BCC Minutes 01/23/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1996,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:06 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Bettye J. Matthews
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
ABSENT: Timothy J. Constantine
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
Mike HcNees, Acting Assistant County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3 & 3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's call the county commission meeting to
order this morning. Mr. Dotrill, could we get you to lead us in an
invocation and pledge to the flag?
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you today and as always
for the wonderful opportunity that we have to live and enjoy retirement
years and run a business, raise a family in Collier County. We thank
you for the -- the wonder and beauty of our -- our community. We thank
you for the hard work and dedication of the people who want to make a
difference in this community, our elected officials, our staff, our
many volunteers, and the people who choose to come and participate in
the governmental process here. As always we ask and pray that your
hand guide the decisions and deliberations of this commission today as
they make important business decisions, that you would bless each one
of us and our families who support us in the endeavors that we
undertake here, and that you would bless our time together. We pray
these things in Jesus's name. Araen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see we have a number of changes to our agenda
today.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. We have
several changes, and I'll go through these -- these as quickly as I
can. We have a number of add-on items this morning. They're all
considered to be routine, and one request from the board.
First item is 5(A)(1), which will be under proclamations and
presentations, as it pertains to a proclamation designating a week as
Boy Scout of America Week in Collier County, 5(A)(1).
8(A)(3) is a routine utilities facilities acceptance agreement for
a project known as Breakwater in Pelican Bay.
8(A)(4) is a similar request as it pertains to the recording of
the final plat of Wildcat Cove.
8(A)(5) is a request to waive but replace the special event fees
for a permit for the Cinco De Mayo Festival in Immokalee, and I will
tell you we're also going to modify that for a similar request for a
special event permit for the Intellinet Golf Challenge in order to meet
the schedules for both of those, both Cinco De Mayo, which is a
volunteer project in Immokalee, and also the Intellinet Challenge.
Item 8(B)(2) is a status report on the Collier County beach
restoration project, and there's a --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Dotrill. Is there an 8(B)(1)?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe that should be 8(B)(1).
MR. DORRILL: And if that's the case, that's a typo. It will be
8(B)(1) under public works, the current report on the progress of the
county beach renourishment project.
8(E)(1) is a resolution declaring maximum permitted rates for
basic service and installation and equipment charges by Continental
Cablevision.
And the final add item is under the Board of County Commissioners,
which is a request and update on the status of the Lely Barefoot Beach
guardhouse.
I have one item that we would like to continue until your next
meeting which will be February the 6th. For the purposes of those at
home watching on TV, the board will be in a special workshop next week
and will not be in their normal meeting process, item 16(B)(3).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's 8(B)(1).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's 8(B)(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you were right the first time.
Commissioner Norris apologizes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How do you know?
MR. DORRILL: Adopt a resolution for the purposes of the
acceptance by gift, purchase, or condemnation certain non-exclusive
perpetual utility easements as they pertain to the county utilities
well field in Golden Gate.
The final item was shown is requested to be withdrawn, but I have
just received some updated information that we're going to leave that
on the consent agenda. For purposes of the record, I need to modify
the recommendation upon receipt of a letter from Jim Ward of the
Pelican Bay services division.
And with the review of the county attorney, we would like to leave
on item 16(B)(6), which is petition AB-95-012 to vacate portions of a
drainage easement for a certain parcel of land described in Section 33,
Township 48, and Range 25 east. And that will be approved but
conditionally upon the receipt of that letter and its review and
approval by the county attorney's office. And --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, is there any reason why we
can't put that on next week's agenda? Obviously approving this pending
material is -- would be -- I personally would prefer to do it after
receipt of everything that's required.
MR. DORRILL: We certainly can at your discretion. I will tell
you that as a matter of practice we will add or leave items on. There
are two other items on today for similar requests in order to
facilitate property closings.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: In this case that's my understanding. There's a
property closing that is scheduled. This is otherwise considered a
routine item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: I'm told that the letter is actually en route, and
that's why I said as long as the letter is received and reviewed by the
county attorney, it would normally be a consent item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fair enough.
MR. DORRILL: And that's all that I have, Mr. Norris.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask one question on the add-on item 10(C)
concerning Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse. Is this to be just a
report, or is it an action item? If it's an action item, I'm not sure
that it's appropriate to add it on. This is not an item that I
personally would consider a routine item.
MR. DORRILL: I had the opportunity to speak to Ms. Matthews
yesterday. It is her item, and it was at least my impression that she
is going to be seeking some action following the discussion concerning
the lack of progress to pursue this issue in front of the Code
Enforcement Board. But I'll certainly let her --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to hear it, Commissioner Norris,
if for no other reason than to get an update on what happened to our
December 19th deadline.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have no objection to hearing it. My concern
is if we're taking action without proper advertisement, then people
that are involved in the issue don't know that we're going to do that
today, and it's really not --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will -- I will say that it was my
intention to bring it -- add it to our next meeting, because I was
about 80 percent through the discussions that I wanted to make or
wanted to have. I think that certainly we can have a report, but if
we're going to direct code enforcement today, as I believe
Commissioner Matthews is hoping to do, I think that's something the
public should be notified about. And in this case there was no public
legal notification other than articles that the paper carried, which
probably does more than the little ads we place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I was going to say.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But there may be some concern
about not noticing properly actions of the board. I -- I don't know,
Mr. Weigel. I'm -- again, I -- today or next week is immaterial to
me, because I think we're going to have the same discussion, but --
but if there is some public notice benefit to having it next week,
that would be my preference as far as taking action today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we'll get a report, and we'll
make a decision about whether or not to take action after we hear the
report. How about that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have any
other changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the
agenda and consent agenda as amended.
(Commissioner Matthews entered the boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second, sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's his job. I never do
that. He always does that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
We have an agenda.
Item #4
MINUTES OF JANUARY 2, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We have minutes of January the 2nd.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the minutes of
the meeting on my birthday, January 2nd, 1996.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty-nine again. Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forty.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Your birthday.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. If
your birthday is January the 2nd, that makes you 18 days older than me
then.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 21-27, 1996, AS BOY SCOUTS
OF AMERICA WEEK - ADOPTED
And proclamations, Commissioner Matthews, I believe this
is yours.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is Mary Ann Lorenz (phonetic)
and Don Johnson -- are they here? Do you want to come forward while I
read this? Come -- keep -- keep coming. Come on. We want to see
what you look like.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Face the cameras.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How are you doing this morning?
Turn around and face the cameras so the people in the audience can see
you.
Proclamation: Whereas, the mission of the Boy Scouts of
America is to serve others by helping to instill values in young
people and in other ways, to prepare them to make ethical choices over
their lifetime in achieving their full potential; and
Whereas, the values that the Boy Scout program strives
to instill are based on those found in the Scout oath and law; and
Whereas, the Boy Scout program has served every
generation of American youth since 1910 and stands prepared to face
the most critical challenges of today; and
Whereas, the Boy Scout program touches the lives of some
fourteen hundred youth annually in Collier County with the volunteer
assistance of nearly 400 adults; and
Whereas, the Alligator District, Collier County, of the
Southwest Florida Council of the Boy Scouts of America is this night
honoring many of those dedicated volunteers during the annual district
recognition dinner.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January
21st through 27, 1996, be designated as Boy Scouts of America Week.
Done and order this 23rd day of January, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
Chairman.
I'd like to move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
accept this proclamation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.
(Applause)
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do you want to tell us a little
bit about the recognition dinner tonight and the types of dates and so
forth that might --
MR. JOHNSON: Well, our dinner tonight --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sir, the microphone is over
there. It has to be on the record.
MR. JOHNSON: I'm not used to this. I'm more
comfortable in the woods.
I'm Don Johnson, and I'm the chairman of the Alligator
District of the Boy Scouts for southwest Florida. This evening we
honor those adult volunteers who have given so much of their time and
resources and talents in helping us make the program of scouting
available to these youth in Collier County all the way from Immokalee
to Everglades City to Marco Island and, of course, greater Naples area
as well.
We're quite proud of these young people, and we know
that all of our youth are born good, and it's up to us to help keep
them good all the way through. So we try to be one of many groups
that provides that environment for youth that will enhance their
knowledge of what life's all about. Thank you so very much for your
recognition. We appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We appreciate your
efforts.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's great.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Service awards, Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is my pleasure this morning to
recognize three employees with service awards as soon as I can find
them. There they are.
First for five years working in wastewater is Shelly
Williams. Hiss Williams.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She'd rather be at work than
here, of course.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's where she's going right
now.
CONNISSIONER HANCOCK: Also for five years in pollution
is Walter D. Temple, Junior. Mr. Temple.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And now recognizing for ten years
in natural resources, Mac Hatchet.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's tough to recognize him
unless he's knee deep in mangroves.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: At this time I'd like to just take a
short opportunity to -- to address a little problem that has been
going on for a couple of weeks. There was a code enforcement action
taken against a local restaurant and bar because they were flying a
Green Bay Packer flag, and this was causing severe disruption between
the communities of -- of Naples and Collier County and Green Bay. So
I -- in order to -- to smooth the relations between our two
communities and to ensure that there was no further degradation --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ahh, the dignity of the office.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The dignity of the office, I shipped
the mayor of Green Bay a crate of oranges, actually honeybell
tangelos, which I'm sure they'll enjoy, and requested that he send me
a Green Bay Packer cheesehead hat on the condition that I have to wear
it during a county commission meeting. So in order to ensure that
relations between our two communities do not deteriorate and, in fact,
improve to their former status, I'm going to wear the hat during our
county commission meeting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that all day?
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I may have got up on a roof, but
I wouldn't be caught wearing that thing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, are you going to
wear that all day?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I didn't say I'd wear it all day.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just at a commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I said I would wear it during a county
commission meeting. I think this qualifies.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait a minute. He didn't quite
get a press release.
MR. DORRILL: WBBH is scrambling at an opportunity that
he would otherwise miss.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If a cameraman were ready to
scramble, this is it.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We ought to act like we're doing
something for the camera; right?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The truth is in all of this '-
I'd like, you know, to mention last week Ed Hesser, the owner of the
Sports Page, did a terrific job and really commending our code
enforcement staff and everything. They just had a job to do. He was
such a sport about it. And they pretty much allowed things like this
and some of the other things we've done to occur, so he'll take a bad
situation and turn it good. And I think of no one better than you
wearing a cheesehead, Commissioner Norris.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. On with the meeting then.
MR. DORRILL: We did invoice Mr. Hesser and the Sports
Page bar $15,000 worth of free publicity we gave him. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sure we did.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's all it was worth? Ahh.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought it was worth more than
that.
Item #SA1
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY
COHMITTEE'S 1995 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS -
ACCEPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Item 8(A)(1) is a presentation of the
Collier County development services advisory committee's 1995 annual
report.
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, good morning. For the
record, Vince Cautero, community development and environmental
services administrator. Mr. Thomas Peek, your chairman of the
development services advisory committee, could not be with us this
morning. He had a medical appointment. He asked me if I would make a
brief presentation to you.
As you'll see in the executive summary, the report is
fairly self-explanatory. The committee had a very good year and I
feel a productive year with staff working on some various items
including budget and finance items, which resulted in a 15 percent fee
reduction of most of our development permit fees, and they were very
active working with staff on the integrated computer system. You
should be seeing a contract proposal for the county in the next few
weeks from the information technology department on that.
In addition, several areas of the Land Development Code
were amended based on recommendations from the committee including an
overhaul of our parking standards as well as looking at some criteria
for residential lot clearing criteria.
Additionally, as the board is aware, late in 1995 the
board expanded the committee to include three new classifications and
four new members, and two current members were reappointed to the
committee.
There's a lot on their plate for 1996, and you'll be
hearing more about them. And the staff and the committee, which
unanimously adopted this report at their last meeting, request that
you acknowledge the report and accept it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions on the report?
If there's no question -- do we have public speakers on
this item, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that
we need to have a motion, but I think the report is in line with what
we've heard that was going to be taking place.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you would like, why don't you make
a motion to accept the report.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I make a motion that we accept
the report then.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
accept this report. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
We have our report.
Item #8A2
APPEAL OF LIEN RESOLUTION 95-673; OWNER OF RECORD - NOREEN CONNOR -
DENIED
Item 8(A)(2) is an appeal of a lien resolution.
MR. DORRILL: Hang on one second, ma'am. Go ahead,
Lynn. She'll introduce it; then you'll have an opportunity --
MS. SULLIVAN: For the record, Linda Sullivan, code
enforcement director. This is an abatement case that's been going on
since March of 1994, and the lien was filed in December of 1995.
There was much activity that went on between the negotiations and --
and communications back and forth, and the staff really has no
recommendation on this matter. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Noreen Connor, go right ahead.
MS. CONNOR: My name is Noreen Connor. I received a
notice in Hay of 1994 about removal of trees on my property. And I
answered this letter that I needed an extension of time, that I could
not financially afford to have it done. I was -- I'm unemployed. I
just -- I didn't know about the law that had been brought in that the
trees couldn't remain on the property. I explained all this in my
letter.
The request was -- it wasn't answered at all. The trees
were just removed without my knowledge of this happening. And then I
was sent a bill on this property, and there was also a $200
administration fee, which I told -- I was told before -- I was told a
year ago it was going to be removed. And when I -- I talked to -- I
talked to a couple of gentlemen up on Horseshoe that -- that this lien
was put on there, and the trees were removed, and I should have had
more time to do this on my own instead of the county going ahead and
doing it. But I -- I should have been notified, or I should have an
answer to my letter. I was never notified of this, that it was going
to happen.
MS. SULLIVAN: If I might, the abatement date, she was
-- the violation was noticed in Hay, and the abatement date was June
21st. We received her letter on July the 8th, and that's why we went
ahead and bid out the contract for work.
Then again on August 24th we had offered her a 90-day
extension and some -- and a payment plan, and then the lien wasn't
filed until, like I said, December 12th of 1995. I guess what I'm
trying to say is we got her letter after the abatement date was over,
and the process had already been bid out.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just wanted to ask Mrs.
Sullivan, does our records show that we notify her?
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, ma'am, I have a green card.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Return receipts --
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- so that she was properly
notified of what the requirements were and that if she failed to do
this we were going to take action? MS. SULLIVAN: That's right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have a question, ma'am?
MS. CONNOR: They received my letter on July 8th. And
the bid, it's saying on here, it wasn't done until July llth.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But, ma'am, the question was you
received a certified mail piece, okay, that -- that explained the time
frame in which you had to respond to the complaint.
Miss Sullivan, am I correct then that she did not
respond within that time frame?
MS. SULLIVAN: That's correct, and the certified receipt
is June 6th, and the abatement date was June 21st.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the gist of Commissioner
Matthews' question was that you received a notice of action with a
time frame clearly stated in it, and your response was after that time
frame.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much time was afforded for
her to respond in the certified letter? I'm sure it's -- I just don't
know what the ordinance requires.
MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. She signed for it on June 6th, and
the abatement date was June 21st.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there were a couple weeks in
there that -- that the county -- I wonder if the letter is clear.
Does it say things like abatement date? I doubt everybody would know
what abatement is.
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, ma'am. It was mailed out on Hay
31st, but for some reason she didn't sign for it until June 6th.
There would have been three weeks or more.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, when you got that letter,
did you understand that it was telling you if you don't do this the
county is going to do it and charge you for it?
MS. CONNOR: Yes, I did. But I -- I returned the letter
saying that I was unable to do it, and my -- you know, I need an
extension of time in order to have this done, and my request was just
gone unanswered. I was waiting for an answer to the -- that letter.
I never received it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But -- but it took you a month
to respond. I guess that's the problem. And the abatement date was
only two weeks, but you took a month.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know what the abatement date
is, when they determine the abatement date? They keep talking about
the abatement date. Do you know what they're talking about when they
say that?
MS. CONNOR: Well, they say June -- they wanted it done
by June 21st, which was giving me two weeks to have it done, have the
work done.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But what we're concerned with here is
-- is putting a lien on the property, is that right, Hiss Sullivan?
HS. SULLIVAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're not demanding payment at this --
HS. SULLIVAN: No, not at this moment. The lien was
filed in December of 1995.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You understand that that just
means that before you sell the property or get a mortgage, it will
have to be paid. Interest will be accruing because the county has
spent this money to clear the lot. The way it's supposed to work is
that the county gives you the option. You can clear the lot, or if
you don't do it by the deadline, then the county will do it. And
since we've spent taxpayers' monies to clear your lot, we have to
charge you interest for that. We file a lien on your property, and
then if -- when you go to sell the property or finance the property,
it will have to be paid then, but you can wait until then if you're
willing to allow the interest to accrue between now and then.
Am I right about that, Miss Sullivan? Have I said
anything --
HS. SULLIVAN: That's correct. I might add that we made
an attempt to contact her by phone on July 7th. We had no address, no
phone number at that time except from what we had on the certified
receipt that we haven't heard back from them.
MS. CONNOR: Well, they did have my address. I did
receive the first letter. They could have returned the letter by
mail.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me just understand. You're
asking for this entire lien of $890 plus the $200 administrative fee
to be removed and forgotten? Is that what you're asking for today?
MS. CONNOR: I just feel as if it isn't fair to me to
put all of this extra financial burden on me when I'm unemployed. I
can't pay this at this time. I couldn't pay it at the time it
happened.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You requested a 90-day
extension.
HS. CONNOR: No, I never request --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You -- then you requested an
extension ad infinitum? I mean --
HS. CONNOR: When I wrote the letter, I just told them
that I couldn't have it done at the time. I was unemployed. I was
waiting for a return answer, and then I found out that -- someone
called me and said --
CHAI~ NORRIS: Where is this lot?
MS. CONNOR: It's on Marco Island.
CHAI~ NORRIS: It's on Marco Island. Okay, what --
what we're saying is going to happen here today is that there -- the
lien is on your property. It's going to stay on your property. You
don't have to pay that today. You don't have to pay it next week or
next month or next year, but you will have to pay it before you can
get clear title, which means if you're going to sell it or mortgage
it, you will need to pay that. So what we're doing, in effect, gives
you really a pretty much unlimited time frame to pay that off if you
choose or the choice, the option, of just simply waiting until you
change titles.
MS. CONNOR: There's also a $200 administration fee. I
told --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct, because we have
expended staff time and administratively --
MS. CONNOR: Well, I was told that was going to be --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me?
MS. CONNOR: I was told that was going to be removed a
year ago.
MS. SULLIVAN: We had made her an offer, it looks like,
on March the 24th of 1995, that we would be willing to waive the
administration fee if she wanted to work out a payment plan. So staff
wouldn't have any -- you know, real problem with doing that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as a payment plan is
worked out. However, if the lien continues on the property, the
admission fee is going to continue; is that -- MS. SULLIVAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There does not seem to be any unusual
circumstances here. What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's just not fair for the county
taxpayers to do this for your property and not charge you for it,
sorry as I am that you can't repay it. The good news is that the
county did your work for you, and now when you sell this lot, you'll
eventually have to pay for the work that the county did on your
behalf.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I will say, Miss Connor, to
avoid this -- and I have this problem in -- in several neighborhoods,
and people get notice, and I get phone calls. And the only way to
avoid this is to have the lot mowed on a regular basis to avoid the
buildup of growth of exotics. Vacant lots need to be maintained.
They can't be left to grow at will. These exotics will reestablish if
it's not taken care of, and you will probably get another violation if
they reestablish themselves. So at periodic intervals the lot needs
to be mowed to avoid a lump payment like this again in the future.
But on this -- on this case I'm going to make a motion to deny the
appeal.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Appeal is denied.
Item #8A3
FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR THE BREAKWATER AT PELICAN BAY - APPROVED AND
LETTER OF CREDIT ACCEPTED
Item 8(A)(3) concerning the acceptance of Breakwater at
Pelican Bay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is this just a regular
acceptance that would normally be on the consent agenda?
MR. DORRILL: It is, and it meets all of the
requirements as I indicated earlier.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #8A4
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF WILD CAT COVE - APPROVED
Item 8(A)(4) is acceptance of the plat at Wildcat Cove.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there anything unusual, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just comment on those? It
seems to me, you know, we have our agenda where we only do public
hearings every other time, and then on fifth Tuesdays we don't take
any actual action. We do workshops. Is there any reason why these
kind of consent agenda items that are land-use related couldn't appear
on every week's consent agenda, because we do slow down people's
inability to close on their property and move forward in the
development of property? Is there a reason for that?
MR. DORRILL: We're not opposed to that at all. We're
working under board direction to try and concentrate one agenda from
one Tuesday being public hearing land-use items, and then the next
Tuesday is supposed to be more intensive. But if you want to give me
a little discretion to be able to do that, I'm not opposed to that at
all.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with it.
The only possibility is that if it's on the consent agenda, it can be
pulled and placed on the regular agenda. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I don't think these types of
issues are really that controversial.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Especially with this fifth
Tuesday, really this would cost somebody three weeks if they didn't
get on today. You know, that's a significant delay in the real world.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with
giving that direction.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. There's two votes for
that, Mr. Dotrill.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, there's three.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Anything to make the agenda
simpler and more concise.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Thank you.
Item #8A5
CARNIVAL PERMIT 96-1 REQUESTING A WAIVER OF PERMIT FEE FOR THE CINCO DE
MAYO EVENT TO BE HELD JANUARY 27, 1996 - APPROVED AND FEES WAIVED.
FEES ALSO WAIVED FOR THE UPCOMING INTELLINET CHALLENGE
Item 8(A)(5) is concerning a permit waiver for the Cinco
De Mayo.
MR. HULHERE: Good morning, Bob Hulhere, current
planning manager. This is a request to waive the permit fee for a
circus on January the 27th in Immokalee.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Mulhere, this is the same
permit that we've waived for the last --
MR. HULHERE: That's correct. I think maybe there was
somebody here handling it, and they were unaware of the requirement.
Therefore --
MR. DORRILL: The purpose of this event are for
community scholarships, and likewise we need to make or incorporate a
similar request for the Intellinet Challenge as it pertains to local
charities that benefit from proceeds of the tournament.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seventy-five dollar fee?
MR. DORRILL: I think so.
MR. HULHERE: Seventy-five -- two hundred dollar fee
waiver for the Cinco De Mayo application, and it's a hundred and
twenty-five for the right-of-way permit for the Intellinet Challenge.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
approve both.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve permit waivers. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
MR. DORRILL: We need to process budget amendments,
because we don't actually waive fees. We transfer funds.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION CERTAIN
NON-EXCLUSIVE PERPETUAL UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTORING
AND REPLACING WATER WELLS AND RELATED FACILITIES IN THE GOLDEN GATE
WELLFIELD - CONTINUED TO FEBRARY 6, 1996
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(B)(1) is the former 16(B)(3). Hr.
Gonzalez, are you going to handle this one for us?
MR. GONZALEZ: For the record, sir, that item was
pulled, the one regarding the resolution, and continued to February 6,
16(B)(3).
MR. DORRILL: This is the beach renourishment item that
was shown as 8(B)(2) but has become 8(B)(1).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So let's have the beach item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(B)(1) is the former 16(B)(3) that
has been pulled off?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who pulled it off, and what was the
purpose?
MR. DORRILL: The request was to continue that item, Mr.
Chairman. 16(B)(3) was the resolution for the easements for the
county well field. That's continued until February the 6th.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
Item #882
STATUS REPORT ON THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT -
PRESENTED; STAFF DIRECTED TO INVESTIGATE ITEMS AND REPORT BACK
MR. DORRILL: The item that was an add-on item that was
shown perhaps incorrectly, 8(B)(2), is, in fact, 8(B)(1), and it is
the update on the beach renourishment project. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we are continuing 16(B)(3)?
