BCC Minutes 10/21/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 21, 1997
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Barbara B. Berry
ALSO PRESENT: Hike HcNees, Assistant County Hanager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to
the October 21st meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. It's a
pleasure this morning to have Pastor James Honig from the Grace
Lutheran Church here to bless us with an invocation.
Pastor Honig, if I could ask you to come to the microphone and
give an invocation this morning.
If everyone would join me in standing, and we'll follow this with
the Pledge of Allegiance.
PASTOR HONIG: We pray. Gracious heavenly father, creator, ruler
of all, you have called us into community, and you have given us the
responsibility to order and to govern our lives together. Grant us
your blessing and presence today that both the decisions which are
made and the manner in which they are deliberated may reflect your
character, full of grace and truth and love, through Christ our Lord,
Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pastor Honig, thank you very much for taking
the time to be with us this morning. Mr. McNees, good morning.
MR. McNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you're pinch-hitting this morning.
MR. McNEES: You've got the "B" team this morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How about the "A-" team.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Fernandez is attending the state retirement
commission meeting today, and so I'm sitting in his place.
We have three changes for your agenda this morning. The first is
to add Item 8(A)(6). This is a recommendation for procedural steps
regarding the Twin Eagles PUD. This item had originally been
submitted by staff in time to make your agenda. We wanted to actually
create and bring to you a staff recommendation rather than just a
question for direction, so we pulled the item. It has since been
revised, and we're asking to add that today, to bring your
recommendation on procedural steps regarding that PUD. That will
become Item 8(A)(6).
The second change is to continue Item 12(B)(2) to the meeting of
November the 4th, and the last change is to move Item 16(C)(4) from
the consent agenda. That will become Item 8(C)(1). Those are all the changes we have today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to add to
that?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, agenda changes, Commissioner
Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing. I'll have an announcement under
communications.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sixteen (B)(3) I would like to remove
from the consent agenda, which I assume then would become 8(B)(1).
HR. HcNEES: That's correct, 16(B)(3) to 8(B)(1).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And I have no changes on the agenda.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
approve the agenda with changes as noted.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 23-31, 1997 AS RED RIBBON
WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** We are to proclamations and service
awards. This morning, it's my pleasure -- and the county participates
every year. As you came in, you may have seen the huge sign going up
that we put up every year regarding red ribbon week, and Regina
Wagstaff, there you are, Regina, if I could ask you to come up to
accept this proclamation. Regina is the coordinator for the Collier
County red ribbon campaign.
The proclamation this morning reads as follows:
WHEREAS, prevention resources have been dramatically cut,
programs and community based efforts are asked to do more with less
and community services compete for remaining limited support; and
WHEREAS, substance abuse is the most common risk factor impacting
our behavioral health, particularly for our young people, furthering
delinquency, teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, child abuse and violence and so
forth; and
WHEREAS, families face unprecedented pressures and stress imposed
upon them by the overwhelming nature of today's society; and
WHEREAS, prevention and intervention efforts continue to
influence non-use of alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse, it still
remains prevalent in every Florida community; and
WHEREAS, Floridians must recommit to strengthening families,
neighborhoods and communities in educating our citizens about
prevention focused initiatives to counter the problems of substance
abuse; and
WHEREAS, research and data reflect unquestionably that prevention
works and that our commitment to education, prevention and positive
lifestyles is imperative; and
WHEREAS, the red ribbon represents the nation's united effort to
support prevention and build healthy and safe communities and to
remember the brutal murder of Federal Agent Enrique Camerana; and
WHEREAS, the 1997 Florida Red Ribbon Celebration focuses on the
importance of supporting our young people and creating an environment
in which our youth may flourish; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Prevention Association, Incorporated
coordinates year round prevention programs throughout the state.
WHEREAS, the 1997 Florida Red Ribbon Celebration asks that the
citizens of Florida become motivated and involved in alcohol and other
drug abuse prevention.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October
23rd through 31st, 1997 be designated Red Ribbon Week and encourage
all Collier County citizens to wear a red ribbon to symbolize our
commitment to healthy and safe environments for each citizen and to
participate in events throughout the week and throughout the year that
support positive lifestyles. Done and ordered this 21st day of
October, 1997, Timothy Hancock, Chairman.
I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Regina, thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. WAGSTAFF: May I say a few words?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please do.
MS. WAGSTAFF: On behalf of the Red Ribbon Coalition, I would
like to thank the commission for signing the proclamation.
As stated in the proclamation, drug use and abuse continues to
affect our families, our society, our adults, and especially, our
youth. This proclamation will assist the Red Ribbon Coalition in
preventing drug abuse in our community.
This year's theme for Red Ribbon Week is get mad, see red, take
action, and this refers to the last whereas clause in the proclamation
asking all citizens to become motivated and involved in prevention
efforts. Many citizens this year are taking action.
As some of you may have heard, there are going to be three
different drug-free marches; on Saturday, October 25th. One is going
to be in East Naples. The other is going to be in Immokalee, and the
third one is going to be in Golden Gate, and we are asking everyone --
actually, I personally asked some of the commissioners -- to come out
and participate in this prevention tool and get involved and put your
feet to the streets to fight the drug problem in our community. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Regina.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING OCTOBER, 1997 AS CRIME PREVENTION MONTH -
ADOPTED
The next item under proclamations, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This proclamation
is for crime prevention month to be accepted by Sheriff Hunter, but I
don't see the Sheriff here today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There he is --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There he comes, okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- in the trench coat.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have Sergeant Rosa White sitting -- subbing
in for Sheriff Hunter with her fine furry friend.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Come on up, guys. You don't look like a
shy group.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can you imagine how many times that one's got
to be walked today.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Can '-
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Just line them up across here where they
And look at the camera.
-- look at the camera over there.
Wave to Hom.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, if you folks just line up and face the
camera, we'll go ahead --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That one in the back.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And read the proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now we are ready. The proclamation reads:
WHEREAS, the vitality of our county depends on how safe we keep
our homes, neighborhoods, working places and communities because crime
and fear diminish the quality of life for all; and
WHEREAS, crime and fear of crime destroy our trust in others and
in institutions, threatening the community's health and prosperity;
and
WHEREAS, people of all ages must be made aware what they can do
to prevent themselves, their families, neighbors and co-workers from
being harmed by drugs, violence and other crimes; and
WHEREAS, the personal injury, financial loss and community
deterioration resulting from crime are intolerable and require action
by the whole community; and
WHEREAS, crime prevention initiatives must include, but go beyond
self-protection and security to promote collaborative efforts to make
neighborhoods safer for all ages and to develop positive educational
and recreational opportunities for young people; and
WHEREAS, adults must invest time, resources and policy support in
effective prevention and intervention strategies for youth, and teens
must be engaged in driving crime from their communities; and
WHEREAS, effective crime prevention programs excel because of
partnerships among law enforcement, other government agencies, civic
groups, schools, faith communities, businesses and individuals as they
help to nurture communal responsibility and instill pride.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October, 1997 be
designated as crime prevention month and urge all citizens, government
agencies, public and private institutions and businesses to recognize
the power of prevention and work together for the common good.
Done and ordered this 21st day of October, 1997 by the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy L. Hancock,
Chairman.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move acceptance
of this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
McGruff, good to see you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hey, McGruff, do you want the proclamation?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He couldn't wait to get his paws on
it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
I wonder how she's going to type the handshake on there.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks for being here today.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: You know what dogs do to paper.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Following up on Commissioner Berry's comment,
McGruff, that paper is not used like most papers.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I got too emotional at the end.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. You got all choked up at the end of
that one. I noticed the only part you choked on was my name.
Item #5B1
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Under service awards, Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, celebrating five years
with us, serving currently in facilities management, Glen Miles.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where is Glen? There he is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your certificate and the pin.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations, Glen.
Item #7A
JAMES L. WALKER RE MOWING LIENS
*** The next item on our agenda this morning is under public
petitions, we have an issue regarding mowing liens, Mr. James Walker,
and again, for everyone's information, under public petitions, they
are limited to ten minutes. The board can give direction to staff but
can take no formal action under this item. Mr. Walker, good morning.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- while Mr. Walker is passing this
out, I wanted to tell you, among his many, many distinctions as
representative of Collier County government, I found out lately in my
work on the Davis triangle redevelopment that Mr. Walker was on the
county commission when the first road in Collier County was paved, and
that was Shadowlawn. Okay.
MR. WALKER: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. Please.
MR. WALKER: Ladies and gentlemen, commissioners all, I think we
have a problem wherein there's a parcel of land in Collier County that
I now own that I don't want, and I've tried to give it to you, and you
don't want it, but somebody's got to do something with it.
In 1988, I bought a tax certificate on a lot in Golden Gate.
Seven years having expired, I got a notice from the clerk's office
that either I had to apply for a tax deed or the certificate would
escheat to the state. So, I decided to apply for the tax deed. It
came up for bid, and I received the honor of getting the lot.
I know, it was my fault I understand now, by not knowing that the
County Commission could have liens that was also on a piece of
property that wasn't done away with by tax liens, but I thought the
real estate taxes was the number one lien in the county, and when I
bought a lot at auction for the tax lien, that I cleaned the slate.
Two days later when I come in to pick up the tax deed, the lady
told me, said, Mr. Walker, I'm sorry, but I find that the county has a
$6,000 mowing lien against this piece of property.
I went out to a real estate agent in Golden Gate, and they gave
me a map so I could go see the lot. It's a good-looking piece of
property. However, it's in an area where there's no city water or
sewer, and they told me that the lot would sell for about $10,000.
So, I added up what I had in the tax lien, and then I determined
that I would have to have a quiet title suit, and I don't know what
that would be, and then I added $6,000 for a lien that the county has
on it, and there's no way we can get that kind of money out of it.
So, I decided I would be good, give it to the county and let them
use it to build some type of housing. I mean, I know there's
different houses that's built for underprivileged people, but I
applied to the various agencies, met with Ms. Ashton and Sandra
Taylor, and we discussed the possibility of the county accepting the
lot. They checked into it and found that they -- that the county
themselves would have to have a quiet title suit since the owner of
the lot had passed away and they couldn't get a quitclaim deed or
anything from the owner, which means that either thirty-five to $4,500
for a quiet title suit, and it would cost you the same as it would
cost me, I suppose, and they determined that it would cost too much
for the county to accept the lot and for them to use it.
Now, the situation I find myself in, I don't care to keep putting
money into the lot when I can't get it out, and if I decided not to
pay these tax liens, I mean these mowing liens, and there now has been
another tax certificate sold for $215 at an 18 percent interest rate,
that you someday will have to file for the tax lien that you have
holding against it for mowing.
As a matter of fact, a letter dated October the 7th that I
received from the county manager advising me of my appearance on the
agenda this morning, I received 12 -- copies of 12 tax liens dated
that date that the county was placing on the property.
So, what I'm asking is what can we do because if I decide not to
pay these things, some day Collier County will have to live up to the
obligation, and with the liens that they have, come back and sell it.
No way can you get the amount of money out of it of what you're going
to have in it for the mowing liens.
So, my question this morning is, is there some way that we can
work this situation out that you can accept. As a matter of fact,
these tax lien notices I've got become a lien, and they say that they
would be foreclosed. If you accept the lot, it saves you all that
foreclosing costs, but my question is, what would you like to do in
this situation.
My guess is that if you go back and check your records, you're
going to find that you have several other parcels in Collier County
that's in the same situation this one is, that you're going to have
more money involved in the cost of lot mowing and clearing than what
you can get out of it when it comes time to sell it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a thought about that. When a bank
has a mortgage and the mortgages goes unpaid, the bank forecloses on
the mortgage. The -- the borrower can either fight that foreclosure
and go through a lawsuit or can offer a deed in lieu of foreclosure,
and what I don't understand or what seems to me most logical here is
the ultimate end of this discussion is the county forecloses on its
lien. If Mr. Walker is willing to give us a deed in lieu of that
foreclosure, why would we not accept that and at least avoid the costs
of the foreclosure suit? Why isn't that -- it seems to me that that's
like our only logical choice in a pretty rotten situation that may
repeat itself. We are going to -- either we foreclose on the lien or
not, and this way, we can avoid the costs of the foreclosure action.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Walker, I have a question before we get
into that discussion. You state in here that from 1989 through 1996,
the tax certificate cost you $2,688.92. MR. WALKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that include the -- a reduction in the
interest that you received on the tax certificate, because those pay a
significant interest? Are you saying from that point to that point,
that is the absolute cost to you? You've subtracted out the interest
paid on the tax certificate?
MR. WALKER: There was no interest paid on the tax certificates.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because nobody redeemed them. Since the
guys never showed up and said, oh, you're right, here, I want the
land; I'll pay you the interest you earned. Instead, you just turn it
back.
MR. WALKER: The certificates I had to redeem -- see, mine was
1988. Then I had to redeem all the certificates from '89 through '96.
Yes, the interest was paid to the certificate holder of that year, but
I had to redeem all of them since I was the one that was applying for
the tax deed on my certificate that was seven years old that was going
to escheat to the state.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem we have, Commissioner Mac'Kie, or
I have individually with what you're proposing is it puts the county
in a position regularly of becoming the eventual owner of property and
responsible for the maintenance of that property. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We are already there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, we are not. The responsibility still
falls to Mr. Walker at this point.
MR. WALKER: Yeah, but if I don't pay it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. WALKER: -- all you can do is take the property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, when the maintenance cost or lien
amount exceeds the value of a piece of property, what options are left
the county?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, there are a few, but I think one distinction
needs to be made, and that is foreclosure, yes, it does -- that
action, if successful or gone to completion does take the title
property away from the current owner, but does not necessarily mean
that the foreclosing -- foreclosing party becomes the property owner.
It is a successful suit to obtain a foreclosure sale upon which the
lien holder, in this case the county if it has superior liens,
realizes money from the sale after certain costs are taken care of.
It does not become --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But Dave, who's going to show up on the
courthouse steps and bid on a piece of property where the minimum bid
price has to be less than the value? It has to be more than the value
of the property.
MR. WEIGEL: Well --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll be the only bidder at the
foreclosure sale.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I --
MR. WEIGEL: That's possible.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you please finish the first part?
MR. WEIGEL: I just wanted to make the distinction clear that a
foreclosure action is not an absolute action for the county as the
pursuing party of the action to obtain the property. It forces a sale
of the property which goes forward, warts and all, subject to auction
or bidding process. The county may end up the owner, but it doesn't
start out automatically as the owner if it pursues that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess my concern is -- is a little back of
the individual particulars of Mr. Walker's case, and that is that if
someone who purchased, through tax certificate or other means, a piece
of property refuses to -- I'm not referring to you, Mr. Walker, on
this, but refuses to maintain it, lets liens accrue on the property
until they exceed the value of the property and then walks away from
it, I don't want to do anything in any way, shape or form to promote
that or say that the county will be the catchall or that we will not
attempt to intervene prior to that occurring. I'm just concerned
about the application of this on a more abusive level than what Mr.
Walker has presented to us today.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely, and it's my understanding that staff,
and particularly the real property staff, has looked at this from a
business standpoint of would this property have any use for the
county. It's been shopped or, at least, let's say reviewed by various
county departments, I think, including Greg Hihalic's department, to
see if there's a use for this property should it, in some form, come
to -- or eventually come to county ownership or through a direction of
the board that might ultimately come subsequent to today, and the
staff may or may not be able to comment to a great depth in regard to
the potential needs or uses of the property by the county, but
ultimately, that would be a business decision that would come into the
strategy, I think, or the ultimate direction recommendation that would
come to you in regard to the request that's before you today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Another question; if -- if Mr. Walker
could get Habitat for Humanity to accept a gift of the lot, could we
waive the liens?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the waiving of the liens can be accomplished
-- there is an underlying cost that's been incurred by the county in
hiring contractors to pay for that service that's been received. So,
it conceivably could be done. I think we need to make sure that we
meet the public purpose aspect, and if the county is not becoming a
title holder, we would have to look real closely about, I think, the
public purpose aspects.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We might be on the right track there
if a group such as Habitat for Humanity can pick up two -- essentially
two homesites for whatever the cost ends up being, 5,000 bucks, 3,000,
whatever the cost of cleaning all that up is, and that may be
worthwhile for them and takes care of everyone. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, Mr. Walker, there's no
advantage to you selling the lot, and there's no advantage to us
taking it from you. I mean, nobody wins here. The taxpayer gets
struck in either situation.
MR. WALKER: We have to decide some way because sooner or later,
somewhere down the road, this subject will have to be taken up again,
because the only way the county will ever get their money is to bring
it the same as a mortgage foreclosure, and as long as -- as much money
she'll have in it, I don't believe you'll find anybody that will buy
the lot that will pay you the money that you have in it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just think it's unfortunate the taxpayer
gets stuck for a bill that a property owner has a responsibility to
maintain. I mean, the taxpayer is going to pay for the maintenance of
this property and receive no benefit from it whatsoever, and I think
that is -- that's criminal. It's just not right. I don't care if
it's going on. I don't care if there's 100 cases. It's still not
right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Walker, what's -- what's preventing you
from selling that lot today?
MR. WALKER: To sell it now, I'd have to go through a quiet title
suit, which is going to cost me approximately $4,500, and then I have
to pay the county about $6,100 clearing lien. Then I've got the 1996
tax certificate of $215. Then there will be a real estate commission.
If it sells for 10,000, what they told me it would sell for, there
would be a thousand dollars, so I would have $9,000 out of about
$12,500 costs --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
MR. WALKER: -- and if I just back off today and say, gentlemen,
it's yours, do with it as you wish, I'm only out a little over $3,000,
$3,500, but if I go through this thing, I'm going to be out about
9,000, over $9,000.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, that's not what you just
said. You said that you sell it for 10,000, net nine, and you've got
12,000 in it.
MR. WALKER: No, I said the real estate agents told me that's
what it would sell for.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we're saying hypothetically, you sell
it for 10,000. You net nine after commission, and you have 12,000 in
it, I think you calculated, so that's a $3,000 loss.
Well, you know, I'm sorry you're into a business deal here that
didn't pan out, but it's not the taxpayers' responsibility to make
sure that you make a profit.
MR. WALKER: That's -- that's -- that's true, sir, but see,
there's nothing says that I've got to do that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
MR. WALKER: All you can do is take the property from me, and I'm
trying to give it to you so you don't have to turn around and take it
from me. If you'll just accept it, I'm satisfied. I'm out and gone.
Whatever I lose, I lose, and that's fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I guess I'm concerned there's no
legal remedy available to the county to avoid this situation from
happening time and time again.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if you give me -- I think you're giving me the
opportunity to comment further, and that is, of course, with liens
running with the land, we know that the land is forever -- well, not
necessarily forever. There could be a statutory time limit, but the
land continues to be encumbered by the lien, and that, by law,
provides a mechanism or a certain incentive concerning the
transactions involving that land, potential transactions in the
future.
Aside from actions in land, of course, are -- this takes me more
to my private practice days where we've got enforcement of judgments,
things of this nature, where you're going after assets other than --
other than the land itself and its value, and if you'd like, we can
provide you, with some time and with staff's help, a report in that
regard also so you would know the full measure of tools that are
available for this kind of situation; not speaking merely to this one
but the hypothetical of other instances that could come up in the
future, because there are some more tools. It's just they -- they are
more costly in the sense that pursuing individuals to enforce
judgments, post -- post trial proceedings, things of that nature, one
always has to make, should make and advise the client of the business
expenses in pursuing those things.
At the same time, the county may have less of a business option
than maybe a public ethical action to go after these things too, and
I'll be happy to provide a report in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess not knowing -- and Commissioner
Hac'Kie, you're far more familiar with the real estate options than I
am, but not being familiar with the other options, I would like to
hear back from you, Mr. Weigel, before making any decision on Mr.
Walker's petition or any others, for that matter. I want to know, as
you stated, what tools are in the bag first before I determine what is
the best course of action for the taxpayers of this county.
So, if the board feels in a similar fashion, I would like to ask
Mr. Weigel to report back to the board on our -- our options on this
and other similar situations so that we can make an informed decision.
That would be my preference.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two weeks?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is two weeks sufficient, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: We'll do our best for two weeks. If we don't, we'll
certainly be close thereafter.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Two to three weeks then, your best
efforts.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Mr. Walker, thank you very much.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, sir.
Item #SA1
CARNIVAL PERMIT 97-3 RE PETITION C-97-4, V. CARLETON CASE, JR.,
REPRESENTING KIWANIS CLUB OF NAPLES, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A
CIRCUS ON NOVEMBER 22 AND NOVEMBER 23, 1997, AT THE FLORIDA SPORTS PARK
ON STATE ROAD 951 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: *** The next item on our agenda, Item 8(A)(1),
I think somebody needs to proclaim November carnival month.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to approve Petition C-97-4
and a second. Is there anyone here to talk us out of this?
Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries.
Item #8A2
CARNIVAL PERMIT 97-4 RE PETITION C-97-3, OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CATHOLIC
CHURCH REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 26
THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 1997, ON THEIR CHURCH GROUNDS LOCATED AT 219 SOUTH
9TH STREET IN IHMOKALEE - APPROVED
*** Item 8(A)(2), Petition C-97-3 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hotion to approve that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #8A3 - This item has been deleted
Item #8E4
CARNIVAL PERMIT 97-5 RE REVEREND JOSEPH SPINELLI OF ST. ELIZABETH SETON
CATHOLIC CHURCH REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL NOVEMBER 5
THROUGH NOVEMBER 9, 1997, AT 5325 28TH AVENUE S.W., GOLDEN GATE,
FLORIDA - APPROVED
*** Item 8(A)(4), look, another carnival.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Folks, there will be a carnival in a
neighborhood near you in the month of November. That, I can
guarantee.
Item #8A5
INTERLOCAL AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES TO
PROVIDE FOR A FEHA COORDINATOR - APPROVED
*** Item 8(A)(5), adopt an interlocal agreement between Collier
County and the City of Naples to provide for a FEHA coordinator. Mr. Cautero, good morning.
MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.
Vince Cautero for the record.
The item before you today is a proposed interlocal agreement with
the City of Naples and the county to provide for a full-time
coordinator to administer the procedures and policies under the
national flood insurance program which is administered under the
auspices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
As you may know, since the early 1990s, the county has been
involved in a program called community rating system which allows us
to undertake activities that go above and beyond the minimum
requirements of the national flood insurance program. In doing so,
the communities are rated and people who pay premiums for flood
insurance can receive up to 20 to 25 percent discounts.
Our rating for this system now, which is based on a system of
zero to ten with ten being the lowest, if you will, where no program
exists, our rating is currently a seven, and the City of Naples was
currently an eight, and they've just lowered their rating to a seven.
Our recommendation to you is to join forces with the city who has
a part-time FEHA coordinator. The work that is done in Collier County
for this program is done by two existing staff members, and they have
logged over 400 hours in overtime in the last year. The
recommendation is to join forces with the city so that we may reduce
the premiums paid by property owners in Collier County and lower our
rating to a six which would amount to a 20 percent discount. If you
turn to Page 2 of the executive summary, you'll see those numbers.
In 1996, we are estimating that property owners that participated
in the flood insurance program saved approximately 2.3 million dollars
in the unincorporated portion of the county, and just under $500,000
in the City of Naples for a total of 2.8 million.
We are estimating that if we can lower our rating by providing
additional programs with the city, we'll be able to save the residents
of Collier County and the City of Naples that participate in the
program over one more million dollars in 1998, and this would lower
our rating, we hope, from seven to six.
There are -- the programs that I mentioned a minute ago that we
participate in above and beyond the FEHA regulations include updated
flood insurance rate map information, maintaining our elevation
certificates on file, placing information in the public libraries on
flood protection materials as well as our office upgrading our
digitized mapping efforts and meeting stormwater provisions of our
zoning ordinance. Those are just a few of the programs that I wanted
to highlight for you.
The money would be spent from the building permit fund.
Currently, we are estimating that the program in total would cost
$57,100. Half of that would be the county's cost. However,
mitigating that cost would be the money that we estimate that we spend
in overtime now, which is a little over $8,000. The net effect to the
county budget would be a little over eighteen or just under $19,000.
We are estimating that if you provide permission to engage in this
program, the county would spend 18,850 from the building permit fund
and in return, potential property owners participating in this program
would save an additional 3.4 million dollars in the county. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will or may? Is it guaranteed that
that's going to happen?
MR. CAUTERO: It is not guaranteed, but we have -- I am very
confident that we will succeed because we have been successful in the
past in our program with our rating of seven.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The thing I ask every year when --
during budget season when new positions are projected is what are they
going to do for 40 hours a week? The FEMA person goes into work, sits
down on a Wednesday morning at 8:00 a.m., and what do they do?
MR. CAUTERO: What -- what the person does in the city right now
is, I would say, is the equivalent to what our people do when they
work overtime on this.
The programs that I just mentioned, what they do is they maintain
those programs. They are constantly answering questions and providing
updated information for people.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. I'm looking for a typical
day, though. I understand broadly they try to educate the public and
they do different things with flooding programs, but on a typical day,
they come in on a Wednesday morning --
MR. CAUTERO: Right. A typical day --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they sit at their desk --
MR. CAUTERO: -- sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm --
MR. CAUTERO: A typical day might involve --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just having trouble filling in --
MR. CAUTERO: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year or
50 weeks a year.
MR. CAUTERO: A typical day might involve, for this person,
updating flood insurance, rate maps, updating the overlay maps,
providing new information to citizens and customers that call,
providing new information to libraries, providing information to
various insurance companies, meeting with builders, meeting with
contractors, meeting with building inspectors, providing training,
going to training.
I'm confident that the person in the city does not have a boring
day given the 20 hours a week that they are working, and our hours in
staff have been increasing steadily in overtime, and this is a way to
reduce that so that those staff members can do other things.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much does the city currently spend
on that part-time person?
MR. CAUTERO: Half of the fifty-seven one which would be
approximately twenty-eight five.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess just doing a little math, if
they are there half the time and if we've spent 400 hours, that's
about ten weeks' work, that's roughly 36 weeks work, and I'm just
wondering, is there that much to boost it -- I'm just having a little
trouble. I understand the intent is very good, but if we're spending
$9,700 now and making that happen, I'm having trouble justifying
spending nearly $30,000 to make the same thing happen.
MR. CAUTERO: No, I can certainly understand that. The reason
I'm recommending that you do that and spend the additional net $18,800
and change is because it will allow us to do two things; hopefully,
and I feel very confident, reduce that rating to reduce the premiums
and allow my current electrical plans reviewer to spend more time
doing electrical plans review, who is the de facto FEMA coordinator
for the corporate of Collier County.
So, I have another motive in recommending this to you, and that
is to allow that person to do -- spend more time on his job.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The final question I have is we are
two weeks into the new year, into the new fiscal year. Where was this
during the budget season?
MR. CAUTERO: The City of Naples approached us very late in the
budget process, and we did not package it in time for the budget.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: My question, is there any possibility that
-- because I was contacted regarding Everglades City, and I don't know
what their ratings are, I don't know any of their background
information, is there any way that they could be involved in this?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, I believe there is, and that's on our agenda.
We are going to be working with the city officials down there.
I believe they contract out their building services, but we
intend to coordinate with the city officials to determine for your
next budget cycle if they wish to participate in the program, and I
would have a recommendation for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, if I look at the SLUSH model,
which is a storm surge model, a lot of these -- this flood protection,
let's face it, it's geography. It's elevation. The lower you are,
the more you have your work cut out for you to keep your insurance
premiums low. The highest land is in unincorporated Collier County.
The majority of the land in the county is at a category three or --you
know, I mean, just elevation alone, I see a real advantage and a real
opportunity to get our rating dropped to a six.
My question is, if you're in -- and Everglades City is a good
example. Everglades City or even the City of Naples, which is
typically at lower elevation than the rest of the county, that's going
to take a lot more work, a lot more justification, a lot more effort
to get that rating dropped from a seven to a six. I mean, am I at
least correct in that as a scenario?
MR. CAUTERO: I think you are, but one thing that the officials
have told us that administer this program is that if you coordinate
your efforts, there are points for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But are they tied together? In other words,
could we go to a six and the city not go to a six?
MR. CAUTERO: No, we would go together.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we want to tie ourselves to that since
flooding basically is based on elevation, and if the city is a lower
elevation on average than the rest of the county, are we potentially
tying -- you know, dragging a weight, so to speak, in trying to get
that rating reduced?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, we are.
MR. CAUTERO: I don't think we are because -- I'm sorry,
Commissioner, you speak.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, go ahead. I'm sorry.
MR. CAUTERO: I don't believe we are because the program that we
are talking about is one that is above and beyond the minimum
requirements for providing information. It doesn't put an additional
burden on someone when they go to construct a facility. It's what you
do to educate the public and the insurance industry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, it's not a minimum standard issue?
MR. CAUTERO: No, no, and I apologize if I didn't make that clear
to you.
Insurance companies are not -- some insurance companies, I should
say, do not receive this program very well. I know of at least one
instance, and it was because it was in the billing department that had
to prove to the insurance company that we participated in the program
and that his premium should be reduced by 15 percent.
So, education is a big component of the program. We would reduce
together with the city and, likewise, the city, as you pointed out
just a moment ago, has a vested interest in this as well, and they
want to see that number drop.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one more question, too.
Based on 1996 totals, this says it could expect an additional 1.8
million in reductions off insurance premiums. Do you have any idea
what that comes out to per household on average?
MR. CAUTERO: No, sir, I don't, but I could find out. I don't
know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears from the multiple seconds
it's going to be a moot point anyway, but would you find that out just
for my knowledge?
MR. CAUTERO: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Is there -- we do have a speaker?
MR. HcNEES: You have one, A1 Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners; A1 Perkins, Belle
Heade Groups.
Needless to say, I'm involved in all over this entire county. As
far as FEHA goes, the replacement of buildings, if they are demolished
by hurricanes on Marco Island and on the beach area, will not be
permitted to be replaced.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A1, that has nothing to do with the issue
before us today.
MR. PERKINS: It's part of the insurance end of it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, what we are talking about is not
FEHA regulations and how they apply to reconstruction; is that
correct?
MR. CAUTERO: That's correct, sir.
MR. PERKINS: Aren't we involved with the insurance end of this
thing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Perkins, your comment you just made is not
applicable to the item today. If you haven't read the item or don't
understand the item, I'd encourage you to get with Mr. Cantetc.
MR. PERKINS: But needless to say, the fact that FEHA being
involved the last time we had the flood and the emergency management
issue throughout this entire county and your elevations, which you so
highly recommend and state exactly where they are at, the fact that
this involves not only the estates and Immokalee area, but it involves
everybody in this county as far as evacuation goes.
Now, I'm down to saving lives and trying to protect people. Now,
if it takes whatever it takes so they can do this, I'm willing to go
the distance on this thing, because it's the people who are involved.
We can rebuild just about anything, but we cannot replace the people.
With that, I'll conclude.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, there's a motion and a second on
the floor. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one.
Item #8A6
DEVELOPER'S REQUEST TO REPEAL THE TWIN EAGLES PUD, ORDINANCE 97-29 -
STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE ITEM FOR PUBLIC HEARING
*** The next item is Item 8(A)(6). This is the add-on item, Hr.
Arnold, the Twin Eagles project?
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, commissioners; Wayne Arnold, planning
services director.
This is a request by staff in response to a request by the
developer of the Twin Eagles project to bring forward a request by the
developer to repeal the existing PUD zoning that was approved by the
board on July 22nd. The request is a result of potential litigation
filed by challengers to the project to challenge the validity of a PUD
zoning outside the urban boundary.
Staff and the developer are confident that the project is
consistent with our Growth Management Plan. However, the developer
stated they have no interest in fighting prolonged litigation as they
believe they can still develop a very similar project in an
agricultural zoning scenario. We are simply seeking your direction
because we are also named in that potential litigation because the
county was also a party, obviously.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Arnold, in your opinion, which of the
two potential development proposals is better for Collier County? I
know that's a very generic question, but we have the grid proposal or
we have the proposal that was worked out as a result of the Twin
Eagles PUD. Do you have an opinion about which one is better?
MR. ARNOLD: By far, I would have to say the PUD provided much better
environmental protection. There were several things in the PUD
document that the county was able to assist the developer in, namely,
some mitigation to the CREW lands, some additional enhancement of
vegetation, et cetera. None of those things will be provided under an
agricultural zoning scenario unless the developer initiates those on
their own, but we certainly don't have those requirements.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm glad that's your professional opinion,
because I have to admit to having a chip on my shoulder about this
because I worked hours and hours on this with the developer and the
Conservancy and CREW and tried to come up with something that was
environmentally positive, and I think we did. I've got a real hard
time saying let's undo it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I come from the other -- I agree with
you 100 percent that what was done or what was approved
environmentally far exceeds what could have been done had it not gone
through the PUD process and a public hearing process, but I'm not
going to -- I can't hold the property owner hostage because an
environmental organization has filed a suit that could cost the
taxpayers of this county money.
They've asked -- they asked for one thing. They are asking us to
rescind that, I believe, which isn't a decision today. It's whether
or not to move ahead, and I feel obligated to honor that request on
two fronts: one, it's their property, and two, why should I spend
taxpayer money fighting that battle unless I have to, and, you know, I
agree with you in concept, but those two reasons alone, you know, my
move is just to put it on the agenda and let's -- let's discuss --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have an answer to the second question
really, that one reason to spend taxpayer money to fight for it is
because it's better for the county, because it sets a precedent for
what we expect for development outside the urban boundary and what
kind of environmental stringencies we're going to place on those
developments. I think it may be worth fighting for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we can still do that. We can do that
on our own without -- without holding the property owner hostage --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is your mom here today?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but again, it's a little odd for a property
owner to come forward and ask for a zoning designation and then come
back and say, well, we want to rescind it and us to say, no. I mean,
that seems a little odd to me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I share both of your frustration. I
mean, ideally, we want to do whatever is best, but -- and particularly
with the time and effort that went into coming up with a reasonable
answer. The irony being, an environmental group arguing against the
more environmentally viable alternative, but I've got to agree with
Commissioner Hancock in that, in my opinion, we can undo property
rights type issues. If someone owns a piece of property, they request
a use for that, decide they don't want to use that use after all and
say, thank you, but no thank you, I'm hard-pressed to ignore that
request and say, no, I won't even listen to it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As long as we continue to press forward with
the Conservancy on the issue of development outside the urban
development and PUDs and so forth, I think we need to resolve that
anyway.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is today's question just whether or not to
rehear it or is today's question to repeal it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's seeking board direction. There's not an
item on the agenda to repeal it today.
MR. ARNOLD: We would need to bring back a formal fezone
ordinance to you for that to occur. We did ask as part of this
motion, not only we believe that it's viable to go ahead and honor the
developer's request, but we also believe that we should be able to
work with the developer in coming up with some application fees that
are more appropriate for what we are trying to do.
A lot of staff analysis and a lot of staff time went into the
original rezoning. To take it back to the original agricultural
zoning with mobile home overlay really requires no staff analysis.
However, there will be advertising costs. There will be some staff
time involved. There will be some property owner notification, et
cetera, that we believe they should be billed for, and I believe they
certainly agree to pay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One of the concerns I have, and there's
always been a lot of controversy about PUDs, but the good part about a
PUD is that there are public hearings regarding a PUD, and I'm very
sympathetic in this case to going back to the landowner.
I really think -- when this was worked out, I think we had the
best scenario for Collier County, but unfortunately, they've been
forced by a couple of groups to reconsider this and when they go back
to this -- if they go back to their original zoning, then what they do
on that parcel of land, they are permitted to do currently, I believe,
under the current scenario.
