. Page 99 Before we take a vote -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If that is your motion, I need a second. MR. PONTE: I will second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now we'll take a vote. Before you want -- you wanted to have a call. MR. LEFEBVRE: No. I was going to ask the respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, we don't ask the respondent. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a motion on the floor and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think this time it carries. MR. LEFEBVRE: So do you want to explain it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. We can explain it to you. MR. SIRAGUSA: When you say the permit, you may have to add the words site development plan, if needed. MR. KRAENBRING: That's covered. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That will cover it because we said to continue to work diligently with it. MR. SIRAGUSA: But it's my understanding that one could get a permit, but maybe you wouldn't have the site development plan. Are they separate or from the same authority? MR. CUTLER: Well, we can probably start getting the process going for the site development plan. MR. SIRAGUSA: My question is, I don't know if the County __ Januaryi6100i A Page 100 Janrl' 24, 2008 the portion of the County that issues the building permit wou?d ils1 beA the one that would issue the site development plan or if it's different? MR. CUTLER: I think they're separate. MR. KELLY: The point is is that you are submitting for the process. That basically says that within 90 days you're going to submit, whether you need to start with an SDP amendment or whether you need to start with your actual permit application. The fact is that you're starting it within 90 days. MR. CUTLER: So if we submit and it's kicked back, that doesn't go against us. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It won't go against you until you get your permit in hand and you're ready to start construction. MR. CUTLER: Or if we submit -- well, you don't have the site development plan complete, even though we're working on it __ MR. SIRAGUSA: To clarify, until we get -- the clock doesn't tick until we get the permit and the site development plan, if needed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We said permit. MR. KELLY: You're not going to get the permit before the SDP. MR. CUTLER: You can't get the permit before the SDP. MR. KELLY: The one thing that can catch you is if County sends back the packet and says, listen, this permit is no good. You'll have to get a site development plan amendment, and you fail to follow up expeditiously. MR. SIRAGUSA: That won't be a problem. MR. KELL Y: With that review process make sure you resubmit as many times as they take it back for whatever reason and make sure that you follow up. That's the one thing that can catch up. MS. ARNOLD: Can I interject? There was no fines indicated on that motion whatsoever. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: And so -- there is no catch. So I don't know if you need to restate your motion and revote. Page 10 1 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: You're absolutely right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have to withdraw the motion at this point? MR. LEFEBVRE: Am I amending it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to withdraw it, don't we, first? MS. RA WSON: You have to withdraw it because you passed it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll withdraw. MS. RAWSON: Start over again. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to withdraw Gerald's motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Number one, if we put in -- let's keep the fines at $200. Number two, $200 also. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Now I have a motion on the floor with the imposed fines. MR. PONTE: I will second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. 16 11 A Page 102 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: So can Ijust reiterate? Operational costs in the amount of$357.86. Obtain all required permits, which would include any site development plan that would be applicable within __ sorry, not obtained. Submit for all required permits. So that could include site development plan, building permits and demo permits, which could be submitted concurrently and reviewed concurrently, just so you understand. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And to diligently-- MS. ARNOLD: Within 90 days and pursue that submittal with due diligence or a fine of $200 per day. Once the permits are obtained, complete all work with inspections and certificate of completion or CO, whichever is applicable, within 120 days or a fine of$200 per day. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. And the notification to the code enforcement officer within 24 hours. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. SIRAGUSA: Thank you. Very fair and very creative. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time we'll take a 10-minute break. (Recess. ) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I would like to call the Collier County Code Enforcement Board back to order. The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Cynthia -- I'm not going to even attempt it -- Aurelio Markle. I hope I said that and didn't mess it up too terribly bad. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Department Case No. 2006060005. For the record, I would like to find out if the respondent is present. J611 A Page 103 (No response.) MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the Board were sent a packet of evidence. And I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. MARKU: For violation of Ordinances 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1O.02.06(B)(l), 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(l)(d), as renumbered 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e) and Section 10.02.06 (B)(l)(d)(i), renumbered as 10.02.06 (l)(e)(i), and the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Section 22, Article II, 104.1.3.5, 106.1.2, Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Section 105.1, 105.7, 111.1. Description of violation: Violation of interior non-permitted construction. Location/address where violation exists: 4442 Wilder Road, Naples, Florida, 34105. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Cynthia Aurelio Markle, 4442 Wilder Road, Naples, Florida 34105. Date violation first observed: June 1st, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: July 10th, January 24, 2008 1611 A Page 104 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 10th, 2006. Date of reinspection: August 11 th, 2006. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you swear him in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case started on 6-1-06 by Investigator Heinz Box. When he originally got this case, he attempted to contact the property owner, Mrs. Markle. After several attempts, he was unable to. Finally, he was able to get ahold of Ms. Markle on 7/10/06, and she went down to the County building and was explained about the partition wall that she had inside of her garage, that it needed to either be permitted or it needed to be removed. At that time she signed the NOV and was issued a copy and was given until August 10, '06 to do either one. After rechecks on 7/18 and 8/2 and 8/11, owner stilI hadn't applied for a permit for either one, either the demolition or the permit for keeping the partition wall. The case was prepped for court. And after numerous rechecks after that, stilI the lady still did not apply for the permits. On 9/21 I received the case. The owner had sent a letter to Commissioner Coyle, which will be put up on the screen, that she felt January 24, 2008 16/1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we need to enter that evidence as packet B? MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 105 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: This is going to be hard for you to read. I'm going to put it on the visualizer, but if you could maybe share a copy of it. MR. PAUL: Real briefly, what the letter says is that Mrs. Markle felt that her neighbors were harassing her and felt that they were using the State and the County as a way of harassing her and making her life miserable. And once this letter was sent over, around that same time frame I had gotten this case. And myself and Supervisor Suzanne Capasso (phonetic) set up a meeting with Mrs. Markle. And we went down to the residence and explained to her her options. And on that same day I did observe that her daughter and her son-in-law and the child was -- were living inside of the garage on the other end of the partition wall. And the other side of the wall was being used as storage. Once explained all her options, she was told she needed to call permitting to set up an appointment so that they can further explain to her what she needs to do. She was given an extension at that time. And a month later, on I 0/8, I went over to the property to speak with Mrs. Markle and I asked her what she was doing with the situation. And at that time she said that she wasn't going to do anything. And that she felt that they were going to foreclose on her home anyways, so she wasn't going to do anything. After several rechecks -- and Mrs. Suzanne Capasso gave her a January 24, 2008 16 11 ~ Page 106 JanUjry 24, 2008 call on the phone and was unable to get ahold of her, prepped?hl else A for CEB and the property was posted on 12/12/07 for the notice of hearing. And I have been unable to get ahold of Mrs. Markle. And the property is not in foreclosure. MR. PONTE: I wonder if we could pause here and give us a chance to read this letter. I was listening to the testimony from the investigator, now I would like to focus on the letter. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Have you finished the first page? MR. PONTE: I have not. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: I have a question in regards to her letter. She states that she applied for a permit to put in three single French doors coming out of the two bedrooms into the garage storage area and put in an application and was told that she had to include the garage area, so she did, by a gentleman with a long ponytail that worked at the County. Do we happen to know who that gentleman is? MR. PAUL: The gentleman she is talking about is Jeff Kuskow (phonetic). I guess, he was either a supervisor or a manager, I believe, in engineering. He is no longer there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we find any applications or anything? MR. PAUL: I have the application here when she originally filled out the permit for the closet doors, but the thing is this wasn't the violation that she needed to correct. It might have been -- what it is is she did these things and then applied for the permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So it was an after-the-fact permit? MR. PAUL: Right. But she also had that wall in there that she needed to also permit, which she didn't do. This permit application and the permit itself does not include this wall. Here is the permit right here. Page 107 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: Was there a CO issued for that permit? 16 11 A MR. PAUL: No, it wasn't. It was just issued. It was never CO'd. But she will be putting up the copy of the permit for the interior walls and such, but no such permit for that partition wall. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The partition wall is from the main house into the garage or -- MR. PAUL: It is all one. It is all one residence. The garage is connected to the house. It is just once you walk into the garage -- I have some photos here. Once you walk into the garage, all you see is this big wall and then like this little opening which goes into the rest of the garage. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Are you done, George? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I will show you the permit now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Should we enter these as evidence packets, I guess, C, including the pictures -- the permit and the pictures? MR. KELLY: Make a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: This is just the last page of the letter. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, yes. Page 108 J anuarf ~ lOT A MR. PONTE: What is that? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Hat-racking. We have had cases here because they have done that. They cut the top of the trees and then -- MR. PONTE: All right. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you, George. I thought I was missing something. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It weakens the trees. I learned all about that here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. Two years ago, three years ago it was. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I'm going to zoom in on the description of the work. MR. PAUL: As you can see, it only says to take down the closet and we'll paint the garage. It doesn't refer to the wall whatsoever. That needs to be either permitted or removed. MR. KELLY: Is this the permit for the doors -- the French doors? MR. PAUL: Yes. MR. KELLY: Well, it doesn't say the doors either. MR. KRAENBRING: Is there another permit out there for the doors or -- MR. PAUL: I believe that was the only one. MR. KELLY: Michelle, before you move that, how old is this permit? MR. PAUL: '05. MR. KELLY: Okay. Thanks. MR. PAUL: These are the drawings she submitted when she submitted for this permit in '05. As you can see, there was no partition wall in that drawing. MR. KELLY: Can you point to where the wall is now? MS. ARNOLD: Do it on here. MR. PAUL: I stand to be corrected. It does show the partition Page 109 January 24, 2008 wall. 16 I 1 A MR. KELLY: Using two by fours every 12 inches on center. MR. KRAENBRING: So the wall was there when she submitted for the permit? MR. PAUL: Yes. It must have been. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think what her letter states is that that was already done and she was told she had to submit that in when she wanted to make the door changes, too. She kind of tried to include it all in one. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. But we don't really have a door permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We don't have a door permit. MR. KRAENBRING: And we don't have an after-the-fact permit for the wall? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We don't have a completed permit. MR. KELLY: That's the key. We don't have a completed permit. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. Correct. So we're just asking her to come in and get her permits? MR. PAUL: What she is going to have to do is she is going to have to get those doors CO'd, but she's also going to have to get a permit to either keep the wall in there and keep one end as a living space or whatever she is going to do with it, or she is going to have to remove the wall, have a demolition. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have a question. Because you say she has to get the doors CO'd. Wouldn't she have to get a permit for the doors, too? Hasn't that permit expired? MR. PAUL: Correct. She is going to have to resubmit for another permit for that and then get that CO'd. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: I just want to get that clarification. If she just had to get a CO for that, then I was going to Page 110 January 24, 2008 say the wall was included on that permit. an Issue. MR. PAUL: Yeah. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you want to move to a finding of fact? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you want to move to a finding of fact? Anymore questions? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to see the pictures or no? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you want to see the pictures? Go ahead. MR. PAUL: Now, these pictures show that the -- the daughter and the son-in-law were living inside ofthat area. Living inside of the garage. This is all their stuff that was in there. That is the best picture I could get. That was the storage area. It was so dark in there. And they have a kitchen sink in there and they have a ceiling fan in there and such. So they were living in there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Now I will close the public hearing. Move to a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: I will make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. So that would have created 16 11 A Page III January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Your recommendations. MR. PAUL: County recommends the respondent pay operational costs in the amount of $320.05 incurred in the prosecution ofthis case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondent is to -- respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all improvements and alterations to this residence or obtain permits for removal of all unpermitted improvements to this property within l4 days of the date of this order, and obtain all required inspections and COs within 60 days of this hearing or be fined $200 a day the violation remains unabated. The respondent must notifY the Code Enforcement Investigator when the violation has been abated. MR. KRAENBRING: Can you put that on the screen for us, please. MR. PONTE: Let me just jump in here for a second while we're reading that. The penalties here are severe. $200 a day fine for this sort of violation. We have people that come in here with gas stations with tanks that are open and we fine them $200 a day. $200 a day is very high for this violation. MR. KELLY: But it looked like there was some plumbing and electrical work done, which could also be a health violation. MR. PONTE: It could be a health violation. We didn't touch during the testimony that there were safety hazards. And if there are, then why is it 60 days as opposed to 30 days? MR. KRAENBRING: George, do you have a suggestion on the amount of the penalty? MR. PONTE: I'm sorry? MR. KRAENBRING: Do you have a suggestion on the dollar 16 11 A Page 112 January 24, 2008 amount of the penalty? 16 I 1 A MR. PONTE: No. It is just open for discussion. I just thought __ CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: First off, I correct the recommendation. It's not the special master, it's the CEB, just to start. And I am not supposed to direct, but I'm kind of leaning more towards like $l 00 a day. MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. MR. KELLY: How much is the operational costs again? MR. PONTE: $320.05. MR. KELLY: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The only reason I'm saying $100 a day is in my mind this has gone on a long time. I think possibly she didn't understand that she needed to follow up with the permits and get COs and those types of things. She may understand that now. I don't know. Back then I don't know if she did. MR. PAUL: She does understand. She's just not going to do it. She's told me flat out she wasn't going to do it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. She'll have some fines then, I guess. MR. LEFEBVRE: It would be after-the-fact permit, correct? MR. KELLY: Well, you might still be able to get an extension on the old one, perhaps. I don't know what their __ MS. ARNOLD: They might. MR. KELLY: It's possible. It's only a couple years old. MR. KRAENBRING: Another thing, it's incomplete. It doesn't include the doors or the wall. It included removal of the closet. MR. KELLY: Yet the drawing did show the wall. It just says interior improvements. Does that include the door? That is something for them to straighten out. I like the order. MR. KRAENBRING: With the $200 or $100? MR. KELLY: Whatever pleases the board. Page 113 ' Januay 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: I will make a motion that -- first oR leI A have amended the recommendation to show that it is the board and not the special master. That you include the operational costs of $320.05 to be paid within 30 days. And that we amend item one to reduce the fine to $100 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. PAUL: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Can I make a motion to change the order of the agenda? If we have anyone that is being represented by an attorney, to help them avoid attorney's fees, if we can move them up. Is that okay? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't have a problem with that. I don't know. Do we have someone in the audience that has that case? MR. FLOOD: Right here. UNKNOWN PERSON: An engineer. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And an engineer. Okay. The attorney's case is-- MR. FLOOD: James Bachmann. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Bachmann, number 13. And the engineer's case? Page 114 January 24, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: It is imposition of fines. 16 I I A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It is imposition offines. That is going to have to wait then. I'm sorry. We have to hear these cases first. I will take you as the first imposition of fines. We'll do it that way. UNKNOWN PERSON: Thank you. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: The next case we'll hear is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus James Bachmann. MR. KELLY: Thank you, Sheri. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Uh-huh. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Department Case No. 2006090001. For the record, the respondent is present. The board and the respondent were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. FLOOD: No objection. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: I entertain a motion to accept the County's -- MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-4l of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1.04.01 and 2.02.03. Page 115 January 24, 2008 Description of violation: Unauthorized prohibited aboJe4srbJd A pool in agricultural zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: 1180 Dove Tree Street, Naples, Florida, 34104. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: James Bachmann, Il80 Dove Tree Street, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: August 3lst, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: July 6th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 20th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: July 23rd, 2007. Results of reinspection: Above-ground pool not removed. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Can I have you swear in all parties? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SCAVONE: For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. This case is in reference to Case No. 2006090001. The violation of -- the location of where the violation exists is on agriculturally zoned property located at ll80 Dove Tree Street, Naples, Florida, 34117. This case was started on August 31st, 2006 for possible violations on ago zoned property in conjunction with a mobile home temporary use permit. August 3l st a site visit was made and an above-ground pool was observed on the agricultural zoned property and pictures were taken, which I would like to enter into evidence. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. Page 116 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? 16 11 A MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Has the respondent seen these pictures? MR. BACHMANN: Yes. Two of the pictures were from the Collier County tax appraiser's website. This is just the location of where the pool is in conjunction with the temporary use permit of the mobile home, which is right behind the home. Just a closer picture. And the pool itself. November lst a meeting was set up with the permitting department and Mr. Bachmann did apply for a pool permit January 30th. The permit number was 2007011761, which expired 7/21/07. And February lst the permit was received and rejected by Angel Tarpley stating that per LDc-A, this is not an accessory structure that can be placed on ago zoning with a temporary mobile home on it. I would like to enter into exhibit -- just the copy of the paper which states the plan review showing the rejection. MR. KELLY: Is this part ofthe same package? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept this as B. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 117 January 24, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. 16 I 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SeA VONE: As you can see, it has her notes in there stating why it was rejected. At that time -- around that time there were continuous conversations with Mr. Bachmann explaining what was going on and what would possibly need to be done afterwards. I obtained a memo from Planning Manager Ross Gochenaur in reference to a temporary use permit in agriculturally zoned districts and accessory use. And that clearly states that pools are not permitted which, again, I would like to enter that into evidence, the letter that I had received from him. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Do you have anything else besides that to go into evidence, and we'll enter them both at the same time? MS. SCAVONE: I have just a couple of e-mails and the last picture showing that the pool still remains. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We are going to wrap up everything together, so we can just do one more, packet C. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR.KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 118 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. 16 11 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SeA VONE: Do you want a moment to read that or do you want me to -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead and outline it. MS. SCAVONE: Basically it is just explaining that they must provide evidence that a structure is directly related to a bona fide agricultural use on the property. The property is -- well, as of right now there is not a temporary use permit because that expired. Because of what is going on with this case, they would not renew his permit. But at the time the permit for the temporary use permit for the mobile home was okay. But anyway, he does have -- you know, he had a bona fide agricultural use permit for that land. And one of the -- it says that it's -- basically that section states that the use of a mobile home is approved temporarily, which means he has to keep renewing it every year, for which the home is an accessory use to that bona fide use for what he is using that land for, as a farm. A farm is defined as land, buildings, supports facilities, machineries and other improvements to the land for that use. So the farm operation is defined as marketing, you know, the product of whatever he is using it for. The home -- the mobile home, as a temporary use permit, is the accessory use to that reason of why he is allowed to have the temporary use permit, which he has to get. The letter is stating that the pool is not an accessory structure required to having -- the reason of having that bona fide use permit to begin with. It is not a -- a pool is not a structure that is used for farming. It doesn't support the farm. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Unless he can prove that the cows are drinking water out of it. MS. SCAVONE: Correct. That is basically what he's saying. Page 119 CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Got it. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. A copy, again, was given to Mr. Bachmann, which he did not agree with and stated that he did not want to remove the pool. June 29th, 2007 Mr. Bachmann requested an appointment with my supervisor, Gary Dantini, and myself. The case was previously reviewed with Director Michelle Arnold, Investigator Supervisor Dave Scribner, Ross Gochenaur and Ashley Caserta, who are the two members of the zoning and planning department. It was concluded that there was a violation and a new notice of violation was to be issued addressing prohibited uses and land use for the above-ground pool. The County -- the County will not issue a permit for that zoning district and TUP reasons. And those were my e-mails that I was going to enter just stating, you know, how they concluded that reason. This was an e-mail from Ashley Caserta, senior planner. She was just basically expressing that Mr. Bachmann had come in again to apply for the temporary use permit and that reviewing the permit she could not issue it because there was this -- you know this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Extenuating circumstances. MS. SCAVONE: With the pool not being permitted on the property. That's all that basically says. This was just a question that I had: Are temporary use permits for a mobile home issued for full-time residents on agriculturally zoned property? Ross Gochenaur stated, yes, provided that the ago use is maintained. And again he explained that initially, you know, it is first three years that you have to apply for it and after that it is once a year. And the other e-mail basically is that it was also explained to Mr. Bachmann by Ross Gochenaur that ifhe replaced the mobile home with an approved manufactured home that the situation could change. He may possibly be able to get the permit for that pool that he wants January 24, 2008 16 II A Page 120 January 24, 2008 to put up. 16 I 1 A And the last e-mail basically from Ashley was stating that a couple of times that I had personally spoken with Mr. Bachmann he had stated that, you know, he was going to try to speak with Commissioner Coletta and other people that, you know, could try to help him and explain to him how another way that he could go about doing this and what would be fair or whatnot. Ashley Caserta was another person that he had spoken to, but at this point she wasn't sure -- she didn't remember talking to them. She did talk to the homeowner, Mr. Bachmann, several weeks ago and told him that he needed to remove the pool before he did get his new TUP for the mobile home to be reviewed. Basically --let's see here. In July Supervisor Dantini and myself met with Mr. Bachmann and we explained all this, all the e-mails, all the evidence and research that we had found to him. A new notice of violation was served to him and he signed it and a copy was given to him. Mr. Bachmann also requested and obtained on July 12th a copy of all the case notes, phone records involved with this case. July 24th, received a phone call from Mr. Bachmann, stated that he had hired a lawyer and was going to look into this matter, and also notified me to not harass him and not to call him, to stay offhis property. And at that time I did as he requested and I have had no contact with Mr. Bachmann. So the last pictures were according to the Collier County tax appraiser's website that the violation ofthe pool still remained. Up there. And as of present date, it is believed that the violation remains, an unauthorized, prohibited above-ground pool erected on ago zoned property with a bona fide agricultural use in violation of Collier County Land Development Code. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Bachmann (sic)? MR. FLOOD: Yes. How do you want me to proceed? Do you Page 121 January 24, 2008 want me cross-examine her or -- 16 I 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You may proceed in whatever manner you would like to. MR. FLOOD: First of all, I would like to make a statement, that according to your own rules -- Peter Flood, I am the attorney. Article VII -- I would like to make an opening statement __ indicates that the initiation of an action before the board you are to have a code enforcement investigator filing an affidavit of violation which shall include the statement of facts and circumstances of the alleged violation and shall identifY the code or ordinance which has been violated with the secretary of the board. If you refer back to the code violation statement that has been submitted here that we have been provided with, there is no clear section cited on that violation. If you go to the memorandum that they have received from Mr. Ross Gochenaur, who I have had conversations with, there is no section quoted in regards to any code violation. Now, the reason I'm bringing this to the board's attention, because there is no section that can be violated in regards to putting a swimming pool on this agricultural property. And if you look at the violation statement, they are quoting Ordinance 2004-41, Land Development Code, Section 1.04 and 1.01,2.02,2.03 that have no bearing. There is no relevance to what is going on here. The code enforcement officer is correct that the purpose of a TU permit for a mobile home is allowed in an agricultural zoning is to support a bona fide agricultural use. Your own land development people have indicated that a deck is allowed. There is other items that are allowed incidental to the use of the mobile home as a resident on this particular piece of property. Now, I'm going to represent to this board that I have researched this issue for the last month and I can find no clear section __ not one section. I may point out that they have submitted 5.04.00 in your Page 122 Ja~u~j 21, 204 packet, temporary uses and structures, if you see this. And if you could review that, or maybe you have reviewed it, I wish you could identifY to me that it states that this use is not allowed by your own ordinance. Now, a couple -- a couple things need to be pointed out. This memorandum that they are relying on from Mr. Gochenaur is merely an opinion. It is not referenced in regards that you have to do something or not have to do something. We rely on our codes. We rely on the rules. We rely on the regulations. You either do something -- it's either stated you can or cannot do it. She is correct. She's done a nice job. She is correct that this is a farm related property. He was originally contacted a year ago about 10 violations or something -- alleged violations that were not violations. They were covered by the Farm Act. It also needs to be pointed out that in Collier County an above-ground pool, the only permit you need if it's not -- the only permit you need because it is not a permanent structure is a fence. And if that pool is 24 inches or less, you don't even need a permit whatsoever. So anybody in this room can walk in Home Depot, into anyplace and buy a 24-inch pool and put it on your property. I don't know if people are aware of that. That is the law. The only reason my client cannot get his TU permit renewed is because he tried to follow procedure in regards to obtaining a permit as a result of the fence for the pool and he was denied that. She is correct. And I have a letter to that effect that I would like to present to the board that was sent by Angel Tarpley. Again, she says per the LDC this is not an approved accessory structure for this ago with a temporary mobile home. MS. ARNOLD: Let me have that. MR. FLOOD: Again, there is no cite. There is no section. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let me have that entered into Page 123 January 24, 2008 evidence for you. 16 J 1 A MR. KELL Y: Any objection? Make a motion to accept. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. FLOOD: So where does this all go and where are we going from here? I mean, if there is no specific statute on this and this is merely an interpretation by the Land Development Code, we have to resort to the law books to see if some sort of issue along these lines has ever been raised in regards to an accessory use on a farm, ago property. What is an accessory use? The only case law that I have found on this is where a fellow over in Miami-Dade County erected an airplane hangar on a farm-related property. And the code enforcement officer came around and filed a violation. There was a hearing held, which was subsequently appealed to the Circuit Court. And the Circuit Court indicated that it was a related farm activity, which he stored a plane in there and he said he flew around his crops and looked around his land, and they allowed that. Now, we're talking about a pool here that my client lives 18 miles out of town. He could basically go out there and -- according to what I've read, he could basically go out there and dig a pond, put a well in there, put a diving board, could come into the County and say, well, that's an accessory use. I'm using it for pumping water out for my Page 124 January 24, 2008 plants and so forth. 16 I 1 A He legitimately -- and I want to make this clear, and I think she understands this, he legitimately has complied with everything that he has been required to by the County to support his use on the property as it exists today. The only reason that he cannot get these permits is because of this pool issue. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I want to stop because, according to this, the permit application will be canceled -- let's see __ of the Code Enforcement Board 2002-01, Section 104.5.1.1; is that in regards to why he can't get his temporary mobile home? MS. SCAVONE: I'm sorry. Can you please repeat that? CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: In her letter, in regards to the permit for the case, it says, Collier County building review and permit department routinely reviews -- da-da-da-da-da-da. At the very bottom it says, when the applicant is advised of discrepancies and does not respond within six months with correct plans or an appeal to the Code Enforcement Board, the permit application will be canceled. Is that in regards to his temporary housing with the mobile home, Section 2002-01, Section 104.5.1.1? MS. ARNOLD: I believe it is. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Because I don't have that in my packet, so I have no way to reference. I just wanted to clarifY that. It was in a section that would pertain to a pool. MS. SCAVONE: It is for the __ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm just crossing my Ts here. MR. FLOOD: He cannot get his TU renewal because of the code violation. MS. SCAVONE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. FLOOD: So can I continue? I just __ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You may. MR. FLOOD: Ijust have a few more minutes. I know it has Page 125 been a long day for you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. Ijust wanted to clarifY that. MR. FLOOD: So it's basically our position on this matter is that there really is no violation. You have to violate something. What is he violating? Now, I am going to ask the code enforcement officer, what section of the LDC has he violated? What specific section has he violated in regards to this pool? Now, I have asked this for three months and I can't get an answer. MS. SCAVONE: It would be Section 1.04.01, generally, that no development shall be undertaken without prior authorization pursuant to the LDC. Specifically, no building structure, land or water shall hereafter be developed or occupied, and no building structure or part thereof shall be erected, reconstructed, moved, located or structurally altered, except in conformity with regulations set forth herein and for the zoning district in which it is located. Basically he doesn't have a permit for the pool to begin with. He did try to get a permit for the pool, but it got kicked back. MR. FLOOD: Because? MS. SCAVONE: Because of -- with the bona fide agricultural use. Again it states that the mobile home is approved temporarily to be on the property and it has to -- because that is the accessory structure to the farm. The farm, again, is to support -- the structures on the farm are to be supportive of the farm. In regards to the pool, it does not support the farm. MR. KELLY: Are you allowed to have more than one accessory structure? MS. SCAVONE: Yes. As long as it is in support of the farm. MR. FLOOD: And that, ladies and gentlemen, is not true. Read the memo she sent you from Ross Gochenaur. I don't think a deck on January 24, 2008 i.6Jl It Page 126 January 24, 2008 a mobile home is supporting a farm. I don't think a carport is 16 I 1 A supporting a farm. I don't think garages are -- could be supporting a farm. And a shed's not necessarily associated with a bona fide agricultural use. The problem here -- I'm going to be very respectful to everybody here and Michelle and everybody. This is a badly written ordinance or badly written section. It is open to total subjectivity in regards to interpretation. Now, I went through this memorandum and crossed-referenced it with our ordinance, the LDC ordinance. You can all do it, too. I can't find any of this in here. Where did they come up with that? MS. ARNOLD: I guess I'm -- I'm having to object a little bit because I guess what Mr. Flood is arguing is the interpretation of the zoning department, rather than -- what we're here about is does his client have a permit to have the pool? MR. FLOOD: Well, is there a violation? What I'm saying is there can be no violation unless you specifically state in your __ Michelle, in your complaint what he violated. MS. ARNOLD: And it is on there. I believe the Investigator just read what the violation was from the Land Development Code. 1.04.01 says you cannot alter or improve the property without authorizations from the County. And your client doesn't have a permit for the pool. That's what we're here for. MR. FLOOD: You're correct. He does not have a permit for the pool. We went in to get a permit for the pool, but because of this violation that they're claiming that he can't have, which we're arguing it is not a violation because there is no -- there is no rule that is based upon this, there is no law. There is nothing in the ordinance. MS. ARNOLD: That says you need to get a permit for a pool? MR. FLOOD: He doesn't need one. MS. ARNOLD: He doesn't need a permit for a pool? Page 127 January 24, 2008 MR. FLOOD: For a portable pool in Collier CounJ it~v1re A go to Recreational Warehouse to get a portable pool, the only thing I need, because it's a portable structure, is a fence. I do not need a permit for that pool. That's your ordinance. That's your ordinance in Lee County. That's a state ordinance. MS. ARNOLD: I'm afraid you're wrong. MR. FLOOD: No, I'm not wrong. You know, in your packet somebody provided me, a swimming pool as any structure located that is intended for swimming or recreational bathing containing water over two inches, even, included, but not limited, in the ground, above-ground and hot tub don't even require a fence. They don't even require a fence. MR. KRAENBRING: But that's not the issue here. The size of the pool requires a fence; is that correct? MR. FLOOD: My issue is there can be no-- MR. KRAENBRING: Wait a second. You keep referring to a two-inch pool. That's sort of not the issue here. MR. FLOOD: My point in this whole argument, the reason I'm here today, there is no violation, okay? They are claiming he violated the Land Development Code. MR. KRAENBRING: I understand what you're saying. MR. FLOOD: I'm telling you, if you read the Land Development Code, she is claiming that a pool is not allowed in the Land Development Code in this agricultural area because of the use. That's what she's claiming. We're not here telling you he didn't get a pool permit. He tried to address that issue to go get a pool permit. That's why I sent the letter m. Now, what has happened here is Code Enforcement has caused an issue now with my client in regards to submitting this violation, which is really not a violation. You have got to violate some sort of rule, some sort of -- some sort of ordinance or some sort of rule. You Page 128 January 24, 2008 have to violate. Where is it? CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: weigh in on this. MS. RAWSON: And I am going to call on Jeff, the county attorney, as well. He has been charged with an unauthorized prohibited above-ground pool in agricultural zoned property. You have been given two cites of -- two LDC citations that have been violated. There is apparently -- he was not able to get a permit because the zoning department says it is not directly related to the bona fide agricultural use. That part is not in the statute, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't apply. I think Mr. Flood is arguing quite well an interpretation of the zoning official. I would like to hear from the county attorney as to his interpretation of this statute. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Jeff Wright, for the record, Assistant County Attorney. When you say the statute, do you mean the provision of the LDC? MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. WRIGHT: It's pretty simple, in my view. I think that reference to a no fence or just a fence requirement for 24 inches or less -- I don't think that that is at play here. I haven't heard any evidence as to the specific size of this pool. MR. FLOOD: I apologize. That is not at play. The pool is deeper than that. That's one of the reasons he has got to get a pool permit. He has got to go get the permit for the pool because of the fence and the depth of the pool. That's the reason. MR. WRIGHT: My understanding is in ago zoning there is permitted uses and there's conditional uses. And this is neither. And A I am going to ask our attorney to 16/1 Page 129 January 24, 2008 that's why he was cited, plain and simple. That's what the r!~elclis A to those two sections in the LDC and the notice of violation. MR. FLOOD: Well, you're familiar with it. Show the board where specifically this use is not allowed in the LDC and -- hold on. Show me where Mr. Gochenaur came up with this memorandum that says where it allows these temporary uses. He's contradicting himself in the memorandum here and he's citing that in this LDC -- he's inferring that this is in the LDC. Where is it? You can't just pull stuff out of the air and say -- for example, you can't just take a law and just start adding things to it. It is either specific or nonspecific or -- you're a lawyer -- it's been interpreted in the case law. Now, this specific section has been interpreted in one case in the state in the last 10 years. And that's this airplane hangar case over in Dade County. I'm not trying to give anybody a hard time. Ifwe were standing here and it was specifically in the ordinance and it says, look, I have got to have -- for example, when I build a barn in an ag., you have to have a building permit. And I don't get a building permit, we are in violation. I have got no problem with that. When it is open for discretionary subjectivity and your own land and zoning is saying that a deck is allowed, which he has a deck -- he has a deck, right? Permitted, allowed. But if you go to the ordinance or you go to the LDC, that's not specifically stated anywhere that he could have that. So my question is: Because the land development people interpret the statute, does that become the law? Is that the -- is that the ordinance? Does that become part of the -- part of the rules? I don't know. Maybe I'm confused. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I would respond to that -- Mr. Gochenaur's opinion is not part of our law, but it is instructive in providing the board with information as to what's going on in this Page 130 January 24, 2008 16 11 A MR. FLOOD: That's my point. That's what the basis of this violation is on is based on Mr. Gochenaur's memo, which has no legal basis in regards to reference to the LDC. That's my point in this whole argument. MR. WRIGHT: Typically in a zoning district, as I just mentioned, there's lists of permitted and lists of conditional uses. And this doesn't fall under either of those. When that happens, it is not allowed, plain and simple, in a zoning district. As far as Mr. Gochenaur talking about certain things being accessory uses, and a pool not falling into that list, if you look at that list of accessory uses that he said are allowed in relation to a bona fide farm operation, a garage, for example, could house a tractor. A deck could be incidental to something to the farm, as well, given the facts of a situation. But a pool -- I haven't heard any facts that would suggest that the pool is connected to the farm operation. If it were, we might have a case here. So far I have heard nothing to suggest that this pool is related to the farm. And since it is not related to a bona fide agricultural use and it doesn't fall into a permitted or a conditional use, it is not allowed. That's why your client was cited. MR. FLOOD: The only reason he is being cited is because of the interpretation of Mr. Gochenaur in regards to a statute and a rule of law that does not exist. It doesn't -- you're double-talking. It does not exist. Now, ifhe had a permanent structure permitted on this property, which he can do under the Farm Act -- because he has a mobile home. Ifhe had a modular home on this property, we wouldn't even be here today with this argument. He could have that structure because it is a related farm use. It is because he has a TU permit. That's the only difference. And case. Page 131 January 24, 2008 that's what the state law says. Do you want to see a cop~. of that? Let me show you. 16 I 1 A MR. WRIGHT: Right to Farm Act? MR. FLOOD: That's right. And the Right to Farm Act controls under this. The Right to Farm Act overrides the LDC in this area. MR. WRIGHT: Ifthere is an inconsistency between the two. MR. FLOOD: That's correct. And that's what I'm arguing today. Maybe I'm not making myself __ MR. WRIGHT: IfI may, let me just ask the question. Is this pool used in connection with the farm operation? MR. FLOOD: It's used in connection with his residence, which is an accessory use to the farm. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Now, it's for human swimming; is that right? MR. FLOOD: That's correct. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. That's all the questions I have. I just -- it's not on the list of permitted uses. IfI'm double-speaking, I'm -- MR. FLOOD: Where is the list -- you said there is a list for permitted uses. Show me in the statute where the list for permitted uses are. You keep referring to that. Show me. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I don't have the whole book in front of me. MR. FLOOD: Here is the book. MS. ARNOLD: That's not the book. MR. FLOOD: The LDC. Show me where it is. You guys are all talk. MS. ARNOLD: That's only an amendment. MR. FLOOD: Where is it? It is not in there. It does not exist. MS. ARNOLD: It does exist. MR. FLOOD: It does not exist. There is not a specific list in the Page 132 January 24, 2008 LDC for permitted uses in the ago It does not exist. 16 I 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gentlemen, I am going to stop it. We are way over our five minutes. I'm going to go back to Jean. MS. RAWSON: He has been cited for having a pool without a permit. He clearly admits he doesn't have a permit. I don't know that you guys can interpret the law or interpret the zoning official's opmIOn. You have heard from the County Attorney that it is not permitted. He clearly doesn't have a permit. So you just have to decide, as always, was there a violation. If there was a violation, what are you going to do about it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If they disagree with us, they can take it further. MS. RAWSON: Of course. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I'm going to close the public hearing. MR. FLOOD: Well, I would like to conclude, in could. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: You overextended your five minutes and that was probably my fault. MR. FLOOD: I just have one comment. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: If you have one comment, I will allow it. MR. FLOOD: In response to Jean. The statement of violation and request for hearing, if everybody could look at it. It says the description of the violation -- we keep going back to this pool permit. The description of the violation is an unauthorized, prohibited above-ground pool in agricultural zoned property. It is not failure to get a pool permit. MS. ARNOLD: How else would the pool be authorized? Through a permit; is that correct? Is that an authorization; a permit? MR. FLOOD: No. He wasn't cited for that. MS. ARNOLD: No. Is a permit an authorization? Page 133 January 24, 2008 MR. FLOOD: A permit -- 16 I 1 A MS. ARNOLD: Does a permit authorize you to do something on your property? MR. FLOOD: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. FLOOD: But that's not what he's cited with. He's cited with having a pool in an agricultural zoned property. He is not cited for having -- not having a pool permit. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: I think he is cited for both. It is unauthorized, which is not permitted is what she is trying to say. And it is an ago zoned property. So I think that is kind of combining both. Do you understand what I'm trying to say, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: I agree with you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I understand your complaint and everything, but at this time I am going to close the public hearing and go to the board. Comments, questions amongst ourselves? MR. PONTE: I think Mr. Flood has made some very compelling arguments. I don't think there is a provable violation here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: There are two things that are leading me to agree with George. One, if the home is allowed, I think something that is temporary in support of that home should be allowed. Obviously the deck is there, which is used to get to the pool. I think the pool should be allowed. Number two, judging by the tan on the respondent, he works a lot outside. I am sure he enjoys cooling off in the pool and that can be construed as an accessory use for a bona fide farm operation. And bona fide is not in the code. That was a word added by county staff as an interpretation of the code. And I think that us on the board, being put into this position, have the right to interpret the code just as much as the county does. Page 134 January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: I would say that I would have IJa ~ 1 A have seen a list of approved or unapproved, unauthorized uses. I think that would help to strengthen the case for the County. In absence of that, I am inclined to find that a violation does not exist. Maybe if the County wanted to resubmit this or strengthen its case with some additional information that would help guide the board, it might be different. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Are you making that a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I'm just listening to what the board has to say. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald, do you have a comment? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a comment? MR. MORGAN: I don't have an opinion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Well, I'm torn. Because I can understand and agree with George that I believe your attorney has done you a good job today in bringing up a lot of questions. But I didn't think we were here to interpret an ago zoning. I thought we were here to look at whether or not the pool was permitted. But the way they wrote it, they included both. So I'm kind of __ it's a split decision. I don't think you have a permit for a pool. I think you should have one. MR. BACHMANN: I tried. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But the county is not going to give you one because they say you can't have one. So that's my OpInIOn. MR. KELLY: Well, I make a motion that a violation does not exist. MR. PONTE: I second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 135 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: A point of clarification. If a violation does not exist, there should be no reason why he couldn't get a TU permit, correct? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think -- MS. ARNOLD: That's not one for me to decide. That is something that the zoning department __ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Zoning is going to have to take care of that. That is out of our hands. I'm going to poll the group that's been so patient out here because we keep -- the cases keep getting longer and longer and longer. It is already 1 :00. We have four more. Who would like to move forward and get them over with? MR. PONTE: Move forward. MR. MORGAN: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Who would like to go to lunch and come back in 20 minutes and then go forward? MR. PONTE: Move forward. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Seeing that I didn't see any show of hands for the lunch, everybody said move forward that showed hands, we'll move forward. I just wanted to ask. The next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus A.L. Petroleum, Inc. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Department Case No. 2007040340. F or the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board was sent a packet of evidence, and 16 11 A Page 136 January 24, 2008 I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. 16 I 1 A MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violations of Ordinances 04-41, Section 10.02.06 (B)(I)(e), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(e)(i), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(d), 10.02.06 (B)(2)(d)(ix) of the Collier County Land Development Code, and 2004-58, Section 16(I)(n)(3), 16(2)(j) of the property maintenance for the incorporated area of Collier County. Description of violation: Pole sign altered without required permits, and is not being maintained in good repair. Three banners attached to the canopy without required permits. Two wall signs without required permits. Location/address where violation exists: 8900 Davis Boulevard. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Arthur H. Lennox, 8900 Davis Boulevard. Date violation first observed: March 30th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 30th, 2007. Date on/by which violation was to be corrected: July 4th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: October l5th, 2007. Results of reinspection: All signs remain without required permits. Page 137 January 24, 2008 At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code 16 I 1 A Enforcement Investigator Sherry Patterson. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I have both the respondent and the Code Enforcement Officer sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) (Mr. Lefebvre left the boardroom.) MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Sherry Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would just like to make one correction for -- the date of reinspection was actually not in October to the site. I did a site visit yesterday to confirm all the violations still remain. First of all, I have six photographs I would like to enter into evidence as Exhibit B. I have a packet for the board and a packet for the respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you want to walk it over to the respondent and let him take a look at it? The interim, I'll ask the board if they would like to make a motion accept packet B. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept packet B. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) (Mr. Lefebvre returned to the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gerald, the only thing you missed out is they are entering a secondary packet for the County. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Page 138 JanU124, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She did a reinspection, too?oJ 1 A January 23rd. MS. PATTERSON: This case involves three unpermitted signs. The first sign I would like to talk about is a pole sign that has been altered without a required permit and is also being maintained -- not being maintained in good repair. MR. LENNOX: $1.77. I like that. MR. PONTE: How old is that photo? MR. LEFEBVRE: 2003. MS. PATTERSON: We got ahead of ourselves here a little bit. The first photo is going to be of the same sign that is in place today structurally, but this photograph was taken in 2003. And it shows the way it appears -- appeared when it was originally permitted in 1996. So this is the original. That's the original photograph of the sign as it appeared in '96 permitted, CO, okay? Now, the second photo that she is going to show you is a sign that was taken -- picture of the sign that was taken yesterday. And as you can see, the alteration came about to the sign when the respondent changed brands and placed a BP banner over top of the Mobil panel. The gas station is now a BP station. Staying with that same photo there, if you could look at the bottom panels, they are missing, but also it shows the exposed internal lighting and wiring that poses not only a nuisance and safety hazard, but let's -- it's definitely a safety hazard, we'll just say that. The second -- and that is right in here. All the tubes exposed and everything. And, you know, who knows what kind of wiring or whatever is hanging out of that. The second photo on the unpermitted sign that I have is going to be the banners on the canopy. Those are the three banners that are atop the canopy. Those are temporary signs. When they do a permanent sign, they are a 12-foot square foot sign. And they are allowed to Page 139 January 24, 2008 have, I think, two on the canopy and have to be facing each stJ' I 1 A frontage. So I did ask the respondent in the interim, while I was doing this case before it was brought to you, to simply remove those banners so that -- that looked like a simple fix to me. He would just be able to abate that portion of the violation. And he refused to do that, saying that his station would not be able to be correctly identified. The third unpermitted sign or signs that I have is a Subway wall sign. And that is the sign that is in place today. That sign is located on the north side or the front side of the building with a permit number of96-15658 attached to the sign. Research revealed that this permit was for a Mobil wall sign. So maybe what happened is that he installed a new sign and put the old Mobil sign number back up there or, in fact, it was already there when they put the sign in. When I first saw the sign right here, it appeared that it once had been accompanied by a Dunkin Donuts wall sign, which is my new photograph here. When I went out there to assess the situation on another site visit, that's what I saw. It looked like the Dunkin Donut sign had been taken down and all the shadowing was left present from the removal of that, though the wall has just been painted today and the outline and the shadowing have disappeared. The next photograph I have is an identical Subway wall sign that is on the east side of the building. And there is no permit number attached to that sign. So those are all of the photographs that I have. I would like to say at this time that the respondent has maintained that the Subway signs have a valid 2002 permit. Today when I talked to him in the hallway he mentioned a 1994 permit that they have. But going on the 2002 permit that I found and the only other pertinent sign permit that I could find at this property, let me just say that even if the 2002 permit were valid, which it is not because a substantial change Page 140 January 24, 2008 has been made to that sign by removing the Dunkin Donut k~iJn,~t A would have to be repermitted. I believe that the 2002 permit that the respondent may be referring to is permit 2002-080991. And this permit was issued for the attachment of a Subway/Dunkin Donut sign. You would think it would be like the picture I just showed you, but in fact, if you take a look at the actual permit that I pulled it says that the Subway/Dunkin Donut sign is to be attached to the awning, okay? So it would be like awning letters. It would be pressed-on letters onto the awning. There is no awning at that location at this time. And I actually have a copy of that 2002 permit that he referred to, if you would like to see it. It actually has a drawing attached to it that shows you this is what the front looked like when it was originally permitted. And it clearly shows and says, lettering on existing awning. It doesn't indicate the other sign on the east side of the building, only on the front side. Introduction of photo packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Is that photo packet going to be C? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept this as C. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. PATTERSON: I also called -- because on the front of this permit it has the contractor's name, Hawkeye Sign and Art. And I happened to call them just as a confirmation. Are you on the same page here with me? Because there was a Page 141 January 212008 wall sign up there that said Subway/Dunkin Donuts, but these are ~k! 1 A electrical wall signs. I found this permit. Do you agree that that would be lettering only on the awning? He said, yes, it clearly states it right there that that is what it was. If you look across the street to another gas station across the street, they often do that very same thing. They just put the letters as an applique on the awning. Yeah, right there where she is pointing it actually says, lettering only. And the one where we showed the drawing, it says, on the existing awning. And there is no awning at that location right now, as I said. Lastly, I would like to say that there are three new permits that are in ready status at the county at this time. However, it does not appear that any of these new permits are for the existing signs that we are talking about today. They are actually for new signs. The first sign is going to be for a new BP ground sign. And we went back to that -- the original photograph of the sign as it is today, it will show you that this sign is -- is 20 feet tall. By the new code provisions I think 2000 was when they changed this. That sign would have to be brought down to eight feet with a maximum of 60 square feet of copy. So I don't know -- I doubt very much that he could actually use this sign, that a new sign would have to be manufactured. And I believe that's what they have done on all the other BPs that I have ever been in contact with. There is a -- sign two is for -- it says, Subway wall sign. And that sign reads, proud to serve Barney's Krispy Kreme donuts. So the sign that's on there today just says Subway. So my indication is it's going to be an entire new sign. I don't know what he's going to do with the other sign on the other side of the wall, because that is not part of it. Sign three is for new BP canopy signs. Those are to be put on the north and east elevations. So those would take the place of those Page 142 little vinyl banners that are up there. And just lastly, I would like to say that these three permits have been ready at the County ready to be picked up since December 10th, '07. And that's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Yes, sir. Your turn. MR. LENNOX: Okay. I have owned the business since '92. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you are? MR. LENNOX: My name is Art Lennox. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. LENNOX: In '94 I became the first Subway in a gas station to be approved down here. In '94 we went and pulled a permit for two Subway signs, one on each side of the wall. I have a copy ofthe permit right here. This is all I was able to find. I had to go down to the County records because I don't have them anymore. And it was pulled by Hawkeye Sign. And I didn't see a problem with the signs. What happened is in '96 I switched from Chevron to Mobil. And Mobil came in and they do all your signage for you. They did the pole sign, which is the old one that was there. They also changed the front one, which is the one that you have from '96. They went for one application, and the copy of the plan is shown right here with the application, which was the Subway/Mobil and Dunkin Donuts, okay? Since that time, let's see how it started in order. Mobil we'll say terminated my contract. They were a direct distributor to people like myself. There are no more guys like me that have Mobil stations anymore. Mobil runs and owns all their own in the southwest. So they did away with us. So I went to -- to get another gas company to work with, you go to a distributor. They have BP, Shell, things like this. So Bill Holtz, he represents Risser. I went down and signed a contract with BP. Jarw~ 24, 2008 J.b 11 A Page 143 This all happened in late summer of '07. They came in -- the change had to be done on the 1 st. So they came in. Mobil came in the same day. And the light bulbs that you see, they pulled -- one of the signs they pulled out had an ID of theirs. They stripped anything with their name, except for under the temporary banner that we put in. What I had done starting in the end of October was -- there is a Diane Campignone, I think is her name. She is a sign review specialist. I asked her if I could just change the name from Mobil to BP. I figured I already paid for the sign once. She said I couldn't and was nice enough and sent me all the documents. I asked here, is there a way I can argue this? She said, sure. You can write Susan Murray, head of zoning and planning development. So on November 13th ofIast year I wrote Susan Murray, asking if I could keep the sign on an interpretation. Well, I guess, she is pretty busy. She didn't get back to me, didn't get back to me, didn't get back to me. Finally, I called up Diane Fiala, my commissioner. Well, they went and leaned on Susan Murray. Susan Murray gets back to me in late March and says, you can't do it, no matter what. So, bang, she hits me the next day. Amazing how these things happen. What I did right then was I called up Bill Holtz and said, we have to do a monument sign. This is Tim Bauer. He gets ahold of me. He says, what do you want to do for a sign? Well, we had lost Dunkin Donuts in November. Their contract was up. And if you notice, there is less Dunkin Donuts in town. Well, they terminated that person who happened to be the person in my store. The day she saw those letters, they had taken the sign down and they had to patch the holes after that and they had to paint it over. Janur 612108 A Page 144 January 24, 2008 I got back to Tim. And we had gotten Krispy Kreme, we UI 1 A Barney's, and we worked out all our sign. It took about a month and a half to get together with Barney's and then he applied for the signs. Well, things don't go too fast in this town. He applied for the signs and they got turned down. I wanted an ID on the west side of the canopy, which is where the Mobil -- we had Mobil on the west, north, and east. He put them in that way and he got turned down. They said you can't have them on the roadside, which is where everybody comes at me from. We reapplied. Then we got turned down again because he put -- what did you put, $16,000 for the sign or $17,000, and they didn't agree that we could do it for that. They had to have a signed authorization from me notarized. So it goes back around. So finally it gets approved. December 10th it got approved. He calls me up. I said, order the sign. Good. Sign is ordered. We don't have to pick up the permit. What do you need the permit for until you start building the sign? He orders the sign from -- who did you order the sign from? MR. BAUER: Sign Source, BP rep. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. I need to have you sworn m. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. LENNOX: Signs take 60 to 90 days to be made. They're all special. We have got the Christmas holidays, so they are coming m. MR. HOLTZ: They take anywhere from six to 10 weeks. I have got like six of them on order with different jobs throughout the west coast of Florida. And the problem with that -- it isn't the jobber who I work for __ that we apply many brands, as well as private brands, but we have to deal with a BP certified manufactured. We cannot just go out to Allen Page 145 January 24, 2008 Signs down the street. I don't care ifthey have a 1 0,000 sq~~e ~o! A warehouse and 100 people. They only have them make that BP sign. That's how they control their image, as well as Shell with the red bands and Shell word. They protect their trademarks that way and limit. They think they have plenty of manufacturers, but, you know, when you have Circle K taking over Shell and we're trying to do Shell, as well as BP, Blair and Sign Resource -- MS. ARNOLD: Can he speak into the mic? MR. HOLTZ: Blair and Sign Resource could be the same company making the Shells. MR. LENNOX: Anyway, so you understand what is going on. We met outside -- MS. ARNOLD: Ifwe could record that, because it doesn't get picked up on the recording, okay? We need to have that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If you could reiterate what you just said. I'm sorry. MR. HOLTZ: My only point is -- it's a true fact that it takes at least six to 10 weeks for a sign to be manufactured. I mean, that's once all the artwork is done and everybody has approved; both the dealer, the oil company, and the permitting, you know, approves the artwork. And the reason for that, there's so many brands going on, a lot of changing in the gas industry and people changing brands trying to compete in the market. It has made these sign companies a lot busier. And we have to use BP certified manufacturers, as well as we would if we were branding it Shell or Chevron, which we apply those brands as well. So it is a legitimate complaint that we have because I have dealers out here -- I have a dealer who just opened up a new station that he is getting two monuments and I had to put a temporary price sign -- a flip change price sign out there for him to open because he Page 146 January 24, 2008 won't have signs in time. They gave him a temporary cd ~t til gcA ahead and open, and he is sitting there waiting for us to get the sign from the manufacturer. MR. LENNOX: Anyway, that's where we are on the signs. Now, the only other problem we have is when I did -- when we were going around trying to save the old sign, I happen to be at the comer of 41 and Davis, which is being reconstructed and they are doing a whole new intersection. As of a month and a half ago, I have an eminent domain attorney that will work with the county or whatever they take. They are supposed to clip my corners right where the sign is. Isn't it a waste of county money for me to go put another sign in, rather than changing the face of that, and then who is going to be pay for the new sign? Well, you're going to take the corners, so you are going to have to pay for the sign. But, anyway, that sort of held up this whole issue a little bit. Ijust don't see a sense of wasting taxpayer money. If I need a permit to put the BP thing in there, let's get the road done and then put a new sign in. We can't do that now. So anyway, we are up for permit. It will be here in another 30 days. The sign. MR. BAUER: Forty-five. MR. HOLTZ: I would say six to eight weeks. MR. LENNOX: So we ask for 90 days from today. That's all I want to keep my business going. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LENNOX: Do you need a copy of this -- this permit on the two Subway signs? MS. ARNOLD: I would like to see it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would like to see it and we'll have to enter it in. May I have a motion to enter that into evidence, please? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the evidence. Page 147 January 24, 2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. 16 11A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: I just want to correct. This case is against the property on 951 and Davis, not 41 and Davis. MR. LENNOX: That's not public records. You have to go down to the tax place for that. Do you need a copy of myoId Subway, Dunkin Donuts, Mobil sign? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Probably put it on the overhead and we'll have that added to the public -- MR. LENNOX: I didn't know that you need a permit -- like if you have Collier County and you take the logo down in the middle, you have to get another permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. LENNOX: I didn't know that. What I'm wondering is __ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Since the new ordinance. MR. LENNOX: Okay. The sign that I put up for Mobil, Dunkin Donuts and Subway was put up in 1996. The Mobil sign came down that month because Mobil was upset their image -- their sign was smaller than Subway and Dunkin Donuts. Nobody has said a thing to me since 1996. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: I think it came with the new change, which was in 2000. MR. LENNOX: Nobody said anything since then. Page 148 January 24, 2008 MS. PATTERSON: Excuse me. Are you saying that tJ64il A sign came down in 1996 right after? MR. LENNOX: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is this -- MS. PATTERSON: I have a photograph that shows the Mobil sign there. Are you talking about a wall sign or are you talking about a pole sign? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Wall sign. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. I apologize. MR. LENNOX: Right after the hurricane. MS. PATTERSON: I thought you were talking about the other SIgn. If I may, what we are here for today is to say that none of the signs that he has in place right there today have any permits, period. And if they do have permits, valid permits, they have to have the permit number affixed. He has brought over and placed on the overhead a copy of a permit -- when the entire permit is together and submitted to the sign review persons at the county, they are actually dimensions and a drawing that is going to show you exactly what those types of signs are, is it Subway, Dunkin Donuts, Barney's, whatever. There is nothing indicating on this permit, other than it just says simply two wall signs. I could not find a -- let me check. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the wall signs that you're -- that you indicated were up there, were those the two signs that you're indicating is done in '94? Mr. Lennox, over here. MR. LENNOX: Yes. I put those up in '94, the two Subway SIgns. MS. ARNOLD: And those are the ones that you took down in '96? MR. LENNOX: No. We took one down and replaced that. Page 149 Janua1.24, 2008 Because it was at the lower portion of the -- it was at the lower ~Jiol A of the building. And we replaced that with a Subway, Mobil, Dunkin Donuts sign. MS. ARNOLD: And did you get a permit when you did that in '96? MR. LENNOX: Yes, we did. MS. ARNOLD: Do you have that, too? MR. LENNOX: She gave that to you. That's Permit No. 96-00l5658. MS. PATTERSON: Was for the Mobil sign? MR. LENNOX: Was for a Mobil and Dunkin Donuts sign. MS. PATTERSON: For the Mobil, Dunkin Donuts awning sign? MR. LENNOX: No. That's 202. That 202 was issued to the wrong address. The awning sign that she was talking about was for __ I happen to own the gas station across the street, too. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask a question? We are here about the two Subway signs. MR. LENNOX: Yes. Which I have brought you the permit for. MS. ARNOLD: That '94 permit is for the Subway sign? MR. LENNOX: Two Subway signs, yes. MS. ARNOLD: Those two brand-new Subway signs were done in '94? MR. LENNOX: No. There were two done in '94 and then we-- we took one of them down and repermitted the front of the building for a different type of -- a channel-lock Subway sign, rather than a __ a can SIgn. MS. ARNOLD: Did you get a permit when you took it down and replaced it? MR. LENNOX: Yes. That's the one I just read you. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. LENNOX: Do you want the evidence? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead and show that to Page 150 Michelle so she can look at it. MR. LENNOX: That's the Mobil sign. One Mobil sign -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think he said Mobil sign -- it had Mobil in the middle and then they made him take it down. MS. ARNOLD: I'm talking about what is there today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He said that they made him take it off in '96. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Is that what you have? MR. LENNOX: Last thing, all I need is another 90 days. Everything will be nice, all right? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LENNOX: And if she wants -- I mean, I think I have a permit for the Subway sign. What we would like to do is pick up our sign permit now and then -- so that we have something to go on. And we talked out in the hallway . We can amend it for the one on the other side, if that will make everybody happy. MR. KELLY: Are there any permits that you -- or any signs that you're looking to keep, or you're replacing all of them? MR. LENNOX: The channel-- the two Subway signs that are up are staying, but we want -- we have already repermitted one of them. I'm saying I think I have a permit for the other one. I'm saying we'll amend our existing permit that was issued that came available on the lOth and amend that one for the other one, if that will make everybody happy. MS. ARNOLD: What you gave me -- I'm over here -- is not what you have got permits for. You have got a sign permit for a block facade, which had Subway, Mobil and Dunkin Donuts on it. What we're here for is just the one sign that has Subway on it. You know, when you take down that whole block, you have to get repermitted again. That's what we are talking about. Not this '96. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He said he didn't understand that, but now he does. JanuT64,2108 A Page 151 Janu!AJ, 2108 A MR. LENNOX: Yeah. MR. HOLTZ: We have a permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: At this time I am going to close the public hearing and go to the board. MR. KELLY: Ijust had an epiphany. I just remembered testimony that's going to have to cause me to recuse this case. You said that you own the station across the street? My company has worked for you. I'm going to recuse myself from voting. Kelly Roofing. MR. LENNOX: Oh, yeah. Okay. That new green roof. MR. KELLY: Okay. (Mr. Kelly left the boardroom.) MR. KRAENBRING: I'm having a little trouble seeing where this -- it's all going. I think this gentleman, from what I can see, is being fairly diligent in replacing signs and trying to obtain permits. And with this flurry of permits going back and forth, I agree to give him 90 days to get this thing resolved. I don't know if the County is looking for a fine for a permit that was or was not issued. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think what they want us to do is find a finding of fact that there was a violation and then we can look at how we want to remedy that. If that violation -- if we can give him 90 days to get it all under control, then there wouldn't be any money, other than operational costs. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's where we are headed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And it's what they're leaning towards. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that there is, in fact, a violation. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 152 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Your recommendations, please. MS. PATTERSON: The recommendation is that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$573.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by: Obtaining required permits, inspections, and certificates of occupancy within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violations continue. The permit number is to be affixed to the signs at the time of CO. If the respondent is unable to obtain permits for the aforementioned signs, then these signs shall be removed, including supporting structures, within 30 days of this hearing and a fine -- or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notifY the code enforcement investigator, myself in this case, once the violations have been abated in order to conduct a final inspection of the property. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you put that on the monitor for us, please? MR. PONTE: As it is getting onto the monitor, my reactions are to accept it with a couple of amendments. The amendments being that the time frame be changed to 90 days and that the fine be reduced to $100. MR. KRAENBRING: Just a question again to the respondent. Ninety days is good for getting these signs delivered and installed? MR. HOLTZ: Oh, yes. Absolutely. We'll make that. MR. KRAENBRING: I'm going to rely on your opinion. 16 11 A Page 153 January 24,2008 MR. HOLTZ: Well, we can make our end happen, fAtrfl9f1:he BP brand. You know, as long as the Krispy Kreme signs aM ~eIothA ones get manufactured. But, yeah, it is definitely reachable. MS. PATTERSON: Can I add one more thing, please? Ifhe -- ifhe can't get the other signs installed, you know, prior to the 90 days, then they need to be removed and the shadowing needs to go away as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're talking about the Subway sign? MR. LENNOX: There is no shadow. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She is talking about the -- the other signs that you have up now, if you can't get those approved-- MR. LENNOX: They are already approved. MS. PATTERSON: Those aren't the signs you're keeping? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He's keeping one. MS. PATTERSON: You're keeping one of them? MR. LENNOX: Yes. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. MR. LENNOX: The other one on the other side I said we would go for an amendment to the permit. MR. HOLTZ: Resubmit. MR. LENNOX: Resubmit the one on the east side. And if we don't, we'll just unhook it until then, until we get it reapproved. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. I just -- I have a permit of the Subway sign and it shows all the additions to that, Barney's and something else underneath there, too. So the signs that are on there today simply say Subway. MR. HOLTZ: Are you referring to the building or MIB sign? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Wait a minute. I don't want you guys to go back to rediscussing this. We're in the middle of making our suggestions through -- I know you had a question of him, but maybe you can resolve that after we're done. Page 154 J!n~J ~, 2~8 MS. PATTERSON: Okay. I was just trying to make it be entered into the recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have a motion for -- on the floor? CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: He said that he was -- MR. PONTE: I thought we had a motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He had a motion and he was just changing a couple of things, being the dates. Instead of30 days it would be 90 days and that the fine would be -- instead of $150, it would be $100. He was taking her -- MR. KRAENBRING: There is two places on that where they need to be changed from 30, too. I will second that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before you second it, can we maybe amend this or add in that if any signs are removed and are not replaced, any shadowing will be painted over? MR. KRAENBRING: Isn't that part ofthe code though, or the ordinance? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Apparently she would like that in there. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. Yes, thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you can amend that. MR. PONTE: So amended. MR. KRAENBRING: So seconded. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 155 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Understood everybody? MR. LENNOX: Thank you. MR. HOLTZ: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, did you get all that? MS. RAWSON: I think I did. (Mr. Kelly returned to the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case, Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Reinaldo and Zoraida J ardines and Sylvia Jimenez. I hope I didn't do a really bad job on that. Are they here? Okay. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Department Case No. 2007030794. The respondent and the board were sent a packet and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I entertain a motion. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), I 0.02.06(B)(1)( d) and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i), amended June 2007 to 10.02.06(B)(I)(e) and 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), January 24, 2008 16 11 A Page 156 IJ~utry124, l08 respectively, and the Florida Building Code, Section 105.7. Description of the violation: New seawall construction without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 7 Creek Circle, Naples, Florida 34114. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Reinaldo and Zoraida Jardines and Sylvia Jimenez. Date violation first observed: March 28th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: April3rd, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 3rd, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: May 4th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation continues to exist. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Christopher Ambach. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can I have both the respondent and the code enforcement officer sworn in? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: Okay. For the record, Investigator Christopher Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Before we start, the actual property owners are not here. This is Mrs. Jimenez' husband, Juan, over here, who has given him permission, through a letter I believe he has in his possession now, to speak and work on this case on their behalf. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have a letter? MR. JIMENEZ: Just something that we wrote outside. She was here, but she is a schoolteacher and she had to go back to work. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I understand. Can we have that letter so we can submit it in evidence, please? MR. JIMENEZ: Absolutely. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. Page 157 la~cb 14, 2~8 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Just give it to the court reporter. Give it to her. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. I also have a packet of photographs I would like to enter in as an exhibit. I did leave a packet with Mr. Jimenez, the same photographs. He is aware of those. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. AMBACH: Again, this in regards to a phone-in complaint from a neighbor in the neighborhood in regards to an unpermitted construction of a seawall. On 3/28/07 I observed new seawall construction consisting of cement block and rebar to the left side of the property behind garage/shed. I posted a stop work order on the front door and left a Page 158 January 24, 2008 business card for the owners to contact me. 16 I 1 A On 4/3/07 I met with owner, Sylvia Jimenez, and her husband on site. I explained the violation in detail and served Sylvia the notice of violation. At that time they stated that the seawall was literally falling into the water and they were trying to save the property. I did notice that while I was on site. There were several sinkholes along the entire backside of the property. On 5/3/07 I received a call from Sylvia Jimenez. She left a message stating engineering drawings were being finalized and she will be dropping them off to the County for approval of the permit. An extension was granted at that time. On 6/6/07 I spoke with Sylvia's husband, Juan. He stated documents were dropped offto the county for the permit. I advised that he fax whatever information he had in regards to that permit so I could attach it to the case to grant him another extension. On 6/25 I received a message that a firm out of Miami was now working on the drawings. I guess between 6/6 and 6/25 -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the owners changed engineering firms. They had, I guess, an issue with the first one and they had picked up a second. On 6/25 again I spoke with a representative -- I'm sorry __ representative ofUM Construction, who stated his partner is looking over the finalized plans and would forward those to the County within 48 hours. I'm sorry. Between 6/25 and 7/12 is when they changed engineering firms. I spoke with Sylvia on 7/12, who stated last minute changes were being made to the plans and that she had made contact with a representative from the Department of Environmental Protection and expect letters from them to proceed with the project within a few weeks' time. On 8/9/07 I received a message from Sylvia stating that she had changed engineering firms. I requested more information. On 8/1 0/07 I received that information. I received a letter from J.C. Gazinski Page 159 January 24, 2008 (phonetic) and R Cube Design, stating their office was ukg 10JracA to the owners to provide all necessary documents and plans for Collier County review. And they were currently averaging three to four weeks. An extension was given at that time, as well. On 10/17/07 I made a site visit and observed the violation continued to exist. On 11/17 I observed a permit was now in apply status; however, failed environmental planning in regards to not having the proper paperwork from DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. On 1/23/08, which was yesterday, I spoke with Sylvia's husband who stated after receiving the notice of hearing he started to make several calls to expedite the process; however, he's having difficulty receiving any return calls from a permitting company he had hired, DEP, so on and so forth. Again, the violation continues to exist today. MS. ARNOLD: Did you want to show -- MR. AMBACH: I'm sorry, I thought they were being -- this here is the cinder block wall that was added. And in front of it you will see bags of concrete that have been there I guess for several years. Someone had put those in to try and stop the erosion. Again, that's more bags of concrete there. That's the cinder block wall with rebar again that was put in front to save the property from faIling into the water. Just a closeup of the same. There are also pipes. I'm assuming they're some kind of a weephole, the PVC piping that is there to drain any water through the wall. I'm not an engineer, obviously, but I'm assuming that's what it's for, to relieve some of the stress from behind that wall. The rest -- they are pretty much basically the same photographs, just different angles. MR. PONTE: What is the approximate length of that wall? MR. AMBACH: Right now I would say probably about 15 yards. Page 160 MR. JIMENEZ: About 30 feet. 30 to 40 feet. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Eventually that wall is going to have to go around to the backside of that property. Because we have sinkholes that run the length of the entire property along that canal. I had stopped them when they were about -- at the 30-foot mark to apply for and obtain permits. MR. MORGAN: So this is just a section? MR. AMBACH: Just a section that they had started, sir, yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Are you done? MR. AMBACH: I'm all set. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, it's your turn. MR. JIMENEZ: My father-in-law started to construct the wall on his own. We then, you know, got the notice to stop work. Of course, we did. We spoke to Inspector Ambach. He told us we have to get permits for it. My father-in-law argued, you know, it was really a repair, it wasn't an actual construction, whatever. We said okay, let's just get the necessary documents done. We got an engineering firm at first from Miami that my father-in-law knew. Once -- I actually brought their drawings and the new drawings with me. They gave us drawings and said they weren't going to proceed because DEP was involved. So we then had to go get R Cube Design, which we got. And they finalized the drawings sometime in September or October. I'm not sure when it was. We applied for the permits through the County. We had already received a letter from DEP saying that stuff needed to be done. We forwarded it to R Cube Design. Sometime in November, I think it was like November 19th or something, we received a letter saying, you know, you don't -- we needed Army Corps of Engineers to do -- to apply to the Army Corps January 24, 2008 161 I A Page 161 Janufb2~ ~08 ~ I, of Engineers and DEP. DEP we had already applied. We knew that. We didn't know Army Corps of Engineers. I have called DEP several times, never got a response. So, you know, it is just the holidays and this and that and the other thing. We got into December and that's when I got the notice for hearing. And I was kind of freaked out about it. I called everybody -- oh, during this process I figured sometime in September or October right before applying for the permits I was going to do it myself. I said, let me get a company. That's what they do and they will know who has to be -- how it has to be applied for. And they didn't do a good job. That's why I am here. They didn't apply to all the other agencies. So in December, when I did find out that we had a hearing scheduled, I called everybody up and tried to, you know, get everything together. I actually spoke to DEP and DEP said that the person that is assigned to this is Ryan Schneider and he went away for the holidays and was going to be back January 7th. So I figured R Cube Design and DEP could get together and have this resolved before this hearing. I thought it was going to be resolved before this hearing. As of yesterday, I continue calling people and I haven't been able to get anything resolved. I spoke to -- to Investigator Ambach and he told me I could do a stipulation where -- four months or so. And I just said, I think I need more time. Because my problem is I haven't been able to get all these people in line together. So that's where I'm at. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Any questions of the parties? MR. JIMENEZ: One more thing. The other biggest problem is that none of these departments work together. And, you know, you have to contact every single individual. MR. MORGAN: You do not have a permit from the Corps, Page 162 right? MR. JIMENEZ: A what? MR. MORGAN: You do not have a permit from the Corps of Engineers? MR. JIMENEZ: No, sir. No, sir. MR. MORGAN: Have they given you a time line? MR. JIMENEZ: I haven't even applied for it because I didn't know until, you know, this morning actually. MR. MORGAN: Well, you're going to be in for a surprise, I can tell you. MR. JIMENEZ: When they said four months, I was like, you know, I don't know in can keep up with that. MR. MORGAN: They probably have to send it to Washington to get approval on it. So how about the DEP; do you have a permit from the DEP? MR. JIMENEZ: R Cube -- they are requiring something be done to the wall and R Cube Design has to kind of redraw something to the plans to satisfY that. MR. MORGAN: Okay. MR. JIMENEZ: And my problem is R Cube Design has not been able to reach Ryan Schneider at DEP. I'm kind oflike in the middle. MR. MORGAN: Your design engineer is a structural engineer? MR. JIMENEZ: Uh-huh. Yes, yes. Yes. I actually have the plans from both engineers there. I just __ CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? MR. MORGAN: I tell you what, trying to get a permit from the Corps of Engineers is going to take awhile. So I don't know what the time line would be. MR. JIMENEZ: Well, I was requesting like six months and if __ see where I am at in six months. In can't get it done, come back for an extension. I don't know what the time line is. January 24, 2008 16 /1 A Page 163 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. 16 11 A MR. JIMENEZ: Just trying to get DEP and the engineer together has been a -- over a month. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Ifthere are no other questions, I will close the public hearing and move to the board for a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I look to the county for their recommendation. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. The recommendation we're asking for is that the CEB Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Those costs, $314.90. Also, to obtain all required Collier County building permits for the seawall construction, including all required inspections, a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Also, the respondent must notifY the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. That's all I have. MR. KRAENBRING: Put that -- Page 164 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Put that on the o~~Jal pleAse. MR. AMBACH: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Gentlemen? MR. KRAENBRING: I think the time line is too short. MR. PONTE: Much too short. MR. KRAENBRING: And the fine is excessive. MR. PONTE: I agree. MR. MORGAN: I think the time line is really -- I agree with these people, it is too short and the fine is too excessive. And I have worked with the Corps of Engineers on two big projects and I know what they -- they -- tomorrow is tomorrow. Next month is next month. So I would say 120 days and then the gentleman can come back if he hasn't got a permit. MR. KRAENBRING: I would say take it out to about six months. And I think this gentleman has been fairly diligent in working to get his permits and such. I would like to see that fine go down to -- you know, I was going to say $50. I mean, I don't think we really have to have a heavy stick in this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have another question. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're probably -- my thinking is that you're not going to receive the Collier County building permits until DEP and everything else is in place. MR. AMBACH: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So saying all required Collier County building permits means DEP and Army Corps have already signed off on it. MR. AMBACH: That would be the way it would go, yes. MR. KELLY: What do you think about giving a little bit of extra time after the permits have been received then for the actual construction? Page 165 January 24, 2008 Maybe another three months after that? 16 I 1 A MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you -- have you hired a company or looked into hiring a company to actually build the seawall? MR. JIMENEZ: Actually, my father-in-law would build it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that the plan, he is going to build it? MR. JIMENEZ: I don't know. It's a lot of wall. The section that he -- that he had already done was like the part that was worse off. The actual-- it is a corner lot. I think it is 170 feet on the water. So we might -- we probably might hire a company to do it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I'm thinking that you probably would want to hire someone considering, first of all, the detail of it. And I don't know what your father-in-Iaw's profession is, but it sounds like a seawall is probably a very involved project. MR. JIMENEZ: I would think so. MR. LEFEBVRE: Having an engineer go in and prepare it, I'd hate to see the wall being built and not being up to specs and then fail. MR. JIMENEZ: Right. Absolutely. MR. LEFEBVRE: Especially under certain time restraints. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Besides having DEP and the Corps of Engineers involved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a recommendation that you might want to start looking into a seawall company, a company that does do that as their specialty as soon as possible so you have them lined up when you have everything. MR. JIMENEZ: Right, right, right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody want to make a motion? MR. PONTE: I will -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. PONTE: It depends on how detailed we want to get. But I think the recommendation of the County is fine. I would just change the l20 days to six months and the fine of$200 a day to $50 a day. Page 166 January 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: I don't know if that gives the respondentl0>tisIj time to actually perform the construction. It's six months just to get the permit, then the work commences. MR. PONTE: Well, he can come back and say -- tell us that in six months. MR. KELLY: Yeah. But if we do that 17 cases a day -- it is job security. I understand. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you want to just extend the amount of time, instead of making it a two-phase process? Again, the permits is the issue here I think. So give him more than six months. MR. KELLY: Sure. Just give him nine months to start with, instead of the six. MR. PONTE: Fine. MR. KRAENBRING: It could take a year. I mean, it could take longer. MR. PONTE: I will amend to nine months. Do I hear a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have nine months. Good luck. MR. JIMENEZ: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Do we get costs on that? Page 167 A January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, they did say the cJt6>1 it A They kept everything the same, except for they changed your time frame to nine months and they changed the fine to $50. MR. AMBACH: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. JIMENEZ: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Board of Collier County Commissioners versus T -e-u-d-i-s Zamora. I'm not going to try to say it. MS. MARKU: That is reference to Department Case No. 2006120209. The respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the packet. (Mr. Kraenbring left the boardroom.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) (Mr. Kraenbring returned to the boardroom.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(l )(a), 1 0.02.06(B)(l)( e), 1 0.02.06(B)(l)( e )(i) of the Collier County Land Development Code, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Section 22, Article II, 104.1.3.5, 106.1.2, and Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Section 105.1, 105.7. Description of violation: Permit number 2004033362 for a garage conversion and permit number 2004033365 for a laundry room conversion both in inspect status and permits have expired without Page 168 January 24, 2008 being Cord. Also, fence and shed on property without first Jt6J.n/nl any Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3471 Second Avenue SE, Naples, Florida, 34117. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation: Teudis Zamora, 3471 Second Avenue SE, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: December 7th, 2006. Date property was posted and certified mail was sent for notice of violation: February 9th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 26th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: July 9th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. MS. SCAVONE: For the record, Collier County Code Investigator Michelle Scavone. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SCAVONE: This case was started on December 7th for expired permits for a garage conversion and laundry room conversion without certificate of completion, and shed and fence on the property without any Collier County permits. December 7th I made a site visit and observed the shed and the fence on the estate zoned property. Pictures were taken. I will submit a whole packet with everything. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 169 A January 24, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SCAVONE: This is a picture of the front of the house. There is a wood fence to the left. Again, a closeup of the wood fence. This is in the rear yard. There is a chain-link fence and the shed structure. And that's as close as I could get for the shed-type structure. I also researched the computer and found permits for the laundry room conversion and the garage conversion both in inspect status. That is what these next items are showing, that they are in inspect status. Two inspections were made. Numerous attempts have been made to contact the owner. I have not made any form of contact. I have tried 4-1-1, yellow pages, left notes. No contact from -- to this date has been made. December 27th a notice of violation was mailed regular and certified. I did not receive any notice of good service. Again, on February 8th, 2007, I sent a new notice of violation registered mail, certified mail, posted the property and the courthouse. As a result, I have obtained the service card back unsigned and still no contact with the owner. As of present date, I believe that the violation of the garage conversion and laundry room conversion remain. Also, the fence and shed are still erected on the property without permits on the estate zoned property. This is pictures as of yesterday. The chain-link fence was partially removed from the back. The wood fence on the side along the house is still up and the garage, shed-like structure in the rear yard is still up. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is the house even occupied? It looks like everything is pretty well grown over. 16 11 A Page 170 January 24, 2008 MS. SCAVONE: There is no occupancy there. Yesterda}.ouJnl A was taking pictures of the violation remaining, the neighbor had come out and said that nobody had lived there for two years and he hasn't seen anyone. The notice that I had posted on the garage door was still there. So he says that he has not seen anyone in two years. MR. PONTE: Without sounding like Mr. Flood's echo, I have a question. In the description of the violations -- and I just don't know this. It says a garage conversion permit number and a laundry room conversion, both in inspect status and permits expired without being CO'd. Is that a violation? MS. SCAVONE: Yes. MR. PONTE: If! have a permit and abandon the property or the work has been done and I don't -- I mean, does it mean that I then have to go get an inspection, even though I don't live there? MS. SCAVONE: The permit was from 2004. I do not know when the property was, you know, abandoned. I don't know that. It is inspect status, which the dates have expired. MR. PONTE: Yes. MS. SCAVONE: Which means the permit is no good anymore. If they have done any work, the permit is not valid. MR. PONTE: I understand that part of it. What I don't understand is in have abandoned the work that I'm in violation of something. I'm not even using it. MS. ARNOLD: But you started it. And you either have to then convert it back to its original, unpermitted condition, you know, prior to obtaining the permit for improvement condition or you have to continue it and commence through co. That's a part of the requirement. You don't just simply get a permit and then just forget about it. That's not what the permit requirements are. You have to go through and get your inspections and get a certificate of completion or a Page 171 January 24, 2008 certificate of occupancy. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Were any inspections performed at all? MS. SCAVONE: There were two inspections. There was one inspection on each, but one was a spot survey and one -- do you have those papers? MR. KRAENBRING: Was it -- MS. SCAVONE: Notice of commencement. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. So we don't even know ifthey did the work inside. MS. SCAVONE: Correct. I have not been able to get into the property at all. MR. KRAENBRING: And the neighbors know nothing about the whereabouts of the owner? MS. SCAVONE: No. MR. KRAENBRING: I hope they are not inside or something. MR. LEFEBVRE: The permit, what was the name of the person that pulled that permit? If there was a property transfer or a warranty deed from February 14th, 2005, which is after the permit, so possibly this current owner may not know of any permits that were pulled. MS. SCAVONE: It is possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: So do you have that permit there? MS. SCAVONE: I just have -- it was owner/agent. It was a Jesus Ledo. MR. LEFEBVRE: And Sandra Chacon? MS. SCAVONE: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which were the previous owners. So, theoretically this person, Zamora, may not even know there had been any work -- MS. SCAVONE: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- done or permit applied to. 16 11 A Page 172 Januaryi~ 2008 . 0 11 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questIOns? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'm going to close the public hearing and go to the board for a finding of fact. MR. KELLY: Make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Your recommendations, please. MS. SCAVONE: The County recommends that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in amount of$251.65 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by submitting a complete application for any and all Collier County building permits or demolition permit, obtain the permit, request all required inspections and obtain a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Investigator within 24 hours of when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Put it on the monitor for us, please. MR. PONTE: That's all fine, but aren't we kind of whistling in the wind here? Page 173 January 24, 2008 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Apparently the respondeJosJ'tl A even been notified. MR. PONTE: Right. We could say $10,000 a day and due -- I just feel that we are wasting a hell of a lot of postage. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: She still has-- MR. KRAENBRING: It is troubling that there has been no response. It seems like something is afoul here. MR. PONTE: The property is abandoned. The respondent could be dead. MR. KRAENBRING: Out ofthe country. MR. PONTE: Out of the country. MR. KELL Y: Are we allowed to even hear this case if they are not served or notified? MR. PONTE: I'm sorry. What? MR. KELLY: What is the due process? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: I think probably it was posted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It was posted. The posting was still there when she went back. So we know they haven't received it. So we have done what we have had to do legally, correct? MS. RAWSON: Legally it was posted. So that is notification legally? The testimony is that she never has any contact with the respondent. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We just proceed and eventually something will come up and the individual can come back to us, I assume. MR. PONTE: Well, at $200 a day and not being able to get in touch with anybody, we just logically assume that that fine is going to increase at a very, very rapid rate. And in not too long we'll be sitting here looking at forwarding something to the county attorney's office that is in the thousands and thousands of dollars -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I question-- Page 174 January 24, 2008 MR. PONTE: -- way over the value of the property. 16 I 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: $200 a day seems to be the average fine for today, but I'm wondering, this is a permit that was pulled by a previous party. This individual might not even know that there was a permit pulled. The fact that we haven't been able to get in touch with them is another troubling issue. I don't think it's doing anybody any harm because the permits were there. We don't know if they were acted on or not because you haven't been able to be inside to inspect. MS. SCAVONE: Right. But there is also the shed and the fence, which the fence -- part of the fence was removed, so somebody had to have been there. MR. PONTE: Somebody could have just taken it. MS. SCAVONE: True. It was in the rear yard. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't know, $200 a day is exceSSIve. MR. PONTE: I think it is. MR. KRAENBRING: Somebody could have just taken the fence if they felt the property was abandoned. MR. MORGAN: For the violation it's excessive. MR. PONTE: I think whatever fine we put on it is moot. It doesn't make any difference. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about $50 and how about a year? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't have a problem with anything, other than the amount of the fine per day. MR. PONTE: I do have this question. Is the property secured? It is abandoned. Can kids get in it and make it a clubhouse? How forcefully did you try? MS. SCAVONE: You don't. If I knock on the front door and no one answers, I don't -- MR. PONTE: I mean, could someone easily get in it? Could kids start using it as a clubhouse or homeless people use it as a Page 175 January 24,2008 shelter? 16 I 1 MS. SCAVONE: I am sure that could happen. I don't mow. ., A have not tried to access the doors or windows. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We are not looking at that. MR. PONTE: I know that. I'm curious. MR. KRAENBRING: I know this may be overstepping the bounds of what we do, but maybe we should call the Sheriff and have them see if anybody is inside or, you know, if -- MS. SCAVONE: We can do that. The way the house is placed on the property, there are two homes on either side of it and then that home is kind of in the back properties of the other two. They are close lots, so everybody is able to see if somebody is coming or going. MR. PONTE: Another curious question. Does it have electricity? MS. SCAVONE: I don't know if it is turned on. MR. PONTE: If it does, then there is an electric meter and FPL knows who is paying the electrical bill. MR. MORGAN: You can look at the meter and see if that wheel is turning. MS. SCAVONE: Right. As a code enforcement investigator, if! don't have authorization from that property owner to go around the property or behind the front door entrance, I don't. I can't. MR. KRAENBRING: I don't think we are picking on you. MS. SCAVONE: I understand. MR. KRAENBRING: We are kind of concerned, like I said. MS. SCAVONE: I agree. I have made numerous attempts to try to get ahold of them. This has been since 2006. I have tried everything. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Shall we move forward with a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I will make a motion that we accept the County's recommendations, except that we're going to be changing the Page 176 January 24, 2008 fine to $50 a day. 16 I 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: What about the time frame? MR. KRAENBRING: Leave it at 120. MR. LEFEBVRE: $50 I think is a little bit light. MR. PONTE: There's nobody there. MR. KRAENBRING: If that person is avoiding it, that will probably get their attention at $50 a day. MR. KELLY: I second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Motion passes. And last, but not least, of our public hearings is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Logical Investments, LLC. MS. MARKU: That is reference to Department Case No. 2007080822. F or the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence. I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I will entertain a motion. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept packet A. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 177 January 24,2008 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, Land Development Code, as amended, Section 5.04.05(A)(I), 5.04.05(A)(2). Description of violation: Banner displayed without first obtaining required temporary use permit. Location/address where violation exists: 1250 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida, Folio No. 68440120003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Gregory E. Leach, 2171 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: August 20th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 5th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 15th, 2007. Date of reinspection: September 28th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Investigator Kitchell Snow. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Department Case No. 2007080822. This case was concerning a legal banner that was displayed without proper permits. The respondent has abated the violation by obtaining a temporary use permit with two times the amount of the normal permit fees for after-the-fact permits. They have paid operational costs in this case. 16 / 1 A Page 178 January 24, 2008 They are not here today because they have done everytJ4 JnJ. A they need to do to satisfY what the County wished; however, we wish to require or wish to ask for a finding of fact that a violation did exist on this property just in case down the line they do that again. (Mr. Morgan left the boardroom.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for your service. It has been my pleasure to appear before you for the past year. And I thank you for that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you very much. I will close the public hearing and ask for a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: Make the motion that a violation did exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you very much. MS. RAWSON: Are there costs? MR. SNOW: No, ma'am. They paid them. All costs have been paid. They are done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So at this time we can close the public hearings. We'll move to the request of imposition of fines. And I believe there is a gentleman I promised would go first. If he would let me know his name, so we can pull his claims. MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Hollingsworth. MS. ARNOLD: That would be Board of Collier County Page 179 January 24, 2008 Commissioners versus Glen Hollingsworth and Marsha Ken<lt6 I 1 A Hollingsworth. This case was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on September 26th, 2007. The order was provided to you for your information. Compliance has not yet been met. And the county is at this time asking for fines for -- from the period of September 26th -- excuse me -- September 27th, 2007 through October 10th, 2007, IS days, at a rate of$200 a day for $3,000, plus operational costs in the amount of$459.82. This was a conversion of a first floor into living space. And I believe the property owners are working towards getting permits to convert it into storage. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. You said September 27th? MS. ARNOLD: 24th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You have the 24th? MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I was trying to reduce the fines for it. Okay. And the Hollingsworth's are here and I believe they have their engineer here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Go ahead. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KELL Y: I have a point of clarification. Really quick, I just looked at the order for our board meeting of July 26th and it also states that -- on the affidavit of noncompliance that on July 26th the Code Enforcement Board met. Should it be the 26th? MS. ARNOLD: That's what it says. MR. KELLY: I thought you said 24th. MS. ARNOLD: 24th of September is when the fines started. MR. KELL Y: I see. Thank you. (Mr. Morgan returned to the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sorry. We are getting punchy. Everybody is tired. Go ahead. Page 180 January 24, 2008 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: I'm not going to go back in J4.IJ 1 because I know you have notes. This was a piece of property that we got blindsided. We had all legal documents showing there wasn't any permitting issues out there, that they enclosed it and signed off that there was no additions or anything like that. It was just the way we bought it. So we didn't know. And we ended up getting a surprise. And since then we have done -- we've spent an awful lot of money with the contractors and hiring engineers and drafting and depending on all these people to help me bring this up to get permitted. So I think to explain everything it would be best to have Mr. Lockhart, my engineer, handle that for me and time guidelines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Lockhart, if you will step forward and I will have you sworn in, too. THE COURT REPORTER: He was sworn in. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. Thank you for being patient. MR. LOCKHART: Sure. No problem. It is cold in here. In reference to the case in general, as I understand it, this was an old case that was investigated and supposedly some demolition permits obtained and it closed out. This was back in 2004. Subsequently my client has purchased the property and finds that code didn't do the job properly and the case should not have been closed out. So, you know, again, nobody is perfect. That goes here for my client. When I was retained, plans were put together to convert this area to storage. That was the end of July. A plan was finalized July 30th. Again, the time frame from your meeting, July 26th, not much time was wasted. Because there was work that was done after the fact, or as best as I can understand it, that actually preceded the 2004, I chose to use a permit by affidavit procedure as a registered engineer in the state. And that was submitted to the County -- actually, it was submitted to ~ f. Page 181 January 24, 2008 my client who had retained the contractor. And he was given t16 I 1 A burden of submitting everything to the County. And obviously it was clarified to him to do it by September 24th or fines will be imposed. I'm not sure really what the delays were, but everything was given to him by August 30th. Again, all I'm trying to reference is there was due diligence. And yet things do take some time. After the plan was prepared at the end of July until the end of August, I did have to do certain inspections, go into the residence, make sure that what isn't allowed was removed and what was to be remaining was per building code. And then in turn I filled out the various forms and made it such that it would be permittable. And by permit -- by affidavit it actually is supposed to be issuing a permit. I never have really gotten the clarification in Collier County how they work their permits by affidavit, but it apparently is now being reviewed secondarily by the building department. And I only bring this up with reference to -- an application, as I understand it, was submitted on October 7th. And it has been held up by the fire department because they have -- excuse me -- received my plan, reviewed it. I am quoting from the County review letter. However, after field verification, this is a residential occupancy with a tenant living in this unit. This is not storage. It should not be reviewed as such. Please revise this plan to reflect that it is a tenant and that it is a living area. So there is confusion here, in my opinion. Number one, it seems that the fire department is quasi code enforcement. Secondly, it appears that he is not in understanding that we are trying to convert it to storage, even though it is clearly stated in the plan. And I just say this because we are not going to get anywhere, in terms of having a permit issued, until somebody addresses whatever confusion is out there. MS. ARNOLD: I have spoken to Mr. Lockhart and I indicated Page 182 January 24, 2008 that I will try to talk to the fire department to clear up the misunderstanding on their part with regard to what the use is beilh I 1 A requested for. MR. LOCKHART: That would be great, again, as I'm trying to lay a little foundation that nothing happens quickly. And ifthere is any consideration that the -- my client has worked in a very expeditious manner and $3,000 is still $3,000. And if that could be reduced or abated for good effort, I certainly would appreciate it on their behalf. I think it is consistent with -- the mandate of this board is not to penalize people and punish them and financially do damage, but to get the violations corrected. If you have any questions. MR. KELLY: Did you say the work was completed? MR. LOCKHART: Yes. MR. KELLY: In Collier County I believe permit by affidavit means that you come in after the fact, and certifY that it has been done correctly. MR. LOCKHART: Well, permit by affidavit is verifYing that the walls that were constructed were done per code, that the electrical, minor plumbing was done per code. Again, it should have met all the conditions for a building department, such as Miami-Dade where I have recently done that. I walk in and walk out the same hour with a permit. Again, I'm working with Gary Harrison and other people trying to get some clarification on the permit by affidavit. That would at least eliminate where we're at and we would have a permit in hand and this thing would be closed and we wouldn't have to possibly come back and have more work on it and the code birddogging what is gomg on. Again, I am diligent and going to work on resolving some of those issues. In the meantime, we just need the fire department to understand we want it to be storage. And if there is any concerns Page 183 January 24, 2008 about a future reconversion, we can't change the future. We c!n~ II! police everybody 24/7. Everything that the prior owners had constructed for it to be a living, water closets, lavatory sink, those have been removed. And, again, that's what is reflected with the plan, the permit application, and my affidavit. MR. KELLY: Michelle, how long do you think it will take to get the fire department to move on this and then get it finalized? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I can try to talk to Bob either today or tomorrow and see what -- they are not being penalized for the time that the County is sitting on the review process. MR. LOCKHART: No, no. Your position is from the date-- MS. ARNOLD: Prior to -- MR. SNOW: And 60 days just wasn't quite enough. We needed 70. And Mr. Lockhart asked me prior to us coming back -- you know, coming here to check the minutes. And I did check the minutes and there was some discussion on how much time to give for that. I believe there was a Contractor Arveel (phonetic )__ MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: -- who said he could do it in 30 days, and the board was generous to give an additional 30 days on top of what he requested. MR. LOCKHART: You hired somebody else? MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Yeah. Right. MR. LOCKHART: Apparently they have hired somebody else because that was unrealistic. It is a hard thing to nail down, especially as the markets have changed. It is funny, today everybody is busy, but what were we a little over a year ago? Super busy. One more comment. I have spoken to Bob Savaggio (phonetic) three different times. This morning at 8:00 he said his boss, Ed Riley, is the one that made the final decision. I would recommend Ed Riley Page 184 as the person to talk to. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, what is your position? You want to see completeness. MS. ARNOLD: There was no corrective action taken and normally the board doesn't reduce or abate the fine until the violation has been corrected. MR. KELLY: My suggestion would be to-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just let it run. MR. KELLY: -- give an extension. Can't we terminate the order and write a new one or get an extension to this order? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That gets complicated. MS. RAWSON: It does. I don't know. You know, I don't like to do that because, you know, then I don't like to see you guys changing your orders. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In the past haven't we done something like this and just go ahead and impose the fine? But once you come into compliance, you come back to us -- MS. RAWSON: And then you can reduce it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- ask for a reduction of fines and follow through that way? And you can bring up the points that you have brought forward. And I won't be here anymore, but I understand and I know this group is very, very good about understanding those types of things. I am sure that they will be just. MS. RAWSON: It is right in the ordinance about the fact that you look at -- in terms of deciding whether to reduce or abate a fine. And one of them, of course, is the compliance. MR. LOCKHART: Right. I really didn't mean to dwell too much on that. I know compliance must be made first. I wanted to bring it up because we can't get to compliance unless we get -- nudge the building department. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So I will entertain a Janfl, 21' 1008 A Page 185 motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we leave our initial ruling in place and they come back upon completing everything. MS. ARNOLD: Well, what the County is asking right now is to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation to impose the fines. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Mario Alvarez. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard on June I 8th and the order was provided for your review. As of the 18th it had not been in compliance. I believe it is still in noncompliance. The County -- this violation was the conversion of a screened lanai into extra living space without county permits. The county is at this time asking that fines at a rate of $200 per day from the period between September l7th, 2007 through December 27th, 2007, 100 __ I don't know if that is II 0 days. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: It says 101 here. MS. ARNOLD: 101 days, September to December, okay? 101 days for a total of $20,200 and an additional $315.51 for operational costs, for a total of$20,515.51. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We are all trying to do the math. January 24, 2008 16 11 A Page 186 J16/4,2008 It didn't seem right. 31 days in December. So only 27 days, Octo~er, A November, 30 and 30,87, and then September 17th to the -- he has got it. It is right. Okay. The math is correct. We are all checking ourselves. Please swear in the parties. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, sir. Go ahead. MR. ALVAREZ: Okay. My name is Mario Alvarez. I would like to make a request and I would like to explain why. The house is under my name because my sister and her husband did not have good credit to get the house under their name. So that's why the house is under my name. I do not live there. They are the ones that live there. They basically are the ones who converted the lanai to a -- to like a living space. I do travel a lot. I haven't been here for a few months. So they were the ones trying to fix everything that they started. The husband has not been on ajob for almost a year now. So he hasn't been able to pay for the -- I think the last thing he had to do was the electrical inspections. So he had to hire an electrician. He hasn't had the money to do that. And that's the reason why this was stopped. And he doesn't understand and I don't understand what other inspections need to be done. According to the paper, there is a landscape inspection. I think the flooring inspection. We don't know which more inspections need to be done or what other improvements we need to do to the site in order to get the -- everything sealed, everything done. So that's why I like -- if allowed for him to talk about this problem. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Instead of yourself you're saying? MR. ALVAREZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We can swear him in and he can speak. Page 187 January 24, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: You will have to interpret for him. 16 I 1 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does he speak English? MR. DEPOZO: Yes, I do. It is not very, very good English. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you understand? MR. DEPOZO: Yes, I do. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DEPOZO: My name is DePozo. And we are -- my wife, Marta, we are living at 2912 44th Street. That's the house that we bought like about two years ago. And about that time I was -- I got a good job. I was working in New York and I had to travel. My wife stayed by herself in the house. And then when the hurricane came, Wilma, it took our lanai and everything apart. So then she was by herself and my three kids. And she was afraid because there was a lot of animals coming in, snakes and all that kind of animals. So she was afraid. She found somebody to to enclose the lanai. We were not thinking of converting living space, just to close it, but then a person that she found suggested to enclose it and everything. So then we pay someone to do that. We really didn't know that we have -- because we were not doing an addition. And to my understanding, for addition is where you need a permit. But we didn't know that, that information. And so then she -- I got a person who enclosed that lanai. And then -- well, we got that inspection and everything. We got a -- I mean, hearing in the court and everything, but I wasn't here. She was -- she wasn't that much informed about -- she doesn't have much knowledge about it. He wasn't in the country. So, you know, between that and everything, one thing and the other one, we let the time pass and we didn't -- we didn't get the compliance on the job. But I lost my job in New York, then everything changes. All my Page 188 January 24, 2008 -- all my my income went down and everything. I hardly been from one job to another one. And, you know, first thing is -- to me is r~ 11 family and -- ) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You need to come into compliance. I am sure that the code enforcement officer can work with you to let you know what inspections you stilI have to finish to come into compliance. And after that is done, then you need to come back to us and explain this type of situation to us that has happened. MR. DEPOZO: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we can look at whether we can reduce the fines or not. But in the meantime, because we have already put into motion the order previously when you weren't here, but she was and she didn't understand, that's running. MR. DEPOZO: I understand that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It has to come into compliance before we can say that that clock has stopped. And then we can look at reducing or rearranging or changing things, but you have to come into compliance first. MR. DEPOZO: Okay. That's the other thing. Like he mentioned before, my son -- my step-son, he speaks a little bit more English. He called the county to see what the inspections we need to get done. And they said that -- that he needs electrical, framing and -- and the -- what do you call it? MS. ARNOLD: The elevation? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Elevation? MR. KRAENBRING: The floor elevation. MR. DEPOZO: But that is what I don't know. I just know that-- it said the only inspection that we need was the electrical and the framing and the insulation. So we did comply with that. But the electrical -- because the gentleman that inspect the electrical, he said we need to hire a licensed electrician to do that. So we -- we don't have the money to do that. Page 189 January li,2T81 A So I asked him how long do I have to finish that job. And he told me, well, you have up to six months. So I said, well, maybe in that time I can get the money and hire somebody. But things are bad for me right now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Before you say anything, if we can have you sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. GOMEZ: For the record, Carmelo Gomez, Code Enforcement Investigator. Ma'am, what happened was when we finally decided in 2006 -- it got to the point that we had to bring it to CEB. At that time Mr. Alvarez on June 19th of 2007 signed a stipulation. And he had 90 days from the time that he signed the stipulation to pick up the permits. First of all, let me get back on track. The permits were already waiting two to three months in permitting. So then that's why we only gave him 90 days when we came to CEB to get it Cord. The permits were already there. His inspection -- the last inspection that he had was October 19th, 2007, which at that time he had a problem with the electrical. I believe Ed Mitchell from inspections went by and they didn't pass. I also did an inspection on that day just to see how things were going. I did speak to his son-in-law, who happens to be a Collier County employee or was a Collier County employee. And he was more familiar with the routines. So we talked for a little bit and at that time it was brought to my attention that they needed to get the floor elevation taken care of, the electrical had to be done by a licensed electrician. Also, the framing had to be reinspected, which was going to be a problem because now they had to remove the walls to make sure that the framing was done correctly. Page 190 January 24, 2008 Also, the very first thing that they were told that they nif,tct gcrt A is the product information for hurricane standards, which I'm not su~ that was even done up to now. So in essence that's where we stand here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Like I explained to him, you're going to have to come into compliance. You're going to have to do all the things that are required to get your CO. The length of time you take to do it, the fines are going to continue to accrue and keep adding up. So it would behoove you to attempt to get those things taken care of as quickly as possible. Once you come into compliance, then you can come back and ask us to reduce the fines. In the meantime, there is nothing we can do, other than tell you that we'll probably decide to move forward until you come into compliance. We are kind of caught. MR. GOMEZ: I know. I understand that. Yeah, I just want to let you know that mostly it's an economical situation right now. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Understood. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is towards Mr. Alvarez. The house is under your ownership. MR. ALVAREZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: It runs with the property. If you had a tenant in there not paying rent, you still would have to be in compliance. It may be in your best interest to pay for whatever needs to be done to get this house in order and get it inspected so you do not have these fines. You haven't stated to us at all about a hardship -- any kind of financial hardship. Whereas, your brother-in-law has. You, as the owner, it is ultimately your responsibility. So you need to get the house into compliance. Again, this is $200 a day. This IS. MR. ALVAREZ: I understand that. That's -- well, I didn't think I needed to tell you about my Page 191 16 11 A January 24, 2008 financial situation. But it is not -- I don't know. I don't know if it's everywhere, but it's not good for me right now. And it's not for him. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, you didn't say that until I just mentioned it now. MR. ALVAREZ: My request was for him to talk, not to talk about me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What Gerald is trying to say is you're still the owner of record of the property. You're the one that is ultimately responsible and it is your credit, I think, technically. MR. ALVAREZ: I know. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: You guys need to work on it as quickly as you can. That's the best advice I can give you. MR. ALVAREZ: Uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose the fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The fines are imposed at this time and still accruing. So try to get it taken care of and come back to us. MR. DEPOZO: Thank you. MR. ALVAREZ: Thank you. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: And the last person -- last, but not least, Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Ted Zhi Luo. Page 192 MR. LUO: That would be me. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Luo, this case was heard on October 25th, 2007. And a copy of the order was provided for you with the -- with the executive summary. To date we're still not in compliance. And the County is at this time requesting fines at a rate of $200 per day from the period of November 25th, 2007 through December 27th, 2007, which is 32 days, for a total of $6,400, plus operational costs of $449 AI, for a total of 6,000 -- I guess the operational costs have been paid. So we're requesting that the fines in the amount of $6,400 be imposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LUO: Okay. Well, when I was here last time I did -- I decide to pay from right here, okay? We are talking about October, but I put 34 tree, which is required, they require 36 tree, okay? I bought 34 tree -- pine tree. I bought eight cypress tree, okay? So I put -- I think I put 28 pine tree, but I have nine tree left over from last time, whatever before. About seven probably about two foot, three foot, but two of them is about like eight, ten foot. So I count for that, too. I put 28. There was altogether like 27, 28, whatever it is. And then I talked to -- whenever I sign the paper, I talk to Michelle. She said, well, I have been there, but there is only 28. I said, well, why? I mean, there is 37 trees there. She said, those are too small, we're not counting those trees. So I plant another six trees left over from what I put. Altogether it should be 36, 37 tree from what I have done -- you know, after whatever it is. And then I thought it was -- everything, you know, should be okay, which is late like October, like beginning of November. But November, either the 2nd or the 3rd, I call her -- call Michelle, left a message on her phone. I call her, just want her to call January 24, 2008 1611 A Page 193 January 24, 2008 me back say everything comply, you know, whatever. ThJ6e! las A talking about. I didn't receive a phone call. Left the message there either the 2nd or the 3rd, okay, which is November. And then probably three weeks ago I got this paper again, which is for today's hearing. The second day I call her, left a message about this, about the paper. So I guess probably was sometime like November, either 9th or 10th. So that was my first call. The following week, which is November 15th, I call her again, left a message again. So the whole week nobody called. It was Tuesday. My last call from her was two days ago. She called me back, which is the 22nd, about 10:00. I was home. She called me -- it was in my phone, my message, and then I called her back. So I found out, you know, whatever she was talking about the tree, you know, short or whatever. And then I went -- I told her, I said, Michelle, those are trees there. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, it's not Michelle, it is Jennifer. MR. LUO: Jennifer. Sorry. Jennifer, okay? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I asked Michelle. MR. LUO: Asked Jennifer, whatever it is. Sorry. She said, I'm coming over there if you say your trees there. So I didn't go nowhere, but she didn't ask me to stay in my house to meet up there. I did stay. She come by probably maybe an hour or two. So I -- she did everything. I saw someone in the back. She was with another person or whatever from the code enforcement. So I walk towards to her. I asked her what was going on about my tree. And then I show her about -- I do have like five or six dead trees there for the last two months, which -- you know, probably should be. Some of the tree, you put it down you can't be 100 percent survIve. That was five tree. I showed it to her. I said, Michelle, those are tree dead, but I already replace it. You know, I bought another six, Page 194 seven tree from whatever I bought from before, you know. So all of those have been done probably last week, okay? All of those been done. I had two more cypress tree. I have 12 cypress tree right there and should be 37 pine tree in my property. And she is saying those are trees dead and I'm not count those. Those tree short. It is not 10 foot. You know, but this -- after I talked to her, I did call the county manager office, whatever it was, I have. I think it was the secretary or whatever. She recommend order, which is the whole case, whatever -- I found the word Paul. Starting over. In October 24, this is what we got. I think she write all this. Jennifer. Right here, eight cypress tree high above six foot and 29 pine 10 foot high, one cypress tree -- no, one sabal. I mean, why for this long, for last two months? I call -- I called few times. I called one time in November. Why she not return my call? And why -- when I left over here, I was talking to her in the hallway. I say, you know, if you coming over to see the tree, ifnot meet your requirement, you have got my number. I asked her to call me, but nobody did. Nobody called me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jennifer? MS. WALDRON: I did. For the record, Jennifer Waldron, Collier County Environmental Specialist. I just want to state that this -- the stipulation did read that Mr. Luo was required to install the plantings according to what the mitigation plan that was submitted on April 21st, 2006 by Ramsey, Inc. And this plan stated that he was supposed to have 36 pines and 10 cypress. It also stated that they were supposed to be a minimum of 14 feet and three inches in diameter breast height. So that is what was -- originally what he was supposed to be doing. I was working with him because I know 14- foot trees are very January 24, 2008 16/1 A Page 195 JanUaryj4,2008 hard to come by and they're very expensive. So I was accepting 6 I 1 A lO-foot trees. Well, I did go out there on Tuesday and counted the trees with another investigator, Investigator Sorrell also, and he has 34 pines, not all of them being mitigation size. He has got l2 cypress, which I don't believe any of them are mitigation size. And it looks like -- if you break the stem it's still green on the inside, but they are so close to dead. There is -- a few of them have leaves, but most of them do not. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: On the cypress? MS. WALDRON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Cypress are dormant in the winter. MR. LUO: Right. MS. WALDRON: Most of them still have something on them. I have pictures I can show you, if you want to see them. MR. LUO: Can I say something? Like cypress, like everybody know, this time of the year they grow really slow. I'm not saying I know tree, but I know if you go outside right now any cypress you can't see color right now. There is no color right now. All my 12 cypress trees right now, if you look at the tree some of them already sprout. It should come back, those trees. I only planted a couple last couple months. At this time of year, again, cypress there is no color right now. They already sprout. Like I say, I call her. I willing to do whatever it take. Those tree going to be okay. Those tree going to be grow from what I tell her. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jennifer, again, how many is he short? MS. WALDRON: Well, at this point all of the cypress are not to mitigation size. So he needs at least 10 cypress that are at least 10 feet tall and that are surviving. He is required to have all the plants surviving when I do my final Page 196 JanuaJ 9, ~J8 A inspection. And then 80 percent survival for -- I believe, it was still five years at the time of this hearing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So he needs 10 cypress. MS. WALDRON: The pines I didn't count. I didn't measure all of the pines, so I don't know. You know, at that point I knew he was not in compliance so I didn't measure all the pines to see what the heights were. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: He has 34 and he __ MS. WALDRON: He has 34, but not all are mitigation size. MS. ARNOLD: Describe the difference between what is there and what is mitigation size. MR. SNOW: Well, in could show you the pictures, it would explain it a lot easier what mitigation size is and what isn't. I mean, the trees -- the cypress there right now are probably five feet tall and they are required to be 14 feet by code. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you feel the gentleman has been working towards compliance? MS. WALDRON: I don't. I really don't. He has replanted -- he says replanted, he's replanted. This case has been going on since 2006. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. LUO: Well, if we go that far then, I mean, I -- from this __ from the beginning, I have a permit for my -- to cut the tree in 2006, which is right here. This permit, okay? I have -- I do everything else and submit to the county to get a permit to cut -- where the tree going to be cut. All those going to be cut. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not here to rehear the case. MS. WALDRON: The bottom line is he is not in compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're not in compliance. Okay. I'm going to stop there. The board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose fine. Page 197 JanUr6t2i08 A CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No second. Okay. MR. PONTE: It seems to me that he is working hard to be in compliance. MR. KRAENBRING: It is tough to grow a tree in this drought. It seems like he is trying. I know this is a big task. I know that we ultimately impose the fine and have him come back when he's in compliance. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: That's technically what we need to do because he is not following the order of the board, according to the mitigation agreement. MS. ARNOLD: I think that -- just to make a point of clarification, the order was to submit a mitigation plan. And again the mitigation plan tells you how many trees and the sizes and the types of trees that should be planted. He has planted trees, but they don't meet CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: The requirement. MS. ARNOLD: -- the requirement of what the mitigation plan that, incidentally, he submitted. And it is not the county that told him what to plant, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again, looking to the board for a motion to impose fines or to not impose fines. That's the question. MR. KELL Y: Crazy idea. Since the respondent submitted the mitigation plan, is there any chance that he can resubmit a mitigation plan, given what is planted there now, and it may be accepted by County? MS. WALDRON: No, it would not be accepted by County. It was submitted by an environmental consultant who he hired. They did the mitigation plans according to the Land Development Code. I want to stress to you also, I am giving him a break by letting Page 198 16 11 A January 24, 2008 him plant 10- foot trees. I don't have to. The county doesn't have to do that. The Land Development Code says 14-foot at minimum. MR. KELLY: Can you give him a break on the cypress, too, and be done with it? MS. WALDRON: All I'm asking -- what I'm asking for is 10-foot trees in the amount specified in the mitigation plan, which is what he stipulated to and agreed to. MR. KRAENBRING: So he needs 10 cypress? MS. WALDRON: He needs 10 cypress, 36 pines total. MR. KRAENBRING: So he needs four pines and 10 cypress? MS. WALDRON: They all need to be mitigation size also. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't know if she has the number on how many pines or not. MR. PONTE: When you say you're giving him a credit, how is that credit applied? I mean, knocking off so much per acceptable tree. Giving him credit sounds great, but it doesn't do anything. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to decide whether or not to impose a fine or not impose a fine today. That's all we have got to today. He needs to come into compliance according to the mitigation plan. And then he can come back to us and argue to his heart's content in regards to reduction of the fine. That's all we're doing today. I had a motion on the floor. It has not been seconded to impose the fine. Are we saying we don't want to impose the fine and we're just going to let him walk against our order? MR. PONTE: I don't think this fine should be imposed. MR. KRAENBRING: He is supposed to come into compliance though, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: He never completed the mitigation plan. I mean, that's the long and short. MR. KELLY: There are extenuating circumstances. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I don't understand what they are ifhe Page 199 January12~, JoJs . didn't follow the plan. I can see if eight trees died or 10 trees died because of drought conditions. That was not the case. He didn't put in the right size. MR. KELLY: He couldn't get them. The county-- MR. LEFEBVRE: She was able -- she said, okay, I will go down to 10 feet. He is lacking in pines -- in the amount of pines trees, if I'm not mistaken, which he didn't follow the mitigation plan. It is not like he put in -- what is the amount he had to put in? MS. WALDRON: 36 pines. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ifhe put 36 pines in and eight died, I can say he did try to fulfill the plan. He didn't. MR. KELLY: There's thirty-four and two replanted from what he removed. MR. LUO: Okay. I do right now 37 trees right there. Pine trees, 37. But Jennifer come over, she measured up two days ago. But like I say, she been there -- from what I see this report, she been there more than a couple of times. Why all in between those times -- I left phone message on her answering machine, why can't she call me? Why can't she return my call? MS. WALDRON: That's really not relevant at this point. He's still not in compliance. Even though he's saying he called, I have no record of those phone calls in my records also. MR. LUO: I still have my phone in my car for last couple of call. MS. WALDRON: That's not the point. We don't want to argue the case. We need to-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The plan was never followed through with. A plan that was not imposed by the county, a plan that was imposed by his own consultant. We're just saying, that's okay you didn't fulfill the plan. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He didn't do as we ordered. Page 200 J anu164/2l08 A MR. LEFEBVRE: Per the LDC says you're supposed to have "X" amount of trees, which this Ramsey Company followed and he did not follow. We're now saying we don't have to follow the LDC. That's basically what we're saying if we do not impose a fine. MR. PONTE: I think you have to give consideration to the fact that an effort was made to do that. An expense was also incurred in doing it. Some of the trees died. The County said, okay, 10-foot trees are all right. And that was given some credit. There was a variability there. I'm saying that perhaps we ought not impose this fine today . We ought to see what happens to those cypress trees. Maybe they are not dead. Maybe they are, as the respondent suggested and even the Chairman suggested, that they lose -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He still doesn't have enough cypress trees. MS. WALDRON: And they're not for the right size still anyway. If they die, they are still not mitigation trees. MS. ARNOLD: I think what the County is trying to represent to the board, but we haven't showed you the photographs because they haven't been allowed, is that there was some consideration given to the fact that he planted something. There was some effort made. But the effort that was made, it wasn't a matter of, okay, I have got a requirement of 14 feet and I planted 10 feet and they're 10- foot healthy trees. We are talking about three-foot saplings that are planted as opposed to the required 14 feet in some cases. MR. PONTE: Excuse me. I thought the testimony we heard was that 10- foot trees -- MS. ARNOLD: She would have allowed it, yes. MR. PONTE: You planted three-foot trees? MS. WALDRON: They are all different sizes. MR. LUO: No. Those five trees dead, they're all over 10 foot. I took pictures, but my computer down. I cannot get the picture over to Page 201 Janu~J, 2108 A -- so they are all over 10 foot tall, okay? The five trees dead. All those replaced. Right now she is saying 34 tree right now because the day -- Tuesday she went over there some of those are like eight-foot trees. She say -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We do have pictures. I am going to go ahead and ask to see the pictures. MR. KELLY: I make a motion to accept the photos. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PONTE: If we wait long enough the trees will be acceptable height. MS. WALDRON: I will explain the pictures as we go through them. This is one of our other investigators who was standing there for scale. And this tree on the top of it -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a diameter requirement also? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MS. WALDRON: Yes. Diameter at breast height is three inches. You can clearly see that is not three inches. MR. PONTE: It's certainly not. MS. WALDRON: That is less than her height, which she is five foot, seven. And these trees don't look like healthy trees to me either. So that's my opinion. That's the mitigation area. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: The trees are not 10 foot. Page 202 JanuaJRJok A MR. PONTE: The evidence is wrong, too. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I go back now that we have seen these pictures. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose the fine. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Zhi Luo, you have made an attempt to plant trees, but you have to come into compliance with your own mitigation plan. Those trees have to be a specified height and they have to be a specified diameter. I'm telling you, despite her, you need to have -- is it 34? MS. WALDRON: 36 pine trees. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 36 pine trees that are at least 10 foot tall. MR. LUO: Those are -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Those are not 10 foot tall. MR. LUO: Well, you could-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you need to have cypress trees. MS. WALDRON: Ten cypress trees. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ten foot tall. Get that done, come into compliance and come back and see us. MR. LUO: Well, like I say, those are pine trees probably like two or three probably not over pine tree. Any of you folks come over Page 203 Janua~ ~4,t2~8 A and measure it up. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll measure them when they are planted. MR. LUO: Cypress probably not over 10 foot, okay? Cypress, again, no color at this time of year. There's no color. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't bring up the fact that she thought some of the cypress trees were dead. I need to see 10 cypress trees that are 10-foot tall and that have a three-inch diameter. I need to see 36, 37 -- MS. WALDRON: Thirty-six. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 36 pine trees lO-foot tall with a three-inch diameter. Get that done and the clock will stop and you can come back and we'll talk to you about reducing fines because you did make an effort and you put in an expense. MR. LUO: When you're saying I coming back; here? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You come back here once you come into compliance. MS. WALDRON: Let me just note that he needs to contact me when he -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need you to contact her so she can tell you that you are okay. MS. WALDRON: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Well, you're just thinking you have one day left. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I am not trying to do this, guys. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would just like to take the time -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't think I have done this since, like, my fourth meeting where we went this long and I didn't have lunch. MS. RAWSON: Weren't you here in November? Don't you remember November? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We broke for lunch, didn't we? Page 204 January 14~JoJ A MS. RAWSON: We did 20 minutes. MS. ARNOLD: Was it November? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We were here until 4:30. She almost missed her plane. MS. RAWSON: I did. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Did you miss your plane? MS. RAWSON: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Rules and regs are back. I attempted again to get these endorsed by the board and there were some questions. There was one question about -- let me try to find my notes here. The fact that under Article V, under attendance, paragraph B, it says that if a member misses two out of three successive board meetings without a satisfactory excuse, he or she may forfeit his or her appointment. And the question was: Is it consistent with 2001-55? I believe that's the ordinance that governs all the advisory boards for the Board of County Commissioners. It is similar. It is not exactly the same. This language in your rules has two out of three in the ordinance. And if they miss two __ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Consecutive. MS. ARNOLD: -- consecutive meetings that the Chairman may, you know, make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in writing or something like that. So if you want to change it so that it reflects exactly what the language says in that ordinance -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That has been there since-- MS. ARNOLD: I know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Forever. MS. ARNOLD: That was brought up. So if you want to change that. Also, there was a comment under your -- the same article under the voting section where it talks about each member shall cast a vote. Page 205 Janua~6t,biJ8 A And each question before the board, except if any member has a personal interest, kind of -- that language is talking about a conflict of interest and abstaining, which you did, and whether or not you all were following the ethics ordinance. And should that be combined with the last sentence that you all added as a part of this amendment. That just was a general statement that said that you all shall comply with the Sunshine laws and the Code of Ethics. I'm kind of looking to you guys to see whether or not you want to combine those two sentences. I thought that -- you know, with the two of them, one as being very specific that you need to abstain if there's a conflict and the other one is general that touches upon conflicts and everything else that is contained in the code of ethics. So it is up to you all if you want to combine it. This is a suggestion from one of the commissioners. MR. PONTE: I'm not attempting to be funny here, but aren't we about to do this again? MS. ARNOLD: In March. MR. PONTE: That's right. So why don't we just accept all of that as is? MS. ARNOLD: Well-- MR. PONTE: And then in March -- we'll tighten it up then and also we were going to entertain in the next rules the possibility of a consent agenda for certain items. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MR. PONTE: There might be even other things. So maybe -- I signed the document. I went over to the office and said, okay, sign. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Several times. MR. PONTE: So let's just let that rest and start in March. MS. ARNOLD: We have a couple of options. Because when the consolidated ordinance was adopted, there was a requirement in there that the board has to endorse or approve your rules. We have always put your rules on the board agenda and the consent agenda and they Page 206 Janlcg r'iOOA have always approved them when they approve the minutes. For some reason, this last go around -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because it is consolidated with the special master, so they are going to take a look at it harder. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know for what reason. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: That's the only differentiation. MS. ARNOLD: Well, it is not going through. Most of the comments were regarding your rules, not the special master rules. You know, I'm just pointing out those things. And one suggestion I was going to make is maybe a representative from the board be present at the next hearing so that you all can kind of speak for yourselves, rather than me being kind ofthe intermediary, you know, trying to speak for you all. Because I don't really feel comfortable saying, yes, you guys are going to be okay with that without talking to you about it. And there is kind of a little bit of a conflict in that, you know, you all feel these are your rules and the board has taken the position that they are their rules. They have to be comfortable with them as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I will make a suggestion that Mr. Kelly, who is eloquently able to speak, can stand up for the board at the next County Commission meeting as heard so we do -- so you can turn around in March and you can review them again. MS. ARNOLD: My question is really, are you able to even operate under these rules until they are passed by the board? So the ones that are really effective are the ones approved previously. So if you want to operate under these rules that you have spent a lot of time -- this last go around you guys spent a lot of time with trying to, you know, make sure that there is no conflict between yours and the special master's. If you want to operate under those then, you know, maybe have a representative come to the board, which is the first meeting in February I think we are going to do it, and present that to the board. Page 207 Janmlh4hW8 A But I don't know whether or not you want to make some of these changes that were suggested. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: How many are there? MS. ARNOLD: There was one that was already recommended to be modified. The language that refers to the -- the Code Enforcement Board granting the County authority to abate violations when the violator fails to do so. Those limited few. We had modified it at the suggestion of the board to reflect what was in the statute and now it is being recommended that we modify it to include -- instead of saying local governing body, say County Manager. So I don't think you will have a problem with that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That is -- MS. ARNOLD: Last, but not least, there is a -- there was a question and I'm not really sure what the direction was about what the language in your rules mean. And this is referring to the language that was amended and included in your rules back in '99 where it gave your lien super status or super priority status equal to taxes. And I tried to explain what that was. And I don't know whether or not the question was that needed to be deleted or why is it in there or exactly what. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, didn't we put that in there -- MS. RAWSON: A long time ago. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: In '99 the ordinance was amended. MS. RAWSON: It was Mr. Flegal's idea. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There was a reason for it. There was a case or something that had come up. I think we got bumped out of the picture. MS. RAWSON: Right. I think we lost out because when there is a foreclosure there is no money left for the county. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We didn't get anything. MS. ARNOLD: That is still going to happen. Page 208 JanuaJ,6, iods A MS. RAWSON: Sure it is. Some ofthese properties our lien is more than the property is worth. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I mean, I don't know if anybody else has any problem with that. I can see that going by the wayside if that is a problem for the county. MS. RAWSON: What was the problem that the county had? MS. ARNOLD: I wasn't really sure. I thought they were just asking me what it meant. So I sent an e-mail saying what it meant and I got a -- another e-mail back. I wasn't sure if I answered the question. And there are -- there was as a part of this -- I'm glad that Jeff Wright walked in. As a part ofthis I'm supposed to be meeting with Jeff to find out what some of the redundancies are or -- that's the word that was used -- or problems that exist between your ordinance -- I mean, your rules and the special master's rules. The example that was brought up at the board meeting was the fact that you all gave 20 minutes for testimony and the special master gives only 10 and why not make it consistent. I thought there was a lot of discussion when we had our -- MR. PONTE: In theory, we are supposed to be hearing cases that are more complicated than those heard by the special master. That in itself would argue for a longer -- MS. ARNOLD: That was my answer, but I don't know. MS. RAWSON: I bet her hearings don't last until 3:30. MS. ARNOLD: Some of them do. She has 40 cases on her. Ifwe have 40 cases at 20 minutes a pop, that's going to be a two-day hearing, if not three. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't think it was redundant because we are not actually looking at the same cases. MR. WRIGHT: In may. MR. PONTE: Why not? Everybody else has today. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Everybody else has today. Page 209 Janua; ?4, /2J8 A MR. WRIGHT: I think that ifthere are differences in the two rules and you're able to articulate why there is a difference, I think that's a very good reason for a difference. There's a higher volume of less complicated cases, but theoretically they shouldn't take as long. You're considering a lower volume with more complicated cases. It seems like time -- you would take more time to decide them. I think there is logical, articulable reasons for that difference. But there is others where there may be redundancies. I think that the idea is to get it as user friendly as possible. We talked about this in the workshop. I presented at that workshop a consolidated set of rules that -- I don't blame either the special magistrate or you for pointing to that Section 162 that you have the authority to adopt your own rules. That's basically what you're using as the basis for your rules -- drafting your own rules. But there is -- every time a question comes out there is a desire to limit redundancies and make the rules as small and user friendly as possible. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, I thought that's what we tried to do when we had our joint meeting. We really haven't swayed from that of what we all agreed from that much, I didn't think. We have adopted those rules and we've made a little tweak here and there. That's it. They are going back to questioning us on things that have been in our rules as long as I have been on the board. MR. WRIGHT: I have noticed that. And they are giving it a look as part of their duties. But it does seem that there are -- for example, I don't have the rules right in front of me. The section that says initiation of actions before the board or the special magistrate I think -- I think a lot of the same stock paragraphs appear in her rules and in your rules. And whether that is good or bad is not for me to decide. I think Page 210 JanuaJ9, lo~ A there was a perception that that was a redundancy that probably made the rules thicker and less user friendly. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifwe have her rules and her rules pertain to her and we leave that out and when we have our rules and they pertain to our board and we have it in, then someone can argue that we can do it, but she can't. MR. SNOW: I understand. The draft of consolidated rules that I came up with -- that our office came up with had a section that said rules applicable to every proceeding, whether it is CEB, OSM or Nuisance Abatement Board, which is another hat that you all wear. Rarely use, but it is also. There is a section that says rules applicable to all proceedings. There was a section that said rules just to the special magistrate. And it deals with her contact renewal terms and all that kind of stuff that is unique to her. And then rules that are unique to the CEB; for example, how many members sit on the board, how they are chosen, then those are truly unique to the CEB. We try to par it out in those three ways. I could actually bring you all a draft. It is old and it probably needs some brushing up, but I can bring you all a draft of that and see if you want to consider that format. At this point I think that the direction is to remove redundancies. And as to how that is going to be done, given the fact that there is two separate set of rules, I'm not really sure what form it will take. MR. KELLY: Can I make a comment since Jeff is there? Any time that you consolidate the amount of paperwork that the government has -- we see a number of cases where people may have a CEB case, but they also have one in front of the special magistrate. And to have kind of a common ground or proceedings and rules and regs that they have to go through, I think that is beneficial to the public. I think we should try to consolidate, if we can. Maybe in March. Page 211 16 11 January 24, 10cf8 ~ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: George is having to leave. MS. ARNOLD: He added an item for stipulation on there. MR. PONTE: I'm going to just -- how about doing that -- I can't do it now. Next time. (Mr. Ponte left the boardroom.) MR. WRIGHT: One other thing, in could, Madam Chair. Whatever you all want in your rules, whether consolidated or separate, shouldn't be missing. So any consolidated rules would include everything that you want them to include. It is just a matter of being there for the public. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Guys, I think it is kind of funny because you're going to be doing this again in March. By the time you get this approved, they will be approved for next year because we are currently not operating under them. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we hold off. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good point. Hold off until March. MS. RAWSON: Not to give Jeff any more work, ifhe came back to you with his draft of what he has done so far, you can take a look at that and then March you could pass the new rules and the ones that you already hashed out and want to pass, plus the suggestions from the County. MR. KELLY: It would be a good idea to pass on what we have worked on so far and see if you incorporate that. MS. ARNOLD: It's fine for me to consolidate them. You all were pretty adamant about having your own rules because it is confusing to the public that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It is. MS. ARNOLD: -- which part ofthis rule applies. Even though we try to make it easy for people, they will read something that they don't -- that is not under the paragraph. (Mr. Lefebvre left the boardroom.) Page 212 Janu~ loci A MS. ARNOLD: And it gets confusing. It's up to you all. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a hard enough time. MS. ARNOLD: That's why I think it is important for you all to be at the board meeting representing what your thoughts are, rather than me. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Just from past experience, we have enough time trying to get people to understand what they have to do to come into compliance; i.e., 10 foot, three-inch trees, you know. MS. RAWSON: I think there should be two sets of rules -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I agree. MS. RAWSON: They can be pretty much the same, except for those notable differences and her authority and your authority. And, you know, procedure -- not procedure, in terms of -- that should be pretty much the same. But in terms of how you get elected, how you get appointed, your job security and, you know, her contract, that kind of thing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think those are definitely separate because they are totally different. MS. RAWSON: We need to hand out two different packets because people will never understand it if you don't. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If you have them completely consolidated, they are going to wonder, are they at the magistrate or at the CEB? Like today I wanted to make clear on that one order because it said the magistrate -- you know, special master, but no, it wasn't special master, it was CEB. (Mr. Lefebvre returned to the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We were the ones imposing, not the special master. And I think it gets confusing. MR. WRIGHT: It seems like there is a genuine policy question as to which of the two formats is easiest for the public. On the one hand you have two separate rules and that makes it really clear that Page 213 16' 1 January 24, 260g. A there is two separate tribunals, two separate rules. On the other hand, you could have those same rules put together with redundancies removed. I don't know which one would be easier for the public. I think that both arguments -- you know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that has to be weighed by the public. It's not for us to make that decision. That's just my -_ MR. KRAENBRING: I think we need to think what the people will -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not the one that is going to be affected. MR. KRAENBRING: You give up. MS. ARNOLD: What is the pleasure of the board? Do I proceed with this, or do I -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I had suggested that we let Mr. Kelly go and represent us all and speak. MR. KELL Y: Is it the first Tuesday or the Thursday? MS. ARNOLD: First Tuesday. Actually, it is the 12th. MR. WRIGHT: The second and fourth Tuesday. MR. KELLY: Okay. I can do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would think that that would be good to let a board member go in front of the Board of Commissioners and explain why we did some of the things we did. This has been a review process that's been going on for years. I mean, we have argued over shall and will. MS. ARNOLD: And may. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because we were trying to make it as specific for a reason. Because of things that we have had that have happened in cases that have come back to bite us. MR. WRIGHT: Well, our office is happy to facilitate this happening however we can help out. I will be happy to bring back to the March or the February meeting a consolidated __ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That would be a good thing I Page 214 January !~0~81 A think for these guys to look at. MR. WRIGHT: I don't know if it is going to muddy things up and make more work, but I'm happy to bring that draft. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: No. I think that would probably be a good thing for them to look at. MR. WRIGHT: I apologize to Ms. Rawson. That might be contrary to the advice that she just gave. MS. RAWSON: No, that is not contrary. They have to decide, you know, whether they want one set of rules with the differences spelled out or if you want one set of rules that looks pretty much the same, except for the differences. I mean, one for you, one for the magistrate. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think there is two separate entities, there should be two separate rules. That's my personal . . OpInIOn. Are we done? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I would state then, good-bye, everybody. Have fun. I'll watch you. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you for your service. MR. KELL Y: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I have enjoyed it. Keep in touch. MS. RAWSON: I hate to see you leave. MS. ARNOLD: It has been a pleasure for me to work under you as well. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't yell at you like Cliff did. MS. ARNOLD: It has been ajoy for me to work with you. MS. RAWSON: It has been ajoy. And I do think whoever is at the County Commission should mention that we lost our only female member. And I notice these things. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess, guys, your next meeting is February 28th. And I will have not been a board member for 14 Page 215 Janul~,biJ8 A days. With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. We can beat 4:00. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make the motion to adjourn. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIR WOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) ***** There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3 :48 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE E~FORC~M5NT!-~ "~~{)~an. {,UA<- cJ .3- L 6__ ffL./'Z<< C. ~..<2. rY'/!-N These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected. , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI, RPR, FPR. Page 216 0\ \ tv \)\ 1~aryLI8 A S OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE , f"'r'\ Naples, Florida, February 6, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610 in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Charles Abbott James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon Dejohn Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Blair Foley George Hermanson Thomas Masters Robert Mulhere Marco Espinar (Excused) Reed Jarvi (Excused) David Bryant (Excused) Mise corres: ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner, LDC Mike Green, Transportation Services Bob Dunn, Interim Director, Building Review & Permitting Dept. Date 6.76 -'0 l~em':1lo 1 (A)3 to' Flru~ 6/20J ' I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Varian at 3:36 PM. A quorum was established. Chairman Varian welcomed Laura Spurgeon DeJohn as a new member to the Committee. n. Approval of Agenda Mr. Foley moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Masters. Chairman Varian noted the topic of outdoor seating was not listed on the Agenda for follow-up. He suggested adding the topic under "Old Business" as Item "c." Carried unanimously, 8-0. (3:39PM - Clay Brooker arrived.) III. Approval of Minutes Mr. Masters moved to approve the Minutes of January 9, 2008 as submitted. Second by Mr. Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 9-0. (3:42 PM - Charles Abbott arrived.) IV. Staff AnnouncementslUpdates B. Transportation Division Update - Mike Green for Nick Casalanguida . The Notice to Proceed was issued for the I-75/Everglades IJR ("Interchange Justification Report"), and a "kick-off' meeting was held . All active construction projects are either on or ahead of schedule . Work production on Vanderbilt Beach Road has picked up - billing is over $IM per month Committee members questioned Mr. Green about the following projects: . Vanderbilt Beach Road - it will be completed in approximately two years . East 4 I Consortium - Mike stated a realty group is compiling the final information for the bond, and the DCA has been approved . Immokalee/Airport to 41 Project - should be completed by mid-summer . Davis/951 - the Intersection portion has been funded and work should start in June (3:45 PM - Robert Mulhere arrived) A. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt, Administrator - CDES Mr. Schmitt stated the County has offered an early retirement option to its employees. There are currently 43 vacant positions that will not be filled. The layoffs are the result of the down-turn in business, and the reductions will come from the Building, Engineering, Zoning, and Comprehensive Planning Departments. After the reductions have been completed, he will be able to meet his budget. He stated inspections have becn curtailed, and the level of service will be impacted. 2 Feb~~'21081 A He also stated there are still some large commercial projects including two "Super Targets," a Lowes, and two hotels that are moving forward. He noted the BCC passed an amendment to extend the PUD time limit to five years. An LDC Amendment is being complied to extend the time limits for SDPs and Plats and Plans. Chairman Varian asked about the application of a proportionate scale to proposed renovations of older properties. He had previously requested Mr. Schmitt to obtain direction from the BCC. Mr. Schmitt stated proportional upgrades will be included as an objeetive during the next LDC Cycle. He stated he would alert the BCC to DSAC's recommendation. Chairman Varian stated DSAC would form a subcommittee to assist Mr. Schmitt. The goal is to create ineentives to promote redevelopment. Other topics discussed: . The possibility of publishing expectations at intake concerning building permit review times, as is done in Lee County (i.e., a placard stating, "Review time is usually14 days, we are currently processing at 10 days") . Keeping the same Planner when a project is submitted to ensure continuity and to decrease the number of re-submittals . The possibility of outsourcing architectural reviews - no funds in budget to cover Bob Dunn, Interim Director, Building Review and Permitting, stated the thru-put time for each trade for review is currently at 4 days. 61-G Review Process: . No separate fee is charged because it is included in the building permit fee . Have assumed 33% of Fire Department's work load regarding reviews . Bar codes are being instituted for new applications . Each examiner is to send out individual letters regarding review comments V. Old Business B. Garage Door Permit Fees Update Bob Dunn stated there had been a problem with the new software system, but convenience permits were being issued in blocks often. He also stated the Fee Schedule will be amended to reinstate the $50.00 per inspection fee. IV. Staff AnnouncementslUpdates C. Public Utilities Update No report. D. Fire Review Update (Neither Mr. Riley nor a representative from his department was present, but three reports, "Summary of Plan Review Activity for December - 07," and "61-G-15 Training Logs" (Fire Alarm and Sprinkler), and "Fire Plan Review - Time Frame Summary - December 07" were included in the packet of information provided by Staff.) 3 16 , 1 . February 6, 2008 E. Fire Review Task Force Update Chairman Varian, a member of the Fire Review Task Force, presented the following information: . Roundtable discussions being conducted regarding format of the written report . Fact finding has been completed . Fire Review Task Force Workshop - March 18th from 9:00AM to 12:00 Noon. V. Old Business A. DSAC Representative to serve on Floodplain Management Committee There is a Resolution defming the membership of the Floodplain Management Committee. It was suggested that DSAC send a letter to the BCC and the County Manager requesting an amendment to the Resolution. Mr. Mulhere moved to draft a letter to the BCC requesting that the Resolution is amended to allow appointment of a DSAC member to the Floodplain Management Committee. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 11-0. Judy Puig will ask Reed Jarvi to draft the letter since he volunteered to serve on the Floodplain Management Committee. C. Outdoor Seating Issue- Follow-up Clay Brooker provided the following background information: . The issue was in LDC Amendment and included an amendment to the Code of Laws and Ordinances which includes the Noise Control Ordinance. . DSAC was to give its input concerning the LDC Amendment before it was voted upon by the BCC, but no docwnent was brought back to DSAC to be reviewed . DSAC wants to review the amendment to the Noise Control Ordinance Catherine Fabacher stated the old Ordinance for amending Section 10.02.03 - Non-compatible Uses - had been revised along with the SDP submittal requirements. Ifthere is an outdoor seating area, the outline of the entire area (including tables and chairs) must be shown as part of the Site Plan submittal. If the County Manager determines there could be a potential problem with residential because of an outdoor serving area, additional buffering may be required. She stated this requirement has been passed. She stated there is a proposal for a one-time permit (to be submitted to the Zoning Department) as part of a current Ordinance to amend the Code of Laws and Ordinances. The permit would be applied for concomitantly with the application for an Occupational License. The permit could be suspended if a Finding of Violation was issued by the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate or the Code Enforcement Board. This has not yet been passed. She further stated the Noise Ordinance amendment will be submitted through Code Enforcement and is not yet in written form. Joe Schmitt stated that he will draft an Executive Summary with the County Attorney's office concerning the outdoor seating issueINoise Control Ordinance and it will be included on DSAC's March Agenda. 4 Feb!~2l81 fl VI. New Business: A. Florida Benchmarking Focus Group The pwpose of the Focus Group is to gather input and information regarding the business practices of Florida's Counties. Judy Puig stated information was provided in the packet distributed to the members. Winona Stone is handling registration for the County and interested members should contact her. B. Changing Meeting Dates - Catherine Fabacher Catherine Fabacher stated there are several proposed amendments for the Spring LDC Cycle. In order for DSAC to review the LDC amendments, she proposed the following: . Changing the June 4th meeting to June 11 th at I :00 PM . Changing the July 2nd meeting to July 9th at I :00 PM . Schedule meeting of the LDR Subcommittee on May 21 sl at 1:00 PM The creation of a separate Subcommittee or Task Force to review the redevelopment issue was suggested. Robert Mulhere will chair the Subcommittee. Joe Schmitt will notifY the BCC during the February 26th meeting ofDSAC's decision to form a Subcommittee. C. Ethics The Code of Ethics (CMA #5311) and a pamphlet from the Florida Commission on Ethics entitled "Guide to the Sunshine Amendment and Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees" was distributed. VII. Member Comments: David Dunnavant stated the Rural Lands Stewardship Committee met and will begin a five-year review of its Program. There was a handout conceming the technical review of the Program to date, and impacts and amendments to GMPs and the LDC were listed. There was a timetable for submissions to the EAC and the Planning Commission, but DSAC was not included in the loop. Joe Schmitt stated the LDC amendments proposed by RLSC may not be ready until 2009. Chairman Varian stated that Patrick White's application for membership on DSAC was not approved by the BCC due to a perceived conflict of interest. The position remains open and will be advertised. VIII. Next DSAC Meeting Dates: . March 5, 2008 at 3:30 PM . April 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM; . May 7, 2008 at 3:30 PM 5 16 11 A February 6, 2008 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 4:40 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LJ~ William Varian, Chairman These Minutes ~proved by the Board/Committee on as presented , or as amended . Nl.4J .f; ffcJo eJ 6 '1',\k\;-i_,!__ riala ~I..r-.--_.". HalaS ---~~r::T-" . .__-~n(\ ~ ~ ~,y~ ~.(/ - (~,~# " COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ t);1$/122/ I')omestic Animal Services Advisory Committee /f/J '/01/ J..L>.("' February 19, 2008 /1111'1[/ YC--'" 6:30 pm .~ - - '" NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. 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 1. Call to Order 2. Attendance 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: December 18, 2007 5. Director's Report Departmental Statistics and Reports (December 2007 and January 2008) 6. Old Business Update of 90- Day Action Plan Report on Donation Trust Fund Election of Vice Chair 7. New Business Advisory Board Vacancies Recommendation to the BCC to fill Vacancies Board Member Meeting Attendance Feral Cat Management -presented by Michele Antonia 10 minute video presentation Livestock Animals- presented by Michele Antonia 8. Public Comment Misc. Corres Date :3. 25. '0 item# 1(P.I(~ 9. Advisory Board Member Comments ~CJ:C',) to' 10. Adjournment The next meeting ofthe DAS Advisory Board is scheduled for Apri/15, 2008 , ),) , ?~'ht"'", December 18,2007 16 11 A MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, December 18, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, THAT THE Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Randall Eisel Karen Acquard Michele Antonia Marcia Breithaupt Sergeant David Estes (absent) Tom Kepp, Jr. Sabina Musci ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Interim Director ofDAS Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Operations Manager Kathleen Drew, Volunteer Coordinator Camden Smith, Public Services Division, PIO December 18.2007 16 /1 n 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Eisel at 6:34 PM. 2. Attendance: The role was called and a quorum was established. 3. Approval of Agenda: Michele Antonia moved to approve the agenda. Second by Karen Acquard. Carried unanimously, 6-0. 4. Approval of Minutes: - October 16, 2007 Delete: "Vice Chairman "from Pg 1. Item 1. Call to Order and Pg 5 below signature line. Karen Acquard stated she was not appointed nor voted in as Vice Chairman. She conducted the meeting as a Senior Member of the Advisory Committee. Michele Antonia moved to approve the minutes of October 16, 2007 as amended. Second by Marcia Breithaupt. Carried unanimously, 6-0. Discussionfollowed regarding the need to appoint a Vice Chairman. Chairman Eisel askedfllr election of a Vice Chairman to be put on the Agenda for the next meeting. 5. Introduction of Interim Director Amanda Townsend, introduced herself as the newly appointed Interim Director of Domestic Animal Services. She spoke about her work experiences with various County Departments, including Parks and Recreation, Public Services Division, Growth Management and Compliance Departments. She has been active as a Community Liaison and in securing Grants. 6. Director's Report and 90-Day Action Plan Amanda Townsend handed out copies of her 90-Day Action Plan outlining the goals she has been asked to accomplish. The following were stressed: . Familiarizing herself with Department issues and operations, covering all 3 major areas (Shelter operations, customer service and animal control). . Reviewing animal licensing policies and procedures with the aim to develop recommendations for changes. . Review Animal control Ordinance and develop recommendations for changes by: I. Identifying areas of concern by consulting with staff on needs and on ramifications of changes; specifically in the areas of Dangerous dogs, fees and custody of animals in significant quantities. 2. Consulting with County Attorney on desired changes, ramifications 3. Placing proposed changes on DAS Advisory Board's February agenda 4. Set a target date of March 25,2008 to present to BCC. . Review livestock auction options to determine if better financial return can be realized. 2 December 18,2007 Departmental Statistics and Reports (Handout of October and Novemb!, ~oll A Included in this report are the monthly Shelter Report, Animal Control Officer's Report and the Volunteer (numbers and hours) Report, No discussion was held on aspects of each individual report. Amanda Townsend announced in the future, these informational statistics packets will be sent to the DAS Advisory Board prior to the meetings rather than at the meeting so they can be reviewed in advance. She asked to delay discussion on the reports until the February meeting. She will also be working on revising the format of the reports into a single consolidated report, without deleting any of the important data they contain. 7. Old Business - Howl-A-Day Jubilee Report (handout) Amanda Townsend went over the categories on the report which included: . Expenditures . Revenue and Donations . Advertising/Sponsorships/ln-Kind Donations The total benefit to DAS, not including sponsorships was $10,594.02. The effort of everyone involved was lauded by DAS staff and DAS Advisory Board. The money goes to the trust fund and will be used mostly for medical care for animals that otherwise could not be cared for. Camden Smith, who chaired the Howl-A-Day event, reported an attendance of 5,500 people, more than 4,000 over last year. She praised the volunteer and community commitment, media coverage and explained various figures on the report. Questions and discussion followed regarding various aspects of the event and of the figures shown on the financial report of the event. Amanda Townsend recognized every staff member who contributed by reading each person's name. Kellie Tetzlaff, event committee member, was honored for her tireless effort and contribution to the event. She was presented with an engraved honorarium for her outstanding contributions. Chairman Eisel then noted that Agenda items 8 and 9 should be reversed. Karen Acquard moved to revise the agenda order, changing Item 8 to Public Comment and Item 9 to Advisory Board Comments. Second by Michele Antonia. Carried unanimously, 6-0. 8. Public Comments Jessica Lehaie- Ask if there is a record available to the public regarding the allocation of funds raised; how much of it goes to medical care of animals and where the rest goes. Amanda Townsend re,ponded that everything done and allfinances of the Donation 3 Decem ber 18, 2007 Fund are Public Record. Asfor the breakdown of amounts and categories, s! ~ll 1 A research in what form that information is availableji!r the public to view, Pallis Diaz suggested that cat licenses be incorporated in the microchip so that the microchip becomes the license. Cats would not have to wear tags and rabies information would be traceable as well, Several counties are doing this, She asked the Board to research the possibilities for Collier County, Dr. Eisel noted they would still need a way to show updated vaccinations. Ms Diaz was asked if she knew which counties were using this feature, She agreed to get a list for the Board, Stephan Wright welcomed Amanda Townsend and express appreciation for the changes planned and a new era in DAS, He was pleased with the statistics posted on the Web site and its updating. His concern was euthanasia rates, He noted there are new ways that have been tried and are working in public and private shelters, reducing euthanasia and increasing adoption, He suggested having definable goals each year to reduce euthanasia and offered his help. Amanda Townsend suggested he e-mail her with his input and suggestions. Tina Bland signed a speaker slip but declined to speak 9. Advisory Board Member Comments Michele Antonio asked about the reference to the money in the fund to be dedicated to animal care of sick animals. She wanted to know how sick an animal has to be to tap into those funds; how that is determined and who makes the decisions. Nan Gerhardt responded that the primary decision is the potential adoptability of the animal, taking into consideration their quality ollife, staf/experience and in consultation with the attending Veterinarian. Good Samaritans that find animals and those with fondness for animals provide funds to care for sick animals. No specific criteria are in place and setting criteria is iffy as it may work on one but may not work on another. Michele also suggested raising fees and putting them into a Spay and Neuter fund. She agreed with Stephen Wright on euthanasia and would like to see Collier County become a leader in reducing euthanasia. She also commended the public for coming to meetings, showing the community's support for animals. Tom Kepp talked of spay and neuter clinic becoming a reality. He spoke of the many rescue groups whose knowledge could be utilized. Discussions groups could be organized. He said the Humane Society has a program that helps train animals to become adoptable. He welcomed Amanda Townsend and hoped she will have time to look into the situation. Karen Acquard also promoted spay & neutering and favors making it mandatory. She encouraged the public to push it the idea to the Commissioners, who will listen more to their voter's causes and interests. 4 December ],607' 1 A Benjamin Rae asked to speak on the plan to make a Spay and Neuter clinic happen. He noted that the DAS Advisory Board needs to create a plan to implement the idea and then supporters will talk with the Commissioners. Sabina Musci asked about Starbucks fundraiser usually held at Christmas time. Amanda Townsend noted that a new manager had recently taken over and will be approached later in regard to this event. Dr. Eisel commended Amanda for her ambitious plan. He stated the spay & neuter issue is important; but many other things can be put up for discussion. One is licensing of breeders of dogs as a way to keep a track of them. He also stated it was good for the public to know when monies go to help injured animals, especially veterinarians, many of whom contribute their time and money to care for these injured and neglected animals. Chairman Eisel requested an agenda item for the February meeting; the preparation of a letter of appreciation for the file of past Director, Margo Castorena, commending her for the accomplishments of DAS under her tenure. There being no further business for the good of the County, meeting was adjourned, by order ofthe Chair at 7:30 PM. Next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 19,2008 at 6:30 PM. COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES These minutes X'roved by the Board/Committee on as presented . or as amended . t!1t& 5 October November December January February March April May June July August September Total October November December January February March April May June July August September Total October November December January February March A.pril May June July August September Total October November December January February March April May June July August September Total October November December January February March April May June July August September Total FY'07 Month YTO 391 391 210 601 153 753 184 937 327 1,264 363 1,627 203 1.830 244 2,074 263 2,337 186 2,523 226 2,749 371 3,120 3,120 3,120 FY'07 Month YTO 55 55 66 121 59 180 99 279 68 347 109 456 89 545 90 635 92 727 93 820 111 931 67 998 998 998 FY'07 Month YTO 68 66 41 107 48 155 22 177 35 212 18 230 15 245 22 267 7 274 18 292 15 307 47 354 354 354 Month 117 137 92 144 115 103 94 167 165 129 170 93 1,526 Month 585 578 468 607 481 571 554 751 775 879 614 573 7,454 FY'07 YTO 117 254 346 490 605 708 802 969 1,134 1,263 1433 1.526 1,526 FY'07 YTO 585 1,163 1.649 2,256 2.737 3,308 3,862 4,613 5388 6.267 6,881 7,454 7,454 I 0+...--..,-----,-----,-----,------,.-----,---........,.- J! .Ii .Ii , , ~ 1 , ~ , ~ J! 9 ! , .! ~ < , :; , 8 ! , < ! !f. 95 ~--- ~~ OUT OF HOUSE SPAY AND NEUTER FY'08 Variation r. Month YTD Month YTD .100% -100% -100% 40 40 82% -77% DAS Monthly Report VOLUNTEER HOURS FY'08 Variation Month YTO Month YTO 359 359 -8% -8% 411 769 96% 28% 296 1,065 94% 41% 351 1,417 92% 51% 1,417 FY'08 Month DAS SPAY AND NEUTER Variation Month YTO 95 95 40 FY'08 Month MEDICAL CASES Variation Month YTO 82 82 82 FY'08 IN-TAKE Variation Month 14% -3% 8% -19% Month 668 558 524 489 YTO 668 1,226 1,750 2,239 2,239 4% -43% lf6 , 1 A ,-----'-~.-.-- IVOL1:NTEER HOt:RSI """:FY'07- I ____FY'08 I I 'IIO_~- -~ -- -- 1M "'" ....-\ " 2111 / ~-;;/ I ~ IldOt-- -.---.-...- "L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ j ~ ------~-,_.- ~' ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ <. ] j' ~ < i , a , '..--1 YTO -100% -100% -100% .66% ro:';'SSPAY AND NEOTl:R) _FY'()7 l-la-FY'08 120i 100 '" 60 '" w [OllT OF HOUSE SPAY AND NEUTEI-+- FY'()7 ___FY'08 :~~ 1I1---.--~.-T-- 2~~~'j;~-gJ! ~ " l , .! , - < ~ ~ 0 ~ .2 ~;*t!;:/ ] ~ ~ 2 -. ~'s ~ ~ I __,______----.J YTO -100% IMEDICAL CASESI ~FY'07 -iI- FY'08 -83% l.~:;~: +-=-_'~ ~()IJ i ""'~- (,(j() lii~ . ~ JOIJ IJ ~ : ';":' ,~': :~. --,------.------.---. ~i~;;~.~.T~."~i~ 8 . ~ ~ f ~ <. 2 i ~ ~ J YTO 14% 5% 6% -1% r-- ill\:iill) 1,(jIJO, ~I)Oi--------,,-..------- ..-- ~llIll' - .-. ::: !~::~6..K~...'; > 401i - .. ........ . ... ..,.. .. ==z " .,OIJ-. 2()1I+---~-- l'HJ, iJI-- .i< J! J! , ~ , , '. E " " '" 8 . li ~ .E ~ of. c. & ~ " , ~ ::;: fo i .:;: ~ & ~ j October November December January February March April Ma, June July August September Total October November December January February March April Ma, June July August September Total October November December January February March April Ma, June July August September Total October November December January February March April Ma, June July August September Total October November December January February March April Ma, June July August September Total Month 151 110 156 147 126 166 112 122 130 132 159 131 1,842 FY'07 Month 67 70 63 80 67 62 71 80 67 78 67 56 828 Month 385 350 261 263 274 231 269 377 472 596 366 251 4,095 Month 51 28 32 27 37 16 24 37 54 34 28 15 383 Month 3,366 3,084 3.420 3,468 3,513 3.339 3.371 3,238 2,910 29,709 FY'07 YTO 151 261 417 564 690 856 968 1,090 1,220 1,352 1,511 1.642 1,642 YTO FY'07 YTO 385 735 996 1,259 1,533 1,764 2,033 2,410 2,882 3,478 3,844 4,095 4,095 FY'07 YTO FY'07 YTO 3,366 6,450 9,870 13,338 16,851 20.190 23,561 26,799 29,709 29,709 Month 127 122 123 154 67 137 200 280 347 409 480 560 627 705 772 828 828 FY'08 Month 69 75 87 82 Month 413 288 270 222 1,193 51 79 111 138 175 191 215 252 306 340 368 383 383 FY'08 Month 26 11 18 17 FY'08 YTO 127 249 372 526 526 YTO 293 FY'08 YTO 413 701 971 1,193 DAS Monthly Report ADOPTIONS Variation Month -16% 11% -21% 5% RETURN TO OWNER Variation Month 69 144 231 293 EUTHANASIA Variation Month 3% 7% 38% -23% 7% -18% 3% .16% OTHER. OUTCOME Variation YTD Month 26 -49% 37 -61% 55 44% 72 -37% Month 3103 2.977 4,963 5,620 CALLS AND SHELTER VISITORS FY'08 Variation YTD Month 3.103 6,080 11.043 16,663 67% 1611 ~ YTO -16% -5% .11% -7% [ADOPTlONSI '__FY07 __fY'OS t ""~. 7(111 --,,-.,- Mill i\\". :"=~:'"'. ~dN.:; II., ~ 2 L__ ! ~ ~'~-i-'-~ 4' C-T~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ;f "" .:2 ~ 7. ~ :J YTO 3% 5% 16% 5% r-.-- ! [RETUR,1\,/ TO OWNERT~~ __-PY'07[ __FY'OS 1_000 900 W" JO" IiOO 500 4(j() 300 200 100 o ~~~iii'~'-"-E see <> ? ~ .~ ;' 80~~B" ~ C ~ <: ~. ~o ~ <<: ~ .. YTO 7% -5% -3% -5% IEUTHANASIAl __FY'07 ___FY08 I,OOG 900 800 700 600 500 4()() 3110 700 1001 O+-------,-.----., , HP~ L8)~ ~ ~ ~ l ~. ] , ~. ill, ~ ~ ~ g roTiIER~ oUTCOME} _FY07] --- FY'08 JI YTO -49% -53% -50% 4ll% 1,1100, ~gg t'. ~iJO " SilO 1.- 4011 _Jllfl( 2110 .;...--.-. IIIO+- o i."" ,'~. ~ .:; ': 'lil'~ ~ ":d:" ':il:~;':; , .,...L" ;: fO' ;;: :::. !., ~ i " ~ .;: !,l & .l .l ~ , 2 , j ~ ~ 5 7 j J YTD i--U CALLS AND SHELTER VISITOR~ _FY'07 __FY'08 395% 1:::::::t=Z~ I ~:::~ t~::"r;j'~' ~~~~~]l B ~ ''I !i ] ;:'- <<: ~ ~ -, ~ '-"---.r--,------,------ 4 ] ~ " ~ ~ & L~-::~~;:~~-~ f ~.,.'.'\."':;'dl_;W';_I' ~. ;~;:,r!' DAS Monthly Report 16/1 ,4 ASS'ST, RESCUE & WILD ------- -- FY'07 FY'OB Variation r-- IASSIST, RESC:trE&-,,:U::i>l Month YTD Month YTD Month YTD I October 84 84 November 46 130 12Ci December 53 183 I 100 January 70 70 2 185 -97% 164% February 72 142 so March 97 239 60 April 73 312 +0 May 72 384 1() June 94 478 July 97 575 " 0 , j . < ~ , 0 0 ~ . 0 , ~ August 94 659 ~ 1 " > ~ " 0 2 < 5 September 103 772 u 8 ~ > < 0 0 ~ - e- Total 772 772 185 z ~ ---------.- DEAD FY'07 FY'08 Variation I'~-'---~-- i-DEAD} I -+-FY'07 Month YTD Month YTD Month YTD October 39 39 _FY'08 November 33 72 60i--- --,._..~..._----- December 32 104 50 January 53 53 35 140 -32% 164% February 40 93 40 March 41 134 ]0 April 36 170 20 May 33 203 10 June 25 228 July 33 261 , , " I . " , 0 ~ , August 39 300 ~ ] i . " ~ , , ~ " 2 < ! i September 36 336 8 6 , ~ > -l z 0 " Total 335 336 140 "~ INVESTIGATE FY'07 FY'08 Variation IINVESTIGA TE' '=+-FY'07 Month YTD Month YTD Month YTD October 212 212 _FY'08 November 242 454 400 -~------- December 222 676 350 January 342 342 335 1,011 -2% 196% 300 February 288 630 2~0 March 348 978 lOa April 242 1,220 150 May 322 1,542 100 June 288 1,830 50 " July 255 2,085 , 0 . J , '[ , 0 > Jl August 268 2,353 ~ ~ i . , " , g, ! ~ < 5 September 6 > ~ 164 2,517 < e- o c " Total 2,517 2,517 1,011 7. ~ ----------- -~------ STRAY & OWNED FY'07 FY'08 Variation rsTRAY & OWNEDt ...~ Month YTD Month YTD Month YTD -.-. FY'07 October 538 538 _~FY08: November 499 1,037 800 December 536 1,573 700 January 627 627 496 2,069 .21% 230% !lOO February 607 1,234 500 I March 610 1,844 ""orl I April 579 2,423 300 May 714 3,137 100 June 642 3,779 [00 r, -,-----T-----,-------------.------,---..r------, July 699 4,478 0 j j I , ~ , August 524 5,002 i i ~ , " ~ ~ ~, < j September 555 5,557 6 g ~ " z 0 " Total 5,557 5,557 2,069 ----------- October November December January February March April May June July August September Total October November December January February March April May June July August September Total October November December January February March April May June July August September Total October November December January February March April May June July August September Total FY'07 Month YTD 258 258 242 500 240 740 191 931 174 1,105 183 1,288 178 1,466 178 1,644 188 1,832 1,832 1,832 FY'07 Month YTO 24,097 24,097 21,203 45,300 20,520 65,820 24,337 90,157 28,045 118,201 24,649 142,850 18,177 161,027 24,661 185,688 23,761 209,449 21,480 230,928 32,311 263,239 34,818 298,057 298,057 298,057 FY'07 Month YTD 5,026 5,026 4,055 9,081 4,503 13,584 4,567 18,151 4,835 22,986 4,843 27,829 3,937 31,766 5,165 36,931 4,393 41,324 4,747 46,071 6,023 52,094 5,999 58,093 58,093 58,093 FY'07 Month YTD 1,897 1,897 4,940 6,837 2,020 8,856 2,114 10,970 1,165 12,135 470 12,605 346 12,951 1,250 14,200 1,182 15,382 1,604 16,986 1,978 18,964 1,625 20,589 20,589 20,589 t 0 0 ! . " ~ 0 ~ a 0 ~ ~ . " :i1 0 ~ , 0 2 " , t g ! " ~ , -l 6 5 " fr 736 z ~ GENERAL FUND REVENUE Month 188 158 167 223 Month 23,107 20,084 19,924 27,449 90,664 Month 4,612 4,922 4,015 5,737 19,286 FY'08 Month 2,198 5,308 1,582 2,045 11,133 FY'08 YTD 188 346 513 736 FY'08 YTD 23,107 43,191 63,115 90,564 DAS Monthly Report TRANSPORT Variation Month Variation Month YTD -14% -4% -5% -3% 13% YTD -4% -5% -4% 0% FY'08 SPAY AND NEUTER FUND Variation Month YTD 4,612 9,534 13,549 19,286 YTD 2,198 7,506 9,088 11,133 -8% 21% -11% 26% DAS TRUST FUND Variation Month 16% 7% -22% .3% YTD -8% 5% 0% 6% YTD 16% 10% 3% 1"/. 16 11 A [TR:ooroiIT1 :-+-F)"07 --'PY'08 -'00 .- - 10 " - : . " . . I -,------~ ~_. 250 185% 200 1 ~o 100 ;0 !GENERAL FUND REVENUE I -+-FY'07 -FY'08 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 O-+---,. 1_____ ~ 1 j j ~ I ~ ~ ~ , . , ~ ~ ~ > "' , "' fr " ___~J [SPAY 'AND NEliTER FUNDI !-+-FY;07 -FY'08 7,0001 6,0()O.J- 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 o ~~,...----. j t . I ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ., > , ~ > ., ~ - ~ ~ i i i 8 I---------:-:--::~~-:---:~----~-----------:-:-:---..- i [vAs TRllSTFtJND} I-+--FY'07- '-FY'08 66""]n ::~: ~-^ --- ,000/\ ~,-% ~~:~ ~\-;~".~;:;E~'~ !,--, -'T---,------. ~_"'''1~~1:€. c~,,~ ct ~~~<"" ~J~ ic~- ~ MEMORANDUM 16 r 1 A DATE: February 15, 2008 Amanda Townsend, Interim D~' , o~estic Animal Services Sue Filson, Executive Manager , Board of County Commission TO: FROM: RE: Animal Services Advisory Board As you know, we currently have vacancies on the above-referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the applications received for your review as follows: W. Thomas Kepp, Jr. 6491 Sable Ridge Lane Naples, FL 34109 Brian F. Theiss 811 C Measowland Drive Naples, FL 34108 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time-frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please include in your return memo the attendance records of the applicants recommended for reappointment. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 774-8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SF Attachments . . . FRCI'1 FAX NO. Feb. 13 J.bl f A Board of County Commissioners 3301 EPt T.....JDi Trail NlqIIM. n.. 34111 (139) 251-*l97 Fu: (139) 252-3001 1'1_; Application for Advisory Commlttees/BOards BoJDe Phol1e: "5' / ~ 2 /9 J Zip Code: 3 t; / P' 7' .--, /J/~ ~#;9(,.1L,a". 110_ Addra8' Fu No. l'Iace ofEJIlP~t; Board or Comml_ ApplIed for: . CJOte&OI'Y (lfapplicable): s_c._--'-' 8_ long hav. yOll ItVed III comer CouDty: y",," < ") MoJrIId An you. registered voter III Collier C4MUItY; Yes V-- No Do you car......1Jy hokl pablk oftke? Yes No z---- If.... w~ 11I_ elIIco? Have you ev~ ~ of auy off...., ~at tile Law? Yes 1I_....,..m, , -,_~.n ~. 7~' Do,......... -. ..._,... _ ~ 011* CoIIIor CodIY \IaB'd er""-! v. 11_ pIoMo IIottPco"-- p/'" No ~NO =elWtyoar~~~~~~~7U /17 t(',L-/ Ed.catlon, ExperleDce: ~...... ~... .,.". ...... _--d ,..,...~ 77alI tin .. IMIIMM"'~~ .L....I i~"'l"'2MIAU .... .".."'...I.,.....,..s........,~ (33')m~J4v.,...-,._.. - ~u_ IN __ TlwlMn:.~FL3411J.If;JIMWM,"""JIa""''',,'' . -:......... ~ I ""Ill!I"'I'lt.dIbrat""CcIlIIi.~ From: brian theiss To: FuM3043958 Dade: 2/1512008 Time: 11:27:14AM Page1of1 ore: 596-l2S7 02/15/08 10;24 AM ?age 3 oL :3 From: AlonsoHai1ey J 6 1 1 A &sl'd of Ct>unty C um:missionf"N 33tn Eltst Tam~ll..mt Trail ".pl... I'L >4H2 (2.Jf.o.) 252-3097 ~'.~: (239)~:1 \' ';j~ - "A/'~";i. ''''',"'':{--.--,-.. W.....: r-\ . ",. ..~y" '-'''''-')\ ..< 1.:LA..~l'>"1""':....f;. 'j~'.~.:5 ! Application for Advisory CommittceslBoards r"". -r . .-'f-t ,. .~, " ,.: Name; On!".! fl,C . ne\:s <'.) Home.Pll"".: t')q 2"h~!;?i ',.....; > r-. I'" i : 'D.L\ ". " ^~... .""^.... i ~ ,~"'4Ci1."'} '1..:' 1^ ~:--~rl _ _..-, ......,i-J ~/ -~\...' Hum.Add....: .1. ....,: \. _,' . I' .,vel : .L'.l:,.\, ., . 7.-1j>Cad.,; ., .,. i f. ~~ :;:"P f . ')0:;'1. EtJ'! I '2'."~ \ . , '-[h ... {".. . 1 ... Vox Nom ,iT i <~.:J~_~m... J'h<>n>;:../ . ':1~ I.. ? I N:".1I.~~..."...b.~\-:.:~f-i'':';'~L-t~mo.:i~!~fi1 ;........< 't'..:ArtC \'~"1:""'I"".'.;i .j--l.,,-^'. t... ..- Pla~&f,Emp'!oyment: :. .(.>.\.~!.t!-~:.{':". '~:d:J'"\ : .;..;~- '}."'t."i. -!:\';, . i . ....': -- . \ .:>.; - t . \..... ...r--. .' ,",: 'f"........ ch ~ h <.. . ''''.....,. . r ~ &ar'd o"C::ommlttec AppU<<I for: M':~,-+ef.u)t'.~:1.L.~ I'X f~ ..;-~ J'y'-!Ct :~ ~ .(~'., \' ~-\i.} l P. ,-:;.... Category (,fappi;C.hl<);____:':si' ,11" . i' Lu () xia.x:. ."1.._ Exllmpk:Coa1clalilC81 Dfa.1I;;t, De-..doper, Tlrorosna-daUst, ~ P'!:nM. cP.i. \.....,., HO)~' long bav(- )"ou lived in Comer C(I.'lJnty: Y-ean t~ ~1cnths X ~r'--; .. . sl,.. fA-'?'\~ .. (:' . ....;~-,-..: .-: ,.-'1 .e:. f r')' ,"'1' f tYi0 Arc ra!! 8. t'(!p;isu-..rcd'\'C}(er h. C(!oUi~r- Cuunt;t.; Yt.'1l. Nil !'to' ""l ____L.......u...,...._ UG you: _vur~tf;y ~o-kl1>1Sbns:: uff'ic,;"'..' ~ 'C4 _.__~u._.U.._h_ If $~ wbat ~t Cbat ~f.'?_____._'"_'-_..-._-_.-~--__._.~.____. liav",,_ ~"C.1.l WC-I" been ~onv1cted of dtly offense agaJn.l5t tht' l.:lw? If J~:r-. u~ltbC Y.."s. ~.ln_...,Xc._....... to-"y.c;u n;)W"",~'or Mvt yotl~tn' ""~d, oft & C-oIUtr C~ ~ ")t" cn11'1!Q::tt>~?y(<< __m,N(jo.~~_.~X:-----~... If )~, V.K>lt~-RSf IH'f.:(onltD.'::JtreNr;f~N>>:'__.__n_H..____..n:_--.-n--.-." . ., . _ . ._'__'__U_"_.~""'''',''''..______'_ .:...........~...._..._..__...--- ~)1"<"3!l:e Jb:t,YOJoIJJ" (!tmm. U!l~..;U:t.lVIUes..;.. (dvi~J_~.!}~ netw. l.bqrfu.>.vd M!H).- ~~'i6~... . eu. ftn-d .~. s;:t..on~. '. -1.. . . eid;__~()~j.~~~t'$~_...___r:1~~ -t{:~ n;';.g::..tll:L.t+:"Tr) r 5.~ ... t"e; \ P;l )-~: ... ) ~ C~(lt %f,fl;A':tyneps ~ <. . ~,;~ , ~ .~ '.' . "'. . "'W.''i''''-. _t::"'n\ii.t. W"8,.."tX'<i:.-.l .. . ..\... ..... ......f. ~..~, r........~ . '-'.'_',-,',.J . ._______._._________._.._......_...______.._._u__..__.__....~. e A '''';J.'. -"'. .'. '! ,'., . t Ed~-.ti..:." . 1 . q,. t "f'''. 1(',;"> ~ ' >']/ \1\.': ~ .- ~ ) 1~,~r~r.iT:--: ..... ~.c: . .--. _~__-\-'d+-~. .....q.".{...-vl.~- . m....~~ fr . \" ,_ ,. ....... ...,... ~-..- x _ .__ < )',;M -frl" .~,';~'("n " I ~'~'J . "+C-.t"','lt.~~::~''''l-1'itt:\.. \ ').""'i'". -. . _ '. ~ . ~"\ . . .. . -' _' 'i.. J . . -~ '......-.,. .c::":" ... J. v~~,;~...: \.., - .' . ~. / ......... /!.. ~.dil. t.\ E~porl.n'" . i'-1IXf'0 iO'P'H'T1 c" <'1 \iy'; .:'.'-'>P<10U_ nJill~~CV;~I<; 1,:Cj')' ......~..-......~...--.y(..~.:..:.-~..~..++l~m:..~:~~....uY\-l"::.._._L..___L~~_.,' t. : ~)" .~. --l-...-~~...-=---'--- . - :~. ;;'~/' ~~',:'j'::'; ......._,-.... "'...J'f.~ .,-;.... )- 1': .....~ ....f...'i: .;..... <' -.t.f:.o \1 60.__.' \t"';:> JII--'.': ;.Q:'--:/'}'y') I r.f ,,), '. "'-'c"..r. . ". J -.l.' ... '10,'. _ ..._-_.'. _ " .\" -. .' ..--.-....+----."..... 4f+:J.......t-..-. ,.'-..-f.lJ-..j'- ,. ,J. "-,', ...' ." I ~ I \ _-:~ , _.j ~'"\ ,J.... '\. ~..., '. ........ l""'~'~~' ..... .; - ";").:~ ,....:hEes ~--'---t..~b.:_-,-:~--+...;o"i.;;;-;:7~-;:-"~'";1~~.... p..t. ::~ . ,Er."_, .,t"..-:--.... _.~1..L_...,::+ll~..:..;.w~-.h +..;~-~-L_(4.$..1::.{..".-" -'A.. , '-. '0' t 'J-':'.t.H. "~ ~__ .'Al;tl-,~~=-..:..;:=if~ ~.. 1 -).. . .-.-::.... -: ," ~- - . .'- .. '...b.... ..'i~'" -....- ,"--"~ '..-. --,:' '.:'. '-'" ..... ........ .b:~u22k~~..-l.;::k.<$,p.-.:4}:f.. ,:_~,C-...' VSS.=:t:..~T)Tt'e:F'rn:~......i" f ).c !)J.,,\ n e.\...tvl~0(:tion!;1 'r..~ i------: .. -~~~:.f' ..:;h.ry7~~~.~--...:>d~:.r;;~. 'f.t.. e' .... '. . - .! . .. :..__...._.__..~.__d~__U~. L . ..-.... i'~~'dfJ~ ".~ _O:~l. ft~~rj:"ir~G!idtoH:(;:RU~7;......6Jilt.s-~&...utftp,MiliMJrn--t.o :b41 HMf14 tf' Cff4:zt..~.:k<<i '. J') i!:rII:t r40V,WIKi 1"4tl..:(I.;'~ pt. If;J;<;, - ((7" WiD. ~jQ:.l''''''''''''~o<oIO': tlr -iJ.'!9!J,,~~-;-sU;), w '''I:8<<';;.q~' '~"!1:oWs Y~.fN,~~tv.e Ig",..~ Sut'ei14ns-,,"i."lfi1t~OHtrttJ1. rh, (j'~ "lata c__~_~.--- Halas L6..;f---- t.:':'_'~;::;""-l) ~enning~-or;----- 1 L.;:r" voyle ~--- 0 Coletta . ~- EMER ENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL (EMSAC) l' JuG' . ......jil, "r'" ..""..11..""... Wednesday January 30, 2008 NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH CLINIC Second Floor Education Center Located; 120 Goodlette Road North District I Commission District - Victoria DiNardo, Present District 2 Commission District - Jeffrey Allbritten, Chairman, Absent District 3 Commission District - John Valenti, Absent District 4 Commission District - Nancy Lascheid, Vice Chairman, Present District 5 Commission District - Vacant At Large - Johan Domenie, Present At Large - Dr. Douglas Lee, Present Naples Community Hospital - Gail Dolan, Present City of Naples Police and Emergency Services - Jim McEvoy, Chief, Present Collier County Health Department - Kathleen Marr, Present City of Marco Island Fire/Rescue - Michael Murphy, Chief, Present Collier County Fire Chief's Associations - Rob Pottieger, Assistant Chief, Present Physician's Regional Medical Center - Dr. Jeffrey Panozzo, Present Collier County Sheriff's Office - Commander Bill Rule, Present The regular meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Nancy Lascheid, followed by the "Pledge of Allegiance". A quorum was not present at this time. OLD BUSINESS; 2008 Schedule It was explained that the BCC needs to have something in writing saying that EMSAC will be meeting every month. The schedule can change, as it did last year, however they need a clear idea at the beginning of the year what our plans are. We were unable to vote on it last meeting because we lost a quorum by the time it came up on the agenda. A few members asked some questions of different dates, but overall were happy to see a definitive plan for the meetings. A few dates were changed; March was moved to accommodate something with the health department that a lot of the members may be attending, November was moved because it was in fact the day before Thanksgiving so it was moved up a week, and December was moved to accommodate the Health Clinic. With a quorum now present: Motion to adopt Schedule; passed unanimously Motion to adopt today's agenda; passed unanimously Motion to adopt previous minutes; passed unanimously Misc. Cooes: Date: 3.2-5.