MR. DORRILL: Until February the 6th.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So we'll go to 8(B)(2) which is
a beach renourishment item.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Adolfo Gonzalez with your
office of capital projects management. What we would like to do today
is give you a status report on the beach renourishment project. A
week and a half ago we finished the Vanderbilt Beach segment of the
project. Last week we started the Naples Beach segment of the
project. As the contractor started placing fill on the Naples
section, we noticed that there was some unacceptable material being
excavated out of one of the main borrow areas. Essentially rocks
anywhere from a golf ball size to a softball size were encountered in
that area.
To give you a little more history back on the Vanderbilt
Beach segment, we were required to do a double layer placement of the
material to get the bad stuff on the bottom, the good stuff on the
top. After reviewing the possibility of not having the full amount of
clean, fine, acceptable sand material available at the remaining
borrow sources, we may have to do a double layer approach also for the
Naples Beach to, again, insure that we have the high-quality sand
material on the top.
What we're asking you to do today really is to give us
the flexibility of -- of using as many good weather days as possible
remaining within this -- this period before the environmental window
starts before we can't place sand anymore on the beach. By doing that
where -- we'd like to direct the contractor to start the double
layering method until we know for sure the extent of the unacceptable
material.
There is one additional borrow source we have not
started dredging from. We think it's got good material, but we're
going to do some additional analysis to see if it is. We need some
calm seas to get a clam shell bucket over to that area to determine if
it's got a good, clean sand material. If it does, we will be able to
minimize the double layer cake on the Naples section, but it will be
at an increased cost to the contract regardless.
I think we can minimize the contract cost by reducing
some of the -- the fill volume to be placed on the beach and still be
within our -- our contract has -- gives us the ability of placing
anywhere from 80 percent to 120 percent of the volume, and it's
without a change in the contract price. And we're going to take
advantage of that, because we're not sure if there's enough material
as was originally planned for that.
In addition to that, we have several other changes that
-- that have become necessary since the contract was awarded. Some
of them have to do with differing site conditions. Some of them have
to do with additional permit conditions that were not anticipated at
the time the contract was awarded.
Dr. Stephen is here if you have any questions regarding
any technical matter. Our recommendation is to give us the
flexibility of having the contractor be as productive as possible
during the good weather days until we determine the extent of the
unacceptable material, then come back to you and tell you, okay, this
is the worst-case scenario, this is the best-case scenario. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This morning's news article was
"First Sign the Honeymoon's Over." My office, I've received -- all
but one phone call's been extremely positive on the beach
renourishment, and that one phone call was advocating the Parker web
system, so I'm going to set that aside. But my concern when we start
talking about this lower layer -- and help walk me through this if you
would, please. Obviously if the beach erodes, this lower layer can
become exposed. Is the lower layer designed at a point that the
maintenance plan that has been established would replace that upper
layer as it erodes without getting to, I guess, a shelly strata being
shown? Does a maintenance plan address that to make sure we don't
have what is in front of the Ritz today occurring throughout the beach
after -- after, you know, two to three years from now?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, it does. And to give you a little
more information about what occurred on the Ritz, unfortunately as we
were finishing the Vanderbilt Beach segment, we hit some of that rocky
material. By the time the contractor had taken it out of the borrow
area, it had to go somewhere.
Now, we have not paid the contractor for that segment
within the Ritz frontage because it's not acceptable. It doesn't meet
our specifications. The contractor is willing to remove the larger
rock fragments. We're working very closely with the Ritz's general
manager to coordinate his activities with the tourists, the guests of
the Ritz hotel, so that we don't inconvenience them to a great
extent. So that is -- what you see on the Ritz right now is -- it is
halfway through the project. We still have to clean that up, and
we're looking at different methods of cleaning it up.
But regarding your question as to what happens if we
leave it certain elevation below will it pop up two to three years
from now. It should not. It should -- the maintenance period should
still be the same. Our original contract or design life was eight to
ten years before we needed to do some maintenance renourishment. It's
possible that we're now down to seven to nine years if we do this
double layering. But apparently from our initial observations at the
Vanderbilt section, that double layering is actually making the beach
more stable, because it acts more as an armoring below a certain
elevation, so we may actually have an extended life before we have to
go back and renourish for maintenance purposes. We will have to
increase the amount of manicuring on the beach for the next few years
to make sure that occasionally we rake out and till out the larger
rock fragments. That's a possibility that we will have to take for
the next few years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You hit on the Ritz, which
was my second question. Obviously this is the height of tourist
season. I think they just got their fifth star for the eighth or
ninth year in the row, and they have a pretty significant investment
there. So I'm glad to hear that's moving along the lines that -- I'm
sure if it fails, I'll be hearing from them.
But I read something this morning that I thought was
curious. We can take it off the bottom. If we think it's unsuitable,
we can't put it back. Our permits don't allow us to redeposit
material that we draw -- that we dredge up? I mean, you dredge it up,
it's got huge rocks, and we have to put it on the beach? I mean, is
that -- is that what the permit implies?
MR. GONZALEZ: I'm not sure if the permit allows us to
throw it back into the sea somewhere, but the problem is that we need
a certain amount of volume to have a consistent beach with. So if we
still put it somewhere in the system, it will benefit the beach system
long term. The sand will ultimately migrate either south or north
depending on storms, and it stays within the beach system, which is to
our advantage, and hopefully the larger fragments will settle down.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I remember Dr. Stephen
telling us about that there are -- there are certain things we don't
have to pay for the quality. Maybe if you would come up. I'm going
to have some questions, too, for you, Dr. Stephen, if you could.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just think those discussions of
not having to pay for it, I never imagined --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that we had to keep it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that we had to keep it. I
don't know where I thought we'd put it but --
DR. STEPHEN: Good morning. For the record my name is
Michael Stephen. And I am not happy to be here with this -- with this
issue in this circumstance, but I think that these are the kinds of
things that the whole reason why we have differing site conditions
sections in the contract.
The -- really what happens, when the contractor loads a
barge offshore, he physically doesn't have any way to unload it.
Those barges are completely sealed up, welded shut so that we don't
have leakage in the transport process. And so the only way he can get
it out is to pump it up onto the beach, and I think that's what he was
referring to. I did not talk to him specifically about it, but I read
the newspaper article.
Once it's on the beach, it is definitely deemed
unacceptable material in its present location and, thus, as Adolfo
indicated, there are a number of steps that are being undertaken.
They're -- we're trying to work very, very closely with the Ritz. I
was out there with them yesterday working to meet with some of the
people that they're coming in as they -- in fact, we accompanied a
writer who was at the Ritz up to the middle of the beach at
Vanderbilt. And this person was -- exclaimed about the quality and
the magnitude of the project, and I think that once they got up onto
the main part of the fill and they came back, it helped put the
problem at the Ritz a little bit into perspective with respect to the
overall magnitude of the project. Nonetheless, it is of total
magnitude to the Ritz specifically.
So the contractor has a piece of equipment on site
that's to be there this afternoon that will start to -- we'll do a
test section and see how that performs. We have -- we have several
alternate sources of good material that have been -- all we need is a
brief letter to DEP if we want to -- if we can't rake it up, we'll get
surface material on there. Remains -- even if we have to go that far,
it remains to be seen exactly how the costs will be distributed.
There may be an additional cost because it was unspecified material.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have to keep the material if
we don't like it? What happens to it once we -- I mean, I understand
that there's a portion that -- and the armoring stuff makes sense that
the layering will use a portion of it, but at what point will we
decide no more from that site, and what -- how does it physically get
moved from the beach at the Ritz if it's going to be used as an
underlayment down farther south?
DR. STEPHEN: Well, they would loosen -- we still have
work area within which we have the ability to loosen with a big
three-pronged tilling rake that is pulled behind a bulldozer and goes
down a depth of about 36 inches. The beach is still very much under
construction. In fact, that kind of tilling has to take place up and
down the entire length of the Vanderbilt fill. We also have to have
sea oats planted, irrigation put in.
So from the contractor's standpoint, he has the
opportunity to have a bulldozer in there worst case to push that
material out onto the toe of the fill underwater and then come back;
he can rake it. And if it's cleaned up and is satisfactory, then we
don't have that -- have that disposal problem or if we pile it up, put
it in a truck and haul it out to the landfill.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because if it's -- it sounds like
what the worst case there is we kind of push it off into the edge of
the water. But if it's too rocky we don't want to do that, because
kids are swimming around there. DR. STEPHEN: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So if it's unsuitable for that
purpose, you put it in trucks and take it off. DR. STEPHEN: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And how many days do you guess we
will -- it will take before we know whether or not we're going to
leave that borrow site?
DR. STEPHEN: The -- we have been waiting for the
weather to calm down just a little bit to -- the contractor is going
to send a clam shell into the borrow area C to take some samples. So
hopefully within the -- within the week we will have more specific
information and be able to refine a plan.
You know, part -- our question -- and with notice to
you, we're to keep you informed and to help you make decisions. It
really -- it's sort of a policy issue in terms of whether you want to
try and hold the line on the budget and cause our work with the
contractor and the design to reduce the width of the beach and go with
exclusively clean fill or hold the -- the design width as much as
possible and negotiate with doing additional work and attempt the
layering. So --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When will we be needing to make
those kinds of decisions?
DR. STEPHEN: Well, we have already received one -- we
sent a plan, a draft, to the contractor. They've sent one back to
us. We have edited that, and we're preparing a response today. We
will be -- we also have completed a biologic survey of an access
corridor in the vicinity of the beach club that will expedite and make
the pumping easier. It shortens the pumping distance. We'll get that
up to the DEP. Hopefully within the next week or two we would hear
enough to be able to finalize a plan, gain acceptance and a price
finalization from the contractor and get that back to you. But it
could take a little longer depending on --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So am I -- am I hearing that you
already know that we're going to have to make a choice about whether
or not to spend more money for the quality of beach at the width we
had expected? Do you already know that?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
DR. STEPHEN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I mean, it's better to
give us notice and let us be thinking about it.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from
public works division. Let me just add some perspective. First of
all, the material, the rocky material that we found, is about between
5 and 25 percent by volume. They found it in a couple of different
areas. It's -- minus 30 feet is a layer of it. What we want to do is
provide the people in this community with the best beach we can, the
most width we can. And we think the dual layer approach is the best
way to accomplish that in that we put the material that has 5 to 25
percent by volume of rock down into the water and then cover it with 3
or 4 feet of good, fine sand. There's still plenty of good, fine sand
out there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But is that what we've done so
far at Vanderbilt, or is that --
MR. CONRECODE: No, that's what we did at Vanderbilt.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: And we've had a very successful
project. It was a slightly different material that was used at
Vanderbilt than it is that's being used at Naples beach. But we think
with this discovery that the best solution is the one we're bringing
to you today. And what we're asking today is for you to allow us
during this next two- to three-week period, where we work on the
details and discover the extent of the rock, some permission to
administer the contract, because we've got a very tight window. And
if we just ignore the next two weeks and stop working, we're going to
lose an opportunity to put -- place a lot of beach fill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in the next two weeks, you
aren't -- I wouldn't want you to make the decision that Dr. Stephen
just posed about do we have nattower lovely beach or wider, less than
perfect sand. That's not the decision you're asking us to give you
the discretion to make, is it?
MR. CONRECODE: Well, for all intents and purposes,
yes. I'm asking you to allow me -- we've weighed -- we've laid out
about four different options in terms of what we can do with the
beach. And the reason this came to you today as an add-on is because
I didn't think we could wait two more weeks. So I wanted you to give
myself and Adolfo some leeway in administering this contract to go
ahead and place some of this material and cap it with 3 to 4 feet of
good, solid sand. This still has that same good, fine sand in it, but
it has rock chunks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Tom, why if -- that sounds
acceptable to me. What you're proposing is let us use this less --
this imperfect sand as a foundation for what we promise will be more
nice sand to go on top, that's fine. But what you're saying today is
and if you do that you have made -- you've also deferred to us the
choice on are we going to widen -- are we going to have it as wide as
we want -- as we originally planned, or is it going to have to be
nattower? Are we making that --
MR. DORRILL: Our desire -- let me see if I can help put
this in the proper context. Our desire is to have as wide a beach as
possible with the very best available material. In order to put this
in the context -- let's -- let's look at Vanderbilt Beach as an
example. How many total cubic yards were placed along Vanderbilt
Beach?
MR. CONRECODE: About 330,000 cubic yards.
MR. DORRILL: Of the 330,000 yards what fraction at the
very southern end was or has been determined to be absolutely
unacceptable in front of the Ritz-Carlton?
DR. STEPHEN: Approximately 10,000 yards in the first
estimate.
MR. DORRILL: That helps put this in the proper
context. Now, I will tell you when I was advised of this last week --
and I've already been to Vanderbilt. We have now restaged to Fifth
Avenue South, and we're working in the city, and they've begun at
Fifth Avenue South and will work south past the pier and down to the
southern end of the project. And then the final phase will be to go
up and do what I call the Park Shore phase. And I will tell you that
when I went to Fifth Avenue South last week, that material that is
there appears as good or from my --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. DORRILL: -- layman's perspective better than some
of the material at Vanderbilt Beach. And so I don't want the headline
tomorrow to be, you know, that suddenly we've struck rock. Of 330,000
cubic yards we found 10,000 yards of material that we don't think is
acceptable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And all of that makes sense.
I've heard one thing that's got me concerned, and I must not be
articulating it well. I heard Dr. Stephen say that you may have to
come back to us with contract amendments and that we may have to
decide if we're going to build the beach as wide as we contracted to
build it.
MR. CONRECODE: I can answer that.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: I will tell you that because of the
discovery of some of this rock material it's going to cost more money
to do the project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's going to cost more money to
build it as wide as we originally contracted? MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And so you're going to give us a
choice later. We're not making that choice today?
MR. CONRECODE: What I want to do is give you the choice
in steps. I don't want to lose this next two weeks -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: -- while we're trying to discover the
extent of the rock. So we want to build -- the beach was designed at
X. We're going to build it at X wide, so we do not want to sacrifice
any of that. But if you come back and say absolutely we don't want to
spend another penny on this project, then we're going to say, okay,
then the beach has to be nattower, and that's what Dr. Stephen --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I want you to go forward and
use the good weather days and want you to layer the sand the way we
were talking about. I just don't want you to decide outside of a
public hearing whether or not we are adjusting the width of the
beach.
MR. DORRILL: No, we don't have the authority to do
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CONRECODE: But what we do want you to do is allow
us -- your purchasing policy limits us to $50,000 worth of change
order, and we'd use up that $50,000 in probably a day, so we're asking
you in this particular case $400,000 to allow us to do some dual lift
while we try to discover the extent of the rock.
MR. DORRILL: As necessary because we may -- we may
continue to find that the material is perfectly acceptable, and we may
come back two weeks from now and say we spent $175,000 or, you know,
we spent $375,000. We need a little bit of latitude in order to
maintain the width of the beach with the quality of sand that we
expect to -- to be there. And what's the contingency for this
project; 4 million dollars?
MR. CONRECODE: Yeah, from what was originally estimated
for construction, we still have 4 million dollars we're under the
original estimate.
MR. DORRILL: And I think Mr. Conrecode's point to you
is the work done and the work done by Mr. Gonzalez is let's don't get
cheap here for two weeks until we can see the board again. We've got
an adequate contingency, and give the staff the authority with the
engineer's approval to use two lifts as necessary to maintain the
width that we want and assuming that the sand is -- is there and in
the quality that we want it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last question, and I'll promise
to stop. If there were some -- some reason -- because, again, the
workshop stuff worries me on the scheduling. I guess it's a Mr.
Weigel question. If there were some reason why we needed to make a
decision next week, is it possible to do some sort of advertising or
just -- just investigate that, I guess, is all I'm saying? MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want the two-week delay
because of a workshop to cost us any more money or --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we're going to give that
direction today. I think we're going to give interim direction
today.
MR. DORRILL: I've also asked the staff to provide me
with some additional documentation on items 3, 4, and 5 on page 2 of
the executive summary. And so if we would modify our recommendation
to allow me to approve those subject to the additional documentation
that I would like to see in our -- in our haste to bring the big issue
to you this morning, they're trying to do some other housekeeping-type
work that is required as a result of special conditions as part of our
permits. And I'd like to see -- I don't -- I don't have any doubt
that it's there, but because it's not here this morning, I'd like the
opportunity to review that. The sum total of that's $140,000.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Conrecode brought out
the question that I wanted to bring out is that we are still 4 million
dollars under our early estimates of what this was going to cost so --
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- as we progress down this path
to a new beach we may find that there are extra costs that we're going
to -- we haven't done this before, and it's -- it's new. And with
that I'd like to make a motion that we approve the four
recommendations in our package, that is to approve the change order,
to approve the necessary budget amendments, to authorize the OCPH
director to execute the change order, and authorize additional change
order authority, and the fifth item Mr. Dotrill just asked for, that
he receive additional documents related to this and that we get on
with putting more sand on the beach. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question's on two items; on
the change orders, the outfall extensions at the mansion house and the
Naples Beach Club. All of the others apparently on the surface are
things, in essence, discovered as we move along the project. These
two, however, don't appear to fall under the same line as -- you know,
I'm just curious why in the engineering phase we -- we fell short of
the proper design on these two outfall locations.
MR. DORRILL: That's the documentation that I have asked
to see --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- in addition to the DEP's additional
turbidity monitoring requirement at $40,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for giving us what we
asked for, but we want something else now?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, after I've had a chance to review
that, I'll be happy to share it with you, because I think we need a
little better documentation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'd like to see
justification on those. Again, I -- if -- I believe the motion maker
-- did you include Mr. Dorrill's --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It includes that, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. With that, the only other
statement I have is it's important to understand that we don't have a
crisis here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a short section of beach
that needs to be reworked, and the rest of it is proceeding as well as
can be expected. And I think that's probably the most important thing
to come out of this today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have a hiccup. We don't have
a crisis. We have a hiccup. This is not unanticipated, so --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, hiccup. Those opposed?
It passes unanimously.
Item #8C1
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO OPERATE AND MAiNAGE
THE TENNIS FACILITY AT PELICAN BAY COHMUNITY PARK - STAFF DIRECTED TO
READVERTISE AND ISSUE AND RFP
And we're off to 8(C)(1). Hr. Brinkman.
MR. BRINKMAN: Good morning, Steve Brinkman, your parks
and recreation director. And we are bringing back for your
consideration -- as you're aware, we went out for bids on the Pelican
Bay tennis courts, and we did that so that we could provide
reservations for folks who were using those courts, provide
maintenance, provide some sort of supervision at that site, and also
to try to make sure that the youth were taken care of as far as having
some access to the courts at no charge. We had one responsive bidder,
and right now we have basically three options, and that is direct
staff to negotiate with the sole responsive bidder, consider an
eight-court operation and place the operation back out for bid, or
allow the parks and recreation department to operate the facility.
If the parks and recreation department would go ahead
and operate the facility, we feel that we would want to try to provide
an operation that would be a year-round operation from 8 in the
morning until 9:30 at night seven days per week. We would have a
reservation fee of $6 for an hour-and-15-minute period. We figure
that we could generate about $76,000 in revenue against costs that
would be 45,000 -- approximately 45,600 for staff and 20,000 for
maintenance which would leave about a $10,000 profit as opposed to the
contractor estimate of a seventy-five hundred dollar profit the first
year.
Under our operation we would also like to provide free
use for 17-and-under youth in the community for nonprimetime hours at
the tennis complex so that they would be able to use that at no
charge.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, I think we might
need to change the structure of the bid. If it's not profitable
enough that private enterprise should do it, it's probably not a good
idea that the county do it. So I think we may want to look more
seriously at going from four courts to six. I read the minutes of the
parks and rec advisory board when this item was discussed, and there
were some questions about the number of courts left for hourly
reservation, those left for public play.
I took a ride down there. There are no kids playing on
those courts. There is some serious tennis on those things, because
they are really the only public Har-Tru courts that are in the area.
So the idea of leaving four open to the general public that don't have
to be reserved is a great idea, but in truth they're being utilized by
some pretty serious tennis players on a daily basis.
So I read in the minutes that there might be the
possibility that a -- we'd get better or more responsive bids if we
went to maybe six courts for reservation instead of four. Is that a
fair assessment, Mr. Brinkman?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, the more -- in fact, actually most
of the people who were submitting bids on this would actually prefer
eight versus six.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, and probably for 12 if we
wanted to build 4 more. I guess I'm looking for the -- I still want
to maintain some open for non, you know, reservation play. I think
that's a good idea and one we need to hold. But these are expensive
courts to maintain, and any revenue we can produce to offset those
maintenance expenses are -- are worth looking at. And I guess rather
than -- than push ahead with the county stepping in and trying to do
it when private sector won't even touch it is a bad idea. So I'd
rather see us go to a new proposal of maybe six courts with -- if you
want to do an add option of eight, you know.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What -- why don't we -- or can
we do this, Mr. Brinkman, kind -- kind of put the project open for the
private sector to say what will work here? And if -- if we're seeing
now that 17-and-under youths are not using the courts anyway and --
and if the county were to operate it, it would be at $6 an hour,
period, one of the proposals that I listened to was something like $5
for the entire day from -- from the private sector, and they said they
could make it work. So they would get an hour and a half, I think, or
an hour of reserve time and then open play for whatever the balance of
the day would afford. And -- and perhaps the best way to do this,
since it's a beautiful facility and it's a shame to have it
underutilized and improperly used, just to kind of put the RFP out and
see what the private sector says is the best way to operate it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can guarantee you we're going
to get back eight courts. I mean --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah, uh-huh. But if -- if
we put a requirement in the RFP -- in the RFP that they address the
use in the area and, again, one of them I heard was a possible
scholarship fund to cover the $5 a day for 17-and-under players. So,
I mean, there's -- there's lots of ways that the private sector can
handle the problem and design a program that will function. Let's see
what they say.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Brinkman, how many Har-Tru courts
do we have on Marco Island at that facility?
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, actually we're -- we have two down
there in addition to three additional hard courts. We're going to be
building three additional clay courts at the Marco location.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aren't there four courts down
there, Har-Tru -- I mean four Har-Tru? I thought there were. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just two.
Any public speakers on this item, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion then
that we give direction to our staff to readvertise this and design the
RFP in such a way that we address minimum requirements to meet the
needs of the youth and -- but to otherwise provide a -- a program that
will generate adequate franchise fees to the county and also provide a
workable, well-run program for the courts.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- one -- I'm not a tennis
player. I don't know about these, you know, specialized courts and
all that kind of stuff. But didn't I hear what Commissioner Hancock
is saying was that these aren't courts that young people aren't using
anyway?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, they aren't, but if they
want to come, they can. And if they -- if there are young people in
the area who want to use the courts, I'm asking that the RFP be put
out to consider that fact and that we -- that we ask the private
sector to come up with -- with a method for allowing young people to
use the courts at virtually no cost.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're not worried about their
ability to make a reservation? They can do that. It's the cost
factor.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's the cost factor.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Young people are not -- this park
was built with impact fees, citizens' local tax dollars. So I have a
concern when we go to a complete reservation system on all courts,
that if there's no walk-on ability, someone who is either new to the
area or visiting or, you know, you can draw any number of scenarios,
it would appear as if the county park is catering to subscribers, and
I just want to make sure at a minimum level.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Isn't that what Marco Island is,
though?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we didn't build Marco
Island.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I know. But we're
operating it, and that's how we're operating it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that makes it acceptable
for you. For me it's not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm not saying it is. But
I'm saying that's what we're doing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I need -- you know,
however you want to put this -- I'll second the motion, but I'm not
going to support something that puts all eight courts on a
reservation, period. I'll just make that statement. Okay, so that's
where I stand on this. I'll support the motion to put this out to
bids and get a more responsive bid. But when it comes back, I want to
see some ability for walk-on play. Even though they're Har-Tru
courts, they're the only courts in the immediate area open to the
public. The closest ones other than that are Veteran's Park, and
those are all asphalt. So, you know, I would like to see some ability
for open play there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a -- it
has been seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #BE1
RESOLUTION 96-22 DECLARING THAT THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR BASIC
SERVICE AND INSTALLATION AND EQUIPMENT CHARGES BY CONTINENTAL
CABLEVISION FORMERLY COLONY CABLEVISION ARE REASONABLE - ADOPTED
8(E)(1) is a resolution concerning cable television.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners, Jean Gansel
from the budget office. The county had received a request from
Continental Cable for a rate change. All of the proper documentation
has been filed with the county. Staff has reviewed this and are
recommending the rate change that they have requested.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Going up or down?