You really don't have a lot of say in what they are going to do.
You would have been better off to stay with the PUD, but they've been
forced to do this, and I think this is absolutely a test case in
Collier County, and this is what -- this is what it has come down to,
and I think that this will probably set some precedent for the future,
but I agree with Ms. Hac'Kie and the rest of them up here. I think we
need to continue to work toward the original, what they came forth
with. I think that's the best way to go, but I -- I'm very, very
disappointed that these groups have forced this issue into this
particular situation, and I think the citizens of Collier County will
absolutely be outraged by this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: This was a perfect opportunity where groups
had worked together, brought forth a product that was, in my opinion,
was going to be a superb project, and what has transpired now, it's
not that it's not going to be a good project, but it's going to be
done in a manner that we have sat here and said, we don't really like
to go in this direction, and I guess maybe it's show time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In essence, forcing the hand of the property
owner to the detriment of the community.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's right. That's right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wonder if that's in the bylaws.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris, I think, was -- had a
turn.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. I'm sorry. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, just, if I'm able to, I'm just going
to echo the comments that I've heard up here today. It's very
unfortunate that the county, the developer and the Conservancy worked
so hard to the Conservancy's credit to have such a positive impact on
that proposal, and to do the level of environmental safeguards that
were contained within that PUD, I think, was a great show of
cooperative effort among all the groups, and then to have some
organizations come along that have absolutely nothing to contribute
but just to echo a flat no to any proposal whatsoever for any reason,
I think, is extremely unfortunate, and I agree with Commissioner Berry
that that kind of environmental extremism should be something that
causes outrage within our community. We had a very good proposal
here, and now we are going to go back to something that's not anywhere
near as good.
So, that's what they are demanding, so that's what they'll get,
apparently. It's just unfortunate that we are left with this
situation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I still think it's okay that, you know,
that's what they'll get because they demand it.
I want to -- to make a point, too, that both the Audubon and
Florida Wildlife were invited and requested and invited and invited to
please participate in these discussions that were held between the
developer and the Conservancy. It wasn't just that the Conservancy
thought this up. There was a great deal of effort to involve the
Audubon Society and the Florida Wildlife Federation in the
discussions, to ask them to have input at the same time as the
Conservancy did, and I think that that's important. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Did they participate?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They would not come to the table, would
not come to the table --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that goes to --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and that is a shame.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that goes to credibility, but that's
simply my opinion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I have a question, and that is about
the legal process itself. If the process -- if we don't go forward,
if we don't undo what we've done, what happens? Does all development
stop on this piece of property until final resolution of the outcome?
What happens?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, a lot of very good questions in
discussion here, I must state.
We can't tell you right now that the ability of the underlying
property owner to go forward is absolutely stopped or estopped by the
legal actions that are filed at the present time.
For the record, I would like you to know that, of course, yes,
the county as a co-defendant has received and will have to respond to
the writ of certiorari action that has been filed. We read through
the newspaper of a declaratory action lawsuit filed. We have not been
served yet with that but will be responding accordingly if and when we
are served.
I hope I have answered your question in part --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You did.
MR. WEIGEL: -- and I'm going to continue here with a couple more
comments.
I think before you today, one might liken the request as provided
by the letter on behalf of the underlying landowner, which is attached
to the executive summary, and the presentation by staff to the board
is that we might liken this to an accelerated sunset request, and it's
important, and with the discussion I've had with Mr. Anderson, who is
representing the underlying landowner -- I'm pleased he would be here
today. For no instant did I expect that he or a representative of the
underlying landowner would not be here today, but I think it would be
important for him to be present and be able to state on the record, on
this record created aside from the correspondence, which will be part
of the record, the intent of the party so that it is clearly before
you and in the public record created today, and I'd also like Marjorie
Student, assistant county attorney, to provide information to you and
the public generally of what the case law is in this regard, and she's
prepared to state that to you now.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, I wanted to -- Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
There's case law there to the effect and -- and this is only for
PUDs, but you cannot impose PUD zoning over the objection of the
property owner, and that's the Porpoise Point case, and I think this
case might be actually a little stronger. In that case, the local
government decided to write a PUD and impose it on a property owner,
and the property owner didn't want it. Now -- but I don't believe he
knew about it until after it was placed on his property, and then he
objected, and the Court said, you cannot do that.
The case we have here is a property owner that had obtained a
PUD, seeking to have that rescinded. So, those facts are a little
different, but they are a little stronger because this would be the
county now saying no, and as one of the commissioners mentioned, it's
holding the property owner hostage, and legally, I think we might --
the county would really be in the middle if, you know, we didn't
address this.
So, I just wanted the commission to be aware of that case law.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. WEIGEL: And before Mr. Anderson may step forward, I just
also mention that lest we forget, our building codes and our land
development codes are essentially minimum standards. That's not to
say they are not good standards, but they are minimum standards, and a
PUD potentially and probably in most cases is a, based on
peculiarities of the object or property before it and before the
board, is often reaching for a higher standard or in certain areas
where many different points of the Land Development Code affect land,
certain areas, not necessarily all, will be altered to a higher
standard, and that's where the agreements that are reached from time
to time and the PUD arrangements are, in fact, a bit of give and take,
but usually -- and the board's position, I think, always has been that
that which is achieved in the PUD is a higher standard than the
minimum zoning code that was in place in the first place. So, Mr. Anderson.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers registered on this?
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Anderson is registered. He's the only speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to lecture you on what the issue
is, but you probably understand it by now.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of Ultimate Land Trust,
the owner of this property, and I find myself in the unusual and
awkward position of saying please down zone my client's property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This one will go down in history, Mr.
Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes, please note that.
We share your unhappiness about having to come before you today.
It's only as a matter of last resort that we are here. The county and
my client are the two defending parties in two different lawsuits. My
client was served yesterday. The groups that filed the lawsuit won't
even meet to discuss a potential settlement. There had been a
settlement meeting scheduled, but they insisted that the county, you
know, participate in, so it was all arranged, and then the day before
it was to occur, it was abruptly cancelled with no explanation other
than we are ready to go to the mat over this, and well, they'll have
to go to the mat by themselves.
Our request to repeal the PUD is nothing less than a unilateral
settlement by giving the complaining parties the only thing that they
have asked for, the elimination of the dreaded PUD zoning. Heaven
forbid that we might approve a development that conserves open space
in environmentally sensitive areas.
These lawsuits are an example of what I call urban envirophobia.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did you work on that all night long coming
up with that?
MR. ANDERSON: And it can it be defined as the illogical
obsession with an artificial political boundary to the detriment of
the environment.
My -- my client does hold out hope that before this down zoning
process is finalized, that these groups might see the light --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Amen.
MR. ANDERSON: -- as other objective groups have done, but
failing that, my client is prepared to go forward with the Twin Eagles
development under the agricultural zoning designation and zoning
classification that was on the property in the first place, and I'll
be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The decision before the board today is really
whether to hear the ordinance repealing the zoning which would have
the net effect of basically eliminating the CREW acquisition that had
been agreed upon by the petitioner. It will have no effect on
increasing or even maintaining the environmental applications
contained in the PUD and may, in fact, reduce them, and that is not a
decision anyone up here, I think, wants to make, but on the issue of
private property rights and the advice from our county attorney, I
think we need to hear the item, and I think we'll make the decision on
that day, but I think the writing is on the wall today --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like we have no choice.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- for what options are available to us.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Move staff's recommendation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. I just -- you know,
we make an effort not to repeat what others have said up here, but
every once in a while, you feel strongly enough about something, you
have to say it, and just -- it is not only unreasonable but totally
outrageous and irresponsible for a group to refuse to participate when
invited in a process and say we don't want to talk about it; we are
not going to talk about it; we are only going to go to court. It's
completely irresponsible, and to tie up the county and its tax dollars
and our time and private enterprise and private property is completely
and totally irresponsible, and just very, very frustrating to have --
the Conservancy was very responsible, sat down, went through the
process and tried to come up with something reasonable, and to have
unreasonable people gum up the works for -- and possibly set a
precedent that will be harming for the future development of that
whole stretch outside the urban area is disgraceful.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Here, here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a
second to the motion?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. I won't ask for
further discussion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. We'll hear the
ordinance after it's properly advertised.
Item #SB1
ALTERNATE ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR THE SPORTS AUTHORITY -
CONTINUED TO 11/4/97
*** The next item on the agenda was moved from the consent
agenda, formerly 16(B)(3) is now 8(B)(1) under public works.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, this is the reduction of impact
fees for Sports Authority, and I just know -- maybe this map is fine.
Maybe that's why it's on the consent agenda, but I wonder if you could
run through it with me. I know as Sports Authority went up, they
certainly were less than cooperative with the county, and as I look at
that, I find it hard to believe that they don't have a pretty strong
impact, particularly on that intersection, and I just need a little
help to accept what's here.
MR. KANT: For the record, Edward Kant, transportation services
division.
It's difficult to try to figure out where to start with this
except to say that in the -- the short answer is that perhaps a --
perhaps a mistake was made. The longer answer is that it was a
question, we believe, of interpretation.
The Sports Authority approached us back in March of '96 prior to
their coming for their building permits and suggested that their type
of operation was different from the retail commercial that was in our
ordinance under the rate table, and we looked at --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll say it is.
MR. KANT: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll say it is.
MR. KANT: Never having been in there, I can't address that.
We looked at the information they presented to us, and at the
time, it appeared that it was not unreasonable that this was a
different type of an operation than what we would normally expect in a
typical retail store. So, we --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you -- can you explain to me how?
MR. KANT: Because they -- they would -- we thought at the time
that they qualified as a discount store as defined in the IDE trip
generation handbook as opposed to typical commercial retail, which is
kind of a catchall category, at least the way we presented it in our
rate structure. On that basis, we accepted the information that they
presented to us and calculated what we termed to be an individual
impact fee which is Section 310 of the ordinance.
Since that time -- and then things just went as they normally
would. They went in. They got their building permit, built their
building. The controversy with their landscaping and everything else
ensued, and, frankly, we didn't think much further of it until about,
I'm going to say, September of last year, I believe, there was an
audit performed by the Clerk of Court's office on some of the impact
fee revenues in development services, and the question arose as to
whether or not this was, in fact, an individual impact fee or should
it have been presented to the board as an alternative impact fee.
At the time, we felt that it was, in fact, an individual impact
fee. We had some discussions with the clerk's office, and we got
together with Mr. Cautero and his staff and went back and said, well,
maybe there is a question there. Maybe it should have gone to the
board. We don't know at this point because it's after the fact, but
in order to satisfy both the auditor's request and to look -- and in
terms of taking another look at it, we said, well, let's bring it
before the board, because if, in fact, this should have been an
alternative impact fee, that will help provide us with future
direction also in this type of an issue.
So, that's why it's here before you now asking for an after the
fact approval.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is their impact really a third?
MR. KANT: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I'm oversimplifying this or not
understanding it, but is their impact really only a third of what
we're averaging out as regular impact?
MR. KANT: The impact fees are based on a number of factors.
Trip generation rate is one factor; trip length, percentage of new
trips added to the roadway.
The data that they've presented to us was based on similar
stores, that is, freestanding stores that were not in a shopping
center that had controlled entrances, that is, we knew that every car
that went in there was only going to go to that store. Based on the
data that they presented, the number of trips -- we used our
percentage of new trips, and we used our, that is Collier County's,
trip length. The only factor that we adjusted was their trip rate.
We also used the -- based on the information we got, we also used
their weekend trip rate, which was higher than their weekday trip
rate. Based on that, we made the calculation that showed a less
impact fee than what the table would have called for had we used that
category.
So, the answer to your question -- that's the long answer. The
short answer is, yes, they did have a lower impact than we would have
expected given that type of business.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see lower, and that, I don't -- I
don't know. I mean, I would agree with you, but it appears to be
one-third of what we would normally do, and that's what just amazed
me.
MR. KANT: Again, I can't address that because that's the number
that fell out of the formulas that we used. I believe that it turned
out that -- and I can look it up. I think that their trip generation
rate was -- and I don't -- unfortunately, I don't have it immediately
handy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thirty point four one for every thousand
square feet.
MR. KANT: Yeah, the number for that size store that's used in
our calculation is about 90, but that, again, is based on general
commercial retail which has a shopping center base as opposed to a
particular freestanding store base.
I don't want to get in -- I'll be happy to, but I'm not sure you
want to get into the technical aspects of it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask the impacts here, because stores
such as Sports Authority, and I'll say even Toys-R-Us that are special
__
MR. KANT: That's another type, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- their speciality, but they're the kind of
store that people drive a longer trip length to because they attract
not just, you know, an element of their industry better known as the
big item block.
MR. KANT: Called the category killers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. So, I actually would think that they
would generate as much, if not more, than being -- than a sporting
goods store next to Publix, because they are the type of business they
are.
I understand that you've already established the trip rate. What
my concern is, if we approve this today -- you said something very
important to me. You said that it will become a basis for or give
direction for future decisions. I'm not sure I want to give the
direction that a Sports Authority or Toys-R-Us is one-third of a
typical retail by making this decision today.
MR. KANT: That -- that was not my intent, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KANT: My intent was to clarify those issues where we want to
come before the board with alternative impact fees. Again, in
discussing with Mr. Cautero, we felt that additional oversight was
necessary, and we have agreed on a little bit, shall we say finer,
tighter procedure, and if, in fact, the board agrees that, yes, this
is the type of thing that would be more likely to be an alternative
rather than an individual impact fee, then these are the types of fees
that will come before the board in the future rather than being
decided at the staff level.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If that is the extent of today's decision, I
can support that. What I cannot support are the numbers here without
going at length into it and discussing the nature of a Sports
Authority or Toys-R-Us type of --
MR. KANT: That's why we'd like to bring those back to you on an
individual basis.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If that's the extent of what you're asking, I
can support that as long as there's no indication that we are
supporting this as a basis for future -- you know, that this trip rate
is a basis for future similar type stores.
MR. KANT: Perhaps I was unclear. It was a direction rather than
the absolute that I was looking for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers on this, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, is there a motion on the item?
In order to get it on the floor, I'll make a motion that we
approve staff recommendation that this is to be defined as an
alternative impact fee and that future uses such as this are to come
before the board in that -- under that being an alternative as opposed
to an individual road impact fee. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, just a couple more
questions, and that is, the numbers we used to come up with this were
strictly those numbers provided by Sports Authority -- MR. KANT: Yeah --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and put in our formula?
MR. KANT: They had an engineer go out and prepare a trip rate
study. We looked at those numbers. We looked at their methodology in
doing that, and again, in the future, that type of information would
also be presented to you.
Typically, if we don't have a problem with the engineering
aspects of it, we generally tend to accept those numbers because
there's only one or two ways to count cars, and in this case, they
counted them with the hoses that you see across the road or across
driveways, and then they verify those counts by taking random hourly
counts and comparing those with what they got on the tape, and there's
really not much other way to do it in that case. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman.
MR. KANT: So, on that basis, we accepted those numbers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm confused now. I thought I understood
what we were doing, but now I'm not sure I do.
I -- I am willing to support the concept that these may be
special items that need to come back in front of the board for a
hearing instead of staff making the determination, but I would like to
have that kind of a hearing on this one and not have the very first
one be a consent agenda item that we don't discuss or, frankly,
understand.
If you're asking me to say -- if you're saying to me, this is a
little special, instead of a cookie cutter situation where the staff
can review it and approve it because we know exactly what we're --
what the situation is here, this is different from that. It requires
-- it's the kind of situation that should come in front of the board,
then I respect that. I want to hear it, but I'm not prepared to make
a judgment on it today based on the information we've had.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hay I direct that to Mr. Weigel, because that
was, in essence, my question to Mr. Kant earlier, is that I don't want
to approve this trip rate today.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: My mom is here, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't want to approve this trip rate today,
but I think it has already been done, and that we don't have the
authority to go back and change it at this point or increase it; am I
correct in that, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I can't tell you definitively that you don't
have the authority to go back and change it, but you're certainly
correct, I think, the first factual statement which is it was done
administratively, at the administrative level and not the board level,
and an alternative fee determination is a board function, and that's
why it's brought before you today.
Typically, it's an -- it's more of a hearing function than what
you've had before you today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The way the recommendation reads is
that the board approves the alternative road impact fees for Sports
Authority. So, we are dealing with that issue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to
continue it for a couple of weeks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a motion on the floor.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second on my motion?
Seeing none, it dies for a lack of a second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion that we continue this item
and ask staff to make a presentation to us along the lines of what we
will get in the future as we see these kinds of alternative impact fee
calculations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I was just -- I didn't -- actually, I
wanted to vote on the thing today. I don't care to continue it. I
just happen not to agree with the conclusions reached by their study,
and I was going to make a motion to deny it, but we -- if the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll have to save that for two
weeks.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll have to save that for two weeks it
looks like.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, my question will be in two weeks
as we hear this item, is what is available to us in the way of options
if we disagree with what staff performed in their individual road
impact fee and can we do so based on information presented at that
time, can we actually increase the fee and cause Sports Authority to
pay additional road impacts? I don't expect a curbside answer now,
but I'll ask that answer then because I'm afraid I know the answer or
what I fear is the answer is no, but I need to know that from you, and
I think it will be pertinent at that time.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. I'll get off the curb, and if I can provide
all of you that response even before two weeks so you have it going
into the hearing or meeting would be good.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Get out on the road with the rest of us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be helpful.
We have a motion and a second. Further discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one.
Item #8C1
INCREASE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEES FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - APPROVED
*** Next item is public services, formerly Item 16(C)(4). This
is an authorization to increase occupational license for landscape
maintenance.
Good morning.
MR. BLANTON: Good morning, commissioners. Dennis Blanton,
department head for agriculture.
The objective of this effort this morning is to develop a funding
source for the county's horticultural agent position. What we did was
work with the landscape maintenance industry, specifically the
Landscape Maintenance Association and the Royal Palm Chapter of the
Florida Nursery Groves Association to come up with a method to fund
the position.
The organizations supported increasing occupational license fees
by up to $20 per year. In order to assess the feel of the industry
itself, we sent out information to all 924 licensees asking them to
give us feedback and vote their concern as well as attend an
informational meeting.
You have before you the results of that. We received 54 ballots,
of which 35 were in favor and 19 were opposed.
The associations would like to see the commission give them the
opportunity to increase their occupational license fees and feel they
have the support of the industry in this matter.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Is 35 in favor out of 924
really representative? I just -- you know, we've been going along and
trying to find a way -- not the board, but you-all have been trying to
find a way to fund this horticultural agent, and we had made a
conscious decision during the budget process not to do that in some
sort of taxing way, and we had said perhaps the industry can choose to
do something itself, but 35 people out of 924 just -- there seems like
there has to be a better way than that. I mean, that's -- I don't
know what that percent is but '-
MS. BLANTON: We discussed that at the meeting. The ballots went
out in advance of the meeting, and we also asked people to attend, and
15 businesses did, and we had the same concern you expressed. One of
the items of discussion was that perhaps, for the $20, people felt it
was not important to attend a night meeting, that it didn't matter to
them either way. Of course, those that did want to were invited to
fax it back or mail it back, and as you point out, quite a few decided
not to respond at all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unfortunately, the world is run by those who
show up, and we spent over $300 in postage sending out to 924
businesses, and we --
MS. BLANTON: No, sir, actually, they did pay the postage.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They paid it, okay. Well, whoever paid it is
not happy because only 54 were returned.
MS. BLANTON: True, true.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So -- I under --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, that's 3 percent of all of
them are in favor. It's not representative.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we have the president elected that way,
too.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: When they take a national poll, though, of
250 million people, they only have three or 4,000 responses.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there's a scientific way in which
to do that. You don't simply mail it out -- I mean, frankly, if
there's a group or a couple of groups who organized this effort,
obviously, they are going to respond, and I mean, you can stack the
deck if you're only going to have this many responding -- it's not --
if you do a direct mail piece, 3 or 4 percent is what you're going to
get back on almost anything, and so -- I mean, what better way to have
your small group go ahead and vote. It's just -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can find a more representative
way to do this with the industry, I don't have any opposition, but to
have 3 percent of them say they are in favor of it and say, that's
representative of the industry, I'm not comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm glad to hear that there is any support
among the industry to tax themselves for a service that the county is
providing to them, but more importantly, if this is a service that
benefits that organization, it goes right along the lines with what
the philosophy of the board has been, and that is, let the users pay,
and this is a horticultural agent. It is a resource to these
companies. If we are going to provide it, it is the kind of service
they should pay for, whether it's particularly popular among them '-
I'm surprised that it wasn't a vote, no, we don't want to pay for it;
we want it for free.
So, you know, I think it's exactly along the lines of users
should pay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think during the budget process,
though, we were not going to provide it for free, and that was why we
had said they need to raise the money themselves, and I'm just
suggesting that they need to -- if we are going to go ahead and pass,
essentially, another tax on them, they ought to be able to participate
in that in a more active manner. I just don't --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I differ with you in looking at it as not a
tax but a fee. There's a service being provided to that industry.
That industry has chosen, whether by lack of response, by lack of
participation, not to become a part of that process.
When you -- if we sent a notice out to every taxpayer in the
county and said, do you mind if your tax bill goes up ten bucks, I bet
we'd get more than 3 percent because they're sensitive to property
taxes. This is a fee that is -- as we decided, is only -- that
industry is served by it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I bet when they start paying it, we'll
hear from 3 percent or more of them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it can be repealed and the position can be
eliminated.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I was just going to suggest that -- let's go
ahead and try this for a year, because you do have this response in
front of us. Let's try it for a year, and if next year when we get
into the budget cycle, prior to that time, please run some kind of a
survey or get some kind of feedback so we have an idea about where
we're at on this, and if we choose -- at that point in time, if there
is no support for this, then we'll have to take another look at it,
but I know I received a letter in favor, supporting this particular
thing, so I'm willing to go along with it for this year, but let's get
some better facts next year.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree with Commissioner Berry.
There's a motion and a second on the floor.
Would the motion maker like to include Commissioner Berry's
request for survey information before next budget year? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a speaker, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: Yes, sir, you have one, Ron Grant.
MR. GRANT: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Ron Grant,
president of the LMA, Lawn Maintenance Association in Florida.
We, as an organization, were also disappointed with the results
of the poll. However, verbally, and I'm in contact with a lot of our
industry, there is a general feel that the need of the agent is
essential and critical to our industry on two fronts; one is for
education. There's very little education available to our work force.
The ag. agent supplies that, especially on pesticides, limiting
license, pruning techniques.
They do a great job of putting on classes for the Hispanic work
force, putting on classes in Spanish, which are just not available
through any other venue to us.
What we are looking for and what you've approved is avenue to
pay for the overall field, despite our response to the ballot of all
the industry, as we need this agent. It's invaluable to us in many
fronts.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Could you commit to Ms. Blanton to assist in
getting a better response for next year so we have a better industry
indicator than what was presented this year? MR. GRANT: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
MR. GRANT: Yes, we will do that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
With that, we have no more speakers. A motion and a second on
the floor. Further discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one.
Thank you, Ms. Blanton.
With that, we are to 10:30. Let's take a five minute break and
return.
(Small break was held).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I could have your attention, we are going
to reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' meeting for October
21st. Ladies and gentlemen, if I could ask for your assistance in
curtailing your conversation, we will get back on track on the agenda
today.
We left off -- excuse me, folks, if I could ask your
conversations to come to a halt, please.
Thank you very much.
Item #9A
REVISED DRAFT MEMEORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (EIS) SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, BETWEEN THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
COLLIER COUNTY AND LEE COUNTY - CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 28, 1997
*** Back on the agenda, we're to Item 9(A) under county
attorney's report. This is a board consideration for approval of a
revised draft HOU for the environmental impact statement for Southwest
Florida being proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers, Collier County
and Lee County, and we do have Mr. John Hall, the -- one of the chiefs
of the regulatory side of the Army Corps of Engineers here, and I'm
sure any specific questions, John will target you and ask for your
assistance.
I'd like to bring the balance of the board and those members of
the audience and those watching today up to speed on this. We have
had discussion after discussion with both the Army Corps of Engineers,
Lee County and anyone else who has really come to the table on that
issue about the EIS, and you'll notice the "P" has been dropped. It
is not a programmatic environmental impact statement. It is just
termed an environmental impact statement, and that is, again, to be
consistent with federal authority with what is being proposed.
I can tell you honestly that we have had a positive and open
dialogue with the Corps of Engineers. With the understanding that
this board and many people who are familiar with this item has, that
the Corps has jurisdiction to perform this type of study, their
efforts, in my opinion, have been toward collaboration, not toward
exclusion, and I think as a response, there are two things I'm going
to ask the board to do today.
I believe the memorandum of understanding that we have worked on
with the assistance of the Chamber/EDC coalition -- I say assistance,
but in essence, they have done a lot of leg work. Susan and the
members of that group deserve a lot of credit. The Chamber of
Southwest Florida has been very involved and very instrumental, and I
think credit is due there.
What we have before us, I think, is about as far as we're going
to get at a preliminary stage in looking at an environmental impact
statement and what it may or may not mean to Southwest Florida.
The details, such as the scoping of the process and so forth, the
reason they are not in there as far as the defined scope is because
that's an element of the study, one of the first elements of the
study, and they've made it very clear to me from the Corps side that
identifying the scope before beginning -- you know, at this point,
there just isn't the information. They have to begin efforts to do
that, and it will be a two month process. So, the scope is generally
defined in there, but will be refined in the first two months.
My feeling is, through all of the conversations we've gone
through, is twofold. First is, as I just mentioned, I think what we
have before us is nearly as good as we are going to get with trying to
make sure that the interests, both environmental and private property
rights are protected and recognized in the partnership between the
Corps of Engineers, Lee and Collier County, and I think that was one
of our primary goals, was to make sure that this type of study did not
hold up unnecessarily property owners from seeking the necessary
permits they need in addition to protecting and recognizing the
environmental and economic impacts of what's being proposed. I
believe the HOU outlines those and says that those are, in fact,
priority considerations.
The second thing is that the -- we kind of -- Collier County kind
of took the lead with the assistance of the Chamber/EDC coalition in
getting the ball rolling by putting everyone at the table, and, again,
I thank A1 Reynolds and Susan and everyone for your assistance there.
It has kind of turned to Lee County a little bit for some of the
details. They heard this item last week and have fired off some very
specific questions that could affect the language of the document in
front of us today. It is important to me that we and Lee County, when
we consider for approval, are considering the same document. They
will be hearing theirs next Tuesday.
So, I'm going to -- and I know, John, you made some -- John made
some extra effort to be here today at my request, and I appreciate
that. What I would like to do today is to have a discussion on the
MOU as the board feels appropriate and members of the public feel
appropriate in the form of really looking at the elements of the MOU,
asking questions as to the particulars of that so that if we have any
additional concerns that are not represented, that can be addressed
for next week.
The reason I would like to see this come back next week for
action is, again, because I think it's important that Lee and Collier
look at the same document for approval. I'm comfortable with the
document in front of us, but I don't want to get ahead of Lee County
on this one. We have worked together so far. Seven days is not a
time killer, but I really think it is important that we, as a board,
make a decision in the very near future as to whether or not we are
going to sit at the table and be a partner and a principal in this
study to help guide it and direct it for Collier County's best
interest.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a process question. You know my
position is going to be yes, yes, yes, let's do it, but -- but my -- I
didn't understand, if we postpone this for a week, then next Tuesday,
both we and the Lee County Commission will, on a Tuesday, vote on an
agreement. How will we know that we are accomplishing anything by
postponing it for a week?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We don't, because we don't have the answers to
some of the questions that Lee County has posed, and they are specific
questions that could affect the language.
What I'm trying not to do is have two elongated hearings on the
details of the document. We can certainly do that. We can adopt the
HOU in front of us today and send that message to Lee County, but this
has been such a collaborative effort with John Albion and the Lee
County Commission. I believe whatever happens up there, they're going
to have a split vote. Whether it's for or against, I think it's going
to go split.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, what will happen in the next seven
days, we'll have more details in writing? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
The actual agreement before us may change, and I need to know
those changes, so -- I -- actually, I came in this morning, I arrived
at the office this morning expecting for us to act on this HOU today,
and I was hoping that would be the case, but understanding what Lee
County has requested, and maybe John can give us some more information
on the nature of that request and, you know, and so forth, maybe the
speakers can do that also. I'm not sure who's registered to speak on
this, but I would just -- I would hate for us to adopt it this week
and then have -- and Lee County adopt something different next week
and then we're back into somewhat of a negotiation phase. I think
that would be some waste of effort there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, let's don't close off the
possibility that we may get enough information today to make a
decision. I mean, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That may be the case. I think it's very clear
that I'm supportive of us being a principal in this agreement. I am
convinced that our best effort to represent our residents is from
within the deliberations, discussions and decisions and not from
without, and I think to take any other position would be detrimental.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think if we're going to -- if new
details will come during the week, we probably want to take a look at
those and be prepared, but -- and, frankly, I need to say, and I think
the board expressed this when the issue first came up, is we're
concerned with some suspicions, some worries along the way, but for us
not to participate, I think would be -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Stupid.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- foolish, yeah. I mean, it's no
different than this morning when the group had concerns about a
particular thing and walked away, refused to go to the table and talk
about it.
So, I think the direction we'll head will probably be to
participate, but if there are details that will come out this coming
week and we haven't heard them yet, I want to be sure and hear those
before I give any definitive answer. That's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I may have -- it would probably be -- and I'll
wait for that after the registered speakers to request this, but I
came -- I would anticipate asking for an agreement, a consensus
agreement on the document before us today pending any changes offered
by Lee County. That would be what I would like to do today because,
again, I have to say that the folks from the Corps of Engineers have
really worked in good faith effort on this. You know, don't worry,
John, I'm still a skeptic, but they have worked very hard with us, and
I think we need to show good faith on our part in trying to be a fair
member of that team, and that's what I'm trying to accomplish.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That sounds like a great way to go.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, let's go ahead and -- Mr. Hall, if
I could ask for you to possibly address the commission first on what
happened at Lee County, and if you have received the questions from
Lee County, if you think they will have a material effect on the
document, I think that's important to understand a little bit.
MR. HALL: Okay, certainly. My name is John Hall. For the
record, I'm chief of the Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District
regulatory division.
The -- we have not received anything now in the way of additional
questions or requests for modification language from Lee County.
The one issue that became very clear to me as a result of their
public hearing was a concern about the relationship between the study
and their proposed airport changes or expansion to the airport. We --
we did meet yesterday with the -- with Mr. Ball, the manager of the
airport or -- what -- I don't know exactly what his title is, to
discuss what their plans are.
Based on what I heard in that meeting, I do not -- I do not share
the concerns -- I do not think I share the concerns that some of the
Lee County commissioners had about this study causing the loss of FAA
grant money to the airport. That's the only -- but we will be
meeting, I think, the 27th up in Jacksonville with representatives
from the airport to discuss in more detail their plans and actually
see drawings and things like that.
So, that's the only issue that so far has actually come to our
attention, and we are trying to accommodate that issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I would like to see is a manner of
process, and we discussed this a little bit last week, is if the board
is not comfortable taking action, finaling on this document today, to
schedule it for next week to have and request either sign on or get
off next Tuesday so you, at least, know where we are and where we sit
and what our involvement will or will not be in this study, and that's
more or less what you've requested of me, and I think it's more than
fair.
I just want to ask that if -- again, my basis is I want to have
the same document in front of me Lee County does, and if they have
reservations or affects -- or changes to the document, I want to make
sure we are dealing with the same page, and I hope that doesn't cause
a problem.
MR. HALL: Not at all, no. I mean, we -- we -- I certainly would
agree with you, and I think Karl Miller would too, that we need to
have the same thing, that we are all -- that we are all working from.
I will tell you that just from my personal perspective, I -- I
cannot make it down here next Tuesday because I have some other
commitments, but it does not mean that my absence means that we are
not interested.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I arm twisted you real hard. I know you
made some changes to your schedule to accommodate today, and I wanted
the board to have the opportunity to address you today on specific
questions or concerns relative to the Corps operation and manner in
which you anticipate the study being done, which we have talked about
at length, but there may be some additional questions on.
Before going to speakers on this item, can I ask if the board has
any questions specifically of Mr. Hall? Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one, and it may be the same question
again, but I wanted to be sure I understood the answer. As far as you
know so far, the only communication with Lee County that may result or
that could result in a change to the HOU relates to FAA funding; is
that the Lee County issue that you're aware of at this point?
MR. HALL: Yeah, that's the only thing that we've clearly heard
so far. There were concerns that a couple of the county commissioners
had last week, but they simply have not been -- have not been
crystallized and presented to us. We've worked on the one that we
heard clearly a concern about.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're having a meeting Monday. You're having
-- you said the 27th?
MR. HALL: Yes, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess what I, you know, would hope is
that we could let our community know at least today whether or not we
are going to participate and then make it subject to, as you said,
Commissioner Hancock, if there are changes, and of course, we'll
review those later.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we can refine it or define it to that
narrow scope, I would agree with that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and I think the speakers will help let us
know whether that's possible today or not.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just have some questions. The
executive summary we have runs through a number of the items, item by
item, and I wanted to -- I circled maybe a half a dozen of these that
I just want to be careful of.
The very first one, (A), the Corps will participate with EIS with
the cooperation of Collier and Lee County Boards. The three parties
are principals, but the provision has removed the signature status of
the cooperating agencies, and I just wanted to understand how we
define cooperating then, because it appears there's no authority but
you can come and discuss is how that appears to read to me.
MR. HALL: Well, the -- I'm perhaps not the best one to describe
in any detail cooperating agencies. That is a -- that is a phrase
that comes out of the Council on Environmental Quality national
environmental policy regulations, and it is -- it is -- my impression
is that it is the intent of -- of being cooperating agencies to -- to
-- to encourage full participation in the process, and so that is
normally the phrase we use when we are preparing an environmental
impact statement of any kind.
I think the distinction that we've made in this particular
document is that we are trying to recognize the county -- the two
counties' unique role as the governing bodies of the counties by
calling them something else, which is the principals along with the --
along with the Corps to recognize the -- the extra status or whatever
you -- would be the right word of the county commissions themselves
and the conduct of the counties' business.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me see if I can put it in practical terms.
The -- as principals, the Army Corps, Lee County and Collier County
agree on the make-up in membership of any standing committees. A
cooperating agency does not automatically put them in a -- in one of
those committee positions. That decision rests with the three
principals.
So, in essence, because of the public process itself, anyone can
be a CA or participating organization by the public nature of it
anyway, but there may be some that are bringing actual funding to the
table, the South Florida Water Management District or Fish and Game,
and I think those would be designated as CAs. That's my understanding, John, right?
MR. HALL: That's -- yes, I think so. Yeah. I mean -- again, I
don't want to -- I think we've made some -- the important thing is to
ensure a public process, and that's -- but what we are trying to make
are some fine distinctions here that don't really exist under the NEPA
regulations now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock referenced this
earlier, but you've had the benefit of a full explanation on it, and
I'm just hoping we can, too, that Item D where it talks about the
scope being generally referenced and that the final nature and extent
of those issues is yet to be defined, and just explain to me that
process and why we can't have a little clearer picture on that now.
MR. HALL: The -- excuse me. The -- the EIS development process
requires that the starting point be this -- this thing called a
scoping process, and the intent of the scoping process is to have the
federal government, the agency that's preparing the EIS, go into this
EIS preparation process without any preconceived ideas of either
geographic scope or issues that should be covered in the environmental
impact statement.