~ Itemt:~ ~opies to 16/1 A Review of Sub-Committee meeting Nancy explained that the Sub-committee met twice, and worked independently between meetings. Nancy gave an update on the topic regarding facilities at A ve Maria. She explained that she got a hold of the individual overseeing the infirmary at Ave Maria. He explained that they will be opening February 18th, and will be staffed with a receptionist, an X-ray tech, a Physicians Assistant, and a Physician. They will eventually open 6 days a week, but in the beginning they will only be open partially each day. There will be access for EMS at the back of the building and patient loading at the front. With that she opened up for council discussion of the review. Mr. Domenie asked what the next step would be with the review. Chief Page explained that a copy would go to the BCC office to be kept with the minutes, and a copy could also go to the Chairman of the Productivity Committee for their review. Gail Dolan asked what pages 181 and 182 of the plan consisted of. Nancy explained that was the summary, and because it was so detailed that it deserved some attention. It was determined that until Chief Murphy anived that we wait to adopt the review. NEW BUSINESS: Elections for Chairman & Vice Chairman Nancy was suggested as a candidate for Chairman. She politely declined as she has become increasingly busy with her clinic. It was clarified that only the members representing the commission districts were allowed to be appointed Chairman and Vice Chairman. Nancy nominated John Valenti for Chairman. Unfortunately he was absent at this meeting, but she felt that he would be a perfect person to be impartial. She also read into the record Dr. Allbritten's statement regarding re-election. It states: "Hi Jennifer, Considering my schedule and the numerous complications that arise due to my position, I feel it would be best if someone else chair this group as we move forward. I enjoy being a part of the group and will continue to do so. Thanks, Jeff." Motion to adopt John Valenti as new Chairman; passed unanimously All the members of the commission districts present declined being chosen for Vice Chairman. This will be postponed until February's meeting. District 5 Application It was asked if anyone on the council knew of this gentleman. Nobody did, but they recognized that he has been a firefighter in Immokalee for a number of years. It was agreed that we invite him in for the next meeting so the council can talk to him before voting. User Fee Resolution Chief Page explained that this went before the BCC and was approved yesterday. The biggest change is the charge for "Treatment without transport." He explained that quite a few EMS companies now have added this charge in an effort to generate additional revenue. The guidelines for the charge would be if we went to a call and we had to expend supplies for that patient, but they were not transported. He explained that 1611 A would include the usage of 12 leads, giving glucose, etc. The billing company right now has not been able to reach the expected amount of revenue. He explained that with the economy the way it is, people are more reluctant to pay their bills, and also the insurance companies are waiting a longer amount of time before paying also. Chief Potteiger asked what would happen if the ALS Engine gets there first, and cancels EMS, but runs a 12 lead; would there still be a charge. Chief Page explained that would be up to him and his department. Chief Page explained that they used to have a user fee in the past. They stopped it because the thought then was, they wanted people to call us, and not be afraid of the additional cost. Comm. Rule asked what we do if someone doesn't pay. Chief Page stated that there is a serious of redundant letters, and then the account will go to a collection agency. Chief Page stated that he has received more hardship letters this quarter than he received all year last year. Johan wanted to know how much last year was reported to the Board as uncollectable. Chief Page couldn't say off the top of his head, but it was millions. He stated that he did a report for Commissioner Coyle on how many people we transport who are illegal aliens. We don't really have a way of tracking that specifically, but what we did do find was $2,400,000 worth of transports where the patients did not have social security numbers. Chief Page explained that typically we would have done this around September; however we waited to see what other agencies would do. He stated that there are many out there that are charging more than we are. We try to stay in the middle of the road with the charges. A question was asked regarding the mileage charge and from where it starts adding up. Chief Page stated that the mileage goes from the scene to the hospital; there is no charge for mileage while they are responding to the scene. Chief Murphy had a question regarding what was considered treatment, and what happens if I call 91I versus if my neighbor calls 911 for me. He asked if all of that was cleared up. Chief Page stated that all of that would be made clear within the General Orders to the field personnel. He stated that if there are supplies expended, there will be a bill. Taking vitals on someone does not count, and if supplies are not used, there will be no charge. Chief Murphy stated that he feel this will generate problems from the ALS engine side, because if the engine shows up first and treats the patient there is no charge, but if the ambulance shows up and treats there will be a charge. He stated that he will be instructing his staff to do so. Chief Page stated that he will get clarification from the county attorneys on whether we will bill if our paramedic treats from an ALS engine. He feels we won't because the engine doesn't belong to us, but he will let everyone know. Chief Murphy stated that if that is the case he will be asking his council to start buying the supplies so we won't be charging from their engines. Moving on Chief Murphy wanted to let the council know why he was running late. It was because his department was honoring their Firefighter of the Year. They chose a man named Jerry Adams. He has worked for the department for 23 years and just won a battle with cancer. He continued to work on light duty and was honored for his courage and commitment and willingness to continue in public service. Nancy requested that as a committee we send a congratulatory note to Mr. Adams. Going back to the Sub-Committee report, Nancy let Chief Murphy know that we held off adopting it until he arri ved. She asked him if he had any input to add before it was adopted. Chief Murphy only stated that he felt the report was accurate to what the sub-committee agreed on. Motion to adopt; passed unanimously 16 11 A CCFCA Consolidation Report Chief Page explained that we sent out the report by email, and if anyone had any questions Chief McEvoy and Chief Murphy were both on the committee. Rob Potteiger stated that he felt they did a good job. Chief McEvoy stated that they presented the report to the steering committee, and the direction given was to look at all the portions of consolidation. He stated that over the next couple of months they will be di viding up to get groups of people together and generate reports and information all with the main goal of improving services in Collier County. STAFF REPORTS: Chief Page started out by giving an update on Ave Maria. He stated that they went and visited the station last week. He stated that it is a double-wide trailer with two separate bedrooms, and all the facilities they will need. He stated that the Immokalee Chief may not have any personnel to provide there. At the most he may place one firefighter there in a quick response vehicle. Chief Page agreed to staff a firefighter there to help his, if needed. He stated that we recently had to move the unit out of North Collier Hospital because they needed the space. Currently they are stationed at Big Corkscrew as a second unit, but may be moving to Ave Maria. He also stated that he will have to wait for direction from the Board regarding yesterdays vote for the tax reform. He may have to start down-sizing. There are some departments that have already started down-sizing in preparation for the reform. He stated that he doesn't anticipate having to do that, but it's still up in the air. Typically, there has been a percentage across the board that every department has to cut. So we are waiting for direction from the Board for that. A question was asked what the call volume was in Ave Maria. Chief Page stated that it's very small; however that unit will be assisting other units for response time issues. He stated that unit 10 (Big Corkscrew area) spends so much time in Immokalee helping cover them, that they are rarely ever in zone. So this Ave Maria unit will be helping keep unit 10 in zone more often. He stated that if the Board decides to have a unit out there, staff's recommendation will be to move that one. A question was asked if Big Corkscrew was moving any closer to an ALS Engine program. Chief Page stated that we have met with them and they have expressed an interest. Initially they weren't interested in the swap program, but Chief Page explained to them the benefit of the swap, and they are thinking it over with their respective boards. Op Track Charts Chief Page stated that he will try to bring these charts to the group every quarter. Chief Murphy asked Chief Page if the board adopted the different response times for urban and rural in the AUIR? Chief Page stated that was a recommendation but he was unsure if it was ever adopted. A few questions were asked regarding the cardiac charts. Chief Page had an additional chart that he showed the council which was a more detailed breakdown of the different stages and categories of cardiac arrest. Dr. Panozzo asked for a chart with the initial rhythm of the patients and then what their outcomes were. Chief Page explained that was what he had, and would show him more closely. 16 , 1 A SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: There are no speakers for public comment. BOARD MEMBER DISCUSSION: There was no further board discussion. The next meeting will be held on February 27, 2008. Meeting Adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Jennifer Florin , / / . '1/ / \ , I) /. /1. / / 0.,' , //-',,- " ' ,/:/./ (/",",:},t//,>/'/ . -.. . /'/0'. . . / . / F "y ,/.% / .,'..- - ',- -. /' ,'/ - .- - _ i>', ',- ;,r;' /,i'''','/' 2'// " Chaiuhan tCou'<<cil Member Slgnature Date Adopted: i 1/' 0>' -, /1 ! 16 11 A 'Emergency :A1.edica{ Services .Jtcfvisory Counci{ Schedule for 2008 Meetings will be held on the last Wednesday of each month at 2:00pm in the secondfloor Education Room of the Neighborhood Health Clinic. Located at: 120 Goodlette Road January 30th February 27th March 25th (Tuesday) April 30th May 28th June 25th July 30th August 27th September 24th October 29th November 19th December 17th EMSAC SUB COMMITTEE REPORT January 30, 2008 16 , 1 A Members: Victoria DeNardo, Chief Mike Murphy, Nancy Lascheid, and Staff: Chief Jeff Page and Administrative Assistant Jennifer Florin. Assignment: Review and report summary of CCEMS Master Plan dated 01/2007, Submitted by ESCL Committee consensus: Feasibility I. Further research, with both a shorVlong range planning is needed to address the issues of demographics in relationship to growth and change. A. Seasonal population B. Density areas C. Rural development, in particular Ave Maria D. Aging population, assisted living facilities vs. private residents E. Younger families with pediatric needs F. Potential trauma impact from the 1-75 expansion Financial II. Maximize the utilization of existing programs A. Identify and determine cost containment and need for "rolling stock". B. Vehicle deployment which was not adequately addressed in the ESCi report. C. Encourage use of present dispatch protocol, Le. Alpha, Bravo, etc. Ill. Concern for future funding sources and the paramount need for identifying and accessing alternative and/or additional revenues. A. Each member viewed this from a different perspective and offered varying recommendations for further discussion. B. Develop a private/public entity to review alternative funding options Continued Improvements 16 11 A A. Immediate response to the concern for a station at the intersection of Golden Gate and Everglades Blvd. B. Utilization of GPS and other computer travel technology. C. Health care facility with ALS Engine in Ave Maria area. D. Redundancy of dispatching. E. More in-depth review of pages 181/182 in the Master Plan. Other issues of concern: These are issues mentioned in the individual reviews, but not by majority. · Dedicated dual purpose of Fire/EMS Engines in rural/developing areas. · Creation of new EMS position titled, Assistant Chief of Administration, with job responsibility to include, but not limited to grant applications, etc. . Review of response time intervals. . Unit hour utilization ratio. · Fees from other sources such as; auto tags, boat registration, etc. · Utilization of other transport options, e.g. ordinary passenger vans in place of ambulances and so forth. . Utilization of Well Care Clinics. · Questions regarding budgeting associated with MedFlight. Final comments: Page 9 of the Executive Summary; "the EMS system is stable in its administration and oversight and is considered progressive with the region." 16 11 A EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL SUB COMMITTEE (EMSAC) Monday January 28, 2008 COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES HEADQUARTERS 2705 S Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 District I Commission District - Victoria DiNardo, Present District 4 Commission District - Nancy Lascheid, Vice Chairman, Present City of Marco Island Fire/Rescue - Michael Murphy, Chief, Present The regular meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Nancy Lascheid. A quorum was present at this time. Motion to adopt minutes from previous meeting; passed unanimously OLD BUSINESS: Nancy requested that Dr. Panozzo's resignation be read verbatim into the minutes: "Nancy- I respectfully request to withdraw my name and involvement with the subcommittee. JP". Nancy accepted his resignation and thanked him for his involvement. Nancy wanted to express her appreciation for the seriousness and sincerity that each member put into their responses from the last meeting. Nancy told Chief Murphy that before he arrived at the meeting, she and Vicky were asking Chief Page to give them an overview of the Productivity Committee. She explained to the members that she made a review of each person's statements, and compiled them into one. She wanted to be sure that each person knew that she didn't intentionally leave anything out, nor did she prioritize the list. She only tried to identify the areas where everyone was in agreement. At the end of her review she highlighted some of the things that everyone wasn't in agreement on, but she felt needed some attention. She requested that the sub-committee go thru her review and talk about each thing prior to giving a presentation to the main committee. Starting off with Feasibility, Nancy asked Chief Page if it was reasonable to determine seasonal population on a geographical map to see if it was denser in some communities versus others. Chief Page explained that at best we could only make an assumption. He explained that Planning Review might have something geographical, but he's not sure. He explained that he normally looks at the type of calls, for example, Marco has a lot more cardiac calls and a lot less birthing of babies than other areas. Nancy stated that the type of calls can be relevant to both seasonal population, aging population, and pediatric needs. Chief Page stated that he usually only uses the call volume, and the only reason he would have looked at the aging population in the past is if 1611 . he had a specialty vehicle that was set up for mainly cardiac calls, then he would be looking at where the older population is generally located. However, all the units are set up the same way to handle everything, so that hasn't played a role in the past. Nancy moved to section B. Density areas. She asked Chief Page if he knew or had an idea of where the more dense areas are of the county. Chief Page explained that would come into play more for the fire departments. They would want to know more of where the fire load is, and that would generally be where the most buildings and people are. He explained that when we plan for a new growth unit, we look at where the calls are with the slowest response times, and where the unit would do the most good to keep the response times down. Nancy then asked about Ave Maria, and what the time frame was on getting a unit out there. She also asked if they were going to have an infirmary there, and would that have transport capabilities, or at least accommodations. Chief Page explained that he has been out to Ave Maria since the last meeting, and they have a double-wide trailer set up for the unit. He stated that it is really nice, and they have all the facilities staff would need. Nancy asked about the transport capabilities out there. Chief Murphy brought up the idea of having an engine out there, that could be utilized to provide dual care, both fire and EMS. Then depending if transport is needed and the severity that would determine if the helicopter is utilized or regular ground transport is utilized; similar to Everglades City or other long distance areas. Nancy asked what the committee members thought about the report and the way she had the discussions summarized for reporting to the regular EMSAC body. Chief Murphy stated that he didn't feel the objective was to come up with an answer. He stated that the report was a condensation of what each person read in the plan and what everyone agrees should be addressed. He also feels that what Chief Page identified what he felt the Productivity Committee would be looking at will be the meat of the whole idea. He stated that we should try and be as prepared as possible for the Productivity Committee and what they might throw at us. He stated that the summary is fine. Vicky also agreed that the summary was good. Nancy then asked that they go through the summary and make sure that each person agrees with it, and add or subtract anything they feel should be. Nancy asked Chief Page if he had anything that he wanted to add. Chief Page stated that he had something else to add to his Ave Maria summary. He stated that recently we had a unit stationed out of North Collier Hospital and they have since needed the space, so we had to move out of there. That unit is currently stationed at Big Corkscrew as a second unit. He stated that his recommendation due to housing needs is going to be to move that unit to Ave Maria. He stated that he spoke with Chief Alvarez from Immokalee Fire. He stated he might not have the staff to be there at all, and at the most only one firefighter. He asked if Chief Page could try to staff a firefighter out there to assist his firefighter if need be. Nancy got back into the Feasibility area, and wanted to be sure that the topic of potential trauma from the 1-75 expansion be brought up as a concern. She asked if anyone had any comments on that area or had anything they wanted to adjust. Chief Murphy stated that he thought a mention of pages 181 - 182 of the Master Plan should be added to the Improvements section. He felt that the recommendations section of the plan (pg 181-182) really summarizes it very well. Chief Page stated that he recalled the consultants spent quite a bit of time in the Planning Review department, and they may still have the demographics stuff they provided them. He offered that we could work 16 , 1 ~ with them to get the information if the committee wanted. Nancy thought that might be able to wait until the main group had a chance to look at this and digest it a little. Chief Murphy wanted to express a concern that the he doesn't want to see any of the current units taken away. He stated that he didn't feel that was the goal from this group at all, whereas we should be looking at improving. He didn't want to get too far into seasonal population numbers because he felt that Chief Page as the director of EMS utilizes his units and compensates for the seasonal population. He doesn't want this group to start getting into the operations of EMS; instead try to improve it. He thought it might be helpful for Chief Page to address the different issues under Feasibility by letting the group know how he handles the different things. Nancy agreed that the Master Plan and the sub-committee report are only suggestions. Nancy moved onto the financial aspect of the report. She commended Chief Murphy for his creativity in his report. Nancy made sure that he was comfortable with the summation from his report to this. He only asked that the private/public entity to review alternative funding options be moved from the discussion items into the financial topic. Chief Murphy had a question for Chief Page regarding impact fees and whether we had a section that gave the County the ability to negotiate impact fees for equipment and services. His example was if Ave Maria owed the County $10 million in impact fees, if they said that they would build us a $12 million station, would that be ok? Chief Page explained that the Board does have that built in. Chief Murphy also asked if there were any sort of special needs or pieces of equipment, would we be able to make that person or property purchase that in addition to impact fees. Chief Page explained that we can, we would just have to add that line in the impact fees. The explanation Chief Page gave was Ochoppee Fire had a developer purchase them a boat because they had an island that was only accessible by boat. Nancy brought up a concern regarding the utilization of different types of transport vehicles. She was concerned with the liability factor. Chief Murphy stated that there have been other departments that have put a van in service. Which would be responsible to pick up non-emergency patients and take them to the hospital or wherever. Moving on to improvements, Nancy asked Chief Page what the status was of the station at Golden Gate and Everglades Blvd. He said it was on hold. Nancy asked if the improvements section and the discussion section were complete to the committees liking. Chief Page asked if the committee wanted to go through Chief Murphy's responses to his questions. He stated that his concern with Unit Hour Utilization studies is that they don't take into account move ups and different things. They were strictly looking at the call time. He explained that the compmison was done on a fire based EMS and on a "System Status" EMS. A "System Status" based EMS is where the truck is always moving and nobody is ever at a station. Chief Page and Chief Murphy both agreed that the study was skewed. Nancy asked Chief Page if he would like to have that included in the report. He answered yes, because we need to be as best prepared that we can be. He explained that he did not believe the Productivity Committee would be looking at operational issues; rather the focus would be more on financial issues. He went to say that he agreed with what Chief Murphy had under cost of vehicles. Chief Page stated he does not agree with Chief Murphy's comments regarding EMT's vs Paramedics. He stated that Collier EMS usually benchmarks against other stand alone EMS systems. Chief Murphy talked about the advantages of having two medics and one 1611 EMT on a unit, instead of just one medic and one EMT. He stated that across the state the standard is three people in each unit. Chief Page agreed that he would read over Chief Murphy's responses and send out a response of his own to the committee members. Everyone agreed that the report Nancy completed with the few revisions would be what is presented to the group at the regular meeting. Meeting Adjourned Respectfully Submitted, Jennifer Florin Date Adopted: / /. .J! ;;1//, f' ! ;' :> / /, //" "-I ..:/::j/:' /}> / .>'/_-~- .;}/',- ~:>-.. /./ pi,/' .,./ //.. .- ..'/. //// /'>:'/ //,' : ////-~',--'- ',': - Chairm~./ d'otfcil1\iem5~rSig~aiure -, / ;~ A ;:iala:\~.k- 51+---- ~~nya~n,,~~~_~ ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA 1:':' C Coletta (f"'::-- - 1 DAY 2: 9:00 A.M. March 6, 2008 Community Development, 2800 N Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610 Jr::: .dj\ f", I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of January 7, 2008 meeting minutes - First Mailing V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Commercial Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2006-AR-10875 - First Mailing Tamiami Crossing CPUD Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East B. Conditional Use No CU-2006-AR-9337 STAFF REPORT TO ARRIVE UNDER SEPARATE COVER-DUE TO ARRIVE BY FEB. 27 South Grove Lake CU Sections 17 and 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East C. Excavation Permit No. EXP-2007-AR-11983 South Grove Lake EXP Sections 17 and 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East D. Plat and Plans PPL-2004-AR-6476 City Gate Commerce Center Phase Two Section 35, Township 49, Range 26 VII. New Business (A-C. shall be heard at 9:00 a.m. on March 6) A. 5 year review of the RLSA by the Comprehensive Planning Dept. Phase I (1-2 hours) - Tom Greenwood First Mailing B. Lake Trafford Ranch (CP-2006-9), Planner: David Weeks C. Half Circle L Ranch (CP-2006-10), Planner: David Weeks VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects IX. Subcommittee Reports X. Staff Comments A. RLSA projects to be heard before EAC- Bill Lorenz B. Suggest EAC cite LDC & GMP when giving recommendations for denial C. Attendance - Please be available for the entire day of the meeting Misc. ComlS: XI. XII. XIII. Council Member Comments Public Comments Adjournment Date 0. z:s .'0 ltem# licJ/A)t", ****************************************************************************************************************************** Council Members: Please notify Summer Araaue. Environmental Services Senior Environmental Soecialist no later than 5:00 D.m. on Wednesdav. February 27. 2008 if YOU cannot attend this meetina or if YOU have a conflict and will abstain from votina on a oolition /252-62901. General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. t".. Fiala Kalas_~.1:-_ ~~~~~d ~ Coletta --- :. r\ \ '" 1'\: JanU1620r lA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, January 7, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Roger Jacobsen David Bishof Nick Penniman( excused) Michael V. Sorrell Dr. Llew Williams Allison D. Megrath(Alternate) Richard Miller ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright - Assistant County Attorney Stan Chrzanowski, PE - Planning Review Summer Araque - Senior Environmentalist M' C""'" rsc. ~._. Nick Casalanguida - Director, CC TransportatIOn Date :::J.ZEi.B Item#: I~ l( AJ [p ~i],ie5 to. January 7, 2008 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 9:00AM. 1611 A II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Jacobsen moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Williams. Carried unanimously 9-0. IV. Approval of November 7, 2006 meeting minutes Mr. Jacobsen moved to approve the minutes of November 7, 2007 meeting. Second by Mr. Horn. Carried unanimously 9-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Dr. Williams will not be present for the February meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2006-AR-9143 Standing Oaks RPUD Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in. Mr. Miller stated that he had visited the site. Bob Mulhere, Senior V.P., RW A, Inc. provided an overview of the Petition noting the subject parcel is 41.1 +/- acres in size and located on the east side of!- 75, west of Oakes Blvd and North of Vanderbilt Beach Road. Access is from Standing Oakes and Shady Oakes Lane. A gopher tortoise burrow was identified on site and is located in the preserve area. There is a large house and outbuildings located on the site which will be removed Mr. Jacobsen noted page 6, item #3 of the Staff report states 4.97 acres of lands were previously disturbed without proper authorization and inquired on the status of this issue. Bob Mulhere stated that the issue has been resolved and the applicant has reached an agreement with the County to re-vegetate a certain amount of area to mitigate the disturbance. He noted the disturbance was created by a prior owner. Question was asked concerning the location of the burrow in which Jason Hunt of Passarella and Associates stated it is approximately 30 yards from the proposed developed area. Chairman Hughes recommended that the applicant provide the Council with a status report on the condition of the Gopher Tortoise as construction is on going. 2 January 7, 2008 Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist stated that the StaffrecoJ~, I I approval of the Petition. II Dr. Hushon moved to approve the Petition subject with the following stipulation; That the applicant provide a status report to the Council on the condition of the Gopher Tortoise every 6 months for a term of 2 years. Said term to initiate with the commencement of construction. Second by Mr. Miller. Carried unanimously 9-0. B. Plat and Construction Plans PPL-2006-AR-9975 Mockingbird Crossing Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East Dr. Hushon moved to postpone the item to a later portion of agenda. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Carried unanimously 9-0. The presenters were sworn in. Michael Delate of Q Grady Minor & Associates, P A provided an overview of the Petition stating the project is located north of Vanderbilt Beach Road extension and East of Collier Boulevard. It is for 110 single family lots on 110 +/- acres. Debby Tyson of Passarella and Associates provided an Environmental overview of the project noting the following: · the site contains approximately I 0 1 acres of upland and 8 acres of wetlands · A Southwest Florida Water Management District permit has been acquired · A Bald Eagle management plan has been approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for a nest located adjacent to the proposal · A Big Cypress Fox squirrel management plan has been approved by the County Dr. Hushon noted the high levels of contaminants found in an area of the site and . Jl~l,lested the status of further sampling ~nd c1e~nup. She further noted the site is I ~uI.j" b.<-. .1,,,,it 1I1-theilrp" ()fth~ f""l" "p,J L.. ,1.,.<h wIll reqUire excavatIOn for constructIOn. ~ ~~<lt J..i-.c";.';:'~td Michael Delate stated that a remediation plan is being prepared and the State has iJ. (' nd-I.L 1 "L been notified of the site. The property owner and applicant are committed in moving forward to address the issue. Vanessa Richter, owner representative stated that the owner is aware of the issue and is proceeding with cleanup as necessary. He has received cost estimates for the cleanup, but cannot proceed until a permit is granted. The issue has been reported to the Department of Environmental Protection and all necessary steps will be followed in the cleanup. A discussion occurred whether a permit is required for the "cleanup". 3 . January 7, 2008 Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review noted that for any excavation,~ 6 I I A permit may be required. Removal of material off site is considered a commercial excavation and will require a permit. There is an exemption in the Land Development Code for removal of material off site up to 4000 cubic yards if it is for lands in Agricultural use. This parcel could possibly qualify. It was noted that if the cleanup began and exceeded 4000 cubic yards, it would not be advisable to stop for a perioc~time while a commercial excavation permit is applied for. a; T The Council recommended the LDC should contain an excavation exemption policy for Environmental cleanups. The Council reviewed the storm water management elevations and treatment proposal. Summer Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist stated Staff recommends approval of the project with a stipulation of the Phase III which are the results from the DEP. Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney cited a stipulation in the Staff report: "For this phase of the PPL, the Petitioner must submit completed TDR Transfer and Redemption Applications for 44 of the 88 TDR's required for this project. Density blending provisions do not apply to the subject property." He recommended making any approval contingent upon this. Dr. Hushon moved to accept the Peti . n ;~hLt,~f~;I~Wing stipulations: 1. A Closure Certificate from D is delivered before actual construction on the site commences and if , the County makes a permit exemption for the material removed off site in conjunction with the cleanup. 2. For this phase of the PPL, the Petitioner must submit completed TDR Transfer and Redemption Applicationsfor 44 of the 88 TDR's requiredfor this project. Density blending provisions do not apply to the subject property Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 9-0. VII. New Business LDC amendment for Special Cycle 2008-la (Florida Rock Industries, Inc.) Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress provided an overview of the request noting the amendment is filed by Florida Rock at a request of the Collier County Transportation Department. It provides the following requested changes I. Extend the existing non-conformance development rights in the Land Development Code for landowners that sell lands to a government agency for 4 January 7, 2008 public uses to similar provisions in the Code for transfers of parcels wiJ 6 , I Transfers of Development Rights. 2. To extend this allowance to Private Parties acquiring properties on be-half of the County or Governmental entity for Public Use. !l ,t1 Dr. Hushon noted that under item #2, the land would ultimately need to be deeded to the County or Goverrunent entity and an agreement would be in place before acquisitions are undertaken. Bruce Anderson agreed. Mr. Miller expressed concern over the wording being too broadly based stating it is for lots or land acquired for "public use and/or purpose by the County or another goverrunental entity." He recommended removing or "another Goverrunental entity" as well as "and/or purpose. " A discussion occurred regarding the specific wording of the proposal and concerns that the proposal could lead to a goverrunental entity acquiring property for projects or improvements that are not ultimately for the public's use. The Council recommended that the document contain the wording "for ownership" before the wording "by Collier County or other Goverrunental entity" where necessary in the document. Mr. Miller moved to approve the LDC amendment request subject to the following: That the land acquired be reserved for use by a governmental entity. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 9-0. Break 10:27 AM Reconvene: 10:45 AM VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects Summer Araque stated Naples Reserve was approved and Della Rossa was approved with the recommendation with the Stipulation to add 5 acres to the south of the project to preserve more wetlands. Dr. Hushon requested an update on the proposed temporary A TV Park. Summer Araque - Brown was not provided an update by the Department of Parks and Recreation Chairman Hughes recommended that possible lands in control of South Florida Water Management District that are not currently in "restoration" phases be offered for utilization as temporary A TV sites. It was noted that Mr. Penniman is working on the Mission Statements. IX. Sub-Committee Reports 5 January 7, 2008 Dr. Hushon noted the LDC Sub-Committee is meeting on January 10 and14900t 1 A It was recommended that the alternates as well as Council members attempt to attend these meetings. Dr. Hushon noted the Planned Communities proposed under the Rural Lands Stewardship Program are not reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council. There is one that has been approved (Ava Maria) and 14 additional proposals in the queue. Chairman Hughes moved to require Environmental Advisory Council review of projects proposed under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program and recommended that the Land Development Code be revised to require Environmental Advisory Council review of these projects. Second by Dr. Hushon. Carried unanimously 9-0. X. Staff Comments A. Ethics: Conflicts oClnterest - Jeff Wright Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney appeared before the Council to discuss Conflicts ofInterest and submitted a form 8B "Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal and Other Local Public Officers" for review for the Council. He cited the Collier County Ethics Ordinance which notes that you may not participate in an action where you may create the appearance of an impropriety. The State Statute is more technical which requires the filing of form 8B and recommended he be contacted for a determination of a conflict before filing this form. Chairman Hughes addressed the Environmental Advisory Council recommending a Council member review other jurisdictions regulations and/or ordinances to see how environmental issues such as building heights, aesthetics, etc. are addressed and implemented through adopted regulations and submit this information back to the Environmental Advisory Council for review. B. Reminder - Check with staff before amending agenda and vote is needed to amend agenda The Council noted this request by Staff. Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney noted a Scribner's error in the agenda numbering and recommended the Council approve an amended agenda to make the numbering sequential. Dr. HusllOn moved to amend the agenda with "Old Business" beginning with number VIII and continuing sequentially from this point. Second by Chairman Hughes. Carried unanimously 9-0. 6 C. RSLA presentation in November 3-4 hours. meeting or have a special session. January 7, 2008 Schedule a full day at a rl~r' 1 A The Council determined that the presentation by RSLA should take place at a separate meeting. XI. Council Member Comments Allison Megrath stated this is her first day as an alternate and is a Certified Land Use Planner. It was noted that her background will be useful to the Council. Mr. Sorrell asked how to proceed in changing the Land Development Code to provide for exemptions to allow for the removal of material off-site in environmental cleanups. It was noted that these exemptions should be linked to a Department of Environmental Protection approved cleanup. Mr. Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review stated that he will contact Joe Schmitt, (Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator) for input on this issue. A. Water Use - Richard Miller Mr. Miller provided an update on a report he is in the process of preparing for the Council on water usage within the County. He has conversed with Clarence Tears of the South Florida Water Management District who noted that his concerns are protecting the surface water and protecting the quality of the aquifer. Mr. Miller's concern is who is ultimately responsible to ensure adequate quantities of water for future use. He intends to meet with the Utilities Division of the County for more input on these issues and will prepare a written report for a future meeting. Chairman Hughes suggested he meet with Representative Burt Saunders for input. He also suggested that the Council begin to identify environmental issues within the County and Region that may be a long term concern to the quality of life within the Region. There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:01 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 7 January 12~8 1 I A l These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on Mil- i<tl H- as presented , or as amended """ . - ~ 2DO~ 8 AGENDA --~/'!)\'- Fire Service Steering COl'nmlttee Meeting "'Iala --;----- Februal-Y 28, 2008 - 6:00 Pt-1 Halas t/.J:Jd.--- EMS Headquarters Henning -~il. - 270:> S. Horseshoe Drive, Na.ples, I'T ~3410~ ';oyle -- .,. ---- .:olettfJ --Piedge of Allegiance 11. Determine Quorum HI. Approv31, Additions, and/or Deletions to Agendcl IV. Approval of fvlinutes - January 17, 2008 Meeting 16")f' ..1' 7 \jf.-.- f'o:.", . 8.,' ",: ";:_>.;;) .,r."-'" \i. Reports A Treasurer's Report 8. Fire Chiefs' Association C. Communication~, Committee D. Fire Code Offici,ll E. Fire Code Official's Office Building F. Fire fYlarshals' r~.5sociation G, Distl-ict Updates H. PJblic Education L Pun;hasing J. ather Reports K. General CommEmts VI. Old Business 1\, Fire Study Group - Commissioner Cannon (1) Report on 02-26-08 Consolid3tion Presentation to Board of County Comrnissionel's (2) Status Report on Next Phase of Consolidation Study by Oper'ations Committee Chaired by DC Oriy Stolts 6. Fire Review Task Force Update D. Status of PSAs -- Brush Fire Season - PIO Hili E. Other Old 8usirless F. General Comm~?nts VII, New Business A. Emergency Portable Living Spaces 8, Hiring an Attorney for Consolidation Study Issues C Other New Business D. General Comm!:nts VHI. Schedlile Next Meeting Date - Regular Marcil date is 3/27/08 IX. Discussion of Next Month's New Agenda Items X. Adjourn Cf-1/.J2f.:./jc1 02'2Q~200{3. 02.25.(jfJ Misc- C:)rres Date .3..~'Q--- \:em # Jk.1it01- "::, t.e } 16 11 A MONTHLY FSSC MEETING . 2nd REMINDER NOTICE ..- !.. ASle~d-! The Fire Services Steering Comrnittee Meeting will be held Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 6:00 P.M. at EMS Headquarters 2705 S. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 NO food served. Bring your brown bag. Meeting .Agenda "attached"! :JHfl~ :J2/~':liO.lJ February 8. If, r 1 4 _0.. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE REVIEW TASK FORCE r idl., .~.'." f\ Hala", ---6d,.. Naples, Florida, February 8, 2008 i:ennll1g ...::1 ILf(;' j(~~r~~C1 ~ ..- LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Fire Review Task Force, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, Met on this date at I :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Environmental Services Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, With the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Bradley Schiffer VICE CHAIRMAN: William Varian Gary Beaumont (Excused) James Boughton Dalas Disney J. Christopher Lombardo (Absent) William Schreck Chuck McMahon (Absent) Angela Davis (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Bob Dunn, Interim Building Official Ross Gochenaur, Planning Manager Paula Brethauer, Operations Analyst Joe Schmitt, Adminstrator, CDES Misc. Gooes: Date: 3.25.8 Item#:~ ~(,?:,:~ to ~ February 8, 216 1 1 A I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 1 :05 PM by Chainnan Schiffer. II. Roll Call Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. The following Fire District Personnel Representatives were present: Ed Riley. Fire Code Official; Bob Salvaggio, Fire Code Official; Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire Marshal; Leo Rodgers, lmmokalee Fire Marshal; Dave Robb, North Naples Fire Dept. Ill. Approval of Agenda Mr. Varian moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Schreck. Carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes A. February 1,2008 Mr. Varian moved to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2008 meeting. Second by Mr. Disney. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. Old Business: (topics from past meetings) A. Water Supply Mr. Boughton will write the nan"ative for this section. B. Alarm Systems and Monitoring Continued to next meeting. The Task Force agreed to hear item D next D. Florida Administrative Code 61G15.32 Process A discussion ensued regarding whether or not Fire District reviews and Building Review and Pennitting Department reviews of submittals are a duplicate review and whether one review should be eliminated. The Task Force detennined that the report should identify the following: . An explanation of the current review process . That the Fire District is no longer reviewing Chapter 61 GIS (of the Florida Administrative Code) submittals for the Building Review and Pennitting Department. The Fire Plan Review conducted by the Fire District will be for the submittal of shop drawings only and for their compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code in force. Chapter 61 G 15 review will be a Building Review and Permitting Department function . The Fire District's expertise and highlight of the National recognition received on various items . There is a requirement of separate reviews of submittals; one for the Fire District and one for the Building Review and Permitting 2 16 , 1 February 8, 2008 A Department as there are two different codes to enforce with some requirements overlapping A discussion ensued on the issue of shop drawings submittals not matching the original 61 G submittal and the misperception that the Fire District "holds up permits.'l Speaker F. Michael Sullivan (AET) Branch Manager for Commercial Electrical Systems, Inc. appeared before the Task Force and noted that a large issue is that permits are approved based on 6] G-15 drawings and the plans are subsequently revised by the Consultants numerous times during the construction sequence. At the point the Fire Alann Consultant (or other Sub-Contractor) submits a layout or shop drawing to the Fire District for a Specialty Pennit, it does not match the original 61 G because of the design revisions by the various parties and what was subsequently constructed. This causes delays as the 61 G originally approved by the Building Review and Pennitting Department needs to be revised. Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire Marshal noted that this fact has led to the misperception that the Fire District's are causing delays or "holding up permits." Chairman Schiffer requested that the Fire District otTicial submit infonnation on the 3 Committees that reviews Fire District permit issues (Fire Alarm, Sprinkler and Hood Committee's otTicial name, dates of initiation, list of members. etc.) to the Task Force. Chairman Schiffer requested that the Steering Committee minutes for the decision on the issue that the Fire District would no longer review 61G submittals for the Building Department be forwarded to the Task Force. C. Permit/Inspection Process Mr. Varian will write the narrative for this section to include the following: . That many issues raised during the Task Force's tenure such as categorization of application submittals, the importance of the implementation ofCityview system, etc. are being or have been addressed by the Building Review and Pennitting Department or Fire District . The need tor more oversight over Private Provider (issues of conflicts, spot checks on providers and responses to patterns of providers, etc.) . A clear indication in what is allowed in an "Early Start Letter" and a stop point for an "Early Work Letter" . That Phase pennitted plans should show only the work to be completed in the Phased approval with the pennit number linked to the original permit number 3 February 8, 200816 I 1 A A discussion ensued with Joe Schmitt, Administrator of CDES on the requirements and merits of simultaneous Site Development Plan Review, the necessity of requiring categorizing a building type on a Site Development Plan and the problems caused by applicants categorizing building construction type ditTerently on the same project. It was noted that if a Site Development Plan categorizes a building type at the Zoning and Land Development Review level and then it is changed at the Building Review and Pennitting Department application level an amendment to the approved Site Development Plan by the Zoning and Land Development Review Department may be required. Break: 2:30 PM Reconvene 2:45 PM An additional point was determined to be noted in this section: . Requiring a Framing Inspection Hold until the Fire Alann Permit, Fire Protection Pennit and Hood Pennit are issued Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator noted that the Land Development Code requires Building Construction Type is tor a Site Development Plan submittals. Ross Gochenaur, Planning Manager stated if a construction type listed on the submittal to the Building Review and Permitting Department differs from the Zoning and Land Development Review Department approval, an amendment may be required to the approval. This change could be administered as an "insubstantial change." If the change of categorization does not atTect the critical elements of the Site Development Plan approved by the Zoning and Land Development Review Department. the Department may not require a new review. A discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of expediting the permit revision and field inspection revision process and "which" changes should require a "Permit Revision." Dave Robb of North Naples Fire Department noted that the inspection and revision issues have to be handled on a case-by-case basis and there is a Temporary Fire Compliance form to exercisc ifnecessary (until the final issue is resolved). Ed Riley, Fire Code Official stated that these are difficult issues that the Fire District is aware of and continues to address these procedures through discussion groups. He further noted that Fire District seeks to eliminate as much of the revision process as feasible and is attempting to institute a "walk in" process for revisions. E. Fire Sprinkler None 4 February 8, 2f!~, I 1 A F. Building Official and Fire Official areas of Governing Code review Chairman Schiffer will write this section noting the overlapping of the two codes. G. Design Professionals interface with the Fire Official Office Ed Riley, Fire Code Official requested that the Fire District be involved with the Technology Committee to provide input on the issues such as electronic submission, bar coding of applications, etc. Mr. Disney will write this section noting that the Task Force provided the opportunity for Design Professionals to address the Task Force. H. General & Sub Contractors interface with the Fire Official Office Mr. Disney will write this section noting that the Task Force provided the opportunity for General and Sub Contractors to address the Task Force I. Fire Districts Dave Robb of North Naples Fire Department noted that the Fire Districts are working to standardize field inspection procedures throughout the County including Code interpretations as well as communicating with the Building Review and Pennitting Department on crossover issues. Ed Riley, Fire Code Official noted that checklists and inspection review booklets are available in some Fire Districts for inspection review. Standardizing these throughout the District with Public accessibility would be advisable. Mr. Varian will organize the response by Task Force members including: . The issues of County projects raised by the Fire District (by Mr. Varian) . A synopsis of the County Parking Garage issue (by Chainnan Schiffer) . Reporting of Code Violations noted by the Fire District to the Building Department and the related enforcement procedure; these discussions are on going between the Fire District and Building Review and Permitting Department (by Mr. Varian) Bob Dunn, Interim Building Official noted at the direction of Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator the Code Violation issue is being addressed with a standardized procedure. J. Collier Local Amendments to the Florida Fire Prevention Code A discussion ensued regarding proposed local amendments to the Florida Fire code, the merits oflocal amendments to the Florida Fire Code, etc. 5 February 8, 216 I 1 A Chairman Schiffer requested Mr. Riley to submit a document addressing the Collier Local Amendments to the Florida Fire Prevention Code for the Task Force to Review. It was noted that the public needs educating on the two different codes and the fact that Fire District issues need to be addressed with the Fire District, not the Board of County Commissioners. VI. New Business A. Roundtable Discussion Discussed under Old Business B. Establish Report Method Discussed under Old Business VII. Public Comments None VIII. Review of future meetings/topics A. Friday, February 15,2008 lPM - 5PM . Roundtable Discussions . Review Report Draft B. Friday, February 22, 2008 lPM - 5PM . Roundtable Discussions . Review Report Draft C. Friday February 29, 2008 IPM - 5PM . Review Final Report Draft D. Tuesday, March 18,2008 9AM - Noon . BCC/Fire Review Task Force Workshop There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 5:00 P. . Collier ounty Fire Review Task Force Bradl Schiffer, Chairman \ 6 FebrJ~ 2'081 These minutes apred by the Board/Committee on ~~. d.'1 I (;{ as presented or as amended __. . 7 February 15, lr6r 1 A MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE REVIEW TASK FORCE Naples, Florida, February 15, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Fire Review Task Force, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, Met on this date at I :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Environmental Services Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, With the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Bradley Schiffer VICE CHAIRMAN: William Varian Gary Beaumont (excused) James Boughton Dalas Disney 1. Christopher Lombardo (absent) William Schreck Chuck McMahon (absent) Angela Davis (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Bob Dunn, Interim Building Official Paula Brethauer, Operations Analyst Joe Schmitt, Adminstrator, CDES & February 15,2008 16 11 ~ I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at I :04 PM by Chairman Schiffer. II. Roll Call Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. The following Fire District Personnel Representatives were present: Bob Salvaggio, Fire Code Official; Nick Biondo. East Naples Fire Marshal Ill. Approval of Agenda Mr. Dislley moved to approve the agellda. Secolld by Mr. Variall. Carried ullallimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes A. February 8, 2008 The approval of February 8, 2008 minutes were continued to the next meeting. V. Old Business A. Water Supply None B. Alarm Systems and Monitoring None C. Permit/Inspection Process None D. Florida Administrative Code None E. Fire Sprinkler None F. Building Official and Fire Official areas of Governing Code review None G. Design Professionals interface with the Fire Official Office None H. General & Sub Contractors interface with the Fire Official Office None I. Fire Districts None J. Collier Amendments to the Florida Fire Prevention Code None VI. New Business A. Friday, February 15,2008 IPM - 5PM . Roundtable Discussion . Review Draft Report A rough draft document entitled "Fire Review Task Force Interim Report" was circulated for review. The report was organized by Paula Brethauer, Operations Analyst based on emaijs received from the Task Force members on the topics related 2 February ~,gol 1 A to the original Resolution. The report was arranged in 3 sections based on the Resolution. It was determined to utilize the 3 sections and include subsections based on items A - J under "Old Business". Section 1. Fire Plan Review & Inspections & Buildin!!: Review & Inspection The Task Force preliminarily determined that this section will reference the following items: B - Alarm Systems and Monitoring; E - Fire Sprinklers; G - Design Professionals intelface with the Fire Official Office; H - General & Sub Contractors interface with Fire Official Office; 1 - Fire Districts. The following changes were recommended for Section I: Page I, Paragraph 4 line 4-5 - "Design Professionals have noted also that the Task Force member include three (3) architects" eliminated and replaced with "The Task Force members included 3 local architects." Page 3 paragraph I - revised to read "concept. They should provide a set of accepted shop drawings which indicate all devices meet intent of design originally submitted. They have license, degree and liability." Page 3 paragraphs 5-9 - (Water department and flow test requirements) moved to Section 3 "Collier County Fire Prevention & Protection Ordinance". Section 2. Buildin!!: Plan Review & Permittin!!: Process The Task Force preliminarily determined that this section will reference the following items: C -. Permit/Inspection Process; D.- Florida Administrative Code 6IG 15.32 Process; F - Building Official and Fire Code Official areas of Governing Codes review. The following changes were recommended for Section 2: Page 4, Paragraph 2, line I - "training of permit techs" to "training of inputting permit techs" Page 4, Paragraph 3 - change references of "plans" to "document" (i.e. plan tracking system to "document tracking system"; filing of plans to "filing of documents", etc.) Page 4, Paragraph 4 - to read "Plans should be distributed to all parties for reviews and information should be available to everybody about SDP requirements for coordination." 3 February 15, :lO~ I 1 A discussion ensued regarding the simultaneous reviews of Site Development Plans and the Categorization of Building types etc. and issues associated with this process. A The Task Force requested Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator for a report (if readily available) on the number of permits processed through the County highlighting the percentage that is approved without major issues. A discussion ensued regarding Phase permit and Early Start Letters and the issues regarding this policy. It was noted that there is a new Early Start Policy for the Building Review and Permitting Department. The Task Force determined to provide the following recommendation: There should be an Inspection "Hold" placed on the Final Framing Inspection until the Fire Alarm and Sprinkler Permits have been issued. A discussion occurred regarding an e-mail written by Mr. Varian with Building Review and Permitting Process subject matter not yet incorporated into the rough draft. This information will be incorporated into the next draft of the report. Break: 2:30PM Re-convene: 2:45PM Page 5, paragraph 1 - "Permit Process: Time Frame." This paragraph to be removed. Section 3. Collier County Fire Prevention & Protection Ordinance The Task Force preliminarily determined that this section will reference the following items: A - Water Supply; J - Collier Local Amendment to the Florida Fire Prevention Code. Ed Riley, who could not be present today, submitted a document incorporated into the report (pages 5-8) which will be reviewed at a future meeting. The Task Force reviewed a draft document submitted by Chairman Schiffer regarding 61G15. The Task Force reviewed a draft document entitled "DRAFT -. Governing Codes." A discussion occurred regarding the content of these sections such as the inclusion of a statement regarding why the Fire District no longerreviews 61G 15 for the Building Review and Permitting Department; the difference between Engineering Documents and Shop Drawings, etc. It was noted that the Steering Committee minutes regarding the Fire District decision to no longer review 61 G documents for the Building Review and Permitting Departments will be included in the report. 4 VII. VIII. February 116s1 1 A It was noted that the Board of County Commissioners should be made aware that there are two codes in effect in Florida which overlap in requirements. The Florida Building Code, enforced by the Building Review and Permitting Department and the Florida Fire Prevention Code, enforced by the Fire District. Joe Schmitt, CEDS Administrator noted that the Board of County Commissioners is looking for guidance trom the Task Force and recommendations on the various issued raised during the Task Force meetings; whether there should be local amendments to the Florida Fire Prevention Code and an overall direction the County should proceed regarding "Fire Reviews". A brief discussion occurred on the ramifications of the County not adopting any amendments to the Florida Fire Code. The Task Force reviewed a document submitted by Mr. Boughton entitled "Water Supply for Fire Protection (Draft)." The following changes were recommended: Page I. Paragraph 2, line 2 - "current water pressure" to "current available water pressure" Page I, Paragraph 3, line I - "actual water pressure to 50 PSI" to "actual water pressure for automatic sprinklers systems to 50 PSI" Page I, Paragraph 6, line 1-2 - "lack adequate control over" to "lack adequate County control over" Page I, Paragraph 7, line 2 - "county when emergency conditions" to "county when water supply emergency conditions" Page 2 - Investigate Options to Improve Service - re-locate this section to the section regarding Local Water Service Standard on Page I. Paula Brethauer, Operations Analyst will assemble applicable comments and e- mails generated for an updated draft of the Report. The Task Force determined that the Fire District representatives should review the next draft ofthe report and provide any comments they deem necessary. Bob Dunn, Interim Building Official stated that a Code enforcement protocol is being developed regarding the issue of Code violations reported to the County by officials of the Fire District. Public Comments None Review of future meeting/topics 5 February 15,20026 I 1 A A. Friday, February 22, 2008 IPM - 5PM The meeting scheduled/or February 22, 2008IVas cancelled by the Task Force . Roundtable Discussions . Review Report Draft B. Friday February 29, 2008 . Roundtable Discussion . Review Final Report Draft C. Friday, March 7, 2008 . Roundtable Discussion . Review Final Report Draft D. Friday, March 14,2008 . Roundtable Discussion . Review Final Report Draft E. Tuesday, March 18,2008 9AM - Noon . BCC/Fire Review Task Force Workshop IX. Adjournment There being no further business for the goo of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 4:05P. Collier C unty Fire Review Task Force l Bradley chiffer, Chairman These minutes apn~d by the Board/Committee on c:;;;lJ0 !r)/t' as presented v~. -~r as amended . I I 6 ,. -;:,\ .~\, ":'12 r ';',118 1-,," ---- 'I ..S / /..1, 1-, -, .X-~~" hdnnin9. ~ ,- ..' .-...-- Coyle - -- Coletta ~--- November29,~:F fED >" 'v MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, November 29, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: James Van Fleet Vice Chairman: David Correa (Excused) Raymond Cabral Renata F. Fernandez Manuel Gonzalez Valaree D. Maxwell (Excused) Cosme Perez (Excused) Ernesto Velasquez Luis Alejandro Bernal Also Present: Mike Sheffield, County Manger's Office Mise. COITElll: Date :3 .2'5. 'C !tem# 1/0"IJ f'tl10 . J . Ie J; November 21.:671 1 A I. Introduction A. Opening RemarkslWelcome The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chairman James Van Fleet. Mr. Van Fleet noted the HAAB Committee would not meet in December & thanked everyone for their service in 2007. B. Approval of Meeting Agenda Renato Fernandez moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Ernesto Velasquez. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. C. Approval of the October 25, 2007 HAAB Meeting minutes Ernesto Velasquez moved to approve the Minutes of October 25, 2007. Second by Raymond Cabral. Motion carried unanimously 6-0. II. Old Business None III. New Business A. Topics/Projects for 2008 Jim Van Fleet introduced Luis Alejandro Bernal, the newly appointed member of the HAAB Committee. Manuel Gonzalez stated the need to identify issues that are of concern to the Hispanic Community. The stated Mission for the Committee is to transport issues of the Hispanic Community to the Board of County Commissioners. Noting that the issues could be nullified by the Board of County Commissioners based on validity. Renato Fernandez stated the HAAB function is limited by the Board of County Commissioners. The Committee is not permitted to act on ideas, noting approval must be granted by the Board of County Commissioners. He suggested presenting a proposal to the Board of County Commissioners to allow communications with the Community. Luis Bernal stated a need to identify issues that not only affect Hispanics but the whole community. Recommended conducting research & communicating with Community Leaders. He suggested relaying the issues though the media. Noting the research did not need to be extensive i.e. sociological or political, just based on common sense. Ernesto Velasquez expressed continuing to enforce the Committee presence with Government entities i.e. Minorities Group / Sheriffs Department. He also suggested being more proactive with Schools. Jim Van Fleet reported he has participated on the School District's Diversity Committee over the past several years. Stating one objection was the infrequent meetings. He added for the November meeting he was I of the 3 members that attended & the next meeting was not scheduled until February. He emphasized the meetings are "open" & encouraged the Committee members to attend. 2 November 29~~ 11 A Raymond Cabral recommended to be effective to the Board of County Commissioners adding a Forum to the 2008 Agenda for Community Leaders. He stated a need to gain community perspective. He reported on an article that classified Naples High & Immokalee as the "drop out factory." Renato Fernandez stated Immokalee is classified as an underprivileged community and is receiving assistance. The area from 951 to U541 has numerous Spanish people, he suggested inviting Manatee Middle School Principal. Raymond Cabral suggested inviting Community Club Members to identify community problems. Discussions ensued and it was determined holding a community forum consisting of 5 -7 community leaders would be advantageous. The Committee would extend an invitation for the January 24, 2008 meeting to the following: . Manatee Middle School Principal . Community Leaders . Chamber of Commerce Members . Hospitals . Health Department Jim Van Fleet recommended the Committee review a Study conducted by the University of Florida addressing the needs of the young people of Collier County. Mike Sheffield responded the Study titled "A Child of Well Being" was available in PDF format & would email to the Committee for their review. Discussions continued and the Community Forum invitation would also include: . Hodges University . Hospitals . Health Department . Social Services . Children & Family Services . Pace Program . Tom Davis - Minority Affairs / Sheriffs Office . Economic Development Council . Chip Program Mike Sheffield requested a confirmed list of the attendees be emailed to his office by January IS, 2008. Renato Fernandez suggested contacting the media. Mike Sheffield reminded the Committee of the primary purpose of the HAAB Board was to advise the Board of County Commissioners. Manuel Gonzalez recommended a time limit be placed on accepting guest speakers. In order to determine what program would be developed & to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 3 November 29, It> , 1 ~ Jim Van Fleet suggested scheduling a meeting in February to discuss the HAAB findings. m..?, s1l'~ D,;: ,ra,.....:,,, 1I#.,.>f Luis Bernal announced he has extended an invitation to the ~ '1 l of "'.I~ Colqml]ia to visit Naples. 4r.Jfo ManJe' Gonzalez queried Mr. Bemal on the Colcmbian Government & Latin American figures historically asserted our political leaders should preserve open borders between the United States, Mexico, & Canada. He stated the migration problems were internal due to gross negligence ofreform. He noted it should be addressed inwardly in-lieu of criticizing our leaders & violating our statutes. Luis Bernal responded that it was a topic that could be discussed for years with no resolution. Manuel Gonzalez questioned if it would affect diplomatic relations with Latin America once the borders were closed. Luis Bernal replied "no." Manuel Gonzalez reported the findings from the death of a Haitian man who jumped into a canal trying to flee. The gentleman had a history of severe asthma with cocaine in his system. It was noted his death was ruled accidental & was not caused by electrocution from the combination of water & use ofa Taser gun, as was originally claimed. The deputy was exonerated based on the findings. An article published by the Associated Press titled "Immigrants Ripped offby Phone Card Fraud" was distributed. (See attached) ,_II.e-- (""i);J1/fi.<;.7' Ernesto Velasquez reported Dr. Thompson I Superintendent efll..'hi!;", c'" jc./.o:,.I~ .ul'li' !laity is under scrutiny for initiating change to the "double credit system." He referenced the "Final Report to the District School Board of Collier County" written by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. expressing concern that students were receiving credit for courses such as weightlifting. Dr. Thompson would be visiting his class on Monday & Mr.Vehisquez welcomed any questions or comments that could be of aid to Dr. Thompson. (See attached) Mike Sheffield stated that comments & questions could be emailed to him & would be forwarded to Mr.Vehisquez. Manuel Gonzalez stated DCF partieipation was possible for the Community Forum. It was determined that the list would be tabulated and presented to the Jim Van Fleet for the selection of 2-6 speakers. IV. Comments / Announcements None V. Public Comments Rosa Castillo / Hispanic Publication stated she would report the results from the meeting to inform the community. Jim Van Fleet recommended that an invitation to attend the Community Forum be extended to the public. 4 November J671 1 n Being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:01 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ~f1?i, These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on Il.1y 10 ., as presented or as amended ~ 5 .' ~ J." \y Fiala ---------- ~:~~"g~ .;. 1611 Coyle =f?J Coletta-- ~ ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEB. 7,2008 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ..A , ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Kirk Colvin, Chairman Bill Rafeldt, Advisory Board Member Joseph Langkawel, Advisory Board Member Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member Thomas Decker, Advisory Board Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Ted Decker opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. January 2008 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes I. Copy of Minutes distributed and approved. 2. Minutes approved by all Advisory Board Members. 3. Kirk Colvin approved and signed Jan. 2008 Minutes. B. Chiefs Report I. Discussed monthly calls. 2. Request for report to include a comparison to the prior year. C. Consolidation Study Group Operations Committee Report I. Report presented to the Steering Committee. 2. Steering Comm. recommends hire of independent consultant. 3. Cost to fire depts. of consultant must be obtained. 4. Next merger meeting to be held Feb. 15 at 9:00 a.m. 5. Mr. Summers compiling a response to BCC on this report. 6. Chief Rodriguez: imperative to hire a consultant. D. Took delivery of our new 2008 Ford F-250 today. Mise CoIres: Date ~.ZS.8 !!em#:~ If A\ lL , ".', tc ~ III. NEW BUSINESS A. Beginning of FY 09 Budget Cycle. I. Mr. Summers has just told ICFD to expect II % budget cut. 2. $145,000 is the preliminary estimate oflCFD budget cut. 3. County requesting us to quantify effects of cuts. a. Layoff of 2 part time firefighters. b. Shut down the ALS Engine program. c. Reduction of our level of service. d. Reduction of our operational budget incl. PPE purchases. e. Reduction of reserves. 4. Difficult to estimate new property values/assessed valuations. 5. Actual Ad valorem not available until June 2008. 6. ICFD millage rate could be adjusted by ICFD Adv. Board. a. Voters approved a millage cap of2.0. b. Adv. Bd. may adjust rate in the range of 1.65 to 1.75. 7. Pay raises/C.O.L.A. raises not included in II % estimate. 8. EMS cuts effecting Station 90 will be separate. 9. Removal of our ambulance could be part of EMS cuts. B. Firefighter unions countywide are close to merging into one IFF union. I. ICFD firefighters in process of joining the Ochopee union. 2. ICFD firefighters will have their own bargaining unit here. 3. ICFD firefighters under Ochopee local. 4. Currently ICFD and Immokalee are the only non-union depts. C. ICFD in process to apply for FL Div. of Forestry matching SO/50 grant. I. Grant money for shelters, wildland coats, and foam. 2. Total grant project is $4784. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. //) APproved/k/,L .Ii - . 0::' !~/cB , f Date: 16 , 1 A 1611 A ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE I RESCUE ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA Feb. 7,2008 CHIEF'S REPORT A. OPERATIONS REPORT B. VOLUNTEER REPORT C. TRAINING REPORT D. BUDGET REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Budget cut for 09 BOARD AND CITIZENS' OPEN DISCUSSION 16 11 ~ CIllEF'S REPORT Feb 7, 2008 OPERATIONS REPORT Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue personnel provide 24 hour emergency services for the Isles of Capri community with a consistent average reSDonse time of3 to 4 minutes. From 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., a minimlUll of at least four fully state certified Firefighters are assigned to the fire station. Additionally, the Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue Department has the only Advanced Life Support (ALS) equipped boats in Collier County. This means that a medical emergency on the water, be it a heart attack or lraunlatic injury, can be handled with the most advanced emergency care possible in the field. The Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue Department welcomes citizens to stop by the station for free blood pressure checks. We also provide home and condo fire prevention inspections. along with CPR classes. "'UPDA TES'" Isles of Capri Fire / Rescue is now an Advanced Life Support Provider (partnership with EMS) Call T e fMDistfifCif I OuM:iPDistrlCif I MonttilVTdtaJ III ..I....YTOI..... //1 .. Structure 0 0 0 I 0 Vehicle 0 0 0 0 Brush 2 il 2 2 / Fire Alarms 10 31 I 41 I 41 Medical Alarms 0 0 0 0 Ambulance Calls 10 0 10 I 10 Vehicle Accidents 1 0 1 1 Medical Assists 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 .....................111..11..1..1 Boat Fire EMS via water Dive Rescue Search & Rescue Marine Assist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Assists Move-v Tech Rescue Ii 2 o 1 2 o 1 o o 1 2 o I Total II 30. I 33 . . I 57 I 57..> I Note: In-District includes all Marine calls in District 01 (Collier County Waterways) Donna Fiala District 1 Frank Halas District 2 Tom Henning District 3 Fred W. Coyle District 4 Jim Coletta District 5 ?JJ~ o/Yj~ Yj~ Yj~ 16 , 3301 East Tamiami Trail. Naples, Florida 34112 - 4977 (239) 774-8097. Fax (239) 774-3602 January 16, 2008 Mr. Kirk P. Colvin 163 San Salvador Street Naples, FL 341 13 Subject: Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee Dear Mr. Colvin: While convened in regular session on January 15, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners voted to re-appoint you to a 2-year term on the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee. Your new term will expire on December 31, 2009, or at such time as the Board re- appoints you or appoints your successor. . On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I wish to extend our appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the residents of Collier County as a member of this advisory committee. If I can ever be of service to you during your term, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cordially, Tom Henning Commissioner, Di ct 3 TH:sf cc: Chief Emilio Rodriguez Isle of Capri Fire District '., -tl ,\.b \ h Z.... ~- IJ-- c- ./;L' ._~_.J._~. -- 16 s.""".,,,.....,.. , 1 8.: i.;:l Fiala Halas He Co Ie Col CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 10, 2008, 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F"), Third Floor AGENDA +~." U I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Introduction and Welcome to new Committee Member Jeff Curl IV. Chair and Vice Chair Elections V. Approval of Feb 11, 2008 Minutes VI. Old Business: A. Real Estate Services Update - A-list properties B. Update on Pepper Ranch re-designation application C. Contracts 1. Winchester Head VII. New Business A. Discussion of acceptance of lands under the TDR program, including North Belle Meade B. New Cycle 6 applications C. Preserve Management Update (Melissa Hennig) D. Change to Conservation Collier application E. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program F. Coordinator Communications VIII. Subcommittee memberships IX. Subcommittee Meeting Reports A. Outreach - Tony Pires, Chair B. Lands Evaluation and Management - Kevin Kacer, Chair C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures - Will Kriz, Chair X. Chair Committee Member Comments XI. Public General Comments XII. Staff Comments XIII. Adjourn ****************************************************************************************************** Committee Members: Please notify Alexandra Sulecki at 252-2961 no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 7.2008 if vou cannot attend this meetinQ. Misc. Com!S: Date :5.25.'0 item#:~ ~'~;Jim"l to. I~ '11 Fiala .VL.___... Halas ~Cdi___. Henning :tt--- g~r~~a ~}~=: MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 16 11 January 16, 2008 .d Naples, Florida, January 16, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky Frank Donohue Barbara Buehler Paul Nyce Kerry Geroy Bart Zino(Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation Murdo Smith, Parks and Recreation Tony Ruberto, Sf. Project Manager Tona Nelson, Sf. Administrative Assistant Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator llonka Washburn, Operations Manager Misc. eon.: Date: 3. 25 . 7) item #J{ P 1./!\') \ ~ 1 I, ~ 16 11 January 16, 2008 A I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 2:04 PM by Chairman Ribes. County Commissioner Donna Fiala Way also in attendance. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. m. Approval of Agenda Mr. Olesky moved to approve the agenda subject to the following addition: New Business, Item #6, Non-resident pennit parking Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 6-0. IV. Approval of December 19, 2007 minutes Mr. Olesky moved to approve the December 19, 1007 minutes. Second by Ms. Buehler. Carried unanimously 6-0. Mr. Donahue arrived at 2:09 PM V. New Business 1) Directors Highlights A. Delasol Park - Barry Williams reported that the Board of County Commissioners requested and analyzed the costs associated with "not" building the Park as the neighbors have raised concerns over public access to the Park which is located in a gated community. B. CAPRA accreditation update - Jake Salzman, Park Ranger and Safety and Security Committee member reported: . Parks and Recreation policies are being reviewed as part of the CAPRA (Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies) accreditation . Items under review are Park Ranger responsibilities and safety aspects for employees. They are . Also in the process of soliciting input from the various Park Managers. C. Barry Williams noted that Frank Pullman, a Parks and Recreation employee passed away and condolences will be sent to the family on behalf of the Board. 2) Collier County Supervisor of the Year 2007 Murdo Smith, Water and Beach Superintendent was recognized as Collier County Supervisor of the Year for 2007. 3) Election of Officers for 2008 - Board Members Mr. Donahue moved to nominate John Ribes as Chairman and Edward Olesky as Vice Chairman for 1008. Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried ulUl1Iimously 6-0. Mr. Ribes and Mr. Olesky accepted the nominations. 2 January 1 Jla8 I 1 A 4) PARAD 4-Year Review - John Ribes The Board reviewed the "Advisory CommitteeIBoard Four-Year Review By The Board of County Commissioners For Fiscal Year 2008". After a brief discussion the Board requested the document be amended to include the body of all motions for 2007 as well as the concerns of the Board regarding the lack of adequate boat access, soccer and Little League fields within the County. Mr. Nyce muved to table the topic until the revised document was provided to the Board. Second by Mr. Donahue. Carried unanimously 6-0. 5. Inter-local Agreements for Elementary Schools J&K - Barry WiUiams Barry Williams provided two proposed Inter-local Agreements that have been approved by the Collier County School District and are awaiting approval by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. He noted the agreements were standard agreements and provide for the permission for the public to utilize the fields at the Schools after hours and on weekends, etc. The fields are used for soccer, Little League flag football and other public activities. There are restrooms available on-site during these hours for use by the public. The costs associated to the County are on-going maintenance of the fields and of lighting expenses. A discussion ensued on the status of Little League opportunities at Collier County School facilities. The members requested that if possible, a representative of the School District attend the next meeting for discussion on this issue. Mr. Nyce moved to approve the agreements. Second by Mr. Donahue. Carried unanimously 6-0. 6. Non-Resident Beach Parking Permits Barry Williams stated that Staff has recommended a fee increase from $30 to $52 for an annual, non-resident Beach Parking Permit. This proposal is scheduled for review on 1/29/08 by the Board of County Commissioners. He noted at this point, the $52 is in line with data he has received from other jurisdictions. The daily non-resident parking fee option will remain in place. A discussion ensued regarding possible resistance from the Hotel industry as well as the Tourist Development Council. Whether the fee is too high or too low and how this may affect the generation of revenue and whether the location of the sticker should possibly be placed in the rear window as opposed to the bumper for enforcement purposes as well as concerns by rental car companies with stickers placed on bumpers. Also, whether a 3 or 6 month term for the permit should be offered. Mr. Nyce moved to approve the Non-Resident Beach Parking sticker price at $60 and that over the next 30-60 days Staff looks at alternatives specifically less than 1 year 3 January J ~8 r 1. A passes whether they be weekly or monthly, also add an additional location of the .'ticker. For lack of a second the motion was not considered Mr. Olesky moved to approve the request as presented for a sticker price of $52. Second by Mr. Donahue. Carried unanimously 6-0. VI. Old Business 1) Adopt a Park Assignments - Board Members Barry Williams submitted a list of all Parks that are located within the County for review by the Board per there request from the previous meeting. There are a total of 48 Parks and the Parks are assigned for site visits on a rotating schedule every 2 years. Not all Parks are currently visited. In order to ensure that the coverage is adequate the Board determined that each member should review the list and select 8 Parks within their geographic area to cover. The parks could then be placed on an appropriate cycle for visitation. The list of the 8 Parks is to be submitted to Mr. Williams and he will revise the Adopt-a-Park list for review at the next meeting. 2) Immokalee Sports Complex Pool Update - Barry Williams It was noted that there has been a temporary solution to the pool heater. A permanent solution will require drilling of a new well. He will provide updates as they become available. YD. Recreational Highlights Sun-N-Fun Lagoon Cold Weather Policy - Bradie Allen and Kerry Runyon Bradie Allen provided the "Collier County Parks and Recreation Policies and Procedures Manual," Effective Date October 2007 for review by the Board. The Policy provides for the closing of facilities based on cold air temperatures. This is a business policy as the temperature is cooler, less people utilize the facilities and when they remain open they are required to be staffed regardless of usage. The Policy provides that in the event of a forecasted high temperature of 59 degrees or lower, Sun-N-Fun Lagoon shall be monitored for potential closure. At the Golden Gate Aquatic Facility and Immokalee Sports Complex temperatures of 54 degrees or lower shall constitute grounds for facility closure. VllL Capital Project Highlights - Tony Ruberto Tony Ruberto submitted a document entitled "Collier County Parks and Recreation Capital Projects Update, January 2008" for the Boards review. In addition to the report, it was noted that: . Manatee Park is on schedule . South Immokalee Park has received a $147,000 grant for construction of a permanent Community Center for the site. 4 January~~2ol81 Mr. Nyce left the meeting at 3:48PM Sydney Kittila, Operation Manager returned with the revised document for item VA - P ARAB 4- Year Review Mr. Olesky moved to approve the forwarding of the report to the Board of County Commissioners with the stipulotion that the attendance report be atttrehed to the reporL Second by Mr. Donahue. Carried unanimously 5-0. IX. Adopt a Park - Bart Zino None. X. Informational Items Submitted. XI. Public Comments Donna Fiala, County Commissioner stated that although the permits expired and need renewing for the East Naples Soccer fields, this may be a positive as construction prices have now dropped so the overall cost may be less than anticipated. Also, despite neighborhood opposition, the County intends to continue to move forward with the Vanderbilt Pier proposal to assist in providing beach access for the community. Chairman Ribes noted an email to the Board from William Grotendick indicating his interest in establishing Bocce Ball Courts at Vineyards Community Park There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:01 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREA nON ADVISORY BOARD These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended~. , 'J. '1.1'.02> -r ~""Ci~l"l.:) ~ f'f+'IJ\I-.'> t.)..\Io<.6. i~~~I. 5 16 11 A "1~\ ..G-{ \)f Fiala ------- Halas d./4----- PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING """mog ~ "'o,,~ 90 ... Coyle ~/ Naples, Florida Coletta .--'--- --- L T IT BE KNOWN, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on this date, January 9,2008 at 1:00 P.M. at Hammock Oak Center 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108 with the following members present: Mr. Coleman Connell, Chairman Mr. John Domenie, Vice Chairman Ms. Annette Alvarez Ms. John Boland Mr. David Bramson (Absent) Mr. James Burke Mr. John laizzo Mr. Michael Levy Dr. Ted Raia Mr. Edward Staros Mrs. Mary Anne Womble ALSO PRESENT: Eleven (11) members of the public; Mr. Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall & Associates; Mr. Ian Ward, Ritz Carlton Hotels; Messrs Travis Gossard and John Vliet, Collier County Road Transportation Department; Mr. John Petty and Ms. Janice Lamed, District Offices, LLC; Ms. Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant Collier County Attorney; Mr. Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager and Mrs. Barbara Smith, Recording Secretary AGENDA 1. 2. RollCall Approval of Minutes of the November 7, 2007 Meeting Approval of Minutes of the December 5, 2007 Meeting Audience Participation Chairman's Report Micro-surfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard Foundation Incorporation Steering Committee Update Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Update - Mary Anne Womble District Offices, LLC Contract Committee Reports Clam Bay Committee Report Annual Report in Compliance with Existing Permits Update on Renewal Application Budget Committee No Report Government Relations Vanderbilt Pier - Update Administrator's Report Information regarding historical water allocations for the Ritz Carlton Hotel Plan Review Submittals - Available in our offices for review American Momentum Center of Pelican Bay Cap d'Antibes, Cote d'Azure Memorandum of Understanding - Utility Site Capital Projects Median Improvements - Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard Sidewalk Lighting - Myra Janco Daniels Blvd & Vanderbilt Beach Road Community Issues Sidewalk Repairs Hurricane Charley Storm Damage Committee Requests Audience Comments Adjourn 3. 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Mise. CoIrw: Dale: 3. 25.2> l:em #:kl{ A'J rq 7115 :C~i2~ Ie ~ P&lican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Call the meeting to order. Welcome everyone, and a Happy New Year to you all. ROLL CALL Mrs. Smith, would you please call the roll. MS. SMITH: Let the record reflect all members are present with the exception of Mr. Bramson, with an excused absence, and Mrs. Alvarez who may be running late. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IOF THR NOVEMBER 7. 2007 MEETING Mr Connell: Next item on the agenda would be the approval of minutes, and I should mention for those who perhaps don't realize it, but Ms. Jean Smith has been ill for some time now. Mrs. Barbara Smith very capably is doing that, or doing that job in her absence. And so as a resu~, irs impossible for her to be taking and transcribing minutes. So we're utilizing the court reporte~s service. And I would mention that those minutes come back to us exactly in the sequence as everything was said. Mrs. Smith takes them and reformats them as best she can in a form to which we are all familiar That having been said, I hope you have had an opportunity to review the minutes of, first of all, November 7. Does anyone have any corrections to be made? - --- ----- - - - -- -- - - - ---------- ---- Mr. Burke moved seconded by Mr. Domenie and approved on a vote of 910 to approve the Minutes of the November 7, 2007 Meeting as written. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: They are approved. On to the December 5 meeting. Very same _ MR LEVY: I have got a suggested change here. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: All right, sir. MR LEVY: On Page 7102, one, two, three, fourth line from the top, in other words this is an item that you would, I believe the word not belongs in there. John, do you see that? MR PETTY: Yes, I believe it is something where we would make an adjustment to the curve if he does it every October, or is it a one time event. So I think the sentence is correct. MR LEVY: Oh, okay. The way it is. Thank you. MR PETTY: I believe so. 7116 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Any other corrections? May I have the usual motion, please? Mr. Domenie moved seconded by Mrs. Womble and approved on a vote of 910) to approve the Minutes of the December 5, 2007 Meeting as written. MS. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, would you allow the record to reflect that Mrs. Alvarez has joined the meeting? CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Indeed. AUDIENCE PARTICIATION MR CONNELL: First item on the agenda is audience participation. Does anyone have anything they would like to say or ask? And I would ask that you come to the microphone, kindly identify yourself, as well as where you live in Pelican Bay. MR GRAYSON: I'm Cal Grayson, I live on Serendipity, 529. I think we've been in and out for the last 15 years. My question is, are you planning to resurface the sidewalk? I think it's got a new name now, tt used to be West Boulevard MR. DOMENIE: Daniels Boulevard. MR GRAYSON: Daniels Boulevard. I think in the LAST 15 years I have brought pictures of the sidewalk twice. It's been patched twice in 15 years. It needs to be resurfaced, at least from Waterside Shops, to Seagate Drive. It's in terrible shape and it ought to be surfaced. It's been patched twice now. And with the completion of the parking garage, whenever that's going to happen, there is a good sidewalk on that side but it's not usable with all of the activtties going on. It's quite hazardous and I've seen people that have difficulty, including me. because I walk that daily. If I could ask a question, is tt on the program for resurfacing within the year? CHAIRMAN CONNEll: I will defer to staff for that answer MR PETrY: Mr. Chairman, as you may recall, we discussed that at the last meeting. It is not in our budget as this is a county road and not under the Pelican Bay Services Division normal budget process, although we have an agreement with the county where local projects of this type could be done in house to expedite the process, if Pelican Bay Services Division was in a position to supervise and even in some cases fund until those monies became available from the county source. This is an area that you have instructed staff to look into and staff is currently looking into it. So the short 7117 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 1611 A answer is, we concur with your assessment of the sidewalk. MR. GRAYSON: I sent pictures the other two times. I didn't have pictures this time. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: When are we likely to have a response one way or the other? MR. PETTY: Sir, you've instructed staff to have that back before the February meeting. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Very good MR. BURKE: Question. The sidewalks are not our responsibility? MR. PETTY: They are in the public right-of-way, sir, with the roads. So it is part of the county funds. The County has done repair of the sidewalk in the past and Mr. lukasz has a very good rapport with them. As Mr. Burke knows, since he was the one that came up with the suggestion back with Mr. Carroll, was working with the County on its fair share revenue, and they said they could work with us on projects. If the County was doing capital projects and Pelican Bay was supposed to get a sidewalk, but it was going to be nine or ten months until they got to it, they would be happy if we would do the job, fund it and then ten months later they would reimburse us for what they had allocated. That type of arrangement they said they would be glad to work with us on. MR. BURKE: Does that apply to the walk paths on Pelican Bay Boulevard also? MR. PETTY: I'm sorry, sir? MR. BURKE: Does that apply to the walk paths on Pelican Bay Boulevard also? MR. PETTY: That would be all pathways associated with the public right-of-way or the roadway system. MR. BURKE: Okay. MR. PETTY: There may be some pathways that are in front of some parks or common grounds that may not, but I would say that almost all of them would be associated with that Oakmont would be an exception, that little thing around the lake. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Excuse me, John? MR. DOMENIE: How does that, if we do the work, and it costs $10,000 or whatever it is, how does that show up on our balance sheet? As a receivable eventually, or how does that show up if we spend $20,000 to do the work, how do we show it as a receivable from the County? MR. PETTY: We don't have a cast in stone place since this is a new program and we really haven't utilized the funding source yet Mr lukasz has been able to work to expedite with existing contracts of the county. If we took 7118 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A it in house, in all probability it would come from any reserve funds that we have available, subject to the Board's approval, at which time we would either put it out to bid or award by contract what has already been put out for bid, according to what was available to us on the County's list And we would expedite the position using Pelican Bay Services Division's monies and then we would pester the heck out of the County until we got our money back. MR. DOMENIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Kind of like hurricane money. MR. PETTY: Very much so. MR. GRAYSON: Mr. Chairman, could I make one other comment? CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Certainly. MR. GRAYSON: On the corner at the Catholic church, the width of the sidewalk varies from about two foot to maybe four foot, which I would like to suggest that when it's improved that it be the same width, the total length. There is a blind fellow that walks there, he crossed over on the other side, but now that's too busy for him. It really needs to be taken care of. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Point taken. MR. IAIZZO: That may be a problem, because we may be on other properties. MR. PETTY: That's a good point by Mr. laizzo. We are looking at making it uniform in respect to trying to make a pathway two foot or four foot wide is very difficult Paving equipment typically comes in 8 to 12 foot sections. There is a paver, a piece of equipment that is sized for the four to six foot range and it's used typically in golf courses. So we have been researching what contractors are available that could put that in without modification. And I think that answers the question of a uniform width. But the concern about staying within our boundaries of the right-<lf-way is a real one. We'll have to look at that also. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Anyone else who has a question to ask or something to say? MR. CRAVENS: My name is Tom Cravens, and I live at the Dorchester and I'm here to represent the Mangrove Action Group. And I would like to extend an invitation to everyone here to attend the Annual Meeting of the Mangrove Action Group which is going to be held at 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, January the 26th, in this room. We are having as our featured speaker Kathleen Fesser. She is a columnist for the Naples Daily News and she wrrtes about landscaping. And she is going to be talking about ecologically friendly landscaping practices here in Pelican Bay. 7119 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 I LA And so I hope you can join us and I think you'll find it enjoyable. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you, Mr. Cravens. MR PETIY: Mr. Chairman, I have just been discussing with counsel. The issue, of course, is that we would all love to go to the meeting. But since you are working in the sunshine as government officials, it makes it difficult for you to go and then participate. To go and not say anything is something you can do, but that's difficult to do on occasion, particularly when you don't know what the agenda is. They may say something that is exciting that you may want to respond to. We would give you two suggestions. One is you can go and gather information and not participate, or two, send a delegate that you think could bring the information back to the Board. But we would like to thank Mr. Cravens for the invitation, and we believe it is information that probably has great value to us. MR CRAVENS: I would like to respond by asking you a question. On previous meetings we have had and we would like to have at this meeting, Mr. John Domenie, who is a former board member of the Mangrove Action Group, present a history of the Mangrove Action Group. Would that be in any way a violation of the Sunshine laws? MR PETIY: Mr. Domenie has often represented this body, particularly in regards to the mangroves, and it would not be a violation. The issue here is if the board would come as a group, or if there would be more than one member that would go and then participate. It may be perceived that they were trying to come to some understanding before the matter comes before them for a vote. And since we often do have issues affecting the mangroves come before us, we would caution you in that regard. MR CRAVENS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Anything else on that subject? MICRO-SURFACING OF PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Connell: First item on the agenda going forward is the micro-surfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard. We have invited representatives from the Collier County Transportation Department, I believe I have that correct, and I believe Mr. Vliet will speak to that issue. MR PETIY: Mr. Chairman, if I could jump in just in front a little bit to explain how we got here, because of the staff issue. We have been talking about bicycle lanes and the repaving for some time now. We have gone through an evolution in the context of the repaving and as things have changed and come to culmination, because of 7120 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 I LA all the different gyrations and waves that we've gone through, we wanted to make sure we were getting it from the source. And we've asked the County Transportation folks to come out and tell you whafs up, because we have waited and gone over all of these different time lines. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you. MR. VLIET: John Vliet, Collier County Transportation. Thank you for inviting us out, we appreciate it. The micro-surfacing on Pelican Bay Boulevard, when we first did IT we were doing many other streets in Collier County. And we started noticing some failures and likewise we looked at Pelican Bay Boulevard as well and we did see some slight deterioration. So naturally, we felt that our contractor was responsible, get him back here to do some repairs. Well, we kept watching it and what we've seen is only a couple of areas that have actually failed or had deterioration, and those are primarily some crossovers in the median. The main ones are in excellent condition, they are holding up wonderful. They look beautiful. There are about six crossovers that we can see some deterioration. The contractor is wanting to come back, he's eager to come back and perform those repairs. If you can recall when it was first done you had a very black, different look. If we do the repairs, those median crossovers would have the same black look. It takes six months for the sun to bleach them out and it runs back in. They are not so bad that I have any concerns about the roadway. We can opt to either go ahead and do those crossovers or leave it as it is, and continue to monitor what goes on out there. We probably check it once every month or two at the present, just to see what is going on, because micro- surfacing is kind of new to Collier County, period. In the future, and, again, in the future and not too many years down the road as that does wear in its entirety, our intent is to come back and do a normal resurface of the entire roadway. And I think we all know where the budgets are at right now. Right now the roadway is holding up wonderful and I guess if we can perform the repairs, if there is concerns about IT looking different. ifs not something that has to be done. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: So if we were to opt to do nothing at this point, you are saying whatever would be necessary going forward, it could be taken care of. Obviously for cosmetic reasons if we were to redo those small portions it would be a significant contrast in the color of the road. Does anyone else have a question or anything they would like to say? MR. IAIZZO: How far down the road, so to speak, do you see a full resurfacing in time? 7121 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A MR. VLIET: Well, when we laid that material it's been about a year, I guess, a little over a year It should last us anywhere between five to ten years. MR. IAIZZO: So you don't see a resurfacing for that length of time? MR. VLIET: Correct. MR. IAIZZO: Full resurfacing. MR. VLIET: Correct MR. IAIZZO: I think we need to do something. MR. BURKE: And the color variation would be less in five or six months. MR. VLIET: Sometimes it takes about six months for that color to come back in. DR. RAIA: You feel it does not have to be done right now? MR. VLIET: It's not deteriorated to the point where there is any damage to the road. DR. RAIA: Lefs say it does well for another two years. Would the contractor come back then and do the job when it has to be done? MR. VLIET: Actually, I wouldn't be able to hold him responsible at that point DR. RAIA: No, okay. MR. IAIZZO: Come back in the summer MR. VLIET: Well, I've been working on him ever since we did the boulevard, and I'm just now getting him back in town, starting to do some things. If I put him off, the chances - and we also have limitations on his contracts. So I'm going to be very hard pressed to try to get him back to do anything if I pass this up. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: How many different spots would need to be repaired? MR. VLIET: Right now there are six crossovers that I can see some deterioration, ifs not that it's a rapid deterioration, or something that is going to cause a road failure. MS. WOMBLE: What's the down time for taking care of this? What's the down time for those crossovers? MR. VLIET: They are in and out within hours MS. WOMBLE: Same as it was before, 24 hours? MR. VLIET: Yes. Ifs not a long-term thing. MS. WOMBLE: Am I correct in remembering that we had problems, enough so that we really pushed 7122 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16/1 Il H through all of our decisions about bike paths and everything else, because we were concerned about this particular contractor getting back to us? MR. VLIET: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: That was a big deal, wasn't it? MR. VLIET: Yes, it was. MS. WOMBLE: Just a thought. MR. VLIET: Again, we thought, rny belief at that time, having looked at other roads and seeing them a little bit out here, I really thought the entire roadway was going to deteriorate, and it has not. And I'm quite pleased. What the contractor is telling me now is because the median crossovers were primarily handwork, they may not have gotten it down to where they should. And that pretty much makes sense. MR. PElTY: Mr. Chairman, if I might add, we have gone out there and looked and we've talked with their staff, and there doesn't appear to be any structural issue out there. But, because of its look, he's able to get this contractor to come out and redo it. We don't have any concerns from a structural perspective, the underlaying asphalt, which is a quarter inch below, is in pretty good shape. And certainly, even if we had a little bit of peeling between now and two years from now. it's not going to be material to the structural integrity of the road. And of course, the County still has maintenance responsibilities for the road should any potholes or other structural deficiencies pop up. So it really is a simple question of aesthetics, to ask Pelican Bay would you like us to go ahead with the repairs which we can do under the contract, but since there isn't a structural need, this is aesthetic, would you like us to hold off, because of that patchwork quilt look that you're going to have for about six months. MR. IAIZZO: I think that's the way to go. MR. LEVY: How long would those crossovers last if they were not redone now? Are they going to last the five to ten years also that the rest of the micro-surfacing is going to last? MR. VLIET: Well, that's the $64 question. I would like to hope and think yes, sir, it will. Mr. Burke moved seconded by Mr. Domenie and approved on a vote of 10/0 to] have the contractor come back and make the needed micro-surfacing repairs. 7123 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 le-i--t-n CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you very much. MR. VLIET: Thank you for your time, and that will be- CHAIRMAN CONNELL: I really appreciate your -- MR. PETTY: Thank you very much. INFORMATION REGARDING HISTORICAL WATER AllOCATIONS FOR THE RITZ CARL TON HOTEL CHAIRMAN CONNELL: At our last meeting you recall Mr. Staros reported a heart stopping increase in the cost of water at the hotel. And since that report, Mr. Petty and staff have been working on it. And I will ask Mr. Petty, if he would, to report perhaps on a solution to the problem. MR. PETTY: Without getting into too much of the Ritz Carlton's checkbook, you were handed out a graph on a piece of paper. It should say undemeath the November, 2000 bill summary, four inch meter. That's the current size of the meter that the Ritz Carlton has. And it was sized basically by me, based on a need back in 1985. Now, at that time we asked their design engineer, what was their maximum hourly demand, and we put a meter size capable of handling that, plus a little bit more. The reason we did that was to keep costs down for the Ritz Carlton, who had to pay the total cost of meter installation. Since that time, the Ritz Carlton has had a little bit of an expansion, I believe you have a spa that was put in in 1989. MR. STAROS: Not much, really, but not '89,2001. MR. PETTY: 2001. But there isn't that big a change from what you're talking about in comparison to 474 rooms. We told them again, take a look at this installation, compare it to what they had purchased from Pelican Bay Improvement District back in the day, take a look at the county's setup and see if we could find out if they were simply misplaced by category or if there was another issue to look at - So when you look at the four inch meter, the first column thafs in red basically says if there are no conservation blocks, if you just pay X number of dollars per thousand gallons, the usage at the Ritz Carlton for that particular month would have amounted to a little over $15,000. We do have conservation blocks, though, as most counties or utility providers have. But as you can see, that bill would amount to $65,000, that actually is the amount that they were billed for that month. MR. BURKE: So the bill is 65 for this? 7124 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A MR. PETTY: For the month of November. MR. BURKE: Okay. MR. PETTY: Which is a little bit of money. And the chart breaks out what percentage of the water they used in each block category. Now, you look at this as block one, being what is an acceptable amount. block two as being well, you were not too bad a boy and block three, shame on you. This clearly shows that he is not within any reasonable realm of a conservation methodology, that this is basically showing him to be penalized for the usage of water. MR. STAROS: However, I would like to say that we have a tremendous conservation process at the hotel, although in this format it doesn't show it that way. MR. PETTY: Not at all. MR. IAIZZO: Which comes to a savings basically. MR. STAROS: You'll see what the result is in a second. MR. PETTY: If you flip it over, what you'll see is what we have asked the Ritz Carlton to take a look at. can't tell you that this is at all appropriate since I haven't vetted this through the utility department of the County, but by their system, the bigger meter that you have in a commercial application, the more reasonable are the allocations on block one, two, three and four. So we tried to fit the allocations based on the usage and if they go up to a 12 inch meter, as you can see. the percentages are much more reasonable and more to what you would think. 16 percent of their water or 32 percent of their water is in blocks one and two, another 31 percent would be in block three and then 31 percent is in block four, 7 is in block five and nothing in block six. Now, the Ritz Carlton has been out there troubleshooting their system, conserving on their system, and they think they have targeted a possible leak as well. And they have a specialist company coming in and through Hyperphones they are going to try to find any leaking water on the pipes. With that meter, we feel they will be able to bring their water usage down to a more reasonable amount, and I believe they are working that system through the County. We know that other board members also have expressed an interest in their cost of water usage since they belong to high rises or other commercial developments, and yes, it is very similar. If you are being penalized and are outside the normal bad boy, shame on you, go to jail type methodology in a conservation rate, you probably need to 7125 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 /1 A talk to the County about upsizing your meter and getting into a better block. It just so happens that commercial is set up that way, that the bigger the meter it goes, it is sized that way. MR. BURKE: So the meter says you've left block one, you are now in block two. MR. BOLAND: John, a question. You're the hotel, do they get their water from Naples as well as here, the Grande, or are they in Pelican Bay or -- MR. PETTY: They're inside, the Registry is also inside Pelican Bay, they also get their water from the County. MR. BOLAND: They have the same problem. MR. STAROS: I haven't spoken to Hunter Hansen on this issue. MR. BURKE: But the blocks are - MR. PETTY: Are changed according to the meter that you have. For example a four inch meter, the first break is at 120,000 gallons, and at -- if you have a six inch meter, it is at 250,000 gallons. So at a 12 inch meter, the break is over a million dollars before you get outside of -- or a million gallons before you get out of block one. So it depends on your usage, on what size meter you should have, and, of course, we all should conserve, so even if they jump up to a considerable size, they will still be pinched, even with their high conservation practices. This is more in line with what I think the methodology the County adopted had in mind. MR. BURKE: We're talking potable water here only? MR. STAROS: A hundred percent, yes. MR. BURKE: What does the Ritz have to do? MR. ST AROS: We're in the process of doing it. We're going through the County to increase our meter size, because this is - the strange part about this is that it's the identical amount of water being consumed, for half the price, only it's just the way the meter system works and so forth. So we have done a tremendous job, in fact, this gentleman in the back of the room, Ian Ward, his job in the hotel is to conserve energy and to recycle, period. That's his job, 2417. And we're probably one of the few hotels in the country that have our own energy conservation director. But we have, in the last few years, changed all of our cooling towers to conserve water because they are much more efficient than the old cooling towers. We have changed all of our showerheads to the 1 - what is it, 1.5 flow per minute, gallons per minute to conserve water. We have put in a multi-hundred thousand dollar aqua 7126 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A recycling system to use the last rinse water of the laundry for the first wash water for the next load. That saves millions of gallons a year, and we are in the process of changing out the toilets to the 1.5 gallon flush as well. Even with all that, our prices have just gone through the roof because we have the wrong meter And, you know, shame on us for not knowing this sooner and thank you, Mr Petty, for gelling to the bottom of this. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: As I understand it, the monthly cost for that larger meter is not small, but nevertheless, in the long run there is a huge savings. MR. STAROS: That's correct MR. DOMENIE: I have two questions. Does this require any action, this is just for information purposes? MR. PET1Y: Just for information purposes. MR. ST AROS: The whole idea of Mr. Petty bringing it up is there are others in the community that need to look into this problem as well. MRS. ALVAREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Is this perhaps something that we should alert the condominium associations in Pelican Bay perhaps through the Pelican Bay Post or some other way? MR. PET1Y: Mr Chairman, whatever you think would be appropriate is certainly worthy of consideration. Part of our responsibility is to communicate information and this is a community information issue. MS. WOMBLE: Naples Grande, also. MR. IAIZZO: Who determines whether ifs a four or 12 inch meter? Is it the County, or- MR. PET1Y: Back in the day it was my decision. I was the Utility Director at the time. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: let the record show it was John's fault MR. ST AROS: let the record show it was John's fau~, and I'll send him 22 years worth of overpayment reimbursement Thank you, John. DR. RAIA: Can we ascertain what the difference in cost is between the four and 12 on a monthly basis? Apparently you rent this or you lease it, you do pay for the meter? MR. WARD: Do you mind, sir? MR. STAROS: Identify yourself. MR. WARD: My name is Ian Ward, I work for the Ritz Carlton, I'm the energy manager for the Ritz Carlton in 7127 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 f 1 A Naples, Florida. The meter, the price difference in the four inch meter belongs to the County. However, it resides on our property. We pay $324 a month for the three inch meter. Twelve inch meter is $2,485 per month. DR. RAIA: Per month? MR. WARD: Yes, sir. It still belongs to the County, if it gets smashed, busted or beat up they will come and replace it. DR. RAIA: At no cost? MR. WARD: What's really a little bit frustrating with the water, the situation that we had, like Mr. Staros said, we have done the aqua recycling. We have done the low flow. We have done this and this and this, but there's nothing set up in the County for any kind of help for those companies and those businesses and homeowners that do do that. There is nothing. You know, if you use less water, you pay less. But there is no structure for, you know, someone who uses approximately 7,000,000 gallons a month. And with all, everything that we do recycle and hold on to and hold back and work with and reuse, there is nothing for us. So in actuality rt's just more money out of our pocket for not a great return. MR. IAlZZO: This high consumption is probably only during season. MR. WARD: Actually, it gets a little higher during season, but we have had a relatively steady flow throughout the past several years as far as using within 200,000 gallons, plus or minus, every single month, irs the same. And, you know, but the years past when we were slow in the summertime, the water is reflective the same way it is now. MR. STAROS: John, there's another thing, too. In the summer we entertain a lot of Floridians, people that live in Orlando and Tampa and inland communities. And we, I would say probably 50 to 60 percent of our occupancy is either South Georgia or Florida and they bring the whole family. So if in season, hypothetically, if you have more of a couples resort, off season you've got four people to a room instead of two people to a room. So the consumption continues on, even though the occupancy might be slightly lower. MR. BURKE: You invest another 20,000 a year in a meter and you save yourself 600,000, 700,000? MR. STAROS: That's correct. MR. WARD: Sir? MR. DOMENIE: Two questions. You say 12 inch versus four inch meter, it doesn't change the diameter of 7128 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 1611 A the pipe coming in? MR. WARD: No, sir. MR. DOMENIE: No. Secondly, can you give a rough estimate of how much you may have saved, let's say from two years ago, as far as water consumption by reducing - MR. WARD: The aqua recycler alone recycles and reuses a million gallons a month. As far as bringing down everything else to low flows, rt's a matter of percentage. It would be a knockoff of right in the area of 25, 30 percent. MR. DOMENIE: Thank you. MR. WARD: Certainly. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you, Ian. John, does the County reserve the right to deny a change of meter size? MR. PETTY: Absolutely. The utility system is undemeath the County's control. I don't know of any reason why they wouldn't consider the matter, but it's my understanding that they do have personnel that do nothing but this. They have an engineer that comes out, sizes it, checks your -- what is it, your fixture pounds, lan, is what he had to do? MR. WARD: Correct. The amount of fixtures - MR. PETTY: To figure if this is a reasonable request, and they reserve the right to say that the 12-inch meter may be oversized, the most we can allow is a ten. Because they have an expense on their side, even though they will ask you to pay a monthly minimum, a 12-inch meter probably costs oh, what, $12,000-$15,000 and if irs a compound meter, $25,000. When you get up to these sizes you typically end up getting a compound meter, the big meter measures big flows, when it goes down to very low flows, there's a little billy meter on the side so you don't lose accuracy. And it costs a considerable amount of money to put one of those puppies in. MR. DOMENIE: I will mention it in my write-up in the Pelican Bay Post for condos to look at rt, if that's all right. MR. PETTY: If there are any bills that they believe are outside the one, two, three range, is something they may want to talk to - MS. WOMBLE: Pelican Bay also may be the message - 7129 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 /1 A MR. PETTY: All users, including single family issues, would be in there. I can tell you there used to be a family by the name of D'Agostino. I don't know if any of you remember, he had a one inch meter because he had four hot water tanks because he needed hot water for his kids who would scream if they didn't get it. So he had four hot water tanks with a one inch meter. The rest of the single family all got five eighths by three quarters. A one inch meter gives a different block rate here. So if you have a larger home and, of course, Bay Colony has larger homes, Georgetown has larger homes, there are homes that are 4,000-5,000 square feet. They may have a different or may need a different sized meter to try and have upkeep on that if you have five or six teenage kids. So everybody who is -- I would recommend if you are seeing past block three, and you are seeing substantial bills in the block four range, that you would ask. MR. WARD: Also with requesting a meter from the County, they will give you the amount of money that you paid for your original meter, but there will be a bigger impact fee beyond that, because you're increasing your meter size. So just be aware of that. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: I'm sure if the County suddenly gets a request for 300-400 changes of meters they will rethink this whole process. Anyway, moving on, thank you very much, Ian. FOUNDATION INCORPORATION STEERING COMMITTEE UPDATE MR. CONNELL: The Foundation Steering Committee is now finally in a position to conduct a Town Hall meeting which will present the perceived advantages, perceived disadvantages of incorporation. And the very first one will be January 22nd. I believe rt's at 7:00, but I give you advance notice of it and rt will be here at the communITy center. Anybody have any questions about that? (No response.) FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE - MRS. MARY ANNE WOMBLE CHAIRMAN CONNELL: I will now asking Mrs. Mary Anne Womble to report from her position on the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee. MS. WOMBLE: We had a meeting yesterday that culminated two days of focus groups with an eclectic group that was in the committee. Yesterday was my first lime to really meet everybody and I was very happily pleased to see that they all seemed to be really heading toward what is the best for Pelican Bay. We discussed the focus groups and what came out of those and there were three common themes that showed up in virtually every 7130 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 1 LA group. And those three are we want to protect our beach, we want to have improved communication among the citizens of Pelican Bay and the different boards and groups that meet in committees, and we would like to keep Pelican Bay the way it is. Those were the three main themes. And we also had two gentlemen from Collier County coastal land come in and discuss wrth us the possibilities of what might occur in the future should we have any problems that are in greater trouble on our beaches with our restaurants and our facilities down on the beach. And that was a futuristic consideration, because we are looking into the future as a Strategic Planning Committee and we got some very good insight and suggestions from the gentlemen, who know what is what wrth permitting and what we need to know about. Those were the main things that came out of it, but we did get a definite sense that we need to communicate anything that we're finding in our resources and what areas that we're interested in maybe doing something more about or what we're actually trying to improve or do in this committee. And what we might best come up with is a way of communicating wITh all of us, everyone in Pelican Bay, as to what is going on at any given moment so that you are well aware and there is a two way street of communication. And that was prelly much it. There was a lot of speculation on what we could do to improve things without changing anything and we are going to have a consultant come in in the next week or two. We are working with Wood + Partners, Inc. and they have someone on staff that they feel could help us, guide us in working with the citizenry of Pelican Bay so that we're all involved and all know what is going on. That's prelly much it. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: You menlioned keeping Pelican Bay as it is. Is there any discussion or any objeclive to changing the demographics of Pelican Bay? MR. PETTY: I don't know that you have that option of getting rid of any of - I think you mean to infer that changes in the future that may change the demographics. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Nature takes care of that in time. But the last I knew the average age was _ MS. WOMBLE: Didn't touch it. MR. BURKE: But you're right, it was on their agenda at one time, the demographics. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: The median age was 60, and, of course, there has always been talk about attracting families, younger couples with their children. I was just curious whether __ MS. WOMBLE: That was discussed, but we were talking more about baby boomers and people in that 7131 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A generation rather than younger children. We really touched mainly on those three themes, and it was a broad conceptualization of all three, mainly because we were trying to find out what the focus groups came up with. And there were quite a few different people involved and we got a good grip on what people seem to be upset about and what they want to see happening. And we just broadly went over that. But you're right, we are talking about who to appeal to and how to, and that's all going to come down the line. But we want to talk to the consultant first, in the next week or two, on how best to communicate with all of Pelican Bay so that everyone knows whars going on. It doesn't seem to be working too well at this point, we want to do better. MR. BURKE: Mrs. Womble, did you go to any of the focus group meetings? MS. WOMBLE: No, I did not. I have two parents who are very, very ill. MR. BURKE: Which means you have a life. MS. WOMBLE: No, not really. MR. IAIZZO: Mrs. Womble, is there a lime on the consultants that are coming in here to look at this, is there a time limit for them or do they have an indefinite amount of time? MS. WOMBLE: I cannot answer that for sure, because I am new on that Committee. MR. ST AROS: John, I heard, anecdotally, you have a year to put this together. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Yes, they have a specified assignment to which they agreed. Now, I don't remember a lime limit. For a short time I sat on that Committee as well. But you are probably right, Ed. MR. BURKE: One comment on demographics. I happen to be a demographics freak, I love demographics. But a 60 year old baby boomer shares something in common with all of us. Ten years from now they will be 70. And my demographic friend who publishes a magazine out of Ithaca, New York says the demographics in Pelican Bay aren't going to change. This will never be a family oriented community, apparently. II's not built for it. So the baby boomers start coming in at 60 and 61, they're not going to stay that age very long. So I don't think that 60 year median age is ever going to change. If anything, it's going to increase. So we don't need to be building any Disneyland or anything else at Oakmont Park to take care of the family. MRS. WOMBLE: What about us? CHAIRMAN CONNELL: I don't know, they could tear up four tennis courts and put a playground in. MR. BURKE: I would go for that. 7132 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 1611 A CHAIRMAN CONNELL: It's interesting, when Westinghouse originally planned this community, they had provided land for an elementary school and a middle school. MR. STAROS: That's right. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: And, of course, that all changed. MR. BURKE: Well, if they tore out the tennis courts, no one pays to use them anyway. But I could go for an NFL franchise. DISTRICT OFFICES. LLC CONTRACT CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Okay. On to a more serious matter. You may all remember that Mr. Pelly's contract, I will call it, with us was, is about to - well, irs not about to, it will expire the end of May, am I not correct? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: That was done wITh a purchase order. And so while it does not have to be done today, this board is going to have to make a decision on exactly what the tenure of that agreement or purchase order or contract will be. And John, I would give you an opportunITy to express your, maybe not wishes, but your preferences. MR. PETTY: Thank you. As the board may recall, our contract was modified two years ago for a couple of reasons. The first was to lower the cost of the contract and to lower the amount of time required of the contractor to be here in Pelican Bay. And more importantly, it was to bring the decision before the Board. Before that time we had to go out for what was called an RFP, request for proposal, and it went through procurement and the County selected who was your Administrator. And, of course, IT would take your recommendations in kind, but the procurement officer picked who was going to be your Administrator. By moving the contract down below the ceiling, IT was now the decision of this Board on who your Administrator was and that was part of the deal. The contract ceiling has changed in the last year with the county from $25,000 to $50,000. Our old contract was approximately $47,000, it was dropped down to $24,000 to get underneath that ceiling. We think that the board has an opportunITy, as well as we, to look at that contract, review IT to see if IT fits better there. Our current contract limit is $24,000, any extra work we do we charge at the rate of $150 an hour. That makes IT somewhat troubling to operate under, since we would need a directive from the Board to operate past the $24,000. So it's something for you to consider. Before Ms. Jean SmITh was out ill, she had recommended that we do 7133 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 , LA-- this in January, since the county does a lot of their other contract work during the January season. You are not mandated to make a decision, it is just an opportunity for you to consider the matter. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Any questions? MR. LEVY: Was -- the contract for $24,000, are we speaking the same length of lime as we are for a contract for hire now? I mean, are we talking a year, or - MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. That was per annum, with any additional work other than - if you recall, I think Mrs. Womble asked the question, if we do anything like an incorporation study, that would be under the $150 per hour rate. And yes, that was what the hourly figure was for, would be for special projects, other than attending the meetings. Since that lime we have seen our hours being used closer to the old mark of hours than the new mark. And, of course, we would be interested in obtaining the old contract level as long as the decisions were slill wrth this body versus with the procurement officer. We're more comfortable with this body than we are with the procurement officer. MR. LEVY: Have we been getting bills for $150 an hour? MR. PETTY: No, you have not. Our firm has tried to work with this body to the best of our ability. As you all have seen, Ms. Lamed, my partner, has been wITh us now for the last six or seven months, she has tried to absorb as much of Pelican Bay as she could. If you remember, when you hired us, the key was, if I got hit by a bus, who would take my place. Thars why she's been doubling up, so to speak, so that when that happens, I think she has the schedule for next Friday. MR. BURKE: With the absence of Ms. Jean Smith, has that caused you two to put more hours in? MR. PETTY: II has a little, although I'm going to tell you, Mr. Lukasz knows almost everything there is to know about the office operation. And Mrs. Smith is as patient as Moses. Well, maybe he wasn't that patient. Mrs. Barbara Smith has gone from her level of skill as a VI P Executive Assistant to working with numbers and accountants. And that's a real big change. And she's been doing admirably. She is slill slicking with some of the special projects that we have given her, the only thing we have had to offload is the transcription work, which we're very happy with, not that she didn't do a good job. But we're very happy with the work that is coming out. Mrs. SmITh is keeping up the photo scanning, all communications wrth the Board and all the calendar events. All of her other duties other than the transcribing, which does take some dedicated time, which she no longer has. MR. DOMENIE: John, just remind us, what was the contract with Jim Ward? 7134 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Janua 9,2008 1 MR. PETTY: Jim Ward was for $47,000 per year, I believe, and required that he spend one day a week on average per month in the office. And that amount, the amount of time that we have been working wITh Pelican Bay issues leads us to that level, or actually past. So again, it is something for the Board to consider. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Anyone else have any comment or queslion? John, I'm going to ask you to prepare a proposal for us. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Is that reasonable? MR PETTY: Yes, sir, we'll prepare it in accordance with the County's procurement requirements and submit it for the next meeting. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Very good. Thank you very much. CLAM BAY COMMITTEE REPORT ANNUAL REPORT IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING PERMITS CHAIRMAN CONNELL: On to committee reports. Clam Bay committee. MR. DOMENIE: I really have nothing to report, we're waiting for the annual reports from Tim Hall. MS. SMITH: We need to use the microphone so we can hear. MR. DOMENIE: Sorry. I really have nothing to report at this moment, we're wailing for the reports from Tim Hall to come in, and as soon as we get those, then the committee would like to have a meeting, at which time we could digest that informalion. We would then come to this board with any comments or recommendations. MR. HALL: Right. And the intent right now, as I understand it - MR DOMENIE: Excuse me. MR. HALL: I'm sorry. Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall and Associates. The report is finished, irs being compiled right now. Irs going to be delivered to Mrs. Smith for dislribulion eITher this aftemoon or first thing tomorrow moming. My understanding is that we have a Sub-committee Meling scheduled next week where we can go over the report, everybody will have had a week to look at it, and then based on comments there we can make revisions, get the final sets out to the full board. We'll actually give the Power Point Presentalion at next month's meeting, and then pending the Board's approval, we'll send the final reports off to DEP and the Corps per the permIT requirements. MR. DOMENIE: I have no problems with that, so that we will get those reports, let's say, by Friday or latest 7135 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 1611 A Monday, so we can look at it before our meeting which is now scheduled for next Wednesday at 1 :00 here. MS. SMITH: 10:00. MR DOMENIE: Sorry, 10:00. MR. HALL: There were some additional items that went into the report this year, the PBS&J study regarding the sea grasses and nutrient inputs. We put a page or so to talk about those, there was the actual dredging that was done and which were put on the beach and we took some time to actually comment on that. The overall report, which I should be getting as a package, there is an annual report that is our, meaning Turrell and Associates, findings in terms of the biological monitoring of mangroves and the sea grasses. There will also be a separate - and then summaries of all of the other reports, the three other reports. But on the same CD will be the full reports from Lewis Environmental Services on their monitoring plots, from Humiston & Moore regarding bathymetrics and the information that I compiled for the water quality, the information that's been collected in the past year. MR. DOMENIE: Okay. Thank you. MR. BURKE: Mr. Pelly, do you have ongoing conversations with Mr. McAlpin, the coastal guy? MR PETTY: Sir, we do. I'm glad you brought that up, we just had some communicalion yesterday from the county manager's office, basically talking about working with the various stakeholders or interested parties which include, of course, Seagate, CITy of Naples, the County, Pelican Bay, informally. And that the County would be setting that up, probably through Mr. McAlpin. And basically we get to have our first little sit down, but we will get together, we'll try and come to a consensus on form and function and we'll work all of that out. And they have asked the County Manager, who asked us to work with them in good faith, and we have no reason not to. They have also asked that, based on their knowledge of the situation, and since we've brought it to their attention, they have asked us at the next Clam Bay Committee, for the Sub-committee to consider an extension to our existing permit application. So that is something that will be on the agenda at the next Clam Bay meeling. Again, we just got the request yesterday, so we'll put it on the agenda. MR. DOMENIE: When you are saying they - MR. PETTY: That would be the County, County Administrator has asked us to consider the matter. We were looking for direction since Mr. McAlpin and other County entities and the City of Naples expressed interest in our permit, either in expansion of, or in modification of. And these permits are extremely difficult to obtain, Pelican Bay 7136 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Janua 9,2008 get A really did a neat deal by getting this. This is highly unusual to have one of these, irs original, yes, sir. extension, we understand from Mr. Hall, is something that is doable, to geta new permit based on another ten years we understand is doable. To get that first one was very tough. And I think that's why we're seeing a lot of our neighbors who want to climb on board. Not so much they want to take anything away from us, but because we started something here that they can all benefit from. MR. DOMENIE: Anybody else? The next item is update on the renewal applicalion and we've already commented on that. That will be discussed also. That's all we have. Thank you very much. MR. IAlZZO: What was that - when is it going to go through? MR. HALL: The update for the permit? MR. IAIZZO: The contract. MR. HALL: Well - I'm sorry. MR. IAIZZO: Am I going backwards on this one? The contract update for the ten year contract? MR. PETTY: I think you're talking about the annual report. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. MR. PETTY: And if we don't have it by tomorrow, he's going to get some hate mail. MR. HALL: The annual report is done and it will be distributed out, I brought a copy to show everybody it is done. MR. PETTY: It really exists? MR. HALL: It really exists. MR. IAIZZO: We will receive the information? MR. HALL: Well, right now the initial reports are going to go to the Clam Bay Sub-committee members. And they will get the first shot at - MR. PETTY: Beating you up. MR. HALL: Yes, at beating me up with it, and based on their comments it will go out to the full board. MR. IAIZZO: I'm worried about other people looking at it, too. Engineers who know the business. MR. PETTY: Mr. laizzo, if I may, in draft form right now irs available as a public document. But unlil it goes throughout the Sub-committee and gets approved by this full board, it isn't a final version. And at that time thaI's 7137 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16U A~ when it would go out to Tim's associates or other engineers, other environmentalists. And, of course, interested parties can look at the draft all they want, but while irs in draft form - MR. IAIZZO: I would like to see the response from the experts, as one goes out to the experts. MR. BURKE: Who are the experts? MR. IAIZZO: One who sees our books. I'm assuming they're experts - MR. HALL: Again, I will tell you, in the past seven reports that we have sent out to DEP and the Corps we have gotten no response back except for thank you. MR IAIZZO: We're spending thousands of dollars for reports that we don't get any feedback on. That concerns me. MR PETTY: I'm going to say that that isn't unusual, but at the same time, I understand after spending the money doing such a good job, DEP and the federal government are having difficulty with telling you whether you've done a good job or not. Basically these are compliance monitoring reports and there lies the frustration. MR. HALL: They will tell you if you haven't. MS. WOMBLE: I was going to say no news is good news. MR. PETTY: Unfortunately, that's true. MR. BURKE: The state representalive, the DEP guy, about three years ago when he came down here - I'm not so sure you were on the Board then - but he was involved in the original permit and he said in front of the Napies City Council - you might have been there that day, I don't know - but he said, when that permit was initially granted he thought Clam Bay was dead. There was no hope for it, it would eventually be filled in and developed. He said he comes back ten years later and he said IT'S almost miraculous. So he's been reading the reports and liking what he sees. And I think we all felt prelly good about that comment he made, but then this Tomasko Report, talking about another expert, he looked at the whole thing and he's feeling prelly good about Clam Bay. And he pointed out some areas where we can move forward and maybe even get better. So, John, there are people looking at them. MR. IAIZZO: My concern is that we are satisfied and I don't think we have to go outside of your organization to get any kind of feedback. That doesn't happen. Although we generate the paperwork, isn't there some other way we can get around that to salisfy that requirement? 7138 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 1611 A MR. HALL: I honestly believe this year there be will be more local people looking at it, because of the issues that have been raised in the past year with the sea grasses and PBS&J report and so forth. I know that the cITy natural resource manager, Dr. Bower, will be reviewing the report, I'm certain that somebody from the Conservancy will, probably Cathy Worley, as well as other experts. And I'm sure you have access to those people to ask them to comment if you want. If the County is setting up a stakeholders meeting, I'm sure those are items that will be discussed at that, too, and any feedback that is retumed at that meeting can be presented back to the board. MR. DOMENIE: My concern, I think, is that as John said, this was a very extraordinary permit that we received for a group such as ours to oversee the mangroves. I would not like to see it be expanded to include areas outside of Pelican Bay. And that is my great fear, I don't see why the CITy of Naples really should have any input on it as long as we see that our water management is much better than theirs. I mean, I'm very concemed about hearing that they want to expand it, and get other people probably on the board, et cetera. I just don't feel that that would be beneficial to us. So that's my own, personal feeling, and John, some of these reports like Humiston and Moore, it's outside of their knowledge, lers say Humiston and Moore takes all of the measurements of the channels, depths, widths, water flow and all of that, which is something they don't get involved in. So that's why we get - MR. IAIZZO: That organization generates the report of the findings on those measurements. It doesn't go to Turrell and Associates. MR. HALL: II does, IT comes to us. MR. IAIZZO: So you do care about the measurements? MR. HALL: Absolutely. We maintain the quality control on all of the information coming in. Thars one of my jobs, is to look at the information we receive, and if something looks out of line, then coordinate with the people that are either responsible for collecting it or that have compiled that data to find out if it is a typo or erroneous reading or faulty equipment. And we have had those instances in the past, where we have had bad readings as a result of faulty equipment or one of the tide gauges goes out. So there are data gaps, but we do the best we can with what we have. MR. BURKE: And these reports are not optional. MR. HALL: They are a requirement of the permit. 7139 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 1611 A MR. IAIZZO: Send them a CD. BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you, John. We move on to the budget committee, Mr. David Bramson is not here today, as you can see, he has had surgery and will be incapacitated for a bit. I do not believe the Budget Committee has a meeting scheduled in January. Am I correct, John, or Michael? MR. LEVY: That's correct. There is no meeting scheduled in January. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: So I can -- my favorite subject, we need to give this Budget Committee direction all the way from don't do anything unless we absolutely have to, or to whatever improvements we all believe should be made as part of our province. So lers not let it slip through the cracks. I realize we have lots of time left yet, but I believe we should give them direction on what we want to do and go on record accordingly. Anybody disagree? MR. BURKE: I'm in full agreement. I sent out two kind of sweeping type proposals, but as I sat here today, I was reminded of them. The gentleman from Bridgeway, I know you're - Serendipity, brought up the sidewalk issue, and then we have a road issue. And I continue to believe that we can't be looking at these things and patching a bit of sidewalk or patching a bit of road. We have got to get this into a bigger view. I mean, the movement of people and vehicles around Pelican Bay, we're a 28 year old community. And I think, and I also lie lighting into that, because I think our lighting is another situation. And as I said in my proposal, as I understand it, we can't add another light pole. We don't have a grid that can handle it. MR. PETTY: Basically, yes. You can't increase the wattage any more doing a brighter bulb, we're at the maximum. MR. BURKE: Then I think we've got some - John is looking ahead of things, too. There are some issues with water and perhaps putting in some ASRs, so we have some things we can look at. I don't know if we want to fund them, we can look at them. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Well, thars true, but with the budget cycle, we keep pushing that way out, and now they're working on fiscal year 2009. That hardly gives us enough lime to, or provides us with time to do anything quickly. I shouldn't use the word quickly, but we need to make some decisions for sure for the 2009 budget. MR. BURKE: Needs to be put to bed in like July of '08. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Yes. It isn't approved by the Commissioners unlil September, but we have to have 7140 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A it ready long before then. GOVERNMENT RELATIONS VANDERBILT PIER - UPDATE MR. BURKE: I just wanted to report on the Vanderbilt pier, the status of it. And I know technically that's not an issue for us, I guess we could say Irs none of our business, but in a way IT is. It is in a big way. So I have stayed close to that, and the reason I wanted to do it at this meeting, the studies are complete on the Vanderbilt pier. And there are basically five studies, the pier itself, which is a 1,000 foot pier, 1,000 feet. AIIematives to the pier which basically are stand alone facilities which I'll explain in a minute, the traffic study, the parking study and the crime study that the City of Naples submitted based on the Naples Pier. This project and the studies are going to be presented to the Board of Collier County Commissioners on January 15th by Gary McAlpin. And he will be asking the Commissioners for their direction on the extent to which to proceed with this project. Now, the funding for this project would come from tourist tax dollars, which by the way, Naples commercial properties contribute or put an awful lot of the money into that fund. So, Irs significant here. MR. ST AROS: About 20 cents of every dollar. MR. BURKE: Thars the Naples Grande and the Ritz Carlton. MR. DOMENIE: No, the Ritz and the Tiburon. MR. STAROS: The Naples Grande, Ritz Carlton and the Tiburon. I would estimate somewhere between 24 and 25 percent of the entire County. MR. BURKE: That is significant. The point of IT is, though, the money is sitting there in tourist tax dollars. But Commissioner Halas, his feeling now that he has seen the studies, is that - you all read this morning's paper, the headline. MR. LEVY: Wharsthe headline? MR. BURKE: Ten percent of Collier govemment jobs frozen, extent of hiring freeze revealed as Commissioner Halas cancels his Town Hall meeting to avoid burdening an already overworked staff. And all the Commissioners are doing that except Commissioner Fiala. So his feeling is, with the government freeze on jobs, the budget cuts they have already had to make and the potenlial next year if that propoSITion passes of even further reductions in tax revenues, it would make sense to put this project on a deep back bumer. As I said to you, this is an $8,500,000 project in its totalITy, and there is one maybe positive link up to it. I'm 7141 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 J 1 A not a big user of the Vanderbilt Beach facilities, Mr. Staros, you probably know more about it than any of us, but they apparently have public restroom facilities over there which are antiquated, old, outdated. So it may be recommended that they go ahead and improve and upgrade those for public use. The complete study will be posted on the County Board of Collier Commissioners website, probably by Friday. So anybody who wants to get into that can see the complete study. The caveat here is, obviously I'm not speaking for Collier County, okay? But I am on the Coastal Advisory Committee which is the advisory committee that has become misogynous, so to speak. And I also really can't sit here and say that all five county commissioners, too, are going to say put this on the back bumer. But my sense would be, with the current situation with tax revenues and cutbacks and job freezes, it might make sense to put this on the back bumer. So thars where that is. MR. STAROS: Very back bumer. MR. IAIZZO: Real back burner, deep freeze. MR. DOMENIE: Mr. Burke, may I ask you a question? Since - and I'm not saying in favor or against it, since TDC funds would be used for that, that would not be, have any effect on the general tax revenue that the County gets? MR. BURKE: No. MR. DOMENIE: Can they deviate TDC funds to other sources? MR. BURKE: No, no. MR. DOMENIE: Okay. MR. STAROS: Can I? MR. BURKE: Go ahead. MR. ST AROS: I just want to remind everybody what the bed tax was supposed to be used for. The bed tax was supposed to be used for, the lion's share for beach renourishment. And unfortunately, projects like this, projects like the parking garage on Vanderbilt Beach Road were funded out of that, out of that sum of money. And I think Irs a travesty. I'm speaking not as a Board Member now, but just as somebody that does business in front of it, that these funds would be wasted on a project that is going to take a tremendous amount of future tax revenues to maintain. So the pier, as I understand it, if I have a clear understanding and I think I do, would be purchased with bed 7142 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16/1 A- tax money, but the 24 hour security, the cleanliness of it, the security of it, the fighting crime, the whatever else, the 5,000 flushes a day, cleanliness and stuff like that would not be funded by the TDC funds, as I understand it. It would be funded by our tax dollars, and so forth. MR. BURKE: Any other questions on that at all? MR. BOLAND: Jim, I thought there was supposed to be a Town Hall meeting to see if people even wanted this, to get an opinion of Collier County. What happened to that? MR. BURKE: If they are not going to proceed with it at all, you don't need to have the Town Hall meeting. So if the Commissioners Tuesday said yes, we want this, then before IT could move forward there would be the Town Hall meeting. MR. BOLAND: So there's going to be no Town Hall meeting? MR. IAIZZO: There will be. MR. BOLAND: Well, let me - to me, I think you've got the cart before the horse. You're spending all of these monies for studies and a lot of people are saying they don't want it because you're going to have the same problems with Naples Pier. MR. BURKE: There are no problems with Naples Pier, though, so don't -- MR. BOLAND: They have a lot of trouble with Naples Pier. MR. BURKE: Read the report. MR. BOLAND: Firecrackers in the toilets, you know, activITy, sex going on in there. I don't think we want that in the community. I think it's something, Commissioner Halas, to me, should have a Town Meeting to see what the people of Pelican Bay and North Naples and everybody else wants. Doesn't make sense to me. MR. BURKE: One, money was spent on the study, irs done. You can't take that back. MR. BOLAND: The thing is, he's crying about money in today's paper, about the 10 percent. He's spending money on those studies and he doesn't even know what the people want. That, to me, is not democratic. He just wants this, he's the only one who wants this. MR. DOMENIE: The TDC funds the study? MR BURKE: Yes, I believe so. So I would recommend, Iers say irs not going to go forward, but rather than just read the Letters to the Editor, I would look at the study and see what the people in Naples seem to think about 7143 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Janua 9,2008 16 I A their pier. They may have a different take. I don't think it's a center for elicit sex. But then again, we have somebody here in the audience, don't want to put you on the spot, but I think you and the city look at that pier as a - MR. FINDLAY: I'll be happy to clarify it. MR. BURKE: Would you please? And I'm not doing this to push the pier. MR. FINDLEY: I'm on the Community Services Advisory Board, which is the parks and rec board that actually oversees the parks and recrealion and the pier. And although some months back, actually quite some time ago, maybe a year ago, there was some, a report was actually brought to our attention about certain crime issues, vandalism, shark fishing, things like that off of the pier. What there was was there was an issue because we have a security guard there during the day, and he would leave in the evenings about 10:00 or 11 :00. And we're going to blame it on Collier County people, okay? Not Naples residents. And there's probably some truth to that. But, so the issue was is do we put - do we close the pier down at a certain time of night. And I was certainly opposed to that because that pier has been open 24 hours a day ever since irs been built. City council agreed that would be ridiculous, to close the pier down, and what we really needed to do was have a security guard there overnight. And that ultimately is what was done. We have a security guard that's there all night long, so when people come and visit the pier, at least there is a presence. And since then, nothing has been brought back to our attention. I mean, anytime you have a public place, you're going to have a certain amount of issues. That's not debatable. But I don't think the CITy of Naples looks on the pier as a crime, sex ridden, graffili loaded eyesore. MR. BURKE: Thank you. I, closing this out, though, when I got involved with this problem, I listened to people like Mr. Stares at the Ritz and the condo associations along Vanderbilt. And essentially, their major concem was the traffic and that is the - and I'm going to be interested to look at this traffic study, but thars, there are some serious traffic problems over there during the season. And I'm curious to see how the study addresses them. MR. BOLAND: Vanderbilt Beach now is a mess. You're going to have that, ifs going to be a bigger mess. Where do you think they are going to take the shortcut through? Right through Pelican Bay. So you are going to have much more traffic than we have now. I hope they are going to look at the traffic flow that would affect - in this study, the burden they are going to put on Pelican Bay. Because right now, people use that as a shortcut to circumvent 41 with all the lights. So they're just going to double that problem. 7144 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A MR. STAROS: I would like to make a comment on the traffic. In the old days when there was a surface lot on Vanderbilt Beach Road, I believe it was 124 spaces. The new parking garage, I believe, is 330 spaces. So you say to yourself, okay. There is an extra 200 plus spaces and there will be less traffic from people going back and forth. Well, not the case, because everybody that comes now knows there is a parking garage there, and so if you jump in your car on Immokalee, you say I am going to go to Vanderbilt Beach parking garage, irs great for the first 330 people that get there. But the 1,000 cars a day that are attempling to go there, keep going back and forth, up and down VanderbiR Beach road. And it is - the traffic, ever since the parking garage has opened, has gotten extremely bad, because the mindset is there is a parking garage there, and it now has become a destination. MR. IAIZZO: Leave your car there all day. MR. ST AROS: It's very difficult. We used to handle the Quest luncheons and the Quest dinners and so forth. And we didn't even bid on Quest lunches any longer, because we can't handle the - you can't get the cars to the hotel during lunchtime. MR. DOMENIE: Tim, was there ever any thought of building the pier at 111th rather than at Vanderbilt? never heard anything on that. MR. BURKE: I can't speak to that, I don't know. MR. IAIZZO: 111 is a private, state owned. MR. BURKE: It's a state park. MR. DOMENIE: Well, adjacent to that. That's why I thought IT might be a good location. MR. BURKE: That's it. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT REUSE WATER CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you very much. On to the administrator's report. MR. PETTY: I couldn't hear above the stalic, is it my tum? CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Yes, IT is your tum. MR. PETTY: I've already talked about the Rrtz, there is one other water issue I would like to bring up. Late yesterday aftemoon we got word from the county administrator's office. Along wITh these other topics, they thought they would give us this heads-up. The County is considering, the County staff is considering recommending a change of policy to the County Commissioners and it may hit the Commissioners as early as next Tuesday. 7145 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 /1 A In the past, all of the effluent that we receive from the County always had a little bit of well water WITh it, and as such, it was subject to restriclions. So even though we spent millions of dollars, they are looking to change the policy. The current policy was reflective of South Florida Water Management District restriclions, which said if you use any well water you fall under their restrictions, and the County was using that as a blanket. And as we talked in the past we've told you that our discussions with the County Utility Department on providing a variance for Pelican Bay because of the good work we've done in the last 25 years was not accepted very well by them and we thought that was a very poor response. To the County's good, I've got to tell you I'm happy to report that they have thought that over without further prodding from us. They have kicked it around in house and come up with a rather unique answer. They think they have managed a way to get enough effluent water so that they don't need to put the irrigalion water with it and that way they don't need to get a variance from South Florida. They can supply all of the users of effluent WITh water outside of the restrictions. Now, that has a limited quanlity, of course, and they would ask that you would voluntarily comply with Phase I which is three times a week. But that slill puts us in a far better position than our counterparts next door, Naples Park, who, if we go to Phase III, they will only be allowed to irrigate once per week. But we've built a dual distribulion system and paid good money for IT, we've built a well field six and a half miles away, paid good money for it, the water management system that keeps water here, on srte, to keep the saltwater intrusion back, which costs us money as well. The County is looking to do this, they're doing it very low profile. I'm very proud of them at this point in time. I think Irs a huge benefit to Pelican Bay, and I encourage everyone to let their representatives know that we support such a program for Tuesday'S meeting should they consider it. MR. BURKE: This well field, is that potable water? MR. PETTY: No, sir, it is not. It is a brackish water source, our old well field, we did that to proteclthe City of Naples' well field which is over off of Goodlette Road. We went to a zone, that wasn't going to impact them, of brackish water that nobody was using. We have a reverse osmosis plant, that would then make it potable. It is not potable as it is, IT is irrigation quality, though. MR. BURKE: Is that what we were reusing? MR. PETTY: The County was throwing some of that in WITh the effluent, along with some water that they 7146 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16' 1 A were getting out of a place called the mule pen pit. Sorry, mule pen pit, it was just getting harder to say, I was trying to get that off. A very colorful name, I like it. MR. BURKE: I do, too. Let me ask this, IT'S always bothered me about these water restrictions. There is no effluent water without potable water. Potable water eventually becomes effluent, right? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. MR. BURKE: I don't know if this is the right term, but whoever is keeping track of this irrigation thing, irrigation police or whatever, they ride through Pelican Bay and they see somebody irrigate, they know it's effluent water, right? It can't be anything else in Pelican Bay. MR. PETTY: Well, I'm not so sure the sheriff understands that concept, but anybody that knows the water system here in the County certainly does. MR. BURKE: Okay. But there are parts of the unincorporated County and you know the city, that they irrigate with potable water. MR. PETTY: Oh, yes. Quite a few. MR BURKE: So when this Stage I, Stage II or whatever irs called was imposed, what they're saying is we can't keep track of who is using what. We can't stop at one place and they say we're effluent water. So if Pelican Bay is all effluent, a case could be made we don't need these restrictions. Am I correct? MR. PETTY: Absolutely. And the county is now considering, from staffs recommendalion, you understand, to go to that extra effort to make those distinctions that are very difficult to make in one area that has to use potable water that better hold back to once a month or once a week, to an area that is using 100 percent effluent, who should be allowed to put as much as they can on the ground because irs beneficiary. MR. BURKE: Am I righ~ we're not going to reduce our use of potable water, there is no way we can, we're still going to do - MR. PETTY: Pelican Bay, by ifs clear design 25 years ago, has already met the restrictions that South Florida hopes to impose in a Phase III. We've already cut out the majority of our excess use. You've got to remember that if you don't have a separate dual distribulion system, it is expected that 60 percent of your water use is for irrigalion. 25 years ago we designed a system that separated that right out. So we are already meeting that conservation criteria. 7147 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 1611 A MR. DOMENIE: If you read today's paper, I think Cape Coral is asking for a change in their law because they have too much effluent. And they would have to pump water into the canals, because with the present restrictions, they wouldn't be able to use it. So I guess thars -- MR. PETTY: Irs part and parcel of common sense is start to apply to these issues. As part of this I can tell you that the county also applied to South Florida for a variance, not for this issue, because this they can do without South Florida. But if they should add well water from our old well field or from the mule pit quarry, you'll - what? MR. BURKE: Pen. MR. PETTY: Pen, quarry, that they still would be allowed to provide us with a variance. And it is my understanding that that was granted along with Cape Coral's yesterday. So I understand Marco Island is also going to be looking for a variance. It's just very nice to hear that Collier County is thinking outside the box and being innovative in this issue, and it appears they are ahead of the curve. MR. BURKE: Looking down the line on things we could possibly look a~ figuratively speaking, you menlioned we could be looking at some ASRs. MR. PETTY: Dr. Raia, I believe, was the one that asked at the last meeting, do we have any water on site from the surface water system. And my response was that if we do, our water budget here in Pelican Bay is enviable. And it is partly due to the ridge that goes down Tamiami Trail that separates us from the larger part of the Tamiami aquifer. And because we are recharging Pelican Bay so well from effluent that is brought from outside of our area in, we have a very positive blanket of pressure water in Pelican Bay. It is quite possible that we could provide some storage facililies, ASRs or similar, where we harvest some of the freshwater that is available to us for our future use or for our neighbors future use, whatever the benefit may be. That is definrtely something we may want to consider in the future. As you may recall, the golf course asked for permission to look at that - what was i~ last year, Mr. Burke? MR. BURKE: Yes. MR. PETTY: And they have just put that into operalion, I believe. MR. BURKE: Yes. MS. WOMBLE: No, irs not. MR. PETTY: Is it in operation? 7148 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 , 1 A MS. WOMBLE: Yes, they did, but it's not in operation. MR. BURKE: They have water? MS. WOMBLE: No. MR. PETTY: I don't think so, and irs one of the things we're going to have to work with them on as they're going to be harvesting some of our water from our water management system. But we think that the golf course is a single well, augmentable by several. If you have a single well, the freshwater bubble drifts a IrttIe brt, you end up not being able to get much to put down there. So the advice is put as many down as you can, but they cost two million dollars per, so how many of them are you going to throw around? If we're able to do it as a division of the County, we may be able to get involved to protect our own use, I.e., for a golf course or for our rights-of-way. If we have any capacITy over and above our use, Irs certainly something that we could put into a water bank so that others could have benefit and we could be reimbursed for it. MR. BURKE: There are ASRs in which you can put down effluent water? MS. WOMBLE: Yes. MR. PETTY: Absolutely. MS. WOMBLE: Since the Ritz Carlton will be making a lot more money now, maybe you could consider doing one or two of those. MR. STAROS: Oh, thank you. MS. WOMBLE: Sure. MR. IAIZZO: They will take it under consideration. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, thars all the administrator had to bring to your attention. I'm going to defer to Kyle to talk to you - sorry. PLAN REVIEW SUMBUTTAL - AVAILABLE IN OUR OFFICES FOR REVIEW AMERICAN MOMENTUM CENTER OF PEUCAN BAY CAP D'ANTIBES. COTE D'AZURE MR. PETTY: We have a couple of plan reviews that came in and as Dr. Raia is working on a proposal for this body, we have told you that anything that comes before us for water management review we'll bring to your attention and thars why they are on the list. There is nothing special for us to tell you about them, you all know them very well, they'll be reviewed for the water management crrteria. And before we sign off and send it back, of course 7149 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A we'll bring it to you for your attention. I'll tell you that the full sets have yet to come in, the copy that we got was a copy that the county received and forwarded over to us. We require four separate copies and a separate submittal from the County. So we have given them nolice that it does not comply, and until they do send the four sets in compliance with our requirements, we won't start the review. I have looked at it, though, and I have seen a couple of maintenance issues that I would remark upon. One is there is a walkway that goes across the retention area and normally we have a hold harmless on that issue, that they have an understanding that what we tear down during maintenance then they know they will have to pay for it, and pay for it going back up. In other words, no cost to the residents because of this issue. Not that we have any intent of tearing it down, irs just if I have to go in there with large scale equipment, I won't be able to take it apart so that it could be put back without the cost. There is another issue with a retaining wall being on top of the easement. Not in the easement but on top of it, so that if I put water in the retaining area, the retaining wall works as a wall holding water. Should that leak, that causes problems. Should it seep through, they may be coming after us. So we'll have to talk a little brt about that. Because it's closer than what anything else has ever been done, and this is the footprint of the structure itself, not just the parking garage or a tennis court or anything like that which normally we wouldn't care in that case. But this is the footprint of the unit. Other than that, it will be evaluated by WilsonMiller for compliance with our Plan Review mMnual, and, of course, it is in the interest of the residents and we'll be glad to make what we have available to any resident that asks. We also have another submittal from the American Momentum Center of Pelican Bay. I have no idea what that means, it's a bank. Is it part of the commercial comer right up here? MR. IAIZZO: In The Marketplace? MR. PETTY: Irs that place that I think you were worried about, it was getting a little junky and we asked if they would take a little bit better care of it. I think Irs going into that. Again, it will go through the typical process of where we review it for our maintenance concerns and then water management criteria. And the water management criteria, so you understand, it is our permit from South Florida that we're looking for which is basically talking about impervious/pervious percentages, I believe iI's 60/40, and then the calculalions on the flows of all of the pipes that 7150 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 .~ '.1 they show for storm water on their particular srte. We typically have Wilson Miller run those calculations because of the engineering required and they submit their response back to us and we forward it on to the county through that process. So we thought we would let you know about that. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Very interesting name. I've heard of beautiful names for banks, but no one will look at this and say that's a bank. MR. DOMENIE: Is that going to be a bank? MR. LEVY: Is that where the World Savings is now? MS. SMITH: No, the parcel north of the financial center, on the back entrance into The Marketplace. MR. DOMENIE: The dodder vine backyard. MR. STAROS: Oh, that one. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - UTILITY SITE MR. PETTY: We have on the agenda a Memorandum of Understanding for the utility site, we've discussed this a few limes in the past. We were asked by the County as a housekeeping matter to formalize our 17, 18 year old relationship of cohabitation on the utilrty side. And you see before you the County's draft which came from the utility srte division, and you see also in your package the copy of what we thought was a little bit more reasonable and what we thought was less formal. We have been asked by the County Administrator to work with this group in a good business practice, professionally, to try and come to a consensus here on how the agreement could work. Some of the slicking points I would like to go over. The first one is in the first paragraph where it says, we are, the properties owned by Collier County - what is it called, ulilrty district? Or is it water and sewer - Collier County utilrty water sewer district, and thars not our understanding at all. Here is our understanding. When PBID dissolved and was absorbed by the County, the County took Iitle. And we have a copy of the resolution that says the County took title. We understand that and we believe that the County does have title to that property. We think they should. We also know that the ulilities division of the County at the time took on the responsibilrty for the water, wastewater and irrigation services as they were supposed to. And we know they have and we have been paying their bills ever since. We also know that they should have trtle to or use of whatever land those facilities sit on within that utility site. Thars not being contested. What is being contested is that there has been a transfer of Iitle from Collier 7151 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 1611 A County to an independent government agency called the Collier County Water and Sewer Utilrty District, which we do not acknowledge exists. We don't know that it does. It is included on the financial statements of the County, we consider it a division of the County. We have heard it described as a separate independent government, and if any Pelican Bay assets that were absorbed by the County were sent to another governmental agency, we believe the Pelican Bay residents would want to know that. And if that has been done, that would be a matter that you would like to discuss. So we don't want to see it in the Memorandum of Understanding unless it is a matter that they think we should be discussing. We have asked the County Administrato~s office and the County Counsel to send us the paperwork that was associated with those transition issues at the time PBID did dissolve and the County did absorb, and we do find that the resolulion does say that the property in title is transferred to the county. We have a resolution that was done, I think wrthin 20 minutes thereafter, that says that the responsibililies of the water sewer facilrties and all of those facilities would be owned by the Collier County Water and Sewer Utilrty District. So, as such, we have opinion from counsel who is present today, Ms. Ashton is the one that - I don't want to say that she goes back that far, but she goes back that far. Ms. Ashton had the opinion back then that basically said title is in both names as Collier County as an enlity and the Collier County Utilrty District, they are all - a division thereof, and they are one and the same. So she thinks it's in both and she can define that better than I. And we don't wish to contest that issue, we wish to contest the issue of the title transfer from one to the other. And we don't believe that that occurred, and if it did, you may want to discuss it. So tharsthe biggie. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Regarding my ten years now, at least, when I wrote the opinion, so going from my recollection, but there is a resolution where it's transferred to Collier County and also Collier County as the goveming body of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, is the name of the district. And I believe the district was created by special act, and if you would like copies of any of those documents I can certainly provide them to you. MR. BURKE: Does that differ from utilities? Is it a totally different department or is it part of utilities, Collier County utilities? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right. We've got two entities, one being Collier County and the other being the Collier County Water-Sewer District, where Collier County is the goveming body. But the Ulilities Division is under the County Manager structurally and that would be responsible to both Collier County and the Collier County 7152 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16-ll A Water-Sewer District. Does that answer your question? MR. BURKE: Yes. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Does this insulate the County in the event of some sort of lawsuit or limit resources that would be available if one were to sue? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Probably not, because most of the facilities for the water-sewer district, I believe, are in both names. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you. MR. PETTY: That only issue, as being head of that, the rest is nothing more than coming to consensus on wording. We're in fair agreement that whatever they need for the utililies they should have access to and should maintain at their cost. And whatever we need for our facilities or whatever is left that they don't use, we think should stay wITh Pelican Bay Services Division to be used for Pelican Bay Services Division use at our cost or the residents' cost, and commonly held stuff shared, which is what we've been doing for 17 or 18 years. Irs that acknowtedgment at the beginning that had staff a liWe bit concerned, because if we were acknowledging there had been something new that had happened, that that was something that the residents might not consider to be up to snuff. MR. IAIZZO: I have a question. This Collier County Water and Sewer District, its existence is only here in Pelican Bay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. It's- MR. IAIZZO: Throughout Southwest Florida? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. It's within Collier County. MR. IAIZZO: Only in Collier County. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It was created by special act in the legislature, that's my recollection, anyway. I'm sure I have a copy of it somewhere. MR. IAIZZO: It seems like it was created strictly for the purpose of taking over the facility here in Pelican Bay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know all of the geographic areas in the County where the Collier County Water -Sewer District operates, but anytime there are Collier County facilities, they really are the Collier County Water Sewer District. And I don't know, I can't tell you the reason as to why they created it. I think rt was probably created in the 70s or '80s, perhaps they figured one day that it might be, this, at least, might be transferred. But there are no 7153 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 , 1 A plans that I'm aware of to do that. MR LEVY: John, in the County document they talk about Iiabilrty insurance which would be paid for by Pelican Bay Services Division. And in the, I guess this is your document here, there is no mention about liability insurance or who will pay for it. MR. PETTY: No, sir. We are a Division of the County, and the County has current liability protection statutorily, and they also have liabilrty protection by the insurance on every property they own. We see no reason why Pelican Bay Services Division should have to have a separate policy for what the County currently has over its entire system. Trying to break it out wouldn't be worth the effort, we don't think, so we didn't menlion it. We are part of the County, we share some resources like our well field, like our roads and a few other odds and ends. We didn't want to get down to nickels and dimes here. Whatever the utilities need to run the ulilities, great. If they decommission any of the facilities, which they have just got done doing, that property should come back to the use of Pelican Bay residents, so we ask that rt come back to Pelican Bay Services Division. The issue was more towards that first paragraph where basically they were looking for an acknowledgment from us that this transfer of property title had taken place, and we knew we would get some push back there. MR. IAIZZO: Like a landlord, as far as I'm concemed. They just created a landlord for us. MR. PETTY: It has that tenor to it. DR. RAIA: I have another concem about this. Years ago when Pelican Bay was started, they could not get their permrtling because they were not able to provide, the County was not able to provide water and sewage. And Westinghouse at the lime went to the state house and with special legislation created the Pelican Bay Improvement District. And with their own funds they built the sewage treatment plant, they bought the aquifer about 10 miles up the road, and provided the community with water and sewage treatment. But in that legislation it was clearly stated that when the county was able to provide the services, that they would confiscate, take over the provision. And one night they came in, closed everything down and took everything over. It was contested in court and the courts sided with the County, that indeed, that was the agreement and since they are able to provide it, they did. Now this provision of services is being provided from outside of Pelican Bay. Now, for a few days, weeks, months, yes, they took over and during the transition the land, the system was on this 12 acres. When they moved out, it is my belief, and the belief of many people in Pelican Bay, that that land, 7154 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 I 1 A there was no reason for the county to take over that land. They didn't need the land to provide sewer and water. We feel that that is a taking and I will not vote for anything that gives de facto recognition that the county owns that 12 acres. That belongs to the people of Pelican Bay. Irs no part of the sewage treatment services being provided, and no part of the aquifer of water. They can have an easement there for us, there can be at least some other arrangement, but I just don't understand how they could walk away with 12 acres. MR. IAIZZO: Thars a good point. Now, where do we go with it? II's still their property as of now. What we have to do is go to court and apply for title. DR. RAIA: I would support that, but thars not arguing, tharsthe Foundation's business. The Foundation can do what they want with it. But we've existed all this time with whars going on, and what I'm against is any action by us that gives de facto recognrtion that the County owns that land. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I make a comment? The Pelican Bay Services Division supports the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing Benefit Unit. That's your formal name. But you, this entrty, this municipal service taxing unit itself, does not own property. II's not a legal enlity, the goveming body of it is called the County. So if, Dr. Raia, what you are proposing is you probably want a recognition by the County that they hold it. If thafs the way you want to go, that they're holding it for the benefit of the residents, you know, you might want clarificalion, if thars where you want to go. Because, as I said, the taxing unit itself doesn't put rts - doesn't go in rts name. Are you following? Am I making it clear what I'm saying? DR. RAIA: You are. I'm not looking for the ultimate solution of how we are going to define that land or - my point right now is that we don't do anything, that actually gives de facto recognition that the County owns the property by having a vote saying yes, we recognize, like in that first paragraph. I have to vote against that and I hope people who are residents and live in Pelican Bay would join me. And we'll continue providing all of the services, doing everything we have been doing. But I just don't think the County has the need or right or any other reason to have that land. II just should not have happened. MR. IAIZZO: Irs a good point, it really brings to a head the real ownership of that property. I know Irs out of our jurisdiclion, you are right, rt should go back to the Foundation to make that issue. Thars where it goes and that's where it ends. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, we knew that there would be issues here and that's why we put it on the 7155 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 , 1 A agenda, it's been well put that it is a property of the people of Pelican Bay. Title at the property Appraiser's office may be in the County's name, but the County is run by the residents, of which Pelican Bay residents are part of that process. It is always the citizens, cilizens' rights that should be held in the greatest height. I understand the comments, and we're not looking for conclusion today. We understand this may be a lengthy process. We have just committed to work with the County Administrator's Office and the utility department in good faith over time. We knew there would be push back here, and we'll be glad to report, saying, if there are any other indications that the Board would like us to take back in our discussions with staff, we'll be glad to do so. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Am I correct, the county, its only use of that property now would be to store equipment or keep equipment there as well as -- MR. PETTY: They have high service pumping facilities, emergency backup power, they have a diesel generator, fluorination facilities, three fluorination facilities, I should say. They have taken those off line. The wastewater treatment plant has been gutted to be used for storage of effluent, I believe Mr. Lukasz said. Was the filter in the effluent pump station being taken apart and removed? And the digester I believe has been removed as well. So there is land out there that we of course have our eye on, I think Mr. Lukasz is already starting to plant bushes out there, little flags with his name on them. So take that into account. We're prelly aggressive, working with staff on this issue and acknowledging our right as maintainers of Pelican Bay to use that for a maintenance site. So we'll be glad to carry these thoughts forward. But yes, sir, they do have a few existing, operating facilities on there for storage and high service pumping to raise pressure up in the distribution system. And there may be one or two instrumentalion issues there. MR. IAIZZO: Where are we going wITh this? This is very interesting to me. If they want us to agree to this, I believe we ought to make a decision on that and throw it back. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, unless you tell us to accept or decline, no action other than reporting back to the staff that we're working with, where we're getting concern from this Board, is all we would use. But certainly you can make a decision at any point, pro or con. But in the meanlime we'll just take your comments back for discussion. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: I don't think that we should do anything definitive at this point in lime. We're just simply slow rolling it. MR. IAIZZO: I think Dr. Raia's idea should be put forward. 7156 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 , I A CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Pardon me? MR. IAIZZO: I think Dr. Raia's idea should be brought forward and identified. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: You mean, we should go to the County and claim that that property really doesn't belong to them? MR. IAIZZO: You can't do that. MR. RAIA: I would not want to take the aggressive attrtude, but I definitely would want to just keep the status quo. I would not want to see us do any recognilion that the County owns the property. I think that's an act of commission to do that, and we should not do that. Doing nothing means we can never be challenged that we at one time agreed, and then I would never want to have us be in that position that we agreed at one time that the County did own that property. Now, they have some use there, they could probably do all of that on one acre. The storage parking of vehicles and all the more extensive, I have no objection to whatever they are doing there right now. Irs just the idea that they kept the property and what they took the property for is actually being provided from outside of Pelican Bay. So there is really no need to have the property in their name. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, I understand the point raised by Dr. Raia on the acknowledgment issue. We knew we were going to be pushed back on that, we have no trouble at all with saying told you so. Now, whars the next step? We're going to go back to our position as staff is concemed, which thars why we pulled it from our version and see if we can't come to a middle ground somewhere and bring it back again for consideration. MR. DOMENIE: Where did this originate, from us or from them? MR. PETTY: From them. Irs housekeeping and it has to do with fixed assets and how do you properly take care of your long term operations. We've been working together for 17, 18 years, this is nothing new, it's just housekeeping. DR. RAIA: Mr. Pelly, the problem is I don't consider it their asset, so they really have no problem. MR. BURKE: I think it would be a great site for affordable work force housing. MR. BURKE: Either that, or tennis courts. CHAIRMAN CONNELL: This is deteriorating. MR. RAIA: I would put a stipulation that it could never be used for tennis courts. 7157 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 11 A CAPITAL PROJECTS MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS - MYRA JANCO DANIELS BOULEVARD SIDEWALK LIGHTING - MYRAN JANCO DANIELS BOULEVARD & VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Capital projects. MR. LUKASZ: The purchase orders have been opened to the two engineering firms for the median modification on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and also the ballard lighling. They are beginning the survey work and design so we can submit the permits. The estimated schedules have been included in the agenda, they are just estimates because we don't know what kind of response we'll initially get for the permit application. And there also may be some easements that we'll have to work out, especially for the ballard lighting. After we get the survey work back we'll be able to get a better idea whars necessary as far as the easements go. MR. IAIZZO: How many people are out there bidding, how many vendors are out there? MR. LUKASZ: All we're doing is the engineering work right now, we're using different vendors. Agnoli, Barber and Brundage is doing the engineering work for the ballard lighting and WilsonMiller is doing the engineering work for the median modification on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. And then once they complete the design plans, we'll go ahead and get the proposals from the different contractors and go ahead and do the work. MR. PETTY: While you're doing that, doesn't the County use a rotating list of engineers? MR. LUKASZ: We have to go off the RFB and there are about six different engineering firms. MR. PETTY: We have a prelly good choice, I think we typically use WilsonMiller for our water management because they have the history of the system. COMMUNITY ISSUES SIDEWALK REPAIRS MR. LUKASZ: Sidewalk repairs, the county, again, have slill been in here doing some of the repairs. They actually started to do some work on the list that we gave them when Mr. laizzo and I went around and identified additional areas and I had noliced just a couple of weeks ago some of the repairs necessary over on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard where the roots have come up. Some of that stuff has been repaired, or areas right by the sidewalks, some of the repairs were done probably about a year ago. And there is - MR. BURKE: Is that what he was talking about before, the guy - MR. LUKASZ: Yes. So, we have to get them to at least make some temporary repairs and see if we can do anything in addition to that. 7158 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 16 , 1 A MS. WOMBLE: Mt. Lukasz, that area becomes more important with the school year because Seagate goes over to the Phil, they walk the kids, it's a block. HURRICANE CHARLEY STORM DAMAGE MR. LUKASZ: There is nothing new to report on Hurricane Charlie. MR. IAIZZO: Mr. Lukasz, on the lighting along Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, can I call it MJD to make it easy, I've seen the lighting on Naples, as we approach the City of Naples, getting down to Fifth Avenue South, they have got these white light posts that are short. They are not, you know, 200 feet high or 150 feet high, they are quite elegant and they look classy. Could we get something, or are we going to think about that kind of lights? Are we still going to get in there, we talked about possibly bringing in the lamps. MR. LUKASZ: Are you talking about the lighting that is included in this project? MR. IAIZZO: Yes. MR. LUKASZ: Well, this is just ballard lighting for the sidewalks. MR. IAIZZO: I'm just wondering if we can put some -- MR. LUKASZ: I guess irs going to be the same type of lighting we have along the lake bank sidewalk and at the intersection of -- MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, if I could, they're both saying the same thing. Mr. laizzo is saying are we going to use architectural lighting, something that looks nice and the ballard lighting is an archITectural lighting element. You've seen some down in Naples, but they are rather high, ours are only three, three and a half feet tall. MR. IAIZZO: Maybe 10 feet or less. MR. PETTY: Thars like single family streetlights that would be considered archrtectural, but we're not looking for- MR. RAIA: Are they low energy - MR. LUKASZ: 13 watt, 13 watt fluorescent. They use a 13 watt fluorescent. They don't throw out a lot of power. MR. RAIA: Does that equal 60 watts, is that the ones that -- MR. PETTY: I believe they're just a 13 watt fluorescent that does equal 60 watt. MR. LUKASZ: We're looking at using the same light that we've got on the comer of Ridgewood and Pelican 7159 Pelican Bay Services Division Board January 9, 2008 Bay Boulevard to keep it consistent. COMMITTEE REQUESTS CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you. Any requests? AUDIENCE COMMENTS Hearing none, anyone in the audience have a parting comment? ADJOURN There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 3:10 P.M. .-~ ~~~ (olema:- Irman 16 , 1 A Barbara Smith, Pelican Bay Services Division. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Services, Inc. by Elizabeth M. Brooks - formatted by 7160 Fiala? *)",< \)\ ~:~~"g~ 16 11 Coyle Coletta . BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING ~-.. ~ .....1:- ..~ :~-'~ A' \ ~ ' ! "Vj '.";,''''' ;"(<t"J ; ','r":; T~SCR1PT OF BUDGET COMMITTEE DIVISION THE OF MEETING OF THE PELICAN BA Y SERVICES Naples, Florida, November 27,2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on this date at 1 :05 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Hammock Oak Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: David Bramson John Iaizzo Coleman Connell Michael Levy John Boland Misc. GO/Tes: Date: :5. 2..S.?5 llemd~ 1.1 A) l1 611 '.:O:J(.::'1 to' ~ 16 , 1 A CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. We'll call the meeting to order. The first thing is the roll call. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect that all members are present; Chairman Bramson, Mr. Boland, Mr. Iaizzo, Mr. Levy, and Mr. Connell. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: And there are no guests today other than -- Kyle's not a guest. Kyle is on staff. So we can dispense with the audience participation and -- is that right? MR. PETTY: Vb-huh. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. The next issue is the approval of the minutes for the last meeting. MR. LEVY: I have a few -- a few things that I think maybe need to be changed. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. LEVY: Page 603 from the bottom of the page 1,2,3,4,5-- 6 lines up the sentence starts, "Secondly, that extra fund that was designed for all of the work around the berm that is going to be done," I think the word "not" needs to be in there, "is not going to be done." CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Not. Right. That is not going -- that's correct. MR. LEVY: Another -- on the next page, 604, in the second paragraph it says, "Mr. Petty stated, 'Currently, the division outside of its cash flow reserve policy of two and one-half months.'" I think it should be three and one-half months. MR. PETTY: And one-half months, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Is that correct? MR. PETTY: It is. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Three and a half? MR. PETTY: Yeah, it should be three and a half months. MR. LEVY: That's the 291/2 percent. MR. PETTY: That's what we -- that's where we currently have it. 612 1611 A CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Yeah. MR LEVY: Then on page 609 in the third paragraph from the top starting with, "Mr. Petty replied, 'Everything right now is dealing with the property appraiser's role, and I am sure that the attorney for the county answered in the affirmative in that this is so widespread that there is no agency within the county that is going to be impacted in some way" -- I think that is not going to be impacted. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Where is that? What page is that? Six oh -- MR. LEVY: 609, the third paragraph down, the second line from the bottom of the paragraph. "This is so widespread that there is no agency within the county that is not going to be impacted." CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. Anybody else? Is there a motion to approve the minutes as corrected? MR. IAIZZO: So moved. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Second? MR. CONNELL: Second. COURT REPORTER: Who moved? I'm sorry. MR. PETTY: Mr. Iaizzo moved. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Any -- any opposition? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. It's unanimous. MR. PETTY: And Mr. Connell seconded. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. Now, going back to the last meeting, there was a Question No. 1 about the mission of this committee, and it was helpful sort of to get the minutes that, No.1, established the committee and then, No.2, the -- the second meeting of the committee itself. Okay. Just let me read a couple of lines. It says, Mr. Carro (phonetic), that we need to look hard at the budget but not during the budgeting process so time gets away from us. That's the reason for creating the committee, to look hard at the budget but not during the 613 16 11 A budgeting process where time gets away from us. I'm not necessarily -- I don't necessarily agree that that's the -- the -- the function of the committee. The function of the committee is to look hard at the budgeting process while it's being done and then -- and look -- I mean, the -- the time you do it is when it's being done. First you understand how it's going to be done, and then you look hard while it's being done. So that's No.1, the pure financial aspects. The second thing is we have from the -- the committee's -- itselfs meeting Sudfen's (phonetic) comment as to what the -- "It was decided at our initial meeting to treat management reporting as a separate task from our mission to review the budgeting process and, therefore, I put it first so it will stay that way." And those are the -- those are, basically, the two things we are now struggling with other than the side issue of the ad valorem and non-ad valorem is, No.1, the management reporting and, No.2, the budgeting process. What I would like to do is -- regarding the budgeting process for this coming year, John who was on the original committee and has freely ex -- laizzo, who has expressed a variety of interests and opinions about how we might really be saving money potentially, I'm -- I'm appointing him a committee of one to do the work on the budget regarding whether money can be saved; in other words, like the issue that was raised last -- last meeting by one of the audience that if we cut the palm trees every six months could it be done every eight months -- I mean, that -- I'm throwing that out because probably the palm trees have got to be cut every season or something like that. I don't know. MR. LEVY: Before the coconuts fall. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: But we don't have any coconut palms, I don't think. But -- but, you know, whatever it is I think that the -- that's a valid question, and -- and do we have to have two plantings a year? Probably the answer's going to be yes. I mean -- and 614 16 , 1 A I think that John can come back with recommendations as to where we could maybe cut back without in any way lessening what we're producing for the population. One thing we don't -- we don't have a mandate to lessen what -- what this board -- what the board has to produce for the people. We have a mandate to maintain Pelican Bay at least as well as it is now. Is that correct, Coleman? MR. CONNELL: Yes, it is. Yes. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So -- but at the same time John Iaizzo is correct in saying, "Hey, if we can save the people money, we should be doing it," and so I would like him to do that. I would like to also appoint Mike as a committee of one to be looking at the budgeting process as an overall process. You can work with John, and you -- the two of you can work together, but-- MR. PETTY: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I might, that's not possible under Florida law. Two board members cannot work together outside of a public meeting process. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. So then one -- each one will have to work separately with the staff as they go through the budgeting. MR. PETTY: And, Mr. Chairman, that was the point I was going to be bringing up, that for you to define a responsibility of your committee members is certainly within your purview, although it does not grant them any authority to make decisions. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: They would not. MR. PETTY: They can only -- they can only gather information to bring back to this subcommittee of their opinion and recommendation to the full standing board for a decision. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Well, that would, obviously, be -- that's the intent is that they gather the information-- MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- and that John would come back 615 16 '1 A and say, "Hey, they're doing this and this. I think they can do this and this, and this is what -- and we would have -- it would have no affect on the community, but it would save $100,000. What do you -- do you -- this is what I am reporting to the committee." We would then take it to the -- to the full board and say, "Hey, this is the -- what our committee found by virtue of a -- of a member of the board." MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, as long as they're -- I -- I -- this word of caution is maybe in an abundance of caution, but since they are individuals, that data collection and that return to the board, we have to be careful that they are not reflective of a personal opinion. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Well, whatever -- whatever would be brought back to the committee by either Mike or John would be discussed at a committee meeting with staff being present so that they could say, "Hey, wait. He's saying we can do this once every three years, and if we do it once every three years disaster's going to happen, that he's talking from an economic point of view not from an agricultural point of view. " I mean, obviously, we're not going to just take a statement that, "Hey, we should maybe do this"-- MR. PETTY: Oh. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- without backing it up. The -- MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, if! could, I -- I didn't mean to infer that. I had made the leap that these individuals that you were naming would, therefore, be authorized to utilize staff time and facilities in asking and going over these issues and staff would be obligated to running the analysis, doing the calculations, looking up the material, and the only caution I wanted to bring was that it may be -- you want to stay away from these single-member subcommittees from appearing to have power to direct staff or make decisions in the field, and that's why when they come back they should come back with a data report versus -- and trying to stay away from the opinions, and that way we don't get into that issue because right now we have 616 16 11 A Collier County and its governing body, of course, and we have our committee in full, and then we have the budget subcommittee. Now we have another subset of that, two individuals who will be going out and talking to staff, and it appears to staff as if they have some influence. It may be that policy gets changed by that appearance, and that's why I suggest that we try to avoid any appearance of that at all in an -- in maybe an overabundance of caution. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Let me -- let me express it this way, John. Both of the gentlemen I've -- I've just appointed are long-experienced businessmen who are used to working with staff on getting stuff done, and I would trust them to be able to handle it in a -- in a gentle manner and to not make unreasonable demands that -- and if they want something and there's a question I'm sure that you could act as intermediary regarding this, but I think that we must -- that if we're going to be a budget committee we must insert ourselves into the budget process on both scores. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, right now this committee owns the budget. As your administrator I do not have any say-so in the budget much. I have no ownership of it. I have no opinion to it. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: I'm only asking you to -- to inter-- be an intermediary -- MR. PETTY: Sir, ifI may continue. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- if there's a question about staff time. MR. PETTY : You said that you wanted this committee to have ownership of the budget, and, sir, you do. At this current time and in history for the last six or so years with Mr. Sudfen, based on the establishment as you talk about from the minutes that we sent you the copies of, it has evolved to where a manager who normally owns the budget of the company or the government that he works for -- he or she, they normally own the budget. It is not within the purview of a subcommittee. The manager 617 16 I 1 A presents the budget, and the electorate -- or, I'm sorry, the governing body decides whether or not it's appropriate, and if it is they adopt it. We have evolved; that's why you call me an administrator, not a manager; that's why my contract has been modified $48,000 a year down to $24,000 a year. I'm an administrator, not a manager. As such, this committee is responsible for the budget and has been for the last five or six years. Sir, you do own the budget and every aspect of it. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Uh-huh. MR. PETTY: Let me make that perfectly clear -- MR. IAIZZO: Amen. MR. PETTY: -- because I don't want it sticking to me. So -- but you got already -- these gentlemen and every member here has the power to ask any question of staff during these meetings that they wish. They are not withheld from any area of the operations currently nor have they been for the last five or six years. That doesn't stop you from appointing the subcommittees as you suggest for additional purposes as you see fit, but I did want to make that point clear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. IAIZZO: Well-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Let me just respond, and then you can take it, John. Yes, we own it, but we don't know quite what we own. The -- and it -- it came up last year. I mean, maybe my predecessor -- my second -- my previous -- not -- not Coleman, but -- but -- MR. PETTY: Sudfen. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- Chris Sudfen, who is a very, very bright guy and a much better accountant than I would ever hope to be, understood all this stuff, but I don't fully understand it. I know we are presented with a budget. I had a pretty good idea of how it was constructed. I mean, we were presented with the budget 618 16 11 A based on the preceding year's figures with adjustments based on certain percentages that were determined in a variety of ways. I would like this committee in the form of the two subcommittees to go and look at how this budget is done, how Kyle is doing it, how-- MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, again, Kyle doesn't do the budget. Kyle comes to you with recommendations on what he sees as director of field operations -- as manager of field operations and what he projects his fuel costs, his personnel cost, new areas of responsibility. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: He -- he prepares numbers that go into the budget. MR. PETTY: Well, everybody does including this budget committee. But as your field operator he is responsible for preparing cost estimates in that regard, and he submits them to the budget committee who has the opportunity, then, to decide whether or not they'd like to look at contract operations or whether they'd like to bid it out for different material or if they'd like to hold off on a particular recommendation for a year or two or three or just not do it at all. That has always been within this body's powers. Kyle does not produce the budget. Jean puts your comments into a format that has been approved for the last five or six years which was a Jim Ward/Chris Sudfen issue. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No, we're -- we're -- we're -- we're-- we're mincing words here. I don't -- John, and I'll -- we're -- we're -- MR. PETTY: I may be misunderstanding, sir. I apologize. MR. CONNELL: If -- if I could inteIject here -- and I must admit that my experience is completely corporate. And the budgets as they were formed each year started at the very lowest -- I shouldn't use that -- but at the very basic level and worked their way up until they came to the management committee. And the management committee looks at it, and they say, "It's too high." It's as simple as that. And the makers -- the submitters of that budget have to go back and bring it within the parameters that the 619 16 II A management wants it brought in. In other words, I believe that we tell Kyle we want him to cut his work staff in half, and I expect Kyle to say to me, "Okay. I'll do that, but here's what I believe is going to happen. " But where we bought the -- the fertilizer from -- I realize that's a component, but supposedly the controls are built into the bid -- bidding process and the solicitation of bids. I feel reasonably comfortable that we don't need to look at whether there's some guy selling fertilizer someplace who can give it to us for 10 cents a pound less. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: That's -- that's not what we're -- we can't -- we don't have that -- that capacity anyway -- MR. CONNELL: Oh, I know it. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- because the county is the one who makes those acquisition decisions. MR. CONNELL: Right. MR. PETTY: No, Mr. Chairman, that's a misconception. The county does have, of course, requirements that we, a division of the county, must conform to in pro -- procurement. That doesn't prohibit -- prohibit any division, including Pelican Bay Services Division, from submitting a request for a found source that is cheaper than their current contract. And as long as we meet the rules of public bidding requirements of the State of Florida and adopted by Collier County we can go outside of the standard contract, but the chair is right in that there is an existing contract for fertilizers that the county employees are encouraged to use, but that doesn't prohibit us from going out and checking to see if there's anybody cheaper and then utilizing a better source later on, again, as long as we meet the laws of the State of Florida on procurement and the procedures adopted by Collier County. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So we -- since they have already 620 16 11 A gone out and had public bids on the fertilizer, we would have to then go out and -- if we found somebody that was cheaper than the -- the lowest bid that the county got, we'd then have to put that out for public bid. MR. PETTY: Based on the amount, the quantities that we buy, probably so, sir. Yes, it would probably trigger that law mechanism and that procedural mechanism of Collier County. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So we -- MR. PETTY: We do not have the ability to -- to shop in some instances. In a lot of cases we do. And the county policy is a simple matter of getting three proposals, for example, depending on the dollar amount. But our chemicals are rather high, and I'd have to check procedures to see if it triggers it. It depends on how we bought them. I mean, if it was a -- if it was nothing more than we needed a couple hundred pounds for today, I'm sure we could get that through the straight procurement process without triggering a public bid. If we were going to be spending twenty-five, thirty, forty thousand dollars on fertilizer, which is something we can do, then it should go out for public bid. And if you find somebody down the street who's offering it for less but you haven't gone through the procurement process you've really set us, this division, up for -- our rear ends are exposed because if we haven't gone through the procurement process we don't know if their ingredients have been properly analyzed and that we really have 12 percent nitrogen in the damn thing. We don't know if there is any liability insurance. Are they a company in good standing in Collier County? If -- if something goes wrong, are we going to go back to this place and it's going to be nothing but a tent selling Christmas trees? So those are the standard procurement-process issues that we go through, and we can certainly do that, sir, under the existing conditions. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: I don't think -- go ahead. I'm sony, John. Go ahead. 621 16 J 1 A MR. IAIZZO: You know, we all can't talk at once, so I've been trying to raise my hand so that -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Go ahead. Go ahead. MR. IAIZZO: -- we don't all talk at once. First of all, the county -- getting into what John just said, you just can't pick a vendor. The county has selected vendors to provide services. You just can't pull a vendor out of the hat and give it to the county. If it's not on their list as selected vendors, it doesn't exist. I just wanted to make that point clear. But I also accept what you said about throwing some areas of responsibility to myself and Mike. That's not a problem, but it's really not a big deal to look at this budget in the way I see it. If you look at this budget, you really have personal services, field services, and capital outlay. You've got three major categories, and each one is unIque. Every dollar we set for these categories cannot be moved into another category. We have to understand that. That's what I think we have to learn through talking with Kyle and Jean Smith. Each -- when I looked at the field services, there's only 21 line items there. Why can't we in an open discussion look at the line items across the funds and understand it, question it, collaborate with the -- have the staff collaborate with us in looking for ways of reduction if there is? If there isn't, fine. I have no problem with that. When I went through this budget, one of the things that upset me -- not really upset me but I thought was a red flag was miscellaneous. Every time there's a miscellaneous that's loose money. I think miscellaneous, if you want to call it that, ought to go into reserve. If they want reserve so that in case they run short on assets to cover an expense, we'll have a fund called reserve, but it's a minimal reserve. Take all the miscellaneous, and you can have about $40,000 in reserves if you went through this in detail. I would like to see us work with the staff right here in an open meeting on each line item and look 622 1611 A at it across the funds. We only have a few funds. You've got water management, you've got beautification, and you've not streetlighting. After that you get into the capital projects funds, and that's -- that's pretty straight -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Before this is presented to us -- and this is where I want the involvement -- your involvement with the process -- as I understand it Kyle will look at what was spent the preceding year. He will then --listen to me. MR. IAIZZO: No, first let's get that straight. Who -- who cuts the budget? Are you saying that Kyle cuts the budget? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Kyle -- a lot of these expenses where Kyle is responsible for -- for them-- MR. IAIZZO: Well, let him speak then. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: He's the field director. He will look at the figures of last year. He will then figure some percentage along with Je~ and he will come to a conclusion as to what the number should be for this year. MR.IAIZZO: Can I ask Kyle how the budget is actually cut so that we can get a clarification? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Is that right the way I'm saying? MR. LUKASZ: Right, except in some circumstances we can get actual numbers. Say, for pine straw we don't have to put a percentage increase on that if we know it's a three-year contract and we're going to purchase it at X amount of cost. That's going to remain consistent. If we're not going to change our area or service level, that would remain the same. For certain things -- chemicals, if the bid is in place and it has another year to go, then we know that those prices are going to remain relatively firm. If we know during the course of that fis -- the following fiscal year that it is going to go out for bid, then we have to see what the percentage increase will probably be. The last couple of years based on fuel increases and things like that, some of those 623 16 I I A products like chemicals or fertilizers have increased because of trucking costs. MR. PETTY: Right. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: The largest item in his control is personnel. MR. LUKASZ: Personnel services, yes. MR. IAIZZO: Personnel. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: And we have to get this year's projection based on the preceding year or what we might -- MR. LUKASZ: From historical figures on what -- COURT REPORTER: Okay. We have to talk one at a time. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Pardon? COURT REPORTER: We have to talk one at a time. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Go ahead, John. MR. IAIZZO: No, you two were talking. I wasn't talking. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So, in essence, what I'm saying is on the person -- on the areas you know what they are by contract, those you just put in. On the areas like personnel, those you pro -- you take last year. You know what percentage increase is going to be and either -- whatever costs are going to be increased, and if you need increased personnel or potentially decreased personnel that's factored ill. Now, what are the expenses where you feel that -- really that we should be looking at? I mean -- MR. IAIZZO: Before we even get there, David, I would like to work with Kyle in an open meeting like we are right now and start looking at these line items and trying to get our arms around it so that we could understand it, and if we don't understand it then we've got a lot of talking to do, but once we understand it it's possible that we can find some loose money. MR. CONNELL: What level of understanding are you interested in, John? How -- how far into the items do you want to go? 624 16 rIA MR. IAIZZO: Well, if you look at the -- if you look at the budget -- MR. CONNELL: I'm just trying to understand what our problem is here that would -- MR. IAIZZO: If you look at the budget -- you know, if you go to page 32, if everybody has a budget with them -- you can look on mine -- under field service you'll see regular salaries. This is a job number. This is a fund, how the money is appropriated to that fund. I'd like to know more about that. What are the first three numbers? I can see readily the first three numbers is beautification. The second group of numbers, I'm not sure exactly what it means, and the third group of numbers I'm not -- and that actually is how the dollars are spent by these number systems. I want to learn more about that, things like that. And then we need to talk about -- like, for other contractual services, there's $70,000 plus. Now, that's broken down in one job number, and -- and this is how the money is disbursed if you look down, you know, 19,300 for sweeping, 20,000 for tree -- tree trimming and so on. That covers the 70,000. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. But here, you know, the area -- you've got tree trimming exactly, the 20,000, this area is performed on a biannual -- on a biannual basis. MR. IAIZZO: But I want -- okay. How many vendors? Are we using one vendor for this? Two vendors? Five vendors? I don't know how many vendors are involved. MR. CONNELL: Kyle should be able to answer that. MR. LUKASZ: On -- on tree trimming we get three or four proposals. MR. IAIZZO: Yeah. All right. MR. LUKASZ: And we go with a low proposal. It's generally done on a crew rate with a bucket truck and a four-man crew for tree trimming, and we -- we ask different companies for proposals based 625 16 '1 A on that daily rate apples to apples, you know, a bucket truck. MR. IAIZZO: These are the things we need to learn about how the budget is cut, but now we understand we have a cherry picker, so maybe that'll bring down the cost of tree trimming. I'm not really sure. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: We're not -- we're not going to do it ourselves, are we? MR. LUKASZ: No, not -- not this particular tree trimming we're talking here. And that -- the bucket truck is really for streetlighting, and so -- and wasn't intended for the use in -- as a bucket truck for tree trimming. MR. IAIZZO: I thought that -- MR. LUKASZ: That was purchased under the streetlighting, and it's amortized. We're planning on that truck lasting for 10 years because we're just going to use it for streetlighting there. MR. IAIZZO: Well, when that budget came up and the cost came up, you said it would also be used for tree trimming, but that's neither here nor there. MR. BOLAND: John, I have one question. Kyle, these numbers in parentheses, are they the job numbers that you pick off to get our expenses? Like, for example, the second line -- MR. LUKASZ: You mean after contractual services? MR. BOLAND: 109-822901. MR. LUKASZ: 109 is the fund, and then the cost then, and 182901 is community beautification. MR. BOLAND: That's the code we use for Pelican Bay; is that right? MR. LUKASZ: Yes. MS. LARNED: Excuse me, Kyle. Let me jump in. MR. LUKASZ: Okay. MR. BOLAND: Do you request those numbers, or do they give you those numbers? 626 1611 A CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No, that's a given number. MR. BOLAND: In other words, how do you get those -- that particular Pelican Bay from, say, Golden Gate or someone else? You have -- do you go in and -- and request specific numbers to get that? Is that -- or do they just say, "This is Pelican Bay's numbers. Here's the expenses. Here's the revenue. Here's all the things"? Did they generate that, or do you generate that? MR. LUKASZ: It was generated from the county. MR. BOLAND: Who generated it? MR. LUKASZ: But these numbers have been the same for 15 years that I know of. MR. BOLAND: You -- you -- they -- they make up all these numbers? MR. LUKASZ: The county issues the -- MR. BOLAND: So you have no -- I'm not being facetious. You have no way of knowing if these are correct numbers or wrong numbers or -- someone may put a wrong code in. You don't do any of the coding or anything like that, the basics. MR. LUKASZ: Well, they don't change. MR. BOLAND: Yeah. You don't get involved in that. Those numbers are given to you by the county. MR. LUKASZ: Right. Initially-- MR. BOLAND: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. MR. LUKASZ: -- when the funds were set up. MR. PETTY: Say "yes" and we're done. Say yes. MR. LUKASZ: I -- okay. MR. PETTY: He's right. You don't make up the numbers. You take what the county gives you. MR. IAIZZO: You think: it's a problem, John? MR. BOLAND: Yeah. MR. IAIZZO: Why? MR. BOLAND: Okay. Let's say somebody -- we got two digits 627 16 11 A off in Golden Gate. We get their expenses. Instead of Pelican Bay it's someone else. How do we know we're getting Pelican Bay's numbers, that's my question. MR. IAIZZO: These are unique to us. MR. BOLAND: How do we know? How do we know we're getting the revenue that's generated for Pelican Bay? How do we know we're getting expenses that are unique to Pelican Bay? And who does -- at the basis, that's where you've got to get it, where it does that, sets that up. MR. IAIZZO: John, this-- MR. BOLAND: And the~ I guess, Kyle just picks off that particular part and generates all these reports. MR. IAIZZO: I believe these numbers are unique. MR. BOLAND: So unless you get down to the basic numbers of how they generate this -- that's where the meat of this whole thing is. If that's not done properly, Coleman, it's not going to work; that's all I'm saying. MR. IAIZZO: Stop. MR. BOLAND: We don't know if we've got our expenses plus someone else's or we don't have enough. So how do you budget for that? That's my -- that's my -- that's my problem with this. MR. IAIZZO: No. It's -- it's coded, John, so that it's Pelican Bay. It's all nine group -- it's all groups that make it work. MR. BOLAND: Yeah, I know that, John. How do I know those numbers are good? MR. WZZO: These are valid numbers. Don't -- don't worry about that. These are valid numbers. Trust me on that. MR. BOLAND: Yeah. MR. IAIZZO: But if you took a look at other contractual service that number is good for all the funds, and I'd like to know more about that. You know, how does this really work? MR. BOLAND: Yeah, but he has -- 628 16 11 A MR. IAIZZO: How can we save a buck? If we're going to look to save a buck, you better understand this. MR. BOLAND: Do you -- do you choose the vendors, Kyle? You don't choose the vendors, do you? MR. LUKASZ: If it's -- if it's not under a county contract, then we go out and we request three -- we need a minimum of three proposals. MR. BOLAND: Do you -- like, say, if someone's getting three proposals, do you have the determination to get Company A, Company B, or Company C, or does someone in the county do that outside of you? MR. LUKASZ: No, we would request because we outline what the work is -- say, for street sweeping -- MR. BOLAND: Okay. MR. LUKASZ: -- we call three -- three vendors that perform street sweeping in this -- in the case of the street sweeping we send them the location of the road so they can come in and size the job up, and then they send in three written proposals. And whoever comes in with the lowest cost that meets all the specifications would be the low proposal. We have to submit all three written proposals to purchasing and submit a purchase requisition. If all the -- if all the criteria isn't there, including three written proposals, the correct -- the fund and cost center and commitment item is all submitted in a requisition to purchasing, and then they determine if it meets all the purchasing criteria, and then they would issue a purchase order. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So you have to go through this procedure every year, or can you do it on a three-year basis, or what? MR. LUKASZ: No, we do that -- street sweeping we do on an annual basis. MR. IAIZZO: And when you do do you pick one out of a group, or do you pick more than one? 629 16 11 A MR. LUKASZ: No, we pick one -- we pick one vendor, yes, because he's -- he's the lowest cost, and the only reason we would switch is if for some reason he wasn't performing the work correctly. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: But he's -- but you go to three different venders to ask them for a bid. MR. LUKASZ: Correct. That's the purchasing policy. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Now, historically has there been -- has it been the same vendor every year that's the low bid? MR. LUKASZ: For the last two or three years, we've had the same vendor. Over the course of 15 years, we've probably had four or five different vendors perform our street sweeping. MR. LEVY: We've got a weekly cost here of $52 to sweep the boulevards. A guy comes in here and does the boulevards for $52? MR. LUKASZ: No. No, he does the main boulevards for 330 times 52 weeks. MR. LEVY: I'm looking at a weekly -- the first item is a weekly sweep. MR. LUKASZ: Esti -- estimated weekly sweepings -- MR. IAIZZO: That's done every week. MR. LUKASZ: -- 52. Estimated -- estimated -- that shouldn't be a monthly cost. That should be a weekly cost. -- main boulevards, $330, so it would be 52 times 330. MR. IAIZZO: See, this is what I think we have to learn. MR. LEVY: Oh, I see what you're saying. MR. LUKASZ: Yeah. MR. LEVY: I -- I thought the -- I thought it was dollars. MR. LUKASZ: Right. And that should -- their terminology -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: The first two are in dollars. MR. LUKASZ: And we do the same -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: The next two are months. MR.IAIZZO: Yeah. MR. LUKASZ: We do the -- 630 16 '1 A MR. IAIZZO: These are the things we need to learn, I think, and -- and go through the budget and try to understand the budget. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: I don't think -- John, I don't think that -- that -- that the whole committee going through is -- is -- is worth -- is worth that time and effort. I think one person going through at this point and then come back to the committee is a better usage of our time. MR. IAIZZO: I think -- MR. CONNELL: John, these -- oh, excuse me. Go ahead. MR. IAIZZO: I think if one person goes through it it's one person's thoughts in mind; whereas, many things come up when it's all put out on a table in an open meeting. There'll be other things that are introduced by other questions, and we learn more by more questions. One individual cannot comb through this in detail; that's why I would prefer an open meeting. We only have, like, 21 line items. It shouldn't take us that long. We've got a good six months to really cut a budget. If we -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: You've got-- MR. IAIZZO: If we did, you know, one meeting we -- if we cut across two or three items -- and when we go across we're going across all the funds -- it shouldn't take us too long to go through this budget in some -- I know you don't want to possibly go through that in that detail, but I think you'll have a better appreciation for the budget, and I think it'll simplifY our task. Once we cut our teeth on this, the following years will be easier for us. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: When -- when do you begin? Do you do it in January or February? MR. LUKASZ: We usually wait until we get the budget instructions from the county, which, you know, say for personnel, insurance -- it's instructions for each of the commitment items here, and they usually come out towards the end of February. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So you basically -- 631 16 11 A MR. LUKASZ: Towards the end of February or beginning of March. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So you're basically doing it in March. MR. LUKASZ: Right. Correct. MR. CONNELL: John, what is your threshold for finding something? Let me ask you this: How low would it go before you say, "I don't want to be bothered with that"? MR. IAlZZO: In dollars? MR. CONNELL: Yeah. MR. IAlZZO: It's not even that. It's -- it's an appreciation for the creation of this budget and a dollar allotment for this budget. I think it's.an understanding. Once we can feel comfortable, once we can put our arms around it, that's all that counts. We may be cutting ourselves out of a job, but that's okay, too, if we're satisfied with the way they create the budget. And once the budget has been cut, you know, we don't have to look at it. It's like watching the grass grow. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No, you still have to watch to see -- MR. IAIZZO: Yeah, but still -- MR. CONNELL: The challenge never ends. MR.IAlZZO: -- the red/green pretty much will flag it for us. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Sort of. MR. BOLAND: John, one more question. If you have a -- say, one specific item, and you see general, you know, how much you spend, and all of the sudden you see something really high, is that that red flag? You know, it's something like it's normally 80,000, whatever it is, Item X and it's-- MR. LUKASZ: You mean the cost of a product or -- MR. BOLAND: -- 300,000. Do you question that, or is that just you take it, you give it to us, and we question it? MR. LUKASZ: No, we would question it. 632 16 '1 A MR. BOLAND: You would question it. MR. LUKASZ: I mean, if it's -- MR. BOLAND: You would question it before we get it if something looks out of the ordinary. MR. LUKASZ: Right. We-- MR. BOLAND: Okay. MR. LUKASZ: Of course, we like to have the answers as far as MR. BOLAND: Yeah. Okay. MR. LUKASZ: I mean-- MR. CONNELL: Actually, what John Boland asked earlier, when an invoice comes through for approval for a payment, is the buy -- or the department or cost center shown on the invoice as it goes through the office? MR. IAIZZO: It should. MR. LUKASZ: Usually the vendor will show the purchase order that was issued -- MR. CONNELL: Right. MR. LUKASZ: -- for that particular purchase -- MR. CONNELL: Okay. MR. LUKASZ: -- on the invoice. MR. CONNELL: Right. Which would already have the cost center on it in the -- on the purchase order. MR. LUKASZ: On the purchase order, yes. MR. CONNELL: So it's already in the system. MR. LUKASZ: It's in the system. MR. CONNELL: So what's the likelihood that, as John suggested, somebody out -- a big expenditure out in Golden Gate even after it was put in correctly is now in Pelican Bay's cost center? MR. PETTY: Mr. -- if I could, Mr. Chairman, let me respond to that instead of Kyle. The reason that -- that Jean is on the payroll is for just that type of oversight. That's the reason why you've paid her 633 16 '1 A for some 17, 18 years. That's part of what she tracks. And if she has any questions about whether or not it's something that -- that Kyle may have asked for procurement she'll, of course, call him, but it would be her responsibility to make that catch. MR.IAIZZO: So what's Jean-- MR. LUKASZ: John-- MR. IAIZZO: Could you give us -- could you give us Jean's official title? MR. BOLAND: John Petty. MR. PETTY: Goddess. MR. IAIZZO: Well, you have to try better than that. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: That's a good question -- a good answer. MR. PETTY: A better one is whatever you'd like it to be, sir. You pay her. She has a title. MR. IAIZZO: No. Maybe Kyle could give us-- MR. LUKASZ: Fiscal -- I think -- believe it's fiscal analyst. MR. BOLAND: Operations analyst. MR. PETTY: That's what it is. MR. WZZO: That's what we've got down on the books, operation analyst. Thank you. MR. PETTY: Well, I mean, fiscal analyst, operations analyst, goddess -- titles are not definitive in this particular case in -- in regard to what Jean does. They are not the limit or the walls that define what Jean does. She does what she needs to do to protect the interests of Pelican Bay and has done so since the beginning of time, and in this case I can assure you that if Golden Gate tried to put any of their expenses somewhere in any fund that the county has separated for Pelican Bay we would know about it, and Jean would, basically, take on Golden Gate and whoop them. MR. IAIZZO: That wasn't my question. I just wanted to know 634 16 I I A her title. MR. CONNELL: Well, that -- but that was John Boland's. MR. BOLAND: John, you're on the foundation -- David, you're on the foundation budget committee; right? I was on there a couple of years. Each manager had a committee and -- to get his expenses. He was responsible. So tennis, restaurant, berm, whatever -- so if you had a cross there it would be noted that, hey, this isn't a tennis expense; it's restaurant expense or this is a beach expense, et cetera. So we can't control that because we don't generate that. In other words, each one has a manager for the county . You have maintenance and then you have street walking (sic), et cetera. MR. WZZO: Street walking? MR. BOLAND: That's the level of control that either -- Kyle can't control it either. So we're predicated on the county controls of that. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. Right; John? They take each one -- MR. PETTY: I'm -- I'm going to keep quiet. MR. BOLAND: -- and they code the numbers. They say this is Pelican Bay, this is Golden Gate for this expense, et cetera. That control is that -- we can never get that control, so I just feel we don't -- we're never going to have that. It's too big. You can't -- you're going to have to take the numbers that they give us. They do -- I've never seen budgets done this way in my life, okay, in any function that if they get it at a different level -- they do the controlling. They say, "Here's your expenses. Here's your revenue. Figure it out." That's what it comes down to. I don't see how you can come up with a better system, I guess is what I'm looking at. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No, I'm not -- MR. BOLAND: That's a -- or a better mouse trap or better reports. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No. No. No, I'm not trying to come 635 16 11 A up with a better system. MR. BOLAND: Yeah. MR. LEVY: Did we generate -- was this book generated by Pelican Bay Services Division? MR. LUKASZ: Uh-huh. MR LEVY: It's not a county -- we generated this. MR. CONNELL: Did we generate this? MR. BOLAND: Yeah, but predicated on the county's numbers. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: But it's not -- it's not the -- it's the county's numbers as we've determined them; right? MR. PETTY: Right. MR. LUKASZ: Well, they were issued 15, 18 years ago, the fund and the cost center, and the commitment items are just based on what kind of materials or services you're -- you're getting. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: All right. How many -- who feels bes -- that -- that -- like John that it should be done on an overall committee basis going line by line item or who -- what -- what -- what are your feelings, Mike, and what are your feelings, John, in regards to -- now we're talking not about the process but about -- MR. IAIZZO: About how you tackle this. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- about how you tackle -- the question is are the expenses correct or are they -- are they -- MR. CONNELL: I'm willing to leave it to John's internal auditing. I've never ever been on a board that got to that level of detailing examination. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Neither have I. MR. CONNELL: Ever. MR. BOLAND: I've never operated this way. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Even in this department I didn't do it that way, and even in the -- in the foundation, which is -- MR. BOLAND: I mean, if GM operated this way, it would have been -- 636 16 /1 A CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: What they do is it goes by the department. They -- they prepare it. MR. BOLAND: How do you know? You have to justify it. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: And you don't go line by line unless something stands out, which is why I wanted you as a one-man committee to address this thing and -- and go over it with Kyle during the process. MR. WZZO: I don't know if that's going to work. I -- I think the line-item open discussion is not a committee-driven job. I think it's -- it's a clear understanding of how the money's being spent. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: We understand. MR. IAIZZO: Not only that -- MR. CONNELL: I think I understand. MR. IAIZZO: Not only that -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: We understand how the money's being spent. MR. IAIZZO: Not -- we have to appreciate what is actually going into these line items, all these descriptions. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: What I was asking you, John, for example, when you work with Kyle you've got twenty -- 70,200 for contractual services, and almost 20,000 is for street sweeping. Okay. And you've got how it's computed. MR. IAIZZO: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Now, maybe we only have to sweep the streets every other month or every other -- or every other week. That's something that you can ask -- MR. LUKASZ: We-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Yes. MR. LUKASZ: We did have that service level manual or handout that we -- PowerPoint presentation that -- where the board used to identify what the service levels were for each of these categories, one being street sweeping, tree trimming, and things like 637 16 11 A that. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So that was already gone through by a board -- a previous board -- MR. LUKASZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- that set up these levels of service. MR. LUKASZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Which board was that? Do you know? MR. LUKASZ: Ifwe didn't do it last year, we-- MR. CONNELL: It's probably evolved as a -- MR. LUKASZ: I think it was the year before we did, though. MR.IAIZZO: Well, temporary labor you show $226,000. We're even paying these guys overtime as well. You know, is there something in there that we could look at? I don't know. If you look at those numbers, we're bringing in 10 guys a day on a daily basis. We're bringing in not only our regular crew of, what, 16 guys? 14 guys? MR. LUKASZ: Thirteen full time. MR. IAIZZO: All right. We've got about 13 guys. We're bringing in 10. We're almost doubling our workforce, close to doubling our workforce. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to get hammered again. Okay. This has been discussed in the past, and the issues affecting this particular line item are very far reaching as we all know. The cost of housing is making it almost impossible to get these types of people nearby that will work at these levels. We have used -- if I remember correctly, we have used for the last, oh, God, four or five years the ability to pay overtime as a means of trying to retain people in this position on site where cost of housing and cost of living is so high. So I think that has been a part of the record. I -- I think we can discuss it at -- at the will of the board, and 638 16 , 1 A certainly staff can bring to you the minutes where this has been brought up in the past and what was decided by previous committees, and you're -- I think we can get you that research, is what I'm trying to say, very easily. MR. CONNELL: But I think we're on the right track. The chair has asked John to look into it and come back with a recommendation. And, now, either you'll come back with a recommendation that says, "We should go even further because I found thousands of dollars that are being spent incorrectly" or he'll say, you know, "I never really found an opening or an opportunity for chicanery, if you will, and I think we should drop it." CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: And -- and, also, you have to do it with sort of a broad view. For example, yeah, we're paying overtime. Number 1, the paying of overtime allows us to keep these people, allows us to keep them relatively happy, and allows us that luxury of having them when we need them in a crisis, which paid off greatly after the hurricanes that we had our own working staff and that they were here. Now, you know, you -- you talk to almost any business around here in -- in Naples. You ask them -- you ask the manager, "What's your biggest problem?" and he'll say, "People. I can't get people. Forget about good people. I can't get people." And if we are able to get people at this rate, which is not off the wall, then that's something -- you can say, yeah, maybe we should cut back two people, so make them work harder. MR. IAIZZO: Whip them. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: All right. You know, I'm -- but you've got to -- but, John, I think you have -- you -- you -- this is -- you -- you've been on this -- I don't want to say soapbox, but you've been on this approach of cost cutting, et cetera, for some time, and I think this is an area I want you to look at. MR.IAIZZO: I want to look into the possibility of cost cutting. 639 16 f 1 A You know, if you guys don't want to look at it, if this board doesE' care to look into cost-cutting effects-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: We want you -- we're appointing you to look into and come back to us and tell us. MR. IAIZZO: But the decision has already been made. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It's not been made. MR. IAIZZO: Sure it's been made. You -- you're not interested in looking at anything that possibly could save a dollar. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: We-- MR. IAIZZO: You just assume -- look, if you -- you can't cut these guys because we need them, you have to give them the overtime because they could use the money. I mean, that kind of thinking is not thinking in terms of how the residents would like to see it. I think the residents want to see a beautification that works, not a dollar that works but a beautification that works. MR. CONNELL: Well, I think they want to see both. MR. IAIZZO: Well, you're going to get both. If you get beautification that works, the dollar cost is there. If you're looking at the dollar and not looking at the beautification, you're still going to get something out of it, but you're not -- you're just spending dollars now. You're not getting the end result, which is beautification for the community . MR. CONNELL: John, please -- MR. IAIZZO: I don't know what to say. MR. CONNELL: -- take a look at it and come back and talk to us. MR. IAIZZO: I've looked at it. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: You've got -- you've got an assignment to come back if there's things that you think are wrong. Okay. The -- the -- the next item that I want to talk about before we get to the accounting operations report -- which you are not going to really give us today -- are you? Or you are? 640 MR. PETTY: The red flag/green flag? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: This is the one? MR. PETTY: I'm sorry? Red flag -- red flag/green flag? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Well, there's an item on the agenda of accounting operations rcpoli. MR. PETTY: I thought that's what we were discussing, sir. MR. LEVY: Right. Red flag/grecli nag. C!l!\!lUvL'\l'-j l1RAMSON: Red nag/green nag, yeah. MR. PETTY: We can irvou'd rUe, . J Clli\lIUvlllN BRi\J.\lS0N: Go ahead. MR. PETTY: \Vc don't have 10, il10dLh 'Vc e;HI dct('J 10 :1 LLtu date. CHAIRMAN RRAMSON: No. yOU can ... l!O ahead. no it now. ~ . ;I.t - '-J MR-' I '\l177n. \Xfh,>t II.n.... l't'........? 1- ..1. LJ~'-'. .. .1.(.... "" .......1.11.. MR. BOI ~i\ND: Can VOl! :;ce oyer tllerc. John? J ~ l\ML PFTTY: l(\ilc. can YOLl turn olTthc lirrhts? .I j eI 4..)' MR. LUKASZ: Yeah. f'" 14.'0\1\1;' "1.1 no ,'"' !'o;1~01'.I' A ("Cl'I'I'~'ll"'! l'ly'r'll'lons report .. ,I j / \ 1. j ~J. I), -I .I) j '.1 \. i'Y,\ l,j. /\ j , J.J ll. Ib '.I. '\.,I ;: " , _ ." MR. PETTY: Than!, VOll, The eotllrniLtcc di:~cu:::.;("d nt !rICh h::t - , - J mcctin;r jf th: finalll:bl lenorlhlL' at the end of the month could he ~ a u - changed or modified, and \Vc had :~Cln\c di::CIl:;::iml ::h:)l!( nl::( These types of reports, of course, can take thousands and thousands of forms depending on what management is trying to monitor. And what staff suggested for our first attempt was nothing more than what had been submitted in the past, whieh was red flag/green flag where you would look at your expenses and your revenues and you would have flag indicators if you hit a mark that necessitated you to keep an eye on things. We put together a little program that docs that, and we have it for you to look at jf you'd like, and, basically, what it does is it monitors your revenues under understandahle categories that \\'c'\'c purred norn the budget. 16 11 A 641 16 , 1 A Now, some of the things that are in this current one are not shown in the budget, are not itemized in the budget, and they have cause for questions in the past, so we've itemized them here to hopefully give you some clarity to your questions. The first one under the revenue, under the income type that you see, it says cash flow. It has $983,850 in budget. MR. LEVY: You know, that's - that's almost invisible up there. MR.IAIZZO: We can't -- we can't read it. MR. LUKASZ: Can I pull it bad:, John? MR. LEVY: It's too small. MR. PETTY: I'm sorry. Yes, pull it back. Or hold Pi!. r ern). I (~:lil :'1:11<<, i1 hit.:;;>:!'. T:ltc .. we'll t.ake care ofHmt. Hang on. Is that any better? MR LEVY: There we go. That's a little better. MR. PETTY: Everybody, is th<:lt-- CHATRMi\N BRAMSON. Okay. MR PETTY: The first item is cash now. rH go "hc,)(1 :!lId die)' on n1:11 011;'. /\nd e:l'}' flow i': reflective of your 3 1/2 l11ol1ths funds that you carry forward f(}J' October, Novcrnhf:r, ,md P:ll(f: of Dcccrnbcr Sn 1hll'" 11:1':kally :J (:arry.fo!YI/c1l'd ,",ifc call it the cash flow because that, uf eours<.:, tS what It rc!kcts, Lhe 3 1/2 munths. 1'T!)\N, tlHlt typically isn't s}1Own in y,mr budget. It just sits in the background. MR LEVY: That's the reserve, so to speak, we talked about? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. These are -- all of these top three are basically classified as reserves. MR.IAIZZO: Okay. MR. PETTY: We've put names to them so that you can follow what they're reserves for. This is -. cash fIow is reserve. It is reserve for cash flow. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Twenty nine and a half percent. Okay. The next item. 642 16 11 A MR. PETTY: The next item is carry forward, which was carry forward for operations out of reserves. Any money left over at the end of the year is automatically a reserve. This is a defined reserve. We had talked about how this was going to come out of reserves, and as you-all know we're doing streetlights completely out or reserves that we still have left over from the security system -- Of' expense that we used to have. So that was what is in your budget. Six hundred and twenty-three thousand doIJars and change i~ in ymp J',wfc,d or what Jean projects as the cdrry - forward that can be utilized to offset operational costs. CHAIRNlAN BRNvlS0N: That's the ad valorem. MR. PETTY: Not necessarily. MR. LEVY: I'm sorry. The carry -- I sec. Carry forward for projects, that was the capital pruj _. capita! pi ojcctc;, yeah. MR. PETTY: No, sir. No_ No. We're going to get to that. MR. lAlZZO: John. MR. PETTY: llang on, We're -- let me see if J can help you out here. MR. LEVY: You've got two carry forwards there. The first carry torward -- MR.IAIZZO: Per project. MR. LEVY: -- is -- is -- you said is frorn - MR. PETTY: If you look --. if you look at the budget summary first page under your revenue SOlHCCS, the trt's! III II.: say~: callY fen \VdI d, and that's L1SI.X} for operations. It is not ad valorem. It's used for operations. And it says 623,475. MR LEVY: Right. MR. PETTY: We've tied to that nurnbcT ill this tqiOIL This board 11;,1:; ,lbo told us that they want 3 1/2 months' wOlih of cash flow based on staff1s recommendation -- MR. LEVY: Right. 643 16 , 1 A MR. PETTY: -- which this budget year we will look at it to see if it is appropriate or we downsize, if I remember our conversations. And that is the first line that you see up there marked cash flow -- MR LEVY: Right. MR. PETTY: -- which is $983,000 and change, which is nothing more than just operations, not capital, times the 3 1/2 months. Okay, The next -- the third item, carry fi)fward projects, that basically is -- currently that cast-of-berm project constitutes 90 percent ofthis thing, and T think there's a little hit orinigation Jef1 OWl, These arc projects that we have funded in the past, and while they are defined as projects they carry forward with their plOject nm nc~, They don't -- MR.IAIZZO: That's capital projects you're talking about. MR LEVY: Capital projects. MR. PETTY: Yeah. MRLEVY: Okay. MR. PETTY: Yeah, T don't have operational projects 111<11 we've dcf'im:d in tk, budget. These arc an capita1. And as the board decides as we have -- we may decide not to go ahead withlhat c.Clp1iaJ project and reassign those funds. That's a decision of the board. And, as you know, the east-or-berrn funds welT recomnlcndcd by this body, some of thcm, to be used to lower the assessment rates this last budget period. So we have carry-forward projects sUH becHuse we haven't renamed it yet. Tl10 board has not voted to take that money and reallocate it to another source in its total amount, so it shows here. So you're looking at aU your cash flow carry-forward reserves. They are all shown under the revenue. They arc not separate on a separate sheet of paper. They arc shown so that you can monitor this material each and every month. Now, we will go.. in our expense category at the bottom, you'll see how that's all costed out so that we balance, but from an at<.:ounting statKJpoint typically you don't show these types of reserves 644 16 11 A or these project carry forwards. It caused for a lot of questions. It caused for, "Where did you get the money?" or "Where is the money?" So we're just going to show them -- or we're recommending that you consider that in your monthly financials so that people don't get confused. The fourth item is the interfund transfer. We call it Fund 111. That is -- and we're using a number not because we like to -.. and we're not tlying to confuse you, We're using it because the money comes from the county, and that's what they caU it. TIlis is the overlay MSTU. Now, we are also an overlay of Pelican Bay, and we are an MSTBU, the n being specific to benefit. The MSTU is just a municipal services taxing unit. Well, there's an overlay in Comer County OVGr all unincorporated areas to pay for certain, what they call, municipal services, and out of there they arc currently puHing such things as parks. Whether I like it or not, currently they're charging -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Parks? MR. PETTY; Parks. And so the county is charging everybody that lives in unincorporated Collier County rnonics in that fund, It's u. .98 mills, T think, is the millage rate. And part of that money is supposed to be spent on parks. WeU, since the conservation (ll"ea is considered somewhat of a park or would fit within a park category, they send some of the money back to the Pelican Bay Services Di vision for application to the Clam Bay project. So that's interfund transfer Fund llI. lnterfund transfer TDC -- we also get about $11,000 a year from the Tourist and Development Council, which is what the TDe stands fol', and that was at the request of, I think it was, Mr. Ward and Kyle Lukasz many years ago when we starting doing the dredginG of Clam Pass and we were looking for whatever monies we could get from wherever we could. When we go through the budget cycle this year, you're going to 645 16 , lA hear from -- staff recommend that we stay away from that money. It has a very high restriction to it. It has a very high accountability on that restrictive use. And since we don't dredge the pass each and every year and in the last couple of years we've gotten Collier County to pay for that we don't believe that we should he looking in that particular port for any funds for the Clam Bay system, but we'll talk about that at budget time. Here we show -- because, again, it's in your budget -- if it shows here, we're trying to show it here -" interest income, sevcnty..onc one. That's in your budget. We threw it out. Plan review fee, $1500, it's not much to mention, but it's in your budget, so wc put it up, Ad valorem assessments, it's in the budget. We don't do it this year because the only thing cun'ent1y funded by ad valorcm is streetlights, and, as we know, we arc funding streetlights totally from reserves from prior years, which is the security issue. MR. CONNELL: So when we deplete that it's going to have to go back to ad valorem, or can Wl' ..- MR. PETTY; Or assessments. Or assessments. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Yeah. wen go over that when we. MR. CONNELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: The next topic, that's MR. PETTY: That funding source is subject to what the board believes is the best receipt mechanism. NOll.ad valorcln as~;cssrllcnts, which is where we get the Hon's share of everything that we get, that's shown as your -- in your budget, and it's this (wo miliion nine one 1\vo. All these numbers match your budget. The expenses to date are theoretical. We're not trying to show you the month end. We're just trying to show you how the system works. And, as YOll notice, everything is a green flag. The control is the 85 percent. The green flag is basically saying the monies spent to date arc within 85 percent of those that are projected. Now, you've got to 646 16 II A ask how you do your projection. Are you doing your projection based on 1 month out of 12 and each month being equal? And the answer is no. We do this based on a curve. Each item gets a curve according to its actual physical appearance in our bank account, so to speak. We don't really have a bank account, but when it shows up on our screen as available. So we've looked at that, and we've basically put in these laws or these conditions. And I'll scroll down to give you an example so you know what I'm talking about. There is the allocation on a month basis, every month being the same. It's straight tine up. We also have what we call a high-summer curve, and this affects landscaping because during the summer months we're more. . , mowing more than we arc in the winter months, so our costs go up. So, as you can see, during the winter months we kind of slack down a Jit11c. hit in our line, and then we shoot back up in the summer. We have a high-winter curve, and what that affects is streetlights. We have longer nights during the winter, and our electric bill is higher, so it kind of curves up during the winter months, which is the middle. And then we have the tax receipts curve that we've made up, and the tax receipt curve says you're not going to get anything in October, you're not going to get anything in November, but you're going to start getting it in December, get somc more in January, February, March, April-- MR. IAIZZO: You're talking about -- MR. PETTY: -- and you're going to peter out in May. MR IAIZZO: You're talking about taxes. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: But reality is -- MR. PETTY: That is reality. ClIArRMAN IJRAMSON: Re -- but isn't it reality that you get -- you get -- almost all ont you get it in November or Decemher? MR. PETTY: No. No, sir. 647 1611 A MR. IAIZZO: I would think you get a good chunk of it right up front. MR. PETTY : You would, wouldn't you? Yeab. And we get a nice piece, and we showed that. And the curve is adjustable. What we've shown you is the typical. And I know that there are people that said, "Oh, no, you get 80, 90 percent of it in December." I have never seen it ever. MR. IAIZZO: That's amazing. MR. PETTY: Ever. And I've looked at hundrcds of special-taxing -- MR. LEVY : Well, to take the four percent you've got to -- you've got to pay before the end of the year, don't you? MR. PETTY: If you have a mortgage ,.- MR.IAIZZO; No, before the end ofDccember -- November. MR. LEVY: Pardon? MR. PETTY; If you have a mortgage, you are required to pay and get full advantage of thc discount, so whoever is holding, your mortgage -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Unless you pay it yourself. MR. PETTY:... will pay your tax bill because they're the ones paying it for you. MR. LEVY: I f you're not -- if you're not holding a mortgage but you're paying directly, don't you still have to pay by the end of thc year to get the full four percent? MR.IAlZZO: End of Novcmber. MR. PETTY : You have to pay before the end of November to get the four percent, correct, sir. MR. LEVY: So there should be a lot of money coming in November. MR. PETTY: It certainly-- MR. IAIZZO: You would think so, but he says no. MR. PETTY: Number 1, it has to come in by the end of 648 16 '1 A November, and most people are going to time it so that it gets there right at end of November. MR. LEVY: Right. So you have it in December. MR. PETTY: Number -- Number 2, it has to go to the revenue collector and be allocated, and check marks have to go to those that paid and those that haven't. So there's a time span there. It isn't instantaneous. Third, then it goes to the -- what is it? -- the clerk of courts. MS. LARNED: Uh-huh. MR. PETTY: And then from the clerk of courts it goes to the county, Collier County. From Collier County it gets allocated to the appropriate entity thereafter. So even if you paid in the last week of November, if I -- if I got to see some money coming in in my December payment because they don't throw this every 24 -- this doesn't run 2417. They're going to look at this with the tax receipts when they come in, and you're going to basically get this on a biweekly basis. They're going to take a look at it and start dumping money. Then they're going to go do other things, then they're going to come back, and then they're going to dump money. So by the time it hits us, whether we are a division of the county or an independent special district, I'm going to tell you we start getting the payments -- we do get some in December, and they are meaningful, but by no means is it 80 percent. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So that-- that chart, in essence, is a chart of when we get the money, not when the county receives the money, It's when we get the money from the county. If -- if -- if you charted -- MR. BOLAND: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: If you charted when the county gets the money from Pelican Bay residents, you would have a much sharper line upward. MR. BOLAND: Yeah. 649 16 , 1 A CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: But -- but -- but they filter it through and the whole thing, so you get that -- the curve effect because they're holding the money up. MR. IAIZZO: So, John, if the payment is made at the end of November, when does it get into our pot? MR. PETTY: T couldn't tell you that, sir. And we couldn't control it. MR. IAIZZO: Does it take a month before it gets to our pot? MR. PETTY: I couldn't tell you, sir. We don't control it. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Some of it comes fairly quickly, and then it doesn't -- MR. IAIZZO: But he doesn't know. I mean, that chart doesn't show -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No, but -- but if you get that money -- people are not going to pay before the end of November. MR. LEVY: It takes quite a while for the check to clear after you send it in, and that's a surprise. MR.IAIZZO: Well, what we don't know is when the money-- MR. LEVY: You know what I mean? You send a check in with your bill to the county -- MR. PETTY: Let me clear this up. Hold on. Hold on. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: The county has to give us the money. MR. PETTY: Let me clear this up real quick. We're talking about the department -- the tax collector and the property appraiser. These are constitutional offices in Collier County . We have no control over these entities, none. These arc controlled by statute, and they're controlled by the state. We're not going to get involved in the process. We're not going to be able to beat them up. We're not going to be able to hurry the system. CHAiRMAN BRAMSON: That's it. 650 16 11 A MR. BOLAND: John, the money we get from the prop -- we get money from the property tax that people pay, right, from the county? MR. PETTY: No. MR. BOLAND: We don't get anything from that? MR. PETTY: No, from ad valorem? MR. BOLAND: Yes. MR. PETTY: Property taxes, no, sir. We currently have nothing on ad valorem. MR. BOLAND: We're just talking about the MSTBU taxes. MR. PETTY: Sir, that's all we have in our -- our budget other than -- MR. BOLAND: Okay. Okay. When people pay their taxes, okay, if you pay in November, you get a four percent discount, then you get a three percent discount, two percent, and one percent. I guess what I'm looking at is how can you even forecast? You don't know how many people are going to pay all their taxes in November, how many December, how many January, and how many February. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: I can answer that question. Number 1 -- MR. BOLAND: Okay. That's what's throwing me. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Number 1 is they budget based on everybody paying at the last moment; however -- MR. BOLAND: Okay. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- however, they also provide that 100 percent will pay in November, so they budget both ways that the -- No.1, the full four percent of everything-- MR. BOLAND: Oh, I sec. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- comes ofT of -- as an expense; however, they then figure that -- that they're not going to get the money until the last time. MR. LEVY: Well, what is the last moment? MR. PETTY: Well-- 651 1611 A MR. LEVY : You can -- you can pay much later, can't you? MR.IAIZZO: Yeah, sure. MR. PETTY : We -- we have two different things we're talking about. One is the discount, which is four percent, I believe, the chair just talked about. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Yeah, and they budget a hundred percent of the four percent. MR. PETTY: Well -- and the chair's correct. There is no such thing as a credit in government. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: You can't. MR. PETTY: The four percent I put in as an expense. MR. IAIZZO: I know. MR. PETTY: So if you get the credit I don't care because I'm still going to be able to do all the lawn cutting I wanted to do. If -- if you don't use the four percent, I'm going to have extra money in my budget. And every government agency out there currently using the property appraiser revenue collector anticipates getting somewhere between a half and 1 1/2 percent of his taxes in surplus because of that Issue. MR. BOLAND: But they should reflect that in the budget. But they don't budget it, do they? MR. PETTY: It's a cost in your budget, and you -- on the first page -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Your budget's four percent. MR. IAIZZO: It's five percent. MR. PETTY: I -- I budget. Right here -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Five percent. MR. PETTY: -- I budget that. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It's five percent. MR. PETTY: It's on page 1. It's on the summary. We show it as a budget line item as we're allowed to do by statute. What happened is you have one side of the legislature that said, "If they pay early, we 652 -VIl A should be able to give them a discount because we won't have to pull out monies." The other side of the legislature goes, "Well, that's stupid," and they -- so one side gave the credit and the other side took it away. MR. LEVY: What's the latest you can pay if you're not taking any -- any discount as a property -- for property taxes? MR. PETTY: Three years after the fact, sir. MR. IAIZZO: March. MR. LEVY: Oh, no, then you have a penalty. MR. PETTY: That's why I'm -- no, I'm correct. My answer's correct. It's three years after the tax is due. MR. LEVY: And you -- but you would have penalties then, wouldn't you? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Interest. MR. PETTY: Interest earnings, but you have interest on any money that you kick out anyway. MR. LEVY: But when's the latest you can pay with -- if you're not -- if you're just going to pay the full-- MR. PETTY: Without incurring interest penalties? MR. LEVY: If you're going to pay the full bill without any interest penalties. MR. PETTY: May-- MS. LARNED: March 31st. MR. PETTY: I'm pretty sure it's March 31st, the beginning of April. MR. BOLAND: March 1 st. MR. PETTY: No, March 31st. MR. BOLAND: March 31st. Yeah, March is the last-- MR. PETTY: And then they sell the tax certificate, I believe, on the courthouse steps in a very dramatic fashion. MR. LEVY: So really we're talking October, November,eDecember, January, February, and March. You're talking six -- you're 653 Ig11 A talking six months. MR. PETTY: If you do not have a mortgage, most people who have done the analysis will tell you that it is better to hold on till March 30th and then pay because you will make more money with your money than if you would have kicked it out and let it sit there for their processing. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: I -- oh, contraire. If -- if -- I wish somebody would tell me where I could get guaranteed one percent a month. MR. IAIZZO: Send it to me, David. MR. BOLAND: You've got six months. MR. PETTY: You've got six -- you've got six months, sir, to get the four percent. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No, you get four percent if you pay by November 30th -- or five percent. MR. PETTY : Yeah, and if you hold onto your money for six months, which is October, November, December, January -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Yeah. MR. PETTY: -- five months-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: You're going to make five percent in six months? MR. BOLAND: Yeah. Well, no, it's four, three, two, one. MR. PETTY: A lot of people can. I'm not saying that -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: We're talking about a hundred percent safe money. Government bonds, they're paying, like, five percent a year, not five percent in five months. MR. BOLAND: If no one pays their -- if no one pays their taxes in November, we're in big trouble. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Huh? MR. BOLAND: If no one takes the discount, you're in big trouble. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Yeah. 654 16/1 A MR. PETTY: No, sir, that's why we have the 3 1/2 months to cover us. MR. BOLAND: Well, you're figuring the best -- you're figuring that everybody's paying. This way, if they don't, you have extra money; right? MR. PETTY: No, sir. Listen. MR. BOLAND: You're saying everybody's going to get four percent. MR. PETTY : We take a middle ground. MR. BOLAND: Oh, you take -- okay. MR. PETTY: That's why it's 3 1/2 months, not 12. MR. BOLAND: Got you. MR. PETTY: It's 3 1/2 months, which says, "We don't expect any money in October, any in November, and we expect" -- MR. BOLAND: Got you. MR. PETTY: -- "Christmas to screw up our payment in December. We think somewhere in January we'll actually start getting in enough money to be self-supportive," which is why we've asked for 3 1/2 months. MR. BOLAND: Got you. MR. IAIZZO: John. MR. BOLAND: You're taking it after the fact. MR. PETTY: Sir. MR. IAIZZO: Could you look into that? MR. BOLAND: Okay. Thank you. MR.IAIZZO: John, could you look into that and find out when the money actually gets into the account, the Pelican Bay account? MR. PETTY: Pelican Bay does not have a bank account, sir. MR. IAIZZO: No. No, we -- we have an account with the county. The monies that are collected for this community goes into a special -- MR. PETTY: When it gets posted? 655 MR. IAIZZO: Yeah. MR. PETTY: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, that's historical. I'll be glad to get that for you. MR. IAIZZO: Yeah, can you look into that and find out if a dollar is -- MR. PETTY: I'm going to tell you that what we've shown you is based on not only my experiences but, also, with Janice's experiences. And, keep in mind, she's been the chief financial officer for a county in Florida and for a city in Missouri, all of which gives her the ability to say, "Yep" -- that compared to her banking experience tells her a lot. MR. IAIZZO: The question is if a dollar is spent in November for taxes when is it available for supporting the found -- the community . MR. PETTY: I can't give you that answer as J said before. What I can tell you is historically what I can show is when it has been posted because that's a historical issue. MR. IAIZZO: Okay. MR. PETTY: And we'd just look at the posting date. MR. LEVY: When the money was available to us. MR. IAIZZO: Yes. MR. PETTY: When it was posted, yeah. I mean, you know how that works in accounting. It's -- it's posted, and there's a posting date. We can check the posting date. That's not a problem. MR. CONNELL: They know at the county level how much came in in the early days of the month of November, but they can't -- at least I've been unsuccessful to find out when does it finally -- is it available for Pelican Bay to spend. MR. WZZO: Yeah, when is it ready for expenditures? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. Let's go -- we understand now the methodology of the red flag/green flag. MR. PETTY: Okay. So we have curves. 161 1 A 656 CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Are there any red flags? MR. PETTY: And we can build --and we -- sir, that is a theoretical piece. This is not an actual. This is based for your review 16 , 1 A CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. PETTY: -- of the -- of the theoretical model if this is what you would like to see. We haven't done an actual month end yet. That's due in December. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Oh, this is theoretical. So, for example, if you have something that's paid twice a year, you would have -- MR. PETTY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- a flat line until it's -- until the fIrst half is paid, then it goes up. MR. PETTY: Fifty percent and then a hundred percent at the next payday, yes, sir. We would do that curve for you. And as you can see on the revenue sources we try and define what those curves are. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So you're going -- you're doing this and applying this to every -- MR. PETTY: Revenue source. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- major -- but you've done it for revenue, but you're doing it also for expenditures. MR. PETTY: Yeah, but you're cutting to the end of the story, and I'm not there yet. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Sorry. MR. PETTY: So I -- you're ruining the plot. I'm going to show you now -- we have a number in red. It is 85 percent. A red flag would show up if any of these numbers, the revenues, were less than 85 percent of what was projected based on each individual curve for this month. And what you're seeing is -- I've -- I've basically input whatever 657 16 , 1 A numbers would get me green flagged. So if -- on the TDC funds if we had received $779 instead of 780, we'd get a red flag because that is less than 85 percent of what had been calculated at the time. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: That's projected on a 12-month basis straight? MR. PETTY: No. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: That's also very -- MR. PETTY: I'm sorry. TDC entered monthly, yes. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. PETTY: And they're all that fine tuned that if you are off by a dollar you're going to be in trouble. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. PETTY: On this particular one, which I've got to scoot over here to see what it actually is -- ah, interest income. Interest income kind of wavers around because in the beginning we got a little bit of money from our 3 1/2 months that we're bringing with us, but we start spending it, so we lose a little interest income. Then we start getting money in in, let's say, January where we can actually start saying we've got some interest income. And it builds, and then we start spending again. So that's the curve for interest. And we had one down below. And, again, if you're off by that 85 percent, it goes to a red flag. If we change the 85 percent -- because this is all decisions that have to be made. And we take direction, of course. If you want it to be less -- or greater than that, you say, "No, I want it to be 90 percent," then you're going to start getting red flags all over the place because the numbers I put in, of course, were set for 85. So you can change your percentage accountability that you want. In the beginning, October, November, December, you can pick 70 percent because who cares. It doesn't really matter. Things take a while to build up. But come Mayor June and you're getting close to the year's end you've got to start fine tuning this, you may want to go 658 16 11 A to 90, 95 percent accuracy. And if it doesn't meet that criteria maybe you want to see the red flag now sooner. So it's adjustable, and it can be adjusted on a monthly basis based on need. We'll go down to -- to the cost. And, again, we tried to do the same type of deal on expenses. We tried to stay with budget criteria. We did look at the line-item way. We couldn't fit it all in in a straightforward sheet, so we went by water management ops, water management capital, beautification ops, beautification capital, streetlights ops. You see the trend here. Clam Bay is a simple single line. We don't have that split up, but should we ever do that in the budget we can certainly do it here. And other charges and fees -- capital, it's listed there because other charges and fee for capital are separate, and they were difficult to put into the water management capital without confusing some of the line-item numbers, so we left it there as a separate item. And what that is for -- other charges and fees, that is the property appraiser's fee, that's the revenue collector's fee, and that's a four percent or five percent discount, okay? MR. IAIZZO: He doesn't work for nothing, huh? MR. PETTY: Nobody does. All right. After that we have 3 1/2 month cash flow. If you noticed I put that on the revenue. And, of course, we're going to have to be charging ourselves this money so that next year we can live, so it's shown as an expense. And then we've got reserves. Those projects that we carried forward, that revenue that I showed at the top, the three hundred and eighty-something thousand dollars, well, that project is still on the books unless you-all change it, so it shows an -- as an expense as well. So what you're looking at is a balanced budget and -- that you can monitor. And, again, you have the same green flags only in reverse. In this one we say that if -- as long as expenses are within 110 percent, not 85 but 110, because you can always spend a little bit more just as in revenue you can have a little bit less coming in and not 659 16 , 1 A be worried. But, again, the number is flexible. If you want it to be 90 percent, you can do 90 percent, and you would start getting red flags according to whatever curve you assigned to each department. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It would only be if the expense is in excess, not if it was too low. MR. PETTY: That's absolutely correct, sir. If it's too low, then you're waiting for management to make explanations, whether that be the field operator or the administrator. But, no, we don't -- it's like the revenue. If it's too high, we don't complain too much. We'll see it eventually. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. PETTY: Basically, that is it. That is the very simple red flag/green flag concept. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: And you are doing curves for all of the expenses as well? MR. PETTY: We have -- water management, we have that set up currently on the summer curve because we do spend more money in the summer because that's when the algae and the plant growth start going and blooming during the summer months. That's when we have most of our rain. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: A lot of them will be straight line -- MR. PETTY: Most of them -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- or pretty much straight line. MR. PETTY: Most of them are summer or winter in expenses. There's only a couple that are straight lined, and then there's -- and up in revenue a lot of them -- well, they're -- they're all different really. I've got quite a few because I have the tax receipts and I have carry forwards that come in Day 1. I mean, your carry forwards, the first three items, by definition they are available to you on Day 1, so there IS no -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: All right. Let me tell you, No.1, 660 16 , 1 A thank you for working up this system. I think it's got a lot of merit to it. It will show us -- allow us to monitor the budget and how we're proceeding during the year. I think this is a really good tool, and it overcomes the problem with our inability to read some of the financials or understand some of them. At least we know where we're varying off of budget and where things aren't progressing or where there's a red flag. So, again, thank you for this system. And we'll -- we'll -- we'll go through this year and see how it works. And I would like to have this -- I think this should be presented at the full board meeting along with your explanation for all the board members at the next board meeting if -- if -- if it's not -- if it's too late for that agenda item, the month after but -- MR. IAIZZO: Kyle. MR. LUKASZ: Pardon me? MR. PETTY: I think it's -- I think it's -- Mr. Chairman, I believe it's -- a standard part of our agenda -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. PETTY: -- is the financial submittals. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Well, it will always be done in the future, but, I mean, the explanation that you gave them. MR. PETTY: We will do a presentation since it would be -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Yeah. MR. PETTY: It would be unwise probably to send them a printout of something so new without a presentation first. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No, I think at this point you've got to do the presentation at the board meeting. MR. LEVY: Would this be a report in lieu of what we had been getting? You know, we had been getting-- MR. PETTY : Yes, sir. MR. LEVY: This would be that? MR. PETTY: It's a single-page report that indicates what your 661 16Jl I expenses are to date and tells you if, according to these parameters -- and the rules are explained right on the side -- whether -- have you triggered any of these parameters. MR LEVY: This would be a single-page report. MR. PETTY: This is a single-page report. MR. LEVY: In other words, right now we're getting one -- we're we're -- we're getting a report for the water management, for beautification, for the streetlights. There's one for every one of them we're getting now. MR. PETTY: And part of that is -- is -- I think has caused a lot of issues is we have said, "And if you don't like that one how does this one look to you? If you don't like that one, here's another one." We gave you so many different looks at it it became confusing. How come the number's a half a million here and a quarter million on -- over here? This gives you all the information in direct relevance to your budget, which is the Bible. MR. LEVY: So this -- this would -- if it was a red flag, there would be an explanation? MR. PETTY : Well, there better be one. MR. LEVY: Okay. I mean, it would say it's -- it's in beautification or it's in -- you know, in whatever it is? MR. PETTY: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. And Kyle would be accountable for those red flags that were caused by operations. He could say, "What we had was a disease go through all of our ornamental plants, and I had to do replacement; therefore, our costs really shot up last month; that's why I'm out of budget." And this is what the committee needs to know so that you can say that miscellaneous category, do I have to attach it or can I use it for something else. You've got to start thinking about where you're going to reallocate monies. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Uh-huh. Right. Now, I'd like -- if the -- if the explanation's on the right-hand side, I'd like those 662 16 11 A explanations like -- on hard copy -- MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, that's part of the report. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- as part of the original one to go to every member of the board. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, that would be -- on that monthly report, that's standard so that if you change any of those rules it becomes part of the reporting process. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: But I -- I want them to have the original basic thing so they can understand it. Pass it out as a hard copy when you do the presentation. MR. PETTY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. CONNELL: Could I ask one question? John, is this a distillation of what's normally pulled off and we -- many can't understand it, or do you go directly into the database that the county provides and -- and pull this off? MR. PETTY: Janice and Kyle were looking at that before we came up here, and I think their -- the consensus was -- is that it's a little bit of combination of both, and they're going to end up going to each and every item and writing down the number because the reports that are currently coming out are not sending us that information. MS. LARNED: Right. Correct. MR. PETTY: Okay. And then putting this together with the possibility of the county's technicians who are very adept at this building that query so that we tell the computer to pull the information out automatically. MR. LEVY: Okay. MR. PETTY: And we can have a report, but expect that to probably take six to nine months as they have quite a few people asking them for their work, so the IT guys are backed up pretty good, but Kyle's -- MR. CONNELL: Well, they're busy building roads too. 663 16'1 A MR. PETTY: Kyle never forgets, so-- MR. BOLAND: John, why would it take -- why would it take that long to get that report? I don't understand that. They've got their database; right? MR. PETTY: It's just -- it's a query. You would custom build a query, and what a query does is go in there and grab those items-- MR. BOLAND: Yeah, I know. MR. PETTY: -- and put it in a format that you like. MR. BOLAND: Right. MR. PETTY: And it doesn't take that long. It would take about a half a day -- MR. BOLAND: Correct. MR. PETTY: -- if -- if I was familiar with their system. MR. BOLAND: Yeah. MR. PETTY: They're just so backed up with other requests from the other five thousand or fifteen -- I forget how many people work for the county, but there are so many other systems in the county I'm going to -- I'm telling you we need to be patient. MR. BOLAND: I see. MR. PETTY: We don't mind as staff picking them out one at a time -- MR. BOLAND: Yeah. MR. PETTY: -- until that comes. And when it comes what we'll have is a simple copy-paste routine. Now, if you make any changes, the program has to be rewritten, and we've got another six to nine months to wait. MR. BOLAND: I've got it quicker than that, I'll tell you that. MR. CONNELL: It better be right the first time, yeah. MR. BOLAND: Not -- not for special -- not if you're picking off -- if you wanted specific information, I don't think it would take six to nine months to write it. Maybe you got backed up. MR. PETTY: Oh, no, it doesn't, sir. It takes a -- it takes an 664 16 11 A afternoon. MR. BOLAND: That's what I'm saying because -- yeah. MR. PETTY: They're busy. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It takes six months to stand in line to get them to do it. MR. CONNELL: It's the line, the length of the line. MR. BOLAND: Get in line, yeah. You don't have enough people doing this, in other words. MR. PETTY: Sir-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON : You can -- you can fly from Chicago to Milwaukee in half an hour, but you might have to wait three hours to get on the plane. MR. PETTY: We don't mind pulling this, sir. We think: it's going to take 30 minutes of staff time once a month. MR. BOLAND: Can he get the whole database? No, I guess not. The county -- MR. PETTY: Oh, you don't want the whole database. No, sir. MR. BOLAND: No, but-- MR. PETTY: He couldn't. No, sir, he couldn't. MR. BOLAND: Oh, okay. I just -- MR. PETTY: And it would be -- it would be a meaningless jumble of numbers. MR. BOLAND: Six -- yeah, I know what you're saying. It's like a traffic jam. MR LEVY: I -- I -- I realize we don't -- we don't have audited information for two thousand and -- fiscal year 2007. Are -- are we going to at some point get an -- an un -- an unaudited for the -- for the full year that shows, you know, revenue and expenses? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, you're going to get that at your December meeting. Your monthly financial is basically going to show you what the carry-forward is, and we're currently using what was shown in your budget, which is a million nine and change. 665 16 '1 A MR. LEVY: I'm sorry. I'm talking about 2007, for the full year two -- 12 months 2007. MR. PETTY : Yes, sir. MR. CONNELL: Yeah. MR LEVY: Okay. MR. CONNELL: Closed September 30th. MR. LEVY: That's right. Closed September 30th. MR. PETTY: The end of year is September 30th. The book was not closed on September 30th. MR. IAIZZO: Okay. MR. LEVY: Oh, I see. MR. PETTY: These terms, I hate them myself, but somebody has gotten me to use them. MS. LARNED: We're brainwashed too. MR. LEVY: Well, when do -- when do the books -- when do the books close? MR. PETTY: The last time we talked to Michael, which was, I think, 2 1/2 weeks ago or so, they were not closed at that time. MR. LEVY: So that's why -- that's why we're still waiting for that report? MR. PETTY: No, sir, the report last year came out in June. The audit came out in June. MR. LEVY: We're not talking about the audited one now. We're talking about an unaudited -- an un -- an unaudited -- MR. PETTY: The unaudited you'll have in December, and currently I can tell you the number. The number is the one million nine that you see on page 2 of your budget, which is Table A. MR. LEVY: Yes. MR. PETTY: If you look at it, it says fund balance September 30th, 2007, projected, 1,994,821. MR. LEVY: Yes. Yes. MR. PETTY: That's currently the number we're using. We 666 1611 A won't have a better number until they do the audit and we get the results, which is going to be around June. MR. LEVY: But that -- this was a projected number based on -- MR. PETTY: And remains projected until you do an audit. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: And that's -- that's the same number until we do -- look at the audit? MR. LEVY : Yeah, but you didn't -- you didn't -- we didn't have 12 -- 12 months of -- of history before -- when this one million nine ninety four was done, that was done earlier in the year, wasn't it? MR. IAIZZO: We carry almost two million bucks. MR LEVY: No. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: We're a year and a half behind on that number. MR. PETTY: Again, sir, there is no better number besides this projection until an audit is made. Now, again, she may have said, "Oops. You know what? I charged $12 and I projected 14." Now, I -- I can give you that type of assumption, but, again, that number is not any tighter in reality until you get the audit. MR. LEVY: But, you know, we -- we were getting reports every month that showed revenue to date and cost to date. Now, those weren't audited numbers, but they were -- they were presumably unaudited actuals. MR. IAIZZO: Those are real numbers. MR. LEVY: Real numbers. So now we have real numbers through September 30th. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: But-- MR. LEVY: They are not audited, but they're real numbers. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: We will have -- we will have December 31 st -- we will have them at the December meeting. Let me explain something that I'm finally excited to understand. We think as we're -- we're in a business. We sell something. We have an account receivable. The money comes in. We've got the money. We 667 16 , 1 A write a check. We have an expense. We have a purchase. We have an account payable. We pay the account payable, et cetera. At the end of the year, you close the books. You know what your sales were to date. You may have accounts receivable. Or if you're on a cash basis you know how much cash you've received. You've got it. The -- and expenses -- either you know what you've paid -- what you've incurred and how much you owe or you know what you laid out in cash one way or the other. Here we're not making the payment. We're not receiving the money. The county is handling all these things, and they are allocating other expenses to us, and they are telling us what these numbers are. We send into the county, "We approve this invoice." MR. LEVY: Yeab, but they tell us the numbers before they're audited, don't they? MR. PETTY: No. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Before they -- no. What we have -- we've got numbers -- MR. LEVY: Well, how do we cost during the year? We're getting costs and revenue figures during the year. MR. PETTY: Estimates, sir, estimates, estimates and projections. MR. BOLAND: Projections. MR. PETTY: These are -- these are based off of our knowledge of what we had spent based off of our knowledge of what we're supposed to receive. That's how you get those monthly financials. These are for tracking purposes only. These are not useable for anything else. MR. IAIZZO: Mike, you're talking about statements of revenues and expenditures?bCHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Yeab. MR. IAIZZO: These are real numbers. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Sort of. 668 16 11 A MR. IAIZZO: They are real numbers. According to Jean, these are real numbers. MR. PETTY: Well, I'm sure Jean would tell you that they are not imaginary, sir, but they are -- but they are projections and at best strong estimates. These are not audited. These have not been finalized. And to the best of her knowledge she believes them to be accurate, sir, and that's why we bring them to your attention. If she did not think they were accurate, we would not bring them to your attention. MR. CONNELL: John, how long does the county stay open at all to catch up what was in the mail or appropriately belongs in the previous fiscal year? MR. PETTY: Sir, there is -- they'll tell you that they have a standard operating policy of paying their vendors very quickly as required by statute. MR. IAIZZO: They've got 30 days, basically. MR. PETTY: No, sir, the statute wants you to pay them within a very much shorter period than that. The standard used to be 30 days, but because the county system is also contingent upon another system the county must go through the clerk of courts. The clerk of courts handles all the money for Collier County, and she's cons -- and he or she is a constitutional officer, so the county gets stuck in their own little bureaucratic nightmare when they sometimes go before the clerk of courts. We have to put up with that same type of issue with the county, and then the county may get stuck with the clerk of courts, so the only response you're going to get from either entity is that they comply with state statute on -- what is the term? -- paying vendors not as quickly as possible but with due diligence or with due speed. There's a term for -- for how you were paid. MS. LARNED: Quick pay. MR. PETTY: Quick pay is the way it's referred to by statute. 669 16 , I A Other than that, sir, I couldn't give you a procedure or policy to -- that would be worth the spit. MR. LEVY: Okay. MR. IAIZZO: Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. I've got -- I have to give you a personal thing on this next item, the ad valorem tax. When Coleman and I came onto this board, if we -- we didn't run. We were -- there was only two people that were -- that -- that filed, and we were elected by acclamation, as you will, or whatever -- or by default. But had I had to campaign I would have campaigned very sharply on ad valorem -- on the issue of ad valorem taxes. After reading all this stuff, I have learned about politics, why politics is really the art of compromise and why you don't make big moves all at one time. And the guy I -- who was always my hero, Wilbur Mills, the secretary of the house ways and means committee for many, many years, who was a personal hero of mine because he was a brilliant guy. Even though he was from Arkansas, he was a graduate of, I think, either Harvard or Yale Law School, and he not only understood the tax law, he understood what the effects of change are and would be. And the effect of a change and the -- and it's been discussed, and there's no -- there is no rule that we -- that we could -- we could -- I mean, the board could say tomorrow, "Everything is ad valorem" -- and there's nothing wrong with what we're saying -- or we could say, as it is now, "Virtually nothing is ad valorem." Historically, it -- it evolved in peculiar ways without rhyme or reason. Well, the reason is it was un -- an undeveloped area and they were assessing by acreage or whatever. MR. PETTY: Well-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: The last argument was about retaining a certain percentage as ad valorem because there was always a non -- an ad valorem and a non-ad valorem part, and the -- it 670 16 , 1 A dropped down to zero with the -- MR. LEVY: Security taken out. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Right. That -- that cut out and the fact that you had the excess funds from the security that now went to the lighting, which was for some reason also considered ad valorem. . If you look for a rational argument as to whether it benefits property or people, that's nonsense. If it -- MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- benefits people, it benefits the property because -- MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. PETTY: -- there's case law that would have a conflict with that statement. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. PETTY: There is definitely a change in concept between benefit and taxes. And I don't want to blur the line too much, and I don't mean to be controversial, but, I mean, this is a -- a 150-year-plus court case issue -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. PETTY: -- with standing laws and -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Then so be it. MR. PETTY: -- experts in both fields that can -- I'll be glad to bring them to the subcommittee so that we can talk with these legal experts and gain that knowledge that they have -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Well, I don't think -- MR. PETTY: -- so benefit assessments are -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: I don't think you have to. I think that probably if we're going to do anything it's going to be very marginal in terms of if we were to say we believe that, say, 20 or 25 percent ofthe total assessment should be ad valorem or that items -- certain items should be ad valorem as opposed to non-ad valorem. 671 16f1 A And you could argue even with the case law that certain items -- I mean, the -- the -- doing the -- the -- the boulevard areas on -- on Pelican Bay Boulevard could very well be ad valorem. That's what counties pay for. MR. LEVY: I --I -- I would feel that way. That's the beautification. And, I mean -- and the -- in the county that's certainly ad valorem. I mean, that's all ad valorem. And, you know, that -- I would think that that's what holds -- holds value. That's one of the things that holds the values up around here is the -- is the beautification. And, you know, a guy with a -- with a $5 million piece of property, you know, he gets -- he gets -- it -- it does the same for him as the guy with the half-million-dollar piece of property, so it's -- you know, it's -- I could -- I could see an argument for that as ad valorem, the beautification. MR. IAIZZO: Where are we going with this, David? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON : Well, let me ask this question: Where does the committee, now that you've read all this stuff, want to go? Somebody-- MR. IAIZZO: Well-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Let me hear some ideas. MR. IAIZZO: Let me speak on ad valorem versus non-ad valorem. I prefer special assessment because I know when that money is collected it doesn't get thrown in the ad valorem pot. It's designated for a specific purpose and community. We already pay an ad valorem of about $4 1/2 million. It doesn't come back to this community. That pays for beautification. That pays for streetlighting. That pays for street sweeping, and that doesn't come back. You throw that -- if you do another ad valorem, you're paying double taxes -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No. No. No. No. MR. IAIZZO: -- on the same thing twice. 672 161 1 A CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Wait. Let me refute that. Number 1, this would be a separate ad valorem, a separate line-item ad valorem -- MR. LEVY: Right, MSTBU. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- in the same place below the line -- this was -- for the MSTBU it would come back to -- to us the same way. MR. PETTY: I'm sorry. You said it was an MSTBU. It couldn't be an MSrnD. It could be an MSTD. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: MSTU. MR. PETTY: That B, the benefit is -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: MSTU. And it -- it would come back in the same way as the non-ad valorem. MR. LEVY: The same way security -- the same way security used to come back to us. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It came back the same way security came back to us. Exactly. It would be -- and the same way that that -- if we have a charge for -- if we run out of the ad valorem funds now and -- and we have to assess for the lighting, the streetlighting, that, too, would be -- under the current situation would be an ad valorem tax that would come back to us. MR. IAIZZO: Now, are you saying that we ought to go ad valorem, no more special assessment? I mean, let's get that first straightened out. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Wait. Wait. The only -- what we are discussing -- MR. LEVY: We're talking about splitting. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- is -- is solely how we -- we determine we have to collect a million dollars from the people of Pelican Bay. Do they pay it $100 for every house, or do they pay it-- that the $2 million house pays $2,000 and the $100,000 house pays $10? That's the -- you know, that's what we're discussing. We're still getting -- the money's all going to come into the same 673 16 ItA pot into us to take care of this thing, and the -- and the -- that was -- that's -- that's the whole question. Am I -- do you follow me, Mike? MR. LEVY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So the question is, does this committee want it to take it any further in exploring the issue? Mike, apparently you think that there is some merit to going forth with some of the expenses being considered as ad valorem. MR. LEVY: Well, I think that's worth discussing, yes. MR. CONNELL: I -- I can understand Mike's logic about the contribution which beautification makes to the value of the homes even in -- in Bay Colony. MR. LEVY: Right. MR. CONNELL: I'd have a hard time going ad valorem for the remaining two. MR. LEVY: I would too. For Clam Bay I agree with you. MR. BOLAND: We are a don -- like John always says, we're a donor committee, so we're overpaying any ad valorem as it is; right? MR. CONNELL: That's for county taxes. MR. BOLAND: Yeah, county, that's what I'm saying. So that's ad valorem; am I right? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Your county tax, not -- your pure county tax is -- MR. BOLAND: So we're already overpaying there. Now, you want to say you want to move this into that pot? CHAIRMANBRAMSON: No. MR. BOLAND: Is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: No. No. No. MR. LEVY: Into a separate -- separate ad valorem pot. MR. IAIZZO: You can't have a separate ad valorem pot. Ad valorem is ad valorem. A special assessment is -- MR. BOLAND: If we're overpaying we're never going to get it back. I agree with John, what he's saying. 674 16 , 1 '~ CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Wait. Wait. Wait. MR. BOLAND: That's my problem. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Now, stop me if I'm wrong. MR. IAIZZO: Clarify. MR. BOLAND: Leave it the way it is. MR. PETTY: You can have a separate ad valorem-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Pot. MR. PETTY: -- tax, yes. MR. LEVY: We -- I mean, we have -- MR. PETTY: We currently do. MR LEVY : We have -- we have it now; right? I mean, if it happens to be zero -- it happens to be zero this year, but it was a number -- three years ago it was a number. MR. IAIZZO: We have an ad valorem -- as an incorporated community, we have an ad valorem tax, and we said, "County, it's okay. We don't particularly care for your supply -- or level of service. We want to do a special assessment so that we'd know that we get the kind of treatment for cleaning or beautification that we want to pay for." CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Think of it this way. MR. IAIZZO: So we paid directly for that service. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Wait. Think of it this way. You can have a federal income tax, and you can have a state income tax. They're both income taxes. MR. BOLAND: Right. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. But the money from the federal income tax goes to the federal government. The money from the state income tax goes to the state. MR. BOLAND: Right. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. We could have two ad valorem taxes, and which we do. One goes to the county general funds. The other one goes solely to the MSTU. 675 MR. IAIZZO: I don't know ifthat's a fact. MR. PETTY: Sir, it can be done that way. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It can be. MR. PETTY: There are -- MR. BOLAND: You're saying we could break it out is what you're saying. MR. PETTY : Yeah, if I -- MR. LEVY: This would be a separate item, oh, yeah. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It's the same way below the line. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Go ahead. MR. PETTY: Ad valorem is a collection mechanism, and the only reason you look at ad valorem is not that it's a single source but that the money fits the ad valorem profile. An ad valorem assumes a social responsibility; health, safety, and welfare issue. That's why you look at ad valorem. That's why the rich pay more than the poor. It's based on how much your property's valued at. MR. BOLAND: Yeah. MR. PETTY: That's -- so think of ad valorem in that way. And ad valorem can be allocated by an accounting system as finely as you wish any accounting system to be allocated. But I think that's what's causing the confusion is that we all look at that and say, well, ad valorem means one thing. It does. It means social responsibilities, but that doesn't mean that you don't have more than one on your tax bill. MR. BOLAND: Right. MR. PETTY: So-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: In other words -- MR. BOLAND: What would be the benefit? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: The -- the question is really, John, the way the tax burden is allocated among the residents of Pelican Bay. 16 r 1 A 676 16 , 1 'A MR. BOLAND: So we're -- we're -- we're going to lower the tax burden by doing this? MR. IAIZZO: NO. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: For some. MR. CONNELL: Higher for others. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Right. The tax -- MR. LEVY: The amount of money is the same. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: The overall tax burden is going to be the same, but if you live in a $5 million house you are going to pay more than somebody who lives in a $500,000 condo. MR. BOLAND: You're saying that the people that have higher assessed value are going to pay more? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Right. It's ad valorem. MR. BOLAND: Okay. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It's based on property value. In no-- in no case could this committee even recommend to the board that we go to a full ad valorem basis. The last budget committee or the last -- or the budget committee back in 2003 -- or the last time it was discussed -- I think it was 2002 or 2003 the last board -- was there a discussion of it -- was that a portion or a percentage that at that time was close to what the percentages were between ad valorem and non-ad valorem for the amount going to the Pelican Bay should be maintained at that percentage level, and that -- and that might be an approach if this committee believed it was worth -- now, there's some negatives too. If you went ad valorem, two of our taxpayers would get off the hook for that extent of ad valorem. The -- the church would get off the hook, No.1, and -- and the Phil would get off the hook, too, because they're both 501(c)(3) organizations. MR. PETTY: And the county would get off the hook. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: The county pays us tax? MR. PETTY: Benefit assessment, you bet. 677 MR. LEVY: Yeah, for the acreage they have. MR. PETTY: They pay a benefit assessment. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It would probably have a horrible effect on the Ritz and on whatchamacallit on -- MR. CONNELL: The old Registry, yeah. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON : Yeah, but -- but, also, the -- MR. CONNELL: Waterside. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- commercial, Waterside. MR. CONNELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So, I mean, you know, we have two comm -- two board members who would be strenuously opposed no matter what. That doesn't mean that we should not, if we think that there's some merits to it, present it to the board. MR. CONNELL: Supposing you put a limit or a ceiling on -- on that particular taxation. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Of 25 percent or 20 percent? MR. CONNELL: Whatever, yeah. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: A percentage. MR. CONNELL: So, in essence, they would not be paying based upon the market value of their home but one that had been discounted, or isn't that practical? MS. LARNED: May I jump in at that point? MR. IAIZZO: It might heat up the water. MS. LARNED: Well, actually, that is all dictated by statute, and if we think about what's going on right now and has been since last spring, the whole discussion around the equity issues within the ad valorem tax because what -- what was not envisioned wholly back in the early '90s when the homestead exemption was put into place and then on top of that the Save Our Homes program was enacted has created a very unstable revenue source for all of the local governments because they rely so much on ad valorem. That is what is being discussed up in Tallahassee. It's what has 1611 A 678 16 11 A already been enacted in this year's budget with the spending caps and the increased exemptions. And, of course, we're all going to the polls in January to make our views known as to whether or not we agree with what was cited in -- in the latest special session. So from that we've brought some literature that even if it doesn't go forward today it might be helpful for you to have that information because it is addressing the inequities. Let me be very specific. You could have that million-dollar home, and then you could have that half-a-million-dollar condo. And, yes, you could tax them ad valorem and get different revenue streams. Now, it's not going to matter if the person in the million-dollar home has been living there for quite some time and they have been homestead -- or Save Our Homes out. They're not going to pay any more, but, yet, the person that bought next door to them last year is going to get the full bear. So that is, in fact, an inequity that exists right there. MR. CONNELL: That's a good point, yeah. MS. LARNED: The -- the next thing that -- that we're noticing is that it's not fair to the seasonal resident, if you will, because they don't get benefit if -- of any of those kinds of exemption and, as mentioned before, the business community. It's not to say that that's an opinion one way or the other, but those are the inequities that are being faced today and is causing, quite frankly, a lot of people to move from the state -- MR. CONNELL: Yeah. MS. LARNED: -- or -- and it's been a problem that Florida has faced for a long time as far as its youth leaving. It cannot afford to live in this state and be a homeowner. They can be a renter, but even then that is having its negative consequences. So the -- the -- the real summary viewpoint of looking at benefit versus ad valorem is the ad valorem. And even though the county's gone on the record and most government officials would go on the 679 16 11 A record that ad valorem is much easier to administer until you start getting into these inequity issues, and then it becomes a real problem for the person that's paying the tax. The second thing I wanted to mention is when you get back to the benefit issue, that beautification is benefitting everyone that, once it goes through an analysis -- and it is a very thorough analysis that has up -- been upheld by the courts. And it must be beneficial to that property in order for that assessment to be levied. Let's take the million-dollar home and the half-a-million-dollar condo again. If they're both driving down the same street looking at the same landscape, then the argument to the methodology would be that they're receiving equal benefit. Even though someone may be living in a half-a-million-dollar home and -- or residence and another party would be living in a million-dollar home, the fact is they are receiving equal benefit, so, therefore, they should pay equally. Even though their personal wealth allows them to live in a different place, they are, in fact, receiving the same benefit, and that is the nature of what we're talking about as far as benefit to the property versus a social responsibility for health, safety, and welfare. We've long lost that vision or that understanding, if you will, of the different variations in our tax structure. MR. LEVY: But that's the way the county does it now, am I correct? For all the beautification it's all ad valorem taxes. MS. LARNED: You can -- you can pay -- MR. PETTY: No, sir. No, sir. MR. LEVY: I'm sorry. MR. PETTY: I'm sorry. It is not in the county. In the county they do use ad valorem for most of their right-of way-maintenance but not so much beautification. Beautification would be an improvement to, like, an entry feature, et cetera, and that comes from a combination including ad 680 16 11 A valorem but, also, other assessments. The county doesn't understand benefit assessments real well, so they use a lot of ad valorem wherever they can. MR. CONNELL: Yeah. MS. LARNED: And, frankly, what -- and the point to that is.-- the word "beautification" is -- Pelican Bay enjoys a higher level-- MR. CONNELL: Right. MS. LARNED: -- of beautification than you would in other places, and so if you go to, if you will, what the county system would be they're going to make it a level playing field for everybody because they have 300 and some odd -- MR. PETTY : Well, let me make a distinction here. I -- and I don't want to drive you from your path because I think you're right on target, but keep in mind that there are two taxes to be talked about. One is an improvement which you would consider to be capital where you've got property value increases. The other is operational or maintenance where you don't get a property value increase because the lawn is mowed 52 times versus 38 times. And landscaping in our case is maintenance. That's what you're being assessed for. And I think we're confusing that with a capital program where you do a new entry feature and then you upscale the community. And everybody's property values may be seen to rise from that capital improvement, but in -- in our case we have operation or maintenance. So there's a distinction at this level that you have to look at, capital and operation and maintenance. I think we're kind of confusing the two. MR. LEVY: When we -- when we pay the -- the tax assessor and the -- who's the other guy? There are two. MS. LARNED: Tax collector. MR. PETTY: Revenue collector. MRLEVY: Pardon? MR. PETTY: Revenue collector or tax collector. 681 16 , I A MR. LEVY: Yeah. Would we -- would we pay them the same whether it's ad valorem or -- or an assessment? You know, we have the fee in here that -- MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. Yes. MR. LEVY: -- the figure here that we would pay and -- MR. PETTY: Two -- basically, by -- by statute they can charge two percent, each office, and they actually charge us cost at the end of the year. MR. LEVY: The property appraiser and the tax collector, would they get -- they would get the same fee? MR. PETTY: Yes. MS. LARNED: Because theirs is on dollar amount irrespective of -- MR. LEVY: They don't care -- they don't care how -- MR. BOLAND: Dave, the other thing is that -- I can see what you're saying, but, you know, you're affecting a lot of people in Pelican Bay, right, if we do this switch? MR. LEVY: We're affecting everybody. MR. BOLAND: Don't you think it would be more prudent on our end to have -- if we get it past the board, it would be great to have a town hall meeting and see how the people feel. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON : We have to -- the question I'm raising is do we recommend it to the board. We would then proceed to having a town hall meeting. MR. IAIZZO: Why don't you reintroduce the issue before we move forward? MR. BOLAND: Before you do this. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: However, before I -- before it gets out of this committee, you know, we've got to examine some of the -- the negatives of going ahead with setting up something. MR. BOLAND: Okay. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: And that is that you're exempting 682 16 II A three payers from this tax, which is now non-ad valorem, your -- three major payers. MR. IAIZZO: That's right. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, let me give you another option, which is what you're considering is going from a special-benefit assessment to ad valorem assessment. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Not -- not wholly. MR. PETTY: Not wholly. I understand. In part. And what that does is it shifts the burden or the cost to different classes of people, which may have more bearing today than what it had last year or -- or -- or what have you. Let me give you another option. You don't have to do an either/or. And ad valorem right now I'm going to tell you from my position is the same as Janice's, which is don't go there. It is an unstable revenue source. Your people -- your staff will have a hell of a time trying to calculate what is the right amount not knowing what that -- what's going to happen with the property appraiser and what residents are going to charge off on homestead and other exemptions that may come down the line. You have the same option. It's -- what it's called is the methodology of the benefit assessment, and typically that is done by an independent third party for fairness because, again, this can be contested in court just like your ad valorem can be, so you want to make sure and do this right. But our current way of doing it is if you remember -- if you recall from what we sent you was ERUs, equivalent residential units. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Right. MR. PETTY: And that adjusted it to what everybody thought was more fair now than the per-acre assessment before. The ERU, equivalent residential unit, is not the only way to do an assessment methodology. And, of course, every service that you do -- streetlighting is one; water management is another; landscaping is a 683 16 11 A third -- can all be evaluated with different methodologies determined to be -- by that independent third party to be of benefit, and the benefit exceeds the assessment level. That's the criteria. And when it comes to operation and maintenance it just has to be applied uniformly and fairly, and typically the operation and maintenance category, that type of a methodology can be done in-house. It used to require a certified engineer, a certified licensed engineer with the state of Florida, but if I remember correctly it can -- it can be done in-house now for operation and maintenance where you decide that it is fair, it is applied properly. And the operations and maintenance budget methodology can apply whatever logic you have opined to be fair, so you don't have to jump to ad valorem to get a change in the loading rate, so to speak. You can just ask for a new methodology. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Maybe we should explore that approach because -- now, that would still -- that would still keep our three other taxpayers involved. They would still be -- MR. PETTY: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. MR. WZZO: So what other methods of -- would you suggest? MR. PETTY: They're -- they're limited -- they are -- they are limitless. MR. IAIZZO: Right now, excuse me, we'll deal with straight assessment across the board -- MR. PETTY: Sir, the assessment-- MR. IAIZZO: -- except for the streetlighting. MR. PETTY: The assessment is based off of a per-unit or a per-ERU basis. MR. IAIZZO: Yeah, ERU. MR. PETTY: There are a thousand different ways to do this. You can assess based on trips, and trips are the engineering manual for trip generated by group type. Single-family homes put 10 trips per day according to this manual of engineering practice. Townhomes put 684 16 , I A 7 1/2; condos put 6. And you can assess the cost of your roads based on trips generated. You can do it on a linear footage. You can do it on acreage. You can do it on equivalent residential connections versus units if you're using something like water and sewer. Again, there are all the different ways of allocating this, and they are done based off of that common-sense approach, that engineering design. I can calculate this number because that's what you're looking for in benefit. And you can then -- the load then just changes to what is more appropriate today than what a per-acre was before. And an example for the water management is to go by percentage of impervious area versus im -- percentages of impervious area versus pervious area, which is how much runoff you are contributing to the water management system. Now, we did it on a per-acre basis because it was administratively easier to use it that way. Now that we are built out, pervious and impervious is part of the tax records. We have that information. MR. IAIZZO: All this evaluation is really muddying the waters. It's going to complicate things. I think leave well enough alone. Not that it's well. But certainly it's straightforward. It's been working for years. I wouldn't kick this around for anything. I wouldn't want to go straight assessment. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Number 1, it hasn't been working for years. MR. IAIZZO: It has. What do you mean it hasn't been working for years? How do you explain that? CHAIRMAN BRAMSON : We have -- we have only recently -- come to a full non-ad valorem assessment only recently, and the non-ad valorem assessment evolved over a number of years as Pelican Bay was developed going from acreage, et cetera, from all kinds of different things because, remember, you didn't have a place with -- 685 1611A with houses and condominiums and -- originally you had land, and you had some places being developed and other places not being developed, so -- MR. IAIZZO: That was -- I think that was paid by the developers then, David. When they went to acreage, I think it was all developers at that time until everything was parceled off and developed. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It -- it went by acreage. MR. LEVY: By acreage. MR. IAIZZO: Yeah, but a developer had the acreage. MR. LEVY: That's right. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Obviously, they were the ones responsible for taxes, but, in any event, the -- you -- you -- you can't use historical precedence as -- as an argument here because the history is so short and -- but if there's a feeling we should continue proceeding with exploring it, and I think maybe we should be exploring what John suggested in terms of alternate ways that might accomplish some of this without going to a -- to a ad valorem situation where the inequities continue because this -- my house and the house exactly like it next door are assessed at two substantially different amounts because I've owned mine for five years and they just bought it. MR. PETTY: Exactly. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: We want to avoid that inequity to some extent too. And we're not talking about big dollars here except the dollars could get very big if we went to full ad valorem, and then some of the houses would get cranked, and others would get almost a pass. MR. LEVY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So let's leave it till -- till the next time we meet when you're going to present some other ideas __ MR. PETTY: Sir-- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- what we might do on a partial 686 16 'I A ~ 15 of saying 25 percent of it may be done on a sort of modified basis of some sort. MR. PETTY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. MR. LEVY: It doesn't have to be a percentage of it. What we're saying is the assessment but just maybe a different basis of -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: A basis -- MR. PETTY: A different rule of -- MR. IAIZZO: A different rule of thumb. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: It would be -- it would come closer to being an ad valorem -- MR. BOLAND: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: -- but not -- MR. LEVY: But not on property -- not on property tax. MR. PETTY: What we will bring back for your discussion are alternative methodologies to discuss -- CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Is that okay with you? MR. PETTY: -- for assessments. MR. LEVY: And -- and -- and what we're doing -- what we're doing now, too, so we fully understand that. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, compared to the ERU. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Okay. Is there a motion for adjournment? MR. CONNELL: We all want to stay, I guess. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Huh? MR. CONNELL: I guess everybody wants to stay. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: Nobody wants to make a motion to adjourn? MR. IAIZZO: It says here other budget matters. What other budget matters? MR. BOLAND: I motion. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: There's no audience and -- 687 16 , 1 .~ MR. BOLAND: Well, it's only eleven o'clock, five after eleven by that clock. CHAIRMAN BRAMSON: So moved. Okay. We stand adjourned. *********** There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chairman at 3:05 p.m. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION .:TC11-- ~ J;;;~~ 4;~HAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY KAREN BLOCKBURGER, RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC. 688 hi u 'Cf};'~6 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Services TaxIng and Benefit Unit _~6IJ\J\f A F 18 a, U-~7r~"'.' Ha,18& k'=+'tt.--m-- Hennlng-ttfrfu-~- .. (~oyle ....--.-fF-'..r~- ", I tt ,.(}pV \A) e a \f~::::::..~------- ,.- F' I'~" .J ",,-" .. i>-' ,",.-, NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AT HAMMOCK OAK CENTER. 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES. FLORIDA 34108 ON WEDNESDAY. MARCH 5, 2008 AT 1:00 PM 1. Introduction and Welcome of New Board Member - Robert Pendergrass 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes of the February 6, 2008 Meeting 4. Audience Participation 5. Chairman's Report Water Management Presentation to Men's Coffee Foundation Incorporation Steering Committee Foundation Strategic Planning Committee, Mary Anne Womble Budget Committee District Offices Contract District Offices Invoices Update on Clam Bay Estuary Study Group wi Mr. Burke and Mr. Petty 6. Committee Reports Clam Bay Committee Report Included in Chairman's Report Budget Committee Included in Chairman's Report Government Relations Clam Bay Estuary Study Group - included under Chairman's Report 7. Administrator's Report Capital Projects Median Improvements - Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard Sidewalk Lighting - Myra Janco Daniels Blvd & Vanderbilt Beach Road Community Issues Sidewalk Repairs Hurricane Charley Storm Damage 8. Committee Requests 9. Audience Comments 10. Adjoum SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT (239) 597-1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. LJ."~ Z;S.8 "~m#:~ 6- 16 11 A -~.. ;., H n =ec:: 0 c CXJ ]:"TI ." n~ n ....... "'0 ._:j -. C 1>>0 0 01>> ~ 1Il ::I: ]:Q. ,... l'"I' Q. ~S C ;:~ ., I>> ., ., \Q ::l _.. _l. t'D ~Q. Q. )> . ,... t"l t"l t'D ., CXJt'D ,... ,.... ,... ::l~ I>> ]: (") t"t' .... cO 0 0 ::l -, -. ~ ., :: 3 ~ 0 t'D 0 0 :: ::a ~n _.~ 3 :::l :::l !:ll ttl_ ("j ("j 3 ~CI) ..... \Q ~ I>> 'QJ t'D (D 0"" ::l (l) 3 III Vl _l 3@ i") :: ,..~ ("j ,t"t' 0 3 )> Q.CXJ ~ :::l 0 ro lj"t"t' .., m ]:QJ <: ::l 1TJ _ttl "C ::::s 2: (l)lQ .,< 0 f"I" -. 0 t"t' . -. ... n ., ... "Om r, W w "tI en ft. n '\,7 ,... "'1; tt>l!l. 11'. - -. ro " Ql 0 ~c ~ n <QJ :::l ::s I'D ~ :: V) ::::l 0 -. t"t' ::::l t"t' !lJ lD U') \Q (TJ t"t' ~ t"t' -, C n ., 0 -. - Q. 0 ::s ... ~ '< ::l I.C t"t' J 0 G") 3 n m ., -. 0 3: 0 ...,. 3 (!) Z C t"!" "'I::l ro ::s .::::1 ~ ro .. iIllUi' V'l I t"t' (J) rt' fti It. 16 11 J ,," ~,"",;" . >.. ,.' ~ ~"",',,,,"-~ .'~- ~ ~~ ,;xl /'I) "C o ~ I-J ::l n - c: 0. /'I) C. C ::I Q. ro -t n .- :I> ~ ta )> -< n o ~ ~ ..... :t m m n :::r QJ :_~ ~ -~ .... .... QJ - -' 1,11' r~ o 3 3 l'tl - ~\tll~ t"'~ tl\ 16 II ~ . ~;. " ttl "C o ~ '1-4 :::l (") - c: Q.. ttl C. r: ::! c. ro "" n :r ~ , ~" a:J c: c C) m ~ n o 3: 3: ..... =1 m m -, -,: ... ."", .;~ Q.l ::;:1 () o ~ ;,aaf ::t .<i!fi (i;> j'","", i,"'; ... tr 16 11 A ~,..,.. c () :J - Q. ,Q,J m 3 ""'I ()\Xl :r ,Q,J Q,J< =iA m 3 ~ Q,J l: ::s l'J) 1Il~ ~ :;tltn (1)"" "Of.: oQ. ;:$;,< C) ""'l o f.: "0 I i-! :J I"'l - c: c. Ii) Q, C) o < m ::0 Z 3: m Z -t ::0 m r- )> -I ..... o z en 16r 1 A "--,. ..- ~)J '1:) (D , I ,..:;: T (XI 3: b 0 (1) (U (fl (1) C!" ~ ct ..., 0 t\) ~:- n IT! '.::j :3 :::; C ('''I: r...;' .-' Co -' (D " - (1)" i-l ill ,-"'"" t\) -, ;"'-1'" tl.l n {""'t' ([; CJ < c. ::s \,' C:;..1:] tl.l "CJ '"'I J-l )> i~'" Q. 3 .''''"': ,.~- -a ni "C '""" ''''I ..... ',J' 0 <: -I It< 3 )> t\) r- ::s t"t' Vi -a I f " ~4': 3: v~ '< 0 ,=t, ""l 01 '-' \-I m Q.I '~"'l: :J n t'l c;, C), 1-", ~.s, 0 -I !:-,-, 1--"'- :.JJ ~"'- -, '=' (I) ("'J W !""--' ___J "., ;, .... -.; tll -" :r. Vi . -. _8: k;- .,..,., r'~J L.:~J b oc!; """"'f, =: nlV (D <: ;-1- cr.) o \J ..., ~~ [lS (!) CL -,4 m >::: _, <:li m!1; V1 ~-; '-'; "" ,::::; (!.oJ :; .~J :3 rt ;:;: (D ,."., ::t> :::; ~6 u 1"4- ~,....,. Ui ::< -n () ~.,-~ ~t.,.. QJ ~- ;t<J 1[.1 CL 1:;. (i- f"'" no, o i-"" Cj r-;-o c, ,~ .(]-; Ln _!:!: "_. '-'" '-'-"""--~"" ....::: i-~ }-_..c.J _<_' C,., -;.-.,J. )--_:, I~_,' C: ~" f-__) r,,~;, \f:! =,J (D ,~ (!) D - n r" :S, (D= (") Y1 -:; '.F, t:1) 1f1(1! r: Q) o..--:~ ""l ;:;: r-l'" ~;;;) O~ nj, ~~" tlJ ,-=; n" \~n ?D' ~j.~ ":J 0- =~i,:!: ct {'r, ....,.., :=,_ ~t<~ ~. Vi {I'.l r::t ~= ::; ,-, 1:3 -' CD '0 'c:' ~~;..-:' 9: (D o) w ;:~ C!...Ci. 16 11 A _.~, .'"-:..~--' ,~;- '::~ CXl~ 00. Cft) ro~ <w w- "'I~ Q. rcog' <= WO ~"'I Q.c.. /'l)r- "'1-. c:r~ ~:T I"'t'I"'t' "'_. /'l):J CIJ\C t"ll :T :XJ3: 0,< W"'I Q.QJ n )> ." t-I -t n:a> Or- Z-a -I~ "'0 C'-' m n -t en , ~ w ::s t"l o o Q.l ,::;2 -., to -- Vi- o ~""- L-, -- ~ 0., ([) 0 m < :J '2 (Li r"t (t) C ::r no) It! ,., r'r V(l: '1J C:L (f! J':.l" r-t' 1"'''1"' tfl :::1 I-''1-' ::r ::v r--f -'-~ 'lJ "D ;li ~ , ::r Q.; CL i1' ,"'T "::J '-" <,. (D (D :J -\: 12 (j ~'-._'" n ro' C~L if, Cl, (Q -2: ~.~~, "'" 16 I I A ~~t ' /.; -- -', . , fJ) ._" Q. I'D ~ W - " ^' t'ti "C W -~ '"'f V'J n o 3: 3: c: Z I-t ~ .... tn tn c: m (fj 16 I 1 A ~ z ~ , 0 ::I 5'~~ti ~ Q""wQU! ii" -0 CiJ ffi m a 3 (D IS' (p 0 -- Q. ~~ ~ ill m ~ s: s::;r;t )> ~ 33 ." C':i-"O ; ~m'~ ;: .3~-< '" ;; 3 j; Q. 3 C" c .. 0 ~~ ;; '" 0 U> '" o - 3 ~ '" '" o ai ::J. 3 '" .. ~ 0- 1lJ c -0" 3 '" %. '" 2' ~ 0- iii' ~ ~ cr '< <iI 3 cr c ;;! '" 3 '" %. 5' '" () o c " .:;r 5' o '" co o o '" m ::;l 00 CP ii m co ~ 3 ::u ::I [ll {g ~ III or 0'< o (j) s: '" .... 3 "::I '" t <0 a -0 a ai "" ... ... 5" is "! ~ ~ ~ 8l 0: "'8 o 0 ... ... ." ." .-...J .-....J .., .., o 0 o 0 ~ fI) -En 8 ~ ~ '" 0 en ~ g 8 j(l '" en o o ~ ~~~ ~ !! 3"@i G r (Q 0 ~ !l. .g: glD I' m .....' l'l m Q :J. JJ m "0 m ~ g 0"0 !l' ~ llI. ~ II ~ 8 o 0 ... tl ." '" m -0 :5 :5 1:0 !.~ 52 ::I ill .. [~3 "::I Ii!' ~ (D '< 0 '" flo c ~ ::I - ." C ::I ... ,j" '" '" o c ~ o '" .. c: f ~. lit~ ... j(l '" 8 o o " .. " ill ill go ::I .. O's:;p .. <II '" :r:...g, c ... . ::? -. g" (II =' .."'.... "...:r <II iil .. on" ::t ~. ~ ~C1)S ~ Q. .... iil '" g, _' fJ) ... 3 .. (II .,- '0 N cS'7Io. =~CXl 3 .. ::t <II .. III '" N < ,..0" 0.,- ...... III .. 6' '" ;riil _n .. c. :C' c .. 3 g, g,.. ...'" ",g, w'1:> - 0 o. w... "''' ::tg, = :i' .,-T1 <II C .. '" " g, Cd ;:; ~ ~ :cr 5" <II III g,g, -g, o '" 3 ~ T1'" ~6' )> :r: c: ~ ~ ..... n >n ~O n~ :r:3: l>e "2 1"""..... m-l -<-< (f)..... ....(f) O(/) ~c:: :s:rn o )> 3: )> G1 m , ,filii" 16 11 A DISTRICT OFFICES Invoice # 9-02 -021-08 Pelican Bay Services Division Date 02/12/08 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Collier County Vendor Number: 116206 Purchase Order/Date: 4500079780/05/07/2007 Preparation for Men's Coffee Presentation with Video/Audio Initial Briefing prep & J, Simonds research 8.0 hours Outline and drawing prep 11.0 hours Preliminary, Revisions, and Review 26.5 hours Final layout & script 8.5 hours $1,200.00 1,650.00 3,975.00 Total 1.275.00 $8,100.00 "Thank you for your business and the opportunity to serve Pelican Bay Services Division. " Please remit payment to: District Offices, llC. Janice lamed. VP - Finance 2000 S Ocean Drive Ste 1109 Ft. lauderdale, Fl 33316 Sarasota, Florida (941) 379 6247 Ft. lauderdale, Florida (954) 522 8299 "". ,., 16 , I A DISTRICT OFFICES Invoice # 9-03-021-08 Pelican Bay Services Division Date 02/21/08 801 laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, Fl 341 08 Collier County Vendor Number: 116206 Purchase Order/Date: 4500079780/05/07/2007 Men's Coffee Presentation 2/19/08 Set-up and Meeting 3.0 hours Total $ 450.00 $ 450.00 "Thank you for your business and the opportunity to serve Pelican Bay Services Division. /I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please remit payment to: District Offices, llC. Janice lamed - VP - Finance 2000 S Ocean Drive Ste 1109 Ft. lauderdale, Fl 33316 Sarasota, Florida (941) 379 6247 Ft. lauderdale, Florida (954) 522 8299 "", . ..'" 16 J 1 A DISTRICT OFFICES Invoice # 9-04-021-08 Pel ican Bay Services Division Date 02/12/08 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Collier County Vendor Number: 116206 Purchase Order/Date: 4500079780/05/07/2007 Scanner set-up and input for Pelican Bay Development Pictorial Archive 2.5 hours 375.00 equipment use Oct 17 - Dec 31 1.650.00 Total $2,025.00 "Thank you for your business and the opportunity to serve Pelican Bay Services Division. II Please remit payment to: District Offices, LLC. Janice Lamed - VP - Finance 2000 S Ocean Drive Ste 1109 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Sarasota, Florida (941) 379 6247 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (954) 522 8299 "ifII" 16 , I A DISTRICT OFFICES Invoice # 9-05-021-08 Pelican Bay Services Division Date 02/25/08 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Collier County Vendor Number: 116206 Purchase Order/Date: 4500079780/05/07/2007 Clam Bay Estuary Improvement Group 3.0 hours $ 450.00 Total $ 450.00 "Thank you for your business and the opportunity to serve Pelican Bay Services Division. /I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please remit payment to: District Offices, llC. Janice lamed - VP - Finance 2000 S Ocean Drive Ste 1109 Ft. lauderdale, Fl 33316 Sarasota, Florida (941) 379 6247 Ft. lauderdale, Florida (954) 522 8299 " .'" 16 , 1 ~ DISTRICT OFFICES Invoice # 9-06-021-08 Pelican Bay Services Division Date 02/28/08 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Collier County Vendor Number: 116206 Purchase Order/Date: 4500079780/05/07/2007 Scanner input for Pelican Bay Development Pictorial Archive Equipment use Jan 1 - Feb 28 1.300.00 Total $1,300.00 "Thank you for your business and the opportunity to serve Pelican Bay Services Division. " Please remit payment to: District Offices, LLC. Janice Lamed - VP - Finance 2000 S Ocean Drive Ste 1109 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Sarasota, Florida (941) 379 6247 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (954) 522 8299 OJ iii >-c '6"'0. - 0 c "".- as .c m .!!....5'C ~OL&.o ~ s:: C~.! E tf C'IS ~~~! U'S; ~_ .- L g.. Cii 4) ~ .e a.. (/) : )0 , '1l i: c ~ 16 ,- ~' i. L.: D .c, " r, c;-j '-~ co r.c q ,0 0-1 ~? ~, !: :5 , I 1 A ;;:;, ~ ? ;3 ';i ::i:; ;r, ;.) 'ff 'n AGENDA Revised II -,\\ \" '. \ ,..., I \ ',' Ii lJ~" Fl3a .. :~-,_._.._--_.- Hala~ ''f,~n_,;!-L. Henn!.ng-P.l2':J~--- ,G -- 1 . '7 '.oyP .. ,..-. ----.-- ~(llettr ~-.-- _..._,.,___,w / 1 A '.~ ;'<- COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Not Available at this time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - FEBRUARY 5, 2008, LDC MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has directed that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) review and comment on a proposed settlement agreement with Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC. (owner of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) project) to settle alleged claims arising from a denial of an amendment to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. These claims are: (1) A petition for writ of certiorari, Case No. 05-962-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and (2) an alleged Bert Harris Private Property Rights claim. (Coordinator: David Weigel, County Attorney; Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney) FROM 2/25/08 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Misc. ColMI: Date 3, 2-5-8 _ ~emjjJL>-I-(A\'6 1 ~ 16 11 A A. Petition: VA-2007-AR-12477, Gregory W. and Beverly J. Schuelke, represented by Christopher J. Thornton, ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLP, are requesting 4 Variances for a project to be knovvn as the Schuelke Variance. The Variance petition seeks approval for encroachment of a pool retaining wall and wings, pool screen cage, and concrete stairs within a required 10-foot side yard setback. The subject property is located at 496 Flamingo Avenue, in the Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, lInit 3, Lot 1, Block II on 0.27 acres, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-II723, Amy Turner and/or Tammy Turner Kipp, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, request a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) for the Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD. to allow development of a maximum of 200 assisted Jiving, continuing care retirement communit)" nursing home, retirement community and/or independent living facility units for persons over the age of 55, to be developed at a 0.6 floor area ratio. The subject 7.8I acre property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862), approximately 1/4 mile east of Livingstoo Road (CR 881) in Section 31, Township 48 South, and Range 26 Ease Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Review and recommendation on a proposed ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, providing for a permit to authorize the operation of outdoor serving areas; specifying outdoor serving area permit application requirements; providing for suspension of such permit; providing for operating regulations; providing for contlict and severabilit)'; providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for repeal of three specified ordinances; and providing an effective date. (Coordinator: Chief Assistant County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow) II. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 3/6/08 cepe AgendalRB/sp 2 Fiala ~~. ;gij f- . 'I '/ " L-- "-- .Jlyl ._--,,_. .t-"-~;------- Colell'''"M . '."._- , ' t:! '>'\'\,\' 16i:;I.,:.....1' &J .L ,:'\ yr: r"~ 'iI.' " , ft.:" .:~ ' Memorandum To: Board of County Commissioners From: Joseph K. Schmitt, Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator Date: February 29, 2008 Subject: Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Enclosed is a copy of the full agenda package for the Collier County Planning Commission meeting scheduled for March 6, 2008. To my knowledge, there are no Land Use Petition controversial issues, Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. c: Jim Mudd, County Manager gladminlJoseph K. Schmittlmemo/sp Mise Con-eli: Date. ..3. 25.~ !~em #fulLA"j 15 Community Development & Environmental Services :,:?ir'J to AGENDA Rev ised II 16 /1 A COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MA TER1ALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRlOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Not Available at this time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - FEBRUARY 5, 2008, LDC MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has directed that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) review and comment on a proposed settlement agreement with Lodge Abbott Associates, L.LC. (owner of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) project) to settle alleged claims arising from a denial of an amendment to the Cocoliatchee Bay PUD. These claims are: (1) A petition for writ of certiorari, Case No. 05-962-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and (2) an alleged Bert Harris Private Property Rights claim. (Coordinator: David Weigel, County Attorney; Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney) FROM 2/25/08 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 1611 A A. Petition: VA-2007-AR-12477. Gregory W. and Beverly J. Schuelke, represented by Christopher J. Thornton, ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, Attorneys at Law. LLP, are requesting 4 Variances for a project to be known as the Schuelke Variance. The Variance petition seeks approval for encroachment of a pool retaining wall and wings, pool screen cage, and concrete stairs within a required 10-foot side yard setback. The subject property is located at 496 Flamingo Avenue, in the Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 3, Lot 1, Block U on 0.27 acres, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-II723, Amy Turner and/or Tammy Turner Kipp, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, O. Grady Minor and Associates. P.A., and Richard D. Y ovanovich. Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, request a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) for the Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD. to allow development of a maximum of 200 assisted living, continuing care retirement community, nursing home, retirement community and/or independent living facility units for persons oyer the age of 55, to be developed at a 0.6 floor area ratio. The subject 7.8" acre property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beaeh Road (CR 862), approximately 1/4 mile east of Livingston Road (CR 881) in Section 31, Township 48 South, and Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Review and recommendation on a proposed ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, providing for a permit to authorize the operation of outdoor serving areas; specifying outdoor serving area permit application requirements: providing for suspension of such permit; providing for operating regulations: providing for con1lict and severability; providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for repeal of three specified ordinances; and providing an effective date. (Coordinator: Chief Assistant County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow) 11. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 3/6/08 cepc AgendalRB/sp 2 ~ z w c ~ < " <1: ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ < z 3I\lHO 1118~30N'1^ ~ C~ ;:)5 Q.w I' ~ Z :0 o U w w ~ 4. ".., !!l 'I ,-- (Il.e.41l I' o ... N ~ . "1~1'"j" "NO"" . = . vo . . I' ~ z w ~ z ~ < I' -, - ~ ~ ---= wf---.:' ~ Ie.. ~ < f--- g~ w 3 - m~ ~ ~ ~ -= i!- H~ ~ I , , , , I, ~:I I" il , , " ill , , "I' - i ;' = ,~- ,I' '" !ll , , ~i ~: I' , , , , " . III ! / ,i l! , . ~ 2 . . S:",:: . " , . . - . ! ~ ::! . . . -- . . . . . , . . ~ ~ .0 I' ~ Z Z w 2 ~ !::!< Z '" 0 ~ 9 ~ . . . . . . . .. " \ ~ ~ ,I-- ,----=: - ~ ~ --.: ~~ . w -~- . ~ . -<- ~ ... -.-s& ~,,~ :!l t:l - -:-~- ~ :5 ---=- . w ~~ ~ ---=- . . n i " Ii, 16 11 ~ ~ . . . . . .'" = lllr-.~ :::;';! . . ~- . = . :::; ::! . " " ! 7'__-:-11::' Ill::!: Ill::!: ,!: ~ !! ~ .. '" i!: '.~'" ~ !! g; -'i ~ 0 ... ID gs ... .. z :::: Z ;j ::: Z w w w ~!!! ~ t;'!!! jE ~!!! ~ ~!!! ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ < i:~ -< ~~ < ~2 ~ g..--;;W;;-'!: -~N ~ :eN ,!: ...", ~ "I"i"i"]" ~ " +'~1" ~ "f 1" ~ "(."" -;-J:;!,: . " ~:r: ~~ ;;-- w ~~ ~~ .. . , . . (IOS) )rI.l~O ~C1 _r-' f-;:-"-- t~ T---~ ~- ~---;:- ~~- . Z . -~- ~<~ e~ . - "5--;;- -=--15' . III :r:r---:; -;:- f---= ~f---'- :; !! ll'8~30NV^ . .'--'--. .- I-'-- \--- .':.----=- ~~ -"-~ ~ ~ ~----=: ~- ~.--: ~ ~ ~ ~ :........ ~ ..:.......- ... w'" ~ Q ... :...- ~I-- -w~ :0: I..U CD ~ ::> '--- ~ f--;; .- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ L-I-~ ~~----=- .... ......... <;J Z ... ~ ~ --=- I-:- 8!---=- ~ W --.:: e=- i---'=- ~ --; I: ~ :, -----=- \----=- ]"lQSClLtON / z- ,~, -~ !i in ~_. lunlOoll:JlD1'aot ".~ ~- ,I '.- ~,! . " GULF OF MEXICO A , a. <( ~ C) z z o N ... ... ... '" '" ) < ... 0 0 '" , < > .. z 0 I-- I-- W "- a. <( ~ z 0 - I- <( () 0 ...J AGENDA ITEM 9-A 16 , I A Co~r County ~ ~-- STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: MARCH 6, 2008 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-2007-AR-12477, SCHUELKE VARIANCE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: OWNERS: Gregory W. and Beverly Schuelke Co-Trustees (undivided I/Z interest) 4636 Sonseeahray Drive Hubertus, WI 53033-9727 DJN Family Limited Partnership (Donald & Judith Nimmer) a Wisconsin Limited Partnership (undivided Yz interest) 4636 Sonseeahray Drive Hubertus, WI 53033-9727 AGENT: Christopher J. Thornton Cheffy Passidomo Wilson and Johnson 821 Fifth Avenue, South Suite 20 I Naples. FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting four after-the-fact variances for a raised pool deck, screen enclosure, concrete stairway(s), and retaining wall wing(s) that are single-family home accessory structures within the Residential Single-Family-3 (RSF-3) Zoning District. The requested variances are pursuant to Section 4.02.03.A., Table 4, Dimensional Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures on Waterfront Lots and Golf Courses, of the Land Development Code (LDC), which requires a 10-foot minimum side yard setback; and pursuant to Section 4.02.0I.D.7., Exemptions and Exclusions from Design Standards, which requires that stairways (if greater than 30 inches in height) may not project by more than 3 feet into a required front, side or rear yard of a single- family residence. ,1, , 1611 t GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 0.27-acre subject property is a waterfront lot located at 496 Flamingo Avenue, in the Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, in Block U, of Unit 3, on Lot I at the southwest comer of Flamingo Avenue and Vanderbilt Drive, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, ofeollier County, Florida (see location map) PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioners, who are not the original owners of the residence, purchased the home in 1997. The home was constructed by the former owner under building permit number 85-3453, which was issued on November 22, 1985. County records indicate that a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was granted for the home in April of 1986. The pool was built under permit number 86- 360, which was issued on February 11, 1986. However, a Certificate of Completion was not issued for the pool, screen cage enclosure, or concrete stairs. On June 5, 2006, Collier County Code Enforcement Department cited the current owners for the following reasons: · The observance of a retaining wall 4.11 feet in height above a sea wall; · A pool screen enclosure (screen cage), stem wall (retaining wall wings), and steps having been constructed, on RSF-3 zoned waterfront property, on a corner lot, without a certificate of completion; and · A retaining wall and related uses atop an existing sea wall measuring from the outside surface of the existing seawall to the base of the retaining wall resulting in a side yard setback encroachment without having prior variance approval leaving these accessory uses in a state of conflict with the LDC. Since the subject property is a comer lot, the provisions of the LDC require a front yard setback along each roadway, with the remaining yards established as side yards for setback purposes. Thus, the subject property does not have a rear yard. Section 4.02.03 of the LDC requires that the side yard setback be calculated the same as for principal structures. As this is a waterfront side yard setback, and the principal structure is setback 10 feet on the west-side of the property, the side yard setback (for the accessory structures) on the south-side of the property is therefore 10 feet. Also, walls and fences within waterfront rear yards are limited to 4 feet; however, comer lots have no rear yard for setback purposes, and a free-standing fence or wall in the side yarde s) of a waterfront corner lot may reach 6 feet in height within the setback area. Therefore, a variance for the 4.1 I-foot free-standing stem/wing wall in a side yard is not required. Thus, the applicant is requesting the following Variances: · A 4-foot variance from the required lO-foot side yard setback to 6 feet for the pool screen cage enclosure and pool deck (also referred to as the retaining wall), which supports the pool above the sea wall; and ,3, 16 J 1 A Back Yard Photo OOlIS:tT ,""" 5" Southwesterly Retaining Wall Wing , 4, 16 11 A Stairways · A 6.2-foot variance from the required 7-foot side yard setback to 0.8 feet for the concrete pair of stairs (i.e., which accounts for the allowance of a 3-foot projection for stairs into a residential single-family setback). As shown on the attached original survey, the property line does not coincide with the seawall. The property line is 2.7 feet inside of the outside face of the seawall. In 1986, the side yard requirement for the RSF-3 Zoning District was 7.5 feet. However, in 1996, the requirement for comer-waterfront lots was amended to require minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet. In 2004, the replacement pool screen cage and southeasterly concrete stairway leading to the pool were reconstructed under building permits 2004091797 and 2004122161 due to damaging hurricane winds. These structures do not comply with current LDC setback requirements of 10 feet, as measured from the property line. However these structures would comply if measured from the outside face of the seawall. Also, the pool deck/wall and southwesterly concrete stairway, constructed by the original owner, are only setback 6 feet and 4 feet, respectively, as measured from the property line. Thus, these structures are also not in compliance with current LDC setback requirements of to feet and 7 feet (taking into account the 3-foot projection for stairs). As stated by the applicant, "The setback problems appear to stem from the unusual circumstance that the property line falls approximately 2.7 feet inside of the sea wall, which was perhaps overlooked by the pool contractor." He also states "that the replacement cage and stairwell would meet current setback requirements if measured from the outside face of the seawall instead of the property line." ,5- w@@ =oL ~;:~~ 5i:~g~~ ~g c. ~~ FLAlrllNGO A VENUE - - - - r- - -Nn~~~f;r-- - - I . $~~~~~ ~~"i~;~ [l1:w...v", f.~st~.. [ISH ,"',. iff: ~H!t ! :: . ~~1 !. ~ '. > + ..~ ' ~~ E -io!lll. <, ..., i~~ g .:a,... c:: )0 1"0:" l":I ~:i5 ~~~ 15 a- SOl"'" !i!~ ~lt, :'EiR' :..~~~ i? S" ,.. S ~~ !B~gjd..s l'!i~ "a;tl .~'i~ S:E~ ~ "0 ~ i~5 B ..- u,..",_, I . :!! ...'"~ N /I 5'D" t g~rr o . 1 ~ . ii' ;;;~ ~ "[ ~~ ;><.:;' .",,,, ?i: ~;:j: m ~~i?t~ " ... -~ . ~& ~, ;! if . o > '" '" n o '" " '" c '" < '" "' Elf !. : :l ~f- ~ .. n ..~ ." ,"rt -'J " " , Op'" s .r~ .~ 1(:::' II I~I II ~:~ ~ ",;H:l..:J _'=1 Ii :~ e. :-"ll ::l.11 S ..r...... JO.STJft:JtIfto,:) W '"' 'if ,.- "- ',' '" " .. n N < liEU i~,l; ~~Ii~ "," tlllU !!m ";:j,~- ~;Ii~5 11!1! -.... ~ i;i~~ ~ti:!!~ ~,;! rs~ ;,i~ i"! ;;! '" ,,, ". j~! 1I111W.....,................1Io.."..O..O.j . '~~~~~;"!>I""'" Pi"" "':1' .i;~;!Si . Se" ~ liJeSe~1 Ii I! ;i~~1 I ! ~ 'j : t ~ ~~ , , ! . . " ! ~! ~, " ~~~~~;;~":~~~;~7~~E; !ii~!~ii ii~" ill1iii! Ii:!' '!"1 "' 1\'1 ~."l . ! I. '" "~:;;,,,..:;~ ~~ r; r; 16 11 A ~ir "'ft l I I I I I I w E < o ~~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~~j:~ t~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ " ~ ~~ e_ ;! :!i I ...~ _Ja._oo -, I ! ~ ; ~ N:f -, i;.. I " . '"~ !U!-"'" o. i~.;~ ).... , ~f Ii . ~~ .t~~ . !J '; .0 ~"- 1f ,,; i . , " !~~ ~ <b ! ~t ....,.:"" "'~ ~- ~"'dI:? ~~.,~ "- '" 'es::;;",~ ~ s;:U~'" ~~~! g-. ~~~ ~ "~1l: ~". -~~ " ifl ~ il.. ~ ii:;. .- -~ ~:;: ;; ~~;;; S i..;; ~ l~; ~ ~~i . ~~-~ ! , i16 , 1 A _. f.O' ... ~Y ~I ~. .8~.6' It) P-"'CifJertr J.N- 10.0)7,.1' 10 1I"'P<<ty/;". II. 7'/11.0' ro ~.."OI"/, !;n. '1<.2' I. ~G""', "'" . , , ,.. 2.5'dIolldi:d: ... " 1<.,' ra., '/1.9' ~o p~erly limo a.7',Ilr.6' ,. II"'''''''' ,., Jf r"O' ZU' 1.6'/6. r to: P'{Jperly Jnft ar 1IlI,,- _ .~~DrfI (lIafb.b'.'~ HDlrfll o(lP!IOrmR~ ...... Eostorly Sl,p, Sid,Proftle NOT TO SCALE DETAIL I' ; 20' SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: East: South: West: a Single Family Dwelling; zoned RSF-3 a Single Family Dwelling; zoned RSF-3 a Canal, then single family dwelling; zoned RSF-3 a Single Family Dwelling; zoned RSF-3 Aerial Map -7 - 16 11 A Staff has determined this to be correct. The LDC requires that setbacks be established from the most restrictive point. In this case, the property line inside of the sea wall is the most restrictive point, which is the reason the accessory uses ( accessory structures) are found to be in conflict with the LDC. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The site is designated Urban Residential on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP does not address individual variance requests, but deals with the larger issue of the actual use. As previously stated, this variance is being sought for accessory structures on a single-family home site located within a single-family subdivision. As residential uses are an authorized use in this land use designation, the single-family home is consistent with the FLUM. Furthermore, the swimming pool, pool deck, and screened cage enclosure are permitted as accessory uses to the single-family use. Therefore, the uses on the subject site are deemed to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element. ANALYSIS: Section 9.04.01 of the LDC gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 9.04.03 A. through H. (in bold font below), as general guidelines to assist in making their recommendation of approval or denial. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? There is not a land-related hardship. The lot is situated in a platted, developed subdivision; and absent this variance approval, the petitioners would still have reasonable use of their property. However, evidence suggests that had the pool Contractor properly interpreted the property survey measuring the distance of the pool from the property line rather than the outside face of the sea wall, this variance would not be necessary. Furthermore, nine letters of support from neighboring property owners were submitted in support of the variance. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? Yes, this condition is pre-existing. The applicants are not the original owners of the property, which contained the accessory uses upon their purchase of the home in 1997. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? If this variance is not approved, the swimming pool, pool deck, retaining wall wings, and stairwell would have to be demolished or moved behind the setback line to comply with the 10 foot side yard setback requirement. Failure to correct the violations would also ,8, 1611 , ,- I J result in fines, prosecution, and/or repairs. Therefore, a literal interpretation of the LDC does create practical difficulties for the applicants. d. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? Yes, the proposed variance would be the minimum allowing reasonable use of the existing pool, screen enclosure, and retaining wall. The proposed variance will not have a negative impact on standards of health, safety, and welfare. e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes, a Variance confers some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site by definition. While the approval of a variance doesn't set a precedent for other Variances, it should be noted that several variances have been granted in the immediate neighborhood for the following: · V -92-5, for a side yard setback variance; · V -96-21, for a rear yard setback variance; · V A-OI-AR-1810, for a rear yard back variance; · V A-04-AR-6449, for a rear yard setback variance; and · V A-07-AR-12005, for a rear yard setback variance f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Because the pool and steps have been in the same location since 1997 without any known deleterious effects, it is likely that approval of this variance would be neither injurious to the neighborhood nor detrimental to the public welfare. No letters of opposition have been received. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes, the subject property is an end-of-canal, corner, waterfront lot and the area for which the variance is being requested abuts a seawall. Thus those existing conditions which ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation are: (I) the lot abuts Vanderbilt Road on the east side, (2) the lot (and accessory structures above a sea wall) abut a canal on the south side, and (3) the lot abuts a single-family dwelling with a pool and similar accessory structures on the west side. This adjacent single-family lot was granted a variance (the Zilavy variance) by the Board in January 2008 for similar accessory structures; however, the lot had a rear and not a side yard. ,9, 16 , 1 A h. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC does not normally hear Variance petitions, and did not hear this one. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward petition VA-2007-AR-12477 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition: 1. The 4-foot variance for the pool deck (also referred to as the retaining wall) supporting the pool above the seawall; the 2.7-foot variance for the wire mesh pool screen cage surrounding the pool atop the pool deck; the 9.2-foot Variance for the southeasterly stairway; and the 5.8-foot variance for the southwesterly stairway; shall all be limited to the side yard encroachments as depicted in the Record Survey with a date revision of October 1, 2007. 2. If the residential dwelling structure is destroyed for any reason, to an extent equal to or greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the time of its destruction, all reconstruction of the structure and accessory structures must conform to the provisions of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of reconstruction. ,10, 16 , 1 A PREPARED BY: \;\\';j,k ~~~n )) ',Ios WILLIE BROWN, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: '.Q-5,~~e ~hF!()6 .... !\:.' / I." I, . i '-_- / Li .' f.v'JEFF DAm' . ,) CHIE 1\SSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY (};:g/?-Jl- 2/13!r. " RA YM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER Dj{n~ / DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~ Lfh. ~ c</O?~/o!J StrSAN MURRA Y-ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: ~.h--!o ~ PH K. SCHMITT, ADMIN STRATOR DATE 1 MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Tentatively scheduled for the April 22, 2008 Board of County Commissioners' Meeting. 1611 A RESOLlITION- 08- A RESOLlITlON OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NlIMBER VA,2007,AR, I 2477, FOR AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES FROM THE REQlIlRED SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR AN EXISTING POOL DECK RETAINING WALL, POOL SCREEN ENCLOSlIRE, AND TWO CONCRETE ST AIRWAYS, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 496 FLAMINGO AVENUE, NAPLES, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, Petitioners Gregory W. Schuelke and Beverly 1. Schuelke, as Trustees, and DIN Family Limited Partnership are seeking after-lhc-fact variances from the required side yard setbacks for an original pool deck retaining wall constructed in 1986, a replacement pool screen enclosure constructed in 2004, and two existing concrete stairways; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of an after- the-fact 4-foot variance from the required side yard setback of 10 feet to 6 feet for the original pool deck retaining wall, an after-the-fact 2.7-foot variance from the required side yard setback of to feet to 7.3 feet for the replacement pool screen enclosure, an after-the-fact 9.2-foot variance from the required side yard setback of to feet to 0.8 feet for the southeasterly replacement concrete stairway, and an after the fact 5.8-foot variance from the required to-foot side yard setback to 4.2 feet for the southwesterly concrete stairway, as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit A, in the RSF-3 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented. Page 1 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 1611 A OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The Petition V A-2004-AR-12477 filed by Christopher J. Thornton, Esq., of Cheffy, Passidomo Wilson and Johnson, LLP, representing Gregory W. Schuelke and Beverly 1. Schuelke, as Trustees, and DIN Family Limited Partnership, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot I, Block U, CONNORS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, UNIT NO.3, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 89, Public Records of Collier County, Florida be and the same hereby is approved for an after-the-fact 4-[00t variance from the required side yard setback of 10 feet to 6 feet for the original pool deck retaining wall, an after-lhe-fact 2.7- foot variance from the required side yard setback of 10 feet to 7.3 feet for the replacement pool screen enclosure, an after-lhe-fact 9.2-foot variance from the required side yard setback of 10 feet to 0.8 feet for the southeasterly replacement concrete stairway, and an after the fact 5.8-foot variance from the required to-foot side yard setback to 4.2 feet for the southwesterly concrete stairway, as shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit A, in the zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following condition: The 4-foot variance for the pool deck (also referred to as the retaining wall) supporting the pool above the seawall; the 2.7-foot variance for the wire mesh pool screen cage surrounding the pool atop the pool deck; the 9.2-foot variance for the southeasterly stairway; and the 5.8-foot variance for the southwesterly stairway; all shall be limited to the side yard encroachments as depicted it the record survey with a date revisions of October 1,2007. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V A- 2007-AR-12477 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this _ day of ,2008. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: , Deputy Clerk By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: i2-vz. Jef ey A. Klatzkow U Chie 1\ssistant County Attorney Page 2 of 2 1 , j~! . !~ i;,r~ ~ i~ :~ ~t . .' : " ~~~ ., , .!~ - .. ~~ " ~:: '--" ~! -. ~:; .l , -1' , j o\'.s ! , , , . lu g. ~i !i ~~J! "'"iOI . ; 1 our! ........~ a M L ," ."1 illl'i" I ~~~ "- 'l: ~~<J i ! ;ih ~.1 ~~~r;: _ 1;, "'" III ~ ::>"'ii ,,'" ~~~ ..... a::~~ :'~~ ~~'" ,. e 'g I ,'I ~iJ 8 c 0; < ll- I ~~" ", I ih I I I I ~~I~ < t-.?;,'l! ~~.... ~l'-~r ~..~ ;; < I I I I I I I L___ ;~~ lj~ ~~ .- a. ~~ o . " ~ ~ ~ " " ~~ il , , .' /' - I Ii! j, . , -, " . ~! GJ "-' ;";,,, ~3 h g~ . l. j, i"!i !l!.!. I, !gIU!!!!!.. ~ ~5~; i; ;!~~~,:. ~~; ~~ ~;~ ,,~ ... ~5 ~ u- 'U I "'1 i '"j , sO .11'1 ~a,"~" ~ .~J~5i~=~=..~., " " " ~ :~:~~~~~~;:~3~~~~..;; o : ~ . . ! u f' -.' ~~I i!l e~i * !.1 I" .-, ~';;a~ U~~I e~:1':~ li!;l u"':::c ~~ll~;: h~;i UI5i~ l;;~:E ;1"1-' ~i!l ~ ;,i!;~~ ~ :it..'! i rn r/f.F,;r~s'Ol': ",_I%J;' S II';;: 1!lI" -a ~., "," .1 ~~ ~I~ 11 ;:; " . II":S II"" 2~1 , H " , .-. nl ~J~ ~.... Ji~ I ~, ...,...., w , -------..:..UI.6 J. .Ol,';~.(i9 II ~ ,("oI\-lg-j~~ - - - ~ __ :IJJN3A If ofJNIJ'ind , I' ~! ~~ ~j ~~t~~ t;;:l:..~'" ~~,i!:; ~"'", . , j, "' .",6 J.Ol.!i>f/IoI ,. '" > '" " Ul " '" o u '" '" .:f ~i i;'!.~ll 13~ ~j" a": ..j!;~~ :H~~ h'. o " "!.iI..s :;rI~!l g ~~'11 ~. ... ~ ;;>...:!- ~ S5~ . a " -I' " ~~ k ~",g "' -"'...uc ~~;~2 "''''5:0::::' !~..~ ~;;;B:3 11 A -<C -r- ~ --.<: '" '1 I ! I AGENDA ITEM 9-B 16 11 A Co~r County , ~ - STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: MARCH 6, 2008 FROM: SUBJECT: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723; VANDERBILT TRUST 1989 COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) PROPERTY APPLICANT/AGENT: APPLICANT: Amy S. Turner and/or Tammy Turner Kipp 6625 Newhaven Circle Naples, FL 34109 AGENTS: D. Wayne Arnold AICP Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson 4001 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an amendment to the Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD to allow development of a maximum of 200 assisted living, continuing care retirement community, nursing home, retirement community and/or independent living facility units for persons over the age of 55. GEOGRAPIDC LOCATION: The subject 7.8010 acre property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862), approximately 1/4 mile east of Livingston Road (CR 881) in Section 31, Township 48 South, and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSEIDESCRlPTION OF PROJECT: The original Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning was approved on October 12, 1999, with the adoption of Ordinance Number 1999-70. That ordinance would have allowed development of a maximum of 200 Assisted Living Facility Units (ALF) or a combination of up to 180 ALF units and up to 50 Skilled Nursing Care beds, as well as a child day care center. Uses such as applicable accessory medical support services as well an ancillary retail/personal services were included in that initial approval. An extension to address the Land Development Code (LDC) sunsetting provisions was granted in Resolution No. 05-80 on January 25, 2005. That extension granted the developer until October 12,2006 to meet the LDC sunsetting provisions. No development has occurred on site to date. Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6, 2008 eepe Page 1 of 12 <( g "....-'Dl<I. . ~ ~ '.J"""L ...J"" r~ , , . ! ~ ~t! r'i " 'I , ,. l" ""'-...~""" "=~",....,~........, s<IOQJO$3lIdC lIL-3I....J.IlBIIII :i~_ ~~! z o w- >-\;' ;;;U o ~ j , , " OOOIIlu"n'" "'o~ "'''' ] " " ",H .J~- <( > i 8 ~ :> 2:j?1,) <0 ~ 5 i 1 ~~~ j- ~ I >-z L ~ Uo w - :::~ '\;' ". ~i ~ Ou ., g:g Nili i , I ! " 11 11 .: (ltIC) ~;:; ..,.,." "'''''... " I",. ., ~ii -- " ~H :s: .'- i , Mv:lI ;:i """ """"--- 16 11 ^ "llO)f1VMI, :DYlll/\ ". ," <z ." ~ . ,e ~ a.. <( ~ 0 C9 < ~ . z 0 < 0 - m ! i c z ::> . " D- o ~ , N ]1>':lSo.L!OH I ~ -~~ .-= ! '- "' .q I , , , ., Ii 0' -il'i r aj;~ "'/;;-0;>- 9" ,"' ~ . ~;' If - 'il . ~ ' I ~~::: . Iii -~- -~ ,- i~ ., ,- i~'" ! ~:l :::~>- I; !j i./.-aLY.I.lIlSJ.Nl ; III !' !il :i"f t.~ I Ill! ! 10 ie II '! '" ~F< g~ z ~"I~~~ g 1;'" ...0 .3 G ~ 0 Ii ~~ ~~~~ !ilil-' ~"- '" ~ -- I '" '" ... '" "" , ... o o '" N C ::> D- .. z o l- I- W D- ~ a.. <( ~ z o I- <( () o ....J . ~ ~ j ~ ~ 1 Q ~ ~ . ~ . ;, z . . , o , , 8 ~ u ow 00 ~~ ~5 ~w ~~ z. .0 "" 3:~ . ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~~ ~~ ~8 ,Z ~~ ra~ "~ . " , o o Z 5 " L 2~ '-- ,--,-:.;.~- .. .. ,--"- ,--,-- ,--,-- I__'~'~~ w ~~rr 5j~ uOw .zu CI::!;:Z <-< :i~~ .-. 51 !!:: 4.' 8' . "' " < ~ ~ ~ " w aU] N~ ~ -I- I I , . I ~ I I ~ I - ~ I I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I,r-, .. ww 5< <~ ~. "'!~ .~ . ~ ~ ...: ~ ~ " ~ < ~ ~ @ . w ~ i ~ , . . . o . < o . ~;.~ wwu ~~~ film"': <w ~g: -~ - ---. !i'''' om 0:" "w ~~ 0>" ~~ 0>0 0:< wo 00: :1b >~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~i G~ ~~ g m~ M;i !2C!l cae; OZ ::oil:: :(1": fIlD.. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~:s ~>- i~ z!f xO :::.~ ~& ~; &~ flJ~ ~~ u:;) !!:I.::E ~C1 :cJ:: u5 cnUl !!:1i= ~j!: s~ ~~ 0.15 o~ !!:10 <1= ~~ ~~ o c Z 0 ..:~ N~ m o Z i I; I I! i !3 ~ " z '" ~ o:! '" 0: ~ ~ ... u'" ~ ffi~ ~ ~;i ... Wje '" a. ~ ~ ~ u " I J o. ", -. ~~ z~ >> <:1 I .. , .; ! 1'J~1' . ~~Il i O. ~i;! ! I Qj. ~t !! C5~11 !l ~,. 'E >-~i. , ~jii ! o~ ~ ., I CYe , " w zw 23 i' ! . Ii II i . @l~i ~i!I~~~ ;2 .~" ! ~hUi '"'i ~ 1611 , . In addition to the general changes noted in the "Requested Action" above, this amendment also proposes some additional changes, including a change to the property development regulations to allow taller buildings, from the originally approved three stories to allow four stories over parking in buildings whose actual height will not exceed 62 feet (zoned height is proposed to be a maximum of 50 feet). Reductions in setbacks are also proposed from the approved (J 999 Ordinance) front setback of 50 feet for any structure over two stories in height; an east side setback of 40 feet instead of 100 feet; and a setback along the western boundary of 15 feet instead of 25 feet. The northern setback is not proposed to change; those setbacks will remain at 25 feet for principal structures and 15 feet for accessory structures. The petitioner seeks approval of three deviations to obtain relief from the LDC 0.45 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement to allow a 0.6 FAR, a reduction in the number of parking spaces for the clubhouse, and to allow an alternative buffer design for the clubhouse area. The attached Master Plan for the proposed amendment depicts generalized areas of development, water management areas, and general traffic circulation. Notes on the Master Plan reinforce the petitioner's intention to comply with code for open space, road construction, landscaping, and project design. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Golf course within the Marsala at Tiburon subdivision, with a zoning designation of PUD (within the Pelican Marsh PUD) East: Condominium units with Fieldstone Village, with a zoning designation of PUD (within the Wilshire Lakes PUD) South: Vanderbilt Beach Road, then Village Walk Circle and a water retention pond within the Village Walk, with a PUD zoning designation (within the Vineyards PUD) West: a 4io acre tract of agriculturally zoned land that is developed as the Bobbin Hollow Equestrian Center Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6, 2008 CCPC Page 2 of 12 16 11 A 30tS ~ :i Q ~ o z i3 ~ ",1 wiLSHIRE LAKES , I , ! PEUC~.N MARSH (DRt) PElIC.AN MARSH (DRI) VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD OUNTAIN ARK vtl,IEY ARDS BRIGHTON (DRI) GAI~DEN5 BUCKlEY MXED USE BR~.DFORD -, VANDERBILT SQUARE ~~fT ^,b VINEYARDS (DRI} An excerpt from the PUD Map GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban - Mixed Use District, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. This Subdistrict consists of two parcels comprising approximately 17 acres that are located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and east of Livingston Road, as shown on the Subdistrict Map. The subject site is Parcel 2. This Subdistrict allows commercial uses, community facilities including assisted living facilities (ALF), and other offices, businesses and personal services. Specific requirements of the Subdistrict (for both parcels) require "Rezoning of the parcels comprising this Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD, Planned Unit Development. At the time of rezoning, the applicant must include architectural and landscape standards for each parcel." The petition is compliant with requirements. The PUD document includes the following commitment regarding architectural compliance: The Vanderbilt Trust 1989 CFPUD shall have an integrated and common building architectural style. Where multiple buildings are constructed within the CFPUD, all buildings shall be constructed using like exterior building materials and color palate. Staff believes that statement meets the intent of the GMP statement. The petition is a PUD and Exhibit G of the PUD document provides the landscape buffering standards. The Parcel 2 designated tract has specific limitations for commercial (retail and office) uses. Note when the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held the petitioner stated that he was withdrawing the request to allow commercial uses at this site therefore the commercial use limitations are not applicable to the subject petition. The GMP Subdistrict text addresses the specific uses for Parcel 2 as follows: Permitted uses such as assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for persons over the age of 55, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6,2008 eepe Page 3 of 12 16 1 I A homes, shall be restricted to a maximum of 200 units and a maximum "oor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6. The developer of Parcel 2 shall provide a landscape buffer along the eastern properly line, abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD, at a minimum width of thirty (30) feet. At the time of rezoning, the developer shall incorporate a detailed landscape plan for that portion of the property fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road as well as that portion along the eastern properly line, abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD. The petitioner is seeking to allow a maximum of the 200 units of the uses allowed, and is seeking a deviation to allow the 0.6 FAR to be consistent with the GMP. (The LDC still retains the 0.45 FAR that would be applicable in most other areas of the county.) The 30-foot wide landscape buffer location is depicted on the Master Plan, and as noted above, PUD Exhibit G provides the details of the 30-foot wide landscape buffer. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. This determination is included in the Zoning Analysis later in this report. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, adherence to Policies 7.1 and 7.3 is required. Policy 7.1 encourages connection to collector and arterial roads. This project is consistent with these policies because the project proposed access to Vanderbilt Beach Road which is classified as an arterial road. Policy 7.3 encourages new and existing developments to provide interconnection to other development. The project is bordered by a golf course to the north, which precludes any interconnection. To the east are structures within an existing residential development. Based upon aerial imagery (see previous page), an interconnection does not appear feasible because any interconnection would interfere with either existing buildings or existing parking areas within the Wilshire Lakes PUD. Thus no roadway interconnections would be required to the north or east. To the west is an agriculturally zoned and use tract that could, in the future seek rezoning and approval of more urban uses. An interconnection to this site is appropriate in order to preserve the capacity of Vanderbilt Beach Road. The Vanderbilt Trust PUD has agreed to provide for the possible interconnection to the west; that potential access has been provided on the Master Plan. A complete analysis of Comprehensive Planning issues can be found as Exhibit C to the staff report, a September 13, 2007 memo from the Comprehensive Planning staff. Transportation Element: Transportation Division Planning staff has reviewed the PUD Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) included in the application back-up material and the PUD documents to ensure the PUD documents contain the appropriate language to address this project's potential traffic impacts, and to offer a recommendation regarding GMP Transportation Element Policies. Those policies require the revicw of all rezone requests with consideration of their impact on the overall transportation system, and specifically notes that the County should not approve any request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five-year planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. The project review was based on the current TIS guidelines and with respect to GMP Transportation Element Policy 5.1. The project traffic was distributed on the adjacent roadway network and analyzed through project build out with consideration given to the five-year planning period Vanderbi~Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6, 2008 eepe Page 4 of 12 16 11 A The Vanderbilt Trust PUD can be considered consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. The adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project throughout the five-year planning period. Vanderbilt Beach Road (currently under construction) has a projected service volume of 3,540 vehicles, with a remaining capacity of approximately 1,753 trips between Livingston Road and Logan Boulevard; and is currently operating at LOS "B" as stated in the 2007 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Improvements to Vanderbilt Beach Road are anticipated to be completed in December 2008. The proposed amendment produces 27 PM Peak-hour trips/peak-direction trips, which represent a 0.9 percent impact. The adjacent roadway network is shown to have capacity throughout the five-year planning window to accommodate this project. The developer has added a commitment in the Transportation Section of Exhibit F stating he will make a payment in lieu of construction of the sidewa1klbike lane provided along the project's Vanderbilt Beach Road frontage. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the preserve selection for compliance with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP and recommends that this petition be found consistent with the pertinent objectives, goals and policies of the CCME, including, but not limited to, the need to reduce the interface between the preserve area and the development area. The interface policy (CCME Policy 6.1.1(2)) was not in effect when the project was originally zoned to PUD in 1999 and the original Master Plan did not show any specific preserve area. Staff therefore could not compare the PUD Master Plan for this amendment with that original Master Plan. However, staff reviewed the Master Plan that was submitted in May 2007 with the original amendment application for compliance with the interface reduction requirement. The petitioner has reduced the interface from the May 2007 Master Plan to what is now proposed. Staff is satisfied that the current PUD documents, including the Master Plan, are consistent with the GMP CCME in the absence of specific interface criteria in the LDC. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to CPUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A fmding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the CCME as well. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the overall GMP, and thus based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses can be deemed consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13 and Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6, 2008 eepe Page 5 of 12 16 11 A 10.02.13.B.5 of the LDC and required staff evaluation and comment. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of staff. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See Exhibits A and B). Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petitIOn and the PUD document to address any environmental concerns. This petition was not required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission required because the site is below the LDC 10-acre size threshold requirement for a tract located landward of the coastal management boundary, The site is not located within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay which would also have required the submittal of an EIS, TranslJortation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues. Transportation Division staff has not recommended any stipulations be included in an approval recommendation. The applicant has incorporated Transportation Division staffs revisions in the PUD document, and Transportation Division staff recommends approval subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the PUD document. PUD Exhibit F, Developer Commitments, contains several commitments within the Transportation portion that may appear redundant based upon Board action on February 5, 2008 adopting LDC amendment changes. The requirements contained in items I, 2. 3, 4,5, and 6 have been incorporated into the general requirements of the LDC as part of the LDC amendment affecting LDC Section 6.06.0. Although the LDC amendments have been adopted by the Board, the actual effective date for the amendments will not occur until after this staff report is prepared. Staff therefore has included the commitments that are customarily included in all PUD documents to anticipate the unlikely event that there could be an appeal to the amendments. It may be appropriate therefore to remove these commitments from Exhibit F prior to forwarding the document to the BCC for consideration if the amendment becomes effective prior to the BCC hearing date. Utilitv Review: Per the 2005 Water and Sewer Master Plan update, this project is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District boundary. Any portions of this project to be developed shall be required to comply with regulations in effect at the time development order approvals are sought sueh as the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. According to county GIS records, there is an existing 30-inch water transmission main and a 16 inch force main along Vanderbilt Beach Road. Emerf!encv Manaf!ement: The Emergency Management Department has no issues with this project. This project is located in a CAT 3 hurricane surge zone, which requires evacuation during some hurricane events. There is currently no impact mitigation required for this, however, it should be noted that approval of this PUD amendment could increase evacuation and sheltering requirements for the county. Parks and Recreation: The Public Serviees Division did not offer any comments regarding this petition. Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007,AR,11723 March 6, 2008 cepe Page 6 of 12 16/1 !i N Housinf! and Human Services: 1bis project does not propose any affordable housing component and was not review by Housing and Human Services. Zoning Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. As noted previously, an increase in building height is proposed and some reductions in perimeter setbacks are proposed as part of this amendment for the Vanderbilt Trust PUD. Staff's compatibility analysis of the requested uses and proposed development standards includes a review of the subject proposal and its relationship to surrounding or nearby properties. Staff considers the uses proposed and their intensities and/or densities; the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass; building location and orientation; the amount and type of open space and its location; and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed use. As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, The Tiburon golf course development abuts this project's northern boundary. Marsala at Tiburon is the nearest residential development within that project, and it is separated from the proposed project by golf course holes and water management areas. Additionally no lots appear to be developed at this time within that subdivision; therefore no dwelling units should be impacted. To the west is the Bobbin Hollow Equestrian Center, a developed, agriculturally zoned four-acre tract. There are no compatibility issues between this project and that use as the equestrian center, with its potential for noise and odors, could be viewed as more intense that the use proposed in this project. To the east is the Fieldstone Village Condominiums which are part of the Wilshire Lakes PUD which was approved at an overall density of 2.24 units per acre. Wilshire Lakes appears to be the only neighboring property whose residents could be negatively impacted by the proposed Vanderbilt Trust PUD changes. Staff evaluated this issue in more detail. Wilshire Lakes PUD contains both single family and multi-family development areas. The more densely developed multi-family area is adjacent to the subject tract, not the single-family areas. The Vanderbilt Trust PUD Master Plan shows a preserve area separating the project from the nearest residential structure in Fieldstone Village. It appears from aerial photographs that Fieldstone buildings are approximately 35 feet from the property line shared with the Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD. The Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD Master Plan shows the nearest building along the eastern property line will be set back approximately 80 feet. The combined setback distances mean structures within the two projects will be separated by approximately 115 feet. Furthermore, the buildings in this PUD are oriented such that this project's buildings present the least mass to the Fieldstone units. Structure height within Wilshire Lakes is limited to 35 feet with an unspecified number of stories allowed. The Vanderbilt Trust PUD was approved allowing three habitable floors (which would have allowed parking underneath those stories) with the allowable footage, with definitive zoned or actual height unspecified. 1bis subject PUD developer wishes to increase the allowable height from three stories to allow 4 stories specifYing that the 4 stories are to be over parking, but limiting the zoned height to 50 feet and the actual height to 62 feet. Staff has evaluated those proposed changes relative to the existing uses and believes the proposed changes, and thus the petition, can be deemed compatible with the neighborhood uses because the proposed building orientation, building locations and the location of the preserve area will offset any VanderbillTrusl1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6,2008 CCPC Page 7 of 12 16 11 i~ negative impacts the proposed changes may have had on the nearby multi-family use. The petition therefore is consistent with GMP Policy 5.4. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking four deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E with the petitioner's rationale provided to support each deviation. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.l, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.45 for group housing uses, to allow a maximum FAR of 0.60 for the Vanderbilt Trust CFPUD. Petitioner's Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner has sought this deviation to make the zoning consistent with the FAR standard that was adopted for assisted living, independent living units and continuing care retirement communities located within the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. Recommendation: This deviation, as stated above, brings the zoning regulations into compliance with the GMP sub-district language. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL of this deviation. finding that. in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health. safety and welfare of the community." and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.3, which establishes parking standards for group housing uses including independent living units, assisted living units, and nursing care units, to allow a new parking standard for a retirement community use as one (1) parking space per dwelling unit. Petitioner's Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states that this deviation is being requested because the LDC does not include a definition for an independent living unit in the LDC, although that use appears to be the most similar use to what is proposed. Due to stated concerns about possible misinterpretations regarding the use and the parking requirement in the future, that petitioner has added the term, "retirement community" to this PUD to describe the proposed "product," citing the Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance as a source document for the definition. The petitioner asserts that independent living units and the proposed retirement community uses are similar and thus seeks to have the LDC adopted standard parking space requirement of one space per unit be applicable to the retirement community use. As explained this deviation request is not necessarily project specific. The petitioner wishes to correct a perceived LDC deficiency, rather than provide a measurable variation from some development standards. The rationale addresses a definition and seeks to set a new standard rather than requesting to allow fewer parking spaces than what a particular LDC provision requires. Normally staff would not support a deviation that seems to be less than project specific because good planning practices dictate that variances, i.e., deviations should not be granted when a requirement is more all-encompassing and has more wide-spread ramification rather than applicability to this one petition or this one unique site or site plan. In this instance however, it is likely that staff would utilize the LDC provision that directs staff to look at the most similar use's parking requirement if a specific use is not listed. It appears that this is what the petitioner is asking the BCC to do, only he is setting it forth in a more formal method to Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6, 2008 eepe Page 8 of 12 ,'. ',J f. provide assurances to the developer that this interpretation will be consistently utilized both at the zoning stage and later, when development order approval are sought. 1611 Recommendation: A deviation will allow the petitioner to finalize the site plan without worrying that a change to the LDC or a different interpretation would increase the parking space requirement. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL of this deviation. finding that. in compliance with LDC Section 1O.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health. safety and welfare of the community." and LDC Section 1O.02.13.B.5.h. the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least eauivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, which states that parking spaces for multi- family clubhouse structures must be provided at a ratio of 1 parking space per 200 square feet and swimming pools require parking spaces at 1 per 75 square feet for the first 1,000 square feet and each additional 125 square feet, in order to provide parking for the clubhouse facility and pool at a ratio of 1 parking space per 800 square feet, or 25 percent of the standard clubhouse parking standard. Petitioner's Rationale and Staff Analysis: The applicant is seeking this deviation to more clearly define the parking standards that will be applicable to this project. Staff, as part of the SDP review that is occurring concurrently with this PUD amendment, has advised the petitioner that the LDC multi-family clubhouse parking space requirement is an applicable standard for the proposed clubhouse. The required parking spaces for that clubhouse must be provided in addition to the provision of the required parking spaces for the independent living units. The PUD Master Plan does not include the detail upon which actual clubhouse and swimming pool parking calculations would be based, but the petitioner has provided a level of project intensity upon which to forecast the parking space requirements. Square parking USE Parking Space calculation criterion spaces Footage reauired Clubhouse 10,190 1 space per 200 square feet 51 Swimming 1 spacej75 square feet for the first 1,000 1,100 square feet, plus 1 space per 125 square 14 Pool feet above 1,000 square feet. TOTAL 65 As shown, this project would need to provide a maximum of 65 spaces if the project is required to provide parking for the clubhouse, the swimming pool and the independent living units. The petitioner contends that the multi-family clubhouse standard is not applicable to this project believing that the parking standard for independent units in Section 5.05.04 of the LDC would be the sole criterion. However, in an effort to resolve this difference of opinion and provide adequate parking to support the project, the applicant has agreed to provide parking spaces for guests and residents of the project in the amount of 25 percent of the required clubhouse parking for a total of 13 spaces (25 percent of 51 spaces). (No additional parking is proposed for the swimming pool.) The applicant contends that providing parking spaces at 25 percent of the normal standard for a clubhouse will be adequate and is, in fact, supported by the administrative reduction allowance to 25 VanderbillTrust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6, 2008 CCPC Page 9 of 12 16 11 A percent in Section 4.05.04 for multi-family recreational facilities. That section of the LDC allows reduced parking for projects within which all units are located within 300 feet of the recreational amenity (clubhouse). That is the case in this project. Additionally the petitioner notes that residents are provided "good pedestrian access from each building exit to the central amenity." The Master Plan shows a sidewalk network that connects the buildings with the clubhouse, supporting that contention. Recommendation: Staff believes the parking proposed (if this deviation is approved) will be adequate to support the assisted living facility use of the site. That use is more restrictive by definition than the clubhouse. The schedule of uses limits this project to assisted living, independent living and continuing care facilities. The independent living facilities is further limited to persons over the age of 55; no other multi-family units are proposed that would allow development of a "conventional" multi-family project for which the clubhouse/pool parking space regulations were designed to accommodate. It may be appropriate to amend the LDC to address this situation once BCC direction is provided regarding this deviation. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that. in compliance with LDC Section 1O.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health. safety and welfare of the community." and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, which requires that a 15-foot wide, Type B buffer must be provided between a clubhouse and any multi-family dwelling unit, to allow the developer to install landscape buffers between the multi-family (senior housing) buildings and the clubhouse in compliance with the alternative landscape plan, provided as Exhibit H. Petitioner's Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states that approval of this deviation is warranted for several reasons. He states that since the senior housing structures will be constructed with dwelling units over parking, the first habitable floor will be above the six-foot height of a Type B landscape buffer, thus residents would reap little benefit from the buffer anyway. Secondly, Environmental Staff's request to expand the native preservation area in the northeast area of the site reduces the area available to provide a centrally located amenity. The alternative landscape plan provided in Exhibit H includes the required five-foot tall shrubs, and provides taller canopy trees and sabal palms with staggered heights between 14 feet and 20 feet tall. These buffers will be placed in available planting areas to provide filtered screening of clubhouse and amenity areas from the senior housing buildings rather than a strict adherence to the buffering locational standard. The alternative landscaping plan exceeds the LDC minimum buffer requirements because it increases plant height, add an additional diversity of species, and increases the amount of plant material overall, to offset the reduction in the proposed buffering width and to offset the relocation of the buffer. The proposed buffer has an average width of approximately 10 feet rather than the required 15- foot width. The proposed landscaping plan contains approximately three times the code minimum amount of planting material and displays a more varied planting list thus the buffer will soften the effects of the amenity area upon the adjacent use that it is to buffer. Staff believes approval of this deviation is appropriate because the alternative planting height will provide sufficient landscaping and provide more efficient vertical screening. The deviation therefore, meets the intent of the buffer requirement. Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007,AR-11723 March 6, 2008 eepe Page 10 of 12 ReCOmm~ndation: Staff believes the buffer proposed in this deviation will be adeq~te~ z!nil andA Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL of this deviation. finding that.. in compliance with LDC Section 1O.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element mav be waived without a detrimental effect on the health. safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least eauivalent to literal application of such regulations. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant/agent duly noticed and held the required NIM on October 10, 2007, at 5:30 PM in the Vineyards Elementary School cafeteria. Fifteen persons attended, some of whom identified themselves as property owners at Village Walk or Fieldstone Village. The applicant's team and county staff were also present. Mr. Wayne Arnold, agent for the applicant stated, "We have been advised tonight by Tim Haskins to withdraw commercial uses". Mr. Haskins stated that he was associated with the United Group and the Senior Umbrella Network, which is an independent living and retirement organization that specializes in adult active communities and student housing. Mr. Haskins said this project may make arrangements with local entities to provide adult learning opportunities and services and benefits, such as grocery and/or pharmacy drop off and pick up services. Mr. Haskins stated that the company he represents manages its properties. He said the project is not a licensed care facility. He described the project as rental homes on an annual lease, age restricted; 55+ is average age. He clarifies that average, typical units are 1,600-2,100 square feet in size and the target customer has an income over $75,000 and is over 65 years of age. Mr. Arnold stated there will be a 30-foot wide landscape buffer next to Fieldstone and buffer improvement/preservation adjacent to Vanderbilt Beach Road will be provided. He stated that the proposed height of the buildings is 3-story over parking, at a maximum of 62 feet. There was no opposition stated to the proposed amendment and development. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval of the rezoning request from the Planned Unit Development Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District subject to the stipulations that have been incorporated into the CFPUD document. PREPARED BY: ;)-J-Or;' DATE KA D SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6, 2008 CCPC Page 11 of12 16 11 A REVIEWED BY: ->> ~latJ~ 'on. /lf1uUwL-/Jft,u~ MARl EM. STUDENT-STIRLING ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY Z};1/08 , DATE , ~oa 2il&/ oK I 'DATE RA YM V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~'fh.~ SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW qJ ~S- Aoo/Y DAtE APPROVED BY: 02~7k( PH K. SC MITT ADM ISTRA TOR I ( DATE MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for thc April 8, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings B. PUD Findings C. Memo from Comprehensive Planning, dated September 13, 2007 Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 March 6, 2008 CCPC Page 12 of 12 Exhibit A REZONE FINDINGS PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 VANDERBILT TRUST 1989 16 11 A Chapter 10.03.05.0 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Findings: The OMP and FLUM discussion of the staff report (beginning on page 3 of that document) provides a detailed analysis of this project's consistent with the FLUM Map and the elements of the OMP. The subject property is designated Urban - Mixed Use District, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, as identified on the FLUM of the OMP. This Subdistrict allows commercial uses, community facilities including assisted living facilities (ALF), and other offices, businesses and personal services. The staff report provides the support to justify a recommendation that this petition be deemed consistent with the OMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Findings: The staff report analyzes the existing land use pattern; therefore, staff recommends that this petition be found consistent with OMP Policy 5.4 of the FLUE which requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. See staff report, page 7 for the Zoning Review discussion that supports this recommendation. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Findings: The subject tract's existing zoning is already PUD, and would allow uses similar to what is currently being proposed. The original rezoning in 1999 was supported by a finding that an isolated zoning district was not being created. The neighboring zoning districts have not changed since that time, thus an isolated district will not be created by this rezoning from PUD to CFPUD. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Findings: The proposed PUD zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries and result in a rectangular shaped tract. The location map on page 2 of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parceL A determination that the PUD boundaries were logically drawn was made to support the 1999 rezoning, and the boundaries are not changing as part of this proposed action, thus the boundaries remain logically drawn. February 4, 2008 Page 1014 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of amendment necessary. th~ ~pLJ A Findings: The proposed change is warranted based upon the relatively recently created Subdistrict designation for the subject property. The proposed rezoning brings the subject property into compliance with that designation because it establishes the buffering requirements associated with the zoning of the tract and establishes the uses contemplated in that Subdistrict. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Findings: The County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP support the approval of this development at this location. Also, the PUO document provides assurances that the site improvements will include adequate landscaping, setbacks and buffering for the development. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic cougestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Findings: Based upon the review from Collier County Transportation Planning staff, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project throughout the five-year planning period. Vanderbilt Beach Road (currently under construction) has a projected service volume of 3,540 vehicles, with a remaining capacity of approximately 1,753 trips between Livingston Road and Logan Boulevard; and is currently operating at Level of Service (LOS) "B" as stated in the 2007 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Improvements to Vanderbilt Beach Road are anticipated to be completed in December, 200S. The proposed amendment produces 27 PM Peak-hour trips/peak- direction trips, which represent a 0.9 percent impact. The adjacent roadway network is shown to have capacity throughout the fivc-year planning window to accommodate this proj ect. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; Findings: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the Section 4.03.01 of the LOC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. The proposed water management and drainage is designed to prevent drainage problems on site and is compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the LOC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 February 4, 2008 Page 2 of 4 16 11 A Findings: As depicted on the CFPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C in the PUD document) the buffering proposed and the setback distances from, and separation distances between buildings, should ensure adequate light and air are allowed to permeate adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property, Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Findings: Properties to the north and east are already developed; to the south is a major arterial roadway. The parcel to the west has an Agricultural zoning designation but is located with the Urban - Mixed Use District-Residential Subdistrict on the FLUE and could therefore seek a rezoning to allow residential uses at an increased density. Therefore, the proposed change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties, 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; Findings: The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; Findings: As explained in the staff report, the subject property's existing PUD zoning has sunsetted, which precludes the county from accepting any applications for development approvals until the PUD zoning is either extended or the PUD is amended. The petitioner opted to amend the zoning with the petition rather than seek a second extension. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; Findings: The proposed development complies with the GMP, a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban designated areas of Collier County. EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 February 4, 2008 Page 3 014 16111 A 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Findings: There are many sites which are zoned to accommodate the proposed development but this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The determinants of the zoning are with consistency with all the elements of the GMP. The proposed CFPUD document was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed CFPUD is consistent with the FLUM because it is in the Urban - Mixed Use District, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict and meets all the criteria for that Subdistrict. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed, zoning classification. Findings: Any development would require some site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. Findings: The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities for and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process and those staff persons have concluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted because the proposed development is consistent with all Elements of the GMP. EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 February 4, 2008 Page 4 of 4 16 II A EXHIBIT B PUD FINDING PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 VANDERBILT TRUST 1989 Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Findings: As discussed in Exhibit A to the staff report, Rezoning Findings, items 2, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 17, the type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of the LOe. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings: Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. The PUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Findings: County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis (see staff report) of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP offering a recommendation that this petition be found consistent with the overall GMP. Staff has recommended that the subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP as provided for in the adopting ordinance. Please see the staff report for a more detailed discussion. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Findings; The proposed development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements are designed to make the proposed commercial uses compatible with the adjacent industrial uses. The staff analyses contained in the staff report support a finding that this petition is compatible, both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses. Additionally, the Development Commitments contained in February 4, 2008 Page 1 of 2 16/1 A Exhibit F of the CFPUD document provide additional guidelines the developer will have to fulfill. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Findings: The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Findings: Timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a significant problem as part of the PUD rezoning process, but the project's development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Findings: Currently, the utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed CFPUD as well as the surrounding development at this time, i.e. OMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the OMP consistency review indicates (see the statf report). Specific concurrency requirements will need to be met when development orders are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Findings: The petitioner is seeking four deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section IO.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section IO.02.13.B.S.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. February 4, 2008 EXHIBIT B Rezone Findings PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 Page 2 of 2 c.o~-y c.ount:.y - ,- 16/1 A Consistency Review Memorandum To: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner, Zoning and Land Development Review From: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Date: September 13, 2007 Subject: Growth Management Plan, FLUE Consistency Rniew - Stage 2 PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ- A-2007-AR-II723 PETITION NAME: The Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD REQUEST: To rezone the subject property from PUD (planned Unit Development) to MPUD (Mixed Use Planned Unit Development), for developing up to 204,900 square feet of assisted living facilities and up to 80,000 square feet of commercial land uses within the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. The petitioner describes property uses found in C-l through C-3 zoning districts that will range from medical, professional and commercial offices, to personal services and convenience businesses. No retail services are proposed. Assisted living facilities are restricted to a rnaximum of 200 units with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6 - approximately 51,000 square feet each on four floors - and commercial uses are limited to a maximum of 80,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. No single commercial occupant may occupy more than 20,000 square feet, The existing PUD, comprising :t7,84 acres was approved on October 12, 1999 for only the assisted living facilities and was granted an extension in 2005. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately '/4 mile east of Livingston Road in Section 31 , Township 48S, Range 26E. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: PUDZ- A-2007-AR-11723 application materials indicate that this petition also amends The Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD Document, PUD Master Plan, or in some manner to reflect changed development plans - but procedurally, this is not the case. In practice, the rezone from one PUD to another PUD affectively discontinues standing PUD documents and introduces new materials. Amending a PUD is another matter. The subject property is designated Urban - Mixed Use District, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This Subdistrict allows commercial uses, community facilities including assisted living facilities (ALF), and other offices, businesses and personal services. Exhibit C . /' Recent EAR-based GMP amendments moved this Subdistrict from the Urban - commercialr::6riJ 1 1 A to the Urban - Mixed Use District in the FLUE, There have been no substantive amendments to th! Growth Management Plan that would affect this Subdistrict or the proposed land uses. FLUE Section LA II provides the necessary direction to consider during review of this PUD to MPUD rezoning petition, as follows: Note that staff commentary is inserted [set off with brackets in this bolded type-face] in these FLUE excerpts bolded for emphasis in places. A. Urban - Mixed Use District This District, which represents approximately 116,000 acres, is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. 11. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide primarily for neighborhood commercial development at a scale not typically found in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. The intent is to provide commercial uses to serve the emerging residential development in close proximity to this Subdistrict, and to provide employment opportunities for residents in the surrounding area. Allowable uses shall be a variety of commercial uses as more particularly described below, and mixed use (commercial and residential). Prohibited uses shall be gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps, and certain types of fast food restaurants. This Subdistrict consists of two parcels comprising approximately 17 acres, located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and east of Livingston Road, as shown on the Subdistrict Map. For mixed-use development, residential density shall be limited to sixteen dwelling units per acre. Residential density shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage of the Subdistrict parcel on which it is located (Parcel 1 or Parcel 2), Rezoning of the parcels comprising this Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD, Planned Unit Development. At the time of rezoning, the applicant must include architectural and landscape standards for each parcel. [The required standards for architecture and landscaping are given in the List of Developer Commitments and in the Conceptual Master Plan, respectively.] (These standards are referenced in sections B.l and B.2 of Developer Commitments, as being stated in petitioner's Exhibit ''E''. Neither statement appears in Exhibit "E". Correct references should be made to Exhibit "F" for architecture and Exhibit "C" for landscaping.) [Note: Subdistrict text addressing Parcell is not applicable so is not included.] b. Parcel 2 This parcel is located approximately % mile east of Livingston Road and is adjacent to multifamily residential uses. A maximum of 80,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial uses may be allowed. Allowable uses shall be the following, except as prohibited above: General and medical offices, community facilities, and business and personal services, all as allowed, whether by right or by conditional use, in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict (Ordinance No. 2005-25 adopted on June 7, 2005). The maximum floor area for any single commercial user shall be 20,000 square feet. -2- At the ti.me of rezoning of Parcel 2, the developer shall provide restrictions and stal, ~ I A insure that uses and hours of operation are compatible with surrounding land uses. Permitted uses such as assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for persons over the age of 55, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes, shall be restricted to a maximum of 200 units and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6. The developer of Parcel 2 shall provide a landscape buffer along the eastern property line, adjacent to the Wilshire Lakes PUD, at a minimum width of thirty (30) feet. At the time of rezoning, the developer shall incorporate a detailed landscape plan for that portion of the property fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road as well as that portion along the eastern property line, abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD. [The required standards for compatibte hours of operation are addressed in the List of Developer Commitments, and state, "General business hours of operation for commercial uses shall be from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. daily". All other Subdistrict requirements and limitations including the maximum number of ALF units and are met by this proposal.] (The hours of operation are now referenced in section B.3 of Developer Commitments, as being stated in petitioner's Exhibit "E" - Correct reference should be made to Exhibit "F") REVIEW OF APPLICATION MATERIALS: The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Document submitted as part of application materials is the version dating to 1999and is considered to-be-discontinued. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis is to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties with regard to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/ attraction, etc. Pre-Application Conference notes reflect staffs request for the petitioner to address FLUE Policies found in Objectives 5 and 7 in their application. Objective 5 and its Policies are indirectly addressed by statements responding to companion LDC provisions. But Objective 7 and its Policies are not addressed. Revise to include. FLUE Objective 7 and its applicable policies (Smart Growth - Community Character Plan) require that new development be pedestrian O1'iented, show traditional neighborhood design, pmvide interconnections (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas, and to nearby commercial areas (pedestrian, bicycle). No statements with respect to Objective 7 are pmvided in application materials. Petitioner is requested to provide explanations, and/or specific tl'aditional design proposals (including alternatives) sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood, according to Policies 7.1 through 7.5, included below for reference: Policy 7.1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [So proposed.] , J, Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The information regarding the arrangement of buildings and internal accesses or loop roads is addressed in application materials, stating, "No interconnections or loop roads are feasible given the existing development on surrounding properties". Staff reply: Acknowledged.) 1611 A Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [These interconnections, or the absence thereof, are explained in application materials.) Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUD intends to make these provisions through multiple land uses and interconnection to the sidewalk system.) Policy 7.5 The County shall encourage mixed-use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or adjacent to commercial development. This policy shall be implemented through provisions in specifiC subdistricts [The Vanderbilt Trust 1989 property is proposed as a mixed-use development.] CONCLUSION: Based on the above analysis, the proposed PUD to MPUD rezone may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Elernent of the Growth Management Plan, subject to the corrections necessary to accurately reference Exhibits, as indicated above. (ON CD-PLUS) a:' Susan Murray, AlCP, Vimtor of Zoning & Land V""lopment ReView Ray Bellows, AICP, Zoning Man<<ger Randy Cohen, AICl', ComprehenSIVe Plannir,g Diredor David Weekr, AIel', Planm~g Man<<ger CD/FLUE File ~ + ~ ORDINANCE NO. 08,_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORJDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORJDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPlID) FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE VANDERBILT TRUST 1989 CFPUD, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 200 ASSISTED LIVING, CONTINlIING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, NURSING HOME, RETIREMENT COMMUNITY AND/OR INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY UNITS FOR PERSONS OVER THE AGE OF 55, TO BE DEVELOPED AT A MAXIMUM 0.6 FLOOR AREA RATIO, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (CR 862), APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (CR 881), IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOllTH, AND RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORJDA, CONSISTING OF 7.8'" ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 99-70, THE FORMER VANDERBILT TRlIST 1989 PlID; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WHEREAS, Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., representing Amy S. Turner and/or Tammy Turner Kipp, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned Unit Development CFPUD) Zoning District for the Vanderbilt Trost 1989 CFPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A- H, which are attached hereto and which are incorporated herein and by reference made part (1-29-08) Vanderbilt Trust 1989 CFPUD, PUDZ-A-2007-AR-II723 Page I of2 16 ItA 16 '1 A hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 99-70, known as the Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, adopted on October 12, 1999, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DlIL Y ADOPTED by a super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ day of ,2008. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Approved as to [ann and legal sufficiency ('I r\0(Y M . , M S d S . I" ,f"(0 ar}one. tu ent- hr mg ASSIstant County Attorney PUDZ-A-2007-AR-II723/KD/sp Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: List of Allowable lIses Development Standards Master Plan Legal Description List of Deviations with Justification List of Developer Commitments Landscape Buffers Alternative Landscape Plan (1,29-08) Vanderbilt Trust 1989 CFPlID, PlIDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 Page 2 of2 EXHIBIT A FOR VANDERBILT TRUST 1989 CFPUD 16' 1 A PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 200 units may be developed for assisted and independent living units for persons aged 55 and over, nursing home units, retirement community or continuing care retirement communities. For purposes of this CFPUD, retirement community shall be defined as one or more dwelling units consisting of apartments. condominiums, or a self-contained village, which is restricted to adults or senior citizens who are self- sufficient. They may also contain special services such as medical facilities, dining facilities, and some limited, supporting retail facilities. No building or structure, or part thereof. shall be erected. altered or used, or land used. in whole or in part, for other than the following: I. Community Facility Tract A. Principal Uses: 1. Assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for persons over age 55. continuing care retirement communities. retirement communities, and nursing homes. All uses shall be permitted at a maximum F.A.R. of 0.6. 2. Essential services. per Section 2.01.03.A of the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses/Structures: 1. Signs, water management, essential services, gate houses, covered parking, nature trails. indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. 2. Other accessory uses and structures customarily permitted for the above- referenced principal use. 3. Beauty and barber shops, transportation services, resident dining, physical fitness facilities, meeting rooms and other personal services related to assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for persons over age 55, continuing care retirement communities, retirement communities, and nursing homes. 4. Model units and on-site leasing, sales and maintenance facilities. II. Preserve Tract A. Principal Uses: 1. Open space, passive recreation, walking trails. and water management facilities. 2. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals IBZA) through the process outlined in the LDC. PUD Doc (2,14,08) (2).doc Page 1 of 10 VBRCPUD EXHIBIT B FOR VANDERBILT TRUST 1989 CFPUD 16 11 A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the CFPUD, Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 NA ., MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 75 ft. NA MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Vanderbilt Beach Road right- 25 ft. 25 ft. of-wav From Northern Project Boundary 25 ft. 15 ft. From Eastern Project Boundary 40 ft. 40 ft. From Western Project Boundary 15 ft. 15 ft. MINlMUM YARDS (Inlernal) Internal Drives/Right-of- 10 ft. Oft. way/Property Lines - Preserve 25 ft. 10ft. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 20 ft. or '12 sum of building heights* STRUCTURES MAXIMUM HEIGHT . Zoned Height 4 stories over parking, not to exceed 50 ft. 25 ft. Actual Heiaht 4 stories over parkina not to exceed 62 ft. 35 ft. MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) F.AR, <0.6** -"---- * whichever is greater " Per subdivided lot. excluding parking areas under buildings PUD Doc (2,14,08) (2).doc Page 2 of 10 VBRCPUD " it . . Q !;: ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ " ~ . " , . . . o , ~ c , c u gw :;~ w= .> 5w w~ ", ,. .c =~ .. c w ti~ NO -I I I - " I o ~ w o ;< ~ !;l~ ~~ r~ ~W m> ~~ mO "'~ wO 0'" z- ~~ ~ W m g~ "C ~~ ~8 ~~ iii~ ". ~ z o o , ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ zlil CO NO '=- III"'"') (_ _, _.;... ;-~. ~ ,-__....;" L ;,;,,-_-, - - ,-:.;.;.-...;----,.- ,--, ~ 5~ffi O~' uCw .ZU ~~~ ..Jilla:' <0, .om ~ ~ -i g I I ~ -~ " ~ < ~ w o . ~ @ tiLii N~ m. 5~ m w <~ " U ~ .. . "" 0 . " ci "" '" ., . ~ ~ " ~ . ci ~ EXHIBIT C " , . ~ ~.~ 0 " " MASTER PLAN w~u w . < ~ '" o " ~ ollJ"': 0 w. , . <w ~ " .[ ~ . 0 , ~~ t~ ~~ ~. ~~ M~ ~~ ~li! ~~ II)&; w~ ~~ ~~ ~~ <C>- <(Q. z() .::lie:: !;m g~ ~~ If&l 1-0 a."- ~~ ~~ u=> w.::ii 5~ ~~ ~Q mr _I- 01- z5 i1l~ ~;:;: a:z 15 uO !:'20 <F ~~ ~!l o ' , 0 ...::;;: N~ !3 f: '-' ~ ~ ::J Q, '" '" ~ u~ '" ~~ ::::. m:::!; ~ ~;i ... Wi! " Q, ., ij ~ a ~ u ;::; ~ w c . w c. 0,", "" ~. ~~ ,5 >5 ~~ ! -! ! ~;i' i '" ", u ;i ~ O. ~W Ii ~~!l i! ~til II 61' q ::E ~ ' >-11, ; ~!iH tJ ' 6l ! , c w 5~ NO @:~ !< ~. ~~ ~ . ~~~~~~ t ~ll<fa:5a:! ~ ~~~~!i.. l <n~n .-~ ~ EXHIBIT D FOR V ANDERBILTTRUST 1989 CFPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION 16 f 1 A A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 89056'12" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31, FOR A DISTANCE OF 661,05 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 02011'18" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 150.12 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, ALSO BEING A POINT 150 NORTH OF AND PERPENDICULAR TO SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION. THENCE RUN NORTH 89056'12" WEST. AND PARALLEL WITH, AND 150 FEET NORTH OF, SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31, FOR A DISTANCE OF 660.98 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE RUN NORTH 02009'51" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 517,32 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31: THENCE RUN SOUTH 89056'42" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31, FOR A DISTANCE OF 660.76 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE RUN SOUTH 02011'18" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31, FOR A DISTANCE OF 517.43 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 7.843 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PUD Doc (2-14-08) (2).doc Page 4 of 10 VBRCPUD EXHIBIT E FOR VANDERBILT TRUST 1989 CFPUD DEVIATIONS 16/1 A 1. A deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04.0.1, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.45 for group housing uses, to permit a maximum FAR of 0.60 for the Vanderbilt Trust CFPUD. This deviation is consistent with the FAR established for assisted living, independent living units and continuing care retirement communities located within the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. During the comprehensive plan amendment process, which established this sub-district, the applicant identified that the 0.45 FAR is an out-dated development standard for many modern group housing developers. Responding to demands for a greater variety and number of amenities such as on-site dining. wellness facilities, recreational amenities, and generally larger unit sizes, all are factors demonstrating that the 0.45 FAR is not the appropriate FAR for these uses. The proposed FAR of 0.60 will permit development of modern and well amenitized senior housing within the CFPUD 2. A deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04.0.3, which establishes parking standards for group housing uses including independent living units. assisted living units. and nursing care units, to establish a parking standard for a retirement community use as one (1) parking space per dwelling unit. This deviation has been requested due to the lack of a definition for an independent living unit in the LDC. However, the term. "retirement community" is utilized in the Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance and that definition describes a use that is similar in character to that associated with independent living units for persons aged fifty-five (55) and over, The definition for a retirement community is: Retirement Community: one or more dwelling units consisting of apartments, condominiums, or a self-contained village, which is restricted to adults or senior citizens who are self-sufficient. They may also contain special services such as medical facilities, dining facilities, and some limited supporting retail facilities. To better define the type of uses in the project, the term retirement community has been listed as a use because it best defines what an independent living unit is and because the LDC does not contain a definition for an independent living unit. The LDC does list a parking standard for an independent living unit but does not include a defined parking standard for the "retirement community." It is important for site planning and permitting purposes to understand the required parking for each of the permitted land uses within the CFPUD. It is the applicant's opinion that the retirement community use is similar to that of independent living and should: therefore, be subject to the parking standard of one (I) parking space per unit, PUD Doc (2-14-08) (2).doc Page 5 of 10 VBRCPUD 1611 A 3. A deviation from LDC Section 4.0S.04.G, which states that multi-family clubhouse structures require parking spaces at a ratio of 1 parking space per 200 square feet and swimming pools require parking spaces at I per 75 square feet for the first 1.000 square feet and each additional 125 square feet, in order to provide parking for the clubhouse facility and pool at a ratio of 1 parking space per 800 square feet, or 25% of the standard clubhouse parking standard. The applicant is of the opinion that the multi-family clubhouse standard is not applicable due to the presence of a parking standard for independent units in Section 5.05.04 of the LDC, However, the applicant will provide additional parking spaces for guests and residents of the project. The applicant is of the opinion that providing parking spaces at 25% of the normal standard for a clubhouse is adequate and supported by the administrative reduction to 25% in Section 4.05.04 for multi-family recreational facilities. No additional parking shall be required for the swimming pool. All proposed independent housing units are located within 300 feet of the recreational amenity (clubhouse). Residents are provided good pedestrian access from each building exit to the central amenity. The site is designed in a compact manner. eliminating the need for separate parking areas to serve the residents for both their unit and recreational amenity. 4, A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.c', which requires that a 15 foot wide Type B buffer must be provided between a clubhouse and any multi-family dwelling unit, to allow the developer to install landscape buffers between the senior housing buildings and the clubhouse amenity building in compliance with the alternative landscape plan, Exhibit H. This deviation is warranted for a variety of reasons. First, the senior housing will be constructed over covered parking. which effectively elevates the first habitable floor above the 6 foot height of a Type B landscape buffer. Minimal screening or buffering of the clubhouse and pool would be provided with a standard Type B buffer. The alternative landscape plan provided in Exhibit H will include the required 5 foot tall shrubs. canopy trees and sabal palms in excess of LDC requirements with staggered heights between 14 feet and 20 feet tall. These proposed plantings will occur in available planting areas providing filtered screening of clubhouse and amenity areas from the senior housing buildings. Secondly, due to Environmental Staff's request to expand the native preservation area in the northeast area of the site, the area available to provide a centrally located amenity area has been reduced. Further. it is the developer's intent to integrate the amenity into the senior care environment, rather than to hide and isolate the use. The proposed landscape plan will provide an appropriate level of buffering for the use. PUD Doc (2-14-08) (2).doc Page 6 of 10 VBRCPUD EXHIBIT F FOR VANDERBILTTRUST 1989 CFPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 16/1 A Regulations for development of the Vanderbilt Trust 1989 CFPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this CFPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this CFPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A. TRANSPORTATION 1. All traffic control devices. signs, pavement marking, and design criteria shall be in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition. and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). current edition. 2. Access points shown on the CFPUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property boundary. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however. no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved. 3. Site related improvements (as opposed to system related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All improvements necessary to provide safe ingress and egress for construction-related traffic shall be in place and operational prior to commencement of on-site construction. 4. Nothing in any development order (DO) shall vest a right of access in excess of a right-in/right-out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress, or a median opening, nor the lack thereof. be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer. its successor in title. or assignee. Collier County reserves the right to close any median opening existing at any time which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but not limited to, safety, operational circulation. and roadway capacity. PUD Doc (2-14-08) (2).doc Page 7 of 10 VBRCPUD 1611 A 5. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights-of-way or easement(s). then compensating right-of-way or easements shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement(s) upon final approval of the turn lane design during the review and approval of the first subsequent development order. The typical cross-section may not differ from the existing roadway unless approved, in writing, by the Transportation Division Administrator, or his designee. 6. If. in the sole opinion of Collier County, traffic signal(s), other traffic control devices. signs, pavement marking improvements within a public right-of-way or easement, or site related improvements (as opposed to system related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project. as determined by Collier County, are determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. his successors or assigns. The improvements shall be paid for or installed, at the County's discretion. prior to issuance of the appropriate corresponding CO. 7. The developer shall make a payment in lieu of construction of the sidewalk and/or bike lane provided along the project's frontage on Vanderbilt Beach Road. The payment shall be made in accordance with the LDC and must be paid at the time of site development plan or plat approval. whichever occurs first. B. PLANNING 1. The Vanderbilt Trust 1989 CFPUD shall have an integrated and common building architectural style. Where multiple buildings are constructed within the CFPUD, all buildings shall be constructed using like exterior building materials and color palate. 2. At the time of SDP approval. the developer shall provide a detailed landscape plan. which must be in compliance with Exhibit G. Landscape Buffers. which is adopted as part of the CFPUD commitments. 3. The developer. or successor, shall permit the installation of a noise attenuation wall on the eastern property line if determined to be necessary to reduce noise impacts to the Wilshire Lakes Community. The developer shall not be responsible for any costs of construction of such wall, nor shall the developer be required to provide landscaping or irrigation along the eastern side of the wall. c. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. A minimum preserve area of 1.18 acres shall be provided at the time of site plan approval. PUD Doc (2-14,08) (2).doc Page 8 0110 VBRCPUD EXHIBIT G FOR VANDERBILTTRUST 1989 CFPUD 16 , lA LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 1 IcDIT'ir<4~ ///.'/' " f ~ ~ ~.----,r; -;.01 . L-~" .... TYPE 'B' BUFFER. Plan ~ 1''''1",,1 (,,,. S1,m". EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY h.:i~[illt' Pine h~'o.:~ Shmhs To Ho.:maill "'Of'-TH ,j~, ~~S~ \\'h-:r..:o.:x;slill!! \'Cl;ldaliulll;lI"to.;r clc':lring) Joes not mt:l:'llh~ 5p;K'ing sizo: ..:rilo:ri<l!\.'T ,llypc 'W hutl~r. snppl.:mC'ntaJ \<:gO:lOlliuII sh;lll bo.: planlcJ lTr~'",'" maximum..f 25' n.c wilh ;\ 5' hcdgo:), Outler is It' be Xtl~" (lp;l,<lu~ within ,)u..: y....lr. ~ t IOV' 1i1r'..j ~" '-~~-f ~I ~ ~' ~/Il';--;//~' "",--, '-?..-~ii~(.,:j~'- -. ", ",':!!'!A~!t".,~.h;,,,~~; I ~.""" . ~ ~ .' I ., . I ' '" ..' . l' . ' '.' --'------ ~-- ,.- - . . ~ - ----.:.....P..O.C0. -/- - -----,.(- @ ",0 f'-T H ;>{ !-,'V;>'d.'L:>t-; I ~ rrcl.'; :-0'0.c. 1ll<lxiIllUnl\\;lha2.t" tall ll..:dg.: at planling TYPE 'D' BUFFER. Plan VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD ---~~'~~~'hll~B~hRU1'JRn\\ _:."!J~~"'~__ f:t l~ ~" - d., "'--. ~ ~--~~"J,\ll~:W:' -t-l5 nun"'"T"i,l1h~--~(_._~ Suh!""l ~il" \\',I~hir" l."k,., Ir""~ r:'H:(IJt ,~::::.:,;,;:::~, J! ! IkJ~.: ~ ; C"'-'Oi.1Unl ::.: , \\".ilitl'~\"iIHlmHf1l S;I'.,l'almdl"lh'''''1l ~iil'crl " , tll;\l'f-l'll ,\1 1'1 :\;\11':\1 ~ Ill-. ......---'.lJ'll\.rrn\\.;lllh.lllll1lll1lll1l--------+ ('l1:\t'1I'1 1'.'1. 1'1...\N 1 1'.\11.111 Ir.::.:_ li,d)..\.: I Clll",lll.t\.: H..I,li'yI'H'" Sl.1,hl'uh;' Ihl",,'nll,.lIy TYPE 'D' BUFFER - Sec;tion VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TYPE 'B' BUFFER. Plan EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY Ikd!!", \I:-nin,. S,mp",-'n",Swpp..:r W;.X \Inrl..: EXHIBIT H A ~ I;;; >- z > z >- >- z >- >- >- z FOR z " ~ VANDERBILT TRUST 1989 CFPUD , ] u " , < , , E 0 AL TERNA TIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN u " " -' -1l u " U Z . < < < ~ ] 0 0 u u u , 0 " N N 0' " u " " u >= > ~ " c i 0 , . "" 1 , " " U '" I ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ I 0 , ~ ~ ~ ... w w '" :2 :2 , ~ , " " " 1 u :0 .. .. .. " ;>; -' " '" ~ . if " '" < < < . , < Vl " oj 0 c u ~ 1 " , ~ ~ ~ .. " .. :0 0, , 2 .. .. 0 . e '" ~ "" t 0 " 0 Z ~ 0 , " " ..., I i 1 " ! ~ 0 . ~ ~ , "" ~ J ;; , u , -' l ~ , ~ 0 "1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ " " 1i 0 u u ~ ~ 0 " ~ 0 f- c u u ~ 0 " " ~ ~ " ~ "" 0 li 1 z ~ E " J \ ] r.l z 0 ~ S ~ 0 ~J l 0 ..:i 0 , c ~ ~ ~ \ u ~ ~ c :;:> 0 " ~ " u " ~ ~ 0 i5 " , 6 r..l 0 c ::c u w C U ~ z '" . c 0 f- ~ u c " 0 ,... C- u -- -- < Z w w w ..: t:i . ~ 0 0 " , "" . 0 0 , " u 0 ~ u 0 < " < '" ..:i " 0 u u c < ~ ~ ~ 0 u U " i>< f- c . ~ 16 11 A ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF OUTDOOR SERVING AREAS; SPECIFYING OUTDOOR SERVING AREA PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR SUSPENSION OF SUCH PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR OPERATING REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF THREE SPECIFIED ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Article VIII of the Constitution of Florida authorizes Florida counties to exercise broad home rule powers; and WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the legislative and governing body of a County shall have the power to carry on County government and that said power includes, but is not restricted to, a number of powers set forth in Section 125.01, so long as any powers exercised are not inconsistent with general or special laws; and WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1)(t), Florida Statutes, provides that a county may adopt ordinances and resolutions necessary for the exercise of its powers and prescribe fines and penalties for the violation of ordinances in accordance with law; and WHEREAS, Sections 125.01(3)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, recognize that the enumeration of powers in Section 125.01(1), Florida Statutes, incorporates all implied powers necessary or incident to carry out those powers and that Section 125.01, Florida Statutes, shall be liberally construed in order to effectively carry out the purpose of the section and to secure for counties the broad exercise of home rule powers authorized by the State Constitution; and WHEREAS, from time-to-time, noise emanating from outdoor serving areas has been excessive, unnecessary, unnatural or unusually loud and has constituted a nuisance by unreasonably interfering with the peace and quiet of nearby residential neighborhoods, which nuisance the Board wishes to help abate by this Ordinance. Page I of6 16 11 A NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Title. This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Collier County Outdoor Serving Area Ordinance." SECTION TWO: Defmitions. When used in this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Amplified sound: The use of a public address system, loudspeaker, amplifier and any other device which electronically generates or augments the volume of sound. Conditional use: A use that, due to special circumstances, is not permissible in a zoning district, but may be appropriate if controlled as to number, area, location, or relation to the neighborhood. Mixed use project approYEH process: /\ process by which a land o','mer may petition the BCC for approval Elf a mixed use project a mix Elf commercial afId residentiall,lGes, as pro';ided for in certain zElning oyerlay districts. SECTION THREE: Permit Required for All Outdoor Serving Areas. A. Applicability. No person shall own or operate an outdoor serving area for food and/or beverages within the unincorporated area of Collier County unless a one-time permit is obtained, in accordance with the provisions set forth herein. These requirements shall not apply if the residential use Elr zoning district is part of a milled use project, approved through the conditional use process; a mixed use project, approved through the mixed use project approyal process or part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) component designated as miKed use. I. A temporary use permit to operate an outdoor serving area may be issued administratively unless a finding of violation of the Collier County Noise Ordinance (Ord. No. 90-17, as amended) has been issued to the owner/manager of the location by the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. 2. Permit applications for Elutdoor serving areas by owners/managers who have a finding of violation of the Noise Ordinance within the past 12 months shall be Page 2 of6 16 11 A heard by the Board of County Commissioners during any regularly scheduled meeting. a. The Board of County Commissioners shall make the final determination as to whether or not to approve, deny, revoke or approve with conditions any temporary use permit pertaining to outdoor serving areas. 3. All operators of eating and/or drinking establishments with existing outdoor serving areas shall obtain a permit no later than September 30, 2008. Failure to obtain the permit will result in the issuance of a notice of violation. 4. Such permit shall be transferred if the owner sells, leases or otherwise disposes of the outdoor serving area or the premises upon or in which the outdoor serving area is operated, to any person by filing the appropriate transfer application to the Zoning Department. a. Transfers shall be administratively approved, unless a finding of violation of the Noise Ordinance has been issued to the owner/manager within the last 12 months. In that case, an application for an outdoor serving area permit transfer shall be heard by the Board of County Commissioners. 5. The issuance of such a permit shall not eliminate the obligation of the applicant to obtain all other permits required under local, state and federal regulations; including, but not limited to: live performance music and/or amplified sound permits, occupational licenses, alcohol licenses, special event permits and the like. SECTION FOUR: Application for an Outdoor Serving Area Permit. B. Application. 1. An applicant for a permit to operate an outdoor serving area shall submit the following: a. a completed application, as prescribed by the County Manager or designee; b. a code violation history issued by the Collier County Code Enforcement Department dated no more than 30 days prior to the date of the application submittal; c. a valid non-residential zoning and land use certificate issued by Collier County; d. an application fee as specified in the CDES fee schedule; and Page 3 of6 1611 A e. a site plan of the outdoor area with notation indicating proximity to any adjacent residential zoning or uses within 2500 feet of the proposed outdoor serving area. 2. In the interpretation and application of any provision of these regulations, it shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of unincorporated Collier County and its residents. In determining whether to issue a permit, the Board shall be entitled to deny/revoke a permit where: a. the use will not be of a type or intensity consistent with surrounding land uses and the reasonably quiet and peaceful enjoyment thereof; b. the use will cause any danger or health hazard to any person; c. the use will result in the depletion, destruction, removal, trampling or other damaging of existing vegetation; d. the use will be conducted in violation of Land Development Code or any other County codes; e. the use will not have sufficient areas, available on private lands, for parking to accommodate the extra seating as required by subsection 4.05.04 G. ofthe Code; f. in the case of a special event that has been previously held at the facility, the operator has not demonstrated compliance with permit conditions or with any previous permit, including without limitation, signage restrictions; or g. the layout does not comply with the provisions of the Life Safety Code. SECTION FIVE: Suspension of Permit. C. Suspension of permit. 1. The approval of an outdoor serving area permit is temporary at all times. An outdoor serving area permit may be suspended by the County Manager or designee upon a finding that one or more conditions of this section have been violated, or by the issuance of a finding of violation of the Noise Ordinance. 2. The suspension order shall be in writing, setting forth specific reasons and providing an effective date. The suspension shall remain in effect until such time as a public hearing is conducted by the Board of County Commissioners to revoke the permit or lift the suspension. Page 4 of6 16 11 A SECTION SIX: Operating Regulations. D. Operating Regulations. 1. No owner/manager shall operate or permit the occupancy of any outdoor serving area that is located within 1,000 feet of any lands with a residential or estates zoning designation or which is used for residential purposes during the following times. Sunday through Thursday 11 :00 p.m. - 11 :00 a.m. Friday through Saturday 12:00 a.m. - 11 :00 a.m. 2. Every owner/operator shall at all times post in all outdoor serving areas, in a location which is visible to all patrons, a notice provided by the County, notifying the patrons of the requirements of this permit. SECTION SEVEN: Inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word. SECTION EIGHT: Conflict and Severability. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION NINE: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. Page 5 of6 16 j 1 A Collier County, Florida this _ day of PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of ,2008. ATTEST Dwight E. Brock, Clerk By: , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Chief Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Page 6 of6 >'iala c3\~ \J.' . I '/' r;."..... ria as ".. ...'rt--....--...- , . -r ~ennlng.l2'= ... . ... 'FL.-- _.oyle r~,___ ":0 I ell;J 'ZjL../"----- JanulP3} 2JoS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'- Naples, Florida, January 3, 2008 ; ,,-,.,_,,-..;0,.!.'....;:.:;, LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Excused) Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Misc. Carres. Date ..:5. 7 "S. '3 I~em# 1(0 'l{A) 15 Page 1 :'-J'-,'J to ir, !~a~ I 20~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the first Collier County Planning Commission for the new year, January 3rd. If you-all will please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the secretary will please take the roll call. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Vigliotti is not here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have some addenda to the agenda today. The first petition, Myrtle Woods, will be heard as scheduled. The second petition, the PUDZ-2006-AR-I0171, East Forum Bonita, LLC is being requested to be continued to 1/17/08 Page 2 l~!a& 1, 20A which will be our next regular meeting. Other than that I don't think there's any -- does anybody have any older new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to approve the continuation? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney (sic). Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron. All in favor signifY by saymg aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; NOVEMBER 26, 2007, SPECIAL GMP MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes -- well, let's-- Planning Commission absences first. Next week we have two Planning Commission meetings. We have a finishing up of the LDC cycle that started, I think, in November or early December. You-all should have gotten a book right now that put together the remaining items to discuss on the 9th, which is next Wednesday. That one will start at 8:30 in the morning in this room. Then on Friday of next week we have a continuation of the Cocohatchee discussion involving the Burt Harris claim that was remanded back to us by the BCC. That'll be Friday at 8:30 in this room. As far as Wednesday, does everybody plan on making it? Okay. Anybody on Friday is -- how about Friday? Is everybody okay with Friday? Page 3 Jan~a lloos A (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then the next regular meeting is the 17th of January. Anybody know if they're not going to be here for that? (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have quorums all those days. Approval of the minutes, the first set is November 15th, 2007, regular meeting. Is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or a motion to approve by Mr. Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. All those in favor signifY by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody opposed. Motion carries. We have November 26 meeting, the special GMP meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray approves. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron. All in favor signifY by saymg aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT- RECAPS - NOVEMBER 27,2007, REGULAR MEETING Page 4 16 I IJanAry 3, 200S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we have our BCC report, but I'd like to ask you. What does CRAB stand for, C-R-A-B? Mr. Kolflat was probably going to ask that question sooner or later so I beat him to it. It's on our agenda. MR. SCHMIDT: It's the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, but normally we don't brief those minutes. I don't have any idea why you would want to know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to know what it is, but I just couldn't figure out what a CRAB was. I mean, I know what a crab is, but I couldn't see what the acronym meant. MR. SCHMIDT: Normally we accuse staff of being crabs, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, ifit doesn't mean anything, we'll go on then. I just saw it on the agenda and I thought it was kind of odd. Ray, is there a recap? MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners did not meet from the last planning commission meeting so there is no recap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no chairman's report. We'll go right into the advertised public hearing. Item #8A PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-9127, MYRTLE WOODS, LLC First petition is -- or the only petition is PUDZ-2005-AR-9127, Myrtle Woods, LLC which is on the southwest -- southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Myrtle Lane. All those wishing to participate, speak on behalf of this application please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any disclosures on Page 5 the part ofthe Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had conversations with Mr. Y ovanovich concerning some of the uses on the site, and I'll be going over those during the meeting today. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that the applicant can start with the presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the applicant. With me today to answer any questions you may have are Dwight Nadeau and Chris Wright from RDW, Reed Jarvi from -- from Vanasse & Daylor and Jason Hunt from Passarella & Associates and Emilio Robau, RW A as well. The property involved -- do you want to -- involves a 7.04 acre parcel of property located on the East Tamiami Trail prior to the intersection of951, Collier Boulevard. It's on the south side. It's shown to you on the visualizer. The property is currently zoned PUD and C-4. Five point six-six acres of the property is zoned PUD. The PUD allows for both commercial and residential uses. The -- we are adding the C-4 parcel which is 1.38 acres to the project. So we're requesting to rezone the property to commercial uses only. We would be eliminating the 45 residential units that's within the existing PUD. The 45 units, as your staff report indicates, is a -- is a net -- an effective density of a little over 11 units per acre which is contrary to the stated goals of the Planning Commission within the coastal high hazard area. And this property is within -- within the coastal high hazard area. We're requesting a maximum of61,000 square feet of commercial uses on the property which is a little less than 9,000 square feet per acre. In reviewing the -- the PUD document and the staff report there was a commitment made at the neighborhood information meeting January 3, 200S 1611 A Page 6 Jan~~ t ~08A that retail uses would be limited to the first floor of any building. So we need to clarifY in the development standards that -- that retail uses will be limited to the first floor and then other types of uses could be on the second and third floor if we do multi-story buildings. So we do need to -- we need to make that one correction to the PUD document. I'm going to put a master plan -- there will be two points of access for the property. The first point of access will be Myrtle Lane which is -- is right here. And the second point of access is Broward Street right here. Broward Street is a full opening on US 41 and I believe currently has a traffic light there. One of the commitments we've made through this project and I think I have a better exhibit to show. I do. Is that right, Ray? I don't know if you can see the arrows, but this is Myrtle Lane. We have committed to providing public access through the project to get traffic to this traffic light at -- at Broward. So we are going to provide public access through the project. Now, for purposes of setbacks, we need to make it real clear that this is not a road that we have to meet setbacks from the road but we are going to provide public access but we're not going to be required to treat it as if it's a public road for purposes of setbacks. And I've talked to Mr. Casalanguida and he -- he's comfortable with that and wanted to make sure we stated that clearly on the record. So there will be tremendous public benefit to -- to this project by allowing people to go through the project to get to that lighted intersection. Currently people have to take Myrtle Lane to 41, cross three lanes oftraffic to get to the -- to the left-bound turn lanes and do U-turns to head basically into town. So we'll make it much easier for people in that neighborhood to -- to get to that intersection and head west on 41. In addition, as part of the project, we're going to provide a 50-foot wide drainage easement which is in this location on the property. That will be to help further the LASIP program, the Lely Page 7 Janu!k3,12<ks A Area Stormwater Improvement Program. I know what LASIP stands for, but -- so we -- we're going to provide that easement. We also have agreed that we would go ahead and install the pipe for the county and the county would reimburse us for the pipe within 180 days of that. So we need to -- we need to include some that -- that stipulation into the record. And I can read it to you or -- or you can -- we could just give you the concept, whichever you prefer. But the concept is we're going to give a 50-foot wide easement. We'll install the pipe, and the county will reimburse us within 180 days for the pipe. And, finally, we've agreed to provide a well site easement to the county which is also on our master plan in -- in this location right here if the county needs wells for their water service. The -- we are requesting the rezone to commercial based upon the commercial in-fill criteria within the comprehensive plan. I think it's safe to say that staff agrees we meet all of the criteria, the commercial in-fill, except for the long-range planning of it or comprehensive planning, sorry, believes that you interpret the adjacent parcel language to mean that the depth of the parcel is measured only for the portion of the parcel that is actually adjacent to the commercial, not the actual depth of the commercial property that's adjacent to you. And I hope you can -- you will be able to see this. This is the zoning map that's applicable to this area of the property. As you'll see this is the Myrtle Woods PUD right here, the existing PUD, and this is the C-4 property we're adding. So this will become the Myrtle Woods PUD. Adjacent to us, all this long line is C-4 zoning. And this parcel, as you can see, is irregularly shaped and -- and juts to the south. I believe that's the right direction there. Staff is -- comprehensive planning staff is saying, well, you stop here for purposes of measuring how deep your commercial parcel goes. But the comprehensive plan does not talk about the adjacent length of the boundary. It talks about Page S JaJ41, 1>os A the depth ofthe parcel. So the Board of County Commissioners on a case-by-case basis can interpret the comprehensive plan as to how deep the commercial uses can go on the property. We did an average basically of if you took this -- this -- this depth and this depth, we came up with, I think it was 422 feet was the average depth. We're not going to go that deep. We're limiting ourselves to 396 feet in depth I think it is. But we think under these particular circumstances it makes sense to allow the entire property to be utilized as commercial under the in-fill criteria. And we believe that that's the case for -- for a couple of important reasons. One, we will be utilizing -- we will be losing building area by providing this drainage easement to the county. And we should be allowed to make up for that lost area within the property which would stretch our use of commercial uses further south. And I think we have an exhibit that shows that a little bit clearer. I wish -- I know -- I already showed it to you. If you'll look at the master plan and you look at the -- at the square footage replaced, the -- the blue area is the area that's going to be the drainage easement for the LASIP project. That area is larger than the green area that we'll be utilizing within the master plan to essentially make up for the lost area due to the drainage easement. And then addressing the other concerns as far as the well -- well site -- well easement as well as circulating traffic through our project, we believe it would -- it would -- it would make sense to allow us to put our retention areas for the commercial use also in that area. Staff points out that, you know, that -- that -- that water management area is actually serving the commercial. So in their opinion I guess it should be counted as a commercial use. We see it more as a detention use, but we believe that based upon the circumstances surrounding this particular piece of property, the board -- and we hope you would recommend to the board that in this particular case allow the entire site to use the depth of the -- the parcel Page 9 J1613, 200S to our west as -- as -- not just the adjacent piece, but the depth of!at A piece under these circumstances for purposes of the commercial in-fill. We think the merits of the project, as I briefly stated, the benefit to access, the benefit to the LASIP program and the benefit to the __ the water program for the county warrant this particular treatment on this particular piece of property. In addition, when you look at the comprehensive plan as a whole, I don't think the existing residential uses is really what the comprehensive plan wants to see happen on that particular piece of property. It's in the coastal high hazard area. The density is 11 units per acre. There's been a lot of discussion. I don't think it got adopted, but there was a lot of discussion of reducing the coastal high hazard area density to four units per acre and not allowing for increases in density in that area. So we think that our proposal is also consistent with the comprehensive plan discussions that have been occurring. We think this is a unique piece of property. It's kind of similar to the Sonoma Oaks PUD, the Nagel Creek PUD on 951. If you'll recall on that particular situation, the county came in and said we would like you to do a bisecting road. And what that did, it cut the commercial piece in half. The property owner wanted to basically reverse how that parcel was laid out so that the -- the commercial would front Collier Boulevard in that case. And the board said under those unique circumstances because staff was asking for the interconnection, it made since to allow the commercial in-fill criteria to be shifted to where it now ran north/south instead of east/west parcel. We're asking for a similar treatment here because of what we're doing to enhance the LASIP program, enhance access. And with that -- that's our basic, that's a brief overview of our proposed project. We're available to answer any questions you have. And we would request that you make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve our PUD as currently proposed. And I know we'll get into a few uses that I know Commissioner Page 10 Jal6Y b, 100SA Strain has concerns about, but we're available to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions from the members of the Planning Commission? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figure you would have. It's in your district so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you mind if! go first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's fine. Go ahead. You might resolve all my issues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I doubt that. Let -- let's start off with the idea of building height. Now, we know it's mixed use and the intent originally with mixed use was try to get residents in there. However, I do agree. It's coastal high hazard area. We really don't want to put residents in there. But I do have a question with -- a concern really for height. You want to build to, what is it, zoned height is what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifty feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fifty feet. Actual is about 65, then; right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- and I know I'm not allowed to use the word since it's 2008. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tippy-top? I'll use it, tippy-top. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That number would be 75 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seventy-five? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To -- if -- you know, to the highest architectural embellishment or whatever on the site on that particular building, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have the developers, the investors here, have they commissioned the study to determine the viability of a project that -- how many -- how many structures are Page 11 JaJ:6 j, ~08 A intended? There's 10,000 square foot lots. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It looks like right now the thought is we'll probably have three buildings, two out-parcels and one -- one main building, if you will, if I can use that characterization. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have they commissioned a study to determine what -- what the potential is? I mean, when you're talking about office space, we know that there is a number of places where office space is sitting there vacant. And I have a concern for the area that if we just build stuff and hope, that we're not going to be achieving a whole lot. So I'm wondering what -- what work was done in that area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, of course demand has changed recently for a lot of different things. But, again, we're looking prospectively, not just for what's there today. At some point we believe that there'll be an appropriate market for not only the retail but also the office uses and other non-retail uses associated with the project. Do we have a specific building plan to go on there today, I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? Okay. I'm going to bring you into a couple of areas I suspect Commissioner Strain is also concerned as he has mentioned. I'm looking at -- go to either location, either your part or the county's document. I would talk about the permitted uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I noticed that the -- the PUD that was in effect had a lot of uses. And these -- unless I'm in error -- these are a reduction in the number of uses; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Under page A-I have you -- are you there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Under 11, gasoline Page 12 J!~J }200f service stations, do we really intend to have a gasoline service station there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't say a word to him. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If! were a betting man, I didn't think you'd be resolving Mr. Strain's issues. You hit the first one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- well, that's scary, isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what 1-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It depends on which side ofthe podium you're on, yeah. We would like that flexibility; but ifthat's going to be an issue for the Planning Commission, we would recommend to our client that that use be eliminated. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that would be a great recommendation. This fellow here would not be inclined to support a gas station in that area. Liquor stores are another one. Coin operated laundries. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wow. That's two for two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're doing good, aren't we? Like I said, you're going to clear up all my questions, Bob. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're fine with eliminating the liquor store. And you said coin-operated laundry? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I mentioned -- I also mentioned diaper service to my wife and she said, They don't do that anymore. I said, Well, you know, if they ever started again, it wouldn't be real cool for the people in the neighborhood. I could live with that I guess. Motor vehicles dealers only, I don't suppose you have room even for such a venture. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually, we could probably-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Used car? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. It says new cars only. It says new cars. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 13 J~h,100l/t MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we could -- that would fit on that-- that particular piece of property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Seven acres. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There have been -- as you may remember, there have been a number of organizations that have come here and have looked to expand their parking and all kinds of things. And I -- I looked at that and I didn't see that you had all that much space, but perhaps you do. But in any event, those are my concerns. And I also had a question. I'm curious. In videotape rental and on the preceding page it says recorded -- record and prerecorded tape stores. And I'mjust wondering if those -- if that's a redundancy or if those are uniquely different somehow. And that's not a question necessarily for you as such, but they're -- they're grouped 5735 and group 7841 and I just thought that was curious. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They do have different SIC codes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Are they, in fact, different? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under -- as far as the SIC codes are they're different. And, you know, we -- we go by these codes for what uses are allowed. So if we don't have -- if we don't list record and prerecorded tape stores under the 5735 SIC code, we can't have it under the category that we do list as videotape. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you're -- you're compelled. I see that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Those are the issues on that. On page B-1 -- oh, and caretaker's residence, that should be struck. You're not going to have any residences there, are you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The caretaker's residence, and we could strike that, but that was intended for someone who would be there to Page 14 Ja~~ ~, !oosA maintain the retail stores and operations to make sure that they're being properly taken care of from a maintenance standpoint. It wouldn't have been for the residences. It would have been to serve the retail that would actually be built. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would -- would that be a residence above one of the retail stores? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be. It could -- or it could be I would imagine we would -- we might put it separately. I doubt it, but we could put it in the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not sure where it belongs. I mean, I'm just wondering. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's intended to be an accessory used to help maintain the -- the overall project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that like security as well? Is that what you're -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be. It could be, you know, the person who's cutting the grass, you know, fixing the plumbing if something breaks -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- the electrical. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a major problem with it if it's something that's fairly common. I think it stuck out to me as being odd that there should be one residence when you don't want any residence. So okay. We'll talk more about that. Under B-1 development standards the second paragraph, it looks like, really speaks to condominium. Are you going to have condominium in there? Is that what's going to happen? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be a commercial condominium. That's become a fairly common form of development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your plan is beginning to be seen. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it's -- it's the flexibility. We may -- Page 15 Jarl" J, 100S A we may do condominium, a commercial condominium, where we would do one SDP so you could have one lot but you'd have individual condominium parcels. Or we could have the -- we could do a typical plat. It gives us the flexibility to go either way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I can appreciate that. And then I have on the master plan -- I found it interesting -- but on the master plan that was in the county's presentation the proposed commercial were in three sites different than in the plan that you had submitted in your document. More specifically, and I can show it to you if you'd like, but if we're -- if we're at 41 looking at the property front on, your plan showed proposed commercial on the left of right and on the left and behind. And the county -- whoops. Wait a minute. I'm dreaming. No. I'm right. The county's plan or yours, now I'm not sure. Yeah. The county's plan showed it on the left, the right and also in the rear right, but your plan showed it where you addressed it this morning. Commercial on the right, the left of your entry . Would you like to see it, what I'm referring to? This seems crazy to try to do it this way. You can just look. And it's probably nothing significant but might be. They should be equal. They should be the same anyway. I don't know how significant it is, but it just struck me as odd that they would be two different plans. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'll be -- I'll -- I'll admit I don't see that, the real difference. I think they both reference the same thing, but we'll -- we'll coordinate with county staff and make sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think what I'm bringing to your attention is not as a question so much as a point of reference for you. You may want to correct your documents. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll look at -- we'll look at that to make sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You would agree that they are different? Page 16 16ah 120~ MR. YOV ANOVICH: It looks like the wording as far as the references to commercial look the same to me, but there were some additional words on there that we need to figure out what the difference was. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't want to make more of it than needs to, but I think it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I just want to go in -- in the PUD document now or am I in transportation here. Yeah. I think I'm in transportation, the study. I'm in Appendix A, initial meeting checklist. Originally it was 50,000 square feet. That's been modified obviously. But I would have a question when we get in further into this, I'm still seeing 50,000 square feet as a basis. And I'm on -- I don't know how to relate to it except to say Myrtle Woods CPUD site generated trips. And it's -- let me see what page is it's from. It's difficult. I don't have any page number to reference to you. It's Mr. Jarvi's document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I have his document. Let's make sure we're reading from the same one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard -- when you talk, Rich, you need to be near the microphone. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looking at the top where it says 80927.01. That's the identification Myrtle Woods CPUD. I guess that's his identification number. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The one I'm looking at says November 21st, 2005, updated November 13,2006. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, see, I don't even have the privilege of that on this -- on this document. And that's what attracted my attention to it's still referencing 50,000 square feet and it talks about a passed-by deduction. Page 17 JanU ~ z10S A MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're -- you're -- I'm sorry. You're looking at the document from the initial meeting that did have __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's still the initial meeting? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It has been updated -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- in the traffic analysis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Well, then-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we did was based on 61,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. I do want to talk about the pass-by trip deduction because that's another factor. And while I may not be able to properly qualifY my question now because I don't -- I can't reference the real number you're referring to, but how does that work now? The assumption being that you're going to have so many vehicles passing through that because you're -- you're asking them to do so by realignment of the road and you're able then to take a deduction? Did I understand that correctly or is that not correct? MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi for the record. You're actually mixing two different issues. One is a pass-by of traffic that's on US 41 that would use the commercial parcel. And that's done by ITE formula in this case. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the capture? Isn't that a capture? MR. JARVI: That's the capture we've talked about several times before. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. MR. JARVI: Right. Now, there's another you could call it pass-by which would be the Myrtle Lane people passing through the project which would be their traffic is added to the access and signal at Broward Street. Page IS Janua4 6 7POl A COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to get to. MR. JARVI: That's a pass-through more of that than a pass-by. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. Is that referenced in here in such a fashion that I could see that? MR. JARVI: It's included in here. If you look at, let me find the -- in the exhibits what we have done -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which exhibits here? MR. JARVI: I'm looking. I think it's 2 or 3. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's got it. All right. MR. JARVI: Yeah. If you're looking at Exhibit 6 which is, I don't know, 15 pages into it give or take. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Exhibit 2,3. Okay. Ah, right. MR. JARVI: Yeah. Exhibit 6 shows -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Everybody else got it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. JARVI: Exhibit 6 shows the background traffic which was taken from the number of units that we looked at that we showed -- that we were observing on Myrtle Lane. And it shows that there is an amount of traffic turning right on Myrtle Lane and then -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see that, yes. MR. JARVI: Now, if you look at Exhibit 7, we have transferred -- we've assumed that the people will be using our access, you know, the pass-through traffic would be using our access. So we've included that in the analysis of the intersection and access point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would that be the 124 as opposed to 12? MR. JARVI: Well, the 124 is part -- includes the traffic from Myrtle Lane plus the project traffic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. That -- in other words, aligning that -- I'm aligning that circle; correct? Page 19 Janu~~,10~ A MR. JARVI: Yeah. It's transferred from what is currently the Myrtle Lane, US 41 access -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's the -- MR. JARVI: -- Broward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. It's not as significant as I thought it might be. MR. JARVI: No. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And it's fine, but I was wondering about the extent of the deduction whether -- and I presumed that Nick Casalanguida and his staff may have qualified that information more effectively. I have no problem and, you know, it's good that the realignment ofthe road and there is a benefit, you know, there is a reduction that is potential. MR. JARVI: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so it's an accurate and a fair deduction because that's, what, a TCMA area, that area? 41 is TCMA or TCME? MR. JARVI: No. I don't think it extends that far southeast. It's north to Rattlesnake. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I know this segment is impacted as that, if I'm not mistaken, but that will be more qualified. I think you've answered my question. And, sir, that was it. Thank you. MR. JARVI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A couple things quick. One thing is you referenced you're going to be building an office building, but I'm not seeing that many office uses permitted. It looks like physicians, dentists, chiropractors, the managers ofthe PUD. And I guess agents for laundry means you could have a company in there that owns a chain of laundries or something. But is that something you want to put in more uses for offices? Page 20 Janu~J2rk8 A MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had advice from Realtors in the area and they believe that those were probably the uses we could attract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Those would be the only uses you want? Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the second thing is, you know, we had a lot of conversation in the past couple years over mixed use and the need for bringing residential into these kind of developments. We've had residential in this development. We're throwing it out. Has anybody studied or tried to -- to me this looks like a great site for a mixed-use project. Even bringing the road through it, you know, to me gives it more credentials for that. But here we're throwing away units when we, believe it or not, I think still need affordable housing so... MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't disagree with your statement that we need affordable housing. We just didn't believe that this site was going to make a go of it as a mixed-use site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even though the back triangle and -- and when you look at the way the commercial comes down, it's coming down a pretty clear line. The residential in the prior PUD kind of had residential where I think it belongs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what you end up having, Mr. Schiffer, is with all the changes in the code and the need to do preserves now. Remember 1981 when the original PUD was done, the rules were very different. To fit it -- to fit it on everything we have to do on-site we've got to now do, you know, about three-quarter's of an acre of native preservation. We're doing almost an acre. So we lose that and that's where the preserve actually is going to be the buffer from -- from our adjacent residential neighbors. We just -- we frankly can't fit it all if we were to include the 45 units. That -- that old master plan won't work under today's rules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you build the old master Page 21 JanuaJ ~2hol A plan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under today's rules? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No. I mean from -- with the old PUD? That's expired. That's long gone. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. That's a sunset PUD. We're -- that's why we're going through one of the -- what we're going through right now is the process we're going through. But, no, we couldn't -- we couldn't -- we couldn't build that today. If we could, I think we would and there was a market for it, we would have done it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, you do have good height in the site and everything. I mean, you could mix everything in I think, but anyway you're not doing it anyway so. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We just don't think it's feasible on this -- on this piece of property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thanks. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have one follow-up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was an issue in there, one ofthem that I missed and I apologize, was fast food. Fast food, what -- what fast food is contemplated there? I mean, does that work out with that community area? I'm trying to understand why you want to put fast food in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- I always hesitate to mention names because we don't have anybody specifically associated that. But, you know, just down the road you've already got, I believe it is a Burger King and a McDonald's. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: More than likely they would not be one ofthe potential users of that site. But, you know, there's -- there's others out there, like, a Checkers or similar to that type of -- of Page 22 Janua~, ~Ol8' ,4 restaurant. And that's what we've contemplated about a 2,000 square foot restaurant of that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, of course, that connotes in one's mind what type of project this is going to end up being if that's the case. Because what -- what -- what something looks like, what it's known for and what you might see in your mind' eye. I just wonder is that a critical factor in this as well? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me ask you. We've -- we've gone through this a couple of times and -- and what -- what -- the -- the problem you have is is Starbucks considered fast food? We've had this debate before. As a matter of fact I think we had the same discussion for -- for the Lely out-parcel that we came through and there wasn't a concern about allowing fast food to stay there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We run into the issue of, you know, is a Quiznos, is a Subway, you know, are those fast food or not? And in-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The distinction in the boutique approach that Stock was going to take was that any fast food would be housed within their structures and be complimentary to the structures as opposed to a stand alone or a facade that is garish. Okay. My concern is that it needs -- if it's going to be fast food, if it's going to be stand alone, there are n there are organizations that are well understood in our society as being acceptable. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm trying to see if there's a proper fit. We're talking about some retail and then two story of office. And then I see this shining out. And I'm just wondering what kind of a -- what kind of a development are we creating here? Do they really have a plan for this or is this let's just build something and try like the devil to lease it? And I'm concerned in an area where we already have the potential for lease holds to fail because of a declining economy. And, yes, we're talking about the future, not today. But today is also representative of the future. Events are cyclical. I just want to see Page 23 Jant6l, 410s A that if we're going to put a development in an area such as that, we'd like to have the best we could have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the fast food reference you're finding? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I found it in here. It was -- maybe it was in his -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at Exhibit A, the permitted uses and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you looking in their PUD or CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking in the PUD that's been given to the Planning Commission to review. But No. 14 it says, Eating places except caterers, and industrial and institutional food service establishments, dinner theaters, drive-in restaurants and restaurants with drive-through facilities. So that means they can't have those. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Maybe I misread it and all of what I said may be silly then and I apologize if that's the case. But it -- let me just -- what number was that, sir? Oh, No. 14. COMMISSIONER CARON: Number 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 14. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know I saw it. You know what, I might have seen it in another area of the other section, but I know I saw fast food. So if it's not permitable, so if you're saying to me that we're not going to have that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 14 seems to say that. Ms. Caron did you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to say maybe Mr. Murray was looking at the information from the neighborhood information meeting -- Page 24 Janulh, bo18 A COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That may -- that's probably where it was. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- where it stated that fast foot was anticipated, but it looks like according to the list that's been provided here and the exceptions that fast food would not be allowed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you for helping me on that because I was particularly concerned with what we were doing there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This has been a very good discussion because Mr. Nadeau just pointed out to me that the intent was on the list of exceptions was to only apply to caterers and industrial and institutional food service establishments. Dinner theaters, stop, and then the other uses as far as drive-in restaurants and restaurants with drive-through facilities were intended to be allowed uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not what it says. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I realize that now. And in looking at that, I read it your way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now that brings in a whole array of things. Because fast food drive-through has a huge intensity upon traffic as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It certainly does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stacking and all kinds of things that may not have been evaluated with this project. If your intent was to include that rather than exclude it, we may be looking at a new traffic impact statement and some re-evaluation by staff. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Jarvi can answer that question, but -- but my understanding is the shopping center category anticipates fast food restaurants being part of the shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't even got into that problem yet, but we're going to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- I understand. But I'm just -- from a traffic analysis standpoint, it does include that use. Page 25 Jan~3/2108 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would also need staffs review of that as well. I'm a little disappointed that this has been reviewed. How many -- how long has this been in the system? MR. YOV ANOVICH: About a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you haven't -- this -- now at this meeting you guys discovered that an exception now needs to be an inclusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just think about it. It said -- if! hadn't posed the question, we would have been all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you had not asked the question, they wouldn't have gotten it is what it would have resulted in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They wouldn't have based on 14; right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, they would have put it in and we would have been arguing about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, also in 1 you're excluding drive-throughs for banks too so this seems to be a drive-through-less project up till now. Banks aren't going to like that. Every project I'm designing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not disagreeing with you. I -- I thought that one was pretty clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Every project I -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can see here on the listing of the excepts, but that one to me seemed pretty clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In every project I'm designing, the banks will come in only if they can get the drive-through so... MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number 1, I think you want to be careful with too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. We're back to now you're Page 26 J'l1i j' 100S telling us that you want to include fast foods. Mr. Murray's point was A that that was something from his perspective was undesirable for this location. Is that where you were going with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As well as intensity and that's what the question was. Whether or not we have an actual good number, set of numbers for this as well. And, yeah, I don't know. I'm worried about people coming in developing it, flipping it, and not knowing what they want to put there and creating a community area that is not -- that's an important part for this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. And -- and what 1-- the reality of the development world today is you're not going to go in and build it and hope somebody will come. Okay. I think that we've learned some lessons here recently about spec-ing space out. One, I don't think you can get lending for it, conventional lending for it. And so you're going to build when you're -- you have leased-up space. And you're going to go build it. You will have some vacant space, yes, but you're not just going to build it and hope you fill it. And -- and I don't think that this analysis has been applied to any other project. I mean, are we supposed to come with you with a completely leased-out project in order to get property rezoned? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Mr. Y ovanovich, not to be disputatious with you but, quite frankly, I just learned that Mr. McCabe's property back has said no. No condolences, now said no. So the fact that you have prospective leases is good, desirable, good business plan. But the concern I have is what kind of a project are we building? We're not putting residences in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Fine. But we want two stories over commercial of office. And we're talking about a fast food restaurant. Are we talking about what? I'm trying to understand what's going to be there for the next 25 years. And it's a community need that needs to be addressed. That's all I'm trying to represent. Page 27 Jarrri (' }008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And what I'm trying to A understand and I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. We've had this discussion. Is a Starbucks fast food? I don't think of it as fast food, but others apparently do because -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's expensive food or maybe it's not good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But no. What I'm suggesting and I don't -- and a Crispers, is that fast food? I mean, you go in. I mean, I don't know. I mean, there were days when, you know, the fast food restaurants didn't have drive-throughs. You know, is -- is that type of -- I don't know. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm just trying to say we're not allowed to put names of -- of -- of companies in here as examples of what we can and can't have. Maybe that would be more beneficial so we can probably get on -- give each other some assurances here. But I tried that one other time and I was told by the County Attorney's Office you can't do that. So I want to -- I want to satisfY you that this is going to be a nice project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I thank you for this. And I'm not trying to be myself argumentative. I just want to -- let's then relate to Mr. Jarvi's statistical information and see whether or not fast foods since it wasn't included here, but I did obviously pick it up. And thanks to Commissioner Caron she made me remember where. So obviously it was intended all along. So let's see if whether or not the numbers were -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not like we didn't tell the neighbors that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far. Mr. Murray and many of us keep referring to fast food. We're talking some -- maybe something different than your exception in 14. Your exception is for drive-in -- through or drive-through facilities. Are you saying fast food and drive-through are the same thing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It has been -- I think people interpret it Page 28 JJDJ 31wmA that way. I think -- and that's why we've run into this issue on the project that was on Vanderbilt Beach Road near -- and I'm blanking on the -- the name of the DiVosta project. We're going through and doing a comp plan amendment and that came up was, you know, they clearly didn't want the historically understood fast food which was your hamburger places. They had no objections to a Starbucks that has evolved to include drive-throughs. And the question became now that it includes a drive-through, did it kick it over to what it's historically been -- historically been interpreted to mean fast food. And that's -- that's what -- no, we don't mean -- we don't mean a McDonald's and we don't mean a Wendy's. And we don't mean a Burger King. But we may want to have a Starbucks. And if it's got a drive-through facility, is that going to be a problem for the neighbors? Is that going to be a not-a-nice project? I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what I was getting at, Richard, is we've got your No. 14. It excepts out certain -- certain things. What is it -- what it is excepting out are facilities with drive-throughs just as commercial bank with drive-throughs are prohibited. Now, if we took out the drive-through portion of it, how fast they cook the food isn't a -- isn't a criteria. So maybe it's not fast food we're objecting to. Maybe it's the drive-through segment of the eating establishment that we're objecting to. And if we focus on that, maybe we can get a resolution quicker. Because I don't know how fast you have to cook your food to be fast food, but I'm sure restaurants around here can cook as fast as anybody else. So maybe it's -- it may not be fast food we're objecting to. It's the drive-in, drive-through location on this site as tight as the site is. And in relation to what Myrtle Woods opens up to across that intersection. I think it's the entrance to the high school or thereabouts. You've got a good potential to have a lot of traffic going in and out of there if there's a drive-through in there. And that could further complicate the use of the public going through that property. So if you were to leave 14 like it was, except Page 29 JanuJ.ref<fS A out the drive-through portions of it and we don't have the discussion on fast food because we don't know how to define it, that might resolve the issue. Is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me -- let me -- and I -- and I hear what you're saying and I think you're right. Okay. So perhaps we can -- we can probably leave the list the way you have it. Okay. I think that will address that concern, but I do -- you know, Mr. Schiffer brings up a point that, frankly, I didn't catch because I read the language the way it is. Number A-I is an error. Okay. We should-- in order to get a bank there, that was just flat out an error. I didn't catch it. It needs to -- we need to for a bank be able to have drive-through facilities for the bank. I don't think that would be an issue for anybody, but we need to have a commercial bank with drive-through facilities. So if we can make that correction and leave 14 the way it is because I think it addresses Commissioner Murray's concern about having drive-through restaurants I think would work if that's acceptable to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- I think a bank drive-through is harmless. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer's right. I don't know why you took it out in the first place. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't either, but I read it and Ijust didn't catch it. I thought that was something we had -- we decided we wanted to do but that was a mistake. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a good resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, let's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well-- Page 30 Jarl6' f, fOS A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's -- your transportation commitment to -- for public access from Myrtle through to the Broward light -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that needs to go in the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It needs to go into the development commitments, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: As well as the retail first floor only. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Into the PUD also should be the installation of the pipe? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, with reimbursement to us within 180 days. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Okay. I'd just like to-- we've spent a lot of time talking about this old sunseted PUD and what was allowed in that and what wasn't, but I don't think that that should be open for discussion at all because you -- your clients allowed that to sunset. So if you want to talk about a relationship to your current zoning, that current zoning is not the CPUD. It's what it was before that before which is C-2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, I don't think that's the legally correct answer. Sunsetting, as I explained to my clients, and I'm not -- I'm not Catholic so I don't mean to offend anybody by saying this, it's purgatory. You're not -- you're not in heaven and your not in the other place. You -- you -- you have your zoning. You haven't lost your zoning. You just can't use it. You have to then go back through another analysis to determine if you can move forward. So you're kind of on a hold. You haven't lost it. You don't revert back to C-2. Because, frankly, we would -- that would have been great. Because if we'd have gotten back to C-2 what was back in 1974, because this Page 31 Ja1'S' J' fOS A property was always commercial. The entire thing was commercial until we did a PUD and made part of it residential. And then the comp plan in '89 came through and -- and changed all the commercial. But so I mean if you look from a historical standpoint, even the -- the odd-shaped notch was commercial at one time. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I don't think we're asking for anything that unusual because it was always contemplated -- not always, but it was contemplated at one time that commercial be on that back piece. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I don't think you're asking for anything unusual at all. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But we don't get to go back to the C-2 under the sunsetting analysis. We're in purgatory. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- I don't know another way-- another analogy that fits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Most of mine have been checked off here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, let's go back to the Exhibit A, eating places. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a little project in North Naples called Pebblebrook. I'm not sure if you're familiar with it or not. They have a problem there because eating places was allowed in their PUD and it had a residential component nearby. And even though certain things did occur to try to salvage the detriment to the neighborhood that an eating place with outside entertainment and noise would happen, it didn't seem to follow through that way. We kind of want to make sure that doesn't happen again. So we got two choices here. We can suggest that the language that was established and submitted with a couple other PUDs be added Page 32 J~~,1008A to this one as kind of a notice to the BCC that there's an issue here and maybe they need to either accept the language or modifY it to a point where we can have some control over wherein how close you put facilities that are, let's say, incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood or we can figure out a way to control it here at this meeting by limiting where eating places can go and how close in to the property they can go and whether or not they can have outside amplified music or noise and entertainment or seating. Got any suggestions? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I certainly understand and have read the papers. I think prohibiting -- prohibiting outdoor entertainment, whether amplified or not, should be probably added to address that particular concern. I think another -- and I haven't talked about this with my client, but another way to address it is is to prohibit -- I don't think we should prohibit outdoor seating altogether. Because I think, you know, that's a nice -- a nice, you know, part of different restaurants. I mean, we do have nice weather. Why not eat outside? But I think you should say it should have to -- the seating must be for dining services, not just for sitting and waiting to get drinks. Ifwe can some -- what I'd like to say is you could serve alcohol along with the meal, but you can't just serve alcohol out there. You know what -- you know what I'm trying to say? We need to craft language. And I think that would also address the concern and distinguish it from -- from a different establishment. And -- and I understand your concern and make sure it doesn't happen here, but it's kind of -- kind of tough to be compared with one bad -- one -- one bad situation, but we need to address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think what I've suggested will hopefully address that by prohibiting any entertainment out there and prohibiting, quote, bar service only in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather we reword what you Page 33 Jan11>3ffS A suggest a little bit better. We prohibit outside entertainment, music, speakers or amplified sound in any manner, period. And that way if someone has a table and they have a loud speaker out back that says, Table 14 is ready to be seated and they say that eleven or twelve o'clock at night, it doesn't get everybody jumping out oftheir seats in their homes so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I would prefer amplified sound. And if we did that it would take care ofthe whole matter. Does that work for anybody else? Okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It doesn't -- may I say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I do recall as you've referenced it now, it may not be directly pertinent, but I remember now to that-- the GMP that we're going to be looking at references mixed uses and exception to that. But -- but I'm -- I'm certainly in favor of what you just declared of what we should do. I was thinking about that for the future. This is a mixed use intent; right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With no residential, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With no residential I understand. But residential can't be within, say, 2,500 feet. Okay. In any event, I completely agree with the chair that that should be included. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Now-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- a point just -- I'm going to ask your attorney a question if it's appropriate. Because we're going to have this provision in here that says basically no outdoor entertainment, no amplified noise and that becomes our rule. And now you adopt an LDC provision that says you can't have any of this stuff, outdoor seating -- and I'm not saying you will or you won't -- but let's just say you adopt something that says no outdoor seating within 1,500 feet of a residential development. Am I now stuck with that provision or am I Page 34 Jan11>3'I2fS A -- have I just gotten a deviation from a prospective code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not offering a deviation here because you've not asked for one and we don't have one -- right. So I don't get -- I don't know how you could be exempt from a future code that you haven't asked for a deviation from. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to know how it's going to be interpreted to us if that prospective regulation is adopted. Have I lost my outdoor seating somehow? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you have input on that, you might want to come to the meeting next Wednesday and voice your concern and maybe we can work that out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But unless the county attorney has another suggestion, I think that would be the best course of action. MR. KLATZKOW: That's all clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe go to Table 1 on B-2, you have minimum yards and it says internal, front, rear and side. What are your proposed setbacks from US 41? Or for that matter I don't know if it's called Myrtle Lane, whatever that road is to the north here -- to the west of your property that you're part of or contiguous to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: By these distances? It should be internal and external? Well, hold on one second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those distances, Mr. Strain, are actually from the property boundary which would be the frontage of Myrtle Lane, 41. The other areas that are actually adjacent to -- if you look to the east, I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- so that should be -- that should be property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you just take out the word "internal" and just leave it. I mean, that's a new way of calling it Page 35 Janl~ l fOS A out. We don't use it that often. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, take that word out and then you drop down to your first asterisk. Parcels with two frontages may reduce one front yard by ten feet. So now you're saying that the building on the corner of Myrtle and 41, either it can be ten feet from Myrtle or ten feet from 41 ? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be reduced by ten feet. So if you had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It says parcel with two frontages may reduce from front yard, okay, by ten feet. So that means you go to 15 feet. So you have 25-foot frontage on Myrtle and 15-foot frontage on US 4 I ? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or vice versa, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark -- okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I mean it's -- usually when you got two fronts, I mean, it's -- it's tough to push the building back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might be -- this is a commercial piece so you've got -- and you happen to have more land. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to point out that 50 percent of the building height, the maximum building height is 50 feet. So it's a lot. It's 25 feet. If you're saying not less than 25 feet, that's what you would be at with a 50-foot building. So a 40-foot building is 25 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSION SCHIFFER: A 30-feet building is 25 feet. A 20-foot building is 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, I didn't read it that way. Fifty percent of seventy-five feet is not twenty-five feet. Page 36 1!8uf1.3, 2J8 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But he can't go -- oh, you're taking -- but it's the building height not the actual building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say that. It says building height. I would take the worst-case scenario, most stringent applies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be 50 percent of75 feet. And you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then he's going to be able to be greater than 25 feet in that other zone, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it has always been applied to the zoned height when you're talking about setbacks. If we need to clarifY that, that would be a new interpretation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know why it's always been applied; but you know what, this is the first time it hasn't been -- it's been questioned. So now maybe we better define it because it could be applied the way I just suggested if it's not properly defined so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear what you're saying. It was -- it's -- I -- I appreciate the discussion. You're right. But it was under the category of maximum building height zoned. And the asterisks apply to maximum building height zoned. So I would have interpreted that's how you would measure it. You would jump in at the 75 feet. But if there's any question, I agree. Let's make sure it's clear. Because I don't want to have someone say well, you know, Mr. Y ovanovich, you should have used the 75 feet and not the 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I make a comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would definitely think we should make it the zoned height. Again, the actual height was just to remove a slang term that was -- looked embarrassing to the county. That didn't work. But the -- the actual height is something just to give people some sort of faith as to how tall this building actually would Page 37 J16d 31200~ be. Zoned height is what everybody's working with for heights. All the building codes are working with that same dimension so -- and like Richard said, it's under the zone category so... MR. YOV ANOVICH: Be we can -- I think under the minimum yard section we probably should say 50 percent ofthe zoned building height, but not less than 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I don't-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- you're right because we're going to be at least 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it would be easier just to make it 25 feet because the answer when you do the math is always going to come out to 25 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I think he's saying is if you were to build it to 50 feet, you'd be 25 feet and you can't be less than 25 feet. So it's going to be 25 feet. So that's a good point. Why don't you just drop all that 50 percent language in the front and just leave it 25 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: With the asterisk that says if you have two fronts you can reduce one of them by 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what the asterisk says. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Sold. I hear you. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's what they're asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. I just wanted to make sure that the asterisk -- so we're talking the same language, we would be -- we are talking 25 feet with an asterisk would be the revision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is not your setback on Myrtle Woods because that's a very small neighborhood street. At 15 feet that is more palatable, but to have 15 feet on 41 might be a Page 38 lbaf t 20~ stretch. So I'm wondering if not -- if the only time the ten-foot would apply, the ten-foot reduction would apply is along Myrtle Woods, the asterisk? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm looking at my professional planner to see what -- what his thought is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now he'd probably like to rewrite the whole thing, but -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, why would you ever want to be 15 feet off that property line? I mean, your buffer-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, either one. I mean, first of all, you don't want to be 15 feet off of 41. You know, the traffic, you wouldn't -- you don't want that kind of exposure. So kill the asterisk. You're going to have parking between the building and the roadways anyway. You're never going to have a problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So the asterisk's going away? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you should kill the asterisk. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The asterisk is going away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmidt. Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: For the record I just want to make sure where we are here. We're just -- now we're saying under principle use, under that column it's 25-foot and no 50 percent of building height? I want to make sure that the petitioner agrees to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me walk through what we've got so far. Under minimum yards the word "internal" is going to be struck. MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the first designation where it says front under principles uses, the language of all the 50 percent Page 39 JaJu~bJoo&4 reference and the asterisk is struck and it just says 25 feet. MR. SCHMIDT: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Front setback is 25 feet, period. And that's -- those are the changes so far. Mr. Schiffer then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, would it ever be a problem -- would you ever break this up into smaller subdivisions where somebody might interpret those yards to meet -- you know, to be at that level? For example, let's say you broke it up into three lots. Would you have trouble in the future with staff, them holding you to those yard requirements? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's why it's important to us that the public access be referred to as public access and not have to meet setbacks from that public access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because that would create the yard. Right, Nick? That could create now a 25- foot setback from that public access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the definition of setback would cause you to measure from that. So I think that's something you got to really make clear. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And that's why I brought it up early and we need to write that language. Oh, Nick's got the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: As I understand it then the 25 feet is the only thing that will remain as far as the front yard setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For principle uses, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What about the rear and the side, do they remain as in -- in here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think there's any -- no concern over those. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okay. Page 40 16a1ur 3, 200S d . . d' A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one own, mInImUm Istance between structures principle uses, none. Can you tell me how you get a fire truck through no distance between buildings? Are these going to be one continuous building with separate fee simple or condominium lots underneath or internal walls to internal wall or something like that? MR. NADEAU: For the record, Dwight Nadeau, RWA and planning manager. The -- the intent of the development was to have separate parcels. The design was to have three structures. One would be on one out-parcel. One would be on the other out-parcel. And then there would be a large major anchor or a commercial operation. The -- the parking was going to provide for the separations. Just because we have to function. We've got to provide 20 feet around the buildings for fire access. That none really wouldn't apply. It's not a functional standard, but if you're going to put a kiosk or something next to one of the structures, you wouldn't want to have it maybe 15 feet away or so. But I -- I could live with 15 feet between structures if that's what you'd like, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like something there only because none makes it hard to understand what you're trying to do, so 15 feet would work fine. MR. NADEAU: Very good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, if you could-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if you're concerned about fire access, 20 feet would be the number you want. Anything less than 20 feet would not be considered accessible by the fire department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how do they get between all the houses that we allow in the PUDs with five foot on each side? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they're not counting that as frontage. I mean, in a fire with Bruce Willis in action, they'll get Page 41 JanuJ6 ~o~ A through it. But -- but in terms of counting it for frontage and exposure, it wouldn't count. And actually, Dwight, if you had a building with no distance between them, it would be part of the same building. So there wouldn't be two buildings to begin with unless there is a fire -- separate fire wall. MR. NADEAU: All right. With 15, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm fine with that. I mean, I -- if the fire department's got a problem, they can deal with you when you come in for review. They -- they -- they deal with people all the time anyway so. As we move further down, maximum gross leasable area, 61,000 square feet. Maximum gross leasable area, now that means every square foot you can lease out is the only number that's counted for the 61,000 which is really a net number. So how big can this shopping center really be? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to ask one question here. I read it and I think what Mr. Nadeau is just telling me is that's the gross floor area, 61,000 square feet. Ifwe lose area to other uses that we can't lease it out, I interpret what you said to be net leasable area versus gross leasable area. Now, if we needed to see 61,000 square feet, we can just say 61,000 square feet so there's no confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just drop that last line because you've already defined it. And now we have to go back to A-I. Because now that I know GLSF is referring to gross leasable square footage, you really want to say like we have in other PUDs, the maximum square foot of the building will be 61,000 feet. It doesn't matter how you get there whether you lease it or not. It's 61,000 square feet so... MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. Page 42 JanJr6,J2<1>8 A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The gross area of a building, at least in -- of all the codes I know, would include, like, a covered walkway and everything. In other words area that's covered would count. So if you do this nice colonnade around the front of the building, you're taking away from that 61,000 feet when you should be rewarded, not punished for that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we say 61,000 air conditioned space? Is that -- does that address your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or enclosed -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- enclosed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- some words like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but then let's take Outback Restaurant. They got seating outdoors. That seating is integral part of their operation. It creates a additional stacking of people which means there's more traffic, more intensity on the site. But now you're saying you wouldn't have counted that based on Mr. Schiffer's comments. And I say it should be counted. It's 61,000 square foot of building area, period. I don't care what you use it for. I don't care if you lease it out. If you can be more efficient in the way you build a building and get more leasable area out of that 61,000 squeet (sic) -- square feet, more power to you. But if you want 75,000 or 100,000 square feet, then just like actual height versus zoned height, say it. Tell us the truth. Tell us what you want. But you've applied for 61,000. And I think that's what you ought to be getting for buildable area, period. Now, I'm -- that's where I'm at. Brad, if-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean the concern is then it would be to their advantage to take away a covered walkway around the face of the building. We have some standards that'll require that, but the point is that if they're not using it for seating in your Outback example, why should that reduce the building to provide? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I mean this is a planning board. I understand your architectural concerns. I simply -- if they want to do Page 43 Jan~~ 31210S A it. If they want 61,000 square feet, that's what they're asking for. That's what the building footprint that's square on that property that is buildable better not be more than 61,000 square feet. I don't think the planning sector needs to get into whether or not that's air conditioned, leasable or whatever. It's building. Let the review of the architects and everybody else decide how to use that space up most efficiently, but I don't know ifthat's something we need to get into. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm not sure the public would benefit by stripping away covered walkways and stuff like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they wouldn't use it and the applicant would lose. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then the question arises if they, for instance, if they're contemplating a car dealership, none of those architectural features would necessarily apply. So we don't know what they ultimately will have. I think what Mark is indicating is that at least we can fix a point and everybody knows that point and they can go from there. I appreciate what you're saying, but I do think we -- we don't know what they're going to do. I'm not sure that they do. So as long as we can establish that one criterion and fix it, then we can go from there. Wouldn't you see that as being reasonable? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. My buildings can't exceed 61,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that what we just said? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Ifhe's happy, I'm not going to waste time arguing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from staffs perspective, whoever's making notes on this, on page A-I that reference to GLSF has to be struck and it's just GS, gross square footage, GSF for the building is -- now will be 61,000 square feet. And there's really no reason to have the last line on Table 1 then because it's already Page 44 Jan~~3Fr8 A restated previously in the document so... MR. NADEAU: Stricken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that's clear enough for the staffs purposes to correct this PUD? I see a lot of heads nodding yes so we'll go with that. Now we can possibly go on from the table. On your Exhibit C, master plan, I notice and you did it on the previous exhibit with the arrow showing the way the public's going to come into the property and out again. And I heard you say you'll make that the developer commitment. What is your developer commitment that you allow the public? Well, under what instrument are you going to allow that to happen? And under whose regulations does the safety of that roadway that's internal to your site be regulated enough so that if we say, yes, public, we approve this for your use, we're not going to be getting a lawsuit back to the county that says you approved this for a use, but you didn't -- didn't build it pursuant to county regulations. Therefore, you inordinately you have allowed the public to enter something that is damaging to them. And I'm looking to Mr. Casalanguida to probably answer that problem because I don't know an instrument we have that will allow that to happen and still protect the public. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Excuse me. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation. I have all the commitments written down and looked it over really quick with Jeff. And if you want me to read those into the record including the drainage commitments and it would address also your public access easement commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got the commitments already here. We've got -- COMMISSIONER CARON: They're not in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got three pages of commitments. They start Exhibit F, listed developer commitments. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the drainage commitments-- Page 45 Jank6 3l210S A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm talking about this one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and the access commitments were not in there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- but I want to make sure they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want you re-reading all three pages, but if you want read -- readjust the ones that we're talking about here, that's fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you'll indulge me for a minute I can probably get through this pretty quick and then just enter it as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll be able to read it and then I'll put it on the viewer if it's okay. The developer shall dedicate a 50-foot drainage and utility easement to the county as approximately shown in the master plan within the earlier of 60 days of written request of the county or at submittal of site development plan. The dedication shall be at no cost to the county and the developer shall provide all appropriate sketches and legal descriptions. At the county's request the developer shall install drainage and utility facilities in the drainage and utility easement as part of the site construction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Slow down. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The county shall not be responsible for restoration costs of private facilities within the easement should maintenance of the public utility and drainage facilities be required in the future. The county shall reimburse the developer within 180 days of completion of the installation of these facilities. The developer shall provide a public access easement from Myrtle Lane to the signalized intersection of US 41 and Broward Page 46 JanualYe, 10f A Street as approximately shown in the master plan. The public access easement shall not count as road right-of-way for setback and buffer requirements. The exact location and design shall be approved by the transportation division at the time of site development plan application reVIew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a public access easement would serve your purposes and you have enough control by that language to make sure it's designed in a manner to protect the public? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no problem with it then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll put it on the viewer for the record and I'll enter it as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have a comment? Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, you said that it wouldn't count as road right-of-way for measurement. What if we just took the word "road" out of it and just said right-of-way. Because there are, like, for example, easements and things like that that you have to measure from to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Typically community development even public easement counts for setback purposes as road right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So we just want to make sure we're clear that it does not count for those setback purposes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my only concern is the word "road." I mean we don't want it to count for any kind of right-of-way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We could -- we could take the word "road" out if that's your pleasure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich is tall. He's the lawyer. Page 47 Janut93! 2lo8 A COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the absence of an easement, there would be invitees on the property if I'm not mistaken, anybody that comes across the property. So the easement establishes a road or a right-of-way. Which? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not a road or a right-of-way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a road or a right-of-way. What does it establish? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Public access through the property. In other words, right now they have access on 41 and Myrtle Lane. What we don't want them to do is put a gate up on Myrtle Lane and say no one can use Myrtle Lane. The intent you have to -- when we get into that exhibit in the record I'll show you in the diagram. That's upside down. Myrtle Lane right now is a tremendous weaving hazard for the county. Right now you come out, you take a right. You want to make a U-turn and go the other way. You're cutting across traffic. What we've asked them to do and they've worked with us on is to relocate that to make Myrtle Lane only an entrance only. And the county will take it upon itself to make it an in only and that way reducing the conflict that's there right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's very laudable. I'm not questioning that at all. My -- my -- was just maybe even perhaps a curiosity in one sense. Just trying to figure out what kind of an animal it is. Because when they have to ensure, you know, do they ensure it? Is the county liable? I mean, the chairman brought up a part that I thought was very interesting. We're -- we're suggesting people use that. And the property owner is agreeing that that's the right thing to do. But it's not a road and it's not a right-of-way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It happens all the time throughout the county when you interconnection these, and they're just granted for Page 48 Janut$, Fo.fS A public purposes, emergency vehicles with no responsibility for maintenance. They take care of it. It's their drive aisle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that different than a loop road that we designate? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's a loop road, then the county assumes responsibility for maintenance. It becomes county road right-of-way. This becomes the developer's property with public access rights. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I'm trying to remember Wolf Road. There was a loop road there. And I thought that was going to be -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Public road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that was a public road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next issue's going to take some time. So why don't we take a 15-minute break for the court reporter. We'll be back here at five after ten. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone, if you'll take your seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. Okay. We are still trying to get through the applicant's portion of this and we left off still in the PUD. And I've got a question, Exhibit F., Mr. Yovanovich, page F-2, utilities, D. Why are you giving away the property for a well field easement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why are we giving it away? Because the county has requested additional well sites in order to provide the public with a public water supply. And we were able to put it in a location that we can agree to and we've agreed to give it to utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you getting impact fee credits for 't? 1 . MR. YOV ANOVICH: My assumption is that the county's not Page 49 Janule,pCfS A interested in giving us impact fee credits for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you feel you could have successfully got through the process, if you didn't provide this, in the same time frame that you got through it already? I shouldn't say that because it's probably taken you awhile. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- let me ask you, am I successfully through the process right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think where I'm going, Richard, is 1-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand where you're going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- he's coming through. The county takes them away, takes them out of properties. They offer no impact fee credits for them. We have a huge amount of impact fees that are paid by developments. I have no problem making developers stand to the plate and do everything they got to do, but what's fair is fair. And I don't believe we should be taking additional properties without compensation when we have impact fees as well. So that one concerns me, but I also have a greater concern. Do you know what it was told to you to be for? I know what it says. Is that for your -- is this going to service your site only? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, no. Oh, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. It's not just for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I need to see Mr. Weeks if! could since he's here. I had a question of David Weeks on December 13th that has yet to be answered. And it pertains to an item similar to this. David, good morning. MR. WEEKS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember the question I asked you on December 13th bye-mail? MR. WEEKS: I do. And for the record David Weeks, comprehensive planning manager, comprehensive planning department. Page 50 Janu'i t 2fof A Staff has looked into your inquiry which was whether or not the potable water well fields were allowed within the coastal high hazard area. And we've searched. Our department has searched. Conservation and coastal management element, the future land use element and potable subelement as being those that have any relevance to the issue at hand and we are not able to find any language, any policy, any provision that we read that says they're not allowed. So we believe that a potable water well field is allowed in the coastal high hazard area. Excuse me. We also looked at the capital improvement element. If I may go on briefly a little bit further, in sum what those elements provide for is that the county is either allowed to provide or in some cases is mandated to provide public infrastructure of all types: roads, water, sewer, et cetera, to serve the public. And specifically either the county is mandated to provide those or other private utilities are allowed to provide for that infrastructure. But one way or the other, the infrastructure to serve -- to serve development in the coastal high hazard area is required. We have level-of-service standards that have been adopted in the capital improvement element and in certain sub-elements and those must be maintained. There are generally some limitations on development in the coastal high hazard area or perhaps instead of limitations I should say encouragement such as reducing the residential density in the coastal high hazard area, but there's not a prohibition on that. This -- the county is allowed to, of course, allow existing zoned property to be developed in the coastal high hazard area including residential and is not prohibited from approving new residential development in the coastal high hazard area. However, the county does have GMP, Growth Management Plan, a limitation on residential density for new zoning within a portion of the coastal high hazard area where the subject site is located. The urban coastal fringe is limited to four units per acre with the only Page 51 exception being for affordable housing. But, in short, the GMP provides that infrastructure must be provided to serve development within the coastal high hazard area. And we do not find any -- any provision that says you cannot provide the infrastructure within the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with your analysis, but as we've heard and as I think the record will show, this use is not exclusively for the coastal high hazard area. This is infrastructure being utilized to service areas outside the coastal hazard area. And if Objective 3 ofthe FLUE Policy 3.1, both of those refer to, first of all, replacement of maintenance for those items within the coastal high hazard area. It doesn't say new is allowed. Objective 3 says, Needed to support new development pursuant to Policy 1.1 which is basically new development pursuant to the AUIR process. So I can't see where there's any reference or allowance in the GMP to place infrastructure in a coastal high hazard area so that the infrastructure can support areas outside the coastal hazard area. That certainly seems contrary to the best intent of the use of public funds. You've addressed everything but that part of it so... MR. WEEKS: What that suggests to me is that -- that the county then by reading it, I believe the way you are, would prohibit the county from placing any infrastructure within the coastal high hazard area that is going to serve any property outside of coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the way I was reading it, yes. That's the way it seems to me. Is that -- have you looked at that aspect of this? MR. WEEKS: I had not specifically looked at those -- that objective for policy that you referenced. I was looking more in the conservation and coastal management element because it speaks specifically to coastal high hazard area. And that's where it talks about efforts to reduce the impact that might occur to storm events January 3, 2008 16 I 1 A Page 52 Janl'6' l' f08 A within the coastal high hazard area. For example, flood proofing of infrastructure, elevating above the flood plain, things of this, mitigation measures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David-- MR. WEEKS: Once again no prohibition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would it be fair to ask you to look at that issue before this goes to the BCC? Would you have time to do that? Because I sent you excerpts from the CCME and the CIE. CIE refers back to the CCME. The CCME says limitation of public expenditures that subsidized development in high hazard coastal areas. That's one ofthe objectives. Then if you go into the CIE, you find other references to infrastructure improvements. And some of them to me seem to -- it says, Needed to support new development to the extent permitted in the future land use element. I keep referring it -- to me it seems to keep referring back to that development in the coastal high hazard. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It seems really silly to expend funds, capital taxpayer's money to build infrastructure in a coastal high hazard that we know is a bad area to begin with anyway. And we have all the restrictions we can imagine to build there to see it damaged because of flooding when we could be placing it inland where it belongs. So that's why under common sense it just doesn't seem that that would be the place to put elements for infrastructure that serve outside that area. So if you could look at that before the BCC meeting, I would appreciate it. MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the meantime as far as this -- but thank you, David. That's all I had on that issue. As far as my concerns on this project go, unless there's going to be a payment for either the land or impact fee credits for these well sites or some policy established that provides for a discussion of this Page 53 Janlh ~ 2]08 A kind of extraction or exaction, however you want to word it, through a public process like impact fees are discussed and like other things are discussed, this is -- I'm very concerned about this chunk of land being contributed by the developer. So I'm -- my sense is to ask that it not be included in our recommendation to move forward. Does anybody have any thoughts on that from the Planning Commission? MR. GRAMATGES: May I address the commissioners, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead, Phil. MR. GRAMA TGES: Phil Gramatges, public utilities . . engmeenng. Let me first show the location of this well in reference to the proposed Southeast Regional Water Treatment Plant. And this Southeast Regional Water Treatment Plan is supposed to serve the area surrounding it which is, of course, in the high hazard area. So, indeed, this well will be supplying water not only to areas that may be outside of that -- that high hazard area, but it certainly will be supplying road water for those areas that you're referring to. Furthermore, we need to realize that we have to pay for these wells out of funds that will eventually have to be paid by the rate payers and the impact fee payers. If we were to pay for this at this point in time, they would eventually have to pay for that at a later time. We cannot take wells only that are going to supply the specific area where the well is located because not all developments are within areas that we can put a well. So we are really finding -- finding ourselves between a rock and a hard place. If we do not get these wells now, they are going to be a lot more expensive in the future. In fact, we may not even be able to get them in the future. Furthermore, if we do not get these wells whenever we can get these wells, we certainly will never get them. It -- it would be a problem for us if we didn't do this in this manner. Besides this is going to be a brackish water well because that's going to be a reverse Page 54 1anqa~ 120A osmosis plant. So, therefore, it is indeed in a suitable area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Phil, I got no problem with you getting these well sites from the project. I think you should. I think every project that comes through here, if it's a site you can use, by all means. You should be asking for and you should be attaining it. Just like transportation, they look at two things on a site, site-related improvements that a road system that they make the developer pay for and other improvements needed that the developer gets impact fee credits for. The site related needs for this well site on that site, they should be paying for. But if they aren't related to the site, then you should be writing impact fee credits for them. That's-- and if that isn't enough to do it, if your impact fee credits are going to cause a problem for you with rates and all the other thing, then you should turn around and increase your impact fees so that you can take into account the need to buy the well sites for those that are not site related. I just think it's double taxation, but kind of done as a forcing the hand of the developer through the process. I don't think it's aboveboard and I don't like it. And that's where I'm standing unless there's -- it's legitimate in regards to compensation for that taken. And that's where I see it. That's just my opinion on this board so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that case, would it be -- would it serve to enter a stipulation when we finalize that would suggest that credits be provided rather than an absolute prohibition on -- on our part? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good suggestion, yeah. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, a question. When you locate a well site, doesn't that affect what's allowed to be developed in -- in the area of the well field or the well site? MR. GRAMATGES: There are some restrictions, yes. If, indeed, Page 55 Janualh, ~018 ~ you are going to have a pond or lake, it has to be within a certain distance of that well. In all cases we work with the developer to make sure that we've minimized the impact that this has on the developer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, like, there's a radius in which certain occupation -- activities can occur, fuel storage, stuff like that? MR. GRAMATGES: That is correct. However, it is more restrictive in wells that are tapping the fresh water aquifer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GRAMA TGES: This is not a fresh water aquifer well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So by placing a well field in a commercial area like this you are in no way diminishing developable rights of any of the land surrounding? MR. GRAMA TGES: I wouldn't say in no way. I would say in a minimal way affecting the -- the ability to develop it, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And what would be an example of one of your minimals? MR. GRAMATGES: The example I used previously. For example, if they need to use a pond or a lake nearby, they would be restricted to -- to the edge of that -- the water body to be within 50 feet of the well head. If the well head is there before the pond, then it would be more, like, 300 feet. But, like I said, in all cases we work with the developer to make sure that we minimize the impact. In this case, for example, if there was such a case here, we would make sure that they have the pond in place before we put the well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is not so much this developer, but other people's whose rights may be -- so give me another example. You wouldn't say absolutely that the surrounding properties are being diminished in their potential? MR. GRAMATGES: In this case I don't see that the -- that the properties are being diminished in their potential. Of course, that's not for me to say. It's for the developer to say. Page 56 Janur 6' tOi8 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I'm not worried A about this guy. I'm worried about there's other commercial properties within the region. MR. GRAMATGES: We are requesting an easement. Obviously, we're taking land from them. That is something that most developers and owners don't want, but by the same token, they also want potable water. So I mean it's a quid pro quo. You have to get the water. You have to get the well somewhere. And the -- the -- the overall good of the community will be served by having this well here. So, yeah, there will be some impact and I will emphasize minimum impact on the particular development, but I believe that the overall good that this well will provide will more than compensate for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How are the neighboring properties -- again, I'm not worried about this developer. He's aware of it, but there's other properties in that area. Will they be notified of any diminishing use of their land? MR. GRAM A TGES: Well, I am not -- no. We don't have any procedures to notify them specifically of any perceived diminish -- diminishment on the use of their property. I don't know how to evaluate that. Like I said, only the owner can evaluate whether this -- this is going to be detrimental. I mean, let me put it this way. Obviously, if! was to put a well in front of a private property between that property and the road, I would have a definite effect on that property. How much, only the owner can determine. We don't do those kind of things, but -- but certainly there is a potential there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if the neighboring site across from Myrtle wanted to put an underground storage, fuel storage or something, wouldn't he have restrictions because of his proximity to that well? MR. GRAMA TGES: Yes, he would have restrictions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That he does not have now? Page 57 IJr>i13, 2~08 MR.GRAMATGES: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- Ms. Caron then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Ijust wanted to comment that I think that properties on either side of this in-fill piece are already developed. So there's less chance of impact to those sites anyway because they're already developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Phil, not to take issue with you, but you mentioned before about costs and you were trying to show the implications of it. But it strikes me that you have two components of cost. One would be the acquisition of the property assuming that you were to buy it or it would be deeded to you as a gift or taking, so to speak. Then the other component is, of course, the structure and the well, et cetera. You kind of put those two things together as a cost out. If we didn't do this, we'd have to do that. But don't we look at it as being a two-step process? What I'm trying to do is -- is focus more clearly on the -- on the concept of rightness that if -- if we offer instead of requiring and putting people in a position where they feel that they won't achieve their purpose unless they do something, wouldn't we be better off to state right out that this is an appropriate act. We want to pay you the credits. We want to give you the credits. And you're not in a position probably to have -- but I'm putting this on the record because I think that's an advocation 1 would make. The County Commission has made it clear they want well sites wherever they can have them. That's fine. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I do agree with the chair that we do need to make it right for people and not have them even perceived that they have to jump over more hoops than necessary in order to get their project through. Page 58 Jan163J 2}08 A So that's on the record now and that's my view on it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think the chair's position on fair -- fairness is valid and worth looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I think we're going to have a suggestion to that effect in the stipulations. Thank you, Phil. MR. GRAMA TGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll just continue where I left off. And we -- now is transportation. And I guess my questions are really more of Nick than your expert so... MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record Nick Casalanguida. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Nick. Thank you again for attending here today. I know you have a busy schedule and it's -- your attention to some of these matters is appreciated. Let me read you -- there's a few notes in this Vanasse & Daylor report that concerned me and I want to get your input on them. On the first page of the trip generation projected traffic portion and I -- it's page 4. It says, The Myrtle Woods commercial development project is estimated to have a 45 percent of pass-by deduction based on ITE formula. And it says, The study conducted by Vanasse & Daylor indicated the pass-by trip deduction derived from ITE better represented Florida characteristics than does the 25 percent pass-by deduction required by Collier County. They provide a nice little report which is going to say what they want it to say. And I'm just wondering why you accepted a TIS that wasn't to county -- we went to a lot of effort to make everything standardized in this county. And now we're back to accepting stories from people as to why it shouldn't be. Where are we at? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Where we're at is this was signed, the methodology was signed on November of2005. It's almost two years old when this project was first submitted. Page 59 Janufe, FOj8 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mic's got to be a little closer I think. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Almost two years old since this project was submitted. So the methodology at that time that was approved by the county was based on ITE and the ITE pass-by rates that were -- you know, current IT books. The county has since then gone to a stricter TIS guidelines and procedures. So when this project comes in for a SDP -- and I had this discussion with Mr. Jarvi -- he'll be doing a lot more significant analysis consistent with the current TIS guidelines. But the methodology meeting is almost over two years old. So some of these projects that you bring this up, good point. That was accepted practice at the time. The project went through. I have a very comfort level that when we get to TIS that the design will meet the minimum standards to today's guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know Mr. Murray had brought up the pass-bys, an issue, earlier when he was speaking. The pass-by then that you will weigh this project on when it comes in for SDP will be the county standard of 25 percent? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The current -- you will have to meet the current guidelines. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- helps out a lot. A long time ago -- and I think it was a project over on 1-75, actually, 951 and Davis -- and we talked about the intensity of the uses that the TIS used. And they always fell back on this shopping center use 820. Yet in the requested amount of uses they had, they could have a variety of uses that had much more intensity than 820. Everybody likes 820 because it's got a low intensity traffic impact. But now, first of all, I don't see where this project could have generated enough traffic to have a problem on that section of US 41 because that section has just been six-Ianed and it's in pretty good shape. But that lends more to my concern. Why didn't they use the most -- the most intense use as you had told me back two or three Page 60 Jan~hc1J8 A years ago was the standard way to look at these things. Instead they used the shopping center category as a catchall. Let me read what their representative said at the TIS or at the neighborhood information meeting. He said, Mr. Nadeau -- Mr. Nadeau said Myrtle Woods would not be a typical shopping center. Yet in their TIS, they're using the shopping center category. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The shopping center category can be middle of the road. When you come in and actually get the submittal from a lot of these applications, you may get one that's slightly more intense, slightly less intense than 820 depending on what they actually submit. Your TIS guidelines do provide you that safety factor that when they submit and they come in with, let's say, a bank and a fast food, that's what we will review, not 820. But at the zoning stage, you find yourself in the predicament of trying to guess what they're going to put in. And even if you had said the highest and best use, if I took a bank and if he was allowed to put in a gas station in there, you get a certain comfort level of what you can and can't apply at the zoning stage. It's difficult for me to say put in the bank and put in a fast food restaurant. Weare doing that more at -- at the stage and we are putting in our methodology minutes that we both sign as the county and the applicant. But until you get to that SDP stage, and trust me, your TIS guidelines do cover you, it's hard to get into mitigation for what they're going to do. And you could be rewriting it when you get to the SDP stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, what bothers me is when you get to the SDP stage, the goose is cooked. Basically they got their zoning and they're in making demands and submittals that by right they have -- got to have some kind of a reaction to because they already got their zoning. It would seem to me that at the zoning stage before they even get there, if they have a use that's too intense, we stop it in its tracks. We don't go getting beyond that point this early Page 61 Jat~13, 100sA and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're looking at -- you're looking at 10 to 15 percent max that you'll be looking as a deviation or variance from what you see on land use 820 that you looked at. So at the zoning stage, we looked at the relocation of Myrtle Woods. We looked at each project case by case specific and what their mitigation should be. And so if we have an argument and we say, you know, we need you to relocate this road or put in a signalized intersection, we'll fight that fight at zoning. But a lot of the times, and you are covered if you read your TIS guidelines, if they cause a single movement to fail, they cause anything to fail, they have to mitigate for that by the TIS guidelines. So you're -- you're covered at that stage as well too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would have liked to have known how the true impact on the road system would have been with the most intense use. That's all. I think it would have been beneficial from a zoning perspective to understand that. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah. I just want to say that when they're making statements in neighborhood information meetings that they're going to have fast food or that certainly is one of the things that they want, I would think that we'd be looking at it too -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You -- you would but then I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the more intense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- I really have to look at fast food in a particular case. For instance, let's say it was a McDonald's. McDonald's has a typically much higher pass-by than other fast food. People will come down the road and they go into McDonald's and they keep going the way they're going. It's a convenience type of fast food. So when we wrote our TS, it was specifically stated if you had a good case for why you should have higher than 25 percent, you Page 62 Januape'1018 A present that case. And you get that at that SDP stage. You don't get that at zoning. So, I mean, for instance, let's say fast food we looked at zoning, I wouldn't give them such a high pass-by rate. I would stick to that -- that low guideline which would probably offset that. But when they came in and they said, all right, we've got a drive-through. It's going to be a fast food restaurant. Okay. Now, I'm seeing that it's a Sonic or a McDonald's. We would increase the pass-by, but the trips could go up as well too. So you're covered to a certain extent. For me to try and really pinpoint what they're building at zoning is difficult. Some of your applications that do come in, they have a site plan. And it frustrates transportation because you're reviewing a site plan at the same time you're reviewing the zoning, but you can get a really good feel for what they're building so you can, you know, commit to doing a TIS consistent with that site plan because we got a real good look at it. If that land use 820 is within 10 percent of a highest and best use, use 820. We'll get you at SDP because we've got a comfort level that even your mitigation that's required, we can absorb that 10 percent in there. You'll-- you've seen some of the applications like Naples Mazda, 3 percent impact yet they're redesigning and rebuilding the whole intersection. And we're giving impact fee credits for the construction, but not for the design and the right-of-way. So we're watching out for it, but we got to be careful because we lose a little bit of credibility with the industry if we start pushing that highest and best use all the time if we're within 10 percent, because it's hard to define what that is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one more comment before-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and that's you were talking about this TIS having been done in -- in 2005 except that it says here that it's been updated as ofJune of'07. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And what the board had done Page 63 Jaml'312[08 A and you also had done when we reviewed the TIS guidelines was, is any application that come in for methodology meeting, those are the rules that they would use going forward so as not to require reanalysis and reanalysis traffic counts. And we were comfortable with what they had done for the 2005 submittal. To make them go through the new guidelines is -- I remember one of the commissioners specifically told me the board is -- whatever you told them when you met with them, that's what you stick to for anything in fairness to the applicant. I said, That's fine. We can handle that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 12 of the TIS there's a right-turn analysis eastbound approach. That poses a question, but doesn't offer a solution I don't believe. And I was wondering if you're aware of that problem and have resolved how to handle it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. I think what we're going to do, if look at the diagram, it's cut off a little bit. We're going to make Myrtle Lane a right in only and make that a continuous right-turn lane to the right in. It's going to be at this intersection as well too. So that right-turn lane will extend through Myrtle Lane and we'll have a continuous right turn lane over there. I'll caution you it is a FDOT governed roadway so they're going to have final say in what that design looks like, but that would be county staffs recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 185 feet, you're just going to use all of it and not -- and by backing up west of Myrtle Lane, you'll end up actually -- actually taking -- lengthening the right-turn lane to the 375 feet needed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nick. That's all I-- does anybody else have anything of Nick? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a thought anyway. While you were explaining it and I think I understand the implications of Page 64 J16J 3hooA what you're saying. But it was striking me when we were talking about the differential 10 percent or whatever the number was, it almost reminded me of a diminimus situation where ultimately as -- as the SDPs come in along that corridor where you're not going to be able to grant somebody what they intended to build. So what I thought the chair was representing and I think you agree with it in principle anyway was that the more -- the more we not constrain but require them to be more clear about the total plan, the better the potential project will be overall. And it's not a question of making your life easier either. It's a matter of really creating a proper plan along the corridor. Because what strikes me a lot of that area there, they're very narrow. They're shallow rather. They don't have a lot of depth to the -- to the -- and I don't know if we're going to end up with a whole lot of small strips or what we're going to do. But it becomes very undesirable to -- and 1 don't want to keep on going on this, but I'm trying to say that I think it's a better approach to try to be more precise, maybe a bad word there, earlier on than later on. You take a great deal of pride in what you do. Circumstances might change in the future where the person might not be as knowledgeable as you are. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What the good point, to answer that, Commissioner Murray, is we don't bank the zoning trips. So you-- you would never get a false number going into the system. When they do the SDP, those are the trips we put into the network. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Those are fixed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Those are fixed. So your zoning application is mostly to say, okay, and I'll try and convey this the proper way. You're looking at a five-year window first to see, all right, is this project within 10 percent of the trips that he proposes consistent with five years of what the county roadway network will be like. So you've got a comfort level there. Then you're saying, okay, within 10 percent of what he's proposing is the mitigation and the Page 65 Jarl0r J, 1008 A site-related improvements that you need, can they be maybe defined in the PUD document now, today. And the answer to both those questions is yes. When they come in for SDP we take those specific trips and we bank them on the system. And we take those specific trips and we do specific analysis consistent with their design. So you're definitely covered. You're not -- you're not under assuming at zoning because you don't apply those trips to the network at zoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm glad you clarified that for me. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I was -- I was concerned. My thought was that we would have a dribble effect. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. You won't get that effect. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One more question of the applicant. Richard, in the neighborhood informational meeting it was indicated there would be a fence along the south property line. I couldn't see that in the documents. Is that true? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was not at the meeting, but the summary from the staff report said that we would -- we'd be going to do that if the neighbors wanted it I believed is what the summary said. And we'll do that if that's what you think is appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think to say if the neighbors wanted it, then you'd have to go out and get a consensus. Have people agree and then you'd be into a problem, so let's just put the fence in. It's better to have it than not have it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a south property line which would be that -- Page 66 Januie,p~8 A MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where Mr. Nadeau's pointing? Is that where you were referring? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was thinking you'd have it along the south property line like you said which would be up against that tree tops or not -- there's a little residential project, the mixed -- COMMISSIONER CARON: RMF 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, by the RMF 6. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where I'm pointing to right now? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right there; correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: There? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where was the public's concern during the meeting? Does anybody know? Okay. I would -- that's -- if that's what the public indicated. Melissa, are you indicating that that's at the meeting where they were indicating? MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, principle planner with the department, community development environmental services. The residents were concerned about along with tree tops as well as that RMF 6 so within that area there. They were concerned about possibly having traffic. One of the things that we worked with that -- with the applicant after the neighborhood information meeting was placing the preserves in the back both making it a -- a much denser, same with the detention area. And so how it looks, the arrow itself -- tree tops is north. And the southern portion where the RMF 6 which Ms. Caron pointed out it's more like a -- a southeast area is where the most concern was because that was an area that had free roaming of children. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Melissa, my only concern is that what was stated at the NIM -- MS. ZONE: Right. Page 67 JlreatJr 120Cft CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- meets what the public was told. MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So could you point on the aerial that's there -- MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where this fence was proposed or responded to and expected to be put. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And let me just -- just for the record if you look where the pen point is, the county plans on expanding a ditch there 50 feet south. So, obviously, we could not put a wall right on that property line because it would be dug up by the ditch when the county puts the ditch. Likewise, there's the preserve area here now. The county won't let you put walls in the preserve. So I'm not saying we're not going to put a wall. I just mean the location needs to take into account where the ditch -- the county plans on putting its ditch as well as our preserve area that -- that will be impacted by -- by the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, from a staffs perspective, if we were to stipulate something to the effect that they would add a fence along the property line where staff deems feasible, would that be workable from a staffs perspective? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it leaves a lot to -- to be debated at the time ofSDP. I'd like to have a defined location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason -- I think Richard's points are well taken. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't put a fence where they're going to dig it up. It's a waste of money and that's not a good thing to do so... MR. BELLOWS: Well, if -- ifat the time of -- if we can get some definitive answers of where this drainage ditch will be, we can figure out where the fence could go prior to the Board of County Page 68 Januar () iOf A Commissioners. In light of that, the stipulation as you proposed would be the best alternative. It just leaves some room for what is feasible or not. And I think that could create a lot of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't like the word either. I'm just trying to think of a solution because I don't want to leave it off the table because then nothing could get done. Ifwe need to put something on the table to match what was told to the public, that's the only goal I'm looking for. MR. BELLOWS: I think if prior to the board meeting we can get some definitive location of this drainage ditch, we can figure out where the wall can go in relation to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Prior to -- if we stipulate something that -- that would be prior to the BCC meeting, we'll work it that way. Okay. Ms. -- Ms. Caron then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, in continuing to talk about this wall, it seems to me that -- that up here the southwest corner where the access road is now going to come in, that those homes back there -- it was stated that that's where the children are and that they may want fencing along that area. It's going to be a dry detention area, is that what that white indicates? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Down here? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, other side right up here. Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where I'm pointing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not marked so I can't tell what it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a lift station kind of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did -- why don't we -- Ms. Caron, are you trying to indicate that the fence from your perspective ought to be along that property line? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, 1 think in addition to -- you Page 69 January 3, 2008 know, 1 am sure that people at tree tops were also talking aJo6t II A fence along this stretch. I understand that here and -- but I'm concerned about here and here (indicating). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think the way we -- we've suggested is that this -- the location of that fence on those two property lines in -- in relation to where it could actually go so it's not torn down again be worked out between now and the BCC meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And just so we're on the same page. It would probably -- this is our -- this is an existing lift station and this is our buffer. We could put a wall in here. We can't put a wall in the preserve. We could pick it back up here. Now, we may put the wall down on the -- I think this direction is south. We could do it on the southern part of the detention center or we could put it on the northern part of the detention center -- detention area, I'm sorry. That -- that will -- but it will -- it will address both of your concerns to the south as well as to the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: My guess is the -- the area along tree tops along the easement, people will want it as far -- as close to tree tops as possible because it's a ditch. And they -- they're trying to prevent kids from getting in ditches and, you know, that kind of thing. So my guess is it won't work closest to the preserve is all -- is all I'm saying, Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 think the language we worked out with staff prior to going to the BCC would -- as long as we make the recommendation that a fence be placed along the south, east and west property lines where feasible and that location is locked in before the BCC meeting, I think we've got it covered. Does that work for everybody? Okay. Where feasible. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question's simple. What were the neighbors concerned of, the vision of the shopping center or access to it? Page 70 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Vision. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because I think you set back all your buildings pretty far. You have preserves between them. So actually I would hate to, you know, make it so people couldn't walk into the shopping center from the back because otherwise they'd have to hop in a car and come around the corner. So if it's vision, I think you've got quite a bit of buffering. I think the area that Donna pointed out up by the treatment or the lift station's smart. But the rest of it's going to be pretty far away. And, you know, an eight-foot fence is going to protect the ground floor windows only anyway. Okay. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll go to the staffs presentation. Ray, do we have public speakers by the way? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ZONE: Good morning, commissioners. Melissa Zone, principle planner with the department of zoning and land development. As mentioned previously this subject property is within the urban mixed-use district of the -- and the urban coastal fringe subdistrict which is within the coastal high hazard area. And that is identified in the future land use map. The petition before you is here to reestablish the Myrtle Woods PUD Ordinance 81-23 as well as to incorporate one parcel that is 1.3 acre parcel that is currently zoned C-4. And the land uses that are being proposed by the PUD are consistent with the C-4 as zoning district. I have -- staff has -- wants to make for the record there was a J'lLluary 3, 2008 16 rIA Page 71 January 3, 2008 mistake on No.3 of Exhibit -- or No. 13 of Exhibit A in the~go~) A findings. Again, that would be No. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning. Staff would like, ifit's okay with this Planning Commission, that under the findings that part of the second -- of that sentence be removed. And it would be read, The property cannot be developed in accordance with the existing zoning because the CPUD, which is a commercial planned unit development, has sunseted. And there would be a period. This would be corrected and be brought forth to the Board of County Commissioners. I have been taking notes as to what will be added and removed with this PUD document. And I could read what I have so far or I can follow up after the motion is made. And ifthere are any questions with this board, I'd be happy to address them now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to walk through issues with the staff report and analysis before we get into reading any comments. Mr. Murray, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I -- I wanted to say I read your report. And I don't know what my fellow commissioners think, but I thought it was very well laid out, all encompassing. It was a very, very fine document and I wanted to complement you publicly. MS. ZONE: Thank you, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question just came up. Why do you call the existing one a CPUD? Was it? MS. ZONE: Well, the -- the -- the current one is going to be a commercial planned unit development. The one that was approved in 1981 was a mixed-use development in that it allowed commercial as well as residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So when you said like you just said it, the CPUD has sunseted, that's not correct. Page 72 JanUf6',20i8 A MS. ZONE: Well, I can -- you're right. And 1 will remove the C and just have it as a PUD because at that time that's how they were written. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other question it was testified today that prior to the sunseted PUD that the back triangle was zoned commercial. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you verify that? MS. ZONE: I can. And, in fact, I could put a picture up if you would like from 1970 of our zoning map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Melissa, orient it with north up, please. MS. ZONE: Okay. The subject property, if you will follow my pencil, would be here to this point, triangle, along there and down. This is Myrtle Lane. And this is from 1970 with our official zoning map. This whole strip was commercial development which is this slashed area. This is residential in the red. This strip along -- along 41 is C-3 and then this was a multi-family residential area. The parcel -- subject parcel I went back as -- to 1959 as that parcel had been in our plat books and created. I didn't get as far back as to when the zoning, but I did go back as far as 1970 that this -- the full parcel and subject parcel has been commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. And I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, let's start. Because I'm not like Mr. Murray. 1 have a lot of problems with the way this staff report was written. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the first thing I want to ask you is when an applicant makes commitments at neighborhood Page 73 Jamr~ 3, ~08 A informational meetings, why can't staff incorporate those into the PUD so that we don't have to sit here and do that job? MS. ZONE: I'm sorry. That was overlooked. And I will be more diligent during our neighborhood information meeting and -- and make sure that those commitments are incorporated in. And when mentioning in the report to the Planning Commission of those commitments, I will call out that they have been incorporated. Very sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, I'm not trying to point out all the things that you personally have done wrong. I'm looking at policies that can be implemented. And I think from Mr. Bellows' viewpoint in his department from now on, if that's done, it'll save this board a lot of time and we should -- we should implement that if that's possible with the county. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. And that will be the topic for our next meeting. MS. ZONE: It's a good policy and -- and it will give assurance to our residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe that this rezone was found to be inconsistent with the comp plan, with the GMP? MS. ZONE: Yes. There's in -- in the commercial or the in-fill commercial infield portion of the Growth Management Plan, Item F of the criteria, how you can take your parcel and make it all commercial, the depth ofthe property exceeds the adjacent and/or abutting commercial property. There is -- the interpretation has been-- comprehensive planning looks at the whole parcel. I was looking at the -- reducing the commercial area, the development area itself to be less than the adjacent commercial property. In the end, though, staffs interpretation, it is the Board of County Commissioners who have the discretion to determine the depth of the parcel as well as the adjacent parcel on this. And so it took a lot of meetings and discussions and the area, as -- as I had reviewed it, it is Page 74 J~~ 31200~ more appropriate for commercial zoning in this area. And if we could limit the commercial development area to be 397 feet including the parking area so that it does not exceed the adjacent commercial parcel, then there was some room for interpretation in the Board of County Commissioners' discretion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ZONE: David Weeks, of course, as you know is here. And he can further explain for the comprehensive plan, I don't -- department. I don't feel 1 should be doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And 1 didn't mean for you to. I understood the reasoning. I just wanted your acknowledgment that it was inconsistent with the GMP. MS. ZONE: Correct. I did not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 understand the reasons for it. And I understand your analysis. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now that you've provided that, we can go on. The rezone findings and the findings for the PUD -- MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- are important parts of the document. And unfortunately in prior times we've not really dwelled on those a lot because they seemed pretty boiler plate. However, in reading these, I think it's time that maybe we started answering the questions that were asked instead of providing ambiguous statements that may not get to the point of the question. Let's start with page 2 of 5 of Exhibit A, the rezone findings. Question No.5, whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Pro, the request is reasonable because it does not rezone the land use that is in harmony with the surrounding area. I'm not sure that responds to the question. In fact, I don't believe it does. And I'm just wondering could we more succinctly answer the Page 75 January 3, 2008 question? Is the change necessary? Is changing this ml~) 1 A necessary? I think you started to do that in other questions by saying it's a sunseted PUD and it has to be addressed. But 1 think if you got into more factual statements in that question's answer, it would be more relevant to this project. You started to say that in the findings. The request is reasonable because it does not rezone the land use that is in harmony with the surrounding area. MS. ZONE: It's an incomplete sentence. Sorry, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And I don't think the word harmony is a qualified term either. I would rather we use factual LDC terms so -- MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're precise and accurate in the way these are read in case they ever have to be defended in court -- MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for any particular reason. Number 6, whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The response to the pro was the proposed rezone should not adversely influence living conditions. Then if you turn to page 2 of3 of Exhibit B it says, This proposed CPUD will not adversely impact the timing or sequence of development that is currently allowed in the area. And I'm just wondering why we don't use more definitive terms instead of should. The question is will it adversely -- adversely influence living conditions. Will it or will it not? And I think with the compatibility analysis that you -- your staff does, you could stand to the plate and say it will not because the compatibility reasons and list the reasons. Whether they're buffers, fences, separations, distances, setbacks. Those are all positive things. And if you put them in this report, I think we'd be better off. We'd have more to stand on. MS. ZONE: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says, The residents within the Page 76 Janlae ll08 A community did not object to the Myrtle Woods CPUD. Is that -- is that basically what the outcome of the NIM -- due to the questions that the residents asked? MS. ZONE: The questions the residents asked were concerns. When the applicant addressed them, they thanked them. They -- they -- a few even mentioned that they -- they expected this area to be developed as commercial. They had no problems as long as the buffering along the residential area was there and that it wasn't an open parking lot. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, now, Melissa, if you were to say that here, The residents didn't object because and list the reasons that the applicant did to offset any concerns that the residents have, that would be a more effective way, I think, to answer the question. MS. ZONE: Would you -- Mr. Strain, would you prefer that in the findings or would you rather have that within the neighborhood information meeting analysis? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you're going to -- if you're going to answer the question properly, you can -- I would suggest -- it says -- the question is whether the proposed change will adversely affect, influence -- adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. I think it would be an opportune time to say that during the public information meeting the neighborhood expressed the following concerns and they were committed to be, you know, repaired, how -- fixed by the applicant, however you want to term that. It would be a great entry into that argument. Then it becomes part of the documents or record and it makes it an even stronger case for why it had to be there. MS. ZONE: And then list it within the findings that it's -- it's -- because most of the things with the living conditions we have to ensure the surrounding development if it be residential, commercial as the community as a whole. The LDC addresses all ofthose. We have development regulations. They have to meet the open space Page 77 Jaml'312{08 A requirement, the right-of-way requirements. So, you know, and -- and 1 shouldn't -- and your suggestion is correct. I should elaborate more on it as opposed to just relying that it would just be in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in your findings it says, The proposed rezone is not changed. It's permitted land use. And has been properly publicized to ensure the surrounding neighbors will be assured that the least amount of adverse impact on the adjacent development has been addressed. Well, publicizing something doesn't assure anything. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just tells the public we're going to change something. So I don't think that's a good conclusion in response to that particular question. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just offering up suggestions. I think that you could use these rezone findings to put the county in a better posture legally for any challenges down the road. And should any citizens have questions, the answers would be more readily available. MS. ZONE: Without question. And updating the findings would probably also behoove us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the next page, No.9, Whether the proposed change would seriously reduce light or air to adjacent areas. Your findings, I'm not sure what -- how your findings relate to the question. Basically it's either will they or will they not. And if they do, are they mitigated. And if you don't need any mitigation because they don't, then you're covered. MS. ZONE: Again, they -- you know, falling on the land development code you have setback requirements. There's height requirements, restrictions on the development in the area that -- that ensure that reducing the light and air around the adjacent areas. That question has always been one that troubles me because that tends to be one that is used mostly in a high dense urban area: Chicago, New Page 78 J_I1'1fOO~ York, San Francisco, LA, where you have these larger cities where you have office buildings that are 100 feet tall and adjacent to a -- could be a brown stone that might be 30 feet or 50 feet. And -- and that is looked upon here. Collier County does their due diligence up front and -- and makes sure that there is open space for the development. There are height limitations within your zoning. There are setbacks. A lot of that has been incorporated into the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 4, No. 11, Whether the proposed change will be a detriment -- deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. I don't believe your -- your -- the response has answered the question in particular to this site. 1 think it gave a general answer that's used a lot. But, again, I'm only pointing this out to say I think we could make much better use of these questions and answers in the way we layout and respond for the record. Number 12, the findings, proposed rezone does not alter the permitted land uses which meet the terms of the land use designation, the urban mixed-use district on the FLUE. Well, we are taking a piece of C-4 and changing it to PUD. So we are rezoning. MS. ZONE: We are rezoning it, but we're keeping the land, the permitted uses the same. And the PUD is ensuring to the county that there is a unified development plan, but the zoning itself still follows under the land uses which is CA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying all the land uses that they've selected are C-4 uses or less? MS. ZONE: Correct. There's new car sales falls under C-4. Banks, I mean, all -- the stuff that are listed that are C-4 or of lesser intensity . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the findings continue. It says, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they were consistent with the GMP. This one isn't. MS. ZONE: They are. With the land uses they are. The part Page 79 Jan16:! 2108 A that's not consistent with the GMP is item F of the depth of the property, but the land uses are consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, uses are consistent, but if you use the land like they want to, it's inconsistent. MS. ZONE: In terms of the depth of the property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ZONE: Can you please expand on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's an inconsistency with the GMP. Saying it's not land use, then what is it? MS. ZONE: Well, the -- the GMP the depth of the property which our Growth Management Plan gets into more in depth than others in terms of we -- we limit uses or put standards in there that usually are found in the Land Development Code. The GMP Item 4 is also up to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners in terms of doing the -- or the analysis of the depth of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your conclusion on page 7 of 13 it says, Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes proposed CPUD rezone may not be deemed consistent with the future land use element for the criteria of the office and in-fill commercial subdistrict. So it isn't consistent with the FLUE. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And No. 13 on page 4 of 5 says, The proposed rezone conforms to the FLUE of the GMP because it will be used in accordance with existing commercial zoning. MS. ZONE: We're talking about the land uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ZONE: And on page 7 we're talking about the GMP and Item F. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page -- No. I4, Whether the change suggested is out of the scale of the needs of the neighborhood of the county. The proposed rezone meets all objective criteria set forth for commercial zoning and conforms to the purpose and intent ofthe Page 80 Jan~~ ~ 108 A GMP. Number 15, Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for proposed uses in districts already permitted for such use. The proposed CPUD is consistent with the FLUE because it is in the mixed urban use district. MS. ZONE: Which allows for commercial as well as mixed use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But yet the conclusion says it's inconsistent with the FLUE. MS. ZONE: With Item F which has to do with the depth of the property. And staff needs to disclose that to the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners as well as to the general public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 16 under findings it says, The rezone is necessary to reinstate Myrtle Woods CPUD which would not then -- which would then not render the property unusable. Well, the property wouldn't be unusable without the rezone. They just wouldn't be able to use it for what they want to. And the rezone is for C-4 which is not part of the Myrtle Woods original PUD; right? MS. ZONE: Yes. There -- the Myrtle Woods had C-4 uses. And in 1981 a lot of the general uses and commercial were higher intense or more intense than what we allow now in the -- so comparmg -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, do you have a piece of property being added to the Myrtle Woods PUD? MS. ZONE: We do which is C-4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I was trying to say. The rezone where it says under findings, The rezone is necessary to reinstate the Myrtle Woods CPUD which is -- which would -- the CPUD Myrtle Woods is not the same Myrtle Woods because you're adding a piece of C-4 to it that's in the middle. Is that -- MS. ZONE: Correct. Page 81 January 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was tryinlt~ glt1 A at. MS. ZONE: So it should read that it's reinstating Myrtle Woods as well as incorporating the one parcel that is 1.3 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 17, under findings the third line or second line, Staff has reviewed this petition and found it consistent with all elements of the GMP. Is that -- you still believe that to be true? MS. ZONE: They're inconsistent. They're inconsistent in the depth analysis, but that is left to the Board of County Commissioners. The fact that the development is not encroaching and/or exceeding the adjacent parcel, staff found it to be consistent. Of course, our comprehensive plan department has concern for Item F. And staff as a whole defers this to the Board of County Commissioners who has the discretion to make that determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the finding for the PUD No.1 under pro it says, The area is ideal for commercial environments within the urban district. I don't know if that -- the word "ideal" needs to be used by staff. You can just drop that -- that kind of characterization and just say, The area can be used for commercial-- and then put commercial environment or commercial area. I'm not -- I don't know if you need to get into qualifying how good or bad the property is for each use -- MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- since it's a rezone. Under No.3, the proposed rezone is -- conforms to the goal of the objective of the GMP. Again, I offer your conclusion previously that it does not -- it's inconsistent with elements of the GMP, but I understand what -- what you've said. I'm not necessarily in agreement with the way this is restated in these findings. Under the No.5 the adequacy of usable open space in the pro you've got a reference to harmony. Again, I don't know what Page 82 JatJt& " 1008 A harmony is. It's not a defined term. We could use more explicit terms from the LDC we'd be better off. MS. ZONE: Right. Harmony is a standard planning term that's been around long before most of us. And meaning harmony as you're not having a commercial development or you're not having residential and then all of a sudden next to it is a factory. It's a term that has been used -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, is it a defined term in the LDC? MS. ZONE: They -- it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Harmony's is defined? MS. ZONE: It is in our -- the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Never mind. I'll look it up. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll stand corrected if you say it is, I'll look it up and I'll find it and I'll use it next time. Number 7 on Exhibit B, Transportation Services Division has reviewed this petition to ensure the development will not add adverse impacts to the roadways. I don't know if they ensure anything. They just simply review the petition for adverse impacts. I don't think they've ensured -- they can ensure anything. Nick can't even ensure it until they come in with the uses that they actually want to use on the property . MS. ZONE: Well, as stafflooks at it that they make sure that's if the impacts are there that they have comments. They talk about improvements to the right-of-way. And ensuring and is a -- is a standard term that doesn't need to be -- that we could put transportation service has reviewed this and feel that there are no adverse impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, you've responded to everything that I asked about. I was simply trying to make suggestions to make the write-ups I thought a little bit better. I don't care if you change Page 83 Jaf~ f'j008A them or not, but I will be questioning them in the same manner every time they come through this way and we'll take it from there. MS. ZONE: I'll be more than happy to answer any additional questions you might have regarding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of Planning Commission of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Melissa, you were at the neighborhood meeting? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There was a commitment to limit the buildings to three stories? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that showing up anywhere in this? MS. ZONE: Well, it -- it limits it. They talked about, you know, the -- the 50 feet and not -- they talked about having an architectural element, but the -- but the zoned height keeping it to the 50 feet which typically is three stories. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I can design a five-story building in 50 feet. MS. ZONE: You're good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just ten-foot floor to floor heights. That's all. Do we want to -- do we want to carry that forward? That's my question I guess. COMMISSIONER CARON: At the neighborhood information meeting it has to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then on the table I guess we have to add three stories in there. We get to use the asterisk. MS. ZONE: I was going to say, would you like us to add the asterisk to make it limited to three stories? Page 84 Jfuary 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If that's what DWight~ol~ ttem~ MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have historically used three stories not to exceed 50 feet. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, I think I asked earlier, do we have any public speakers and the answer was no? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing. And for the Planning Commission -- oh, does the -- before we close the public hearing. I'm sorry. Does the applicant have any rebuttal comments? Any comments at all? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Too open ended. No, we don't have any rebuttal comments. Again, we think that this is a good plan. We do. We disagree with staffs interpretation of the comprehensive plan. We think the board can find this to be consistent with Item F of the criteria as far as the depth of the property. It doesn't say adjacent boundary. It says the depth of the adjacent property. So we think it is consistent. The board can make that finding. We would request that you recommend that they make such finding if you're inclined to move forward with the PUD with all the changes that we have agreed to. And I'll -- if you don't mind, I'll just stand up here to take notes to make sure we catch everything between Dwight and myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you -- from the comments I saw about the inconsistency with the GMP, the way I saw it, I thought staff was indicating it reads right now as inconsistent, but it could be found consistent based on policy by the vote of the Board of County Commissioners. Page 85 JIOJ 3:hooA MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree. I agree that's what they said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think that would be a consistent interpretation with the comprehensive plan language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion? We'll now close the -- oh, David's back up. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I hope you don't mind me taking initiative to come up and address this point. For the record, again, David Weeks, comprehensive planning department. I'd like to put an exhibit on the visualizer. It's the zoning map you've seen before. In my low-tech graphics in the back of the room I've attempted to identify the depth of the property as staff is interpreting it and that's where the little circle is at. That is where the point of adjacency of where the two properties touch in the -- in the middle of the road, middle of Myrtle Lane. And that's where staff is interpreting that the maximum depth would be allowed. An alternative, which staff does not support, would be to go to the point of the maximum depth of the adjacent commercial zoned property. That's that Lot 24 to the, I think, northwest of the subject site. And that's what that dashed line represents. What is omitted looking at the existing Myrtle Woods PUD is the striped area. Because that area is beyond the depth of the commercial zoning of that Lot 24. My point is that the Criterion F of the office of in- fill commercial subdistrict provides that the board does have flexibility. It's very clear. It's very explicit that the board has the authority on a case-by-case basis to determine what the depth should be of the subject site when property -- when the subject property abuts two properties, one on each side, that are zoned commercial that don't have the same depth. And that is the case here. So the board clearly has the flexibility if they want to look at the depth of the commercial on one side and commercial on the other side and average the two. Or if Page 86 J1~,3I008 0' A they want to draw a line from the deepest point to the shallower point or simply come to the deepest point or to the shallower. I mean, they have a lot of flexibility in there, a lot of discretion. But what they cannot do, according to the criterion, is exceed the depth of either of those adjacent commercial properties. And what I'm attempting to illustrate is that in this case there is a portion of the subject site, the little striped area, that is beyond the depth of the commercial of that Lot 24 to the northwest. So that even -- in my opinion, even if you look at the depth of that Lot 24 and say that's what we're going to recommend to the board that they use their discretion to make the boundary, there's still a portion of the subject site that is beyond that boundary. Now, certainly if it were purely an open-spaced use, I don't think there would be an issue there. An open-space use is allowed anywhere within the urban mixed-use district. But if it's a required component of the commercial development such as parking or water retention serving only a commercial development, and that's all this is, my opinion is that would not be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Richard, you're looking -- are you done? We understand David's question I think. And I think it hasn't change the -- maybe the thought that we already had as far as how it came about. So it's -- now it's just a matter of recommendations. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a complicated motion. Boy, you guys are all silent here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going there, pal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not going there, huh? Page 87 la&<fY1' 20j8 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've lot of things listed. I'll watch what you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a problem in the sense I would have liked to have seen the project cleaned up and the documentation to us fixed. I've watched the BCC meetings. And, unfortunately, history has shown that not everything we attempt to clarify here at this meeting gets carried forward necessarily exactly as we intended it to the BCC through no fault of any individuals. It just doesn't seem to happen all the time. I don't know what the time table for this applicant is. I would have felt a lot more comfortable now that we've hashed this thing about if it came back cleaned up, PUD written properly and the rezoned findings Exhibits A and B addressed in a manner more attuned to this project instead of generically. That's my personal thoughts. Although I'm not going to hold up a positive motion if it needs to go forward. But personally I don't -- I'm getting tired of sending things forward that are half baked and then they have to get corrected before they go to the BCC and we don't know what those corrections are. And by the time it gets there we don't even know what it looks like, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, can 1 make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't fix the staff report stuff, but certainly if there is a motion to approve with certain revisions to the PUD document itself and the exhibits, can we report that back to you at your next meeting? You can then proof it to make sure that we incorporate everything that was in your motion. We could stay on our February 12th BCC agenda. Put us up either first thing on the agenda or last thing, whatever you want to do, but just simply you would have it then to have a chance to proofread it to make sure that everything that was in the CCPC's motion did, in fact, make it in there prior to the February 12th, I believe it is, BCC date. Page 88 Jl!iJ3~WO" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- I would think that would be a help. Does everybody else -- does anybody else have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I could do then is put forth a motion, a recommendation listing the stipulations that we've gone through contingent upon a final reading at our next meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For -- for -- for consistency with the motion, not a whole new -- not a whole new public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- I agree. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But also before we go that far 1 got to ask Mr. Bellows. Can this -- the rezone findings and the Exhibits A and B be cleaned up before they come back to us in that amount of time? MR. BELLOWS: For the record Ray Bellows. We wouldn't prepare an entire new staff report. We could do a supplemental staff report just addressing the findings of fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 wasn't too concerned about your staff report. I would just like some of the questions that seemed to be either ambiguous or not to the point or confusing clarified. Is that a task that can be done? MR. BELLOWS: And you're talking about the January 17th meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: What board date is this, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: February 12th. MR. SCHMIDT: I should have no problem. For the record Joe Schmidt. I should have no problem making the February 12th date. My recommendation is that we bring this back with the appropriate changes to the findings and to the PUD findings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to the PUD document that we're Page 89 Jt~r3iOOl CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that issue. Well, if there may be one or two. I'm assuming we can define everything clearly today; but if something doesn't transpire correctly and it has to be debated, we'd still have to have that opportunity to make sure it's right. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. I think this is -- actually, I think this is an outstanding suggestion quite frankly. I'd like to see this go through. I don't think you need to advertise it, Joe. MR. SCHMIDT: Ifwe're going to discuss it -- my position is if we're going to discuss this and you're going to then review what was written and discuss what was written which would result -- may result in changes to wording, I don't see how you can approve it today and bring it back and -- and open it again for discussion. If you're asking staff to go ahead and -- and make corrections and amendments and -- and edit and amend the findings of fact, you wish to review those and discuss those again, I believe it has to be continued rather than voted on today. Because you're still going to be reviewing and discussing this in a public forum at a public meeting. And you mayor may not make changes. And to approve it today then open it back up for discussion, I think it may be procedurally create a problem, but I turn to the county attorney on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, Mr. Murray, you had a comment you wanted to make? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was being reactive but then-- you know, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think it should be continued just flat flat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I certainly think we've gone through a lot of stipulations and 1 think we can settle most of them today. My only concern is that the accuracy of what's said versus what's in print and how it goes to the BCC. I'm trying to find a solution for us to do a proofing of that final document and that was my Page 91 January 3, 2008 only goal. Not to change the world, not to re-spend J6hlr Led\ hours on the same document. That certainly was not where I was trying to go. I don't know how to get there with it because I seem to have two sides with totally different opinions. Mr. Murray then Mr. Schiffer. I think you had something. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you do not have a difference of opinion from me. I completely agree that that would be a desirable thing to do. How it's done whether it's continued or we vote on it today, whatever is legitimate is fine for me, but I absolutely agree that we need to be sure that what goes forward is, in fact, the intent of this board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the same page. We're on the same page on that. Mr. Schiffer, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Is this a process we could do with e-mail? I mean, somebody could submit to us the -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's outside the-- MR. KLA TZKOW: This almost should be done sort oflike on a consent agenda where you would bring it back sort of on a consent with the amended PUD there. And if nobody had any comments to it, just went through. And only if you had -- if you saw something was in error would you pull it out and actually even look at it. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, the only other option, you would vote on it today. List your stipulations today. We bring it back. If there are any issues that you want to address, then we would note that and make those changes prior to going before the Board of County Commissioners. That -- that's the only other option that I see to prevent any -- any legal issues or any other issues that create problems in how the document is worded. But, again, that would be nothing more than noting to staff to make the following corrections -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then bring it back. MR. SCHMIDT: -- prior to going to the Board of County Page 92 JaJ-eYp'lo08A Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we end up continuing it, but only to bring it back for acknowledgment that the corrections were made and letting it move forward and to minimize any discussion to the extent we've had today. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, absolutely. I mean, that's your prerogative as chair. You would just review it for factual presentation. 1 would like for you to -- so we capture everything go through all the stipulations right now so we can at least -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly will once we get to the point where we know what we're going to do with them. Ms. Caron, did you have -- MR. SCHMIDT: But your concern and the issue I have is the rezone findings Exhibit A and findings of fact are the findings for PUD you would like to have those exhibits changed. To do so would require a continuance. Because basically I would -- I'm going to change these documents and bring them back for your approval before they go to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, first of all, the changes aren't ones that would change the outcome or necessarily the concept or the intent of what was done. MR. SCHMITT: 1 understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was simply we could make -- we could position the county better if we answer the questions more factually based on the code and tailored them more specifically rather than using boiler plate. Those questions have been around a long time. And I think each time we come through we just kind of blow them by because they're so boring. But you know what, they could be used to our advantage. And they could be used to the advantage of the public in the future in any debate that occurred. So why don't we use them? MR. SCHMIDT: I agree and I don't argue that. I think though Page 93 JanJ6,h~8 A from the standpoint to do that, it's -- you're asking -- and we -- I have no qualms with what you're asking to go back and make those changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that would be-- Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Mr. Yovanovich, does the continuance -- is that a problem for your client? Will that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do I keep my February 12th BCC date that -- there's a couple of different issues here. I don't -- and maybe I'm reading the situation incorrectly. 1 -- I believe -- my sense is that we can make the changes to the PUD document. Those are pretty -- they're going to be pretty simple to make. And your concern is, for instance, if we eliminate gas stations, we somehow forget to do that and that version goes to the board with gas stations still in it, you don't want -- you want to get the assurance to make sure we physically strike through gasoline stations so when the board gets their PUD document as part of their executive summary, they have the right version so there's not a confusion as to approving it with -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I hear that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one of probably 20 issues, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But that I think we can take care of easily. Now, your philosophical -- your reaction to the answer staff has to the individual questions I think probably will lead to discussion. And -- and I don't know that that really is going to affect the outcome for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Richard, I don't --1 see this as just a little bit of a clean up. But 1 think where the thrust of what I was trying to put across was -- to Ray basically that we have an opportunity to use these questions to better to the advantage of the taxpayers and to the public for defense in future issues. Why don't we take it? As far as this one goes, couldn't do any worse than it is right Page 94 Jt~ry,3iOOA now. So any change is an improvement. So if they -- ifthey're tweaked a little bit by taking out a word or two or changing a word or two, I don't have a problem with that. So I don't know if there would be that much debate. I just want to get past it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree. I just -- in response though to Commissioner Caron's response if it's a continuance, it's a full-blown -- it can be a full-blown hearing again. Yes, it can because it's a continued item. Versus whether you take a motion and you're just proofreading the PUD document. So if I had my preference, obviously, you'd just be proofreading the PUD document, not getting into a debate on the staff report or the attachments to it. But, again, whatever -- whatever is in the Planning Commission, what the Planning Commission wants -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tell you what, I'm the only one that really had a problem with the rezone finding Exhibits A and B. Let's not mess with those with the exception of the correction taking out the legal opinion that should never have been there. Let's just concentrate on cleaning up the PUD document and getting it to us by the 17th. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I still complement her for the-- for nothing else than the construction of it. However, your points are well taken. And 1 did breeze through it. You're right. I did look at it. They seemed plausible, but there are a few that certainly could be taken out. Ideal there are certain words that you pointed out and they are minor, minor changes. And I wouldn't want to hold this thing up. But I did want to ask. You mentioned the consent arrangement for us. Are we within -- within our rights as the Planning Commission, can we have something presented and provided under consent? MR. KLA TZKOW: You have the right to create your own rules. To my knowledge you've never really done that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we haven't. MR. KLATZKOW: I think one approach could be because this Page 95 is just not going to be for this one PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. MR. KLA TZKOW: My sense is this is going to be on a going- forward basis. You want to ensure that your comments get into these PUDs. You can create a rule for yourselves that says these things will come back on the next agenda as a consent item. If nobody has any objection, that's the end of it. It just goes to the next board hearing as it normally would. But if somebody finds something that didn't get in there, then you can pull -- you have the ability it pull it out and do what you need to do with it. So you have the ability to create your own rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But under consent, don't we have to have a unanimous? MR. SCHMIDT: No. My recommendation, and that's up to the chair, which basically put this on the agenda and he calls for a vote. You can call for a vote. Any questions call for a vote. End of story. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I like the -- MR. SCHMIDT: That's almost as good as a consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Mark, one thing that always seems strange is after the meeting's over Ray runs up and you sign off on the PUD which really requires a lot of trust and your signature. So maybe what we're doing here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want me to read all that before-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No. But maybe what we can do here is that we can have the vote, have the thing. We have our conditions. And then prior to you signing it, which could be at the next meeting, it's sent out to everybody via e-mail. And essentially you're sitting there saying I'm going to sign this. Does anybody have any concerns with the conditions or does it represent what was done Jai1; " 1008 A Page 96 Janl'6' " f08 A and we can discuss it. So essentially rather than Ray run up right after this hearing and have you sign that paper, you sign it at the next meeting after we've all reviewed the conditions that were sent in to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be a lot cleaner, though, to just do it at the meeting. Because a lot of people don't get their e-mails timely. A lot of them may not be able to download large files. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I mean at the meeting, the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But in order for everybody to have a copy of it to review like you suggested bye-mail, they'd have to have that ability. And 1 can tell you like over Christmas my e-mail was -- because of Com cast which is an atrocious company -- my e-mail was down most of the time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I couldn't even get e-mail, 1 couldn't even communicate with the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it could be in the agenda packet for the next meeting too. 1 mean, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like the idea of the consent agenda. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think your comments on the findings was very appropriate and very positive. I'd like to keep that in the package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to get to a point where we can get the package done by the 17th. 1 don't disagree with you, Mr. Kolflat, but-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Let's not lose the package so it's ineffective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's -- Mr. -- Mr. Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: One other alternative. Would you want to take the first five minutes of your special meeting on the 11 th to discuss it? Page 97 JanJ~3/2~8 A I -- you can continue it till then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather give the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't even go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No. No. Let's just leave it --leave it for the 17th. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let's just make a decision whether we want a consent agenda and whether or not what we want on that consent agenda. Rewrite of the PUD or rewrite of the PUD and as many of the -- clean up -- as much of the cleanup of the rezone findings that they can provide at that time. MR. KLA TZKOW: It -- it's going to be a lot cleaner for notice purposes and everything if you just limit yourselfto the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: Because all you're doing is ensuring that what you want in that PUD is in that PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's -- Mr. Kolflat or Ms. Caron, if you guys don't object, let's just limit it to the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do think the future should hold what you brought up is very valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as a -- how we position this so we'll do it on a -- we'll establish a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. And items that are requiring a final reading by us or a proofing by us for those sections of those documents presented will go on that consent agenda unless they're pulled by someone on this commission. Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you as the chairman will sign that document after the consent agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's ready to be signed by that, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that is a matter of future activity we will do that with every -- Page 98 Januar1:6<fo! A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some rezones and some applications that might come through that have very little -- yeah. If we find a complicated one or one that has a lot of problems in the clean up, then maybe we need to take a second look at it. That's-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My point would then would be that -- that staff will need to begin to rethink its scheduling so as to facilitate that. Okay. That's my only point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- I don't think with the way they schedule them now, we -- most of the cases we have enough time. So Mr. --1 mean, yeah, Mr. Kolflat -- Klatzkow. I'm sorry. You guys-- there's not many Ks and -- people with Ks. I keep getting you mixed up. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And I would suggest that you actually memorialize this rule if it directs staff or the County Attorney's Office to put something together so the public has notice that this is a procedure of yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, other than --let me memorialize it, Mr. Klatzkow, would you please put something together so that we can establish -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I would be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. With that I'd like to -- now, Jeff, would we be then in a position now to make a motion for recommendation subject to finalization on a future consent agenda? Is that how it would be -- MR. KLATZKOW: That sets -- that's a viable approach, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I'm looking for a motion for a recommendation for future -- future finalization on a future consent agenda. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 99 Januai6 fCf A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but you have to make the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I make the motion that we put this aside for the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No. Mr. Murray -- Mr. Adelstein, that's not where we're going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll try, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not -- that's not where we're going. Let Brad take a shot at it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-9127 with a recommendation of approval pending confirmation of the stipulations at the next hearing. Is that close? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Subject to a consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- that's close. We need a second. Would you -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. The point is this is supposedly a continuation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No, it's not, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's why I moved it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's not what we -- you'll second it? Okay. Motion is made by Commissioner Schiffer. Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Now, let's work into the stipulations so that we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Subject to consent, did you add that to your motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you did? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. Now, as far as the stipulations go, I'll -- I can read off the ones I've written down and we can -- if you guys keep track and throw in whatever by the end. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The retail uses will be limited to Page 100 16 JJalua~3, 2008 the first floor and the project will be limited to three stories not to exceed 50 feet. There will be a public access through the project to the lighted intersection. And the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Myrtle Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the instrument that enacts that public access will be added as development standards pursuant to the document that Nick Casalanguida read to us and put on record previously. We'll be removing the gas station as a use, the liquor store as a use and the coin operated laundries as a use. The-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait. Dry-cleaning was out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? COMMISSIONER CARON: Dry-cleaning was out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't write that one. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I thought just coin operated. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry. No. No. No. Okay. That's fine. Just coin operated -- operated laundries; right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Drive-through restaurant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The drive-through, that stays as is. The drive-through restaurant stays as is, but we will add in the allowance to have a bank drive-through instead of having it prohibited. The -- there is an exhibit produced by Nick Casalanguida addressing the installation and how the drainage pipe would be put in. That will be accepted and included as part of the development standards. There will be a prohibition against any outside entertainment, music, speakers and other forms of amplified sound. The building height for setback from the streets will be left at 25 feet and the asterisk will be removed along with the 50 percent of building height references will be removed. Page 10 1 Janua~ 6 2Po} A There will be a IS-foot minimum separation between buildings. The well site that's being requested by utilities will be given -- will be provided with impact fee credits. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Don't leave your development standards table though yet. All right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because you want to take out asterisk No. I. And you wanted to take out the final maximum gross lease -- leasable area as unnecessary because you'll get to it in -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the word "internal." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word "internal" gets struck from the minimum yards. COMMISSIONER CARON: Minimum yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last line of the table gets struck and removed because it refers to lease -- leased space when it's supposed to be gross building area. And the reference on page A-I that has the reference to leasable space gets changed to similar gross building area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the addition of the fence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm getting to the -- yeah, I hadn't finished yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I talked about-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While you're on the table, the 50 percent was only removed from the front setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Front setback only. The fence will be added along the -- either the southeast or west property line or both. And staff will be -- review that before the next read of this for feasibility. Because some of the area will be dug up in the future and there's no sense of putting a fence where it's dug out. And that's the notes that I have. Page 102 JanuaJ.640lft COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the notes I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Did you have that 15 feet as the distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In No.8. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I had too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything that was missed? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, maybe one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLA TZKOW: There was some discussion you wanted to avoid another Pebblebrook. One of the issues at Pebble brook is they have outdoor TVs. Now, the sound is off. But is -- the action of having the outdoor TV s there, that accumulates people who actually make the sound. We don't know if you want to also eliminate outdoor TV s as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would a TV be considered entertainment? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know, but it would be specific-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then absolutely we'll add outdoor TVs to the list of prohibitions with the outside entertainment. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Under permitted uses I just want to make sure that we changed on the track CO to say GSF not GLSF. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That was a reference on page A-I that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. On B-1 of the development -- beginning of development standards, I think we were going to add Page 103 JanuaJ.ye, fOf A commercial condominium as opposed to just condominium so that again just for clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where -- where's that? I'm sorry. Oh, B. I thought you said E and I didn't have anything on E. That's what threw me off. Gotcha. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I guess the final is I didn't hear you make note of the well site language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I did. I said require impact-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fee credits for the well site. Okay. Now, does staff have any comments? MS. ZONE: There was some discussion under the Exhibit A Table 1, accessory use, No.2 the caretaker's residence. And do you want to remove that or keep that in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Murray brought it up, but I think in discussion it seemed to be pretty harmless in the end -- MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because you may want to have -- it maybe an advantage not a disadvantage to keep the place up. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: One more person getting out of here in a storm event is not going to be that critical. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else from staff? MS. ZONE: Just to make sure I have -- I have everything else that you mentioned. And with the comments that you -- Chairman, you had mentioned to put into the development standards and I want to make -- to clarifY it, the comments that Nick read into -- or the language Nick read in for the record. He had talked about putting it under the developer's commitments. My notes show developer's commitments. You mentioned development standards. I'd like to make sure -- Page 104 JanJa6 ~ 2J08 ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I meant commitments. I'm sorry. MS. ZONE: Okay. I just wanted to clarifY that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Thank you for the clarification. Richard -- first of all, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: EAC stipulations, are we fine with those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't have any objection to them and for once they stuck to environmental issues. COMMISSIONER CARON: And how-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You rascal. COMMISSIONER CARON: How do you want to handle the staff recommendation in terms of numbers of feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The staff recommendation for the number of feet, is that -- would that make it consistent or would that make it consistent if the BCC determines that the policy is -- determines it by policy? MS. ZONE: Staff made the recommendation to limit it so that it did not exceed the adjacent commercial development. And so we included parking and all of that. And it came up with the number 397 that the applicant -- applicant could live with. But, of course, this is a policy decision by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, does the applicant -- is 397 acceptable to you guys? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- honestly I don't want there to be any confusion. Because there will -- there is water management and preserve area beyond that 397. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we just simply say buildings and parking will not exceed 397 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That -- that -- that we can. I just wanted to make sure that didn't prohibit the water management in the preserve area. Page 105 Janl<6r 1, f08 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be the -- No.1 will read the depth of the commercial buildings and parking associated with those buildings shall not exceed 397 feet measured from the property line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That works, right, Dwight? MR. NADEAU: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa, do you understand that change? We're all set? MS. ZONE: Number 1 would read the depth of the commercial building -- the commercial building development and the parking associated with the development shall not exceed 397 feet measured from the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. I want to make sure it was right. Okay. MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments or changes before I ask -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, just one. Just getting back to this comp plan because that's really the -- that's really the tar on this. Is it the planning board's recommendation that with that 300 and whatever foot setback that this would now meet the GMP requirement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that we ought to include that in the motion. I would suggest that as another stipulation that we recommend that the BCC approve the 397 feet as a policy decision for this comp plan -- for this comp plan issue. COMMISSIONER CARON: For this particular-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For this particular property. So ifthere's no objections, we'll add that to the stipulations too. Richard, do you have any objections to any stipulations that we've read off here today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll ask for a vote. Page 106 Janrg 3, 108 A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nor do I by the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to make sure as the motion maker I don't either. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. Mr. Adelstein, do you have any objection to any of the stipulations added to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. With that we'll call for the vote. All those in favor signifY by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 to O. Well, that was a lot more difficult than I thought it would be. With that I think -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe Schmidt wants you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification. Procedurally would it be -- meet your approval if we just prepare a supplemental staff report and include so that would just be one page for it in this back as a consent agenda item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: And included in that will not be the entire packet as in front of you. It will only include a final PUD document and a PUD document with a strike-through and underline to indicate where changes have been made based on your direction so you can easily find those. So it would be the two documents. A PUD document strike-through and underlined indicating the changes, a final PUD document for your review and approval. And we'll just have a -- I will call it a summary staff report just forwarding those documents on the next agenda. So you will not get the entire packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. That would be the simplest way to proof it. And I will get together with Sharon and get it set on Page 107 JanlA J, 1J08 A the agenda. My suggestion would be we put it first on the agenda because it's -- no sense of having everybody wait around all day for a consent agenda item. Okay? MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get to the speaker, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifby some bad luck it does get pulled, would there be any chance that that could be the first item clarified instead of having to sit and wait all day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If it's pulled for the consent agenda, we'll move right into it then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item on our agenda today is old business. MS. ZONE: Excuse me, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Ms.-- MS. ZONE: Sorry to interrupt. We have an Exhibit E in the PUD document that we wanted to have removed. It says list of deviations. There are none. Staff did not want that exhibit in there. Since they were not requesting it, if it's okay with the board, it's not part of your motion, but staffwill ensure if that E would then start with the list of developer's commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wasn't part of our motion. I don't want to go back and revote on it. But to be honest with you, I think it's much better to have it there with the word none. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because then it signifies that everybody knew that there was an opportunity to enter and they weren't. MS. ZONE: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So legally I think you'd want to keep that there. MS. ZONE: Then we'll leave it alone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 108 Ja1!& " 1008 A Yes, Mr. Schiffer. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS - NONE Item #10 NEW BUSINESS COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we on new business yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on old business, but we'll go right on to new business because we don't have any old. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And, you know, Ray, we've had this conversation with the fast food and everything. Could you do some looking in the SIC code and see ifthere's a way that you could break that out where some restaurants are -- essentially meet the intent of that fast food and see ifthere's some way to do it in there? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if anybody in those restaurants that aren't fast food start to cook their food too fast, tell them they're going to jeopardize the -- we will be moving into fast food then. MR. BELLOWS: I will--I'll do some research on the SIC codes. I believe they all fall under the general SIC code, but maybe there's a way we could-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Use another code. MR. BELLOWS: -- make that determination more clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust -- I think it's going to be interesting in how you determine what is fast food and what isn't, but COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it how fast you cook it or how fast it goes through you? Page 109 1&11200A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the point, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That might be different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other new business? (No response.) Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? Nobody's left. Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Adelstein. I'll second it. We're all adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION /; tiCI.l1 j ~~J& (>'-> MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on -Z -"2 t) r (c' , as presented c/ or as corrected. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR. Page 11 0 Ja~a~ l20& TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION hlf 2007 CYCLE 2 Fi~ta~.:;'.'~. . ' . . I).'. 'D. EVELOPM~NT CODE AMENDMENTS 8:~~ing_~~~~J?i_Naples, FlorIda January 9, 2008 coyle _____r~' coletta--4~ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Susan Istenes, Planning Director Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager MIsc. Corres: Date: 3,25.6 Item #: I v\"( A.,\ IS to Page 1 ~ '-cj JJ~/9,}00~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the -- oh, my goodness it's January what, 9th, 2008 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a continuation of the LDC Cycle 2 amendments that we started last year. It hasn't taken us a year to get here, but a year has transpired. Would you all rise for the pledge of allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. Did you forget my name? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just briefly. How could we forget you, Bob? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me start by saying that the book we have in front of us today is a synopsis of only those issues that were left from the last meeting we had in December. And Catherine, I want to thank you for putting the book together Page 2 Ja~6Y~, 1008A in such an orderly fashion. It makes it a lot easier to follow what's boiled down and remaining, rather than getting all the paperwork and having to sort through it again. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, I know we have members of the public here today. We'll start with the issues that they're here for first. I think the first one will be the sign issue for the real estate -- MS. F ABACHER: Open house? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- part of it. MS. F ABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to go to the issue that Cormac is involved with next. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that takes care of it. Is anybody here -- Cormac's issue is the affordable rental issue. And Mr. Poteet's issue is the real estate location of real estate signs. I notice two staff members are here. What items are you guys here for? I'm trying to get you out of here and back to your jobs as quickly as possible, because I read in the paper today we're so shorthanded that you can't attend meetings anymore. So -- MS. BURGESON: Listed species. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Listed species? Okay. Well, then we'll do the listed species item third and we'll move forward with that. Catherine, did you -- were you managed to be -- able to follow all that I just said? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, I did. Do you want to go with the open house signs? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: That is going to be on page-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 47. MS. FABACHER: Okay, 47. D on your summary sheet. And I think -- well, we do have one public speaker. Is that how you wanted Page 3 Jal~'9'I00~ to proceed on that first with him, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to get through like we always have, the commission's comments on the changes first, and then we'll hear the public speakers and then we'll figure out how to finalize it. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and that one, for everybody's purposes, starts on Page 47. It's one we've talked about twice before. There were some refinements. And it goes to Page 52. Is there any comments from the commissioners? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The only thing that I had a problem with is on Page 49, and it's under 3-A, ii, and it speaks about 100 feet. And recognizing that that can create a number of problems, I know that the Chair recommended 40 feet. I'm in complete agreement with that, and I think it should be 40 feet to allow people who are adjoining each other that might wish to sell and plant those signs on their property. That would be my only item on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me see. Let's just start with three. One thought I had is, is to call this a temporary open house sign up in three, rather than -- because we sometimes refer to -- but there could be an impression that AI is not temporary. So my thought would be to scratch it and ii and just call the whole thing temporary open house signs, because I think the intent is that they would be there temporarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying is instead of3 starting out, open house signs, it would be 3 and it would say, temporary open house signs. And then the reference to temporary in the other numerics wouldn't be needed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Page 4 Jat&f'1008A And the -- and then just to make sure I understand it, the -- there's one sign that would be allowed to be at the premise. That's i. There was two other signs that would be allowed to be off-site somewhere. Total of three signs. Yeah, that seems to be right. And ii there isn't a time frame. So a thought is that this could be somewhat reorganized where you don't mention the time in -- for example, i, iii discussed the time. So maybe there should be a category that just has the time. Because the intent is that all these signs would be within that time frame. So, for example, it appears that since it's mentioned in i and iii but in ii there's no time frame. So my recommendation would be to pull the timing out, make it a Roman numeral somewhere. And that -- also, one more other thing is that the mention of 10 feet on the edge of the pavement might be smart to be a separate Roman numeral II. Because all the signs essentially have to be 10 feet off the pavement. Yet we're mentioning it in i, we're mentioning it in 5. So I think just pull that out, make that a category, and it would be clearer. And that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, part of the objective today is to finish this, because we've been beating it around a lot. I really wish we had brought these issues up before, maybe staff had gotten a heads up from you beforehand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but at the last meeting we just -- I actually wanted to discuss it, but we just took the input from the audience. It would have been good -- these are comments I had then. It would have been good, you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do want to finish with this today. I'd like to get this entire cycle done today. We've dragged it on for quite a while. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think your suggestions are good. I have no problem with that. Page 5 JaJft? f' }008 A But Catherine, before this meeting is over today, do you feel you can maybe summarize his suggestions to a point we can feel confident that you could put them into the right format to go forward with? MS. F ABACHER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's work from that angle then. There are two things mentioned that I'd like to further discuss. And Mr. Murray brought up a really good point about the 100 foot separation. And it is good to keep them 100 feet apart. But then again, sometimes if you have smaller lots, like in a lot of cases that we talked about where there are only -- some lots get down to 40 feet in width and you want to have an open house on that 40-foot lot but your neighbor's got a sign on his lot, you can't have an open house sign on yours. So maybe an exception to Roman numeral II -- or little ii, I'm sorry, would be no closer than 100 feet unless the lot width is less, at which case it can be on each lot. MS. F ABACHER: I could respond to that. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. Small i is the one in front of the house. There's no restriction. Small ii was put in to response to your concerns that at certain corners they would all cluster up in front of one property. So the 100 foot applies to the signs that are more or less directional, not the ones placed in front ofthe subject property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, excellent, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because under ii when you get to the second sentence it says, such sign shall be located no closer than 100 feet from another temporary open house sign. I can't imagine -- I can't imagine a situation where you would be able to then fit necessary signs in some of the locations where there Page 6 labf l20A8 are loads of houses up for sale. Somebody would be excluded simply because of the IOO-foot rule. Now, I grant you that I thought that that referenced parcel to parcel or lot to lot, but in the context of what you just explained, I'm just wondering. So I'm visualizing -- let's see ifI'm right. I'm visualizing that here's an intersecting street and here is a sign and then 100 feet away from that is another sign and 100 feet away from that is another sign. There aren't that many hundreds of feet before you are into the intersection and down that street. So I don't know how that's going to work. MS. FABACHER: Well, Commissioner, as I had mentioned earlier, we're just responding to the planning commission's concerns about having a bunch of signs jumbled up at the corner in front of one person's property. So that's why we put it in. So whatever you want to direct as a commission, we're happy to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe I might offer as a comment, now that ii is, as you've corrected, is directional signs only, if you've got a series of homes down the street that have got open houses going on and you go to that intersection and you put up a sign to direct people further down the street, whether you put one sign up for one house, it's going to function for all, simply by the fact that that one sign's going to point people to go down that street. And if they pass one house that the sign actually was put up for but happen to see the other three or four, then that works. It gets people down the street. So that may be a really effective way of doing it and that could -- and if you look at 100 feet on basically -- that becomes an issue for every corner then of an intersection is almost about 100 feet apart because of our road system. So ifthere's a house -- ifthere's one sign on every intersection pointing down each driveway or each street, no matter how many homes are on that street they're all going to benefit from that one sign. Page 7 Januat ~ fDJ A COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. You may recall part of the conversation earlier was my thought was, perhaps foolishly, but to have some kind of a little slip thing that said one house, two house, multiple houses, whatever. That was rejected and that's fine. But I recognize that. And I understand we're not going to be perfect on this, I appreciate that. I just am concerned with the possibility that you'll have people pulling signs out in order to put their sign in place of it. But one sign, if we're going to restrict it to one sign as a directional sign, that might actually be the better answer overall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the other comment that I had is the 10 feet from the edge of pavement. And that's fine. I'm just curious, how would you apply that in Golden Gate Estates in areas where there's no pavement? MS. FABACHER: No, I believe -- isn't it 10 feet from the edge of -- oh, it says pavement. It just would be the edge of the road, or it could be interpreted as the gutter. This is kind of the direction that staff has gone to in other departments when they write the code, to specifY that something that would cover both, something with a curb and gutter and something without. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we just say from the edge of pavement or road, if there is no pavement? That may be hard again to define, but the intent is from the traveled surface that's there. Because there is no gutters in Golden Gate Estates, and there are some rural areas that the roads are not paved. MS. FABACHER: We can certainly do that. But when staff interprets it, that's what they've come up with. Instead of going with all that language distinguishing between a curb and gutter situation or just a swale and the edge of the road, they interpret it to be the edge of the road when there is no sidewalk or curb and gutter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, I certainly don't like staff Page 8 Janulh,hO]8 A making interpretations. I like everybody to read the letter of the code. If the code says pavement, then we should be measuring from pavement. And if it says pavement or the edge of road, that then would give maybe better latitude. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: Why not just make it road? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine for me, too. Yeah, take out pavement altogether. That covers everything. From the edge of the road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that in any way impact on other measurements that are made, such as for setbacks? I mean, are you going to create a controversy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is just for signs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I recognize that. But can it be construed, so limited that it's just for signs? That doesn't create an unintended consequence someplace else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see how. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm good ifthat's good. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let me -- Mr. Schiffer, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, Mark, I remembered two more things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One is, and I think we keep calling it that in ii. Can we change that to be directional signs? In other words, let's just call them what they are. And then the other thought is that since we have the -- A is off premises open house signs, I think we should quit repeating it throughout the whole thing. In other words, i, we don't need to say off premises. In iii we could wipe out off-premises open house. All the way down the line, we keep saying off-premises, off-premises, which Page 9 Janu<Jy~, lor A essentially it's under the subtitle of off-premises, so I think we could clear that up, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Brad, I really have to compliment you on your ways of cleaning this up. I think they're good, I think it helps the code. But I'm very concerned about how much -- I don't want this coming back again to us, so I'd like to ask again, Catherine, I don't know how much of this you have in a format that you can jot our corrections to us, but I'll repeat what's been said so far for the benefit of you and for the benefit of panel in case anybody disagrees, and then we'll hear from the public. And I want to make sure we can come back before this meeting's over today with confidence that all the changes will get made. Because Brad's points are well made, I just wish they were made to you before today's meeting in a manner that we could have gotten them in print. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, let's clear that up a second. I mean, what if -- I mean, I never had the thought that I would go to Catherine and have her change the wording -- MS. FABACHER: Not change-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- without the rest of the board. MS. F ABACHER: -- but raise your concerns. Excuse me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then we would be at the same point with Catherine in tune to my concerns, but we'd be in the same position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or otherwise -- and Brad, I just -- the only problem I have is we're -- this is what, the third? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we didn't hear this last time. And when the -- MS. F ABACHER: Third. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there were people in the audience, we weren't going to discuss it that night. But I actually did Page 10 JanulrrlfTS A bring up that I would like to get my comments out, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, Brad, I think your comments are good, and will help clean it up. My concern is if we send this back for a rewrite and it doesn't come back, it's got to come back to us again and we might have to make changes again. We're just going to drag this thing out longer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm hoping -- I'm going to read through that was suggested so far. Maybe Catherine can try to do the best she can before the meeting today is over. Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: We can make these changes and sort of bring it back to you on a consent agenda kind of thing on one of your regular meetings, and if you're not happy with it, pull it and fix it there. This is not going to the board for a while, is it? MS. FABACHER: It's going to them on the 16th. MR. KLATZKOW: You'll have a chance to see it before then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's on the 16th, we have a meeting -- our next meeting is -- well, other than Friday, our next meeting next week is our regular meeting on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the 17th. Yeah, so we don't -- MS. F ABACHER: And Commissioner, I have to -- excuse me, I have to send these packets out before the 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand. So we're kind of stuck on the time. MS. F ABACHER: Tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's finish this today somehow. But let's walk through what we've talked about so. MS. F ABACHER: I had one more response to what Commissioner Schiffer had said about the making it a directional sign. I met extensively with the sign code people. And directional Page 11 Janrg 9( 200S signs are unfortunately in our code is what refers to what I used to III A a multi occupancy sign where you can have a tall sign with all the different thing there. So I know it's residential, but we were trying to avoid the confusion of using the term a directional sign. Because in the current sign code a directional sign means like I said, what I used to call a multi occupancy sign for a shopping center or would even be for multi-family units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: lfwe didn't bold it, then would that maybe mean that it isn't the definition version of directional? In other words, anything that we have a definition for, and if you say we have a definition -- MS. F ABACHER: Actually, no, because the bolding is very hit or miss in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you read the second sentence, it says for -- two temporary open house signs may be placed within the public right-of-way, providing direction to a supervised open house. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah, that's why we chose that language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, let it go then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's go through the rest of them real quick and make sure we're all in agreement. Starting at the number three: In front of open house signs, we now insert the word temporary open house signs. Then A where it says off-premises open house signs stays the same. But where we use the word off-premises in the rest of these we strike that word because it's redundant, it's in the title. Is that -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's where we use the word off-premises open house. We can keep the word signs. But throughout the thing we refer to off-premises open house signs, so I think it should just read signs, not off-premises open house. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so one -- the first i would be one sign may be located in the public right-of-way. Page 12 Jami1/f2fS A Okay, and then the references in each one of these Roman -- these little i's referencing the hours of which they can -- where they can be replaced and the location will be in a separate paragraph and the redundancy will be taken out of each paragraph. MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, I note that we do have that in small iii, we do kind of state open house signs may only be displayed -- we could just move that up to the first and that would take care I think of your concern about the time and we could take it out of everything -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is you didn't put that in ii, so the impression could be -- MS. F ABACHER: I understood, I understood. And I think your direction was to put that up as its own, and we would move three up to one, and then we would strike the times out of all the others, because it would cover everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd have -- you'd summarize in the sense that you'd take the commonality out of them all and you'd put them in separate paragraphs. So you'd have an overall time in one paragraph and a distance -- MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a replacement, a distance from the road in one paragraph. MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strike it out ofthe rest, strike out off-premises open house so that we're referring to the signs, because we've got the title defining what they are. And that gets us to where we need to be, I think. Those are the issues that we seem to be talking about here today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: B, we also have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- a change under ii from two to one. Page 13 Janu~'FOJ8 A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? MS. FABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought we agreed that you would have only one sign. Maybe I was just agreeing with myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, a total of three. One, the first i and then two in the second -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm talking about ii. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought the way that you came up with solving that would be to have one directional sign. MS. F ABACHER: No, I believe he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just defining why we may not need to have multiple signs closer at the intersection. But this would allow two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, here again, I'll restate my issue. If somebody, an eager real estate person somehow or another decides I've got to get the play and they pull one person's sign out in order to replace it with their sign, that's all I'm concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think then that's a violation of law. Probably because it's either theft or fraud or vandalism or something, I don't know. They could certainly go after one another legally in that case. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know, but I thought we would like to make the law as clear as we could to make sure we could obviate that opportunity. Okay. Maybe the public speaker will mention the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, from the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one more thing, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In ii we remove the word temporary? Page 14 Jl~ f' 100S A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you're right. Okay, any other comments from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, from our perspective so far, do you understand what we're trying to say? MS. FABACHER: Would you like me to repeat? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just want-- MS. F ABACHER: Yes, I do, I have everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then public speakers, I guess Mr. Poteet is the only public speaker? MS. F ABACHER: Exactly, Mr. Poteet is here. MR. POTEET: Good morning. For the record, my name is William H. Poteet, Jr., and I'm here representing the Naples Area Board of Realtors. First of all, I would like to compliment Catherine and her staff, because what they've drafted and they brought before you today our board thinks is a very effective tool. It will take away a lot of the complaints we get from code enforcement and allow us to do our jobs and represent the buyers and sellers of Collier County. My only question I had on this thing is on number three I believe you took away the word temporary -- or you added the word temporary there. And there was a clear distinction between the two directional signs and the open house sign. We just want to make sure that if we have two open house signs that are adjacent to each other, two open houses going on that are adjacent to each other, that they're not in violation of this little ordinance and each of them can put a sign in front of the house. As long as that's clear, we do not have a problem with it whatsoever. And we actually think this is going to be very good for the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I think your issue is resolved in the sense that -- well, you can have -- every lot can have its own sign is what it basically boils down to. And then the beginning Page 15 Janlae' 1, fOS A in number three, the header to this whole thing, labels the whole thing as temporary. So that's why the redundancy ofthe word temporary, as Brad pointed out, is probably -- MR. POTEET: But when you went down to ii it said you can have two signs, but they couldn't be closer than 100 feet from each other. And we just wanted to make sure that that didn't overlap back up to three. MS. FABACHER: No, that -- no, that's for -- that's why we put in providing direction. MR. POTEET: Okay. As long as it's clear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Okay, with that do we have any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess we'll reserve final recommendation until, Catherine, you can come back and clarifY the language to us as we've talked about before the meeting's over today, okay? MS. FABACHER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that if you could just go back through it and scratch it out. Is there any way you can modifY anything before the meeting's over today, or is that something that you don't have the capabilities because of lack of computer? MS. FABACHER: Well, lack of -- I'm the only one here, so-- perhaps I can get John on the computer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you could give me a clean copy where nobody marked on it, I'll take the shot at scratching through and doing it. MS. F ABACHER: I think I have that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- it will take me a second to do that. We can do that while we're going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so we'll just defer the final recommendation of this until we finish with that. Page 16 Jl6J 9hooA I want to make sure it's right. Because I want to -- we don't have time for a second reading. I don't want it to go forward and then have someone say well, you didn't get everything in to the BCC correctly, and then staffs at -- on a threshold of being blamed for something and we're disappointed because it didn't happen right. So we're just going to hold off until later in this meeting for that issue. Next issue I think we talked about having is the affordable housing. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioners, that is going to be on Page I in your book, and Page A of the spreadsheet. And we have Cormac Giblin here to explain the changes that he's put in since your last -- our last meeting. And then I think we have the director of housing and human services here to provide comments also. All right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. GIBLIN: Cormac Giblin, project manager with WilsonMiller. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, if I'm not mistaken, the reason you're presenting this over staff is that this was generated as a private sector amendment to the LDC -- MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that right? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. GIBLIN: Project manager with WilsonMiller, representing the Oliver Group. I was here at your meeting last month presenting the first draft of this. And from that meeting there were several comments and suggestions made on the part of planning commission, which we've attempted to incorporate into this draft you have before you now. Page 17 IJ6uk19,2~s I'll walk through a couple of those changes that have been made. Also, since your last meeting this amendment has also been brought to the county's affordable housing commission where it was overwhelmingly approved at that meeting in December. A couple of the key areas that have been changed since your first draft was the concept of the essential service personnel employee, which was very much at the forefront of the previous amendment. At your recommendation that language has now been taken out of the requested amendment, and basically this would apply to all affordable housing, regardless of where you work or who you work for. I think there were some concerns on the part of the planning commission last month about it may produce company towns or have people with obligation over their head tied to their living situation, and so that entire situation has been taken off the table now, again at your direction. Another change that was made, again at your direction, from the last meeting was that we've attempted to split the density bonus chart and density bonus amounts into two categories: One for home ownership and one for rental units. And you can see that on Page 3 is your existing home ownership chart has been virtually unchanged except for some minor cleanup of the percentages that was at the housing commission's recommendation. But the chart itself and the amount of bonus you get as a basis of how many affordable units you provide has not changed at all in the home ownership side. What we've done is create a new table below that on Page 4 for rental use. And it was the pleasure of this commission again that affordable housing density bonuses should be allowed for rental housing, but perhaps they should not be allowed at the same level as owner occupied housing. There was a desire to make it -- to install a preference in the code for owner occupied housing, while still allowing some level of benefit for rental housing. Page IS 16:u1u<lY 9,Aoos And that's what the table below it on Page 4 does is that it essentially shifts everything over to the right 10 percent, so essentially it's 10 percent harder, or you get 10 percent less benefit for doing rental housing as you would if you were doing owner occupied housing. And again, I think that was the direction given by several of you at the last meeting. Since we produced this draft I did receive a couple of comments from staff through Catherine regarding how these units would be monitored or enforced by the county, and also what the maximum rental amounts charged on these rental units would be or could be. And to that end, I provided some information to staff regarding what the county's monitoring and enforcement current code is. And I believe it's very stringent. It requires a yearly monitoring progress report listing all the occupants, all their rents, all their incomes, requires third-party verifications of household income. Failure to provide those to the county on September 30th of each year results in a $50 per day fine. Ifviolations are found and they're not corrected, it goes to a $500 per day fine, up to and including 60 days injail for the property owner and ultimate penalty would be revocation of the C.O. of a unit that is found in non -- not in compliance. So we think that the existing monitoring and enforcement rules that the county has on the books would certainly apply to these units and that they are sufficient to guard against people trying to take advantage of the system. The second issue by staff was the rent limits. HUD -- the county and HUD determine the rent limits for Collier County, maximum rental amounts for affordable units. And it's based on a percentage of medium income. Now, if you were to take the -- this amendment, remember, is asking for rental -- affordable housing density bonuses for rental units at the workforce and gap level of housing. If you were to take the 80 percent of medium income, which is low income, and use the HUD Page 19 16J!nk <A200S chart as to what maximum rent would be allowed to be charged, you would be probably just over what fair market rent in Collier County is anyway. So again, at the -- to address staffs concern, we've added a sentence here in the amendment that all the rents, regardless of income level, would be capped at no more than the 60 percent of median income level, which is about $850 a month, which we feel would be very affordable rent for a two-bedroom apartment. With that, those are the changes that we've incorporated since your last meeting. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so for the commissioners, this issue starts on Page 1 and goes through Page 5. Are there any comments from the planning commission? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, to start with, prior to this we get to this section in code, we reference table A a lot. So should we change that everywhere it says table A to be A and B? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that strike through and underlined in the prior wording should be done. Or we can call both of these table A. You obviously choose one for the particular use you're usmg. MR. GIBLIN: I think actually that was a change Catherine made. I think since -- when I submitted, I think I did A-I and A-2 or something like that. And then it was changed. It should just be consistent with whatever the previous code says. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Catherine, everywhere we reference table A, make sure we reference table B also, if it applies. There may be a reference to -- okay. Cormac, why did you change in gap housing the ratio in which Page 20 Janule'F~8 A you do it? And the concern I have is that in the owner occupied, the premise that you have to do 10 percent at 80 percent before you get the gap credits, if you essentially change that the way you worded it, gap is at 80 percent, thus you would eliminate I think the intent of that double asterisk. So if you wanted -- in other words -- you see what I'm saying? Gap starts at 80 now. Prior to that, it was greater than 80. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, what I think Brad's referring to is on Page 2, the two changes you made. I think you may have a typo, because you start both workforce and gap housing at 81 percent. MR. GIBLIN: No, that is actually correct that way. Gap housing -- again, if you look up to the owner occupied gap housing, which is about five lines above that, gap housing by current definition is 81 to ISO. And workforce is essentially a subset of that that goes from 81 to 100. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we have workforce then? It doesn't make any sense. MR. GIBLIN: There were many terms adopted over the past couple years that tended to overlap and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but my real question is, back on table A, under gap, you change it to 80 percent. And what essentially you're saying is if you look at your double asterisk, you know, may only be used in conjunction with at least 10 percent at or below 80 percent. So in other words -- I think what I'd rather say is can you say at or below workforce product, which is a definition you have -- MR. GIBLIN: I think I understand the confusion there. Maybe just deleting the word below. So the asterisk would read may only be used in conjunction with at least 10 percent below 80 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why are you moving gap to 80 percent? That's what you've kind of done in your table, which I don't think is correct anyway. MR. GIBLIN: Yeah, again, I don't think that that's correct. Page 21 JanU~6f~ A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you should say greater than 80 percent. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But no less than -- MR. GIBLIN: Right, removing the word "and" in the table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you're going to say greater than 80 percent. In other words, if you say 80 percent, then you can -- essentially gap would qualifY for the 10 percent for gap, so -- okay, so -- MR. GIBLIN: You're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you're going to say greater than 80 percent. And Mark, that doesn't solve the problems you had over here, those -- it's a separate issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, the other thing is why is there zero, 10 percent zero. You're requesting people to build 10 percent product again, kind of the same issue in rental, yet you're not giving any density bonus for them to do that. So what you're saying with table B -- MR. GIBLIN: You're speaking of the asterisk under table B? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And referencing the fact that if someone did that, they wouldn't get any density bonus for it. You've zeroed out a density bonus -- MR. GIBLIN: Right, I understand. That could be changed to at least 20 percent then. Because again, there would be no bonus for rental housing if you only did 10 percent of the units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why not? Is that a -- MR. GIBLIN: Well, the reasoning was again because I felt it was the pleasure of this commission that the code inherently favor home ownership. And so that was a -- what I came up with to try to favor Page 22 JanuT~' r018 A home ownership is to make -- getting a bonus, you have to do a little bit more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think, you know, the times we're in, rental's important, too. MR. GIBLIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we -- there's a lot of discussion on rental, especially now since a lot of the rentals went into condo, and a lot of those condos are under foreclosure, so they wish they could rent the unit they bought. But anyway, I question that. And the other question really is, is how do you come up with this spread of density? I at one time charted the density bonus system, and why would anybody build past -- when they hit eight, why would they go into the other categories? They never would. So in other words, we give them the prize pretty quickly. In rental we give it to them at 50 percent. In gap we give it to them at 40, the highest density they can get. Why would they ever go further down the chart? MR. GIBLIN : Well, there are other reasons why people build 100 percent affordable developments, with be it grant funding or state funding or federal tax credits. But our code itself tries to encourage people to do as much as they can. And that seems to be -- these numbers that are in the chart, if you remember, they were adopted maybe two years ago as a result of a study that Fishkind and Associates did for the county, where he looked at property values and construction costs and ability to buy. And that was in response to the Board of County Commissioners asking for some economics or science to be put behind these numbers, and these were the numbers that came out of that study. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the upper table. MR. GIBLIN: The upper table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the lower table we're inventing today, correct? MR. GIBLIN : Well, the lower table is the same numbers, just Page 23 Januatl ~ ~~ A made harder to get there. It's been shifted over one column. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all you've done? MR. GIBLIN : Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That will be it for now, Mark, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think mine's a meat issue. Mine is on Page 2, and I just -- maybe I missed something, but you have a recitation for each under owner, and then you have a recitation for rental, but you didn't have a recitation for 61 to 80 percent. Is that left out on purpose? Did I miss something, or is that just -- MR. GIBLIN: Again, with so many of these categories tending to overlap, it mayor may not be needed. Certainly could be added, just for consistency, rental, affordable housing, or rental workforce housing, 61 to 80 percent of median, just to keep the flow complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, Mr. Murray's right, if you don't put that in, you can't have rental housing between 61 and 80 percent, can you? MR. GIBLIN: I think that's right. That's correct. That will be added. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought maybe I was wrong, but hey. That was my issue. So we're going to put the recitation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, we'll go on. I'm summarizing everything. In the end we'll go through it all again. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good morning, Cormac. You came up with a term median market rental price? MR. GIBLIN: Fair market rent. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fair market rent. How did you accumulate the numbers and when were they accumulated? MR. GIBLIN: Fair market rent is a calculation done by the Page 24 Jlr6rrt ~ 200A federal government once a year for every MSA in the country. And it's available, published by HUD or published by the federal government. It was -- the number that I was referencing was the 2007 number. So it's the most current that's available. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So that's a Nationwide number, not specific -- MR. GIBLIN: No, no, it's done specifically for every MSA in the country. So Collier County has its own, Lee County has its own. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And what is ours right now; do you know what -- MR. GIBLIN: Ours right now -- I didn't bring it with me, but I believe it's around $875 or something, something to that effect is our fair market rent. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right now? MR. GIBLIN: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For a two-bedroom? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, for a two-bedroom. It does vary by bedroom SIze. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, on Bob's point, Bob, in the back of the book Cormac has included, if you look there's a yellow page in the back. Beyond that there is an analysis of what that is. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any more comments or questions on this part of the LDC amendments? Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: I wanted to correct what might have been a miscommunication. But initially I think when Cormac said that they had put the 60 percent cap in on the maximum rental price, that it was responding to staff, actually staffs concerns were identified as the fact that the higher end from 80 and -- well, 120 and 140 on, those higher Page 25 J~~9Fooft end rentals, staff said were way above rentals that were being offered by the market itself. And my personal logic was that, you know, if you're paying that much money you might as well buy something. So I didn't -- we didn't recommend capping it at all. Just to clarifY. My concern only was saying that these higher end rental, monthly rental prices for the 120 and the 140 were way out of the ballpark for anything that is in the market for I think would be an obvious reason. MR. GIBLIN: And I think the cap solves that problem, though. MS. F ABACHER: But I'm just saying that we did not direct towards the cap. Because that was not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. But I think the cap accomplishes the goal of retaining it as rental. MS. F ABACHER: I just wanted to clarifY that that was not anything staff was looking for at cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other comments from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more. How long or how do we control -- and you may have answered this in your dissertation at the end. I did read it but I don't remember it right now. How long must -- how do we control the length in which someone has to retain a unit for rental purposes? MR. GIBLIN: The affordable housing density bonus agreement is attached to a PUD. Runs with the land. It's enforced by the full -- again, I went through the enforcement options. The length of that agreement is 15 years. So these units must comply with that agreement for 15 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so they couldn't convert to condo -- well, I guess they could, but then it would be a rental condo. MR. KLATZKOW: It could be condos to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. As long as they're rentals. Page 26 Januwe, fOf A MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they could sell them as often as they wanted to, as long as they continued renting them out for the price that they were obligated to for IS years. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any escalation costs in that IS-year rate on a year-by-year basis? MR. GIBLIN: Well, the maximum allowable rent again that we've capped at the 60 percent median level is calculated year by year by HUD. So that -- sometimes it can go up, sometimes it can go down, based on market conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now what does it go up and down based upon? MR. GIBLIN: It goes up and down based on median income. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: That is a calculation of what you can afford. So if the median income in the area goes up, that calculation goes up along with it. If it goes down, it may go down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has the median income gone up or down in the last couple of years? MR. GIBLIN: It's gone both ways. It's gone-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it up or down today compared to two years ago, do you think? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know the answer to that question. MR. GIBLIN: IfMr. Murray knows the answer-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. GIBLIN: I think it's very close to-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was at a meeting yesterday, I think it was, and it was announced that the current median income is $38,817. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but that doesn't answer what is-- Page 27 Jl~rl912ooA MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, that's not the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, that's the average wage. MS. F ABACHER: -- MSA. That's not for the MSA. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're right. Sorry about that. MS. F ABACHER: Metropolitan Statistical Area, which they use the -- I guess the census tracks of Naples, Marco Island is really kind of a substitute for the Collier County. MR. GIBLIN: In the past few years, I know that the median household income in Collier County has gone from $69,800 a year down to 66, I 00, down to 63,500. The past few years there has been a slight downward trend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I'm going with this, rentals are a little different than home ownership. Home ownership you're obligated by a mortgage to whatever you buy in at the time. If the rental program allows a fluctuation in rental rates, based upon the median income, that fluctuates yearly, yet people for example two years ago who would have bought investment property to rent out and may have wanted to enter this program for 15 years in order to see their depreciations and returns come back and forth would have been locked into the mortgage that they locked into when they bought the unit at the high side two years ago, but under our rental program, they wouldn't be able to recoup a return on that to what they were counting on when they bought two years ago, because the median income could be declining, as it possibly is now. As a result, they're obligated to pay more out of pocket to retain the price by which they bought the unit and mortgaged it for, versus now what they're able to recoup mandatorily because of this program on a rental cost. MR. GIBLIN: I can answer that in two ways. The first is that HUD -- the calculation here done by HUD is -- again, I've seen kind of the backup for it. It's about three-quarters of an inch or an inch binder just on how that number is determined. Page 28 JaJu6Yp'looSn There are some safeguards being built into it that if it goes down -- or if median income goes down, then income limits and rents don't correspondingly go down as much. There is a buffer, if you would, built into that number, calculated by HUD. The second answer I would give was that sort of the same issue was raised by our affordable housing commission when they discussed this last month. And the bottom line that seemed to be consensus of the commission was, you know, buyer beware. rfyou decide to provide rental units in a program like this, these are the rules. And if you don't comply with the rules, this is -- these are the penalties and enforcement options available to the county. So you should be sure that you know what you're getting into. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Cormac, it's the HUD chart. Essentially somebody gets the density bonus. They're going to provide for less than 60. So they're happy, they got their eight, they built the unit. But they make more money renting to wealthier -- in other words, they make more money renting to a guy at 60 than they would at a guy at 25 percent. MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what's the incentive to give poor -- in other words, essentially what we're giving is 60 percent people rental -- MR. GIBLIN: Well, the incentive would be you would -- the lower you go on that scale, the more density you get in exchange for fewer of the units being encumbered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they all seem to slam into eight right away together. My point is that the product for low and very low has a really Page 29 JanJ'9/2~8 A low and very low chance of being built if the other stuff -- I mean, the guy is going -- there's no advantage to a developer once he's got the density to go lower, the way this chart's set up. MR. GIBLIN: That is unless they only wanted to do maybe 10 or 20 percent affordable and the rest market rate. Then in those situations they could do a few units at a very low income at a very low rent and still achieve a workable density. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is, we're never going to get product to the low and very low by the way the system's set up. There's no reward to the developer. He gets his density in a straight line at 50 percent. MR. GIBLIN: At 50 percent, yeah. The 50 percent is basically the bottom. 50 percent and below is the bottom of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, so my point comes down to what's the science on the numbers? I mean, the incentive of what a program like this should be, the way the numbers are set up, it doesn't seem to encourage that. But I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments from anybody? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I agree with Mr. Schiffer's comment. I think we are incentivizing the wrong end of this scale. I just don't see this as good policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, can you elaborate on what you think could be changed to make it better policy? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, again, I think you need to reverse where the benefit happens. The benefit should happen for people doing workforce or low income and moderate income, as opposed to gap housing. Gap housing is profitable housing. And it seems to me that we're sort of creating other profit centers for businesses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I'm just trying to figure out Page 30 Jan19 9! 210s A COMMISSIONER CARON: If you're in the hospital business, we've now given you a second business to be in to make money. And because everybody will build this gap housing because that -- the chart does favor building the gap housing over the low income housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, this was a private sector amendment with the intention of creating rental units for essential -- I think you termed it originally essential services, which mostly fall into the higher end, not the lower end. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And now what is being -- what we're attempting to do with it is not only provide what you asked for, but to open up further realms into different categories that you had not requested. MR. GIBLIN: Or maybe the same categories but at a different level or different benefit may be what I'm hearing. Again, we did not monkey with the chart numbers, monkey with -- for the most part, or actually in the whole part, the first chart is unchanged. That's their existing code. And you can see, it does slant the lower income you get, or lower income units you provide, the quicker you can achieve that maximum density bonus. And that's the basis of the chart. And then we've just carried that same premise over to the other chart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm trying to get to a point where we've got some kind of workable program or we agree it isn't workable. And I'm hearing a mixed review from this panel. And I think the job is to get it off the dime. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'd like to -- I mean, was staff involved in coming up with the densities that you show on table B? MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, and what you did is you Page 31 Jan~ 110S A took the old table A, shifted it one category to the right -- MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then zeroed out 10 percent at no benefit for building a little bit of stuff. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. And again, that was -- that's the way I interpreted your direction at the last meeting was to make it -- make the code inherently favor the home ownership chart over rental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's been the direction of the board all along. We were exactly trying to follow that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I think we need low and very low rental. I certainly wouldn't mind sliding some density bonus for that in rentals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have someone here from our staff who could possibly shed light on that? MR. GIBLIN: Mr. Schiffer, as she's taking the stand, now I do see your point. And may I make a suggestion, that on the rental chart B, that the low and very low, the zeros be removed in the 10 percent category and everything be shifted back over to the left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I would be against that myself. I think that's just the opposite direction this county's been heading in for all these years. And while I favor rental housing, if it can't be done in a quantity that works, then there's no sense in starting it out in small piecemeal chunks. But anyway, let's hear what you've got to say, maybe you can help us out, young lady. MS. KRUMBINE: I'm not sure. Good morning. For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of Housing and Human Services. And I have a couple of -- some more numbers to share with you. But before I do that, I guess I want to say that I'm a little concerned that -- to say that if the proposal is really doing what the proposal is supposed to do, okay, and I like to bring things down to really plain Page 32 Ja~~ry/9,~00~ language. So if Marcy Krumbine, developer, wanted to build let's say 16 units and then Marcy Krumbine would have the option of doing one of two things: She would have the option of either considering those units rental units and then hiring like a management company to rent out the units to people of certain income qualifications, or Marcy Krumbine, developer, would have the option of then selling them as condos. I don't see where this proposal allows Marcy Krumbine development to sell the condos to Naples Community Hospital to then rent them out. So I don't see that that is there. And I think that that's what we're trying to accomplish. So that's my concern with the way that the program is going. But let's look at the market. Because the whole purpose of anything that we want to do is to say is there a need, and ifthere's a need, then how -- is it the government's responsibility to help fill that need, and then are we filling that need and meeting that gap correctly. So let's look at some of these things. This is the rental chart that we've all been talking about. And if you look at the bottom, highlighted in yellow is the rentals that could be charged, based on the median income at 80, 120 and 140. And that was the first concern that we had was that you're looking at rentals that could be up to 1,800, $2,200. And that was -- how is that going to help anybody? I mean, they could go out in the market and buy a -- and rent or buy a very nice place for that amount of money. So that was a little concern right there. Okay, and then the way that this works is you take out the cost of utilities. So we've adjusted that to take out the cost of utilities. And we're still looking at a two-bedroom at 140 being $2,100, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before you go too far, wasn't there a suggested cap at 60 percent? MS. KRUMBINE: Yeah, I'm going to get to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 33 Jaluary 9, 200S MS. KRUMBINE: Okay, now, this is a little hard to rea~, lu1we A went to the Southwest Florida Apartment Association to say well, what have you got out there and what's the occupancy rate? And if you just look right down the first column -- well, the second column. Let's all go by two/twos. If you go down the two/two column and -- you see that there is nothing really that high up in the scale that they monitor. And then you look to the far right-hand side to the percentage of occupancy and right now the market is such where these -- they used to be at 99 percent occupancy, and now they're not. And so the concern is that where is the market for building these units at a level -- at any level? Right now there is no market for it right now. And then this is the point, is if we go ahead and cap them, okay, we're going to cap it at -- if you look at that. So a two-bedroom, two-bath is going to be capped at $852. Okay, so that would be the most that they could charge, which means that then somehow we're subsidizing the balance. MS. F ABACHER: Actually, I think that this chart shows that the figures in blue are levels of rentals that are not provided in the current market. MS. KRUMBINE: Right. MS. F ABACHER: Because they don't make sense. So that's what we're saying is if you looked at the -- if you studied completely the market survey on apartment rentals in the market now, there's nothing provided as rentals at this level. And I think the argument was is there's a reason for that. If you're going to spend that much money, particularly in this market now, buy a house, get some equity. I think the next slide you were talking about, Marcy, was -- MS. KRUMBINE: Was the cap. And so this is the annual subsidy per unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By subsidy, you mean -- how is that subsidized? Page 34 Jad<6 t, fOS A MS. KRUMBINE: Well, it's subsidized by the density bonuses that you're giving. MS. F ABACHER: The cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. KRUMBINE: Yeah. So what we're saying is that the way this program works is that, you know, Marcy Krumbine, developer, is going to develop 16 units and then she could have rented the units for 1,700 or 2, I 00 a year -- a month. But based on this proposal, she's going to cap it at $852. And then, you know, one of the things that I said to the Affordable Housing Commission when I brought up the idea that -- the concern of the monitoring with this level of income. See, in our department we deal with 80 percent below all the time. And there's all sorts of subsidies that are attached to rental and home ownership and from a state level, federal level. And so they're used to be monitored. They're used to showing income. They're used to falling within very specific guidelines. When you go over 81 percent and you go to your firefighters and your police officers and the people that are making the higher levels, they're not -- they're not used to, nor are the management companies nor are the developers used to following that buyer beware. So that's not to say that it's right or wrong, or that's not to say that it can't be changed, but you're dealing with a totally different population. And I know when I'm working with the Affordable Housing Commission and the people that are looking at other ordinances and they're sitting there saying well, they'll just have to do it, or they say to me, well, that's not fair to do it for those people, or that's not fair, and we don't really want to put all those constraints on them. Well, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to create a program with density bonuses and subsidies, then there's going to be all sorts of constraints. And I'm here to tell you that it's a difficult mix to put it over 81 percent. Page 35 16PrfuajY 9,AOOS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Marcy, can you take your developer hat off for a minute, put your county hat on? MS. KRUMBINE: Sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What suggestions would you make? What input do you have regarding this process? MS. KRUMBINE: I don't -- my input is that at this point in time I don't think that creating density bonuses for rental units up to the gap level is a feasible process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Marcy, what is the relationship -- in our table we have a percent of household median income. Is that the same percentage that would be in the HUD chart? So when we say 60, does that mean 60 in the HUD chart too? MS. KRUMBINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when we put this clause in there that the maximum rental amount to be charged will be capped at the 60 percent, aren't we locking it in that the renters have to be at 60 percent or -- MS. KRUMBINE: No. No, that's the whole point of the proposal is that we're saying that we want to open it up to people over 81 percent of the median income, but only charge them at the 60 percent level. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, something's -- MR. GIBLIN: May I address a couple things? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. GIBLIN: Marcy, can you put the apartment inventory back on the screen, please? MS. KRUMBINE: I'll try. MR. GIBLIN: When that slide was on the screen, the question that was asked was where's the market for the 61 to 150. And I would tell you that I think maybe 90, 95 percent of the units or complexes on Page 36 Jani7,9,2iOS this list are restricted to their units' need to be occupied and rented to A folks at 60 percent or less of median income. So I think the question is where is the apartment complex inventory market for those people who make too much to live in one of these units? And that is the issue that my client and that the essential service personnel employers are grappling with right now is that yes, there are affordable units in the community, but they're restricted by the very density bonuses that they received in the past, or there are state and federal funding requirements that limit them to 60 percent or less of median income. And that's the very reason that we're here today is to create rentals at a higher income level. And not all of them on the sheet are, but the majority are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're trying to do is be able to get density bonuses to create more rental units to service people in the 81 percent and above bracket, but only charge them up to 60 percent or less bracket. MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why are we providing those people with a windfall that we're not providing other people who may need that more? MR. GIBLIN: I don't necessarily agree with it that it's a windfall. It is an affordable housing option in this market that right now does not exist for people in that income level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if people in that income level can get the government to force or obligate developers to provide them with less of a monthly payment that their income would rightfully dictate, that's a good thing. I'm not saying that's wrong. But then why aren't we providing it for the poorer people who could use it more? MR. GIBLIN: Oh, no, we already do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We are. MR. GIBLIN: The county already does provide the same benefit. Page 37 16 Jarlary A, 2008 In fact, a greater benefit at the rentals at the low end of the spectrum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're not saying if you're at the, say, a 50 percent income level -- MR. GIBLIN: Then your rent would be capped at the 40 percent level or the 30 percent level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You're saying okay, if you're at the 50 percent income level, you'll pay whatever level rent or home ownership mortgage you can afford at 50 percent. But yet if you're at the 82 percent level, you've only got to pay a 60 percent mortgage. Why is that fair? MR. GIBLIN: Again, that was to combat the concern that the maximum rent allowed by the formula would have been 1,700 or $2,100 a month. And that's not feasible. That's the reason for capping it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand why it ended that way. But something is inherently wrong with this program that we have to subsidize the ability of some people to be able to generate savings through government programs that regulate the amount of money they've got to pay each month and those people are in a higher bracket than the poorer people who may need it more. I'm -- now I'm getting concerned about that. I think we need the rental issue. I don't disagree with you, but I think you're weighing it to provide a benefit to a class of people, rightfully so, they should derive the benefit, but then everybody should be able to derive that equal benefit, and that's not the way the rest of the program is set up. That's a concern. And Marcy, thank you for -- I guess you kind of brought that out, maybe indirectly, but that's the way I'm looking at it now, and it certainly is a concern. Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Marcy, question on your opening statement. If a project was given this density bonus, the Page 38 J1Wf'iOOSA developer -- you're back in the developer hat -- and you decided to sell that condo, the requirement to rent at that rate would be locked into the condo. So the fact that I as a developer, you as a developer could build these units, you could sell them to companies, but they're still required to stay within the requirement. So your initial statement, I think it's available. I mean, once the density is given in the PUD, the requirements that they have to fulfill to get that density will last until it expires I guess so many years down the road. So no matter who owns the condo, they all have to live with that same requirement. So what the developer would do at that point is he would sell to these different companies who wanted to be able to control who lived in that unit. MS. KRUMBINE: So what you're telling me is that the developer is going to sell all 16 units to the hospital and then the hospital is going to rent it? So then in the PUD and -- and I would need to defer to the planning people here. So in the PUD then it is going to say right from the beginning the intent. Because I still -- see, we had this issue with impact fee deferrals. And I still see that you've got this third party in there. Because when they identifY, they're either going to identifY that these are going to be rental units or ownership units. And when I sell a unit, to me it's like an investor. So you're selling it -- you're building it to sell it to somebody to rent it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, I guess could you have partial ownership of a rental community? I don't know. I mean, it's not exactly a condo at that point. Because otherwise we would have to sell at the chart above it. And then the person could -- MS. KRUMBINE: When we deal with the difference between owner occupied and rental, owner occupied is a homestead that, you know, I'm buying it, I'm homesteading it, it's my primary resident. A rental is owned by a developer or a company and then they're all rented out. See, there's this -- again, this third-party thing where we're building, we're selling, and then renting. Page 39 Jair ('100S COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So you don't think __ and A Cormac -- MS. KRUMBINE: I'm not sure that this can be covered in this way. And I'll defer to other people. But that's not -- that confuses me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As a developer, could I build 100 units, sell half to one company, half to another company? MR. GIBLIN: I don't see anything in the code that prohibits that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they would rent it locked in at those rates. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. And then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's -- MR. GIBLIN: -- 10 years from then they could sell it to another company and they would comply with the same restrictions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, did you have a comment on that? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, if that's what they want to do, and I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I think we need to be explicit in the LDC as to that's allowable and that's what the intention is. Because right now it's not clear to me that that's really where this change is getting at. And I think the code should have some clarity on that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A couple of things that are nagging at me. One is I don't have the recollection, and maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't have a recollection that the hospitals ever intended to buy units to sell. They were part of a consortium that was going to work out arrangements to have the people who work for them occupy, whether through rental or whatever. So I don't -- you know, tagging it on to the hospital I don't think is -- and I know government itself is not going to be able to buy them. MS. KRUMBINE: Right. Page 40 l~ur)' ~008 . 1 A COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I do recall when Cormac came to us, his original thesis was for others in -- other industries, so to speak, to come and be able to develop and buy those homes. So I think that's going in the wrong direction, citing the hospitals as such. Now, as far as what Mark brought up about the current financial circumstances and being on the wrong side of a mortgage, we're going to have a bunch ofabandonments if that were to manifest. And where does that leave the county, where does that leave this whole issue? It makes no financial sense, it's a lousy business plan to build something that you're going to spend less on. I'm having a hard time seeing any reasoning in this to make sense going forward. But that's my comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marcy, this page you have in front of us now, the subsidy per unit, now just so I understand, that subsidy is really a developer paid subsidy acquired through the addition of density bonuses; is that right? MS. KRUMBINE: That would be the way to explain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no government subsidy being provided. MS. KRUMBINE: No, this is just the difference between what we're capping it at and what they could get for that unit annualized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So an employer could really say to the employee, you're getting an additional benefit from working for us if you go to our housing, "X" amount of dollars annually. MS. KRUMBINE: Sure. They could issue a 1099 for that extra mInImum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this is getting more convoluted as we go forward. Cormac, I think your goal has been worthy, but I don't -- I personally don't think we're there yet. You know, when government gets involved in social engineering, they better be doing it in an Page 41 1 &~u}ry 9A2008 unbiased and equitable manner, or they shouldn't be involved in it at all. And my concern here is I don't see the equitableness between what you're trying to do for your range and the same opportunity for the range below you. And I think that now is where my concern lies in this whole program. And I don't have -- I can't offer you a solution here today for that. But that's why I'm at. I don't know where the rest ofthe planning commission is at. But -- MR. GIBLIN : Yeah, again, just to kind of wrap it up. Our goal here was to allow affordable housing density bonuses to rental income levels that right now are not allowed per the code. Because we have a sector of the market who's c1amouring that they need rental housing at those income levels. And we have a client who's willing to build it for them at those income levels. The details may still need to be fleshed out. But Jeff, should we hold this over? MR. KLATZKOW: I think I could work with Cormac to come back with something that has the clarity anyway that he's looking for. Whether or not you think it's good policy could be discussed. But I think it's going to have to be put over to the next cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to suggest that. I don't think anything needs to be reworked for this cycle, considering we only have two weeks to get it done in. I don't think that in that amount of time you could actually come up with something that may be as viable as it needs to be. I'd much rather see this get more thoroughly thought out and go into a cycle in 2008. And if that's the consensus of this board -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If it never came back, it would be okay, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point we ought to look for a recommendation to deny changes to LDC Section 1.08.02 and 2.06.03. Page 42 Janu}rff,12lJ!8 A COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that appropriate, Mr. Kolflat? (Sic.) MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know if you want to deny it or just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a voluntary. Cormac could just pull it at this point in time and just bring it back to the next cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would have to be something then up to the applicant, because this is a private submittal. MR. GIBLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay what? MR. GIBLIN: Do you need to know that answer now, or can we MR. KLATZKOW: They're voting now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think where you're facing is a recommendation of denial or a voluntarily pulling it for another cycle. MR. GIBLIN: Yeah, we'll go back and tweak it and pull it and come back at a future date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Murray, would you withdraw your motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point then there is no motion on the table, this whole issue's been withdrawn from this cycle, and we'll expect to see it in a future cycle. Thank you, Mr. Cormac (sic), we appreciate it. Mr. Cormac. Mr. Giblin. Mr. Klatzkow and Mr. Kolflat. Too many names here today. You guys, it's better off with your first names. We're going to take a break at 10:00, if that's okay with Cherie', so we'll still go on with something in the meantime. So next up I think what ought to be the eagle issue. MS. FABACHER: Exactly, Commissioners. We're on summary sheet B, Page 7 in your book. This is amendment to Section 3.05.05, criteria for removal of protected vegetation, or as more lovingly Page 43 Ja~~ t, 1008 A referred to, the eagle nest amendment. And Barbara Burgeson with engineering and environmental services is here today to make a presentation and answer your comments. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson, with engineering and environmental services. A couple things I want to bring to your attention. One, I know that Steve had presented this to you last time and taken your recommendations and made the changes to the amendment as you see in your package. What you've got in your package is a result of your recommendations to this LDC amendment. Staff has discussed this in light of a number of different issues, but also maybe most critical, that as recently as December 21 st, what I've got here is draft number four from the state. Draft bald eagle management plan, December 21 st didn't even get out for my viewing until after the holidays. Wasn't made public until after the 21st. And there's significant changes to this. Just the first one that may even affect this amendment is that where we're looking at a fine -- initially we looked at 35,000. There were questions about what maximum could be set up as a fine, and Catherine did the research on that, and a $15,000 fine would be the maximum the county could assess as a fine. However, the county could identify after-the-fact fees at any amount. But the state's direction is going from 35,000 and up now. With draft four they're looking at requiring $35,000 for the fee, plus a $50,000 financial assurance bond and additional costs in just doing the permitting the proper way. So they're looking at going substantially higher on a species that they're de-listing, and we're looking at something going lower. My other concern about this is that we are selectively choosing to protect a species that the state is de-listing and not doing any protection on the endangered and threatened species that the county Page 44 JanuJ6, 10~8 A recognizes and the Endangered and Threatened Species Act recogmzes. So I would recommend that one of two things: I think that the language that's written right now, even though the EAC and the planning commission -- this is the direction from both of those two boards to move forward with this. The written -- the language that you've got in your packet right now would not, for instance, have prevented or stopped the eagle nest tree that was removed in Pine Ridge. It would not protect that from occurring again. I'm concerned that the direction -- the purpose of this amendment is not being fulfilled with the language that's in there right now. And I would like to either attempt to put back in the endangered and listed species language that was in the first draft and potentially defer -- we could put in the maximum fine that we can have -- you had talked about a $5,000 fine because you weren't sure that the 35,000 was allowable. If you're looking at a fine, the $15,000 would be. So just putting all that out. I know it's a lot, especially since what you got in your package was what you directed staff to make as changes. But as a result of something that happened even as recently as just a couple of weeks ago with the state and the significant changes in here, and the fact that the federal comments in here don't even support state's proposed draft management plan, I'm concerned that we're gearing this specifically towards eagle protection when the state and feds don't know exactly where they're going with it right now. And if we want to have listed species protection of a broader nature, we're not saying they can't get permits to remove, but for instance, if you go back to protecting fox squirrel nests and you go back to protecting RCW nests, it just says you have to get agency permits first and we'll issue a permit. So it's -- I don't know if you want to go through a broader discussion, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Page 45 An9aJ ~20<A Ms. Caron, did you have something you wanted to say first? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. So bottom line, Barbara, are you recommending that this be withdrawn to another cycle? MS. BURGESON: I would suggest one of two things: I would suggest that we either go back to the language that you saw in your first hearing, which provides that we are not selectively protecting a de-listed species over threatened and endangered. COMMISSIONER CARON: But if they are threatened and endangered, are they not already protected? And are we not doing this for bald eagles because they have supposedly stepped down in protection? MS. BURGESON: No, initially our concern about bald eagle was that they were also protected by requirement for these permits. And they were not getting them. So we wanted to know that we would be obligated to issue permits so that we could check to make sure that the necessary state and federal permits were also obtained prior to the removal of the trees or vegetation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, absolutely. MS. BURGESON: So the de-listing of the species really doesn't change in terms of -- actually, the de-listing and the higher protection that they're providing in this new language in the most recent provides greater protection to the nest than they're providing for the -- for instance, the fox squirrel nest or the RCW nest. That if they take down -- right now if somebody comes in and takes down a dead pine tree that happens to have a fox squirrel nest in it, there's nothing in our code that protects -- provides any protection for that, or any negative impact to the property owner for having done that. So I don't know whether or not it makes sense to put this off to the 2008. I mean, our major concern is to -- from this group it came up as a major concern initially, and from the EAC as a response to some recent problems that we were seeing with bald eagle nests. But I think because of so much flux in that draft language, that Page 46 1~ahl, 20As it's not -- this draft number four is not even due for final comments till the end of April. And so we're looking at potentially not even knowing what that's going to be until after this gets amended. So it may be to everyone's benefit to continue this to follow through with what their final recommendation are going to be here, unless you want to put some, you know, bare minimum protection in here. The only thing that I would suggest that you don't remove is the definition that's in the beginning, and that definition was deleted from the LDC when it was recodified. And we need to put back the protected vegetation definition. And there I would say that we need to expand that to protect any endangered and threatened species as well, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two things: One, based on the way you started out would seem to me you're not prepared to go forward, so perhaps withdrawal is the best. But in addition to that, in the definitions on Page 10, vegetation, protected: Any living, woody plant and then parenthetically, tree, shrub or groundcover. And one of the things we asked was we couldn't understand groundcover. And the gentleman said yeah, I guess we should remove that. And here it is. And I wondered, on that basis have you got a good reason why that was put back in, or left in, rather? MS. BURGESON: We replaced the language that was in the original Land Development Code that was removed inadvertently. And the reason that the groundcover is in there, because you can have native groundcover that provides protection and habitat for -- for instance, gopher tortoise burrows for juveniles that are less than a few years old use that -- just native grasses and ground cover for protection for their burrows. And so by not protecting and allowing that that be removed, you're stripping the protection for some species that are Page 47 ~a~u!ry~, 2A8 using that ground cover. So we are not adding it new, we're just keeping the language that's always been in the Land Development Code since 1991. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there may be good reason for it, but my recommendation would be to withdraw it and wait till you've got all your good detail, and then we could put that at the end. MS. BURGESON: Okay. I would recommend that we move forward with at least that definition, because we're lacking the protective vegetation definition that's referenced in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments from the planning commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, can someone read to us what exactly was in the old code? Because I don't know that what is here and underlined is exactly the language that was in the old code that got left out. MS. FABACHER: Actually, I think it was Mr. Murray or Mr. Adelstein that had the earlier yellow book. Because unfortunately I didn't bring mine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. MS. F ABACHER: There you go. You want that on the visualizer, maybe? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be under definitions-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Section 3.05.05. So that may be a different page in that book. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the old book it's 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Page 10 in the old book as well. MS. BURGESON: Even in the code here, what you've got is everything is underlined, because it was completely deleted from the code and the recodification. Page 48 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, understood. MS. BURGESON: But from my recollection, the definition that was in the code since 1991 would be vegetation, protected: Any living, woody plant, tree or shrub or groundcover. And then period. The nuisance invasive vines and nuisance invasive groundcover are not protected vegetation is new language. Because we didn't want to have vegetation that might be native that's a nuisance and negative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, whose book is that, first of all? Bob, would you mind if she wrote on that book? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, go right ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you scratch that definition out and put in only for us to see what was in the old code? I can't figure out what you're trying to say again, and we seem to have this problem repeatedly with different items. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's exactly where I'm going. I want to know exactly what was in the old code. MS. BURGESON: I cannot guarantee you that that's exactly as it is in the old code without having it with me, but that's as I recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MS. BURGESON: I'd be happy to go get a Land Development Code for you and bring that back to you before -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one in my -- I think I have one in my truck. During break I can run down and get it and come back. MS. FABACHER: The old one? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: I could go ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think there's one in my truck. I'll run out and get it on break and come back with it. Because when we're told that this is the old language, we shouldn't be told it is when it isn't. And it apparently is not. And now we're finding it out, thanks to Ms. Caron's questioning. With the permission of the board, why don't we take a break and January 9, 200S 16 , 1 A Page 49 16aJuch 9,1008 we'll come back at 10: 15, that will give me time to get back. I had to go way out in the boondocks to park. So let's take a break right now and come back at 10:15. MS. BURGESON: You don't need to do that. I will call staff and have them read that to me over the phone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, reading it to you and having it on a visual is a different story. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break. We left off talking about the definition that appears on Page 10 of our text. And Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, now we have it up here, so we know that protected vegetation is any living, woody plant (tree, shrub or groundcover), period. I'm assuming that whatever 3.7 through 3.14 will also -- are either incorporated already or will be incorporated. Whatever references those reference, you need to make that reference again with new numbers and whatever. Okay. I don't know how much more anybody wants to bother to discuss this. I think I'm ready to make a motion. And I would make the motion that we add in the definition of protected vegetation and that we withdraw the rest of this for a future cycle. Because I don't think that it does what we intended for it to do, which is to protect bald eagle nests, whether they are in living or dead trees. And I think that the language needs to be worked on. I think a lot of language got taken out of this that I'm not sure was the intent ofthe CCPC. But I think a reworking of this would be a good thing. And if you can bring it back in the next cycle clearer and more concise, I think that would be the wise course of action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You started out -- Ms. Caron started out her comment by saying that she would -- if she were to make a motion, this would be it. Which I'm assuming right now there's not a Page 50 Jamt~9,2~08 motion on the table, which would allow for some discussion. A And before we go too much further, based on this definition, vegetation protected, any living, woody plant, tree, shrub or groundcover, that is so broad that everything in Collier County is protected, period. It doesn't say subject to divisions or anything else. And I think possibly this was intended to be left out because of its lack of clarity in the transfer of the code. And I'd rather do this a lot cleaner, bring the whole thing back during Cycle 2, including any definition that needs to be added where we can be more refined and clear on what exactly is protected and what isn't protected. Because certainly not any living or woody plant is protected in Collier County. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y : Yeah, adding to that, when we instructed the last time, we talked about the groundcover, and now Barbara has indicated that the ground cover relationship was associated with some young turtles. But this was intended to reference bald eagles. So I know that this is too broad for the intent that we had, so I could not support that at all. You basically could do nothing on this property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, did you have a-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and from my notes on the original meeting, I thought the intent in P was to -- we were going to take those lower paragraphs, make them parenthesis one and renumber. I'm not sure why you took the whole thing out. I don't recall, and I usually do "X" out stuff that was removed, why you didn't just, you know, renumber P. Maybe there was some comments within that. But I think the focus was is if we're protecting bald eagles, then Page 51 1 b~a]y 9, A008 say it and get rid of the other stuff. And then to reclassify. But why we took out the stuff about single-family lots and everything else, which is the intent, I'm not sure. MS. BURGESON: Okay. I can only say that I was not at that meeting and staff that did attend that meeting felt that was your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the motion to continue is a good idea. I would ask that if we make a motion, let's get -- before we waste time on a motion that isn't seconded, is it the intent of the board to continue the whole thing in terms of synopsis? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The whole thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think staff can -- now, Mr. Klatzkow, staff can withdraw this voluntarily? MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, do you wish to withdraw it voluntarily, or do you wish us to have to render an opinion on it? MS. BURGESON: I would say that since the direction -- this was not staffs amendment, that since it was both the EAC and the planning commission's direction, that I would prefer to have your direction to withdraw it. Although I fully support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How is the consensus of this board? Is there a motion to that effect, that we recommend staff to withdraw this particular item? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 52 Januaryl60~81 ,~ , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you very much. We will see you in 2008. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. Well, sometime in 2008. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think the next one up will be the watershed management plans on Page 15; is that correct, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Correct, Commissioner. And C on your summary sheet. And we have Robert Wiley here to answer any questions you might have and discuss the changes that you requested that were made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wiley, good morning. MR. WILEY: Good morning, sir. For the record, Robert Wiley with the engineering and environmental services department. We presented this to you once before. You had a few comments. We have also since our last meeting presented this also to DSAC. They provided some direction, some comments, some of which we could agree and some of which we could not agree. So we have brought the revised document back to you and hopefully we can quickly go through the issues that you asked us to address. Let me start off by going to one point which we didn't catch until yesterday. And that was part of your direction -- it would actually be on Page 18 of your package. But we are looking at that last point F: Prior to the issuance of a final development order, that being obtain all the necessary state and federal permits. You had asked us to go back and check on that, and so we did Page 53 1 ~JaJ 9, :A08 that. It was like yesterday when I finally caught that one, that we didn't scratch it out. But you are correct, it is covered under section 10 through each of the different issues. So we can strike this thing out, because we don't need to repeat that. I did not know it was even in section 10. I was trying to make sure it was covered. But since it's there, we don't need to repeat it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start with Page 15. And this section goes on. We'll just ask general questions on the whole section. Any comments, questions from the planning commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, do we have a good definition of impervious? For example, some concrete now is impervious. Would that be allowed or -- MR. WILEY : Well, concrete is impervious. I think you're saying . . some IS now pervIous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, pervious, yeah. MR. WILEY: A particular part is called pervious concrete. And by its own definition, it has removed itself from being impervious. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you would accept that? MR. WILEY: Sure, yeah. We encourage people to use that for sidewalks. But we don't encourage it for parking lots. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then my only concern is that in the reconfigura -- or the -- when you do the renovation, what you're saying is that if you do a renovation to your project greater than 50 percent of the assessed value -- and I assume it's the assessed value of the building, not the building and the land. MR. WILEY: You would remove the land. But in addition to the building, ifthere are other improvements that are listed there through the property appraiser's, they would be included. But you would delete the land value. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that theoretically, if somebody went in and did a really nice remodeling and did not Page 54 L'uhi9, 2~8 increase the footprint oftheir property, you would hold their feet to this fire; is that right? Greater than 50 percent. MR. WILEY: That's the intention. Unless there's something that they propose to bring in that shows that they are addressing a known concern, if one exists, and they are not increasing the amount of runoff that's going to be leaving the site. So by your statements, I think you're addressing if they propose to put in a pervious type of pavement or something, would that offset. We would look at all that issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But actually, my concern is that the 50 percent assessed value, the way this is written, in went through and decided to gold plate, gold guild my walls, you would make me go outside and do storm drainage. MR. WILEY: Very likely, yes, sir. And we had that discussion at our last meeting from the standpoint of picking up the redevelopment issues so they do come into compliance with our water quantity and quality criteria we are trying to achieve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I understand that if you're affecting the footprint of the building, adding more, you know, impervious -- and I guess maybe can we run through the comments from the DSAC committee? Because I think they're kind of -- some of them are on that same point. MR. WILEY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's one of-- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, I think if you look on the back at summary sheet G, we have listed-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I have. MS. FABACHER: Are you looking at that? Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's exactly what I'm looking at. MS. F ABACHER: I just wanted to let you know that was there. Page 55 16J cl200A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I guess number one, give us your -- go through and give us your comment on it. Because some of it seemed to make sense. MR. WILEY: Well, the issue that came up with comment number one says from 3.07.02.A, remove. And then the quotation was, reconfiguration of or addition to the building footprint. And then they were going to change it to make it say a, quote, reconfiguration of or addition to on-site impervious area. And that's really what we were driving at was the amount of impervious area, the overall footprint. But the question had come up that if you're simply changing a building which has a large patio, I think was discussed in here, the DSAC discussed it, you're just enclosing a patio. And that becomes part of your building footprint. You know, that's in -- you weren't changing impervious area is what we were trying to get at. So we agreed with them to change the overall impervious area, not just changing a portion of the building, but you're really not creating a runoff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you-- MR. WILEY: But we agreed with the impervious area reconfiguration. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we can include that in the -- MR. WILEY: That has already been included in the revised document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, it has? I'm sorry. Okay, the second one. MR. WILEY: The second one was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, before you leave that first one, I'm sorry, I'm not following this. 3.07.02.A says remove reconfiguration of or addition to the building footprint. Yet in the yellow highlighted under number two it's in as, or reconfiguration of the building footprint. Page 56 .l6aJr i 20<A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that -- if you concurred that-- and it says and make it reconfiguration of or addition to on-site impervious areas. Basically taking out the addition of the building footprint as a factor and leaving it strictly as an impervious area, because the building footprint change would obviously be an impervious area. So that the only factor used to calculate is the 50 percent threshold of what it cost to the changes to the impervious area. So what that means is under Brad's application, if you gold-lined all the walls on the inside of the building and it was 50 percent more than the value of the building, it wouldn't trigger a rework of the site because it's not 50 percent of the cost of an increase in the impervious area. Is that -- I'm trying to under -- I don't know if what DSAC said and you concurred to is what came out in the yellow highlighted section on Page 16. Because it looks like it's still in. But yet staff says they concur with DSAC. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. Commissioner, I can kind of explain. The first half of it, it is removed for the calculations based on the increase of the impervious area. When you began the sentence in the middle there, redevelopment shall also be considered, that has to do with assessed value. And I think Robert's going to cover that. Because DSAC wanted the assessed value removed altogether and staff did not agree with that. So there's a distinction between these two valuations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you-- MS. F ABACHER: I'm going to let Robert finish, because now I got in trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but here's what I'm reading it says. In the DSAC recommendation it says, reconfiguration of or addition to on-site impervious area, the only factor used to calculate 50 percent threshold. And staff concurs. Page 57 Jltrrr ~200A MS. F ABACHER: No, staff concurred with removing it from the calculation of the area, not to distinguish between footprint and total . . ImpervIOUS area. But when you get to the basis of calculating it based on assessed value or replacement value, I forget which value we use, under redevelopment, that's another method of estimation, and staff did not remove it from there for the reasons that Commissioner Schiffer brought up, that ifhe wants to guild his walls, then that would also trip. See, that's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But he wasn't bringing it up as a reason why we should include it. I think he was bringing it up as a reason why, why would you want to include it-- MS. F ABACHER: I understand, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're interrupting me. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would you want to include it, because interior improvements don't affect impervious area, and watershed is affected by impervious area. Now, ifDSAC had meant that to be left in, or out, I think -- I mean, I know DSAC is a business type board. And I don't necessarily always favor what business wants. But in this particular case, gilding gold walls on the inside of a building and say it impacts the watershed is -- might be something they would question. So I'm wondering where they're really trying to go with it. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But when we're talking about redevelopment, we're trying to bring these people up to code. So if for example you've got the money to guild your walls in gold but you're not going to correct a watershed management issue, I think that's the wrong way to go with redevelopment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wasn't even arguing that point. I was just trying to understand what DSAC was trying to say and what Page 58 J<J!t(yy/9,pOO~ staffwas concurring to, because I can't imagine DSAC wouldn't have addressed the issue Mr. Schiffer just brought up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the second question in the DSAC list which we're getting to is exactly that. But Donna, one thing is that the problem with that is if that I'm doing an expensive renovation on the inside of my house, why do I have to go to the expense of proving my site drainage? In other words, I mayor may not even have a problem. I mean, if I have a problem, maybe this is good. In don't have a problem, I just spent money to prove to the county that I don't. But anyway, the DSAC, the second one kind of goes into that comment on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, are you finished with any comments -- MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on the first one? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody else on the first one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the second one then, Brad. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Robert, and it's exactly the point Mark was -- the clause Mark was discussing. What they're saying is get rid of that. What is the advantage of anything that has to do with non site impervious surfaces? I mean -- MR. WILEY: Well, the advantage comes into the situation where you have in particular a commercial site built years ago and it is property line to property line, pavement or roof and they want to come in and redevelopment. There is no change possible to increase your impervious area by 50 percent because it's 100 percent already. They have no storm water system. They're coming in, they will tear down Page 59 J~61Jf 9fOO~ the building, reconfigure their parking lot, what they want it do with it, yet they do not increase their impervious area. You can't. It is solid . . ImpervIOUS. We want to pick that redevelopment up and have them come in and put a stormwater management system in. That's what we're trying to get to. Ifwe can improve the text to clarify that, I would greatly appreciate your help in this matter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then maybe -- I mean, the commercial is a good example, that if they're going to renovate something extensive, they shouldn't count their existing. And if they do go above that magic 50 percent, as in other parts ofthe code, they should totally review the whole thing. But this covers single-family also, or am I wrong in that discussion? When I said gilding my house, am I exempted from this? MR. WILEY: Well, this would cover everybody who is required to have a water management system. In the case of a platted subdivision where single-family is not required to have a separate water management system, it would not apply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe it's not as -- it's not what I thought. Okay. Let's go on three. What was -- and I think you're right, I mean, the example you gave on commercial that just because they built an old shopping center, they're totally renovating it past 50 percent of its value, they should not be grandfathered in on the stormwater regulations. MR. WILEY: I'm very willing to rewrite this if it brings clarity, because I appreciate the thought that you guys put into this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sometimes we just bring confusion, so I think that's what happened there. Number three, the 150 percent. And I mean, what's your thoughts on that? MR. WILEY: Well, in this particular situation the thought came Page 60 16 JJmiary ~ 2008 up, if there is an exiting development and they say that they cannot provide 150 percent, but they could come up with 95, 100 percent for water quality, shouldn't we be able to allow them to do that? And really, the question would come down to a situation to where the applicant would come to the county engineer and begin to try and negotiate with the county engineer just how possible is it to do this 150 percent. And the general rule of thumb is that you only do what you have to do, and if you have an opportunity to produce less than that, we know we'll be inundated with requests to do less than that. So the county engineer did not want to get in that position to be facing constant requests to be below the minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is south Florida's minimum right now? MR. WILEY: The same as ours. You have to do the one inch or two and a half times percent impervious. And then what they are in the process of doing through not the rule-making process, but through some direction or recommendation, is when you know you're going to be discharging into a system that drains into OFW, outstanding Florida waters, then they request that you produce 150 percent of water quality. We're just simply making a requirement because we know that just about everywhere we have eventually gets into either a water body that is potentially impaired or is already at OFW, by the way the canals discharge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did run this by at least three separate engineers, some with major companies in the county, because I saw this as a potential problem if it required expansive new water management lakes and destruction of vegetation to get there. None of them had any problem with them. Most of them said they were already abiding by it anyway, so -- MR. WILEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure why we need to change Page 61 l~Jryp, 2~8 anything that staff has recommended here in that regard. Mr. Kolflat? Mr. Klatzkow, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have a problem with this negotiation of 150 percent. You said you could negotiate down 80 percent or 90 percent or 110 percent. And we see petitions come before us and they talk about roadway variations and deviations every time they present it, they say well, we ought to cut it down a little bit and the response is well, we did it the last time so we'll have to do it agam. Well, what is the sense in having something limited to 150 percent if we're just going to open it up and negotiate and let that establish what the base is? MR. WILEY: That's the same direction we came from, which is why we did not agree with it. So we do not propose to allow it to be less than 150. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I misunderstood. I thought you were supporting that. MR. WILEY: No, sir, we were not supporting that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the last one you agree with, it's in the -- it's already incorporated. My only last question is that in the 50 percent, do you have a time frame or -- in other words, in building codes we discuss 50 percent. We kind of, you know, do that within a certain time frame to, you know, prevent the -- you know, the 40 percent, 40 percent, 20 percent remodeling. MR. WILEY: The time frame is not specified within here. If you would like us to quickly make that addition, I would support it. I will tell you that what we're doing with our flood ordinance is coming up with what's called cumulative improvements. And that is not approved by the Board of County Commissioners yet, but we're going to be bringing it to them, where you add up the sum of the Page 62 Janlae l f08 A improvements over a five-year window. Now, that's where we're going with the floodplain issue for flood insurance purposes. That's not official yet, but we're heading that way with ordinance revision. If you want something similar to that, we could incorporate it, but it is not here, so here every year someone could come with 49 percent and they could do the same thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They way you have it, every month somebody could come in with this. MR. WILEY: Technically that's correct, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think that the cumulative language, which I've seen, is good language. So I think that would be smart to insert that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would that be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would that be retroactive, or is that intended to go forward? MR. WILEY: That would be from the point of adoption forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. MR. WILEY: We really have no way of making -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to say. MR. WILEY: -- keeping records on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be a nightmare, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the suggestion is to add cumulative language to defining the assessed value of improvements; is that -- MR. WILEY: We could go right to 3.07.02.A.2, the one that's highlighted there for you, and just at the end of that statement simply indicate in there that the 50 percent value is a cumulative value over a period of, and you tell me how many years you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any ideas? Five years sound reasonable? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's match the floodplain, Page 63 Janl4 ~, iJ08 A because that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's floodplain? Five? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just do it five years. MR. WILEY: It will be. It is not yet, but that's the direction we are heading in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's recommend this as five. MR. WILEY: So we'll say the 50 percent increase over the assessed value is cumulative over a five-year window? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Any other questions or comments from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, I've got a couple more. Page 16, Item C, and it occurs on item -- on the top of Page 17 as well on the same subsection. It says floodplain storage compensation calculation shall be provided on a case-by-case basis, as determined by staff. Now, I know staffs always put under the gun if they have to determine something. Because sometimes they could determine it and sometimes they may determine it's not. And that puts you guys in a awkward position. Is there any criteria for you all to make that determination? MR. WILEY: That's where we had come up with this draft map to show you, just -- we can put it back on the visualizer, but it's the same one I showed you last month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay -- no, no, I'm not -- if you have a way to make the determination, then I think we ought to reference that as the way you make your determination, so you guys are not being looked at as doing something arbitrary. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm suggesting. Page 64 16aJr i 20gf Does that seem to be a reasonable suggestion to everybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's an exhibit currently, right? MR. WILEY: That is a draft map to show you the intention behind it. It really was not proposed as a specific exhibit. We could do that, if you so chose. The one thing that I want to bring up is the way the map was prepared, it's using what's in our GIS. And it is for hydro periods of two months or greater, plus all the AE, VE and A flood zones, plus little bubble areas off of our areas of known flooding problems. But I could go point out some spots right now that I know go under water every time we have a really heavy rain event that would not be colored there. So that's why we really didn't want to make this the only boundary. But this is to show the intention that we're not trying to get every inch of property but the areas that we just happen to know flood. And basically it's -- we wanted to leave it to the standpoint of staffs decision based upon our best knowledge that we have and experience out there. It's not intended to be arbitrary. And I really appreciate, if we want to go with this one, it may remove some areas that I would like to have it. But the percentage of that would be very low compared to what it would cover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about if we were to word something to the effect that as determined by staff based on historic water level documentation or something like that. And that way it would cover this map or any other ability that you have to pull something up that says this area has been inundated and we need to look at it more closely. MR. WILEY: We could do that. Let me also remind you, though, one of the issues we wanted to have a little bit of freedom to not require the compensation is along the coastline where it is through the coastal flooding, we really did not Page 65 L€Ju~19,2W>8 -- if we know that there's no rainfall induced flooding, we did not want to have to mandate that a property try to hold up the Gulf of Mexico. So that was another reason for the case-by-case situation here. Because some places flood only from coastal surge. Others flood because it's the freshwater trying to get out to the Gulf, even in situations where the VE zone or AE zone may be higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we were to kind ofleave the general concept with you that there ought to be some determination by staff based on historic water data information. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then if you need to refine that a bit before it goes to the BCC, I'd be comfortable with at least leaving the concept in your hands so that there's some determinate in there so staffs not making arbitrary -- put into an arbitrary position. MR. WILEY: Ifwe look at that concept right at the very last line on Page 16 where it says on a case-by-case basis, then should we put in there based upon historical flooding information, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. WILEY: -- however you want to word it. That way it gives us the case-by-case situation, but that's something to base it upon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you say historical flooding information, that provides the latitude you would need to cull it in or cull it out. And I think that at least gives you some determination factor to go with. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to say, I think you can pretty much use the headline, though, on your draft map there and say based on historical flood and drainage problem areas, and that will allow you to incorporate or not, and obviously exclude areas in the coastal area that are just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And provides good reason for you to ask Page 66 ~6ulry1, 2tA8 for it, too. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. WILEY: Okay, so in say based upon historical flooding and drainage problem area information? Does that seem to -- that way it covers everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MR. WILEY: And then we would repeat that same statement up on the top of Page 17, that second similar statement up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. On Page 18, Item 0, if you go to the sixth line down it starts with the word portion. And it says, portion of the natural wetland, flowway or slough, at least one foot lower than the ground at the edge of the natural wetland. Would you want to say at least on average one foot lower? Because I'm worried that you're going to see some undulations like you typically do, and if you've got an area that isn't consistently one foot lower for a certain -- someone might argue that you don't have that right. So why don't you say at least on average one foot lower, and that covers you. MR. WILEY: Very good. I'll add that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then further down at the last line, it talks about compensation for providing the same conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact. Now, I'm picturing this as being a structure or something that's built in a flowway. They have a right, let's say, to build it -- somehow they get through the permit process and they come in with their dirt and they mound it up. Now, they've actually reduced the conveyance capacity possibly of that flowway then. Well, how would they be compensated for that loss capacity? What was the method of compensation they would be able to look at? MR. WILEY: Similar situation has occurred in the past to where Page 67 }t&ap 1201 you -- depending upon the slough to flow or the sheetflow condition or the flowway, it's pure natural ground sheet flow. But if you fill in and then you are also within your property boundaries able to excavate down from the ground surface to essentially the water table elevation, or even probably below it, so you create a channelized portion to replace what you displaced, you still have the same conveyance capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that's what you were going to say, and that's how I though that could be increased. So what that means, though, is you're encouraging then, almost requiring more destruction of natural habitat to create the loss of the conveyance which is trying to restore the natural habitat. MR. WILEY: You could potentially do that, it's correct. So you would evaluate at that point, is the original loss worth requiring the additional. And that would all be part of the evaluation we put through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but you can't evaluate it under this language. It's shall require. So you don't have a choice of evaluating it, you're got to require it, no matter how negative the outcome, isn't it? MR. WILEY: I guess what I was saying was you'd evaluate the original encroachment in that required you to provide the alternative conveyance replacement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the original encroachment were to destroy too much of the natural habitat, then they would be disallowed MR. WILEY: If the original encroachment, which would require the replacement conveyance -- it's all considered as impact from that original encroachment. So if that's too great then you would say no, that's not acceptable, and you would have to work out the reduction or the mitigation, whatever it would take. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: So you wouldn't just evaluate the footprint of the Page 68 16a1uiY 9,4008 encroachment alone, but the encroachment plus whatever else it took to replace the conveyance. So it expands the impact from that original encroachment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is -- that's where I'm trying to go. So let's take a home on a two and a half acre tract in Golden Gate Estates. They come in and build a 5,000 square foot home with a driveway, which takes up more elevated surface, so they're actually impeding the conveyance in a number of ways. The driveway leads out to a street, the street's already impeded the conveyance, so you've got swales along the street to redirect the water. They would have to make sure their property still channels the water, say it's in the south direction out to that street, but the displacement that their home and their driveway and their backyard and their septic tank and their garage make on that property would require them to go in and cut the property down to maintain the volume that may have been there for the original conveyance. Is that a reasonable suggestion? MR. WILEY: That is correct. Or the alternative is to go to a nearby property that they would acquire to construct that same conveyance, capacity, storage capacity at the same elevation within the same drainage area so that the net impact -- generally we don't see that kind of a situation be limited just to one point but it's a broad flow. And so we looked at that very seriously with the Estates situation, the 75-foot wide lots. What we've observed is fill pads create a dike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILEY: They touch each other. And we're trying to avoid that. So we're trying to make sure that there is the ability for water to pass through post-construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, that's kind of -- I was being nice by using a two and a half acre lot. MR. WILEY: Right. Page 69 J~~9fOO~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know there's way too many acre and a quarters out there. But since you brought it up -- MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You get a lot of these acre and a quarters, now you're saying basically to restore the conveyance, the flow-through conveyance, a person on an acre and a quarter would have to build a long, skinny house and cut out the property on both sides of it to maintain the volume that was originally there before the house was placed within that narrow acre and a quarter lot. Or they'd have to buy the lots on either side and create the additional volume on those lots. Is that what you're indicating? MR. WILEY: You could also consider underneath your fill pad on the side of your house, running a culverted system. It still allows the conveyance to pass through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Underneath your fill pad? MR. WILEY: But, you know -- side slopes. Not under your house itself, side slopes. So you've got from your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you'd still allow the conveyance to flow through, but how do you handle the volume? Because this is -- MR. WILEY: The volume is the tough issue with the smaller lots. But they are 660 feet deep and there's quite a bit of long, linear space there. And yes, it would potentially require someone to go in and clear a lot more of the lot, just remove that fill volume. That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a restriction on the amount of clearing you can do on lots in the Estates, so boy, this really backs up. Has anybody looks at how this all backs up? MR. WILEY: Yes, we have. That's not looking good for some people, that's correct. There are some situations where the property is already at the water table elevation because it's a cypress head, or even below. In those situations the use of a fill pad would essentially be eliminated Page 70 Ja1'B ~' f08 A for all except the septic tank and the driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'd have to do a raised structure system on stilts and the ground floor would have to be natural grade. MR. WILEY : Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because they couldn't even park underneath to meet the criteria you're talking about. MR. WILEY: That's their driveway I'm talking about, right, yeah. You're correct. It gets real dicey for some of those lots which are already floodplain storage capacity. And we're trying to prevent people from producing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So at some point people with acre and a quarter, 1.14 lots either have to buy a piece of property next door or we're telling them in another way that they can't build on an acre and a quarter anymore. Even though it's okay to build on an acre and a quarter, we're saying in another part that they can't do it, they have to have a wider lot. MR. WILEY: No, we're telling them that they would not be able to build it under the current practice of just plain going in and filling. You have to create an elevated structure so you do not fill on the property . COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Or build a house 12 by 150. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, the problem is, the alternative is not acceptable either. What's happening out in Golden Gate Estates, as Bob indicated, a lot of these little lots, especially when they got -- they weren't ever supposed to be acre and a quarter. Two and a half was supposed -- we stopped that -- after the mistake was realized, it was stopped back in '74. Unfortunately there are a lot of unscrupulous people who sold those little chunks off and now they're being built on because they were legal at one time. And they're blocking the flow and that's causing floods to -- that's why Golden Gate was inundated a couple times with high water, high standing water. I mean, it's a Page 71 Janl~ ~ j08 A problem either way you look at it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But is this the answer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm not convinced it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this may accomplish the removal of those acre and a quarter lots that were attempted to remove since 1974 anyway. MR. WILEY : Well, we're not attempting to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you're not. MR. WILEY: -- remove those lots through an underhanded approach, we're trying to address the continuing increase in flooding potential. Because things are being filled up out there without consideration being given for the overall floodplain and the sheet flow that used to occur. So that's why we're saying, if you're going to do this, there's some other considerations you're going to have to take in mind so that you don't have a negative impact to everybody else that lives out there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Bob, isn't this a subdivision? So by your prior description, it doesn't apply. MR. WILEY: Well, but what you're talking about is the issue of the 50 percent rule and the stormwater system. This particular situation here does apply as far as affecting storage. It's not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, how do I know that in this? I mean, where in the document does it show that one applies to subdivisions and one doesn't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, Bob, earlier when you responded to Brad's question, I understood what you said. I thought you indicated it wouldn't apply to a single-family lot, but that's on a Page 72 Jaq}<6r 1, fOg ~ system that was master plan drainage system. MR. WILEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Golden Gate doesn't have a master plan drainage system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is that clear then, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, for example, your big projects, when they come in like, well, Olde Cypress being one, it's a huge DR! PUD. It's got a master plan drainage system that's put into effect to show everything flows. So the individual single-family lots in there don't fall under this criteria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is that it's not clear in this -- who does or who doesn't. The applicability section of it isn't that clear. And so essentially we're back to my gilded house that that only -- I mean, Golden Gate is obviously a subdivision, obviously was done without water management or crude water management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a polite way of putting it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. But Bob, where in this does it show that the house in Golden Gate is different than a house in a perfectly planned subdivision? MR. WILEY: Well, if you look, we're again we're in that subsection D, correct? That's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WILEY: -- one we're talking about. Look how it -- all development located within areas identified on figures -- this is subsection D, all development located within areas identified on figures 3.07.02-1. That's the figure that you see on Page 17. Now, that does not incorporate huge amounts of Collier County, but it does incorporate some areas of Collier County that would include portions of Golden Gate Estates. But it generally is not the Golden Gate Estates issue you have here, but some parts of it do clip m, so -- Page 73 Jan169/ 2108' A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's your flowways. Isn't this where you -- MR. WILEY: These are our flowways that we do not want blocked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's clear in that, but how about up in the -- you know, 07.02.A. How do we know -- it says all new development and redevelopment projects. So essentially you're not referring to individual -- well, that's still confusing, Bob. I mean, I'm -- MR. WILEY: Okay, let's try to remove some of the confusion here. Under 3.07.02.A, this deals with the provision for water quality volume, okay? So if you are required to have a stormwater management system in your subdivision, it's already been designed. If you're in a large old platted subdivision such as Golden Gate Estates and there is no design water management system, we're not going to tell you you have to provide 150 percent water quality, because there is none required at that point. Now, we then were talking over in subsection D where we have a specified map with areas identified on it, and those are your primary flowways and sloughs of concern through Collier County that we do not want to see development come in and plug up. So that's where you have this conveyance system that's required for you to provide for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think what's missing -- MR. WILEY: Now, when you look at E is the issue. I think the one you look at here, the next one down, all new development and redevelopment projects shall be designed so that surrounding properties will not be adversely impacted by the project's influence on stormwater sheet flow up to the 25-year, three-day design storm. That would be everywhere. So there's that little bit tighter Page 74 Jt019fOO~ restriction placed upon those properties that are on the map 3.07.02-1, compared to just everybody else. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But E means it's everywhere because of the words all new development and redevelopment projects. MR. WILEY: And it does not start off with the condition that it's strictly identified as properties on that figure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. A starts off, all new development and redevelopment projects -- MR. WILEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- same as E. MR. WILEY: Urn-hum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why did A have that caveat that's hidden in there somewhere that if it's a project that didn't have a stormwater system, it doesn't have to be revised? MR. WILEY: Because under the rules that the county has for single-family homes, there is no requirement that single-family homes provide for a separate water management system. Now, if we subsequently do come up with a rule that requires it, this would bring them into compliance with that also. But there is no rule that if you have a single-family home that you submit with your building plans, a storm water management system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is -- MR. WILEY: Though the City of Naples is heading that way with some portions, but we're not at that point with the county yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What you're saying is that the single-family residential has no volume storage requirements, thus this is a volume storage requirement, so it would not apply to begin with. MR. WILEY: Right. Now, keep in mind that there is a provision that's coming as an LDC amendment to begin to bring into impact certain percentages of the lot you can build up to. And once you Page 75 Jat~ f' 1008 A increase beyond that percentage of a lot, you would have to have some stormwater system. But when that goes into effect, then this would begin to apply to that simultaneously. But that would be for that unique situation where someone proposes to build a greatly built upon lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that is in this cycle. We've reviewed that already. MR. WILEY: That really was in the last year's Cycle-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was it last year? MR. WILEY: -- One. MS. F ABACHER: It's cycle 2007, Cycle 1, it was approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fine. Now, let's talk about A with that in mind. What you're saying is that there is volumetric storage for single-family houses. So what we discussed earlier back to the 50 percent of assessed value, we are back to where I can gold plate my house and have to upgrade the -- are we not? MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioner, the applicability of the impervious cover only applies to those older subdivisions that do not have a central system or a South Florida Water Management District permit. So that's limited in its applicability, the impervious cover ordinance that we passed. MR. WILEY: The previous ordinance specified what it took to fall under that particular condition. All I'm saying is this would be utilized in junction (sic) with that previous revision, where that previous provision applied. So you can understand there might be a situation that a single-family home, because it's proposed to build wall-to-wall impervious area, they have to provide now some stormwater retention, this would come into play with that simultaneous. But that's not the common case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This is for Mr. Klatzkow. Page 76 ];(Yult19, 2W8 Mr. Wiley had said that it could be perceived that we're back-dooring to stopping building lots on acre and a quarter, taking away property rights. How would that put the county legally by taking people's rights to build a house that they have a right to build on now under the guise of water management? MR. KLATZKOW: I think they still have the right to build on the house, they just can't build it in the cheapest way possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or overbuild I think is what the issue is. If you buy a small lot, you better build a small house. The mega houses are going to have a problem. That's what it boils down to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or have a big expensive -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is there a formula that people would know what they can build before they buy a lot, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Um-hum. That's what this does. You can't build a bigger house than you can fit the conveyance on the property for. So when you start getting your threshold of your home so large that you can't compensate for it on your own property, what that's really telling you is hey, I'm building -- if I want this big of a mega home, I ought to buy a bigger piece of property instead of trying to fit 10 pounds in a five-pound sack, as a lot of people are doing right now. So, I mean, that's how I see it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But it won't stop it, it will just change the formula they need to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may make the people that want to put too much on a little lot look to a bigger lot to buy instead of cramming something in a neighborhood where it doesn't belong. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm concerned about the people there now. People in the future buying, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: People in the future. Any other comments on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Otherwise, I'll read what I think we've Page 77 Jan~6 9f 2}08 A come to to date. First all, we're going to scratch Item F on Page 18. Number two, we'd accept the changes as presented by staff. Some of them incorporated DSAC, some did not. Item three, we would add a cumulative language to the assessed value of improvements over a five-year period. Number four, we would add a determinate language for staff in section 3.07.02.C. And number five, under 3.07.02.D, we would add the words on average, where indicated during this discussion. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on that, is there a recommendation for approval? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Caron. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Commissioner Adelstein. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, that recommendation for approval was for LDC Sections 3.07, 6.05.01, 10.02.02.A.4.F, 10.02.03.A.3.B, Roman numeral six. Does the motion maker agree? COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second agree? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Nods head affirmatively.) MS. F ABACHER: And 10.02.04. COMMISSIONER CARON: 04, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10.02.04. I'm sorry, that wasn't in the front part. You're right, 10.02.04.B.3 and A.3. Are there any other comments or questions? Page 78 Janl~ J, J08 A (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. I'd like to move on to the historic issue. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. And that would be on Page 59 in your new book and summary sheet E. And Melissa Zone, principal planner with zoning and land development review, and she's also the staff -- MS. ZONE: Liaison. MS. F ABACHER: -- liaison to this board, will answer any questions you might have. And I might also say that per your direction we have returned the original strike-through and underscore of the original text from 09-102. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: IfI remember, that was the issue last time -- MS. F ABACHER: Right, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- was that we didn't have a true strike-through and it was hard for us to tell -- MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what was changed or not changed. MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development. Page 79 J<lt6YP'10O'8A You're quite correct, Commissioner, the strike-through and underlined submittal that was sent to Ms. Fabacher did not make it in your packet. We have found it and it is here today. And we have here changes from when the LDC was codified in 2004, some of our regulations were omitted inadvertently. Staff is putting these regulations back in so that nobody challenges the historic and archeological process. As well as when I addressed it to the historic board, what we were doing, they wanted some minor changes to clean up language that was redundant. And one ofthe things, and you'll see it in your strike-through, underlined, we combined some of the same review processes for like final subdivision plan, on Page 63, as well as site development plan review, because those were the exact same process. So to keep it concise, we combined those to one paragraph instead of having each process for each chapter, each section. We also had changed -- it was the board's direction to make that everything go through the county manager or designee. And those changes were not made in the ordinance for the historical and archeological review. So we've changed where it said division manager, planning manager or community services director, and we've made it all concise and made it consistent with the LDC. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the planning commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on Page 62. Preliminary subdivision plat. IfI understand it, that's not required now. You can go right into -- MS. ZONE: It really isn't, but we kept it in. We ended up, we kept it in just in case someone wanted to have it. Because the process is there, it's just not one that we require anymore. When I say we, I mean the county. But it is an option. Page 80 Jt6afY 120)'f COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know that, that's why I thought that was the statement. So the concern I have, is there anything in there that's not covered in the final plat? For example, the preliminary plat, which I think is erroneous, refers to making recommendations of the planning commISSIOn. MS. ZONE: Well, that happens if once we bring a petition in front of the board, if we found a historical or an archeological site where there might be some artifacts on the site and that petition is going to be going in front of you, the planning commission, for review, we wanted to make sure that those are incorporated into the -- if it's a PUD document, a rezone conditional use, variance, that you are also aware. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, that's only required in the preliminary then. I mean -- MS. ZONE: If you look at -- with rezonings, they have it. Because site development plans do not typically go in front of this board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think preliminary plats do either, so -- MS. ZONE: I wasn't sure, since I was not here or working here at the time. And I did not want to omit something, so I'm happy and willing to omit it, because that was something that I had questioned as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, my real question is there's nothing in the preliminary subdivision that by going directly to final you would not have to do. Everything in the final would be equal to what's in the preliminary. MS. ZONE: Right. The reason why we didn't, Commissioner, combine them is because at some point if we do away completely with the preliminary subdivision plat, it would just be easier to omit it and then have to Page 81 JqJt6YP'100~ revise that other chapter. We could just bring it back up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other questions on this section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve? And it would be for Section 2.03.07. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Mr. Kolflat was just coming in the door. Mr. Kolflat, do you like this historical -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think it's wonderful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it's unanimous. Thank you. MS. ZONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Melissa. There are two remaining, and it's the noise portion of the outdoor seating and then the SDP application for outdoor seating. I would estimate that will probably take us about an hour or less to get through. It's getting close to lunchtime. I know we don't need to take a Page 82 Jal6)9,100~ lunch break and then come back to do that one, I would hope. But I think we ought to take a break now and come back and finish that one up. So let's take a 15-minute break to 11 :25 and resume at 11 :25. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back again from our break. We have two items to move into and one to finish up before we're done here today. But the next two items are kind of together. It's the outdoor serving area permit, which starts on Page 41 of our packet. And the submittal requirements for site development plans, which are on Page 53. Now, these are in reaction to some of the issues that have recurred lately regarding entertainment areas and outside noise in relationship to residential neighborhoods. So I guess the best way to approach it, and I'll -- I had met with staff to try to find ways to maybe help today move a little bit forward on this, instead of where we've been sending it back so many times. And we did come up with some criteria that would make it a little more comfortable for staff to apply their discretion in regards to the second factor today, and that is when they would look at an incompatibility on a site development plan. But why don't we start on Page 42, which is the outdoor seating issue, and work our way through that before we get to the review of the SDP's. Are there any comments or questions? And we'll take it page by page. Let's just do Page 42 first. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, start out with the definition of amplified sound. The problem I have with the definition is that it appears that it needs a source of sound and then amplified sound electronically amplifies it. For example, some of our concerns are radios, televisions and stuff. While they're definitely amplified, but they're not amplifYing a source. So would that be a problem, or -- Page 83 16 , 1 A January 9, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: Well, Commissioner, the reason we put this in is because it's exactly the same definition as is carried in the noise ordinance, which is in the code of laws and ordinances. So we wanted to have both -- the same definition in both sources. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But-- MS. F ABACHER: I don't believe it's a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my concern is that, for example, is a television amplified sound? And the reason I don't think it fits this description is it's not as the description describes, amplifYing a volume of -- increasing the volume -- MS. FABACHER: Well, it has speakers -- it has a speaker. But I see what you're saying. I see your point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says the use of a public address system, loud speaker, amplifier or any other device which electronically augments the volume of sound. So my concern is there are devices that don't have a source that it's augmenting, it is the source and amplification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, isn't the TV source the waves and the cable that bring the entertainment to it and then when you turn the volume up there's your amplified sound? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if legally does that sound good, or -- MR. KLATZKOW: For clarity sake, and I understand Brad's concern, if you want to include T.V.'s in it, include T.V.'s in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we'd have to put in radios, CD players, VCR's, cassette players, boom boxes. Where are we going to end? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we could use electronically generated sound and that would cover all of those devices. The concern is the way it's described, it's increasing something that has to exist before it's increased. Page 84 JanJ~12~8 A MS. FABACHER: Well, I don't think that code has any problem knowing what these devices are. But we'll look at it. And I want to talk to them, because I want to parallel it in the noise ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But say we -- after the word electronically, could we say which electronically generates or augments electronic sound? No, electronically generates or augments the volume of sound. So if we put in generates or, wouldn't that cover it then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be better than what it is. MS. F ABACHER: All right, no problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got more, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's stay on Page 42. If you're got more on 42, let's get past -- let's get -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I can't read my note, though. If anybody else has a question, let them go. I can't -- I have to research my note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on Page 42? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, I do. You talk about applicability, and it's for establishments -- eating or drinking establishments serving food within the unincorporated area -- food or beverages within the unincorporated area of Collier County. What about outdoor entertainment areas that don't serve food? Say they serve only drinks. MS. FABACHER: Well, it says food and/or beverages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what if they don't serve -- I mean, if it's not -- can you have outdoor entertainment or would you have a waiting area, say, outside of a bar and have amplified music to it and just not serve food or drinks until they come inside and be Page 85 16Jy ~ 20~ seated? MS. F ABACHER: Well, one thing is I think that that would be covered by the noise ordinance. Remember, I think we agreed that when we discussed it the other day, we thought that perhaps we would just permit for outdoor serving areas in general. It didn't matter about the sound. The sound would be left for them to get an annual permit from code for live entertainment music/amplified sound permit, temporary use permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: In fact, I think we talked about removing with outdoor entertainment on private property from that also. We're not going to do -- our -- I think we had discussed that the zoning department would be issuing a one-time permit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: -- for an outdoor serving area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That was part of the discussion. MS. F ABACHER: Right, so the music part would be left to the code people under the changes they're making to the ordinance. Right now they currently have a live performance music and/or amplified sound permit, but they haven't been really implementing it. And I believe it's now under the new changes coming up, the board directed and I think maybe you guys directed it too, that they're going to look at now actually doing that for everybody. And it's not just outdoor sound, it's any sound in any establishment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, did you have your-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have some more, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I-A, or A-I-A, we have PUD's and stuff that -- mixed use. Would that be covered in that? It says requirements shall not apply if the -- and we have residential use or zoning district is a mixed use. I mean, would that be covered, all of our -- any kind of a situation where we have commercial and Page 86 Ja1ut;Yp'1008A residential together? MS. FABACHER: You know, staff hasn't really had a chance to discuss it, but I want to put you towards -- on Page 45. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. F ABACHER: Where they get much more specific about defining on the bottom under A, these time restrictions shall not apply if the residential use or zoning district -- and they get real specific -- about part of a mixed use project. As far as your question goes, I wonder if we want to -- I'm sorry. MS. ISTENES: The answer is yes. Susan Istenes, zoning department. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's my thought, actually. And it is connected to 45, that's why it confused me. Wouldn't it be best just to move what it says in 45 up here? And we don't need it in 45 because it doesn't apply to this ordinance. So -- MS. FABACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, in 45 it's saying that these restrictions don't apply. Well, if we move it up to the -- you know, where it shows the applicability, then it obviously wouldn't apply because it's not applicable to that kind of development. MS. F ABACHER: That was my thought, too, but then I wonder, wouldn't we, even if it's mixed use, want to give that level of scrutiny for the one-time permit for an outdoor seating area? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're not. MS. ISTENES: No. MS. FABACHER: We wouldn't want to? MS. ISTENES: That's not the intent of this ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The ordinance doesn't do that. So I think what it is, is my suggestion is take 1 -- A-1-A and take the verbiage -- MS. F ABACHER: I understand. Page 87 Ja~krl, 2~8 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- on E-2-A, put it in there. It won't be needed on E-2-A because obviously it's not applicable. Second one is on B. One ofthe biggest problems we had is not the sound ofthe amplified sound but actually the people reacting to something. So my thought is can we add to the list of entertainment to be video with or without sound? And essentially if we get rid of the stimulus, we could get rid of the crowd cheering. MS. F ABACHER: It was my impression that that would be covered under the noise ordinance again. And I was thinking we would strike this altogether, because we're removing that sound element from this. And what we're really talking about is having zoning issue a permit just for the outdoor serving area, irregardless or irrespective of entertainment music. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, we're already beyond a point that I can understand what we're doing. We'll muddle through this for the rest of today, but when we get done I think the exchanges, based on the way we're heading, are going to be more -- a little more in-depth than we could probably resolve by stipulating them at this meeting. Would we still have time, if we heard this on Friday after the Cocohatchee? MR. KLATZKOW: I think we'll make the time. This is an important issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. I think you could make the changes rapidly with a computer by striking and moving the sections, but we're only into the third paragraph on the first page and we're already moving sections from one end to the other, and I really don't know what that's going to do to the questions I had now. So -- and I know you don't have much time to get this out to us, but if you were able to send this to us by tomorrow afternoon and we could look at it tomorrow evening in preparation for Friday afternoon finalizing it, then we -- as we go through this, that might be the best way to Page 88 Jal"~,lo08A approach it. And I'm telling you that early so that that's what we're looking to do, maybe, and staff can just start taking notes. Is that something you can do tomorrow, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: I can try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, if you can send me a template, I'll do it tonight. I mean, it's not going to -- it's just a matter of having it -- you guys got the templates on this stuff and you got the Word programs that allow it to be changed. And we're suggesting cutting and pasting and making changes. But I think based on what I'm hearing, we're going to be going through a lot of this before this day's over, more than you can finish in today's meeting, and probably accurately reflect what we're trying to do. So that's the suggestion. We'll just keep going like we are. MS. ISTENES: Could I just clarifY? The intent is really outdoor seating with or without entertainment. And I don't -- I read A and it says with outdoor entertainment, and I think that's what Mr. Schiffer was referring to. It really is outdoor seating, with or without entertainment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it doesn't say that. Even the title -- MS. ISTENES: I know that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the section. MS. ISTENES: I know that. I was pointing that out. But the conversation was going a different way and I just wanted to say that for clarity purposes, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're just -- MS. ISTENES: -- with that in mind, unless the board has a different opinion about what they want to see, maybe we could just kind of keep that in mind as we're going through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But so we clear it up under applicability, you're saying owners, managers of outdoor serving areas Page 89 Jt6191200A MS. ISTENES: With or without. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with or without outdoor entertainment on private property. MS. ISTENES: Correct. Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's a -- I mean, look at the title of the whole section. It's outdoor serving areas with outdoor entertainment on private property. That's -- I mean, the drift of the whole thing is that. But anyway, I have one more thing on 42 is -- and there's a lot of situations where we use this. It says can be administrated unless one or more findings of violations. Wouldn't it be better to just say unless A, finding a violation? I mean, first of all, they should never get to two to begin with. I understand why you wouldn't want to say one, because the guy could say hey, I've got five, you know, what are you picking on me for? MS. ISTENES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says on -- but I think unless A, finding of violation would be a better way to go and then not give the illusion that you could have more than one. And the sad thing about this whole -- number two is that if the sound ordinance would stop people from disturbing the neighbors, we wouldn't be here. Since this clause states that it's the sound ordinance that triggers what happens in this thing, so connecting the logic, this won't be here either. So isn't -- the problem child the sound ordinance. And in reading the sound ordinance, I don't see where the problem is. It does look like there's some handles in there, but we've never had testimony as to why the sound ordinance doesn't work. But I'm done with 42. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're still on 42. Mr. Vigliotti? Page 90 ~t! 20~ COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Susan, I have a question. We started a while ago to try to protect the small mom and pops outdoor seating restaurants with just a few seats, four, five, six seats. Do you want to bring them back in again? Is that-- MS. ISTENES: Oh, boy. No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But you're suggesting somehow. MS. ISTENES: I know. And I'm looking for my notes on that. I apologize, because we did talk about that some more. And do you recall -- MS. FABACHER: We said that it was going to be serving but not seating. If people are just sitting out there and smoking a cigarette. But if you're talking about an ice cream parlor and there's some outside, they would fall under this current language under a one-time MS. ISTENES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But in the beginning we tried to keep them out of them altogether, the smaller restaurants, without extra charges of permits and -- MS. F ABACHER: Understood -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- this, that and the other thing. MS. F ABACHER: -- understood. But that discussion was when it was a much more onerous permitting situation. Now it's pretty much going to be administratively with some tiny fee. MS. ISTENES: Correct, unless there is a finding of violation, and then it falls into a different category. But yes, to answer your question, the way that -- Catherine is accurate in her reflection of our latest conversation. We couldn't find a way to discern between the two, we really couldn't, and so we just tried to make it as less onerous as possible by just making them administrative permits, rather than having them all go before the board was never intended -- Page 91 Jayanr 9, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But the way it's writte~ n~J A here, it excludes them. And you want us to change it. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe -- MS. ISTENES: Yeah, as you get further along you may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I guess I'll just read. The same -- I realize that the issue you're talking about may come up during today's discussion. And in anticipating that -- and there were some other issues, too -- I met with staff to try to figure out answers to that kind of a question, how it could be reworded to possibly mitigate those issues. And I'll read to you the bullets that may -- that if the committee agrees could apply to section 4.04.07, although they all may not pertain to Page 42. Let me just read them. First one, all outdoor serving areas shall be issued a one-time temporary use permit for outdoor serving areas. And this would not apply to outdoor seating areas where there is no food or beverage involved. So you get a one-time permit. If you don't have food and beverage, you don't even need it. But if you have an outdoor serving area, you need a one-time permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, I'm really kind of -- I must be confused here. We were handed this booklet. It has permits for outdoor serving areas with entertainment. Susan's saying but that's not really what this is, this is really all outdoor seating. You're going -- I mean, why would somebody write this ordinance and have it not be what it means? MS. F ABACHER: Actually, our discussion is based on having had discussions with the Chair, and we just haven't had the time, since we had the discussion yesterday, to change this text for you. That's the problem. This is an older version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, you couldn't change the text based on discussions with me. MS. F ABACHER: Right. Page 92 16afuf"Y 9,~008 ;r CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was trying to come up with solutions to what I would anticipate, based on having sat with this board through what, three, four, five other meetings on this issue trying to get to -- MS. F ABACHER: From last cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MS. F ABACHER: It came from last cycle too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. -- trying to get to a resolution on it. So I thought okay, I'll sit down with staff, anticipate the questions, try to come up with some answers and suggestions, and if they meet the criteria and we can move this thing forward, then we've accomplished something. But we've been at this thing for nearly a year and it's getting pretty stale. MS. ISTENES: And basically what we did was review all of kind of the year's worth of conversations. Your concern over the mom and pop guys, the difference between outdoor seating versus outdoor entertainment. So yeah, I mean, that's kind of where we are, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At one point the mom and pops came up, and we resolved it by excluding them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a different ordinance then. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- and we weren't supposed to build on that. Now they're coming back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a different ordinance. The ordinance, when it first came up, was much more onerous than it is today. The cost, the impacts, what it applied to, the process that you would have to fall under, all that was a whole different program. This is a different ordinance than it really started out to be. I understand the BCC is going to get the whole trail of them, and they'll have a lot of fun with that. But in trying to get an ordinance that could be applied to everyone fairly, there were certain things that had to get on the table, and that was the issuance of the permit and the Page 93 J~619fOO_ applicability. A one-time permit for a fee ofI think it was $250 or whatever the cost was to submit and apply -- maybe even less than that, $300 (sic) or something-- MS. F ABACHER: It was less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a one-time permit. And unless that facility modified its operation or didn't manage its operation carefully and its patrons got wild and crazy and they successfully were prosecuted for a noise violation, they never need to come back in for another permit. That's not too unreasonable, at least I didn't think so, but -- MS. ISTENES: And it's approved administratively, whereas the old ordinance -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: -- had everything going before the board. And advertising and all that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So the permit will be issued, no questions asked, as is, they just apply for it, they get the permit and they're good until there's a problem? MS. ISTENES: Correct. I wouldn't say no questions asked, but, you know, obviously we're going to say what -- if you're the ice cream parlor, I think it's going to be obvious, but we're probably going to ask, oh, you're putting small bistro tables out so your patrons can eat their ice cream outside. I mean, that will be like the extent of the questionings. Just confirmation of what the use is and how they're going to use this -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But there will be no decision-making you can, you can't. MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I was the guy that brought up the mom and pops issue, and I was concerned -- still could be concerned about it. However, I will tell you, after hearing the Stevie Page 94 Jaml~/2~8A Tomatoes issues and becoming more aware of it, I looked at this document that we've now evolved into and thought it covers what it needs to cover in order to protect everybody. And so I'm not as concerned. I think we've got -- I think because of the conversations we've had, we've evolved into a better document. Is it perfect? No. But I think it does the job that it needs to do. So ifthat helps you in any way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, whatever happened to enforcing the thing? Because the -- the sound ordinance. It states that there's an annual permit, which obviously you wouldn't renew if somebody was disturbing somebody. For live performance and/or amplified sound. Throughout the thing it says live performance or amplified sound. It has penalties, it has hours. How come that's never -- I mean, it's essentially what we're trying to do here. I mean, it's discussing, you know, residential neighbors and stuff. I mean -- and unfortunately it is the trigger of whatever we do here anyway. So if the trigger doesn't work then why make a bigger shell? I mean, you're never going to fire it. So why aren't we just discussing the trigger? And the second point is if today we're going to rewrite this to be a different kind of ordinance for just outdoor seating with or without entertainment, that's a big task. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, outdoor serving. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, outdoor-- MS. F ABACHER: Seating, serving. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With or without entertainment? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's the new title of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, like I said, we can change the title. It's wordsmithing and then the application. Page 95 4rf!20~ This is a use. This becomes a permit for a use. It's different than a regulatory permit for noise violations. That's why we have to -- that's why a section in the LDC is justified. It becomes a regulated use. The impact of that use then falls under the code of laws in the noise ordinance. That's why you need them both. You first got to have the use acceptable through a permit process that can be lost if they violate the code of laws. Once they violate that, then we pull their permit, then they can't be there anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm reading, annual permit, annual permit. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, you're reading from the code of laws? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm reading from the code of laws. MS. F ABACHER: The noise ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For live performance and/or amplified sound at commercial or tourist commercial sites. So why don't people who have outdoor seating, which is what this describes, non-enclosed area, why don't these people have annual permits and why aren't you using that as the regulatory -- just like you're saying, Mark, it exists, it's in the code of laws. It's not in the LDC, but the code of laws govern. MS. ISTENES: I would agree with Commissioner Strain. I mean, he explained it. I can't explain it any better. It's -- I suppose you could call it a different layer, but it's a land use issue, not a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If any thing, Brad, this makes the ability for county staff to enforce that law better. It doesn't hurt, it offers another level of protection, and it certainly makes it easier to enact that level of protection than trying to go through the noise ordinance to do it. That's where I was -- that's where I think this whole thing is coming from. Page 96 J~rf <1200A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the irony of the whole thing is that down on 2 it's requiring this noise ordinance, isn't that right, Jeff, to trigger the violation. So the point is that if you can't get a violation, then you can write anything you want in here. If you can't get to the trigger, based on the violation that exists already, the code that exists already, then what do you do? You haven't done anything. MS. ISTENES: They definitely work in concert together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And they're rewriting the noise ordinance as we speak. Ms. Fabacher, did -- MS. F ABACHER: That was my comment, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The noise ordinance is being rewritten in reaction to the same purpose that we're here today. We're going to give them a double whammy if they -- we're going to have two avenues in which to approach this to make sure it don't happen, and if it does happen, we're going to do the best we can to stop it. But this is better than not doing anything at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we're going to be concerned with noise, that's what the virtue of this is? Then why are we picking on just the outdoor seating guys? Because if you do change it to be outdoor seating with or without entertainment, you've picked up two seats in front of the ice cream parlor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the outdoor seating guys have to come in and get a permit for their outdoor seating, under the condition that if they do anything in regards to outdoor seating that disturbs the neighborhood and they end up elevating it to a noise problem, they may not get that outdoor seating again to retain their business with. And they can have their indoor seating, but they don't have their outdoor seating anymore. That's a huge incentive for people to not-- to manage their property better and not to get out of line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the basis under which I had Page 97 thought this was going forward. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Did you say a violation or complaint? In other words -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A confirmed violation. Complaints don't carry any weight. You have to go through the process and be done with it. I started to read -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, does this mean we're going to regulate things like Wynn's Grocery Store, which has outdoor seating, or Cold Stone Ice Cream parlor, which has outdoor seating -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- and all that? COMMISSIONER CARON: They need to get a permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will be a one-time permit to get it. As long as they never did anything that triggered a successful court action against them -- or code enforcement action against them for noise, they'd be left alone forever. But if they ever did have a noise problem to where their neighbors complained -- and in that location, I can't imagine anybody would, because it's in a huge commercial PUD. But ifthere's a complaint and a problem, we have to have some way of reigning them back in, and that's what this is being put into play for. So yes, it would apply to everything and everyone. At least from my reading of it, so -- MS. ISTENES: May I? Quite frankly, you know, with newer projects or site plans that are being amended, we can collect the -- they can do the permit through that process. It's not like it's that onerous. I mean, they can just through their SDP approval also obtain the permit administratively through the same process. In fact, we would likely tie them together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other couple of bullets that involve this section, I think we might have just touched on, but I'll reread them Jalfj I' }008 A Page 98 16aTay 9, 2008 just so you know. The permit would be issued -- the one-year A temporary use permit. It would be a one-year temporary use indefinitely until a noise violation came into play. That permit would be issued administratively through zoning unless there had been one or more findings of violation of the noise ordinance within the previous 12 months. The third item, if the establishment has a violation history, then the application for temporary use permit or outdoor serving areas will go to the BCC at a regular meeting. The board may decide to approve, deny or approve with conditions. And the last: Eating and drinking establishments where there is live music, entertainment, amplified sound will be required to obtain that annual permit through code enforcement. And that's the permit that Brad, you were reading this in the noise ordinance. So those are the additional bullets to this Section 5.04.07 that need to be incorporated into it as we go through these pages. And ifthere's no objections from the panel, they can come back in draft form to us on Friday to finally discuss. But that's the suggestion that I came forward with with staff and everybody working together over the last couple of days in some meetings trying to figure out how to resolve the concerns expressed here before. If you disagree with it, please say so. Otherwise, we want to get something going. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're still on Page 42. Does anybody else have questions on Page 42? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more. And this may have been answered in the issue that Brad brought up about moving E-2-A up to this point, but just in case. A-I-A refers to the requirement shall not apply ifthe residential use or zoning district is mixed use and allows for the mixing of Page 99 Janu~,F~8 A residential and nonresidential uses within the same development. Does that mean if that language stays in this requirement does not apply to the condition of Pebblebrook? Because then we're losing the intent of the whole thing to begin with. MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher. I believe that they are not a mixed use PUD. I believe that they have a commercial component in a residential PUD or vice versa. No, they're a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, it doesn't -- no, no, no, you're jumping the gun. It doesn't say a mixed use PUD. It says if the zoning district is mixed use and allows the mixing of residential and nonresidential uses within the same development. Pebblebrook is one development. So are most of the other PUD's that contain commercial uses. Whether you call them mixed use or not, they weren't back then when Pebblebrook was here. We only had PUD's, we didn't have an MPUD. So if it's not defined as a mixed use but it has mixed uses in it, it looks like it's exempt, which I don't think was the intent of this whole thing. MS. ISTENES: No, that's not the intent. The intent was only to exclude those -- and I'll just describe them for purposes of discussing. The mixed use where you've got, for example, a residential component above a commercial component. Those type. So yes, I think that needs to be cleaned up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So A's got to be rewritten. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, the point you're making is that while within the development it doesn't apply, but it certainly applies to the surrounding neighbors. I mean, that's the concern I had when I read this thing over. And the other thing is that the way it's worded, you know, you're exempting something. But essentially that something could disturb a neighbor. So I think we have to exempt it only from within the Page 100 Jam16912!08 A development itself. MS. F ABACHER: I think that Mr. Schiffer's suggestion to go to Page 45-A and look at that, that's much better language. You might look and see if that's close enough to what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I do want to do, though, is I don't want to leave the language I just read in. Because -- MS. FABACHER: No, I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's obviously not going to work. MS. F ABACHER: Right. I had made a note to, as he had suggested, to look at putting that there. And I guess Susan can look at that language and see if that does cover all possibilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on -- go ahead, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Recently Stock at its boutique mixed use not far from residential, quite close to residential, actually, and they were granted amplified sound till 10:00 p.m. I think we need to take into consideration that the BCC concluded that was acceptable to 10:00 p.m. I don't know whether or not they should strike out boldly or what we should do in that matter, but I thought I'd offer that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the issue on 45 that's brought up. Yeah, when we get to Page 45, I agree with you, I had circled that. But we ought to -- when we get to that page, we ought to talk about times -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of operation. Is there anything else on Page 42? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more. Item two, the last full sentence, it says -- refers to the facility. And my question there, it talks about a finding of violation, the Collier County ordinance, noise ordinance, have been issued to the owner/manager of the facility by Page 10 1 16 I 1 Aanuary 9, 2008 the Collier County Code Enforcement officer. What's the facility? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, do you mean the business? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't we say that? MS. FABACHER: We should say the parent-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the parent business could have 15 subsidiaries all over the county, like Stevie Tomatoes has more than just one, so you don't want the parent, do you? MS. F ABACHER: No, whatever you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you want the business at that location? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I think you need to somehow say that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or the location of the permitted -- the permitted location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something to that effect. But I think if there's an issue there, Catherine -- I mean, there is an issue there. I think it needs to be resolved. And if you can come up with language and go forward. Page 43. Are there any questions on Page 43? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have one, ifI may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's just for my edification, perhaps, only. But, you know -- and I understand the reason for it to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals as a conditional use. I just wanted to qualifY. In that matter we would not hear that, we would not see it, because it is more a punitive action, I would presume. Page 102 Janum162p0} A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We hear-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can you construe -- or could you see a future where the Board of County Commissioners might remand such an issue back to us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Bob, in Section 10.08.00, doesn't that require conditional uses to come to us? MS. F ABACHER: Right. But didn't we discuss changing that? One of the options would be to change that just to go to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't remember that dis -- I remember an awful lot of discussions and I can't -- MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- say with clarity that-- MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Murray, I'm referring to the discussion that staff had with Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that may be, but I'm not aware of that. So I'm raising an issue that may not have meaning, but I am raising it, because if it does have meaning, we ought to talk about it. I don't know if the ordinance that we are under requires conditional uses to come to us. MS. F ABACHER: It does. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I thought so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I wondered then -- and I thought, okay, I could make a case for it going directly to the BZA, because on Page 43 it references that. But it seemed to me we'd be violating our own ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the way this is written, it would be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals as a conditional use subject to the standards and procedures established in 10.08.00 which provides us to hear it first. Ultimately the BZA hears everything. So Page 103 16 f11ua19,2008 the fact that they're going to be hearing the conditional uses is fine. I mean, they're going to hear it anyway. But I think it's subject to our going through the process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think the intent that this was written was to have it go through us, because I do have some recollection of a conversation where I think that you folks thought that -- not you folks, but I think Catherine thought that it shouldn't come through this for that purpose. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's my recollection. MS. FABACHER: No, that's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so if that's true what you just said, Mark, fine, I agree with that. But if that's not the intent, then we ought to know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan? MS. ISTENES: May I --let me see if} can say what I want to say. My recollection is we -- in the past we discussed a conditional use, and I believe Catherine pointed out probably way back when that technically or legally speaking the conditional use was not the appropriate process to use for this type of what I would call basically a permit. I mean, it is a permit. Yes, conditional use is reviewed by you all. You forward a recommendation to the BZA, BZA makes the final decision. My question would be -- our recommendation would be not to do a conditional use. That would mean that any permit that had one or more violations or a violation that was found to be legitimate would then have to for future issuance go to the BZA for approval. So in a sense they would be approving what is a temporary use permit under certain conditions. That would not go to you. Do you wish that it go to you? And if so, then we would entertain that recommendation, because this is technically a new process, and we could write that in if that is your recommendation. Otherwise -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest, out of respect for the Page 104 Jan16912108 A Board of County Commissioners, they're the political body that's going to get the heat should the citizens be upset, that the first language in here remain that it goes to them, but as a temporary use permit approval instead of a conditional use. So you would strike the last part of that sentence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then if you point that out to the board and they decide they want it to go to us in lieu of them or in addition to them, let them make that decision. I think they're the ones that are going to get the political heat. It's their constituents. And that can be something you can point out to them and politically they can then decide what is the best tact to take. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 44. Are there any questions on Page 44? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up at the top, B. What you're saying is that they have to submit this document, you know, which in essence would flag any violations within 30 days. Is that something that you will be reviewing, though, when you review the thing to see if anything's occurred since then? MS. F ABACHER: (Nods head affirmatively.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then I was thinking MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- of adding to the application that there be a layout of the outdoor use, essentially a plan showing what the people intend to do out there. Now, you may have that covered under a completed application as prescribed by the county manager. You may in there require a layout. But the concern I have is that there should be a layout showing Page 105 Ja!ug.;9,100f#1 -- and holding people to what it is they intend to do out there. Otherwise, you know, five chairs could turn to 50. And also, there's, you know, exiting, life safety issues that should be reviewed. But anyway, my thought was to add E, a layout, and then in 3, which are reasons to deny the application or refuse or revoke a permit, I think you should add in there that the layout doesn't comply with the governing life safety codes. That would be a good reason to not allow the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question, Brad. A layout, handwritten layout? Or now we're going to go to an architect, or how do we want to -- if we're going to write something in? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think -- you know, much like people go to the health department, there's some pretty crude layouts, but it's a layout nonetheless. MS. F ABACHER: Site plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, it doesn't require an architect or an engineer. MS. ISTENES: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat after Ms. Istenes. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. If it's approved through a site plan, you're going to get a layout as part of the site plan. But -- number one. Number two, the LDC allows us the administrative authority to determine what goes in our application packages, and I can tell you it's standard just to have a layout. And no, it is not required to be engineered for temporary use permits. I would accept -- as long as it's accurate and it has to accurately reflect what's going to go out there, you know, the number of seats and all that. Again, you're going to have this information on your site plan anyway, because outdoor seating requires that it's shown on your site development plan. So unless you're going to be like in a shopping Page 106 Janua~9,l0~ A center, for example, then it's going to get a little bit -- it's a little bit different for shopping centers because you've got an overall parking calculation for shopping center. And I'm thinking of like a Starbuck's or an ice cream place that throws a few tables out there. You're generally not going to trip that -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, a little strip center with three or four restaurants and each restaurant has four or five or six tables, you're not going to have a site plan, if the shopping center's old. MS. ISTENES: We would, yes. We would have something. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But the seating won't be on there. MS. ISTENES: Might not be, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're -- what you're saying is there's no need to add it to this because you're going to include it in I-A, which is the application -- MS. ISTENES: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's a requirement. Which is fine with me. MS. ISTENES: That's our standard requirement. MS. FABACHER: I might suggest, too, that we do what we've been doing in other areas where we sayan approved application -- county manner (sic) approved application form, not stated in here. MS. ISTENES: Exactly. That was my intent. MS. F ABACHER: And just put it -- because we can easily change the application. You know, we don't have to come -- MS. ISTENES: Exactly. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, we all agreed, apparently, or talked about the fact that the Board of County Commissioners is going to make the determination and decision that does directly not involve planning commission. If that's the case, why are we starting to Page 107 Janu~~, tJ8 A outline what the details are that they should use as criteria, such as drawings and so forth? Shouldn't the County Commissioners decide what they want, to make their own judgment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they would -- actually, the commission would much prefer, I think -- I can't speak for them, but I think they like to see us work out the nuts and the bolts of this stuff, get our recommendation, and then they can focus on their recommendation instead of having to reinvent the wheel. We save a lot of time by doing what we're doing here today. So I think this is a preferred method to get there. That's my opinion, at least. Forty-four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you're next, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a problem. Under 3, there's a series A through F, and they all seem legitimate, but I was just wondering, in the case of E, inasmuch as that -- unless I'm missing a nuisance there that's already in the code, is it necessary to have that, or is that just the intent there, being to -- in a recitation of reasons? Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, I believe so. That's just to spell out some of the considerations that they -- criteria that they could use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. And I understand that. But what was going through my mind is our very frequent statement about redundancies. Now, I have no objection to it remaining in there, but I pose that question in case anybody else has any issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say something on that, Bob. Bob, that's going to be -- you really -- that is going to be a major problem. For example, there are a lot oflittle shopping centers, the small strip stores, they're designed for square footage to meet exactly their parking. That never intended when these things were built or even current that the guy who threw, you know, two, four tables out in Page 108 Janual6, lo~ A front of a store, there's parking provided for it. So I think one of the consequences of this ordinance, if it leaves what it states in the title, is that you're going to find a lot of people in violation, especially the mom and pops, with their tables out front. Because there's no design that people have extra parking to handle those tables. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're not -- but when you go in and you do an SDP for a restaurant or something, you're basing your concurrency impacts on the amount of seating you have and this meeting space. But now you're telling me that that's okay but we don't count the stuff outside? We have to count the stuff outside. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, Mark, at what you described, we do. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the guys who's recently their coffee shop, their ice cream shop, their little luncheonette have thrown tables outside. Especially since the smoking ordinance kind of caused them to do that. Those tables were never anticipated when the building was built. Anyway, it's -- if you want to -- again, the only -- I had no concern over that within the title that we were given. I have a concern over that if we leave that title. Anyway. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a point, a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on 44? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one consideration for 3, and it would be instead of -- and after F, you might want -- maybe we need a G. You can refuse or revoke a permit for all the following things, but what if someone was operating without a permit repeatedly, and don't we want to be able to refuse, if they're operating illegally? Isn't that a violation of our code and they didn't show good intent, do we want to include anything for that occurrence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's interesting. Page 109 JlQrI i20<)1 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you're assuming is that they now would pass everything except for the fact that they have a legacy of operating without a permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think if they pass, they pass. Aren't we bringing them into compliance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. I was just throwing it out on the table. If it's not an issue, then it's not an issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would that send them back to BZA or something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you know, we have in here that people have to -- people have to register within a certain amount of time. The assumption is they all are operating without a permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll let it go. I thought I'd throw it on the table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's -- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. For existing businesses you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think a while back there was an issue where the Registry or one of the -- or Ritz or somebody came in and was having an event and they just didn't get permits for it. They put tents up and they repeatedly didn't get permits for it, and they fought the county on it. So they finally came in and got permits. But I think part of the ability for staff to assess whether or not a company deserves the permit is their actions in the past that they -- that would historically occur. And that's the only thing I was suggesting. But if it -- I'm not married to it, so -- MS. F ABACHER: And also, I'd like to say that these criteria don't mean -- the board still would have the discretion just to weigh these things. And it doesn't necessarily mean because you didn't have enough parking that they could deny you, that they would be Page 110 Ja~~}, 2CJ18 compelled to deny you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on to Page 45. Anybody -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I want to address that. If there's not enough parking and we're going to give them a permit, no questions asked, and you had just said that well, we don't have to deny them, or -- you have a choice whether to deny them -- MS. F ABACHER: I'm talking about -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- parking? MS. FABACHER: I'm talking about the board. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Not us. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 45. Anybody have any questions on Page 45? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You knew I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. We'll take turns here this time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You knew I did, and I raised the question. You said you were going to address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I said we'll get to that page. So if you want to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I thought you were going to address it as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just meant get to that page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, my concern here is -- this is particular to Lely Resort area as an example. And that was recently approved and they were given amplified sound till 10:00. And I just wanted to interpose here to see whether or not that's meaningful to us relative to this. And then I guess would -- if this ordinance were passed, would that subordinate that PUD issue? Page 111 JL~rf ~ 200A MS. ISTENES: Well, my recommendation would be every site and situation be considered on its own merit. So I'm not sure I would look back at action taken at a specific place in Lely as being applicable to something up in North Naples, for example. It's just every situation is different. As far as usurping the PUD, I guess I'm not -- my initial answer would be no, but I'm not sure I quite understand your concern. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, let me amplifY, if} may. Hopefully I can. They sought and got amplified sound for that PUD. And it's right by a lake, and that sound is going to resonate right across that lake and up into -- and it's up till 10:00 at night, and it is amplified sound. So it's in contradiction to what the intent of this is, if passed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I can offer some help, Susan. The noise ordinance has limitations on hours in which noise can be produced to a certain level. This is an operating hours ordinance, is it not? Or is this -- aren't we talking about operating times? MS. ISTENES: Urn-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think what the -- how the two interact is the noise has to stop at a certain time by the noise ordinance, but the operations can continue, meaning ifthey're serving food or doing whatever, as long as they're not creating the noise until the times on here. Is that what we're trying to say? Is that what this ordinance is trying to say? MS. FABACHER: Well, it's really confusing, because we're looking at the copy that was written when this version of the amendment contained music or entertainment. Now if we're looking at a permit with or without music, I'm wondering if we shouldn't defer to the code on this. It's a thought. That's what makes it so complicated, we've been through so many iterations of these different -- trying to solve this problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not trying to introduce Page 112 Janla61 :l08 A additional problems, but I'm trying to anticipate what the future would be. For instance, if we were to use this little box here where it talks about the times, they're different than the times that was allowed under that PUD. And that's one factor. The other factor is we also had something like 2,500 lineal feet away someplace, I thought was in here, yep, and that's I think certainly not -- and that's a mixed use. So it's okay for the mixed use. But the sound's going to resonate and it's going to get to people's homes a lot closer than 2,500 feet. So all I'm trying to do is add something, not muddy it up, but add something that we should be cognizant of. MS. ISTENES: My recommendation would be at this point to leave those time frames in. I mean, we're recognizing that the noise again doesn't come -- and I hate bringing it up, but Stevie Tomatoes, the noise is from the people, it's not from the T.V.'s. You can't hear the T.V.'s over the people. And there's probably 15 of them out there, all on different channels, so it doesn't even make sense to turn them up. They don't need an amplified sound permit for that situation. So that's kind of what -- I mean, we need to focus on that aspect of it as well. That's why I would recommend keeping that in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is trying to regulate the time in which the outdoor use could be utilized. MS. ISTENES: And it ties back to the use, as you -- you know, as we're trying to regulate it, as you stated before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you could have noise on the outside going up to the times the noise ordinance allows it, to the extent the noise ordinance allows it. But the use of that area has to cease at these hours. So then the stuff moves inside. So if you're within 1,000 feet of residential area, by 11 :00 at night not only have you already ceased for over an hour, probably, the noise part of it, but you're now moving inside at 11 :00 and you can't do any more outside noise, period. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand all of that. And my Page 113 Janl'5l f08 A -- I guess my -- the other side of that question then is since it was stipulated in that PUD, it would be 10:00 p.m., and this is more opportunity, would they be able to come -- I assume they'd have to get a permit as well. Would they be able then to operate outside of the PUD's definition? Would they be able to operate until 12:00 a.m.? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was the PUD for noise or was it for use? And if it was for use, the applicant agreed to it. So they'd be bound by what they agreed to at the public meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I assumed, but I just wanted to qualifY, I wanted to understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, unless-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- staff says differently. MS. ISTENES: I'm not familiar with the language in the PUD-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not either. MS. ISTENES: -- so I really can't give a definitive answer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm going to rest my case on that. But I brought the issue up for qualification, in case it was important to anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to page-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait, you forgot me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Sorry, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only issue I really have -- or two issues. One is where it states the issuance of one finding of violation. I think that should be replaced with a finding of violation. Otherwise I'll be saying, it doesn't apply to me, I have five violations, you know. And then down at the bottom, I think we should make sure that what we're describing there is within the PUD or mixed use thing. For example, ifthere's a -- if you have an outdoor seating area and it's within 1,000 feet, as mentioned above, I think it still applies. It's only within the PUD or the mixed use area that they're exempted. Page 114 J~f'i008A And remember, we're going to move this up to the applicability section. So I think that the only thing that's missing in this description is the clarification they're talking about within the residential use. It does apply to things that are adjacent to the PUD or the mixed use, correct? MS. ISTENES: That's my understanding, based on your last recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That wouldn't be fair if it wasn't MS. ISTENES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 46. Oh, Mr. Kolflat, sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I've got one question on that violation. Does the violation mean that there's been a violation granted by the -- or judged by the Board of County Commissioners? Or does it mean a filing of the complaint, or does it mean a decision made to staff? MS. F ABACHER: I'll let Jeffhandle that. MR. KLATZKOW: It's generally going to be the Code Enforcement Board or special master, ifthere's a finding of violation. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 46. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the very top, is it planned use district or planned use -- planned development? I don't know, I'm not familiar with planned use district as a PUD. Planned use development? MS. F ABACHER: You're correct. It's a typo. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 46? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did this a while ago. In 3, the Page 115 ft8'ff' 20~8 county's providing a notice. Are you actually physically providing it or you're providing the wording that you want on that? The way it's worded, it says the county -- a notice provided by the county. MS. F ABACHER: Are you talking about posting of that sign? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, are you going to hand these guys a sign and say -- MS. FABACHER: Well, that was put in when we were contemplating the music aspect, to let people know what the law was and give people who were complaining about the noise a way to reach us and know that they had a right to complain I believe was the original intent. MS. ISTENES: I think that was the recommendation ofthis board. But if it says the county will provide the notice, then I'm sure we'll want to put a standard notice together that would be consistent with every use that has this type of permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my question is simpler than that: Are you actually physically going to say here, post this, or are you going to say here are the words that I want you to put on the sign? MS. ISTENES: No, we'll just give them something to post. Just like you would put like a sticker on your sign when you post on -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like an elevator. MS. ISTENES: -- when you get a permit. It would be kind ofthe same concept. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 46? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Catherine, I think we've gone through this pretty much in detail. The bullets that I read out from the e-mail that you had sent to me will be incorporated. Those changes need to be drafted and to us by tomorrow afternoon so we can finish it on Friday. Page 116 ~rlr i 20t MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can find a way to get that done. Now, I previously suggested we meet at 11: 15, I said we needed about an hour to finish and suggested we take a break then. Well, the hour's up, we're not finished. We're going into another one that could take some length of time. I don't think it will take an hour. But Cherie', are you okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll try to get through it as easy as we can. The next part of this is the submittal requirements for site plans, and it begins on Page 53 with a text actually on Page 54. The changed text begins on Page 55. Now, in order to short circuit some ofthis, I'm going to tell you all what I had talked to staff about to help move this forward. In discussing this with staff, the biggest two issues with them has been -- one of the largest issues has been how they were to be able to judge this; by what basis can they suggest that somebody be thrown into a process that is rather cumbersome for someone, and at staffs discretion. In order to take the discretionary process out of it, in talking with Catherine and Susan, some of the ideas that came out of that is the discretion would apply subject -- or in triggering the following issues: If there's outdoor seating, if there's outdoor entertainment, if there's amplified sound, and depending on the hours of operation. Those will be the discretionary measures that staff -- or suggested to be -- that staff could then look at this and say based on any of those issues, they could be incompatible with the surrounding area and therefore we're going to put you into this next level of scrutiny. And Catherine, elaborate if I've not gotten everything right. MS. FABACHER: Well, no, I wasn't quite clear on this point. My understanding was instead of giving unlimited discretion on every Page 117 January 9, 2008 use, let's address the outdoor seating areas. Because ifYOU~aJ 01 A Page 55 at F, they discuss water management areas and so forth. Our thought was to maybe add another item under the G, H, I, J that would deal without door serving areas specifically and that would say -- that would give the zoning director discretion if -- to require -- let me finish this before I get to the other thing -- to require additional buffering, to require some limitation on the hours of -- well, I don't know about the hours of operation, but to require sound attenuation devices, or even at the site plan level during the SDP process give the zoning director discretion to have them move to another part of the development, say, in the case of Stevie Tomatoes, if we had the outdoor seating indicated on the site plan and we saw how close it was to the residential, we could say put this one on the interior side of this building into the subdivision and away from the residential is where I thought we were headed. Just to get away from the huge latitude of -- and the impossibility to anticipate any non-compatible use. Susan, what are your thoughts? MS. ISTENES: I think it was a two-step process. First was identifYing where we could use our discretion, and I think Commissioner Strain outlined those situations where we could use our discretion. And then the second part of the process was what you reiterated, we then -- we can't just reject the plan if it meets all the codes and ordinances of the county, but we could use our professional discretion in requiring additional buffering or noise attenuation devices or suggesting a relocation, things like that. So yes, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. F ABACHER: Do we agree that we're not just going to leave it wide open to non-compatible uses but we say specifically outdoor serving areas, Susan? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what-- Page 118 J~~ 91200l MS. ISTENES: That's what -- MS. FABACHER: Okay, I just wanted clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's back up and try to move forward with this in a little bit of organization. First of all, we're on Page 55. We have underlined, strike-through paragraph starting with number five. Now, in reviewing those paragraphs, when we get to 5-A, that's where the problem comes in about staffs discretion in refusing to approve a site plan. The intent of the discussion I had and the suggestions of the limitations of discussion we had would be to insert those limitations or any others, or none, ifthe board felt that way, somewhere after 5-A, like 5-A-i, and say the discretion will be -- discretion of staff will be based upon the following, and then you list those four. Boom. Now staff has a reason why they can pull something in pursuant to this new language and say there's a problem with it. Then we go on from there. Now, I know we didn't get that far in our discussions; we basically threw the concepts out on the table. MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you see these things fitting in? I mean, you're suggesting adding them up above under A, right? MS. FABACHER: I'm suggesting making it -- between I and J and discuss outdoor serving areas specifically, and losing the idea that the zoning director would be omniscient and could look at the site development plan and find any use that was incompatible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, I didn't -- see, I didn't catch that. I thought that we were trying to still work with the underlying language, but refine it enough to make it something you could utilize so that you're not left out there with -- making arbitrary -- making something that you could be accused of making arbitrary decisions on. And that's by defining it through some kind of -- you know, defining discretion, more or less. MS. ISTENES: Well, defining the situation in which you would Page 119 tbUrYr' *18 exercise discretion. And the situation is if you have outdoor seating or if you have amplified sound or if you have outdoor entertainment, which are really all kind of tied together in a way. And then if your hours of operation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the process involved in this discussion here, if a developer doesn't like a decision that's drawn because they believe it's subjective or whatever, the next course of action is to have them appeal it to the planning commission, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they appeal it to the BCC, don't they? MS. ISTENES: BZA. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I thought on this one -- on this one in particular we were in the loop. MS. F ABACHER: It's true. MR. KLA TZKOW: It goes to the planning commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, on this one it does, you're right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought. MS. F ABACHER: And we -- and I don't think we had any problem with that process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I didn't have any problem with that either. That's a little different than the other. And we may actually get the other one back anyway. But what I'm driving at is ifI'm a developer and I come and I'm concerned and I think you're being subjective, I have to now consider well, do I want to go to the planning commission and have nine other people being subjective. So I wonder if we're not adding a dimension that we have to by adding a lot of other detail. I recognize that we want to make standards as clear as possible, but the thought that came through my mind was every time you add a list of things, there are bound to be things you didn't include. And that means another PUD -- I'm sorry, another LDC amendment at some Page 120 Ja16ry 1'1008A future date. That's all I'm going with. So I don't know what your thoughts are there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: The intent of this proposed ordinance is to give the zoning director the ability when something pops up that was completely unexpected, no matter what it is, that nobody anticipated during the planning process, she now has the ability to say wait a second, this wasn't what everybody thought you were going it do, and it's not compatible with the neighborhood. I would suspect that it would be a very infrequent time this would ever be actually utilized, and to temper any zoning director's exuberance on this one, it's going to go to the planning commission and the planning commission at that point in time is going to say wait a second, you're being silly, this is an appropriate use. If we're just going to say simply say this is only for the outdoor seating area, I don't think you need this, because you're going to be permitting that use anyway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. I thought this has another intent. MR. KLATZKOW: This has another intent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I read it-- MR. KLA TZKOW: This is the fail-safe ordinance where when something comes through we say wait a second, this is not what we thought was going to be there when we approved this. MS. ISTENES: It's not fail-safe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. ISTENES: Not with over 370 PUD's and a Land Development Code and a GMP that have detailed regulations. It's unrealistic to expect staff to identifY -- MS. F ABACHER: Anticipate. MS. ISTENES: -- that in every situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, and I have seen what's happened Page 121 1a~uf f' 20j8 when staff has tried to exercise their administrative review with some flexibility and the outcome become negative to some people. It gets elevated to a political cause that becomes negative then to the newspapers and all kinds of people. And so my thrust was simply trying to put this into some manner where staffs not so badly exposed for either not making the right call or for making a call they thought was right when somebody else thought it was wrong. Because it could go either way. They could make a call and be too strict and then be called out on the carpet for that, because somebody with, say, the right ear could make a lot of noise over saying look what they're doing to me now. Look how long it took me to get through the system for no reason. And the opposite side, a guy could go through with a restaurant and look as harmless as ever, they don't call him out on it and he puts out a box to call patrons and he's calling patrons every five minutes and waking the neighborhood up till 2:00 in the morning. Then they've got the other side they'll get hit for that action too. So if we put in the criteria by which they can review more definitive, and if we have to expand on that criteria in the future, that may be better than the ramifications if we leave it too open-ended now. That's why I had tried to find some aim for this thing. Anyway, if the board isn't in agreement with it, so be it. But that was the attempt. And we can go forward from there. And with that in mind, we're on Page 55. So how does everybody think about the language? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some questions. And just a statement to start, Jeff. One ofthe concerns I have is that if a project gets through this process, you would have a really difficult time going back to somebody and stating that, you know, you can't have that use. Because you really have gone through an overly scrutinized use. If I make it through the gate, you'd have a tough time I think bringing me back. Page 122 Ja~~ p, 1008A Anyway, the first thing is the 30 days from the first designation of a use. In an SDP, and Susan would know this better, the uses are essentially laid out. Like for example, let's enjoy Stevie Tomatoes some more, he would be in there as an accessory use. He's going to build a restaurant. We have no idea whether that's a restaurant that's going to attract mimes or the AC/DC crowd. So how would -- if I discussed that that's going to be a restaurant, how would anybody in the department know what that restaurant's going to be in terms of disturbing the neighbors in this case? And if I'm in the SDP, I really don't know who my tenant is. I could be negotiating with quite a few tenants, hopefully. MR. KLA TZKOW: The issue with Stevie Tomatoes isn't the use, it's the location. Had Stevie Tomatoes been on the other side of the shopping center where the Park Place Diner is now, we wouldn't be here discussing this issue right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the original construction drawings for Stevie Tomatoes, there's a small patio that they even -- they enlarged that use compared -- I think through SDP. So I mean, you wouldn't have caught it at this time anyway. MR. KLATZKOW: When it became apparent -- and I don't even know if staff would have caught this one, to be quite frank. When it became apparent that there was an outdoor bar there with televisions, okay, I think the board would like to have given staff the ability to say wait a second, you need to take this particular use and put it on the other side of the shopping center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that that could become apparent during the building permit process. In other words, the SOP's been approved, the uses have been outlined. This is a restaurant use. It did show some small seating. But when the permit came in, which is way past this time, is when I think the problem would have been flagged. So -- and also -- well, anyway, the other problem, going down in Page 123 JiUl?,9,!00A there, it says that if you have a problem with it, you can refuse the site development plan. Can't you -- wouldn't it be better just to refuse that use within the site development plan and let the guy continue on and argue over the use, not argue over his total site development plan? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so I think in there we have approval of such use within the site development plan I think would be good to add. MS. ISTENES: What if it's a standalone building? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then, he's got a building with -- you're not allowing the use in it. MS. ISTENES: Then we can't approve the site plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think in that case you could. But ifI have a shopping center and you're arguing over one tip of it, I think I should be allowed to go through and we'll argue that down the road. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's covered in C. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You do? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not yet, no. Because I want to go down the road before I go to the planning guys. And I guess the thing and hopefully when we see, Mark, stuff laid out, you know, the concept of potential is pretty difficult, I think to, you know, to really substantiate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I was going to -- what goes with -- I gave you some of the criteria, but in leading up to that, number five is titled non-compatible uses. If you recall, when we talked about the eagle and the first review of that eagle thing, we got this reaction to the eagle with a whole long laundry list of changes to the code to react to one eagle nest being cut down on one dead tree. And the practical sense was let's just get plain and simple and say this Page 124 Janul~9'FT8 A is -- you can't cut down anymore trees with eagle's nests in them. Period. Well, this is the same kind of thing. We have an issue with Stevie Tomatoes. That's the only issue in the county. That's the only time it's come up in a long period of time. Who knows when it will come up, if ever agam. But I was going to suggest that where it says non-compatible uses, number five, term this thing outdoor serving areas with or without outdoor entertainment. And then this becomes an additional level of scrutiny for what 10.02.03 is, submittal requirements for site development plans. So now when you submit an SDP that has an outdoor serving area with or without outdoor entertainment, then this section kicks in and staff can exercise its discretion limited to the four elements that pertain to that kind of activity. And then down the road if we -- I mean, what else is the problem? We don't know any, so we're building a code around a problem that may never exist in another category agam. Why don't we focus on the category that was the problem, fix it, and if anything else comes along, fix it in the future instead of creating so much regulation that we don't even know what we're covering. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think your four items just allows staff to ask questions, key questions. And that should be the point. Then they'll ferret out what -- you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're put in the submittal phase now so that it gives them the highlight to trigger it in the submittal phase. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, a problem we members of the board have is that you have a list of things. We don't have that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Page 125 Jay6' ,. r08 A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have what staff gave us, and once again, foolishly, we worked on that, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because of the holiday season there was no time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, so why don't we -- let's just back off. I mean, if we're discussing things and then it's but wait a minute, this revision's better, let's just stop, send us the revision, we'll come back and visit it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem is I still want to go through everybody's concerns so that as much of this can be laid out in the next 24 hours so that on Friday afternoon we can finish with this. Because it's got to go to the BCC on the 16th and we've got to have some kind of recommendation to give to them. So I'd like to follow through with any further comments and questions, including the verbal renditions I've given to you, and let's just get through this and let staff come back with something by tomorrow afternoon and we'll do the best we can Friday afternoon to give the BCC something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if your revision points that-- you know, fixes it, don't point that out, because we'll see it when it comes. I mean, it's tough to second guess the revision. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, but staff needs the direction from this board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark gave it to you yesterday. MS. FABACHER: No, no, we discussed-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I did not. MS. FABACHER: He did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Brad. I did not do that. I was trying to help expedite today's meeting by coming up with suggestions to respond to the questions I knew would come up because we've been Page 126 Janu'i 6 rOt A doing this for a year. And if I don't anticipate the questions, we'll never get through these meetings. We have been beating this thing to death for a year. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got nothing to show for it. So yes, I spent time with staff. I tried to come up with things. They did not incorporate them into the language because they couldn't have on my recommendation. I always have criteria in my meetings with them. Everything I discuss comes back before this board. It's suggestions to help this board move faster and more efficiently, that's all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, in that regard, I know -- not adding to the frustration here, but if you -- is it possible for you to broadcast those out? It may not be that everybody could get that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Sunshine Law wouldn't allow it and COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For you to broadcast out your recommendations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't even want to take a chance on telling you what I think about something bye-mail or anywhere else. That just puts us in a terrible spot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But then that makes it difficult, because you read and I listen and I'm trying to think and integrate. You know, you're comfortable with it, I'm not. I'm not aware of it. And it doesn't -- and it creates a frustration for you and for anybody else that has the limitations I have. I respect what you're attempting to do, certainly, but I didn't -- are we -- this is not a year we have been dealing with this. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It certainly is. Page 127 Ja~6Y p, 1008A COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A full year? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought this was introduced in September. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, this is an exception. This whole thing's been an exception. So everybody is trying to do what they have to do to try and make it work. And I appreciate the fact of you spending your time doing that. I think at this point here we should just move forward, get it done as best we can by Friday and finish it up Friday and go from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're trying -- I agree, and that's what we're trying to get to. So I think what we need to do -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Would you like a motion to make that happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is keep -- no, we need to keep giving our comments. Let's finish the two pages. We get done with these two pages, we're past it, there's no motion for today. But staff then will have enough direction to produce a new draft for us to hopefully finish Friday afternoon. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one other thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm getting the distinct impression, and I'd like it to be corrected if I'm in error, that staff believes that this is probably -- that they can't handle this, because there's too many things that they'd have to do. If there's a basic problem between the two, then it's -- I'm not sure it's resolvable. Is that somebody that needs to be related? MS. ISTENES: I don't understand the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you said you had 160 PUD's or something of that -- Page 128 Janulrf>9pf8 A MS. ISTENES: Three hundred seventy-- MR. SCHMITT: 376 I believe we're at -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, that-- MR. SCHMITT: -- somewhere plus or minus two, three. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that was the -- that was the signal I had that I thought you were indicating that it might be a lot more workload for you than you thought was reasonable, or possible. And if that's the case, then foisting this on you may be inappropriate. On the other hand -- MS. ISTENES: My objective is that we're successful in meeting the board's intent of protecting the citizens. And I don't think we can do that, because three hundred -- under the current draft, because 376 PUD's is like having 376 mini LDC's. They're all unique. And I've got a limited number of staff. And to be quite frank with you, the staff that reviews site plans are not my highest level of staff, and we spend a lot of time training and working with them on issues. And an lot of times they learn through -- I don't want to say -- MR. SCHMITT: School of hard knocks. MS. ISTENES: Mistakes, but the school of hard knocks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On-the-job training. MS. ISTENES: On-the-job training. And I just -- I'm not sure that we're going to be as successful as I think the board wants to be, because it's way too much discretion, and I don't want to cause difficulty for our customers who come in and they get five different answers from five different planners. It's just too broad. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to thank you for your being candid. I needed to understand that. I don't know where that puts us exactly, but it certainly gives it some thought for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that you've heard some suggestions, we've talked about moving non-compatible use language Page 129 January~eOp8J A to outdoor serving areas with or without outdoor entertainment, focusing and refining the paragraph to do that, adding criteria for your discretion so it's not so discretionary. And that's Page 55. Is there anything on Page 56? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In D, shouldn't that be the board of appeals, not the Board of County Commissioners? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It should be the Board of County Commissioners? MR. SCHMITT: Brad, can I just point out, we do have in the provision, just to put things in perspective, ifthere's a decision made by the environmental staff that there's a -- basically an applicant and the environmental staff are at a point where they agree to disagree and it then may come to my level. But the applicant can bring that point to the EAC. And the EAC is the ruling body. You would be a similar ruling body in this case. I think it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- if the board approves it, you would be the one to make a decision, and you could do that. Don't forget, this is during the SDP review you're making a ruling as to the applicability of the code. If they can appeal that decision to the board, I think that's where Jeff was coming from on this. It's a similar situation we do with the EAC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question wasn't that. I like the -- my question was does it actually go to the board of appeals, which is the commissioners, or does it go to the Board of County Commissioners? That's my only question. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It goes to the BCC, from what Jeff just said. Page 130 Jant5 ~ 108 A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what Jeff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's the short answer. On that same page up at the top -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, goes to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we referred a couple times to an amicable solution. Why don't we just say should the parties be unable to reach a solution? And then the paragraph for the last sentence or the paragraph above it, second line, earliest convenience to discuss an attempt to amicably resolve. Why don't we just say to resolve? Let's just take the word amicably out and drop it. That just makes that language a little cleaner. MR. SCHMITT: You don't like those fluffY adjectives? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm worried that not everything's going to be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's not for fluff. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Usually one of them doesn't walk away amicable anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then from -- after D we get into Section E, and I think that's a good suggestion, perhaps more appropriate noise ordinance. Why don't -- I think we already -- why doesn't that go there? Ifit involves decibel levels and distances and-- why don't we just put that -- suggest that -- MR. SCHMITT: That ordinance is currently in rewrite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: I think we just got the first draft -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good timing. MR. SCHMITT: -- from the consultant. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this one before we get a draft of it tomorrow afternoon? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow, can we make a Page 131 Janm{YE)"<18 A motion to continue to a time uncertain Friday afternoon, or do we have to pick a specific time? Or Friday, let's say. MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can move it to Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to continue this meeting to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- January 11th? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After our Cocohatchee discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move to that. After the -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray MS. FABACHER: Sorry. Mr. Chair, we didn't ever make a decision on the open house sign amendment. And I think we've worked that out, we just need a recommendation from you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to see the language-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We need to see the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that -- why don't you bring it back on the 11th scratched up and we can just -- that will be an easy one to finish up there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Real easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just making sure that the language that was recommended to be changed got changed. We're not changing any substance that Mr. Poteet was worried about. We're simply rearranging it so that it reads better. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moving paragraphs. MS. F ABACHER: Deliver that to you with this one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tomorrow afternoon. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, everything's coming via e-mail? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 132 Jan~9J2J68 A MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So everybody knows that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you get e-mail? Everybody can take e-mail. Everybody nodded their head yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Including Tor. MS. FABACHER: Is that okay with you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, he's good. MS. F ABACHER: Because you can always pick up hard copies at my office. I don't think [ can get it couriered to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a motion by Mr. Murray to continue until after the Cocohatchee hearing tomorrow. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Brad. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We will see you all Friday morning at 8:30 to start out with the Bert Harris claim. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:42 p.m. Page 133 Jai&r'1008A COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 '1 . L (:J / I / /\Jh-~ v -''Vv(/(. V'~ \, Mark train, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on; '[ ( ,/ or as corrected as presented Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 134 Janu~ll, 2108 A -.., ~""\ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE .... --'S~JpLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION f-Iata:;;~.;-.p. Na les, Florida Halas~~;<~,.. . p H.. en. ning.. ~...rL.........._. January 11 2008 ':oyle . . .# 1-... , ColettA _ ..... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date in LDC SESSION, immediately following the SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Susan Istenes, Planning Manager Catherine Fabacher, LDC Coordinator MISC. Carres: Date 3.25.8 . tern #. \(P IiA'J 16 Page 1 -'J>,;tc ~\ Janult>l " f08 A CHARIMAN STRAIN: Now, welcome everybody, January 11 th, Collier County Planning Commission meeting. This particular one is a continuation of the Land Development Code, Cycle 2 that started on -- well, back last year. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Do we do the pledge of allegiance again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might have to. We have two items remaining on this issue -- actually three: The outdoor serving areas, the outdoor entertainment for SDP -- through the SDP process, and the signage for real estate signs. And the real estate sign one will be last, because Mr. Poteet is on his way here, because he wanted to address us on that one. I understand he thinks it's fine but I know he wanted to be here for that. So with that, Catherine, why don't we go into 5.05.07. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, Catherine Fabacher with zoning and land development review. I want to make sure that everyone has all the documents for this issue. There are three that [ gave this morning that were sent to you yesterday, 5.04.07 Permit for Outdoor Serving Areas With or Without Entertainment. The second one was Temporary Use Permits for Outdoor Serving Areas, With or Without Entertainment. You understand one had the strike-through and underscore version from what you originally saw, the second one I mentioned -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to slow down a little bit. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. The second one that I mentioned is a cleaned up version to make it easier to review. And then the third one we have is 10.02.03, Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans. So Commissioner, would you like to work from the -- let's work Page 2 JanuaJ~, 10Jg A from the struck-through, underscored version. Would that be okay with everybody? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine with me. MS. FABACHER: For 5.04.07. Okay, this is based on our quite elaborate discussions on the 9th. And these were the revisions that I think we agreed upon. If you can see, we discussed the fact that we were going to take this permit and just make it just to the outdoor serving area and forget about the entertainment, because that was going to be dealt with through the code of enforcement through the noise ordinance, which they currently have a permit in that process, but they're amending the noise ordinance right now to put some teeth in that. And they're going to start issuing those, once that's amended. So I removed a lot. I'm on Page 2. I removed a lot of language there, but I think it reads pretty well. Applicability. No person shall own or operate an outdoor serving area for food or beverages or both within the unincorporated area of Collier County unless a one-time temporary use permit is obtained in accordance with provisions set forth herein. Then I had under one, the caveat that we spoke of that will exclude the mixed use components of a PUD or approved mixed use projects, as we discussed. [think Commissioner Schiffer wanted me to bring that from another section because it was better written than -- so this applies to the whole section then. So when we get to the operating hours, operating provisions, I took it out there because here under applicability it applies to the whole section. On Page 3, we went to item two, subsection two. A temporary use permit to operate an outdoor serving area may be issued administratively unless -- instead of one or more findings, I've put a finding of violation of the Collier County noise ordinance has been Page 3 Janum16, ~018 A issued to the owner or manager ofthe facility. Excuse me, Commissioner Schiffer, did you want to change facility? I thought I had done that someplace else. Are we happy with the term facility? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure. Go on, though. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Number three -- that's the first condition, if you have no violations against you, of the noise ordinance. And the next situation is permit applications for the outdoor serving areas where there has been a finding of violation of the noise ordinance within the past 12 months shall now be heard by the Board of County Commissioners during any regularly scheduled meeting. This is a change from some of the previous versions, because we were going to do conditional use and come back to you, then -- as a conditional use, then go to the board. But then now that we've simplified it, I think it's just the issuance here of a simple permit by the zoning department. So I think we agreed when we talked about it on the 9th that we didn't need to come back here. Of course the board will always have the -- we decided to let the board decide that. But the board will always have the ability to send it back to you for a recommendation in the process of hearing it, okay. So that would be number three. And then under there we just have the standard language, the board shall make the final determination. I have under number four, the requirement that existing operators of businesses with outdoor areas come in no later than May 31 st to obtain that same permit. On number five we have language about the transfer of the one-time permit if someone buys the business or the outdoor area. Yes, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Did you say come in to pick it Page 4 JanuJ.6, !o~ A up? Will he be notified earlier, like some other permits that they get from the county that they need? Or are they going to have to just remember? MS. F ABACHER: I guess we'd have to perhaps get with occupation or something. I don't really have a list of all the people with outdoor areas. That's a good point that you -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How are we going to notifY everybody? Because you gave them a hypothetical drop-dead date by May such and such. If they don't know about it -- I know with, as you said, they send notices out for occupational licenses, they're due, and they give you dates to pay them by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a comment that might help with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not in that regard, but I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish up this one then. Mr. Schmitt, wouldn't we be able to notifY all the restauranteurs or food service facilities in Collier County broadly that ifthey have outdoor seating, they need to be aware of this new ordinance and if they do the can come in and get the application. We can keep it on record who was notified. MR. SCHMITT: Well, yes, I could. It's the expense of doing that through letter or otherwise. That's a pretty significant expense. Likewise, code enforcement, if it's at the direction of the board, I will -- or the manager, with the resources available, I'll have to focus code enforcement going out to every restaurant and discussing the issue and the requirement with every restaurant. But yes, that's where the resources -- the board wishes to focus the resources on that, yes, I can do that. I have the addresses, I can get them from the tax collector's officer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti is going to finish his Page 5 J~ t, 2C}l8 question and then -- on this question, Mr. Murray has a question but it's different. So let's finish this one up, and Ms. Caron and Mr. Schiffer afterwards. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Couldn't you piggyback with the occupational license? They do mailers, they know specifically what they're sending them to, restaurants and what have you. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can you piggyback with them in the same notification mailer -- MR. SCHMITT: Then it wouldn't comply with -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- and save you a lot of expense. MR. SCHMITT: ft wouldn't comply with this because that's -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. Again, could you piggyback with occupational license so you could maybe be part of their mailer, because they have to renew on a certain date, and save all the expense? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Then that would not comply with the date here, because it would be -- that's throughout the year on an annual basis, there's no set time that these restaurants -- they don't all come in in December and renew their licenses, they do it periodically over a year, do they not? MS. F ABACHER: I was under the impression from speaking with code that September 31 st they all had to renew by on the same date. I believe that's my impression. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I believe they're notified and they have to do it between September and January sometime. MR. SCHMITT: Then that would work. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Even ifit is split out, it's not such a bad thing. Because if you get them all in the same date, everybody is going to wait till the last day of the month and you're going to be bombarded with all these permits -- applications. Page 6 ~<fy 11, 2A08 MS. F ABACHER: That's a good suggestion. I think Joe pointed out we'll just have to change this drop-dead date. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go on to another question, if anybody -- Ms. Caron or Mr. Schiffer, if you had questions on this issue that Mr. Vigliotti brought up, Ms. Caron, you were next. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, Ijust turned to the county attorney to see ifhe had any opinion on how to do this. MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't supposed to be punitive. We can always issue a warning the first time out and say, you know, we have a new ordinance, you have to comply with it. And then give somebody 30 days, 60 days to come in and get the permit. And that could be a recommendation. COMMISSIONER CARON: But I think that the idea of using the occupational license is a good one. That will save money, a lot of money. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And they have the system in progress. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, they're set up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was essentially Bob's, to connect it with the occupational license. But I think the virtue of that is it's not just restaurants that have to comply with this. So that way you could almost put the notice on everybody's. And if anybody serves food or -- and we'll discuss further what that means, then they would be able to apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the consensus on this issue is that you're going to tie it to the occupational license and that there's the option that the first notice can be a warning notice, not necessarily a penalty notice. Mr. Murray, we'll go on to your issue now. Page 7 Jlr6at J!, 2~8 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure ifI've got a good issue here or not. But under number four, all operators of eating and drinking establishments. Drinking establishment would be a bar, correct? Would that be a bar? And wouldn't that come under another category? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're getting into some interesting issues now between what is a bar, what is a restaurant, and what we mean when we say a bar. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, when I see the words drinking establishments, it seems to me pretty clear they're not going in for Coca-Cola. MS. FABACHER: Well, Commissioner, my understanding is, is that under the occupational license almost all the bars anyway have food also. So I think they all have occupational licenses actually as eating establishments. I don't know, I mean, from my -- in my discussions, I didn't think that we had individual just plain bar occupational licenses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember this started out as being a few chairs and tables, and now I don't have a problem with it progressing to where it is, because I think it's good. I'm just bringing the issue up as to whether or not there is another question that it provokes, that's all. I'm perfectly comfortable, if everybody else is comfortable. But drinking establishments, it's a bar, and a bar has different, I thought, different set of rules associated with it. MR. SCHMITT: It's irrelevant in this case, if I can offer, because we're just saying they have to come in and get a permit -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. That's all. I needed to be reassured. Thank you. That's all I wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: However, where it says eating and drinking, could we use and/or drinking? That covers someone if -- MS. F ABACHER: Absolutely. Page 8 January 11,2008 MR. SCHMITT: And/or. 16 I 1 J CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that same point, up in one, in A, we describe it as a serving area for food or beverages. Why don't we use food or beverages down below, use the same description -- MS. FABACHER: Instead of food and/or-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, look up in applicability, you're describing it. And then you're describing it below but you're describing it differently. So I think figure out the best one. Obviously the "or" is better than the "and" in terms of Boolean logic. But I think they should be the same. MS. FABACHER: Instead of food or beverages or both, you want me to change that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think food or beverages makes more sense. It doesn't get into the concern that Bob had with drinking. I mean, the intent here is -- I believe, and we've gone around the horn on intent -- is if somebody had an ice cream parlor that sold sodas, they're under the same regulations. So if Bob thinks a drinking establishment is a bar, then if you use food or beverage, you eliminate those kind of confusions. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I see. And you're saying make that throughout the whole document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's the best description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a concern with -- so it would be all operators of establishments that serve food and/or beverages? COMMISSIONER CARON: Or both. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At least it's consistent that way. MS. F ABACHER: It's either food and/or beverages or food or beverages or both. Whichever one you want to use, we'll use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most encompassing. Page 9 MR. KLATZKOW: Same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. And/or. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As long as we keep it simple. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think under Boolean logic, just the word "or" would mean -- as long as it's one of them you've got them. So you don't need the and/or, but that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on number five, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I think we were talking about transfers. And then 5.A would be the same thing as applies to the original permit. If the transfer could be approved administratively, unless of course then there's a one violation of the noise ordinance within the past 12 months, then they would have to go through the Board of County Commissioners. Number six, general statement that the issuance of this permit will not -- sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who had a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually I didn't. Catherine was just reading. I didn't know we were supposed to jump in after each paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you guys have concerns, I guess you need to flag me or something. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number one, why do we call this a temporary use permit? I know it's a permit that's revocable. Temporary probably gives somebody the feeling that they don't own it. But why are we calling it that? That's new. MS. FABACHER: Well, we do have a subsection in here that does say that it is considered temporary and can be revoked at any time. So I think by putting it in the title, we wanted to just reemphasize the fact that it's not something that you automatically get and then you JanuaI g',20f8 A Page 10 Jadu!5YI111200A have it forever. It's just to let people know. But if you would like to remove it, it's fine, because when we get further on in the language you'll see that we make the statement that it can be revoked. It should be considered temporary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is we do have temporary permits, and the concept of the temporary permit is that it expires. So I don't think that's a good word. We can -- that's my OpInIOn. MS. F ABACHER: I think I had it in my notes that you had requested I put it up there at the last meeting -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the real estate signs we did. The other thing is the distinguished serving area. If somebody walks out with take-out food, take-out drinks, take-out beverages and stuff, is that going to be considered a serving area? MS. FABACHER: I think that if they consume anything that they got from the establishment connected to the outdoor serving area, then that would be considered. If they were just sitting there smoking a cigarette waiting to get a table but not consuming any food or beverage, I would think it wouldn't apply. Anyway, it's -- well, that would be my answer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that the intent is to be those areas where the restaurant's serving. MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whether it's via take-out or-- and you think code enforcement would have no trouble as written, then that's fine. Second thing is we go into exempting the mixed use developments. But here's the problem, is while I don't think they should be getting this permit for their seating and stuff like that, we do have to be careful of them disturbing the neighbors. You could argue that Stevie Tomatoes is a planned unit Page 11 Janualfy,p!8 A development, it did have mixed use, it has office, it has mercantile. So I think that we should put something in there that's to the effect that while it's not -- the use permit is not a requirement, it does have to meet the properties of the sound -- there's some sound violations here. For example, if Mercado had a bar behind the residential area there. ft doesn't. But people in that bar could be disturbing people in an adjoining property that's not part of the mixed use. So I think by exempting them, that would give them the ability to say, well, we don't -- those rules don't apply to us. So I think somewhere we've got to put in there that they -- while they may not have to get the permit, they do have to honor the -- at least that Section 5.04.07(E), which is bugging the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I can't follow -- I'm still back on page -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two, so am I. A-I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're past Page 2, we started on paragraph five, number -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I said, Mark. The mistake is I -- Catherine was just reading this. I didn't know we were supposed to interrupt her and do the comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's all go back to Page 1 then-- or Page 2, actually. Mr. Schiffer, just continue with your questions, now that we're on Page 2, and let's just get through it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was A-I. The concern in A-I is that we're exempting the mixed use projects. And the concern is that a mixed use project does have neighbors and we could be disturbing those. I could argue that Stevie Tomatoes is a planned unit development and it's disturbing the neighbors. MS. F ABACHER: Are you suggesting that we not exempt them Page 12 Janumlb,~<1!8 A and just make any planned mixed use development also acquire this permit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'm figuring out a way that we can exempt them from the permit requirement. It mean, I don't think something like a mixed use Mercado kind of thing wants to buy permits for the outdoor seating. They already got that approval in their PUD. But that still doesn't give them the license of the -- you know, to have a rock band disturb the neighbors. MS. ISTENES: The teeth ofthis is the permit. So if they don't have to get the permit, how can it be taken away from them or approved by the board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll live solely with the sound ordinance on that? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on Page 2, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Number two, the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute, don't go. Do you want to just say something here that would simply state that these other projects, however, are not exempt from any noise ordinance in the county? I mean, do you just want to make that reference here? Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I was saying, if you look at E on Page 5, it really does put requirements for outdoor serving. So my thought was we could put a statement that said while the use permit is not -- this is under one again -- while the use permit is not required, the requirements of 5.04.07(E) applying to adjacent properties or neighboring properties does. Which is -- even though they're in a mixed use, they're still not allowed to disturb a neighbor. But again, if we really feel that we're going to change the noise ordinance to cure this problem, first of all, we don't need this, because this is all of a sudden an outdoor seating thing. But let's move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all that and we're going to move-- Page 13 Janua161'r~8 A okay. Let's go to Page 3. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's a loophole there. Even though we're not requiring mixed use to get permits, they're still allowed to disturb their neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot of loopholes. I don't think we'll get them all cured today. I think we need to get the best product we can forward today and we'll refine it as time goes on. So let's go on to Page 3 and see -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, hold on. Sorry. On number two, Jeff, we refer to the noise ordinance. Should we refer also to the county code of laws? I mean, if there was -- you know, essentially what was in that noise ordinance has been incorporated into -- I have it here somewhere, one of these -- it's incorporated into section -- Article 4, Noise. Is it best to refer to an ordinance which will be amended and changed or refer to the actual code of laws that sets everything out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't people in this county have to follow a code oflaws whether it's said they do or not? Ifwe get into that philosophy we better list all the laws and codes of everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not my point. My point is that the code of laws may be more inclusive. That may be the problem we're having with Stevie Tomatoes. Go ahead. MS. F ABACHER: If I could comment on that. I put it this way, to be consistent with the way it appears all throughout the LDC right now: Ordinance No. 98-17, as amended, the Collier County noise ordinance. It must be in there 25, 30 times in the LDC already. MS. ISTENES: Is it titled that way in the code oflaws and ordinances? So, I mean, are we making -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes. Actually, the very beginning says this shall be known as the Collier County noise ordinance. Page 14 Jart:6f J 11200ft MS. ISTENES: So this would be a consistent reference then to not only the title but the ordinance number, which you have in here as well. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, as amended. Now, you bring up an interesting point, because when they do revise the noise ordinance they're talking about giving it a new ordinance number. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's why it says amended. MS. ISTENES: As amended. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wouldn't it be wise just sending them the code of laws, and then that will always be the most up-to-date version of noise in Collier County? MS. F ABACHER: I don't think that's necessary, Commissioner, I really don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On four -- what kind of violation will they be noticed? The only reason I bring it up is that I don't want to confuse it. Obviously we're talking about noise violations throughout the whole thing. So what about -- I mean -- never mind, everybody's antsy, let it go. MS. FABACHER: I can answer quickly. We don't think that you should be able to have your permit or not receive a permit if you've received a violation for having weeds or something wrong with your dumpster. That's why we specifically limited it to a violation ofthe noise ordinance for the outdoor serving permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That wasn't exactly my question but -- Jeff, in here, let's go to three -- Mark, I'm sorry, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 3-A has -- we refer to the Board of County Commissioners. So we have taken away from the Board of Zoning Appeals, right? Is there a reason we've done that? I mean, obviously in this county they're both the same people. Page 15 JL6aJ 11, 2cj8 The county commission sits as the board of zoning appeals in Collier. MR. KLATZKOW: We generally send certain items to the BZA, such as appeals on variances. Conditional uses, I believe, go there. I think we're okay just listing it as the Board of County Commissioners. Now, whether they want to hear these things, I don't know. They may decide to set up somebody else for this, but I think we're okay, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was that it does appear to be a zoning appeals board kind of item. Some day the county may -- MR. KLA TZKOW: It's not a change of zoning. There's no zoning issue here, it's just a permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, that's it. That's it, I'm done for three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Page 4. Catherine, in order to expedite this, I don't need you to read this to us. Let's just go and see who's got questions and just get through this. Mr. Schiffer, we're on Page 4. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. C.1, an outdoor serving permit may be suspended by the county manager. So what is -- don't we really want him to suspend it ifthere's a noise violation? MS. F ABACHER: I thought we were on Page 4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on Page 4. Oh, wrong -- sorry. I'm not quite on Page 4. I'm looking at the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any questions on the real Page 4? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What makes mine not real? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you were referring to earlier wasn't the real Page 4, apparently, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on Page 5? Page 16 Janurg lr 2i08 A Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, under E.1, no person shall operate an outdoor serving area on private property. Should that be designated as commercial property, or is it intended here to cover residential uses? MS. F ABACHER: That's a good catch, Commissioner. I had taken out on private property everywhere else, so I will strike that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the words on private property get struck from that paragraph. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, and the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the next one. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold on, I do. He was actually on SIX -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I said five. Mr. Kolflatjumped the gun, that's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: C.1, the second sentence is the outdoor serving area may be suspended. So what this means is we go through all this, if there is a noise violation it's at the discretion of the county manager whether it's suspended or not? MS. F ABACHER: This permit, yes. And this is the one where I had advised you earlier, it says it's temporary at all times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is that it -- and the reason it would be suspended is that there's an issuance of a violation of the noise ordinance. Since this is an outdoor seating permit, shouldn't we note in there that that noise ordinance came from the outdoor serving area? For example, if somebody was doing something at the front door, not the outdoor seating area, and got a noise ordinance, a noise violation, would that -- MS. F ABACHER: From the revisions that I've seen ofthe noise Page 17 Janu~ II 2!08 A ordinance, they're not limiting it to indoor or outdoor, they're just simply saying issuing from an establishment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we want to take the teeth out of that? If anybody is that blatant that they still had problems, everything we can do to shut them down ought to be put into effect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me give you an example. Let's say you had a club. Every time the guy takes the trash out he opens the door and you hear the band, okay? Yet in the front there's a nice passive little seating area, no one's complaining about that. What we're going to do here is yank his seating permit when essentially that's not the cause of his noise ordinance. MS. F ABACHER: Perhaps his -- I think we leave this to the discretion ofthe nuisance board -- sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would certainly make the guy think twice about how often he opens that door when the band's going full blast, and he should deserve to have his permit pulled. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd much rather have him to build a vestibule and stop noise, disturbing the neighbor. But that's -- okay, that's the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on Page 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm on five. Let me double check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's look at the real five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not there yet. I'm almost there. So I must be on six. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, I looked up the Board of County Commissioners versus the BZA in terms of powers and duties, and just want to confirm with you that under 8.02.01(D), their powers and duties, one of them is to act to ensure compliance with development orders or permits as approved and issued. And that was not something that was listed under BZA powers. Page 18 JanuM 112108 A So I'm pretty confident after reading that BCC would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Still on Page 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 6. Any questions on Page 6? Mr. Kolflat had mentioned the corrections to E.1 and 2. Are there any others? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, couple of questions. The D.1, no outdoor serving will be -- entertainment shall be permitted to operate without a -- I guess it means this permit, right? I mean, are you referencing other permits or just this one? Because wouldn't that be kind of self-evident? MS. FABACHER: It's true. We could remove that altogether, if you want. That was just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A guy could say look, I have a permit, go look on my wall, I've got permits from everybody. But that's not what you mean, I don't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can be removed and we have less language in our code. Let's just remove it. So number one can come out. Anything else on Page 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. For some reason we think that if we build a six-foot high wall surrounding an outdoor seating area that that's going to -- what is that achieving? Studying sound, that's not going to stop sound. Is that the intent? If we really wanted to stop sound we would be better off landscaping it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Where is the six-foot wall? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's in E.1, about midway through that. If this was commercial zoning, there's a wall on the property line in the buffering area separating residential, anyway. So I'm really not Page 19 Janua4,6I]2lJ>8 A sure. I know that what happened here is we started out with outdoor seating, went all the way around the entertainment outdoor, and we came back in. I just wondered if this was a vestigial requirement that kind of stuck around. MS. F ABACHER: I believe it is. But also I think we wanted to have the ability to require a sound attenuation device around the outdoor serving area, as opposed to the perimeter of the development. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't. But you're right in the fact that a six-foot high wall isn't going to help with sound. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sound waves will form at the top and that won't stop anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we put a period after the word residential purposes and just drop the rest of it and let it be worked out through the citation as to how it's mitigated. Why do we want to get into the mitigation in this paragraph? Maybe that's the better solution. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, do you follow that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go to the fourth line down on E.I. It says used for residential purposes. Put a period there and strike the rest that talks about mitigation of sound, because it may not be. And let the avenue for mitigation of sound come out as a resolution to reinstate the permit or through the BZA in how they want to recommend resolving the issue. MR. KLATZKOW: The way I read this, if we do that, we're shutting down existing outdoor serving areas. Anything within 1,500 feet of a property line, residential will be shut down. [ think that was the point of requiring the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the concern that Brad is trying to Page 20 JanuJ61J2~8 A express is we're saying that the wall is a sound barrier, and really, it is not. MR. KLA TZKOW: I understand Mr. Schiffer's point. I'mjust saying your solution I think closes down inadvertently a large number of serving areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then where it starts where it says for the purpose of noise reduction, security. Maybe that's what we strike then. Because what you're talking about isn't -- as Brad has pointed out, is not going to be effective noise reduction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it deflects sound, and you could have a berm and it would be high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I was saying, it deflects sound. And I agree that, you know, obviously landscaping will suck up noise better. But if we don't have some barrier there, it will in fact shut people down. So I wouldn't -- I think as long as we don't have a problem with opening up PUDs and causing people to do things inappropriately, I think it's not a bad idea. They also do have fences or walls that do absorb sound. I agree that they may not be high enough in this case. But I don't know, Brad, maybe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron was next, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you put after purposes without a sound attenuation device, wall, whatever would be the broadest and give you the most latitude? MS. F ABACHER: I agree. I think that's where I was headed, if we could say, unless it's separated from the adjacent residential property by a solid, translucent or opaque barrier designed to attenuate sound along its perimeter. COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. Page 21 1.&Jmlll,Ao08 MR. KLATZKOW: There's very little standards there for staff to enforce, though. I think that was the beauty ofthe six-foot wall. It may not achieve a full benefit but at least it achieved a partial benefit. COMMISSIONER CARON: Going forward, your concern is-- MR. KLATZKOW: Simply saying put up something-- COMMISSIONER CARON: All places already in place. We're talking about also going forward. MR. KLATZKOW: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: So while it may work -- a six-foot wall may be the way we have to go for everything that's already in place as of the date of this, maybe you're going to have to separate them out that way and give yourself -- give us more latitude to do real sound attenuation after this for new things that are coming on line. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. This is going to take-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not quite sure. MR. KLATZKOW: Somebody's going to have to sit down with a sound expert and figure that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get something in for today, and we can always tweak as time goes on. Mr. Schiffer, you had a comment, and Catherine after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couple things. First of all, we live in a -- it's kind of an anti-green thing to put a solid wall around people sitting outside. You totally block all their breezes, you really mess up the reason we live in Florida. So we're just guessing here. And the guessing is going to be ending up making people sit in hot boxes in the patio. The concern really is also up in E it is this is outdoor serving -- okay, never mind. So I really think that we're just guessing. Why put people with solid walls around them? MS. FABACHER: We could remove the word solid. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you really introduce a nice Page 22 JanUar61ff8 A sound transmission -- MR. KLATZKOW: You can take out all ofE and we could get to this at a later date or in a different manner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless we know what we're doing. MS. FABACHER: Well, I think we'd like to keep the lighting in two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that in the code, though, that you can't spill lighting onto an adjacent property? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's a redundant one anyway. Here's the thing: Unless we know what we're doing, we want to hire a consultant to tell us how to maintain a nice, green, breezy patio where sound can't get out, let's -- I mean, I'd love to put that requirement on somebody. But otherwise, we're not smart enough to. MS. F ABACHER: I think your last direction was to leave that for the noise ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's if the guy's making noise, he's got a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leave E for the noise ordinance? MS. F ABACHER: Leave the requirements that -- I think at one time we'd written in some requirements that said that you needed to be certified by an acoustical engineer, that you didn't allow 55 dba to go beyond this sound device. Then we said well, that's really more the purview of the noise ordinance and code than this permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with that, as long as it goes somewhere where it's more appropriate, that would be it. MS. F ABACHER: I think that's a good suggestion to strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody agree to defer all of Section E of the noise ordinance? Page 23 Januaryl~~ol A MS. ISTENES: Even number three? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even number three. MS. ISTENES: On Page 7? Yes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Poteet is here. If you don't mind, we can shift horses in midstream and jump into the permitted-- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can I just bring back something else that I brought up before regarding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have to. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, it's regarding notification. Jeff, when we finish this ordinance, how soon will it go into effect? I don't want to end up in a position where we don't have a mailer until November or December and we have to wait eight months before this whole thing comes to be. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry, I was interrupted briefly. Your concern, Commissioner, again is somebody is going to get cited and they won't be aware of the ordinance? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. I was talking about notification. When we finish with this ordinance, it will go into effect when, relatively soon afterwards? MR. KLA TZKOW: It will be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then they're going to be -- what I don't want to happen is them -- you used a May 31 st drop-dead day, or May 30th. I don't want to wind up to the end of the year. Ifwe do tie it into occupational licenses, fine, but that means it won't be until December. Is there some way we could shorten that fuse from May to December? MR. KLA TZKOW: No, they'll be cited as of May, as I understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 24 January 11~JOJ. A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Didn't we decide to move it to the occupation cycle, which would be September? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That will be the end of the year then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, these things can't happen overnight. It's not going to go before the BCC, and by the time they get done doing with what we've done with it, ifthey take half the amount of time we did, it will still be the end ofthe year. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't going to move fast, I can tell. Okay, with that, I'd like to accommodate Mr. Poteet while he's here, and he's here for 5.06.02, permitted signs. Catherine went through and made the corrections or repositioning that we asked her to. Does anybody have any concerns or questions about the permitted sign changes that were submitted? They were supposed to be in uniformity with what we previously reviewed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: ['m comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray is okay, I'm okay, Ms. Caron's okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sorry, guys, I'm trying to do my job. The concern I had is the signs at the intersection, I talked to Bill about it -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This would be Page 4. And what they've essentially done is they've made the sign shorter as you go around the curve within the vision triangle that the road requires, the sign would be below that. My thought was to kind of keep it away from the curb. You can keep the same size sign but keep it about 25 feet back from the start of Page 25 JanuaJ 6, 1018 A the road turn. Bill, I guess, give us your opinion on whether that makes sense or not. MR. POTEET: For the record, Bill Poteet. I'm representing the Naples Area Board of Realtors. Our only concern is visibility of the sign as you're going down the street. If you bring it back into the street 25 feet, I don't know how the landscaping is on that particular lot that's adjacent there, it could obscure the actual sign itself so a person driving down the street would miss it. That's our only concern. Keeping it low to the ground, first of all, the signs, even though it allows 24 inches, there's only about 12 inches of wire frame that goes into the ground. And if they can't get it down to 11 inches, then tough, you take the sign. I think what you have here is a really good change in the Land Development Code and, you know, we're very pleased with it. And before I say anything else, I want to tell you how impressed I am with this board. I happen to sit on another advisory board, and I think my board is one of the best in Collier. But I've watched you guys work all day and you work like dogs, and most people don't appreciate it, but I do. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern, first of all, you're in the right-of-way of the road, so you probably wouldn't have shrubbery there anyway. My concern is just get everything out of the vision triangle so that there wasn't any mistake to somebody putting a taller SIgn. MR. POTEET: See, I can't enforce the For Sale by Owners or other people that are not members of the board of realtors but I can take it back to my organization and we can educate the 5,000-plus real estate professionals in this county of how they're supposed to put the signs out. Then if they do it wrong, code enforcement can yank the Page 26 16 ItA January 11,2008 sign. It's that simple. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, for the board, my only concern was this is a sign that's driven down lower, it's in the sight triangle of the turn where I think if we didn't make a second kind of sign and kept it out of the vision triangle, we'd be better off. But enough said. MR. POTEET: In reality, most of the directional signs you see out there are probably no wider than 12, 14 inches and not the full 24. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments on the permitted sign section? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one more. At the end, Page 6, just add the word temporary in front of open house -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, would you repeat your comment for Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 6, we referenced this ordinance. Remember we added the word temporary in front of open house for the title of it. So just add that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under H? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Under H. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments? It. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to forward 10.02.03 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the comments that we've included in regards to adding the temporary word in the new write-up? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Page 27 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries six to zero. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't think we moved to forward a recommendation on this first one, on outdoor eating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we didn't. We're going to go back to that. You're right, sir. Thank you for reminding me. Thank you, sir. We've discussed a lot of changes to 5.04.07. I think eliminating the biggest change is dropping Section E and moving into the noise ordinance. We dropped the sentence which is D.1, made some changes in language and other areas. Staff, are you comfortable with all the changes that we recommended? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. And I think we changed the date whereby existing facilities need to obtain their permit to September, I think 31 st, I'll check, to coincide with the occupational license cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm comfortable that staff can make those changes and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners effectively, so we don't have to have this come back. I hope the rest are. Is there a motion to recommend approval of such to 5.04.077 Mr. Murray? Janual~' iOi8 ,A Page 28 January 11, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, could we have it available on our consent agenda at the next meeting just for review of the wording? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't an item of -- is this one of the items that fall under that policy? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if you want to bring this back, we'll bring this back. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was just being cute. But that would be nice to see the final order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you just give -- ifMr. Schiffer wants it -- yeah, e-mail it to whoever wants it. I don't need a copy. Okay, all those in favor of the motion as proposed, signifY by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Commissioner, the last thing we have left is Section 10.02.03, submittal requirements for site development plans. This is the one that county attorney's office worked on. And we discussed this at the 16 f 1 I Page 29 January 11,2008 January 9th meeting. And we decided, I believe your directiol~~jtJt A to simplifY it purely to outdoor seating areas, and not to try and anticipate any other non-compatible uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust want to mention-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- thank you for Page 1 on each of them. Did you notice that? MS. F ABACHER: No, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the bottom, every one is Page I. MS. FABACHER: Oh, sorry. Working late on this one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. I understand. MS. F ABACHER: So are there any questions on Page 1 or Page I or Page I? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on Page 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's a further along one. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the true Page 1 is -- let's start with the Page 1 that has the first strike-through and underline on it and go from there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's Page 3. MS. F ABACHER: That's subsection J, I believe we could say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I show up on single I first. Let me know. MS. F ABACHER: I think it's a J that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's a J. I'm just ID-ing where I have -- MS. F ABACHER: And just to remind the commission, this will go in the requirements to submit SDPs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on that first page -- no, the second Page 30 Janua16' rI8 A Page 1, we'll start with the strike-through and the underlines, are there any comments or questions from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to the last Page 1, which is the third page. It's getting hard to follow this. And that has the bulk of the underlined sections being added. We're looking for any comments on that particular page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Single I, Jeff, you're stating that they can refuse approval of the site development plan. Can't we just refuse the use within that plan? In other words, if you have a big something or other and one of the uses, as I questioned, why are we shutting down the whole site development plan? Why aren't we just focusing on that use? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be fine, if that's the pleasure of the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think one of the things, other parts of community development is trying to do is avoid stopping, you know, the whole project over minutia. If there's an argument over one of the uses in, let's say, a shopping center, there's no reason to not let the rest of the shopping center pass through and they can catch up with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, does your team have any comment to that? MR. SCHMITT: No. I'm just trying to follow the logic. I know you're basically asking would we reject the entire SDP. But we don't review SDPs from the standpoint of approving some portion of it and rejecting others. It's either -- we make rejection comments. And is that COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, take the case, I have a shell Page 31 Januaf 11,2008 building, I have mercantile uses. One of the things I put is I wa~ In 1 A assembly use on the end, I show some outdoor seating, we're smart enough to not question that. Can't we go with the rest of the shopping center, just not allow that assembly use? In other words, you could approve it not allowing that. Obviously I would come back later anyway for a full permit, so not kill the site development plan over the -- MR. SCHMITT: If it's one submittal, I still have to reject it through a comment, a rejection comment. I could reject with a stipulation that it's -- or I could approve with a stipulation noting that it's rejected. Probably not, if that was that significant of a comment to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you apply concurrency for traffic and parking and other things to the overall PUD that will be affected by this one use, depending on how it would change? MR. SCHMITT: That's a good question. That's pretty much why I would reject the entire SOP and tell them to remove that and resubmit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a better hammer to have the whole SDP at stake to comply quickly and figure out a solution than it is to let them linger on that one issue indefinitely. So we might want to just leave it like it is. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think it will try and keep them from trying to slide something through or trying to put something where it doesn't belong right up front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any further comments on that? Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. Staff reviewed this this morning and they'd like from review's approval to deny approval where it's used in both terms. Because that's generally more the term we use, deny Page 32 JanuT'61r 108 A approval. If that's okay. That would be in small I and small two, deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is it's only with having negative effects against the adjacent residential. I mean, could there be negative effects against the school, a church, something else, or do we only want it to be limited to residential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's just the opposite with schools and churches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be the other way around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now we're trying to attack one problem, and let's work on one problem. If others come up, we can always expand on the language. I'm kind of curious. We talked about criteria for limiting staff's ability to exercise their discretion as to, you know, on outdoor seating, which I think this now has changed to. But outdoor entertainment, amplified sound and hours of operation, I don't see any ofthat in here. I thought that was part of what was going to come back. COMMISSIONER SCHfFFER: That was on the other one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that was on the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, it wasn't there either. I thought it was this one. MS. ISTENES: It's this one, and it's kind of squished in J there. It says outdoor serving areas shall be explicitly detailed. And then it goes on to say hours of operation, whether or not live performance music, amplified will be provided as entertainment and approximate distances for residential zoning within 2,500 feet. It's in there. I'm not sure it's entirely clear. That's one ofthe caveats upon which we'll be evaluating this -- or those uses. You see what I'm saying? I don't know that it's really explicit. It's kind of just muddled in within the entire paragraph. Page 33 Jam!rt,11, r08 A I would myself be a little more comfortable making it more explicit, that outlining the four conditions in which we're going to then evaluate and possibly reject or require -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J, single I, I would suggest you run another indent and do four bullets, call them whatever you have to, little A, B, C, D and E, and list the criteria for which it would cause you to be able to exercise your discretion, and that is if there's outdoor seating, if there's outdoor entertainment with amplifYed sound, and if the hours of operation are beyond those allocated in the noise ordinance, I then would assume. So that would provide you levels of discretion to which you could open it up and maybe give you guys some cover that way. MS. ISTENES: That was the intent. I just don't think it's clearly written that way. And I think the way you suggest we organize it will work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any thoughts on that from the rest of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I like the idea that it represents a hammer and I like what Brad wants to do, which I appreciate. Nevertheless, I think it's good to get it done, force the issue, make it clear. Under three I, there's a very minor error on the first line. It could be a, or letter A, as opposed to an. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this particular 10.02.03? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval with the stipulations that we added, discretionary criteria? And I think, Brad, you had a couple of changes that you recommended. Well, one in particular was the instead of refuse, it Page 34 would be deny, or staff brought that up. Is there anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None of my stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, is there a recommendation to approve 10.02.03 to move forward to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All those in favor, signifY by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Wow. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you Commissioners, from my part. I think you did a great job of straightening out all these different amendments and putting them together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just glad we finished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next cycle starts next week? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just about. I'm sure glad we got through with Cycle 2 of 2007. That has to be the longest cycle I've ever experienced since I've been on this board. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's amazing how one oversight from years ago created all this work, time and effort. January 11,2008 16 rIA Page 35 Jan191t 100sA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that I think we're done with the Land Development Code Cycle 2 amendments and we will -- is there a motion to adjourn? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust wanted to make a comment. I looked over the consent agenda, whatever you want to call it, the thing that we're going to get for next week having to do with Myrtle Woods. And I think it covers what our intent was, everything is good. And I think the BCC is really going to appreciate that they can see something in detail and we can see it in detail. So thank you for the work. MR. SCHMITT: I just wanted to let the planning commissioners know that there are two candidates for the vacant position that will be going to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday. And hopefully, Tuesday we have one of those candidates selected and we'll then contact that individual to get -- whichever one it is to get him oriented and get him here to assist you in your deliberations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. And with that, we'll ask for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by myself. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We're out of here. ***** Page 36 Janrg Y'jOOSA There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ! f I . / / t t '(L:~ C i/ / /v;r+kt/-"-:, MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on presented i/ or as corrected (-. // "J' t '{- I - t.,. ~ , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 37 January 11,2008 I")C' , ::'":-r\ . ~ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE 1"611. '~A ~\~t:OLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. . Fiala -~--- N I FI.d Halas ./ ?;;~~--_. ap es, on a 2~rEt:g~:=~pc January 11, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney ( absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Susan Istenes, Planning Manager Catherine Fabacher, LDC Coordinator Misc. Corres: Date 3.2.5 B item#J(o leA) Q to Page 1 Janua1 ~, for A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the January 11th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a continuation of a meeting we started last month, last year, on the Cocohatchee settlement agreement that was remanded back to the planning commission by the Board of County Commissioners. And will you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please take the roll call. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. Item #3 Page 2 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Janua1. (1' fOj8 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. We only have one item on the agenda today, but there is an item of old or new business, depending on how you want to look at it. I think Mr. Klatzkow has produced a draft of the consent policy. Jeff, is that something that you're prepared to discuss with us today? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I'm prepared to discuss it today. I thought we'd do it after Cocohatchee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I just wanted to make sure that it was okay. And then we'll probably close this meeting and reopen the continuation of the LDC Cycle Two to finish up the documents that we got last night that are basically clean-up from Wednesday. So that will take us through today's agenda. Item #5 and Item #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOT A V AILABLE AT THIS TIME BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are no approval of minutes, recaps, nothing like that. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning commission absences. Our next regular meeting is next Thursday. The packet went out day before yesterday, so hopefully you'll all get it probably today at the latest, if Page 3 Janu~ 11 ~08 A you already haven't. Everybody intend on planning on being here for that meeting? Okay. Item #8A LODGE ABBOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC (CONTINUED FROM 12/13/2007) FOR THE COCOHATCHEE BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will take us into the advertised public hearing, which is the settlement agreement discussion. The last time we started working through a sheet of paragraphs, discussion item by item, some couldn't be discussed because we had received new information that day and we wanted time to read it. Since then, the county attorney, Mr. Klatzkow, has -- or should I call him Mr. Kolflat, I'll figure it out -- has provided us with a draft of his synopsis of the changes that occurred at that meeting to the settlement agreement. And what I'd like to do, unless this board has another suggestion, is to go back to the beginning of that settlement agreement draft that Mr. Klatzkow provided and work our way through that, just simply to acknowledge that there's an agreement between the applicant and us as to the language that's been modified. And once we get past those, we know those are put to bed, we can move on to the things we haven't done. At least we'll just start in order in that agreement. Last thing I would like to ask is a reminder from Mr. Klatzkow as to the purpose oftoday's meeting which, again, it was to -- my understanding was that we remanded this from the BCC, specifically look at the settlement agreement and what it entails and its relationship to the former PUD or the current PUD and/or the Land Page 4 Januari~, 10f A Development Code. Mr. Klatzkow, any comment on that? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, the board directed that the planning commission review the settlement agreement in context ofthe PUD, the discussions before the board with respect to the settlement, as well as existing Land Development Code regulations. And basically it's just to limit this to the land uses of the development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that everybody remembers that as we go through. Because there are a lot of issues we could get into but they aren't issues that we were asked to get into. And I really wouldn't want this board to start becoming a -- micromanaging the SDP fine print and stufflike that. We need to look at it in relationship to the settlement agreement. So with that in mind, if you all will turn to the draft settlement agreement that Mr. Klatzkow sent to us. We'll start on Page 1. Everybody have that in front of them? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There isn't any changes that are being suggested to Page 1. There's some introductory statements. On Page 2 we have the first changes. Basically the substance of that one is a third whereas clause on the page. There's some strikethrough language, and then the balance of the whereas clause discussing the bald eagle management plan was deferred until such time as today when we get through that plan. Anybody have any problem with the changes made on Page 2? The applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Other than it may relate back to this when we discuss the bald eagle management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what I think the note refers to. On Page 3, same reference to the bald eagle management plan, Page 5 JanuaJI (}' rOf8 A but there's a large strikethrough section. And then a reference in italicized bold about our recommendation. BCC's final approval ofthe settlement agreement to take place at a minimum no sooner than the county's issuance of pre approval letters of the subject SDPs. Now, I see that's in here, and I know it's referenced by Mr. Klatzkow. Jeff, is that -- I didn't see the language incorporated into the paragraph. Is that something that's not going to be done until the BCC gets it, or -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think that probably is just a recommendation by the board to the BCC. I think that's how you guys discussed this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that whatever -- I understood. Because I went through and found a lot of this bold italicized areas. MR. KLATZKOW: Those are recommendations, not necessarily to the agreement itself but to what you would recommend to the board, transmitting the settlement agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a possibility, so that -- we're going to have to probably come back on this another time, because I know everything isn't here today that can be approved -- that we could have a strikethrough and underlined version with our language incorporated into it? Only because I think if the BCC wanted to see how it fit into the paragraph, and us too, I don't know where or how you'd fit that in, actually. So I'm wondering if that's a productive way to -- MR. KLATZKOW: Again, if instead of making the recommendations to the board you'd prefer it to be within the settlement agreement itself, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we make the recommendations as a strikethrough and underline, I think it gets the same impact. But then it shows them how it flows into the agreement and shows us too before it goes to them. Page 6 Janu~~1 "f08 A MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's -- and as far as the strikethrough on Page 3, Ms. Caron, you had a comment, and then Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a question. Of the SDPs that you have, Mr. Schmitt, are the boat docks on there in any way? MR. SCHMITT: All the boat docks have been removed offthe SDP. COMMISSIONER CARON: From all of those numbered -- the three numbered SDPs that are listed here. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct. Ijust wanted-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are the ones we have-- MR. SCHMITT: The ones that you have but they're -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I wanted that corrected on-- MR. SCHMITT: There are some boardwalk areas that could be related to future docks that are outside the boundary of the SDP or the construction area, and we've also asked to have those removed as well. So the petitioner's aware of that and is certainly aware that any discussion or any construction related to the boat docks is an argument for another day, I guess, or a petition for another day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, did you have any objections to the strikethrough language on this page? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're talking about revisions to paragraph three? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no objection. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: IfI could, if you could just make a note, you discussed about strikethrough and underlined version of the PUD, that Page 7 JanuaJ.ye,If2f8 A we get specific guidance for the next meeting. So if you could just make that, we'll cover that at the end of the meeting. I don't want to digress now, but I want to make sure we meet your needs and your requirements as to what you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had it as a note and I appreciate you reminding me, because at some point today we all need to discuss the best way in which this could be portrayed. I think what Mr. Schmitt is talking about is we typically see a strikethrough and underlined of a PUD so that when the recordation occurs staff has got a PUD ordinance number to go to and not have to realize there's a settlement agreement out there somewhere that's not in line with an ordinance number of a PUD. Otherwise, it will be like another Stevie Tomatoes or something else where the meaning and context gets lost because all the documents are not readily available. MR. SCHMITT: I just heard you mention that, and I want to make sure that's on an item to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on to Page 4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, before we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer, and then we'll go back to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At the last meeting, we were referenced that there were resubmitted SDPs. The only thing I got were some eight-and-a-halfby lis showing some changes that were made to the SDP. Does that reflect what was in the resubmitted SDPs? MR. SCHMITT: Basically, what you have is what we received. We have not received amendments, and we need to discuss that also at the end of this meeting as to how you wish to proceed. The applicant has a list of, I'll call them rejection notes, and I think it's the expectation of the applicant and, as of now, staff as well, is that that list, they will take and make all the needed corrections. Page 8 JanulA I, 7108 A And I guess hope is a method here, hopefully that will conclude and meet all the requirements for both staff and, I'll call it your review that you're conducting for the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we would want to do, since the SDPs are referenced as into this agreement, once the SDPs respond to what occurs today and what had occurred at the last meeting in response to staffs questions, and everything is consistent and understood, we ought to be issued the final, final set, subject to anything that's in the settlement agreement. Because obviously the staff cannot approve items in the SDPs that are subject to the settlement agreement until the settlement agreement is approved. So I think we'll at the minimum have another meeting. It may be a short meeting, but just to make sure that the final SDP has the consistency that everybody was told and thought it would have pursuant to today's meeting. So that's a clean-up item I thought we would want to go through at least, and any lingering items after today's meeting that are still outstanding. Okay, on Page 4. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did have a revision on Page 3. It's to paragraph four. It's in paragraph four. You'll see it says, in instance the substantial amendment to the EIS. It should be a substantial amendment to the SDP. Because it's a change to the SDP that triggers the need to do another EIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a second, let me read that paragraph then, Richard. Well, I think this is the problem that I discussed last time. If you have a -- if you limit your substantial amendments to an SDP only to those wetland impacts, then all the other triggers for a substantial amendment to the SDP don't kick in. And that was a concern, because there's a whole -- I provided a list of them in that paper I passed out. Page 9 You see item five. And I don't know if you've looked at that since the last meeting, but I think that was the basis that we discussed this paragraph on. And I don't think we can allow only a change to the wetland impacts of an EIS, or the wetland impacts to be the sole reason to trigger a substantial amendment to the SDP. Now, we discussed this last time. I didn't think there was a problem with it. I thought -- Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: I can fix that. If you added language starting with F in the fourth line after substantially amended, you could say with respect to the sole instance a substantial amendment to the SDP shall remain. And that just limits it to the EIS issue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Mr. Strain, my understanding was we're not trying to get out of what triggers an SDP amendment. We understand that there could be other things beyond impacting wetlands. What we're talking about in this paragraph is unless we do more impact of wetlands, the EIS we did in which all these SDPs have been approved doesn't have to be amended. It's just an EIS paragraph, not an SDP paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. Ijust wanted to make sure, because it was a separate sentence and it didn't seem to be as closely tied to the EIS, that someone couldn't construe it to mean more than what the intent was. And I asked for clarification. And I think the clarification that got here may not have moved it into the right direction. But Mr. Klatzkow is suggesting some others, and maybe before -- and Mr. Murray, you had something? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Swearing in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so, but I'll ask. Do you have a comment, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I was going to say, I think it does exactly that, the way it's stated now, Mr. Y ovanovich, doesn't it? January 11, 2008 1611 A Page 10 Janiae 11'lOf;8A MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, because we don't amend the EIS, we amend the SOP by moving things around. Let me read some language, and maybe this will make it clear. This is the sentence we would add. The existing environmental impact statement does not need to be amended unless the SOPs are revised to increase wetland impacts beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, read it one more time. And do you have it to put up? Because I think you may actually have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, this isn't -- I don't believe this is quasi-judicial. Do we need any swearing in for this meeting? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You did the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did we? No? MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not quasi-judicial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember if we did last time or not? Did we? COMMISSIONER CARON: It involves a legal settlement agreement, why wouldn't we do it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we will. As soon as we get done with this question we'll ask Cherie' to swear everybody in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would have assumed, since this is a continuation, our oath was still continued, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're still swearing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we're still under oath, as ajudge would say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if that's legally binding, we'll just ask people if they have comments besides those that may have been here the first time, if they were sworn in the first time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if you all can read that, but let me read it again just so everybody can. The existing environmental Page 11 Januffi l' 2}08 A impact statement, EIS, does not need to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impact beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by more than five percent. So that will make it very clear it's just the EIS we're addressing in this paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's works. Does anybody else have any concerns? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the applicant accepts it, staff -- and the panel accepts it. No other comments, that one will be added. Okay, we're on Page 4. There's an italicized reference. And I think that needs -- as Jeff had indicated earlier, that will now be incorporated into specific language as a strikethrough and underline. And on paragraph six, there's a change, a strikethrough and an addition. Anybody have any concerns, questions about that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I had suggested and said ofthe approval, use the word execution by the parties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, isn't-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Until the board signs it, it's not really approved. And if they're -- so that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So ifit says the approval-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't want anybody to say Rich, your clock ran on the date the board motioned to approve, and it took them 10 days later to sign it. Not that it takes that long, we just wanted to make sure that the clock starts when the board signs the agreement, if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that. Basically it says within 15 days of the execution of the settlement agreement. Is that -- Page 12 Janumi B, '018 A MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, did you follow that? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, he wants execution instead of settlement agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of approval. MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't know that there's a difference, and I don't fight when there's no difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's reasonable, I would say. So 4 is okay with everybody. Let's move on to Page 5, paragraph seven at the top of the page, same kind of issue. I'm assuming that the reference to the approval there will be until the execution of this agreement would be filled in? Is that -- Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. One suggestion might be at the end put a standard effective date paragraph. And then just we'll put any references there to the effective date, if that's acceptable to Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: I put a standard paragraph in all my settlement agreements that this agreement will be effective as of board approval, which is going to be at the board meeting, that date. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would change the date to board execution of the settlement -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's right, that will be the execution date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then we could take care of all of those, everything will move from that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On paragraph eight, this is changes we talked about last time. Doesn't include some -- the italicized changes that are noted below, but we'll get another draft that will reflect that. Everybody in concurrence with the changes that are already in eight, the highlighted underlined changes so far? (No response.) Page 13 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not in agreement or you're okay? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: This paragraph we're talking about number eight? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is this where we should start the discussion on passive uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does -- on the bottom of the page under the highlighted section, yes, that begins the discussion of passive uses and continues on to Page 6. So basically I believe we received a document listing all the passive uses suggested by the applicant. And I also know there was an e-mail around suggesting that the development standards used for those passive recreational uses were those of5.4 of the PUO. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So based on those two things, that's how we should be looking at the issues included in passive recreational uses. Any comments -- Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: My only concern on that is the term passive recreation areas. I think we already have in the LDC -- and I'm not sure, I'm looking back at Bill and Barbara -- we have something called passive recreation. And I do not want to make -- I want to make sure there's no confusion or -- because passive recreation is entirely different in the LOC. It's basically walking paths and very, I'll call it, low intensity type of recreational activities. And that list included many activities which are beyond what we Janu'f 61}2}08 A Page 14 January 11,2008 would call passive recreation. So I'm concerned about using~BtlJrd. A Also, there are residential units in this portion of the PUD, and I think we need to add residential units to that list. Bill, do you have any comments on -- or Barbara? I don't -- I would really prefer we call -- and I got into this discussion last time. I'd prefer we find some other word for that. Call it uses outside or in the designated golf course area or whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. SCHMITT: If you could indulge the staff on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got more to go on it, so -- we've got a lot of discussion on this before this gets over. Ms. Caron had a question before Barbara. COMMISSIONER CARON: Currently in the PUD it says passive parks and passive recreation areas. That's language -- and boardwalks, out of the current PUD. MR. SCHMITT: And I'm fine with calling it that, as long as I specifY what it means for this specific PUD -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. MR. SCHMITT: -- and that it doesn't conflict with any other interpretation of passive recreation areas as used in the GMP. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's my question, is what are we considering and have we always considered to be passive recreation and passive park uses? MR. SCHMITT: Let me turn to Barbara on that. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with engineering and environmental services. The definition that's in the Land Development Code that identifies passive recreation as really just nature trails, preserve areas, wildlife sanctuaries, things with -- that allow pervious trails through paths, bird watching, things of that nature, has always been the staffs interpretation of passive uses of an area, passive recreational uses, which is why when we put that language in the LDC that's how we Page 15 Janulh ~ 108 A wrote that out. But one of the things I was concerned about, clearly the list here of passive recreational uses goes substantially beyond anything at all that we have or would ever have intended passive recreational uses to be. So I was looking at this language and would suggest that instead of calling that list passive recreational uses that you call that acceptable alternate uses outside the platted boundary of the gopher tortoise preserve. Because you're still going to have a platted gopher tortoise preserve that is not a passive recreational area. And these things would not be permitted within the boundary of the gopher tortoise preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the definition of the LDC that we could see? MR. SCHMITT: I don't have it. I'm looking it up on Municode right now. So I can read it as soon as I get to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll be to it before you are. I'm scrolling down now, Joe. Okay, it's not in the definitions section. So where did we hide it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not sure there's one that exists today. I think there's one going through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just heard that there is a definition for passive recreation. So now I want to see it. Otherwise, why were we told there was one? MR. SCHMITT: Barbara, is there an amendment proposal for passive recreation? MS. BURGESON: I know that we have a definition, and I thought it was in the LDC. I thought it -- maybe it's in the GMP or the Land Development Code. But we've been working on a definition for passive recreational uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, lacking that here today, we don't have a definition. Page 16 JanJa(, *,}008A MR. SCHMITT: We don't. It was-- MS. BURGESON: I thought we had that in the last LDC cycle-- MR. SCHMITT: We did, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can't talk over one another. MS. BURGESON: It wouldn't be in the current Municode, because it wouldn't have been up on the web site yet. So let me call back to Catherine and see if I can get a -- MR. SCHMITT: I believe we discussed it, and that recommendation was withdrawn during the last cycle, I believe. It's not in the Municode. MR. KLATZKOW: That's my recollection as well. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, that we got into a discussion on passive recreation and the definition was withdrawn. MS. BURGESON: I'll check the GMP, if it's in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, lacking the fact there is no definition, we need to approach this in that manner. So this is a project that's going to stand on its own. This listing will only apply to this project, just like we look at other uses in a project that are in a commercial area and they're offensive to us, if there are issues here that are problematic, we need to put them on the table and discuss it. I mean, boardwalks, bicycle paths, environmental uses, flower beds, golf cart paths. I mean, where on this list -- there are some I think might be problematic. But let's start with the rest of you. Is there an issue on this list that bothers anybody? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I just tell you where we started from? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because where we started from was if the golf course goes away, what uses would be acceptable to the neighbors around us, keeping in mind we could have two residences and/or these types of uses adjacent to them. And we looked at uses Page 17 Jaiary 11,2008 that we believed were not noise generators, if you will, as fa~ a! latA would be passive. And that's why -- you know, hopefully that's the context in which we're going to review this, because we believe that was the concerns of the neighbors, is having a lot of people around them making a lot of noise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, let's go down to water parks. If you really want fountains, say fountains, but don't say water parks. Otherwise I'm looking at North Naples -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's why we tried to clarifY that, by saying the fountains and pathways. If you want to put fountains and pathways -- for instance, the county has -- I don't even know what they're calling on Goodlette-Frank Road, you know the -- now as you're heading on Golden Gate Parkway, you have that off-ramp, if you will, that gets you onto Goodlette-Frank Road, I think the county calls that a water park. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Water park. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They call it a water park. And that's clearly a passive water park. And that's what we were intending, distinguished clearly from the North Naples Regional Park where you have those water features. So we -- you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, let's -- I certainly agree with Ms. Caron that that term is too encompassing. But let's start from the top, we'll work our way through each one, because there may be others with more questions and I want to make sure that everybody acknowledges that every one of these is what we intended. Boardwalks. Anybody have a problem with boardwalks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bicycle paths? Page 18 Janutye 112j08 A (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Environmental uses, parentheses, wetlands and conservation areas? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Flower beds? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Golf cart paths? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pathways and/or bridges? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Handicap ramps? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Equestrian uses and trails? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fitness trails and shelters? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hiking and nature trails? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Open space drainage systems? Now, Richard, I had a question on that one. Open space drainage systems require a lot of clearing, excavating, and they're basically a lot of wide expansive open space. What would you -- I can't imagine you would want open space drainage systems there for anything but to service the uses on that property . COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would want to make sure you're limited to that so you're not clearing a lot of area to create drainage systems for other areas that could have higher intensity. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm checking with the engineer to make sure that whatever lakes are going to be on that side of the road are not necessarily serving just that side of the road. Page 19 January 11,2008 I don't know. 16 II A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Some of those drainage lakes and drainage facilities will be serving our properties to the north. Not us, but off-site properties to the north, drainage that's coming through the site today. So it's not just limited to -- after we build a golf course, it's not limited just to the golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're accepting drainage from some off-site properties? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have to ifit passes through the property . And also, those are uses that are already in the preserve district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that, but what happens is if the golf course goes away and this becomes -- I just don't want you providing some commercially usable open space for drainage that other projects could use to an extent that goes beyond what would normally be used in that area. And that's my only concern. I'm looking at worst case scenario. If you had said excavation for fill, I would want to make sure it was fill only to the extent needed on that property and things like that. It's the same kind of scenario. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it needs to be related to the permitting of our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Required for the permitting of the project, how's that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That qualifies it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, as we need for the permitting of our project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good qualification. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It certainly wasn't intended to provide drainage for any vacant parcels around us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next one is parking lots. Ms. Caron? Page 20 January 11, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, somehow we neeJ 16 ,*fj1e A that. I mean, I understand that if you decide to do a canoe dock here that you're going to want to have some parking or you will be required to have some parking. However, this should not -- this -- somehow it's got to be defined so we don't end up with a parking garage or a parking structures or the entire thing as a parking lot. MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about parking lots for any use within this section? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, our next one is playgrounds. So -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If we need a parking lot for the playground, it would be an allowed use, by way of example. COMMISSIONER CARON: So there will be no limit on this playground. This entire parcel could become a playground with associated parking? That's hardly what green open space was to the community . Again, I'm getting back to what you talked to the community about, was green open space, not a series of jungle gyms with associated parking. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just strike playgrounds and that solves the problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we strike playgrounds. We hadn't gotten to that one yet, but I -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. The first time we've ever been told not to provide facilities to children that might utilize the project, but we'll strike that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Y ovanovich, please don't be flippant about this -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't mean to be. I apologize. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I am concerned about this, because you have not a small little corner of a PUD that you're going Page 21 January 11,2008 to stick a jungle gym on, we are talking now about a golf cou!~ I 1 A property. And ifit goes away, then you have -- you're trying to get rights for other things. So let's get back to the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I apologize, I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're down the list, we're on parking lots. The applicant's agreed to limit the parking lots for any use within this section. The playgrounds were pointed out as a concern for parking lots. They've agreed to strike playgrounds. Is that okay with everybody? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not that I have an expectation you'd have all of these elements in the same time. These are, I would think, pick and choose type of things. But let's say for the sake of argument you had a lot of these things, a lot, or maybe all. You'd have to have parking to facilitate each one of those. Wouldn't that be a significant amount of parking in open space that you intend? Did I make myself clear to you, sir? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I understand. If we have these uses, whatever the code requires for parking we'll have to provide for parking -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In sum then, if the totality of these uses were all expected to be there, we'd have a heck of a lot of parking, I would think. Is that your intent, do you think, to have all of these uses simultaneously? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we're going to fit all of these uses on the property. This is a laundry list of things that might happen on the piece of property. I don't think this is going to be a wall-to-wall developed piece of property which will result in a huge parking area built on that particular piece of property. And we're talking about what are the potential passive uses on this piece of property. And in response, and I apologize for the way I Page 22 Janua7li'f~8 A phrased it, I never envisioned that this 100 or 100-plus-acre parcel of property would be 100 percent playground, even though that's a list on there, nor do I expect it to be 100 percent sidewalk. That's the kind -- I think there will be these -- there were going to be some small playground areas. We struck that. But yes, there might be some. Let's look through the list that might require parking area -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before we go too far, let's try-- maybe we can put this in a better perspective. Whatever you put on this property, you don't have the ability to open it up to the public and make a commercial enterprise out of it. So the only way you're going to recoup any income off this is for it to be an amenity to the people who buy in these five high-rises. High-rises, I expect, are not going to be cheap. You've got I don't know how many units now, 580 or something like that. So where would the monetary incentive be for you to create units and facilities here greater than what could be used for those five towers? Would you be limiting the use of this property -- it is limited to what's part of the project. So it would have to be limited to the towers across the street. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the only real example -- remember, the golf course isn't just limited to the 590 units. We could have members who are outside ofthat 590 units. The only one I could think that might be open to the public and not an amenity purely to the residential is an equestrian center, okay. So I don't want to mislead the planning commission to say that the equestrian center would be just for the 590, I believe it is, condominium units. But again, that is a -- remember, this is a big piece of property that is going to still be green, you know. You might have a barn with some horses in it and people from the general public coming to use that equestrian center. But it's -- you know, it could be a good use for the property. Page 23 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, please understand that if this golf course fails, this developer still owns that golf course. They can, if we don't get the right covenants on this piece of property, sell it for an equestrian center. They don't have to sell it for an amenity to the five towers. They don't have to use it for an amenity for the five towers. So this list is extremely important. It is not as simple as saying no matter what happens these -- the uses will only affect the five towers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was asking the question. I was not -- I wanted to understand the application. And I think he provided me the answer for that, which you're now expounding on. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just continuing on that vein. As you envisioned it, as an example, and I'm not trying to pin you down, but would that be a club membership to an equestrian activity, or does it become a commercial activity? And I know you're trying to answer a general question with some examples, I'm not trying to pin you down too far. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer is I don't know how we'll have access to that. But keep in mind, this is a use that you find in places in the urban area. They're going away, but you do find places in the urban area, for instance, in the Pine Ridge community. If you go up Goodlette-Frank Road and you take the first left in, you'll see two smaller equestrian centers that, you know, you have barns, you have horses stabled there, and it's -- I think they rent out the stables, but I don't know ifthere's a membership club. I used to take my kids riding there. But we envision something like that. Obviously we have more acreage than those five-acre parcels. So we envision something like that, that ifthe golf course doesn't work, what would be an appropriate Janrg li,!008A Page 24 Janua~~,/2fJ!8 A mechanism for the owner of that property to recover some of his investment in that land. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But remember, we started out with the idea of parking. And so it's important to think about what the implications of that might be if you're going to open it up to everybody to come and ride horses. So I guess that we should revert to the aspect of parking then, I suppose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where we left off, on parking. But it looks like there's a question now on the equestrian uses and trails. Are there concerns in that regard? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think it's a good idea, personally. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a problem with it, as long as the parking doesn't become excessive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you're making a lot of statements. If you have something you want to define, throw it on the table, let's talk about it then. If you've got a concern about the parking, how would you suggest limiting it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think I can make remarks about things, so maybe I'm thinking out loud, too. But how would I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You should make remarks. All I'm saying is if you have a concern, let's not pass it by, let's get it over with so we don't afterwards say well, you know, we didn't mean that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not necessarily in a position to be able to make that determination right now, because I'm looking at these things and I'm saying if we -- perhaps the best approach might be a percentage. I don't know. This is an issue that I think bears some qualification, and I'm not necessarily competent to do that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If we allow them certain uses with the property if the golf course goes away, they're going to need Page 25 Janu't61,2~08 A some parking related to the specific uses as required. I don't think that it makes sense then to put a parking lot larger than what's required for their specific uses. If they do put an equestrian center up, whatever the LDC requires as parking spaces required, that's what they'll put. They'll put the minimum, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it would be parking lots as acquired by code for any use within this section. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Perfect. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, actually, let's get back to the actual paragraph eight. And what paragraph eight says is that the residential-- sorry, the golf course shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in paragraph 5.3. And that's what we started out talking about were the uses listed in 5.3. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And now we're expanding on them well beyond what is listed in 5.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, wait a minute. No, the reason this got into the question we're now getting into is we talked specifically about that last time. And under 5.3.A, principal uses one, it says passive parks and passive recreational areas, boardwalks. And I made notes, and it says what is considered passive. And that's what we're trying to answer here today, what is meant in 5.3.A.l that says passive parks and passive recreational areas. There is no definition, we discovered. We've asked for a definition so we could do just what we're doing today, is discuss it. If some of these are objectionable, let's strike them. COMMISSIONER CARON: While equestrian uses may be granted, I don't see them as passive. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed, but I certainly don't see them as passive. But -- Page 26 JanuaJ6.10~ A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I guess that's in the eyes of the beholder. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but I can tell you for sure, I know there's other people that would consider riding a horse on a quiet trail in the woods being passive. So -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We're not talking about a two-acre piece. This is a 100-acre piece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Why don't we look at this in the light of what's going to -- which one of these uses, regardless of whether we think individually it's passive or not, could harm the neighborhood against the intent of which this whole thing started out. So in that light -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Process of elimination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that light, let's keep moving down. First of all, is everybody content that equestrian uses and trails would not be negatively impacting to the neighborhood? Are we there -- we passed that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're all the way down to parking lots. And we've already suggested that we limit the parking lots to that as required by code for the specific uses within this particular section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Statement. Could we just stay supporting the existing uses? Because here's the thing, is that the code has a requirement. A good designer would actually add a little more than the requirement. So I wouldn't want them to be restrained from being able to do that. So can't we word it just to support the uses on the site only? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we get into an ambiguous term when you go out past the code, what is support. Someone might say that 200 spaces or more support when the code requires 100. Page 27 Janua~~,b.t8 A Would that be acceptable? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doesn't the code have in there that if you put so much parking past the required amount you have to get the approval of the administrator or something? There is something in the code to that effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, there is a-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think that's kind of what that's intending to do is somebody to build a hot dog stand and have 500 cars and running a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I only think it kicks in when you get to a high number of spaces. I remember that being added years ago. I was not on the planning commission but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is that if somebody prudently wants to add a couple more parking places, I wouldn't want that clause to restrict them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the panel have a concern over changing the word from requirements of the code to parking to support the uses within this section? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Why don't you say required by code to support the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then we're right back to what Brad is now objecting to. So it's either -- Brad wants to take out the part required by code because he feels that design-wise somebody may want to have more parking spaces because the code is a minimum. Does anybody else have any comments on that or objections to it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, could that not also be less than the parking that they would be required -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, you've got to have the mlmmum -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's a minimum of and it Page 28 Jarf(i' l:eOO~ could be better. I suppose in this particular thing it's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other concerns? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the parking will be in support of any use within this section. Playgrounds. Any concerns about the playgrounds. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I like the fact that they have them, so can't we just waylay Donna's concern, just limit a cumulative area of, let's say, two acres or something? Meaning that if they spot them all over the site you can't add up more than two acres of it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Maximum two acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The kids don't have a voice on this committee. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Maximum two acres, total, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sidewalks? Tree surrounds? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What exactly is a tree surround, Mark? I imagine a little rock wall with a couple of trees coming out of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're dealing with a lot of things that don't have definitions, so -- you want a tree surround, Richard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that would be good to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, you're going to have to wait to be recognized because it's too hard for the court reporter to take our names down when we talk without being recognized. So please. Page 29 JyUary 11,2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, let's just take it ou~ Jeclusd1 don't really know what it means either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Underground drainage? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Water parks we already talked about. Basically we have pathways up above, so water parks would be substituted with fountains. Is that fine with everyone? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. Am I striking pathways here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, because it's up above. Lakes. Got to have lakes for water drainage. Everybody okay with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boat, non-motorized, and canoe docks? Anybody -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kayak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And kayak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fishing piers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guardhouses, gate houses and access control structures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this one's a beauty, community and neighborhood passive parks. Would you please define passive parks? I mean, you're putting right back in the definition that we're looking to define. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Honestly, if you look at A.l, the first word is passive parks, and we weren't asked to define that one, so we thought everybody was comfortable with what a passive park was, it was recreational uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then it's community neighborhood parks, passive parks with passive recreational uses Page 30 JanuJ,61J2~8 A subject to this section. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't a community park -- I think that has a designation that Parks and Recreation uses for community parks. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are size issues, they're not use issues. What we were saying -- let's say for instance we decide to give this area to the county as a passive park, and the county wants to take it. Do we have to go amend the PUD to have a community or neighborhood passive park open up to the general public? That was the intent. It's still going to be a passive park. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't think you wanted to open it up to the community in general. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, we're looking for alternatives that can happen in the future. County says they love this area as a passive park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read the park neighborhood, which is one of the items here. A public park owned and maintained by Collier County which is intended to serve the needs of the local community and is located within the Estates zoning district or any residential zoning district or residential component of a PUD, is comprised of no more than five acres of land, access to which is provided through non-vehicular means, with no on-site parking facilities, provides only basic park facilities and amenities such as but not limited to sidewalks, non-air conditioned shelters, bike racks, drinking fountains and playground equipment. So if you were to do a neighborhood passive park, you would have to limit it to that definition section, I would assume. Is that acceptable? Page 31 Jan~ IP'lo08A MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gazebos? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Picnic areas? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wildlife sanctuary? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recreational shelters and preserve upland areas? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would this be something similar to what we saw on Keewaydin Island some time ago? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could be. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wouldn't need the shuttle, though. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sure the county will come up with a plan for a shuttle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recreational shelters and preserve upland areas? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Drainage and water management facilities as may be required by South Florida Water Management District? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motorized devices required by physically impaired individuals? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And restroom facilities? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the list. We're done with it. Everybody seemed to accept it as we've modified it. Page 32 Ja~~ 11booA The applicant, are you satisfied with it as we -- I don't care if you're satisfied, do you accept it as we modified it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Aren't those one and the same? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're done with the passive recreation issue that started on Page 5 and carried over to Page 6. We'll go back to Page 6. Oh, there is another one on Page 5 that's -- the same part ofthe italicized section we just discussed. Determine whether the definitions affect the term green open space, which we did. And two, establish a maximum lot size for a residential unit. And I think we have some single-family criteria that was provided to us in which is a listing of development standards for single-family -- the two single-family units that would be allowed on that side of the project. Is this the appropriate time that it fits into the settlement agreement? I guess it is right here? Okay, you all should have received two pages, one titled Single-family Criteria, and one with a box on it laying out the single- family development standards with some footnotes. I think we ought to go to those and discuss them and see if anything there is objectionable. COMMISSIONER CARON: They're all minimums, they're not maximums. I can't find it yet, but I do remember that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it. Let's start with the page that says Single-family Criteria on it. It talks about the types of uses and accessory uses, both principal and accessory, that can be utilized. Are there any concerns with that particular page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the only question I had, and Joe, maybe this is more of your staff. Under customary accessory uses for these two residential units, they've got guest houses and service Page 33 quarters, meaning they could have both. Are service quarters looked at as an additional unit in Collier County; do you know? I know Susan's here too, maybe she could -- MR. SCHMITT: Susan, if you could help me on this. Guest houses. They're not prohibited in that part of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not --I'm more concerned about how they're counted. Because if they are a unit, I want to make sure that the unit count, that the project's total unit count still does not exceed based on this allowance for guest -- are they counted as part of the unit count is all I'm after. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a defined term in the LDC, guest quarters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Service. MR. SCHMITT: You're specifically counting for density, right, for unit count, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have two things we're trying to add: Guest houses under E, and under G, service quarters. Service quarters, which I'm assuming mean staff. If I'm wrong on that, Richard, correct me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're not wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you have a guest house that would have the full facilities of kitchens, bathrooms, living rooms and whatever. And then you've got also the ability to put in service quarters, which may be servant quarters, they would have full living accommodations. Are those considered in any manner or form units? MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, zoning director. I'm not sure service -- what did you say was defined, Jeff? I don't have my code in front of me. But service quarters I don't think is defined in the LDC. MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm getting at is-- MS. ISTENES: Guest -- JanUr61 r 108 A Page 34 Januat (i'f~8 4 MR. KLA TZKOW: -- maybe we define it the same way as we define what a guest quarter is. MS. ISTENES: My recommendation would be if you don't -- it's not clear, first of all, obviously. If you don't want it to count as density, then we should perhaps place some limitations on it so it doesn't end up to be the equivalent of a guest house, so to speak, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MS. ISTENES: -- in a sense. MR. SCHMITT: I'll be clear from a standpoint. If it's a guest house or resembles a guest house, they will pay the applicable impact fees for that, so that's not an issue. The issue is whether they will -- and if it looks and smells like a guest quarters or a casita or whatever, they're going to pay the impact fees for that additional space and whatever is associated with it as a guest quarters or guest house. So ifthere's both, they're going to pay the impact for both. But the issue here you're asking for, is it actually an additional unit. MS. ISTENES: Well, even guest houses aren't considered an additional unit. And there's criteria on their occupancy, which-- MR. SCHMITT: And the size-- MS. ISTENES: -- discourages them to be permanent structures, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, you were next. MS. ISTENES: -- this would be the equivalent. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about service quarters? Those are for people who live full-time in these units. That's a unit, that's -- those are people who live there to serve people who are living there, correct? MS. ISTENES: Yeah, that would be my assumption. And the difficulty there would be if they're -- again, if they start to resemble a Page 35 JanuaJ(j,pCf8 A guesthouse and somebody's living there full-time, then that's kind of contrary to the intent. And again, you would not be counting that as density, so you may end up with -- it may end up looking like additional density. It may be worth just trying to get rid of, to be honest with you, because I don't know that the code really -- you're really going to have to condition it, in my opinion, in order to ensure you don't get additional density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, you specifically put in guesthouses. Could that be related to a courtyard house as a single- family? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could. It could be, or it could be a standalone home that, you know, like you see in many of the Estates or in Pine Ridge. You can have either -- a courtyard home, yes, is one example where you have guest quarters, but also it was also intended to address other situations where you have a detached -- it looks like just a smaller home on the lot for your guests when they come visit. And the service quarters again were intended to address -- if you have -- a lot of people in Naples have rather large homes and they have full-time caregivers for the home -- or caretakers ofthe home, sorry. And we'll either -- we don't want to make it a big issue. If it's going to create problems, we'll just delete the use. But it was intended to be a standalone residence for people who are working at the home and not count against our density. But again, if it's a big issue, we'll just take it out and make it part of the main structure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, instead of deleting it, why don't we just restrict it to a courtyard-type house, so you have the ability if you're going to put up single-family to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: For service quarters? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. Page 36 Janulh Il2108 A MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the guesthouse issues, we'd like to keep the guesthouse because that's clear under the code it's not part of -- it doesn't count as far as density goes. And we'd like to have the ability to have it separate and distinct from the main residence. And I think a courthouse structure would put us more of -- it almost looks like it's part of the residence. So we'd like to keep the guesthouse, but if the service quarters are creating an issue, we'll take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think your issue is resolved by the definition of guesthouse. It says here: A dwelling that serves as an ancillary use providing living quarters for the occupants of the principal dwelling, their temporary guests or their domestic employees, and which may contain kitchen facilities. That's part of the definition of guesthouse or cottage in our code. So it seems to cover the use you're looking for. Mr. Schiffer, you were next, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one thing, I think -- and this wasn't my question, but didn't Susan mention, isn't there a temporary you can't occupy it greater than six months or something? Is that right? MS. ISTENES: Yeah, there are occupancy restrictions on it so that you don't have permanent residents in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you would want staff full time. I mean, why would we not want to include this? This is inclusionary zoning. This is great. Why don't we provide these units for the staff and not have to send them out on the marketplace or incorporate them in the house? So why can't we just limit the number of units, like two servants quarters and two guesthouses or maybe one, to keep it. And then that way -- because it is a smart idea. These are going to be big estates. This is not going to be a burden on the neighborhood. So it just makes Page 37 Janua~~ ,b18 A a lot of sense to keep everybody in the estate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the purpose of this whole exercise is not the practical approach to affordable housing but the disruption or the concerns of the neighborhood in the area. I mean, I understand your comment. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just saying the whole purpose isn't for what you're trying to get across. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I'm saying it does help that. And two units per hundred acres, that's pretty lame density. So I'm not worried about this intruding on the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad had suggested some restrictions on the numbers of guesthouses and service quarters per principal structure. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I certainly think limiting, yeah, per residential unit. However, if you were having somebody live full-time in a dwelling unit, then that should count as density. And so it's just two units. I mean, this is not going to -- it's not going to affect their towers and -- you know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we certainly -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But it should count towards density, that's all. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We certainly didn't intend that. We'd rather just strike it then, because why lose two market rate units for -- we'll find another way to house these people within either the main structure. I would think it's -- frankly, if you look at it from a benefit, they're there, they're off the roads, they don't have to drive to work. There's a whole lot of benefits to having the service quarters there. But Page 38 Ja,& f 11200~ to lose density over it, it's better to just strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, consensus on, let's first say, guesthouses. Is everybody content that they can have guesthouses, as allowed by code, which has the rules, regulation and sizes? Is that acceptable? And how many guesthouses per principal structure? I'm assuming just one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, service quarters. Brad had suggested limiting the service quarters, I think you said to two per principal structure. Service quarters are not defined in the code so they don't have a size relationship to the principal structures as do guesthouses. You may want to consider that. So, I mean, I would suggest that if we go with Brad's suggestion as two service quarters per house, that we limit the service quarters to the same development standards of guesthouses, except the time standards wouldn't apply, the occupancy time standards. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with that, two is sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron -- or anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I'm envisioning it correctly, you have a principal structure, you have a guesthouse and then you'd have two other houses, as it were? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Bob, one thing. Page 39 January 11,2008 Remember, this is two units per hundred acres. A guy is on ~~aJrJ, A this is an estate. So imagine what that is. I think, Mark, maybe to limit it we could maybe make it that the combined area of the servants' quarter and guesthouse not to exceed the guesthouse requirement, which, if I'm not mistaken, Susan, isn't that the 50 percent of the main structure? So we're going to have like a 10,000 square foot house. I doubt we're going to have 5,000 square feet of guesthouse. MS. ISTENES: Forty percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, 4,000 square feet of guesthouse. So let's limit the combined area not to exceed 40 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying one guesthouse and two service quarters would not exceed 40 percent of the main house. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Keep it in scale, yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. The only clarification, I didn't hear the word that the service quarters would not count against density. Was that the intent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't say it did, so I assume it wouldn't because there's no -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you make a very good point I think we should probably add, because we know guesthouses don't. We should probably add a phrase that says service quarters don't count against density either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody in agreement with that? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more thing, Mark. I think when we say servants' quarters, we should say servants supporting the house. We wouldn't want them to build a dormitory and bus people down to Port Royal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it would be service quarters Page 40 Ja!utrp 1200A supporting the house. Then the entire accessory -- the two accessory uses, guesthouse and service quarters, will be limited to 40 percent of the size of the principal structure. And service quarters do not count against the density. Is that in agreement with everybody? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a combined figure, that 40 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I said. You take-- COMMISSIONER CARON: For all three units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, yes. You take all three together and it's not to exceed 40 percent of the main house. Okay, is everybody in agreement with that? Now let's move to the second page of the single-family, which is the development standards for single-family, which is exactly what we've been talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would Joe put that up on the visualizer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions, concerns or comments about the standards for the single family? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think one of the corrections that were noted is that the 200 feet distance is from all PUD boundaries, not from just the two that were shown in one of the pages we'll be getting to here shortly. But the footnote clarifies it. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's correct here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the footnote's correct. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I just want to make sure, since we've got these two homes on this hundred acres and they've got 50 acres and no structures, I don't want the accessory structures and Page 41 Janll~ 11,100it barns -- because now they've got barns and appurtenances for equestrian to be any closer either. So any structures should be set back 200 feet from the boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that would be more appropriate, I think, Richard, to change in paragraph 11 of the settlement agreement, rather than a footnote to the single-family development standards, because it may not be realized as well there. So that might strengthen that a bit when we get to that page. Good point, we'll throw it in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The only question I have, and I don't know the answer, is a fence considered an accessory structure? I don't think it is, but I just want to make -- I don't want everybody to think that the fence has got to be 200 feet off the property line. The fence could be -- certainly I understand the swimming pool and other things have to be 200 feet. But I just want to make sure that a fence isn't considered an accessory structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And an entrance gate obviously wouldn't count either. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no. It would not count. But with respect to if you're fencing the perimeter of the property, that's one thing. But if you are fencing a barn that you want to put right on that property line, that's not what we want. We want all that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that you meant every structure, including accessory structures, needs to be 200 feet from the property boundary. We don't have an issue with that. And I hope you got the version that talked about the building height applies to both principal and accessory structures. And now we'll revise that to say the 200 foot will apply to both principal and accessory structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to your question about a fence. If we label all uses, all structures have to have a 200- foot setback, and Page 42 Janrg 11'l008A you want to make sure a fence is not considered an accessory use or structure, we really have to fall back on the LDC -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm asking the question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not comments here today. So let's get back -- the LDC says an accessory use or structure is defined as the following: A use or structure located on the same lot or parcel and incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure. So now it comes as a fence, a structure. I think that's an issue that Susan's probably had some fun with in the past and maybe she can provide us with her enjoyable time she had with that and other Issues. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope it doesn't. We've got a lot of setback problems in Collier County if you did -- MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes. Fences have their own regulations that allow them to be placed on property line. You know, we have architectural restrictions for commercial fences and whatnot that are slightly different that may not allow them to be placed on the property line. But this is residential so it wouldn't affect -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it works well for the accessory as defined in the LDC, which provides the nice consistency that we'd like to have. Are there any other questions about the single-family development standards? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're acceptable? Fine, we'll get past that issue then. Let's move on to Page 6, paragraph nine of the settlement agreement. On this page we had some strikethrough and highlighted changes and additions in the documents. And I think there was a suggestion in one of the e-mails that the word sidewalks shouldn't have been struck through and replaced with pathways, that it should Page 43 January 11, 2008 be sidewalks, except -- and that's only in the first sentence.l6 I I A In the second sentence there it should have been struck through and pathways left in. Anybody have any concerns with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's how it will be changed then, I would hope. There's some strike-outs and final language. If there's no other concerns on paragraph nine, we'll move to paragraph 10. This is the bald eagle management plan. Let me see what we had on that one. Okay, there were some changes on that. They're in strikethrough and underlined version. There was a reference at the end of paragraph 10 that says discussion of revised bald eagle management plan continued to January 11 tho The CCPC also deferred its analysis of the remainder of paragraph 10 to January 11th to allow review of the most current SDP submittals. So let's move right into that. We had -- everybody last time we had just gotten the bald eagle management plan the night before our meeting. We didn't have time to review it. Well, why don't we move into that document now, if everybody is ready to discuss that. The latest one we had received around 12/12/07. And it starts on the top of it with the words Exhibit B. Cherie', we'll break a little closer to 10:00, okay? COURT REPORTER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll wait for everybody to get there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It starts out on top with Exhibit B. It's the new one, not the one attached to the PUD. We received it on 12/12. And I think we received a hard copy back-up at the meeting on 12/1 3 . It's a five-page document with a sixth -- seventh pages graphics Page 44 showing the location of the eagle. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think that paragraph 10 really relates more -- other than -- the first sentence or two have to do with the height of the buildings, which are pretty much a footnote to the bald eagle management plan. The second part of it, the underlined portion of it has to do with building separations. So this particular paragraph has less to do with the bald eagle management plan than it does with the separation of these buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with you. But at the last meeting, and I have my notes and the county attorney's notes that said we want to discuss the bald eagle management plan at this point. And for some reason -- if we don't want to do that now, we want to do that later, that's okay with me. I was trying to follow the pattern set forth previously. So we can go -- we'll just continue on with paragraph 10, if everybody would prefer to just look at the height issue on this one. I'm not even sure this is where the height issue came up originally. I think it came up in paragraph 14, which is habitable. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no, I'm looking at the last one we have, and it was in 10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the height. And I brought up the concern on height, concern on measuring from habitable. I did go back, research even the building codes. Habitable is defined exactly as the applicant claimed. It's livable area. Occupyable (sic) area, which is what I was actually describing at the last hearing, habitable is certainly a subset of it. But it would be places of work, places of entertainment and stuff. So my concerns that I had last meeting are totally gone, and I Janur 6112108 A Page 45 apologize for any confusion I'm sure I caused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's a good point to bring up, because it brought up a lot of discussion we needed to have about habitable. And Mr. Y ovanovich has even provided a new definition of habitable, at some point we have to look at today. Although it turns out there are definitions in some of our codes, twice, two instances in fact, and they're in the code of laws. And by the way, like you just said, the applicant is in line with what those definitions fit. Let's go back to 10 first and see if there's anything that we need to discuss in paragraph 10 that we don't feel we finished last time or that's subject to the underlined and crossed out sections of the paragraph we have in front of us today based on the county attorney's draft language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, we were submitted a new development standard for the multi-family high-rise buildings. It actually says -- I guess R-l is the zone on it. Could we put that up on the monitor? This is something that was submitted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got the SDP -- he's got the table from the SDP, not the development standard table, but the standard that was supplied in the SDP package. It was a-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my conversation is going to be on setbacks. There is one concern I have in that the setbacks for roads I wanted to review. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, you'll tell me if this is the right document, please. Is that the right one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. Rich, see the line, it's the third one down, the front yard distance from the internal road. It says it's going to be 50 percent of the building height, which we know in our case is 100 feet. The buildings are 200 feet tall. JanUf6 It 2108 A Page 46 Ja~lll200A Building two, three, four have a distance less than that. Is that a problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, could you repeat your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at the standards, the front yard internal road setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is for the R -1 standards table? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, multi-family. You'll see that the requirement is for 100 feet, and some of those are -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, the explanation is, is that is measured to the garage, not the high-rise portion of the building, okay? So that's where those distances are equal to the garage. And as you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The garage isn't that tall. So there isn't a problem. Second thing, put up -- you sent us a drawing that shows the site lines. And if you could focus in on the plan that's on the upper left side. It's a site plan called key map. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that the one you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, blow up the plan in the lower right. And the reason I'm looking at that is that does -- upper left, I'm sorry. It's called key map. If you could make that the full screen, that would be best. Maybe a little less screen. And my concern is that, we discussed this last time, is the setbacks. The setbacks in the development standards are to be one-half the combined height of the units. Well, I like the one with the black, that's why I was -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You like the black one better? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it points out my concern. And my concern is that the setbacks in the development plan call for 200- foot setback. The buildings are all 200 foot in height. Added together, you get 400 feet. Divide it by two you get 200 feet. Page 47 January 11,2008 And these setbacks are a lot closer. 1 f... I J You're requesting us to allow to bring it down to 100 feet' ~n the concern is this is going to be just one wall of buildings as you go up Vanderbilt Beach Drive. Now, I know where you're coming from, you're going to say well, we twisted the buildings. We have -- first of all, I don't think the site plan would show the buildings parallel -- the walls parallel met the setback to begin with. So all along through this whole process the setbacks were never -- between buildings, distance between buildings were never being met. What you actually did in the current design is you kind of rotated them a little bit and, you know, even -- again I go back to this October 9th letter from PMS, Inc. and it says that, you know, that the buildings didn't meet it. They were stating that in their -- and she states, however, the buildings have been slightly rotated to ensure compliance with the development standards. So the concern I have is that I don't think the development standards -- I think the development standard is intended for the setbacks as described in the chart, in the table, which would essentially produce a square of open space between the units. What you're asking for is to allow that to be brought down to half that dimension, or essentially half a square between them, which will give these things the appearance of a wall when you look at it from different vistas on Vanderbilt. So you're requesting that in here. So why are you requesting that, to make the site plan buildable or a desire or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: To make it buildable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the original layout it did not meet the standards shown? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I -- before Richard answers, could you show me what part of the settlement agreement you're referring to that they're asking for that's different than what they already received A Page 48 in the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 10, the minimum separation of the habitable portion of the building shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion of the building, not to exceed 100 foot of separation for the habitable portion of the building. First of all, putting in there the one-half of the height again is just -- that's a teaser, because you know you can't make that. So the concern is that -- the problem is that the neighbors, I think, and I wasn't on the board then, I don't know what testimony was. But the intention was is to have these buildings spaced apart by pushing them up against each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still trying to get to -- I'm trying to understand where you're going. I'm sure Richard could answer it, but it may not help me try to figure out where you're going. If that's possible, I'd like to. I think the sentence you're referring to should have been changed, if I remember correctly from our last discussion where it begins on Page 7, buildings shall be one-half the sum of the height of the habitable portion ofthe buildings and shall be a minimum of 100 feet of separation for the habitable portion of the buildings. And if! recall correctly, it was never not to exceed 100 feet. That would be ridiculous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I'm reading that -- one of the other comments I had further, Mark, is that the way it's written, it's actually locking it to be less than 100 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you about put that in, does that fix your problem? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I think that if the project was sold to have a 200- foot separation between buildings, it should not have a 100-foot separation between buildings. MR. YOV ANOVICH: First of all, it was never sold that way. The commission saw -- at that time saw the entire PUD document. January 11,2008 16 11 A Page 49 Jani6 r, 2008 And in that PUD document it provided for a mechanism to reduce~he A separation of structures. And it said there had to be a common architectural theme and the buildings need to be skewed and basically not parallel. So the commission saw this. We provided an exhibit when we did the neighborhood meetings. Yet if you look at the exhibit, you could see that the structures were not 200 feet apart, we were only going about -- did we have a line on there that says the distance between buildings? No. But if you looked at the scale that was on that drawing, you would see that these buildings were not 200 feet apart. So I don't think we ever sold this as they were going to be 200 feet apart, else we wouldn't have had the common architectural language in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the common architectural language, let's make that simple. You're building the exact identical building. We could discuss whether that's good or bad. I personally wonder. So it's obviously common, they're twins. Everything, everybody is going to look alike, according to your SDP. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, they're quintuplets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're quintuplets. So we don't have to worry about them being a common architectural theme, they're identical. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've covered that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern is though -- but I think there's a clause in there that I know you're hanging on, and that is that if you do skew the buildings or twist them, then you can move -- the buildings can have less than the dimensions shown. Now, I think what that means from a planner, and Susan's our chief planner, that you have a spacing required. Yes, you can twist them a little bit, and if that does cause that dimension to be less, that's not a problem. I don't think it means no setbacks or no separation once you twist them. Page 50 la6atY 11, 2A08 MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we're not trying for no separation. We're just trying to implement the provision in the code -- I'm sorry, the PUD, that already says if you do these things we can minimize, reduce the building separation. I provided some language in an e-mail that says it has to be a minimum of 100 feet for the habitable tower portion of the structure, the parking garages will still meet their one-half the sum of the building height. We don't think under this site plan, frankly, that it's going to look like a wall of buildings. We think that it's going to look very nice. I mean, frankly, they're angled all the way up. The only issue that you were raising is there were two buildings that arguably were not skewed and they were parallel. So we wanted to make it clear, we didn't want to get into an argument down the road, you know, parallel means one thing in geometry. And I think I told you the last time I was here I wasn't very good at geometry. But once you skew it one degree, you're no longer parallel. And we just wanted to say, listen, you're going to end up with buildings that are a minimum 100 feet apart on the towers. We think from a view corridor coming down Vanderbilt Road with the landscaping buffer that we provided you, this is going to look fine, it's going to look nice, it implements the existing PUD, and it wasn't a change to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But back to what you said earlier, Richard, I think much like -- remember when I wanted you to look at this drawing, you wanted us to look at the other drawing, you can't see the building masses on those other drawings? I think most people would not notice the distance. Obviously I had to take out a scale to see what the distance was on the submitted PUD to find out what they are. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here Page 51 ltOart 1, 2~8 in a little bit. So if we could get to some point you feel we can break, Brad -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he walked away, Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I know that. No, I'm just suggesting if you at some point -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can take a break any time you want. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I was just answering my client's question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Anyway, my concern is that we put a chart in the table, that's really what prevails. And the exhibit, you know, there's a lot of caveats on it stating that it's subject to change and all the other things. So I think anybody relying on that data would be relying on the table. I think what the table means, and we can get some testimony from staff, that there's a massing expected. In this case everybody expected a square of open space between these buildings that, yes, if you rotated them or did something like that, of course the corners might swing in less to that dimension. So in other words, if it's 190, 180 feet once you rotate them -- let me wait till the side bar is over. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, we could debate this point probably all day. The PUD says what the PUD says. There's a footnote that specifically allows for the buildings to get closer together if you meet the criteria of the PUD. We're not asking for any changes of the PUD document related to building separation. What we simply are trying to do is make it less ambiguous for both staff and us and for the general public to understand what the separation will be. And what we're saying is it will be a minimum separation for that livable portion of the building of 100 feet. I wasn't prepared and didn't think we were going to debate the original PUD document. It was adopted, we're implementing it. We're Page 52 JaJ~ 111wo~ trying to make it clear. Had they not wanted -- if there had been an intent that you would never be able to reduce the building separation, there wouldn't have been that footnote. And candidly, there wouldn't be a provision in the Land Development Code itself that allows for common architectural theme to result in the reduction of building separation from the minimum standards. It would have said thou shalt never be closer than 200 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need to take a break here. And we'll come back at 10:15. Mr. Vigliotti and Ms. Caron both have questions at some point in this issue. So when we get back, Brad can finish with his. We'll get into Mr. Vigliotti's and Ms. Caron and we'll go from there. 10: 15 we'll return. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we'll resume the meeting where we had left off. And Mr. Schiffer was working on some questions concerning the last two sentences on -- starts on Page 6 and on Page 7 ofthe settlement agreement. After he finishes, Mr. Vigliotti was next, and then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, Rich, just to go back. One thing, you mentioned that in the LDC there's a section of code that says if you have a common architectural theme -- and again, this county, one of its problem is it makes everything look the same, but we'll assume that's good, that's a given -- that if you rotate it you can reduce the separation between buildings. Is that -- I don't think that's in the LDC. There is something similar to that about clustering but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and that's under -- the common architectural theme talks about clustering. You go through a conditional use process. We went through a public hearing PUD process, so there was a public hearing process that occurs. Page 53 1<6u4rY1l1, ~08 And I don't believe -- and I could be wrong, I don't believe there is any requirement for either skewing or rotating the buildings to meet the definition of common architectural theme for clustering. So instead of what you see on the visualizer where you have the buildings angled away from Vanderbilt Road, you could probably line them all up on Vanderbilt Road and really create the wall that you're fearful we'll be creating. Now, I think you have to look at all of this together. We have landscape requirements that we've provided for you. And this is actually the sight line study that shows you, as you're driving down or walking down Vanderbilt Drive, you're not going to see the buildings. So if you're not going to see the buildings, what's the impact on this necessary space between the buildings? Now, from a distance, I don't care where you are, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet, if you're a halfa mile away, the buildings are going to look close together, whether it's 200 feet or 100 feet. So I think if you look at what we're doing, we are meeting the requirements in the existing PUD; we are further away from Vanderbilt Drive than the minimum required; we have met the skewing and the common architectural theme. We're not asking to change the PUD, we're just asking to make it clear that the minimum distance has to be 100 feet. Because frankly, probably under the PUD we can get even closer, which I believe was one of your concerns when we talked the last time. I believe you asked me, Rich, can't you guys theoretically get within a couple of feet of each building. And we've said no. And we've answered that by saying the towers have got to at least be 100 feet from each other. So we thought we had addressed a lot of the concerns while staying consistent with the existing adopted PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess maybe, Mark, ifit would be okay, let me have Susan come down. Because the way that Page 54 Jml~ 11}200ft . clause really reads is if that if you meet certain conditions it can be administratively reviewed. Again, you know my opinion is that the intent of something like that from a planning concept, not from just looking at words and playing Philadelphia lawyer, from a planning concept, that means that if a building rotates, that would tend to close dimensions, and the dimensions would swing in. And if you do that, you won't be penalized because of the fact that you've skewed the building. But let me ask Susan, because she's the one that would be making that judgment. Or Ross might be. Richard, let Ross -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought he was going to sit over there. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, zoning and land development review. Susan's asked me to address this issue for you. The way we understand the PUD is -- well, the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or separation of structures limited by the PUD document? And the answer is no, the separation is unlimited. I can't see any grounds in there for intent to reduce it a certain amount, or it would have been specified. So the question I ask myself is does the applicant have the right to do what he did? And the answer was yes. There simply is nothing that limits the amount of reduction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Ross, you think what that meant -- here's what I think it meant. I think it meant that if you have two buildings, you have a separation, in this case a square, that if those buildings rotate, they close in on each other a little bit. And that's what that means, that essentially the scale of the project-- remember, I'm talking purely in the planning concept of buildings and mass -- that the scale of the project stays the same but the dimensions do close slightly when you rotate them. So when you're telling me that clause meant -- and this was what was given to the public as a development standard, that if you slightly Page 55 J~~q I}. 20' skew your buildings, which is what they've done, you have no side setback requirement anymore? MR. GOCHENAUR: Basically that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really? MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct. Now, as far as the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From a planning concept you really feel -- MR. GOCHENAUR: As far as the intent. When the PUD was approved, I don't think we're going to find anything that explained the intent as far as a possible reduction in the amount or the distance. I think it was unlimited. It's unlimited here. I don't see where we have the right to tell the applicant that there's a limit to which he can reduce that separation. It's simply not stated in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the point. And this will be the last time. I don't want to be redundant. But I think as planners, not as reading little words and, you know, reading between lines, is that when you describe through the table the separation of these buildings to have essentially a square of space between them, that if you rotate those buildings a little bit, that square can open or close a little bit. You're saying that they essentially tricked us then by giving us a table, giving us a setback, knowing all the time that they're never going hit that description, they're never going to hit that dimension. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, I'm not suggesting anyone was tricked. But I am saying that the board approved the setbacks as they appear in this table. And that reading these, without full knowledge of the intent or any real intimate knowledge of the PUD rezone itself, I have to say that this is the way I feel constrained to apply it. And I don't think Susan disagrees with that, which is why she asked me to explain this to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as the one who made the administrative decision that if a building in this case was slightly Page 56 J:6afY 1] , 2f8 skewed, that eliminated the requirement for building separation? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, that's my understanding ofthis document. 16 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At our last meeting we discussed this particular point in depth. I believe almost everybody weighed in at different points, we spent a lot of time on it. What I had said is I'm not happy about it, I don't like it, but it's in the PUD. We're not here to change the PUD, nor can we. I just think it's something we have to live with and move on. And I believe it was the consensus of most of us, as I said, that it is the way it and we have to live with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and then I've got a comment. Ms. Caron, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and it will be a comment at this point -- well, actually, I'll ask a question first to the county attorney. Do you agree that staffhas no authority to make a judgment on the separation of these buildings? MR. KLATZKOW: I think -- just for visually, because I'm more of a visual person, if your buildings were like this and you required 200 feet, okay, and then they said you can make it slightly askew and thereby build them like this, I think that's an absurd interpretation. I think what the -- I think the way it reads is that there's discretion here -- and that includes this board as well because you're making recommendations to the board here, that if they're going to make this slightly skewed, that yes, they can reduce this, that's appropriate. The question is how much of a reduction is appropriate. And that's my view on that. Now, the planning director disagrees with that, and that's fine. Page 57 Jamf1> It, f08 A COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you for that. Because I think this is a critically important discussion to be having because this is not going to affect just this project. This will affect projects coming down the road. And if we suddenly decide that we have no authority -- no planning authority to decide whether 250 -- what in reality will be 251- foot plus buildings could essentially be five feet apart, the absurdity of that judgment is just beyond me. If this board thinks that 100 feet, when it should be 200 feet, is the correct way to go, then you'll make that decision. But I agree with Mr. Schiffer, that we're going to end up with essentially a wall of buildings 100 -- you know, barely 100 feet apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a comment I wanted to make. And I saw this sentence telling us that the applicant had agreed that the buildings would never be less than 100 feet apart. I don't know why the applicant wanted to do that, because basically the PUD stands on itself and they probably have a very good case on that footnote if they wanted to make one, regardless. So I'm wondering, to get off this point, because we're only discussing it because of these two sentences in the PUD that now with staffs testimony here today and the clarifications that have come out of discussion today by staff, why do you need these two sentences? You still got the PUD that dominates, and we're off the discussion and we go on to the rest of the paragraphs. So I'm asking the applicant, originally I saw a version of this document with those two sentences struck, because apparently someone at one time felt the PUD stood on its own. I understand your position in trying to voluntarily minimize the distance in which they could be put at, but it looks like that's causing a lot more controversy than the effort may have been worth. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will tell you, we think the benefit of that sentence is both to us and to the county so when there's personnel changes over time, there always are, or different people sitting in your Page 58 Janul6. ~ 2}08 A seats, people could interpret the document differently. And we would like that certainty because, candidly, we need to know that this site development plan will be approved, or something similar to it if changes happen will be approved in the future and not be subject to a debate over words in the future. And we thought -- I think staff would prefer to have the clarification so we all know it won't be less than 100 feet. We would like that in the document to provide certainty to us so -- and reasonable minds can disagree about what things mean, and we're just trying to make sure that this is clear that we have certainty in the future. And that's why we've asked to keep that in. I know it's an uncomfortable conversation we're having, but that's why it's in, and we think that it's beneficial to both sides to have that language in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the language only states a minimum. To get to that minimum, you still need to bring in the common architectural theme issue. So the language doesn't clear up any of the debate about that issue. It simply says you have a minimum of 100 feet that you can get to but you still got to fall back on what the debate has been to get there. So I'm not sure why the sentence helps you, but if you want to leave it in, then we will go forward. I just suggested, since I had seen it struck in the prior version, the first version that was sent to this committee back last year didn't have -- had that struck through as being omitted. Then it was put back in when you all realized it was coming to us, for some reason. But that's fine. It seemed simpler without it. We're on paragraph 10 -- Brad, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was, based on Ross's testimony, just take it out. Because we're ultimately going to vote on this thing. I certainly could -- I don't know how we're going to vote, if we vote by number, line item veto kind of thing maybe. But if Page 59 Janua1~'r~8 A we vote on this thing as a whole, I would never support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're voting on it. I think we're simply making recommendations and we can all, on each recommendation, say we support it or don't support it. We're here to tell -- I thought we were here to describe to the BCC what the settlement agreement means in interpretation of the PUD that they formerly had, the differences. If some of us see this as a different interpretation than what the PUD meant, then that could be our recommendation. Others of us may not see that as a different interpretation. You're focusing on your dislike of a footnote in the PUD, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's a different interpretation. That's all I'm getting at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make it clear, I'm focusing on the geometry ofthe construction of this project. Let me ask Ross one quick question before we jump away. Ross, this is in for SDP, the setbacks are shown. I saw some correspondence where you didn't accept the setbacks because the buildings were parallel but then they slightly skewed them and therefore triggering that footnote. And you've given us your interpretation of that. Have you signed off on the setbacks of this SDP already? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. They're revising the setbacks not for the high-rises but principally for the clubhouse and the single-family homes. For the high-rises, I've accepted the resubmittal that revised the setbacks and skewed the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially Richard is concerned about the future generations, you've signed it off, it's a done deal. This clause doesn't mean anything in this agreement anyway, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: Let's keep in mind that this is almost like a Page 60 JanJa6 JI1,!008A package. The settlement agreement and the site development plan are all going to the board at the same time. And, you know, defining what the setback is in the settlement agreement doesn't -- I don't know really where it gets us anyway, since the site development plan is going to have the setbacks anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the applicant wants to leave it in. We can recommend to take the two sentences out and that can be done with it, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The concern is not about the present. But if we go in the future and we determine that we need to make a modification to the site development plan and we move the buildings a foot one way or the other, we don't want to get into a debate again on this issue. We want it to be understood and clear that we can go ahead and reduce the setbacks between the buildings. We don't want -- we don't want to be stuck with, Mr. Y ovanovich, you moved it a foot. We think this new group doesn't agree that you're allowed to put buildings closer together. That's why this provision is in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Then I'm going to want some clarity. Because my understanding was that we were going to have a final site development plan and that's how this development was going to get built. I'm hearing now that well, maybe we're going to make changes after all this is over to that site development plan. So that what ultimately gets built is not what ultimately is going to go before this board. And I don't -- it's okay by me if it's okay with this board, but that's what we're saying here right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that this settlement agreement is based upon the approval of the three SDPs. Once they're approved, they're done. Are you going to tell us that there's going to be more -- well, they'd be outside the settlement agreement then, would they not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They would be outside the settlement Page 61 Ja1" Pfoo~ agreement. What we're looking for is clarification of what does the PUD document mean in this settlement agreement. So if there is a change, people will say, Mr. Y ovanovich, you're right, the buildings can be, as long as they meet the common architectural theme. The buildings are not parallel, they are skewed, you can be closer together but not less than 100 feet apart on the residential tower and the parking garages, some of the building height. So when we go in the future, we know we're allowed to do that. No maze, no language of, you know, what is this distance of, you know, what is -- how much skewing do you need to do to meet the intent of this. We want to know that if there is a change, that's how the PUD document will be interpreted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I myself, I thought the PUD language stood on its own. Your bringing it into this document is causing concerns with this panel. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm listening to the public discussion about it and there are people who are less certain that it stands on its own and it's clear. And that's why we're trying to make it clear through the settlement agreement, so in the future we don't have a changing of minds as to what is clear in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments on paragraph 10? If not, we have to figure out how to resolve this paragraph and what kind of recommendation as far as the language goes we need to provide to the county attorney to include in the next draft that is produced. Any comments from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what I would prefer we do is remove this language, because -- and let it be something that the administrative staff take care of. I f Richard is concerned about a future planner viewing it the way I would view it -- and remember, I have a Page 62 Janl@ IhJo08A degree in architecture and planning -- then that's a good concern. But the point is I would never want it to look like this board endorsed this kind of interpretation of the setback. I don't think it's right, and I think it should just be struck. It should not be a problem. Quick, get your administrative stuff in there. And Ross is today's professional and he says that you can do what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tend to agree with you in the sense that I don't think the PUD needs any more clarification. I think you can manage yourself under the PUD. That's what you accepted. I don't see the need for these two sentences. I'd just as soon they were gone as well. I just don't see the need for them. I understand your concern, Richard, but you're a capable attorney and I'm sure you could argue whatever rights you had aren't going to go away whether these two sentences are there or not. Any other comments from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say one more thing. Is that when we get PUDs we get a development standard table, which everybody says that's the genetic code of the project. And then we get a drawing that everybody says can be fluctuated quite a bit. The standard really gave everybody the impression of the separation of these buildings. To do what we're doing now I think is a big mistake, the way it's being interpreted. Enough said. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, when I read a development standards table, and you know I read them all because every single meeting I harp on the footnotes. I read this one. I wasn't here when that one was approved, that was way before my time. But had it been here, I would have known what it meant, I would have known exactly what it meant and what the footnotes mean, because I realize they're critical, they're that important to what this committee approves. So I don't know if when this went through people didn't know Page 63 Jml&r '11200" what they mean or didn't read it. I sure would have known what it meant and would have read it, so I'm assuming the other bodies on this board would have done the same thing. So I'm not in your camp in that regard, but I do believe that these two sentences are not needed, and my recommendation would be that they just be struck and not included as part of this settlement agreement. Is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I really agree with that. Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we need a motion, Mr. Klatzkow, or just consensus? MR. KLA TZKOW: At the end I'm going to ask you to go through this so we have certainty as to what these changes are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let's just get a consensus. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, don't you feel that the Board of County Commissioners wanted our opinion on such a thing on whether it's a reasonable distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wanted our opinion on how the settlement agreement differed than the PUD, how it changed the effect ofthe PUD. That's what they specifically said on the tape that we reviewed. If they wanted our opinion on all the aspects of this project, we could do that. But we would need about a month at the rate we're going and every day of the week to review it. I don't think they wanted that, nor would they be able to read that if we sent it to them. So we need to stick to the focus. Look at the settlement agreement, look at the issues in the settlement agreement and describe to the BCC how they vary from the PUD language that's already been approved or suggest remedies to that effect. And that's what I think we need to be focusing on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But shouldn't we see what the consensus is as far as this board is concerned relative to the separation Page 64 Janl6 nl,1008A somewhere along the line, whether it's now or done at the end of the hearings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this is a popularity vote on the PUD's application. If it is, then that's -- we can do that, but I'm not going to take part in it because I don't think that was part of the direction this board was given. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I wasn't talking about a popularity report, I was talking about something that's whether it's good planning or bad planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that differs too amongst the people and the experience they have on this board -- or experience in that field. And I'm not sure everybody has the expertise to opine on what's good and bad planning from a perspective we'd be looking at this. Because we certainly haven't gone in, analyzed the PUD in regards to the presentations at the time and weighed in on the way this is utilized in other parts of either this county or the parts of Florida. So those are areas I don't see where this board had the --needs to get into. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Frankly, I prefer the language out. The applicant will have his approved site development plan at the end of the day. If they want to change it and make these setbacks closer they will do so at their own risk. It will be at their risk and not the county's at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going ask for a -- I'm going to go down the line as far as recommending removal of this language. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Page 65 Janua~ R,!Js A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, yes. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be the recommendation on paragraph 10. We now can move on to paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 didn't have any -- had a small change, and changed the word shall to may. Although I think there's a couple of changes in the last sentence that we just evolved out of the discussion we had on single-family where it says 1,200 square feet, it says each single-family dwelling unit shall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the north and east boundaries. That should read, all structures shall be set back a minimum of 200 feet from all boundaries of the PUD project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And maybe it could even be simpler, is that I believe we provided you a development standards table for the single-family homes. Perhaps we could just refer to it as an exhibit instead of -- we would just say the single-family standards shall be as depicted in exhibit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because we're not dealing with the issue of just single-family in regards to that portion of the sentence. We're dealing with setbacks from all PUD boundaries to be 200 feet. Which goes back to your fence discussion that we went in length and you got a comfort level that a fence was not an accessory structure. Basically, what we'd be saying is all structures would have to have at least a 200-foot setback from PUD boundaries, not just single-family as you're suggesting now in a single-family developments standards table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? Page 66 Januli)11, :i,l08 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do think we should exempt gatehouses, because that would be difficult to not consider a structure. So all structures maybe, parentheses, except gatehouses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. Do you understand now what we're trying to get at, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Honestly, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start over again then. Right now the way this is written, the only structures that would require a 200-foot setback would be single-family dwellings, and they would only require it on the north and east boundary. We're saying, as I thought we discussed previously, all structures on the project, with the exception of gatehouses, shall have a 200-foot setback from all boundaries, whether they be north, east, south or west. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what we're trying to change here. Do you have a problem with that change? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I just thought it might -- since this was really a paragraph that dealt with the single-family structures, we would -- again, whatever. If we're getting into the same practical place, it doesn't really matter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we change that to non-habitable gatehouses? Essentially, somebody could occupy a gatehouse. And based on the last conversation, let's word everything extremely careful. So we don't want a gatehouse with somebody living in it, which is a nice feature in an estate. Page 67 Janulrt>1 J, f08 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Non-habitable gatehouse. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Occupyable will be allowed, and that's what they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, does that work? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to get consensus from everybody so they don't come back later in front of the BCC and say we didn't agree with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, just help me, because I want to understand how all of this is getting incorporated. We talked about the document labeled single-family criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: How are we incorporating that into the settlement agreement? Because I think it has to be incorporated into the settlement agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, by the end ofthis discussion I was hoping we would have a very careful discussion about doing this the way it should be done, and that's as a strike-through version of the PUD. And all the changes that you're talking about get entered into the PUD to a document that can be recorded just like every other PUD, so in 10 years that you're worried about when staff goes back and tries to figure out what standards apply, 10 years from now there may not be anybody in this county remembers this settlement agreement but they will have an ordinance on file that gives them a number for a PUD that they would pull up and look at. So that's where I was going to suggest eventually that all this stuff goes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just for the record, so you know, that's how we started this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we'll finish-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we're going to go back to -- and I'm okay with that. Page 68 Janulr6I 1. 1jl08 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not going to say you were right, so don't go that far. Okay, so II's done, let's go on to paragraph 12. There were no issues and changes on 12. Paragraph 13 actually moves over to seven -- from Page 7 to Page 8. On Page 8 there's quite a few suggested underlines and changes. Now we're back into the bald eagle management plan, and here it is requesting that the county acknowledge that it's in compliance with county regulations. So maybe this would be the appropriate time to discuss the bald eagle management plan, okay? The bald eagle management plan was sent to us on 12/12/07. It's the document I previously asked you to look at that has Exhibit B, the first words on the top. And if we go into that, I guess we can start talking about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Has the EAC reviewed this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This wasn't remanded back to the EAC, so I don't know. Maybe somebody else can tell us if they looked at the bald eagle management plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, they have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, who wants to -- well, I think the question on the settlement agreement is does the county accept it? County staff and the environmental division is here. Let's find out right from the horse's mouth where it stands. MR. LORENZ: I think Barbara has a few comments to make with regard -- at least to bring to your attention with regard to the bald eagle management plan -- the amended plan. So at least -- let her run those comments down for you to consider. MS. BURGESON: The first issue is regarding the artificial nest tree. Staff has -- from the very beginning when the bald eagle Page 69 Janulr6I t, ~08 A management plan amendment was prepared in front of the board a few years ago that precipitated all of this, from the very beginning staff has been telling the applicant that we would not be able to support recommending approval of that ST permit to put that artificial nest tree in a pristine tidal wetland area. They would have to apply for the ST permit, we would review it. But going through all the potential possibilities for us to approve it, we've been forewarning them that we saw no way that we could recommend approval of that. So continued to recommend relocation on either upland -- well, upland areas and outside of ST overlay areas. Also, I was told by Laura Roys, who has done the review of the most recent Biological Opinion on this, and that tree was removed from the Biological Opinion and no credit is given for that as a part of mitigation. It's recognized as something they're interested in seeing how it works out, but it's not given credit for mitigation. So we're concerned that that's part of the settlement agreement. And the second comment -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, let's back up so that we understand better what you're trying to say. Why are you concerned that it's part of the settlement agreement if it's not part of the mitigation? I don't follow that. MS. BURGESON: I'm saying that it infers as if -- it infers that there will be a benefit by having -- and that the permits will be obtained, even though they say diligent attempts and efforts to obtain the permits. We've pretty much told them at this point we -- unless they get to -- and this type of permit would have to go to the EAC, the planning commission and the board for approval. Unless they could get the board, all three -- the board to approve an S T permit, we do not expect that this would be permittable, specifically because they give the exact location as to where they want to put it. If they're interested in doing a nest tree and want to remove references to specific locations, then staff is more comfortable with Page 70 Janf~ It'1008A having that language in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? MR. LORENZ: Yes, just as we said, we just want to make sure that we set the expectations appropriately, that, as Barbara noted, that would be something staff couldn't recommend. However, if the board is going to be approving of this and understands those conditions, and ultimately of course it's a county commission approval. But we want to make sure that we're not setting expectations in a different direction and we at least put it on record to indicate that we would certainly have a hard time recommending this particular artificial tree to be placed in pristine wetlands with an ST. And Barbara's point about it's not a requirement of the mitigation requirements, but that's certainly -- the agencies are kind of looking for maybe some information to get out of it. We just want to make sure we put that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead Barbara, then. Ijust had one -- if somebody here needs a clarification, just let us know. Go ahead. MS. BURGESON: The only other two -- well, maybe three points would be in the paragraph right below that, changes that affect the above terms and conditions. Just reading through that, I'm just a little bit concerned. I understand the interest in not requiring further amendments to the PUD document or the bald eagle management plan. However, if the applicant gets requirements from the agencies that revisions need to be made, that -- the way it's written, that those revisions shall automatically become part of the bald eagle management plan. If those revisions are different than the management plan, it seems more appropriate to just rewrite the growth management plan. So I'm not sure whether or not that's -- because it says it will be a part of the bald eagle management plan, and then it says and no further action to amend the management plan shall be required. But if Page 71 J16rJ 1120~ it becomes a part of it, it actually does amend it. So I just thought maybe that language could be cleaned up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's it? Thank you. MS. BURGESON: No, two other items. When you look at the Exhibit 1, I'm not sure why the consultant marked Exhibit 1 with the radiuses of 100 feet, then 250, 500, 750, 1,000 and 1,500. Ifthey've gotten technical assistance from the agencies, the distances the agencies are currently using and have been are the 330 and 660 distances. And they should be identified from each of the two nests. It's probably not very easy to see what I've drawn here, but there should be at a minimum a 330-foot distance and a 660-foot distance drawn from each of those two nests. So that's a correction that should be made. Then finally, on the PUD master plan, which is actually Exhibit 3 to the agreement and release, they've mislabeled where in the original PUD the water was preserve. And it was clearly stated through all of the processes and the public hearings that that would be part of the preserve and that acreage is part of the PUD preserve. Also, there seems to be a change in the boundary of the preserve -- yeah, you want to put that on the visualizer. And we're a little bit concerned. That was not brought to staffs attention. In fact it was not -- it was during a different meeting that it was brought to staffs attention, but not by the applicant. And those are all of my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the idea of the water being counted as part of the preserve, Margie, if I recall, didn't you look at that issue? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We did look at the issue, and we found that from the title work that we had done, that they own out to that boundary line. Now, they have stated that something, and I'll let Mr. Page 72 Januaie,pcf8 A Y ovanovich address this, apparently came up in permitting where the state was making a claim -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought we resolved this -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- to that area and they chose not to include it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought what had happened was we were told originally to put language in the settlement agreement that addressed the issue of who owns submerged lands or who doesn't own submerged lands. As you recall, as we were going through the permitting process, the state made claim to it as far as the submerged lands. It didn't affect us one way or the other from a permitting or a density standpoint, so we didn't spend the money to litigate with the state as to who owns the submerged lands. We were originally asked to delete from the PUD that acreage, recalculate the, quote, density per acre. That was all included in the last draft. Then we were told by the county attorney's office to take it out, which we've done. So I don't know what the issue is related to submerged versus not submerged lands and the concerns from staff at this point, because I thought we were past that issue. And I think we all concluded that under any circumstances, if you took that area of dispute between us and the state out, it did not affect the PUD from a legal standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a concern that the water isn't considered preserve? Is there any viable reason that that needs to be a problem -- that is a problem? MS. BURGESON: The concern that I would have is without a thorough evaluation of what the exact boundary of that is, what the interface is between the mangrove fastlands and the water there, you may find that the state says that if they own the water, that the PUD does not own, let's just say, the first 25 feet of mangroves, because Page 73 Jat}1& , 11200A there may be some mean high water issue there, as opposed to a vegetative buffer issue, or the edge of the mangrove vegetation. And if that's the case, then the edge of that vegetation may be outside of the PUD document. And they would not have to go through a PUD -- the PUD process, necessarily, to maybe come in for consult on that edge. So I just have not -- I've not seen what the specific detail is as to where that exact line of ownership is. And I think that that's -- if the county attorney's office has determined that they still own that water, it seems more of a liability for staff to make a change and delete something without knowing all of the facts about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has the county attorney's office come back with any kind of conclusion? MR. KLA TZKOW: I want the preserve listed there. There's a dispute about whether they own it or not. If they don't own it, then it's just -- okay, it's fluff. But if they do own it then we have protections now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically the concern is that if the preserve -- it doesn't include the water, and the water line is undefined. No matter where the preserve ends up being defined at some point, it's all basically a conservation easement to the county. Is that -- MS. BURGESON: In the original PUD documents, the preserve did include all that open water area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. BURGESON: Right, and so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the state pulls back on the water and ends up with the water, and there's an undefined or gray area as where the water ends and where the mangroves start, it doesn't really matter, because the commitment would be that all the preserve area -- MS. BURGESON: Within the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- within the PUD is a conservation area. Page 74 Jan~11. t08 A MS. BURGESON: Correct. Whether the state owns it or whether the property owner -- whether -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sums it up then. Richard, is there any objection to that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just trying to understand what this really means. You want a preserve over open water? MS. BURGESON: We want it to remain as it is in the current PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm asking you the question, why do you need a "P" over open water? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're past that, Richard. I think what it boils down to is wherever your "P" lies is somewhat irrelevant. Basically any of the areas that are not water that are supposed to be part of a conservation easement will be part of a conservation easement, no matter where that water line is determined. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to make sure I understand what I'm going to be required to give. Am I giving a conservation easement over open water? That's the question I have, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it, but I thought that's what we just said -- MS. BURGESON: I can maybe answer that by going back to the PUD document. The PUD document requires that all of the identified tidal wetlands be set aside as a preserve. And all of the wetlands that are set aside as preserve also have to be set aside in a conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically it goes back to what I said, everything that isn't water that's supposed to be preserve by this map will be provided for in a conservation easement. MS. BURGESON: Right. Because the question of whether or not the state defines water at mean high water or at the edge of vegetation line, I don't know on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, but by the language I just Page 75 Janu~I'2108 A suggested it's irrelevant, because it's all conservation easement anyway. MS. BURGESON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if that works, is there an objection to it? MR. KLATZKOW: I just don't want 10 years from now the applicant taking the position and being successful on it that he owns certain lands that we thought the state owned but now in fact he owns, and now he develops it. I just want the conservation easement put on the whole thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the water as well? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. Whatever they've asserted that they own. And they've made the issue, not us. They've taken the issue that, well, we think we own it but the state says we don't, so at this point in time we're not going to fight it. That doesn't mean they're not going to assert those rights down the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, it boils down to a conservation easement over everything that you've asserted you own that's shown as actually west of that dark line on this PUD map. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Couple of issues. I'm not going to warrant title in the conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can't do that. Two, I've got to -- let me just ask the question straight up. If there's open water in that area as you've described, you're saying it's really over the mangrove areas, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a dispute as to who owns the water and the state owns the water, then lets not dispute over where the line is. Just say everything, whenever the water ends and the other starts -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the intent was is whatever mangroves or plants or whatever would be encumbered by a Page 76 JanuaJ,6, lo~ A conservation easement, not open water. I think that's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: My question is, ifI do what Mr. Klatzkow is suggesting and I put a conservation easement over open water, are you now telling me, staff, county, everybody, we're not going to let you have boat docks in open water when we come through and do the process? I'm not saying we'd get them, but I have the right to come ask for boat docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think that issue is at debate here. I mean, that's not what I was thinking when I suggested that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. But I want to make sure that staffs not saying to me, because this is what they want to do, Mr. Y ovanovich, you have a conservation easement over that, and boat docks are clearly not an allowed use in a conservation easement. That's all I'm asking. Let's just be honest with each other and let's find out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess Bill or Barbara, are you the most logical to answer that question? And then the county attorney to opine on it. MS. BURGESON: When we had discussions on this project as a PUD extension, or the boat dock -- I guess it was a pre-application meeting for boat docks on this as well -- one ofthe discussions was that the preserve area which covered not only the wetlands but the water would prohibit boat docks in a preserve. And our response to the applicant, and I'm fairly certain that it was either sent out or a call made to Karen Bishop stating that you would need to do a PUD amendment, at least a PUD amendment to the master plan to move or remove some of the preserve areas in order for you to request boat docks. The intent of the original PUD with the preserve over that entire area was that they would not have boat docks there. Page 77 Janulh ~ 2108 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're saying that the boat dock idea was never allowed pursuant to the approval of the original PUD? MS. BURGESON: It wasn't granted -- it wasn't granted as a part ofthe original PUD. I understand it was discussed at the board meeting, probably at the final Board of County Commissioners meeting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we're not here to change-- MS. BURGESON: -- as a possible -- as a request that they could come back in the future and request that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not here today to try to change the original PUD. MS. BURGESON: No, we're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're trying to make sure the settlement agreement language doesn't conflict with the PUD, and where it does, make sure the board is aware of that. MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically by accepting this bald eagle management plan and not exercising clear delineation of this preserve area could in fact provide access or ability to get docks that were not contemplated in the PUD; is that what it boils down to? MS. BURGESON: I couldn't answer that question. MR. LORENZ: I think the concept would be is any place where you change the preserve area boundary, now it's no longer preserve, that would be the location that you could put the docks. I think that's the -- for me that would be the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I don't want to give the applicant any more than he already has in the PUD. But at the same time we don't have a right to take it away either. So on that basis I'm trying to figure out how to move forward with this argument. MS. BURGESON: Right. I understand it was discussed in the pre-application meeting that they would -- the process would be to Page 78 Janlae 1/I'lo08A come in and amend the preserve boundary to remove some of the shoreline from the preserve boundary, and that would be the area that could be calculated for boat docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, are you familiar with that discussion that she just related to us? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The discussion about how you measure shoreline? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Would you repeat your statement, Barbara. MS. BURGESON: The discussion that you would need to come in and do a PUD amendment to remove a portion of the preserve area from the shoreline. And that area, that portion could be used to calculate the amount of boat docks along the shoreline that you would be entitled to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't remember any discussion about us coming in and amending the PUD to remove an area of preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any-- MS. BURGESON: That was as a result of the meetings regarding the boat dock requests, and I believe a phone call from staff to Karen Bishop relating to that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The question was am I aware. And the answer to that question is I'm not aware of any of that. And let us all remember what a PUD master plan is. It's conceptual. It's subject to the actual permits we get through this process. We have our Corps and Water Management District permits. We're trying to make the preserve area consistent with our Corps and Water Management District permits. That's all we're trying to do. We're far along in the permitting process for this. You know -- and I guarantee you, had the Corps said to me, Rich, that preserve line has moved further east, they would not let me stop where that line is right now on my master plan for my preserve, they would have made me move further east. It moves based upon Page 79 permitting, and that's where we are. And we were never aware that by putting a "P" over water, that we were somehow prohibiting ourselves from getting boat docks in the future. Because, frankly, boat docks are an accessory use to residential development. We never -- and what we think is happening here is I think staff is attempting to now say put a "P" on that water and when you come in for your boat docks on the water, you can't have it because you have a "P" on there right now, which was never what we thought was intended. I think it's creative -- MS. BURGESON: The staffwas requesting-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, you can't interrupt until he's finished. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you know, I'm just -- this is all new to me. In this settlement agreement we were told take out any references to boat docks. At one time we had a discussion about how do you calculate the linear footage. Does an easement over your property mean that it's no longer yours for purposes of calculating your linear footage for how many boat docks you get. We were told take it all out, we're not going to talk about this during this process. We're just trying to get a master plan that's consistent with the real world and the conflicting claims over who owns the bottom of the open water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, one thing we don't want to do is change your rights under the PUD, nor do you want, through this settlement agreement -- we've got to monitor what rights were there and what weren't there. Do you have any references in the PUD that provided you with boat docks as a use on this property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't have anything in the PUD document that prohibited us from having boat docks on this property, okay? January 11,2008 16 11 A Page 80 Jamib 1~, f08 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's stop there then. You now belIeve that by putting this "P" over the water in the preserve area it would prohibit you from asking for boat docks? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just asked a very straightforward question. If I come in now with a request to go through the permitting process for boat docks -- I'm not saying I'm going to win, but if I start the process, is staffs first response to me going to be Mr. Y ovanovich, you have a "P" on the master plan that's over the water and oh, guess what, where you've located your docks is over the water where there's a "P", end of story, you're not allowed to ask for boat docks. And I think the answer I just heard from staff is you're prohibited from asking for boat docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MS. BURGESON: That was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow -- Barbara, you weren't recognized. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: I really don't want to change the PUD. The PUD has this listed as a "P". The PUD gives them certain rights of development under that distinction. And you know, whatever he has, he has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I tend to like the other issue that Brad brought up in common architectural theme, that's an issue that's in the PUD. This is in the PUD. Why do we need this master plan attached to this bald eagle plan, it just confuses -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not attached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why are we even discussing this part of the bald eagle management plan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because staff brought it up. They brought up the PUD master plan during a part of the bald eagle management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your fights on your PUD will have to Page 81 JanU 11, Lo8i stand on their own grounds after these issues get done. They're not part of the settlement agreement. The bald eagle management plan is brought into the settlement agreement. It doesn't change your master plan in the PUD then because you don't have any new graphic for your master plan being modified, do you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear you. Just so you understand, Ms. Burgeson suggested changes to this exhibit with the circles. We can't change because this is part of our permit from the Corps. So we can't change it as she is suggesting that we change it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to get to that issue. Let's just finish up this issue here. Ms. Caron, you have a comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but Exhibit 3 then actually needs to come out because it does not coincide with what is in the PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my suggestion. We just take Exhibit 3 out of the -- it's not a reference in the BEMP. Go ahead, Mr. Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We need --let me tell you why we need Exhibit 3. Because if you look at the old PUD document, you will see on the master plan that you have R, 1 think it's R -1, on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. And you didn't have golf course, certain parts of golf course over on the west side. So you need to revise the PUD document, the PUD exhibit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I'm trying to get past the bald eagle management plan. This master plan can be part of the revised PUD document or the settlement agreement. But for the discussion of the bald eagle management plan it doesn't have to be part of that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it wasn't. This reference to Exhibit 3 is to Exhibit 3 to the settlement agreement, not an exhibit to the bald eagle management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but in a discussion to staff, it Page 82 1 BafufY 1 A 2008 was pointed out, and I wanted to separate it out now, because we can go back to it not being part of this discussion. Go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: The only problem I have is legally -- and certainly Margie is aware of this -- the PUD had two master plans, and they -- whatever it was, Exhibit A and Exhibit B or whatever, and one -- both master plans were based on a certain impact of the bald eagle management plan, of accepting the bald eagle growth management plan. And frankly, is how we got to -- it's why we're here today, through -- because a year ago the board denied the amendment to the bald eagle management plan, which would have invoked the whatever -- I don't have the PUD in front of me right now. I could look it up. But there were two master plans, and one with and one without the eagle restrictions. So regardless, those two master plans have to go. And we still have to have a master plan. Whether it has to be tied to the bald eagle management plan is I believe the question you're asking. I don't think it does, but somehow I still have to have a master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, I am trying to move down this whole discussion in an organized manner. If you look at the paper that was passed out at the last meeting, we get into the master plan discussion by Item 22 because it talks about Exhibit A, which is the PUD master plan that we're now talking about. I don't want to get into that discussion until we get there. I'm trying to eliminate issues that we're bringing up. Weare now talking about the bald eagle management plan, so let's resolve the issues on that plan specifically and we'll pull into the PUD master plan when it's brought up in the settlement agreement, which is on the last page of the settlement agreement. That would be a more appropriate time. We can focus our discussion on the merits of that plan and not so Page 83 JanJ.611, i08 A much on the merits ofthe bald eagle management plan. Let's get past that plan first. So we've had staffs discussion on the bald eagle management plan. Now we're looking for comments from the planning commission on the bald eagle management plan. Who wants to start? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, nobody'sjumping up. First page of the bald eagle management plan is Exhibit B. Under project description, I would suggest that the following language be struck because it's irrelevant to the plan. Starts on the fourth line, the applicant will also propose to build a 35-slip boat dock facility. Any such facility requires further permitting by Collier County and is not approved by this bald eagle management plan. So why do we need it in this plan? Let's just get it out of the plan and let the plan stand on its merit. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The first sentence that you read is in the Corps permit. The second sentence was added by staff to make it clear we still have to go through the building permit process for -- or whatever the permitting process is for docks. So it's part of our Corps bald eagle management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can have it in your Corps permit. We don't need to accept that in this document. You can deal with it later. Why do we need it in our document too, just because the Corps has it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: As long as you're telling me it's not going to come back to bite me because we didn't verbatim quote the Biological Opinion, because that's what we were told to do originally as part of our bald eagle management plan is make sure we follow the Biological Opinion issued by U.S. Fish & Wildlife, I would agree with you. I just don't want to get tricked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't blame you. I have no intention of Page 84 Jan!a~ 11 ,~oo~ that. I'm simply trying to get these items separated out so when this boils down and there's a list of outstanding problems, we can focus on just those. Because right now we're mixing too many things in the same basket and they don't need to be because they're not part of one another. Now, in your question, when you need to be consistent with the Biological Opinion, this is purely a project description, it's not the nuts and bolts of the Biological Opinion. Can I ask either the county attorney or staff to tell me if they're required to have their project description consistent here with the Corps of Engineers permit? And if so, has that been done on every project in the past? MS. BURGESON: Staff reviews the final agency permits prior to issuing, say, a final SDP for every project. What we look for is the -- to make sure that the county's SDP approval is consistent with the agency's permit. So ifthe agency's per -- but specifically for those environmental issues. So make sure that the wetlands, preserve boundaries of the wetlands and the boundaries of the listed species areas are identical, and that buffers and setbacks are identical with the agency permits. But ifthere's something else on the agency permit, for instance, a water management issue, we don't review that. Or if there's boat docks shown on that, we don't review that. We're making sure that the environmental component is consistent with all the permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, my question was as far as the project description goes, is it required to be part of the bald eagle management plan and to match up identically to the Corps permit -- project description? Just yes or no. MS. BURGESON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That means we will not hold that against the applicant in the future by changing the project description to remove the two sentences suggesting about the docks. Is that a fair statement? Page 85 Janl& lLJoosA MS. BURGESON : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, back on the end of that statement, at the end of those sentences it starts out, construction activities associated with the project will impact 1.52 acres of freshwater wetlands. When it says with the project, Richard, which project is it they're referring to, the building of the eagle nest tree, the whole project together, what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm told we can strike it because it doesn't matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that sentence can be struck as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Where are we striking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one after it, the last one I struck with the following sentence, where it says, construction activities associated with the project will impact 1.52 acres of freshwater wetlands. That can be struck. Any objections from staff striking that language? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None, okay. The next sentence, to compensate for impacts to wetlands, the applicant has proposed to purchase mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank. Aren't we saying you shall purchase mitigation credits? Barbara? MR. SCHMITT: We don't need that sentence. It has nothing to do with the BEMP. It's required by statute under Section 404, the Clean Water Act-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll strike that sentence then. Next sentence is to compensate for unavoidable effects to the bald eagle nest, yada yada, the applicant proposes to purchase and preserve suitable habitat for nesting bald eagles in and around the vicinity of Collier County. Page 86 JanuiYe 112f8 A Isn't it again, wouldn't they -- isn't it shall instead of proposes to? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Shall what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Shall purchase and preserve suitable habitat for nesting bald eagles in or in the vicinity of Collier County and Southwest Florida. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think that was a requirement of the permit. I think we have to try here first. If we can't find it we'll go somewhere else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By trying here, you mean with the artificial nest? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the artificial nest is separate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I'm saying -- okay, I see what you're asking. MS. BURGESON: But it does say in or in the vicinity of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm saying that you're not proposing to purchase it, you're going to purchase it. All I'm saying is take the words propose to and say shall. Isn't that what you're going to do? MS. BURGESON: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is not my area of expertise. When you make these changes, I have to look behind me to make sure what you're saying is okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. So now the proposes to changes to "shall" in that sentence. Everybody comfortable with that? Okay. That's the last comment I had on that page. Does anybody else have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Apparently your Biological Page 87 Janutt1112108 A Opinions have been updated as of February 27th? Is that from all the agencies, from Army Corps, U.S. Fish & Wildlife and Florida Wildlife? Yes, move out of the way. MR. WESTENDORF: For the record, Jay Westendorf with Vanasse Daylor. The dates that are listed here have to do with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Biological Opinion and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting. There weren't any relevant dates from the state with respect to the bald eagle permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jay, were you sworn in at the last meeting? MR. WESTENDORF: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying is that you don't need either permits or an opinion from Fish & Wildlife, Florida? MR. WESTENDORF: I believe that that has been discussed, and I'll leave that up to the attorneys to discuss that issue. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. You're back on, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the answer to that question, and I believe staff has the e-mails that the state says they will defer this to the feds. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Caron, the letter you referred to, February 27th, 2007, is a response directed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Colonel Grosskruger. And then I have a cover letter dated April 10th basically identifYing that. So the Corps does in fact, based on the evidence that was given to us, amend their permit. And that's this document. Did you get a copy of this? This is the letter, and it goes down, all the way down. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I did not. MR. SCHMITT: That's the cover letter. And the first paragraph Page 88 Janua1~' rj8 A is -- basically references the response from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife. And now we can talk about the state agencies. But this is basically -- and Jay, correct me ifI'm wrong, because it's your application. This says the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed the review and evaluation of your modification request and received 16 April, 2007 in which you requested to add. And it goes on and on, basically citing the U.S. Fish & Wildlife and recognizing -- because how that works, the agencies respond to the Corps and then the Corps responds to the applicant. MR. WESTENDORF: That's correct, Joe, yes. MR. SCHMITT: This pretty much meets our requirement based on the feds. The state basically defers to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife. We confirmed that through an e-mail, a rather lengthy e-mail I have from the state. But in a nutshell, there are ongoing discussions at the state, but I cannot apply any ongoing discussions, I can only apply what we deal with today. And that e-mail essentially deferred to the -- basically defers to the Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, with their approval, the state approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on that first page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to the second page. And it starts with numeral three. We have three, four, five, six and seven as paragraphs. Basically it's the phasing of the project work around the eagle nest. Anybody have any questions or concerns about that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Boardwalks. Didn't we talk about Page 89 January 11,2008 the fact that you were asking them to remove boardwalks,\~d lrJ A these the boardwalks that you're asking them to remove? That's number five. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Jay tells me no, it's not the same boardwalk. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next page starts at the top. It says C, Additional Terms and Conditions. Are there any questions concerning this page? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, number two. It says mid-paragraph, the territory must include sufficient area to accommodate alternative nest trees in the event that the primary nest tree is lost. And by whose actions are we talking about, the primary nest tree being lost? Is it construction of your towers? I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is a different territory. This isn't our territory . COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, this goes to the-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The mitigation territory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page starts on that page. Actually it's D, Conservation Measures, and goes into E and F on the following page. There was a suggested change by staff in E that talks about a little bit of clarity as far as any different revisions needed by the bald eagle management plan to be included in a rewriting of the management plan. Is that something that the applicant has a problem with, or is that acceptable? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, it's certainly a lot simpler to physically attach a document you get from an agency that's Page 90 JanuttY 1~ 2}08 A responsible for permitting and saying this is a revision to that document, versus retyping the whole thing and making sure we get it right. This has really never been an issue that's come up from a legal standpoint or a staff review standpoint. Why we would retype the whole document, I don't know, versus just attaching any revision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the applicant shall notifY the county in writing of any revisions to the above described terms and conditions approved by the agencies listed above, and such revisions shall automatically become part of the bald eagle management plan. And no further action to amend this bald eagle management plan shall be required. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would think then that if the agency required you to do something that altered your phasing on the project, you'd have to go in and modifY the phasing sequence that's in the current plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I would envision happening, Mr. Strain, obviously is if -- let's just say the numbers change. Instead of one, two, three, four, five, five, four, three, two, one. The flip. I would send a letter or someone would send a letter to staff saying enclosed please find the new phasing schedule for the bald eagle management plan. And it would go into the project file, right by the -- you know, within the PUD document, PUD file that staff has. And it would be very easy -- I didn't envision retyping this document and attaching a new Attachment 1 to the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Concerns? Barbara? MS. BURGESON: Yeah, staffs concern is it's not just that simple, if the eagles move into another nest tree, they could go back to the old one but they could go into a third nest tree in the area. Then it's just not a simple, you know, add a whole new bald eagle management Page 91 l&181;, 11, 2/fJ8 plan to the second. It may just be too confusing to have two completely different management plans, an original one and an attachment. So if necessary, if it's -- if the changes are significant, then it really is better for staff and everybody else to have one clean bald eagle management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the agencies require them to change the plan because of changed conditions with the eagle and they change the plan and the agency accepts it and they send the changes to us, isn't that the same thing? MS. BURGESON: Sometimes what they'll do is they'll just send an e-mail and some comments on how things may change, or what they may provide is just a new Biological Opinion. But it may not be in the format of a brand new clean bald eagle management plan that can just replace the old one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they wouldn't provide an e-mail for a substantial change, would they? MS. BURGESON: We've gotten e-mail for trees that have been removed without permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what you're referring to there. I just thought that -- I've read E, and I thought it gives you what you need in the sense they're going to -- if anything changes, they're going to send it to you. I'm not sure why we would want them to go through hoops for a format that we have when a format that they may have from the agency that the agency's accepted gives us the same information and we can read it. I just -- MS. BURGESON: If it's clear enough. What I'm concerned about is sometimes you'll get an attachment that is somewhat duplicative of the original document. If you don't have a strike-through, underline of the original document with the changes, it just may not be perfectly clear what the attached or amended changes Page 92 Janl~ fl1WO' do in every circumstance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can tell you, if one sentence came through and was changed one word in any of these pages here, I bet you guys would spend hours finding that, and you would, and you would come to us, because this thing has been so highly highlighted. So I doubt if anything will ever get through that hasn't been scrutinized by your department. You guys are focused on this. And I can't see you not picking out changes readily. I mean, that's not been your forte, at least. I'm not sure this needs to be modified at all. Does anybody else have a concern? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to the next page under G, Reasonable and Prudent Measures. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to throw this to the planning commission. The first two paragraphs on that page under D where we talk about the artificial tree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on now? I'm on -- MR. SCHMITT: I'm back under D again. You jumped down to E before we talked about the artificial tree. There's two paragraphs. It says, provide the necessary federal and state, local permits. That's all really nice, if you want that left in there, but that is not germane to the bald eagle management plan, that is a separate and distinct action-- MS. BURGESON: Outside-- MR. SCHMITT: -- outside the PUD. If you want to memorialize that, that's fine. But staffhas no objection to having that whole section removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you know, the tree has been offered as a solution to concerns over the tree that may be lost. And staffhas expressed in the beginning of their presentation that they're not going to like the idea of an artificial tree being put in an ST area. Page 93 Janutti It 108 A Now, I can't imagine why doing something better is all of a sudden disliked because of it's an ST area. To me that doesn't make any sense. But you know what, that's a fight you guys can have. And that's a fight the BCC can decide by this language whether they like it or not. Because I thought the idea that they were even going to attempt this artificial tree idea was a pretty positive thing. So why are we fighting about it? MR. SCHMITT: I support the artificial tree. It's just a matter of I'm just noting that since we were discussing language that may not be needed in there, that's all nice language. I'll leave it in there, it's all subject to, and that's fine, subject to acquiring the appropriate permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's go to Item G then, Reasonable and Prudent Measures. Anybody have any questions there? I think they're nice things to say. I'm just wondering how you-- number two is a little -- detect the presence of bald -- since draft monitoring guidelines are used to detect the presence of bald eagles on the project site, and if present any abnormal bald eagle behavior, since site work and building construction within the primary zone is proposed to occur during the nesting season. That's fine. You collect all this stuff. But just out of curiosity, what good does it do? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm assuming it has some research value for impacts on eagles. We'll provide that information to the appropriate agencies, and they'll learn something from the operations and determine what they need to do. MR. SCHMITT: Jay, I believe you are required to monitor as part of the permit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you are, that's fine. I just was-- MR. WESTENDORF: These came right out ofthe Biological Opinion. These are requirements of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll rest my comments. Page 94 Janupfilf 2f08 A Now, we brought up under -- Barbara brought up the concern over the distances on Attachment 1 to Exhibit 1 of the bald eagle management plan, and they used circles to show 250,500, 750, 1,000 and 1,500 feet. And she asked to have 330 and 660 on there. Richard is already concerned that that's inconsistent with their Corps permit. Would it be inconsistent with our request just to put them on in addition to the lines that are there? This isn't a Corps permit, this is us. MR. WESTENDORF: To specifically answer your question, yes, that can be done. To address Barbara's concerns that she brought up as to why these dimensions were chosen, this was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't going there. You don't need to, unless somebody else asked the question. I simply want to know why you couldn't stick two more dimensions on this plan. You've got plenty of room on it. Couldn't you just do that? MR. WESTENDORF: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then fine, that will get done, too. That gets us through the bald eagle management plan. Has anybody got any other issues on this plan they want to discuss? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Klatzkow -- oh, Ms. Caron, I'm sorry, did you have more you wanted to discuss? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, I'm a little concerned about back to E. And I'm trying to read this correctly. So that any revisions -- this bald eagle management plan seems to allow them the potential for some substantial changes on the SDPs. And we'd have to accept it. And we wouldn't get to review it. I mean, the Army Corps or somebody could require changes, significant changes to the site development plan and it would not come back to us at all. We would just have to accept whatever it was that they gave us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aren't they referring here to the bald eagle management plan, not the SDPs? It says that may cause revision Page 95 ~ahl1, 2A08 to the above described terms and conditions will not require further (sic), so it's just the terms that are in here they're referring to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, except that this is reflective oftheir development. This is all SDP, when they build and where they build and what mayor may not get built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But ifthe -- well, I guess nobody else wants to address this. If the Fish & Wildlife or the Corps or anybody else suggests changes to nuts and bolts of the bald eagle management plan, then the only thing they have to do by paragraph E is notifY us of those changes. It doesn't mean they can arbitrarily change their SDP without having to go through the SDP process to get there. IfI'm wrong, tell me. COMMISSIONER CARON: As long as that's on the record for everybody. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. And are you -- you're back at paragraph E? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: When we first started the settlement agreement the intent of this was that if the eagles move again -- because normally you have to come in and do an amendment to the BEMP, and it's a public hearing. And what we were trying to do is allow for a little bit of an administrative review here, and I'll call it a little bit of administrative review as long as they're within the requirements of the permit, the federal and state permit. And if the eagle moves again, as Barbara said, may go to another tree, that it would be between the applicant and staff in reviewing the bald eagle management plan to come up with a sequencing, a phasing that may be different. But it doesn't give them any get out of jail free so to speak to change the PUD or the SDP. Those are clearly separate and distinct. All this does is allow us to change some of the BEMP to comply with potentially a bird relocating somewhere and changing some Page 96 Jar}1()y'11200A phasing. Is that pretty much, Rich, about a year ago we discussed this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Joe, the intent of this paragraph is whatever the federal agency says to us about how we deal with the bald eagle will apply to this project. If it means we have to relocate a building, which means we have to amend our SDP, that's what we have to do. It also means that I don't have to go through a public hearing process to amend the bald eagle management plan to implement what the federal agencies tell us to do. We don't, frankly, want to be where we are today again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So if the Army Corps tells you or U.S. Fish & Wildlife tells you that you've got to move your building, you don't have to come before a public hearing? So the plan that we've been looking at, and they tell you you have to move it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm still subject to the SDP rules -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you don't have to come through a public hearing process? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. But I'm still subject to the PUD requirements for that change to the SDP. And I'm still subject to the SDP rules. Just like, for instance, the way we talked about earlier is if we come in and amend the SDP and we move the building one foot, one building one foot and we have to amend our SDP, I'm not coming back to the planning commission. Same concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Fish & Wildlife or any of those agencies come back with a change to the bald eagle management plan that requires a change to the PUD, then you have to come back through a public process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. If they moved us into a nonresidential area, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same as anybody else. Page 97 Jlbry,II20A MR. SCHMITT: Same as anybody else. An SDP, if it's administerial in nature, it's a change to the SDP. As long as it's changed and meets the requirements as defined in the development standards, it would be -- well, depends. A substantial or an insubstantial change to an SDP. Those are not public hearings, those are administrative in nature. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, substantial is. MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am, substantial only means -- and there's always confusion on this. Substantial only means than it is a more intense process. It may involve water management and other elements. An insubstantial change is just a truncated review, meaning it goes to a few reviewers, because it is very specific in nature. It is not a shortchanging of the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on paragraph 13. And part of that paragraph was the bald eagle management plan. I think we've gone through the bald eagle management plan, we've got a series of changes. I want to make sure staff is aware of the changes we suggested to the bald eagle management plan. Was someone taking notes or cross-outs or strike-throughs as we were going along? Okay, so you know what language we struck. You know what things we suggested adding, like the circles at 330 and 660 feet. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're all set on that issue. So we can get a draft of that plan back with a draft ofMr. Klatzkow's rewrite of the settlement agreement after today's meeting to make sure it checks out in our final reading of this whole mess. MR. KLATZKOW: If we just get a reading back of what -- just for the record so Richard understands and everybody understands, we need a written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want it right now? MR. KLATZKOW: Either now or at the end. Page 98 Jan1ary 11,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's fresh in our minds, let,~Jni~ itA up. First page of Exhibit B, project description. We struck the paragraph in the fourth line, it starts with the applicant all the way through to the second to last line in about a little past the middle that starts with to compensate. MR. SCHMITT: As shown on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then after, the word proposes to got changed to shall. MR. SCHMITT: That is shall, if you can't read my writing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next change we had in that document was really to add the circles in the Exhibit 1, Attachment 1 to Exhibit 1, which were the circles at 330 and 660 feet. That's the best I can tell you from the notes I kept. Does anybody else have any others? MR. SCHMITT: That's all we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that we're past the bald eagle management plan, we're back on paragraph 13. I'd like to finish paragraph 13 before we break for lunch. Paragraph 13, the substance of the changes are on Page 8 of our draft document for the settlement agreement. We've discussed the first four lines just now. The last two changes are a strike-through after the word SDPs and the addition of a sentence. Does anybody have any problems or concerns with those additional changes and strike-throughs on paragraph 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant have any problems with those? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It should say shall not be considered -- I mean, it shall be considered insubstantial. I'm sorry. Yes, that's correct, the last sentence is right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody is in conformance Page 99 lanml{)1/2f8 A with that paragraph? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. The next paragraph, I'm going to talk to -- ask the panel first, it's 20 minutes to 12:00. We can take an hour lunch break or an hour and five minutes, come back around quarter to I :00 and get ahead of the lines down at the place downstairs. Is that everybody's desire so we can get back here on time and not start late? Does that work? Okay. Well then, at this point let's take a -- it's a good time to take a lunch break. Let's do so. We'll come back here at 12:45 and resume. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from the lunch break. This is the Collier County Planning Commission meeting on the Cocohatchee settlement agreement issue. And as we left for lunch, we were trying to finish up with the bald eagle management plan. We have a member of the community that is here to speak. I didn't know that before we left for lunch, and so I certainly apologize for asking the gentleman to have to wait through lunch to come back and speak with us. But Margie, if you have the public speaker, if you could call, we'd be all set. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mr. Tom Nelson. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you like me to swear him in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you should, just to be consistent with everybody else. Mr. Nelson, you'll have to be sworn in. Cherie' will do that. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. NELSON: My name is Tom Nelson, and I'm with the Audubon eagle watch. I've been watching these two nests in particular Page 100 1anulr(,1 J, f08 A and other nests for over 12 years now. And every year they have produced at least one or more fledglings, eaglets who fledged. And I want to thank Signature Corporation, and Dick Bing in particular, because they have been very good about letting us go back in there and observe these birds. And that's very important. And these eagles moved from the dead tree nest. That was the original nest that I started watching in '95. And this was closer to Vanderbilt Drive. And I feel that because of the construction on Vanderbilt Road and everything, probably they abandoned this nest. And then they moved to a new nest, which is a much better tree and a better location. In fact, it's really a great tree. But that being said, I feel that -- and members of my group and also the Bird of Prey Center up in Maitland, Florida, that any construction within 750 feet, which is a primary zone, during the nesting season would be detrimental to the eagles and forcing them probably to abandon the nest. That's my opinion. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. This nest has been a hard luck nest. We made two rescues at the old site. And last year the mother was electrocuted and one of the two eaglets in there starved to death and the other one fell out of the tree or was actually pushed out. And we rescued that. In fact, Dick Bing was in on that rescue. And getting back to the subject with the building and everything, I was surprised to see how close the two buildings -- the last two towers are to the nest tree. And so now we'll really get to see how resilient these birds are. And just lastly, I just want to say that -- and this has nothing to do with this nest site or Signature or anything like that, but I feel that if Collier County had its own bald eagle management plan it would be a big asset to the county. I have good respect for U.S. Fish & Wildlife and Corps of Army Engineers (sic), but I feel if we had our own county management plan, there would be a nest standing today that Page 101 116J 112~ was chopped down last year. And I don't think that would have happened if we had our own. And that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions ofMr. Nelson? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I've got a question. When -- your issues and your background and history with this nest, did you go to any ofthe meetings involving the federal or state approvals of the take ofthis eagle to express your history and concern to them? MR. NELSON: I was at a meeting. It's been a couple of years ago. Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because they did issue permits to go ahead and build as the applicant's considering, which kind of ties our hands. And that's what I was wondering, if they took your concerns into consideration. MR. NELSON: Well, I don't know if they did or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they issued the permit. MR. NELSON : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions from commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Nelson, thank you for your patience in waiting today. And again, I apologize for having made you come back after lunch. MR. NELSON: Thanks for letting me talk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome, sir. Thank you. The bald eagle management plan was discussed just prior to lunchtime, and the paragraph after that takes us into paragraph 14 in the settlement agreement. That's on Page 8. There's been some changes made to this particular paragraph by underlines and strike-throughs. Is there any concerns or questions from the planning commission members in regards to those? (No response.) Page 1 02 lanu16 ., 2108 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 9, there was an issue last time that came up about the ownership of the submerged lands which we talked about previously. I think it was at the recommendation of the county attorney's office, it was deemed to be not needed, so the entire paragraph was struck. Anybody have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because we're going to do the strike-through and underlined version, is this going to end up in the new PUD? Will those recalculations be a part of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that might be a question for the county attorney. Are we at a point where those calculations have been proven, or are they still, from what we discussed earlier, not solidified or not determined yet? MR. KLA TZKOW: I think there's a difference of opinion. I mean, it's a question best asked ofMr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, as far as, you know, this issue, we don't need that acreage as part of our PUD, so it probably is best, since there is a dispute over who owns that land, to take that land out of the calculations and revise the master plan to accurately reflect that which is the undisputed ownership of the property owner versus that which is not in dispute. So the answer to the question would be is we would take out the area where the DEP has said they own the water. We take it out, come up with the right calculations, the master plan would be -- appropriately reflect that. And you'd have your -- there would be no question as to what's the appropriate acreage for calculation and what is or is not owned, and where the "P" should be and shouldn't be. We know the "P" should be on lands we own and we don't know if a "P" should be on lands we don't own, so let's just get it all accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. To that end, Mr. Page 103 lanu~l>I,f218 A Y ovanovich, it looks to me like the calculations here in this former paragraph 15,just so you can make note, if you subtract out the 127.92 acres from your total acreage, it doesn't come to 404.79, it comes 404.17. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And if you do the same -- Well, I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hear you. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's like, I don't know who went to school here, but nine minus two isn't nine. And if you take out the same acreage from your open space, it comes to 180.08 as opposed to 173.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the right acreage is, I'm sure that would end up being what's put in the strike-through format of the PUD. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm just making the correction, because it wasn't correct in what was going to be the settlement agreement, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Again, I said this earlier, there's dispute over the ownership of this land. Right now this is designated as a preserve. They're not saying well, you know what, we may not own this so let's take it out of the PUD. Years down the line, if it comes out that they do own this now, they get it back, it's outside the PUD and we've lost the preservation status that they originally bargained for. I mean, I could take care of the calculation in the PUD as to whether or not they own the land. But if you take this out, we're then losing something from the PUD which we already have now. COMMISSIONER CARON: If you take it off the master plan? MR. KLATZKOW: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: If you take the "P" off the master plan. Page 1 04 lanuaJ6,.~a18 A MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question is, isn't the shoreline subject to storms and stuff anyway? Is that what you would determine your land, by some sort of determination of where the shoreline is today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, it's the mean high water line if you don't have -- you know, it's a title issue, and I'm not a title -- T-I-T-L-E issue, and I'm not a title lawyer. The general rule is yes, you own from the mean high water line landward, unless you have certain conveyances from the state that also gives you land waterward of that mean high water line. We believe that we started out with a right to lands beyond the mean high water line. The state has taken a different position. It doesn't matter to us for purposes of calculating our density or for the use of that water as a matter -- as far as the state is concerned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is that due to the violence of Florida storms, I like the fact that the shoreline is totally within your PUD, because then it can move around all it wants and it doesn't affect anything. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on paragraph 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the way we're leaving it is struck out of the settlement agreement, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we're not going to deal with it at all in the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't say that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why would you deal with it in the PUD if you're not dealing with it on the master plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get to the master plan, I think that debate will be discussed further, so -- Page 105 1 anum16, tOt8 A MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. I'm trying to get through the document first. Let's get rid of all the paperwork on all the issues we can, then we'll save the big issues for the final battle -- final, as the county attorney puts it in some documents, an amicable solution. We'll seek an amicable solution. Paragraph 16 has no changes. I'm assuming we don't need any. Paragraph 17 on Page 9 has no changes but it does on Page 10 where it continues over. And with the CCPC recommendation language, there's -- will now be incorporated into the text of the document in a strike-through version for review. Is that okay? MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any concerns on Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's some changes to paragraph 19 and paragraph 21 on the bottom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The ex-elected official, ex-employees, what does that exactly mean? If you ever worked for Collier County? It seems like a tough clause. Is that a normal kind of clause, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a typical clause that I would write. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's just I don't know who drafted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I do. Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Your office? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark, are we covered under that? Page 106 lanuJJepJ2!08 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so. We're not elected, we're not employees, so we're free. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure. No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is how can you really bind an ex-employee as to how to behave? MR. KLATZKOW: I could take that out. It wouldn't be language I normally would put in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you fix that to like you would normally would put it in, since your department abnormally put it in? Enough said. Okay, paragraph 21. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The underlined sentence at the end of Page 10, whose language is that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Number 21? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, 21. New 21. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's a standard integration clause that you'll find in agreements so that nobody could say they can point to a different document as the basis for their claim, that this is it. This is the entire document between the parties. If you'd like to take that out, that's -- I think Jeffs going to tell you you don't want to take that out. MR. KLATZKOW: This would be the type of thing I would put m. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I just wanted to know who added it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we had left off last time, we had gone through a series of paragraph analysis that I had passed out, and Page 107 lanl@ll.loosA when we left off in this area, actually, we left off in paragraph 17. And I'm just going back and reviewing the comments from 17 and realizing not all of them had been addressed at that time. The last one, if you have the original sheet that I passed out, item number 19 talks about paragraph 17. And the last sentence there is where I had brought up an issue that I don't know if we resolved. It said Lodge likewise shall be entitled to a refund of all money provided under this agreement and release within 60 days written notice from Lodge, and Lodge shall retain the bald eagle management plan as permitted by this agreement and release. And that's if they weren't able to get all their various kinds of permits. Well -- and my concern was that the only money -- this says all money provided under this agreement and release. And the agreement and release incorporates the PUD. The PUD has Section 6.7(F) and (G) that requires certain commitments also by the developer. And based on this language, I'd be concerned that they be released of all that money as well, or refunded any obligations they have throughout the entire PUD since it's incorporated as part of the settlement agreement. So I was suggesting that there be some tighter language placed here to apply for only that money that has not been expended or committed through contract. At the point in time which you turn that money over, it's so late in the game that you're already going to have known where your permits are. But I certainly wouldn't want the county to have to come out of pocket to give back money they already spent on reliance that you guys are going to move forward. Any -- MR. KLA TZKOW: I think I understand the arrangement. But I'd like Richard to explain his understanding of it since he negotiated it directly. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe the deal was that ifthere was a third-party challenge and this agreement is determined to not be valid, Page 108 lal~ L ~oo~ we get our money back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you get to keep-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Pretty simple. And we get to keep the bald eagle management money because you get to keep a release. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the release doesn't do us any good if there's a third-party challenge. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You get a release from our Bert Harris claim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to start discussing the merits of that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can. But you're asking what was the consideration for our getting our money back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Richard, I think it's fine if we haven't spent the money on reliance of you moving forward. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what had happened, Commissioner Strain, is we had this discussion in front of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board of County Commissioners agreed that they probably ought to wait awhile before they start spending that money. And they control that. And they said we'll wait before we -- and I don't know what that period of time is, they will wait to spend the money to see ifthere's a third-party challenge. That was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we talked last time then about the time limitation in which that would apply to be in accordance with the requirements of Florida law by the third-party challenge. I'd be more comfortable if we would be able to say in this document so the BCC would know that they aren't -- the third-party challenge by law could extend so many months or years, whatever it takes. That ifthey spend money prior to that, it's subject to this, but after that it wouldn't be. So maybe we need to put a time frame in here then from the Page 109 lanua16,~0]8 A execution date of this particular agreement. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you -- you know, you're going to have to ask your attorneys what they think the appropriate period of time for someone to file a third-party challenge is under the law, what they're allowed to do. I don't have a legal opinion on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be -- I'll put that down on the record books, huh? Well, did you have a comment, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: I'll double check the discussion that the board had. My recollection was the board said if they can't go forward with this project, they get their money back. That was my recollection. I will double check that and make sure that the board's intent makes it into this agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm concerned about is what they meant by go forward. This project could start, they could get four buildings up, lose the permit on a fifth because of an eagle or something and all of a sudden fall back under this and get all their money back to day one. And I don't want to see that happen. That's all I'm trying to avoid. So if you'll look further into that. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, that clearly wasn't the intent on our part. I think if we get the building permit issued for the first tower and we get to the point where that tower is fairly far along, and I would like us to use the word CO, whatever the right CO is for that tower, you're sure to get to keep the money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather the county -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because then what judge is going to set aside an agreement when we've gone that far along? I don't think that would happen. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then it should state that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm just trying to reach a Page 110 la~u?ryll t20crt compromise to what Mr. Strain was suggesting. He didn't want us to get four buildings done and then we get our money back. That certainly wasn't the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying it was the intent. I'm worried about other parties who could interpret it differently should you decide to sell the property, should someone else take over, should a bank walk in who doesn't care about local situations. That's where I'm coming from. Jeff, will you consider that wording and -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a way we can get some sort of pro-rated -- I mean, if we use the word pro-rated, would that-- people obviously could fight over how much was pro-rated, but the word would mean that you don't get it all back, you'd get back what's a fair portion. MR. KLATZKOW: I think Rich and I could sit down and easily hammer this one out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On paragraph 17 there was also a reference, and if you look on item 20 on this sheet that was passed out last time, it's the second sentence, addresses the failure by Lodge to obtain federal permits. The language should be added that provides this is for federal permits relating to the original SDP stated in this agreement only. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Original SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what happened is the numbers on this has changed between now and then, so I don't know where the 1 7 from before was versus -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eighteen now, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, let's see. No, it's not 18. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is on mine. On Page 10, 17 has been struck through and 18 has been underlined, so -- Page III lanual6lhi>8 ,I CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me pull up the version I had from-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The numbering stayed the same, though. Commissioner Strain, I think your reference to paragraph 17 is still paragraph 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's on Page 9. At your bottom of Page 9, you're saying in addition, if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain required, and the word local is struck. Right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's still paragraph 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the second sentence-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Your page numbers are different because you didn't have this document where we had added paragraph 15 to it when you made your comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I was trying to say is where it says in addition, if Lodge is ultimately unable to obtain required, and it said local, state or federal permits, then you're entitled to your money back. And I would like further clarification, that it's -- and you've struck local and state and left it federal permits. But I'd like it in reference to the construction as noted on the SDPs that are part of this settlement agreement. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why don't you just say federal permits for the SDPs. And again, since they're all going together to the board, it's going to just be a matter of the board approving the settlement agreement. In order to get the SDP letter of approval, we have to already show we have our federal permits. It should work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so for the SDPs as incorporated in this document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And remember, when this first was drafted this was before we had gotten our federal -- our modified Page 112 lat6Y t 11200A federal permits, for lack of a better word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On paragraph 18, and it's paragraph 18 in this draft, how that ended up being the same, I don't know. At the end of the paragraph, add language to assure that the failure of permitting docks is not subject to paragraph 16, which is now 17. Whoa. We didn't change 18, though. Oh, yeah, we did it as a parenthetical. Okay. Well, that takes care of those. On Page 10, paragraph 21 was the -- and paragraph 19, if we hadn't already asked questions of those, does anybody have any questions or concerns about those two paragraphs and the changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Turn to the next page, Page 11, start at paragraph 22, that's the last page of this document. There were no changes suggested for 22,23 or 24 or 25. They're all clean-up paragraphs to the end of the document, talking about effective dates and county and Lodge acknowledged issues. Does anybody have any concerns or questions there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 24, down at the last sentence, it references that Lodge states it's not aware of any facts that would prohibit construction. Does that concern itself with building code issues? Are you in a simultaneous building review? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would that contain building code issues? Like, for example, we haven't allowed scissor stairs for a while and this design has them, so that would prohibit construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but they don't know of anything that would prohibit construction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question really is, is it Page 113 lanu~ I, :108 A building code or is it planning and zoning issues? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know of anything that's going to prohibit construction, period? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, and we've asked for the reciprocal. Is the county aware of anything that's going to prohibit us from getting our SDPs approved? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's exclude building code review from this clause because you haven't had any review. County can't assure you of anything. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We were focusing on zoning, PUD related concerns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that help or hurt us, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think we need it. We can only represent what we know as of this date. If nobody is actually going through something, nobody knows, whether it's us or them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why would we want to exclude things -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're okay, Brad. I think the idea here is that there's nothing in anybody's back pocket. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that gets us through the settlement agreement. We provided a lot of comments, we've talked through every one of them step by step. The next document in line would be the exhibit, the graphic, which is the original -- no, which is the master plan that came with the version of the settlement agreement that we were starting with last time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know we're going to get to that. I just want to make sure, Mr. Strain, we're all comfortable with this one-fifth Exhibit, Exhibit No.2, which is how the property gets subject to the deed restrictions. Page 114 lal~ llvooA Because the one you're going to talk to is number three. I just want to make sure we're all okay with Exhibit 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm looking at Exhibit A. COMMISSIONER CARON: We haven't gotten to Exhibit 2 yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have Exhibit A as the first exhibit on the back of the settlement agreement that I received on 11/11 from staff. What do you call yours? It's dated 08/29/00, revised 10/05/07. It's the one that was on the back of my particular settlement agreement. You have another one called Exhibit 3, which appears to be the same thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have Exhibits 1,2 and 3. They appear to be similar, close to the same thing that were attached -- no, they're not the same thing. The original settlement agreement. There's been many versions that I've -- I've got them all here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Somewhere. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've got them all up here. I'm looking for a reference somewhere in the PUD -- I'm sorry, the settlement agreement to an Exhibit A. I'm just not finding one. I find an Exhibit 1, which is the bald eagle management plan with its attachments. And Exhibit 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I've got an Exhibit A that doesn't need to be in my possession, I guess. I don't disagree with you, Richard, I just was going by what's attached, so -- I do have Exhibits 1,2 and 3 as well. The problem I have is I'm not sure my Exhibit 3 is the one you're -- no, it's not the one you're dealing with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have Exhibit 3 and Exhibit A. They look to be the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have the true three Page 115 lan161!1,10084\ exhibits that were attached to the back of the settlement agreement? I've got a series of them, but apparently not all of them are right. MR. SCHMITT: The original attachments from the August meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the original attachments that were to be considered as part of the settlement agreement. I can't give you dates, because I don't know now which one -- MR. KLA TZKOW: It's these, right? COMMISSIONER CARON: It's attached to the original PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a different -- okay. Ifwe look at paragraph -- let's go to the settlement agreement. Page 7, paragraph 12 is the first time we refer to the revisions to the PUD master plan, okay? And we refer to that -- to the revised master plan as Exhibit 3. And the date on that, the last time it was revised was 10/05/07. And that's what I'm going to put on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that one I have. MR. SCHMITT: This one is going to change because they changed it with the circles. That's the BEMP one. This one, I believe they reversed the sequence. That's Exhibit 2. So Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your Exhibit 3? MR. SCHMITT: Exhibit 3 is the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the one they're presenting to us, today, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: No, they're not. They're changing that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's the problem. We've got a series of master plan changes. Do you have a master plan with you that you're trying to discuss as part of the settlement agreement today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I put it on the visualizer, 10/05/07. MR. SCHMITT: The difference between the one that was originally part of the packet, the one that you have, the master plan, Page 116 11Q.J 112011\ they removed the "P" from the water. This one is penciled it back in, but our discussions have removed it again. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it wasn't. MR. SCHMITT: I thought we removed it at one time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This one doesn't have the "P" in the water. There's no "P" in the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 2 down at the bottom, number two, it states what exhibits are part of this agreement. It says the original PUD. Could we -- it says the bald eagle -- the revised bald eagle plan and this agreement. So what -- MR. SCHMITT: Can I make a recommendation for the record? We walk through the exhibits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're going to do, Joe. We're trying to figure out what are the right ones, though. MR. SCHMITT: Well, the first one was the bald eagle management plan. Jay, you had the one with the circles on it now. The amended -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something you have to help? MR. SCHMITT: The dimensional circles, which we are then going to add the 330 and 660 circles, concentric circles as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray might have something to help. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so. I have Exhibit A and I have Exhibit 3, and if you look up at the top there where in Exhibit A it says golf course, GC. And if you look at the configuration of the R and the GC, that looks to be considerably different than Exhibit 3 which showed a jog down from the golf course. So that line has changed. And the area of the "R" looks considerably changed. Are you Page 11 7 Janltf J1fOO~ visualizing what I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think -- I know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's more meaningful than just something with a "P" on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me ask, Joe, you were working towards what you believe are the correct documents. Do you have any reason to believe this? Can you and Richard agree that they're the correct, so we're reading off the right one? We have so many, I'm sure we looked at them all. MR. KLATZKOW: I think I've got the right ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do? MR. KLA TZKOW: I think I do, yeah. I know it went to the board and then got kicked back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which ones do you have? MR. KLATZKOW: I've got -- the first one is an attachment to the bald eagle management plan to the settlement agreement. MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to put it on the visualizer. MR. KLATZKOW: I think that comes out now since-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see what that one is. Let's make sure we all -- MR. KLA TZKOW: That was number one. The second one has the group of increasing squares. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The second one is the preservation easements on the golf course. MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. MR. SCHMITT: This one, as of today, was amended. And so just for the record, there will be a new Attachment 1. That's the one that Jay had that had the circles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't-- MR. SCHMITT: And then we were going to add the other concentric circles for the other dimensions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's show that one so Page 118 Jart!111rOOh everybody knows that was the one that was submitted and that is the one that we've accepted as a substitute for the one you have on here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Keep in mind, Mr. Schmitt, that the first bald eagle management plan that went to the board was the old. MR. SCHMITT: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And staff asked us and you all asked us to revise it. So the document that originally went to the BCC is not the revised and updated bald eagle management plan. So that's why you have some discrepancy on the exhibits there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, could you put that new exhibit-- okay. MR. SCHMITT: This is the new attachment one, as I said below. So just for the record, this is Attachment 1 to Exhibit 1. And Exhibit 1 is the BEMP. This will be the new Attachment 1 to Exhibit 1, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. And we previously discussed that. The only change to this one is going to be two more concentric lines at certain distances from the eagle's nest. MR. SCHMITT: 330 and 660 concentric circles as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the second exhibit. MR. SCHMITT: The second that was the original was this map -- whoops, upside down, and I believe, didn't you not change the sequence? Because this goes, five, four, three, two, one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that stays the same. MR. SCHMITT: That stays the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now the third one. That's the one that started all this. MR. SCHMITT: This is the third one that originally went to the board. This is Exhibit 3 to the agreement and the release. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's being proposed for the third one? MR. SCHMITT: That was being proposed with the master plan. Page 119 lrt,tfr!ll, f08 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Now what's being proposed? MR. SCHMITT: Now it's being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Now what is being proposed? MR. SCHMITT: Now what is being proposed. That is what Mr. Y ovanovich had. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The only difference that I could tell between those two documents is there's no longer a "P" in the water. There was a "P" here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Joe. (Microphone feedback.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess that must mean something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, you're right. And what ended up happening is this GC area right here was squared off up here to reflect the actual golf course area to be a rectangle and not whatever that shape is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And then the "P" in the water came out. There's a "P" in the water you can see here. There's the "P" in the water and that came out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: One other question. From the original master plan, why did the preserve area boundary change there along the area of Pelican Isle Yacht Club, across from Pelican Isle Yacht Club? Why did that boundary change? MR. YOV ANOVICH: This area right here? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That changed because that's the actual permitting that was approved as the preserve area from the Corps and the Water Management District. That is what they have determined to be the preserve. And if you read the PUD document, it says it's conceptual, the Page 120 lanuT61,2108 A lines will move based upon permitting. Since we already had the permitting, we thought we would make it accurate to what has been approved by the Corps and the Water Management District as the actual line of the preserve. So that's that explanation for why that shifted. And the "P" in the water came out to reflect the discrepancy between us and the state as to who actually owns it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the issues on this plan, now that we've got to the right one, it's the Exhibit 3 that's on the board right now. The changes have been somewhat described. And there are probably two issues that are going to be the most concerning to us, and that is the "P" in the water was removed. We started discussing it earlier, and we probably need to resolve that discussion now. And along the southern middle portion there, there's a chunk of land that went from mostly preserve to a neck of uplands that leads out to the water. Obviously it provides water access, which dovetails into the dock issue. So with those two things to discuss, anybody else have anything else that they think is pertinent on this plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure, one question. You know, Rich, we have two residential zones, R-l and R-2. Where are they shown? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You formerly had two. Now we're just down to one. The bigger "R" is all on the west side of the road. The former R-2, I believe it is, I think -- or sometimes referred to as the finger, I think, that went away and it's all golf course. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yet the PUD still carries it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Remember, that's what -- what this settlement agreement is doing is modifYing the PUD master plan. And I guess we'll come back to some other format of doing this. But yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Page 121 layary 11,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, hopefully the intent is b~fJre~he A day's over we'll be able to recommend a strike-through version of the PUD that will fix all that. Okay, let's just get on to the first issue about the movement of the "P" from the water. Basically, it was eliminated, and the only "P" involved is now in the preserve area. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm mindful of what Mr. Klatzkow had counseled. And also, it occurred to me that if the settlement agreement were in place and sometime in the future you were to be able to utilize that property, not only could you possibly develop, but the question of density comes up to my mind. You would then -- would you have to go through a process again or what, if you wanted to keep the beloved "P" out of the water? Excuse me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe -- this could degenerate pretty quickly. The bottom line is this: Under the comprehensive plan I believe we're entitled to up to three units per acre. I think we're in a traffic congestion zone in this area, that's why it's not four. I could be wrong. It doesn't really matter. Because under the three, if you take the water out of the equation -- I think at one point it was paragraph 15, I'll tell you where we're at -- we would be at a density -- it goes from 1.11, if we count the water, to 1.46 if we don't count the water. So from a density standpoint it doesn't change. The PUD would still stay at the 590. But from a consistency with the comprehensive plan, we don't have an issue from that perspective. So that's why from our perspective it didn't matter. If the state wants it they can have it, because it doesn't hurt us from a calculation standpoint. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you wanted to avoid having Page 122 January 11,2008 the letter "P" at that location so as to some time in the futuJ ~ hbl to A obtain the rights to use that, no? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We always believed that we had the right to put docks in the water to serve our project, whether the state owned it or we owned it. If the state owned it, we had to verifY, whatever the process is, that it's acceptable to put docks in the water. Ifwe owned it, then it's a different process. We always knew we had to come to the county to deal with whatever county regulations there were to put those docks in there. But from dealing with the state, it didn't matter to us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think I understood that. The question, I guess, is to go or no go. If it's designated preserve you're out of it, you can't do anything about the docks, correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And again, I didn't do the original rezone way back when. But my understanding from what has been told to me is that there was always an intent, whether there was a "P" on that master plan or not, to have boat docks in the water. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't know you could have it III a preserve. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what has apparently changed and has been, I guess, clarified from your environmental staff earlier when they said ifthere's a "P" in that area, we're not going to let you put boat docks, because that's not a permitted use in a preserve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And of course that has value, and that's what Mr. Klatzkow was relating to, the settlement agreement changes the value iflater on they're successful. So I think that's something for us to consider, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, is this a big area or is this something you could isolate on this map and give it another connotation, let us put a "P" in the water and then just show that as a potential area? Page 123 January 11,2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: For what? 16 , 1 'A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For your docks. Or do you know where they're going? If you have a permit going, don't you have them laid out and everything? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I don't know exactly where, but yeah, I think we know where we would like to put the docks as we go through the county process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe isolate that area and take it out of this conversation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The docks have always been along this area right here. So if you want to exclude -- if you want to just put an area, you know, in roughly this position, and then put a "P" down here and a "P" up here -- "P" down here and "P" up here and no "P" in here, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think maybe that's a way to solve it, that's all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds like a decent idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: This is a policy issue that, you know, is the board's discretion. I mean, you can designate the whole thing "P" but say you can put docks in here as part of this agreement. I think Mr. Y ovanovich's issue is that he thinks he can put docks in here even as a "P", but environmental staff is saying no, you can't. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just going by what was the intent when the original PUD master plan was adopted. And the intent was to be able to put docks where the "P" was, subject to all the required permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, the plan as I believe, is to build 35 boat slips. That would require, as required by our Land Development Code, a boat dock extension application, which has to be vetted through a public hearing. Page 124 lanu! €/l18 A So the second issue, at least for the record, I believe that portion of -- we have no SOPs that show any development in that portion of the master plan. Right now the three SDPs that we have in-house, none of them cover that portion of the development. My concern, though, and just for the record, even if this line is moved as shown, there's still requirements for county permitting, and there may be, I'll say -- I'll use the word may, may be a requirement placed to still hold preserves in that area because they're critical mangrove fringe. And we have an issue that we still have to bring back to the board regards to the allocation of docks and how docks are defined. And that was one of the critical issues. And that's -- I can't remember, is that part of this LDC package? Did you all look at that already? Because some of it I've been looking at and some we didn't. But anyway, there are critical mangroves in that area and -- I mean, that's maybe an argument for another day. I just want to make sure we recognize, number one, that there are SDPs in-house. We've asked for anything or any indication of any docks be removed. So they're not in any of the SDPs. And whether the state moved the line, that doesn't necessarily mean that the county recognizes the state moving the line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in a preserve area aren't you allowed to have a boardwalk? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even if that line didn't get removed and it was preserve, they could still have a boardwalk out to the docks, which is what they'd probably have to build anyway -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because there's probably-- MR. SCHMITT: For the record again, that's correct. And then they certainly do have riparian rights. They can -- but that is a part of the public petition process for the boat dock extension. Page 125 January 11, 2008 This is a residential -- yeah, it's a -- it's not a commer!j if II endeavor, it's residential. And residential requires a public hearing for a boat dock extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the purpose, then, of moving the line? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just to make it consistent with the permits we received from the Corps and the Water Management District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And why do you think the Corps and Water Management District set the line where it is? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wasn't there, I don't know. Jay -- oh, Jay's not here. They went through the review and approval, we had to give them the environmental data, and they said here's where the preserve area should be and here's where the preserve area doesn't have to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if they moved the line there to show occurrences (sic) with the preserve area, why is the line out into the water? That's the only place on the plan that that preserve line goes into the water. See where that little hammer -- where it goes out to the west, bends down, goes into the crosshatched area that's water, then back up and in again? I mean, it couldn't have an issue with preserves out in the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that area residential on this? MR. SCHMITT: If you pulled up the -- and I don't have any aerial maps, but that is the Coconilla Marina down in that area, and these docks would be across from the Coconilla Marina. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what you're trying to -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: If you look at Exhibit 4, it shows it a lot clearer. MR. SCHMITT: Exhibit 4. Page 126 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where did you get Exhibit 4? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a 4. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know, it came in something we had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a 4. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, where did I get this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the sidewalk exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what 4 is, is the sidewalk exhibit. COMMISSIONER CARON: But does it show this area clearer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had asked the question about why that preserve line extends out into the water and hooks back in again. I see your gentleman's here who does the environmental. Since you don't, Richard, can he respond to that? MR. WESTENDORF: I think actually, now that you've brought up Exhibit 4, that's a fairly good explanation in and of itself. The PUD master plan was never intended to be an exacting document with respect to where the environmental lines were. Keep in mind this document originally dates back in 1999 when it was drafted and approved in 2000. Exhibit 4 shows post permit line work. So it's accurate surveyed jurisdictional and permitted lines. The PUD master plan is not. It's conceptual in nature. There's a note right on it that says these lines may change. So the one line in the area of the boat dock area that was permitted by the Corps and the District was moved to be consistent with where the permitted line was. But it's still not an exact document with respect to permitted lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why is that preserve line shown in the water? I'll keep asking that question until you can answer it or January 11, 2008 1611 A Page 127 January 11l0f 1 A you can tell me you can't answer it, because if -- don't use the plan that's on the overhead, use the one that's Exhibit 3. It shows a dark black line and it has a squared edge on the far western end of it. Why is that in the water? You certainly can't tell me that you expected to find preserves in the water. MR. WESTENDORF: When the exhibit was revised, the line wrapped around where the permitted boat docks extend to, to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so now there are boat docks in the area already? MR. WESTENDORF: There are permitted by the Corps and the Water Management District boat docks in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, that's the explanation I needed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, I think that line is the boundary of residential so that they could bring residential into the water. It's not the boundary of a preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one side is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One side for part of it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as far as the issue on the "P" in the water, let's resolve our recommendations or our conclusions on that. That has an impact on obviously the way this environmental staff believes they're going to look at this project when it comes in for boat docks. Boat docks are not part of to day's discussion. The applicant claims they were part of the original PUD. That's for another group, I guess, to decide. Anybody have any thoughts on how that "P" ought to be looked at? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I would suggest that we follow the county attorney's suggestion on that end, put the "P" back Page 128 on the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we would recommend then that the commission leave the "P" there because of by removing it might provide avenues for boat docks that have yet to be determined, or -- we've got to give them a reason why we want it there. We just want it there for what? I mean, we're suppose to kind of define -- MR. KLA TZKOW: It reduces development rights down the future, whatever those development rights might be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say reduce development rights? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My thought is, looking at this now, what if we took -- essentially that's a residential boundary. What if we ran -- and since it does include water, what if you had that line wrap around the area that you want to put the docks and consider that area and the water in it as it is on this drawing to be part of residential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The docks aren't an issue on this. That's like giving permission for docks. We're not here discussing docks today, Brad. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if they can't get them-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would determine whether they get docks or not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in was them I'd want to make the record as clear as possible as a trail that I've always I intended to put docks in, you knew I intended to put docks in, I said I wanted to put docks in. In fact, you even gave me a plan and outlined where my docks could go. Now for you to refuse that? That's the argument I would be trying to set the pattern for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, your point is that if you do that then they'll have the rights to put docks within that area. And we don't want to determine that today? lanuary 11,2008 16 11 A Page 129 lanuary 11,2008 If you put the "P" in, by prior testimony you won't be aI10~e! J, A put docks in, so we're determining that today then. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the "P" is what was in the original PUD. I think what the county attorney suggested is we could recommend that the original PUD's reference to where the "P"'s were located remain the same on the master plan that's put forth now, and that by removing it, as we should notifY the BCC, could open the development up to additional development benefits that they didn't currently have under the interpretation of the current PUD. Now, that's what we'd be saying. We're not taking a position on whether the docks are there or not, we're simply saying by taking the "P" off you risk this. They may feel the risk is okay, but that's the advice I think they're looking from us. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here's the PUD master plan. Do we all agree this is Exhibit A that shows the residential development? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've made me so dizzy moving it around so much. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's my goal. Here we go. All right? That's the PUD master plan that exists today, all right? If you'll notice, the only portion of the water that has a "P" in it is this portion up here. There's no "P" south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay? There's a "P" in one place in the water. It's not in both locations. And you'll see a very explicit line that is -- ends at the PUD boundary that shows the "P" is up here. This just shows it's water. This is water without a "P", this is water with a "P". Six on one, half a dozen on another, because the lines can move because they're conceptual, okay? If you wanted a "P" in all of the places, you would have put it here as well because you did in the preserve areas that are marked a certain way that you wanted preserve. So there's no "P" in all ofthe water, just in one piece of the Page 130 lanuaryi ~ 2008 . 011 A water. So we should -- let's Just move on, we'll leave the "P" on that part of the water. We'll take it out. The lines can move. And we'll deal with the boat docks when the boat docks should go through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Richard, I think what we're trying to say is our recommendation was to leave the "P'''s where they were on the original master plan. That's what I said. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want the record to be clear that the "P"'s were not in all of the water on the original master plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Richard, there's an island there that doesn't have a "P", and I'm sure that mangrove island was intended to be preserve. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe're going to start splitting hairs, we'll split those hairs later. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But lift your slide up, you'll see that your logic kind of fails on that island. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that the consensus of the board is that the "P"'s within the water and the "P"'s on the master plan that were attached to the original PUD stay as they were, that's our recommendation to the -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the second item on this plan that's changed is that movement of the line where their proposed docks might go. What is the thoughts from this board on that? That was not on the plan we had a minute ago on the overhead showing the original PUD plan did not have that access or that stretch of land along the common property line south of the "P" that's in the preserves there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, here's the PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Move it -- am I going the right direction, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You're not using the speaker, Page 131 though. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you can see, in looking at that -- and where's my pen, so I can use it as a pointer. There it is. As you focus in closer, you'll see there's white area here and white area there. There was white area adjacent to the water. All we did was move this line to be consistent with the permitting that we got from the Corps and the Water Management District. Because again, a PUD master plan is conceptual, it's not a surveyed master plan. All we're doing is moving it to be consistent. And there was white area down there. It's not like it went all the way down to where there was absolutely never going to be white area down there. So the lines are moveable. If you don't want to move them, that's fine. Just keep in mind, it's a conceptual plan, it can be moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as far as that goes, you have to prove to the county the location of that line. It's got to be acceptable to the Corps, South Florida, all the agencies. So if you move the line to where you show on this new plan, whether you use the original master plan or not, it's irrelevant, you get the ability to move it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. And we've done that through, I believe, the SDP documents we've already submitted that shows where the Corps and the Water Management District say the lines should be. We get to the same place practically, whether you put it on the master plan or you don't. We thought we would just go ahead and reflect what the real world is today, now that we know what the real world is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments on that piece of the plan? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just a quick statement. This preliminary was subject to the approvals of the state, correct? January 11,2008 1611 A Page 132 lanuTlll18 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, the state and the Corps A have provided permits to them apparently that reflect the delineations you see on this plan. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That will supersede this drawing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this is a concept plan. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That being the case, should they be made at least exhibits in this settlement agreement so that it helps to clarifY the issue? Or does it help to clarifY? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would confuse it, because they actually have the permits for the docks with those permits. That would just bring in a whole new -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought maybe if they've had the line delineated where that location is, it would help, but apparently that's not real. No. Okay, don't even go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on this particular line? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the consensus that that part of the plan is not an issue we need to point out to the BCC? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then where we left this is that Exhibit 3 as presented on the aerial needs to have the "P"'s put back in the places that are on the original master plan before it goes -- as part of the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to agree so when we go back and modifY that, is that where I add -- roughly I add the "P" to make it consistent with the original master plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it's consistent with the original master plan, Richard. I'm sure -- Page 133 ltolli' 20~8 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it is. I mean, I'm generally putting it in the right place. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That looks close enough. In the top portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other exhibits that we have that are part of this -- oh, the sidewalk exhibit. MR. SCHMITT: Exhibit 4. I think we ought to show that for the record again just to make sure we know it's Exhibit 4. Rich, vertically and graphically challenged. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And horizontally challenged. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We made that clear in '07. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's one of those renewable Issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this provides the location of where the sidewalk was supposed to go. It was a question from-- because it wasn't referenced last time. It's now Exhibit 4. Anybody have any questions or concerns about Exhibit 4? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Exhibit 4 will go forward like it IS. That gets us through the settlement agreement, the settlement agreement's exhibits. It gets us through the bald eagle management plan. And I think that gets us to -- let me make sure we've got -- yeah, we went through passive, single-family. They provided a series of graphics that are on the SDP, so I guess the best way to discuss those is get right into the SDPs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before we leave the settlement, could you look on Page 2, Jeff, and down at the bottom two, could you in there make it clear that there's four exhibits? I mean, our fumbling is proof that it needs it so -- it states that the document shall Page 134 lanJt611, F08 A consist of the original PUD and then say this agreement with the following four exhibits, so that the commissioners, when they review it, know exactly what's in the settlement agreement and what drawings are not part of it? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else before we go on? I think the next item is the SDP packages. Now, those were supposed to be reviewed in the context of helping us to understand what the intent and purpose of was the settlement agreement in regards to its interpretation and impact on the PUD. So while there's a lot of data on that SDP, much, much more data than what pertains to our mission here today, I need to ask, we need to go through the process about how we want to handle the SDPs. We have a series of heights, elevations and setbacks for all the structures. We have structures on there that aren't well defined in the PUD that the applicant I'm sure is -- in fact, I believe we've got some standard tables now to discuss. There's some landscaping issues to go over. And let's see, the second floor is no longer an issue. Is that -- why don't we start with the graphics that came in. We had five pages of graphics. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you in the SDP now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are pages that are out of the SDP and there are pieces of the SDP. And it might be the simplest way to work our way into the SDP. And this is the first page of the five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the outcome of us reviewing the SDPs? I mean, for example, does that mean that we're saying everything in the SOP is proper? Page 135 Jant~ If' 1008A I mean, essentially the settlement agreement states that in this agreement is any deviations that they request from the SDP. Other than that, isn't it all staffs job to do it? Is it our job to check staff? You know what I'm afraid the issue we're going to get back on to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But I thought where we were going with the SDPs was purely a supplemental information for us to understand the terms of the settlement agreement, how they're being interpreted and incorporated into the SDP. For example, your issue on habitable height. That's the perfect example of why we needed to see the SDPs. I don't think any of us are water management engineers or people like that that need -- or piping engineers that need to get into the details of the connections and all that. But I think that we would look at the setbacks in the SDP, and are they what we believe the settlement agreement intended. And if they didn't intend it or it's different than the PUD would have allowed, we need to point that out. But that's the extent of it. I didn't see us getting into every little nut and bolt of the connections and detailed portions of the SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My thought is that since we removed the deviation of setbacks, that's a good issue to look at, then it's purely up to staff to review the SDP. Other than that, we're second-guessing staff in their review of the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. I have very few comments in the SDP. However, in going through the SDP, I did find that there were no development standards for accessory structures or for, like, the clubhouse. In the golf course section of this PUD, you have a clubhouse height limitation of -- you have a height limitation of 20 or 25 feet. Their clubhouse far exceeds that. So I couldn't understand where they Page 136 Jaf~ f 1200A got the standard from. And then I found out there really wasn't a standard. And I think they're proposing standards in some of the paperwork we've got in front of us here. So that's why I would suggest we move through those five pages of graphics first, and then we can get in -- and once we analyze those, it may eliminate all the questions we may have on the SDP. And those, for everybody's reference, are the one that starts with the setbacks from Vanderbilt Beach Drive. They have attached to them two tables that are in the SDPs as well. And then there's a graphic showing a landscaped buffer, and of course the berm doesn't have a height on it, that's a problem. And a couple more details and then the second floor plan ofthe building. So the first one of those plans is an exhibit showing the setbacks in relationship to Vanderbilt Beach Road, and actually between the towers, both the towers and the garages. Same type of setbacks that are on the SDP. So I'd certainly like to open up the discussion, starting with that document. Does anybody have any -- now that we've spent some time on the settlement agreement, we better understand how it applies. Do we have any problems, questions or concerns with the settlement agreement's application versus the PUD application on that site plan that was provided to us? It's not the tabled one now, it's just the graphic one to begin with. Anybody have any issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, what are we going to do, are we going to approve these and say yes, these are acceptable dimensions for this building? Because obviously you know where I'm going to be. I thought booting the side setback back to staff kept us from endorsing those setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In fact, I don't think we were asked to approve the SOP. We were asked to approve or recommend conditions -- we were asked to provide an analysis of the settlement Page 137 lanua~16 iOCf A agreement. Because the settlement agreement referred to the SDPs, we need to look at the SDPs to make sure that everything is there. It didn't say we have to like it or we have to agree with it, it simply has to be consistent with what is in the intent of the settlement agreement. And if it isn't, we need to tell the board that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Obviously the side setbacks are measured improperly. The distance between buildings, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you think that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I don't think that the distance is one-halfthe sum of the heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the PUD -- in two sections the PUD allows for common architectural theme, which eliminates that criteria as testified to by staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't agree with that. That's your impression. This is my impression. And when I went to school -- I have a planning degree, I'm an architect and planner. From my interpretation this does not meet the separation distance between buildings. We went through it already and staff trumped me, so I don't know why we're persisting here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you guys don't want to review the SDP, I don't need to review it, because I came through my review only needing a couple of things. I'll be glad to fall back on the issues I had problems with, and that was the fact there were no development standards for the clubhouse and the cabanas. And if that's -- go ahead, Mr. -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe, and I hope you got the e-mail that I forwarded from Jay. Actually, I sent it to Jeff and I think Jeff sent it to you. I sent it Friday, January 4th to Jeff. And I'm pretty sure he forwarded it to you. It was a suggestion that we essentially incorporate the -- for all structures other than the high-rises, we incorporate the R-2 Page 138 lanT611" 2108 A development standards into the PUD document for all of the other structures. Let me bring -- if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I'll bring you the e-mail that I'm referring to. Then I'll put it on the visualizer. I'm getting that puzzled look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I may have, Richard. Yeah, I think I did. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That one I have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's to address your concerns and staffs, frankly. And hopefully where we're going to lead to is that we'll have a new development standards document that will essentially look like the PUD. It will be attached, there we will be one document where everything will be together. And we would suggest in that document that we would incorporate these development standards to address things other than the high-rise buildings. The cabanas, you know, the height of the clubhouse and things like that would find their way in. And we're suggesting using the R-2 development standards for everything but the high-rises, essentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that works from my review of the SDP. How about the rest of you, any concerns? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Adding this one, just this one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Well, if you read this particular e-mail and you go to the PUD and look at the development standards table, they have an R-2 column. That formerly was labeled multi-family. I think they're trying to say now that that will be all other structures other than the high-rise and those structures delineated elsewhere, because under the golf course section you do have another set of standards that you don't want this to interfere with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But my point is we're only bringing in the development standards for clubhouse, cabanas Page 139 and maintenance buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Well, I mean, that's what it applies to now, but it would be any other structures other than -- the R-2 would apply to other structures other than high-rise, with the exception of those under the golf course standards. MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the "R" district on the PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I see a chart that has three different uses, different numbers in each category. So are you saying you're going to blend them together? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the chart we're using. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we're not going to use this chart? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the chart from the PUD to show staff what the regulations are and what they were providing. This would be where you would find your standards in the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're going to scratch this and use the second column. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That chart that you were first talking about, that's from the SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The standards on that chart should match up with the standards that would be on the Table 1 under the R-2, which now says multi-family, but which will be changed to accommodate all the other accessory structures -- all the other structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I haven't checked that, but -- it doesn't match the numbers. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think when we come back and you see a development standards table that incorporates everything together, it's lanuary 11,2008 16 11 A Page 140 Januar 61/18 A going to be a lot easier to understand. I think, Mr. Schiffer, you're looking at an SDP table, not a PUD table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at both, I think. For example, the maintenance building, you wanted to regulate it to be 20 foot high. Yet if we went to the second column, it could be 30 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I said exception. And I said that twice. The maintenance building, which is under the golf course section doesn't apply to the "R" section. And the "R" section is the only one these development standards apply to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then I'll wait to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron's going to wait, Mr. Schiffer's going to wait. Anybody else have any concerns or issues? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The SDP packages that you received then, assuming that we rewrite the PUD with the strike-through version, are there any other questions on this project from either the SDP package or anything else you received or have at this point before we get into discussing the merits of the strike-through SDP? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Back at the table in the PUD, are we going to change the column under R-l at all? We were given a hand-out that has different -- so we're going to scrap the handout that was from the SDP and stick to what was originally in the -- okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think, Mr. Klatzkow, you're going to be working on a rewrite and incorporating new language, I understand. And then the only other thing we have left to discuss is the PUD strike-through version. And I'm sure that the rest of you feel, as I Page 141 lanuary 11,2008 probably do, that it would be a lot simpler to have a strikl-~!u~ A version of the PUD presented for final review along with the final draft of the settlement agreement at another subsequent meeting and be done with this. Is that the consensus of this panel? Anybody disagree? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant have any problem with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. MR. SCHMITT: For clarification for the record, the strike-through and underlined version will include everything that is addressed in the settlement agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, it will tell us how the settlement agreement interacts with the PUD. Please, would you guys work that with the applicant before you all get here so we don't have a whole discussion about the terms that do and do not apply? I'd rather you have most of that argument and then come back here with the synopsIs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the risk -- the building height definition. Are you going to use the one we proposed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, we have a building height for habitable in our code of laws. You propose another one. I'm not sure why we need a second one if we already have actually -- we have one in the definition section of our code of laws. I think either one of them covers you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It does. My only concern is it's not like the county doesn't get in there and sometimes change its definitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we put -- why don't you incorporate that definition into the PUD that's in the code of laws. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. I thought what I drafted was pretty similar, and we'll do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just do it again. Page 142 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm with you, we'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just not change things. It would be nice if we had consistency. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Keep it simple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so everybody's on board, we know where to go with this. I think that we finished this discussion today. And with that we would have a continuation to another meeting. And Mr. Schmitt was kind enough to anticipate that little issue and provide us with a series of dates. The first one is February 14th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, Valentine's Day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be 8:00 to noon in this room. I would hope that we could finish this up in one morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you say 8:00 till noon? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What day of the week is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a Thursday, in between our regular meetings. 14th. That's just one of them. There's a whole series of dates here, but let's start with the 14th. And the second one is the 25th, which is a Monday. And that time we're available the whole day we could have this room for. So we may want to look at the 25th, because just in case -- I can't imagine us running over again, but in case we do, we could go on the 25th and be here from 8:30 in the morning until 8:00 at night. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's bad for me. The I CC meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 14th works for -- how's the 14th work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 14th works good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if we come in on the 14th, we need to come in with the intention of starting at 8:30 and being done by noon, because that's the only time frame we can keep this room for, okay? Janua16, ,0108 A Page 143 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thursday, the 14th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thursday, the 14th, yep. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 8:00 to noon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:30 to noon, right. MR. SCHMITT: I need for the applicant to understand that that is a fairly -- though it seems like a long time, it's a short time. We're going to need their focused cooperation in getting documents to us, the county attorney finishing its portion as well. You're going to want the documents on the 14th, we're going to have to get them to you in the mail out minimum by the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a meeting date. What I would suggest is the only thing you send us now is the draft version of the settlement agreement, as we've discussed, and a strike-through of the PUD. We don't need anymore SOP plans. But we will need an acknowledgment from staff that the SDP plans that they have by the date of our next meeting are consistent with the agreements that we have in front of us. MR. SCHMITT: All right. Well, then I need to turn to the applicant, to Jay and his team. Today's the 1 I tho I've got to take everything that we've discussed -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm going to be doing that. MR. SCHMITT: Well, they've got to take it and apply it now to the SDPs as well and get a resubmittal to us. I'm going to need that -- I'm going to need a resubmittal and we need to do a review. So you're going to want some kind of a testament, I guess, or us attesting to the fact that the SDPs are in compliance as well. I am looking to the applicant here. They've got time frames to meet and I've got to have at least -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, we have March 3rd open if you want more time. But it's either the 14th of February, the 25th of February, March 3rd, or you could even go to March 18th. January 11,2008 16 11 A Page 144 JalJjLary.l1, 2008.. ,16 J 1 . MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought what we were trying to do was A make sure we have a development standards document that we can all live with, and then staff will then apply that development standards document to whatever our submittal is, with the goal that our submittal, our revised SDPs consistent with this new development standards document will ultimately go to the Board of County Commissioners at the same time. I don't know why we would have to have the SDPs resubmitted, re-reviewed before we come before you all, because you're just setting the development standards. You're not going to be actually reviewing the SDPs for consistency with those development standards, are you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think we need to. And I don't know if -- does this board feel the desire to get into those plans? I don't think we need to. Well, then we don't need to worry about the SDP. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. But the commitment -- and I want to make sure Rich understands that when we bring this to the board, that's with your recommendations, your basically recommendation of approval, I assume, by that point of the settlement agreement, the PUD. And with that I want to be able to tell the board as well that the SDPs are in compliance and ready to be approved, subject to the approval and signature of the settlement agreement. So that's what we would bring to the board. Is that not correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought we were bringing them both at the same time. MR. SCHMITT: That they both come at the same time. Staff would approve -- MR. KLATZKOW: Ijust wantthis over. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, the settlement agreement, PUD, SDPs, all at once for the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the board. But this panel can finish Page 145 January 11,2008 up with the settlement agreement and the PUD at the next m~fftJg te A have. And then the staff reviews everything subject to those. Mr. Schmitt goes forward and says yes, the SDPs are consistent with what the planning commission recommended, here's where we're at. And then if the board changes it, so be it, but at least we've gotten that far with it. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. Then that basically gives the applicant more time for a submittal -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we could be done in about a week, Joe. We didn't want to put you guys in a position to have to get it done in a week. MR. SCHMITT: That gives me time, based on -- subject to your approval ofthe 14th, it gives the staffthe time to review and have a reviewed settlement agreement, a strike-through and underlined PUD document that is commensurate with the settlement agreement. And then we will sometime, whenever that date may be, and that's up to the county attorney and us with the manager to define a date to bring this to the board. But when we bring it to the board we will then affirm to the board that the SDPs are in compliance as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment and Mr. Murray had a comment. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to ask you to repeat what you said about setting the development standards. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we're going to essentially do is we're going to revise the PUD document. It's going to become a development standards document which will show heights or whatever setbacks, whatever we just talked about changing, the R-2 standards becoming the standards for everything but the high-rises. All of that is going to be in one document. You're going to say yes, this is what we recommend the development standards document should be to go to the Board of County Commissioners. And then we have the burden of submitting Page 146 16 , 1 Jar~ary 11,2008 an SDP that's consistent with those development standards that are going to be in that document. We'll get that to staff in short order. But to put them in a position, make sure that the development standards document is done accurately so you can review that and review all the documentations to make sure it's consistent with that I think might be putting staff in a hard place to get that done by the 14th and run the risk of errors. And nobody wants that. We're all trying to make sure that this is done accurately, the SDPs are consistent with the development standards document, and the board can have all that in front of them at the same time to say yes on the settlement agreement, yes on the SDP. If they say yes to the settlement agreement, the SDPs get issued the next day, they sign the document and 15 days later we write you a check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's going to do the settlement agreement? MR. KLATZKOW: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who's going to do the PUD? MR. KLATZKOW: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When can you have those done by? MR. KLATZKOW: The more time you give me, the better. I can have it done in a week, but it just means setting aside everything else. So the more time, the better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Jeff, we're trying to work to your schedule. Is the 14th too -- MR. KLATZKOW: I can have it done by February 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you'd have to have it done in advance of that because you'd have to go over it first with the applicant and then with us. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I can have it -- you can be looking at this February 14th with plenty of time to review it. But, you know, if you give me more time, that would be fine, too. Page 147 January 11,2008 MR. SCHMITT: We would hand it out at the meeting F!~abl A 7th. We would want it as least by then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In order to accommodate a little more time, is the 25th out? How does the 25th sound? COMMISSIONER CARON: It's fine for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know for sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's better for everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 25th? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I really do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with the 14th and the 25th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're out, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Jerry's out of the country. I've got to be done at 1 :00. That's all I've got to say is I don't have the all-day option on the 25th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will say, if they want to do it on the 14th, fine. I was trying to accommodate everybody here so no errors or the minimum number of errors would be present. MR. KLATZKOW: In do my job right, this is going to be a half hour discussion, tops. I mean, you don't need a full day. If you need a full day for this, then Richard and I really messed up. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hey, hey, hey there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a decision. What does this board want then, 25th or the 14th? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 14th for Mr. Schiffer. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's leave it on the 14th. IfJeff runs into a problem, he can e-mail us and, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you tell us by the 7th there's a Page 148 January 11,2008 problem, we can just decide then on the 14th. 16 I 1 A Richard, on the 7th if we see we have a problem in deadlines, we'll reconsider the date to a later date after that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That will be great. And I'll be in contact with Jeff, so I'm hopefully going to know before you know that we have a deadline problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that ends-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The bald eagle management plan is not going to be subject to any other changes, right? Everything is going to be as it is? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Other than you took out a couple of sentences. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, pertinent to what we qualified today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you don't have any -- no expectation of change. MR. SCHMITT: The bald eagle management plan is part ofthe PUD document and will be included as part of the PUD. It's an attachment to the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But when we get our documents, they're going to be everything we talked about and qualified, it's going to be done. And that wouldn't change beyond that; we have no expectation of that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I hope not. We only took two sentences out and added two circles, so hopefully we can do that one pretty easily. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you'll have "P" in the water and there'll be no problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll have "P" in a portion of the water. Page 149 January 11,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, let Mr. Murray speak. }o~ 11 J guys are trying to be recorded here and it's a little hard. Okay, ifthere's no more discussion on the Cocohatchee issue, let's just end it and we'll continue this meeting -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You sure? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got more discussions on other issues. You're more than welcome to hang around. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next issue on our agenda for today is -- MR. SCHMITT: A break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's break till 2:30, we'll come back and finish up. Thank you. (A break was taken.) Item #9 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we have a live mic. Okay. Welcome back for the continuing saga of the January 12th (sic) planning commission meeting. We finished up with our previous Cocohatchee issue for now, continued it until February 14th. We're now on old business. Last meeting we discussed a new policy for the planning commission to have basically a consent agenda. Mr. Klatzkow was kind enough to create a policy for the planning commission to review that I believe he's going to put on the overhead or something. A bunch of legal whereases, and the second page gets into the actual meat of it. MS. ISTENES: You're not really going to be able to see the whole thing at once and read it because there's some legal -- Page 150 January 1'60,81 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, when I formatted this I kept printing it and the bottom was cut off. And I had to reformat it. Finally I got the smarts and said, ah, it's a different size. I don't know if the commissioners have read this. I believe you all got it in an e-mail. I thought it seemed to be pretty good with the intent of what we were trying to do in it. I think the highlight of the whole thing is it's a consent agenda item to basically make sure that the directions we gave and the changes we asked for, the stipulations, were accurately taken down and -- would be transmitted. It's not an agenda item where we would take a motion for action. It's not a debate. It's one where we've already decided on something and we're just having a final check to make sure everything that we decided on got accurately portrayed. So what that would mean is we would not want to be -- we could not be getting into debating issues of substance at these agenda items. We basically have to make sure it's consistent with what we had said and let it go on. Otherwise we run into troubles of re-advertising and that kind of stuff. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, the idea is this. Some of us here were at a meeting last night in Pebblebrooke and we don't ever want to be in a meeting like that again, ever, ever, ever. Because I can't tell you how sorry I feel for the residents over there. And the idea is this: We don't want to inadvertently miss any of your directions as far as CCPC recommendations on any development order again. And what will happen is I've tasked Marjorie Student, and I know Joe's tasked some of his people, that we're going to go through the tape of this meeting after every meeting, and we're going to go through and we're going to make those changes, and then they're going to come back to you on a consent agenda. And if we do our job right, you'll never pull them off because it will be accurate to the T on it. ;'11 ,M Page 151 January 11,2008 There may come a point in time, however, you !at1sJ w! a second, you missed something, we intended something else. At that point in time you can pull it from the consent agenda and the discussion would be limited to whether or not the changes were made in accordance with your recommendations and directions to us. If it gets to the point where you think we're in error on that, it will come back again to reflect your particular recommendations. Matters outside of that will not be discussed. If you think the staff report, for example, should have been modified, that's not part of the discussion. If somebody has another idea, well, maybe this should have been included, that won't be part of the discussion. It's whether or not my staff and Joe's staff working together got this right for you. So that when the BCC then gets it, they can be guaranteed that when they're looking at CCPC recommendations, they have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This differs from the consent agenda that the commission uses. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, the commission uses more of an action item type of agenda. This is simply a format so that you can look at it, and ifthere's no comment it just gets taken and proven forward to the BCC. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: For verification? MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to comment that the BCC will know that as of the date that we sign off on this, it was the best information that we had at the time and our recommendations are based on that. Oftentimes they get different information than we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This will help a lot. Mr. Vigliotti? Page 152 JanU!61l18 A COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Jeff, on this consent agenda, will that be each and every item that we went through at a previous point in time? MR. KLATZKOW: Only the ones where you've directed changes to be made. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So any time we make any stipulations to the original, then it will come back through this. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think at our meeting, if we see we have a lot of difficult stipulations, we need to ask for it to come back. It won't automatically come back. There will be times when we come through this we may hear something and not have a stipulation or we may hear something and have one that's really simple, change the word may to shall. We don't need that to come back. So I think it's going to be those times that we exercise that discretion at the end of the vote of every single one of these. And if we decide not to exercise it, then it doesn't come back. Is that fair? MR. KLATZKOW: These are your rules, if this is what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just a couple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 1, you refer to the comprehensive plan. Do you think that might be better the Growth Management Plan? MR. KLATZKOW: They're one and the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are, but we normally, I think -- don't we refer to it as the GMP? Anyway, you're happy with that, that's fine. Page 153 Janua111,2008 We reference consent agenda. Is that like a standard term9do~ A everybody know what that means? I mean, I know what it means. But in terms of -- in here there's no discussion on how to pull an item, stuff like that. So would that be something you would know by the generic understanding of what a consent -- MR. KLATZKOW: Anyone of the commissioners at the beginning could say I've looked at this, there's an error here, I think there's an error, I'd like to pull it. And then it would go onto your regular agenda for discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That comes from the quote, consent agenda, we would all know that that's what that's for. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the timing of it. How long do you think it will take to get into the consent? Will it be at the next meeting? MR. KLATZKOW: You'll have it at your very next meeting. That's why I wanted to bring it forward today so you could have the consent agenda as part of your next meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the only other conclusion. I know that we can make our own rules. Are there any other prior rules done by prior -- MR. KLATZKOW: I have looked, and I couldn't find any. I was actually very surprised. I had assumed when I started working with you guys that you had rules and you didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there was a rule put forth by the county commission, and I have a copy of it, it's an old one, that set the way the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners will proceed with hearings. I think it's 167, but I don't know what year. I'll pdfyou a copy of that. MR. KLATZKOW: That would be nice, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: It would be good if we all got that. Page 154 JanU161l18 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I actually included it with everybody that was here a few years ago, and I passed around a book of what the planning commission could and couldn't do. It was in that book. But I'll be glad to send it to Jeff and let him disperse it to everybody. Are there any other comments on this particular policy? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I guess we would label this Resolution 08-01? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a recommendation to approve Resolution 08-01 as presented by the county attorney today. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. I've got to remember how many people are here, Cherie'. Page 155 JanuT6lff8 A Okay, we have a speaker coming for the sign one, so we'll put that off till last. Let's review the first two -- oh, I'm sorry, I've got to adjourn this meeting and open up another one, don't I? That's right. So with that in mind, I'd like a motion to adjourn our regular scheduled meeting for the Cocohatchee. COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made, seconded by Tor. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. ***** Page 156 January 11,2008 1611 A There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair; the CCPC Land Development Code Cycle 2 meeting began immediately following adjournment. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION '1 . , I . /. I (. , i , / I '"". (\~ (.u__(~ /j\t:' )./L-----.: MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman Th . db h B d ,,/ .X' ese mIllutes approve y t e oar on { c. r .-- U as presented t/ or as corrected , TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 157 c 1",- Fiala~,}\ <.'t' < - Halas t.LL- Henning::r:: Coyle Coletta Ja!u~ry{ 1 ~ 20cA TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 17,2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Misc. CoIres: Date: ~ Z5.~ - Item #: It q'IlA; Ie:) Page 1 =0'J!a~ to' ~ JanulA ~ 2108 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. I'd have to ask that you take your seats and we're going to bring the meeting to order. This is the January 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'd all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the loudest and most vocal pledge of allegiance we've ever had. Thank you. Please remember, too, we all get the opportunity to vote between now and the 29th, so that might be a very beneficial thing to do. Roll call by our secretary, please. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes, I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. Page 2 January 17,2008 Item #3 16 J 1 A ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item on the agenda is the addenda to the agenda. And there is a substantial issue I want to talk about. But before we get into that, I want to make sure there aren't any other items that may want to be added to the agenda. Mr. Kolflat, you had indicated you wanted to mention something. Did you want something added to new business? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll put your name down under new business and when we get there, you can fill us in. Okay, yesterday afternoon around 3:00 everyone on this commission, as well as the applicant's representatives, got an e-mail from the County Attorney's Office. An e-mail with a little different direction than we previously had received in regards to today's meeting. Previously we were told in our executive summary that we received in November, and it repeated itself in the one we received last week, said the County Attorney Office's opinion is that the proposed PUD amendment should not be recommended for approval by the CCPC. In response to that on Tuesday night I asked the County Attorney's Office Wednesday morning how to proceed with this meeting, if we weren't allowed to have a recommendation of approval. And this is supposed to be a board that doesn't predetermine its outcome before the meeting. We're supposed to come to these meetings with what information we can gather, listen to all the testimony at the meeting, then make a decision on all that testimony collectively and not come here with a pre-set or pre-determined mind. In asking the County Attorney that question, the County Page 3 lanuary 17,2008 Attorney's Office went into consultation on the matter anJi~tJel A afternoon yesterday they called me and basically told me what their outcome of that was. And I'll read you the e-mail that went out: Dear Commissioners, with respect to tomorrow's agenda Item 8-A relating to the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD, it will be my strong recommendation that the Planning Commission does not hear this item. I believe that Judge Brousseau's order dated January 29th, 1997, which was affirmed on appeal and a copy of which is in your packet, bars the building of a hotel at this location. It is my further belief that the proposed amendment to the PUD could be viewed as an attempt to circumvent this order. And I cannot in good conscience put this commission in peril by hearing this matter. It will be my recommendation that this matter be continued indefinitely. Should the Planning Commission elect not to hear this matter, the applicant could request a declaratory judgment from the circuit court that notwithstanding Judge Brousseau's order, the proposed hotel could be developed by admitting the PUD as requested by the applicant. Should the applicant be successful in obtaining such an order, the matter could then proceed in accordance with the guidance provided by such order. Signed by Jeffrey A. Klatzkow; Chief Assistant County Attorney. Now, based on that memorandum or that e-mail that we received, this commission has to make a decision on addenda to the agenda. We have basically two decisions to make: We can accept the County Attorney's recommendation and continue this indefinitely, or we can continue it to a date certain if we disagree with the County Attorney. Out of fairness to both sides, I'll ask Mr. Klatzkow first if he has anything to add, and then Mr. White has asked for a moment to address us as a matter of record. And other than the two attorney's Page 4 lanm~r 6712108 statements, and I'm going to ask that the statements not be issues A involving the tax on any individuals, but simply trying to make a matter for the record. Other than that there will be no other discussion on the matter, once the Planning Commission makes its decision. So Mr. Klatzkow, do you have anything you want to add? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Patrick White with the Naples office of the law firm of Porter, Write, Morris and Arthur, on behalf of the petitioners. Briefly and for the record, if the Planning Commission elects to not hear this matter or to continue the matter indefinitely, based on the interpretation being offered by the county, my client will be irreparably harmed and have few choices on how to have this request ultimately heard. I'd ask that the e-mail opinion you were provided late yesterday be provided as a copy into the public record. Specifically as to the Judge's order, that's the subject we're talking about. But more correctly, the writ of certiorari we were granted -- that was granted by the Judge's order, legally speaking, it did not do anything more than simply quash or nullifY the prior Planning Commission's action from 1996 approving the site plan for 48 hotel units. Once the action of the Planning Commission was quashed, the court could only legally act to remand the case for further proceedings. The writ has no continuing legal effect thereafter, thus it cannot bar the subsequent application and request from being heard. That's consistent with a long line of Florida cases. An opinion that does not appear to be consistent with those is not one you must follow. Regardless, it's the late appearance of the opinion offered on the eve of our previously continued hearing that's a cause for most serious concern. Page 5 lanuary 17,2008 Ifthat direction is followed, it will severely prejudice l{J 1 1 A applicant's procedural due process rights and deny the landowner the most basic and fundamental property rights. So does the recommendation that our application should now be continued indefinitely without any closure unless we force our government to allow us to be heard by further judicial order. Without question, the landowner's constitutional right to petition its government under that government's own rules of procedure is also being ignored and denied all in the name of protecting the county's interest. Thus any action approving an indefinite continuance would appear to put the protection of the government ahead of the rights of the very citizens it derives its power from, we, the people. It is also most disturbing that on the eve of our duly noticed and advertised public hearing where residents and members have flown in from out of town for the second time in some instances just for this meeting to support the request, for the some hundred or so that you see here today to be told that the Planning Commission, and I surmise that the Board of County Commissioners as well, do not have jurisdiction or the power to hear our petition is most troubling. That the county reaches this conclusion about the most basic aspect of being able to conduct its own business in a proper and lawful manner occurring at the very point in time where it would cause applicant residents the most harm is difficult to understand. We have relied on the county to do its job and process the application we paid to have reviewed. To be denied the opportunity to have this heard this far along in the process is not only highly inequitable, it is the height of prejudice. In the most practical way, there's nothing in the Judge's order that places any commissioner in peril of any kind. Because even ifMr. Klatzkow's opinion is correct about the order, merely approving a rezoning request would not authorize or approve those hotel units to Page 6 January 17,2008 be constructed. 161 I A So logically and legally the PUD amendment, even if approved as requested, cannot and would not now act to offend the Judge's prior order. In fact, it is only through our attempt to have this request now heard that we could and we now are seeking our action that is consistent with that prior remand to you. The fact that it is 10 years later does not change anything about that order. Even under Mr. Klatzkow's assessment the rezoning isn't something that's a problem. No construction would occur unless and until the site plan request would be filed and approved, which will not occur until some time in the future. Actual construction of the units would not occur, if ever at all, until building permits were approved. Clearly that would seem to get give the county plenty of time to get its own answer to what appears to be a problem the county alone sees. We should not have to prove we are entitled to be heard by you as to the PUD amendment. It is our right to be heard, and it is what the Judge's order says. That's especially problematic whereas here if the PUD is approved, that will not approve the site plan or building permits needed to begin the construction that the county sees are barred by the Judge's order. Stated more pointedly, why does the property owner now have to seek a declaratory action when it is the county that is in doubt? If the county feels you need to be protected against a judge reaching out in some manner and causing you peril because the county would do something unlawful, then why hasn't the county staff been directed to at least seek the board's approval to file a declaratory action and then be assured you are protected one way or the other. Even now that can still be done in a timely manner to assure all concern that there is no harm to you or the county and without causing this landowner and the community residents harm now. Page 7 Janur; 17,2008 The applicant agrees to not have the site plan considered6a)d 1 A approved until that declaratory judgment is final. Then there is no harm to the county for doing what it is that we've already received -- that the county's already received the fee to do and the landowner will not be harmed either. We have no such doubts about what we seek. My client filed on paper a proper petition, and if we cannot have that heard here and before the board, then there will be economic damage to the applicant and community in the tens of millions of dollars. Not being able to have a request heard is a failure to allow the most basic state and federal constitution protections to be granted. Accordingly, it is perfectly proper for the Planning Commission to hear this matter consistent with your mandate under the LDC to evaluate such petitions under the -- solely under the criteria set forth and that the staff had provided you. That is also what is consistent with the Judge's order remanding this case to the Planning Commission. Please allow us to be continued to a date and time certain in the future that will allow us time to be prepared to present this case to you III a proper manner. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter and allowing me to make these brief remarks. I'd be happy to answer any questions any of the commissioners have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. White. Now, I want to mention to the planning commissioners, this is a discussion under the addenda to the agenda. It is not opening the case up for discussion. Are there any questions or concerns that the Planning Commission may have? We have a decision to make whether to take the advice of our counselor take the advice ofthe applicant's counsel. One would require us to set a time certain and continue to that date. The County Attorney's advice to us is to continue it indefinitely. I'm Page 8 looking for a motion from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I need to know what motion you January 17,2008 16 11 A Item #8A PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-I0176 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course I will tell you. That it be on -- let me do it more formally. PUDA-2006-AR-10176, Craig T. Bouchard of Naples Bath and Tennis Club, be continued indefinitely. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I'd like to say to the people in here who have come today for this meeting, I sincerely apologize for this inconvenience. I know that won't make it better for you, but we have no choice but to follow the advice of our attorney, as you would follow the advice of your attorney. With that, I'll call for the motion. All those in favor of the indefinite continuance, signifY by saYIllg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 9 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. 16 I 1 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-1. With that we'll take a 10-minute break so the room can be cleared and we'll go on with the rest of our agenda at 8:53. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you'd all take your seats, we'll move on with the meeting and hopefully the rest of the meeting will be a little more typical of what we get into. One other addenda to the agenda I'd like to finish up with. The consent agenda item was listed as the last thing on the agenda, as you'll recall. We had wanted that to be always first on the agenda. It has been -- it was made first by notation. In future agendas it will be listed first, if any are carried over. So with that note I'll let you know when we hear the -- we'll discuss the consent agenda items right from the get-go. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: In could just point out, as we do with the Board of County Commissioners, if you wish to have it first, but normally consent is listed at the end. But once the agenda is accepted, then the consent items are summarily or legally accepted as well. Is that correct, County Attorney? Normally the -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's board procedure. They can do-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather keep the procedure we just set. MR. SCHMITT: All right, just put all the consent items first then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That way the applicants coming in know that it's just a formality if it's okay, and they can come and leave quickly instead of having to sit through the day. MR. SCHMITT: So we just list it as review and approval of consent agenda or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Page 10 Janul~ 1 r 1008 MR. SCHMITT: -- words to that effect. Okay, thank you. A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would probably be eight from now on, and we'll move the advertised public hearings to nine. Okay, are there any other addenda to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move on to Planning Commission absences. That's a good -- I think our next meeting is our regular meeting for a change. We have no interruptions in between. And the date of that one is the first Thursday of February, which would be what date, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: February 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: February 7th. Is everybody planning to be here, or does anybody know they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we'll have a quorum then. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 2007, LDC MEETING AND THE DECEMBER 6,2007, REGULAR MEETING Approval of minutes, November 28th and December 6th. Let's start with November 28th. Any comments, questions or clarifications? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a recommendation for approval. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 11 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The minutes of December 6th regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray approved again. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded again. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. January 17,2008 16 11 A Item #6 BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 4,2007, SCHOOL CONCURRENCY AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL HEARING Page 12 BCC reports. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on January 15th the Board of County Commissioners heard the Gene Salavi (phonetic) variance. That was on the summary agenda, so it was approved subject to the Planning Commission recommendation. The Kalvin variance was approved on the regular Board of County Commissioners -- board of zoning appeals agenda, and that was approved 5-0, subject to the Planning Commission's recommendations, except that they did not approve the Planning Commission recommendation to reimburse the applicant's funds for the variance application. There was also a summary agenda item for scrivener's error for De V oe that was approved on the summary. And the rezone for Lane Park was approved 4-1. Motion approved subject to the Planning Commission recommendations stipulations one through three, but revised stipulation four to require compliance with the Land Development Code amendment addressing outdoor seating or whatever it may be titled if such amendment is adopted. Additionally, the Board of County Commissioners denied the proposal to permit drinking places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I had -- I watched that show, and I was concerned over the way the characterization of the Planning Commission -- or lack of characterization of the Planning Commission's position on the Lane Park one was presented. I notice that when staff supports the Planning Commission's position, they're always going to the level of detail needed to tell the commission the reasoning behind our position. But yet when staff does not support our position, or individual staff members don't support our position who are making the presentation, they tend not to explain why we may have done something when questioned by the BCC. Now, I watched that meeting. Commissioner Coyle got it exactly lanua16' ,018 A Page 13 lanu1l7,2008 right. He said that the Planning Commission was probably tryi~ 10 1 A tell us, I can't quote him verbatim, that this motion, that this language can be added into this PUD subject to any clarification to the LDC. Which is all we were trying to do. And when he made that, instead of emphasizing to him that was the intent, which I believe was the intent of this board, there was dead silence. And even some commissioners couldn't figure out that's what we were trying to do. I thought we made it very clear, we wanted to show them there was an opportunity, should the LDC amendment for example not pass, that this particular project and any others like it could have paragraphs added to protect the public. And if something doesn't pass, you've now covered one PUD that may not have been covered at all for any reason. That never came out in the discussion between staff and the board. And I think it would have done justice to this board if staff had relayed that reasoning, because it wouldn't have made us look like we were foolish for saying -- for coming out of context for something the board was hearing the following day and evening on an LDC Amendment Cycle. So I didn't think that was the right way to present things. I wouldn't have shown that disrespect to staff in their presentation, and I don't expect it in the future in the Planning Commission's presentation. So somehow if that could be made across I would appreciate it, Ray. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could comment. I believe that the board was well aware of the intent of the Planning Commission, even though it may have not been discussed on the record. They were well aware of the intent of the Planning Commission and your desires. I spoke to three commissioners individually, certainly conveyed that. They were understanding. They were -- the issue was of course that that was very premature, meaning the language was -- and the language in the LDC amendment had now morphed or gone through several iterations from Page 14 lanuary 17, 2008 the date that that language was included in the PUD. And they1t>er! 1 A well aware of both the -- your intentions. I believe at least the majority of the commissioners were aware of exactly what you said. And there was -- the issue really became the -- and the PUD, when the PUD was signed and once it's signed, that becomes the language in the PUD and that's the language that we would have had to enforce. And I think was that the issue, both from the County Attorney and from the staff. And I think that was the matter we were trying to present or the position we were trying to present to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not at one time during the discussion did I hear anybody say on behalf of the Planning Commission that one of our purposes for entering that language in was that if something didn't pass there would be nothing in this PUD or nothing that this PUD would then fall under for that particular kind of issue. And I saw that as a priority in any PUD, to make sure we're covered, whether future language passes or not. MR. SCHMITT: I believe both Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta made that point clear. So again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just ask that if your -- MR. SCHMITT: We will do that, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Try to do a little bit better in the way our things are explained, even if you disagree with them. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ray, that -- the sheet you have there, could you send us a copy as you did previously in our next packages, the recap? MR. BELLOWS: That would be great. I'd love to do it. I printed it out nicely for you guys-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, we got one once, and I just want to make sure they continue. MR. BELLOWS: No problem. Just for the record, I'd also like to point out that we are looking Page 15 l~alr f' 2~8 at improving some of the sections of how we organize the staff reports. We're going to have a meeting with the zoning director and we're going to look at these issues of when staff has a disagreement with other staff, reviewing staff, or when the public expresses disagreement with a staff condition or when staff and the planning commission disagree, to make sure that it's all adequately explained. And either we create a section in the staff report that talks about disagreements of any sort, instead of having it maybe haphazardly explained throughout the report, I think maybe creating a section where we deal with these discrepancies may be a way to go. But we're looking into that. I just wanted to let you know that we noticed this coming up on several other petitions in the past where there are disagreements, and we need to explain those disagreements to the board. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'd appreciate that, thank you. Okay, we're on to the next item on the agenda which is Chairman's report. And I do have one issue. And would the members pass this over to Ray so he could put it on the viewer? Like probably many members on this Planning Commission, I use Municode constantly day in and day out. And it's a great resource. The issue that you're going to see on the screen in a minute is something I've seen growing on Municode, but I don't know why. If you look at the areas where the question mark and the blocking is, on Municode in the beginning of the section under the LDC now they list all of the recent ordinances that I don't know why they list them. If you were to click on any, like Ordinance No. 20078138017A, you bring up, it's a GMP amendment for a church in Page 16 JanUl~ I/, 2008 Golden Gate Estates. Why is that on Municode under our LDC 1 A section? And why is the Baldridge Planned Unit Development PDF under Municode under the LDC section? And if you go through there, I have the same questions about every one ofthose, practically. Rarely you'll find one that may be a true LDC amendment that didn't get incorporated into the text. Then I would see why you need that up there. But why or how is this done? How are we getting all these GMP ordinances or individual rezones located on the Municode? And if those are, why aren't all of them? How is that selectively handled? Does anybody in the county know? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, could somebody in the county find out? And if this is inappropriate, could it be removed? I don't know why a GMP amendment has anything to do with a Municode LDC Site. And they're basically -- the TIF files are pictures of the amendment. So I'm not sure what good it does, I'm not sure if it adds more confusion to everything, but if it's something that's being done in error, we ought to get it corrected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I always assumed when I saw that that this was stuff that's not yet incorporated into the LDC. Are you saying some of this stuff is already incorporated? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you wouldn't incorporate it. You wouldn't put a GMP amendment -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And you wouldn't put the Baldridge Planned Unit Development in the LDC. So I'm wondering why they're even there. And I agree with you, any amendment that's not yet recorded -- or incorporated should be in Page 17 there, but those are the only ones. So if you guys could check it out and try and get it corrected, it would be helpful. I'm sure maybe other people like myself that use this a lot are finding problems with it as well. January 17,2008 16 11 A Item #9 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Okay, with that we'll move into the advertised -- well, no, we'll move into our consent agenda. This is a new issue for us, so we're going to have to kind of go along with it and see how it evolves. We have a petition we heard last time called Myrtle Woods, LLC, PUDZ-2005-AR-9127. The purpose of the consent agenda was to assure us that the language we had recommended for changes was incorporated into the PUD language, and the consent agenda was supposed to be able to simply say yes, it was by consent and no discussion needed, or if we feel there was an error on the part of the consent agenda we need to bring it out and point out what that error is. There's been a revision to the language in the consent agenda item. And Mr. Nadeau, I think you have that revision with you, or have you already passed it out? MR. NADEAU: Commissioner Caron has the stack of paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is not the way it's supposed to happen. And just out of curiosity, why didn't staff distribute this to us earlier? Can I have an answer from staff on that? MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. When the PUD revisions were sent to staff, I was advised by our County Attorney's Office to -- they needed to go over all of the Page 18 January 17,2008 changes and that it would be presented to the Planning Com!RsitJ. A today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said when the changes were presented to staff? MS. ZONE: The applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The direction from-- MS. ZONE: The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait just a --let me -- I started. MS. ZONE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The direction from this board was for staff to make the changes. Can you explain to me why staff did not make the changes? MS. ZONE: I was instructed by the applicant to make the changes, give it to staff, staff review them. If we find any changes that needed work with the County Attorney's office, go back, have them to make those changes, bring it back to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who instructed you to have the applicant make the changes? When we instructed you and the staff at developmental services department, is the staff of the Collier County Planning Commission. So now can you tell me why that directive was not applied and changed to where an applicant does exactly what occurred in the Stevie Tomatoes affair? I f anybody is changing things on behalf of this Planning Commission and the citizens of this county, it ought to be the people working for the citizens of the county. MS. ZONE: I completely agree. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We have been working with the applicants in some cases to revise the documents in conjunction with the sign-off at the attorney's office. It depends on how we get control of the document when the application is submitted. If they submit it in a Word document then we Page 19 lanual17,2008 can modifY it. If it's not submitted in a Word document, we hav~tll A work back and forth with them. We had a discussion with the County Attorney's Office the other day, and I think we're going to set the policy to make sure that everything submitted with the application is in a format that we can modify. Then we gain control of the document. MR. SCHMITT: Regardless, it's still our document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How can it be your document if you don't have control of it? MR. BELLOWS: We have control of it -- MR. SCHMITT: Let me explain. It's still our document. Once it -- whoever makes the edit, it's still our document that we forward. Regardless of who made the changes, it's still our document. I don't know what the issue is here as to who did the edit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I don't want another situation like Stevie Tomatoes. I don't want the applicants making the edits of what this board recommends. That should be what staff is doing. If staff doesn't want to do it; these amount of changes are not that much of an effort. They should have had a working document that they could modifY, made the changes right then and there and be done with it. I'm just shocked. I thought that staff was doing these things. I'm not trying to -- I'm trying to get to a way we can make this -- MR. SCHMITT: Could I ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that way in the future. MR. SCHMITT: The issue is it's a cooperative arrangement -- or it's a cooperative effort between the applicant and staff. Regardless, once it's published in the record it's a government document and it's a county document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, that's what I'm afraid of. That's exactly what happened with Stevie Tomatoes. MR. SCHMITT: It's on the record. Once we publish it on the Page 20 January 17,2008 agenda, it's our document. So if it's wrong, then it's staffs 16 I 1 A responsibility for being wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When can staff implement the policy from now on they will receive all changeable documents, documents they can make the changes to from now on here on out? Can that be implemented immediately? Is that something you're against or for, or got a problem with? MR. SCHMITT: No, it's our document. They forward to us the PUD. It becomes the government's document. It is our document. We're the ones responsible for making the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And what I'm trying to say is, Joe, if you get a PDF, you can't make changes. So what I'm trying to suggest is can you by policy demand documents that you can change, like a Word document or whatever -- MR. SCHMITT: That's been our policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we have a PDF on this and not a Word document? MR. BELLOWS: I believe we've been trying to work with -- work with applicants. And some of them we get and some of them we don't. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray. MR. BELLOWS: -- just say no one goes further from now on and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's real simple to work with them. They either give you what they're required to give you, they give you what your policy establishes, or they don't get before this board. I mean, it's just cut-and-dried. MR. SCHMITT: And I don't argue with that. That's exactly correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: It comes to us as a Word document. It's our document. It's no longer the petitioner's document. If they don't send Page 21 January 17,2008 us the document that can be modified, then it should not appeart6 I 1 A your agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. SCHMITT: If that happened, then we were wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good, from now on that won't happen. MR. SCHMITT: I was not aware of that happening, I thought this was our document that we reviewed and forwarded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if we can keep that straight in the future, that will fix the problem. And as far as this particular document goes, I would like a commitment on the record right now from the applicant when the county staffwill receive a Word document. MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Dwight Nadeau, Planning Manager for R W A, representing the petitioner. And before noon today I'll be forwarding the Word document for Melissa for public record. In just might make a very brief statement. The reason why it's easier to have the applicant who originates the document make changes is because there's formatting issues with the county's Word programs such that if they took my formatted version, typically with up to 10 or 12 megabytes of picture information in the documents, if they were to make changes in it, there's the possibility that page numbering may be off, pagination, just the quality of the document itself. I submit Word documents with our transmittals. The original changes were made on the 10th of January. I provided those changes in both word and PDF form to staff. On the 15th I had a conversation with the County Attorney -- Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student and Planner Zone, and we made these additional changes that were requested. And they were provided for expediency sake as PDF's for this public hearing to be Page 22 January 17,2008 distributed to the Planning Commission. 16 I 1 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you have any problems with your software and formatting between yours and the county's, I would suggest the burden is on you to make sure it comes out; you use the right software and you get it to the county in a format that they can modifY . MR. NADEAU: And potentially I would take the county's document with their changes, ensure the quality of the instrument and then provide it back to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, before we get in the substance on this thing, is there some way we could start dating these documents? All of these documents come to us undated. Look at these -- this Exhibit A. There's no date. And I mean date and I guess the time also. Because, for example, you're not crossing through some things that were on the other document, and I think having non-dated documents, it happens in the LDC amendments, it happens in everything. That's got to stop. That's really dangerous. MR. NADEAU: I completely agree with you, Commissioner. I had been putting footers in PUD documents so you could track them. But again, the County Attorney's Office found that the footers indicated that they were proprietary to the applicant and not to the county and the footers were requested to be moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, put the time and date. I mean, all the other -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That can't be real. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's don't -- talk one at a time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point is I really think, Ray, and we've discussed it in new business, I think when Catherine gets up here I want to discuss it in LDC. Everything, everything, everything, has to be dated, time and date. So even if you fix it in the Page 23 January 17,2008 afternoon, we know that. 161 1 A Because we waste a lot of time with documents and we waste a lot of time with two documents side by side, which we're going to do right now again, trying to figure out what's different and what's not. The other thing in format, Mark, is that Melissa sent a bunch of stuff in the beginning. I don't think that's necessary in the consent stuff here, unless there's a reason for it that I don't know about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know ifthere is or not. I mean, basically our goal was to make sure the language in the PUD document met the intent of what this board intended last time. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I'm thoroughly confused. Are we talking about your e-mail that came to you, or are you talking about the document that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, look at the-- MR. SCHMITT: -- in your book? Because the document in your book is the one that's in the record. The one that was e-mailed to you is not a document of record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Joe, today we're looking right now -- good example, we have two Exhibit A's. No date. How do I know which one's ahead of the other one? For example, look at the one on Exhibit A that came from Melissa in the packet. It's striking through an L that's not been struck through on the A. So which one's first, which one's ahead? And the other problem we have is with the e-mail and stuff now. And we get things e-mailed courier mail. The same document could be sent out three times and I wouldn't know which one's the most recent unless you put a date and time on it. Why would you not want to put a date and time on these documents? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the point's been made about the date and time. Staffs conceded the point, it will be done from here on out. So I don't know if they need to answer that question Page 24 January 17,2008 because it's going to be resolved. 16 I 1 A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we've had this conversation before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But from now on it will be done. That's what -- the indication I'm getting. However, we do have a concern in that the Exhibit A that was received bye-mail has been modified. The Exhibit A we've got in front of us is different. It's really going to be up to this board whether or not they feel comfortable enough with the changes to go forward with it. The consent agenda item was supposed to be something that we review and recommend and approve -- not recommend, but approve on a consent item. And if we are pulling it for a specific discussion, we're going to need a motion to that effect and then get into the discussion of that particular language. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Before that, do we need to make a motion to bring this into evidence and Cherie' needs a copy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not yet. Let's just see where we go with it first. I'm not sure which version is the right version to use. So let's figure out what we're using. That is confusing, unfortunately, because MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we've had two versions. MR. SCHMITT: -- I'm going to -- in could suggest, because you got a new document, my recommendation is just to -- we will put it on the consent for the next meeting. I did not know another document was handed out today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we got one today that's red-lined and it's got numerous changes in it that go -- I'm not saying they're substantive changes, they're probably minor ones. MR. SCHMITT: Then I recommend we-- Page 25 lanuary 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather not see us have 16 /1 A continue this again. I think the problem squarely lies in -- MR. SCHMITT: I have no idea why a document was not -- and it's my fault. You got a document that I was not aware of that was handed out. There were changes that were made. It's on the consent agenda. Was it a consent agenda item? And it was published as part of the agenda and now you're getting something different? So my recommendation is just -- we will get it straight and bring it back to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, the new document's not a strike-through/underlined version either, which is what we intend to happen. So you'd have to go back and again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's struck through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's not. I mean, look on page -- first of all, it's missing some stuff. But on Page I, 11 was struck through, 11 has now been moved up. MS. ZONE: Commissioner Schiffer, now that it is a set policy and staff now has that authority to take the Word document and modifY it, not only will it be dated, timed, but every strike-through/underlined will be put in for you to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: It appears that what happened is that staff produced a strike-through and underlined version as we had requested. It then went to -- from what I am hearing, to the County Attorney's Office and to the chairman who made additional changes. It appears that the red-lined copy that we have now was the clean version with those additional changes made to it. And the point of the consent agenda actually should have been just to make those changes on the original strike-through and underlined version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far, let me tell Page 26 January 17,2008 you something: The original version, Exhibit A, where it say16 I 1 A commercial bank with drive-through facilities was obviously an error. We did not intend to limit commercial banks to only drive-through facilities. So when I saw that, just at the same time that all you got yours, I simply called the county up or e-mailed the county and said hey, we didn't mean just drive-through banks, we meant all banks and drive-throughs shouldn't be excluded. Now that was my involvement. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that was totally-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was intentionally trying to help solve today's problem. So that had to be done in order to be consistent with today. And I can't imagine the record would show that anything was different than what I instructed staff they may want to look at to make sure the correction was made. Now, as far as the rest of it goes, the other red lines, the comments, the changes in the numbers, the capitalization, I hadn't seen those until today. I didn't know that they were even in the hopper until Mr. Nadeau approached me at the beginning of this meeting. So I guess it's at this board's discretion what they want to do with it. Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would hope that we can have a little bit of indulgence, since this is the first time we're going through this process. I agree. What we did is we submitted a strike-through and underlined, because we were asked to, that implemented the motion. It was then reviewed by staff and there were some changes to that. It probably wasn't done the easiest and smoothest way, but I think there were two substantive changes. One, instead of referring to banks with drive-throughs the way you described it, it says including banks with drive-throughs. Which I think you would have pulled it from the consent agenda, we would have had a one-second conversation about that to clarifY it. Page 27 January 17,2008 And there was a change to the reference to one of the Srt~o~el in the reference to miscellaneous general stores. Again, that might A have been pulled, it may not have been pulled, but it would have been a couple of second conversation. The remainder of the changes are non-substantive and they're capitalization changes. I would hope that we wouldn't have to go back and continue this to address those non-substantive changes and we can move forward and establish a process which we now believe has been made abundantly clear. We'll give staff a document in a format that they can play with and make the changes and they'll be totally responsible for that to make sure that it gets to you all on the consent agenda. And if there are corrections that need to be made, we can pull it off and have the quick correction and move on. But I would hate to lose another two weeks because this is going through the process for the first time and there were some glitches that are not in my opinion significant glitches that couldn't have been addressed quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we may have the solution to it, but I'll -- Mr. Murray wanted to comment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you have a solution to it, then I'll defer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, we're going to take a break at around 10:00. I would like the Planning Commission during . the break to review the changes. That means you're going to have to hang around here a little bit, if you want to. But next time maybe we'll get your act -- not you, but the act will get together before this meeting and we won't have this problem. So the best I can offer to this commission is let us look at these non-substantial changes during the break. I can assure you, from what I've seen there may not be any kind of consequence to them, and out of fairness to the applicant, and this is the first consent agenda item, Page 28 let's defer the consent agenda item until after 10:00. Mr. Anderson, you're raising your hand for something. You're not even involved in this, but go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm involved in the process question. There are times when the applicant and the staff are in disagreement about a provision in a PUD document. I'm reluctant to give them the property owner's PUD document and then only deliver to you what they're recommending. And I'm wondering how we can deal with that when there is a disagreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Simple. You don't give it to them, you don't get before us. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I'm getting tired of developers continuing to refer to these PUDs as their documents. These are going to be county ordinances; they are not your documents, okay? At the end of the day, your application is yours, the staff report's is staffs and the ordinance is that of the Board of County Commissioners. Now, what goes to the Board of County Commissioners, what goes to the Planning Commission, that document needs to be in their control. If you want to go back and forth with staff on changes before it gets there, I don't care. But once it hits the record, whatever development order is in that record has to be in staffs control so that they now control the changes, all right? Now, they should consult with you on the changes to make sure everybody is on the same page so we don't have discussions like this before the Planning Commission or the board, but it is not your PUD document, all right? These documents are ordinances of the Board of County Commissioners. And part of the problems we've been having is that developers have been making these changes, staff doesn't catch all of the changes because it's impossible, and we get situations like we have up in Pebblebrook right now. And that's not going to happen again. January 17,2008 16 11 A Page 29 JanU~~7i2108 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, you work your dilemma out with staff before it gets to us. But if staff doesn't have a workable changeable document from you, then they've been instructed by this board not to bring it forward, and it's not going to happen. MR. ANDERSON: How do you want to see it if there is a disagreement about some language with staff? How should we present it to you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got an opportunity to make your presentation, as every applicant has in front of this board. Staffs document is the one we'll be reviewing off of. MR. ANDERSON: But should staff include our written language with what they give you, instead of us passing it out on the day of the hearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would hope that you're not going to pass things out on the day of the hearing, because we'll probably not be very happy. MR. ANDERSON: Right, I want to avoid that. MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: As I mentioned earlier about the staff reports and how staff is going to approach disagreements with reviews, we will be putting that -- creating a section of some kind that deals with where staff disagrees with other staff or staff disagrees with the applicant or there's a disagreement with the Planning Commission. All of that will be in a central area where the disagreements can be noted. That way when the reviewing agency, whether it's the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners, has it in advance when they review the staff report or executive summary what the disagreements are, so there won't be any last minute handing out changes. I agree, that is not the intent of what we were trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: My point is as far as anything on the consent Page 30 Januar 67',2018 agenda, there absolutely should be no handouts. If it's on the agenda, A it's on the consent agenda, it's published. If there are changes made the night before, then it gets continued. End of story. MR. KLATZKOW: I absolutely agree. MR. SCHMITT: My position, I did not know this took place. And I apologize to you all for that. If I had known about it even 10 minutes ago, this item would not have been on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Because I didn't know what you were talking about. Now I have the two documents. And that is not consent then. Now we've got it on the regular agen -- it has to be moved to the regular agenda and now it's under discussion. So it's no longer consent. So I don't understand. Frankly, from my perspective it won't happen again. And ifthere's going to be a hand-out, it's continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Bellows, I appreciate what you just said. As far as I'm concerned, that's an acceptable way to start. We will just move forward under that premise. This board needs to see what staffs recommending. And if the applicant is so against staffs recommendations, let them take their chances with us and we'll go from there. With that being said, is this panel content on reviewing this during their break and after break, or if we're in the middle ofa case, after that case then have that next on the item? Is that preferable -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: May only suggestion is can we take a break now, just do it now and get it over with, rather than get into something else? I mean, let's -- we've disrupted the meeting enough with this issue. Why don't we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that -- it doesn't matter to me. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, let's do that. Page 31 lal(;17, 200A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, look, instead of 15, let's take ~o minutes. We'll be back here at 9:35, then review this document. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their seats, we'll try to finish this consent item up. Now, the purpose of the consent agenda was for us to review the changes, and if we don't have any significant concerns over the changes and that they seem to meet the intent of what we originally implied, then we simply vote to recommend approval of the consent agenda, which we're at that stage now. It's like we're on a new slate. Let's take a look. This is a consent agenda. The document we just read is a brand new document, we just got it, we like it or we don't like it. I'd rather not see it pulled unless there's a substantial reason to pull it. So with that in mind, does any member of this commission have any concerns over the item on the consent agenda that requires pulling? If not, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as submitted to us this morning in the red-lined version in front of us? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 32 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. And hopefully we've learned a lesson from this. Everybody involved, let's not do it again this way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I just say one thing is Jan~a~ 1.7,2008 lb 11 l CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The format of the second exhibit didn't have full underlined and strike-throughs. I don't want this to give the impression that we don't want underlined and strike-throughs. So the format of the first is the right format. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we're saying is you take the first document you gave us with the strike-throughs and underlines that existed there, modity that document with anything new that we stipulated or added, and you give it back to us with the original strike-through and underlined, as well as the changes we made so we can see the progression ofthose changes. That's what we're asking for the future. Thank you. Mr. Klatzkow, did that get put to bed well enough to move on to the BCC? MR. KLATZKOW: God, I hope so. Item #8B PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12384 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anymore, I've got to ask. Okay, now we'll move into our first regular hearing today. It's Page 33 Ib I 1 A lanuary 17,2008 Petition CU-2007-AR-12384, the Enterprise Leasing Company, d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car at 13560 Tamiami Trail North, Suite A. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant can make their presentation. MR. ELLSWORTH: Good morning. For the record, I'm Jon Ellsworth from Enterprise Leasing Company, doing business as Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity this morning to have our application heard. Enterprise Leasing Company is requesting conditional use for an automobile rental agency at 13560 Tamiami Trail North, Suite A, in Naples. Currently Enterprise has been operating for over the past 10 years at the property immediately south of here. And through course of growth and different things, we have made the decision to relocate our facility . We have found and been able to work up a lease agreement with a property owner to the north and we are requesting conditional use in order to be able to put our automobile rental agency at that property at 13560 Tamiami Trail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's short and to the point. You should give lessons to some of the attorneys we get in front of us here. Okay, are there any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is that the old Rec Room building? MR. ELLSWORTH: Yes, sir. Page 34 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You're taking the ent!P , i A building? MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. Rec Room Furniture is still going to be there. There's been a consignment shop that's been operating out of the 2,200 square feet at the north end of the building that is relocating and they're moving out. So we would be occupying that north end ofthe building. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it would be on the other side. Okay, that's good. MR. ELLSWORTH: Yes, it would be at the very north end of the building. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, Ms. Caron, Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a quick question. Is the landscape buffering up to code as we speak? MR. ELLSWORTH: According to the conversations that I've had with the staff of Collier County, yes, that has been resolved between the property owner and the county to get -- they replanted, they pulled out a bunch of the wrong stuff and put in the right kinds of trees. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I'll double check -- MR. ELLSWORTH: I believe that that is -- the landscape planner, reviewer actually did say that we were okay, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, this would apply also for commercial use. Why did you select the conditional use? MR. ELLSWORTH: Per the terms of the LDC, automobile rental can only go into a C-4 zoning district with conditional use. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. Page 35 J1Ut;l12008 This south exit that you speak about in here, that's going to leav~ the property on the south? MR. ELLSWORTH: There's one entrance and exit off of the property currently that comes out onto 41, and that would be the entrance and exit that would be used. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But aren't you also proposing another entrance/exit just through due south? MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. I believe that in the staff report that they did mention that that could be done, that the way the properties are situated that that could happen, but that's not something we are proposIllg. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You're not proposing that, so you don't feel that's necessary. MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, that was part of my question, that very item. And I would ask one further point: Are you in a position legally to modifY the property to facilitate such an interconnection? MR. ELLSWORTH: I mean, we would obviously have to do that. It would have to be up to the property owner as to whether or not he would allow that, and then obviously it would be up to the adjacent property owner as -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words, you would have to secure permission from the property owner. You're not in a position yourself -- MR. ELLSWORTH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to do that. MR. ELLSWORTH: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. Page 36 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? 16 11 A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, are you going to continue to store vehicles on the southern property? MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. We -- actually what you currently see in there, probably if you're looking at storage, it's closer to the road, is some of that property has been leased to Germain that actually has stored cars there as an overflow. I don't know whether or not they're still doing that or not, but they had done that in the past. But no, our intention at Enterprise basically, this store specifically, is that the fleet at its peak time of the year would be somewhere between 125 and 150 cars at a 91 percent occupancy. So we would be looking at no more than 10 to 15 cars on the lot at any one time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you have no use of the southern lot once you move? MR. ELLSWORTH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. ELLSWORTH: That's a different property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER CARON: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: One final question. Somewhere in this report it talks about parking cars on the side of the building. That is not going to happen-- MR. ELLSWORTH: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- correct? MR. ELLSWORTH: There is no parking available. There's 92 spaces that are shown on the site plan and they would be parked in parking spaces. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of-- Page 37 16 I 1 A lanuary 17,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the applicant? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That made me think of something else. The issue of some detailing in the back. MR. ELLSWORTH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I notice that the statement from the staff report said rear wash rack. MR. ELLSWORTH: We have a covered portable canopy that we pull the cars underneath to vacuum them out and just clean them up prior to renting. We have it currently behind the property where we are where we're sharing the property with Circle K. We're just planning to move that over there and utilize that in order to continue to do what we've been doing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Explain to me if you would, please, then it's also indicated that you will be fueling and cleaning off-site. Are they two different things? MR. ELLSWORTH: Basically we're talking about if we're going for a full-blown car wash type thing, then fueling -- I mean, obviously we wouldn't have fuel on-site, but we'd go to an on-site facility to do that. But cleaning up, doing the vacuuming and so forth, getting the bugs off the car, things like that is what we're talking about doing on-site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where you're going to be situated now where that rear activity would take place, how far is that from the nearest residence? MR. ELLSWORTH: There's about 10 feet of property and then a wall that's actually behind that, that buffers us and the property to the east. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What kind of vacuum cleaner are you using, a household type or are you using a commercial type? Page 38 Janua116 jOf A MR. ELLSWORTH: Just a ShopVac is what we normally use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bellows, would you mind putting on the aerial ofthe site. I have one question. It's one that was in our packet and its called -- it's yellowed out. It's actually from the county appraiser's office. It's this one here, Ray. I can pass this one down to you, if you want. There were two aerials on the site. The one I'm passing to Ray is the larger of the two, but the second one provides the same information I'm going to talk about. You notice on the second aerial, you'll see that the property next door where they moved from was adjacent to a Stop-And-Go. Behind them is their wash rack. And it's not shown on the one on the screen, but the one in our packet. If you look at the one on the screen, that same wash rack, when it goes in the back of this one, instead of being up against a street, it's up against residential. Now, wash racks are going to have probably laborers out there vacuuming and ShopVac'ing. And I've been to plenty of places and sites where the laborers love to put on their boom boxes and listen to loud music or turn on the stereos in the car while they're doing their thing. And in your bays -- and the bays do face the residential in the back, they likewise might be expected to have music in those bays blaring while they're working on the vehicle or do whatever they do. We need to stop that. MR. ELLSWORTH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, we're getting into a situation where the current ordinance that's going through the process may be applicable here. However, it's written more for a residential. I'm not Page 39 sure it applies to mobile home sites. So I guess we're in that same problem that we had with the Lane Park one where we introduced language to be included into the PUD that would give the county staff ability to regulate any additional noise coming out of this place. And because that application got kind of lopsided when it went to the BCC, I'm looking now for a recommendation from county attorney's office or staff or somebody on how we could put language in this PUD to assure that the neighborhood's not going to have to listen to any noise generated by the workers in the back of this facility that is above the noise they would need for their equipment that they use to clean the vehicles with. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: I guess we're looking for a no amplified sound condition to this conditional use. No music, no amplified sound of any nature of any kind. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There shall be no amplified sound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I would think -- do you have -- I mean, is that -- is it said as simply as that, or do you have language boilerplate that we could throw in here? Do you have any idea? I don't want to do something and have it such a confusing issue when it gets to the BCC it ends up going down the tubes, when this to be is such an important issue for those residents behind. It's the same operation, so -- but there's a difference in the distance and the separation of the structures that the people live in. That's where I think this is going to have a little bit different impact. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the only question I have for the applicant is are you going to have a P A system at all? MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Then no amplified sound of any kind or nature permitted. JanUi 6' ri8 A Page 40 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you have anJo~)ct!n tf that stipulation being added to this conditional use? MR. ELLSWORTH: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the stipulation -- and I'll get the language exact, Mr. Klatzkow, because then maybe we don't need to have to come back with us -- no amplified -- MR. KLATZKOW: Sound of any kind or nature permitted, including but not limited to radios. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that point, Mark, you have it normally on the other side up against the building. Would you have a problem bringing it up against the building on this site? Because that would give about the same distance. MR. ELLSWORTH: Currently what we've actually been working out with the adjacent property owner, Mr. Freeman, who's actually here, is a representative for the owners of the mobile home park, is because of visibility the preference was that we would put it to the east just south of the dumpster enclosure that is currently there. So that when you drive on Sunrise Boulevard, which is the entrance into the mobile home park, it would be the least visible to the people driving in and out of there. For the record, I would like to say that where we are currently has just a wooden fence. There is a street there, but it's just an old wooden fence that separates us. Here we're looking at about 10 feet of property and a concrete block wall that separates us from the property owner. Not that the distance is any greater or further than where we were before, but there is a lot more between us and the neighboring -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show us on the plan that's on the overhead right next to you there where you intend to put that wash rack canopy that you just mentioned? Page 41 Jf611{ 20i8 MR. ELLSWORTH: It would go right here. There's a dumpster enclosure that's built and it would go right there, and the entrance would be to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll see if there's any comments on that from the public, and if none, we may incorporate that location into the language of the stipulation and that might be sure that we get it where it's supposed to be. In the general area, at least. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll hear from the staffthen. Thank you, sir. MR. BROWN: Good morning. Willie Brown, Principal Planner, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Petitioner's description of the project is consistent with the application on file. The 1.87-acre site complies with the original approved SDP. SOP 99-06, in terms oflandscaping, parking and the building footprint, remains unchanged and not proposed to expand. The proposed Rent-A-Car is permitted as a conditional use by the LDC and is supported by the mixed use activity center sub-district of the Growth Management Plan. There is adequate parking for the existing and proposed use, leaving in excess of 60 spaces. Sixty spaces for leased vehicle and four for employee are proposed. A neighborhood information meeting was held on December 4th, 2007. None of the abutting residents showed. No letters of opposition have been received as well. Finally, staff recommends approval of the CD request, subject to the agreed upon conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? Mr. Murray, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: Good morning. Page 42 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to that sam!&~J lat A was raised earlier by both Commissioner Klatzkow and myself having to do with interconnection, I see that was a recitation based on what we have in the code and so forth, but did you have an expectation that this conditional use applicant was in a position to make that happen? MR. BROWN: The interconnection exists. It's staked offwith wooden stakes, and I believe their trees have been planted. Transportation will be recommending approval of opening that southern access at development -- the first development order. It's up to the property owner, LHD Properties, who's not here to make that happen. But a C.O. would not be issued until that access has been opened. I believe again transportation will be requiring it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have -- maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought that we would be addressing ourselves then to that party who has the power and the authority to perform. This party has no authority to perform. Am I not right? This is a lessee of a store, has a store in a development. MR. BROWN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How can we inhibit his action to go forward by something that his landlord has sole authority to grant or fail to grant? MR. BROWN: A certificate of occupancy wouldn't be issued until that rear access has been opened. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess it's a legal issue that I don't understand, but I thought that was interesting that that was put in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only way that you could hold up a certificate of occupancy for that entrance not being open is if the entrance was required by the Land Development Code or some subsequent action. Are you saying that that has already been established as a required action for this site and it's not been done? Page 43 January 17,2008 MR. BROWN: The language is in the GMP. Perhaps t f?lOll! let A transportation elaborate on what they will be requiring or not requiring. Per my discussions with the project manager, John Posarinski (phonetic), I'm told he will be requiring opening that access at the first development order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There's transportation right behind you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. Whatever is in the Land Development Code will be applied at SDP. There's not going to be a C.O. withheld if it's not required by the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So -- to make the clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then the removal of those wooden stakes and the plantings that are in the way of this connection won't occur unless we add it to it as a stipulation to this conditional use; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't add it as a stipulation if it can't be controlled by an abutting landowner. So the Land Development Code says when an SDP comes in, if they have to modify that site, interconnection is applied where feasible. If they don't control that property to the south and they can't do that, then we're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand, thank you. Thanks for the clarification. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Willie, I don't believe this location is open seven days a week. Why are you allowing them to do on-site cleaning seven days? Your recommendation calls for on-site cleaning from the hours of 8:00 to 6:00, seven days a week. Does the applicant need seven days a week? MR. BROWN: No, sir. It was a standard stipulation we've used Page 44 JanL6 ~7,1008A for other conditional uses for similar uses. It doesn't have to stay in exactly the way it's written. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Maybe this is a question to the applicant. What hours do you really need to be able to clean and detail your cars? MR. ELLSWORTH: The store is going to be open Monday through Friday. We're open from 7:30 to 6:00 Monday through Friday and then 9:00 to noon on Saturdays. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can we put those hours specifically as detailing, or do you want to -- MR. ELLSWORTH: The only thing I would ask is that when we're talking about Saturdays, that if at some point if during season or so forth ifthere's more people here and we choose to stay open a few more hours on Saturday afternoon. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then let's just reduce it to six days. So now you have all day Saturday. MR. ELLSWORTH: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So one other stipulation would be the operation will be a six-day week. Any other questions of the staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- little confused. Willie, where is this access we're talking about? We have one off of Tamiami Trail, we have one off of Sunrise. What's the southern rear access you're talking about? He called it rear, that's what is confused me. MR. BROWN: I can't see here. It's here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right through that guy's trailer? Page 45 Jaitff' 71200ft COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I see. No, he wants to go out that way. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, no, that's not right. MR. ELLSWORTH: I believe that the access that was talked about was the one that's actually to the north of Sunrise. That access does not actually exist. The access shows that it was originally I guess put in when the property was originally built. But Sunrise to the north is private property, and that was I guess put in strictly for emergency reasons. So there's not an actual access that is there. The only access currently to the property is the access on the west side on 41. MR. BROWN: One correction. That access does exist. It's been landscaped over and there are trees and stakes there, but it is there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was built properly, it just evolved wrong from that point. So the two accesses are going to be the two that are shown on this plan, nothing to the south? MR. BROWN: Unless we require them to reopen that southern access, or actually it's to the east at the rear of the building, they won't be required to open it -- I believe your transportation planning director said unless it's in the LDC, they won't be requiring it to open. I'm having different discussions with other members of transportation planning that tells me otherwise. But we'll go with what the director says. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And for now we'll call it the Sunrise Boulevard access, right-- MR. BROWN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so we won't get it confused with commercial to the south. Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, then I think I am confused. I thought that the intent was to interconnect with the retail to the south. MR. BROWN: You're correct. Page 46 JaTfj 17tOOA COMMISSIONER CARON: And you would do that from the rear of this building? The interconnection with -- MR. BROWN: It's in the GMP consistency review that the rear access be made available. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. GMP says a rear access? You got me -- are you sure, it says only a rear access? MR. BROWN: Let's see if! can find it. MR. SCHMITT: It's a statement that encourages interconnectivity . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It doesn't say it has to be front, rear, north, south or west. So you're referring to a GMP statement that says we encourage interactivity. The location isn't part of that GMP statement. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where you're trying to go, I think. COMMISSIONER CARON: I sure am. MR. BROWN: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ifwe're talking about future connectivity, we're talking to the south to the gas station next door. Bringing people out the back of this location onto Sunrise towards the residential, I don't see how that serves anybody. I'd rather just keep bringing everybody in off 41 rather than through the residential access road into your property. I can't see how making access to the north helps anyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've confirmed that's kind of off the table, because it goes into a private development. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you recap the actual accesses that will be in this project on the overhead? Identify where Page 47 January 17,2008 they are in the accesses. 16 I 1 A MR. BROWN: There's an access from 41 -- this isn't the clearest map. This is the access from 41. This is the existing access from 41 here, if you're following my pointer. There is also an emergency access here. Access from Sunrise Boulevard that's been landscaped and staked, so it's currently not open. In the GMP we do encourage interconnection between properties. And the -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Both ofthose accesses -- MR. BROWN: Both of those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, let him finish first. MR. BROWN: Your Comprehensive Planning Department is encouraging this interconnection here between Sunrise -- the Sunrise property and this property owner here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Those two are the only accesses that would be open on this property? MR. BROWN: Well, right now there's only the one from 41, unless you require the interconnection here to Sunrise Boulevard. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So that would require a stipulation by us? MR. BROWN: I'm sorry, repeat your question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That will require a stipulation by us that that access be open? MR. BROWN: Based on the conversations that have taken place, I would agree with that statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No, sir, you're missing the point. That's an emergency access. Transportation just testified that you cannot have that interconnection unless both parties on both sides of that interconnection agree. We have one applicant here under conditional use application. We don't have an agreement from the party to the north to open that interconnection up. So I think that's what Mr. Kolflat said, is it going to be an Page 48 January 17,2008 exercise working exit or could we stipulate it to be such, aU ctJt A think we can. MR. BROWN: If! may, let me elaborate on what's in the staff report under the neighborhood information meeting where the research has been done by transportation. And it says transportation has researched the emergency vehicle access closure and found that the existing interconnection between the mobile-home park and Sunrise was not required by the Transportation Department. However, interconnections are encouraged by the county's Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. The transportation department also supports the existence of the interconnection and would require it to be operational above an emergency use status at the development order application stage. Because there are no trips proposed at the rear emergency access drive, no impacts are noted in the transportation's review. So again, I'm taking this from a statement that was made by transportation where they say they will require it. And your GMP is encouraging it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, will you please -- sir, I don't know who you are, but when we call for public speakers, you'll be more than welcome to speak. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just to clear up anything, we always would like to have projects interconnected. It's an existing site. It's been there. When we can, when it comes in for an SDP, we'll look at that opportunity. But we're not going to withhold a C.O. if they can't interconnect. Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's clear. And it goes back to the point that we are not in a position where we can stipulate something that you cannot enact because the code and the property owners and different property ownerships don't allow you to. Is that a fair statement? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a fair statement. When we're Page 49 January 17,2008 doing an SDP we could have them provide a stub-out on tJeg sidJanJ\ then the opportunity arose another time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is already there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat, I think that gets to the answer to your question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So there's one access point off of 41 ? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Sunrise Boulevard is a private road; is that correct? MR. BROWN : You're correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of county staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. This is a facility that is looking for a conditional use in the C-4 and it moved from the project next door to it. Project next door was also C-4. Did they have a conditional use for that property? MR. BROWN: That's a very good question. I don't remember researching that issue. Do you know, Ray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, they're in the same C-4 district on the tax zone and the zoning maps of Collier County. They're moving from one building to another within the same C-4 district. My question is why are they even here for a conditional use if they already existed? Under what premise? MR. BROWN: I can tell you they've been there since 1977. And there's continuous LDC amendments that may have required it down Page 50 January 17,2008 the road. 16 I 1 A MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. If there was a conditional use on another parcel, it may be site specific to that parcel and not transferable to this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but we don't know how they got to the first location at all at this point. Okay, it just seemed logical that we would want to know that. But okay. Any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, that was my original question, why not stay with C-4 now, rather than go for a conditional use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, nobody researched that. So it's a standalone application based on the location that they're now asking for. Okay, are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: None have registered, but there appears to be a gentleman who wants to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you want to speak? You can speak. Please identify yourself for the record and -- MR. FREEMAN: My name is Ronald Freeman. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in previously? MR. FREEMAN: Yes, I was sworn in. Freeman, F-R-E-E-M-A-N. I'm the general manager for Caribbean Park. Enterprise has been our neighbor for 10 years, as long as they've been there. Just for the record, they've been an excellent neighbor. The wash rack is currently in a position where it is now not very much farther than where it's proposed to be. And I personally have no recollection of any issues we've had with them. But what I will say for your interest is that if there are any issues, we've had absolutely no problems with Enterprise as far as calling them up and saying we have an issue. We meet on-site, we Page 51 January 17, 2008 work it out. They've been exceptional neighbors. 16 I 1 A And we did in fact meet to discuss where this wash rack might be and how it would present to our people coming into the mobile home community, and we've had very good success with them as far as what kind of neighbor they were going to be closer to our main entrance. So for the record, Caribbean Park has no issues with them. We have met and discussed how things are going to change with them being a little bit closer to our clubhouse and all that good stuff, and everything seems to be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. We certainly appreciate your comments, they do help us get to our conclusions. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARON: We wish we heard that kind of report more often. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of either the applicant, staff or anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public meeting and entertain a motion. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion that Petition CU-2007-AR-12384, Enterprise Rent-A-Car be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, with the stipulation that no amplified sound of any kind or nature, including but not limited to radios be made a part of this. We had a note here about location issue, but I'm not sure that that's necessary. And also, that operations shall be limited to six days a week, Monday through Saturday, from the hours of7:30 in the morning to 6:00 p.m. in the evening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to the motion? Page 52 January 17, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the mot~.l 1 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to talk about that location of that minor detailing facility. Bob, did you include that as part of a stipulation? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had it as a note here, but I thought it went away as an issue when it was focused that it was over here where it -- not far from where it had been and there's a wall. I can include it if there's a need, if it's felt there's a need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might want to suggest that the location of the wash canopy will be generally south of the dumpster location, with the opening of that canopy facing south. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I find that to be acceptable, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN: That's an arrangement that has been worked out between the applicant and their abutting property owner. I think they wanted it to remain between them, according to earlier conversations we had. In the event for some reason they needed to relocate the wash rack, I'd hate to stipulate they'd have to remove it or move it to someplace else and then they have to come back to the board to remove the stipulation we've added. So you may want to talk about that yourself. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Better late than never. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you can -- state your name again, I'm sorry. MR. FREEMAN: Ronald Freeman, Caribbean Park, next door neighbor. We have had that discussion that if it was not stipulated to an exact location that would give us the flexibility as neighbors to adjust Page 53 January 17,2008 it as necessary, you know, after seeing how it's going to work !?fJ J A while. And we've very good success with that, so I would hope that, you know, that would be taken into consideration. We go to Enterprise and we have an issue and we resolve it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y : You okay with that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm must asking Ms. Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I'll ask you, for the record. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. Yes, sir, I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I'm trying to keep decorum, that's all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Mark, and I do have concern with testimony over this, because essentially we're wiping out parking spaces, you know, the way the site plan coming from the south would eliminate a bit of parking. So I think we should -- I mean, I don't think we should first of all fix it in that location, I think we should be concerned about testimony that would alter the site plan that's given to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the way it's been left is that's not going to be added to the stipulations and we remain with the two stipulations Mr. Murray reiterated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion made with two stipulations: The stipulations about the amplified sound and the operations are limited to six days a week. Is staff clear on the motion? Page 54 January 17,2008 MR. BROWN: Yes. 1h I 1 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and hearing that, I'll ca11 tor1he vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you very much. And we have slips that you need to sign and pass into the secretary . Item #8C PETITION: RZ-2007-AR-12044 Okay. Next item up is Petition RZ-2007-AR-12044, Barry Goldmeier. And it's the -- represented by Shaun Mularkey of Coastal Engineering. It's for the Immokalee, LLC. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this amendment -- this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll proceed with the presentation by the applicant. MR. MULARKEY: Good morning again, I'm Shaun Mularkey Page 55 January 17,2008 with Coastal Engineering. With me today is Robert Andrea i~ I 1 A Coastal Engineering, Rob Price from T .R. Transportation, and Barry Goldmeier, the applicant, representing Immokalee, LLC. My client wishes to rezone 9.33 acres from the Estates zoning district to RMF -16 residential, with a maximum density of 15 units per acre or a total of 140 residential units. Just as a side note, Mr. Goldmeier has previously developed the Main Street Village in Immokalee at Main Street and 11 th Street with ECA, who now owns and operates that facility. The property location is at the southwest corner of the intersection ofImmokalee Road, or First Street and School Road, shown on the aerial in white. The property is approximately 30 percent wetland, which is primarily along the southern, western and northern edges of the property. The eastern edge of the property and the majority of the center of the property is not wetland, which lends itself to be developed without wetland disturbance. The surrounding zoning and land uses to the north, across School Road, that property is zoned VR, village residential. There's currently a Farmworker Village there. To the east is the Seminole Reservation. You can see the casino further to the northeast of the property. To the south, that land is zoned estates and is currently vacant. And to the west, that land is zoned estates as well. This is the current Future Land Use Map for the Immokalee area. We're 10 -- the property is shown with a small white box to the northwest of the map. Our current future land use designation is neighborhood center, which allows a mix of uses, one ofthem being residential at a limit of 12 units per acre. Also permitted within this area is up to three additional units per acre, if you're designated as an infill site, which we are in this case. It does stipulate, however, in the neighborhood center district Page 56 January 17,2008 that overall residential development cannot exceed 80 perclPoJtJat A neighborhood center. There's currently 110 acres of developable property left there, so there's no fear of going over that threshold. The property rezones are also consistent with the proposed Immokalee area master plan update, which shows our property as commerce center/mixed use, which is basically a major activity center allowing residential units also up to 20 units per acre. The proposed rezone is also consistent with policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the transportation element of the GMP, and the surrounding road network will operate acceptably after the addition of the proposed development traffic. There's been some discussion about where access for the property might be. Originally we wanted to put access onto Immokalee Road to be able to avoid the wetlands. After further discussion with transportation staff, they would like to see the access on School Road. It's impossible to get the access on School Road without avoiding any wetlands, due to proximity to South First Street. So what we're proposing, and I'll show another aerial here, the blue lines here are a little faint, but what those represent are the wetlands on the site. What we're proposing is the access as far back -- as far west on School Road as possible to negatively impact the wetlands as little as possible. So the proposed access location is going to be about here. There was also an environmental -- I'm sorry, no environmental impact statement was required as part of this rezone, but a protected species survey was done by Earth Balance. No protected species or evidence thereof was found on the site. There were a few, a couple of protected plant species, but those will be relocated to the preserve areas prior to any construction of the site. In addition to what I previously mentioned, we think this property is uniquely suited for a rezone from a low density to a higher Page 57 January 17, 2008 residential density district for a few reasons. One of them is t~~t'l iI A an area planned for mixed use. It's very close proximity to the casino and Ave Maria. This will be a great location for residential with such close proximity to job centers. It's located on Immokalee, which is an arterial that's proposed for expansion at some time in the future. And we believe this would provide additional quality housing stock in Immokalee and bolster the values of the surrounding community. That's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there questions of the applicant? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why don't we have any drawings that show what you intend to actually do here? In all the time that I've been on this board, I can't ever remember where we didn't get any sort of conceptualization of where you want to have your entrances and exits, where you want to put your buildings, where you want to put your preserves, where you want to put your open space. Why don't we have any of that? MR. MULARKEY: Well, we don't have a defined development plan yet, and we're requesting a standard zone from Estates to RMF -16. The LDC doesn't require a site plan for standard rezone. Again, we're not asking for PUD. We're not trying to get extremely creative here as to what we're proposing. All the rules and regulations of the RMF -16 and the LDC are fine for what we're proposing. And that's primarily the reason. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How tall do you expect the buildings to be? MR. MULARKEY: Well, the RMF-16 allows 75 feet. I don't know exactly what we're going to be dealing with here. We're likely to put the building on some sort of a -- you know, this site is a little bit lower. We're not sure, the ground floor will likely be elevated. We haven't decided. It all depends on how much -- where we can put the parking and where we can put the buildings. But again, for the record, Page 58 January 17,2008 RMF-16 is 75 feet. 16 , 1 A COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The reason that I'm asking that is we don't know how tall the buildings are, how many buildings there will be, how they'll be spatially oriented. This is at the entrance to the Immokalee urban area. This is the first thing that you'll see. Right now our highest residential building is only three stories. And for us to sort of give a green light to this, not knowing what you plan to do, I feel very uncomfortable with it. Right now the three-story buildings that we do have are the Immokalee projects, and they're pretty ugly. They're also a high crime area. I don't really know what this is going to look like. I'm not against the idea of housing in this location, but I need to see what it's going to look like, have a better idea than what you've given us so far. MR. MULARKEY: I understand that. I guess the point I was trying to make is that it's going to meet your current code for RMF-16 and all the other development regulations in the code. I know when a PUD comes forward, there's usually some creativity involved and some mixing of uses, and there's a good reason to see a site plan and how things kind of fit together, where the access points are. I did show you where the access point is. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's going to satisfy all of the current code requirements that are present today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, that may not be enough. I mean, of course it has to satisfy the code, but as the planning body of the county, we want a better idea about how it's going to fit into the neighborhood. Especially at 15 units an acre and with only two-thirds of the site developable, you're actually going to get an actual density of about 22 units an acre, and that is a very intense development right near the main entrance to Immokalee, and in close proximity to this wetland also, which I'll be getting into a little bit later. But I think that, you know, we really need to have a better idea Page 59 January 17,2008 about what you're going to do. I had another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. When you're finished, just let me know, and then we'll move on. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's going to be a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Paul, you speak so rarely, it's kind of a break for us. So go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. The next question I have is, is there going to be any affordable housing in this development? MR. MULARKEY: Is it okay if the applicant gets up? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Of course. MR. GOLD MEIER: Barry Goldmeier, with my offices in Coral Gables, Florida. Depends on the market. Right now if! were to make a decision based on this market, there's no decision to make, because nothing would work in this market. The densities of a project depends on market forces, and what we're trying to do is to take a two-step approach. One, the second step would be to come in with the specifics in the form of a site plan approval when we know what we're going to build. We don't know what we're going to build yet. We're just taking this next step in order to get closer to be able to begin our planning. Without the ability to zone it, we can't begin our planning. And without knowing what the market will be, I can't tell you the product. If the market would permit us to do a more expensive product, we would of course then do a higher, more dense product. If the market is for a much less expensive product or an affordable project, then -- which is not our first choice, but is an option we want to be able to exercise if it's possible, then it would be for a less dense project. And just basically at our stage of planning, and we've -- you know, we've developed other projects in Immokalee and other projects 16/1 A Page 60 January11l; yo} elsewhere in the state. To give you an honest answer, I don't know, because I don't know what the market is. I know that across the street the casino is -- there's a second casino planned to be built. I know that Ave Maria is growing and will produce additional employment, and that would be positive aspects related to more expensive future development. But if I were to develop it today, it would be for a less expensive development, given the state of current housing, housing availability in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why do you feel that you need 15 units an acre? MR. GOLD MEIER: Because the economics of developing a site of that type require that we have a certain amount of units in order to make it economically feasible. It's going to be a relatively expensive project to develop. We do have soil conditions that would require more than spread footers. And it's -- and it's appropriate, being across the street from I think the largest employer in the area, which is the casino. And that's what the Immokalee comprehensive plan permits. And that's one of the reasons we bought that project in that area -- that property in that area, in order to do a project of greater density than you could do elsewhere in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, I'd like to put this on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can pass it down this way, if you want to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it in our packet? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. And I'd like to direct our attention to the EAR, which we approved about two years ago, Policy 6.2.5, which talks about within the rural fringe mixed use district and that portion of the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system, which is contained within the Immokalee urban designated area. A Page 61 January 17, 2008 There are a bunch of criterion standards that are suppo~e~ ~ Je A followed. One of them is that -- well, let me just sort of go in order. The original thing is that this piece of land is within this slough, the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system. And this is by aerial. This has not actually been delineated by an ordinance where they've actually drawn out the exact lines where this is. But when this EAR amendment came up, and I asked Mr. Weeks what exactly was included within this system, he said whatever areas are included hydrologically. And I know that this subject property, the wetlands on that site, are hydrologically connected to this system. So that I think the standards in this EAR amendment pertain to this proposed development. One of the things that the county is supposed to have been doing is on -- let's see, 5(6), B-3. Within one year ofthe effective date of these amendments, Collier County shall adopt specific criteria in the LDC to implement this incentive program and to identify other mitigation priorities. But going back up to Roman numeral V(5), they specify a minimum of 25-foot vegetated upland buffer adjacent to any wetlands that would be developed. And another relevant aspect of this is that on (6)B-l it says, Collier County shall encourage certain types of mitigation by providing a variety of incentives in the form of density bonuses and credits to open space and vegetative retention requirements. Density bonuses shall be limited to no more than 10 percent of the allowable density. And since the base density here is 12, 10 percent would be just 1.2 additional. So instead of 15, you'd have 13.2. I think that this petition that's before us today has not taken into account the conservation requirements of the Immokalee area master plan, and I think that it needs to be looked at more closely. Page 62 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney, thank you. 16 11 A The next two speakers will be Mr. Murray, and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm going to make mine very brief. I share Commissioner Midney's views and concerns. And I would say that with a building height of -- zoned building height of 75, more likely 95 feet in actuality, when it's finally done, if it were to build that high, that whole area would be radically changed. And he's brought out some points that are absolutely right on target. I also -- maybe this is inappropriate, but I was curious. I noted that Mr. Goldmeier and Ali (phonetic) Goldmeier each own 50 percent. I don't know what the implications of that are. I don't know, usually you think about somebody owning a slight percentage more to be able to make a decision. I saw nothing in the documents indicating that it was an agreed upon decision to rezone this land. So those are my thoughts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Shaun, in your testimony you mentioned that this is an infill project? How did you come to that conclusion? MR. MULARKEY: Well, the way infill is defined, it's defined a certain way in the Immokalee area master plan. If! can find the page quickly, I can show you what that means. Basically it's less than 10 acres in size, it will be served by essential public stormwater, compatible with surrounding land uses, no common property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stop right there. That's really the problem. This isn't surrounded by estates and residential uses of low density. Why -- MR. MULARKEY: Yeah, but's it's in an activity center. It's -- I guess in both the current master plan and the future master plan this is seen as an area where it's going to be a mix of uses in an activity Page 63 January 17, 2008 center, sort of a hub of intensity in Immokalee. That's whe~ ~J.r) A coming from with compatibility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you're requesting is essentially the highest density residential, not mixed use. MR. MULARKEY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, I kind ofthink the intent of the master plan has great potential on this site as a mixed use. And also 1-- , MR. MULARKEY : Well, one of those uses is residential. One of those mix of uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not worried about the one you got, I'm worried about the ones you're missing that you don't have. And then I really agree with Paul that this is something, because of the fact that it's surrounded by the lowest density, that we should be looking at a PUD to determine something of this -- the highest density. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You're welcome. By the way, your statement about this being an activity center on the current growth management plan, I have that with me. It is not. MR. MULARKEY: What I meant, in the Immokalee area master plan it defines neighborhood center as an activity center. Not the same way it's used in other parts of the GMP as the red circle or the red square, but it uses the words activity center in the plan, describing a mix of uses and so on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the current master plan for that area, which I have in front of me, shows it as estates. So I'm not sure why you think it shows an activity center there. Maybe the new one might. I've got a copy of the new one right here, and unfortunately it's too hard to read. MR. MULARKEY: The current master plan shows it as a Page 64 neighborhood center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I pulled one off ofthe site last night. For some reason, it certainly doesn't look like yours. MR. MULARKEY: Well, maybe we can get some verification from staff on what the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not necessary. It's a side bar discussion anyway. Is there any other discussion, questions of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to add to that, and you're using neighborhood center to generate it as acceptable as an activity center. Neighborhood center by definition is low -- I mean, rather limited use, so I just wanted to add that little piece to it. But yes, it's a side bar. MR. MULARKEY: Well, the future -- the current plan says up to 15 units an acre for infill. And the future plan that has not been yet adopted for this area says up to 20 units an acre in this area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It hasn't been adopted. MR. MULARKEY: It hasn't been adopted, but we're well within the range of what's proposed and envisioned for this site. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a quick question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, quick question. Would you consider coming back with this whole thing? MR. MULARKEY: That's up to the applicant. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's who I was waiting to come to the microphone. MR. GOLDMEIER: Of course. Of course. But can I just clarify some things? First of all, we did not intend to do the type of detail engineering and planning to do a site plan and bring you product. I can't predict the product because I can't -- because January 17,2008 16 11 A Page 65 Januaf 17,2008 the market's not ready for the product. And this is an expensivPsJe ~ A develop because a lot of things that have been mentioned. But can I just show you something? I've never seen this exact aerial before, but I saw something similar to that which was a proposed district being proposed by FEMA but not adopted. And it had similar -- and it had a similar configuration, but it was again not adopted, only proposed. But is this the same thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, that came from a prior presentation in front of this planning commission on probably an environmental impact statement, I would assume, by Passarella and Associates. So I'm not sure that -- we wouldn't have any knowledge where they got their information from, but I can tell you where we got that picture from. MR. GOLDMEIER: Okay. I believe this has not been adopted. But let me just show you about the densities in the area and what I know that is going on around there may be helpful. I'll try to do this. Our site is here. Behind our site are two commercial uses. We have a school and then we have an office building occupied by Collier County government. Those are the commercial uses. The mixed use element -- the mixed use element of the Immokalee master plan has already been partially accomplished by the commercial uses behind our property. And I believe the property on the other side of Schoolhouse (sic) Road from us is supposed to be a mixed use property with residential and retail. And according to the master plan, our property is supposed to be exclusively residential. Because we are part of a larger -- you know, a larger area in which commercial surrounds us. And we're supposed to be the high density residential. As far as comparable buildings, look, I don't want to build a seven or nine-story building today in Immokalee. It's not going to be Page 66 January 17,2008 economically viable to do it. That's something that may be laJ 1 A down the road with future developments. However, the Seminoles, as part of their reservation right back here where I believe I have my pen right now, are building a similar sized building as a casino/hotel, which will not be a Hard Rock but will be modeled after the Hard Rock in Fort Lauderdale which will be -- I don't know exactly how many stories it is, but yesterday I met with Fred Thomas and he showed me the site and explained to me what the Seminoles were doing there. And it's going to be a high-rise building with a casino below it. And so this will hopefully not be the only building of that density in the area. And also Mr. Thomas made me aware that the area immediately to the south of us, which is indeed wetlands, which is indeed part of a slough. Our land is not -- you know, we have wetlands along the buffer, but we don't have a parcel, which -- we have, you know, what is it, 70 or 80 percent uplands? MR. MULARKEY: Seventy percent. MR. GOLDMEIER: Seventy percent uplands. But Barron Collier Company owns the land immediately to the south of us and -- well, immediately to this side of us and behind us as well, and wraps around us. And that part of their wetlands area will be part of a sending area to send density further down the road, further down 846 to allow much more intense development further down 846, as well along with the big box retailers and other commercial that will serve Ave Maria, which is in that same general area. We -- you know, I hope we're not crazy to want to build a large, nice, you know, new apartment project in lmmokalee, because -- but we feel that we're in a better end of Immokalee toward where the commercial and future growth is. We know that we only have a certain amount of wetlands on our site and that we're across the street from the largest employer. And the economic incentive to develop residential there would be because we are across the street from the Page 67 January 17,2008 largest employer. 16 I 1 A And I don't believe that the Seminoles are providing service-worker housing or any of the sort on their property. And that is the incentive. And as far as the density goes and the height goes, if soil conditions dictate, we'll have to go up. But it's much less expensive not to go up. And that would be our preference. But the economics of the site are dictating that we have a minimum base number of units and that we do what economics dictate when it comes to developing the site. I hope I've clarified some things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Midney, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd just like to clarify, I think you've done a really good job on Main Street Village. And I'm not at all against, you know, the basic overall idea of providing more quality housing in Immokalee. I think it's wonderful. But I think the idea needs to be polished a little bit, especially with regard to the wetlands and the slough. And I think we all have to bear in mind that a wetland system, it's not just only the places that are wet all the time but there's uplands and there's buffer areas, and it's sort of an interconnected ecosystem. You can't just say well, this isn't wet all the time so this isn't a wetland. They're all related. And when the EAR was adopted, the county agreed that it would start doing a more -- a comprehensive assessment of which were the wetlands and which were the places that should be developed. And whatever we decide to do with this issue today, I would like the planning commission to go on record to ask staff to speed up a little bit this process so that we can have a better idea about how everything fits together with what we want developed and, you know, what should be preserved. Page 68 Jam16 It,1008A Immokalee will be a much better place in 30 years if the places that should be preserved are preserved and set aside and development take place in the places that are most appropriate for that. And a system, a slough which is -- as you can see on the map, it's a whole integrated thing. Keeping that as a system will be preferable, and not just sort of nibbling away at the corners of a piecemeal. But that's something that's not the applicant's fault. I think it's just something that the county needs to clarify. But at this time it seems a little bit premature to me, the scale and the intensity that this applicant is requesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question: Are these condominiums or are these apartments? MR. GOLDMEIER: We don't know yet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Because I heard you refer to both. MR. GOLDMEIER: We don't know what the market will require. I mean, today there is a different market. If we were to do something today, it would be different than what we foresee, you know, down the road. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can I make a suggestion? MR. GOLDMEIER: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You repetitively use the word whatever is economically feasible, economically feasible. That's something that we usually don't take too much weight into. We need to do what's right for the community, not what's economically feasible. MR. GOLDMEIER: I'm just trying to give you a straightforward, honest answer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just giving you my opinion. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Page 69 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have a he -- is there a staff report, I would assume? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. BROWN: Good morning again. Willie Brown, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. Perhaps I should have attempted to answer your questions when the questions were raised. I'll go through my formal presentation. If you have questions for me afterwards, I'll do my best to answer those. The petitioner's description of the project is consistent with the application on file. The project complies with the appropriate regulations of the Land Development Code. I will say at this point that a site development plan is not required by the LDC for a standard rezone. The proposed use is supported by the Immokalee area master plan. The site is within a designated neighborhood subdistrict where multi-family dwellings, along with a variety of other housing types, are encouraged, including this parcel of land. The project complies with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 ofthe transportation element of the GMP. The future Immokalee Road expansion from two to four lanes intersection improvements and interconnections between lots will be worked out during the SDP process. And I'll make a side note here: Your wetland permits will not be required until the SDP process is as well. So that is something that will be considered, but not unless and until the rezone is approved by this body and your considering the highest and best use of this property. The wetlands permits would be considered at a later time. There is sufficient space to meet landscaping requirements. Environmentally the site would be developed in a way to preserve existing wetlands and interconnect habitat areas. A neighborhood information meeting was held on October 9th. January 17,2008 16 11 A Page 70 January 17,2008 There was no opposition to the project at the meeting and nJQJs 1f A opposition have been received. Finally, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone, subject to the agreed upon conditions of approval. What was considered was not the future proposed Immokalee area master plan but the present one. And that would limit density to 15 dwelling units per acre and not the 20, as suggested by the applicant. The property is within a currently designated neighborhood center subdistrict, which encourages again a variety of housing types, including multi-family. The -- whether the applicant knows what he's proposing at this point are not apartments or condominiums, it's what the RFM-16 zoning district allows at the time of the development order. Site plan is not required, again, until the development order, and the -- I've had a conversation with our environmental services department, and you can bring them to the podium to answer the question. But the aerial here that you have I'm told will not be considered again until the SDP process. And that's of course if the rezone is approved. I'll do my best to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the staff at this time? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a comment. You knew about this EAR rule, didn't you, about the Lake Trafford system, that it's getting the same treatment as the rural fringe mixed use district? MR. BROWN: I don't myself do those reviews. The environmental services department does those. And Susan, she can address that for you, if you'd like. Would you please come and address that issue for me? MS. MASON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Susan Mason, environmental services review section. Page 71 January 17,2008 Weare aware of that portion of the Growth Manager!6 ~IJ A that refers to the Camp Keais slough and that portion in particular on the Immokalee land use plan as having the rules that are required basically in the rural lands. For projects like this, without a site development or any kind of conceptual plan, we don't really have a whole lot of review comments at this time. Until we have details, we can't state whether or not a proposed preserve location is acceptable. The -- most of the information that was given by the reviewer was reiterating what the requirements are going to be, that they're going to have to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the LDC when they come in. But until we see a plan, we can't make any specific comment on whether or not it's consistent. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What about the increased density that they asked for of three instead of 10 percent? MS. MASON: We don't evaluate on density. That's really a planning issue. If the density is allowed under other planning rules, we would evaluate for impacts only. Our -- one this size parcel our requirement for preservation is really 15 percent minimum. In certain circumstances we may tell them they need to preserve more, but a lot of times they do fall back to that very minimum. They would be required to get Corps and district permits on a site like this, since it is connected to off-site wetlands, and those agencies would have input on their impacts as well. But our requirements sometimes could be more if there's a buffering requirement to a wetland that's not required by a Corps or district permit. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: According to 6.2.5 it wouldn't be 15 percent, it would be 25 percent. MS. MASON: I'm sorry. MR. BROWN: Pertaining to your question about density, if you turn to Page 5 of the staff report, second paragraph down, it talks Page 72 January 17, 2008 second sentence, neighborhood center shall be permitted a ml~Jnl A density of 12 units per gross acre. And if you come two paragraphs down from that one it says, to encourage residential infill, three residential dwelling units per acre may be added, based upon the following criteria. So staffs recommendation is written into the recommendation section of the report, that only 15 dwelling units per acre be allowed. Of course that would be based at the time of SDP review that it meets all of the other criteria that staff has to consider. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But this says that it can only be 10 percent. So three dwelling units per acre is more than 10 percent. MR. BROWN: And that would be taken into consideration at the time of the SDP review. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. MR. BROWN: Ray, would you like to chime in? MR. BELLOWS: The density bonus would be subject to the 10 percent limitation, so they would not be able to get that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. BROWN: Thank you. My error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Ms. Mason, would you intend to retain outside consultants to interpret the Land Development Code on any of those issues you mentioned? MS. MASON: Oh, no. Staff applies the Land Development Code. If there's ever a need for an interpretation, that's directed to the zoning director, if we have questions on how to apply a code. But no, we don't -- we don't contract with outside employees, it's all county staff that make the -- do the reviews. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. Page 73 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? 16 I 1 A COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Willie, I'm having trouble getting my arms around this infill concept. Again, it's essentially mostly surrounded by our lowest density of residential, and yet they're requesting essentially the highest density of residential. No buffering. I mean -- MR. BROWN: Well, landscape buffering is proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't mean -- I'm sorry, I mean in terms of planning, like density buffering, you know, where you would slowly creep up to this kind of density. MR. BROWN: Yeah, the density bonuses, residential infill requirement is in the Immokalee area master plan. It's a part of your consistency review written by comprehensive planning. Compatibility is left to the zoning land development review department. And my recommendation is essentially that Immokalee Road is in the 2030 transportation plan to be expanded from two to four lanes. In my view, low density residential uses are not the highest and best use for this property at this intersection. And the high density is preferable. But that's my viewpoint and the viewpoint of our department. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A concern I have is any residence on a road like that. I mean, it's not a desirable place to live, to me. But what about the mixed use things that are really -- you know, the overlay zonings and stuff are really encouraging mixed use in this area. I know in your report what you've done is gone around and find office buildings and saying, you know, that's part of the mixed use area. But isn't the intent to develop projects that are mixed use, or is the intent to within an area mix up a bunch of uses? MR. BROWN: I'm not absolutely certain how the neighborhood Page 74 January 17,2008 center sub-districts are derived. There is an analysis in the ~fff Je~rt A on Page 5. The first paragraph elaborates on what's expected within a neighborhood sub-district. And it's felt by your Comprehensive Planning Department that this parcel and this area in general applies. I would say that this project in my viewpoint fits within the scope of the neighborhood center sub-district concept. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you get your question answered about infill? Because I'm not sure you did. And let me read something out of the code. Infill should refer to property implementing any of the infill sub-districts identified in the Future Land Use Element or Golden Gate Area Master Plan element of the GMP, or property sharing at least two common boundaries with parcels that are developed. Does this property meet those infill criteria? MR. BROWN: On Page 6 -- again, I'm referring to the consistency review written by comprehensive planning. It says, under conclusion, staff deems the subject RMF -16 rezone request consistent with the IMP based on the following findings: Site qualifies as a residential refill project which is eligible for the three dwelling units per acre, and the IMP allows 12 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if anybody from comprehensive staff is here? And they can answer. You don't know why they came to that conclusion. So really, Mr. Schiffer's question can't be answered here today. MR. BROWN: I could only answer-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish they could. MR. BROWN: -- what they wrote in the staff report -- where they contributed to the staff report. And I apologize for not knowing more. Page 75 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN : No problem. I don't think yo16nl 1 A anticipate every question. But I share Mr. Schiffer's concern. Now, is there any other questions of staff? Because I need -- I have a few. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Brown, if you could turn to Page 1 of 6 of your rezone findings. MR. BROWN: One of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 1 of6, we start with a series of questions. The second question, the existing land use pattern, you provide a pro, a con, and a findings. The findings concern me. I need to understand your reasoning. It says, by approving this use in accordance with the Immokalee Area Master Plan, this proposal will further the goals and objectives of that plan and honor the intentions of the residents of the area. How did you come to that conclusion that this will honor the intentions of the residents of the area? MR. BROWN: I think that sentence was taken out of the applicant's application. In the last sentence is really my comment where I agree with the comment made by the applicant which says, staff agrees that the proposed use is complimentary and compatible with the surrounding uses. And I kind of spoke about that earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, from a legal perspective, are we supposed to be utilizing the comments provided by the applicant to justify the application, or is staff supposed to come to their own conclusions and analysis and provide that to us? MR. KLA TZKOW: This is supposed to be the applicant presents his position and staff presents their position and then you weigh both positions, not a mixture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the rezone findings then, Mr. Brown, then we should be striking the first sentence. Your position is that you agree the proposal in complimentary and Page 76 compatible to the surrounding uses. Is that fair to say? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Again, Ray, you and I talked about this. I think that overall staff needs to understand that ambiguous statements in these rezone findings can be very problematic. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think this is a good time to mention that based on -- after the last Planning Commission meeting, I initiated an LDC amendment. I'm working with Catherine Fabacher to revise these rezone and PUD findings to combine into one basic list for staff to utilize and eliminate those questions that don't seem to be germane to the process of compatibility and analysis. And we are also working with staff to help them write some guidelines to answer the questions more directly instead of these general type of answers that are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is it your expectation that staff will be answering the questions or the applicants will be answering the questions? MR. BELLOWS: No, staff is answering the questions. As the County Attorney mentioned, we are -- we take into consideration the facts that the applicant presents and their reasons and justification, and staff looks at the code and looks at the comprehensive plan and makes their own analysis. And we present it to the Planning Commission, where you may agree or disagree. MR. BROWN: And I'll just add that the same questions posed in the rezone findings are the same questions that are in the application. And the applicant answers those questions. And I'm merely agreeing with him here, that I feel the use is compatible and consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure that the applicant would write that was in the manner that best favors him (sic), and I'm sure he'd write them in the manner that if he ever has to take them to court and Janucr 67) 2108 A Page 77 January 17,2008 they're proffered by staff, it would be to his benefit as well.16 I 1 A I would think that staff would want to make a clean and independent response to these questions, independent of the applicant's in staffs language without ambiguous statements. And that's what I'm -- the point I'm trying to make. MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. I could have been a lot more elaborative there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On number six -- and I'm cleaning these up basically for the record -- whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. First of all, I didn't find the responses responsive to the question. But the second sentence says, proposed use would add affordable newer housing in the area and possibly provide affordable workforce housing, particularly for Ave Maria employees. We have no evidence of that. We have no testimony here today that says it's going to be affordable. We have no idea whether Ave Maria's ever going to want to put people in there or if any ever will. Those speculative statements again are not necessary and even I don't think it answers the questions to begin with. Nor does the findings on the following page. MR. BROWN: I think the term affordable here is used more so than in a general way. I don't think it was meant in terms of it being affordable housing in the way we typically term it when we speak of affordable housing. [ could have chosen a better word instead of the one I chose here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem I have, Willie, is that we have an affordable housing program. And if it's not part of that program, then as far as this board's concerned, it really is not affordable. We can't guarantee the affordability of it in a long-term basis. So that word may want to be carefully used in the future. MR. BROWN: I think I meant market rate apartment units instead of affordable. Page 78 JfW1117,2008 b 1 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 5, number 14, whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. And the findings says, second sentence, the proposed project would provide an array of housing choices in this area of the county where choices are limited in an area close to local goods and serVIces. We don't know what they're going to provide. Testimony today very clearly says they don't even know what they're going to provide, which is part of the problem we're having here today. So I think that statement is pretty difficult to have in this finding. So -- MR. BROWN: Yeah, and I guess I've been handling this application for the past three or four months and, quite frankly, what was presented at the NIM and what's been presented today are two different things. It's been an evolving project. It's not entirely different. Again, what would be allowed is what is permitted in the RMF -16 zone district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 16, the physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable in any of the range of potential uses on the proposed zoning classification. The finding says the degree of site work would be minimal. We've been heard (sic) testimony that two-thirds of the site, six out of nine acres is going to be virtually developed. Which means at the intensity they're talking about -- and Mr. Midney's probably right, in 22 units at a maximum or whatever they could come up with -- that isn't going to be minimal to put that kind of density on the remaining six acres. That's going to be substantial. And I think that number 16 needs some clarification for future reference as well. MR. BROWN: And there I think all I meant was that the habitat areas would be preserved as well as the existing wetlands on-site. And Page 79 January 17,2008 those would be minimally impacted. And again I could have ~~J tIlt A a lot more clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that brings us to the end of my questions. And I had asked everybody else if they had expressed theirs, and I think everybody had. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's two things that need to be understood. And I think by the tone of the Planning Commission, the applicant might get the hint that this may not succeed with a positive vote. The applicant has the ability to continue it at a request -- I mean withdraw it or continue it and come back with something more refined, or we can vote and it can go on to the BCC. Now, regardless of how it comes out on the vote, if it goes to the BCC, as chairman of the Planning Commission I have the ability to remand this to the EAC for review. It doesn't say it has to be done before us or after us. But I certainly am going to exercise that authority if this continues on. If this comes back, I'll exercise the same authority, thus giving you a heads up that you may want to do that before you waste time getting here to be sent back again. So with that, do you have any statement before we close the public hearing? MR. MULARKEY: On that note I want to address, if we come back again, if we continue this and come back with a refined site plan or some kind of a site plan, is it possible for us to do a concept plan that somehow is tied as a condition to the approval of the RMF -16 zoning district, or does it necessarily need to be in a PUD format? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure. Staff, we had this come up before with the gentleman from Marco who tried to do those homes along Barefoot Williams. You remember that? Yeah, there was some issue there where he said he Page 80 January 17,2008 was going to do certain things, but because he was asking ~o~stln~ardA zoning, there seemed to be no way to assure us that that could be done. And I believe we rejected his project because he didn't come in with a PUD that we could control. But I'm not absolutely positive of the facts, but I'm just -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There is no requirement to submit a PUD, even for the infill criteria. However, when there are issues that -- with density and mitigation requirements, it's probably a wise idea to do the planned unit development where you can address compatibility and density Issues. It becomes a little more problematic trying to create a lot of stipulations and conditions on a standard rezone where there is no real document for staff to review. We'd be forced to deal with a standard zoning district calculation and pulling the resolution from that, and it's not typical of a PUD document where we can provide more criteria for mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from the applicant's perspective, if you go forward with this today and we vote for a recommendation of denial, you still got to go to the BCC and on to the EAC. You're going to need a super majority vote from the BCC. That might be difficult to survive with a recommendation of denial from this board. You might be better off withdrawing this petition and coming back in as a PUD, providing the information we're used to seeing and going through the process that we normally are expected to go through to see how improvements are going to be made. That's your call. MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, would it be possible to bring you a site plan? And by the way, if! knew the mood of the board, we would have had a site plan. But we don't -- we haven't even given the thought to the product yet ourselves. But would it be possible to give you a site plan and not go through the whole PUD process? Because we're doing it on other Page 81 January 17,2008 properties and find it extremely lengthy and cumbersome and 16 '1 A expensive. I don't mind giving you what you want to see, but there are other aspects to a PUD that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on what I'm hearing from staff and from past history, I don't know how we can control it, especially with the statements that you've told us today. So much is dependent on the market outcome. Out of deference to that, I certainly don't know why you would want to get tied down to something unless you did it in a planned unit development where you had some flexibility uses and you presented some of those uses to us in a more organized manner. MR. GOLDMEIER: PUD's expire. And -- PUD's expire and the site plan may not. And my reference to the market, I mean, you're all familiar with Immokalee. And by the say way, I just want to thank Mr. Midney for recognizing the job we did on Main Street Village. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's wonderful. MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you. And, you know, that we try to do a good job. And all I'm saying is if all of you think about Immokalee today and think about lmmokalee with all the developments in the future and the fact that our site is sort of well positioned, there are two different entirely different types of use and two different types of qualities. If we were to do something today, it probably would be affordable, but if we were to wait a number of years, it probably would not be. And that's all I was trying to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I think we're at a point we're going to take a vote, unless you withdraw it. It's strictly up to your side at this point. MR. GOLDMEIER: Well, if we withdraw it, how long would it take to come back? MR. MULARKEY: Well, we'd have to develop a PUD, staff Page 82 would have to review it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to speak, you're going to need to be close to the microphone, because you have to be on record. MR. MULARKEY: What I was saying was that -- well, if it's continued, it's not on the same thing. We can't continue it and then hear a PUD. We have had to have an original traditional rezone. So it's got to be withdrawn if we want to entertain the PUD option. I have one more question about the EAC Meeting. You're saying that if we go the PUD route, if we withdraw this and come back, you're going to want us to see -- to go forward and through the EAC as part of the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As chairman of the Planning Commission, at my discretion, I can direct you to go to the EAC if you haven't already been there. MR. MULARKEY: And that's what you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am giving that direction for this piece of property for as long as I'm chairman. MR. MULARKEY: I just needed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you come back and I'm here, that's going to have to happen. MR. GOLD MEIER: And we do not wish to proceed with a negative recommendation or with any opposition from the planning board, and thank you very much for recommending the process that we should proceed, and we will withdraw and resubmit as you suggested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any motion on the part of Planning Commission for the withdrawal? MR. KLATZKOW: If they're voluntarily withdrawing, we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir, we appreciate your time. MR. BROWN: May I just add to the discussion that there was an January 17,2008 16 II A Page 83 January 17,2008 exchange at the pre-application meeting about a PUD. And tJgn/Y 1 A reason the applicants didn't submit a PUD as opposed to a standard rezone is because the acreage of the site is less than 10 acres. And that's how we arrived at a standard rezone. And also, I think there's been testimony by the environmental services director that a lot of the issues pertaining to the wetlands would be addressed at SD P. But again, the project would not have to go to the EAC, because it's less than 10 acres and an EIS is not required. I just wanted to add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand it wouldn't have to. As far as from the PUD application it being less than 10 acres, if it's considered infill it's available for a PUD, is it not? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. The LDC does allow for infill projects to be PUD's less than 10 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And we just had this project withdrawn, so this -- sir? MR. GOLDMEIER: I just wanted to clarifY, because we were told we couldn't do a PUD without less than 10 acres. Are you informing us that now we can do a PUD with less than 10 acres? MR. BELLOWS: For the record again, Ray Bellows. The land development code has a minimum size for PUD of 10 acres. However, there is a provision that if you're deemed an infill property, it can be reduced to less than 10. MR. GOLDMEIER: And can we respectfully request the planning board's recommendation that we be able to be considered as a PUD with less than 10 acres? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: Maybe the best way to do this is rather than withdraw it, continue it. And then you can get with staff, we can get clarifications that are well reasoned rather than simply trying to off the cuff figure this one out. Page 84 MR. GOLD MEIER: And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. GOLD MEIER: -- can we withdraw our withdrawal and request a continuance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you can, sir. Is there a -- hearing that request from the applicant for continuance, Ray or Joe, do you guys -- MR. SCHMITT: I just want to point out for the applicant, there will be additional fees based on converting this to a PUD document. And as far as continuance, we are not continuing this straight rezone, it will be -- it's actually going to come back in a PUD form, so it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think you're continuing the case right now to see for sure that the PUD opportunity is open. Mr. Bellows has provided information that I believe is accurate, but apparently something different was supplied at a staff meeting a while back and they've got to make sure that one or the other is correct. Pending that, then the staff may accept a withdrawal for the application independent of this board. And then this will go into another process, if it's so determined. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: And just to note, there was some concern by the Planning Commission whether or not this met the infill requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. MR. KLATZKOW: And that's going to have to be, you know, figured out before we can even figure out if the PUD is going to go forward. MR. MULARKEY: I'd like to make one last comment, if we could, before we wrap up. The way infill is defined generally in the LDC is one particular way. But in the neighborhood center district, the way infill is defined is completely different than how it's defined in the rest of the LDC. Janual 6' for A Page 85 tbar f' 2~08 There's certain criteria that have to be met just for the neighborhood center district as to what's deemed infill. The way infill applies to the PUD is completely different. We're not an infill parcel, so we don't meet the requirements of infill under that scenario. We do under the neighborhood center master plan district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think either way we're not going to sort this out here today. I think the best you can get out of this today is a continuance, and I think I would urge you to do that route. And then when staff works it out, you can either withdraw it when -- MR. MULARKEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- firmly say to you yes, you can apply for a PUD, or you can then come back at your discretion with more detail for this board to consider, if that's what you so desire. MR. GOLDMEIER: We just don't want to be caught in purgatory . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we realize that now. And I think that's going to be cleared up before we make a final -- you make a final determination on what you want to do. Okay, there's been a request for a continuance, and we've had discussion. Is there a motion for that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the motion, Mr. Schiffer (sic) seconded it. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 86 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? 16 , 1 A (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you for your time and cooperation today. Hopefully we'll get a little further next time. Let's take a 15-minute break to 11 :22. (Recess.) Item #8E PETITION: LDCA-2007-AR-12695 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone please take your seats and we'll resume the meeting. The Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-l 0171, Eastbourne Bonita, LLC was noted on our agenda to be continued to 2/7/08, in case that wasn't available to everyone in the beginning. Right now the petition we're going to hear is LDC Amendment, LDCA-2007-AR-12695, Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, reduction of required site design requirements. This is a special 2008 Cycle I-A. County Attorney, is it required for disclosures and swearing in under this one? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Anderson or whoever is going to make the presentation to start with, it's all yours. MR. LEWIS: Good morning. My name is Doug Lewis. I'm an attorney with the law firm ofRoetzel and Andress. And I'm here with my partner, Bruce Anderson. This amendment is something that Bruce and I have worked on with county staff. And I'm also here with Nick Casalanguida, representing county transportation, and their division, who are also Page 87 January 17,2008 supporting this petition. 