MS. GANSEL: It went up 2 cents from $12.58 to $12.60
per month for basic service, which is the only portion of the
programming that the county regulates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a reason we have to do
this today as an add-on? I mean, I'd love to get to look at the
packet. I got it this morning.
MS. GANSEL: The reason is we have to approve the rate
before January 31st. We have been working closely with the FCC
because the forms are very complex. And because of the government
shutdown, we have had a lot of problems interacting with them. And we
didn't want to bring it forward until we had final resolution of some
of the issues that we had concerns about from the Federal
Communication Commission. So this is the reason we put it on at this
point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I haven't been here when
we've dealt with these cable issues yet, so this is not my shot at the
cable company to try to get their rates lower or talk about what their
service ought to be? This is just some sort of rubber stamp thing
we're doing here?
MS. GANSEL: We have reviewed the information that
they've provided, and based on what they're required to provide to us,
these rates are reasonable. We will be bringing back in about a
little over a year new contracts with the cable companies. And at
that point we would have an opportunity to look at all of the services
provided to renegotiate new contracts with some --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, what I'm being asked
to do today is just to say have they complied with their contract in
proving that the rate's reasonable? Is that what today's about?
MS. GANSEL: Exactly, and that it conforms with the FCC
rulings as to what information they need to provide to us, that this
has been provided and that the rate is reasonable.
MS. ASHTON: If you'd like me to comment for the record,
I'm Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. These rates will go into
effect January 31st whether or not you adopt this resolution. Staff
did take the time to review the rates and found them reasonable.
That's why the resolution is before you today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any public speakers on this item?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let the record reflect the lack
of enthusiasm on that aye.
Item #9A
REPORT TO THE BCC CONCERNING THE USE OF THE COUNTY'S DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE TO COLLECT THE ROYAL COVE SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - DOR
DIRECTED TO COLLECT ASSESSMENTS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 9(A), Mr. Weigel, you have a report on
revenues -- department of revenue, Royal Cove sewer assessments?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, and I'll be joined by Assistant County
Attorney Mike Pettit. He has the bulk of the report, and I'll
probably chime in from time to time. Thank you.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Pettit,
for the record, from the county attorney's office. Just to put this
in some historical context, we -- on December 19, 1995, you adopted a
resolution to proceed to collect the Royal Cove sewer assessment by
the uniform method through the tax collector. At that time the
department of revenue recommended that the board consider having that
collection made through the department of revenue by placement on the
utility bill, the water bill, to those properties. And the department
of revenue also presented some documentation that this would not only
reduce the overall cost of the assessment to the folks in Royal Cove,
but would also flatten out that shock that was going to occur with the
first few years of the assessment if it was done by the tax collector
on the tax bill.
The board asked us to report back about what we thought
about this method, and we've done some research. We've had
conversations with the department of revenue. First point is the
board under the special act that created the water and sewer district,
I believe, has the power to adopt an alternative method of collection
generally. So that's -- that does not seem to be a problem. The only
issue there is that we will need to have a public hearing because the
way that section reads, when you do any kind of a special assessment
and you provide for a levy and collection and so forth, it requires
that you publicize that just as if we were going to change our rates
for water and sewer services. And we believe that it would be
appropriate to do it that way and have a ten-day notice in the
newspaper and so on and so forth and also do it by ordinance, a
proposed ordinance, come back to the board with a proposed ordinance
outlining the method of collection.
Now, a couple other issues were lurking out there. We
had already contracted with the tax collector and the property
appraiser to do this. Our office has been in contact with them now,
and they say they have no objection if we decide to go this other
route. So that -- that problem's gone.
The only issue that remained then for us to look at was
the question of what happens if somebody doesn't pay. The department
of revenue suggested that we could shut off water bills as a
first-line method of collection, and then the fallback method would
obviously foreclosure on a lien on the property.
With respect to the shutoff, there is case law in
Florida that supports the shutting off of one utility to collect a
utility bill for another if those utilities are deemed to be
interlocking and have a logical relationship. And there's a Florida
Supreme Court case that says you can shut off water if somebody
doesn't pay their sewer bill because of the relationship between the
two types of service. I think that gives us a good analogy to support
the use of the shutoff mechanism here, but I want to place this caveat
on the record. It appears to be an issue of first impression in the
courts. The department of revenue's advised our office that other
jurisdictions have used this method. I haven't located any challenges
to it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What'd the supreme court say; you
can turn off water when people fail to pay sewer? Isn't that exactly
what we're doing here?
MR. PETTIT: It is and it isn't. It is in the sense
that -- that in that case we were talking about service. Here we're
talking about shutting off somebody's water to collect a special
assessment for payment for capital improvements or installation of a
sewer system.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. PETTIT: That's a fine distinction. I think that
the analogy is there to the supreme court case. One issue that --
that may be out there is the situation where we might have a customer
in Royal Cove who is not the property owner, and we've discussed that
issue with the department of revenue, and I think we would obviously
review that before we would resort to a -- to a shutoff in that
particular situation. I don't know that that situation exists out
there, but that -- I think that there is by analogy ability to do
that. As I said, though, it's not a -- it's not something a Court's
passed on.
Second issue, of course, would be foreclosure if it came
to that. The negative there simply is that that would eat up some
staff time, I guess, particularly for our office if we were involved
in foreclosure. And the board would be in the position of considering
whether they wanted to proceed with a foreclosure on a property to
collect a special assessment. So all in all it appears that this is a
viable method to proceed. And I think we're here today simply -- if
the board issues us to go that route, we'll work with the department
of revenue and also with public works to bring an ordinance back to
proceed in that fashion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's important here to
recognize -- and I'd first of all like to thank Mr. Pettit for his
work on this. We -- between he and the department of revenue, there's
really been an attempt to try and find a way to handle this situation
in the most painless manner. And I think the difference between this
and maybe MSTUs we've looked at in the past and in the future is that
this was not a community requesting a service. This was a community
that was, in essence, affected by a third party or an outside party.
The county's kind of been thrown into the position of remedying the
situation, fixing what's broken, even though we didn't cause it.
So I think we have a limited situation here of about 24
or 25 residences. We have a situation that is not a typical MSTU in
that it did not come from the residents themselves as much as did
another situation. I think with that being recognized, tailoring the
payment ability here or method of payment is -- is warranted. So I'll
-- I'll -- if the board has any other comments, fine, but I'm
prepared to make a motion to direct the department of revenue to
collect the Royal Cove sewer special assessments in accordance with
what Mr. Pettit has reviewed here today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Are
there any public speakers on this, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The property appraiser and tax
collector say they don't object, but are we going to get a bill from
them? Did they spend a lot of time on this?
MR. PETTIT: I'm going to be frank. I don't know how
much time they spent. I suspect it's very little, because it's my
understanding they didn't have to do much up to this point. There
might have been some work done by the property appraiser to identify
the properties out there at some point during the proceedings this
fall.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it's truly one of those that
nobody is objecting to?
MR. PETTIT: That's my understanding.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How pleasant.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I'll add that I spoke with
both the property appraiser and the tax collector personally in that
regard, and they were very cordial and flexible in regard to our
suggestion here. And, further, I would understand from the motion
then that you are, in effect, directing staff to bring back an
ordinance relatively promptly which would effectuate the direction of
the -- of the motion. And within that ordinance will -- will be
provided the type of payment that will be looked toward over a time.
And as an aside, Commissioner Mac'Kie had provided to me
-- had mentioned to this board and provided me with some history
about the City of Naples and some plans that they had used to pay back
on -- for payment on projects. And I had called Dr. Woodruff who put
me in contact with Dick Gatti, the city engineer, and Bill Harris,
their finance director, who both told me that for Avalon Park, Big
Cypress, and Seagate projects, they did, in fact, use reserve funds to
-- for the city to finance projects out of their reserve enterprise
funds allowing flexibility for payback in some -- the people that were
affected, responsible for the -- for the benefit or capital
improvement to their property, add a range of options from immediate
payback or to pay over time with interest, always looking to a minimal
6 percent interest return. It even provided an option of not paying
at all, and the lien runs with the property until a transfer sale.
We can, in fact, bring back in our ordinance those
options. You can pick and choose. With the proper advertising you
can determine just what you want. But the public, both affected
public -- directly affected public, the residents of Royal Cove, we
would propose we would mail notice to them of exactly what is going as
well as the normal advertising legal requirement that we have. And
then the board at its hearing date on the ordinance could determine
the flexibility of financing that it wished to do. And it would
appear that we could conceivably follow what the City of Naples has
done in some circumstances. I'll add that they also stated that it's
always been for projects less than a million dollars and that they are
apparently relatively abundant in reserve funds. I don't know how we
are in that regard, but we can check up on that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that something -- just a small
aside. I was asking you to look at that in particular with regard to
Naples Park and the ability to finance that. Are you following
through on that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we are. But, of course, Naples Park
is -- the reason I'm bringing this up is because Naples Park is in the
vicinity of 4 million.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. WEIGEL: And so it may work fine for the smaller
project but may not be available for the Naples Park project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In light of Mr. Weigel's comments, do
you want to make any additions to your motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My motion is consistent, in fact,
with Mr. Weigel's comments.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. In that case then we have a
motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-23 APPOINTING NANCY MCLEAN TO THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY
CENTER ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
10(A) is an appointment of member to the Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, we have one -- one
applicant and one member --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- ship open. I'll make a
motion we approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Normally I'd defer to
Commissioner Constantine on this, but one and one, you know, pretty
simple math.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And he's not even here, so we
can't defer to him.
I'll make a motion that we appoint Nancy McLean --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to the Community Center
Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-24 DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE PRIVATIZATION PLUS TASK
FORCE - ADOPTED
All right. 10(B) is a recommendation to declare a
vacancy on the Privatization Plus Task Force.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion to declare the
position held by Carol A. Morris vacant. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a motion and a second. If
there's no further discussion, all those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
Item #10C
REQUEST OF AN UPDATE FROM STAFF ON THE STATUS OF THE LELY BAREFOOT
BEACH GUARDHOUSE - ITEM TO BE PREPARED FOR THE FEBRUARY 6, 1996, AGENDA
We then move on to item 10(C). Commissioner Matthews,
just before you entered the room this morning, we were having a
discussion here about is it your intention to have action on this item
today?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I've reviewed the minutes
from the November 21st meeting, and the minutes indicate that we had
anticipated that this be resolved by Christmas, and then later we
talked about a December 19th date. And Commissioner Hancock was very
hopeful and had even mentioned to bring it back by the first meeting
in December and which, of course, it has not come back. And my
purpose today is to get an update on it, where are we headed with it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think a couple of the board's
members expressed concern that since it's an add-on item and it's not
a routine item, that if we're going to take action on it, it may not
be quite the appropriate thing to do. Perhaps if action is necessary,
maybe we schedule it for the next available meeting.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's fine. That's for the
board to do, but I'd like to have some idea of -- since we're more
than a month after December the 19th at this point, to have some idea
of where -- where we're going. The board on November the 21st seemed
pretty adamant that we wanted this agreed upon and if we couldn't get
an agreement, that we would go forward with code enforcement. And I
just want to know where we are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews, I don't
pretend to have a perfect memory, but I believe I did give an update
at the December 19th meeting under Board of County Commissioners
communication. So the item hasn't been left completely fallow where
the board's concerned. But I'll be more than happy to tell you where
we are today, and I think this is going to outline what direction, if
any, needs to be taken next week, because I do anticipate some
direction next week one way or the other. Either let's get this thing
solved, or let's let it go the route that it was going to go at some
point earlier.
What the board came to in our workshop at the Golden
Gate Community Center was, in essence, at that time called a
compromise of -- of moving the existing guardhouse from its present
location --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to the right side of the
roadway in tract A. And if you're looking to compromise, you're
trying to throw all of the elements into it, that seemed to make
sense. It's -- a guardhouse still remained for monitoring traffic
after park hours, and it was stuck over on the right in tract A. And
so we agreed that a guardhouse could exist on the right side of the
road on tract A, and everyone seemed to be happy with that.
Well, it's kind of like, you know, putting different
parts of an animal together and expecting it to get up and walk. When
you step back and look at it, I've never, ever seen a guardhouse on
the right-hand side of a road. There's good reason for that. It
doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.
And to the residents of Lely Barefoot, the few that I --
I talked to and their representatives, they -- they told me two
things: first of all, that there were some insurance concerns for the
safety of the individuals, safety of their -- the guard under their
employ having to walk in front of cars if they wished to speak to a
driver or -- you know, it's just a little awkward. And I think where
we are -- and I don't pretend to speak for everyone in Lely when I say
this, but they can put that guardhouse in tract A without anything
from this board. They don't need to sign a piece of paper. They
don't need to do anything. They can go tear theirs down and build it
in tract A tomorrow if they want to, so they don't need our help to do
that.
What I sense that they're looking for is either a
guardhouse that is located between the two inbound lanes or in the
median, which at least I know has been ruled out in the past by a
couple members of this board. And I understand the reason for that.
The current guardhouse has said to be imposing. It's at the front of
the guardhouse. You pull in. You don't know if it's a gated
community or an open park.
What I would like to ask today and get a feel from you
on is if that guardhouse were to be made significantly smaller and
moved back adjacent to tract A, whether it's in between two inbound
lane still providing additional or better access to the public or
whether it's in the median, say, only being 12 or 14 square feet in
size instead of what's currently there. If that's an acceptable
solution, then we have something really to -- to move ahead with
starting today. If it's not, if it has to go -- if it's this board's
direction that it has to go on the right-hand side of the road, that's
the only place it can go, then I suggest we put it on for next week's
agenda to proceed -- proceed with code enforcement, because I don't
think that's a solution that the people in Lely Barefoot Beach are
going to be happy with, and we're going to end up contesting it
anyway.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I really think that's the
impasse we're at right now. And since this is a discussion item, I
would be happy to hear of either of the options that I've outlined, a
much smaller guardhouse being located in between the two inbound lanes
or in the median, if either of those is acceptable. I know we'll have
some public comment on it, too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Since the beginning I've been of the
position that this is not as difficult a matter as it's turned out to
be. I think there's -- there's any number of reasonable solutions
that can be brought forward to satisfy the needs of both interests
here, and I don't see any reason why we can't do it personally. And
if that's what the board wants to do, I think we should put it on our
next available agenda and have some -- have another presentation and
go forward with doing it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got no problem with it
being on the agenda for the 6th at all. I -- I just wanted to know
where -- where we are going with it because I'm -- I, too, am getting
the letters and the phone calls that we're all getting. And as you
say, we haven't heard anything as to what's really going on in the
meetings for the last month or so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was left -- at my last meeting
it was left between -- Lely Development Corporation was to speak to
the homeowners' association, and then it kind of fell apart from
there. And I'll -- I'll take responsibility for that. I mean, you
know, I didnwt get in there and crack the whip, but the idea was -- as
I mentioned in December, the idea was that -- to -- to get it resolved
in short order. And I think wewre all tired of talking about it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we are, too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are reasonable solutions,
in my opinion, out there. And rather than debate them in theory
today, why donlt I outline those for next Tuesday. Iill provide them
to the press ahead of time so that anyone in the general public who
wants to have discussion or debate on it can. We donlt -- I donlt
want anyone sandbagged on this. I mean, what Iive said today is
exactly what Iim going to say next week is --
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Two weeks.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Welve said a guardhouse, itls
permitted in the PUD. The question is where and where can we provide
improved access and still provide what the PUD allows residents of
Lely to have.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Well, youlre asking for -- for
input from other board members on whether or not they would like the
idea or -- of a guardhouse somewhere other than in tract A? As far --
so, Mr. Weigel, a question that Iill have is how in the heck can we do
that, because that would be an illegal -- weld have to amend PUDs or
something, because the PUD says they can have their guardhouse on
tract A. I donlt see how we can do anything other than what the
ordinances permit, and Iim not excited about doing anything other than
what the ordinances permit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That may be a prime location for
the argument of -- when the original PUD was drawn, tract A was not as
itls defined today. Therels a tract R that the roadway is located in
that was never defined in the original PUD.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: But it was part of A.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it wasnlt part of
anything. It didnlt exist. The original PUD, tract A had a diagonal
line that went forward of where it currently sits. Now, the language
in the PUD was never changed. The -- the -- the plan in the PUD was
never changed. And, you know, Iim going to leave it for the attorney
for Lely Barefoot to make that argument. But I can see that one
coming, you know, in two weeks, you know, the -- itls like, you know,
I just think to propose a solution that doesnlt make a heck of a lot
of sense is not where we want to be. And if the courts is where this
needs to be decided, then thatls where it needs to be decided. So
thatls really -- those are our options at this point.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: And -- and my -- my last comment
is that while I appreciate the mayaculpa (sic) down there,
Commissioner Hancock, I think where the ball has been dropped is where
itls been dropped a hundred times so far in the years of history on
this, and that is that the developer keeps -- delay is a victory for
the developer. And I donlt -- Iid hate to have said this twice
because I know with my children it does not work. If you tell them,
you know, do it now or youlre in trouble and then you donlt hold to
it, they donlt listen so well the next time. And welve done that once
with this developer, because we said solve it by December 19th or
welre getting out there with the bulldozer with code enforcement, and
we didnlt do it. But now itls kind of hard to tell them we really,
really mean it this time. But we really, really mean it this time.
Welve got two weeks to settle it, or welre code enforcing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Letls make no bones about it.
Two weeks from now we'll make a decision. We're either going to
proceed with the plan, or we're going to start code enforcement action
on that date, period.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: May I ask also, Commissioner
Hancock is going to make a proposal available to all of us prior to
the 6th. Is that what I just heard you --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I'm not going to give it to
you the morning of the 6th. That's not fair.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I'd like our attorney, Mr.
Weigel, to look at that plan and look at our leases and the land
management agreement and so forth that we have with the state. After
all, the state has intervened. And it doesn't matter what we do;
they've got to agree to it and to -- to give us a heads up on the 6th
as well if, in your opinion, this plan meets the agreements that we've
agreed to and signed on to years ago.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, I would imagine we
have some public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, but only three. Mr.
Rosenberger, if you would, please, sir, and then Mr. Timbers, if I can
have you stand by, I appreciate it. Mr. Rosenberger, good morning.
Go ahead.
MR. ROSENBERGER: Good morning. My name is Victor A.
Rosenberger. I'm one of the 668 taxpayers in Lely Barefoot Beach, and
I'm also president of -- of Barefoot Beach Club Condominiums, phase
two. I'd like to point out one thing, that while this time has gone
by, both gates have been up in deference to the commission and the
public.
Secondly, I'd like to point out also, as Mr. Hancock was
pointing out, that the county put a guardhouse at the entrance to the
preserve on the right side of the road, and it's my understanding that
the rangers who are working the guardhouse to collect the $3 fee were
threatening to quit because they had to walk in front of cars to get
to the driver's side. And the guardhouse was moved from the right
side of the road in the preserve to the center of the road at the
preserve as a result of this activity.
The only thing I have to say at this point is that I'd
like one of the commissioners, the chairman or our representative, Mr.
Hancock, to ask the county attorney if this action is appropriate,
because the facts of this case are before the Court. Now, is the
county board usurping the judgment of the Court when the guardhouse is
before the Court?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm -- I'm going to butt in there
and give you time to think and tell you that -- that if the Court had
issued an injunction, then we would be -- our hands would be tied.
Until the Court tells us no -- they have the right to tell us no, but
they haven't yet, and that's going to be my position.
MR. ROSENBERGER: What is the county attorney's
position?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll respond to a question from the board
if the board so asks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I believe what Mr.
Rosenberger is asking is --
MR. WEIGEL: I understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nice tact. I like that. Simply,
my understanding is that we can proceed with code enforcement action
if we deem it necessary, okay. The current action and suit filed in
court, does that prohibit us from -- from proceeding with code
enforcement action should we deem that it's necessary?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the answer is right, and it is no, as
Commissioner Mac'Kie stated. There's no prohibition by the Court,
obviously not serendipitously. We have all of the parties in the
court in a judicial forum, but the county has its own quasi-judicial
forum that is fully constituted and has the ability to act on issues
of -- of the county such as violation of county ordinances.
We've had the -- the information and/or threat from the
interest opposing the property interests that are opposing the county
that filed the suit against the county in court saying that they would
seek injunction if we went forward with code enforcement. That
doesn't mean that they'll get it. Previously I had informed the board
that I thought there may be a likelihood that it would occur, the
Court noting that all of the same parties and most, if not all, the
same issues are before the Court at the same time. But it's not a
done deal until the Court acts.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Rosenberger.
MR. ROSENBERGER: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Timbers and then Mr. Keller.
MR. TIMBERS: For the record I'm Richard Timbers. I'm a
resident of Lely Barefoot Beach. I've been active in this gate issue
for approximately three years, and as we all know, it has a life of
its own.
I would like to read a letter that I sent to the master
board just recently. I want for the record that the commissioners
understand that I am not speaking for the board. I'm not speaking for
our attorneys. I am speaking only as a private citizen in this
matter. I am not a member of the board. Thank you.
And this is a letter that I wrote to the master board,
and I revised it just slightly. At an informal meeting yesterday I
was asked my position regarding the gatehouse. Let me state I have
spent three years involved in this problem, and I believe the
following things; one, the gatehouse should stay where it is currently
located. It was properly permitted by Collier County. All our
documents prove this. It seems to me we are now conceding, at least
in our minds, that we should allow the county to force us to move it.
We, the property owners, are the injured parties. Why should we be
punished because the county made a mistake eight years ago in allowing
the gatehouse to be built where it is now located? What useful
purpose does it serve to move it south 100 feet just to satisfy CABB?
CABB stands for Citizens Association of Bonita Beach. By their very
name they are not a Collier County group; yet they refer to our
Commissioner Constantine as their hero.
Two, if the guardhouse is moved south a hundred feet, it
must be located in the center of the road. It is totally impractical,
dangerous, et cetera, to locate it on the west side of the road.
Three, if we go to court -- and I firmly believe we should to once and
for all determine our rights -- we should immediately lower our gates
right or left; I don't care which one. Paten, both gates are
currently raised during the park hours and have been for the last
several months. But we must provide and have one gate up for
unrestricted access to the public -- that is their right, and they
deserve it -- and one gate down to attempt to control access to our
property. With crime on the increase, we bought in a gated community,
which we must maintain our -- we must maintain our commitment for the
security of our residents. Think of the vicious murders at the
Cracker Barrel Restaurant. We will not give an inch on this. Let the
courts decide.
Who should pay? Collier County made a mistake and gave
the Lely Corporation a permit to build the guardhouse where it is now
located. It was previously located in the middle of the road opposite
the sales office. The Lely Corp. should be paying for this fight. We
should be sending them our attorney bills. If the guardhouse is
moved, our taxes should be lowered, and we should sue the Lely
Corporation for selling us property in a gated community when in
reality it is not a gated community.