So -- so, from a practical perspective when we go through this
process, we need to follow those requirements that are established in
the Council on Environmental Quality regulations.
That being said, at least from my perspective, we could -- we
could say, okay, well, we want to have this just cover one watershed
or two watersheds or three watersheds and then -- in some ways, that
would make me more comfortable just as it would make you more
comfortable because it better defines what kind of resources I'm going
to have to bring to bear because we've committed to pay for this, but
-- but -- but it's hard to do that, because we really need the public
input, and so what we've done in the document is just say, in general,
it appears to us based on the information we have now that this may be
the geographic scope of the area and -- but we really need the scoping
process to finalize that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask kind of a simple question,
I guess, and maybe it's just me, but how do we determine a necessity
of an EIS if we don't have any predetermined conception of what we are
looking to do? I assume there's got to be something that triggered
this thought to start with.
MR. HALL: Yes, there is, and I think we have presented some of
that before. I think going back into the history a little bit, we,
five years ago or so, were processing a series of permit applications
on which we had reoccurring -- in the process, we had reoccurring
issues, okay. Those were reoccurring issues really sort of came to a
head with our review of the Gulf Coast University permit application;
same issues, very, very difficult to deal with on a project specific
basis.
We saw coming in our direction a number of other applications,
and we've talked about them before. Host of them, honestly, at least
at this time, are in Lee County, but expansion of the airport, which
is -- which is, obviously, a point of contention now, the University
Village, the water management district's proposal that they are
working through this focus group to come up with a solution for
flooding problems in the Imperial River basin which does extend down
into Collier County, and then just some specific developments that we
actually have applications for now suggested to us that it simply
would be better to try to look at these problems in a holistic way and
try to solve them once and for all, not solve a little piece here and
then a little piece there and little piece there, which, selfishly
from my perspective, takes a lot more of my staff time, and there are
already complaints that we can't do our job fast enough, so why -- why
walk into something that we know is going to take more time.
I mean, there are all of these -- there seems to be an incredible
amount of -- of apprehension, misinformation. There's no way that I
can prove, except if we agree to do this and we do it, to prove that,
in fact, what we are proposing in the final analysis is better
government rather than worse government. I mean, the sad fact of the
matter is that there may be a lot of people who don't -- who don't
think the federal government has any business in doing these kinds of
things. The sad thing to me about that is that I -- I'm not a
proponent of big federal government either but the simple --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Hall, Mr. Hall.
MR. HALL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Agoston and everyone else here in the
front, I ask that you give Mr. Hall the courtesy afforded every other
speaker, including yourself, in this forum, not to comment during his
remarks.
MR. AGOSTON: Well taken, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Mr. Hall.
MR. HALL: And I'm sort of -- may I'm belaboring this, but --
but, I mean, we have no way of avoiding our responsibilities under the
laws we've talked about before; the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act and NEPA. I mean, they're federal laws that, whether
anybody likes it or not, have been on the books for a long time, and
we have to figure out some way of discharging our responsibilities
under those laws, and what we're trying to do is come up with a more
responsible way than we have used in the past, and it's from my
perspective -- it's as simple as that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I understand, and I understand the
way the federal law is written. If you have to enter into this
without any scope and make that the first step, that's fine. I think
probably the concern that you referenced there is -- under one of
these, you say you cannot pre-commit to any scope limitation, and I
think that just -- when it's wide open to anything, that makes people,
including me, makes people nervous.
A couple of other questions, page or still same page, Item I, it
references EIS will be funded by the Corps and us, if we so elect, but
there's no obligation to the county to fund the EIS. My question is,
what will the obligation be to fund any results or findings? Is there
a potential to be some fiscal impact on the other end?
MR. HALL: In terms of the county's possible fiscal requirements?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, not as far as the EIS itself but
the findings of the EIS and if those are, indeed, implemented or --
and I get on -- a different question on here will have to do with DCA,
but --
MR. HALL: As best I can determine, none whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And as best I can determine, none whatsoever.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think that is a very, very
important point. That has been a point that has scared a lot of
folks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The one thing that we tried to do, and you'll
see it in several points in here, is to recognize the study without
allowing it to tie the hands of this board, whether it be a comp. plan
amendment or a financial application, the fiscal application later,
and the Corps has been cooperative in that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You described for me a little bit
about the principals' definition of that and the participation level.
Item N on the next page talks about the board provides input but the
Corps determines the scope and geographic boundary based upon comment
and scoping process. What is the limitation there as far as the input
of the board? If Lee County and Collier County both choose to
participate and both express some genuine concern with the direction
the scope heads straight out of the blocks, what impact does that have
realistically?
MR. HALL: First, I would say that -- that the -- there are two
things that we, the Corps of Engineers, hope to get out of this study.
One is an environmental impact statement that -- that will -- will
satisfy both the process we have to follow and the intent of NEPA, and
the second one is something that I hope for, again, if for no other
reason than selfish reason, of some kind of a general permit that
reduces my workload burden in the area in terms of detailed review.
Saying that, we'll be very, very receptive to the two counties'
concern on the scope of the study, but in the final analysis, like any
NEPA document, this NEPA document is the Corps' document, and one of
the things that we have to be very, very careful about is -- is not
letting any party or any side influence the document, either the
direction or the information, in such a way that the document will end
up in, sadly in the Corps' view, I guess, will end up having -- having
a bias.
So, that's all we are really trying to do. I mean, we are
recognizing that -- that -- that -- that -- you know, that zoning and
county land use planning and all of those things are not our
responsibility. They are your responsibilities, and so from that
perspective, we feel it is -- it is most important that we listen and
that we participate with you very, very closely.
I mean -- again, maybe I'm sort of dancing around the thing, but
I -- I guess if -- we will listen very carefully, and we have built in
here, I think, a safety valve that if for whatever reason either
county feels that this thing is going off in some direction that they
-- that they really don't like, you can bow out, and I hope that
doesn't happen, and I will work as hard as I can to make sure it
doesn't, but at the same time, we've got to be -- we've got to be fair
to the process, I think.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two more questions, and then I'll be
completed. Item Q talks about -- and I like what this says. I just
need someone to explain it to me with more clarity, I guess, and that
is that change from previous drafts, DCA makes no representation as to
involvement in implementation of county comp. plan provisions. The
county provision that the DCA cannot require the county to adopt the
provision thus has been deleted. I think I like what that says. I
just need you to explain it to me in a little more clear language, I
guess.
MR. HALL: Okay. Well, let's see if I can. Really, Lloyd Pike
(phonetic) is more -- more -- our chief counsel is more facile with
understandings of language than I am, but when we started this
process, one of the options was that we actually incorporated into the
document at the recommendation of a couple of county commissioners was
that there actually be a requirement that whatever -- whatever
suggested changes to the county comp. plans came out of this process
be adopted by the county -- by the counties and incorporated, and so
we were having discussions -- in the revisions of the county comp.
plan --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so you know, I wasn't one of those.
MR. HALL: No, I'm not -- our records would indicate -- I mean, I
don't remember who they were either, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's okay.
MR. HALL: -- and so we were talking with the Department of
Community Affairs at the time about working with us and with the
counties, that if that was an eventuality that came out of this, that
-- that DCA would be cooperative in trying to expedite that process.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That whole section has been deleted?
MR. HALL: And that whole section has been deleted. So, as far
as the Corps is concerned, and I think DCA is concerned, the study
will reach conclusions and, perhaps, make recommendations. It's
really up to the county to decide whether or not they want to go to
DCA with amendments to their comp. plan. It's not -- it's not going
to be dictated by the study.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And DCA has written a letter in support of
that specific concept which was kind of like DCA coming to the support
side of the independent or individual comp. plans, which is something
we haven't seen in my three years on the board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Final question is, can you explain to
me a little bit what is the airport issue that is the concern in Lee?
Forty percent of the traffic that comes in and out of there is Collier
County traffic. We share in their foreign trade zone. It's very
important to us -- I serve on the airport special management
committee, and we want to, hopefully, be able to move ahead with that
expansion as it's a cog in the economic wheel here for Southwest
Florida.
MR. HALL: As I understand it now, the airport has received
money, both from the FAA and from the airline industries and maybe
some other sources, too, I don't know, to go ahead with planning for
some taxiway expansion, some -- and I don't understand -- addition of
some terminals to bring the total number of, I called them last night
slips for airplanes, and that's just because I know more about boats
than -- up to a total of 27, I think, and then I think they want to
put in a new roadway, and -- and -- and I think the concern of Lee
County is that -- is that if -- if EIS captures the airport through
the scoping process, that they may lose that federal participation
funding and that their plans for planning and designing these
additional facilities will go up in smoke because they don't have the
money, and I don't think it's the intent of the -- at least, it's not
my intent to -- to -- to in any way hinder the ability of the airport
to go ahead with the planning process.
So, you know, I'm not sure it's an issue, but -- but -- we have a
dialogue established, and we will continue that dialogue in a meeting
on the 27th.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully, it's not an issue, and
those have become what I think, if it becomes an issue, Collier may be
equally concerned because that's a huge piece in our economic
development puzzle, and long term economic benefits of that airport
and its expansion are very important to the whole Southwest Florida
community.
It sounds like you're already addressing those, and hopefully, we
can get by without that being a concern, but we'd hate to have, and
I'm sure Lee says it better than we do, but we'd hate to have --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- one federal agency, with no ill
intent, gum up the works with another federal agency. So, I
appreciate your effort on that, and thank you for answering my
questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to point out in your package, Item K,
Page 5, Paragraph 1.16. This is something that's been very important
to me. It reads as follows: a major goal of the EIS is to provide
criteria for the development of a general permit, criterion for
determining appropriate levels of mitigation and identification of
areas of particularly sensitive environmental value to be targeted for
preservation or restoration. The reason this is important to me is
this kind of goes to the heart of what the study is to do. Right now,
every single application that goes through the Corps permit, the Corps
of Engineers, they bring their full resources to bear on that
particular project as much as they can.
What we are talking about this study doing -- we've talked about
streamlining in other areas and so forth -- is that in the scope,
however that may be defined, there are going to be areas in which the
Corps will recognize as not particularly sensitive to the development
pressures that exist. Those areas will be subject, hopefully, to what
is called a general permit, which means, in essence, these areas, here
are the rules, everybody knows them, go on in, and this is how we are
going to apply them, which is really the one thing the development
community has been looking for, is just give us a consistent set of
rules, and that's been difficult to do project to project to project
because the circumstances change.
This has the potential of actually benefiting those properties
and those property owners who sit in the area of general permit.
What it causes is the areas that are not identified in that which are
of particularly sensitive environmental value, the Corps would have
brought resources to bear on anyway. That doesn't change, but it does
help those that are outside of that loop or outside of that area to
know the rules better, and those that are inside, I think this is the
start of identifying the rules, recognizing the importance of
mitigation, clearing of exotics and other things to enhance existing
systems and protect existing systems.
So, I think that statement right there really strikes the balance
of what I hope this EIS would achieve, is a consistent set of rules
that clearly defines the role and the participation of the Corps of
Engineers in the permitting process for landowners, and I think that's
-- I'm glad to see that in there, and I wouldn't have supported it
without it, and I do appreciate it.
Further questions for Mr. Hall?
Seeing none, John, if there are any additional questions, if I
can ask you to hang around. Why don't we go to speakers. Mr. McNees,
how many speakers do we have on this item? MR. WEIGEL: You have
eight.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have eight, okay.
The scope today really is -- the board is going to look at this
item in all likelihood next week, but if you could try and contain
your comments to the specifics of the document in front of us or the
generality of whether we should participate or not, I think those are
really the two areas that we are to consider today. Mr. McNees, let's call the speakers.
MR. McNEES: I'll call two speakers at a time, and if the second
would come forward, we'll move things along a little more quickly.
The first will be Marilyn Bell followed by Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Marilyn, obviously, hoping to be later in the
lineup.
MS. BELL: Yeah, you're right.
I'm Marilyn Bell from Naples.
I'm concerned that the Corps may be in violation of their oath to
uphold the constitution.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Marilyn, could you pull that
microphone down a little bit so everyone can hear you? There you go.
MS. BELL: Okay. What is their grant of authority? I would like
the specific citation in the USC or CFR that gives them jurisdiction
to be involved in this specific project. That's number one.
While EPA sets standards for the country, it is up to the local
and state governments to enforce those standards. Enforcement is
entirely voluntary. There is absolutely no legal obligation to
enforce -- enforce EPA regulations.
Since the passage of the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court has
issued a series of rulings stating definitely that federal mandates
are currently unconstitutional. Such commands are fundamentally
incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
I would also like to know how many lawsuits by states and local
governments and individuals have been filed against the Corps?
It is my understanding that the Corps only comes into an area by
request. I would like to know who asked the Corps here.
It is also my understanding that the Corps must get the
cooperation of the local government. Without it, that's it.
The federal government provides a series of carrots to encourage
states and localities to participate in and enforce federal programs.
For example, the Clean Air Act specifies that states which do not
participate in the EPA programs can lose up to 30 percent of their
federal highway money, resulting in the states and localities
continuing to kowtow to the federal government. However, in the final
analysis, enforcing these federal regulations usually costs a lot more
than any federal grant that may be received. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Bell.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Cornell followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning. I'm Brad Cornell for the record.
I'm here as president of Collier County Audubon Society, and I do have
a letter which I'll submit to the record, but I won't read it in the
interest of time. I'm glad to hear that there are some positive
feelings on the board right now. I don't really have a count yet, but
I would like to just provide one more input here. Does anybody want
to raise their hands? No.
The problem that we are dealing with is shortsighted project by
project permitting and attempts at solutions, and the principle that
makes PUD zoning advantageous in urban areas is the comprehensive
planning and problem solving opportunities that it affords us. Why
don't we carry that principle to its logical conclusion in the
comprehensive examination of all our building related problems and
issues, county- and region-wide in an area so rich in natural
resources that must include -- that this must include something like
this present EIS, which we are considering.
Wisdom and foresight also point to the consideration of all
cumulative impacts of our community building so that Collier County
may become its best environmentally, socially and economically.
Ostensibly, that is the purpose of our Growth Management Plan, and to
the extent we are not considering this big picture is the extent to
which our plan fails.
At a very minimum, the Collier County Audubon Society strongly
urges you to sign on the Army Corps of Engineers' EIS process today.
For our part, we offer our assistance today as a participating
organization.
Thank you very much.
MR. McNEES: Ms. Payton followed by Whit Ward.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife
Federation.
The federation supports and has supported the EIS that's under
discussion today. We are comfortable with the memorandum of
understanding, and Commissioner Hancock, we agree that Item K is a
very important item, and we look forward to the information that's
generated by that study and feel that it will be invaluable to us as
we look at development patterns in our ag. and rural areas in Collier
County.
Also, we will be a participating organization, have expressed
interest and will again in signing on, and we look forward to seeing
you at the table to discuss the EIS and the implications for our
community.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Payton.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Ward and followed by Ty Agoston.
MR. WARD: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Whit Ward. I
represent the Collier Building Industry Association.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you've got the best looking
necktie here today.
MR. WARD: Thank you. As a matter of fact, you can thank my wife
for that --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Surprise.
MR. WARD: -- as for most -- exactly, as for most of my clothes.
It's no secret to you if I reiterate that the Building Industry
Association is opposed to this study. We have -- first, we think that
the local government is the best government. Our government includes
all of Collier County, the county commission does. In addition to
that, we have a regional planning council, and we have a water
management district that covers the entire region. There's not
anything, as far as we are concerned, that the Corps can add that we
can't do ourselves, and we don't have to give our authority away to a
federal agency. In effect, we think we have all the help that we need
from the federal government.
Now, having said that, I came here today to address this
particular issue, and that is the memorandum of understanding. We
have been participating in discussions with EDC, with the
commissioners and with the Army Corps. We do believe that we will
come out of this with some of our property rights eroded. We are the
citizens. We live here. This is our land. This is our property, and
this is our investment. We want to protect that.
One of the things that I noticed that may be missing from this
last draft of the HOU is that when we started, if you recall, there
were three principals, that is the two county commissions and the Army
Corps of Engineers, each of them had an equal vote. That seems to be
removed from this last HOU, if I understand it correctly. There's no
longer an equal vote, and so we've lost that. That is a great deal of
concern to me.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Here, here.
MR. WARD: The cooperating agencies, if I understand this right,
no longer need to participate in. If that is the case, the
cooperating agencies, I would suppose, being the regional planning
council and the water management district and those other regulatory
agencies, if they no longer have to participate, then what is to say
that they are going to buy into this and which regulations are going
to be made easier for us to comply with. I can't believe that once
this study is completed, our -- our developers or developments are no
longer going to have to make application through the regional planning
council or the water management district or any other agency that we
are not already making application to, and so I have a concern that if
-- if the agencies do not sign off, do not commit to this, it isn't
going to make our life any easier in the end. We are only going to
have more regulations to comply with.
The cooperating agencies and the participating organizations --
and by the way, our association, I personally have asked to be a
participating organization. We want to be involved in this every step
of the way because we represent the building industry and the
development industry, and we of all people, we're probably going to be
affected as much as anyone.
However, I am a little concerned that there's a provision where
cooperating agencies and organizations may be requested to fund part
of the study, and I'm a little concerned as to what that might buy you
or what it might not buy you, and as a matter of fact, if I heard
maybe Commissioner Hancock or Mr. Hall correctly, there seemed to be
-- I picked up an indication, and I hope I was wrong, that if you
contribute money, then you're going to have a higher position than if
you're an organization --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, that's the Clinton administration.
MR. WARD: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the Clinton administration.
MR. WARD: Yes, sir, and I hope I didn't hear that, but I would
like -- I would like some specific reference not to buy your way in
with money.
The other thing, in Item Number 1.7, reference made to a GIS, a
general information system for the county and maybe for the region. I
think the counties looked at that. I know we looked at it.
Development services looked at it. FoCuS has looked at it. If I
recall, it costs estimates were that it would cost a million
seven, two million dollars to develop a general information system.
I'm concerned that there is going to be some money required there, and
that makes me a little concerned, and then the only final statement
that I would say to you is I would encourage you, as we, to go into
this program with your thumb firmly planted on the ejection seat so
that if it doesn't work out, we're out. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Ward.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Agoston followed by Glen Dunavan.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty
Agoston. I'm from a lesser attractive northern Golden Gate Estates,
and I'm speaking for TAG.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've been to your house, Ty. It's
pretty attractive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why do you say that? I never understand
that.
MR. AGOSTON: You don't understand it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The lesser attractive.
MR. AGOSTON: There was a discussion here in allowing water and
sewer entering into northern Golden Gate Estates, and the discussion
centered around whether that would make northern Golden Gate Estates
more or less attractive for development. Being that the decision made
by you was not to allow -- you know, I have a Hungarian logic, but
it's a logic nevertheless.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I get it now. Thanks. I got it.
MR. AGOSTON: I'd like to state that we at TAG, which is
Taxpayers Action Group, are against this study, and we are against
this study on several grounds.
First, the study was invited by a noncitizen of Collier County.
If he has a standing in inviting the Army Corps of Engineers, I would
like to invite them to go to New York City. There is quite a bit of
problems up there that's environmentally endangered. As a matter of
fact, the endangered species up there seems to be taxpayers.
Regarding the study, I have some detailed problems with it as
well. It appears that you, Mr. Hancock, was successful in removing
any mention of sustainable Southwest Florida from the document.
However, you were not successful in removing the basic intent of the
document because the Army Corps of Engineers was directed by Mr.
Child's in his executive order that special attention shall be given
to coordination with the reconnaissance study being conducted by the
Army Corps of Engineers. So, obviously, this is a dovetail plan into
sustainable Florida.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Here, here.
MR. AGOSTON: There are a couple of issues within the draft of
the revision, which, by the way, I don't see any substantial
difference from the first draft to this one in it still deals with a
holistic analysis, and while I have seen some explanation of what
holistic means, in various documentation, I don't particularly
appreciate and I don't think that the average citizen would appreciate
it if they got a full explanation, but this process seems to go by
stealth as I attended the planning session of a visioning process for
Naples, and the gentleman who was making the presentation did not
mention anything about sustainable Florida either, but when I asked
him whether those steniments (phonetic) that they are planning to
build along 41 was the infill portion of Sustainable Florida, he said,
yes.
So, apparently, we are walking into something that you or I may
not want to be, primarily because if this were worked based on the
sustainable Florida, there was no need to pay you guys. The
environmental groups will manage to run the country. No need for
commissions, congress and no need for votes because one of the
elements of their proposal is not -- being that you don't know what
you're doing or -- I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about
probably me, and people like me, we don't know what we are doing.
Consequently, we need somebody better than us to make decisions for
us.
Finally, I have this last issue on 1.1.8 where the study will
give us a -- rules as well as solutions on areas, and it ends with the
needs and welfare of the people. Well, I'm not quite sure whether
they know what is best for Ty Agoston or for the rest of Collier
County.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ty.
MR. McNEES: Glen Dunevan followed by David Guggenheim.
MR. DUNAVAN: Chairman Hancock and board members, my name is Glen
Dunevan.
I am amazed that Chairman Hancock is comfortable with the
document before them, especially in light of the county attorney's
report on the MOU. As usual, of course, Mr. Hall answered leaving
really no commitments, and especially, he could not, would not answer
on what would happen if the two counties objected to an article that
before -- as Chairman Hancock says, on the table.
I'd like to read Page 5, Paragraph 2.2, the board provides input.
The Corps determines EIS scope, geographical boundaries. Corps
oversees the study and final document. Now, you notice that that says
input. It don't -- it don't -- this does not say the county board
votes on the study, just that they have input, and I believe from what
Mr. Hall said or what he didn't say when Tim Constantine asked him
what would happen if they objected to an article, he didn't answer
that you would vote on it. The Corps would have the final decision.
Going back to the county attorney's report, Page 1, 1.2 and 1.3,
the Corps could not precommit to the scope of or the geographical area
of the EIS. Obviously, I didn't read the whole thing, but that was
the part I was interested in.
Page 8 under Appendix A(1)(1), the Corps determines the scope of
the study. It goes on and on like this. The Corps determines the
scope of the study. The Corps determines this. The Corps determines
that. The Corps determines everything.
Paragraph 1.2 on Page 3, and Page 3, Paragraph 1.3, the Corps
could not pre-commit to define the geographical area or scope of the
study even though the county asked for both.
Also, Page A-1.6, the EIS will use these studies and ongoing
studies and not duplicate local and regional studies. This opens up
the use of the governor's commission on sustainable South Florida,
Agenda 21, 100 other studies that's already been done and 16 counties
or whatever the geographical area may be.
The county wanted to use the existing land use map and
comprehensive plan. The Corps said they could not pre-commit that
this would happen. In other words, the Corps don't commit to
anything. They want your signature, and then they will decide what
will happen with your authority and backing them up.
The -- the county asked not to be required to abide by certain
provisions of the EIS. This was deleted.
Chairman Hancock has said the Corps is going to make this study
with or without the county's signature so we should be at the table in
the decisions. As you can see, by being at the table does not give
you voting power or any special privileges. Signing the memorandum
only agrees to let the Corps decide all the issues and leads credence
to the concept of sustainabilityism. I like that word. It kind of
goes along with socialism, communism, same thing.
If you do not sign, the county may not have to abide by EIS or
the memorandum of understanding, and I would doubt that they would go
ahead with EIS as they would not have the consensus of the MOU that
the MOU often speaks of.
The Corps is over stepping their authority. For these and other
reasons, you should not sign the referendum and send the Corps
packing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Dunavan.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Guggenheim followed by Pat Clark.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For
the record, David Guggenheim, president and CEO of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida. I'd like to start by thanking you for your
participation in a series of open and constructive dialogues with the
Army Corps leading up to this process. I would also like to thank you
for your kind words earlier this morning about the Conservancy and
Twin Eagles, and I want to stress that it is with precisely that same
spirit that we approach this environmental impact statement and hope
to sit around the table with you, the Army Corps and others in a
constructive process.
You've no doubt heard as we have that in the end, it really
doesn't matter if local counties participate because the Corps is
going to do this anyway. I'm pleased to see that I think we all
believe that this is nonsense. I mean, yes, the Corps will do it
without us, but it does matter. It matters a lot whether we
participate or not.
I've discussed with many of you individually over the last year
about how our efforts here in Southwest Florida to sustain a quality
environment and a quality of life, those efforts are really undermined
by a lack of cooperation, by what's happening locally and by state and
federal efforts.
I want to quote Colonel Terry Rice who did an Everglades report
card which appeared in the Miami Herald in June and looking at
Everglades restoration which includes the greater Everglades ECO
system, it includes us here in Southwest Florida, he gave grades to
various efforts, and the only failing grade, the worst grade of the
whole bunch went to urban areas and our ability to, quote, bridge the
gaps between local planning decisions about growth and environmental
restoration. He points out that development is continuing to sprawl
into natural areas from urban areas on both coasts and the disconnect
between local land use decisions and resource management and
permitting efforts of the state and federal agencies seriously
threaten South Florida's environment.
As I've stated before, the environmental impact statement before
us is a sensible participatory approach. It will provide all of us
with the information we need to make the right decisions about growth
as we move forward.
This is a really -- this is really a landmark process. Southwest
Florida is very much in the national spotlight right now on this
issue. People from around the country are waiting to see the outcome
of this event, and we can make the decision not to participate and
perpetuate a long-standing disconnected process which will, like Twin
Eagles earlier today, end up in a lose-lose situation, or we can stand
united as a model of how to do it right, to stand with cooperation and
vision and sit down at the table, roll up our sleeves and get to work.
On behalf of our 5,000 family members, and more than 600
volunteers, I respectfully encourage you to choose the latter
approach, and I hope you can make that decision today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Dr. Guggenheim.
MR. McNEES: Pat Clark is your next speaker followed by Alan
Reynolds.
MS. CLARK: I'm Pat Clark, president of the Collier County League
of Women Voters, and I would like to speak in favor of the Army Corps
of Engineers' proposed environmental impact statement, and at this
time, I would like to recognize the commissioners' participation in
this effort to develop a process.
A comprehensive examination of our region using existing
information contained in studies and addressing deficiencies would
provide a sound basis for future land use decisions, and we would like
to express our sincere appreciation for your participation and -- with
the Army Corps of Engineers, all the attention and time you've given
to this. We encourage your continued participation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Clark.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Reynolds followed by Gil Erlichman.
MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning.
I have been involved in this process since early spring on behalf
of the Chamber/EDC coalition, and as you know, from the outset, the
coalition chose not to take a position for or against the study but
rather to try to work collaboratively with the county commissions and
the Corps in making sure that if a study is done, it meets certain
criteria.
The key ones that we identified is it had to be objective. It
had to be balanced. It had to be clear in its purpose and based on
facts, not opinions, that it be adequately funded to ensure its timely
completion and useful results, that it respect the right of property
owners and permit applicants, to have as one of its goals streamlining
and not further complicating an already very difficult permitting
process, and perhaps most importantly, that there was assurance that
the local government and our elected officials retain the full
autonomy to make local land use decisions and not aggregate that
responsibility or delegate to any other agency.
This MOU has gone a very significant way towards all of these
points, probably as far as it can go under the regulatory requirements
that exist with the Corps as they have already been described.
The Corps has been kind enough to allow us to participate in
these discussions, in some cases for hours and hours at a time. I can
describe the process as being very cooperative, always looking toward
a solution that was fair and reasonable, and I'd like to compliment
the Corps of Engineers for having taken that approach and for this
county commission for having been willing to invest their time,
particularly Chairman Hancock's time, to continue that dialogue.
It's also clear in the MOU that there are certain issues and
certain things that cannot be substantively addressed until a scope
and process occurs, and some of these are the questions that have
existed from day one. What are the boundaries? What are the specific
issues? What are the -- what information will be used, and what are
the deficiencies, and how are we going to fill those deficiencies, and
I think equally important, what is the role of the other environmental
organizations and permitting organizations in this process, in
particular, the South Florida Water Management District? These
things cannot be defined until we go through a scoping process. I
think that we have made great progress by taking the approach of
sitting at the table, communicating. We have for the first time in my
recent memory had an ongoing dialogue with Lee County on an issue that
affected both counties. I think both commissions, I believe, are
moving toward the same conclusion in this process, and that conclusion
is that if a study is done, and we believe a study will be done, the
quality of that study and the outcome of that study, although it
cannot be predicted, will be enhanced by the participation of our
local governments, and I still remain convinced of that fact, and I
think that Chairman Hancock has already articulated the appropriate
step to take.
There are still some final answers to some specific questions
that I understand Lee County is going to direct to the Corps. I think
we're nearing this first stage of the process. I would encourage this
county commission to remain involved in the process and to make sure
that as this study goes forward, that we pay very close attention to
what's going on, that we recognize that this is still the very first
step in what will be a long and involved process and to be looking
very carefully at what comes out of the scoping process, and make sure
that it is still in the best interest of Collier County to
participate.
So, I would encourage you to take that approach, and I thank you
for your time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.
MR. McNEES: Gil Erlichman, and your final public speaker will be
A1 Perkins.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my
name is Gil Erlichman. I live in East Naples, and I am a voter and a
taxpayer in Collier County.
At certain times, I will be speaking for TAG, and at other times
I will be speaking for myself, and I will note that in my remarks.
Right now, I'm going to be speaking for TAG.
I'd like to refresh the commissioners', refresh their memory.
Back in July -- in fact, the resolution was given to the commissioners
dated July 12th from the Taxpayers' Action Group of Collier County,
and I'll just read the first sentence of the resolution. It says, be
it resolved that the Taxpayers' Action Group opposes the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Colonel's Rice's programmatic environmental impact
statement study, PEIS, appearing before the Collier County Board of
Commissioners. Well, subsequently, as noted by Commissioner --
Chairman Hancock, the word programmatic has been taken out, but still
the resolution opposing the county signing on with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers still stands. We oppose it.
The previous -- one of the previous speakers, Mr. Whit Ward,
stated their opposition of the Collier County Builders Association
very, very explicitly and very understandably to me, and as speaking
for TAG, if you people or rather you commissioners sign on with this
program, you will be giving up your powers as commissioners to a
governmental authority. We, as voters, will lose our representation
as -- of you commissioners in Collier County, and it was stated
before, one of the speakers, that heck, we won't need commissioners
anymore. We are going to have our decisions made by the federal
government.
In this -- in the executive summary, the county attorney forgot
to mention in his -- in his notes that when the Corps of Engineers
published -- well, when any government agency publishes anything in
the Federal Register, it becomes law. In effect, it becomes law, and
in the Appendix A in the executive summary, A-6.4, and it says the
Corps issues notice in the Federal Register and solicits written
comments from the public, and this is after months -- this is months
15, 16 and 17 according to the schedule of the -- of this draft.
Anyhow, so what happens. Published in the Federal Register.
Further on, in Paragraph A-7.0, months 18, that's the last month, it
says, counties initiate process for review of results. Well, what
good is reviewing results when you can't do anything about it once
it's published in the Federal Register. So, regardless of what
comments might be made by the public or what the review of the results
might be makes no difference. It's a complete. It's an accomplished
fact.
In the attorney's notes, county attorney's notes, Page 3, Note N
-- Page 5, Paragraph 2.2, it says, the board provides input but, he's
underlined that, the Corps determines EIS scope and geographic
boundary based upon public comment and scoping process. Corps
oversees the study process and final document. There it is. Your
power is negated.
Mr. Hall talked about holistic, referenced holistic. Now I think
that term means central planning, and central planning means
socialism.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Gil, you realize the headlines tomorrow will
be TAG and CBIA in lockstep. I'm just teasing you. MR. HcNEES: Final speaker is A1 Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen.
People at home pay attention to what these people have said.
They have covered all of it. The people who are opposed to this thing
have laid it out in front of you, and they couldn't have done a better
job. Needless to say, I am not going to take and reiterate any of it.
The only thing that I want to touch base on is a few things that
-- that I heard this morning that I don't like. Information to the
public, they said they were going to provide you information over a
period of this next week so you can take and decide next Tuesday.
Well, when does the general public get this information so they can
decide what to tell you to do because you work for them? Not a
whole lot with -- okay, hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight is
whatever you want to make it. Now, this morning in earlier
conversation here or earlier testimony, two organizations surfaced as
being opposed to everything in this area except their own
profit-making endeavors. They don't care who it is, what it is and
they don't care who they hurt. Needless to say, I've been in
opposition to them for a long time, and I'm still in opposition.
The university, as far as permitting goes, people, that's so
important it isn't funny. Our kids are idiots as it is, and we let
them do it. We've done it. It's our fault.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Speak for yourself, A1. My kid is no idiot.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Speak for your own kids, A1.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My kids aren't idiots.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. Let me try to tell you something.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Speak for your own kids.
MR. PERKINS: You put it on a personal basis here. I'm right
here trying to protect --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I didn't put it on a personal basis, A1. I
said speak for yourself, not everyone else in this room.
MR. PERKINS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My kids are not idiots.
MR. PERKINS: I'm trying to protect your kids, okay?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My kids are fine. You leave them alone.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. You touched on funding. You touched on FAA
grants, okay.
The airport, the expansion, in the Army Corps fact sheet, it says
the second runway of South Florida Water -- South Florida
International Airport; not a taxiing, a runway. This is for landing
and taking off, okay, and all the facilities that go along with it.
University Village, big thing, okay. It goes on to talk about
waterways, but there's a word that jumps out at me, mitigation.
That's extortion. Make no mistake, it is extortion, and going back to
this, the Clean Water Act, endangered species, people, we are the
endangered species.
Governor's commission on Southwest Sustainable Florida, with
that, to save our Everglades program, in 1986, the Corps of Engineers
conducted a study just like they are talking about doing it now,
again, a second thing, and as far as their effectiveness goes -- as
far as the Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society goes, needless
to say, I wish they would take and get their act together because when
it came down to Reverend Mallory and mitigation on a ten to one ratio
for a homeless center, boy, I don't buy this at all. One man and a
group of people are trying to do some good for this community, and all
of a sudden we've got the federal government telling us no, you're
doing it wrong. We can take and do it better for you, okay.
One other thing too, you're talking about how effective and how
good they are. Sunday, April the 20th, Miami Herald, they went -- and
they want to restore the Everglades, so they took and forced the
farmers out of the frog pond, I'm not aware if you people know it,
6,400 acres of old tomato fields. They turned around twice, and all
of a sudden, here we've got Brazilian Pepper and Melaleuca. They
didn't know what to do with it, so they went in there with bulldozers
and they pushed up a pile of dirt and got rid of all this stuff and
they piled it up. Five million cubic yards of dirt, and it will take
15 years to take and get rid of it, and it will cost -- dirt -- to
load a half a million dump trucks, enough to pile 75 feet deep on 23
football fields, and we are no further ahead except all we've done is
we've made a bigger mess than what was there. The farmers knew what
they were doing. Obviously, our government doesn't and especially
when it comes down to somebody -- the people from Jacksonville,
Tallahassee and Washington ought to keep their noses out of Collier
County's business. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel.
MR. TARRANT: Could you afford me the courtesy of speaking? I'd
appreciate it if you would do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, Mr. Tarrant, go ahead and come forward.
Can someone -- is your wife here, Fred?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, Mr. Tarrant will be our last
speaker; is that correct?
MR. HcNEES: Yes, sir.
MR. TARRANT: Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Councilman Tarrant.
MR. TARRANT: Thank you for the courtesy, and good morning, Mr.
Chairman and commissioners.