16 I 1 A Although the amendment was filed by my client, Florida Rock, the Board of County Commissioners approved at a special Land Development Code amendment cycle at the request of staff in an act to -- basically to proceed with this amendment. Because Florida Rock is working on a road project, the Wilson Boulevard extension project, with county transportation, our client was asked by transportation to file for the amendment as transportation staff was short-staffed to handle this amendment. By way of background, for many years the Land Development Code has had language in Section 104.04 that if someone conveyed land to the county, whether it's voluntary or involuntary, the remaining land owned by that person is recognized as legal nonconforming. Otherwise, such a lot would become illegal and nonconforming because of things like lot size, lot width. In addition, Section 104.04 provides that other nonconformities caused by right-of-way acquisition such as stormwater, landscaping, parking buffers, preserves areas, are deemed to be legally conforming. These provisions limit severance damages and reduced right-of-way acquisition costs, and are very helpful, especially in today's market, in reducing cost of acquisition of right-of-way. This amendment does two things: First, it extends the existing nonconformity language to address TDR rights. For example, the county allows one base TDR credit for each eligible five-acre parcel or lot. If the county or someone acting on behalf the county, in this instance our client, acquires one acre of a five-acre parcel without this amendment, the remaining four acres would be deemed a legal nonconforming lot, ineligible to participate in the TDR program. Ifthe county had not acquired the one acre out ofthe original five-acre parcel, the property owner would be able to sever one base TDR credit and any potential TDR bonuses that they would be eligible for. Page 88 January 17,2008 This amendment seeks to put the property owner in the sal9 '1 A TDR legal position as the owner was before county acquisition. In this way the county can avoid paying severance damages for destroying TDR rights. The second thing this amendment does is to extend Land Development Code language on legal nonconformities to apply to a situation where a private party, as in our client, is acquiring property for the county under an agreement with the county. For example, under an agreement with the county for acquisition of right-of-way for the Wilson Boulevard extension, Florida Rock is responsible for requiring the right-of-way. As the county could end up paying for the remaining 60 to 80 feet for right-of-way for rural cross-section road, in its agreement with our client, this amendment can result in substantial savings to the county for the Wilson Boulevard project. And it also goes beyond that project, as it significantly reduces acquisition costs for road projects in the rural fringe. In today's market it's reducing market acquisition costs for right-of-way is a good thing and it's a wise thing to do with taxpayer funds. The amendment that's before you today was unanimously approved by the EAC and DSAC. EAC provided recommendations to strike an earlier reference to public purpose and add a county ownership reference. The amendment before you today addresses EAC comments and is supported by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start with questions from-- Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I just want to note for the record that this is a special cycle, that it was a special cycle approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and the dates were also approved by the Board of County Commissioners. So just for the record. MS. F ABACHER: And it has been duly advertised. Page 89 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, other questions of DOUg\Ah(S1 t, ~ point? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doug, explain one little concept here. There's a concept of a private party for parties under agreement. What exactly is that, that a private person would buy a right-of-way, and then -- but he'd only be part of this group ifhe had a contract or something that he would ultimately sell that or -- I'll tell you what, say that back to me. MR. LEWIS: Sure. This amendment applies to a private party under an agreement with Collier County, in this instance our client has an agreement with Collier County, and that agreement contains provisions for acquisition of right-of-way and the future transfer of property to Collier County. Now, in our agreement with the county we are obligated to approach the property owners to try to put these properties and acquire these properties under contract. Ifwe're unsuccessful, then the county would come in and condemn the balance of the right-of-way needed for the extension in the corridor. So this agreement would allow us as a private party to proceed and allow the owners in which we're acquiring these parcels from to be in the same position as they were before we acquired the properties they were after. And that's the intent of what we're trying to accomplish. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you transfer these to Collier County, the cost of that, you'll be reimbursed for all expense? MR. LEWIS: Our agreement; are you referring to with county, the way that works? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, essentially what this is establishing, the ability of a private party to get between the county and the landowner to acquire right-of-way. MR. LEWIS: Well, that's happening now. That's happening now. That's a method in which the county uses to acquire right-of-way. Page 90 January 17,2008 We're actually doing the acquisition; we're fronting the aCquisi!~ , 1 A voluntarily, interest free, to get the road built. So it's a win/win for both the county and our client. There is a provision that -- to the extent that the county elects to acquire our property, we have an option to buy I think 140 feet of width. Then they would have to pay us the difference between the 180 and the 100 feet that we're paying for. So there's 80 feet of right-of-way that the county would have to pay for. And what we're looking to do is reduce the total cost of right-of-way acquisition. There are severance standards that occur. And what we're trying to do, as we've done with landscape buffers, as we've done with parking, we're trying to reduce the severance damages that occur. We just want to pay for the cost ofthe road. If we're buying an acre, the county must pay for the acre of road they're buying. Or ifit's the private party on behalf of the county. So we're trying to reduce those severance damages on the remaining land that they would retain ownership of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow may have something to contribute. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, and Nick may want to chime in. Just Brad, so you get a full understanding, one of the things we're doing is trying to shift the burden from the road construction to the developers. And what's happening to the developers will be purchasing the right-of-way and doing the construction, and then when the roads finished they'll be deeding that to the county. Now, sometimes they'll be reimbursed for the work, sometimes impact fees, sometimes cash sometimes. Not at all. It will depend upon a particular deal. What we're trying to do here is to decrease the cost to the developer to get what really would have normally been something that the county would have been doing at the county's cost. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not set up where Page 91 January 17,2008 somebody's profiting by running the head ofthe roads and bUY~Pu~ 1 A right-of-way. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is since most of this stuff is out in the rural area, don't we essentially measure the lot area to be a gross lot area, which would go to the center line of the road? We don't? We -- pure property line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of them are platted. Some of your main corridors are already on the books out there, especially in the Estates and along the rural areas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. So it's only-- in other words, because if that was the case, then you wouldn't be affecting the area by taking the right-of-way. MR. CASALANGUlDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. That's not the case. One item to consider, too, is if you're considering just running your lot line evenly on both sides of one lot line, if we didn't have an ability to do this, which is to leave the line in the same position it was prior to the take, you may consider only going one property line and avoiding that middle lot line and equal take because of severance damages and things like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a quick question here. Who are, quote, another government entity or entities, unquote? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. That would be Florida Power & Light, that would be FDOT. Any government entity in reference to what the EAC said. They just wanted to make sure this was for public use. So anything that was being acquired for right-of-way didn't-- wasn't similar to that Connecticut case where the government came in and acquired people's property and then turned it over to a development. The final landowner would be public, the person acquiring the right-of-way would be public, or in a contract with a Page 92 private entity for public use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Along that same reasoning, do you consider a stewardship area -- I mean, a community development district or similar district like the Reedy Creek improvement district to be a governmental entity? Because then what you're saying is Ave Maria could exercise this authority, and that's a developer. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a good question. I think a determination like that would be considered public use. But in the end is it publicly owned land? Because in a CDD you'd have a private landowner who owns that individual lot. So if they're buying it for that purpose, I wouldn't see that that would apply. Because the underlying landowner for this acquisition in the end has to be the public. So that private lot in that stewardship receiving area, that CDD, would not apply to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But say you've got -- let's say one that's not already in here yet. Say Big Cypress. Say Big Cypress is coming in and we know they're going to need a lot of new roads. Not all of the roads may be needed for the county's purposes. Some may be needed for theirs. MR. LEWIS: If! may just comment. For the record, if! may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. LEWIS: -- I just wanted to clarifY what Nick mentioned. I don't -- we maybe may want some clarification from your County Attorney's office on that question. I would -- in my experience with CDD's, I would think that's not the intent here, and out client is -- that's not what we're trying to do here. But if that's a concern, we can look at that. But I would think that a CDD is a governmental entity. And I would take that position if a client came to my office. So I think that's something -- you know, depending on where the policy is on that. But I think it would arguably critical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's -- it's like the Reedy January 17,2008 16 , 1 A Page 93 January 17,2008 Creek improvement district, Disney. I mean, under that impro~~JnJ A district they became a government entity and they were allowed to do things that government authority can exercise. While like the Big Cypress, I'm not saying what they're doing is bad or good, but if they want more roads than what you feel they need and they want to exercise this agreement for the purpose of getting there, I'm not sure that works to the benefit of the taxpayers. MR. LEWIS: My only comment I would make on that that you should be aware of is that we currently have a 104.04, which I think there may be some things coming down the pipeline to look at maybe clarifYing what's there. Again, this amendment seeks to do a couple of things: One is it seeks to extend the provisions to the TDR program. The second thing is does is it does for our client's purpose, we want to make it very clear that we are talking about a private party under an agreement with the county and we are per that agreement declaring these parcels. And so we want to make sure this applies to our client. The current language does state that if it's acquired for purposes of setbacks and other things, this does not extend to the TDR program, but for purposes of native preserve, open space, landscaping, parking, it says if it's acquired for a public purpose. And so there may still be an argument based on the current language on the CDD that you may want to look at and consider going forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you know the entities that you're talking about -- and so far I've Collier County, Florida Power and Light, South Florida, why don't we just list the entities and not get into something that could trap us later on. And then if it needs to be amended later on because a new entity arises, we can add the entity through another special cycle. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And then for purposes of the Page 94 16 , 1'" AJanuary 17,2008 agreement with the county, we can specifY in agreement what powers they had as well, too. So if you want us to identifY those entities, that would be a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the board feel comfortable with that? Anybody not? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think that's where we need to go in that direction. Second question: You talked about the five-acre tract. And your assumption was you take an acre and leave four. What if you had a five-acre tract and you're coming in to it perpendicularly in the center and you took an acre out and you have two two-acre tracts on each side, do you have a new TDR created for each one or do you have fractional TDR's, which I don't believe, or you we have a provision that allows fractional TDR's? How do we do that? MR. LEWIS: That's a great question and we talked about this during the vetting with staff. If you look at the way this was worded, it starts with a parcel of five acres that is conforming that was -- existed as of June 22nd of 1999. So you have that parcel. So it's a five-acre piece in this example that you mentioned, Commissioner Strain. And then we acquire a strip right through that five acres. So that reads if it's later reduced in size and it talks about reducing size for purposes of acquisition, condemnation, purchase, then it says that the resulting lots or parcels not so acquired shall be deemed legal nonconforming lot or parcels of less than five acres entitled to severance of base -- and bonus credited to the rate of one TDR credit. So your question is ifthere's two parcels that are created? I think we're starting with an original parcel that existed, if we need to clarifY the language. But I think the idea is if you have a parcel that works, that's eligible and then we do something to take a part of that parcel away, what we're saying is you're treating that parcel that was eligible. Page 95 January 17,2008 Because the two -- let's say it was a five-acre and you have n!Qn'oJe A side and you have maybe an acre in the middle and then two on the other side, those two two-acre parcels are created well after 1999. Those are new parcels that are newly subdivided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LEWIS: So what we're saying here is if you had a five-acre that existed as of that date and it was eligible, then you can get one TDR for that five-acre parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. But if you now split that five-acre parcel because of a road going through the middle and you create a two two-acre parcels, nonconforming parcels, are you looking for a new TDR for each one, or if someone comes along and buys just one of the two two-acres, do they get the TDR, or what do they get? MR. LEWIS: The intent is no. It would be one TDR base for the five-acre parcel that was eligible before the acquisition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not getting where I'm trying to go. Say you split the five acres, you take an acre out, I come along and I want to buy that two-acre parcel. How much TDR do I get with 't? I . MR. CASALANGUIDA: That same one TDR that you started with. We went through this with compo planning. And the idea was when they do a split, and there's a history now that staff reviews on a parcel. So they would come up and say you get one TDR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before you go too far. So I bought that first two-acre site on the east side of the road and I got my TDR. Oh, Nick Casalanguida comes along with all his knowledge of where the road corridors are going to go and he buys the extra two-acre piece on the west side of the road down the middle. Does he get a TDR credit? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. When they go to sell or try to sell Page 96 January 17,2008 that TDR, that parcel would get one TDR. So only one person~u(dl A be able to take advantage of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the first person to buy gets the TDR and the second guy's out in the wind. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If that was in the contract, then they would have to let the people know. Because staff would only give them one credit for that parent five-acre parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was trying to get to. So the first buyer is going to be the most fortunate. MR. LEWIS: And that's clearly the intent. Ifthere's any recommendations or enhancements, we'll clarifY that. But that's clearly the intent, one TDR for that eligible parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on this issue? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a way -- I mean, is there a way -- essentially if you did exactly what Mark was describing, it would be nice ifboth sides of that road were left in natural state. So, you know, somebody wouldn't really be able to develop that anyway. Isn't there a way to make sure that the parent side stays together and is dealt with in the TDR program together? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You wouldn't have to. I mean, depending on how much right-of-way take you would have. When we do a right-of-way take on a -- aside from TDR's. You have to have enough land to meet the development code requirements to build on that lot. So if you take three acres of that and you leave a sliver on one side and a larger piece on one side and that side was developable, you're still -- with the intent of this code is the day we acquire the right-of-way, whatever state you're in, you have those rights, as long as you can conform. Now, what right-of-way does is we take so much that you say to Page 97 Janu117,2008 us it's no longer a building lot, we pay the severance damages gr l I A building lot. But they may still be able to keep that TDR right as a parent parcel, the whole piece. So we've gone through this, because we've been doing right-of-way takes for a while. When we wrote this original amendment, we just left out TDR's. It just wasn't a concept thought that was in there when we talked about right-of-way acquisitions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think my point is can we take advantage of this -- those nonconforming lots to push them into the not just the one but the two and three, the early bonus I think is going to be gone soon. You know, we push them into the three TDR's right away and then give the county something -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We wouldn't have that ability. That's up to the -- we're trying to keep the property rights consistent with the property rights before and after. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other questions is that yesterday we were sent a new version of this. I asked Catherine to color it just to save us from going through and figuring out what was different. But the one prior to that was revised January 10th. This one is December 20th. So what is the version that's going to be the final? MR. LEWIS: If! may, and I will defer to Catherine on that. But what we were attempting to do was to, in an expedited way to get before you the revisions that incorporate EAC's recommendations. And in that effort we prepared a -- we worked on together a draft that was being -- it was really a draft document. And that was circulated on Friday. That was an internal document that we had worked on with staff. And yet we were just trying to finalize language that we all agree on, staff and our client, to address the EAC's comment. That was something that should not have been transmitted to the Planning Commission. Apparently it was on Friday. Page 98 January 17,2008 Tuesday, the document you were provided on Tuesday wlRht 1 A document that staff, our client, we all agreed on and it's really the final format. And that's what you have today. And that was delivered on Tuesday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is that if you look at the version date down right above the line, the older one has a newer date than the one we got this week, so -- MR. LEWIS: That's really Catherine -- I'm not sure. I just know Tuesday is the final. MS. FABACHER: I had added the revision date in on the one that I had sent you. But this one has now been transmitted by Mr. Lewis, and the revision date was not placed on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the one we got most recently, the one that has purple color in it, is the most recent one, even though -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this particular issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the only change that we're recommending is that the language referring to other governmental entity or entities be stricken and that after Collier County they actually list the entities that they're referring in this particular case. Is that fair with everybody? Ms. Fabacher. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. We raised an issue about clarifYing the one TDR for the parent parcel, but you don't want to do that in this CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if any language was suggested for clarification. I think it ended up being clarified by the way they talked about it. Because the lot split would occur after the date, and that the TDR would go with the person who bought the first parcel. It -- Page 99 MS. FABACHER: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- wouldn't be two TDR'. MS. F ABACHER: That's fine. You had just mentioned that and I just didn't know if that was the direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval on LDC Section 1.04.04,2008 special cycle I-A? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Murray, Mr. Adelstein, it is subject to the stipulation of the strike-through and adding the governmental entity? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As discussed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Janua16',o18 A Page 100 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Nick, every time you come up here, I'm a little suspicious if it's another corridor thing, but I'm glad this one ended up simply. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, before the meeting ends, if! could take a minute to introduce a new staff member, if that's possible. I don't know if you want to do it in new business, old business. January 17,2008 16 J 1 , Item # 10 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're actually going to old business now, so why don't we do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, thank you. Joe left. I think he didn't want to hear it. Lisa Koehler started with us a couple weeks ago. She will be representing transportation on -- I'll tell them the bad first and the good later -- impact fee assessments, GMP changes, LDC changes, corridor management ordinance that will be coming before you. She'll be handling all the transportation's LDC Cycle Amendments coming forward in the next calendar year, so I wanted to introduce her. You've seen her before working for Joe and she's going to be a welcome addition to our team. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lisa, thank you. You jumped out of the pot into the fire, I think. But that's your choice. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. Is there any other old business before we go to Mr. Kolflat and his new business? Paul, did you have something? Page 101 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, new. 16 11 A Item # 11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under new business, Mr. Kolflat was first, and then Paul after him. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Strain, I also have some new business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll after Paul. So we got three of you now. Mr. Kolflat, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yesterday's Daily News reported a zoning dispute in Olde Cypress. My daughter owns a house there and is involved in the dispute. The editor quotes a report by Mr. Lawrence Forizzi (phonetic) that the community development staff, and I quote, staff spent a whole lot more time than they had to, closed quote, because I was a member of the Planning Commission. He goes on to say, and I quote, I could be wrong, closed quote. Well, he is. He implies that as a member of the Planning Commission my daughter and I receive more community development staff time than others. This false allegation reflects on all of us, and I would like to share some facts with you to better understand the situation. For the past seven months my daughter's neighbor has had a house under construction. During those seven months I have had on her behalf only four occasions to meet with staff. Allegations that four meetings with staff over a seven-month period for a single-family home is more than normal is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. Regarding my rights to participate in this matter State Law 112.3143 clearly lays out what I may do and what I may not do under these circumstances. State law prohibits me from voting on this Page 102 Januf 67,,2108 matter, should it be presented to the Planning Commission. However, A the law expressly permits me to participate in the matter as long as I first disclose my interest. I intend to continue to follow the law in this matter and not the opinions ofMr. Forizzi. For your information I have prepared and submitted to the county commissioners a letter report of my involvement in this matter on January 9th, 2008, which is available for further questions and is part of the public record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, thank you. I appreciate your clarification. I think we all do. So thank you very much. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, and this is new business. Kind of getting back to the thing we were discussing in Immokalee. I'd just like to mention that I'm a little bit disappointed that staff, when they prepared this, did not seem to reference Policy 6.2.5, the Lake Trafford/Camp Keis wetland, which this property was involved with. And I'm sure that in the future they will reference that and take that into their consideration. And with regard to that, I would like to ask this planning board to make a recommendation to the BCC, 6.2.5 said that within a year the county would -- let's see, where is it -- within one year the county shall develop specific criteria to be used to determine when wetlands having a wrap score of greater than 0.6.5 or -- well, they're talking about numbers. But basically that the county staff, I'm assuming environmental staff, will start to survey this area in Immokalee and start bringing forth some sort of guidance so that when similar projects like the one we saw this morning start come before the board will have some basis for deciding how they fit into the scheme of things. And would it be possible, Mark, for me to ask this board to request the BCC to direct staff to expedite implementing developing these preservation criteria in Immokalee for this wetland system? Page 103 January 17,2008 We're going to be having a workshop, the Planning ColgisLJn A will, about the Immokalee Master Plan. But I think that this isn't something that should wait until that to come forward on. I don't know what the feeling of the other members of the commission are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, I certainly think you could ask the Planning Commission to do that. I think that from the planning commission perspective, or at least mine in particular, before we would want to make a recommendation to the BCC, I would like to get staff to come back to us next meeting, after they've had time to understand your question and find out what they actually have done to date and the status of what they've done to date, versus the budget and other things that that would entail. Because we may find out that something's been going on that not everybody knows about and we just need to be -- we just need to ask the question, get the answer before we make a recommendation. So I would certainly personally like to see staff respond to you first, and then depending on staffs response make a recommendation after that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Wonderful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that consistent with the rest of the panel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have a different idea they'd like to see? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, I know you've been reading the screen, but I don't know if you heard what we said. Mr. Midney has brought out an issue involving 6.2.5. We've asked that staff come back with a report in response to Mr. Midney's concerns, giving us a status of where the staff is on it, so that if we feel the necessity then to recommend to the BCC to either accelerate or change the progress or the outcome of that we can do so, after we have Page 104 the information from staff. And maybe you might want to get together with Paul and get firsthand information. I know you were tied up in something else at the moment. So is that consistent with everybody's wishes? COMMISSIONER CARON: And that will happen at our next meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, and that will be an agenda item that needs to be added to our next meeting. Okay, that gets us through new business. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Strain, I had one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, Ray. Yes, sir, I had your name down here and I talked to you and I forgot. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Schmitt wanted me to relate to you that the Board of County Commissioners has selected a replacement for Commissioner Tuff. It's Paul Wolfley, a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David Wolfley. MR. BELLOWS: Or David Wolfley, a former CCPC member. And he's been selected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. David sat on this panel when some of us started a while back. Good, excellent, thank you. That will help give us a quorum. And I assume he'll start in February? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. And we're setting up an orientation as soon as possible with him to get him reacquainted with everything to make sure he has all the documents and codes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fortunately for you he's been here before, so that might make it a little more expeditious. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent, thank you. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, I can see there's no public January 17,2008 16 r 1 A Page 105 comment, so motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion. January 17,2008 16 r I A ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 11 :52 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY P~A;NNrIN~ OMMISSION /, i ~ ark Strain: Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on Z -1 f . o~ , as presented ~ or as corrected. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 106 February 5,2008 "i 1611 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE " .1 r~" -'"1\ \ \\y tv' Fiata ,___._____ Halas l-..+------.,-- ~en,nin9.-b~--:Lf"2. voye -~~ - Coletla_4ZL-- :r...., :-<~, : \ 's'"' A Naples, Florida, February 5, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Ave Maria University Academic Building 07 Conference Room 5,5050 Ave Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna Brad Cornell Zach Floyd Crews David Farmer Gary Edison Tom Jones David Woodley Bill McDaniel Timothy Nance Fred Thomas Tammie Nemecek Jim Howard ALSO PRESENT: Noah Standridge, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning Michael J. DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning, Thomas Greenwood, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning, Misc. Comls: Approximately 20 members of the public ant1a\\P.1ff 3. 7!!) .6 l!em t:lkI...C.lU.li.. :opies to February 5, 2008 16 , 1 A I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 9: 14 AM by Chairman Hamel. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established. Chairman Hamel noted that the entire committee was in attendance. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Farmer moved to approve the agenda as presented, Second by Mr. Thomas. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: January 22, 2008 There was a discussion as to the validity of the minutes if the persons that "second" motions were not noted in the minutes. Mr. Standridge checked with the County Attorney's Office and reported that having only the motion maker noted was acceptable. Some of the committee stated that they had not received a copy of the January 22, 2008 minutes. Chairman Hamel circulated a copy of his minutes to those members that had not received their copy. Action for approval of the minutes was temporally tabled. V. Old Business A. Technical Review Item 1. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes. o Mr. Edison stated that the website for the study should be identified in the footnote. o Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of South West Florida, suggested that in addition to the web site, the data sources for the study be listed. o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item I with the changes and to add the website for the study in to the footnote, second by Mr. Edison. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0. Item 2. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes. o Timothy Nance suggested that the definitions for Rl and R2 reflect the language stated in the text. o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item 2 with the suggested edited changes, second by Mr. Farmer. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0. Item 4. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes. o Mr.. Hamel stated that "Ave Maria: 2002 Land Use Breakdown, Exhibit Table 4-C" be spelled out and displayed in the study. o Nancy Panon, Florida Fish and Wildlife Federation, suggested that Table 4-A should reflect additional land uses that would bring the total RLSA acreage into balance. 2 February 5, 20016, 1 A o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item 4 with the suggested changes to Table 4-A and Map 4-C, second by Mr. Crews. Voice Vote- Unanimously approved 13-0. Item 5. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes. o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item 5 with the suggested changes, second by Mr. McDaniel. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0. Item 6. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes. o Mr. Cornell suggested that the reference to other agencies that have acquired properties within the RLSA. o Mr. Cornell moved to approve Item 6 with the suggested additions, second by Mr. McDaniel. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0. Item 7. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes. o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item 7 with the suggested changes, second by Mr. Edison Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0. Item 2A. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes. o Mrs. Nemecek moved to approve Item 2A with the suggested changes, second by Mr. Nance. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0. Mr. Thomas moved to approve Phase I Technical Review Evaluation as amended, with the additional changes, and the minutes of the January 22, 2008 meeting, second by Mr. Crews~ Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0 Mr. Jones moved to forward the corrected draft of the Phase I Technical Review Evaluation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a cover letter signed by the chairman, second by Mr. Thomas. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0. Mr. Cornell suggested that staff try to coordinate speakers such as Daryl Land and Fritz Rocka, who have various expertises that could speak to the committee. Mr. Hamel requested that Mr. Standridge provide copies of the corrected Phase I Technical Review Evaluation Report to the committee members for their review prior to sending the copies to the BCe. Mr. Thomas moved that the committee respond to staff with their corrections before February 10, 2008. 3 February 5, 200816 I 1 A Mr. Standridge requested that the committee review the goals of the RLSA program in relationship to the completed Phase I Technical Review Evaluation Report, discussion followed Mr. Edison moved to proceed to New Business, second by Mr. Jones. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0 VI. New Business A. Policy Review Schedule o Mr. Standridge reviewed upcoming meeting schedule. o Mrs. Nemecek requested that the review should include the policies of the GMP relating to the RLSA program. o Mr. Jones stated that Mr. McIvoy would be a good speaker about leaf vegetable farming for the March 4, 2008 meeting. o Mr. Edison moved to meet on March 4, 2008 to set the agenda for the Phase II Policy Review Report with the recommendations, second by Mr. Thomas Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0 o A round table discussion occurred whereby each committee member expressed their perspective of objcctives, successes and concerns of the RLSA program. o Mr. Hamel added that the two professors from Gulf Coast University, who just completed a study on "Agricultural Activities in Southwest Florida" should also be added as future speakers for the committee. VII. Committee Comments o Mr. Hamel stated that Mr. Standridge may not be assisting the committee in the near future. He stated that he believed that Noah had done a very good job. o Mr. Thomas concurred with Mr. Hamel's statements. He added that he hoped that continuity in a committee is very important in an activity such as this, and he hoped that Noah would be allowed to stay until the completion to this 5-Year Review. o Mr. Spagna suggested that Mr. Hamel and he speak to Noah's director about this situation. o Mr. Thomas moved for Mr. Hamel and Mr. Spagna make an appointment to speak to Noah's director about Noah's importations to the present and future success of the RLSA 5-Year Review. o Mr. Cornell suggested including Group 1,6, and 8 Policies in the agenda as well. o Mr. Jones suggested thilt the committee send a list of speakers, which they believe would be advantageous to the committee completion of Phase II Policy Review, to Noah as soon as possible so this compiled list could be presented at the next meeting. VIII. Staff Comments o Mr. Standridge stated that the next meeting will occur on March 4, 2008 in the Academic Hall at Ave Maria. He stated that lunch is available for purchase in the cafeteria at the Student Union Building, and after lunch there will be a guided tour of Ave Maria. IX. Public Comments 4 February 5, 200s16 I 1 A .:. Nancy Patton suggested that a speaker on "Climate Change" would be very important. She also suggested that Dr.'s Dan Smith, Reed Noss and Marty Main, who published the "Eastern Collier Wildlife Crossing Study" should also be invited to speak to the committee. .:. Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy of South West Florida is requesting that the committee review their comments and DCA's comments which were prepared about this plan in 2002, and the Conservancy's concerns with the program over the past couple of years. She provided copies of those comments to each of the committee members and is attached. .:. Dan Scoljield stated that this program has been voluntary for the property owners in the RLSA overlay area, and the RLSA program has experienced a lot of acceptance and successes. He recommended that if the committee would like to see this program continue to succeed, the committee needs to keep the property owners in mind. He also suggested that the word "term" needs to be defined. X. Lunch (at university cafeteria) Adjournment o Mr. Hamel stated that the meeting will be "Suspended" for a lunch break. Meeting suspended at 11:54 AM. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe chair at 11:54AM for lunch. XI. Tour of Town of Ave Maria XII. Adjournment. Adjournment of the RLSA Review Committee meeting occurred following lunch and a tour of the Town of Ave Maria. ewardship Area Review Committee / These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented x.. or as amended . 3h/ot / / 5 '1(\- (v, i)i>d Jan~1~~oll A Fiata Halas ~t, Henning' , Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND W ASTE/W A TER AUTHORITY Naples, Florida, January 28, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Water and Waste/Water Authority in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Room 610 at the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Lowell Lam Robert Bennett (absent) Dr. Fay Biles Jack Markel Jerry Morgan ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French - Executive Director, Operations Mgr" CDES Kenneth Kovensky - Sr. Accountant/Operations, CDES Jeffrey Klatzkow - Assistant County Attorney MISC, ComlS Dale_.3.,l:5 13_ i1em#l& 1 (Allf -.,.;)j':<~ te cj) I. Call to Order - (Determination of Qnornm) and Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lowell Lam at 2:02 P.M. The roll was called and a quorum established. January 28, 2008 16 '1 A II. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of June 25, 2007 A scrivener's error was noted on the agenda which showed an incorrect date of the minutes to be approved. The corrected date was June 25, 2007. Jerry Morgan moved to approve the minutes of June 25, 2007. Second by Jack MarkeL Carried unanimously, 4-0. III. Items Requiring Action by Authority A. Annual Election of Officers Chairman Lam entertained nominations for Chairman. Jerry Morgan and Lowell Lam each nominated Jack Markel for Chairman. There being no further nominations, Jack Markel was elected Chairman. Fay Biles nominated Jerry Morgan for Vice Chairman. There being no further nominations, Jerry Morgan was elected Vice-Chairman. At this point, Jack Markel took over the Chair. B. North Marco Utility, Price Index (Handouts) Jamie French provided background information on North Marco Utilities and its position as a customer of the City of Marco. Craig Woodward of North Marco Utilities (NMU) appeared before the Authority providing explanations and documentations backing up NMU's application for a 12.95% increase to its wastewater rates. In addition to providing copies of Final Order No. 06-02 and Final Order No. 07-03, adopting the 2006 Price Index factors of2.74% and the 2007 Price Index factors of3.09% respectively, Mr. Woodward handed out copies of Sewer Rate Comparisons between the City of Marco and NMU and of the monthly average gallon usage among the various types of residence and business customers. Pass-through costs for wastewater treatment, wastewater base facilities, electricity and property taxes were cited as reasons for this application for a rate increase. Staff had reviewed the application and had recommended approval. Discussion and questions to both staff and Mr. Woodward followed. Jerry Morgan moved to recommend approval of Final Order 08-01- . establishing an official filing date for the 2006 and 2007 Price Index application from North Marco Utility Company · approving price Indexing increases in its water and wastewater rates by 12.95% . requiring the Utility to notifY its customers of the increases in rates. Second by Lowell Lam. Carried unanimously, 4..0. 2 January 28, 2186 , 1 ~ C. Orange Tree Utility Annual Report Delinquent Filing Jamie French explained the background information and Orange Tree Utility's failure to timely file its Annual Report. Staff recommended approval of an imposed penalty of $1 0 per day for a total of $2,270 for 227 days delinquent (6/1107 to 1114/08.) Payment to be made to the Collier County Utility Trust Fund within 30 days of the date of the Order. Kim Retallick, office manager for Orange Tree Utility was present to take questions, offer explanations and apologies for the delay. She stated Orange Tree Utility is amenable to pay the imposed penalty. Jamie French assured the Authority that the Utility has made a turn around under Mr. Bob Nixon, Vice President. Fay Biles moved to recommend Final Order 08-02 be approved, assessing Orange Tree Utility a penalty of$10 per day for 227 days for a total of $2,227 to be paid within 30 days to the Collier County Utilities Trust Fund. Second by Jerry Morgan. Carried unanimously, 4-0. Kim Retallick fielded questions from Authority Members regarding changes, improvements and problem resolutions in billing, water quality, backflow and complaints. She stated that pre-planning has been done for the facility relocation, in anticipation of changes to the Right-of-Way on the Oil Well Road. widening project which may result in some lines needing to be relocated. IV. Staff Discussion A. Budget and Staffing Jamie French announced that Ken Kovensky, having completed extensive training, will now be working full time on utility franchising and rate consulting, with Ave Maria and Big Cypress projects coming in with new franchising utilities. Ken Kovensky provided information on: . Current staffing (3 employees - $230,000.) · Income derived from regulatory fees, on a quarterly basis, generated $150,000, Only two quarters represented for Ave Maria in 2007. . Projection for 200S is $165,000. . From interdepartmental transfer sources, $67,000 (Utility Trust Fund increases and shortfall comes from this fund.) . Operating budget for 200S projected $57,000. Net shortfall of $55,000 . May seek increase in regulatory fees of Y, to :y. percent next year. B. Upcoming Meetings - February 25, 2008 Jamie French announced that John Jenkins, Ave Maria's legal counsel, will be present at the February 25th meeting to request a limited rate case and discussion of issues concerning conservation rates and a convenience fee, along with financials associated with those issues. Chairman Markel requested advanced copies of anything to be discussed for Authority members to review. Information will be provided when received. 3 January 28, 2008 v. Open to the Public - None 16 , I A VI. Authority Members Discussion - Jamie French announced that Assistant County Attorney, Tom Palmer had retired and Chief Assistant County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow will be assisting with legal matters for the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority in the future. Attorney Klatzkow was introduced and said a few words. Brief conversations followed regarding golf course at Ave Maria, Hawthorne Wells and areas under Authority's jurisdiction. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:28 PM. COLLIER COUNTY WATER W ASTEW ATER AUTHORITY These minutes app!yved by the Board/Committee on J - ;} S" - :;:. (j 0 J? as presented V or as amended . 4 ..., ,j ] J J o J o o o J J o J J J J COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Annual Financial Report September 30, 2007 n J o :J RECEIVED 16 I MiftIJ 4 2008 lrd ofDulty Commissioner! I Misc. Corres OIle_:2" 22..~, ',."... 1!8m ':Jk:::l(~")n\ ~op1e5 t~~' IECEIVED FEB 2 8 20 ~ J. BOY, MILLER, KISKER & PERRY, P.A. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 16J 1 u J Q 401 SOUTH W.C. OWEN AVENUE P. O. BOX 488 CLEWISTON, FLORIDA 33440 (863) 983-5144 (863) 983-9164 FAX (863) 983-3765 bmkpcpas@aol.com JOHN B. BO\', JR., C.P.A. DA VIIl N. MILLER, C.P.A. WII.LIAM C, K1SKER, JR, C.P.A. JOHN C. PERRY, C.P.A. 90 YEOMANS AVENUE P. O. BOX 490 LABELLE, FLORIDA 33975 J INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT (863) 675..3777 FAX (863) 675-8576 bmkpcpas@aol.com MEMBERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIF,IED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS FLORIDA INSTITlITE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS J J Board of supervisors Cow Slough Water Control District LaBelle, Florida o We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental .activities and the fund information of Cow Slough Water Control District as of and for the year ended September 30, 2007, which collectively comprise the District's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. J J ] We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditinq Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material miss'tatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management I as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. o o D In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all mate~ial respects, the respective financial position'of the governmental activities and the fund information of Cow Slough Water Control District as of September 30, 2007, and the respective changes in financial position, thereof, and the respective budgetary comparison for the General Fund for the year then ended in'conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. o o o J J J J 16' 1 B J J In accordance ,with Government Auditinq Standardst we have also issued our report dated February 9, 2008, on our consideration of Cow Slough Water Control District's internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts! and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describ~ the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporti~g or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditinq Standards and should be read in conjunction with this report in considering the results of our audit. J J D The management's discussion and analysis on pages 3 through 6 is not a required part of the basic financial statements I but is supplementary information required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures I which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. J J o Flj;r::~~:~t 71ft J J o [J J 'J u J ] 2 J 16118 :1 J J J J J J J MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The Management of Cow Slough Water Control District would like to offer the readers of the District's financial statements this discussion and analysis of the District's financial activities during the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2007. We encourage readers to consider the information presented in this discussion and analysis in conjunction with the District's financial statements, which follow this section. The District has entered into an agreement to provide for the administration of the districts' operations under the control of the Board of Supervisors. FINANCIAL AND DISTRICT IDGHLIGHTS Financial Hil!hli~hts D . The assets of the District exceeded its liabilities at the end of the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 by $113,319 which is to be used to meet the District's ongoing operations. . The District's total net assets increased by $5,695. . The District's total revenue (on an accrual basis) was $46,951 for the year ended September 30, 2007. . Total expenses for all of the District's activities were $41,256 for the fiscal year. J J D IJ J J District Highlights . The District incurred various charges for the cleaning, spraying and mowing of the various canals, laterals and right-of-ways within the District to facilitate the drainage during the fiscal year. They decreased the spending on canal maintenance and downstream maintenance by forty-seven per cent from the prior fiscal year. USING THIS ANNUAL REPORT u This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to Cow Slough Water Control District's basic financial statements. The District's annual report consists of two parts: management's discussion and analysis (this section) and the basic financial statements. The basic financial statements themselves consist of three components: government-wide financial data, fund financial data and notes to the financial statements. The District is a special-purpose government engaged in a single governmental program. The District is allowed to present their fund fmancial data and their government-wide financial data combined using a columnar format that reconciles individual line items of fund financial data to government-wide data in a separate column on the face ofthe financial statements. These statements present different views of the District: D ] ] . The last column of the statements is the govemment-widefinancial data that provide both long-term and short-term information about the District's overall financial status. . The fund financial data focus on individual parts of the District's government, reporting the District's operations in more detail than the government-wide statements. 3 l J :1 J J J J J [J J J o 1611 B Governmental fund information helps the reader determine whether there are more or fewer financial resources that can be spent in the near future to finance the District's programs. The differences between government-wide activities (reported in the statement of net assets and the statement of activities) and governmental funds are reconciled in a footnote to the fmancial statements. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE Assets exceeded liabilities by $113,319 for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007. The largest asset include iuvestmeuts which is approximately (99%) of the District's net assets which are to be used to meet the fiuancial obligations for the District's ongoing operations. The following table highlights the net assets as of September 30, 2007 and 2006: Investments Receivables Capital assets 2007 $ 112,744 237 752 $113.733 2006 $ 106,961 . 363 836 $ 108.160 Total Assets Current liabilities $ 414 $ 536 Net Assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt Unrestricted Total net assets 752 112.567 $ ] 13.319 836 106.788 $ 107.624 The following table highlights the changes in net assets for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 and 2006: o Revenues: General revenues Special assessments Interest income Total revenues 2007 $ 42,487 4.464 $ 46.951 2006 $ 42,229 3.280 :] :] J J 'U] .J $ 45.509 Program expenses: Physical environment Total expenses $ 41.256 $ 51.942 $ 41.256 $ 51.942 5,695 (6,433) $ 107.624 $ 114.057 ~113319 $ 107624 Increase (decrease) in net assets Net assets, beginning of year Net assets, end of year 4 l l J J n D D J D J D D o [] D 16' 1 B The following graphs present the sources of revenue and expenses for the fiscal year: 1---- Revenue Sources , Year Ended September 30, 2007 90% iii Assesments. net of discounts . Interest Income Expenditures Year Ended September 30, 2007 iii CanaVDown Stream Main\. . Administrator 33% 0 Water Quality Analysis o Audtt & Legal Fees . Insurance iii Engineering Fees 28% . Assessing & Collection! Fees I o Office Expenses Ll BUDGETARY mGHLIGHTS =1 :1 ] The District adopted the fiscal year 2006/2007 budget on May 25, 2006 with the assessment rate of $5 per acre which was the same assessment from FY 2006. Total expenditures budgeted for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 was approximately $68,788. Total assessment revenue budgeted was approximately $43,500. 5 ] :] :] J J J J J J l J J D J J J J U '-j 1611 f Total actual expenditures were $27,616 below budgeted expenditures. This was mainly due to the following: . The District did not incur the budgeted level of canal maintenance, legal fees and downstream maintenance as expected for fiscal year. . The District is currently in a maintenance mode of operations for the foreseeable future. Total actual revenues were $3,451 over the budgeted revenue. CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION CaDital Assets The District is classified as Phase 3 government in accordance with the definitions of GASB Statement 34 which requires the District to report and depreciate new infrastructure assets effective with the preceding fiscal year. Infrastructure assets include roads, bridges, canals and other water control structures. The District is not required to report their major general infrastructure assets retroactively. The District elccted to report their general infrastructure assets on a prospective basis. The District is considering constructing a canal in order to complete their requirements with their Plan of Reclamation. The District purchased capital assets of $843. The following table summarizes the District's capital assets net of accumulated depreciation, for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2007 and 2006: 2007 2006 Office furniture $ 752 $ 836 Debt The following table presents the District's total outstanding debt for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 and 2006: 2007 2006 $ 536 Accounts payable $ 414 Total outstanding debt, September 30, $ 414 $ 536 CONTACTING THE DISTRICT'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT This financial report is designed to provide our readers with a general overview of the District's finances and to demonstrate the District's accountability for the money it receives. If you have questions about this report or need additional financial information, contact the District's Administrator, Dana Clement; 12008 N.E. Highway 70; Arcadia, Florida 34266; 863-494-4021. 6 ] J ] J o o J J o J o o D o o o u il u J COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Statement of Net Assets and Governmental Funds Balance Sheet September 30, 2007 General Fund Adjustments (Note 8) Assets Investments Due from other governments Other capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation $112,744 237 $ 752 Total assets $112,981 752 Liabilities Accounts payable $ 414 Total liabilities 414 Fund balance/net assets Fund balance Reserved for subsequent year's expenditures Unreserved Unrestricted 34,130 (34,130) 78,437 (78,437) Total fund balance 112,567 (112,567) Total liabilities and fund balance $112,981 Net assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt Unrestricted 752 112,567 Total net assets $ 113,319 See accompanying notes. 7 16 I 1 ~ Statement of Net Assets $112,744 237 752 113,733 414 414 752 112,567 $113,319 J COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Statement of Activities and Governmental Fund Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance For the Year Ended September 30, 2007 16 if 1 I J ] ] Adjustments Statement of General Fund (Note 8) Activities Expenditures/expenses Physical environment Canal maintenance $ 12,481 $ $ 12,481 Administrator 11,330 11,330 Audit fees 3,300 3,300 Water ,quality analysis 3,115 3,115 Insurance 2,902 2,902 Engineering fees 2,205 2,205 Legal fees 1,390 1,390 Down stream maintenance 1,166 1,166 Assessing and collection fees 947 947 Office expense 918 918 Dues 675 675 Postage 458 458 Legal advertising 285 285 Depreciation 84 84, Total expenditures/expenses 41,172 84 41,256 General revenues Assessments, net of discounts 42,487 42,487 Interest income 4,464 4,464 Total general revenues 46,951 46,951 Excess of revenues over expenditures/expenses 5,779 (5,779) Change in net assets 5,695 5,695 Fund balance/net assets Beginning of year 106,788 836 107,624 End of year $112,567 $ 752 $113,319 ] J J J J ] ] D iJ L J J u J u See accompanying notes. 8 ] ] J J J o J J D o J D o J [J J ] [] i] I. J COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - General Fund For the Year Ended September 3D, 2007 1611 B Variance - Original Amended Favorable Budqet Budqet Actual (Unfavorable) Revenues Assessments, net of discounts $ 43,500 $ 43,500 $ 42,487 $ (l,OD) Interest income 4,464 4,464 Total revenues 43,500 43,500 46,951 3,451 Expenditures Physical environment Canal maintenance 25,000 25,000 12,461 12,519 Administrator 11,330 11,330 11,330 Audit fees 3,300 3,300 3,300 Water quality analysis 4,100 4,1.00 3,1.15 985 Insurance 3,872 3,872 2,902 970 Engineering fees 5,000 5,000 2,205 2,795 Legal fees 4,000 4,000 1,390 2,610 Down stream maintenance 6,000 6,000 1,166 4,834 Assessing and collection fees 3,480 3,480 947 2,533 Office expense 1,200 1,200 918 282 Dues no no 675 35 postage 350 496 458 38 Legal advertising 300 300 285 15 Total expenditures 68,642 66,788 41,172 27,616 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures $ (25,142) $ (25,288) 5,779 $ 31,067 Fund balance, beginning of year 106,788 Fund balance, end of year $112,567 See accompanying notes. 9 J cow SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Notes to Financial Statements September 30, 2007 161 1 B J l The accounting methods and procedures adopted by Cow Slough Water Control District conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applied to governmental entities. The following notes to the financial statements are an integral part of the District's Annual Financial Report. J NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES J Financial Reoortina Entitv J Cow Slough Water Control District was created by Chapter 89-426, Senate Bill No. 1511, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1989. The operations of the District are fundamentally governed by special acts pertaining to the District. J The District is an independent special district created pursuant to the method authorized in Chapter 298 of the Florida Statutes. A three-member Board of Supervisors elected by the landowners of the District governs the District. The Board appoints an Administrator to administer the policies emanating from its statutory powers and authority. J The District's financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its pronouncements (Statements and Interpretations). Governments are also required to follow the pronouncements of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FABB) issued through November 30, 1989 (when applicable) that do not conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements. T~e more significant accounting policies established in GAAP and used by the District are discussed below. n o J In June 1999, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) unanimously approved Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements and Manaoement' s Discussion and Analvsis - for State and Local Governments. Significant changes in the Statement include the following: o :] L. A Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section providing an analysis of the District's overall financial position and results of operations. o Financial statements prepared using full acc;ual accounting for all of the District's activities, inclUding infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) . lJ A change in the fund financial statements to focus on the major funds. .J These and other changes are reflected in the accompanying financial statements (including notes to financial statements). The District has elected to implement all of the provisions of the Statement. ..J J J 10 J 16118 J COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Notes to Financial Statements September 30, 2007 J NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) Financial Renortina Entitv (continued) J Government Accounting Standards Board (GASE) Statement 14 entitled "The Financial Reporting Entityll establishes criteria for determining which organizations should be included in a governmental financial reporting entity. Based upon application of these criteria, the District has determined that there are no additional governmental departments, agencies, institutions, commissions I 'public authorities or other governmental organizations operating within the jurisdiction of the supervisors that would be considered component units to be included in the financial statements of the District. J D Basic Financial Statements - Government-wide Statements J The District I s basic financial statements include both government-wide (reporting the District as a whole) and fund financial statements. Both the government- wide and fund financial statements categorize primary activities as either governmental or business-type. The District's drainage activities and general administrative services are classified as governmental activities. ] J J In the government-wide Statement of Net Assets, the governmental activities columns (a) are presented on a consolidated basis by column, (b) and are reported on a full accrual, economic resource basis, which recognizes all long-term assets and receivables as well as long-term debt and obligations. The District's net assets are reported in three parts - invested in capital assets, net of related debt; restricted net assets; and unrestricted net assets. The District first utilizes restricted resources to finance qualifying activities. J o The government-wide Statement of Activities reports both the gross and net cost of the District's functions and actiyities. The functions are also supported by general government revenues (special assessments). The Statement of Activities reduces gross expenses (including depreciation) by related program revenues, operating and capital grants. Program revenues must be directly associated with the District's functions and activities. iJ The District is a special-purpose government engaged in a single governmental program. The District is allowed to present their fund financial data and their government-wide financial 'data combined, using a columnar format that reconciles individual line items of fund ,financial data to government-wide data in a separate column on the face of the financial statements. J [] This government-wide focus is more on the sustainability of the District as an entity and the change in the District's net assets resulting from the current year's activities. [J D D ] 11 l 16' 1 B J COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Notes to Financial Statements September 30, 2007 J NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) Basic Financial Statements - Fund Financial Statements o The financial transactions of the District are reported in individual funds in the fund financial statements. Each fund is accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprises it assets, liabilities, reserves, fund equity, revenues and expenditures/expenses. The various funds are reported by generic classification within the financial statements. J J The emphasis in fund financial statements is on the major funds in either the governmental or business-type activities categories. Nonmajor funds by category are summarized into a single column. GASa Statement No. 34 sets forth minimum criteria (percentage of the assets, liabilities, revenues or expenditures/expenses of either fund category or the governmental and enterprise combined) for the determination of major funds. J J The following fund types are used by the District: Governmental Funds J o The focus of t,he governmental funds' measurement (in the fund statements) is upon determination of financial position and changes in financial position (sources, uses, and balances of financial resources) rather that upon net income. The following is a description of the governmental fund of the District: General Fund J The General Fund is the general operating fund of the District. It is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. o Basis of Accountinq o Basis of accounting refers to the point at which revenues or expenditures/expl;!!nses are recognized in the <?-ccounts and reported in the financial statements. It 'relates to the timing of the measurements made regardless of the measurement focus applied. o Accrual J The governmental activities in the governmental-wide financial statements are presented on the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred. lJ :J [J 12 ] ] COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Notes to Financial Statements September 30, 2007 16rl 8 J J NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) Basis of Accountinq (continued) J Modified Accrual J The governmental funds financial statements are presented on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recorded when susceptible to accrua1i i.e., both measurable and available. lIAvailablel1 means collectible within the current period or within 60 days after the year end. Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting when the related liability is incurred. The exception to this rule is that principal and interest on general obligation long-term debt, if any, is recognized when due. J J Investments l Investments are stated at cost, which approximates market. J Receivables All receivables are reported at their gross value and whe~e appropriate, are reduced by the estimated portion that is expected to be uncollectible. J Capital Assets J Capital assets purchased or acquired are reported at historical cost or estimated historical cost. Contributed assets are reported at fair market value as of the date received. Additions, improvements and other capital outlays that significantly extend the useful life of an asset are capitalized. Other costs incurred for repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred. Depreciation on all assets is provided on the straight-line basis over the following useful lives: J o Buildings Machinery and equipment Improvements General infrastructure 15 - 30 years 5 - 10 years 10 - 20 years 10 - 40 years [J J GABB Statement No. 34 requires the District to report and depreciate new infrastructure assets effective with the beginning of the current year. Infrastructure assets include roads, bridges, canals and pumping stations. These infrastructure assets are likely to be the largest asset class of the District. Neither their historical cost nor related depreciation has historically been reported in the financial statements. The District is classified as a Phase 3 Government in accordance with the definitions contained in GASB 34. A Phase 3 Government is not required to report their major general infrastructure assets. retroactively. The District elected to report their general infrastructure assets on a prospective basis. u :J u l 13 J COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Notes to Financial Statements September 30, 2007 161 1 B ] J NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) Revenues J Substantially all governmental fund revenues are accrued. Assessments are billed and collected within the same period in which the taxes are levied. Subsidies and grants which finance either capital or current operations, are reported as nonoperating revenue base~ on GASB Statement No. 33. In applying GASB Statement No. 33 to grant revenues! the provider recognizes liabilities and expenses and the recipient recognizes receivables and revenue when the applicable eligibility requirements, including time requirements, are met. Resources transmitted before the eligibility requirements are met are reported as advances by the provider and deferred revenue by the recipient. ] J J Exoenditures ] / Expenditures are recognized when the related fund liability is incurred. Inventory costs are reported for governmental activities in the period the inventory items are used, rather than in the period purchased. J Caoitalization Policy The capitalization policy of the District is to capitalize all assets with a cost of $750 or more with an expected life of one year or more. J Budqets and Budqetarv Accountinq ] The District follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: J 1. During April, the Administrator submits proposed operating budgets for the upcoming fiscal year. The operating budgets include proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. o 2. A public hearing is held to obtain taxpayer comments. 3. During May, the budgets are legally enacted through passage of a resolution. J 4. All budget changes must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. ] 5. The budget for the General Fund was adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. o 6. Total budgeted amounts reflect all amendments approved by the Board of Supervisors. Line item changes made during the year were approved by the Board of Supervisors. J [J l4 J J COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Notes to Financial Statements September 30, 2007 16 , 1 B J l NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) Encumbrances J Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation, is not employed in the District's accounting system. J NOTE 2 - ASSESSMENTS J The assessment levy of the District is establish~d by the Board of Supervisors, and becomes an enforceable lien on the property on January 1 of the following year. On May 25, 2006, the District levied an assessment of $5.00 per acre for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007. J All assessments are due and payable on: November 1 of each year or as soon thereafter as the tax roll is delivere~ to the county tax collector. Liens are placed on property as of January 1. All unpaid assessments become delinquent on April 1 following the year in which they are assessed. Discounts are allowed for early payment at the rate of 4% in the month of November, 3% in the month of December, 2% in the month of January and 1% in the month of February. The assessments paid in March are without discount. J J J On or prior to June 1 following the- assessment year, certificates -are sold for all delinquent taxes on real property. After sale, tax certificates bear interest of 18% per year or at any lower rate bid by the buyer. Application for a tax deed on any unredeemed tax certificates may be made by the certificate holder after a period of two years. Unsold certificates become the property of the District, earning interest at a rate of 18% per year. ~J NOTE 3 - INVESTMENTS o During the year, investments consisted of an interest-bearing bank account. These funds were entirely covered by federal depository insurance or by a collateral pool pledged to the State Treasurer by financial institutions which comply with the requirements of Florida Statutes and have been designat~d as qualified public depositories by the State Treasurer. o J The District's investments are categorized as either (1) insured or registered for which the securities are held by the District or its agent in the District's name, (2) uninsured and unregistered for which the securities are held by the broker or dealer, or its trust department or agent in the District's name, or (3) uninsured and unregistered for which the securities are held by the broker or dealer, or by its trust department or agent but not in the District's name. ] o 1 Cateqories 2 3 Carrying Amount Market Value J Interest-bearing bank accountS $112,744 $ $ $112,744 $112,744 [OJ 15 !..J J COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Notes to Financial Statements September 30, 2007 l6'11l Ii J J NOTE 3 - INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) o Florida Statutes, Chapter 2~8. 345, authorizes the District to invest in the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund administered by the State Treasurer; negotiable direct obligations of or obligations unconditionally guaranteed by the u.s. Government; interest-bearing time deposits or savings accounts in financial institutions located in Florida and orga~ized under Federal or Florida laws; obligations of the Federal Farm Credit Banks, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank or its district banks, or obligations guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association; securities of any open-end or closed-end management type investment company or investment trust registered under the Investment Act of 1940 provided the portfolio is limited to United States Government obligations. D ;] [] NOTE 4 - CAPITAL ASSETS Schedule of Chanaes in Caoital ABsets J October 1, 2006 Balance Additions Deletions September 30, 2007 Balance o Office equipment $ 843 $ $ $ 843 o 843 843 Less accumulated depreciation 7 84 91 o $ 836 $ (84) $ $ 752 o NOTE 5 - RISK MANAGEMENT o The District is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets and errors and omissions. The District is a member of the insurance program sponsored by the Florida League of Cities for general liability and public officials liability coverage. The program purchases excess and other specific coverages from third party carriers. Members of the program are billed annually for their portion of the coverage and are not assessable for unanticipated losses incurred by the program. Maximum liability coverage is $2,000,000. D i] u l..J D 16 J l COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT Notes to Financial Statements September 30, 2007 16 11 B J J NOTE 6 - FUND BALANCE/NET ASSETS J Reservations of the fund balances of the District are created to either (1) satisfy legal covenants that require that a portion of the fund balance be segregated, or (2) identify the portion of the fund balance that is not appropriable for future expendi ture"s. A specific reservation of the fund balance is as follows: D Reserved for Subseauent Year's Excenditures ] This reserve was created to represent the portion of the fund balance that is reserved for expenditure within the next fiscal year. NOTE 7 - FINANCIAL STATEMENT RECONCILIATIONS J The reconciliations of the Government-wide Financial Statements with the Governmental Fund Financial Statements are as follows: o Statement of Net Assete and Governmental Fund Balance Sheet Total fund balance - governmental fund balance $112,567 o Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Assets are different because: o Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and, therefore, are not reported in the funds. 752 D Net assets of governmental activities $113,319 o Statement of Activities and Governmental Fund Revenues. Exoenditures and Chanqes in Fund Balance o Net change in fund balance $ 5,779 o Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because: u Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This .is the amount by which depreciation exceeded capital outlay in the current period. (84) i] L. o Change in net assets $ 5,695 [J 17 [J ] rl J J J J ] J D J ] o o [] !] u iJ "J , :J BOY, MILLER, KISKER & PERRY, P.A. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 16' 1 B 401 SOUTH W.C. OWEN AVENUE' P. O. BOX 488 CLEWISTON. FLORIDA 33440 90 YEOMANS AVENUE P. O. BOX 491) LABELLE. FLORIDA 33975 (863) 675-3777 FAX (863) 675-0576 bmkpcpas@aol.com MEMBERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS (863) 983-5144 (863) 983-9164 , FAX (863) 983-3765 bmkpcpas@aol.com JOHN B. BOY, JR, C.P.A. DAVID N. MILLER. C.P.A. WILLIAM C. KISKER.JR.. C.P.A. JOHN C. PERRY. C.P.A, REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS Board of Supervisors Cow Slough Water control District LaBelle, Florida We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities and the fund information of Cow Slough Water Control District, as of and for the year ended September 30 I 2007 I which collectively comprise the District's basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated February 9, 2008. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditinq Standardsf issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reoortinq In planning and performing our audit, we considered Cow Slough Water Control District's internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Cow Slough Water Control District's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express on opinion on the effectiveness of Cow Slough Water Control District's internal control over financial reporting. H ] 16 I I 8 J l A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees I in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of Cow Slough Water Control District'.8 financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. J J J A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies. that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. J Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. J J Compliance and Other Matters J As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether Cow Slough Water Control District's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with thoBe provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditina Standards. J J This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Supervisors and management of Cow Slough Water Control District and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. o o Respectfully submitted, o F~a~~~f: ~ /~ u D ] 19 ] J l J J o J J J J l J J o D J D J :-1 l..._. ] 16 , 1 I BOY, MILLER, KISKER & PERRY, P.A. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 401 SOUTH W.C. OWEN AVENUE P. O. BOX 488 CLEWISTON, FLORIDA 33440 90 YEOMANS AVENUE P. O. BOX 490 LABELLE, FLORIDA 33975 (863) 983-5144 (863) 983-9164 FAX (863) 983-3765 bmkpcpas@aol.com (863) 675-3777 FAX (863) 675-0576 bmkpcpas@aol.com MEMBERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS JOHN B. BOY,JR., C.P.A. DA VIP N. MILLER, C.P.A. WILLIAM C. K1SKER, JR., C.P.A. JOHN C. PERRY. C.P.A. INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' MANAGEMENT LETTER Board of Supe~isors Cow Slough Water Control District LaBelle, Florida We have audited the financial statements of Cow Slough Water Control District, whose headquarters is located in LaBelle, Florida, as of and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, and have issued our report thereon dated February 9, 2008. We conducted our audit in accordance with United States generally accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditinq Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. We have issued our Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance and Internal Control Over Financial Reporting dated February 9, 2008. Disclosures in that report, if any, should be considered in conjunction with this management letter. Addi tionally, our audit was conducted in accordance with the prov~s~ons of Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General. Those rules (Section 10.554(1) (i)1.) require that we address in the management letter, if not already addressed in the auditors' report on compliance and internal cqntrols, whether or not inaccuracies, shortages, defalcations, fraud, and/or violations of laws, rules, regulations, and contractual provisions reported in the preceding annual financial audit report have been corrected. There were none of these items disclosed in the preceding annual financial audit report. As required by the Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554(1) (i)2.), the scope of our audit included a review of the provisions of Section 218.415, Florida Statut~s, regarding the investment of public funds. In connection with our audit, we determined that Cow Slough Water Control District complied with Section 218.415, Florida Statutes. The Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554 (1) (i) 3.) require that we address in the management letter, if not already addressed in the auditors' report on compliance and internal controls, whether or not recommendations made in the preceding annual financial audit report have been followed. There were no recommendations made in the preceding annual financial audit report. 20 J 16' 1 B J J The Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554'(1) (i)4.) require that we address in the management "letter, if not already addressed in the auditors' report on compliance and internal controls, violations of provisions of contracts and grant agreements or abuse that have an effect on the financial statements that is less than material, but more than inconsequential. In connection with our audit, we did not have any such findings. J The Rules of the Auditor General (Sections 10.554(1) (i)5.) require disclosure in the management letter, if not already,addressed in the auditors' repoFt on compliance and on internal controls, based on professiona;L judgment, the reporting of the following matters that are inconsequential to the financial statements, considering both quantitative and qualitative factors: (1) violations of laws, rules, regulations, and contractual provisions or abuse that have occurred or were likely to have occurred, and would have an immaterial effect on the financial statements; (2) improper expenditures or illegal acts that would have an immaterial effect on the financial statements; (3) cont~ol deficiencies that are not significant deficiencies, including, but not limited to; (a) improper or inadequate accounting procedures (e.g., the omission of required disclosures from the. financial statements}; (b) failures to properly record financial transactions; and (0) other inaccuracies, shortages, defalcations, and instances of fraud discovered by, or that come to the attention of the auditor. In connection with our audit we did not have any such findings. J J J J J ] The Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554(1) (i)6.) also require that the name or official title and legal authority for the primary government and each component unit of the reporting entity be disclosed in the management letter, unless disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. Cow Slough Water Control District was created by Chapter 89-426, Senate Bill No. 1511, Laws of Florida; Acts of 1989. There are no other entities that are considered to'be component units requiring disclosure in the general purpose financial statements of Cow Slough Water Control District, J J As required by the Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554(1) (i)6.a.), the scope of our audit included a'review of the provisions of Section 2~8.503(1), Florida Statutes, regarding financ,ial emergencies. In connection with our audit, we determined that Cow Slough Water Control District is not in a state of financial emergency as a consequence of the conditions described in Section 218.503(1), Florida Statutes. D o AS required by the Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554(1) (i)6.b.), we determined that the annual financial report for Cow Slough Water Control District for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, filed with the Department of Banking and Finance pursuant to Section 218.32, Florida Statutes, is in agreement with the annual financial audit report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007. [J o J ] 21 J J 16~1 00 J ] As required by the Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554(1) (i)6.c.) and 10.556), we applied financial condition assessment procedures. It is management's responsibility to monitor the entity's financial condition, and our financial condition assessment was based in part on representations made by management and the review of financial information provided by same. J This management letter is intended solely for the information of Cow Slough Water Control District and management, and the State of Florida Office of the Auditor General, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. o Respectfully submitted, D ~~d~# February 9, 2008 J D J J J ] D J u u J J 22 J J J J J J J J J J J J o o o D ] [] [J '] 1611 li " COW SLOUGH WATER CONTROL DISTRICT P.O. Box 1986 Arcadia, Florida 34265 February 9, 2008 AUDITEE'S RESPONSE TO AUDITORS' REPORTS AND MANAGEMENT LETTER David W. Martin, CPA Auditor General State of Florida Dear Mr. Martin: The Rules of the Auditor General require the audit report to include a written statement of explanation, including corrective action to be taken, or a rebuttal regarding any deficiencies cited in the auditors' reports and management letter. There were no deficiencies cited in the current year auditors' reports or management letter.. Sincerely, ~lRSt ) Phil Sherrod, Chairman Cow Slough Water Control District 16 , 1 B v ~ 0 ~ = " ~ '" .. C- oo CN ]' ,-------~---- c:l I I ...., I I ..... , I , 1 I ..; t9l , I a. Ell I , I '" lll>> , 'e ;;; "'" I ,e 1.2 a. ~ .!! '" 1.2 ... ~ ::: :'1; !1; ~ ;;; ]i IE IE 0 0 ~ ~ '2 Q ; 0 "' ,. ;<: ~; 0 I ,0 01 ~ 1:5 ,.. ~ ~ -.: 0 Iii 0 '0 U. 0 ~ .. Q .i!i ,. j! ~ ..I '" E c( u is 'tl C> 0 Q .g .. ~ i Ii. " ,", ,!l = " " '0 c( 1l !, 8- 1l '" .E '0 E ~ " I Q > E ~!i '" > cl ;;; '6 I " Q , '0 '0 ~I >;- , .g ~ ... .. J ~ .l1 .. "XC Q 0 g C Q ~ U~ '" E a. ~ .. 0 '" '" '0 .c -' 0 'g ~ \L U. ~ , ~ -g -ud lD < < U) < < ~a:o _.~ l I 1 ! I 1 e 0 IBO 0 0 I z ;:; i '" ~ 0 ~ E :. 00 ~ I i ,S ~ i ~'d .5 , i ;;; ~ I 1> ~ ~ , " Qe- ~ I 0 ~ .q..; CJJ '" ;<: "- ,.. I - "1 ~ ~-" e U ~ i~B " 0 "- ",- , i Q 0 E <D .c:~.~ ~ oE", '0 ., c .!1 'OBu. i " ~ ! ~~ ':: .. -~< 0. :ll ~ ID.- 'e " '" .. 5 '0 '" jj_.ct'- 1.2 .E '" 1 ~ ~ ~ ti: "'- 0 c e -uc::e: ,- ~ E '" i' ~ !!! '" 8,:fiiO.a ,'" .. .. ,0 .. :s N" IE c z .... a. w ii z F 8' ~~~i " .E '0 '0 lu "- c g ~ ;':""l:Ic) 1- ~ Q r:: .; .l:!:2'O ,.5 0. 1: " OJ ~'i:iC: " I~ ~ " .. l!' t ~.;f~-g 0 Q m C ~ E ,,-~11)1lI Q ~ - 0.0 I=> ,. => w i1i 0Q .. U) :;~;:) I is '0 :€ ci'j,3C:: c - - ~ 12 c m ;: 5~g! c 0 J3. .5 '0 ;:; \L ~C)o.""" 0 '" m B UllISO U E Jl '0 'Q. ~1:: "E .!i ~ E '" 8.'2 ~ .-' 0 '" J! C c u -CDCO.s ;: " ~rt:.(I)ra .5 'c , " 5 '~ " ~ -..!!l- go c ~ li- m.- c:1I) 0 0 " OJ w I lDg~i '" Iii Q ;:; " :Ii 0 <D ;f , i~~~ 0 ~ -" '" E c 'f (;; III 0 e>ti:--g C> t:; U " -" E .. 9 ,. ....-,alll N m !i 0 < 0 U ::i; .. ~ <D'" I .i~SCl) '" 8 '" ...J ~ ., "- 11l<1i ,. -g.c:oS N ~ U <D a :8- --' <..!i:e.B (:- '" m :s xu. Q m J!l " -" '" .. 0 .. l8 ~.i z U) i5 0 , ~ ~ ~ -,.: e ~~ .ls .. c C '" i' ~ '0 " i => => => m .. ::i; u. Z .... a. u. 0.< L..........____. ;:. .. 01 " ~ ;l;'" ~ m ~ ~ ~ :- ~ .... .. l! l~ S"I 1: ~ c 0 l .. Ii oS'" t ~ .. ~ c ! ~ :. :!j, o.el Il.. fl- - I -! ul - ..... ;; ~~ m i! ";c-i .,; .. .. ! ~ . .... ~]i '" l! {3. '" .... " n ~ B ~ ;: " ... <ll .e . 1:: " 0 ~ a. i Go ~ .. .!lr- Go 1i]i ::J ~ H- I: ~ -"w ~ l! 8~ . i ;; ~I M M ., 16 11 B ... ~ o '" . '" m 0.. ., o o '" ., '" 1:- m 2 .0 . ~ >- m 1il . ~ .... N ~.. ~ S ::; ::; 1! ~l! &. .:0 II ~ l- II - -9 ~~ f!ell ~ . -l! Ii 1! ! I ~~ ""e- ll.. ~ ell I i! ..~ ss j .,: ~ q ... m ~ ... 8- 0 0 ~ 0 N " ~ ~ '2 ~ . ~ C!) ~ ~ 1:: 0 ... a. ~ &! on ~ 1- " a ~ b ::l . ~ I <3 '8 8.~ U:"" ill j .;~ "! l'l , .. -- 16' 1 , . '" ~ a. <Xl o o N ",' N ~ ~ 2 -" . u.. ,;: ~ " ID ~ ,... p\ \", \\ Fiala ,c--_ HalasL.L:FI ,--- Henning_-1-L----- Coyle ------ ---..- Coletta ------ t'!"--- 16 '1 B' ': ,..'j _,..r:; Mise, Corrf5: Date, Boy, Miller, Kisker & Perry, P.A. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS item #:____.,_ '_~C)iH~ to' Fiala ~iil .lev \)1-- Halas e~~';;- .;..I' , . . --r-~ g~r~~:g~~ February 15, 2008 ~6 fln:....C'-~ MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, February 15, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, in and for the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3rd floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, and the following persons were present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate STAFF PRESENT: Gary Dantini, Code Enforcement Supervisor Marlene Stewart, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Mise, CoIMs: Date3.2.S.8 :~em #:.1Lo.U6.--l_ ',.' 'to ~ Fela61slzo1 C I. CALL TO ORDER The Meeting was called to order by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson at 9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson. Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer for a Resolution by Stipulation; looking for compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:12 AM RECONVENED: 9:40 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Marlene Stewart, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary, proposed the following changes: (a) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County due to payment of fines: . Agenda #1, Case # CE 3803 - BCC vs. Talia L. Nelson . Agenda #21, Case # PU 2587 - BCC vs. Mark and Lisa Moreno (b) Under Item VI(A), "Imposition of Fines," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County due payment: . Agenda #4, Case # 2007030831 - BCC vs. Daniel Rebeca (c) Under Item V(B), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the Connty due to compliance: . Agenda #22, Case # PU 3440 - BCC vs. Chester Feeser . Agenda #23, Case # PU 3437 - BCC vs. Hanne Marie Muegge . Agenda #24, Case # PU 3442 - BCC vs. Wilma Whitaker Trustee and August P. Neuman trust. . Agenda #25, Case # PU 3443 - BCC vs. Kenneth E. & Mary Lou Carlson . Agenda #26, Case # PU 3444 - BCC vs. Felix & Margoret Birnbaum . Agenda #27, Case # PU 3445 - BCC vs. Carl E. & Marguerite Monty . Agenda #28, Case # PU 3447 - BCC vs. John J. Lynagh Sr. . Agenda #29, Case # PU 3448 - BCC vs. Marie Zolner Lawrence . Agenda #30, Case # PU 3449 - BCC vs. Donald B. & Dana A. Tracy . Agenda #31, Case # PU 3446 - BCC vs. Enid Card (d) Re: Agenda #2, Case # CE 176 (#2007110410), the spelling of the Investigator's name was corrected to Michaelle Crowley. (e) Re: Agenda #12, Case #SO 155607, the spelling ofthe Sheriff's Deputy's name was corrected to Castineira. The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. 2 1F~aL 11,2008 C The Special Magistrate noted the list of cases previously identified were primarily due to violations of the Phase II Water Restrictions. Due to the severe drought conditions which the County is experiencing, these violations are health, safety and welfare issues. The Special Magistrate stated it was commendable to have achieved compliance in so many cases. Both the Code Enforcement Department and the home owners have recognized the seriousness of this issue and their cooperation in resolving these cases is important. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Hearing held on February 1, 2008 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motions for Continnance: 8. Case # SO 159168 - BCC vs. Irma Tobar The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Lindley was not present. Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 130-66(I)(H) Parked in fire lane Violation address: Winn Dixie Plaza in front of Be ails (Golden Gate Pkway) The Special Magistrate stated the Court Liaison for the Sheriff's Office submitted a Request for a Continuance on behalf of Deputy Lindley. The Request stated the officer requested the Continuance due to a previous commitment and would be unable to attend. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Request for a Continuance from the SherijJ's Department. 19. Case # PR 000400 - BCC vs. E. Podeorske The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Park Ranger Skinner was present. Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 130-66 Not parked in parking area Violation address: Rover Run Veterans Park The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent had submitted a written Request for a Continuance stating he would be on vacation on the date of the Hearing. The Park Ranger stated he had no objection to the granting of a Continuance. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for a Continuance. 3 16 , 1 C February 15, 2008 Sue Chapin, Secretary to the Special Magistrate, stated a Stipulation had been reached in Agenda # 20, Case # PU 361S - BCC vs. Michael Toledo. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 20. Case # PU 3618 - BCC ys. Michael Toledo The Hearing was requested by Collier County Public Utilities Investigator George Cascio who was present. The Respondent had been present earlier and entered into a Stipulation but left before the Hearing could be heard. Violation(s): Ord. 02-17, Sees. 5 & 5.4 Phase II Water Restrictions - watering on wrong day Violation address: 5272 32nd Ave. SW A Stipulation had been agreed to by the Respondents, Michael Toledo, on behalf of his wife, Ramona A. Toledo, and himself. The Investigator stated it was a second offense for the Respondent who agreed to pay the fine and fees associated with violations of Phase II Water Restrictions. The Special Magistrate asked the Investigator if he witnessed the Respondent signing the Stipulation due to the unusual signature. He stated he had. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, andfinding the violation(s) did exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and were ordered to pay afine in the amount of $250. 00, together with an administrative fee of $5. 00 on or before March 15, 2008. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50. 00 on or before March 15, 2008. B. Hearings: 2. Case # CE 176 (#2007110410) - BCC ys. Royal Floridian Transportation, Inc. The Hearing was requested by the Respondent, Linda Hill as owner, who was present. Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Michaelle Crowley was also present. Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 142-31,33(1), 37(B), 5S(F)(4) Employed/allowed operate vehicle for hire without valid Driver's ID Violation address: Ritz Carlton, 2S0 Vanderbilt Beach Road The Respondent stated that her driver, Larry Jacobs, had not picked up the license that had been issued to him. The office was aware their driver had been notified his license was 4 FUII,zi8 C available for pick up. Due to a last minute call from a customer regarding a change in flight, he was put into service without having the license in his possession. The Respondent stated the driver was not allowed to operate in Collier County while his license renewal was being processed. The Investigator noted that this was a continuation of a previous Hearing. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and was ordered to pay a civil fine in the amount of $100.00, together with an administrative fee of $5. 00, on or before March 15, 2008 unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. Operational Costs were waived. 3. Case # DAS 11635 - BCC vs. Manuel Ouiroz The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Department of Animal Services Officer Hinkley was not present. VioIation(s): Ord Sec. 14-36(A)(7) Snaps, grows, threatens - female pit bull Violation address: 913 Pine St., Immokalee, FL The Special Magistrate read a letter submitted by the Respondent in which he stated he had taken steps to correct the situation with his dog. The Respondent asked for the case to be dismissed. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Request for Dismissal. 4. Case # SO 161942 - BCC vs. Barbara Hedl!eoath The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier, but left before the Hearing could be heard. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Kenneth Robins was present. Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 130-67 Parking in a handicapped space - striped access Violation address: River Chase - across from Publix The Deputy stated the Respondent, who had been present earlier, entered into an Oral Stipulation and agreed to pay the fine. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and was ordered to pay a civil fine in the amount of $250.00 on or before March 15, 2008 unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. Operational Costs were waived. 5 16biarylS,2otf; 5. Case # SO 150563 - BCC vs. Marcelle L. Beneat The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Renee Sosbe was also present. Violation(s): Ord. 130-67 Parking in a handicapped space. Obstructing the space Violation address: 954 Goodlette Road No. The Respondent stated she parked her "chair" in one of four handicapped spaces in the front of her building. She had notified the Assistant Manager ofthe building and was not told that it was a violation. She had seen wheelchairs parked in the handicapped spaces before, and she didn't know the rules had changed. The Special Magistrate stated the building management has no control over County Ordinances or State Statutes. The Deputy stated the Respondent frequently placed her wheelchair in a handicapped space in order to save a space for her car. It was apparently a common practice of the Respondent, and the neighbors were upset because the space was not available when needed by others. The Deputy introduced two photographs of the wheelchair which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" and "B" and admitted into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the allegedviolation(s) and was ordered to pay the civil fine in the amount of $250.00 on or before May 15, 2008 unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50. 00 on or before May 15, 2008. 6. Case # SO 133604 - BCC vs. Leila Jenson The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier, but left before the Hearing could be heard. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Fred Klinkman was present. Violation(s): Ord. 130-67 Parked - handicapped space - no parking permit visible Violation address: Berkshire Commons - Publix The Deputy requested dismissal of the case because the Respondent had provided proof of her permit. The Deputy stated she will pay the $5.00 administrative fee. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Deputy's Request for Dismissal. 6 Febir&, rot c 9. Case # SO 133619 - BCC vs. Francis Abbev The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier, but left before the Hearing could be heard. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Fred Klinkman was present. Violation(s): Ord. 130-67 Parked - handicapped space - no parking permit visible Violation address: Freedom Square - Karabas The Deputy requested dismissal of the case because the Respondent had provided proof of his permit. The Deputy stated he will pay the $5.00 administrative fee. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Deputy's Request for Dismissal. 10. Case # SO 133622 - BCC vs. Charles Goinl!s The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier, but left before the Hearing could be heard. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Fred Klinkman was present. Violation(s): Ord. 130-67 Parked - handicapped space - no parking permit visible Violation address: Pine Ridge Center - Radio Shack The Deputy requested dismissal of the case because the Respondent had provided proof of his permit. The Deputy stated he will pay the $5.00 administrative fee. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Deputy's Request for Dismissal. 11. Case # SO 133633 - BCC vs. Dorothv Maurice The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier, but left before the Hearing could be heard. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Fred Klinkman was present. Violation(s): Ord. 130-67 Parked - handicapped space - no parking permit visible Violation address: Carillon Plaza - Circuit City The Deputy requested dismissal of the case because the Respondent had provided proof of her permit. The Deputy stated she will pay the $5.00 administrative fee. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Deputy's Request for Dismissal. 13. Case # SO 133640 - BCC vs. Yvette Mathews The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier, but left before the Hearing could be heard. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Fred Klinkman was present. 7 F1614201 C Violation(s): Ord. 130-67 Parked - handicapped space - no parking permit visible Violation address: Physician's Regional- Pine Ridge The Deputy requested dismissal of the case because the Respondent had provided proof of her permit. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Deputy's Request for Dismissal. 14. Case # SO 133638 - BCC vs. Thomas E. Barnicle The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier, but left before the Hearing could be heard. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Fred Klinkman was present. Violation(s): Ord. 130-67 Parked - handicapped space - no parking permit visible Violation address: Towne Center Theatre The Deputy requested dismissal of the case because the Respondent had provided proof of his permit. The Deputy stated she will pay the $5.00 administrative fee. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Deputy's Requestfor Dismissal. 16. Case # SO 158458 - BCC vs. Judv Ent The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier, but left before the Hearing could be heard. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Fred Klinkman was present. Violation(s): Ord. 130-67 Parked - handicapped space - no parking permit visible Violation address: Physician's Regional- Collier Blvd. The Deputy requested dismissal ofthe case because the Respondent had provided proof of her permit. The Deputy stated she will pay the $5.00 administrative fee. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Deputy's Requestfor Dismissal. 7. Case # SO 162866 - BCC vs. Llewellvn Williams The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who had been present earlier, but left before the Hearing could be heard. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Lawrence Keller was present. Violation(s): Ord. 130-67 Parked - handicapped space Violation address: Strand - Bella Mia Pizza 8 !trY'iS C The Deputy requested dismissal of the case because the Respondent had provided proof of his permit. The Deputy stated the Respondent is mailing in the $5.00 administrative fee. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Deputy's Requestfor Dismissal. 12. Case # SO 155607 - BCC vs. Sona Butler The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Castineira was also present. Violation(s): Ord. 316.195(2) Improper parking against the flow - curb one-way Violation address: Bed Bath & Beyond - 5351 Airport Pulling The Respondent stated she didn't realize the parking had changed to one-way. She stated there is very limited parking in that plaza. The Investigator stated the road does curve and is used mostly by delivery trucks. He introduced photographs ofthe vehicle parked in front of the "one-way" sign which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" and "B." Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and was ordered to pay the Citation fee in the amount of $30. 00 on or before March 15, 2008 unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. Operational Costs were waived. 15. Case # SO 162928 - BCC vs. Donald Ponskv The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Deputy Kenneth Robins was also present. Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 130-67 Handicapped space - striped access Violation address: NCH Hospital- 11190 Immokalee Rd. The Respondent stated he had just taken his son to the Emergency Room and was unable to find an available handicapped space. The Respondent cannot walk any distance. He did not know that he was not allowed to park in the access area even though he had a handicapped permit displayed on his vehicle. He also stated there is very limited handicapped parking. The Deputy introduced photographs of the vehicle which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" and "B" and admitted into evidence. The Deputy stated there is sufficient handicapped parking but it is in several locations around the hospital. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and was ordered to pay the Citation fee in the amount of $250. 00 on or before May 15,2008 unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 9 Febl,2rl ,,'C' \ . ~ ~ Operational Costs were waived. The Special Magistrate stated if the fine is not paid, the County could place a lien against his real and/or persona! property and begin foreclosure proceedings. 17. Case # PR 001520 - BCC vs. Edward J. Mitchell The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was also present. Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 130-66 Failure to display paid parking receipt Violation address: Barefoot Beach access The Park Ranger stated the permit on the vehicle had expired and issued the Citation. The Respondent stated his wife was driving the car. She had stopped for a comfort break. He stated both he and his wife thought his permit was renewed at the same time as his license plate. He further stated the parking permit had been renewed. The Park Ranger stated most permits expire one year from the date of purchase. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s} and was ordered to pay the Citation fee in the amount of $30. 00 on or before March 15, 2008 unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. Operational Costs were waived. 18. Case # PR 001524 - BCC vs. John Jackson The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was also present. Violation(s): Ord. Sec. 130-66 Failure to properly affix sticker Violation address: Barefoot Beach access The Respondent stated the permit was displayed on the dashboard of his vehicle because he drives a rental vehicle, and changes vehicles often. He was told when the permit was issued that he might try placing it on his dashboard because he drove rental cars. He stated there should be an option to place the permit on the dashboard when the vehicle is not owned. The Park Ranger stated the Respondent, as a property owner, can obtain a new permit each time he changed vehicles at no cost. He must return the (ruined) sticker from the rental vehicle to Parks and Recreation and they will issue a replacement sticker. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s} and was ordered to pay a Citation fee in the amount 10 February 15,2008 of $30.00, on or before March 15, 2008 unless altered by a subsequent Stipuli6 01 I C Order of the Special Magistrate. Operational Costs were waived. RECESS: 11:17 AM RECONVENED: 11:35 AM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 32. Case # PU 3687 - BCC vs. Jose Medina The Hearing was requested by Collier County Public Utilities Investigator Jeremy Florin who was represented by Senior Investigator Ray Addison. The Respondent was not present. Violation(s): Ord. 02-17, Secs. 5 & 5.4 Phase 11 Water Restrictions - watering on wrong day Violation address: 14135 Collier Blvd. The Investigator stated this was a repeat violation and had been abated. He stated the property and the Courthouse had been posted. The Notice of Hearing had been sent to the Respondent via Certified Mail. The Investigator requested imposition of the maximum fine because of the nature of the violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing had been properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and was ordered to pay a civilfine in the amount of $500.00, together with an administrative fee of$5.00, on or before March 15, 2008 unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50. 00 on or before March 15, 2008. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case # 2006090279 - BCC vs. Anl!elo B. CamDanelIo & Diane M. CamDanelIo The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor Gary Dantini and Investigator Azure Sorrels. The Respondents were also present. John ("Jack") Gerah appeared as a witness for the Respondents. Violation(s): Ord. 2004-41, Sec. 5.03.02(A)(3) Wooden fence damaged and is missing sections 11 February 15,2008 Violation address: 141 First Street, Naples, FL 34113 IE> II 1 C Supervisor Dantini stated the initial Order was dated June I, 2007 and the violation had been abated on February 14,2008. Notice was sent to the Respondent via Certified Mail and the property was posted. The County requested imposition of the Operational Costs in the amount of $268.90, together with fines in the amount of $23,600.00 for the period from June 23, 2007 through February 14,2008 (236days @ $100.00), for a total fine of$23,868.90. The Special Magistrate explained that she would not re-hear the case. She asked the Respondents to present mitigating circumstances to explain the delay in obtaining compliance. The Respondents' witness stated when he learned of the Respondents' situation, he urged them to attend to the matter. A member of their church, who is a licensed contractor, obtained the building permit and installed the fence. He asked if the basis for the fines and penalties was because of non-compliance with the Ordinance. Supervisor Dantini replied affirmatively. The Respondent stated he did not have the funds to pay for the fence. He also stated he did install over $2,000.00 worth of security cameras to protect his property. The witness stated the fence was damaged during Hurricane Wilma and repairs were completed on February 12,2008. He stated he felt the fines were excessive. The Special Magistrate explained the fines had accrued because the repairs were not made during the allotted time period allotted. She also explained there had been a previous Hearing on this issue that the Respondent had not attended. The Respondent stated he felt he was being harassed by Collier County because he could provide video tape and photographs of other violations in the area that have been ignored by Code Enforcement. When again questioned by the Special Magistrate as to the reason for the length of the delay, the Respondent stated his wife was diagnosed with cancer and depression. He further stated he could not enter his rear yard to make repairs due to an injunction placed upon him by a neighbor. The Special Magistrate stated there were consequences to be paid when compliance is not done, but she was taking into consideration the mitigation circumstances presented by the Respondents. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for the Imposition of Fines but reduced the amount to $1,600.00, plus Operational Costs in the amount of $268.90, for a totalfine of $1, 868. 90. 12 February 15, 2008 5. Case # 2007050417 - BCC vs. Dimitri Soltan & Tatiana Tannehill 16' 1 C The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor Gary Dantini and Investigator Joe Mucha. The Respondents were not present. Violation(s): Ord. 2004-58, Sec. 6, Subsect. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 & II Minimum housing violations Violation address: 2263 Spruce St. Supervisor Dantini stated the fines have been paid, and the County wished to withdraw its Motion for Imposition of Fines. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Requestfor Withdrawal of its Motion for Imposition of Fines. 2. Case # 2006030343 - BCC vs. Javier & Sarah Fernandez The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor Gary Dantini and Investigator Heinz Box. The Respondents were not present. Violation(s): Ord. 04-41, Sec. 2.01.00(A) Inoperable/untagged vehicles Violation address: 1193 Hernando St., Naples, FL 34103 Supervisor Dantini stated the violations had been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the amount of$182.68, a civil penalty in the amount of$IOO.OO, together with fines in the amount of$I,550.00 for the period from May 13, 2006 through June 13,2006 (3ldays @ $50.00) for a total fine of $1,832.68. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for the Imposition of Fines. 3. Case # 2006040727 - Bec vs. Robert Mitchell The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor Gary Dantini and Investigator Mario Bono. The Respondent was not present Violation(s): Ord. 04-41, Sec. 4.05.03(A) Illegal parking of vehicles - single family dwellings Violation address: 3465 Dorado Way, Naples, Fl34105 The Investigator stated the violations had been abated, and the County requested imposition of the Operational Costs only in the amount of$128.46. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for the Imposition of Fines. 13 February 15,2008 1611 C VII. OLD BUSINESS -None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA - None IX. REPORTS The Special Magistrate stated on February 12,2008, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved the Rules and Regulations under which the Office of the Special Magistrate operates. She stated she will review and sign the document. X. NEXT MEETING DATE -March 7,2008 There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 12:35 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING These Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented , or as amended ~C-h '1\ ~8 14 16K4 0" MEMORANDUM Date: March 26, 2008 To: Don Pickworth, Attorney From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Resolution 2008-73 Authorizing Palm Beach County to Issue Revenue Bonds for the Children's Home Society of Florida, Inc. to Finance or Refinance Certain Projects Enclosed please find one (1) Certified Resolution as referenced above, Agenda Item #16K4, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 Please forward to the appropriate party for signature please return a fully executed copy to the Minutes and Records Department. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 252-8406. Thank you. Enclosure ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIJ. 6 K 4, TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNA TURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original documents should be hand delivered to the Board Otl1ce, The completed roming slip and original documents are to be forwarded to the Board OtTicc only after the Board has taken action on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dates, and/or information needed. lfthe document is already complete with the excention afthe Chairman's sio-nature, draw a line through routing lines # I thrau,h #4, comDlete the checklist, and fonvard to Sue Filson line #51. Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in rDutin!! order' L 2. 3. 4. ~. //// 5. Sue Filson) Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 1 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of Court's Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder oftlle original document pending BCC approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact information is needed in lilt: event one of the addrcsst:es above, including Sue Filson, need to contact stall for additional or missing infonnation. All original documents needing the Bee Chainnan's signature are lo be delivered to the BCC office only after the BCC has acted to approve the item. Name of Primary Staff Contact Agenda Date Item was A roved b the BCC Type of Document Attached Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Phone Number X8400 16K4 Yes (Initial) NIA (Not A licable) 3/25/08 Agenda Item Number ~" }. \'1' \ r'\ \-j ~ , \ I I / '1 Ii, ")" V, r ,I ...-' , il}" r),"j \ Ii 1\ - ""l 1\1i t, . j I: Fonns/ County Fonns/ BCC Fonns/ Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03,04, Revised 1.26,05, Revised 2.24.05 99,0043/5 Resolution N umber of Original Documents Attached -1~ l. INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is a ro riate. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney, This includes signature pages from ordinances, resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials.) All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a lieable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si nature and initials are re uired. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours ofBCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCe's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! The document was approved by the BCC on U ".:; ',e' (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have bcen incorporated in the attached document. The Count Attorne 's Office has reviewed the chan es, if a lieable. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 16K4 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-...22.. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, OF THE PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA VARIABLE RATE DEMAND REVENUE BONDS (THE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA PROJECT), SERIES 2008, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $17,000,000, SUCH BONDS TO BE ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO PALM BEACH COUNTY TO MAKE A LOAN OR LOANS TO THE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA TO FINANCE AND REFINANCE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ALL OR A PART OF THE COSTS OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN SOCIAL SERVICE CENTERS IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Children's Home Society of Florida, a Florida not for profit corporation (the "Borrower") is interested in financing and refinancing the acquisition, construction, installation and equipping of certain social service facilities of the Borrower in Collier County, Florida (the "Collier County Project"), as well as financing and refinancing other certain similar facilities in Palm Beach County, Tallahassee, Florida, Indian River County, Florida, and Jacksonville, Florida, as more particularly described in Exhibit A to the Authority Resolution as defined herein (collectively, the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Borrower will recognize substantial cost savings by financing all of its projects through one bond issuance; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County approved on February 5, 2008 the Borrower's application for the issuance of the Palm Beach County, Florida Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds (The Children's Home Society of Florida Project), Series 2008 (the "Bonds") to provide funds to make a loan to the Borrower to finance the Project; and WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the County authorize the execution and delivery of an Interlocal Agreement to be entered into between the Collier County Industrial Development Authority and Palm Beach County (the "lnterlocal Agreement"), in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B to the Authority Resolution, to allow the issuance by Palm Beach County of the Bonds to pay the cost of the Project, including the Collier County Project; and 16K4 I~ WHEREAS, , the Collier County Industrial Development Authority (the "Collier IDA") has adopted a Resolution (the "Authority Resolution") in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County (the "Board of County Commissioners") that: SECTION 1. Authoritv. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, as amended, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, as amended, and Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, as amended, and other applicable provisions oflaw. SECTION 2. Findings. The Board of County Commissioners hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Notice of a public hearing to be held on March 12,2008 before the Collier IDA, inviting comments and discussions concerning the issuance of the Bonds by Palm Beach County to finance the Project, including the Collier County Project, was published on February 26, 2008 in the Naples Daily News, a newspaper of general circulation in the County, said publication being more than fourteen days prior to such hearing date, which complies with the requirements of Section 147 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). A copy of the publisher's affidavit of proof of publication is attached to the Authority Resolution as Exhibit C thereto and incorporated therein by reference. B. Following such notice, a public hearing was held by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority on March 12,2008, during which comments and discussions concerning the issuance of the Bonds by Palm Beach County to finance and refinance the Project, including the Collier County Project, were requested and allowed. The public hearing provided a reasonable opportunity for interested individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Bonds and the location and nature of the Project, and was held in a location which, under the facts and circumstances, was convenient for residents of the County. The notice was reasonably designed to inform residents of the County, of the proposed issue, stated that Palm Beach County would be the issuer of the Bonds, stated the time and place for the hearing, and contained the information required by the Code. C. The Collier County Project and the issuance of the Bonds by Palm Beach County to finance and refinance the Collier County Project will have a substantial public benefit in the County. D. The Board of County Commissioners of the County is the elected legislative body of the County, and, based upon representations of the Borrower, the County has jurisdiction over the Collier County Project for purposes of Section I 47(f) of the Code. E. In accordance with Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, as amended, the Bonds and the interest thereon shall not constitute an indebtedness or pledge of the general credit or taxing power of Palm Beach County, the County, the Collier IDA, the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof but shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor 16K4 pursuant to a loan agreement entered into by and between Palm Beach County and the Borrower prior to or contemporaneously with the issuance of the Bonds. SECTION 3. Approval. For the purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code, the Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by Palm Beach County in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $17,000,000, with approximately $2,500,000 to be applied to finance or refinance the costs of the portion of the Collier County Project. SECTION 4. Authorization of Interlocal Agreement. The Interlocal Agreement, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit B, between the Collier IDA and Palm Beach County, is hereby approved. The officers of the Collier IDA are, upon due authorization and approval by that body, hereby authorized to enter into the Interlocal Agreement. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March, 2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFCOLLIE7UNTY By: ~<fJl- Tom Henning, Chairman ATTEST: ~ I' .~ e kofthe Circuit 'urt E~ttf~06Iw~r Cj_~}ipnets ','r\ "" O.c.. . APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEG L SUFF NCY ~ ~ Item# \ ~gendS --&i-{Jg Date 16K4 RESOLUTION 2008-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ("PALM BEACH") RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE BY PALM BEACH OF ITS VARIABLE RATE DEMAND REVENUE BONDS (THE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY PROJECT), IN ONE OR MORE TAX- EXEMPT AND/OR TAXABLE SERIES, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $17,000,000, SUCH BONDS TO BE ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO PALM BEACH TO MAKE A LOAN OR LOANS TO CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA TO FINANCE AND REFINANCE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ALL OR A PART OF THE COSTS OF THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL SERVICE CENTERS IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Collier County Industrial Development Authority (the "IDA") is a public body corporate and politic of the State of Florida duly created and existing under Chapter 159, Part Ill, Florida Statutes, as amended, and is duly authorized and empowered by such act and by Chapter 159, Part II, Florida Statutes, as amended (coJlectively, the "Act"), to issue revenue bonds to finance qualifying projects within Collier County, Florida (the "County"); and WHEREAS, Palm Beach County, Florida ("Palm Beach") has the authority pursuant to Chapter 159 to issue revenue bonds to finance qualifying projects in Palm Beach; and WHEREAS, The Children's Home Society of Florida, a Florida not for profit corporation (the "Borrower") is interested in refinancing the acquisition of certain social service facilities of the Borrower in Naples, Collier County, Florida (the "Collier County Project") as well as financing and refinancing other certain similar facilities in the County, Tallahassee, Florida, Indian River County. Florida and Jacksonville, Florida, as more particularly described in Exhibit A hereto (collcctively, the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Borrower will recognize substantial cost savings by financing all of its projects through one bond issuance; and WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that thc IDA authorize the execution and delivery of an Interlocal Agreement to be entered into bctween the IDA and Palm Beach (the "Interlocal Agreement"). in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, to allow the issuance by Palm Beach County of the bonds described in the title of this Resolution (the "Bonds") to pay the cost of the Project, including the Collier County Project; and EXHIBIT A TO COUNTY RESOLUTION 16K4 ;.' WHEREAS, the County is willing to enter into the Interlocal Agreement as herein described in order to permit the Borrower to recognize the cost savings from a consolidated financing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED by the IDA that: SECTION 1. Authoritv. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, including the Act and Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, as amended, and other applicable provisions oflaw. SECTION 2. Findings. The IDA hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Notice of a public hearing to be held before the IDA, on behalf of the County, inviting comments and discussions concerning the issuance of the Bonds by Palm Beach to finance the Project, was published in the Naples Daily News, a newspaper of general circulation in the County, at least fourteen days prior to sueh hearing date, a copy of the publisher's affidavit of proof of publication is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. B. Following such notice, a public hearing was held by the IDA during which comments and discussions concerning the issuance of the Bonds by Palm Beach to finance and refinance the Project were requested and allowed. The public hearing provided a reasonable opportunity for interested individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Bonds and the location and nature of the Project, and was held in a location which, under the facts and circumstances, was convenient for residents of the County. The notice was reasonably designed to inform residents of the County, of the proposed issue, stated that Palm Beach would be the issuer of the Bonds, stated the time and place for the hearing, and contained the information required by the Code, The 14-day period was adequate for notice to be brought to the attention of all interested persons, exceeds the normal periods for notices of public hearings conducted by the IDA, the other affected governmental units, various agencies thereof and the State, and provided sufficient time for interested persons to prepare for and express their views at such hearing and meeting. C. The Project and the issuance of the Bonds by Palm Beach to finance and refinance the Project will have a substantial public benefit in the County. D. The Board of County Commissioners of the County is hereby requested to approve the issuance of the Bonds by Palm Beach, and the IDA hereby recommends the Bonds for such approval of said Board. E. In accordance with Chapter 159, the Bonds and the interest thereon shall not constitute an indebtedncss or pledge of the general credit or taxing power of the IDA, the County, the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof but shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor pursuant to a loan agreement entered into by and between Palm Beach and the Borrower prior to or contemporaneously with the issuance of each series of Bonds. 16K4 SECTION 3. Authorization of Inter local Agreement. The form of the Interlocal Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B is hereby approved. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the IDA are hereby authorized in the name and on behalf of the IDA pursuant to this Resolution to execute and deliver the Interlocal Agreement on behalf of the IDA in substantially the form attached to this Resolution, with such changes, insertions and deletions as the officers signing such document may approve, their execution thereof to be conclusive evidence of such approval. The officers executing the Interlocal Agreement are hereby further authorized to do all things which may be required or advisable with respect to or in any way related thereto, including, but not limited to, filing the Interlocal Agreement with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for the County in accordance with Section 163,01(11), Florida Statutes, as amended. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the IDA are hereby further authorized to take such further action and execute such further instruments as may be necessary or appropriate to fully effectuate the purpose and intention of this Resolution and thc Interlocal Agreement. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of March, 2008. (SEAL) ATTEST: By: Secretary / By 16K4"l~ 16K4 ~ "'I' 1. ~"t.;p . '1.-.-<tJ , "'I EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of the capital projects described below consisting ofthe acquisition, construction, installation and equipping Df certain social service centers: 1. Financing part of the costs of the construction, installatiDn and equipping of an approximately 7,000 square foot sDcial service facility which will provide housing and case management services for at-risk young adults located Dn approximately four acres at 650 10th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 and to be owned by Centennial Holdings (Treasure Coast) LLC, a Florida limited liability cDmpany and an affiliate Df the Borrower, and to be leased tD and operated by the BorrDwer (to be financed by the issuance of Bonds in the aggregate principal amDunt not exceeding $2,100,000); 2. Financing part of the costs Df the construction, installation and equipping of an approximately 6,390 square fDot social service facility which will provide hDusing and sDcial services for foster care women tD be located at 300 I San Diego RDad, JacksDnville, Florida 32207 and to be owned and operated by the BDrrDwer (to be financed by the issuance of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount nDt exceeding $900,000); 3. Refunding the outstanding Palm Beach County Industrial DevelDpment Revenue Bonds (The Children's Home Society Df Florida Project), Series 2002, the proceeds of which were loaned to the Borrower and used to finance or refinance the cost of: a, the acquisition, construction and equipping of a social service center, cDnsisting of a building containing approximately 10,500 square feet and the site therefor, and related fixtures, furnishings and equipment, all of which is owned by Centennial Holdings LLC, a FIDrida limited liability company and an affiliate of the Borrower, and with approximately 7,000 square feet leased to and operated by the Borrower as a social service center providing adoptiDn, pregnancy preventiDn, residential and daytime child care services, and apprDximately 3,500 square feet leased tD and operated as a sDcial service center by Families First, Inc., a FIDrida nDt fDr profit cDrpDratiDn, IDcated at 3333 FDrest Hill BDulevard, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach CDunty, Florida (tD be refunded by the issuance Df BDnds in the aggregate principal amDunt nDt exceeding $5,200,000). and b. the acquisition, cDnstructiDn and equipping Df a sDcial service center, Dwned by Centennial HDldings (NDrth Central) LLC, a FIDrida limited liability cDmpany and an affiliate Df the BorrDwer, and leased tD and Dperated by the BDrrDwer as a sDcial service center providing residential services, cDnsisting of a building cDntaining approximately 32,600 square feet and the site therefDr, and related fixtures, furnishings and equipment, IDcated at 180 I Miccosukee CommDns Drive, Tallahassee, LeDn CDunty, FIDrida 32308 (tD be refunded by the issuance Df the Bonds in the aggregate principal amDunt nDt exceeding $4, 100,000); 4. Refinancing certain Dutstanding indebtedness of the BorrDwer which financed the acquisitiDn, construction and equipping Df a sDcial service center, owned by Centennial HDldings (Treasure CDast) LLC, a FlDrida limited liability cDmpany and an affiliate of the BDrrDwer, and leased tD and Dperated by the BDrrower as a group hDme fDr troubled girls, eDnsisting Df a EXHIBIT A TO AUTHORITY RESOLUTION 16K41:' building containing approximately 5,000 square feet and the site therefor, and related fixtures, furnishings and equipment, located at 650 10th Street, Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida (to be refinanced by the issuance of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount not exceeding $2,200,000); 5. Refinancing certain outstanding indebtedness of the Borrower which financed the acquisition of three social service centers, owned by Centennial Holdings Collier Child Care, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and an affiliate of the Borrower, and to be leased to and operated by the Early Education Learning Services, LLC, an affiliate of the Borrower, as daytime child care centers for low-income households, consisting of: a. a building containing approximately 2,177 square feet and the site therefor, and related fixtures, furnishings and equipment, located at 4405 Outer Drive, Collier County, Florida (to be refinanced by the issuance of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount not exceeding $1,000,000), b. a building containing approximately 3,000 square feet and the site therefor, and related fixtures, furnishings and equipment, located at 4705 Outer Drive, Collier County, Florida (to be refinanced by the issuance of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount not exceeding $750,000), and c, a building containing approximately 2,879 square feet and the site therefor, and related fixtures, furnishings and equipment, located at 3805 Thomasson Drive, Collier County, Florida (to be refinanced by the issuance of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount not exceeding $750,000); and All or a part of the costs (including related financing costs) of the Project are to be financed by the issuance of Bonds by Palm Beach in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $17,000,000, 16K4 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is dated as of April I, 2008, and is entered into between PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ("Palm Beach County"), a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY {"Collier County IDA"), a public body corporate and politic of the State of Florida; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 125 and Chapter 159, Parts II and 1II, Florida Statutes, Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA are authorized to issue bonds to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction and equipping of "projects," as defined in Part II of Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, including, without limitation, social service center facilities; and WHEREAS, Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA each constitutes a "public agency" within the meaning of Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, as amended (the "lnterlocal Act"), and are each authorized under the Interlocal Act to enter into interlocal agreements providing for them to jointly exercise any power, privilege or authority which each of them could exercise separately; and WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA enter into this Agreement to authorize Palm Beach County to issue not exceeding $17,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of its Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds (The Children's Home Society of Florida Project), Series 2008 (the "Series 2008 Bonds") to finance social service center facilities to be owned and operated by The Children's Home Society of Florida, a Florida not for profit corporation (the "Borrower"), in Palm Beach County, Indian River County, Collier County, Jacksonville and Tallahassee (collectively, the "2008 Projects"), with the proceeds of approximately $2,500,000 in principal amount of said Series 2008 Bonds to be applied to refinance the portion of the 2008 Projects located in Collier County, Florida, such refinancing to result in significant cost savings to the Borrower over the issuance and sale of separate bonds by Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA in order to finance the 2008 Projects; and WHEREAS, Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA have agreed to enter into this Agreement for the purposes stated above; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County approved the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds, the application of the proceeds thereof and the execution and delivery of this Agreement, and following a duly noticed public hearing held on February 5, 2008, for the purpose of giving all interested persons an opportunity to express their views, either orally or in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida, which has jurisdiction for purposes of Section 147(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, over the area in which those portions of the 2008 Projects to be financed or refinanced in Palm Beach County, Florida will be located, approved the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds and the application of the proceeds thereof; and EXHIBIT B TO AUTHORITY RESOLUTION 16K4~' WHEREAS, on , 2008, following a duly noticed public hearing held by the Collier County IDA on March 12, 2008 for the purpose of giving all interested persons an opportunity to express their views, either orally or in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Bonds, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. which has jurisdiction for purposes of Section 147(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, over the area in which the portion of the 2008 Projects to be financed or refinanced in Collier County, Florida, will be located, approved the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds by Palm Beach County and the application of the proceeds thereof; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Act authorizes Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA to enter into this Agreement and confers upon Palm Beach County authorization to issue the Series 2008 Bonds and to apply the proceeds thereof to the financing of the 2008 Projects through a loan of such proceeds to the Borrower; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to agree to the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds by Palm Beach County for such purposes and such agreement by such partics is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the Borrower has agreed to indemnify Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA in connection with their execution of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises hereinafter contained. and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. Authorization to Issue the Series 2008 Bonds. Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA do hereby agree that Palm Beach County is hereby authorized to issue the Series 2008 Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $17,000,000 and to loan the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to finance the 2008 Projects, with approximately $2,500,000 of such proceeds to be applied to finance or refinance the 2008 Projects in Collier County, Florida. Palm Beach County is hereby authorized to exercise all powers relating to the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds vested in Collier County IDA pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida and to do all things within the jurisdiction of Collier County IDA which are necessary or convenient for the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds and the financing or refinancing ofthe 2008 Projects to the same extent as if Collier County IDA were issuing its own obligations for such purposes without any further authorization from Collier County IDA to exercise such powers or to take such actions. It is the intent of this Agreement and the parties hereto that Palm Beach County be vested, to the maximum extent permitted by law, with all powers which Collier County IDA might exercise with respect to the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds and the lending of the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to finance or refinance the 2008 Projects in Collier County, Florida as though Collier County IDA were issuing such Series 2008 Bonds as its own spcciallimited obligations. SECTION 2. Oualifving proiect. A. Each of the parties hereto represents that each of the 2008 Projects within its jurisdiction constitutes a "project" as such term is used in Part II, Chapter 159, Florida Statutes. 2 16K4 B. Palm Beach County hereby represents, determines and agrees as follows: I. The 2008 Projects located within Palm Beach County are appropriate to the needs and circumstances of, and shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of Palm Beach County; shall provide or preserve gainful employment; and shall serve a public purpose by advancing the economic prosperity, the public health, or the general welfare of the State of Florida and its people. 2. The Borrower is financially responsible and fully capable and willing to fulfill its obligations under the financing agreement, including the obligations to make payments in the amounts and at the times required, to operate, repair, and maintain at its own expense the 2008 Projects, and to serve the purposes of Part 11, Chapter 159, Florida Statutes and such other responsibilities as may be imposed under the financing agreement. 3. Palm Beach County will be able to cope satisfactorily with the impact of the 2008 Projects located in Palm Beach County and will be able to provide, or cause to be provided when needed, the public facilities, including utilities and public services, that will be necessary for the construction, operation, repair, and maintenance of the 2008 Projects and on account of any increases in population or other circumstances resulting therefrom. 4. Adequate provISion will be made in the financing agreements for the operation, repair, and maintenance of the 2008 Projects at the expense of the Borrower and for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds. C. Collier County IDA hereby represents, determines and agrees as follows: \. The 2008 Projects located within Collier County, Florida are appropriate to the needs and circumstances of, and shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of Collier County, Florida; shall provide or preserve gainful employment; and shall serve a public purpose by advancing the economic prosperity, the public health, or the general welfare of the State of Florida and its people, 2. Collier County, Florida will be able to cope satisfactorily with the impact of the 2008 Projects located in Collier County, Florida and will be able to provide, or cause to be provided when needed, the public facilities, including utilities and public services, that will be necessary for the construction, operation, repair, and maintenance of such 2008 Projects and on account of any increases in population or other circumstances resulting therefrom. The foregoing findings do not represent an agreement by Collier County IDA with respect to any zoning or land use requirements, including compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but are made in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 159. Florida Statutes. SECTION 3. No Pecuniary Liabilitv of Collier Countv or Collier Countv IDA: Limited Oblhration of Palm Beach Countv. Neither the provisions, covenants or agreements 3 16K4 contained in this Agreement and any obligations imposed upon Collier County IDA hereunder, nor the Series 2008 Bonds issued pursuant to this Agreement, shall constitute an indebtedness or liability of Collier County IDA or Collier County, Florida. The Bonds when issued, and the interest thereon, shall be limited and special obligations of Palm Beach County payable solely from certain revenues and other amounts pledged thereto by the terms thereof. SECTION 4. No Personal Liabilitv. No covenant or agreement contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant or agreement of any member, officer, agent or employee of Collier County IDA or Palm Beach County in his or her individual capacity and no member, officer, agent or employee of Collier County IDA or Palm Beach County shall be liable personally on this Agreement or be snbject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the execution of this Agreement. SECTION 5. Allocation of Responsibilities. Palm Beach County shall take all actions it deems necessary or appropriate in connection with the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds, including, in its discretion, the preparation, review, execution and filing with government agencies of certificates, opinions, agreements and other documents to be delivered at the closing of the Series 2008 Bonds and the establishment of any funds and accounts pursuant to an indenture of trust related to the Series 2008 Bonds. Neither Collier County IDA nor Palm Beach County shall be liable for the costs of issuing the Series 2008 Bonds or the costs incurred by either of them in connection with the preparation, review, execution or approval of this lnterlocal Agreement or any documentation or opinions required to be delivered in connection therewith by Collier County IDA, Palm Beach County or counsel to either. All of such costs shall be paid from the proceeds of the Series 2008 Bonds or from other moneys of the Borrower. SECTION 6. Indemnitv. The Borrower, by its approval and acknowledgment at the end of this Agreement, agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Collier County IDA and Palm Beach County, and their respective officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses, of every conceivable kind, character and nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, losses, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses (including reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, accountants, consultants and other experts), arising out of, resulting from, or in any way connected with this Agreement or the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds, other than any such losses, damages, liabilities or expenses, in the case of Palm Beach County, arising from the willful misconduct of Palm Beach County, and, in the case of Collier County IDA. arising from the willful misconduct of Collier County IDA. SECTION 7. Term. This Agreement will remain in full force and effect from the date of its execution, subject to the provisions of SECTION 8 hereof, until such time as it is terminated by any party hereto upon 10 days' advance written notice to the other party hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is agreed that this Agreement may not be terminated so long as any of the Series 2008 Bonds remain outstanding or unpaid. Nothing herein shall be deemed in any way to limit or restrict either party hereto from issuing its own obligations or entering into any other agreement for the financing or refinancing of any facility which either party hereto may choose to finance or refinance, 4 16K4 ! ,. '., SECTION 8. Filing of Agreement. It is agreed that this Agreement shall be filed by the Borrower or its authorized agent or representative with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida, and with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, all in accordance with the Interlocal Act, and that this Agreement shall not become effective until so filed. SECTION 9. Small Issuer Allocation. The parties acknowledge that the Series 2008 Bonds will benefit Palm Beach County and Collier County, Florida. The parties hereto irrevocably agree that only $2,500,000 in aggregate principal amount of the Series 2008 Bonds shall be allocable to Collier County for purposes of Section 265(b )(3)(C)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. SECTION 10. Severabilitv of Invalid Provisions. If anyone or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provisions of law or contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants. agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof. SECTION 11. WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AND THE BORROWER HEREBY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES THE RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION BASED HEREON, OR ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT AND ANY DOCUMENT CONTEMPLATED TO BE EXECUTED IN CONJUNCTION HEREWITH, OR ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT, COURSE OF DEALING, STATEMENTS (WHETHER VERBAL OR WRITTEN) OR ACTIONS OF EITHER PARTY. THIS PROVISION IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT FOR EACH OF THE PARTIES TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT. SECTION 12. Litigation. In the event any legal proceedings are instituted between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party in such proceedings shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, at both trial and appellate levels. SECTION 13. Governing Law. This Agreement is being delivered and is intended to be performed in the State of Florida, and shall be construed and enforced m accordance with, and the rights of the parties shall be governed by, the laws of such State. SECTION 14. Execution in Counteroarts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. SECTION 15. Limitation. In no event shall any Series 2008 Bonds be issued pursuant to this Agreement after December 31, 2008, without the prior written authorization of Collier County IDA. 5 16K41' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused this Agreement to be executed by the proper officers thereof and have caused their seals to be affixed hereto and attested by the proper officers thereof, all as of the date first above written, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Chair, Board of County Commissioners Palm Beach County, Florida ATTEST: Sharon Bock, Clerk By: Clerk of the Circuit Court and Ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners By Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: By: Paul King, Assistant County Attorney 6 (SEAL) ATTEST: By: Title: COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Chairman 16K4 7 16K4 'j ""jo , '1 APPROV AL AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE BORROWER The Children's Home Society of Florida, a Florida not for profit corporation, hereby approves this Interlocal Agreement and acknowledges acceptance of its obligations arising hereunder, including, without limitation, its obligations under SECTION 6 hereof, by causing this Approval and Acknowledgment to be executed by its proper officer and its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by its proper officer all as of the date of said Interlocal Agreement. THE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA By: Title: (SEAL) ATTEST: By: Title: 8 16K4 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of , 2008, by , Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida, who is personally known to me. (SEAL) Printed/Typed Name: Notary Public-State of Florida Commission Number: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of , 2008, by , Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, who is personally known to me. (SEAL) Printed/Typed Name: Notary Public-State of Florida Commission Number: 16K4~1II! STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of , 2008, by , Chairman of the Collier County Industrial Development Authority, who is personally known to me. (SEAL) Printed/Typed Name: Notary Public-State of Florida Commission Number: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before , 2008, by , Industrial Development Authority. who is personally known to me. me this _day of of the Collier County (SEAL) Printed/Typed Name: Notary Public-State of Florida Commission Number: .._..._~ --..J ..~"~ Naples, FL HI0~ Affldavit of Publication Naple!O Daily News PICK\~OR'I'H, DONALD P.1\.. 5150 TAMIP.Ml TRL N 1f502 "'1\.PLES FL 34103 REFERENCE: 010184 59480476 NOTICE Of PUBL:C HEA St'He of Florid~ County of Collier ap~:;~~d ~~eL~~~r:~~n~~ ~~~~o~~~~ th~~,,~~:l;~rveu as, A155lstAnt Corl?orate Secret..ry of th., Naples Dally Ne"'l!I, /I dally newspaper publ1shed at Naples, In Collier count:(, Florida: that the attached copy of /ldvertislflg .....as published In Bald m''''!Opaper on dstes listed. J>.tfiant further says that the 8/Iid Naples Daily ~~it~~ ~o:~?a~i~ry~~i:~dd t~;t N~h;":~i:t sald ~~i~:h:~ ~~li s~!~e~~il~:r bC~~n~~I,'t~l~~id~: each day And has been entered as 5econd class ma~l miltter at t.he poet. office in Naples, in SAid collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year ~~~;ch~dC~~~~9o~h:d~~~~~S~~~~~a;;dna~~i;~~ further says thAt she has neither paid nor promlsed any pereon, !~rm or co~po~ation dny d~..count, rebate, commillli.ion or refund for t.he ~~l~~:t~~n ei~u~~~g ei~d. n:e;~~~~~~ment tor PUBLISHEO ON, 02/26 02/26 AD SPACE, FILED ON, 398.000 INCa 02/26/08 I -+--- U1-~--- Sworn to and Sub6cribed before me ttlia ~ day of 1=eb '~"ri. t ry..c -n.<" Signat~r.. of Affiant PerElona.lly kno"'" by ml! 7:.... \~J;) JUDY JANES ':omr'I;W)flDC',6750~ EW19f, ~a~ 10.2011 ~.......,,,..,~,,,,,_..,,,.,,,,..,, EXHIBIT C TO AUTHORITY RESOLUTION 161(4 w~.. fif I... mJl&\ '~IJ.~ =-:1 . ." .~ ~ ~r.rF.l.H~ Jr'1, :1":~~~~ .... ~IIIII.~:J;~ '.L~"i4l \:,,1II~'!~:,'~1~.l:. oqU&rI ~-!'"~ ~C:~J!Lot "'M lr"~t'~'"'l 1::~I!!:~'~CIO'" ~-,::::","~~~.r Ill'bul_~ '~'"'_IOIYI". "'"""''''~\'f ol<ir'f.~d"I'1<l ~.. 11n"~"~ """dC"!r..2~ii:: lI.'m ~_.iIJY: _.11'10 I~lhllll' t;:-'"pI".....~.........""'..C'IIlI...IJl\O-OOOI. 1.'......,OfIoflhl<O.IIGt......IIlII"'........ "'" ~-... .,.QUIttd ~~",. \ol1C~ r;..,u:.e.~ :1:=":tr"~~t:e ~..I.......~.Jiii7.,.".I~'I._..... t~. _.. .... '011""1 ~Y Sldlo" 111(1) oI1~' ,- ~~.' w1_"'I1II<...Ot\dmay~upon .ucII ~.~_.._.,_I)r"""''''''''' .. TN"'-"" htonf"CI ~~I_~ ~ 01. ",on. _\!ltllllll.ldtl.'"'f'M"~~_'t~. ~",W-:1. '1:',.,-:;'0..,"" ":k~ho~G ""IIII.",oti,;;"'tt"'UIIIlIMlW/ldtllll"-iI\O ~:;'!!.~~alo;..,,:;,::::,l~r~ l:DC,:,T,;;,w:c~t",--,:Q"""ltO""",,I, f"",,",l"'-"I.....IIII"11,!!!l:'!.""tt..I. ;..~I!lI. ", ....-- oM "'~1ll'i~"I..'= .r:=_III-_1I " ~J)!"tI"'llll.tlh'~'''iJ>II'''''.f,""I~' "'"":;'&rmI.fl/I!II'"""""","",,tlIoi.~ ~~<<~ t'"'"~ ~~i.-!~t:"~ _.10...: l;rtl.~oIll1o .....INI........,. ~K Allfu'~~f 01 ~ttMV~~ Ir=~~~~ ",__tlIo~_!!f!:t~ItIl' MI JII.....~......1I "'I.I=W;;~"~ P1I.~ _" ""'lIItl1o...... ~M_ -"...............-. .. l!a.d,,.,....,n... U);.t.!~.~..~..U..'iJY INlIf,lSTRIO.' 16 K 4 ~ ~ 4144524 OR: 4342 PG: 3561 RECORDED In OFFICIAL RECORDS at COLLIiR COUNTY, IL 0),27/1008 at 09:13AM DWIGHT S, BROCK, CLBRK REC FiS 91.00 COPISS II.DO MISC 1.50 Retn: DONALD A PICKWORTH 1150 TAMIAMI TR N 1101 NAPLiS FL 34103 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Dated as of March 1, 2008 Between PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA and COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTARY STAMPS DUE ON THE VARIABLE RATE DEMAND REVENUE BONDS DESCRIBED HEREIN, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 159, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES This Interlocal Agreement was prepared by: Emily F. Diaz, Attorney at Law Foley & Lardner LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5017 JACK_804126.1 OR: 4342 PG: 3562 16K4 INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is dated as of March I, 2008, and is entered into between PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ("Palm Beach County"), a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("Collier County IDA"), a public body corporate and politic of the State of Florida; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 125 and Chapter 159, Parts II and III, Florida Statutes, Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA are authorized to issue bonds to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction and equipping of "projects," as defined in Part II of Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, including, without limitation, social service center facilities; and WHEREAS, Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA each constitutes a "public agency" within the meaning of Section 163.oJ, Florida Statutes, as amended (the "Interlocal Act"), and are each authorized under the Interlocal Act to enter into interlocal agreements providing for them to jointly exercise any power, privilege or authority which each ofthem could exercise separately; and WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA enter into this Agreement to authorize Palm Beach County to issue not exceeding $17,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of its Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds (The Children's Home Society of Florida Project), Series 2008 (the "Series 2008 Bonds") to finance social service center facilities to be owned and operated by The Children's Home Society of Florida, a Florida not for profit corporation (the "Borrower"), in Palm Beach County, Indian River County, Collier County, Jacksonville and Tallahassee (collectively, the "2008 Projects"), with the proceeds of approximately $2,500,000 in principal amount of said Series 2008 Bonds to be applied to refinance the portion of the 2008 Projects located in Collier County, Florida, such refinancing to result in significant cost savings to the Borrower over the issuance and sale of separate bonds by Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA in order to finance the 2008 Projects; and WHEREAS, Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA have agreed to enter into this Agreement for the purposes stated above; and WHEREAS, on March II, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County approved the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds, the application of the proceeds thereof and the execution and delivery of this Agreement, and following a duly noticed public hearing held on February 5, 2008, for the purpose of giving all interested persons an opportunity to express their views, either orally or in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida, which has jurisdiction for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, over the area in which those portions of the 2008 Projects to be financed or refinanced in Palm Beach County, Florida will be located, approved the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds and the application of the proceeds thereof; and JACK_804126.1 OR: 4342 PG: 3563 16KiJ. . WHEREAS, on March 25, 2008, following a duly noticed public hearing held by the Collier County IDA on March 12, 2008 for the purpose of giving all interested persons an opportunity to express their views, either orally or in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Bonds, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, which has jurisdiction for purposes of Section 147(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, over the area in which the portion of the 2008 Projects to be financed or refinanced in Collier County, Florida, will be located, approved the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds by Palm Beach County and the application of the proceeds thereof; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Act authorizes Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA to enter into this Agreement and confers upon Palm Beach County authorization to issue the Series 2008 Bonds and to apply the proceeds thereof to the financing of the 2008 Projects through a loan of such proceeds to the Borrower; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to agree to the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds by Palm Beach County for such purposes and such agreement by such parties is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the Borrower has agreed to indemnifY Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA in connection with their execution of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises hereinafter contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION I. Authorization to Issue the Series 2008 Bonds. Palm Beach County and Collier County IDA do hereby agree that Palm Beach County is hereby authorized to issue the Series 2008 Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $17,000,000 and to loan the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to finance the 2008 Projects, with approximately $2,500,000 of such proceeds to be applied to finance or refinance the 2008 Projects in Collier County, Florida. Palm Beach County is hereby authorized to exercise all powers relating to the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds vested in Collier County IDA pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida and to do all things within the jurisdiction of Collier County IDA which are necessary or convenient for the issuance ofthe Series 2008 Bonds and the financing or refinancing of the 2008 Projects to the same extent as if Collier County IDA were issuing its own obligations for such purposes without any further authorization from Collier County IDA to exercise such powers or to take such actions. It is the intent of this Agreement and the parties hereto that Palm Beach County be vested, to the maximum extent permitted by law, with all powers which Collier County IDA might exercise with respect to the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds and the lending of the proceeds thereof to the Borrower to finance or refinance the 2008 Projects in Collier County, Florida as though Collier County IDA were issuing such Series 2008 Bonds as its own special limited obligations. SECTION 2. Oualifying proiect. A. Each of the parties hereto represents that each of the 2008 Projects within its jurisdiction constitutes a "project" as such term is used in Part II, Chapter 159, Florida Statutes. 2 JACK_B04126.1 OR: 4342 PG: 3~64 l6K4 B. Palm Beach County hereby represents, determines and agrees as follows: I. The 2008 Projects located within Palm Beach-County are appropriate to the needs and circumstances of, and shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of Palm Beach County; shall provide or preserve gainful employment; and shall serve a public purpose by advancing the economic prosperity, the public health, or the general welfare of the State of Florida and its people. 2. The Borrower is financially responsible and fully capable and willing to fulfill its obligations under the financing agreement, including the obligations to make payments in the amounts and at the times required, to operate, repair, and maintain at its own expense the 2008 Projects, and to serve the purposes of Part II, Chapter 159, Florida Statutes and such other responsibilities as may be imposed under the financing agreement. 3. Palm Beach County will be able to cope satisfactorily with the impact of the 2008 Projects located in Palm Beach County and will be able to provide, or cause to be provided when needed, the public facilities, including utilities and public services, that will be necessary for the construction, operation, repair, and maintenance of the 2008 Projects and on account of any increases in population or other circumstances resulting therefrom. 4. Adequate provISIon will be made in the financing agreements for the operation, repair, and maintenance of the 2008 Projects at the expense of the Borrower and for the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds. C. Collier County IDA hereby represents, determines and agrees as follows: 1. The 2008 Projects located within Collier County, Florida are appropriate to the needs and circumstances of, and shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of Collier County, Florida; shall provide or preserve gainful employment; and shall serve a public purpose by advancing the economic prosperity, the public health, or the general welfare of the State of Florida and its people, 2. Collier County, Florida will be able to cope satisfactorily with the impact of the 2008 Projects located in Collier County, Florida and will be able to provide, or cause to be provided when needed, the public facilities, including utilities and public services, that will be necessary for the construction, operation, repair, and maintenance of such 2008 Projects and on account of any increases in population or other circumstances resulting therefrom. The foregoing findings do not represent an agreement by Collier County IDA with respect to any zoning or land use requirements, including compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but are made in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 159, Florida Statutes. SECTION 3. No Pecuniary Liability of Collier County IDA: Limited Obligation of Palm Beach County. Neither the provisions, covenants or agreements contained in this 3 JACK_B04126.1 OR: 4342 PG: 3565 16K4 Agreement and any obligations imposed upon Collier County IDA hereunder, nor the Series 2008 Bonds issued pursuant to this Agreement, shall constitute an indebtedness or liability of Collier County IDA or Collier County, Florida. The Bonds when issued, and the interest thereon, shall be limited and special obligations of Palm Beach County payable solely from certain revenues and other amounts pledged thereto by the terms thereof. SECTION 4. No Personal Liabilitv. No covenant or agreement contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant or agreement of any member, officer, agent or employee of Collier County IDA or Palm Beach County in his or her individual capacity and no member, officer, agent or employee of Collier County IDA or Palm Beach County shall be liable personally on this Agreement or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the execution of this Agreement. SECTION 5. Allocation of Responsibilities. Palm Beach County shall take all actions it deems necessary or appropriate in connection with the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds, including, in its discretion, the preparation, review, execution and filing with government agencies of certificates, opinions, agreements and other documents to be delivered at the closing of the Series 2008 Bonds and the establishment of any funds and accounts pursuant to an indenture of trust related to the Series 2008 Bonds. Neither Collier County IDA nor Palm Beach County shall be liable for the costs of issuing the Series 2008 Bonds or the costs incurred by either of them in connection with the preparation, review, execution or approval of this Interlocal Agreement or any documentation or opinions required to be delivered in connection therewith by Collier County IDA, Palm Beach County or counsel to either. All of such costs shall be paid from the proceeds of the Series 2008 Bonds or from other moneys ofthe Borrower. SECTION 6. Indemnitv. The Borrower, by its approval and acknowledgment at the end of this Agreement, agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Collier County IDA and Palm Beach County, and their respective officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses, of every conceivable kind, character and nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, losses, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses (including reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, accountants, consultants and other experts), arising out of, resulting from, or in any way connected with this Agreement or the issuance of the Series 2008 Bonds, other than any such losses, damages, liabilities or expenses, in the case of Palm Beach County, arising from the willful misconduct of Palm Beach County, and, in the case of Collier County IDA, arising from the willful misconduct of Collier County IDA. SECTION 7. Term. This Agreement will remain in full force and effect from the date of its execution, subject to the provisions of SECTION 8 hereof, until such time as it is terminated by any party hereto upon 10 days' advance written notice to the other party hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is agreed that this Agreement may not be terminated so long as any of the Series 2008 Bonds remain outstanding or unpaid. Nothing herein shall be deemed in any way to limit or restrict either party hereto from issuing its own obligations or entering into any other agreement for the financing or refinancing of any facility which either party hereto may choose to finance or refinance. 4 JACK_804126.1 OR: 4342 PG: 3566 16K4 SECTION 8. Filing of Agreement. It is agreed that this Agreement shall be filed by the Borrower or its authorized agent or representative with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida, and with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, all in accordance with the Interlocal Act, and that this Agreement shall not become effective until so filed. SECTION 9. Severability of Invalid Provisions. If anyone or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provisions of law or contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof. SECTION 10. WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AND THE BORROWER HEREBY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES THE RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION BASED HEREON, OR ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT AND ANY DOCUMENT CONTEMPLATED TO BE EXECUTED IN CONJUNCTION HEREWITH, OR ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT, COURSE OF DEALING, STATEMENTS (WHETHER VERBAL OR WRITTEN) OR ACTIONS OF EITHER PARTY. THIS PROVISION IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT FOR EACH OF THE PARTIES TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT. SECTION II. Litigation. In the event any legal proceedings are instituted between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party in such proceedings shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, at both trial and appellate levels. SECTION 12. Governing Law. This Agreement is being delivered and is intended to be performed in the State of Florida, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the rights of the parties shall be governed by, the laws of such State. SECTION 13. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. SECTION 14. Limitation. In no event shall any Series 2008 Bonds be issued pursuant to this Agreement after December 31, 2008, without the prior written authorization of Collier County IDA. 5 JACK_804126.1 OR: 4342 PG: 3567 16K4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the paIties to this Agreement have caused this Agreement to be executed by the proper oflieers thereof and have caused their seals to be affixed hereto and attested by the proper ol1icers thereoe all as of the date lirst above written. PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA (SEAL) By: (7 dt<iej ,.;>::' R kU1/lt// Chairperson, Board of Co~nty Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida Addle l. Greene, Chairperson ATTEST: Sharon Bock, Clerk By: Clerk of the Circuit Court and . ,..:,~'c.."""'\\\\\'\ , Ex-officIO Clerk ~f the Boar~."t') \,\T y. (7''1":,, County CommiSSIOners ,,~ <..).". ,~,'l,.... \ :- ,,).' ..~4', ,.,./ .N' ". ", ,..; "'". '~. B _J. 'li:i;,,:'.Y' ,.-. \~),,- Approved as to form and legal suflid~rtc"y:' [Signature Page to Interlocal Agreement with Collier County Industrial Development Authority.] 6 JACK_804126.1 .... " }:..,~~ (SEAL) .' . , q" ATTEST: By: Title: OR: 4342 PG: 3568 16K4 COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT By fik< 7 L OR: 4342 PG: 3569 16K4. APPROV AL AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE BORROWER The Children's Home Society of Florida, a Florida not for profit corporation, hereby approves this Interlocal Agreement and acknowledges acceptance of its obligations arising hereunder, including, without limitation, its obligations under SECTION 6 hereof, by causing this Approval and Acknowledgment to be executed by its proper officer as of the date of said Interlocal Agreement. THE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA By: Robert Officer [Signature Page to Interlocal Agreement with Collier County Industrial Development Authority.] 8 JACK_B04126.1 OR: 4342 PG: 3570 16K4 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTYOFJ_~lm Bea~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this2~day of March ,2008, by Addie L. Greene, Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida, who is personally known to me. (SEAL) LJ~ ??/~~ Printed/Typed Name: Notary Public-State of Florida Commission Number: NOTARY PUBUC-STATE OF FLORIDA .....'....~.r~ Gloria Madison t. ~Commission #DD710864 ....,.."".l Expires: OCT. 19,2011 BONDED num ATLANTIC BONDING CO., me. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Pa 1m Bpa"h The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~day of March ,2008, by Tracey Powell , Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, who is personally known to me. (SEAL) -<51~, //ff~~~ . Printed/Typed Name: Notary Public-State of Flori%lTARY PUBUC-STATE OF FLORIDA CommIssIOn Number: .,.........,'.. Gloria Madison i. iCommisslon#DD710864 \........l Expires: OCT. 19, 2011 BONDED THRU ATJ....\NTJC BONDING CO.. me. [Notarial Page to Intcrlocal Agreement with Collier County Industrial Devclopmcnt Authority.] JACK_B04126.1 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER *** OR: 4342 PG: 3571 *** 16K4 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 25th day of March, 2008, by Alice J. Carlson, Chairman of the Collier County Industrial Development Authority, who is personally known to me. ""\11\11111'/1,,, ~\~ ~~D A. PI. 1111" ~<;::fJ ......... ~.,...t.o';;':'" -# ....c,o~M1SSIQ ", ~ ..~.. ~..... .'_~ t..tll1l29 :t<<,:.~~ .;::.....-. ..... rr '~o_'tO'.:A.::; ::: : 'b$~-:r;::: =~: .... rn::= =~.~,.. . == ",~:~-uu~~P". :>t "" 'S:;t.', ct.. ~ .. ~ ~4~, 4=~1flnj .~~ ~~'..~~~..,~~ ~r/c .........~\.()~,-$' "'/' SrATE of' "" 1'/1,""",,\1\\\ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER (SEAL) Printed/Typed e: 0 nald A. Pickworth Notary Public-State of Florida Commission Number: DO 524904 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 25th day of March, 2008, by Ross P. Obley, Secretary of the Collier County Industrial Development Authority, who is personally known to me. ~\"\\lIII/II"",, ~\\~ Sl "'. p'C/(,,!III~ ~ _,....~ ........."OL\ ~ # c"""" ..~,~\SS'ON~...~~~ :::tIr<:. . o~ l'l9 II-,;;I!: ~"""'i"G.a\~"'.?o~ 3!:' ~ .: ;~ ~ t;' ~.~ ~ =*: .... :*! -= . : = ~~ \ 'DO 524904 I' ~$ ~?o'1i.. ~,'ffi~ ~~...-~~~ .,~~ ~'-;A~' '1IIlIIC ..'t'_~~* ~,,: V8........:c.o'l: ~'t( "'1 UC ST~\~ ~,\~ /'"";111111\1'\ (SEAL) Printed/Type ame: Donald A. Pickworth Notary Public-State of Florida Commission Number: DO 524904 ,;,' ~;;-. ,,,~ "" '~.. ""~ c ..- Stale of FLORID~ : < ,. . . County of COLLiER: .: ''':'' ~ :4 ,-...., .'.... "'" '.-- I HEREBY CERTIFY T,"Ai\hi~ls'ij true iJhd qilr>ect copy of 8 dOCUl1~llt reccritildlii the OFFICIAl',..' RECORDS of (~~:~~(COU""X~\jTN~s.~~r~ and offlc:31 seJI t./,llS DBte,,___~.,~~~__-.J HT E. BRO C~f,K OF COURTS '1/'1'111'\11'" n_____~_ D.C. ORIGINT~~(~~~~~yEA~i~~(~:A~~~(!~~E~r~~~TT1~G SLI6 K 8 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFf'ICE FOR SIGNA TURE - Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Onginul ducumenb Shllll1d he hand delivered to the Board Otficc The completed routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded tn the Aoard Ofticc only aher the Board has taken action on the item.} ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures, dales, and/or illforrnation nel'dcd. If lhe docllment is already comple\(: ",,'jlh the exee lion of the Chaimlan's si aturc, draw a line throu h rllulin lines #1 throuoh #4, co Jete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson (line #5). Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date (List in routin order) 1 (TI1(: primary cUl1tacl IS lhe Ihlldcr of Ilw 'lr:gill:d dll\'111I1CIIII"l1dill02 1\('( "I'P"<l\d \'mm:llly ihe i'n,'l;IIY', ,,1:1;1,'1 l' ILl' p<':I,"1I1 \vl1" ,'II.':Ik'dipl'l:Pdll\1 1I1I "\',\"111\ summary, Primary L:onlaL:t infOllllation is l1eedt:d 111 Ihe <.:\\:nl nile olll1e addn:ssel~ Jbuvv, illi.:ILll!illg "lIe hl\(lIl. Ileed io ulIllael ~tatr jill' addilillllal ()I' 1I11S~1I1g information. All original documents needing till" HCC ('h:1Ir11IJn'S "iFTlatLlll: ~rc 1<> he deliVlTed to Ihe Bee l'ITin: 0111y aflcl111e Bee has acted 10 apprm'l; the item) l\Jlll( ufl'tillJi.lJY SI~dI Contact Agenda Date Item was 3/25/0R i\pp1'uved bv lhe n~~,- l-------- 'rype of Document RctCI1\ioll i\grC\:11K'111 Attached 2. 3. 4. Scott H.. Teach, Managing AssisLlllt County Attorney ('oulllv /\ttnrllC\ WI 3/25/0:-; 5. Sue Filson, EXl'cutivc \iL1n~l!~Cr ----~j J~lltl(,~ h<':illil. \. UL)' 'i)~1.i'''':~ -~-!~'~,_~"-~'i:-'-i-'-----'T-~~'~))~-~;_~ __~ ;;---- I(,K (R) J (3) ['I11'l'l' Yes (Initial) SRT N/A (Not Applicable) !.~Il;\nl L,f(")IIJ1!\ ('/llllnllSsiolll'r'.; 6 l\-'lillutcs <lnc1 Records ('1<.'11 (If('(lII:t nr!lc\' N/;\ SRT ,WI N/A SRT 7. Scott R. Teach, Managing Assistant County Attorney County Attorney SRT I: Fonnsl County Fomw Bee Forms/ Original Doculllenls Routing Slip WWS Origmal 9.03,04, Revised) }h.()S, Revised 2.24.05 ((matter _numbem/Hdocument_l1umbem PRIMARY CO"lTACT INFORMATION Agenda Itcll11'''ul11l1er \lUl11bl'IOf()(igillal Documents Attached INSTRI :CTlONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark ;'NIA" lJ11hc Not Applll'ahlc column, whichever IS appropriate I. Original document has been signediinitialcd for legal sufficiency (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be revicwcd and signed by' the Office urthe County Attorney. This includes signJ.turr pages from oldinanccs, ITsolutiollS, cle, signed hy the County Attorney's Office and signature pages fl'Orn contracts, agreements, ete. that have heen fully executed by all parties except the Bee Chairman dnd Clerk to the Board and possibly Stale Officials.) __________._______________ All handwTittell strike-through dnd r(:l:isiull:0Uilc bcclllnillalcd by the County Allorncy'~ Office dlld all other arties exce t the Bee Ch<:urman ~n~lc Clerk to the Board The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne otlated contract date whlchc\'t:T is appl1cable. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appl'Opn81e pages Imlic~lting where the Chairman's slgl1~lturc :1I1d initials are re ulred, In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the ~~~ginaTdocument and this routing "Slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the Bee office within 24 hours of Bee approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forn'arding to Tallahassee withm a certain time frame or lhe BCe's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! The document was approved by the Bee on March 25. 2008 and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the chan es if a licable. Please record and return three executed ori inal document s to Scott R. Teach, Mana in ACA 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 MEMORANDUM Date: April I, 2008 To: Scott Teach Assistant County Attorney From: Ann Jennejohn, Sf. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Retention Agreement with Nelson Hesse, LLP 16K8/ Attached, you will find an original agreement as referenced above (Agenda Item 16K8), which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. A remaining original agreement will also be held in the Minutes & Records Departmen,t where it will be kept as part of the Board's permanent record. I have sent the last remaining original agreement to James French in CDES. If you should have any questions, please contact me 252-8406. Thank you. Attachments (1) 16K8 I , MEMORANDUM Date: April I, 2007 To: James French, CDES Operations Manager From: Ann Jennejohn, Sr. Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Retention Agreement with Nelson Hesse, LLP Attached, you will find an original agreement as referenced above (Agenda Item 16K8), which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. A remaining original agreement will also be held in the Minutes & Records Departmen,t where it will be kept as part of the Board's permanent record. I have sent the last remaining original agreement to Assistant County Attorney Scott Teach. Thank you. Attachments (l) RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH 16K8 NELSON HESSE. LLP This Retention Agreement is made by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, as the Ex Officio Governing Body of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority (hereafter, "County"), and the law firm of Nelson Hess, LLP ("Nelson Hesse"). Whereas, Nelson Hesse has special expertise and resources in a wide range of legal matters, with particular expertise in Public Utility Regulation and Rate Cases; and Whereas, the County has a need for such specialized legal services, which are particularly within the expertise of Nelson Hesse; Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises contained herein, the County hereby hires and retains Nelson Hesse and Nelson Hesse hereby agrees to provide legal counsel to the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority relating specifically to the Orange Tree Utility Company's Petition for Limited Proceeding Rate Increase. Nelson's Hesse's representation is limited to advising the Water and Wastewater Authority on legal issues pertaining to the referenced rate increase petition and does not extend to providing services related to the County's potential rebuttal rate case. ARTICLE 1 COMPENSATION; METHOD OF PAYMENT 1.1 Compensation shall be paid to Nelson Hesse in accordance with the terms set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Requirements for reimbursable expenses are set forth in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and made a part hereof. Expenses other than automobile expenses must be documented by copies of paid receipts or other evidence of payment. The Certificate contained in Exhibit "c" must be included with every invoice submitted for payment. ([V' Page 1 of 10 16K8 '1 1.2 All services in connection with this contract shall be provided by attorney Orner Causey, except in the case of an emergency or the County's written pre-approval. 1.3 Nelson Hesse may submit invoices for hourly work assignments pursuant to Exhibit "A" only after the services for which the invoices are submitted have been completed or expenses incurred. An original invoice plus one copy is due within fifteen (15) days of the end of the month, except the final invoice which must be received no later than sixty (60) days after the work is completed or the expiration of this Agreement. 1.4 To be deemed proper, all invoices must comply with the requirements set forth in this Agreement and must be submitted on the form and pursuant to the instruction prescribed by County. Payment may be withheld for failure of Nelson Hesse to comply with a term, condition, or requirement of this Agreement. 1.5 Payment shall be made to Nelson Hesse at: Nelson Hesse, LLP. 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34237 ARTICLE 2 INSURANCE 2.1 In order to insure the indemnification obligation contained above, Nelson Hesse shall as a minimum, provide, pay for, and maintain in force at all times during the term of this Agreement, professional liability insurance in an amount not less than Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) Per Occurrence, Combined Single Limits. If any liability insurance obtained by Nelson Hesse to comply with the insurance requirements contained herein is issued on a "claims made" form as opposed to an "occurrence" form, the retroactive date for coverage shall be no later than the commencement date of the assigned work to which this Agreement applies. Page 2 of 10 ~ 16K 8 '1 2:2 Nelson Hesse shall furnish to the Risk Management Director Certificates of Insurance or endorsements evidencing the insurance coverages specified by this Article within seven (7) days of execution of this Agreement. ARTICLE 3 TERM AND TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1 The term of this Agreement shall be for a period commencing on March 19, 2008 and ending on June 30, 2008, unless terminated earlier by either party upon fifteen (15) days' notice. 3.2 Time shall be deemed to be of the essence in performing the duties, obligations and responsibilities by this Agreement. Any amendments or modifications of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing, signed by both parties, and attached to this Agreement. ARTICLE 5 RECORDS 5.1 Nelson Hesse shall preserve and make available, at reasonable times for examination and audit by County, all financial records, supporting documents, and other documents pertinent to this Agreement for a period of three (3) years after termination of this Agreement. If the Florida Public Records Act (Chapter 119, Fla. Stat.) is determined by County to be applicable to Nelson Hesse's records, Nelson Hesse shall comply with all requirements thereof, however, no confidentiality or non-disclosure requirement of either federal or state law shall be violated. ~ Page 3 of 10 ARTICLE 6 CONFLICT OF INTEREST 161(8 , 1\ 6.1 Nelson Hesse shall not act as counsel in any lawsuit or other adversary proceeding in which County is named as an adversary party or in which Nelson Hesse takes an adverse position to the County during the term of the representation. ARTICLE 7 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 8.1 Any and all reports, photographs, surveys, and other data and documents provided or created in connection with this Agreement are and shall remain the property of County and, upon request, shall be delivered by Nelson Hesse to the County within seven (7) days of termination of this Agreement by either party. ARTICLE 8 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 9.1 Nelson Hesse is an independent contractor under this Agreement and not as an officer, employee, or agent of the County. ARTICLE 9 NOTICES Whenever either party desires to give notice to the other, such notice must be in writing, sent by registered or certified United States Mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or by hand- delivery, addressed to the party for whom it is intended at the place last specified. The place for giving notice shall remain the same as set forth herein until changed in writing in the manner provided in this section. For the present, the parties designate the following: FOR COLLIER COUNTY: County Attorney Government Center 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 V'~ Page 4 of 10 FOR NELSON HESSE: 16K8 Nelson Hesse LLP. 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34237 ARTICLE 12 MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 In the event a portion of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall continue to be effective. Failure by County to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of the provision or modification of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for litigation concerning this Agreement shall be in Collier County, Florida. 12.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The truth and accuracy of each "Whereas" clause set forth above is acknowledged by the parties. The attached Exhibits "A," "B," and "C" are incorporated into and made a part ofthis Agreement. ",'! , .. ' ' . ., ~ ' , .. . , . ; I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIoNERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,as Exotficio Governing Body of the Collier Co~ty Water and . wastewateythOrity, ~-:::~ By: --:J<fJ1. < TOM HENNING, CHAIRMA "',_, DATE: 3 -C7(o-aoo~ . ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ~~to ~~().(. ...... OIll ~ ~ .. i . ".. ,,", Approved as to form and legal sufficiency e~ Page 5 of 10 ~tf-IZ)~l Scott R. Teach Managing Assistant County Attorney Item# ~ 16KB Agenda "b - a5""" Date .v ~~~d 3-30-0<3 DATE: O"6( /'?( 0'6 NELSON HESSE, LLP By: ~. {i-~--- Its: &L-{'". ~_. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF-eOLLIER ~b~ The foregoing Retention Agreement was acknowledged before me this {q .~ay of ~ ,2008, by(7);nfr (!./llJ.-M';J as~rfnpv of Nelson Hesse, LLP, a Florida limited liability partnership, on behalf of the limited liability partnership. He/she is personally known to me or preduced fl3 ilkllti[;~aliull. ~~o~~~~r ~,\III1""J""I' #"'~.~~~~~J/III~ $',#':..~\ON EXPIIJ;'-.. ~ ~~.~S'iO\'O,2011 ir ..... ~ ~o:o~ \~:. --::JeU 0 III .--: = . >- 0 . ~ .0:_ - .~ , .d'i\ .0::: ~ ~ ~~~ :~~ ~~\ ~~_.-...~#'~"~~ ~ . W::;"~k.~ ~ Ah.... TlO'1r-~.. .:;...v:~ ~,;'()~~...n... S'\.l':S' '11, "YPUBlIC, \\\' """,,,,,,,11\\\ JOHANNA M. BRADLEY Name of Notary Public typed, printed or My Commission Expires: Page60fl0 ~/ 16 K 8 "1 EXHIBIT "A" For professional services rendered, Nelson Hesse's fee shall be based on the hourly rate as follows: $250.00 per hour for services provided by principals and associates Nelson Hesse's fee shall not exceed $50,000.00 per Purchase Order without the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. (Where appropriate a "not to exceed" sum shall be agreed to when each assignment is made to Nelson Hesse.) In the event that Nelson Hesse is required or requested to perform any additional or extraordinary services not herein contemplated, Nelson Hesse shall be entitled to apply for additional compensation, the amount of which shall be subject to the approval of County and no such additional compensation in excess of the amount herein stated shall be paid unless specifically authorized in advance in writing by County in its sole discretion. If requested, Nelson Hesse shall provide, at no cost to County, the annual response to County's auditors regarding pending or threatened litigation. The auditors typically request information regarding all litigation, claims and assessments considered to be material. The response should include the nature of the litigation, the progress of the case to date, an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, and any other information considered necessary to explain the case. Nelson Hesse shall provide said response within 30 days of receipt of the request. NOTES: . Divisions, or departments within such divisions, shall be responsible and pay for legal counsel services relating to litigation and outside counsel specifically for cases, matters or issues relating to such division or department, as determined by the County Attorney in coordination with the County Manager. Page 7 of 10 vC/ 16K(8 !"~ EXHIBIT "B" I. In addition to the charges for professional fees set forth in Exhibit "A," and the Schedules attached hereto, County shall reimburse Nelson Hesse for out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred in the course of rendering such legal services, including costs of long distance calls, printing, costs of reproduction, and necessary travel expenses (with lodging expenses no greater than $150.00 per night) incurred in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 112, F.S. 2. Nelson Hesse shall submit invoices on a monthly basis for the payment of out-of- pocket expenses. Each invoice shall include a signed certificate listing all costs, expenses, vouchers, invoices and other docwnentary evidence that will describe in reasonable detail the basis for expenditures for which reimbursement is sought as set forth below. 3. REQUIREMENTS The following represents Collier County's payment requirements for legal costs ~ Your federal employee identification number must be on all invoices submitted. ~ The applicable Purchase Order number must be on all invoices submitted. ~ No service, interest, or other charge of like nature is to be imposed with regard to any item, invoice, or request. All firms doing business with Collier County must have a current W-9 "Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification" on file. ~ Services rendered must be specifically and concisely identified, as well as the bond issue or financing transaction for which the services were rendered. ~ Names of persons performing services, hourly rates, and dates must be listed. The County agrees to reimburse Nelson Hesse for retention and utilization of sub-consultants. Page 8 of 10 v V 16K8 ~ Reimbursable expense must be verified by attached receipts or copies thereof ~ Claims for mileage and meals cannot exceed statutory allowance as provided for under Chapter 112, F.S. Meals and mileage cannot be charged unless the professional has traveled outside the county of the principal business location. ~ Claims for lodging at single rate (actual cost) must be substantiated by paid bill or charge, with a cap of no more than $150.00 per night. ~ Car rentals required for travel should incl ude compact or standard-size vehicles only. ~ Common carrier travel shall be reimbursable at tourist or coach class fares only. ~ Accounting Division requires original receipts, or copies of receipts which have been individually certified to be true copies of the originals. In addition the Certificate contained in Exhibit C must accompany each invoice. The certifying person must sign the Certification form and a description provided of the items, which are certified. ~ Faxes shall not be reimbursed Page 9 of 10 TY EXHIBIT C 16.K,8 CERTIFICATE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that: I. has been duly designated as special counsel to render legal services or provider of services for or on behalf of Collier County; 2. Each of the docwnents hereinafter identified and attached is a true and correct copy of the original record; 3. Expenditure(s) enumerated represent costs necessarily incurred during the course of official business for which payment has not been received and for which docwnentation is not available or reasonably retrievable; 4. Claims are in compliance with the applicable statutes and administrative orders, and with the express provision that all other parties are barred from entitlement to any part of these costs. RE: Invoice No. , Dated Period Covered: , Amount IN-HOUSE CHARGES: Photocopies: _ copies $ Mileage: miles $ OTHER (Copies of invoices required): Long Distance Calls $ Other: $ TOTAL: $ FOR THE FIRM Signed: Print Name: Title: Date: 04-COA-O 1158/792 rev I Page 10 of 10 ~ \\', 'J f (,.;/ C:! ,..::)\ 9Cl \0 c? 17A ''1'' COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PIJBLlC HEARINGS To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: XXX Normal Legal Advertisement Other: (Display Adv., location, etc.) *********************************************************************************************-******* Originating Dept/ Div: Cnmm.Dev.Serv./Planning Person: Melissa Zone ?J7-- Date: ;2/;Z :rCB' Petition No. ([f none, give brief description): SE-2007-AR-12229, Kaicasa R,~'/ Petitioner: (Name & Address): Johnson Engineering, Laura Spurgeon, 2350 Stanford Court, Naples, FL 34112 Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space is needed, attach separate sheet) Habitat for Humanity nl Collier County, Inc., 11145 Tamiami Trail E., Naples, FL 34113 Hearing before Bee BZA Other Requested Hearing date: March 25, 2008 Based on advertisement appearing 15 days before hearing. Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): XXX Naples Daily News Other Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: SE-2007-AR-12229, an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 07-34, for the Kaicasa Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to incorporate the inadvertent omission of Section 5.6.E and Section 5.8.C-G that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 27, 2007 and therefore constitutes a scrivener's error. The subject property, consisting of tOO acres, is located along the north side of State Road 29, east of Village Oaks Elementary School, and is approximately 2 miles east of the, Collier ftounty, Florida. i,,-httt.1\cn I r 0tz;t-t'" Rei Z4. a..v0 Cnmpanion petitinn(sl, if any & prnposcd hearing date' Lo ~ tol4d ~ tf"b L Does PetitIon Fee include advertlsmg cost? Yes No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: 131-138326-649100 Apprnved by: Dat . . f ~ z 2>->)0 J) , Date County Manager List Attachments: DlSTRIBlITION INSTRlICTIONS A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one copy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: County Manager agenda file: to Requesting Division Original Clerk's Office B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Oftice, retaining a copy for file. **.*.****.*.***.******..**.*..****..**************.************************************************** FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received: 3- 3 "D& Date nf Puhlic hearing: 3"'~_ -0 ~ Date Advertised: _ . 3:;;- Cj-. 0 2 ORDINANCE NO. 08._ 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, OR ITS SUCCESSOR, BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, TIIE KAICASA RESIDENTIAl, PLANNED UNIT DEVEWPMENT (RPUD) TO CORRECT SCRIVENERS ERRORS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 17A!'''' WHEREAS, on Mareh 27, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 07-34 establishing the Kaicasa RPUD; and WHEREAS, following said action adopting Ordinance No. 07-34, it was determined that the Kaicasa RPUD Document, as transmitted to the Department of State, omitted a provision that was otherwise intended and made pan of the public hearing and therefore constitutes a scrivener's error. NOW, TI:lEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNfY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: SCRIVENER'S ERROR AMENDMENT TO SUIlSECTION 5.6, ENTITLED ''STORMWATER MANAGEMENT," OF ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, TIIE KAICASA RPUD. Subsection 5.6., Stormwater Management, of Ordinance No. 07-34, the Kaicasa RPUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT A. The Kaicasa RPUD conceptual surface water management system is described in the Water Management Report, which has been included in the RPUD rewne application materials. Water management infrastructure will be owned, operated and maintained by the developer nnti! conveyed to lhe property owner association. B. A 100 foot wide drainage and maintenance easement, along the southern property line to encompass the existing canal and provide maintenance access along the north bank shall be conveyed to Collier County prior to issuance of the first CO. C. Bac;;e flood elevation anoroval shall be obtained from the Federal E~er2cncv Manallement Allcncv fFEMA) and submitted to the Countv orio to the aooroval of anv subseauent final deve100ment order. such a.; site dev~JODrnent nlans/construction olans. Page 1 00 17A SECTION TWO: SCRIVENER'S ERROR AMENDMENT TO SUBSEcrION S.8~ ENTITLED "ENVIRONMENTAL," OF ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, THE KAICASA RPUD. Subsection 5.8., Environmental, of Ordinance No. 07-34, the Kaicasa RPUD, is hereby amended [0 read as follows: G. 5.8. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The Kaicasa RPUD shall comply wirh the guidelines and recommendation 0 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding potential impact to protected spec::ies on site. A Habitat management plan for protected species, including bear and panther, shall be suhmitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to final construction plan approval. B. Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of the GMP shall be set aside as preserve areas. All preserve area.q shall be identified as separate tracts and be protected by a permanent conservation ea.~ment to prohibit further development. All preserve areas shall be designated as preserve tracts on all constructiou plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Conservation easements shall be dedicated on the plat to the Kaicasa homeowner's association, or like entity, for ownership and maintenance responsibility and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. c. The aonlicant shall incoroorate the "Standard Protection Measur: for t~e Eastern Indil!o Snake" (Service 2002) into any Countv develonm t 01'<10 S authorizini! any land c1earinl! or construction activities. D. Comnensa!iou for imuacts to wood stork and Rodda ;:'thor h:;::itats ~ be addressed as Dart of the South Florida Water Man""e nt Dis 'ct (S Dl Environmental Review Permit (ERP) n1'Ocess and the United States Ariny Co~ of Emrineers ruSACE) Dormittinl1' orocess in cons;ultation with the Florida Wildlife Service oriar to sHe develonmenl nlanslconstruction Dlans aunrovaL E. The aonlicant must include an analysis of potential water aualitv imnacts of the nroiect durin!! review of the first site develooment olan or first set of construction planR. This will be accomolished bv evalllatinl?: water auality loBdiol!s exnected from the nroiect (oost develoDment conditi~ns considerin~ the Dmoosed land uses and stormwater manal!ement controls) comnared with water ouality loadinas of the omioc! area all it exists in its medevelon:ent condition. This analysis shall be nerformed usine: methodolol!ies aODrove bv federal and state water aualitv allencies, County review and aooroval of this analysis shall be reauired orior to construction Dlans/site develonment olan aooroval. F. The annlicant shall be reauired to submit a full five-day wildlife survey at the time construction Dlanslsite develooment ulan are bein2 reviewed. The survey must be less than one year old at the time of submittal. All Dreserve areas shall be evaluated at the time construction olans/site develooment nlans are reviewed to enl'lllre that such areas al'e consist;"; with ;e Growth Manucment Plan. SECTION THREE: EFFEcrlVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upou filing with the Department of State. Page 2 of 3 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by majority vote by the Board of County Commission"", of Collier County, Florida, lhis _ day of A TrEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: , Deputy Clerk Approved as to fonn and legal sufficiency: / MllIjorie M, Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney ,2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLUER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Page 3 of3 17 A ORDINANCE NO. 08-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 01<' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, OR ITS SUCCESSOR, BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, THE KAICASA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) TO CORRECT SCRIVENERS ERRORS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 07-34 establishing the Kaicasa RPUD; and WHEREAS, following said action adopting Ordinance No. 07-34, it was determined that the Kaicasa RPUD Document, as transmitted to the Department of State, omitted a provision that was otherwise intended and made part of the public hearing and therefore constitutes a scrivener's error. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: SCRIVENER'S ERROR AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION 5.6., ENTITLED "STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT," OF ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, THE KAICASA RPUD. Subsection 5.6., Stormwater Management, of Ordinance No. 07-34, the Kaicasa RPUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT A. The Kaicasa RPUD conceptual surface water management system is described in the Water Management Report, which has been included in the RPUD rezone application materials. Water management infrastructure will be owned, operated and maintained by the developer until conveyed to the property owner association. B. A 100 foot wide drainage and maintenance easement, along thc southern property line to encompass the existing canal and provide maintenance access along the north bank shall be conveyed to Collier County prior to issuance of the first CO. C. Base flood elevation approval shall be obtained from the Federal Emergencv Management Agencv (FEMA) and submitted to the Countv prior to the approval of anv subsequent final development order. such as site development plans/construction plans. Page I of 3 17A ~~ SECTION TWO: SCRIVENER'S ERROR AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION 5.8., ENTITLED "ENVIRONMENTAL," OF ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, THE KAICASA RPUD. Subsection 5.8., Environmental, of Ordinance No. 07-34, the Kaicasa RPUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.8. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The Kaicasa RPUD shall comply with the guidelines and recommendation 0 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding potential impact to protected species on site. A Habitat management plan for protected species, including bear and panther, shall be submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to final construction plan approval. B. Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of the GMP shall be set aside as preserve areas. All preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracts and be protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development. All preserve areas shall be designated as preserve tracts on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Conservation easements shall be dedicated on the plat to the Kaicasa homeowner's association, or like entity, for ownership and maintenance responsibility and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. C. The applicant shall incorporate the "Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake" (Service 2002) into anv Countv development orders authorizing anv land clearing or construction activities. D. Compensation for impacts to wood stork and Florida panther habitats must be addressed as part of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Review Permit (ERP) process and the United States Armv Corps of Engineers (US ACE) permitting process in consultation with the Florida Wildlife Service prior to site development plans/construction plans approval. E. The applicant must include an analvsis of potential water qualitv impacts of the proiect during review of the first site development plan or first set of construction plans. This will be accomplished bv evaluating water qualitv loadings expected from the proiect (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water qualitv loadings of the 1;Jroiect area as it exists in its predevelopment condition. This analvsis shall be performed using methodologies approved bv federal and state water qualitv agencies. Countv review and approval of this analvsis shall be required 1;Jrior to construction plans/site development plan approval. F. The applicant shall be required to submit a full five-dav wildlife survev at the time construction plans/site development plan are being reviewed. The survev must be less than one vear old at the time of submittal. G. All preserve areas shall be evaluated at the time construction plans/site development plans are reviewed to ensure that such areas are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Page 2 of 3 17 A , "J PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ day of ,2008. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Deputy Clerk By: TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN By: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: / Marjorie M. Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney Page 3 of 3 17A ;1" March 5, 2008 Attn: Legals Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, FL 34102 Re: SE-2007-AR-12229; Kaicasa RPUD Dear Legals: Please advertise the above referenced petition on Sunday, March 9, 2008 and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you Sincerely, Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk P.O. Account # 131-138326-649100 17A I.~ ,~ NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Resolution. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. 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, OR ITS SUCCESSOR, BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, THE KAICASA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) TO CORRECT SCRIVENERS ERRORS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PETITION: SE-2007-AR-12229, an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 07- 34, for the Kaicasa Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) , to incorporate the inadvertent omission of Section 5.6.E and Section 5.8.C-G that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 27, 2007 and therefore constitutes a scrivener's error. The subject property, consisting of 100 acres, is located along the north side of State Road 29, east of Village Oaks Elementary School, and is approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of State Road 29 and County Road 846, Collier County, Florida. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. 17A 1" 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 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) March 4, 2008 '-eountYof Collier ~-- - I CLERK OF THE CI~CU~T COURT COLLIER COUNTY <WURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI1(MIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044, NAPLES. FLORIDA':t4101-3@4 *- 17A Dwight E. Brock Clerk of Courts Clerk of Courts Accountant Auditor Custodian of County Funds Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 11145 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34113 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition SE-2007-AR-12229; Kaicasa RPUD Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 2008. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK a.u.u. h~~ 0.( . Ann Jennejohn9 - cr - Deputy Clerk Enclosure Phone- (239) 732-2646 Website- www.c1erk.collier.ft.us Fax- (239) 775-2755 Email-coIlierclerk<iV.c1erk.coIlier.ft.us March 4, 2008 :-emmty of Collier \~ CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY <tOURTROUSE 3301 TAMIAMI 1Zi\A1L EAST P.O. BOt 413044. NAPLES, FLORIDA ~101-30~4 .. 17A '.~ Dwight E. Brock Clerk of Courts Clerk of Courts Accountant Auditor Custodian of County Funds Johnson Engineering Laura Spurgeon - Dejohn 2350 Stanford Court Naples, FL 34112 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition SE-2007-AR-12229; Kaicasa RPUD Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, March 9, 2008. Yau are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK. ~ ~,Q.(, Ann JennejoM) G Deputy Clerk Enclosure Phone-(239) 732-2646 Wcbsite- www.clerk.collier.fl.us Fax- (239) 775-2755 Email-collierclerk(alclerk.collier.fl.us 17 A ; l a Iiii. ; "\1 lit-fl Ann P. Jennejohn To: Subject: legals@naplesnews.com SE-2007 -AR-12229 Kaicasa Attachments: SE-2007 -AR-12229.doc; SE-2007-AR-12229.doc.dot Please advertsie the attached on Sunday, March 9, 2008. ~ ~ Thank you, SE-2007-AR-12229. doc (24 KB) SE-2007-AR-12229. doc.dot (27 K... Ann Jennejohn Senior Clerk to the Board Minutes & Records Department 252-8406 (ann.jennejohn@co II i erclerk.com) 1 Ann P. Jennejohn From: Sent: To: Subject: postmaster@collierclerk.com Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:50 AM Ann P. Jennejohn Delivery Status Notification (Relay) 17 A Attachments: ATT1442413.txt; SE-2007-AR-12229 Kaicasa [] 1"--.--.'.-'-.1 L.::J ATT1442413.txt SE-2007-AR-12229 (229 B) Kaleasa This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification, Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination. legals@naplesnews.com 1 SE-2007-AR-12229 Kaicasa Page 1 of 1 17A I Ann P. Jennejohn From: Perrell, Pam [PPerrell@Naplesnews.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:04 AM To: Ann P. Jennejohn Subject: RE: SE-2007-AR-12229 Kaicasa OK From: Ann P. Jennejohn [mailto:AnnJennejohn@colliercierk.com] Posted At: Wednesday, March 05, 20089:50 AM Posted To: Legals - NDN Conversation: 5E-2007-AR-12229 Kaicasa Subject: SE-2007-AR-12229 Kaicasa Please advertise the attached on Sunday, March 9, 2008. Thank you. <<SE-2007 -AR-12229.doc>> <<SE-2007 -AR-12229.doc.dot>> Ann J ennejohn Senior Clerk to the Board Minutes & Records Department 252-8406 (ann.jennejohn@coll i erc lerk.com) 3/5/2008 Th.Th, NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Dml, Naples. FL,41 02 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned they serye as the authority. personally appeared !'Ll.'lInb. who on oath says that they serYe as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily. a daily newspaper published at Naples. in Collier Counl.\'_ Florida: dIstributed III Colher and Lee countIes of Florida: that the attached copy of lllc ad\'crtising. being a PUBLIC NOTICE in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper 1 time in the issue On March 9"'. 2008 AfTiant furtha sa",'s that the: said Naples Dailv C\;cw;; is a newspaper Puhlishcd at 'aples. in !.-'ollier county, Florida and that the said n..:v,'spapcr has heretofore heen continuously puhlished in said Collier COllnty. Florida: distrihult.::d ill Collier and I,cc !.:ountics of Florida, each day and has heen entered as second dass mail matter at the post Un!!.:..: in :\apks. in said Collier Count..,... Florida. for a period of I 'v.:ar llexl prcn~ding the first puhlication of the attached copy of adv~rtiso::m<.::nt and ;Iffi;lllt further says thaI he has neither paid nor promised any p<.::rsuIL lirrn or corporation an:-' discount rehak, commission or r~rund jilr the purpose or securing this advertisement for publication ill tbe said newspaper , /) .,)- ') (-Signature of affiant) . Sworn to and subscribed before me ThiS ~'h.Day Of March 2008 2:)g Qo-< t:o (Signature of notary publie) FEI 'i~-2'i78127 ~.'O""~"'" 1:1: . ~c "'fi.';;' L~o~:,~~Q_. :~:':.".~':'.': ". '. '.bI""-St;;;-;'F. land. I ,{\;"-'!,S:;iO;": U0J82729 f:X!lIn,,:: (j\/02/2009 ~=._ ...-, ~'_"~C_."L'=_;~~ -.~...., '.~io' ~CE ,~'~I'~;~'J~~~ , tS,'M Inifri, '~rd- ,~- .. ~.of' t :titl:! f8:!~sl~C~~Urj CQ:H IE R elM:: 0 F FLORIOA. Ai.I';INoritd ~INANCE NUMURf40 COL61JlAM,E~rf~' THE OEV.El.OPMENT LANO 'JRf8.Elij~1 OMENT TODRIlI. oN, c~. NO. 07-34, fHE ~LACIIf It b RESIDENTIA. L OP"N T UNIT DEVEL. cofltDT ~~:!'{.~li.k2 ~M;.t,NfilM4f' r~..T rmpfl. J SE..~1-AR.. .~f'ilf' ..l)r,..lt'.... ~!f; P l,near. na VIJI'tW I 0 .' . of SectIon ancl 5actfon 5.8.c.a. . t I was. ap~roved by. - Board.' of County ~QQ1'b I mluloners on MOr...:.-. . 2007 and, ther~reJI'Q.~ I sllMos a :enerflll" ror.The, IU p'_ Iy, ~~n.IL' ng 91f4 acres; fl . lVIOated '. the '_h side..' Roacf29.eutofvl Os~k' E1t"unfl'.. ' c . . and flap. " mtkl i~2 mil.." t ' r"~~of Road .2g,lnd cou~, ROfilfl46,COlUer Ooun. ty,PIoIfda. NOTt: Aft persons wish- Ing to ipeak on any agenda Item must'reals. ter with the' County ad. .- Jpeun "'_' 'to 5 minutes . The .elee- tlo",," Indlvldu.' to Sp . . onhhoff of on 0'0 on o,,"ltOUP Is enG;O~"d.tfr''iOg~ nfzed: . Jthe Ch"Jrman a sP.Q ~IPerscin for. g.r~.' . ororganlz.atJon m..~,'1te allotted,lO mln- utU~9speak on an I Item. I 17A ~II' hPerson! WiShing to ave wrttten or O....hle thmaterft'l Ineluded In e BoVd "1;da paCk ets m~st 5u mltnld matertatam. umof3 weeks prior to the re- ~t1~w>>~c ~hearlng'l lor I.ar.. Inl.~~..' t.~.Te ""llSldere<t b So .:1" be .u . ... ~ ~-:P~,\l:;\'ltI umy a'''da.. prI~':' 10 'l1.v~ public nearIng An tertal used In: 'Dfese:::-I tlons before the Board I wlHbecomea perma.; ,"ent ~~~ t?f.th~ r~ord. ;' An~.:pef'.lon who dec/d. ; ~, . ~peaJ ait~eclslon' . Board w 1 need a I retord of the prOceed. ~";f~ ~~~~~J~.~~ereto I\Jed 10 ensure tt.':ta~ vtrbat m record Of the 'I~OOI". edlngs, 1$ made w .ch reCord II1Chldei !l!.etestlmony arn:t evt_ UlI:nce upon WfUCh the _11s_ tf Y.Qu are . p. a, :CftJablllty Wh,,:o~8~~~ a,.acCQ-mmodatlon m . to partlcl~ate 'In " dIng, yqu are It .' -edt at no COlt . to YOU, . o the provfalon of ee, ,tl t.n A"'st.n~. .1.... e_ct'" . ~.rCOUnlY F."Ulle. m:c:n.ajJtem-enf D.p.,d'. ... ooeteef' 'UO) irm.T:'1 ~r.~iltl , FIO,'lk ':P.1I2: 12i1~; ~ .. ,.'led 'Ii 1m, ..,: the ........ , In ' . Ire tVat . ~. 5Ioner~~~~' CO, (S. BOARD OF COUNT C~M. ISSIONERS '.VI ~R1ktER COUNTY, Uf~'Ti,NNINQ.CMAlR. gL1~~HT E. BROCK, ~., JenneJohn Dep- (S~r~;-' .' ( Mar.~ ....., No l~l ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST & ROUTING SLIP TO ACCOMPANY ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR SIGNATURE Print on pink paper. Attach to original document. Original documents should be hand delivered to the Board Office. The completed routing slip and original documents are to be forwarded to the Board Office only aftt.r the Board has taken action on the item.) ROUTING SLIP Complete routing lines #1 through #4 as appropriate for additional signatures. dates, and/or information needed. If the document is already complete with the exec ion of tile Chairman's Sl sture, draw a line throu Toutin lines # I thrau #4, com lete the checklist, and forward to Sue Filson line #5 . Route to Addressee(s) Office Initials Date List in routin order 17~ 1. 3)~1 2. 3. 4. 5. Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners 6. Minutes and Records Clerk of COurt'S Office PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (The primary contact is the holder of the original document pending Bee approval. Normally the primary contact is the person who created/prepared the executive summary. Primary contact infonnation is needed in the event one of the addressees above, including Sue Filson, need to contact staff for additional or missing information. All original documents needing the BCC Chairman's signature are to be delivered to the BCC office only after the BCC has acted to approve the item. Name of Primary Staff Melissa Zone Phone Number 252-2958 Contact Agenda Date Item was 3/25/08 Agenda Item Number 17A A roved b the BCC Type of Document Ordinance D Number of Original Attached Documents Attached INSTRUCTIONS & CHECKLIST Initial the Yes column or mark "N/ A" in the Not Applicable column, whichever is a TO riate, I. Original document has been signed/initialed for legal sufficiency. (All documents to be signed by the Chairman, with the exception of most letters, must be reviewed and signed by the Office of the County Attorney. This includes signature pages from ordinances, .AY resolutions, etc. signed by the County Attorney's Office and signature pages from 1"'" contracts, agreements, etc. that have been fully executed by all parties except the BCC Chairman and Clerk to the Board and ossibl State Officials. 2. All handwritten strike-through and revisions have been initialed by the County Attorney's Office and all other arties exce t the BCC Chairman and the Clerk to the Board 3. The Chairman's signature line date has been entered as the date ofBCC approval of the document or the final ne otiated contract date whichever is a licable. 4. "Sign here" tabs are placed on the appropriate pages indicating where the Chairman's si ature and initials are re uired. 5. In most cases (some contracts are an exception), the original document and this routing slip should be provided to Sue Filson in the BCC office within 24 hours ofBCC approval. Some documents are time sensitive and require forwarding to Tallahassee within a certain time frame or the BCC's actions are nullified. Be aware of our deadlines! 6. The docnment was approved by the BCC on :3 - (j$""-otS (enter date) and all changes made during the meeting have been incorporated in the attached document. The Conn Attorne 's Office has reviewed the chan es, if a licable. I: Forms! County Forms! BCe Forms! Original Documents Routing Slip WWS Original 9.03.04, Revised 1.26.05, Revised 2.24.05 17A ~ .1' ,.. i,c,' '. " ~. ORDINANCE NO. 08-~ 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, OR ITS SUCCESSOR, BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, THE KAICASA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) TO CORRECT SCRIVENERS ERRORS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No, 07-34 establishing the Kaicasa RPUD; and WHEREAS, following said action adopting Ordinance No, 07-34, it was determined that the Kaicasa RPUD Document, as transmitted to the Department of State, omitted a provision that was otherwise intended and made part of the public hearing and therefore constitutes a scrivener's error. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: SCRIVENER'S ERROR AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION 5.6., ENTITLED "STORMWATER MANAGEMENT," OF ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, THE KAICASA RPUD. Subsection 5.6., Stormwater Management, of Ordinance No. 07-34, the Kaicasa RPUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.6. STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT A. The Kaicasa RPUD conceptual surface water management system is described in the Water Management Report, which has been included in the RPUD rezone application materials. Water management infrastructure will be owned, operated and maintained by the developer until conveyed to the property owner association. B. A 100 foot wide drainage and maintenance easement, along the southern property line to encompass the existing canal and provide maintenance access along the north bank shall be conveyed to Collier County prior to issuance of the first CO. C. Base flood elevation approval shall be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and submitted to the County prior to the approval of any subsequent final development order, such as site development phms/construction plans. Page I of 3 17A 4" SECTION TWO: SCRIVENER'S ERROR AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION 5.8., ENTITLED "ENVIRONMENTAL," OF ORDINANCE NO. 07-34, THE KAICASA RPUD. Subsection 5.8., Environmental, of Ordinance No. 07-34, the Kaicasa RPUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.8. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The Kaicasa RPUD shall comply with the guidelines and recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) regarding potential impact to protected species on site. A Habitat management plan for protected species, including bear and panther, shall be submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to final construction plan approval. B. Areas that fulfill the native yegetation retention standards and criteria of the GMP shall be set aside as preserve areas. All preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracts and be protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development. All preserve areas shall be designated as preserve tracts on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Conservation easements shall be dedicated on the plat to the Kaicasa homeowner's association, or like entity, for ownership and maintenance responsibility and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. C. The applicant shall incorporate the "Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake" (Service 2002) into any County development orders authorizing any land clearing or construction activities. D. Compensation for impacts to wood stork and Florida panther habitats must be addressed as part of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Enyironmental Review Permit (ERP) process and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permitting process in consultation with the Florida Wildlife Service prior to site development plans/construction plans approval. E. The applicant must include an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the proiect during review of the first site development plan or first set of construction plans. This will be accomplished by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the proiect (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the proiect area as it exists in its predevelopment condition. This analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by federal and state water quality agencies. County review and approval of this analysis shall be required prior to construction plans/site development plan approval. F. The applicant shall be required to submit a full five-day wildlife survey at the time construction plans/site development plan are submitted. The survey must be less than one year old at the time of submittal. G. All preserve areas shall be evaluated at the time construction plans/site development plans are reviewed to ensure that such areas are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Page 2 of3 17 A ,_ PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ~S~ day of f{\ll,ich. \ {,\" . t',....... ~, A TTE.S't: . . DWI<iH'T' E. BROp<, CLERK B'~~ ~ Atteti{ K to'" Pity Clerk S1\1l1ltlll'" Oftl. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ,2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER C~HY, FL IDA By: ~~ TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN ~::tf).j,~/OI' ~t-:iJ.{A.-/iV-U Marjo M. Student- tirling . Assistant County Attorney Page 3 of3 17 A STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 2008-15 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 25th day of March 2008, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 27th day of March 2008. "j:::J'" DWIGHT E. BROCK ' . V" Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex-officio'tQ. Board of': County Commissioners ~" By:Martha Verg Deputy Clerk