Four, we should continue negotiations and have -- and
until we find that the proposals of the county are unsatisfactory
and/or the county stites -- starts its administrative process to fine
us. At that time enjoin the county in continued lawsuits we have
started before the so-called negotiations started. I think we have
enough documents to make a strong case for keeping the gatehouse where
it is, controlling excess traffic on our road and determining the
total number of parking spaces to park.
P.S., last year, October 1, 1994, to September 30, 1995,
164,595 people visited the park. This more than proves we have
complied with the access agreement and, to the best of my knowledge,
there have been no complaints from the public. I thank you very
much.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think there was one more
speaker, Mr. Dotrill.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I've
been -- I've been fighting with this thing for -- what are we going on
here, about --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Longer than we ever --
MR. KELLER: -- ten years? Host people -- long before
any of you people were here. And we know the reason why this
gatehouse was put up in the first place. The county commission
decided that they wanted somebody to regulate the people going in that
park after hours to prevent vandalism and whatnot, and so they
permitted the gatehouse.
Lely Corporation illegally sold the property as a gated
community. It was an unfortunate thing that the commissioners
permitted the gatehouse there in the first place, but they didn't
permit it to be put there to be designated as a gatehouse community.
It was put there for one single reason.
Now, the part -- the county is the -- is the county
going to -- in order to collect, they're going to have to collect fees
on that property, on that beach right now; right? Didn't we decide we
were going to collect fees on the beach?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're doing it.
MR. KELLER: Okay. So the county's going to have a
person staying there, no matter where you have the gatehouse, and
they're also going to collect fees. That same person is going to
close that gate as soon as the park hours are over. They're going to
open it when the park hours are over. That gatehouse -- the park
should be a separate gatehouse than the gatehouse for the private --
so-called private community. The gatehouse for the private community
should be on private community property, not on the right-of-way that
the state has.
Don't forget, you know, most people think that we --
that Lely gave us that, all those right-of-ways. We paid a big buck
for the right-of-ways we've got to get to that beach. In fact, we
probably paid more than Lely paid for the whole damned thing. So we
-- they never gave us a thing, and they didn't -- these poor people,
I feel sorry for them because basically if I was in their position I'd
be suing Lely because Lely misrepresented them. The same -- every
salesman that sold property there to these people and told them it was
a gatehouse community misrepresented them. And the law right now as
it's on the books, they -- they have a right to sue, and they should
sue. They should be suing Lely, not the county. But the county
should definitely decide where the county wants their gatehouse and
how they're going to control aggress (sic) and egress during the park
hours, period. And Lely shouldn't have had anything -- anything to
say about when people can go in and out of that park. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you want to make a motion of some
sort or just give direction?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think a motion is
necessary. I think just give direction to staff to put this item on
the agenda in two weeks for the board to make a decision at that point
whether to proceed with code enforcement action or to establish a plan
and finalize it, period.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. I concur. Everybody
concurs.
Mr. McNees, is there any public comment registered this
morning?
MR. McNEES: No more speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's take about a five- or ten-minute
break, then come back.
(A short break was held.)
Item #12B1
PETITION PUD-95-13, BARBARA H. CAWLEY OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON 7 PEEK,
INC., REPRESENTING IMHOKALEE HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, INC., REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "A-MDO" TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS GARDEN WALK VILLAGE PUD FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF S.R. 29 AND OPPOSITE FARM
WORKERS VILLAGE - CONTINUED FOR 3 WEEKS AT THE REQEUST OF THE DEVELOPER
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. We're into the advertised public hearing portion of our
meeting this morning on item 12(B)(1).
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows from current
planning staff presenting petition PUD-95-13. Barbara Cawley of
Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek requesting to fezone a 17-acre site
from agricultural with mobile home overlay to PUD to be known as the
Garden Walk Village. Petitioner proposes a 240-unit multifamily
property located on the south side of State Road 29 and opposite the
Farm Worker Village.
As you can see, the site is designated NC or
neighborhood center on the Immokalee future land use map. It allows
for a density of 12 units per acre. It's opposite the high
residential district which
allows for eight units per acre.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just on that point, Mr. Bellows,
what's the intent of the NC zoning district?
MR. BELLOWS: The intent of the NC zoning district is to
provide for mixed uses such as for government facilities, day care,
limited commercial-type neighborhood, commercial activities, and
multifamily housing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the wording indicate that
that mix needs to occur on a single project site or just throughout
the NC zoning?
MR. BELLOWS: Throughout the NC.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: As you can see on the maps, they plan a
park, a family support center throughout the county or throughout the
Immokalee area, excuse me. Since the project density is 12 units per
acre, the petition is consistent with the Immokalee future land use
development and the density rating system. The traffic analysis
indicates that there are 1,320 trips per day, which could be
generated, which exceeds a 5 percent significance test on State Road
29. However it will not lower the level of service on State Road 29.
It will still operate at acceptable standards.
The Environmental Advisory Board reviewed this petition,
and they determined that no adverse impacts will be created by the
development. The adjacent properties are also -- to the west are also
within the NC district, so they can also develop 12 units per acre or
commercial or -- or other uses that are permitted in NC district.
The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this
petition on January 18th, and they recommended approval by a
five-to-one vote. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's hear from the petitioner then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, Mr. Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it just the site configuration
or my imagination that --
MS. CAWLEY: That's not our site.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Does this project take up
the entire NC zoning on that?
MS. CAWLEY: No.
MR. BELLOWS: No, it does not. There's a school just to
the north that's in the NC district.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The NC district is
approximately how many acres ball park? MS. CAWLEY: I believe it's 70.
MR. BELLOWS: I think that's approximately.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this project is how large?
MR. BELLOWS: Seventeen.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seventeen, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're seven 0 and one seven.
My ears are kind of stuffy.
MR. BELLOWS: Just to the north there's an existing
school.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How many acres does the school
take?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have the acres of the school.
MS. CAWLEY: They're typically what?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Twenty.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So there's a balance in
the NC district to provide some mixed use? MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Math.
MS. CAWLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. Barbara
Cawley with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. I'm representing the
Immokalee Housing Partnership this morning for the rezoning. First of
all, I'd like to thank the staff for all of their hard work on this.
They've been absolutely wonderful getting this through the system
quickly. And I'd also like to concur with the staff recommendation --
fully concur with what they recommend on this.
I want to give you a little short explanation about this
project. It's a very exciting project, I think, for Collier County.
I brought the site layout, because I know you don't have that as part
of your package. This was what we were going to be doing under our
SDP. And I can do it north-south or east-west. I guess it's a little
easier this way on the easel.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who is that scurrilous attorney
with you?
MS. CAWLEY: Yeah, I'm really proud. I think this is
his first zoning action in the private since he's left the county.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you going to be batting a
thousand or triple zero today?
MS. CAWLEY: I had a lot of good advice, let's put it
that way. I know the audience can't see this, and I apologize for
that, but what we're talking about here are 204 multifamily
residential units on 17 acres including the lake-park area. We have a
community facility family support center here with a basketball court,
tot lots, picnic areas, a fountain, jogging trails, and more picnic
areas around the lake. They are three-story units. State Road 29 is
not here. I know it's not sort of north-south, but it's a little
easier this direction.
The units themselves are going to be 48 two-bedroom and
156 three-bedroom units that will be air conditioned, will have washer
and dryer hookups, garbage disposals, dishwashers. These are class-A
units that will be built in Immokalee as affordable housing.
The family support center is intended to act also as an
education center for people who will be living in the units to provide
them support in terms of any kind of child-care needs or that type of
thing. We're not putting a child-care center at the request of
Mr. Thomas, because he has a child-care center across the street in
Farm Worker's Village that we could use that center as well.
The genesis of the project is kind of interesting. It
really came from the request of Barrett Collier who was looking for a
-- an affordable housing location for people who work in his
company. And he had -- he knew there was a great need for people who
worked there who are not farm laborers necessarily but were working
full time in his company and set about trying to find some way to do
that. He knew that Mr. Cronacher had done affordable housing projects
before, had been involved in them before, and asked him to help him
out. So one of my first jobs was to try to find a site that was on
Barton Collier land that had no environmental impacts, and we did
that. That was really the reason this site was -- was chosen was
because it was fully consistent with the growth management plan. We
did not need a density bonus. We had no environmental impacts, no
wetlands, no endangered species, no problems with the site
whatsoever.
The other part of this project is it's not federally
subsidized housing. What we're talking about here is tax syndication
money from private companies, so we're not talking about a farm worker
type federally subsidized housing. This will be high-quality
low-income housing but using tax syndication dollars.
And who is this meant for? Really this is meant for the
working people in Immokalee, people who work full time. In order to
-- to qualify to -- to live in this, you must have a full-time job.
You must have an annual lease. You must have credit checks and police
checks in order to make sure that you qualify.
We figure the -- the maximum wage would be about $25,000
and down, and the rents will be between 345 to 385 dollars a month for
the two- and three-bedroom units.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maximum of 385 for a
three-bedroom unit?
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's plus utilities?
MS. CAWLEY: That does not include utilities.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You say that does not include
utilities. And one of those utilities is air conditioning?
MS. CAWLEY: If they so choose to use the air
conditioner, that's correct, and heater. They will have heating and
air conditioning.
One of the reasons that we feel this is a very
appropriate project for Immokalee is because there's a great deficit
for affordable housing in Immokalee, particularly this type of
housing. In fact, this is really sort of a unique project for
Immokalee. There is nothing like this out there right now that would
service the working people of Immokalee, people who work in retail
trade, clerical workers, people who work for the -- the agri --
business operations that are out there, people who work in hotels in
Collier -- in coastal Collier County but really have no significant
housing in Immokalee. So we're really pleased to be able to provide
this out there.
The key to this, I think, is going to be the management
of the project. The manager will be Mr. Fred Thomas. He's the
director of the Collier County Housing Authority that's currently
managing Farm Worker's Village. And we know that he is an excellent
manager and a very strong manager, so we're pleased to have him on the
team.
Another part of the key to the project will be the
maintenance of the project and how the project can be maintained. And
the way the tax syndication dollars are put together is they require
you to have a maintenance fund that you set aside up front so when
things break or if something needs to be repaired or if you need to
paint the units or replace landscaping, that you actually have money
available in the fund to do that. The project that Mr. Cronacher did
in Immokalee had over $800,000 set aside for that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In Immokalee?
MS. CAWLEY: I'm sorry, in Dade County. Thank you. In
Dade County had over $800,000 set aside for that purpose. So -- and
this is not money that -- that you draw your -- your rent -- it's not
subsidizing rents. It's purely set aside for the purpose of
maintaining the -- the structures.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If I could interrupt.
MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What amount are you anticipating
for this fund?
MS. CAWLEY: Well, at this point I really don't know,
but it will be comparable, I'm sure, in terms of the $800,000 until we
know what money we can get from the tax syndication.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there a minimum that is
thought to be acceptable?
MS. CAWLEY: It's dictated by the tax syndication, and
we have no ability to tell you exactly what that number will be right
now until we get our money.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can you tell me what the need is
going to be?
MS. CAWLEY: Would you like Mr. Cronacher to come up?
I'm sorry. This is a technical aspect.
MR. CRONACHER: Roy Cronacher, Cronacher Development,
and I'm a resident of Naples. Generally the tax syndication will --
the syndicator themselves will dictate to us as to what the
availability are for funds based on the yield of the tax credits when
they're sold, and they will stipulate a fund set aside. So we have no
way of knowing until we sell the tax credits or make our deal with the
tax credit syndication. Generally these tax credit deals will fill up
immediately. In Hiami we built 228 units. We have -- we filled them
up by -- as we completed the unit. We've got a waiting list of 700
people in that community looking -- and this is not Hiami. This is
south Dade down near Homestead which is a rural community.
The -- we anticipate, due to the rents and the
economics, that they will probably not use those funds. The funds
will sit in -- and for major rehabilitation later on, because the
economics of the deal, they actually support themselves.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that in part because of the
land gift? There's really very little land cost associated with this
project?
MR. CRONACHER: No, it's because of the -- excuse me.
I'm sorry. It's because of the structure of the financing. Generally
it's not only one pot of money. We'll go to the state for sale funds,
which is usually 3 percent debt forgivable. We will go for grants.
And in this project we're looking for 7.6 million dollars of almost
interest-free money, and that's the only way that the projects work at
this low level.
I mean, this is -- this is low, very low income rents at
350 to 380 for three-bedroom apartment. The only way you get it is
through subsidies.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cronacher, my question was,
do you have an anticipation of what the need is going to be for
maintenance for a maintenance fund like this.
MR. CRONACHER: Again, the project should carry itself
on its own economics. In other words, the fund is really a bonus. It
should not even be necessary, but generally the tax credit syndicators
come to the groups saying that they look at it long term 15 years out,
and they want to make sure that 5 years or 10 years down the road
there's a facility there or mechanism there to be able to keep the
products at a level. And I have, by the way, visited projects, for
instance, in Connecticut where there was two-hundred-and-some-odd
units on one side of the street, a mirror-image product right across
the street. One project was 3 years old; the other one was 12 years
old. The 12-year-old project looked newer than the 3-year-old
project.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there any other questions for the
petitioner?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think she has more to present
to us.
MS. CAWLEY: I was -- I was just going to put a few more
things on the record, if you don't mind. I apologize. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MS. CAWLEY: The other issues that have come up deal
with compatibility, and I think the staff was very clear as to the
compatibility of this project, that it fully is compliant with the
Immokalee master plan and -- and growth management plan. Not only
does it -- is it consistent, but it actually goes a long way to
furthering a lot of the goals and objectives in that plan.
The height is also very consistent with the Land
Development Code. We have -- we're asking for three habitable
stories. If we were asking for an RHF-12 district, it would actually
go up to 50 feet, and we're not asking for that at all. So the height
is compatible with Land Development Code.
Also I know there's been some issues in terms of the
height of this project, and so I drove around last night trying to see
if there were other three-story buildings in coastal Collier County
and see how they -- they seemed to function. And I went into -- I saw
the one in Victoria Park that's actually RHF-12, and it's doing quite
well. And I went into Palm River and found at least three; Montego
Manor, Richmont Club, and Country Club Gardens there. They're all
three-story buildings, and they're right next to single-family homes
and two-story homes. So I think the people in Immokalee will be
pleased with the three-story units that are -- that are built out
there, the class-A units that will be built.
I also understand that there's been some question about
the density, about the 12 units an acre. And last summer a project
was approved in Immokalee for 13.04 units per acre, and that project
has been built, and it's called Pinecrest Apartments. So Immokalee is
-- has had density greater than 12 units an acre, so this is nothing
precedent setting.
I think basically the only other thing I'd like to say
is that this is something that -- that will be a great benefit to the
people of Immokalee, and it's better than living in substandard
trailers without running water and electricity. So I would -- I would
suggest that this will fill a great void out there and would
appreciate your vote on that. I know Mr. Hihalic also has some
information that he might be able to provide you with to -- in support
of the project if you'd like to hear from him. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Cawley, I received a fax from
the Immokalee fire department regarding a concern on the flows '- MS. CAWLEY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for fire protection to the
site. Could you address that, please?
MS. CAWLEY: The -- the issue on fire flows, I know, is
something that we're going to have to deal with as we go through the
permitting process, and we will not be able to get a C.O. without
having adequate fire and water and sewer out there at that site.
it will be dealt with as we go through the SDP process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CAWLEY: And anything that's built out there, I
guess, is going to need --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's going to have to comply with
that regardless.
MS. CAWLEY: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What concern -- for the board's
purposes, I attended the CCPC meeting to listen to the citizen
concerns on this project. But one concern that I heard -- and, Miss
Cawley, if you'd share it with the board -- is the concern of the
water-sewer district in being able to address the needs -- needs of
this project. Could you address that?
MS. CAWLEY: We did have a gentleman from -- who was a
member of the district or on -- in the district board. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Executive director.
MS. CAWLEY: Is that who that was? I wasn't sure who
that was -- that did mention the problem with water and sewer out
there. And his -- his statement, I believe, was that the density was
too great to -- and they would require some upgrading of facilities.
I think any density you're going to put out there is going to require
upgrading of facilities. If you put single-family homes out there,
you would have to upgrade the facilities out there. If Immokalee
wants to grow, it's going to have to upgrade its facilities. And to
be stagnant, you're -- you don't have to do anything, I guess. But
our position is that Immokalee needs to grow and needs to mature, and
this is -- this would be something that they just need to plan for in
their -- in their long-term design.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may follow up, Commissioner
Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong, Miss
Cawley, but any upgrades that are directly related to this project
will be paid for by the developer of the project?
MS. CAWLEY: I don't know that that's an accurate
statement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CAWLEY: I think that -- that they will be paying
for the water and sewer services that they get out there, but I'm not
sure that it's going to be paid for directly by the developer, because
it will serve other people as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because this district does not
have impact fees for water and sewer?
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. So it's paid for by the
rate base as well as the money that they generate from these -- these
units, which will be substantial as well in the long term.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, this is something
that during the SDP process will be addressed fully?
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. It must be addressed
during SDP.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers?
MR. HcNEES: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. You have two, Mr.
Albert Reed.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When are we going to hear from
Mr. Hihalic?
MR. HIHALIC: Only if you have questions, Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How is that car you drove to work
yesterday?
MR. HIHALIC: I don't know. Oh, that was an Alpha
Romero that I have.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question. Miss
Cawley indicated that the project is going to serve families whose
income is $25,000 and below. MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But certainly at $345 per month
plus utilities, what's the minimum salary that's going to qualify?
MR. HIHALIC: The minimum salary -- the range of
variable-income families within Immokalee that the developer would be
allowed to rent to would be sixteen to twenty-four thousand dollars a
year.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sixteen to twenty-four?
MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And how many families in
Immokalee earn -- in Immokalee, not the county, earn this income?
MR. HIHALIC: Well, the last statistics we have are from
1990. But from 1990 we had about 700 families within Immokalee at
that time that were within that income range, and that's using 1990
incomes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And is there a shortage of
residences in Immokalee for this family in this salary range?
MR. HIHALIC: The most critical shortage, Commissioner,
is that most housing that's built in Immokalee is set aside for farm
workers only, families that are involved in the farm worker
agricultural business, so there's a desperate lack of housing for very
low income and low income nonfarm worker families.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this is that kind of
project?
MR. HIHALIC: This is exactly what you're talking about
where you're talking about very low income, which we find difficult to
get, to be built, and for nonfarm worker families. We actually have
more farm worker housing than necessary in Immokalee, and there are
some vacancies occurring during the off season because of that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One more question dealing in --
in the families that could afford to live here. In Immokalee one of
the major transportation modes -- in fact, there are -- there are two
besides a car; bicycles and walking. How far out of town and the
local downtown area is this?
MR. HIHALIC: Probably about 2 miles away. But, again,
you're talking about people that have full-time jobs. They would have
transportation facilities of one kind or another. You're talking
about people that, again, are employed, are workers within Immokalee.
In my opinion, this is the middle class of Immokalee. These are
people that are working in the school system, working in government,
working at the hospital within the Immokalee community. So I think
most of them will have cars or other forms of transportation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You feel that this 750 families
that would qualify to live here already own automobiles and wouldn't
-- wouldn't be --
MR. HIHALIC: I would think so, or they're doubling up
and, you know, they share an automobile between two --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they get to work somehow.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think the point is, though,
that many of them right now live in the -- live in the center downtown
area, and they can walk to --
MR. HIHALIC: I'm not sure they will, Commissioner.
Again, I think that -- you're opening up an opportunity here to people
who --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that.
MR. HIHALIC: -- work in Immokalee but don't live there
now because they don't find facilities that they choose to live in.
So because they're more mobile, they live in Lehigh Acres or they live
in Fort Myers or they live in the urban area of Naples.
I think this will bring a product we believe is like
Arbor Walk to the Immokalee community at a price range that's
affordable to Immokalee. When you look at the site plan of this
particular development in Arbor Walk, they're very similar to one
another except Arbor Walk rents for $785 for two-bedroom apartments.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Mihalic, if I --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have talked several times
about wanting to give -- find a way to encourage more development of
very low income housing.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm just trying to get a
perspective on this. This appears to be to be the exact kind of
project that we have been trying to encourage in an area that's
desperately in need. I -- I just -- it seems to me that this is a
developer that we ought to be saying thank you for not waiting for
those further incentives we were looking for and popping champagne
corks. This is a great project, it seems to me. Is there anything
that I should see that I'm not seeing? Is this not exactly what we've
been asking --
MR. HIHALIC: I think it is a great project, but I think
you have to understand that this developer has to find 7 million
dollars of incentives of one kind or another, essentially grant
incentives, to be able to build this project. That's very difficult
for most developers to do. It is a rare opportunity when this type of
development comes along at this quality, especially in Immokalee where
we're trying to diversify the type of housing that's available within
Immokalee. So, yes, I think that this is a great project that should
be looked forward to be being built in Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only other thing, it seems to
me, that if I were Mr. Dotrill working on those implementation plans
for the goals that we adopted, one of them was the diversified economy
for more opportunities for diversification of jobs, that one of the
things that we lack in the community to be able to diversify our
economy is affordable housing for this range of income and that this
would satisfy or this would go a long way toward meeting one of the
top five goals of this board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got a couple more
questions, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Pinecrest you mentioned has a 13
density.
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thirteen something. Where is
that located?
MS. CAWLEY: That one's located downtown.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In the downtown area?
MS. CAWLEY: Yeah, that's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And surrounded by what?
MS. CAWLEY: Urban development.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. It's got -- 13 and it's
surrounded by urban development. And what surrounds this project?
MS. CAWLEY: Well, this project is surrounded by
agricultural land, but it's a designated neighborhood center in the
Immokalee master plan which was intended for that type of a use.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. And across
the street from this proposed project is Farm Worker's Village? MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the density there is?
MS. CAWLEY: I think the overall density is about 4
units an acre. I think part of it is 6, and then part of it is less;
so it's probably overall about 4.3. But it's designated high-density
residential on the master plan.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And Farm Worker Village is all
-- not all single family. But there's some quads; there's some
duplex.
MS. CAWLEY: That's right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's some single family, but
they're all one story.
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. But that really isn't
inconsistent with a lot of the development on the coast as well to
have multifamily and single family together.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The two-bedroom units, what's
the square footage for those?
MS. CAWLEY: I brought the little board that we have on
that somewhere. I don't know if you can see this. We have 770 square
feet for the two bedroom and 930 square feet -- this is a minimum --
for the three bedroom. But they all have two baths, and the kitchen
has the washer and dryer and the hookups for laundry. It has a
balcony with storage on the balcony.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With storage?
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. There's storage on the
balconies.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MS. CAWLEY: Locked storage so they would be able to
store --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you mind passing that down?
MS. CAWLEY: I will pass this down. It's kind of hard
to see from that distance.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Another question since you're
comparing this with Arbor Walk. MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's the square footage of the
two- and three-bedroom units there?
MS. CAWLEY: Just a moment. Let me -- the Arbor Walk
only has two-bedroom units. There are no three bedroom. And the two
bedrooms are about eight twenty.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Why don't we hear
from the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers now.
MR. DORRILL: Which we have two, Mr. Lee. Then
following Mr. Lee we have Mr. Matthews.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good morning, Mr. Lee.
MR. LEE: I want to thank the commissioners for allowing
me the privilege to -- to speak. I feel somewhat uncomfortable up
here today, I guess, somewhat agreeing with something that could be
positive to Immokalee. Normally I'm up here asking you all to change
your minds, which I hardly ever get to be done. So it -- it certainly
is somewhat of a pleasure to -- to be in support of something that's
favorable. And when I hear 800 square feet, we have homes in
Immokalee that are -- that are built that are not that large.