As -- I'm not certainly speaking for the Naples City Council
because they did not ask me to come here and speak for them, but as an
elected representative in Naples, I think that whatever happens,
obviously, in the county has a direct impact on the City of Naples, so
I appreciate this chance to speak for a moment.
I hear both sides of the concerns here. The good people who are
here that would like you to go ahead without delay and approve this
memorandum of understanding and the good people who are here who have
apprehension that they have expressed. All I wanted to do,
commissioners, on behalf of the people that I represent in the City of
Naples, is ask for a reasonable compromise.
There surely, as Chairman Hancock said, is nothing wrong with
sitting down with people around a table and discussing issues because
that way you learn what's happening, and if you don't do that, you
find yourself out in the cold not knowing what's happening, but the
compromise that I would suggest I think would satisfy everyone, and
that would be simply to request that the Corps of Engineers provide
you, as county commissioners, with a legally binding letter giving you
veto power over any decision that is reached during the discussions or
in the process of these discussions so that you would know going into
these meetings and discussions that you were truly representing all of
the people of Collier County and that you're retaining the authority
that was vested in you when you were elected as county commissioners.
If you require and obtain a legally binding letter giving you veto
powers, then I think you would be in very good shape. Without it, I
would not touch this with a ten foot pole.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Councilman Tarrant, for taking the
time to be here and address the board today.
I have two questions -- well, a few questions, but let me ask
them first of the county attorney, and if you need to defer to Mr.
Hall on the first, that would be understood.
When I spoke to the Taxpayers Action Group, I had a very, very
worthwhile discussion, and one of the questions that came up is the
implications of listing something in the Federal Register, and we've
heard at least one speaker refer to that as once it's listed in the
Federal Register, it becomes law. That's not my understanding, that
without action of the congress, senate or presidential authority, that
listing something in the Federal Register alone creates law, through
inaction or in action.
Mr. Weigel, either do you know the answer to that or Mr. Hall,
can you give some assurance to that? Mr. Weigel first.
MR. WEIGEL: I'll just address briefly, and that is that that is
not my understanding that the mere appearance of something in the
Federal Register is law, although I have not researched that at all.
I'm aware of it just being a general citizen that many things are
placed in the Federal Register to have effect back home from a notice
basis is my understanding, nothing more than that, sometimes rather
salutatory to a group or support group of things of that nature, but
maybe Mr. Hall has some comment on that.
Mr. Hall has also indicated that he would like to address some of
the comments to the board if he may also. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Hall.
MR. HALL: Okay, yes. The notices we're talking about putting in
the Federal Register go in the notice section of the Federal Register,
and the only purpose of those Federal Register notices is to inform
the public of the scoping process, the availability of the draft
environmental impact statement, to review and provide comments on, and
the availability of the final environmental impact statement, to
review and provide final comments on.
There is no rule-making associated with this. The rule-making
requirements of putting notices in the Federal Register are something
entirely different. This is simply information. It goes in the
notice section of the Federal Register.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I know you had mentioned something or
mentioned to Mr. Weigel some issues you wanted to address the board
on. I'm -- I don't know if that's necessary. It's typical if the
board has questions of you at this point --
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Hall.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: No, Mr. Hall.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I was referring to Mr. Hall.
MR. HALL: Really, I don't -- I don't want to necessarily go down
and respond to all of the issues that were raised. I simply wanted to
take an opportunity to thank all of you to -- for the time you have
afforded us in participating in developing this agreement, this draft
agreement and the dialogue we've had, particularly you, Commissioner
Hancock. I'd also like to thank Alan Reynolds who has given most
generously of his time. Obviously, also the Lee County Commission and
the staffs of both commissions. I really appreciate that. I think
it's been -- it's been a very good experience for me, and so I really
appreciate that opportunity, and the last thing I guess I would say is
that I really -- personally, I appreciate all of the comments that
have been given here today. I think it's one of the amazing things
about our -- the republic that we live in that we can have an
opportunity like this to have an open -- an open dialogue, and there's
no fettering of individual -- individual rights, and so I respect that
process and you-all giving an opportunity for that process to occur
here.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hall, I'm going to bring up Councilman
Tarrant's comment because you and I have discussed this briefly, and
we discussed it in the committee about whether or not the Army Corps
of Engineers can grant, as Mr. Tarrant put it, a veto power, but in
essence, an element of your authority to a local body. My
understanding is legally you have told me that that cannot happen.
Are you telling me that the Corps simply won't do it or that there's a
legal opinion that says you cannot do it?
MR. HALL: I can't -- I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the
legal aspect. I would go back to the comments that I made earlier
that -- that the one thing that the Corps is trying to maintain here
is -- and this is not meant in any way to be disrespectful of any
agency or your positions as county commissioners or as a county
commission, but there is a process and a purpose to preparing this
NEPA document, and the process we have to follow and the purpose is to
have it as neutral as is possible and fairly cover the issues that we
feel are relevant to our authority and responsibility.
So, to sign something that -- that says if we feel an issue is
important to our legal authorities and the county commission wants a
binding -- a binding letter from us saying that you -- that this
particular thing you would disagree with, I don't know that we could
really legally sign that, but that's -- you know, that's up to --
that's up -- that's up to our attorneys.
It's just like I don't think you wanted to sign, and we can
certainly understand, a document that would require you to change your
county comp. plans. I mean, that's your business. That's not our
business.
The business that we are about here involves federal law. Most
of these federal laws have been on the books for a long time. The
Rivers and Harbors Act which gives us one of our authorities has been
on -- has been a law since 1989. The Clean Water Act has been a law,
at least in it's -- roughly in its present form since 1972. These are
things that have not just popped on the scene yesterday. The
Endangered Species Act and the National Environment Policy Act have
been on the books as federal law since the 19 -- late 1960s, early
1970s.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think there's a big difference, and you
heard it probably in the perception of some of the speakers between
embracing the Endangered Species Act, which I have no intent of doing,
or recognizing its presence and authority and how it may impact our
community, and I think that gets to the heart of why any member on
this board may or may not feel that we have a role in this discussion.
Recognizing the authority that exists and wanting to be able to
help direct that authority to the benefit of this community is what
being an elected representative, in my opinion, is all about. To
fight you on your authority basis alone, I think, would do a
disservice to the community, to the people who live here, and I've
always said, you have two choices in life. You can stand in front of
the bus and get run over or you can get on board and help drive, and I
think this is a perfect example of where the community is best served
by helping steer the direction as opposed to simply opposing it.
That's my personal philosophy, and that's how I approach this
situation. I don't discount many of the statements made here today
both for and against, but you don't have to agree with everything in
total to agree that a certain direction is the best alternative of
what's available to you. I think that's where I stand as far as
making a decision today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine first and then
Commissioner -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Norris and then you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You really addressed in that last part in
the discussion with Mr. Hall the question that I was going to ask.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on one specific thing. I'm a
little disappointed the counties won't have a vote, if that's what we
want to refer to it as had been discussed previously, but -- and I
need to preface my comments by saying, in general, I have a concern
with federal government. You referenced that in your earlier comments
with federal government involvement in regional or local issues. I
understand you're trying to carry out what you see as a federal
requirement, but conceptually, I strongly favor and I suspect most of
the board does, less government, and I have a concern -- I don't
really believe that the result of this study will end up being less
government. If it does, great, but I have that concern.
That said, however, with that general concern, there are times
when people representing agencies, either state or federal, have come
before this board and reinforced that concern. We had someone from
the State DEP come here last spring who greatly reinforced that.
They were less than confident in their ability to answer. All they
did was re-enforce the board's concern on the issue at hand and my
general concern with the state getting involved.
That's not the case today. I appreciate Mr. Hall being here,
first of all, but you've also shown yourself to be very competent and
understand where we are going with this, and while I have my general
conceptual concerns, your participation in this gives me some
confidence that at least there isn't a hidden agenda or secret thing
going on, and that wasn't the case with the state agency last spring.
So, I appreciate that, and I agree with Mr. Erlichman and Mr. Agoston
and a number of the others on some of the specific concerns, but I
think what we can do here is participate without necessarily endorsing
ahead of time. If we end up with a great product, then we can sign
on, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that we need to sign off on
the process from day one.
I think Mr. Tarrant's comments and Mr. Hancock's follow-up
comments are right on the button, and that is, if we participate and
then respond from an informed position, that's better than complete
refusal to participate and letting it go on and trying to respond from
a position of ignorance, and so I think, going back to the very
beginning of this discussion, we should not make any sort of agreement
this week until we have all our final details, which, apparently, will
be available to us next Tuesday, but I think the general direction I'd
like to see us go in is, as you outlined in the beginning of the
meeting, and that is heading in that direction and next week, unless
something dramatically changes, agree to be a participant in the
process, and I just don't see the advantage to doing the alternative,
which is put our head in the sand.
So, while we may agree and may disagree on some of the things as
they unfold, I would much rather be a participant and be one of those
drivers on that bus than just stand by and watch it drive by. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would hope that -- just to bring some
closure to this for the community's sake, because we have been
discussing this for several months now, that the board could -- and I
would like to make a motion that we adopt the HOU that's before us
today subject to discussion next week of any changes that might be
requested or required as a result of the Lee County discussion.
In other words, that we don't do this again next week, that we
endorse today our participation and endorse our -- instruct the
chairman to sign the HOU with whatever changes -- subject to whatever
changes that may come out as a result of the Lee County inquiry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was with you on half of that, the endorse
side, endorse the content of the MOU as presented today with, you
know, direction to sign pending next week's changes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I wasn't very articulate
because that's what I meant to say. That's my motion.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would ask you to wait because there
are a couple of fairly big issues, and I know we don't want to go
through, if we can avoid it, an exercise of a two hour rehash next
week, but I think this is a very, very large issue and a couple hours
is a pretty minimal amount of time compared to what the end result
could be.
The airport, in particular, if there is some sort of impact there
that we are not aware of, is a very big issue, and I just -- I would
feel more comfortable -- I think we are all heading in the same
direction, but I would feel more comfortable if we had that
information before we made a vote, and I understand you're saying
subject to, but I'd just rather make the vote once and have it be
clean and crisp.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a
second on the motion?
I'm going to second the motion to get it on the floor. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there a substitute motion for
direction?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just suggest for direction
that we assure Mr. Hall -- I think he's probably gotten from the text
of our conversation the general direction of where we would like to
head. We need to have the answers to the questions that have been
raised here today as well as those that have previously been raised by
Lee Commission and be able to have those as part of our answer for
next week, and I think the direction we are headed, it appears, is as
a participant, but I'd just like to have that information available to
us completely now, and please don't read that three-two as no, we are
not going to participate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just for clarity's sake, so that maybe we
could limit the further discussion, would somebody restate what are
the questions that have come out of our discussion today so we know
what questions have to be answered from Collier County? I still don't
know, but I trust that I will eventually know, what the Lee County
questions are. I'd like to know what the Collier County questions are
articulated as succinctly as you can.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And rather than try to limit the scope
of those, what I might suggest is any discussion, either from
ourselves or from the public next week, be limited to new information
and so we don't rehash what we've done today; if we hit the airport
issues, if we hear some of the participation issues, if we hit some of
the others -- some of those were answered today, the funding, I think
as far as voluntarily or not, and some of those were clearly answered
today, but some of those were not, and any of those that we require
further information on, we have a discussion next week, but let's not
open up what we've already discussed today for further rehash.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that's a good point, Commissioner
Constantine. What we have heard today I don't think needs to be
rehashed, but I also would like to see the comments from the Lee
Commission. It may raise some questions, something that they
interpreted a little bit differently or they raised a question about.
I'd like to know what their discussion was on this particular
document.
One of my big concerns is that I do think it is important that we
are going to be at the table, but don't ask me for a commitment when
it's all said and done to sign off on everything that's -- that may
come out in the report because I don't think that we should do that as
commissioners, but I think it would be totally contrary for us to sit
up here and say we should not be at the table. That would be totally
hypocritical of what we said earlier this morning, and again,
repeating, we chastised two groups for not coming to the table, and if
we sat up here and said, no, we are not going to do this, I think
that's hypocritical.
So, I do agree that we need to be there, but at the same time,
I'm not going to sign off on anything until we see what effect this
will have on Collier County, because we still control our destiny as
far as that is concerned, and we are not going to give up that right.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So, the questions that I heard
remaining were about whether or not -- what kind of funding
requirements there might be from participating organizations, whether
or not there is some potential impediment to FAA funding or expansion
or anything involving this international airport, and I heard one more
question.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just don't want to limit it to
whatever we happen to remember right now. If there's information
that's new or different than what we discussed today, we should be
open to any of that, but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure we do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we just don't need to rehash what
we've already gone through.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to arrive in the same place next
week that I think, Pam, you and I were trying to do today which is
that the existing MOU the way it's written, I don't have fundamental
issues with that. However, I don't want to preclude discussion on
changes that Lee County proposes to that document.
So, we are going to get there next week. So, rather than trying
to --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's too soon this week.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I think it will be up to me as the chairman
to try and limit that discussion to new items or the adoption of the
document, you know, next week, and I will do my best to do that.
I do have one other item that -- the question on listing in the
Federal Register, if we could get something a little more firm on that
so this board knows one way or the other whether that is an
eventuality.
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. The item that's been heard, this very
item under Item 9(A) in today's agenda was a publicly advertised item
and advertised Wednesday, October 15th in the Naples Daily News. I'd
like to submit a copy of the notice of advertisement for the record
today, and if it assists the board then, if this is to come up next
Tuesday, it could be a continued item, notwithstanding that you have a
consensus determination today or even a vote of a kind today, but if
you would like, it could be a continued item, and the agenda package
today would appear again next week or it can be a new item if you
wish. We can handle it either way you like.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, for legal simplicity,
I'll make a motion we continue the item for one week. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a motion to continue on my right and a
second from Commissioner Berry.
While you were setting that one up, John beat you to the punch.
Any questions on the motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Are we absolutely sure that we'll have information
from Lee County by our next Tuesday meeting, because they meet on
Tuesday, too?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we don't, we'll be looking at the document
in front of us.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Mr. Hall, thank you for taking the time to be here today, and if
someone from your office can be here next week, great. If not, we'll
go from there. Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, with the additional items that are going to
be somewhat lengthy and the schedule of the board members, we're going
to take a lunch recess at this point. We'll return at 1:30.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. I'm going to call to order
the remainder of the agenda for the Board of County Commissioners
meeting for October 21st, where we left off.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 97-400 APPOINTING WILLIAM W. HILL AND BRENDA DEJONG TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
***We were at item 10-A, appointment of members to the
Environmental Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I had a question on this. I
thought it was our policy to ask the committees not to make their own
recommendations. Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Only if they are quasi-judicial in nature.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Only if they're quasi-judicial in nature.
In any case, I'm not comfortable with the committees making their own
recommendations as far as membership, so I'm not going to be inclined
to follow the recommendation of the committee.
What I would like to do is make a motion that we appoint Brenda
DeJong and William Hill.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I had a Mr. John Ribes as someone I would like
to see, a landscape architect in town with a good background and I
think he would be beneficial. I don't know Miss DeJong or Mr. Hill,
to be honest with you. But the landscape architecture background I
think would be helpful on the EAB.
So we have three names in the pot and two vacancies.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do not know any of the six people that are
on here. I have no feeling one way or the other. But if you want to
make a motion, if one of you want to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, can I ask for your
deference on one of those recommendations of either Ms. DeJong or Mr.
Hill, to put Mr. Ribes in? Unless you have a difficulty with Mr.
Ribes, then that's fine.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've been through all of the resumes and
picked the two I did off of those resumes. Do you have the resumes?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did likewise. I went through them
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Brenda's is extensive; I'll say that.
(Commissioner Constantine arrives.)
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Did you bring us any?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you arrived just in time.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'll support Mr. Hill. I don't know him,
but I'll support him based on his information that's been provided to
us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The discussion, Commissioner Constantine, is
Commissioner Norris has made two suggestions, Ms. Brenda DeJong and
Mr. William Hill. I have made one suggestion, Mr. John Ribes, and
Commissioner Berry suggested Mr. Hill.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, I made a motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. We have a motion for Ms. DeJong
and Mr. Hill. I've suggested Mr. Ribes in place of one of those two.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for his motion,
because I'll make it, only because I have Ms. DeJong marked in my --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then there's a second on the floor. Any
further discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? Aye. Motion carries three-one.
Ms. DeJong and Mr. Hill will be appointed to the EAB.
For the Board's information, something somewhat odd happened as
this came forward. The EAB made recommendations, and I think the
recommendations they made is not consistent with the Board policy in
the past, which is, when we have applicants that meet the minimum
qualifications set forth in the ordinance they shall be considered by
this Board -- or, I'm sorry -- will be considered by this Board.
In addition, it came to my attention that some of the committee
recommendations in the past have been made by a staff liaison making
contact by telephone with members of the committee to ask what their
pleasure is.
In my opinion, and I expressed it to Ms. Filson, and it has gone
out, I believe, to Mr. Fernandez, that unless the committee meets at a
properly advertised meeting, a quorum is present and an action is
taken, there is no recommendation. Consensus by telephone is not
acceptable, because it does not allow for discussion at a publicly
advertised meeting.
So that was my direction as chairman in the future for committee
recommendations. I wanted to make sure that that did not conflict
with the direction the Board sees is appropriate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Two or three years ago, we
actually had a question because we were getting different
recommendations back from different committees. So in other words,
some staff were making recommendations and some committees were. And
we set a policy and I think it was inclusive of what you suggested, is
consistent with what you said.
So we just need to make sure we meet that, and I'm sure you will.
But, that's completely consistent with what the Board has directed in
the past.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In a case where there is one applicant and
they are grossly unqualified, that's a different scenario, and we
didn't have that in this case.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't acting outside the
boundaries that the Board was comfortable with.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 97-401 APPOINTING JOHN BOLDT, VINCE CAUTERO, ED KANT, ROBERT
HULHERE, ED PERICO, KEN PINEAU, DAVID RUSSELL, HARJORIE STUDENT AND
SANDRA TAYLOR TO THE DISCOVERY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
***Item 10-B, appointment of members to the Disaster Recovery
Task Force.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
recommendation of Mr. Pinole on the names of the people that are
mentioned here for either reappointment or appointment to the task
force.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, that's a recommendation for all the names
presented?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and second. Any discussion
on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Motion carries five-zero.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - AL PERKINS RE BCC AGENDA
We are to public comment on general topics. Mr. McNees.
***MR. HCNEES: You have one speaker registered, A1 Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen, people at home.
This morning I've heard going to the table -- A1 Perkins, Belle
Heade Groups -- going to the table. I've heard just now advertised
meetings and the topic is lack of the agenda being in the Naples Daily
Pravda.
I think it should be the duty of this Naples Daily News to put
the agenda in the paper on behalf of all the citizens who purchase
their paper. If not, I would recommend to the people of this
community don't buy their paper.
Needless to say, getting the information out, letting people know
what's going on is where I'm coming from on this thing. The more
information we can get out, the people have the right to choose their
own feelings about the thing and how they're going to proceed that
they can do anything for it, with it, or about it. And with that, I will conclude.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just on a somewhat related subject, I, you
know, check the Internet site.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to ask that. This
seems to be like a week behind, most of the time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A week behind, sometimes three weeks
behind.
This week it's three weeks behind on getting the agenda on the net, so
if somebody could follow up on that, it would be a good idea.
MR. HcNEES: I'll give that immediate attention.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Plus, I want to ask, do we post the agenda on
Channel 54?
MR. HCNEES: I don't know if we-- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a
good idea.
MR. HCNEES: -- scroll the actual agenda -- COMMISSIONER
CONSTANTINE: Katy's nodding yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Affirmative from the rear.
MR. HCNEES: We do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
MR. HCNEES: Thanks, Katy.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks, Katy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, just another resource as a way to try
and get out there. Okay.
With that, we'll move to the advertised public hearings under
12-B, zoning amendments.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 97-51 RE PETITION PUD-97-11, ALAN D. REYNOLDS OF WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC., AND GEORGE VARNADOE OF YOUNG,
VANASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING BARRON COLLIER
PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING A REZONING OF CERTAIN DEFINED PROPERTY AS
HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM "I" AND "A" TO "PUD" (CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK
PUD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD (C.R. 851) IN SECTION 27,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 108.4 ACRES - ADOPTED
*** The first item is petition PUD 97-11, Alan Reynolds of
Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, and George Varnadoe, Young, Van
Assenderp and Varnadoe representing Barton Collier Partnership,
requesting a fezone of property from I industrial and A agriculture to
PUD, otherwise known as Creekside Commerce Park. Mr. Milk, good afternoon.
MR. MILK: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Brian Milk
and I am presenting Petition PUD 97-11, Creekside Commerce Park. The
district proposes to fezone the subject property from industrial --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Swear somebody?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Thank you, Ms. Student. I'm going
to ask for everyone's attention on this. These matters are deemed
quasi-judicial which means they are as close to a legal court action
as you can get. Any appeals of this matter to a court will be based
on the merits and the listing of the record alone without additional
testimony.
For that reason, we are required to swear in all individuals who
wish to speak on this item. This includes our staff, members of the
presenting team, any opposition or members of the public registered to
speak.
So I'm going to ask everyone in the room who is here on this item
and wishes to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. Would the six of you still seated remain quiet?
Madam Court Reporter, if you'd please swear the balance of the
room in.
(All speakers were sworn)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, .and I need not remind anyone that
that swearing in carries with it the same weight as in a court of law.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Probably at the same time we ought to
disclose. I've had a significant amount of conflict -- conflict --
contact -- Freudian -- significant amount of conflict, I've had that
too.
But what I've had on this particular matter was a significant
amount of contact from all sides and just signed about 20 letters. So
I wanted to disclose that before the hearing starts.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do those letters indicate how you're going to
vote?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They just say things in writing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had a lot of contact myself, but I'm
going to base my decision on what I hear in this hearing this
afternoon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I have had contact from both sides, but I
will base my decision on what I heard. But I believe I can also use
the other information, as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, you can.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, you can. Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have had contact.
However, my decision will be rendered in accordance with the laws of
the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I discussed with both the petitioner and a
representative of opposition, in addition to residents through letters
and phone calls, elements of this, and will base my decision on that
input plus what is presented here today. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I appreciate the lengthier discussion
you provided today. The letters and any correspondence you received
shall be made part of the public record and should be made available
during the course of the proceeding, if at all possible, as part of
the public record.
Beyond that, with the number of people today that will be
testifying, I think it would be appropriate that they affirm at the
beginning of their testimony that they have been sworn.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And what we'll do is, I know a lot of
us, because they were addressed to sometimes genetically, may have
received the same letters. Let's make sure that our staff compiles
those. We'll take care of that and get that entered into the record.
I think with that, we are now back to Mr. Milk.
Mr. Milk, hello.
MR. MILK: Thank you. The petitioner proposes to fezone the
subject property from industrial and agricultural to PUD in order to
establish a business commerce park consisting of professional offices,
commercial services, medical offices, financial institutions, light
manufacturing, warehousing and wholesale distribution of goods on the
subject 108 acre site.
The subject property is located at the southeast and southwest
intersections of Immokalee Road and Goodlette Frank Road. The area to
the southeast is currently zoned industrial. It is presently
undeveloped and for the most part is heavily wooded.
The area to the west is approximately 69 acres in size. It has
approximately a 15 or 16-acre zoned industrial site on that particular
property, with the present location of the Regency Packing House.
The remainder of the property is zoned agricultural, and for the
most part, is engaged in active agricultural crop production.
The Master Plan reveals two land use designations for the
project.
The B district is the business district which typically allows
for professional offices, business services, retail and convenience
related uses. That area typically fronts the Immokalee Road corridor
and the Goodlette-Frank Road corridor.
The floor area ratio for that particular district provides for
190,000 square feet of floor area to be utilized by the business
district, of which 40,000 square feet can be utilized by retail type
uses and 150,000 square feet can be utilized for professional offices
and commercial uses.
The business district provides a maximum height of 35 feet from
the Pine Ridge Canal drainage easement to the west. Anything in the
corridor of the one quarter mile radius of the existing North Collier
Hospital is allowed to be at a height of 50 feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Currently?
MR. MILK: As proposed in the PUD Master Plan Development
Regulations within a quarter mile of the existing hospital, the
maximum heights are 50 feet. Anything to the west of the drainage
easement is limited to 35 feet.
The IC district is the industrial commerce district, which
provides for light manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, corporate
headquarters and business related services. There's a maximum of
610,000 square feet of floor area provided for in this area. The
industrial commerce district provides a maximum height of 35 feet
throughout the entire Master Plan area.
What's unique about this plan is the architectural, design,
landscaping, signage, and integrated site development plans for the
entire project. The business district that is situated along the
Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road corridors shall comply with
Division 2.8 of the Land Development Code, which is our architectural
and site design guidelines presently implemented by this Board.
What's unique to this project is buildings that are situated to
the west of the Goodlette-Frank corridor in the IC district shall not
be metal at all. In other words, their facades and building materials
have to be made up of a masonry, brick, block or similar combination.
In other words, metal-sided buildings are prohibited on this side of
Goodlette-Frank Road.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's in the industrial IC district.
MR. MILK: That's in the IC district, that's correct.
Unique to the corridor along Goodlette-Frank Road is the ability
for businesses over in the IC district, along the frontages of
Goodlette-Frank Road and the internal roadway, each frontage has to be
of a masonry type product.
There is an exception to that. In this corridor of the
Goodlette-Frank Road, there is a proposed 20-foot landscape buffer
along each travel way here. In that buffer along the IC district,
there's going to be a 3-foot berm. On that 3-foot berm is going to be
a 5-foot hedge. On the berm itself, there's going to be trees planted
25 feet on center, 12 to 14 feet in height, with a minimum spread of 6
feet. So what you're going to have is approximately a 15-foot
landscape corridor on both sides of Goodlette-Frank Road, contiguous
to the IC district within the Master Plan.
For these properties on the east side, if they propose a more
corporate image and they want to lessen that buffering, they have to
comply with the architectural guidelines provided for in our PUD
document and that gets into the treatment, the intent, the style of
the building, the color coordination of the building. It's not a 100
percent to the architectural design guidelines, but it's very close.
If there was to be a business use that was located in this area,
in the IC area, it has to comply 100 percent with the architectural
and site design guidelines of 2.8. So along this corridor, if there's
a business use anywhere along this area, it has to comply 100 percent.
If it's in an IC area and they wish to keep the landscaping as
proposed, their building fascias that are facing Goodlette and the
internal roadways, have to be a masonry type product. The other sides
can be corrugated steel.
What else is unique about the project is there's three typical
road cross-sections that provide service driveways, internal
circulation throughout the project. I'd like to note that each
cross-section meets our standards today on pavement thickness,
sidewalks, pedestrian ways, pedestrian lighting and landscaping.
So what you have on each of these corridors is a unified street
lighting plan, a unified landscaping plan, a pedestrian plan and
minimum aisle widths of 12 feet. That's on both the east and west
side.
The traffic circulation for the project aligns with the existing
median cuts. The petitioner is responsible for the street lighting,
is responsible for any of the median geometry configurations, the
right and left turn lanes and arterial level lighting.
This project, for the most part, is 100 percent consistent with
the access management plan.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask, it seems like kind of
a conflicting statement, "for the most part 100 percent." Is it for
the most part or is it 100 percent?
MR. MILK: For the most part. I say that because of the
alignment along Goodlette-Frank Road. The other corridors align 100
percent; it's just that access point closest to the intersection that
doesn't quite meet that criteria, spacing criteria.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How far away is it? What's the differential
between -- MR. MILK: It's the alignment of these two -- it's the
access point to these two drives, versus the distance from the
intersection here. I'm not sure what that spacing criteria lacks,
whether a couple hundred feet.
But there is a criteria ultimately in the access management plan
that says every median cut shall be 800 feet for an arterial or
collector type roadway. Because of the configuration and the geometry
here this is lessened somewhat.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not sure how much?
MR. MILK: I'm not sure how much. No, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we find out?
MR. MILK: The -- and I'll get to that. The traffic impact
statement provided by the petitioner provides that there is
approximately 13,500 trips that are going to be generated by the PUD
and the users of that particular project. That 13,500 trips exceeds
the 5 percent level of Service D design capacity for the roadways,
Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road.
However, because of the improvements that are designed and
committed for in the radius of development influence, meaning
Goodlette-Frank Road to the south is going to be four laned from
Vanderbilt Beach Road south; the commitment to six-lane U.S. 41 north
of Immokalee Road; the commitment to four-lane Immokalee Road from
1-75 to 951; the commitment to provide access to Bonita Beach Road
from the Livingston Road extension north, and the existing levels of
service today, this project will not fall below the level of Service D
design capacity in the traffic circulation district. Yes, sir.
MR. KANT: For the record, Edward Kant, Transportation Services.
The minimum median opening spacing for full median openings is 1,320
feet and for partial median openings is 660. Just roughly scaling
from this drawing, it looks like it's about 600 and change, so it's
minimal, if at all.
And again, we're dealing with a conceptual drawing. Typically,
we're able to make minor adjustments as they come up with final site
plans for various tracts. But I'm not sure that, you know, the
difference, is it 640 feet, 650 feet, 660 feet, is going to be
significant in this case.
That's an opinion. It's not a statement of fact.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you believe with minor modifications it
could meet our access management guidelines? MR. KANT: I believe so, yes.
MR. MILK: Again on the topic of traffic, staff has looked at the
trip circulation, has identified that approximately 30 percent of the
trips are going to head west on Immokalee Road, 40 percent are going
to head east on Immokalee Road, and 30 percent will head south on
Goodlette-Frank Road.
The petition was deemed consistent by the -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The remaining 10 percent? You said 30 east on
Immokalee, 30 west on Immokalee, 30 south?
MR. MILK: I'm sorry. 40 east on Immokalee Road.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILK: 30 to the west, 30 to the south and 40 to the east. A
hundred percent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILK: You're welcome. Staff has reviewed the criteria in
the Growth Management Plan and Future Land Use Element. This project
was deemed compatible with the Future Land Use Element and GMP.
We went to the Planning Commission October the 2nd. This project
was approved three to two. I'd like to explain that voting, if I may.
The petitioner originally submitted a PUD Master Plan very
similar to this plan. This plan was introduced basically at the
Planning Commission. Because of discussions from the Collier's
Reserve people, the traffic circulation pattern for the proposed post
office and the Tyton Corporation to be relocated on that west side.
The introduction for the second Master Plan was to try to omit
the truck traffic and delivery truck traffic to that area to
Goodlette-Frank Road, and which would allow the pedestrian corridor to
be maintained on the access to Collier's Reserve at that particular
intersection.
I think the three-two vote, I think everybody was in favor of the
project. I think there were some misunderstandings on where Tyton and
where the postal service was going to locate; how their frontages were
going to be situated in the project; how their driveways were going to
access these frontage roads, and where their truck loading and
unloading areas were going to be by virtue of that cul de sac road to
the south.
I say that, because there was some misunderstandings about timing
issues on the first phase of platting, introduction to that southern
road, and actually the visual aid of where the post office and Tyton
were going to be located by virtue of that plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you characterize that as you call a
misunderstanding as a concern over the trip routes for truck traffic,
in particular?
MR. MILK: I would say it's a misunderstanding because the truck
traffic situation is a real issue here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. MILK: And I think because there was no displays at the
meeting, there was some concern about that. And without that being
visually articulated, both folks, the two denial votes, were based on
that concern. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MILK: If I can offer to answer any questions, I'd be happy
to do so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Milk.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not sure you can answer this, but you
mentioned about the number of trips generated. Do you know or can you
give me any kind of an idea that if this were zoned for single family
homes what kind of trips would be generated, given the size of the
piece of property that we're looking at?
MR. MILK: I personally can't. But I know that Oliver Tindale
and some of the traffic experts has put together the TIS statement
that can make the differences and analysis for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, how much, total acres, is there on
this project?
MR. MILK: Total acres is 108 acres on the project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's 432 homes, that's 4,320 trips a day for
single family at 4 units an acre; using 10 trips per single family
home.
MR. MILK: And that's probably a little heavy, but that's about
right, 8 to 9 trips a day at 4 units an acre; that's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of that 108 acres, how much is active
ag right now; do you know?
MR. MILK: Active ag is, I'm going to guesstimate, about 50
acres, plus or minus.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It won't have any negative impact if
we remove active agricultural from the area?
MR. MILK: To my knowledge, no, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The section south and east of the intersection
of Goodlette-Frank and Immokalee has been a concern for me since I
first realized it was zoned industrial. And the reason is that, when
I look -- industrial from up north means belching smoke stacks and
whatnot from a lot of communities up there, and it's a very negative
perception.
But our industrial areas, for the most part here, aren't a heck
of a lot better, things like Shirley Street, the area on the east side
of Airport Road. I don't think anybody wants to live next to that.
As currently zoned, is there anything to prohibit those -- I
guess on that side is it something around 45 acres, plus or minus?
MR. MILK: On the east side is approximately 39 acres --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 39?
MR. MILK: -- on the west side there's approximately 15 to 16
acres.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They have right now, as I understand it, a
full range of industrial uses with no mitigated elements. They are
just zoned straight industrial; is that correct?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we could have, you know, some of the more
noxious industrial uses locate there without any action or involvement
by this Board whatsoever?
MR. MILK: That's also correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If you compare the uses that are
allowed on that piece now with what is proposed on both sides of
Goodlette-Frank Road in this proposal, how could you characterize the
difference in permitted uses?
MR. MILK: I think the intensity level -- if we had a light
industrial district, this would be it. This is a hybrid district.
It's between what I would call the permitted uses in the business park
and taking out all the obnoxious uses of the industrial district.
It's a hybrid from that point. So I would call it a light industrial,
quasi-professional business district.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's why we are left, more or less, with the
traffic concern as I can see it, being primary? MR. MILK: As being primary, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would be the difference between
this and C57 Because I always refer to C5 as light industrial.
MR. MILK: I think the big difference from the situation, I think
there is more traffic provided for in the C5 district. But I think
the biggest concern would be the architectural design guidelines. If
this was zoned C5, that entire project in the C5 district would have
to comply with the site, architectural and site design guidelines of
division 28, whereas, the industrial district would not at all.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess that's not a bad thing then,
if it was C5.
From a usage standpoint, what's the difference? You just
referenced light industrial, and I always think of C5.
MR. MILK: From a usage standpoint, there is no light
manufacturing that occurs in the C5 district. However, warehousing,
distribution, storage, outdoor sales, is allowed in C5. It's also
allowed in this PUD.
What's unique about this PUD is there is elevated buffering,
fencing, requirement for those type uses, if they were in an outside
fashion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That gets to my next question. You mentioned
that in the IC areas, particularly those bordering Goodlette-Frank
Road, that -- you did a nice job explaining the berming and buffering
that is required if they use the IC uses. However, you said if they
go in and use more of the business or commercial side of that, that
they would have architectural standards that almost meet the county's
architectural standards. Did I hear you correctly on that?
MR. MILK: That's correct. There's two ways to look at it. If,
in fact, it's a true IC use and they wish to establish more of a
visual impact from Goodlette-Frank Road, they would have to provide an
elevation motif, architectural design, that is very similar to what's
available in the architectural design guidelines today, because of
that visual aspect.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have you been given any -- and this goes to
the heart of one of the issues I have -- when it comes to straight
industrial-- MR. MILK: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I don't want to see it. I mean, make it
pretty or hide it, and I have been very adamant about that from the
early discussions I had regarding this project.
But why, what reasons have you been given for why they wouldn't just
simply comply with the existing architectural standards, instead of
almost comply? Because I'm concerned about what element is dropped
out of that, what's missing; what's the difference?
It seems to me to be an either/or. I like the berming and buffering
idea to hide it, but if you're going to do something else, then it
ought to comply with the standards, period.
Have you had that discussion with the applicant, Brian?
MR. MILK: We've had that discussion, and with that discussion,
that's how we arrived at the standards there are right now, because
the initial thought was, it's an industrial district, they don't have
to comply.
And we went and said, well, this is a corridor; we all understand that
there is architectural standards out there. We'd like to see a
cohesive project, a unified project, and they agreed. And they said,
well, what can we do to identify corporate image along that corridor
and comply to the most part with the architectural design guidelines
for those frontage buildings. So that's what we came up with in that
list of criteria.
Now, it goes one step further. If there was a business use in that
particular IC district, that use in that corridor has to comply 100
percent with the design guidelines. The only one that doesn't at this
point is an IC use that wants to have some identity off that roadway,
and there is criteria in here to do so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That flexibility, just because it's an unknown
MR. MILK: Flexibility, right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- yes, gives me a little concern, and I'll
address the applicant on that, because I'm really -- you know, these
architectural standards are important to me and have been, and I'm
kind of either/or on that right now, unless I hear some real good
justification for why that shouldn't be the case.
Mr. Hulhere?
MR. HULHERE: Bob Hulhere, Current Planning Manager. I just
wanted to add, in response to Commissioner Constantine's question
regarding the C5 and industrial comparison.
Brian mentioned that C5 allows for outdoor storage. This would not.
This proposal would not allow for outside storage. I'm not sure if
that was misspoken, and I wanted to clarify that.
The other issue is that there would be a much wider range of retail
type uses permitted in C5 that would not be permitted or is not
intended to be permitted within this PUD. That's just for the record.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One more question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You were describing, as it's currently
zoned, the break up of what's there for industrial zoning now. And
you said there's 13 acres west of Goodlette?
MR. MILK: Approximately 15 to 16 acres on the west side of
Goodlette that front the corridor there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know of any place else in the
county, or can you cite me an example in the county where there is a
developed industrial area of that size or less? MR. MILK: Of that size, no, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because when you asked the question of
what could happen here, what's allowed to happen there and what would
be economic or what would be economically feasible there, or a couple
different things. And I just don't know that that 15 acres by itself
on that kind of isolated segment is realistic.
MR. MILK: Just to comment a little bit more. It's funny,
because we did some research on historical zoning in that corridor.
And at one point in 1972 that whole strip was zoned industrial.
Instead of 15 acres it might have been 40 acres on that entire strip.
I'm not sure what happened between '72 and 1984, but at that point, it
was massaged -- it was a massage back to what we see today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In '72 this was the boonies for Collier
County; this was way out. Pine Ridge was out in the country.
MR. MILK: Right, and I can't attest to what happened.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A junkyard on Radio Road was
acceptable in '72.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Mr. Milk, another question. You
mentioned landscape standards for internal streets. One of my
concerns is not just the external appearance, aesthetics, but the
internal aesthetics.
Are there architectural or design standards that apply internally
to the project, because there is some things I see in the roadway
network that could really be beneficial here and I want to make sure
that there are internal applications. Are those in the PUD? MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I want to make sure they weren't just
deed restrictions.
MR. MILK: That's right. There are unified plans throughout each
parcel, site specific.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You talked about 13,500 trips. It's my
understanding this intersection is also in what's called a medical
activity center?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's within a quarter mile of the hospital.
MR. MILK: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is all of this, all of what we're looking at,
within that quarter mile, or a majority of it, or a percentage of it?
Do you have any idea?
MR. MILK: There's approximately 30,000 trips today that run east
and west on that corridor. That level of service is actually at level
of service B right now. So Immokalee Road is operating at level of
service B, with approximately 30,000, 31,000 trips.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm asking though, is in the medical
activity center. How far does it extend over west of Goodlette-Frank
Road? Can you give me an idea?
MR. MILK: I think a better idea is there's a radius on that
particular map --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry.
MR. MILK: -- with that dashed line.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, you had mentioned a
15-acre industrial park doesn't make a lot of sense. I think if it's
not in this use, medical office is probably the next reasonable use
for this.
The reason I bring that up is, my experience with ITE is that medical
office is one of the more intensive office type uses when it comes to
trip generation.
MR. MILK: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Something like 25 trips per thousand,
balipark?
MR. MILK: Of any standard that we have is for doctors' offices
and medical related uses, it is the most intensive. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The reason I ask that is again, if
we're looking for what could be there under existing or potential
zoning, I think we need to consider the trip generation for medical
office. And it would be interesting to know what that trip generation
could be if it developed out as medical office versus what's being
proposed.
Because I don't know if the folks who live around there actually know
that one, it could be medical office, and two, that it's a very high
trip generation rate right during the peak hours of the day.
So those are a couple of things that may factor into this.
Mr. Kant, a little bit later, if you don't have it right on top of
your head, if you could give me some idea what medical application --
and Mr. Milk, maybe work with him on square footage. I'm just
curious if it went medical on that site, what would it be compared to
what's being proposed here.
Questions for Mr. Milk? Seeing none, go to the petitioner.
MR. VARNADOE: Good afternoon. For the record, George Varnadoe,
attorney for the applicant, of the law firm of Young, van Assenderp
and Varnadoe.
A couple of preliminary matters. There's a couple things I'd like to
place in the record before we get started. The first is to make a
public record of the Traffic Impact Statement for this project, and
the second is to make, put into the record the Collier's Reserve PUD.
You'll have some discussion about what's allowed there versus what's
allowed here, and I would like to make that part of the record.
The next item -- this is kind of housekeeping -- but it was called to
my attention last week that when we have partnerships and trusts that
we disclose who the beneficial owners are. I'm not sure -- I couldn't
find in our application that we had done that. So let me pass those
out at this time if I could, please.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've been given enough land records to
know who this one was, but thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: These have been in y'all's hands for such a long
time, it's probably no secret, but I thought it was good to comply
with our requirements here.
The last item is that we have a handout that we're going to be
referring to as, basically A1 but also Bill, to discuss certain
matters.
And I'd like to pass those out and also make that, a copy of that,
part of the public record, please.
In addition to my comments, you're also going to be hearing today from
Alan Reynolds with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. That firm are the
engineers and land planners in this project.
Mr. Reynolds will address the planning aspects of the project
consistency and compatibility issues, and describe the features which
define this project as an up-scale master planned community for
businesses.
Also available to answer questions about transportation impacts is
Bill Oliver, from Oliver and Associates, who did the traffic impact
statement.
You heard that we have redesigned the project slightly to accommodate
some concerns in the internal traffic network. There is an updated
TIS in your notebook there that he can also address if we need for him
to.
I'm also going to ask Ruth Ayres to address you just for a moment.
Ruth Ayres is Director of Operations for Tyton-Hellerman. They are
going to be one of the residents in our park if you approve this, and
I think it would be interesting for y'all to hear what they do and how
they do it.
Before I start my remarks, I want to thank staff for their help in
this project. They have been diligent and responsive in responding to
the application, particularly Mr. Milk. Mr. Milk has been
instrumental in refining the landscaping and buffer standards and
other standards you find in your PUD. He has done a good job in
trying to make sure we've accommodated what the county wants to see
out there.
As he told you, the proposal is to fezone this land to PUD for an
up-scale commerce park. Let me try to describe, in layman's terms at
least, what it is and what it isn't. It is a master planned community
for businesses, a community with up-scale campus type setting with
significant amounts of open space that will provide sites for
businesses in the community. Just as for years you have, as a Board,
looked at Master Plan residential communities with their typical
amenities, common signage, enhanced landscaping amenities, lighting,
common lighting, now we're looking at the same concepts for
businesses.
You've got lakes, open space, sidewalks, integrated and controlled
access points, architectural design standards, and covenants and
restrictions on uses, increased buffers, enhanced landscaping,
carefully controlled uses, common signage, lighting and landscaping.
It is a project that provides for carefully planned integration of
light manufacturing, office, medical, business services, institutional
and government facilities, financial services, and support retail uses
in this controlled environment. It is not smoke stack industry. It
is not heavy industry. It's not factories. It's not forklifts on the
streets.
It's not any sort of outside manufacturing.
It is a project that will provide the opportunity for the economic
diversification that we all know we need in this county. It's a
project that will help this Board achieve its goal of economic
development. I know you made one of your top priorities at your last
goal setting session.
It is an exciting opportunity for Collier County to create high
quality business sites for businesses in an up-scale park. It will
help us retain those we have that want to expand or relocate in the
county and hope it will help us attract some of the high tech,
low-impact business we want.
Let me talk for just a minute about the background or kind of
evolution of this project. The project has a pretty interesting
history.
You can look at this exhibit on the wall. All this property that's
south of Immokalee Road and west of Goodlette-Frank, north of Pelican
Harsh and east of 41, as you know, was part of the proposed Collier's
Garden Hall project, also affectionately referred to by people in the
area as the mega mall, that we were going through the DRI process.
At the same time, the Barton Collier Corporation and Barton Collier
Partnership were talking about what to do and how to develop the 39
acres that is east of Goodlette-Frank Road and south of Immokalee Road
that's currently zoned industrial and has been zoned industrial, as
you've heard, for 20 years or more.
They were looking at how to accommodate existing businesses on that
property or expand, allow people to expand that property and do it
right.
But what we ran into was the fact that there just wasn't enough land
to do a commerce park, achieve the sense of place that you're looking
for, to be able to put in the common landscaping, the common signage,
do the up-scale things. There just wasn't enough physical area to get
there from here, even when you added the 18 acres that's west of
Goodlette-Frank Road.
So we looked at expanding the park to accommodate the ability to have
enough space to do that. About the same time, EDC got involved and
approached Alan Reynolds and myself and said look, we don't have any
place to put these kind of businesses who want to stay in the county
or who want to come to the county and want to be in an up-scale
commercial park, a commerce park, there is nowhere to put them. What
can you do?
Well, we put EDC and Barton Collier together, and the park then took
on the plan that you see today before you, and what you'll hear
discussed.
I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Reynolds in just a moment, but
before I do, there's a couple points I want to make, and I think one
of them has been made, but I want to reemphasize it. I know you've
heard from and you've read about some of the objections and concerns
of our neighbors, primarily those in Collier's Reserve. We have not
ignored those concerns; we've met with their representatives on four
occasions.
I'd like to tell you that we satisfied all their concerns and met all
their demands, but obviously, we have not.
However, we have made substantial changes to the project to respond to
their concerns. As you heard Mr. Milk say, before the Planning
Commission we changed the internal road network to try to alleviate
some of their concerns. We reduced some of the -- eliminated some of
the uses in the IC district that they might find objectionable.
As late as last week, we made other changes to the PUD. There is a
letter to Mr. Milk in that package I gave you that outlines those.
They incorporate -- it also incorporates some of the strike-through
underlined pages in the PUD that you also have that recognized these.
Among the proposed changes was enhanced landscaping on Immokalee Road
and the southern boundary of the project to further buffer ourselves
from our neighbors; the elimination of additional uses in the IC
district. In fact, we totally eliminated some 80 SIC groups and over
20 other groups we eliminated part of the uses inside those groups.
You'll find those all in that letter I was telling you about.
Those uses are probably going to be okay because they are in enclosed
buildings. Other standards we had I think they would have made them
okay but looking at them, either they were unnecessary, or when you
read them, they could appear frightening on the surface, and we said
just get rid of them, and we took them out.
We provided performance standards for noise, odor and lighting in the
park to make sure that we would not be objectionable to our neighbors,
even though we had covenants, conditions and restrictions in place
that would have handled that.
We also provided a right of way easements or -- the necessary
right-of-way or an easement, excuse me -- on the southern road to
provide for interconnections to the west in the future. That was
pointed out as being important to the Second District Association,
among others.
We also clarified the PUD to show that only the entranceways and
access ways that are shown on the Master Plan could be utilized in the
future, so there would be no proliferation of access points on the
project, either on Goodlette Road or Immokalee Road.
The second thing I want to address is the putting this project a
little bit in perspective, and y'all have talked about this a little
bit.
It's not like we're starting with a blank slate here and coming in and
saying we want to impose these uses in this area.
Of the 108 acres that constitute this park, 58 acres are currently
zoned industrial. As you have already talked about, those industrial
zoned properties could be developed today without further input from
this board. All they have to do is go get their SDP and a building
permit, and off they go, without any further input from any of us;
without the safeguards we've got in there, without the amenities,
without the intensive landscaping, and with more intense uses than we
would allow.
Of the 108 acres that constitute this park, 41.6 acres are devoted to
this commercial industrial district. So it's less acreage than there
is there today, zoned straight industrial. Of that 41.6 approximately
8.95, if I'm right, is for the post office site. It's not a
commercial or industrial use; it's a government facility and can go
into any commercial zoning category in this county.
38.7 acres is devoted to open space, lakes and preserves. 19.1 acres
is in the business and office park with limited retail of this
project.
As you know, you've heard that -- and I want to go into -- we tried to
put the business uses out on Immokalee Road and Goodlette Road and
therefore buffer the IC uses into internal to the district.
I'm going to pass the baton to Mr. Reynolds, but we request we be
granted some time to respond to questions or concerns that might come
up from others who don't like our project as much as I do. I'd like
to qualify Mr. Reynolds as an expert in land use planning. He's
appeared before this Board many times and I don't think I need to go
through his qualifications with you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do I have a motion to recognize Mr. Reynolds
as an expert?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Varnadoe, as is my track record, I don't
allow rebuttals, but if the board does have questions or issues on
what is raised, we'll direct those questions to you.
MR. VARNADOE: All right, sir.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. For the record, I was duly sworn or
affirmed.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just before Mr. Reynolds
comes up, quick question for our staff. Mr. Varnadoe indicated that
there is nowhere else to put these type parks. Is there no other
undeveloped industrial zoned property in the urban area?
MR. MILK: I think what the criteria --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a yes, no question.
MR. MILK: There is undeveloped property; correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Zoned industrial?
MR. MILK: Zoned industrial.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the urban area?
MR. MILK: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds?
MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon. Alan Reynolds. I have been
Sworn.
As I go through my presentation, I'm going to be referring both
to the large scale exhibits that are going to be put up over there, as
well as to some of the reduced exhibits that are in your booklet. If
you have any questions about which one I'm referring to, just stop me.
I want to walk through very quickly the planning process that we used
to create this park, because as has been previously described, this is
a, I believe, a unique park design and use for Collier County, the
first time we've seen a park of this type.
Our first step in the process, as we do with most planning, is to
look at what's around us and to design the project accordingly. And
it's been mentioned that we have uses including the hospital and the
medical office uses that are located north of us. We have the
Collier's Reserve project across the street on Immokalee Road that has
some commercial land uses that are immediately across the street from
us.
To the south, we have the Pelican Marsh project, which has been,
was designed with the anticipation of a use similar to this -- not
exactly like this, but similar -- and I want to talk a little bit
about how that was incorporated.
And then to the east, we have a variety of uses, including a
wastewater treatment plant and some medical office uses. So this is
really an in-fill type of a project and when you're designing an
in-fill project, you have to look at all those adjacencies and make
sure you're dealing with your land use relationships both from the
standpoint of uses and buffer.
The first handout in your packet that you see shows specifically
those industrial zoned boundaries that you have on the property that
have already been described in some detail. The first issue I'd like
to deal with is consistency with the Growth Management Plan. There is
a very, very detailed analysis of that issue in your staff report.
I'm not going to go back and belabor that, but it's important to
understand that this project has several different relationships as
far as consistency.
One has to do with the medical office activity center use that's
allowed surrounding the hospital. The second has to do with criteria
that are set forth for allowing expansion or reconfiguration of
industrial uses in the county. And our industrial zoning that's in
place, it's important to understand, is deemed consistent with your
Comprehensive Plan. So we have multiple elements that we have to pull
together as far as a consistency finding.
Your staff has very definitively concluded, as we have, that
there are no consistency difficulties. We are fully consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety.
I do also want to identify that we know that an issue has been
raised with respect to whether or not this project will be consistent
with a proposed business park subdistrict that's planned for your EAR
amendment cycle that you're going to be hearing next week, and you
will probably recall over the summer dealing with this business park
subdistrict language. I'm very familiar with it, as I was the primary
author of that language, working with your staff.
This project, as we sit here today, does not have to be found
consistent with that subdistrict because it has not been implemented
in your plan. However, I think it's important to understand that this
project is designed to be consistent with the intent of that district
and, in fact, will be consistent with that district.
And that's something that I think it had been suggested that some
reason why we are trying to move this project through quickly, is to
beat, if you will, a change in the Comprehensive Plan that would
preclude us from going forward next week. I can assure you,
unequivocally, that that is not the case. That in fact, this project
has been on an accelerated process with your staff's cooperation,
specifically because we have an end user which is Tyton, that has very
specific time frames that must be met. So I wanted to make sure that
is very clear at the outset.
It is true that the implementation of your new business park
subdistrict is going to require implementing details, including Land
Development Code changes, and we cannot stand here today and tell you
that it is fully consistent with all the implementation details,
because they haven't all been worked out yet, nor have you even
adopted that subdistrict yet in your plan.
But if you look in your packet and you read the Statement of
Intent, and I'd like to just -- I think it's a very good description
of what this business park is, and it occurs right after the handout
that says Statement of Compliance.
It says that the business park subdistrict is intended to provide
for a mix of industrial uses and non-industrial uses, designed in an
attractive park-like environment, with a low structural density, where
building coverages range between 25 and 45 percent. In this case, we
have a 35 percent floor area ratio. And it goes on to just describe
that. I won't read the rest of it; you can look at it yourself.
But it is certainly clear to me that we are completely consistent with
the intent of this district. This project happens to be the model for
the subdistrict.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on that
point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It might be appropriate to get Mr. Milk or
somebody in Long Range Planning, whoever would be the appropriate
staff expert. I'd like a confirm or deny of that. That's a critical
question for me. I've heard that this is a rush job to get in before
the change or the proposed change is made.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, for the record.
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Director.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just this tiny little technicality. Shall
we recognize our own staff as experts at this point?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve and to recognize Mr.
Arnold as an expert.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Mr. Milk?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. With respect to the issue of fast
tracking, we have been on a relatively fast track with this project,
primarily because of one prospective tenant here.
But also secondarily, because we have an economic plan that was
adopted. We have Mr. Mihalic here, who is prepared to speak to you
about some of the issues relative to our economic plan that the
county's embarked on, and why it's important that we try to retain and
attract high-wage employers into our community.
And we have some information for you at the appropriate time to insert
there, as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my question specifically is whether or
not, as currently proposed, because we haven't adopted -- adopted it
yet, the business park subdistrict that's proposed to be adopted in
the next cycle of hearings starting in about a week, whether or not
this proposal is consistent with those as they are currently drafted.
MR. ARNOLD: At this point in time, I'm not trying to dance
around the subject, but it's sort of a question that really can't be
answered on its surface, because this document was not prepared in
response to what was proposed as the Comprehensive Plan.
What we're looking at today was prepared in response to the existing
Comprehensive Plan that we have on the books; it's entirely consistent
with that. I believe it's consistent with the intent and purpose,
without a doubt, of our business park subdistrict that we're going to
be presenting to the Board of County Commissioners next week.
There are some elements that I believe are still subject to change and
further modifications. So to tell you that it's consistent with it
today, may not mean that it will be consistent next week after you've
formally either adopted it or decide not to adopt it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But as you proposed it, because there is a
draft --
MR. ARNOLD: Uh-hum, correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As a draft, if we adopt it without
discussion -- which won't happen -- but if we adopted your draft
without discussion, would this comply?
MR. ARNOLD: I think -- the only answer I think I can honestly
give you is that it generally is. There are a couple of components
that because of the method that this document is prepared, it's not an
apples to apples comparison. For instance, there is some issues about
how much retail and non-industrial space that you can have within a
business park as we will be proposing next week.
This PUD document, because of the consistency finding of having
medical related office within a quarter mile of a hospital, having
existing industrial zoning, qualifying for a certain amount of
non-retail commercial business development, it's very hard to make an
apples to apples comparison.
But generally, it is a consistent project with what we are
proposing. There are very minor nuances, but I would tell you it's
very tough for me to sit here and tell you it's 100 percent
consistent. But it is generally consistent with what we're proposing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you, could you -- I'm sorry, you
know, to be pushing you on this, but I want to get just as hard an
answer as I can. I recognize you cannot give me an absolute answer,
but I want as much as I can get.
To the extent there are these minor nuances, like could you give
me an example of one? I have a question specifically, let me ask you,
and that is, would this proposal permit more or less industrial versus
more or less retail? I frankly tried to look at that and see if I
could understand, and can't make that analysis myself, which is why
I'm asking you.
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure that I can specifically answer that
without -- I think Mr. Reynolds, maybe because he's more intimately
familiar with some of the tenants, or prospective tenants here, can
give you a little bit more detailed answer.
Again, I think that we've already heard and we know that we net fewer
industrial acres, for instance, under the proposed PUD than we have
currently in place today. You end up with some additional retail
opportunities that you don't have today on the ground because of the
fact that they're taking advantage of the relationship to the hospital
to include some medical related facilities, which include some limited
retail.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did I understand you correctly that, from your
perspective then, because of the existing industrial zoning, it's not
so much the industrial compliance as the retail compliance that you
think there's an issue, or would be an issue of compliance from one to
the other with?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I guess -- from what we're proposing in our
Comprehensive Plan amendment, it has a provision that says no more
than 30 percent of the business park shall be non-industrial uses.
That non-industrial has yet to be defined, but we know it includes a
certain amount of office space, we know it includes retail,
hotel-motel, some other things. What I can't tell you is exactly how
that breaks down in the Creekside Commerce Park specifically, because
there is a provision that says we're going to have a maximum 40
percent of certain acreage dedicated to retail and certain
non-industrial uses.
But we've yet to go that next step as part of our Land
Development Code amendments and fully develop what we believe will be
a business park PUD district that would then start establishing which,
exactly, of those uses will be permissible and which will not.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Makes me understand the apples to oranges.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so nobody misinterprets your
comments on the fast track. I don't want anybody to think the Collier
family gets special treatment.
I know last week I called for a small project that Mr. Hilk's working
on, that the individual has going on has to go through a similar
process, and he estimated it takes three or four months, by the time
you start something to get it all the way to the Board of
Commissioners.
What's the time frame? When did this first come to our staff?
MR. ARNOLD: I believe that it came in on July 21st. And we had
anticipated this to come before you a couple of weeks earlier, and
because of some advertising problems, we did not. But generally, it's
still taken nearly about the same amount of time as it typically would
for most other PUDs.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we hear the word fast track, I
don't want anybody to misinterpret that somehow this is flying
through. It's fast by government standards.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's scary, isn't it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's still -- August, September,
October. Three months, so --CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do want to point out the advertising
problems were solely the fault of the paper.
(Laughter)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any chance, he'll do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you get an answer to your question?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I did, and I apologize for interrupting
you, but that's just a critical point for me.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's fine, because I know that was an important
issue. I just want to specifically identify that what staff was
talking about is right now, the language that is in the business park
subdistrict, at the insistence of the department of community affairs
up to 30 percent of the total acreage of the nonindustrial uses of the
type identified below, that's your cap.
We have a Business Zoning District within our PUD that provides for
those uses. We have 19 acres. That's less than 20 percent of our
area.
So I think even with the recognition that the details of all the
uses that may fall into that has not been determined, and some of the
uses within the IC may fall into that category, I'm very comfortable
that we're going to be consistent with this district when we finally
adopt it and I will be here a week from today discussing in more
detail this subdistrict, because I think it's a very important thing
for Collier County.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It sounds like the most, sorry, but
negative, the most intense impacts are less in this project than are
proposed in the draft language. It sounds like the most intense are
less than in commerce.
MR. REYNOLDS: I would agree with that.
The language right now for industrial use in your proposed
business park subdistrict says that if you have industrially zoned
land, those uses allowed in the industrial zoning district are allowed
in your PUD.
And what we have done is, you've seen in the letter to Brian and
the report, is we have significantly trimmed that list of uses so we
have less industrial uses allowed in this PUD today than would be
enabled under this business park subdistrict, in my opinion. But once
again, that's all going to have to get worked out over, I don't know,
the next couple of months.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was tremendously disappointed to see boiler
shops taken out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Darn.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's such a demand for them.
MR. REYNOLDS: There's some ones in there that I've never even
seen before. I would just make an aside, I think at some point we've
got to take a hard look at this SIC code methodology of allocating
uses, because it is extraordinarily cumbersome, and it doesn't work
well for --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hate it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We just had that discussion about a
week ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Didn't we?
MR. REYNOLDS: But it's what we have right now so that's what
we're working with.
Let me -- I know we've got a lot of people to speak, so I'm going
to try to go as quickly as I can and still make my points. The
commerce park design, this is really a master plan concept for
business.
This is a campus design. You can see on the iljustration of the
plan how we have some of the same features that you have in a Master
Plan community. You have lakes that are used to amenitize the
parcels; you have integrated open space and preserve areas, both
upland preserves, wetland preserves, green buffers. All of those
things work together.
They exceed the 30 percent minimum requirement that the county
has today.
It is a mix of uses and the uses are designed to complement each
other. Master Plan communities have amenities; that's how they add
value to the development tracts; the very same with this commerce
park.
The kind of amenities you have in a commerce park, some of them
are fundamental amenities, but that you don't always get in your
industrial parks: That is, underground utilities that are installed
up front; a master stormwater management system; sidewalks; integrated
lighting; integrated signage; integrated landscaping. Those are all
amenities that businesses value and are willing to pay a premium for,
frankly, to locate in a site, because it adds value to their finished
buildings when they're done.
There's been a lot of discussion already about architectural
design guidelines. I would also like to point out and the question
was asked how this PUD deals with design guidelines.
There is an exhaustive section in the PUD, Section 2.18, and it goes
through about two and a half pages of design guidelines that are
beyond your architectural design guidelines and they speak to a lot of
different kinds of requirements that are imposed on this park in its
entirety.
So I want to make it clear that even though our business uses
comply with your commercial guidelines, as they should, the industrial
and the business uses in the project all have to comply with the
requirements of the PUD. And in many cases, those go beyond what your
adopted design guidelines require.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds, may I interrupt you to ask a for
instance. The roadway that extends from Goodlette-Frank westward to
what looks like, appears to be a cul-de-sac, but to the property
boundary there?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've made no secret about hoping and actually
requiring, if I needed to, an interconnect at that point, so that
adjacent development would be able to go through this project, instead
of having to go all the way out to Immokalee Road and jam up Immokalee
Road and go down to Goodlette-Frank.
If that's going to be the case, and this Board eventually, I
hope, has the wisdom to continue that road through the next project
phases, all the way over to US 41, to create an additional route from
41 to Goodlette-Frank, without ever going on Immokalee Road.
If we're going to have traffic moving up and down that street
with the guidelines you're talking about, is that traffic going to be
looking at open -- or looking at dumpsters, active loading docks, the
real -- you know, what people think of as kind of industrial
applications -- along that roadway, or do your standards address that?
MR. REYNOLDS: Those standards are addressed. Those things have
to be screened. And in addition, it's not only from the external
public roads that you are required to have, for example, no exposed
metal siding, it's the interior streets, as well.
And in fact, what we did is, we said anything west of Goodlette
Road cannot have exposed, you know, metal exteriors of the buildings.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Regardless of whether there's an abutting
street or not?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Since I brought up the issue of that
roadway, I believe, as I read your PUD, you are agreeing to an
interconnect on that roadway to the adjacent property, so that when
future properties to the west come in for fezones, as they are
currently zoned ag, this Board will have the option of, if they deem
it necessary by traffic circulation, to require an interconnect to
your project, and you have no problem with that?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. Let me just address one point.
The access management, I know you had some discussion about access
management guidelines. This project is designed to comply with your
access management guidelines.
We have three primary, we have three secondary access points, and
if it's a matter of scaling off of the conceptual diagram, I can
assure you that this project will meet your access management
guidelines.
The other thing to note about the plan, you see that we have a
fairly extensive internal collector road system. If you look at the
way that's laid out, it's designed to serve a number of functions;
one, is obviously to provide access to each site from a public road.
But the second is to allow the users within the park to interconnect
and access each other, without having to go out on an external road.
And that's an important thing to consider in the design, because it
helps to reduce the impact of offsite traffic. So the plan has been
carefully designed to do that.
If you could put up the board that shows the landscape features,
I want to spend just a minute showing you what the landscape design
features are going to look like in this park.
As I mentioned, we have over a third of the park in a green space
land use. What you see there are details of some of the different
landscape treatments that will be used in the park.
What I think you can see is that the overall effect, with the low
walls that have the integrated signage, the canopy trees, the low
shrubs, all of those elements, the spacing of the trees, those things
are designed to create a very distinctive look and that's a look that
is consistent with what you find in a Master Plan community. If you could put up the next graphic.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And these graphics, by being presented today,
are committed to on the record?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. What we have done here is, we sent one of
our designers out and took photographs of what you actually see as you
come out of Collier's Reserve. So the landscape features that you see
looking out the windshield that are closest to you, actually are the
landscape features that are within Collier's Reserve.
And you're looking across Immokalee Road at the Boulevard
entrance which is the westernmost access point into the park. I just
want to describe what you're looking at there. You see a boulevard,
with a landscaped median, you see the signage walls on either side of
the entry that I had shown you in the detail before.
You see a lake on the left side of the entry which if you look at
your plan you can see where that lake is. And adjacent to it is the
preserve area that will be retained.
Bruce, could you point out the post office building on the
rendering?
Could you point out where Tyton would be located?
MR. TYSON: All the wetlands.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would we be able to see Tyton?
MR. REYNOLDS: From that perspective, you will not be able to see
Tyton. You will be able to see a little bit of the post office.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about the road from driving down
Immokalee?
MR. REYNOLDS: As you drive down Immokalee Road, you will see
Tyton as you proceed to the east. And that's a good thing, because
you're going to see in a minute what the rendering of the Tyton
facility looks like and I think it's something that you're going to
want to see. But at least, from this viewpoint, exiting Collier's
Reserve, you cannot see it because of the sight lines.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Reynolds, the landscape we see
there is representative of what will be there immediately on building
of those roads or that's growth after five years, or what is that?
Realistically, what time frame?
MR. REYNOLDS: Basically everything that you see on that
rendering will be put in in the first phase.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At that size and at that -- will it be
lollipop trees that grow to that or that's what it will look like when
you plant it?
MR. REYNOLDS: No. In fact, our standards for the tree size, we
have committed to 13 to 14 foot high trees. Your Land Development
Code commits 8 to 10 foot trees going in, so we have increased the
size of the trees up front. And of course, then they develop a canopy
that over time is very extensive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So -- I'm sorry -- more important, the crown
on those at 13 to 14 is about six feet in diameter, at least, as
opposed to the 8 to 10s being about four feet.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. And they're also closer together.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means the width of the tree in the
green part?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, the stuff you see.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Laughing) Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: Right. Typically, your requirement is 30 foot on
center. In our case, we put them -- not only are they larger, but
they're 25 foot on center.
There's been a lot of discussion in this project about our two
users that we have already identified, and that's Tyton and the post
office and we have provided in your packet, and will put up a
full-size exhibit of what the site plan of those two facilities looks
like, because this is the first phase of the project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is west of -- west of the canal, west of
Goodlette-Frank Road?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. You see Pine Ridge Canal on the
east side, Immokalee Road on the north. What you have is, you have
the two access points to Immokalee Road, the western one that aligns
with Collier's Reserve, and then the eastern access point.
You have the lake and the preserve area. You have three business
parcels and you have the two sites, one for the post office and one
for Tyton.
It's important to note the orientation of how those buildings
have been placed on the site. First of all, they are setback from the
internal roadway, they have lakes within the parcels and landscape
features. Their access, their primary access comes off the internal
northern road, and they have two points of access to Immokalee Road.
And those are the improvements that are going to be built in the
initial phase of the project.
Now what I'd like to put up is the second drawing, and it's also
in your packet. One of the concerns that the residents of Collier's
Reserve had raised to us in requests was to provide for an
interconnection for those two uses to be able to exit to Goodlette
Road, rather than Immokalee Road.
What you see there is the southern roadway that's been discussed
in great detail now, and you see how those two site plans can
accommodate and will accommodate a connection to that roadway that
will provide for service vehicles, employee access, and will allow
them to enter and exit the site from Goodlette Road without ever
getting onto Immokalee Road.
You also can see, further to the east of the canal, how the
internal road system is developed to interconnect the northern and the
southern road.
I know we didn't get into a lot of detail on the modification to
the plan that we made based on our initial meetings with Collier's
Reserve, but we eliminated a north-south road along the west line that
would have provided the direct point of access to the, to that
southern parcel.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the minimum distance, linear, from
Immokalee Road to the entrance to the post office? I'm thinking of
April 14th, 11:59 p.m.
I know there are two accesses getting in. I assume the
predominant one would be at a proposed light at the intersection of
Collier's Reserve. I'm just curious what that distance is. Do we
know?
MR. REYNOLDS: In excess of 400 feet; is that correct, Bruce?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Tyson, we need you on the microphone over
there so the court reporter can pick it up.
MR. TYSON: My name is Bruce Tyson, and for the record, I was
swor~.
And I'm a registered landscape architect in Florida, member of
the ASLA and member of the SEP.
Your question is interesting from the standpoint of a visibility
issue that you look at across here, which winds up being somewhere in
the neighborhood of 500 feet. But the reality of anybody who's
traveling, has to come all the way in around, go through the parking
lot and back over.
And just looking at that distance, I'm sure it's very much in the
neighborhood of a little over a thousand feet, if not 1,200 feet,
almost a quarter of a mile.
Stacking, I'm not sure how that works, but that's a lot of cars.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But the internal circulation, again, I
know it's only one day out of the year, but we all know what tax day
does to the post office.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Christmas.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Christmas, too. But that internal
circulation, there is also a way that you could force that traffic
back out to Goodlette-Frank and not back up onto Immokalee; is that
correct, assuming Phase II is completed? MR. TYSON: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But that really can't -- moving it
through Goodlette really can't occur until the Phase Two is done? MR. TYSON: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question that's similar, only
about Tyton, and maybe it's appropriate to ask when the Tyton reps are
here.
But not knowing enough about their operations and how they
distribute their product, and whether, you know, what kind of traffic
there is associated with the distribution of the manufacturing at
Tyton.
Are you going to talk about that or?
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I think I can answer that question, and they
will correct me if I'm wrong. They have two tractor-trailer
deliveries a day. And they have, I believe, one UPS in and out per
day. That's it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there a time of day?
MR. REYNOLDS: I think, why don't I let them answer that, because
I'm not sure. It's between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., but it's -- compared to
certainly any stretch of what kind of tractor-trailer truck traffic
you have on Immokalee Road, it is an imperceptible amount of traffic.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's one of the things, when I
spoke to the Second District Association, one of the things that they
were the most fussy about and that I've corresponded with some of our
staff about, is the truck traffic on that road, and whether or not
it's appropriate.
So that's a factor.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the importance of it to me is that the
existing industrial would not have been adding to traffic on
Immokalee.
It would have been adding to traffic on Goodlette, but
conceivably would have gone from 1-75 down Goodlette, you know,
Immokalee to Goodlette and then turned, and back, and never would have
gotten along that congested stretch of Immokalee. That's where my
thoughts are going.
MR. REYNOLDS: Our design of the plan has been so that when we
look at this project when it is built, we've got fantastic access
because we've got access to two arterial roads. We can distribute
trips in either of those two directions.