I would certainly encourage you to -- to please accept
this because it certainly looks like something positive. And when you
say you got a lot of housing and a lot of things in Immokalee that's
for low income, they're really substandard in most cases. What we
have here is something that appears to be positive, and I don't see
how in the world you all could turn it down.
But, again, I'd like to thank you and ask you to please
accept it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Lee.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Matthews.
MR. MATTHEWS: Good evening, Commissioners, or good
morning still. I, like Mr. Lee, certainly appreciate the opportunity
to come and speak to you in support of this project. I've heard some
real positive things and some of the positive aspects that can come
out of this. And I manage a business in Immokalee that we employ
about ten people full time that certainly fall within the parameters
of the income ranges that we talked about, five of those people not
having homes of their own to live in, so they may be prospective
people that can certainly take advantage of some of these units that
we're talking about.
Also I'd like to just speak to issues relating to the
Immokalee Fire Control District and the Immokalee Water and Sewer
District. I heard from one of the county staffers on Friday late
evening regarding the concern about Immokalee water and sewer lack or
the ability to provide water and sewer there. Being one of the board
members, I can tell the commissioners that the -- the fellow board
members of the Immokalee Water and Sewer District has not been
apprised of the information that was certainly talked to developers
regarding this project. And I can tell you that we would certainly
give it the attention that it deserves. I'm not going to stand here
and actually try to represent the board standing here right now. But,
again, notwithstanding, we have not talked about this specific project
at all. And I can tell you in the past the Immokalee water and sewer
district have actually done whatever it took as a board to incorporate
the positive kind of things that come about for our community.
Same thing with the Immokalee Fire Control District. I
did speak with the chief about this off the record, not in the
confines of a public meeting, there at the fire control district.
There was a concern about fire flows and things that obviously what
the -- the lack of water flows down there, obviously you would have
that concern with the fire control district as well. But there are
other projects in Immokalee, mainly the Mary Lee Feather and the
Isabel Collier Reed facilities that we've done some unconventional
kind of things to appease our concerns there. And for this project,
I'm sure, as the SDP come forward and we begin to ring those bells,
we'll certainly address those kind of things.
And, again, I stand in support of this as a member of
the Immokalee community for over 39 years. I think this is a very
positive aspect of the community, and I do hope that you'll give it
favorable consideration.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Matthews.
MR. DORRILL: That concludes the registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before we close the public hearing, is
there any more questions of the petitioner?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think I have one more question
for Miss Cawley. I have a letter -- you and I talked the other day,
and we had -- I had -- was raised -- I raised some questions about a
sidewalk going from the development because it -- what'd you say; 156
three-bedroom units?
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The potential is for several
hundred young people to live in this area. And I think we all know
the road along there is a two-lane road about 50- to 60-mile-an-hour
traffic, and I had concern about children walking to school. And you
provided a letter to Mr. Norm Feeder of the F-DOT regarding the
sidewalk. Would you mind telling us what --
MS. CAWLEY: Yes. And I apologize to the other
commissioners that I didn't send you a copy of it, because I had the
discussion with Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's probably Mr. Cuyler's
fault.
MS. CAWLEY: No, it's my fault. I could blame him,
though.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're so used to blaming him for
stuff.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, you can blame him.
I happened to run into Mr. Feeder actually at the
legislative meeting on Friday and cornered him about this issue,
because we're concerned about it as well. I mean, we want to make
sure that there is a sidewalk there for the children, and he told me
that it was a really good time to catch him actually because they're
in the design phase of moving State Road 29 because of the panther
issue. They're moving it 10 feet --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They'll move it for the panther
MS. CAWLEY: They'll move it for the panther --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No talk about it for the kids.
MS. CAWLEY: They'll maybe do something for the
children.
And they said that they -- it was a good -- it was a
likelihood that a sidewalk could be included with that move on that
side of the -- on the west side of 29. So he wanted me to write him a
letter and just put it in writing that this was something that was
very important to the county as well as to us, and I did that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is your client willing to commit
to providing such a sidewalk if F-DOT cannot?
MS. CAWLEY: Well, that is a problem. We will have to
work with the tax syndicators with off-site facilities. And it's very
difficult to get tax money, tax syndication money, to do that. But
there are ways to try to accomplish it, and -- and we will do whatever
we can to do that, and I can't promise you right now that it will be
possible. But if we can do it, it's something that we feel is
important as well to do.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You can't make a commitment to
do so, though?
MS. CAWLEY: I'm sorry, I cannot do that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the height.
MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was a concern expressed,
and you and I have also talked about that. This is a three --
three-story structure or structures --
MS. CAWLEY: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and there are no other
buildings in Immokalee, none, that are three-story buildings.
MS. CAWLEY: It's time for Immokalee to grow up.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think anybody is going
to argue with you that it's -- that it's time for, you know, Immokalee
to be experiencing some good things. MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But at the same time I -- I've
got concerns about it being a three-story project across the street
from single-story buildings and two miles out of town.
MS. CAWLEY: What are your concerns about that?
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that it's just -- it just
doesn't fit in the Immokalee scheme of things. I mean, there's been
complaints and concerns in Immokalee for -- since I've been on this
board that while things meet the LDC for Collier County, they -- they
don't necessarily meet Immokalee's desires of what it wants to be.
And -- and that's -- you know, Immokalee, if they wanted three-story
buildings, I would think they would have them by now, and they don't.
Is it because they don't desire them? They don't '-
MS. CAWLEY: I don't think there's been anyone who's
been willing to put money into Immokalee to develop them, I think, is
the primary reason. If there was a market and the piece of property
wanted to be three stories and needed to be three stories in terms of
its marketability, I think there would be three-story buildings in
Immokalee.
I -- I think it really is a -- is a positive indication
that Immokalee is -- is coming into the 21st century, you know, and
the people in Immokalee can walk up three stories. It -- having --
oh.
MR. LEE: Hay I say something while they're --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wait till she finishes.
MS. CAWLEY: Mr. Hihalic wanted to -- wanted to mention
that there may be an -- MR. HIHALIC: Immokalee Apartments, Commissioner, I
believe, is three stories high -- MS. CAWLEY: I don't know.
MR. HIHALIC: -- right now in Immokalee.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Those are the section 8 houses?
MR. HIHALIC: No, it isn't section 8. It's a HUD
program from the '70s.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I specifically asked about
them. They're two stories.
MR. HIHALIC: Mr. Lee told me they're two stories.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I went up to look at them. They
are two stories.
MS. CAWLEY: Really there's no objection that we heard
at the planning commission meeting about any problem with the height
at three stories. It's lower than the LDC dens -- height of 50 feet,
which would be if we were doing the RHF-12. There are numerous
examples of coastal Collier County where single-family homes and
three-story units coexist quite well next to each other. And if you
look at the distance between where this property is and where Farm
Worker's Village is, I'm going to venture to guess you have 500 to 600
feet because you have -- you have the project; you have the swale; you
have the right-of-way for 29; you have a canal; and then you have a
buffer; and then you have Farm Worker's Village. So the idea that
these people will somehow bother Farm Worker's Village, they'd have to
swim the canal, or I guess they could go on the road. I'm sorry.
Would you like to say something, sir?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Lee. We don't normally
let speakers come back up for a second turn. If you have something
you can say quickly, please do.
MR. LEE: I'll do my best, sir. I can recall when there
were very few or maybe no three-story buildings in Naples. There has
to be a first time. And they didn't have two-story buildings in
Immokalee, so I see nothing wrong with two-story buildings. And I
guess, very briefly, three-story buildings in Immokalee, I think they
would welcome it. I welcome it certainly.
And to Miss Matthews, just briefly, we need homes. We
got people living in culverts and pipes. So let's worry about the
sidewalks later, because we got a lot of residents in the areas in
Immokalee that don't have sidewalks right now, please. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We recently looked at a project
called Bear Creek, which was affordable housing, and it was right next
to -- I mean, right next to the folks on Yarberry Lane. And because
of the physical proximity, we made the first building, nearest
building, two story and then three story after that, if you may
recall. We were talking a separation of maybe 150 feet from that
building to the home. The only time height becomes -- from a planning
perspective the only time height becomes a problem is when the site
line is distorted or appears grossly out of character or if someone
walks on their patio instead of seeing a residential structure is
looking up into a monolith. I mean, that type of thing is when we
have a problem with physical land planning relationships.
That begs a question. What kind of distance are we
talking between the physical building here and the nearest residential
structure in Farm Worker's Village?
The second question is, you see a lot of vegetation on
this, and I used to draw those, and you just draw that vegetation in
anywhere it looks good. But what I would like to know is what type of
vegetation exists there currently? Is there a commitment to retain
it, because I think it's pine trees, isn't it?
MS. CAWLEY: It's mixed pine flat woods. Yeah, there's
some beautiful trees on there that we will be retaining, uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. So if we are going to
go above two stories, one, make sure that that impact is mitigated in
some way by distance, buffers, or both. And so if we can do that,
then it falls in line with several approvals we've made in the past
and in similar situations. But I think Commissioner Matthews'
question is, you know, why should three stories be allowed here.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MS. CAWLEY: I don't have a scale with me, but I do have
an aerial. One inch equals four hundred feet -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: About two fingers' width.
MS. CAWLEY: -- and if I knuckle it to the first unit,
it's -- it's probably about 300 feet, maybe -- maybe 350. Does anyone
have a scale? It's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A planner without a scale. Ray,
I'm ashamed of you.
MS. CAWLEY: We're not backing units up to units. This
is across a state highway.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Across the drainage ditch?
MS. CAWLEY: Across the drainage ditch, across two
drainage ditches.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's talk about the vegetation.
MS. CAWLEY: And the vegetation, the landscaping?
MR. DORRILL: Here's a planner. He did this for me in
Immokalee as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have scale will travel.
MS. CAWLEY: Have scale will travel is right. Let me
see if I can find a spot where --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's how we trained him at
Collier County planning.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, actually I'm showing 400 feet with a
scale, so it is an estimate.
The vegetation, one of the things that Mr. Cronacher is
well-noted for is his landscaping. And if you go to Arbor Walk, you
will see that he is very, very high on landscaping and -- and that's
one thing that this project will have.
We took a tour of Immokalee actually with Mr. Thomas
after the planning commission meeting. And one of the things we
noticed with all the other units out there was no landscaping. They
-- they really put nothing into the projects because it's so
expensive to do. But this project will be landscaped. The buffers on
the project will -- will, I -- I believe, and based on the site plan
that I've seen, will exceed the county buffers of the -- that are
required by the LDC.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Would -- can you commit
today to the maximum retention of existing vegetation -- MS. CAWLEY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as far as pine trees along 29
and in addition augment that as necessary to meet or exceed code with
additional landscaping?
MR. CRONACHER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got to meet it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I said meet or exceed.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, one of the things we also have to do
is we have to retain 25 percent of the viable native habitat on site.
We are going to comply with that. And by doing that we are going to
be retaining a lot of the vegetation out there already, and that's one
of the things that we feel is real important.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the short pine trees do a
lot for shielding.
MS. CAWLEY: Pine trees we love, yes. That's not a
problem.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's no more questions, I'll
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval of
staff's recommendation.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel is trying to get something
in here.
MR. WEIGEL: Just a moment. Before you would vote, I
would appreciate, inasmuch as there may have been some ex parte
communications prior to the hearing today, that you would indicate for
the record, Commissioners, whether or not you've received ex parte
communications and whether that affects your vote here today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I have and will make my
decisions based on the presentation made today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have had telephone contact, but I am
going to base my decision on the presentation made here today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with the petitioner twice,
also talked to some folks out in Immokalee a couple of times, and
received some letters, but I think the presentation today is what I
will base my decision on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, I should have said
telephone and personal contact.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Obviously I said I've been to a
lot of different places in Immokalee, but my decision will definitely
be made on the presentation today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That being said, I will second
the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That motion then fails by a
three-to-one vote.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me put on the record the
reason I voted no. It is specifically density and compatibility
issues. There are no 12-unit-per-acre projects two miles outside of
the downtown area. They just don't exist. The ones that do exist are
in the downtown area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what's -- what available --
what's available? I know that there are limitations on a project
being able to come back after it's been voted down. Is there any way
to talk about this more? Is there -- is there --
MR. CUYLER: Commissioners, you have the ability, if you
wish, to make another motion if you want to, and that motion could be
tabled for three weeks or whatever.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I want to make another
motion, and then it can be tabled, but I don't want to see this die
here today. So advise me, Mr. Weigel. What kind of motion can I make
that can be tabled, and we can talk about this again later?
MR. CUYLER: I think -- I have a -- you know, one
suggestion is we can go back and take a look more specifically at some
of the things that Commissioner Matthews mentioned about the sidewalk
and see if we can reach any type of more positive answer on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What if I moved approval subject
to sidewalk and height discussions, further discussions?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think I'd need something more
-- more definite than that. I mean, I don't know what -- what the
feasibility of the project is if they were to limit the height on it
or reduce the density. So if we need to go in that direction --
MR. CRONACHER: Commissioner Matthews, it's going to be
a very difficult task to find 7.6 million dollars in grant -- free
money for Immokalee anywhere in this county. And taking it down to
two stories adds $987,000 to buy the additional land, and the project
will be dead. I've got $100,000 of my company's money invested in
this to get it so far, and I won't spend another dime.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Mr. Weigel, I'm still looking
for advice. I want to make a motion that then I'm going hope somebody
else will make a motion to table for three weeks so we can talk about
this again.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the board has taken a motion. By
virtue of the motion there has been a failure of approval. There has
not been a motion effectively denying -- this is a little bit unique
in the sense that it comes up in the way that it does.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So absent a motion to deny, we
could have another motion on the floor?
MR. WEIGEL: You can make another motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'm going to make a motion
that we approve it subject to the stipulation that we get sidewalk
improvements from F-DOT.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody second it and table it.
MS. STUDENT: -- before you vote I want to put something
on the record, if I might.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go right ahead.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. I just wanted to remind the board
that this is a quasi-judicial matter. It's not a legislative matter.
And pursuant to the Snyder case there has to be a compelling interest
based upon -- a compelling government interest based upon substantial
competent evidence presented today to deny, and it can't be arbitrary
or discriminatory. I just want to put that on the record on the basis
of the Snyder case. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we should make findings if
we're going to deny. So far we aren't talking about denial.
MR. CUYLER: I think what Hiss Student's said, subject
to you making another motion, is nobody appeared at the planning
commission meeting and presented any evidence at all as to height or
compatibility being an objection. What you have in front of you is
your staff report saying it's consistent with the master plan, and
it's compatible with the surrounding area. Nobody has appeared today
to present any evidence whatsoever to you that the -- that it's
incompatible or that the height is a problem.
You have no evidence in front of you whatsoever. And I
understand more than anybody in this room that there's a certain
amount of discretion in zoning hearings. But the law is becoming
clearer and clearer that you have to base it on evidence. And there
is no evidence against this petition at this point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the time's come to kind
of stop dancing around this. The truth is there are some groups in
the Immokalee area that are opposed to this project. I've had phone
calls from them. We probably all have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I explained to those
individuals, I understand their concerns, but we do have a legal
responsibility to base our findings on fact as presented here today.
I have an amount -- amount of difficulty with the findings
Commissioner Matthews has stated. And she's perfectly in her right to
do so, but the fact that no other high density zoning occurs in this
area when, in fact, through our growth management plan and the
Immokalee future land use map this particular area was designated to
be -- to allow for that density -- it may be conflicting and, again,
if we physically can find there is a physical reason why this project
is not or will not or cannot be compatible, I think that becomes a
compelling reason for denial. That's why I systematically walked
through the buffering and setback questions in comparison to approvals
we have issued on affordable housing projects to establish whether
that was in place or not. And if -- if, in fact, it is not
compatible, then I would -- would make a motion to deny it.
I obviously differ with Commissioner Matthews on this
matter. And the concern here is unlike Bear Creek. I don't think Mr.
Cronacher is going to from the money he's spent already -- send Mr.
Cuyler off to challenge this thing in court. I think what we're going
to do is lose the opportunity of this project. The last thing I want
to see is the fears that were expressed to me come true. But I've yet
to see nothing today that validates those fears, so we're looking for
-- we're looking for a motion. I believe Commissioner Mac'Kie's
looking for a motion to find some way to put this back in the
discussion --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I made a motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is a motion on the floor. Let
me interject here. Under our reconsideration procedures, Commissioner
Matthews, if you would like to -- as you either prevail here -- if you
would like to change at this point, you have the ability to reopen the
-- the motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I -- I'll be quite honest.
MR. CUYLER: The developer has just indicated to me that
even if he has to pay for it out of his own pocket, he will put the
sidewalk in, but there may not be the monies to -- to get at the state
level for that, because that's an off-site improvement, but he is
willing to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'll amend my motion to
approve it subject to the requirement there be a sidewalk, whether
it's funded through F-DOT funds or privately. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: By what time scale?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Concurrent with development of
the project.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now, that's a different motion,
so we can act on that motion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I've withdrawn my first motion
and --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it still doesn't answer my
primary concern of the density. I mean, the -- the height is one
issue, but the density for me is a prevailing issue and -- I'm sorry,
there's nothing around it that's -- that's close.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have to start somewhere.
MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Matthews, let me make a short
argument, and then if you want to second that motion and table that,
then, you know, we would accept that. This -- that area -- I'm sure
you've been out there for -- in a large part is undeveloped out there.
What the community has done through its master plan and what the
Board of County Commissioners has done through the Immokalee master
plan is it has determined what types of uses it wants to go into that
area in the future. It's a future land use map.
It's not fully developed. If it was fully developed,
you wouldn't have any kind of issue like this. But the community got
together, and they said we want lower density in this area. Obviously
in order to make up for that, we have to have higher density areas.
So they established this neighborhood center which has the higher --
provides for, without any density bonus, provides for 12 units an
acre, provides for commercial, provides for mixed uses. And that's
what the community as a whole has decided that it wanted to do, and it
presented that to the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of
County Commissioners approved that. So --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this meets all of those.
MR. CUYLER: When you talk about a vision of the
community and members of the community who are telling each of you
what they want, that is what they want. And what they want is what
you have put in -- in the comprehensive plan through the participation
of the entire community. It's not one or two people who say this is
what I want or I don't think this is good. It's the entire community
putting together an entire plan. And that 12 units an acre is
consistent, and the next-door neighbors can have 12 units an acre, or
there may be commercial next to it. That's really the vision that --
this is all in addition to the affordable housing provisions in -- in
the comprehensive plan and the Immokalee plan.
You can never go in and do what you want to do with
regard to eliminating substandard housing until you start to provide
housing for those people to go. The entire plan hinges on this type
of thing. And in Naples when you don't approve a project, the -- the
quality and the land values over here dictate that in five or six or
ten years somebody else is going to be back with a project for that
piece of property. But in Immokalee if you let a project like this
go, you may never see it again.
This developer's got a lot on the line. He's doing a
lot towards getting his own funding through the state, seeking it
out. He's not asking for county assistance. And you used the term
unique earlier. This is a unique project. You may not see anything
like this again. Future developers that want to put in affordable
housing -- you know, what are they going to say to themselves, you
know, that's the reception that we got at the Board of County
Commissioners in a -- in an area that's consistent and compatible.
What are we ever going to do if we have a problem trying to put in
affordable housing?
So, you know, I would ask you to reconsider. I'd ask
you to take a look at the sidewalk. If it's not an A-plus project in
your -- your opinion, certainly it is a good enough project and fills
the -- fulfills the need of the Immokalee community. Certainly it's
good enough to, you know -- to take that little chance on and provide
that housing that's needed in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one additional item that
hasn't really been mentioned, and that is that the NC zoning district
is intended to promote mixed uses. If you're going to attract any
type of business or commercial interest, there's got to be a
sufficient density, a sufficient population base, to warrant those
businesses locating in that area. If we look at the NC zoning
district and say 12 is too much, I mean, pick a number. Eight, six,
two, none, you can walk down the density line, and unless you allow
some level of density in this area that is intended for moderate to
high density, you're not going to attract the businesses and the
mixed-use intent of the district.
We have a school there. One of the greatest buffers
between schools and low density is multifamily. You know, I just --
the intent of the NC zoning district is clear. This project appears
to meet the intent of the NC zoning district. And I think because no
parcels around it have developed at similar densities in the past,
using that as a basis for decision, that basis would have -- would
have denied those petitions also, because they would have been the
same to -- they would have come in and said we want to do 12 units an
acre. So if the idea is that -- that there's nothing else around at
that density, that idea will be perpetuated, because there never will
be until somebody starts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's the only question -- if
the only question is that this might be too dense, I feel perplexed.
I feel like you must know something I don't know, because I know that
you're a proponent of affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely, and -- and but what
I see with this particular project is it's two miles outside of the
downtown area, and it is 13 --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too close or too far?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Too far.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too far, two miles?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can even walk two miles.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's 13 -- yeah, it's 13 units
per acre.
MS. CAWLEY: Twelve.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Twelve units per acre, but it's
adjacent to -- or not adjacent, across the street from a project
that's only four units. And the area, all that yellow around it,
that's all low density. It's not --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the Immokalee master plan has
said please give us this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, now, we're going over the
same ground over and over.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm trying to persuade her.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have a motion on the floor. At
this time for lack of a second --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's already died.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'll make it again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A substitute motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I do not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: She does not have a substitute
motion. Do you have a new motion you would like to make?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I would like to move that
we approve this project subject to the condition that a sidewalk be --
be installed --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the developer's behest.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- at the developer or at the
F-DOT expense.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
MR. CUYLER: At this time could I get -- I'd like to ask
for a continuance for three weeks if we could do that. We want to
make sure of the financing, if nothing else, and we will do that, if
we have to out of the developer's pocket but if there is any more
money anywhere that we can suggest anything else to you that might
assist we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to table the
item at the petitioner's request -- continue the item for three weeks
at the petitioner's request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion on the floor which
has been also a motion to continue the first motion. We had a second
for both of them. Call the question. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
Those opposed?
That will be continued for three weeks, and we're going
to recess for lunch, and we'll be back at 1:15.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Miss Cawley, can we meet in the
intervening three weeks about the density?
MS. CAWLEY: Sure, no problem, anytime, anywhere.
(A lunch break was held between 12:05 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.)
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 96-25 REVISING THE POLICY AND PROVEDURES FOR VACATION AND
ANNULMENT OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF SUBDIVIDED LAND, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY,
PUBLIC-DEDICATED EASEMENTS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OR PUBLIC BY GRANT OF
EASEMENT OR SIMILAR INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OTHER
THAN ON A SUBDIVISION PLAT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. Mr. Dotrill, we only have three members for the moment, so
we'll need to pass over any of the items that are four-vote minimums.
I think we can do this, 12(C)(1). It's a resolution revising the
policy and procedures for vacation and annulment of plats, road
rights-of-way, and alleyways. Russ, what do you have for us today?
MR. HULLER: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Russ Huller, transportation. Item 12(C)(1) is a public hearing to
consider revising the resolution 92-152, policy and procedure for
vacation of easements. Changes include not requiring a public hearing
for platted easements and requiring a vacation of all properties being
replatted. The public hearing requirement is not statutory and has
been questioned by the board in the past. The vacation to replat is
required by Florida Statute 177.101 and shall be processed by the
engineering review services section together with the replat process.
The filing fee will be set at $500.
A resolution was prepared and approved by the county
attorney's office and is in accordance with Florida Statute 177.101,
336.09, and 336.10.
An omission was made to attachment D which is page 16 of
your agenda item on or about line 57 where I'd like to insert C(2)(B)
which I'll read. List of abutting and other property owners within
250 feet of the proposed vacation to include name, address, and ZIP
code. That's so we can send letters to the adjacent property owners
of the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On that, Russ, real quick,
consent agenda items still receive the same notification process
regular agenda does; is that correct? If it's on consent agenda, same
notification process?
MR. RUSS: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. RUSS: With that addition, staff recommends
approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think this is a great idea,
having worked with this --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe it emanated from you,
didn't it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- in the private sector and the
public. I'd like to move approval of the staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Mr.
Dotrill, are we comfortable that we are not opening the door to let
something unintended happen to us in the future by not maybe having as
much inspection of some of these as we should? Are we comfortable
with this?
(Commissioner Matthews entered the boardroom.)
MR. DORRILL: I think that we are, but I think it's
something that needs to be monitored as we get started with the change
so that if we need to come back with some modification we can, but I'm
in support of the staff position.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Along those same lines, the level
of staff review remains consistent, if I'm correct, Mr. Mullet? It's
just how it is presented to the board that is being changed?
MR. HULLER: Exactly. And it helps in the time -- in
the time frames of the advertisement.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if there is -- The reason I
asked about notice requirement, if there is an objection, one of us
will put it on the regular agenda for discussion. So I think that
notice requirement is probably the most important part of consistency
there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's true, but at the same time
there have been rare instances when we disagree with staff. So I just
want to make sure that we weren't putting ourselves in a position to
-- to maybe not have the control that we intended to have. And if
Mr. Dorrill's comfortable with it at this time, we'll go ahead with
it.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And those opposed?
Thank you, Mr. Mullet.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 96-26 RE PETITION CU-95-15, JAMES H. SIESKY OF SIESKY &
PILON REPRESENTING HIGHLAND PROPERTIES OF LEE AND COLLIER LTD. FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PER SECTION 2.6.9 (ESSENTIAL SERVICE) OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH PROVIDES FOR ESTABLISHING A SEWAGE EFFLUENT
POND(S) IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE
MILE WEST OF C.R. 951 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST - ADOPTED
Next petition is 13(A)(1), petition CU-95-15. Hr.
Siesky, are you here? Does he know you're going to have that?
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record, planning services
department. This petition is made possible by provisions in the Land
Development Code which provide for sewage lagoons or sewage treatment
ponds as essential service conditional uses. The property we're
dealing with consists of 140 acres -- 48 acres plus or minus and is
located on the East Trail immediately across from the Hitching Post
and occupies the southwest corner of the Lely Resort PUD. To the west
is agricultural lands, and northwest is the Naples Manor development.
All of this property is zoned agricultural. The contiguous property
is zoned agricultural. And, of course, Lely Resort PUD is zoned PUD.
At the time this petition was submitted, the owner was
the Highland Properties; however, I think you all appreciate that at
this point in time the county is a contract purchaser. And
interestingly enough, as I understand it, the conditions of that
contract do not include zoning but include some permitting
requirements that I believe, in part, are met and, in part, will be
fully met by this Wednesday, I believe.
MR. DORRILL: Which is why I sat up a little straighter.
When you referred to my effluent ponds as a sewage lagoon, I started
to take offense to that.
MR. NINO: I'm sorry. I meant effluent ponds. Thank
you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me.
MR. NINO: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like a ride at Disney
World.
MR. NINO: And, of course, as you well know, the county
owns the piece in the middle which is the intended community park.
Conditional uses are required to meet certain
conditions, findings, and we enumerated those findings in your staff
report and believe that the preponderance of those findings support a
decision to approve the conditional use.
Let me go backwards a little and assure you that this
petition, if approved, would be consistent with the future land use
element and appropriate elements of the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, this is just a continuation
of the direction the board has given you previously; is that correct?
MR. NINO: Yes. Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers on this?
MR. DORRILL: You have no public speakers aside from the
agents who are here on behalf of the Hubschman interest and I presume
will answer questions if you have them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume if a motion for approval
is made, the agents will probably waive their speaking.
MR. DORRILL: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As -- As Chairman Norris
indicated, we looked at a lot of the external impacts when we agreed
to go forward with the purchase of this land. So nothing in those
impacts has changed in your opinion, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: No, they have not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The fact that this remains
consistent, I'll make a motion to approve petition CU-95-15.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing first.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The public hearing is closed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to approve
petition CU-95-15.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 96-27 RE PETITION CU-95-16, WILLIAM L. HOOVER OF HOOVER
PLANNING, REPRESENTING JAMES H. SMITH, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USES "1"
AND "3" of the "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A CHURCH AND A
CHILD CARE CENTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD - ADOPTED \
Next item is 12(A)(2), [sic] Petition CU-95-16, Hr.
Hoover's project. Mr. Bellows, you'll be presenting that?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows of the
current planning staff presenting petition CU-95-16, William Hoover
requesting conditional use one and three of the estate zoning district
to allow for a church and child care facility for property located on
the south side of Golden Gate Boulevard. As you can see, the subject
site is located next to a non-residential use, Collier County park,
and is a lot -- one lot away from the Big Cypress Elementary School.
The proposed 280-seat church and child care facility
qualifies as a transitional conditional use as specified in the Golden
Gate master plan based on the following criteria. The site is no
closer than one-half road mile from the intersection of the
neighborhood center. Two, the site is two and a half acres or more in
size, less than five acres. Three, the property abuts a
non-residential use, in this case the county park. The site is also
not to be adjacent to a church, school, or fraternal lodge, or foster
home, which it is not.
The petitioner proposes to develop the project in two
phases. The first phase limits the church to 6,250 square feet and
the child care center to 2,600 square feet. The second phase limits
the church to 10,000 square feet and the child care to 3,700.
The traffic review indicates 58 weekday trips and 228
trips on Sunday in phase one, while in phase two it will generate 206
trips on a weekday and 16 trips on a Sunday. At buildout, the entire
project will generate 350 trips on a weekday and 388 trips on a
Sunday.
To improve compatibility with the surrounding properties
to the north across Golden Gate Boulevard, the applicant has set back
the structure to approximately 110 feet to preserve a large wooded
landscaped area in front of the project. The Collier County Planning
Commission reviewed this on January 4 and approved it by a vote of
eight to zero.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Bellows, what is on that lot there
that is between the subject property and Big Cypress Elementary?
MR. BELLOWS: This one is a single-family residence
owned by the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's an existing residence at this
time?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Owned by the petitioner?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Owned by the petitioner?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Owned by the petitioner?
MR. BELLOWS: Owned by --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're probably not going to
object.
MR. BELLOWS: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They did not object to their own
petition?
MR. BELLOWS: No, they did not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's good to know.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You never know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm a little concerned when I
look at the parking area. I see one stormwater treatment, a storage
area to the southeast on the property. Obviously I assume that's got
to be bermed to avoid, you know, going off site. MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just looking at it, and the
rule of thumb on -- on many facilities is roughly 20 percent of the
site, and I'm just curious if the petitioner could address for me how
stormwater management has been addressed. Obviously this area is no --
It's no secret that a periodic flooding can occur. I'm just curious
about the stormwater address, how you address stormwater on this site.
MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover
Planning representing the petitioner. The stormwater was addressed by
Michael Andy of Butler Engineering, and he didn't feel there was any
problem on using that area down there. If we need to, we -- we -- we
do have two additional natural areas on the north end of the property
that could be utilized for that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And are you anticipating paving
all parking or possibly using grass parking in some areas?
MR. HOOVER: The rule on that is you can use up to 70
percent grass parking. So I -- I would assume somewhere between 50 to
70 percent would be grass spaces.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any more questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
UNKNOWN VOICE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. Yes, we do. There's Ms.
Howard.
MR. HOOVER: If you'd like, I'll just make my
presentation after the speakers. Is that fine? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
MR. DORRILL: Then, Mr. Keller, you'll follow Ms.
Howard. Ms. Howard, go right ahead.
MS. HOWARD: I'm Donna Howard. I live just about across
the street from this, and I'm very much opposed to this. We have a lot
of traffic flow there. There, as a matter of fact, yesterday was an
accident just down the street from the school. You have school five
days a week nine months out of the year. You have the park that's
going to be in there which I'm glad it's there. I have no problem
with that. I have no problem with the school. My problem lies with
the church and the day care center. The day care center is all
year-round. We have enough traffic on that boulevard. I've lived
there for 16 years. I've seen a lot. I have four children, ten
grandchildren, and one great grandchild. So I am not against children
in any way nor am I against churches. But to put that there with the
traffic at the school -- you have big trucks going up and down from
Apac. You have the school bus themselves that take the kids from out
-- way out. You have the emergency vehicles going up and down there,
and it goes all the time.
I bought out there knowing that this was residential.
When you put the day care center in there, this does not represent
residential any longer. It turns commercial. I like my peace. I love
living out in the woods, and I -- I would really like it to stay the
way it is. I like the park being there. If I want to go over and
watch my grandkids play ball, I can do that, and I can watch the other
ones. I don't mind that.
This should not happen out there. It's not needed out
there, as was said before. We have 14 child care centers in Golden
Gate, not including the ones that are in private homes. There are 30
churches in Golden Gate. We don't need another church there. The
traffic is too bad. It's -- It's a risk. It's a very big risk. I've
seen a lot of very bad accidents there.
Mr. Smith had phoned me and told me that the county was
surrounding him, he can't sell his house, so on, so forth because the
county is doing this to him so this is why he wants to do this. Well,
how is this going to help him sell his house? Another thing he said
was he wasn't planning on moving for four years because his son's in
school. Well, his son's a junior in high school. So that lets out
four years.
I've lived there 16 years. I've lived in this county --
it will be 26 years next month. I have no plans on moving. I plan to
live here and retire here, hopefully in peace. Please, I'm asking you
to let this just stay with the school and the park. The residential
-- if you have a house built there, you have maybe two to three cars.
If you have this church and day care, you can have -- I believe the
parking was between 50 and 60. That's a heck of a lot more cars going
in and out of there.
Also, they contend that there's going to be four-laning
in two years. It comes up for review in two years. It doesn't mean
that it's going to be done. To me this is -- When he brought this up,
he had 5.545 acres of land, and in order to get around this, he deeded
over to the county all but 4.9. Now, to me he did this deliberately
just to stay in realm of what you have to be, under five acres. This
is solely for his own personal gain and not for ours, the people who
live out in the estates and want it to be kept residential. Please
help us keep it that way. Please help me keep it that way and keep
the people that go up and down there a little bit safer. We don't
need this added traffic there. We don't need the day care center.
You do not have to build the church also as we found out at the
Planning Commission. If you can build that, you can build that day
care center and never have to build the church. So this church to me
is just let me build it because it's going to be a church. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Howard --
MS. HOWARD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- am I correct in assuming that
you are not -- it would be in opposition if this were just a church or
just a day care facility and not combined? You would be in opposition
of either individually?
MS. HOWARD: Either one.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. HOWARD: But basically the day care.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The -- Miss Howard has
somewhat of a point as I look at the location of the school and the
park and this potential use, that we're kind of developing a node in
the estates here, and it's never popular to say no to a church or no
to a day care facility '-
MS. HOWARD: I realize that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but I think we do need to --
and I'll -- I'll let the remaining speakers come up, but I do think we
need to look at how this may begin to operate as a node out there.
And, Mr. Bellows, if you'll be thinking about that, we might want to
talk about that a little bit later. MR. BELLOWS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Hiss Howard.
MS. HOWARD: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Ms. Cirincione.
MR. KELLER: George Keller. I hope you don't confine me
to ten minutes. I may not take it, but I'm representing the Golden
Gate Estates Civic Association. I'm the official spokesman for them
before the board. We do have the president here. She may say
something too. However, I've been involved in zoning in Collier
County for over 15 years. I was -- I was chairman of the zoning
committee for the -- for the Collier County Civic Federation, and I
was president of that association for eight years, and I was very much
involved in zoning. And I'll refer to you the fact that in Golden
Gate Parkway, they -- some years ago they just kept on adding churches
and adding churches and adding churches, and it got to the point where
it was going to become Church Street instead of Golden Gate Parkway.
And so finally after much agitation by our group and the people in
Golden Gate -- especially the people on that side of Golden Gate --
you will notice in your codes, you're restricted the use of churches
on Golden Gate Parkway. And for those of you who are not familiar with
it, I'd like to just read that part. The provisional use, except
essential services, which is schools, police stations, and stuff like
that, shall not be permitted on Golden Gate Parkway within the -- the
-- in the estates-designated area west of Santa Barbara Boulevard or
on the west side of R -- C.R. 951 within the estates-designated area
unless the parcel is directly bounded by provision uses on two or more
of the sides -- side yards with no intervening rights-of-way or
waterways.
So it took -- it took three years, about three years of
hard work by the people in Golden Gate Estates to say no more. Now,
if we open up this can of worms right here, what we're doing is we're
going to be establishing a policy that is going to break the whole
spirit of the Golden Gate planning. I was on that committee for two
years.
Now, let me just refer you to the fact that when this
committee was finished with its work -- and it was very laborious work
-- this is the book I've got. I was -- I was the secretary of the
committee.
Okay. Now, they've -- they sent out a mailing. They
sent out a mailing to see what the people thought about our planning.
We set up activity centers, specific spaces, and said that no
provisional uses could be placed unless they were two and a half miles
from an activity center. Well, these activity centers were five miles
apart. So that means you couldn't put any in between the activity
centers. They had to go in the activity centers. Well, the letter
they sent out asked the people in Golden Gate what their opinions were
about various things and it was -- Number one was continue the current
procedure. Number two was continue current procedure with
modifications to the review criteria. Number three was limit
provisional uses to potentially -- potential activity centers.
Now, the results of that was, number three, restrict the
use of the activity centers. Fifty-four and six-tenths percent of the
people were for that -- that provision. Overall -- Overall, all of
the people in Golden Gate City and the estates come out against --
fifty-four and six-tenths percent against any changes from the
planning that was set up by the committee. The committee was -- The
committee was very diligent. We set up -- We set up a planning for
Golden Gate Estates that was far ahead of any planning for this whole
county. Our plan --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Keller, the -- the staff
report says that the proposed uses are consistent with the Golden Gate
master plan.
MR. KELLER: Well, now, you see, here's the answer to
the thing. We -- We spent two year -- two years on this master plan,
and we -- we specifically wanted these activities put in the activity
centers. But when it got thrown around and staff and such, by the
next year they made some changes, but even so, in that particular
answer, they -- they are right when they talk about this particular
thing by -- word for word, but if you put a provisional use --
provisional uses shall not be limited to designated neighborhood
centers, and they put the word "neighborhood centers" instead of
"activity centers." In fact, I don't know where they got that word
because we never used it. Provided they put adequate -- Provided they
give adequate buffering from residential areas but also -- also even
though you could put one in, it says that you can't put one in next to
-- next to a church, a school, day care center, and various other
things. Now, this is a church and a day care center. Now, if you
couldn't put another provisional use next to a church or a day care
center, how come you can put the day care center next to the school?
How come you can put the church next to the school? It -- It -- It's
really -- Honest and truly, if I -- it would take a Philadelphia
lawyer to understand this thing, and it was a -- it was a mess when it
was finally finished up. It was not what the people wanted. We do
not want any -- to break -- break the present zoning in the estates.
We have the best zoning in the estates of any part of Collier County
and maybe the best zoning in the world because we restrict it to one
house on two and a half acres unless you are grandfathered in with the
one and a quarter acres, and we have no place -- no place -- no
provision to go and put this type of thing where it is. Unfortunately
we put the school there, and we put the park there. So then what
happened is the people that had the property next to the park sold
out, and I think they sold to this man. But, please, do not go and
start opening up a can of worms and -- and if you do, we're going to
have provisional use all over the estates, and I'm telling you that
whoever votes for this is going to be in trouble.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you like to specify that
threat, Mr. Keller?
MR. KELLER: Well, when the election comes up --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not going to take me out
in the hall, are you?
MR. KELLER: When the -- When the election comes up,
we'll specify.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to point out the staff
didn't make any changes to the Golden Gate master plan. That was done
during a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
MR. BELLOWS: -- which did away with the neighborhood
centers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, the board adopts it.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So whatever it is, it's the
board's decision. We adopted it.
MR. KELLER: But you can't -- You can't put --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Keller --
MR. KELLER: You can't put --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Keller, you've had your turn,
please.
MR. KELLER: But --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Keller, please.
MR. KELLER: All right. All right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I had a question for Mr. Bellows
in that the -- the changes that occurred in this master plan based on
what Mr. Keller is telling us and the changes that were -- that were
actually adopted, when was that done? MR. KELLER: 19 -- 19 --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm asking Mr. Bellows, please.
MR. KELLER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: I wasn't involved, but that was long-range
planning. I wasn't involved in that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Any idea what the date was, what
year?
MR. KELLER: 10 of '91.
MR. BELLOWS: '93. '92.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: '92. Okay. And -- And do you
have any information as to how the changes came about that Mr. Keller
is talking about?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's purely long-range, and I
wasn't involved in that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Because I -- I --
MR. BELLOWS: The thing --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When I read -- When I read this
over the weekend, I, like Commissioner Hac'Kie, am saying, you know,
this says that it's okay.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Basically there was a provision. I
believe it was always in the Golden Gate master plan for transitional
conditional uses which this is. That means if someone has property
that abuts a non-residential use, they feel that there's a detriment
to their ability to market their property, and, as a result,
conditions put into the Golden Gate master plan allowed for them to --
for conditional uses to buffer between the residential uses on either
side of this non-residential use. In this case, when the county
inserted the county park at this location, it created an opportunity
for this property to be consistent with the transitional conditional
use criteria. There's only two such properties --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The county imposed the
conditions. By -- By putting the park there, the county imposed the
conditions that allows them to qualify the needs of the transitional
__
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- conditional use
characteristics by putting the park there.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And you can only do it once. You
can't piggyback off this conditional use.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To get the house next door.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next speaker, please.
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Cirincione s your final registered
speaker.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. CIRINCIONE: I'm Vilma Cirincione. I'm president of
the Golden Gate Estate Area Civic Association. I happen to have had
the flu so I've got a cold. I think this whole thing has gotten off
track. First of all, we're talking about a business. A child care
center is a business, and according to the master plan, businesses are
not allowed in the estate except in those utility centers which the
commissioners over a year ago -- like two years ago eliminated those
utility centers and said --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The neighborhood centers, you
mean?
MS. CIRINCIONE: The neighborhood -- Well, now they're
calling it neighborhood, but when I'm going to these planning meetings
now, they're still calling them utility so it's changeable --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Activity.
MS. CIRINCIONE: Activity. I'm sorry. Activity. Wait a
minute. So the thing is that it was brought up. They were questioned
at the last meeting before the commission board, and they said the
church does not have to be built for five years or more. They can put
in a child care center the next month. Then you're talking about a
business. It's not a church. A church is not in business. So,
actually, by allowing it, you're breaking the master plan because on
our master plan the new one that's going to come out, I did have to
make a concession because of the fact that some of those members felt
we have to let people know if they're going to buy property next to a
utility center, that it could be commercial. So they have made one
change for the new plan, but it's still no businesses anyplace else
except that they want to reinstate the four centers that you took out
two years ago. They want to put them back in, and I did tell them
that the commissioners took them out, and you're putting them back in.
So this is what I did concede to and they insisted on. All future
activity centers will be put on commercial and conditional use in the
year 2000 when need identified. I mean, they're talking about a
church that is not in existence. I mean, it's -- If you're going to
allow him to do this, then every owner on the boulevard can deed us 30
feet to the county, and he'll have a conditional use. And if we're
going to honor the master plan, we have to stick to the master plan.
You know, in the past there have been a lot of people
here when they want to put a shopping center out in Everglades and
Golden Gate Boulevard, the people were in here protesting. They
didn't want it. I was at one hearing about two months ago, and some
man stood up and says, well, the estate needs businesses. Well, I
found out he didn't live in the estates. He owned the property out
there, so he wanted it. I says, you don't speak for estate people.
We had a vote last week, and we also had one for the
legislatures on the incorporation and everybody -- There were 45
people total. They all voted against changing the master plan and
allowing the child care center there. And, like I said, if you allow
one, you may as well throw the master plan out. I've wasted my time.
Those people are wasting theirs.
So I hope you're going to forget this business of a
church because I don't think they really are putting a church in.
It's really a child care center, and that's a business, and it's been
in court cases before in South Florida where when a church rents their
parking lot or anything else, they become a business, and they lose
their tax status. I mean, I know that from Miami.
So -- And another thing is he is selling. He's got his
house up for sale. He doesn't care. He's leaving. But we're going
to be stuck with the problem. And the next thing he'll want --
someone will want to expand from Wilson east and west and the same
thing on all the others. So please give it very careful consideration
because it is our future, and the people have told Betty Matthews, Mr.
Norris, Tim Constantine, and the other commissioners before you that
we do not want anything out there. We want it to be residential
country, and that's what they want, and that's what they asked for.
So give it very careful consideration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's it?
MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to point out that the
estates zoning district allows for churches and child day care centers
as conditional uses, these permitted uses as long as they obtain
conditional use approval. In this case, conditional uses can only
occur in the estates in transitional areas which this is one of the
sites.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because of the park.
MR. BELLOWS: Because of the park.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hoover, do you have something you
need to put on the record then?
MR. HOOVER: Yes. For the record, Bill Hoover. What we
wanted to show was that -- the -- the key issue on this -- on this
project seems to be two things. It seems like the civic association
are not happy with the Golden Gate area master plan; however, what's
currently in place is what we really need to --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bill, just so you know, George is
sabotaging your --
MR. KELLER: I'm trying to help.
MR. HOOVER: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: I'll hold them. Which one would you like?
MR. HOOVER: This one right here.
Basically to the west and the south, this property's
surrounded on two sides by a county park, and the county park is such
that down here we had four variances approved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Bill. You have a free
hand. Would you hang onto that? I think our county attorney may have
other things to do -- MR. HOOVER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- than be a standing easel.
Thank you.
MR. HOOVER: So to the south of the property -- the
subject property, we've got a county park. There was four variances
approved on that property. To me, that's probably the most intensive
use out there as a land planner. The -- One of the variances -- One
of the variances was for a -- allowing the height to exceed the normal
30-foot requirement. It goes up to 70 foot to allow light poles.
Another one reduced the front yard setbacks from 75 feet to 15 feet.
So we've got two pretty serious variances that were approved there.
The park back here, it's basically set up for exterior activity such
as basketball courts and things like this that are going to be
operating at eight, nine o'clock at night. Further to the east -- So
we have a school, and this property here is jointly use. So basically
these two properties owned by Mr. Smith have been surrounded by land
uses that I would call quasi-residential. And what we've done --
We've done a couple things here to try to improve compatibility with
the surrounding property. This natural area here is 110 feet deep,
and we have actually got the church setback about 175 feet. If you go
out and drive the road, the only place that you're actually going to
be able to see anything is through the driveway here. Hence, what we
have is something that you're really not going to see unless you drive
back in here to the park. And something else as far as compatibility,
the -- in the county staff report to the Planning Commission, the
county planner said that the project was deemed incompatible twice in
that staff report. In your executive summary, they've also stated
that the project is compatible.
The lady that was saying she lived approximately across
the street, she lives -- this is her house right here, and this is the
church. That's 800 feet away, and there's probably about 800 trees in
between there. So unless she builds some kind of tower or something,
she's not going to be able to see this church.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: She was talking about traffic
impacts -- impacts too, Mr. Hoover, not just visual impacts.