I think the only issue that I had heard on that is the question
of when do you have to build that southern road. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. REYNOLDS: We can get into that in a minute. But I will tell
you when you do a master plan community of any type, you phase your
infrastructure based on the development of the site.
And that's the exact same thing that we'll be doing here. And
what we have said from the outset is that that southern road would be
built when that southern parcel needs to be accessed, because that is
the primary access to that southern parcel. So you stage your
infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will want to come back to that to discuss
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know.
MR. REYNOLDS: Right. Let me walk through now a couple things on
development standards and compatibility. The simple question is this.
How do you make a park that has nonresidential uses of the
variety that we have compatible in the setting where you've got the
wide variety of things that we are adjacent to, ranging from
wastewater treatment plants to golf course communities. The way you
do that is very simple: You deal with uses and you deal with
development standards.
The uses, I think, have been covered in some detail. But if
you'll note in your booklet, there are some 11 pages of SIC categories
of uses that are presently permitted in your industrial zoning that
have been purged from this park. And I think it's fair to say that we
went beyond just trying to take out things that are potentially
obnoxious, we even took out things that sounded obnoxious and obvious
things that we're never going to do in Collier County, anyway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I particularly appreciated you taking out the
wholesale cats, wholesale distribution of cats.
(Laughter)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what we were laughing up here about, is
one of the uses in the SIC Code is cats, wholesale, worms, wholesale.
MR. REYNOLDS: I read that one last night and laughed, as you
did.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, because we're really concerned about the
wholesale cat business in Collier County.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. Nuclear tie rods manufacturing is another
one that we don't have a lot of, so.
But I just want to let you know the extent to which we have gone
through now is, last count I had, four different times, trying to
purge SIC codes out of this thing that we don't need and don't want.
But it's a cumbersome process because of the way those things are set
up, I can tell you.
Let me talk quickly about development standards. And if you'll
turn to the booklet, there's a little chart that says, "Comparison to
Development Standards and Landscape Buffers, Requirements Along
Immokalee Road." And very quickly, I'll walk through those.
What we have done is we have compared our business district to
the commercial district in the Collier's Reserve PUD. That is our
closest neighbor across Immokalee Road that allows commercial uses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the commercial on both sides of the
entrance to Collier's Reserve?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: The red.
MR. REYNOLDS: This is the commercial C.O. district in Collier's
Reserve PUD, and this is the HO district, which is the medical
commercial district.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's the green?
MR. REYNOLDS: This is the preserve area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. I want to make sure I'm clear. This is not
to suggest that Collier's Reserve doesn't have very high standards,
because we all know it does. It's a beautiful project and very well
planned.
If you compare though, the development standards between the two
projects, you'll see that our business commercial building height is
35 feet. In Collier's Reserve it's allowed to be 50 feet.
If you look at the medical buildings, that we are permitted 50
feet, which is only east of Goodlette Road, and their medical district
west of Goodlette Road, that is 80 feet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Say that number again?
MR. REYNOLDS: 80 feet. There is actually a handout in your
booklet that goes through these.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was trying to write it down. Found it.
Thank you.
MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. I won't touch on them all, just a couple
that I think are significant. The building setback from Immokalee
Road is twice what's required in the Collier's Reserve PUD.
We have a floor area ratio in the Creekside Commerce Park. There
is not one in Collier's Reserve.
The width of the landscape buffer is five feet wider. I
mentioned previously the height of the trees installed going in is
significantly different, as is the spacing of the trees; 25 feet
versus 30 feet.
And then finally and probably the most important issue as far as
compatibility is how close is a residential home from the use. And
what you'll see is that in Collier's Reserve, the closest home -- and
I'll point out the one that we measured from.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The Thomas house?
MR. REYNOLDS: I'm not sure who lives here. Maybe they're here
and they'll tell me. But it's this house right here. And this house
is, by our calculations, the closest house to their commercial
district, and it also happens to be the closest house to both our
business district, and the closest house to the Tyton facility.
And what you can see, the distance is 385 feet, which is a
combination of setbacks and other uses. Within Collier's Reserve it's
1,050 feet to our closest business use. And I'm going to show you a
cross-section in a minute that relates that to the Tyton facility,
which is even further away.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Alan, what about Pelican Marsh?
MR. REYNOLDS: Pelican Marsh. Their closest residential property
is this right here, and that is 300 feet away from the closest
structure within the Creekside Commerce Park. And as you probably
know if you've seen it, there's a very tall, extensive landscaped berm
and a golf course that separates those two.
And we have included also some very detailed supplemental
landscape plantings for this berm, as well as a height limitation of
35 feet, which is the same height as they are allowed to have here.
So the bottom line of that is it's not visible from that residential
home.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And not much farther than Collier's
Reserve's internal, anyway?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: If I can, I'll just go through the rest of the
handouts very quickly.
You'll see a photograph of the post office. This is an artist's
rendering of the facility that's going to be built, but it's almost
identical to the one that's up in Bonita right now that you can see.
It's a very attractive building. I don't believe it meets all of
your architectural -- commercial architectural design guidelines, but
certainly is an attractive building, and one that we would be happy to
be able to see.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we make them comply, the feds?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to ask, is that the reason that in
your IC district you did not mirror the architectural standards in the
either/or option is because of the post office?
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, that's not the only reason. Generally,
manufacturing and governmental buildings have different bulk issues to
deal with. So what we try to do is incorporate the facade treatments,
and those kinds of elements, that create the architectural definition
without getting into all of the standards that you require for your
retail buildings.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can look at Tyton and I can look at the post
office, and I can say this is something the community is or is not
willing to live with. I can't look at the big block south of that
south road. That's a concern to me, as to what faces that internal
roadway, as well as some of the other -- the two other pieces on the
other side.
MR. REYNOLDS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's where I just have some concern.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's why we put in supplemental standards,
because we're the most -- actually, our tenants are the most impacted
from whatever designs those are and it's important that the quality of
the park be kept up.
If I could put the cross-section up -- and I know I may be
dwelling on this, but I just want to make sure it's very clear the
relationship that we have between this park and Collier's Reserve in
terms of distances and separations. And there's a reduced copy of
this handout in your packet.
What we have done is taken that same residential home and we have
gone in a straight line distance at the top to the nearest Collier's
Reserve commercial tract. You can see that there's a rear yard
setback, there's golf and lake, there's internal right-of-way and then
there's the rear yard landscape requirements to the building that's
allowed to be 50 feet tall.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The box you've shown on here, though, is
only 35?
MR. REYNOLDS: On the top it's 50 feet, because that's what is
permitted in the Collier's Reserve district. These are actual scale
drawings. We did not accent the horizontal or the vertical, so that's
a 50 scale drawing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So regardless of this project, that scenario
at the top is permitted and can pull a building permit tomorrow?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's the existing condition, correct, in
Collier's Reserve, to their commercial districts. And frankly, it's
adequate. I think it's fine. I mean, we've got lots of examples.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have situations elsewhere that look better.
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, yeah, and I mean, it's a good design because
it's provided the golf courses, the buffer; you've got the internal
road, you've got the landscaping, so it functions very adequately, as
far as a buffer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Reynolds, can you help me, because
you're a visual thinker and I'm not. How does this, like the
Collier's Reserve, how does that compare to maybe the internal
commercial at Pelican Bay to --
MR. REYNOLDS: I'm thinking that the closest residential to the
commercial at Pelican Bay is probably maybe the Bridge Way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bridge Way is what I would guess.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's pretty darn close, because it's
just a street.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's probably closer than that. I would say
it's --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Something I visualized was the back of, is it
The Crossroads in Vineyards?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You have some condominium projects. Right
across the street, there's a lake and the back of a shopping center
right there.
And that separation, my guess, is somewhere around three or 400
feet.
It's about a football field.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was doing the same thing. I was trying to
find a real world example of that. The difference here is there's a
nice golf course and a natural vegetative buffer, pine trees, and so
forth, which is, you know, better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the Collier's Reserve example, now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry to interrupt again because
you're going to tell us about the other.
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, that's fine. Let me just show you what I'm
going to show on the exhibit as we're going from that house again in a
straight line to Tyton, being the closest IC use to the nearest
residence of Collier's Reserve.
You have a 20-foot rear yard setback, you have 230 feet of open
space and lake. You have a hundred feet of internal right-of-way in
Collier's Reserve, which, in that location, I believe is a boulevard
with landscaping.
You have a preserve area that's heavily vegetated; that's 400
feet wide, that is completely opaque. You have 150 feet of Immokalee
Road right-of-way that's got a nice landscaped median. You have a
landscaped buffer of 20 feet along our project that has enhanced
landscape standards from what your LDC requires; an additional front
yard setback requirement.
Then you have your business district parcel, then you have an
internal right-of-way; you have another landscape buffer and front
yard setback, with a hundred feet back to the corner, northwest corner
of the Tyton building. That's 1,410 feet with one, two, three roads,
a heavy preserve, and probably four or five landscape buffers.
I'd suggest to you that it would be very difficult for anything
that would occur in that building or any other building in our project
to have any impact whatsoever on the residents in Collier's Reserve.
The Pelican Marsh compatibility -- I think I've addressed that
adequately -- and we have worked closely with the WCI people and put
the required standards in there.
They also suggested that performance standards be put in that
deal with the odor and the noise issues, and that was included in a
letter that you saw to Brian Milk; those all get incorporated. And
those apply throughout the park. Those do not just apply to our
adjacency with Pelican Harsh.
The other thing that I would point out is that actually, some of
the uses in the Collier's Reserve commercial tract I would suggest may
be of greater impact than some of the commercial uses, any of the
commercial uses, frankly, that are permitted in our project. We did
include a list of some of those uses that we did not allow in our
business district.
Once again, I think it's -- it will reinforce that there is a
need for some good landscape buffering, but that applies equally to
what they are going to have to do.
I'd like to close right now. I know you've got a lot of
speakers.
I do want to say that the significance of this project, I think,
goes beyond this PUD request. You have established economic
diversification as an important goal in this county.
Job creation is important. It's one of your highest priorities
and you do require a public and, in fact, embrace, a public-private
partnership for economic development.
You do need to have high quality sites. There are some sites
available in Collier County but they are very few. I would say
Collier Park of Commerce probably has the closest comparable sites
available in our project, and that site is, as you know, is very
rapidly building out.
If you think about the kinds of siting criteria that you would
want for a park like this: Access to two arterial roadways; land that
already has industrial zoning or a designation; all the necessary
infrastructure in place to the site, so that all you have to do is
extend your mains; well-buffered by well-planned communities, because
they were buffering themselves from external uses and from external
roadways; and an owner that's willing to commit the substantial up
front investment that's necessary to do this.
I've thought long and hard about where else you could put a park
of this quality that meets all those standards, and I tell you I
couldn't think of another one.
I think this is the right location to have a park that you can
point to as your new standard for a commerce park in Collier County.
We are competing to attract and retain businesses like Tyton. They
have other options available to them, many are outside of this county
and most of the counties lure these kind of businesses with economic
incentives.
We don't have economic incentives today to put on the plate.
What we do have is, we have private sector support and a willingness
to build the kind of park that they would like to locate in. And I
think it's important to support that, and it's important to do it in a
way that we have set a high standard for what we're going to get.
And I would suggest to you that this park is the highest standard
for its type of use that has been proposed in Collier County. So I
would obviously encourage you to support our request.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One more question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I'm not going to make a speech
about that, although it's tempting. I want to ask you a question
about you referred me to something in your handout about permitted
uses in Collier's Reserve; commercial, medical districts not allowed
in Creekside Business District.
And I don't understand that, because the last one listed there is
U.S. Post Office, as if that's permitted in Collier's Reserve and not
in Creekside. And I think you're probably telling me that it's
permitted in the Creekside industrial, but not business? MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I want to know overall, which, you
know, without that fine line distinction, which of these are
permitted? Are there any of these that are not permitted in your
industrial?
I just think it's a more fair apples to apples comparison that
way.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. Building supply? No, none of these are
allowed in our IC district.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None of these are allowed. Well, the post
office is?
MR. REYNOLDS: Except for the post office. Yeah, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So none of these except post office are
allowed in yours at all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which page is that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they're not numbered, but it's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right after the blue page.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are about 30 blue pages.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: While that is going on, my discussions really
have been with Mr. Varnadoe, because the two main issues that kept
coming out of the residents in Collier's Reserve that I was trying to
deal with, is one, a perception issue of an industrial park.
We all know what industrial parks look like in this community.
With the exception of Collier Park of Commerce, the rest of them are
nothing to brag about and nothing anyone would really want to live
next to or around. So that perception issue can only be addressed
through aesthetic controls, architectural controls, landscaping, and
so forth. So that's one issue.
The second issue is one always of transportation, one of how do
people get in and out of this, what is the trip generation, what does
that mean to someone who lives in Collier's Reserve and has to deal
with that traffic on a daily basis.
We've talked about numbers, and so forth, but what I have asked
and hopefully, maybe after public comment we can refine it, is I'm
going to want some particulars on when that Phase II roadway, if this
project moves forward, is to be built.
So between you folks and your clients know that I'm going to be
looking for a commitment in that area, and we have discussed several
types of triggers in the past. Please, you know, think about that.
Because if this project is to move ahead, I think it can only be
done if the residents in Collier's Reserve know full well when they
can expect the truck trips and the traffic to the rear of, at least
Tyton and the post office, are going to be using Goodlette-Frank Road,
instead of everyone using that light entrance at Immokalee.
So if you would please work on that. I'm going to want to
address that sometime during this hearing.
The next question is for Mr. Kant. Mr. Kant, the industrial
section as it currently exists, both on the east and west side of the
roadway, do not extend as far over as the entrance to Collier's
Reserve. This project adds enough acreage that they do get over that
far, and thus a connection to Collier's Reserve.
I guess my question is this. As the corridor between
Goodlette-Frank and U.S. 41 builds out, regardless of whether it's
industrial, retail, commercial, whatnot, would you anticipate, through
our access management plan that eventually there would be an access at
the entrance to Collier's Reserve, whether it's commercial or
industrial, or anything else?
MR. KANT: For the record, my name is Edward Kant. I have been
sworn. I had given some prior testimony and I wanted to get that on
the record.
I'm a member of the County Commission staff, I'm a Registered
Professional Engineer with a specialization in civil engineering and
transportation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion to tender as an expert.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor signify by saying aye.
MR. KANT: Thank you. Short answer: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's going to be commercial activity on one
side, and so forth, and I think that was the intent of the entrance to
Collier's Reserve being there.
MR. KANT: Using the petitioner's exhibit of the detail of the
industrial park, the one to the right, he's got a little what looks
like a little pink dot at the entrance, which I believe is meant to
depict a future traffic signal. And that would be the location, the
logical location for a traffic signal.
Typically, we would request that any adjacent roadway entrances,
whether they be like shopping center driveways, or in this case a
public road, would be lined up so as to take advantage of that traffic
signal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's kind of an interesting problem for me,
because I like the access to the south, where they can get to
Goodlette-Frank Road. But let's say the corner were to be a large
scale commercial development. If it connects that close to Immokalee
Road, I think we'd have to look at the volume of traffic and the
throat length to determine whether that's an appropriate connection,
wouldn't we?
MR. KANT: Yes, and typically we have in our existing ordinances,
specifically in Ordinance 93-64, which is our work within the
right-of-way ordinance, we specify minimum throat distances for
shopping centers, or actually, I believe -- I believe the wording
refers to commercial uses in excess of certain square footages, as
opposed to merely shopping centers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's a throat on a road?
MR. KANT: That would be the distance between -- if we were
looking at a driveway, for example, the distance between the edge of
the travel lanes on the main road and the first opportunity, as you
drive down that driveway from leaving the main road, the first
opportunity to turn off.
So you have some stacking distance for cars trying to get in or
out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, I got it.
MR. KANT: My purpose -- aside from answering that question -- my
purpose in returning was to try to answer your earlier question, also.
I made -- I took the applicant's original traffic impact
statement and just very quickly, without benefit of any reference
material, so I want the commission to understand that these numbers, I
believe they are good numbers, but whether it's 495 or 500 is -- I'm
not trying to cut it that fine.
And I took the proposal as set forth in the petitioner's traffic
statement where they propose so many square feet of retail, so many
square feet of medical, so many square feet of general office -- I
should say medical office -- general office, and so many square feet
of business park. And looking at the way they have proposed the
various uses, they have a total of 40,000 square feet of retail,
100,000 square feet of medical and 50,000 square feet of general
office, and 620,000 square feet of business park.
Taking the numbers that they've generated and kind of working
backwards, we come up with some rough average trip generation rates
per thousand square feet. And again, making the assumption that if we
took the 50,000 square feet of general office that they are proposing,
and said, well, what if all that went to medical office -- because I
believe that was one of the Chairman's main concerns -- what would
that do, how much traffic would that add. And interestingly enough,
it's relatively little. It's about 445 cars, using those numbers.
That represents an increase of about two and a half percent of
the total traffic generated by this proposal at build-out, but it only
represents about 1.3 percent of the existing traffic on County Road
846, Immokalee Road. So it's not a significant number, given those
square footages.
Now if they decided to take X square feet of the business park,
say, and convert that into medical office, or X square feet of the
retail, we could work on those numbers.
I might point out that the retail in this case comes up with the
highest trip generation rate per thousand square feet, followed by the
medical office, followed by the general office, followed by the
business park.
There are a number of different ways of estimating trip
generation.
I'm not going to get into those, except to say that where there
is good and sufficient data, the ITE, that is the Institutes of
Transportation Engineers has developed equations which can be solved
for specific square foot sizes. In other areas, we tend to use
average numbers.
So the numbers may vary slightly. But typically, they are in the
ballpark. For example, on this particular number of square feet, if
we use the equation, we might come up within one or two tenths of a
trip.
The other piece of information I want to give you, again, just so
you have this information in front of you, is that with respect to the
total estimate based on the traffic statement that was provided by the
petitioner, after factoring in the, what's called the bypass trip
reduction, they're showing approximately 15,200 cars at build-out to
be generated by this development.
Based on our -- I called my office to double-check this -- and
based on our recent trip generation counts -- I'm sorry, not trip
generation, but travel counts -- as of 1996, we show a volume on
Immokalee Road between U.S. 41 and Goodlette-Frank Road of
approximately 32,500 cars.
The level of service D, which is the minimum standard, would be
38,200 for a four-lane divided facility. If we go to a six-lane
divided facility, we are well in excess of that. It begins to
approach the 50, 60,000 mark, which would indicate that, again,
depending on the build-out schedule and what other development is
taking place in the area, we may be looking at, you know, future
widening, that is, to six lanes. I believe that that is called for in
the 2020 Plan, is a six-lane facility.
So the bottom line of the information I'm presenting to you here
is that, based on the numbers that are presented and based on what I
believe to be a reasonable engineering approach to this, I don't think
that the conversion of that other 50,000 feet from general office to
medical office would have a significant effect. But again, that's
based on a very quick analysis.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It wouldn't increase it dramatically, but it
would hold approximately the same level?
MR. KANT: That's correct. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, it's official that the
engineers take longer to say no than the lawyers do.
(Laughter)
MR. KANT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds?
MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to introduce Ruth Ayres,
and Ruth Ayres is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was about to suggest, I try every hour and a
half to two hours to give the court reporter a few minutes to rest her
weary hands. So why don't we take a five minute recess, and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A question, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we can get some idea as we plan to
come back, do we have any idea how much longer the presentation's
going to be?
MR. REYNOLDS: This is our last speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many registered speakers do we have?
MR. MCNEES: 28.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK Okay. Let's go ahead and take a five minute recess
and return.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's reconvene the Board meeting. If
I could ask everyone to have a seat, and we'll proceed.
At this point we have, as of now -- I'm sorry. Last name, your
speaker?
MR. REYNOLDS: Ruth Ayres.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ayres, that's what I thought. Is Ms. Ayres
included in those 28 total speakers?
MR. MCNEES: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Make that 29, then. At this point, as
a matter of course, after we have had -- excuse me, folks.
After we have had the presentation from our staff, the
presentation from the petitioner, we go to public comment. Public
comment is afforded at five minutes per speaker. At 29 speakers,
that's roughly 145 minutes of comment.
Now, we will be here as long as it takes to hear everyone who has
something to say on this project, but each speaker from here on out is
afforded five minutes. There will be a timer on the podium up here.
Green means go, yellow means you have 30 seconds, and red means
it's over.
So that is the manner in which we are going to be proceeding from
here. Since she was not a part of your presentation team, I'm going
to include Ms. Ayres as a public speaker on this matter, so we'll need
you to fill out a slip when you're done, if you would, for the record.
And if you like, we'll go ahead and start there and then we'll
move through the balance of the public comment from Mr. HcNees calling
the speakers in order.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you guys get to decide how long we
talk about this. If you all take your five minutes, that's about two
and a half hours. So it's up to you.
MR. REYNOLDS: Ruth Ayres is the Director of Operations for Tyton
Hellerman, and she's going to give you a very brief discussion about
the Tyton facility here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS. AYRES: Thank you. My name again is Ruth Ayres and I have
been sworn in. Tyton-Hellerman, I am the Director of Operations.
Tyton-Hellerman has been in Naples for approximately seven years
now, a little over seven years. We are based out of our corporate
headquarters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We are Bullthorpe PLC. They
own approximately 80 companies worldwide. Tyton is just one of them.
We are a light manufacturer of plastic components. We make
fasteners, cable ties, hose clamps, ducts and raceway tracking. We
make our products for the aerospace industry, the automotive industry,
the electrical market, the telecommunications market. Some of our
major customers are Boeing Aircraft, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler,
Saturn, Hercedes, AT&T, GTE.
We started this facility down here in one building in 1990. We
had 10 employees when we started that. We now have seven buildings we
lease in the industrial park. We are spread out over a three and a
half to four mile radius of the building we started out with. We have
128 employees now. We have a lot of duplication of labor because of
these seven facilities. It is very inefficient. We are looking to
build a 110,000 square foot facility. As you can see here in the
picture, it will be a totally enclosed concrete structure building,
totally air conditioned. Hopefully, we'll have 164 employees when we
move into the facility.
We work 24 hour work days, seven days a week. Our shifts run
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., a 12-hour shift. All of our raw materials
come in in truckloads. We receive approximately two truckloads a
month of product.
All of our materials --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I interrupt you? Somebody earlier
said you have two semis a day, I thought.
MS. AYRES: Okay. He was talking about shipments going out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
MS. AYRES: All of our raw materials come in pellet form. They
are processed. All of our by-product, our scrap off of our product,
is reground and reprocessed back through on a closed loop system, so
there isn't any waste. We -- our shipments, as you referred to, are,
we have he said two. That's an average. We could have one -- we make
shipments.
We have a distribution center in Chicago, Hinsdale, and we ship
out to them twice a week, out of our one molding facility. So there's
a possibility of having more than two, but it averages two. And then
we have also UPS shipments that come and pick up to go.
Our work force that we have here, they are very concerned with
where the location of the facility is going to be. We have had tours
come through our facility over the last two to three years, touring
our facility to see who we are and what we do.
When we were at the Planning Commission there was a concern as to
who we are, and a lot of people had a misconception of who we were.
So we opened up our facility to anyone who was concerned, any
concerned parties, to come through the facility and take a look at
what we do, see who we are, where we are going, where we came from,
and ask questions for those concerns.
We did have seven or eight people from the Collier's Reserve
called, came through our facility and asked those questions. 95
percent of our work force live in the Golden Gate area. We want to
stay in Collier County. That is our preference. Our options are
very, very limited at this time of where we can go.
We want to build an up-scale building in a nice park, and like I
said, our options are very limited. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Ayres. Mr. Reynolds, you had
mentioned to me that a copy of that painting would be entered into the
record?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. McNees, let's go to speakers.
MR. MCNEES: Your first is Susan Pareigis, followed by Dennis
Plesha.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Pareigis, knowing your role, you
understand that the decision before us today is a land use petition.
MS. PAREIGIS: I do understand. My name is Susan Pareigis, for
the record. I'm the Executive Director of the Economic Development
Council of Collier County. I have been duly sworn.
I just want to say to you very briefly we have worked for Tyton
Corporation for a very long time, approximately 18 months. The client
has driven the decision, as it should be, as to where this should be
located. Again, I want to say the client has driven this decision.
95 percent of the work force comes from Golden Gate. We want to
keep them in Collier County. We hope today that you will approve of
this petition and variance, and we want to get them productive as soon
as possible.
I would love to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: First of all, you said the word "variance",
which is taboo.
MS. PAREIGIS: You're right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No variance associated. Either that, or I
missed something gross in the application.
MS. PAREIGIS: That would be --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Ms. Pareigis? Seeing none, thank
you.
MS. PAREIGIS: Thank you very much.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Piesha, followed by Diane Ebben.
MR. PLESHA: I've been sworn in. Mr. Chairman, ladies and
gentlemen, my name is Dennis Plesha, and I'm the President of Tyton
Corporation and I also represent today Bullthorpe PLC, which is our
parent company located in Crawley, Sussex, England.
Our parent now owns 97 companies worldwide, Ruth, and there are
25 companies in the U.S. Of those 25 companies, Tyton in Milwaukee
has four facilities, Naples being one, Toronto, Canada, Chicago,
Illinois, and now Los Angeles, California.
We have had an excellent experience in Naples, in Collier County.
We want to maintain our relationship with Collier County. We have
about 130 employees here now. It's a family type organization and we
employ young people -- no idiots, I might add.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Obviously, somebody has been here all day.
(Laughter)
MR. PLESHA: At any rate, we also employ some retired people. We
have a good cross-section. And the experience we've had here in the
Naples area has been just outstanding. When I talk to my counterparts
from all across the country, I realize what a great experience we've
had here because it's so difficult to hire outstanding personnel like
we have. And we just feel very fortunate to be here.
We want to expand, we want to take the seven facilities that we
currently have and put them under one roof in the industrial park
that's been proposed.
Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one question for you.
MR. PLESHA: Yes?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many hours a day does the plant
operate?
MR. PLESHA: 24 hours a day.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seven days a week?
MR. PLESHA: That's correct.
MR. HcNEES: Diane Ebben, followed by Sally Barker.
MS. EBBEN: My name is Diane Ebben, and I live in Collier's
Reserve and I'd like to have Mr. Garlick speak before I do. Is that
possible?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No.
MS. EBBEN: No?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. It's your turn.
MS. EBBEN: Okay. Well, I'm here to tell you --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Could you say for the record
whether you were sworn in or not?
MS. EBBEN: I was sworn in, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS. EBBEN: And I'm here to voice my objection to the planned
park in the area. The area is a residential area. We've got
Collier's on one side, we've got the Bay Colony Club and Pelican Harsh
on the other, and to put an industrial park in the middle of all of
us, I just, I mean, it just isn't right.
We feel that, you know, we have come and invested in Collier
County and the City of Naples. And now that?
We hope you will vote against it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: Mrs. Barker will be followed by Terri Tragesser.
MS. BARKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Sally Barker and I have been sworn. And I am here this
afternoon representing the Second District Association.
We have had several meetings with representatives of the Barton
Collier Corporation and one with Collier's Reserve, and as a result of
those meetings, we appointed a committee to review the proposed PUD
and develop some recommendations. I will give you a general overview
of our feelings on this matter, and Ms. Tragesser will go into more of
the specifics after me. We are trying to keep this as short as
possible.
As are you, we in the Second District Association are very
sensitive to the position of the nearby residents, particularly
concerning such issues as traffic, noise and pollution.
At the same time, we are also mindful of the fact, as was
previously pointed out, that some kind of industrial park can be built
at that site tomorrow, without the additional 40 acres of active
agricultural that's currently under review for this PUD, and without
the protection of a PUD.
However, such an industrial park probably would not be much of an
asset to our community. We are pleased that the Barton Collier
Corporation has taken steps to address some of the more worrisome
issues connected with an industrial park and to ameliorate the worst
of this potential scenario by buffering Immokalee Road with commercial
buildings that will meet the county's new design guidelines.
As for the traffic impact at the intersection across from
Collier's Reserve, we feel this area needs some additional thought.
While we believe the traffic impact, while probably less than that
generated by the original mega mall proposal, we would like to see
some additional safeguards put in place.
The southernmost internal roadway seen on the current site plan
came and went over the summer, and we are heartened to see that the
southern roadway is back again as part of the PUD proposal, creating
eventually a major entryway to the project on Goodlette-Frank Road.
In addition to this Goodlette-Frank entryway, we would like to
see the Barton Collier Corporation make a firm commitment to
eventually extend the southern roadway all the way across to US 41,
especially since the adjacent land is under the same ownership.
We are aware the county cannot require the county to extend the
roadway at this time, but we feel that a commitment by the company to
do so when the activity center is developed, will go a long way toward
easing our concerns about traffic and offset the deterioration of the
level of service on Immokalee Road.
A southern route, particularly to the post office facility, would
divert much of the traffic that otherwise would be using the Immokalee
Road entrance.
As for our concerns about design guidelines and landscaping for
the light industrial section of the park, Mrs. Tragesser will address
those.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Barker.
MR. MCNEES: The next speaker is Terri Tragesser, followed by
Thomas McElroy.
MS. TRAGESSER: For the record, my name is Terri Tragesser. I am
in a sworn state, not to be confused with a hypnotic trance. It's
late.
The Second District did look at this closely and we have some
very targeted, specific comments on the project.
We would like to request that the entire project comply with the
architectural design standards found in 2.8 of the LDC. That would
mean both business and IC district.
Request a commitment from the petitioner for conversion of the
southern internal roadway shown on PUD documents to a full access
east-west public collector, which would extend from Goodlette Road to
US 41. The road's extension would be consistent with the beginning of
construction on the activity center commercial at the southeast
intersection of US 41 and Immokalee.
We'd also like to see some enhancements of the proposed landscape
plan for the IC district to a level more appropriately reflecting the
character of the high end corridor.
We'd like to request deletion of silos and storage tanks of
heights above which successful opaque buffering can be realistically
achieved.
The PUD documents make mention of silos and storage tanks that
could go as high as 50 feet.
When our Board reviewed the permitted uses in the PUD, there were
some that we just sort of red lined because of the very sound of them,
and I know there was some mention made of some deletions and
strikeouts.
So we do list a few that sounded rather ominous, so I'll read
those.
Building contractors, fabricated metal products, industrial and
commercial machinery, industrial inorganic chemicals, motor freight
transportation, warehousing and storage. Those sound like those uses
would produce a lot of large semi truck type traffic.
In the petitioner's presentation to us over the course of time,
they have stressed their objective to bring a standard of commerce
park to Collier County not currently offered. We are confident that
the petitioner is sincere in their efforts to execute such a standard.
However, the petitioner's submitted PUD documents are vague to
the subject of level of design and landscape enhancement on the IC
portion of the project. They have business district, IC district, and
then their deeds and covenants, the latter of which is not enforceable
by this county. Maybe if you put them altogether they will touch all
the bases, but we can only deal with, as a county, those that are in
the PUD document.
So I see a level of exposure there for the county. We therefore
respectfully request that the items listed above be effectively
addressed and protective language be incorporated into the project's
PUD document.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Tragesser.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. McElroy, followed by Martin Altman, I believe.
MR. MCELROY: Good afternoon. I have been sworn in. My name is
Tom McElroy, I'm vice-president of Allen Systems Group. I'm here on
behalf of the company and Art Allen, individually.
As you are aware, we are currently completing the construction of
our new 60,000 square foot corporate headquarters off Goodlette Road
south, which is going to add a minimum of 61 new high wage jobs to the
local economy, as well as the nine million plus which we actually put
into the project.
Were it not for the foresight of Mr. Allen to purchase that piece
of property in conjunction with Mr. Stoneburner some seven or eight
years ago, we really would not have a place to locate, and in fact, we
would have been forced to look outside of Collier County.
So that is why we're here today to support this measure. As a
trusted member of the Economic Development Council, we are supportive
of the development of more local property for the purpose of
commercial parks. We believe that growth in the area is inevitable
and should be managed properly. The best way we have found to manage
growth is to encourage high wage, clean technology companies. It is
impossible to do this without adequate available space. The Creekside
Commerce Park can go a long way to helping alleviate this problem.
And on a personal note, I'm a lifelong resident of the Naples
area and one of the reasons that I actually had to leave after school
was that there were no high wage jobs available. In the last year or
so, Collier County, in conjunction with the City of Naples, has really
taken an aggressive attitude towards getting some of these high wage
jobs here.
It would seem to me to coincide with that, that you would approve
these types of projects, or else it does no good to give lip service
to high wage jobs.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Hr. HcElroy.
HR. HCNEES: Hr. Altman, followed by Tuck Tyler.
MR. ALTHAN: Yes. My name is Martin Altman. I'm a resident of
Collier's Reserve, and I ask that you deny the application for the PUD
project as applied for. I feel that the project --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Altman, were you sworn in?
MR. ALTHAN: Yes, I was.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. ALTHAN: Thank you. I believe the project would be
detrimental to the quality of life, to the environment, as well as the
property values within the area.
I also believe that the intended usage, particularly the PUD that
would allow the industrial use of the property is not suitable or
compatible with other uses that are currently existing in the area.
Furthermore, it appears to me, despite the fact that certain
people have said that they haven't rushed to bring this application
before the Board of Commissioners, that it would be more propitious
and more sensitive to the voters of this county to wait solely one
more week until the long-term prospects for this type of PUD process
and business parks would be further substantiated, so that there is no
confusion as exactly what might occur.
It seems the only expediting factor to this is the application of
one company that currently employs perhaps 128 people to expedite this
and not allow the process to take its due course in the interest of
all citizens of this county. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
MR. HCNEES: Mr. Tyler, followed by Jane Cooper.
MR. TYLER: My name is Tuck Tyler, I have been sworn in. SIC
codes hold cats as a euphemism for pate.
(Laughter)
Anyway, I'd like to raise my concerns --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You really wanted to start on that note?
MR. TYLER: Well, either end on it or start on it, but at least,
I got your attention.
To that end, I'd like to bring up a subject that is near and dear
to my heart and that is children. I have a 16-year-old daughter who
drives to school every day, and exiting Collier's Reserve onto
Immokalee Road is already a challenge, as it is.
I'm not even sure traffic lights are the solution, when you have
heavy trucks barreling down a road like Immokalee.
We also have a school bus that comes into the entrance of
Collier's Reserve every day to pick up children and exit. And I'm
just terribly concerned over that entrance that was shown going into
the industrial park from Collier's Reserve.
Other than that, I support what the gentleman before me said, as
well. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: Ms. Cooper, followed by I believe it's Rollie
Comstock.
MR. VARNADOE: If I could indulge just one minute, sir. I think
that they have a leader, I mean, an attorney, and it might make it go
faster and more smoothly if you let Mr. Garlick go, and get those out
of the way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We usually do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was curious why that wasn't the lineup
already.
Mr. Garlick would you prefer to go at this point?
MR. GARLICK: Yes, sir, I would.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead, if that's okay with
you, mawam?
MS. COOPER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wasn't sure if there had been a change in
plans, or whatnot. Mr. Garlick, again, the time limits do still
apply. I understand you have a team of people here, so let's try and
conform to those limits as much as it's possible to.
MR. GARLICK: Yes, sir, I appreciate it. I apologize. We didn't
fill out the slips. We were told that as soon as the proponents were
finished, that we would have an opportunity to speak. So I apologize
for that.
For the record, my name is Tom Garlick. I live in Collier's
Reserve; I'm a resident there, and I'm here today representing the
Collier's Reserve Owners Association as their attorney. And I have
with me two expert witnesses, they are both from the Tampa Bay area.