MR. HOOVER: Well, one of the Planning Commission
mentioned that -- in his opinion that the traffic is actually going to
decrease because people in the area -- if you want to use a child care
center, you may take one child to the school right here, and then
you've got to take your other child to Golden Gate City or maybe down
on Pine Ridge Road to a child care center. So what it does, it allows
you to eliminate your trips or shorten the trips. So it's not the
type of use the child care center where people are going to be driving
from Golden Gate City out here. It's more to serve the people in the
immediate area so you don't -- you can drop them off on your way to
work.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hoover, one of the statements
that was made several times indicated a separation between the day
care center and the church. Will the owner and operator of the church
be the same as the owner and operator of the day care center?
MR. HOOVER: At this time, that's what it would be
intended.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I'm not looking for at
this time. Here -- Here's my -- my concern. There was some
statements made that you could go out and build a child care center
and operate it and the church may come, it may not come, it may
happen, it may not happen. When you tie a church and a day care
center together, it creates kind of a different situation as just a
stand-alone commercial day -- commercial care, commercial day care. I
mean, the two are different uses in -- in traffic impact typically and
in other ways. So what I'm asking is, are the two seen as a single
project, or is this looking to get two uses on the project? Do you
have a church that's ready to move in and build or -- or not?
MR. HOOVER: They have three churches that they're
talking with right now, and the -- the only church that I've talked to
myself personally -- it's been a couple of months back -- the child
care center was extremely important for them, and they said they
couldn't afford a church project without the -- because they're a
growing church, but for them to put up a building, they -- they need a
child care center during the week that the church volunteers could
work at which would assist them in paying off their mortgage and
things like that to allow the church to grow.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could we -- Could we -- If -- If
the board chose to approve it, could a condition or a stipulation be
that a day care center can only be operated there in conjunction with
an operational church that -- that we're not approving a stand-alone
day care center?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe you may.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. HOOVER: One of the discrepancies we ran into -- I
talked to Tony Treego, a local surveyor for about 18 years. The --
the -- the -- Obviously the estates is typically made up of
two-and-a-half-acre and five-acre parcels out there. The tract that is
owned by Mr. Smith, because Golden Gate Boulevard is designed to be a
future four-lane road, when the plat was actually made, that --
instead of it being 660 feet, it was made 680 feet because the
intention was to give 50 feet right-of-way easement on the north end
to the county, and on the south end, there's -- Since we've got a
double frontage lot, we've got a 30-foot right-of-way on the south
side of the property. The county mistakenly advertised the property
instead of being 4 -- We have 4.545 acres of actual land that is not
-- doesn't have a right-of-way easement over it. And after I talked
to Mr. Treego, he said that's what you need to figure on your project.
Well, it was advertised as 5.45. The actual land on the original
deed was 5.15 acres, 680 times 330. So Mr. Kant from the
transportation services said that the county would be happy and it's
customary to take a deed, and we've prepared a deed. It's been run by
him as well as -- is it Kevin -- Kevin Hendricks of Real Property, and
they asked us to bring the original deed to the -- this hearing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course, the deed is not
effective until it's accepted by the county, and it can only be
accepted by the county commission.
MR. HOOVER: That's what Mr. Hendricks said.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So it's not effective yet.
MR. KELLER: It's illegal.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there any more questions for Mr.
Hoover?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I've -- I've got one
question and -- Mr. Hoover and Mr. Smith, I met with y'all yesterday
and -- and as of yesterday I had only had one phone call and a letter,
an objection to this, but I'll tell you, I -- I -- I think I need to
find out more about the public meetings that occurred in 1992 as to
this master plan because I'm -- I'm a little bit concerned that when I
met with you I had read this telling me one thing, and I think I'm
hearing something just a little bit different now as to this being a
transition area and Commissioner Hancock's option and notice that
we're creating a node and that we might need to be a little more
careful about that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That perhaps -- I mean, there
seems to be two -- two issues here though. Maybe this was an
unintended result --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I'm thinking.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- of the master plan process,
but, nevertheless, it exists presently while this man is applying for
approval for his property. So we've got a thin line to walk there
between what are the current regulations and we -- that we have to
abide by unless we can make a case that they were somehow adopted in
error or something.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The -- If I can comment
about the concept of a node there is that the idea is churches and day
care centers were to be spread out throughout the estates so that no
one area was impacted significantly by a cjustering, if you will, and
that really hasn't been followed in the past. What happens is a
church builds, and then about 300 feet away someone says, well, you
let them build so -- and you end up with --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like McDonald's and Wendy's. You
see one --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. You end up -- You end
up almost cjustering by way of -- of -- of land use saying, well, you
know, I'm next to a church, so why can't I be a church too. That
being said, the other side is that we created a situation here that --
that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that I look -- As I look at
the map, this piece will back up to a county park that's going to have
lights and -- and although they'll be shielded and everything, yeah,
there's -- you know. I'm not so much about -- worried about the
adjacent use. The adjacent use is a road, and that's pretty low
intensity, but they do back up to a county park. On the other side of
it, I probably wouldn't have the same feeling about -- you know,
considering granting it because it backs up to estates zoning --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- not a -- not a park. So we've
created a situation that we have to weigh and I -- I'll be honest. I
don't -- I'm not sure which way to go with it because there are some
impacts here that make this individual lot special, but by the same
token, Hiss Howard stated -- and I agree with her -- we need to be
concerned about the traffic generation here.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That's one point I would like to
bring up again, is that we're phasing the project to limit the size
until the four-laning occurs, and then they can build out to a
10,000-square-foot church.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that because the traffic
impacts require it? I mean, it --
MR. BELLOWS: No. It basically boiled down to when a
turn lane would be required, and the petitioner preferred not to build
that up front. So they phased the project to keep the left turn lane
into the site from being implemented right away.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I understood your answer, I
would have answered the question just the opposite. The traffic
impacts are such that this property owner could either build the turn
lane or wait until it --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- comes up in the county road
plan.
MR. HOOVER: That's absolutely incorrect. There-- I --
I turned in a traffic impact study that I will be happy to provide
with you. We did not meet the criteria for a left turn lane while the
road was two-laned.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even when it's maxed out?
MR. HOOVER: Correct. Mr. Kant says, well, I don't feel
comfortable with that, and even though you're not crossing the
threshold, I think we came to about 70 percent of the threshold. He
said, why don't we see if we can work something out. And so we
suggested phasing, and so that's the reason we agreed to phase the
project, so we would be less than, like, 50 percent of the threshold
of the left turn, and that criteria is found in the county's, like,
turn lane policy. So we do not cross that threshold.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But --
MR. BELLOWS: I was just referring to Mr. Kant, but you
said 70 percent. I thought he meant a little higher.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kant does recognize, as do I,
that Golden Gate Boulevard, the majority of the accidents -- I studied
some accident data along Golden Gate Boulevard several years ago, and
the majority of the accidents were where someone was turning left,
somebody two or three cars back would pull out to pass and then
broadside the person turning. It seems to be that this road has a
volume of traffic and a pattern of that happening.
MR. BELLOWS: That's one reason for this phasing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. So I think there are local
conditions that may merit additional concern beyond just minimum
threshold on -- on this particular road. I've seen the traffic data.
It's not pretty.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I want to --
MR. RYNDERS: If I could address the board when I get a
chance.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Just a moment,
please. I want to make a comment on the -- on the traffic on Golden
Gate Boulevard because I -- I've been concerned in following the PD
and E that's been going on for the four-laning of that road. And I --
I talked with Mr. Archibald just last week about it, and he -- he
tells me that that road is right now as we speak at 85 percent
capacity, and if nothing changes, it will be deficient by the end of
1996, and we have no plans to four-lane that for another three years.
We're going to -- He -- He tells me we're going to use the entire
three-year window available to us to four-lane it. So that road is
going to have more and more traffic impacts on it over the next four
years than it has right now.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does that not make it to the
staff report?
MR. BELLOWS: Basically what I said in the staff report
is that the project is being phased. The first phase doesn't exceed
the 5 percent significant test on Golden Gate Boulevard; so,
therefore, it's not a significant impact. And the second phase will
only occur after the four-laning.
MR. RYNDERS: If I could comment, my name is David
Rynders, appearing on behalf of the applicant. I'm an attorney here
in town. With regard to this issue of the traffic going onto Golden
Gate Boulevard, it's fairly obvious that the property fronts on two
streets. It also fronts on First Avenue Southwest. Now, if you're
concerned about all traffic being forced onto Golden Gate Boulevard,
you could require a second access point to the south for any church or
school or day care facility which would split some of the traffic and
reduce the impact on Golden Gate Boulevard. But the county commission
has set the standards and determined what is significant -- a
significant impact and what is not a significant impact, and we are
well under the threshold that y'all have determined is significant.
So to be calling it insignificant today when your standards say
something else doesn't meet the letter of the law.
The conditional use for this transitional zone meets
each of the six criteria for the Golden Gate master plan without any
question or problem. This deed that was presented was for 30 feet
which is half of -- of First Avenue Southwest which is already a
dedicated platted right-of-way. For some reason or other the original
surveyor included that half of the right-of-way for First Avenue
Southwest as a portion of this lot.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's arguably already owned by
the county because this --
MR. RYNDERS: It's already -- Yeah. It's already under
your control.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is just --
MR. RYNDERS: This is just to make real sure there's no
question about it. In fact, if you read the legal description of the
deed, it makes it real clear that the only thing being conveyed is the
30 feet of platted right-of-way you already have dedicated to the
public. So the lot is by law legally under the five-acre limit.
Now, the staff advised us sometime ago that there had
been some confusion about the interpretation of the Golden Gate master
plan and where churches would be allowed and would not be allowed, but
the language of it is elementary and clear if you just trouble to read
it. It makes it very clear that this and the -- the church and the
child care center are approved transitional uses, and the county and
the school board have created the situation there, and I don't know
how many situations you have where the county and the school have put
these parks and schools together in Golden Gate Estates, probably not
too many, but this is going to be the only place this is going to
occur, and the county has caused it. So we're just asking for the
relief under the criteria which we need under the land use plan and
the Golden Gate master plan for approval of this conditional use. And
there is nothing in the staff report and no evidence otherwise, other
than some neighbors' fear about the traffic being routed onto Golden
Gate Parkway which has already been analyzed professionally. The
criteria are established. The threshold are established. And we meet
all of them, and no evidence has been presented otherwise.
Now, we would suggest if there is this fear that there's
confusion about what would be allowed and now you're going to have
churches every 300 feet and so on, get busy. You can get a typewriter
and write up an amendment to that plan and make sure it doesn't
happen. Whatever your concerns are, make sure they don't happen in
the future. But we meet the terms of the ordinance and master plan
today, and all we want is what y'all have ordained we are entitled to
at this point.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Rynders.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I didn't know we ordained.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't ordain. We also don't have
any typewriters anymore but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got some quill pens though.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You know, when you look at the map,
there's really very little reason to assume that that should -- that
particular piece of property would be more desirable to remain as
residential than to be used as -- as what's being proposed here today.
I think really what makes good sense is that -- put the stipulation
in there that Miss Mac'Kie asked for, that perhaps we want to ensure
that they're not going to just be operating a day care business and,
therefore, require the church to go in first or at the same time as
the day care center. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one of those decisions
that I look at all my options and don't like any of them. You know,
it -- we did, in fact, create a situation here, and what's happened is
the residents in the immediate area keep saying things get busier and
busier and busier, and your concerns are valid. I can't tell you
they're not. The problem is Mr. Rynders has in -- in some cases
correctly stated the impact -- the ordained part I still don't agree
with -- but has correctly stated the conditions that have been
created. And unless this board can find where we are not in
compliance with the plans and the codes that are set forth, we, in
fact, do have an obligation there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a public hearing?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is a public hearing. Do we have
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm ready to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've already gone through all the
public speakers?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask -- Can I ask one
question here? They've talked about access to a road to the south to
try and take some traffic off Golden Gate Boulevard. What are the
options there, Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: It's a local road, and we would refer that
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a local neighborhood.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We wouldn't want all the traffic
entering onto that local road, and that's one reason the master plan
was designed to have backup.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: If I -- If I can --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There was one lady wanting to
speak. I don't know if you saw her.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we -- She's had her turn,
actually.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I would -- I would like to
say before we take a motion, I'm -- I'm really concerned about this
discrepancy between what the citizens in preparing the master plan
said they wanted and what we've really got, and -- and I -- I
personally would like to see this item continued until we get that
worked out and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you suggesting, then, that we --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm suggesting that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- we revise the Golden Gate master
plan to fit this one situation or this situation? We --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. No. No. No. No. I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We look at it separately, or what
exactly are you proposing? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And even if we did --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm proposing -- I'm proposing
that we -- you know, I -- I'm aware of what Mr. Rynders has said, that
as the master plan sits right now, he meets it, but I'm -- I'm really
concerned about the problem or the supposition that the citizens have
said they want one thing and what they really got is different.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But that's -- that's a separate --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But even if we changed it --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Isn't that a separate discussion? Mr.
Rynders, the public hearing is closed unfortunately.
MR. RYNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. I just thought there might
be a --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even -- Even if we changed it,
though, Commissioner Matthews, we couldn't retroactively apply it to
this property owner.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I realize that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why don't we act on this
petition and then give direction to staff to go forward.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because I -- Because I would
like to get the question resolved as to -- as to whether what we
really have in our master plan is what citizens said they wanted.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it can't affect this
petition. It can't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the petition was filed
prior to the change.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I realize that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I move approval subject to
staff's conditions and stipulations and subject to the condition that
the church and the day care center have to concurrently be approved
and operated.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Or the church comes first.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or the church comes first. Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So you're -- you're
putting a stipulation in that the church must be open and operational
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a condition of the operation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- as a condition of the day
care center being approved?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And your motion also includes the
phasing that staff has recommended?
MR. BELLOWS: That's a stipulation --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, because that was the other way
around.
MR. BELLOWS: Stipulation G on the agreement sheet
basically says the project shall be developed in two phases. The first
phase limits the church to the square footages mentioned, and then the
second phase cannot be initiated until Golden Gate Boulevard is
four-laned fronting the project.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's not going to happen
until 2000.
MR. BELLOWS: They can't continue -- They can't start
the second phase until it's four-laned.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the road -- If the road
reaches a point of failure prior to then, we're going to have to do
something. I mean -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we have a three-year
window in our Growth Management Plan, and it's my understanding we're
going to use every day of it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel --
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- you have something?
MR. WEIGEL: I would appreciate if for the record the
board members could state that -- as they probably can, that they're
making a decision based upon the evidence placed before them today.
And I asked Mr. Hoover on behalf of the applicant in regard to the
motion that is on the floor at the present time showing the linkage of
the church facility and the day care facility, that the applicant
would on the record agree to that so the record would be very clear in
that regard.
MR. HOOVER: We'd be saying something like the church
must be owned and operated at the time that any child care center is
-- receives a certificate of occupancy. Does that sound --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I'm --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The church is owned and operated by
whom?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't care by whom. I don't
care who owns it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I -- I do.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It needs to be the same -- same
person.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We want them all under a common
owner.
MR. HOOVER: That's why I wanted just to make sure
everybody --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HOOVER: Because I'm --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My statement that kind of started
that -- that ball rolling was that -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that the two need to be
linked. The two need to be linked, and the church needs to be
physically constructed and operational before the day care becomes
operational. That was -- That was --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The intention of my motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that agreeable, Mr. Hoover?
MR. HOOVER: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a -- Do we have a second on
this motion, by the way? It keeps growing. Let's second it before it
__
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before it gets too big.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Before it gets out of control.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just want to clarify what
we're -- what we're -- what the motion is so that I understand what
I'm voting on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The motion is that the church
must be built and functional prior to the day care center --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or concurrent with.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- or concurrent and that the
second phase of this operation -- and what is phase two, Mr. Bellows?
What is that?
MR. BELLOWS: Phase two basically is to build out the
square footage. You're limited to 6,200 square feet in phase one and
10,000 in phase two. So the remainder of that 6,250 square feet
cannot be initiated until four-laning.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That phase one, is it one
building or two buildings?
MR. BELLOWS: Could be two.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could be. Could be but doesn't
have to be?
MR. BELLOWS: (Nodding head)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And that they can't do
phase two until the four-laning is completed.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's condition G of the staff
stipulation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All right. And we're -- And
we're also stipulating that the church and the day care center be
under common ownership.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Hay the record show that Mr. Hoover on
behalf of the applicant is nodding yes, or you wanted to say yes for
the record, Mr. Hoover?
MR. HOOVER: For the record, we also agree that the
church and child care center would be -- is it owned in -- owned by
the same facility or owned in --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It would be under common ownership.
MR. HOOVER: -- be under common ownership.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Hoover.
I'd like to put on the record that I have had no prior
contact on this issue. I'm making my decision based solely on what
I'm hearing here today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same for me. No prior contact.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same here.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I have had prior contact
with a letter from a citizen opposing, a phone call from a citizen
opposing, and I met with the petitioner yesterday, and -- and -- and
we discussed the project at that time and -- but I will base my
decision on today's public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed?
That passes four to zero with stipulations.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we need to --
MR. WEIGEL: I've had a deed handed to me, and what we
can do is bring this back as a consent agenda item.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Bring it back to the next meeting if
that's acceptable.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think, in addition, we need to
recognize the relevance of what Hiss Howard and others from the -- the
estates have -- have brought up today, and we do need to be concerned
with -- I guess today I felt like our hands were kind of tied on this
one, but I don't want to see this happening throughout the estates.
So there's some work left to be done, and I'm not sure how to initiate
it or where to initiate it, but maybe we're hitting on board workshop
topics for next week already.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to say the stipulations
that we put on this are the -- are the things that made it work for me
because the concern was that there will be a child care center without
a church.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think they were concerned also
-- surprised that there could be anything other than a house on that
property and -- and -- and that they hadn't understood that this whole
transitional district or transitional conditional use opportunity
existed. And if they don't want it to be there, we need to talk about
whether or not there should be a transitional conditional use which is
what you've got here.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- And the other thing --
The other thing that we may want to do that we need our staff to do,
when we're in the midst of beginning to create another Golden Gate
Estates park where we create the transitional, we need to know that
we're doing that.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, because that's what happened.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 96-28 RE PETITION CU-95-18, JACK GILLILAND, ARCHITECT OF
GILLILAND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING NAPLES FIRST ALLIANCE CHURCH,
REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USES "2" CHURCH AND "4" DAY CARE CENTER OF THE
RSF-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
ESTEY AVENUE AND PINE STREET - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine. Let's move along now to
13(A)(3), petition CU-95-18, another church and day care center.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't mention transition.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record, presenting petition
CU-95-18 which is a petition that, if approved, would provide for
construction of a fellowship hall, church expansion, and a day care
center.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not in Golden Gate Estates.
MR. NINO: And, of course, the project is not in Golden
Gate Estates --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. NINO: -- and conditional uses within the
urban-designated area don't have to meet any special conditions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just compatibility.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, this is an expansion of an
existing church?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is. The church currently has
120-seating capacity within it and some offices and baby-sitting
services during -- during chapel services. The church is located on
the southeast corner of Estey and Pine Street. The property
immediately to the south is zoned commercial, and there is a medical
clinic on that property, a very large parking lot that abuts the
church property. Across the street is zoned RSF-4. To the north and
to the east -- To the north of Estey Avenue and to the east of Estey
-- I mean, to the east of the church site, the property is zoned
RHF-6.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one question, Mr. Nino, in
the -- in the recommendations that there be a maximum number of
children of 50.
MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was the basis for that?
MR. NINO: The basis for that is that this site is
relatively small and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Won't our regular ordinances take
care of how -- MR. NINO: No, it doesn't. We -- We set -- We either
set a cap or we leave it up to the developer as to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Doesn't parking control that or
MR. NINO: Well, indirectly parking controls that, and
that's what we're saying. Based on our -- Based on that site and some
anticipation of all of the uses that they're asking for, the size of
the property itself has a control factor. And if they're going to, in
fact, enlarge the church, then -- then the -- the size of the day care
center is going to have to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 as
opposed to 100. We think the church expansion is the -- is the
predominant mode here and the fellowship hall, but the day care center
should be clearly ancillary and accessory to the church. So we want
to put the major emphasis on church expansion and the fellowship hall.
One of the points we want -- we made in our staff report
is that the master plan is very vague. So we're saying to you that
for all intensive purposes you really can't pay much attention to the
master plan. We're acknowledging those uses -- Now hear me out.
We're acknowledging those uses and saying that what will drive the
amount of church expansion and fellowship hall, the size of the
fellowship hall, and day care center will be -- really be a function
of their ability to satisfy the parking. They're going to have to sit
down and make a decision as to how much church expansion they want
versus day care center. We don't think that's -- from a land use
point of view, that that is a -- you know, a major obstacle, but we
acknowledge the fact that they really haven't done their job of master
planning the site, and we don't have a problem with that because we
have our controls. That control is the SDP process which will
determine the amounts of the uses that they're asking for. If they
need to go back --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So in case they want to readjust
-- if they want to make their fellowship hall smaller and their day
care center larger, why are we dictating -- MR. NINO: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- 50 children? Why can't we let
the process -- MR. NINO: Because, as I said earlier, Commissioner, we
want the thrust of the expansion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why do we care?
MR. NINO: Well, we think the church is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why can't they control that? Why
should we be imposing that condition?
MR. NINO: Well, because, as I said, we think the church
is the driving use, that the day care center should be ancillary and
accessory. Otherwise, given -- given that proposition, Commissioner,
what would be wrong with them selling a portion of the site, as your
concern in the previous case, to a private organization and simply go
ahead and build a dare care center.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A lot of things.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the short answer to that
question is actually in two parts. Number one, we want to make sure
they're not going to use this as an opportunity to open a business
running a day care center. And, of course, the other thing is that by
us stipulating a number here today, then we will know what it is that
they are going to be able to do at the maximum. MR. NINO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers on this
one, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's no public speakers. Is there
anything else you need to get on the record?
MR. NINO: This was recommended unanimously by the
Planning Commission. We have no -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. NINO: We have no written or otherwise verbal
objections to the petition.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. None of the local residents in
the area -- MR. NINO: None of the local residents expressed any
concern.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Fine. I'll close the public
hearing then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, a quick question. If
you were to do a day care center under straight zoning, what zoning
would be required to construct a day care center?
MR. NINO: Well, a day care center is a conditional use
in all of the --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not -- Yeah.
MR. NINO: -- All of --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not in any zoning district,
is it?
MR. NINO: No. Not in the single-family zoning
district.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we need to go through the ex
parte?
MR. WEIGEL: You should.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I've had no communication
on this one. None.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No communication.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None -- None here either.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Now, do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make a motion we
approve petition CU-95-18 subject to staff's stipulations.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
There are none. So that passes four to zero.
Item #13A4
RESOLUTION 96-29 RE PETITION CU-95-22, BRIAN JONES REPRESENTING VERNE
W. MOSS, REQUESTING CONDOTIONAL USE 2.2.16.3.4 OF THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICT FOR DISTRIBUTION AND SALES OF LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM (LP) GAS
ON-SITE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF J & C BOULEVARD WITHIN THE J & C
INDUSTRIAL PARK WEST OF AIRPORT-PULLING (C.R. 31) AND NORTH OF PINE
RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896) - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
Petition 13(A)(4), petition CU-95-22. Mr. Milk, this is
a petition to allow someone to sell propane in the industrial park? MR. MILK: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there anything else that we need to
know?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why does this require a
conditional use, is my question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because you don't want them blowing
you up.
MR. MILK: Staff has received one letter of support --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's industrial.