I would appreciate the consideration of the Board in allowing them to
follow me.
The first gentleman is named Bruce Kaschyk. He's with Tampa Bay
Engineering. He holds a B.S. degree in urban planning and design from
the University of Cincinnati and he has personally been involved in
the design of over 20 industrial parks in the State of Florida. And I'd like to submit his resume for the record.
The second person is Jay Calhoun. Mr. Kaschyk is with Tampa Bay
Engineering. Mr. Calhoun is with an organization also in Tampa called
Sylla. He's the Vice President for Transportation. He holds a
Bachelor of Science in civil engineering, a Haster's in business
administration and a Master of Arts in planning from the University of
Virginia. And he is here to testify today about traffic and traffic
impacts, and I submit, some information and data which this commission
should find very compelling and very relevant.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, consistent with what we
did earlier in the hearing, I make a motion we recognize each of them
as experts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
MR. GARLICK: Thank you. I want to come back to and I want to
talk about the issue here today and what it really is. The issue here
today is not whether Tyton is a good company; sure sounds like a good
company to me.
The issue here is not whether or not this park, this industrial
park in its concept and design is a good industrial park. It seems
like a good industrial park to me. The issue is not whether or not
the Barton Collier Corporation is a good developer; we think they are.
It's not whether Alan Reynolds is a good planner; we think he is.
The issue is a legal issue. This is a zoning matter; I want to
come back to it. The zoning issue is, is this intended use in
rezoning compatible with and complementary to surrounding land use.
Simply that's it, it's a zoning matter.
It is not also, this is not a test as to whether or not this
commission is going to support economic development in Collier County.
Certainly, it is. It's done it. It's granted $250,000 toward
the support of economic development in Collier County. The issue is
whether or not the flip side of that is going to apply, that
regardless of the support for economic development, will it be done
rationally, will it be done carefully, will it be done taking into
consideration the law and zoning issues, and taking into consideration
the homeowners in surrounding areas. Basically, that's what we're
talking about.
Collier's Reserve is not anti-development, we're not
anti-business; we support EDC and we support EDC's mission statement.
And I'll read it to you.
"To be an effective force in improving the quality of life for
all people in Collier County by promoting economic development
initiatives." And it goes on to specify. We agree with that mission
statement. I myself am a former chairman of EDC. I think this is the
right kind of project for Collier County, but it doesn't meet the
necessary zoning criteria under the law to be existing where it is.
Why doesn't it? Well, this is an urban mixed use district. It
is an urban residential district. It's intended in the Comprehensive
Plan to be residential, and the only reason it's not residential, the
only reason we're looking at industrial zoning today, is because
there's 57 acres east of Goodlette Road that is currently zoned
industrial.
That happened this way. Goodlette Road was the Coastline
Railroad.
Goodlette Road had industrial zoning, railway zoning, railway
industrial side car zoning, on either side of it in 1972. It's on the
Land Map 74.
In 1982, the zoning was changed. All industrial zoning was
eliminated to the west side of that old railroad right-of-way which
was Goodlette Road, except for that small piece up at the intersection
on the southwest corner of Goodlette, including the piece that is the
tomato packing plant, or was a tomato packing plant, used to take
tomatoes off all those fields. But back at that time, from 41 east,
were tomato fields. That's why that little industrial piece is there.
So it was not something that was intended to develop commercially
or industrial in this area. It just was an agricultural anomaly that
happened.
May I have a little more time?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK Actually, the one problem we have is that the
reason the petitioner is given an extended period of time to explain
it is because we're not going to listen to every member of their
company come up here and praise the project. So Mr. Garlick, with the
number of speakers we've got, I think it's more than prudent to offer
you a few more minutes -- ladies and gentlemen, sit down, please. Sit
down, please.
MR. GARLICK: May I respectfully suggest --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask that you maintain some
decorum in the meeting, please.
I know you appear before this Board regularly, Mr. Garlick. I
think it's prudent to offer you a few more minutes to try and get the
points that you're trying to make in incompatibility on the record.
I think that's key, and I'd like the Board's indulgence in doing
that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just -- I support that and wanted
to ask a question of the County Attorney, because frankly, this has
occurred to me a couple times. And that is, when we are in these
quasi-judicial kinds of hearings where the appeal is on the record
instead of a de novo hearing, is it a reasonable regulation to allow
the opponent only five minutes to respond to over an hour long
presentation? Are we complying with the law?
MR. WEIGEL: I think there's considerable deference given to the
Chair, and the procedure is set from the Chair in this regard, because
the procedures are known ahead of time, you know, week in, week out,
things of that nature.
But there may be several opponents, not just one opponent. I
mean, we must think in the plural when we talk about changing the
rules.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm asking Mr. Garlick, is that we stick
to the elements that are either consistent or inconsistent with this
request, as opposed to -- I greatly appreciate the history lesson, but
I already know it and it really doesn't factor into the land use
decision today.
So if we can limit it to that, I think that can narrow the scope
down to the point where we're getting the pertinent points on the
record.
MR. GARLIC: Hay I respectfully state, Mr. Chairman, for the
record, that it is necessary for me, in representing these people
appropriately in this matter, to create a record. And if I am limited
in creating a record, I will have to respectfully object to that.
But I will go on now and I would like to propose a series of
compromises, if I might, that I might speak for the homeowners, some
28 or so who have signed up, and I believe that, you know, you need to
hear that, you need to hear this traffic engineer, you need to hear
this land planning expert.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To me, that meets my criteria, because it's
kind of the double whammy. If you're representing them and you speak
for them and then they speak for them, who are we listening to.
I'm just trying to get a concise presentation here, sticking to the
merits or demerits of the proposal in front of us today.
If we can stick to that, I'll be more than happy to grant you
leeway.
MR. GARLICK: Okay, sir. And I'll try to stay within that
guideline and I'll try to move quickly. On the other hand, you know,
I do have concerns about limitation in a matter this serious with an
issue this extensive.
In any event, going on from there, I will skip -- I will talk
just for a moment about the -- let me just state it. That there is
available in Collier County other industrial park sites. We don't
have to be here or the world ends. It's here, it's available. I
offer into the record the Industrial Park Guide of the Economic
Development Council. There is some thousand acres undeveloped cited
in this document alone, including seven industrial parks in North
Naples.
On the zoning issue, you know and you've heard it before, and I
know you understand it, but I need to say it for the record and I want
you to listen, that you know that on next week, on October 28th,
there's going to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which is
coming before this council for final reference to the DCA for final
approval. That under that plan, this industrial zoning today could
not happen because it eliminates the ability to spread industrial
zoning to another adjacent location. You cannot do it under that new
law; okay.
There is a legal principle called zoning in progress. Zoning in
progress is probably most demonstrated in the Second DCA by a case
named Smith against the City of Clearwater. I know Harjorie Student
is probably familiar with it.
I'm not going to say anything more than that, than say that I
believe, in this proceeding, that zoning in progress applies.
And the principle is simple: That where a party knows that
there's zoning, that it's pending, they have knowledge of it, it's
going along in accordance with normal governmental procedures, they
are bound by and can be bound by that zoning.
The best we can show here today is that the proponent says that
there is an intention to comply with the new zoning, specifically an
industrial park subdistrict under that zoning. I just, I simply point
that out.
I want to talk about --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Garlick?
MR. GARLICK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I have to ask
what's probably for you Wayne, a question, because that was the
critical issue for me that I discussed with Mr. Reynolds in his
presentation, and that is, I think there might be two ways to get
here.
One was through an expansion of industrial, and that appears will
be eliminated in the next cycle. But then there is another way to get
here, and that is a business park district.
And I just want to be sure, Mr. Arnold, that you're of the
opinion that the business park district is compatible with what we are
discussing today. And that the elimination of the ability to expand
industrial uses wouldn't prohibit the Creekside Park of Commerce.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, there's one thing I need to put on
the record. Just because we adopt Comp Plan amendments next week,
they are not legally effective, as they once were, upon adoption.
They are not legally effective until the DCA issues a notice of intent
finding us in compliance. If there's litigation over the element it
may be years before that, the Future Land Use Element, is effective.
Now, what we've done in this amendment cycle is to have separate
ordinances for each element, so that if there's a problem with one
element, it doesn't hold up the entire Comp Plan.
It's impossible to predict at this juncture what DCA may do. But
I just wanted to put on the record that the Comp Plan is not
effective, and each element is not effective, until such time as at
least the DCA finds us in compliance. And if there's litigation, it
could be years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Arnold, Commissioner Hac'Kie's
question was, and we discussed it previously --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can elimination of the ability to expand
industrial prohibit this kind of a commerce park. MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't think it does.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition, Mr. Garlick, you state it as if
it were fact and you know, sitting in my office, that I disagreed with
you then and I have to disagree with you now.
The reason we requested the change in industrial was not to
eliminate the potential spread of existing industrial, but to allow
for site specific location criteria to be established for appropriate
locations for certain types of industrial.
Mr. Arnold, since you are the folks that crafted that language, I
believe the Board's direction was, let's stop -- was not let's stop
the ability to expand existing industrial. The criteria was to remove
that, because that limited the ability to request industrial land in
Collier County, and we wanted to open that up a little bit more.
That's my recollection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was my intent.
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's in part true. The other thing, and
that's where we open up the whole issue of business parks to be
permitted by right throughout our urban area, if you will. There are
other -- when you see the subdistrict language and all of its
specifics next week, you'll find that there are also provisions for
dealing with existing zoning scenarios, and how you deal with the
situation as you would on a Creekside, where part of the land is
already designated and zoned industrial, for which they have a certain
right to develop it at that intensity today.
And I think what you see Creekside doing is trying to reallocate
some of that industrial zoning, better locate it, if you will, for the
PUD.
Just as we do under any PUD zoning district, you have a
reallocation and repositioning of zoning. But you end up netting
fewer industrial acres under the PUD scenario than you have today
under a straight zoning industrial scenario.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The specific discussion we had was that the
EDC said you don't have the right kind of places for the right kind of
industrial, and we wanted to give the opportunity to promote that, not
to eliminate expansion of future industrial. So that is my
recollection.
Mr. Mulhere, or Mr. Arnold, also, so I thought that was
important, since Mr. Garlick had raised that point on the record.
MR. GARLICK: Yes. Thank you very much. It does, it is intended
to eliminate piecemeal zoning. I think that's what David Week's quote
was in the newspaper. But it does, in effect, eliminate the ability
to add on to industrial. That was simply my point. Simply my point
although I agree with Ms. Student that it does not become law until
it's adopted and enacted. It is quote, zoning in progress, as that
legal term exists.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, I'm going to introduce a little idea
here. This is not a court of law; we're not going to have a statement
and rebuttal between the attorneys. You both have stated your points
on the record. Let's get to the issues of the fezone.
MR. GARLICK: Thank you. I'm simply, and that's all I'm simply
trying to do is to do my job and to make my record. I'm going to move
through this hopefully very quickly.
I want to talk just for a second about uses. And the uses, it's
true, have been eliminated, have been pared down. And the thing that
is surprising to me when it's said that this is a very thoughtfully,
well thought of, carefully planned park, that we have as recently as
Friday and as recently as Monday, changes being made to this PUD
document which would be called minor and I think are fairly
significant, with significant elimination of uses was for the first
time incorporating elements that have to do with odor and lighting and
noise levels and things of that type, which simply add county
standards.
And it also is interesting that at the time this was submitted to
the Planning Commission, there was one Site Plan, and when we got to
the Planning Commission, there was another Site Plan. Although it's
been said we're trying to comply with the requirements of the people
in Collier's Reserve, we suggest to you that the plan is not
sufficient and hasn't done that.
I won't say any more about the plan. I do have a planning expert
here and I do have a traffic engineer here, who I believe will tell
you that the traffic impacts are significantly more than was
considered by the county, and the reasons for that and his opinions
for why that happened.
Other than that, I simply want to -- lastly, and I will stop,
although I do feel inhibited here -- as a matter of record, I'd like
to also introduce the overview of Industrial Land Use Study prepared
for Collier County dated February, '93, in the record.
I also wish to submit into the record the Collier County Growth
Management Plan Future Land Use Elements, Proposed Amendment, so that
it does become part of the record.
And having said that, I simply say that the paper this morning
said, you know, you're not going to solve all the problems with
industrial and commercial projects with this development, and that's
true. And I say that I know that the business infrastructure of this
community supports this development. I don't disagree with that. It
simply does not fit in this location. This is a residential golf
course community. I don't need to name them all for you, and it
doesn't meet the criteria under the Comprehensive Plan for this.
So, you know, this is the real issue. And although it's
difficult and it's hard to make difficult decisions, I think the
decision has to be one that complies with zoning and that complies
with other considerations that, although very important, don't fit
here.
In other words, don't try to grab on this. It's not the first or
the last one that's going to come along as the right kind of a thing,
to make an economic development decision when it's not necessary to do
that to foster and develop economic growth. Make a decision that
works for the good and overall quality of life for the people of North
Naples and is complementary to and consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Garlick. And we have your two
individuals tendered as experts to follow you, and again, we're going
to ask that you contain your remarks to the proposal before the Board
today.
We need to change court reporters, so let's just take one minute.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to thank everyone for your indulgence
there. We have a new court reporter. Are these on? We have a new
court reporter to beat up on and a very grateful one who's leaving
now.
I apologize for the interruption. Please proceed.
MR. KASCHYK: Good afternoon, my name is Bruce Kaschyk and I am
the director of planning and real estate services for Tampa Bay
Engineering. Thank you for this opportunity to be here.
While I was sitting here in spirit of the conversation that just
occurred, I was sitting here just slashing my presentation by about
half, but I still hopefully --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Make your point.
MR. KASCHYK: -- focusing on the point of major concern here.
When Tom Garlick's office had called me -- and I've worked with
his firm on a number of occasions up in the Tampa area related to
industrial park designs and getting them approved -- the question that
came to me was there was proposed industrial park in the midst of
established residential communities. That was a little bit unusual
for me to be involved in trying to look at a project that way, but I
said I'd be happy to come down, take a look at it and give him my
opinion. And I guess my first opinions related to that were when you
drive down of course Immokalee Road to the site to where the proposed
project site is, it is a very well established residential area. You
have of course the activity center of Airport and Pulling Road, which
is established on the land use plan, but primarily it's been
designated urban residential on the land use plans. Of course you've
got the Collier Hospital and the health park there and the activity
center at Immokalee and 41, not necessarily an area that I would so
normally associate as an industrial park for a -- especially one that
would potentially generate a lot of high truck traffic.
And so the first thing I started doing was reviewing the staff
report related to this project. And the staff report concludes with,
it is the opinion of the comprehensive planning staff that the
Creekside Commerce Park can be deemed consistent if the P.U.D. is
found to be compatible. They're not coming out embracing that it is
compatible. And so what I started doing was looking at some of the
policies that are referenced. Staff is referring to policies 5.9 and
5.11 of object five of the future land use elements, which are really
dealing with the vested rights issues of the zoning that has been in
question, but really don't address the policies that deal with
compatibility. 5.2 specifically deals with compatibility issues.
Further reinforced with 5.4, which further deals with compatibility
with surrounding land uses. Neither of these policies are referenced
by staff in their analysis of this project.
Did the same comparison to the proposed developments -- or the
proposed land use plan, which of course you're going to be doing your
vote on next week on for consideration for submittal to D.C.A. These
policies are still in the plan and in fact are really enforced. 5.9
is substantially modified, and in essence 5.11, which is referenced,
is pretty much eliminated.
We feel that based upon that, and as you've heard previously,
that the most really appropriate way to review this project is to look
at it under the new comprehensive plan, which is a business park
subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except for you need to be careful not to
call it that, because it doesn't exist yet, okay?
MR. KASCHYK: I understand that. But we feel that that criteria
is appropriate for consideration for this kind of project, and it
should go through that kind of analysis related to any proposed
development for the Creekside Commerce Park.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so I understand you correctly, are you
about to compare what's proposed with a subdistrict that this board
has not reviewed or voted on yet?
MR. KASCHYK: No. What I am suggesting is based upon the draft
that I have reviewed, which does include the most recent revisions as
to be presented to the commission next week --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we have not reviewed.
MR. KASCHYK: Which -- correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As viewed.
MR. KASCHYK: Appears to be more consistent with the criteria
that is being requested with this application, we feel that that
request, though, also requires a much more due diligence review
related to the proposed impacts of a project and requires a longer
time frame associated with the comprehensive plan and amendment to
allow for that, which gives the opportunity to truly take and
comprehend the potential impacts of a business park subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to ask. I know you wanted less
lawyering, but I need to ask Marjorie Student a question, please.
MS. STUDENT: Mr. Garlick's argument is well taken, but it's
distinguishable that he talks about zoning issues.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, I missed the question.
MS. STUDENT: These are planning issues. We have a state statute
that says any development order must be consistent with our comp.
plan. Not a future comp. plan, not a comp. plan that may not be
legally effective for two years, but a comp. plan right here and now.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's what the rules are today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we can't look at what we might adopt.
We can't look at this in light of what we might adopt.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think if you go back one slide on the issue
of compatibility, that in fact we do have a responsibility today to
ensure that the decision we're making today is indeed compatible with
our comp. plan and our staff's recommendation that if it's deemed
compatible with adjacent land uses, we then are consistent with the
comp. plan. I think that's a valid point to make. But based on our
county attorney's advice to sit here and compare this proposal with
something yet to be adopted is outside of state law.
MR. KASCHYK: What I was trying to just comprehend -- I'll put
this to rest real quickly -- was that -- was I was trying to
understand the staff's opinion related to defining compatibility to
this project when they're not referencing the compatibility policies
that are outlined in the existing code -- or in the existing plan. So
I was trying to figure out are there some other areas that they're
using for compatibility purposes, and that's where I was using --
okay, maybe the business park subdistrict is partially the part of the
compatibility that they were relying upon for this, and I would
support that if that was truly the case.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If our staff is using yet to be adopted comp.
plan amendments to deem --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be bad.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- compatibility issues in an application
today, we would have a serious problem with that.
So Mr. Mulhere, is that the case at all?
MR. MULHERE: No, that's not the case.
I just wanted to add for the record, because I think it's very
important that we get this on the record, that the existing industrial
zoned property is found to be consistent through the zoning
teevaluation process -- was found consistent through the zoning
teevaluation process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Industrial land.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. So that is deemed consistent.
And, in fact, the number of acres that's actually been reduced in this
project and what was found to be consistent, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mulhere.
I'm sorry, please proceed.
MR. KASCHYK: The next part of what I -- after looking at the
land use plan in the comprehensive plan policy was to take a look at
the applications of the various sections of the land development code
for Collier County related to P.U.D.'s, and specifically the opening
section says all applications for P.U.D.'s shall be in full compliance
with the future land use element, and the goals, objectives and
policies of all elements. But yet at this point I would deem that not
all the policies have been met related to policies 5.2 and 5.4.
In follow-up to that, there are design criteria related to the
P.U.D.'s. One of them, boundaries must be transitional. There's been
quite a bit of discussion related to the business versus industrial,
retail versus medical.
One of the issues that we'll begin talking a little bit further
with Mr. Calhoun and will be following up on is the fact that there's
quite a bit of flexibility related to the proposed uses within this
project. We're not really sure which is the transitional. The
ability to have convenience store with gas pumps across from the
entrance of Collier Reserve, because that's a part of the business
criteria, is that really considered a transitional use.
Direct access to any arterial street with an internal circulation
system. We've noticed that there of course have been revised plans
submitted related to this project related to the internal circulation
system. We agree that this is an appropriate policy. We don't feel
they're necessarily fully complying with it because in addition to the
main entrances, the plans have been showing the secondary driveways
for each of the parcels coming in off of Immokalee and
Goodlette-Frank. We don't feel that that's consistent with that
policy, that criteria. We feel that every parcel should not have
direct access to the major roads, but they should be having direct
access to the internal circulation road. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It doesn't.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I'm confused.
MR. KASCHYK: If I could change microphones.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I mean, it's a good point if it's in there,
but I believe the P.U.D. requires internal connection to the roadway
with the exception of one, two, three, four --
MR. KASCHYK: In the various exhibits that have been presented
and that we have reviewed as part of the homeowner's association, I
now see in this particular exhibit, this arrow has been eliminated,
which in the exhibit that had been given to me last week had not been
eliminated. There's still, of course, at these other entrance points
off of Goodlette-Frank, as well as to the south here, in theory -- not
in theory -- in practicality, each of these parcels can have
independent direct access to Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank without
ever having to tie into the internal road system. We feel that the
benefit of the internal road system is to make sure from a
compatibility point of view that the buffering along those major
corridors be protected, which when every time you add more driveways
to a buffer -- within a buffer area just breaks it up and opens up
visual lines and sound lines and so forth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we finally agree with you. But I
believe the requirement, with the exception of the arrows shown there,
is internal connection in the P.U.D.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That will be verified. Because that's
something that I -- was a big point for me. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, hasn't one of our concerns
been that we were -- we've talked about other activity centers, if you
want to refer to this as such. But being able to move within this
area without having to go out onto a road, such as Immokalee Road. In
other words, to go from within this area, whether it be on either side
of Goodlette-Frank Road, in this case, that's always been a big
concern of ours. They've addressed that problem without having to go
out onto Immokalee Road.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was the good news, as I've looked at
this plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, obviously that -- again, your
statement's on the record, and we'll need to verify that because the
internal connection is key to the compatibility issue.
MR. KASCHYK: We agree with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. KASCHYK: As part of -- continuing on with the criteria,
there is issues related to no light, noise and odor. The applicant
has, in recent submittal, addressed some of these issues, and one of
them is the compatibility of 65 decibels, I believe it was, at the
property line. That does not deal with truck traffic.
With the potential traffic generation of trucks related to this
project, it's not uncommon from an I.T.E. perspective to have in a
particular use of this kind probably in the -- 12, 15 percent of the
total traffic can be truck traffic. We ran what's considered --
what's called a stamina model by which is a noise model by the Federal
Highway Administration approved for the potential truck traffic for
this, and there's going to definitely be an increase of truck noise
along Immokalee Road which will need to be considered. It's not at
the property line, it's beyond the property line.
The other point of the truck traffic as far as compatibility is
the landscape medians that I've enjoyed as I was driving down there
are going to be impacted. To be able to provide the turn lanes and so
forth to be able to fit the truck turning movements and car stacking,
those medians will probably have to be eliminated.
The outside storage and display --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not in my lifetime.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is not going to happen.
MR. KASCHYK: The outside --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Welcome to Naples, but that's just not
going to happen.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, it's not going to serve any
useful purpose for you to come up and make statements like that. It
really isn't.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's just not going to happen.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're not going to eliminate any medians on
Immokalee Road.
MR. KASCHYK: I'm just providing my observations related to
planning -- they're concerns that I would have.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, your observations need to be couched
in some form of reality. We're not going to eliminate any medians on
Immokalee Road.
MR. KASCHYK: Wonderful to hear that, thank you.
Currently the proposal -- the P.U.D. is proposing outdoor storage
and display. We've heard that it's possibly not going to be, but
currently the application as submitted by the applicant does indicate
outdoor storage and display, and the P.U.D. standards of course do not
encourage that or do not permit it.
The concern there is -- from a compatibility issue is they are
proposing a seven-foot wall around these outdoor storage and display
areas, but of course we've talked about some of the uses that are
still being proposed related to silos and demolition contractors and
so forth, and stacking of pallets, a seven-foot fence might not
necessarily be a sufficient buffer for outdoor sales areas.
A couple -- just a couple more slides and I'll be completed.
The first of the proposed timing of the location and sequence of
phasing. And these are additional criteria that's established in your
code.
There's been a little bit of confusion. I think it's been
clarified through this discussion today as to what's happening,
because the original application indicated a one-phase project, five
years, but one phase. But yet we're now talking of sequences of
phasing of infrastructure. I think there needs to be some commitment
related to that phasing of what those infrastructural improvements
are.
Environmental impact analysis. But really what I want to focus
on is proposed land uses. In the application currently supplied by
the applicant, they are providing -- as you saw on that listing
yesterday -- they have eliminated a number of uses, but they still are
proposing a number of uses for both the industrial and the business.
As we discussed earlier and I think the staff had also commented
on, business uses can go in the industrial area. So offices and
retail can go into the industrial area. In fact, they are requesting
40 percent conversion of industrial space for retail. They want to
have the ability to have accessory uses supporting the principal use
to be retail. So that would mean in essence 100,000 square foot user
comes in, he could have a 40,000 square foot shop, selling his goods
out of his front door. In essence becomes much more of a retail
oriented as compared to a business park.
Those types of uses and flexibility are proposed throughout this
project. Which the concern there is, is really what is the impacts of
this project. Because we're offering that kind of flexibility, we're
talking about one set of ranges of concerns and conditions and
impacts, when we really have a wide range open to us. And, for
example, I just developed three different scenarios related to what is
being proposed, or what could be potentially impacted or be developed
under the proposed use scenario as per this -- as submitted.
The blue, which is A, is pretty much consistent with what is
being requested by the applicant. The only thing that I've added in
here is the U.S. Postal criteria for square footage. But under the
conversion, it's very well possible to have under the red more retail
and less business park and have less medical office space or vice
versa. You can have more general and medical office under that.
Those all have traffic impact generation implications.
And at that point I'd like to have Jay Calhoun discuss further
what those impacts are.
MR. CALHOUN: Hi. For the record, I'm Jay Calhoun, vice
president of Sylla, and a traffic engineer. I want to talk a little
bit about the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, were you sworn?
MR. CALHOUN: I was sworn at, yes sir -- sworn in.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Since the interruption, let me ask --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that a precursor to your presentation, or
HR. CALHOUN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now that we had a brief interruption
there, the question I'm going to have for staff, I think maybe it's
the exact same question you've already asked, but I want to ask it
again from the traffic guys -- I don't see him. There he is -- is I
need to know the traffic impact analysis based on maximum conversion
to the maximum intense traffic uses. You don't have to tell me right
this second, unless you know it, but --
MR. KANT: For the record, Edward Kant, transportation services.
Commissioner, I'm afraid that what you're asking me would take
much more time and analysis than I'm prepared to present to you today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Alan, have you got somebody?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I'll help you out.
MR. KANT: I might also add that it's always been my position, at
least my personal and professional position as a member of your staff,
not to be an advocate for a project or against a project.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. KANT: I've tried wherever possible to prevent whatever fact
-- prevent; mine's showing too -- present factual data whenever
possible. And so it was not my intent at all in this hearing to
either try to referee between two opposing sides, but simply to try to
answer the questions factually. I will try to get you that
information, if you want it, but I cannot do that today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then let me ask this question: The
traffic analysis that you've given us is based on what assumptions?
MR. KANT: The information that I presented earlier, as I stated
during that presentation, and I want to restate it for the record, I
used the traffic impact statement presented by the petitioner for
convenience. In that traffic impact statement, in appendix B, page
B-1 dated July 21st, 1997, the petitioner presents a proposed planning
level analysis of proposed land uses: Retail, medical office, general
office, business park.
The question that was posed at that time was -- at least as I
understood it -- was if all of the office were to be medical office,
rather than a mix of medical and general, what would that do? I used
the petitioner's numbers to come up with an average of so many trips
per thousand square feet, compared the medical office to the general
office, and came to the conclusion that it would add approximately 445
trips if the 50,000 square feet of general were converted to medical.
Again, that's not a rigorous analysis, that's not -- I'm not
trying to represent to you or to the public that those numbers are
absolute or that they're even correct. What they are is merely an
estimate of what the different impacts would be. And I have no idea
what these gentlemen are going to present, and I have no desire to
refute it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you provide a copy of your information to
our staff at any given time?
MR. CALHOUN: No, I have not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So no one on the county staff, no one --
MR. CALHOUN: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- within the county has seen your
information?
How about the traffic engineer for the petitioner, have they seen
your information?
MR. CALHOUN: No, I just finished it yesterday morning, as a
matter of fact, so --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, my question, I guess, for the
petitioner then is going to be a better understanding of appendix B to
your traffic impact statement to have some -- I need to know what the
assumptions were that were made there about the mix of uses and how
that translates to what might be the actual mix of uses, and how that
affects the potential traffic.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we hold those cards on what the mixed
uses can be. But let's go ahead and hear this presentation, and I
think we'll probably have a discussion on the traffic.
MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Well, first of all, what I did was I looked
at the petitioner's traffic impact statement. And it was done with
generally accepted procedures, and it, you know, was fine. In fact,
the methodology was accepted by the county, and that's the methodology
that I essentially used in the capacity analysis, the traffic analysis
that I'm going to discuss with you briefly this afternoon.
This table, first off, talks about total number of trips that can
be generated by the project. And number one, the traffic study, that
is the petitioner's study. Those are the numbers. He showed 40,000
square feet of retail, 100,000 square feet of medical office, 50,000
square feet of general office, and 620,000 foot business park. The
trips then -- these are daily trips, total daily trips, generated by
those land uses.
I don't want to go too fast, because I know there's a lot of
information that's going to come out of this.
And our number basically agrees with his number. Not
surprisingly. We used the same source, Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual, so we both came up with the same
answer.
Now, what we did with number two is basically took a look at what
are some uses that we know of that are already in the park or could be
in the park, given the uses that they're looking for. And we broke
that 40,000 square feet of retail then into a convenience store with
gas pumps, a couple of sit-down restaurants along Immokalee Road, some
specialty retail, and then also put the post office that's known to be
coming into the park, we put that down into the business park, and
that -- and then ran new trip generation numbers daily -- again, total
daily trip generation numbers, and came up with 20,962.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question as we go? What
was the basis for your decision to assume a convenience store with ten
gas pumps, two sit-down restaurants?
MR. CALHOUN: It's uses that can fit under what's allowed there
currently -- or what the petitioner is asking for.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So those are probably the worst traffic
you could come up with.
MR. CALHOUN: Those are allowable uses, yeah, no doubt about it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know they're allowable. I'm not
questioning that. Just I'm trying to get the parameters.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But in the range of the business district, a
convenience store with ten gas pumps is higher than wholesale calves,
or whatever else you put in there.
MR. CALHOUN: That's correct, for sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's at the high end.
MR. CALHOUN: It's a use, that's right. It is at the high end.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It sounds like it goes toward the question
that he wasn't prepared to answer.
MR. CALHOUN: That's where we're heading, right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. CALHOUN: Okay, then we took a look at -- and these were --
again, these sort of fit the scenarios that Mr. Kaschyk showed you
previously with his chart of different colors.
The next one then was if we converted -- if we did go to the 40
percent of retail that's allowed for each of the uses, what would that
do to the number of trips that are generated? And again, I just -- I,
you know, ran numbers on taking those land uses, that amount of land
use, running the numbers for the different uses, and we come up then
with 29,000. Again, this is total daily trips generated by the
project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What percentage did you convert there?
MR. CALHOUN: This is the maximum. This would be the 40 percent
that's allowed at each of the uses.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Converted from what to what?
MR. CALHOUN: Well, for example, the medical office, I guess we
went to 30 -- excuse me, 30 percent of that went to retail. From the
-- the hundred thousand square feet of what was medical office --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that.
MR. CALHOUN: -- now became medical offices.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fifty became 40, 10, the --
MR. CALHOUN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the business park, am I reading 206,000
square feet --
MR. CALHOUN: Almost 206,000 square feet of retail.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, now here I go with needing a picture
again. Somebody give me a picture of 206,000 square feet of retail.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, a Publix --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A quarter of the mall.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A Publix supermarket is about 65,000 square
feet, so it would be like having three of those.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or about a quarter of Coastland Hall?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. CALHOUN: If you wish, if the -- typically we have a couple
of Wal-Harts here in town that are in the 150,000 square foot range.
The Home Depot, with their expansion, is in the 170, 180,000 square
foot --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you'd have to have a Home Depot there.
MR. CALHOUN: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay, thanks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just so I understand the contrast
there, that's 29-6 versus 17.
MR. CALHOUN: Yeah. And I'll go back through that in a second.
And then finally, just looking at the office space, doing the
same thing, converting the business park essentially to office, to the
allowable -- maximum allowable office space, and again, ran the
numbers, and we're at about 26,500 for that use.
And that's what you were asking. There's just a chart that shows
what the total trips is then by each of these scenarios. And I guess
the real thing that we're saying is, it could be any one of those
scenarios. It could also be anything in between. There's a wide
variation. The 17,800 trips that we started with could possibly go to
29,600, it could fall again anywhere in that range.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So then, Mr. Kant, what does that do --
again, this is just discussion, but it's good to understand the best
and worst case scenarios. Could you put that back up, the 29
something? The percentage -- in their worst case traffic scenario,
what does that do as a percentage? How does that affect the five
percent threshold?
MR. KANT: Significantly. It's well over five percent. Right now
the 17, 18,000. Something that again, I wasn't aware we were going to
get into a seminar on traffic engineering here, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're not.
MR. KANT: Well, I don't intend to. But we basically are
presenting raw -- what Mr. Calhoun is presenting is raw numbers
without factoring in bypass. The 17,882 trips that were presented in
their traffic study after the -- what's called the bypass or capture
is accounted for, it drops down to about 12,000. So there's also a
drop down on each of these others.
I don't dispute Mr. Calhoun's methodology, just from what I see
him presenting, but I would submit that that's -- when we're looking
at specific uses like a sit-down restaurant versus a bank versus what
-- we're looking at more of a site plan analysis and a planning level
analysis.
The idea, as I understand it -- and I'll defer to my friends in
the planning department. But as I understand it, the planning level
analysis is for us to get an idea of if we were to permit this type of
land use in this location, would we have to make other accommodations;
would there have to be mitigation for that traffic? I don't think it
was ever the intention of the planning level traffic analysis to
define to the vehicle how many cars were going to be generated. I
think that we have controls in place. It's my understanding further
that if we get to a certain point, and if in fact they are generating
more traffic, and if in fact we have concurrency issues, if we have
capacity issues, if we have operational safety issues, we have other
controls that will control whether or not new building permits are
issued. So I don't think that this foray into what the numbers could
be is as significant as it may appear on the surface, from my point of
view.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
MR. CALHOUN: Can I make one statement first?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris has a question.
MR. CALHOUN: Okay, sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The concern of the residents of Collier's
Reserve is traffic right at that intersection at the entrance of
Collier's Reserve. Given that a third of the completed park will be
east of Goodlette Road, and there'll be several entrances in and out
of the park on Goodlette Road when the thing is completed, what
percentage of these numbers will actually cross the intersection at
the entrance to Collier's Reserve?
MR. CALHOUN: I'm not sure that I can answer that question, to be
honest with you. One of the concerns that we have of course is the
project as we understand it is being phased, as you say, so that
originally the first phase is all essentially west of the canal.
that we're going to have an impact, because the road to Goodlette is
not going to be out there in the first phase as they showed it.
all the traffic --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we're going to talk about that.
MR. CALHOUN: Okay.
I did have one point that I wanted to make. Mr. Kant talked
about the trips that I was showing, the 17,882 going down. That's
correct. Again, the applicant did reduce them, and according to his
study, that 17,000 dropped to 15,197.
I want to take this then a step further just to show you what the
impact of this kind of traffic is on the road. And I did the same
thing. What the applicant did was they took retail uses and basically
said 52 percent of the retail traffic will come from traffic that's
already on the road. So you can take that number out of this total
number before you throw the project traffic out on the roadway.
I did the same thing, in fact, in this --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When you use terms like capture rate and
stuff, basically it's going to a shopping center and making two or
three stops instead of one.