MR. MILK: -- from the abutting property owner, the
Carlson-Harris Contractors. Staff has not received any letters of
opposition. Staff is in favor of the subject petition. Back in 1991
during the LDC amendment, this use was taken out and now is a
conditional use in the industrial district.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I assume the reason that it's made
a conditional use is because there could be an instance where you put
a large amount of propane next to a residential area; and, therefore,
you want to have the county commission take a look at each and every
one of these proposals; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have industrial near
residential?
MR. MILK: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, yeah, of course we do.
MR. DORRILL: This -- This is as a result of a
particular situation that we had a number of years ago that has not
really manifested itself since that time, but your Land Development
Code does require a conditional use application. Their -- The agent is
here, but I don't have any other speakers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bombs.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing then.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And those opposed?
There are none.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, to satisfy Mr. Weigel, I
had no communication on that one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He either.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm satisfied with that.
Item #13A5
RESOLUTION 96-30 RE PETITION V-95-24, WILLIAM D. KRAMER REPRESENTING
WILLIAM J. REILLY, REQUESTING A 1 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT SIDE YARD TO 6.5 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF SAN JUAN AVNEUE ON LOT 696 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Petition V-95-24,
after-the-fact one-foot variance. MR. BELLOWS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How -- How long after the fact?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the house was platted and built in
-- I have the date here -- 1990. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 1990.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. He came in for refinancing, and a
new survey showed the original survey was off by a foot which created
now a non-conforming side yard setback.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So he did everything that was
required of him --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- but the original survey --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- was wrong?
MR. BELLOWS: The building permits even submitted showed
conforming setbacks when it was built conforming, but then when he
came in for refinancing, determined the original survey was off by a
foot.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to ask. Who is the
original surveyor? I would like to get this on the record.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I figured I'd get it on the
record every time that there's that same old error.
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that information.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't have the original survey?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From now on I'll be asking that
question on all after-the-fact variances.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers on this
one?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's got to close the public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Then I'll make a
motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
It's unanimous.
Item #13A6
RESOLUTION 96-31 RE PETITION OSP-95-2, GEORGE L. VARNADOE AND R. BRUCE
ANDERSON REPRESENTING ASHLAND COLD STORAGE COMPANY REQUESTING APPROVAL
FOR OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES ON LOTS 7-10 TO OPERATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND EXISTING OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES ON LOTS
3-6 LOCATED ON BLOCK 4, OLD MARCO VILLAGE, ZONED RHF-6 TO SERVE THE
EXISTING BUSINESS (O'SHEA'S RESTAURANT AND CRUISE BOATS) ZONED C-5
LOCATED AT 1081 BALD EAGLE DRIVE - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
And petition OSP-95-2. Mr. Anderson.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: These are companion items?
We're going to hear them both at the same time? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, we are.
MR. MILK: For the record, my name is Bryan Milk,
presenting petitions OSP-95-2 and 3. I would like to explain this
petition as one petition so we can understand the thrust of it, what's
occurring and what has occurred historically.
The subject property is located on Marco Island. It is
located in an area that is currently zoned RHF-6. It's located
between Bald Eagle -- Bald Eagle Drive, north of Old Marco Lane, and
east of Gayer Way. Currently lots one, two, three, four, five, and
six have an off-site parking agreement on those particular lots. In
1986 lots two through six had received 184 spaces for off-site
parking. In 1994 a parking petition for off site allowed 38 spaces.
So currently on the subject property there are 222 off-site parking
places existing.
The ownership of lots one through 11 is the same
ownership of O'Shea's Restaurant, what they call Ashland Cold Storage
Company. The thrust of this petition is to sell lots one and two to
the Cypress Landing Company which is the holder of the Factory Bay
Marina for 42 off-site parking places. The next thrust is to have
off-site parking occurring on lots seven through ten for an additional
130 off-site parking. So on the entire street, you'd have 42 on lots
one and two, 130 on lots seven through ten and -- and an existing 130.
So in reality we'd have 302 off-site parking places on the 11 lots.
Staff was concerned that historically the site was never
improved, improvements being landscaping, drainage, water management
and, more importantly, the asphalt or concrete of the surface. Staff
has provided those type of regulations and rules and stipulations in
this particular report for both OSP-95-2 and 3.
We have also placed a landscape buffer with an opaque
fence on the north side of lot ten, on the western portion of the site
next to the residential area on Gayer Way, and on the south side along
Old Marco Lane. On the residential side of the fence would be a
canopy tree ten feet in height placed every 20 linear feet and a hedge
row consisting of Coco Plum around the entire fence. So what you have
is a right-of-way, a ten-foot landscape buffer, a tree every 20 linear
feet, Coco Plum, and a six-foot opaque fence.
On Bald Eagle we provided a landscape buffer but
provided only a double hedge row of Coco Plum and a tree every three
linear feet so we would have some transition, and it would allow the
folks in the residential community abutting a property privacy for
noise and headlights.
Staff has stipulated certain items such as low-level
lighting, that all the improvements be made within one year unless
prolonged by this board, that crosswalks be provided, that the traffic
on Bald Eagle Drive be limited to 35 miles an hour, and there's
certain conditions in there that they must be provided for.
Staff is in support of this petition. The Planning
Commission approved this eight to zero. Staff has four letters in the
executive summary in support of this. The area residents spoke
favorably, and they wanted to see this off-site parking improved,
aesthetically improved, and we assure them through this process and
the site development plan process that that would occur.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Milk. It probably
would be helpful if I point out to the board members I'm -- I'm
familiar with this area. I've seen it before. It's surrounded on
almost all sides by roads. It's a little island of property in there
almost, and it's being used largely for parking at the moment. The --
The petition would -- would make a bit more parking in there, but the
important thing is -- like Mr. Milk says, is that we would have a much
nicer looking facility with much better buffering, and I think
everybody is going to be happier with the situation when we get done
with it. Do we have any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
MR. HARMS: Yes, you do.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, you do. Mr. Harms.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, you do.
MR. DORRILL: This will be the last one of the day.
MR. HARMS: My name is Stanley Frank Harms, Junior. I
live at 1065 Bald Eagle Drive on Marco Island. That's lot two, block
134, unit four, Marco Beach subdivision. My wife and I are year-round
residents and have been since the late '80s. I live -- that -- then
-- diagonally south across Bald Eagle Drive from lot one in this
petition. By way of a little background, it is a comfortable
residential area. The lot immediately north of mine and adjacent to
the Factory Bay Marina is presently for sale in the neighborhood of
$300,000. The -- Across the street the location is -- 895 Old Marco
Lane is a model that's under -- for sale for -- in the neighborhood of
a half million dollars. I guess that whenever you have a commercial
area adjacent to a residential area, you have problems from time to
time. It seems with this particular piece of property times come very
quickly. Iljustrative, on March 25, 1993, zoning complaint 30325-2,
improper commercial parking on this lot. 4-1994 -- and this was
referred to by the planner, OSP-94-1 in which there was authorization
for additional parking on lots three and six, that approval at the
time of the hearing was contingent upon ground-level lighting, a redo
of the landscaping so that there would be 80 percent opaque condition
in one year. And, incidentally, companion relandscaping of O'Shea's
Restaurant. O'Shea's had taken out a great deal of landscaping and
put in a long, ugly green awning that affronts the residence.
1-4-96 was the planning board hearing. The day of the
planning board hearing there were three trailers, a boat, a truck, and
a chipper parked in violation of the planning -- the zoning
requirements. At the planning board hearing, a resident who
complained about this was advised that the appropriate mode for
redress was to making a zoning complaint. I wasn't the one who
complained, but the next day I called in a zoning violation. That's
60105-136, and I checked this morning, and the lot's in compliance
now. Those vehicles and trailers are gone.
I came today to endorse the petition but to reinforce
the importance of the 13 stipulations. Ashland Cold Storage is, in my
mind, cavalier when it comes to its attention to zoning requirements.
The stipulations are important to those of us who live approximate to
this property, and the lighting, for example, was supposed to come
down from high-level lighting when that lots three to six were
approved. It hasn't happened. We hope that it will happen this time,
and there will be low-level shielded lighting. The landscaping was
supposed to have been improved when lots three and six were taken care
of. There is on Bald Eagle some landscaping that could be preserved.
All it needs is aggressive pruning.
The fact is that Ashland Cold Storage does virtually
nothing in the way of property maintenance. So that's one thing to
get them to put in the correct landscaping. It's another thing to get
them to maintain the property. I presume that means that I have --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, it does.
MR. HARMS: -- limited time.
The maintenance is important. And the opportunity now
along Bald Eagle is to enhance the appearance of that part of our
community. The parking -- overnight parking and storage has been
stipulated. My impression from the planning board hearing was that
the property was to be for overflow private passenger vehicle parking.
It doesn't stipulate private passenger in the material that I've
seen. There is a concern about bus parking, particularly in that
diesel buses frequently decide to leave their motors running.
Apparently diesel fuel is cheaper than trying to get them restarted.
So it's not only the vehicles being there, it's the sound that would
intrude on the domestic -- the residential area.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Sir, your time has expired. If
you could wrap it on up for us, we would appreciate it.
MR. HARMS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We only allow public speakers five
minutes.
MR. HARMS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You've gone over that now.
MR. HARMS: I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Harms.
MR. HARMS: I think that the rescission is very
important, and I'd recommend the rescission not be waived in this
point.
MR. DORRILL: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have any more questions
for the staff?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No questions, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll close the public hearing. We'll
close the public hearing on both items and -- Mr. Milk, there was a
good point raised there about the vehicles allowed in the parking lot
being passenger-type vehicles, whether it's small pickups or vans or
cars but not to include commercial trucks, vans, and that sort thing.
Can we put that in here, or is it in here?
MR. MILK: It's not specified to that degree. We could
tighten that up and specify those items.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it's already -- It would be a
violation of code to store vehicles there overnight anyway.
MR. MILK: Anything that's motorized, trailers, that
sort of thing is prohibited on an overnight basis, whether it be
commercial or passenger vehicles. So to say that somebody in a
commercial truck would pull up and use the parking lot during the
daytime -- they can't park overnight. So to limit that segment of the
community may be prohibiting business to whatever they're going to do
on site there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. What about -- The other point
that was -- that was raised was given the history of the property.
What do we have as leverage for enforcement of our conditions?
MR. MILK: A couple of things we did here is we limited
the construction for the improvements to take -- take place in one
year. We were very much aware of the site in its present condition.
The other thing is that on off-site parking lots lighting is limited
to 20 feet, and it shall be shielded from residential property.
those large poles that are currently up there are prohibited, so they
will come down. And there is a lighting plan attached to these
petitions that show low-level lighting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What about in the future if -- if the
lot is not kept up to the standards that we impose today?
MR. MILK: Code enforcement has a mechanism to send our
environmental people out to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. I just wanted to get all
those points on the record.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I could just add to that, as
the property owner obviously already knows, you have to be diligent in
making those reports because there aren't enough code inspectors to go
around and -- and identify when that code is violated. So we do rely
on the public to report violations and hope you'll do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, if I could ask you
two questions. The first is, when we had a -- I say"we." Actually, I
think it was the City of Naples, that there was an off-site parking
for DeVoe Cadillac and it was in the residential area and they
actually were able to -- to gate it so that after hours, you know,
kids couldn't -- because you really can't see back in there very well,
and kids couldn't come in there and -- and, you know, abuse the place
and so forth. This restaurant, I believe, is also -- and the marina
has some pretty odd hours, don't they? I mean, isn't there a boat
that goes out and comes back late at night that is moored somewhere in
this area that uses --
MR. ANDERSON: There -- There are -- are, in fact, three
cruise boats at the O'Shea's -- old O'Shea's site.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there any operational scheme
that would satisfy the needs that are there that would prohibit people
from using the parking lot at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, or do you
not really have that information?
MR. ANDERSON: I don't have that information, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So my first question is,
is there a way to gate the parking lot so that, you know, overnight
parking and so forth is, you know, discouraged and use is discouraged.
That's my first question, and maybe we can come back to that.
The second one is, there's one area of the parking lot
on lots -- it looks like four, five, and six maybe that are directly
across from O'Shea's '-
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- where you have angled parking
on the -- I say a picture is worth a thousand words. Let me show this
to you.
The area I'd indicated in blue on there is shown by your
drawing just to be striped. I would -- Since that is really paved
area that's not necessary, would you be amenable to grassing or
mulching or something in that area? It's not necessary for an aisle
or a parking space and similar --
MR. ANDERSON: The dark blue here?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: I believe those are supposed to be
landscaped areas.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're not drawn as such. If you
look at the -- at the left side of that drawing where you see every
space that's not required for an aisle or a parking space appears to
be, you know, a grassed area or landscaped area, that's the one place
that isn't on the drawing.
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I would like to see
that grassed or mulched or landscaped.
MR. MILK: What you're saying is, instead of an
impervious area, where possible, make that landscaped, grass --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. Any area not designated
specifically for the -- the confines of a parking space or an aisleway
should be grassed, mulched, or otherwise impervious.
MR. MILK: That occurs in those lots only.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Grassed, mulched, or otherwise
pervious.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or otherwise pervious. Thank you.
I said impervious. Otherwise pervious.
There is a functional problem when -- when you leave
those spaces paved also because you're dealing with one-way aisles.
So this is really nitpicky, but it's kind of a pet peeve so bear with
me.
MR. MILK: I don't think from a site plan standpoint
that we couldn't accomplish that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: -- To the greatest extent possible.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I mean, you know,
there's a level that you go to but --
MR. MILK: It was merely done to position as many
vehicles as possible, also creating a landscaped island every ten, and
maneuvering the site constraints with one-way traffic.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a lot of creativity on
that plan. I agree but -- and it looks like it will function
properly.
MR. MILK: I think it functions very well. It's just a
matter of -- I think we have some area to expand on that landscape.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And unless the petitioner
has a significant opposition to it, I'm going to ask that stipulation
be added, that that area be pervious in some form, either grassed,
mulched, landscaped in some way just because it's not necessary for
aisle or parking.
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Call me Mr. Detail.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So the petitioner has stated on the
record that they will comply with that request.
MR. ANDERSON: With -- With that -- With that, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to make a motion --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This will be a motion on the first
petition, OSP-95-2.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to approve
OSP-95-2 in accordance with staff stipulations and petitioner
commitments.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #13A7
RESOLUTION 96-32 RE PETITION OSP-95-3, GEORGE L. VARNADOE AND R. BRUCE
ANDERSON REPRESENTING CYPRESS LANDING CORPORATION REQUESTING APPROVAL
OF 42 OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES ON LOTS 1-2 BLOCK 4, OLD MARCO VILLAGE,
ZONED RHF-6 TO SERVE THE EXISTING BUSINESS (FACTORY BAY MARINA) ZONED
C-5 LOCATED AT 1079 BALD EAGLE DRIVE - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will make a motion that we
approve petition OSP-95-3 in accordance with staff stipulations and
those commitments made by the petitioner.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And those opposed?
There are none.
Okay. Down to petition --
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're quite welcome.
Item #13A8
RESOLUTION 96-33 RE PETITION CU-95-23, ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE,
HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING TUTOR TIME CHILD CARE CENTER,
REQUEESTING CONDITIONAL USE "4" OF THE "C-5" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A
CHILD CARE CENTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF AND ABUTTING AIRPORT
ROAD APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF ESTEY AVENUE - ADOPTED
-- Petition CU-95-23.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hore day care. Is there a baby
boom going on out there or --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're contributing to it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: True.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred
Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a child care center
at the southeast corner of Estey Avenue and Airport Road at the site
where there is what most people know as Schlotzsky's Restaurant.
There's an existing Estey Air Plaza, and they own farther south. This
is the existing retail center. They have a proposed addition to that
building. They're proposing the child care center at the southern
part of the property adjacent to but not attached to the future
expansion of Estey Air Plaza.
This request is different from the other two child care
center initial uses you heard today because the C-5 zoning district in
which this land is located, the code basically says that we look at
the land use and compatibility from the child safety perspective.
Rather than from how it's going to affect adjacent property, we look
at how adjacent property is going to affect child safety on this site.
There is an additional -- Besides the regular
conditional use findings, there were an additional list of findings
for child care in the C-5 area, and the petitioner has stated that
they comply now or will comply at the time of site development plan
approval. And the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval.
And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fred, could you help me out real
quick? What's directly south and directly east of the proposed phase
two?
MR. REISCHL: Directly south -- Directly south is a
transmission shop, and directly east is the Vo Tech, or Vo Tech
property. It's -- It's empty field, but it's owned by Vo Tech.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things the noise of children
playing probably won't bother. MR. REISCHL: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, are you saying that this
area in question is to be the expansion of Estey Air Plaza?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. Currently between Estey Air Plaza
and the Univ -- and the Universal Transmission Shop is empty land
that's part of this parcel. They plan a phase three expansion of the
plaza and then the free-standing child care.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. It will be a free-standing
building but under the common ownership of the plaza? Is that what
you're saying or not?
MR. REISCHL: As of this time it will be, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: I -- I haven't heard anything.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Mr. Duane has been here
all day. I bet he has something to say. Why did you come so early?
MR. DUANE: At your pleasure, I have no comment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's no public speakers, we'll
close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of petition
CU-95-23. It adds no accesses, and the traffic impact seems minimal.
So I'll move approval of the item.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And opposed?
There are none.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
Okay. That concludes the public hearings. We're down
to the board discussion. Commissioner Matthews, do you have anything
for us today?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I don't. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for the county
attorney on the status of the nuisance abatement ordinance.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm pleased that you asked. The --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You weren't expecting that at
all, were you, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was ready for the question but not
expecting it at this moment. But the ordinance is ready for the
question too, and we've worked it -- workshopped it with the sheriff,
and it's essentially ready to be advertised at this point right now.
And if you'd like a few little key tidbits of it, it provides for our
Code Enforcement Board to wear the second hat of public nuisance
abatement division; therefore, cite -- citated matters -- cited
matters will come before that board, and they will be in charge -- the
quasi-judicial body in charge with the enforcement of that. The
sheriff's officers will do the field siting investigation and siting
work. The county attorney office will do the prosecution, working
with the sheriff's department before the Code Enforcement Board acting
as the public nuisance abatement division.
That's it in a nutshell. There are obviously more
details. It's being advertised to come back as quickly as it can, but
it's ready to go, and we're pleased with it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I saw in the police beat sometime
lately a house where some additional arrests were made, and they were
the 57th drug arrests made at that same house on -- I think it was
Areca, and it prompted my inquiry. It seems like an applicable piece
of property.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fire up that bulldozer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm ready.
Item #15
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I have some comments on the
BCC workshop and stuff. I -- I know that under staff communications
we have listed that, BCC workshop. Does that mean we have an agenda
set, or we are adding to or creating the agenda at this point?
MR. DORRILL: Just to advise you that we only have two
items. One of them deals with affordable housing issues and sort of
an update on -- I'm not sure exactly what, but I'm told that Mr.
Mihalic is working on at least a discussion item for the board. The
other one is -- is one that Ms. Matthews has asked to be added which
is a discussion of the governor's task force on a sustainable South
Florida. And I believe those are the only two items that we have on
our workshop at this point.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that all you have for us today, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. I've got two other real quick
items. We had a preliminary kick-off meeting yesterday with Lee Tran
in Fort Myers, and they had a handout, and I made some notes, and I'll
send each one of you a copy just so you'll get a general idea of what
was discussed yesterday.
And also last Tuesday afternoon the Bonita Springs
Chamber of Commerce and the South Florida Water Management District
had a planning and -- and design-related discussion meeting in Bonita
Springs concerning flooding issues in southern Lee and northern
Collier, and there was a handout there also, and so I made a copy and
will provide that to you just for your information. That's all that I
have.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have one, Mr. Dorrill. I believe
that Mr. HcNees recently went -- what was it -- to Saint Petersburg
for a meeting discussing SSU issues? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'd like a copy of that, please --
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- of what was discussed.
Mr. Weigel, do you have something for us this afternoon?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Just one small item. In regard to
consent agenda item 16(B)(6) which was petition AV-95-012, the board
approved it with a condition upon approval of a letter from Jim Ward.
This had to do with drainage easements. My staff has told me that --
you know, we understand that the letter to come has a reference to a
declaration of restrictions indicating that the existing drainage area
on the county's Pelican Bay Park would always be a drainage area and,
secondly, that it would be maintained by Collier County. So we're
looking -- and the applicant apparently is requesting that the county
attorney's authority include not only the approval of the Ward letter,
but the ability to negotiate and approve any terms provided in this
declaration of restrictions that is referenced in the Ward letter
working with our parks and rec department and water management
department. This is really informational to that agenda item that was
previously approved. The board actually isn't taking further action
but just I think affirming the county attorney's legal review to be
thorough in this regard.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We like thorough.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We like thorough.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thorough is good.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, anything left?
MS. FILSON: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We are adjourned.
*****Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Hac'Kie, and
carried 4/0 (Commissioner Constantine out), that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted as follows: *****
Item #16A1
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.359 "NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF COURSE" LOCATED IN
SECTIONS 49 AND 10, TOWNSHIP 505, RANGE 26E, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY
DAVIS BOULEVARD AND PROPRETY ZONED A AND RSF-4, ON THE EAST BY NAPLES
NATIONAL GOLF COURSE, C.R. 951, AND UNDEVELOPED LAND ZONED A, ON THE
SOUTH BY NAPLES NATIONAL GOLF COURSE AND WING SOUTH AIRPARK AND ON THE
WEST BY A DRIVE-IN THEATER AND UNDEVELOPED LAND ZONED A WITH ESTATES
TYPE HOUSING - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR THE RESERVE AT THE VINEYARDS - WITH
STIPULATIONS AND CASH BOND
O. R. BOOK PAGES
Item #16A3
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ANDERSON PLACE"
Item #16A4
TRANSFER OF $40,000 FROM FUND (111) RESERVES TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
COST CENTER (111)-138911 TO COVER COSTS OF HIRING OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL
TO REPRESENT THE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING BOARD AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY 96
Item #16B1
CLARIFICATION OF THE BASIS OF PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT (HAZEN &
SAWYER) FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT AND A NEW 10% CHANGE ORDER LIMIT ON THE REVISED CONTRACT A_MOUNT
OF $1,992,970.00
Item #1682
CHANGE ORDER TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT
PROJECT
See Pages
Item #1683 - Moved to Item #SB1
Item #1684
FINAL QUANTITIES AND REIHBRUSEHENT OF $6,791.83 TO WAL-HART STORES,
INC. FOR ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY AT THE SA_M'S CLUB
ENTRANCES ON IHMOKALEE ROAD AND AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD
Item #1685
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING ESTIMATED CARRY FORWARD FOR PROJECTS IN
FUND 412 AND 414
Item #1686
PETITION AV-95-012 VACATING PORTIONS OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED ON A
PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, -
APPROVAL BASED UPON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S RECEIPT OF LETTER
See Pages
Item #16D1
FLEET MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE FREIGHTLINER
WARRANTY AGREEMENT WITH HUNT TRUCK SALES
See Pages
Item #16D2
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO ASSIST THE REVENUE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT IN AMENDING ORDINANCES 90-86 AND 90-87 REGARDING EXTENDING
PAYMENT OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16D3
AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF THE PREMISES USED BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER
See Pages
Item #16El - Deleted
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-186 AND 96-213
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
NO. DATE
1995-52 1/12/96
1995 REAL PROPERTY
150 12/28/95
156/15s 1/04/95
160/161 1/08/96 - 1/09/96
163/170 1/09/96 - 1/11/96
Item #16G2
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16G3
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #1611
SATISFACTION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR EXTENDED PAYMENT OF COTTAGE GROVE
AVENUE PAVING ASSESSMENT
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:52 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Christine E. Whitfield