MR. CALHOUN: Or if somebody from the post office goes to the
convenience store on the way out, yes, that's exactly the concept.
There's a lot of information on this chart, and it's kind of hard
to read. I want to go through it sort of slow, because it is very
difficult. And there's two ways to look at this chart: One of them is
sort of going up and down, and the other one is going across, so I
want to work through each one of these.
I'll work through the first scenario with you, and that's
Immokalee Road west of Goodlette-Frank. That's the bar chart
essentially on the left side of that diagram.
What I've shown is a 1997 volume that we were able to get out on
Immokalee Road in that area. Of 28,061 cars, that was based upon a
count that was done in July of this year -- excuse me, in April of
this year.
The capacity for that roadway, for Immokalee Road, is indicated
by the heavy line, the 38,200. So what I'm doing then is building up.
I took and looked at -- yeah, if you can help me, Bruce. I took the
1997 volumes and I increased them by three percent a year out there.
The staff's report talked about increasing background traffic by three
to six percent a year. In Tampa we would -- you know, three percent
would be good. Down here, three percent is probably pretty
conservative. But three percent is within the range that the staff
used, and so I used that. It's a conservative number. And that bumps
then the 2,003 volume up to about 33,500. So that's working up the
chart.
Then what I've got is four little subsegments, if you will, going
across. And those are the four scenarios that I just discussed with
you. And the first bar, the one to the left, where it says 38,442,
that would be taking the same distribution that the applicant used.
In other words, that -- essentially, I think 32 and a half percent or
31 percent, whatever the number is, of traffic coming out of this
project would be traveling on that segment of road, or traveling west
on Immokalee Road out of the site. So that would be that element of
the roadway.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the significance of the 38, the
dark line, again, the 38?
MR. CALHOUN: That's your level of service D, daily capacity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's D.
MR. CALHOUN: That's level of service D, daily capacity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I need to state this.
Because we have allowed this, which is a little different than the way
we normally do things, the petitioner is in all likelihood going to
put their -- turn around and put their traffic engineering expert
right back on the record, and we get to go through this all over
again. So some of these questions may be answered in their
presentation, since we're going to have to listen to it now anyway.
So let's go ahead and try --
MR. CALHOUN: I appreciate your indulgence.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Procedural question there.
MR. CALHOUN: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did -- the petitioner had their
opportunity to present their entire case. And you yourself said we
don't usually allow rebuttal. They had every opportunity to present
their traffic numbers. I'm not sure why we would change the rules now
and suddenly allow rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Varnadoe indicated to me before the
hearing that he had a traffic engineer here to answer questions, and
that if it was the Board's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to have some.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- if it was the Board's pleasure, he would
not put that person on unless it was required by someone else making a
presentation. That I think was an effort on his part to try and save
some time in the presentation, so I have a tough time penalizing him
for that.
Please continue.
MR. CALHOUN: Thank you.
Again, then what I did was I took the next scenario, which was
basically putting in -- dividing up the 40,000 square feet of retail,
putting in the post office, and that's the second piece here. The
numbers I don't think are particularly significant. What is
significant is that in every case, given three percent growth on
Immokalee Road between now and 2003, putting project traffic out
there, again, as -- using the distribution that the applicant used,
and using basically trip rates that are straight out of I.T.E., the
roadway is going to exceed level of service D capacity in that year
2003.
I did the same thing with the piece of Immokalee Road then east
of Goodlette-Frank, again using the same numbers, the same procedures,
and we come up with the same thing. There, I think the interesting
thing is that if you take the 1996 volume that was just given to me by
county staff last week, that the roadway is going to fail on its own
if it grows at three percent anyway, because just the background
traffic will grow over the roadway capacity.
Now, the last one, which is Goodlette-Frank --
MR. KANT: Excuse me, Commissioners, if I may interrupt Mr.
Calhoun just one second. I have a question, only because I may be
called upon to answer some other questions. And I -- I did promise
you I wouldn't get into my engineer can beat up your engineer, but I
have to ask: Did you factor splits into that, or is that assuming 100
percent of the traffic hits Immokalee Road?
MR. CALHOUN: That's using the distribution. That's the 31, 32,
35.
MR. KANT: Okay, So you did split it?
MR. CALHOUN: Yes.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners, for indulging me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The issue in front of us is with the petition
came the traffic impact statement. If I understand your testimony,
you're saying that traffic impact statement is hogwash and that the
roadway will be deficient in a given year based on your information.
In a nutshell, is that what you're telling us?
MR. CALHOUN: Hogwash is a little strong. What I'm saying is
that they looked at it in a different way, and we looked at it using
daily. They looked at it using peak hour. There is a difference in
fluctuations through peak hours through the day. What I'm saying is
taking the numbers and using the same distribution, given the land
uses that you could approve or that could be built on this
development, that you could have trouble with the roadway out there.
That's exactly what I'm saying is that the roadway is going to exceed
its capacity.
Now, I looked at this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question, please, because that's -- you
just made me understand one -- you did peak and they did average
daily?
CHAI~ HANCOCK: The other way.
MR. CALHOUN: No, I did an average day. The applicant did peak
hour and the county did average day. That's why I stayed with the
average day.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the county's rules say we're
supposed to use?
MR. KANT: Typically when we -- not typically, but in the
requirements for traffic impact statements we deal with peak hour.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But in this case we used average daily?
MR. KANT: No, in this case they used peak hour. The number --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is average daily.
MR. KANT: That's what Mr. Calhoun is representing.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is apples and oranges.
MR. KANT: The number that I gave you earlier, as --
MR. CALHOUN: No, I did this --
MR. KANT: -- I said were not an analysis.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One at a time.
MR. CALHOUN: I did the daily because that was what the staff
report was based on, so I was trying to compare it --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he just said it wasn't.
MR. CALHOUN: No, he said the applicant's wasn't.
MR. KANT: Ma'am, I did not do the staff report. I'm just
telling you that --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who did? I want to know what it was based
on so I know if I've got apples and apples.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, I'll tell you what: I'm going to ask
this gentleman, Mr. Calhoun, to finish his presentation --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, then somebody can answer that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- uninterrupted. And then we're going to get
the questions.
MR. CALHOUN: Okay, just one other quick point. On the Immokalee
Road -- excuse me, Goodlette-Frank section looks good. That was based
upon -- the capacity that's shown there is 29,500 level service D, and
that was based upon a statement in staff's report that Goodlette-Frank
Road is going to be widened up to Immokalee Road. My understanding,
from this morning's discussion, is that that's not the case. That's
not what the applicant used, in fact. The applicant said it would be
from Vanderbilt Beach Road south. I saw a statement in a report that
said it would be widened all the way to Immokalee. So there's some
confusion. I did have the number, and I've probably lost it. It's
about 23-8. So Goodlette-Frank would still be okay as a two-lane. I
did want to point that out, that the capacity might be a little bit
different there. And that really is the sum of my report.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bottom line is that the one number
they have is a possible number, but depending on how the uses within
this park if approved as is shift, that number can shift as high as
about 83 percent; according to your number, higher. It will likely be
somewhere between those two numbers.
MR. CALHOUN: I think that's a fair conclusion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or it could be lower, if the uses are limited
or changed. I mean, let's not forget that the A.D.T. is that, it's an
average. You can be lower. Just because I used to write these
things.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call me crazy, but I suspect the
petitioner has probably given us as close as they can to a best case
scenario.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be my guess also, but the point is
we had the opportunity to limit the activity that drives that traffic
number.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And call me crazy, but I think that the
consultants hired by --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're crazy.
MR. CALHOUN: The opponents are going to give us the worst case
scenario. Call me crazy on that one, too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think they did. And that's why I
said my points were finished by saying I think realistically the
number probably falls somewhere between the two.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No offense intended, but dueling engineers is
like drawing blood to me. You know, we get this all the time. We get
land use attorneys that absolutely disagree on a policy, we get
engineers that absolutely disagree on numbers. What it comes to is
the only neutral party in this room is really our staff and this
board. And when it comes to competing information such as this, I'm
looking for an evaluation from our professional staff as to how to
make sure we do not enter into any situation which creates a roadway
deficiency.
So I'm going to ask you to complete your presentation. You've had
the time to review the petitioner's traffic impact statement. MR. KANT: The petitioner's, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll go to you after that, and if the
petitioner feels the need, or anyone has a question for the
petitioner, we'll go that way, and then we'll be done with traffic for
DOW.
MR. CALHOUN: My conclusion is just that I want to offer the
graphics into evidence.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
Before going to Mr. Kant, are there any further questions for Mr.
Carlson? (sic.)
Mr. Kant, in a nutshell, we've got dueling engineers here. The
way the county's policies are set up on trip generation -- I guess
there are two questions. The first is which of these is most correct,
or can we count on, because that's going to be key. One says we
exceed level of service, one says we don't. That's important. And
the second question is how do we ensure, if we count on one of those,
that that's the scenario that will develop.
Did that fairly get everyone's concerns on traffic?
MR. KANT: Before I give you -- first of all, I'm not really sure
either of those questions can get a simple yes or no answer, but I do
want again for the record, because the issue of the dueling engineers
has come up, I think it's important to recognize that prior to the
submission of their traffic impact statement, the applicants sat down
with both the planning staff and me and my staff and we have what's
called a methodology conference. During that conference, we discussed
what were the ends they were trying to achieve in terms of this is an
industrial site, a business park, we anticipate such and such uses, we
anticipate so many square feet. How shall we go about examining what
the traffic impacts are.
We met on two occasions: One was a rather informal, one was a
little more formal. That was followed up by a letter from the
applicant's engineer, outlining their understanding of what our
requirements were. We then sent them back a letter clarifying and
agreeing to that methodology.
Subsequent to that, and I can't tell you the time frame, but it
had to be a month, perhaps two, they submitted their traffic impact
statement. We reviewed that impact statement. We did not disagree
with their findings -- their conclusions, I should say. We took no
objection to them or no exception to them. And that then -- we
reviewed the site plan for the layout in terms of access points, what
have you.
That was our -- the extent of the transportation department's
involvement. All of those comments and all of those meetings,
results, were transmitted to the planning department for inclusion in
the final staff report.
I think it's important to recognize because a question of peak
hour versus daily came up. And this is, again, a very technical
issue. We require peak hour, they did a peak hour analysis, we
reviewed a peak hour analysis. The daily trip numbers that were shown
up in the final staff report were an augmentation to that; they were
not meant to substitute for it, as I understand.
Subsequent to all of this taking place and having the staff
review, it came up before the planning commission, and this so-called
plan B was presented. We have had about two days to review the
results of the plan B analysis from the petitioner's consultant. We
have had no contact -- I did get a contact from the -- from Mr.
Calhoun, who wanted to know if I had any objection to them reviewing
the petitioner's work. I said I certainly didn't have an objection.
And so be it.
So the answer -- that's the long answer. And I apologize for
taking all your time. However, the short answer is I don't think
there's a single answer that says this is what traffic will be
generated, because nobody yet knows what's going to be out there. We
do believe there will be a post office of some 30 odd thousand square
feet. We do believe Tyton will be there. We could go back and check
what their traffic is and come up with a little bit better
approximation perhaps than what the books have. We could take
proposed uses and again, look at what we have for similar uses here.
But that's rather intensive work.
The second question you asked is what can we do to ensure that we
do not fail; that is, in terms of the roadway capacities. We already
have -- it is my opinion we already have those mechanisms in place in
terms of our concurrency requirements, in terms of our adequate public
facilities ordinance, in terms of our permitting requirements. So if
they ever get to the point where the next permit is going to cause a
deficiency, either in capacity or in operational or safety problem,
the club, if you will, that we have is the nonissuance of that permit.
That, Commissioners, is about the best answer I can give you. I
know you wanted some absolutes. I have no absolute for you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's pretty absolute.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Kant, You couldn't answer before
Commissioner Hac'Kie's question about what the change in use on those
floating uses could have for an impact on change in traffic. Mr.
Calhoun has made some representations of what that -- I'm not asking
you to verify the exact nature of those, I know that's not fair, but
do they look wildly unreliable, do they look like they're in the
balipark?
MR. KANT: Again, based on the information that I see presented
here for the first time, no. I think if you take that analysis, and
if again, I'm going to make the assumptions that the basic data that
he presents is accurate, then sure, they're reasonable for those
scenarios. But again, which scenario do you like? I can probably
come up with six of my own.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I know. I think we just have to
look at both extremes and know that probably some are in the middle,
as well.
MR. KANT: Yeah. And I think that that was a fair statement that
he made, that somewhere between the -- and again, after we factor and
capture somewhere between the 15,000 and probably the 20 some odd
thousand, 22 or so, is probably the real number.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think what we're looking at, we've looked at
a situation like this before, for traffic where they had questions on
spectrums, and what we've done is we've placed triggers that said at
this point in development of the project, you must submit an updated
traffic impact statement showing the existing uses, the traffic
generation, and determine what remaining capacity exists before
entering another phase of development. And that may be.
When I have, you know, a 50 percent differential between one and
the other, that may be the only way we can attempt to protect the
level of traffic on the roadways, which is the whole intent of this.
MR. KANT: What we have done, and again, just as an example,
there are times when we require, for example, turn lanes for certain
types of development. And many times the petitioner will say, well,
you know, when we start out, we're not going to generate near that
traffic. And what we'll do is we'll say fine, at phase one you'll do
this, at phase two, or when you get to a certain point in traffic then
you have to put in a right turn lane, then you have to put in a left
turn lane, and we can phase it in.
You may have other controls at your disposal as you look through
this proposal where you may decide, you know, whether it's square
footage, whether it's a number of buildings, whether it's particular
parcels that you may wish to put certain controls on.
We do that, as I say, typically at the staff level, and we
recognize that we are dealing with operational safety concerns
sometimes, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just kind of a question that comes out
of that. This might be for Mr. Arnold or Mr. Mulhere.
Would the shifting, the potential shifting, of retail uses or
various commercial uses -- can any of those numbers get high enough to
trigger a D.R.I. requirement? Do any -- if those float around, has
anybody looked at that? And if so, how does that impact what we're
doing?
MR. MILK: I think I can answer that. For the record, Brian
Milk.
The P.U.D. is currently limited to 40,000 square feet retail uses
for permitted principal uses. On the other hand, in the industrial
district, if there's a manufacturer that wanted to provide
accessibility to their products, they could have 40 percent of that
area being utilized as floor, showroom or retail use areas. That
threshold would not impact or be cause for a D.R.I.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no scenario under that
shifting that will be cause for a D.R.I.?
MR. MILK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I would like to do, Mr. Garlick, since I
see no one else chomping at the bit, does that conclude the
presentation for your team?
MR. GARLICK: If you're saying that, you know --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I need you on the microphone. Excuse me.
MR. GARLICK: Sir, if you would like to conclude the hearing in
view of the late hour, we certainly would understand that. There are
Collier's Reserve residents who have been here since 9:00 in the
morning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
MR. GARLICK: I'm sure they'd like to speak. I'm sure that it
would be the normal process, but if that's, you know, the decision of
the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. GARLICK: -- commission, I --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have every intention of calling each
registered speaker and asking that if you have either additional
information or a statement to make, please come up and do it.
One of the reasons, Mr. Garlick, we gave your team what turns out
to be about equal time to that of the petitioner was because you
represented a good number of people in the room. So I'll just ask, if
anyone who wishes to speak, to recognize that and remember that in any
comments you have to make.
MR. GARLICK: Yes, I certainly would encourage anybody to be
brief, and if the Chairman wants to conclude the session, we would
consent to it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not going to conclude the session without
giving everyone who's registered at least the opportunity to speak. I
think that's important.
If you wish to waive it or if what you wish to speak has already
been addressed by Mr. Garlick and his team, that's fine, too. You can
just indicate that you waive.
MR. GARLICK: Thank you, sir, very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Garlick.
Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: Once again, we have Jane Cooper, followed by Rollie
Comstock.
MS. COOPER: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Jane Cooper and I'm duly sworn.
Much of what I had to say I'm sure has already been said. One
thing that had not been clear to me until I asked staff was there's a
lot of discussion about nonindustrial land, nonindustrial purposes.
And it averaged out 30 to 35 percent of this project. Well, that
leaves 65 to 70 to 75 percent which is industrial. Therefore, it's not
a business park and it's not a commercial park. It's an industrial
park. Call it what you will, it is an industrial park. That I think
is where the compatibility issue comes home to rest.
An industrial park doesn't fit next to Naples Park or Collier's
Reserve or Bay Colony or anyplace else you want to think about around
our neighborhood. An industrial park is what you're talking about, 70
percent of the use. And I think that that's inappropriate and I think
-- I urge you not to permit that to take place.
I also urge you not to rush to judgment. You just got an inch of
paper today that you had never seen before. Our lawyers brought in
paper that you've also not seen. You can't possibly assimilate it
all. I think you're probably not paid nearly enough money for what
you're trying to do this afternoon.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I like that.
MS. COOPER: If I was in your shoes, I would be tearing my hair
out now.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I did that last week.
MS. COOPER: So go home, have a drink, settle down --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: John did that already.
MS. COOPER: -- think about it. I will. And thank you again.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Comstock will be followed by Norma
Ericson.
MR. COMSTOCK: My name is Rollie Comstock. I have been sworn.
If you like my tie, it's for sale.
Everything I want to say has been said, and I urge you to reject
the application.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Comstock.
MR. HcNEES: Norma Ericson. Roger Ericson. Here she comes.
MS. ERICSON: My name is Norma Ericson, and I'd like to say that
I've been duly sworn in.
Ladies and gentlemen, many years ago we used to have a place here
in Naples. We've always loved Naples. We have come back to Naples in
our retirement, and we have been living in Collier's Reserve for a
year. I -- all the people have said exactly what I would like to say,
that we think that it's an incompatible -- and we hope that you would
have the judgment and have an open mind to reject the proposal of the
Commerce Park. Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Roger Ericson will be followed by Diane Fall.
MR. ERICSON: Good afternoon. My name is Roger Ericson, I have
been sworn.
I was the general counsel and member of a six-person management
committee of a Fortune 200 company. We had large manufacturing
operations, and we had parameters for everything. One of them was for
locating a plant. And one of our parameters was we would never be
right next to a residential community. There are hazards with the
manufacturing process that can happen. We had state-of-the-art
facilities, but in manufacturing operations there can be problems.
And you can set limits as to the emissions, noise, it can still
happen. And what happens then? We live next door to it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You understand you live next door to it now?
There's industrial --
MR. ERICSON: We live next door to a tomato farm right now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, you're talking immediately across the
street. But if you're talking about hazardous materials, I don't
think a couple hundred yards makes that big a difference, does it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because there's already industrial zoning
right down the road, and this will make for less intense --
MR. ERICSON: But this is going to expand the industrial zoning.
It's going to make it even more so.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: More acreage -- well, actually less
acreage and much less intense uses. That's what's triggering for me.
I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, for the property on the west
side of Goodlette it's going to be considerably more acreage,
industrial right now. Right now it's 15 or 16, we were told.
MS. ERICSON: Well, that was the impression that I'm laboring
under, that it is more industrial west of Goodlette Road. Is that
wrong?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Total net industrial it's less. Depends on
what you're measuring.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect he cares less about right
next door to the sewer plant than right across the street from '-
MS. ERICSON: All I'm asking is that if it's zoned that way and
that's what it is, go there. But don't expand a bad condition. And
that's what I'm afraid you're going to do if you vote in favor of what
the petitioner is requesting here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Diane Fall will be followed by Rick Fall.
MS. FALL: Diane Fall, resident of Collier's Reserve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And sworn?
MS. FALL: And I'm sworn.
I'm against the proposed development, not necessarily because I
think it's bad, but I am truly concerned about the inflexibility of
the developer to work with us when we initially requested that they
put in that southern entrance and not put all of the traffic on
Immokalee Road. And what they are telling us is yeah, we're going to
do it, but they will not tell us when. And the only thing we've heard
is four to five years, maybe. So unless they can commit, then I think
you have an obligation to say no. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Rick Fall, followed by Homer King.
MR. FALL: I'm Rick Fall, I'm duly sworn, and proud of that
well-spoken lady.
We spent two years traveling around the country because we wanted
to find a community at a sea level altitude to settle for private
health reasons. And we selected very carefully Naples for a lot of
reasons. I come from a real estate background, I'm in favor of real
estate development, growth, and all that it brings. And I certainly
see in Collier County a lot of the similar kinds of things that I saw
in the area where I made my living, Vail, Colorado: High end
residential development, people coming there to escape the kinds of
things that were going on in the metropolitan areas from which they
were moving, families of various ages with various kinds of business
involvements all the way from heavily involved in corporations that
they could telecommunicate to, to people nearing the age of
retirement. But all of those decisions are weighed very, very
carefully, and the investments at least from our family's viewpoint
were quite significant when we chose this community.
And so I look to you, our commissioners, with a huge amount of
responsibility to weigh these decisions, not only as they affect one
particular company, one particular developer or a certain number of
jobs, but how it affects the whole area, and how you make those
decisions impact on all of the community. Because certainly, were I
to have perceived this to be a county where someone could arbitrarily,
or at least without what I thought was due process and long and
considered thought make decisions of such far-reaching ramifications
as to put an industrial park next to what I perceive as one of the
more attractive and higher end residential areas of the county, I
would have been very, very reluctant to make the commitment to this
county. And I think others will be in the future if they perceive
that.
And I'm not saying this is the case necessarily, because I'm not
privy to all of the information you're weighing, which is sort of too
bad, but I'm saying you're making a decision that will impact far
beyond this particular situation in this particular park. It will
impact the decisions of many, many people in the future, values
throughout the community; and, therefore, I urge you to not worry
about so many of these laws, county rules and consulting with the
various attorneys and people involved with the regulations, but to
consider the one rule I think we've all got to be guided by, and
that's the Golden Rule. Weigh your decision carefully. And I thank
you.
MR. McNEES: Homer King, followed by Nicole Lindsay.
MR. KING: My name is Homer King, and I've been sworn in and
probably at.
I've shortened this down to this, simply because most of the
things that I want to say as a resident of Collier's have already been
said, except for one point, and that simply being that we feel that
the area in question, the industrial park, if that's what you want to
call it, should be comparable to the surrounding land use which is
primarily residential. And something that we're familiar with that
will work and probably be a lot more productive from a tax standpoint
to Collier County if it was zoned as a residential area, period.
A brief close: Quality of life, not traffic, and potential
economic growth should be our major concern, not how many trucks go
by, not how many factories we can put into an area. That really does,
as the gentleman before me said, destroy the vision of what Collier
County in the northern end is supposed to be like. Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Nicole Lindsay, followed by Jack Lindsay.
MS. LINDSAY: My name is Nicole Lindsay, and I've been sworn.
What I wanted to say is my husband and I have worked hard and
long to build our dream home in what we thought was -- and we still
think -- is a dream community and environment. Now we're facing an
industrial park across the road.
All I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, how would you feel if that
was taking place in your neighborhood? Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Lindsay, followed by Jean Hinkes.
MR. LINDSAY: My name is Jack Lindsay, and I'm sworn.
It occurs to me that the real issue here is not jobs, it's not
tax revenue, it's not diversity, it's the ability of a big developer
to run rough shod over individual homeowners. It's my hope and
expectation that this Board, as elected officials of this community,
will respond and give us a level playing field with the presentation
of the petitioner. Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Jean Hinkes, followed by Sylvester Hinkes.
MS. HINKES: Good afternoon, my name is Jean Hinkes, I have been
sworn.
I'm a resident of Collier's Reserve. My husband and I chose
Collier's because we thought it was a wonderful community. We believe
it's a wonderful community. We love Naples. We sold our home up
north. We are permanent residents. We have no other commitment
anywhere but to Naples. And it is so sad to think that in this
beautiful residential community that you're thinking about putting
factories in. I mean, I'm sure that they're wonderful people, but it
just doesn't belong there. Please, don't do this. Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Hinkes, followed by Robert Tews.
MR. HINKES: My name is Sylvester Hinkes, and I've been sworn.
I'm a permanent resident of Naples, registered voter, paying our
taxes here. We think this is a beautiful place to live. We live in
Collier's Reserve, as my wife just mentioned, love it there very much.
We think that the proposal to zone what is called Creekside Commerce
Park into an industrial park is inappropriate, is going to have a
negative impact on the character of the residential community, and
going to have a negative impact on our home values also. Please do
not support this rezoning proposal. Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Robert Tews, followed by Ted Nering.
MR. TEWS: My name is Robert Tews, and I too have been sworn in.
I served on the Collier's Reserve ad hoc committee, was involved
in the discussions with the Barton Collier Company, as to their
project; I also visited Tryton. (sic.) And I will say, I was very
impressed with the Tryton plan and the Tryton people. However, I too
feel it ludicrous to put this development between two residential
areas. However, if you do see fit to put this here, I would say that
the Barton Collier Company -- you should make them complete the
infrastructure west of Goodlette-Frank in phase one. If you do not,
they're going to dump all of their traffic in Collier's Reserve
entrance.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need you on the record for the court
reporter. Thank you.
MS. TEWS: I've lived in Collier's Reserve for a couple of years,
and I know now, without a light there and without the industrial park,
how tough the traffic is.
Also, I would request that you have them build the same buffer on
the north side of this industrial complex as they've built on the
south side of the complex. It's a beautiful buffer. And we'd like
that on the north side. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Nering, followed by William Ebben.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And how many speakers do we have remaining?
MR. HcNEES: Looks like about ten.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You really did a lot in -- Mr. Carlick, your
presentation really did a lot in cutting back that, didn't it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not a lot of waiving happening here.
MR. NERING: My name is Ted Nering, and I was sworn at the
beginning. And I'm one of the newest residents of Naples. I'm from
Indiana. My wife died in April, and I sold our home and relocated to
Naples. And it was only a few days later that I was called to a
meeting September 11 where the Barton Collier Company informed us that
they wanted to build an industrial park across the street from us.
you can imagine that I've gone from one shock to another to another.
I've been here since 9:00 this morning, and I've noted the irony
of the original discussion about the P.U.D. development that was
approved and then the Court's suit was filed, and then the developer
came into you this morning -- I don't remember the name of the
development -- asking for the P.U.D. to be canceled. And it was
because the Audubon Society and another group were unwilling to
negotiate, were unwilling even to sit down.
And I want you to know that that is not our case. We were
wanting to sit down, we were wanting to talk from the very first that
we heard about this on September 11, and we had no meetings of
negotiation except one. All the others were presentations of what
they wanted to do and why we should go along with it.
And at the one meeting that we did have where we proposed some
ideas, I want you also to know that even their planner proposed some
ideas that we said well, that would be going in the right direction,
that's at least responsive to what we're talking about. And the
business decision was no, we can't do that, they shouldn't have said
that, we've already cut our deal with the post office and with Tryton,
it's too costly, we can't do it.
It's a situation of no negotiation, no honest good faith effort
to resolve. Puts us in the position of having, if this approval is
given, the three to five years of fighting in the courts, fighting in
the court of public opinion, having to organize to do that.
It's the very last reason in the world that I moved to Naples,
Florida, to get embroiled in the political brouhaha of organizing the
64 golf courses so we've got those names of those members and can
contact them. And the 70 resident communities.
I mean, it's just horrifying the three to five-year ordeal that's
been placed in front of us because we can't negotiate and we can't
even have reasonable discussions.
The next comment I'd like to make is I found the comments made by
the second district association, Sally Barker and Ms. Tragesser, to be
informative and helpful for me. It's the first time that I had heard
their presentation. And so I went out and spoke to them in the
hallway.
And one other thing that I learned from them that I think would
be helpful as you make your deliberations -- and I've written this
down to make sure that I say it accurately -- there are voids in the
P.U.D. document to bring consistency with the best stated intentions
of the developer, and there's a real need here for a continuance of a
decision and for an opportunity to sit down with them and work out the
details so that the words on the paper are clarified and so that they
include the kind of comments that they're making here in a meeting but
are not in the document itself.
Amazingly, we were able to anticipate the same question that
Commissioner Constantine made earlier about a development of regional
impact, and we have made contact and only moments ago received a fax
that the department will monitor this proposed development for its
consistency with the local comprehensive plan and the applicability of
development of regional impact D.R.I. criteria.
And so, you know, we're beginning a process of that three to
five-year battle. We're beginning to get that information. And
because this is on State of Florida stationery, perhaps you would
accept the facts into your record of that activity.
So my final comment would be, obviously we would hope that this
would not be approved, but if there is a zeal to approve what is so
shocking to us, a factory in a residence community, then at the very
least, there needs to be a meaningful sit-down session to work out
details that have so far even been unable to be realistically
considered by the developer. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Ebben, to be followed by Jean -- someone that I
can't decipher -- 825 Barcamil.
MR. EBBEN: They were here since 9:00 a.m., and they had to catch
a plane.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've been here since 8:00.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We get paid, though.
MR. EBBEN: My name is William Ebben. I have been sworn.
What I have to say might be slightly disjointed. I've never
received a piece of paper or any of the information that's been
circulated either before this moment or today, but I did take nine
notes. And I won't go through all of them, but one of them deals with
the jocular remark that was made just a minute ago about discouraging
people from talking and waving.
I checked this noontime, since I do live in Collier -- I am
sworn, by the way -- I live in Collier's Reserve. I found out that
there have been 91 certificate of occupancies issued. 31 of those
people have spent the bulk of today here. And the reason why I
believe so few people are asking to be waived is I think that gauges
the seriousness by which these folks take this proposal.
I made a number of notes, as I indicated. Mr. Milk this morning
was talking about what's unique about the project. And I headed my
notes by just saying what's unique about this project -- because I
think it's a great project -- is it's simply in the wrong place.
And the only other note that I made here that I don't think has
been addressed is in the petitioner's presentation, there was 10 or 15
minutes of comparisons, Creekside versus Collier's Reserve;
measurements of how far from this house to there, to some of the
features of their proposal.
The one thing that I think sticks out -- at least in my mind, and
I hope in your mind -- to the contrary, there is no industrial in
Collier's Reserve. There is only business. It seems to me that the
designation of industrial zoning that was given to the tomato plant --
and I did not know that Goodlette Road was once a railroad -- was
because of the definition required in those times of what industrial
is. And the notion of extending industrial zoning further west into
the area that has been in question seems to me to be not the best use
of this land.
So I urge you to consider that in your judgment. I appreciate
your time. Certainly, if you do approve this project, I certainly go
along with what appears to be what some of you are thinking, and the
comments that have been made here, we need to deal with the
infrastructure roads because we can't stand any more traffic, any more
congestion, any more anything out there on Immokalee Road.
I imagine -- and this is just my idea, I haven't talked to
anybody else -- but I will try to talk this -- if this gets approved,
I would try to recommend -- I don't know what we'd have to do this --
to move the main entrance of Collier's Reserve to the east to get away
from this corner and take the permanent entrance out, say, where the
construction entrance is now, just to get away from the awfulness that
would be there, especially at Christmastime and at IRS time. I
predict that there will be people lined up to get into the post office
out past Route 41 coming from the west. I can't imagine it to be
otherwise, just based on my trying to get in the post office down here
on Goodlette Road today.
So with that, again, I thank you for your time. I urge your
consideration in denial of this proposal. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, since you referred to my remark as
jocular, let me explain that your representative, Mr. Garlick and his
team was afforded, in my three years on this Board, an unprecedented
amount of time to respond to the petitioner's element, and that in my
opinion was in response to the number of people that have maintained
throughout the day here. So I did my best to try and afford that. So
please don't take that remark as jocular. I know you're not familiar
with this process.
MR. NERING: Could I make a comment back to that? You have us
two hours and 20 minutes. I don't know -- I believe when you add 20
-- multiply 28 times five, I think that in totality of everything, we
will not use anywhere near two hours and 20 minutes, but maybe you're
keeping time for that. That's all I'd like to say.
MR. McNEES: Jutta Lopez, followed by Robert Ochs.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Jutta Lopez is gone.
MR. McNEES: Robert Ochs will then be followed by Kurt Augustin.
MR. OCHS: Thank you. My name is Robert Ochs and I've been sworn
And I'm a member of the ad hoc committee that was sworn by
Collier's Reserve, and I'm soon to be a resident here. At least I
hope soon. And I'll limit my remarks.
For 35 years I've represented two of the largest corporations in
this country, indeed two of the largest corporations in the world, and
so I've attended many of these rezoning and expansions and industrial
siting hearings and rezoning efforts.
In today's atmosphere, companies approach this -- these matters
wholly different than Barton Collier Company has done. They do it on a
pro-active manner, in an open forum, in a forum that allows
everybody's concerns to be vented and addressed. I think were Barton
Collier alive, and given the history of his company, he would be
embarrassed with the approach that we have seen with this project.
It's a stealth project. Collier's Reserve got its first written
information on it I think September -- early September. And I think
we had our first meeting September llth. Here we are in the middle of
-- a little past late October, and we're at a rezoning hearing, with
very little information submitted to the aggrieved parties.
Today this Board was furnished with voluminous information, which
it's never seen before, and couldn't possibly evaluate without
additional study and come to a rational, reasonable conclusion.
So I would urge you on that basis, and on the basis of being fair
in affording us really the due process to which we're entitled. To
delay any final decision until this additional information can be
assimilated, maybe additional hearings can be held and additional
questions addressed to the experts so that a truly informed decision
can be reached, and that there's a record that's made that is
understandable if this matter is appealed forward.
On the note of a record, I just wanted to correct the record. I
believe Mr. Milk stated something to the effect that the vote of the
Planning Commission was confused, I believe was his word. And I was
at that meeting which lasted many hours, not quite as long as this
one, and in my opinion, in my view, there was no confusion on the part
of Planning Commissioners. They knew, they understood the project,
and they voted the way they did. So I just think for the record
purposes that needs to be corrected. Thank you for your time. MR. McNEES: Curt Augustin followed by Mary Ann Augustin.
MR. AUGUSTIN: Good afternoon. I'm a Collier Reserve resident
and taxpayer. I urge the commissioners to vote against the requested
Creekside Industrial Park development for two reasons that are very
important to me: Number one, it will create monumental traffic
problems for Collier Reserve residents, the North Naples Hospital,
especially, and the adjoining communities.
Number two, the proposed major industrial occupant will be a
manufacturer of plastic components, Tyton-Hellerman. According to a
Tyton spokesman, their process would be conducted in a completely
enclosed environment; i.e., no open doors, windows, no exhaust fans.
However, this is contrary to the material safety data sheets issued by
the suppliers of raw materials used in Tyton's products. I'd like to
give you an example of one of these data sheets.
I quote, "A continuous supply of fresh air into the workplace,
together with removal of processing fume through exhaust systems is
recommended. Processing fumes condensate, may be a fire hazard,
toxic, remove periodically from exhaust, ductwork and other surfaces
using appropriate personal protection."
Perhaps Tyton possesses a magical formula for safety compliance
within a total enclosed environment. I'm doubtful this can be
accomplished.
In conclusion, I believe that approval of the Creekside
Industrial Park without further investigation would constitute a
decision to be regretted down the road. Thank you very much.
MR. McNEES: Mary Ann Augustin, followed by Norman Kluger.
MS. AUGUSTIN: Mary Ann Augustin. I have been sworn in.
As a Collier County taxpayer and voter, I strongly oppose the
development of Creekside Commerce Park. I would like to remind the
commissioners that although the developers tout Creekside as an
upscale Commerce Park, it will evolve primarily as an industrial
campus with concomitant heavy traffic, round-the-clock manufacturing
and noise, as well as the future potential for air pollution and fire
hazards.
No matter how pleasingly the Commerce Park is packaged, beneath
the wrappers what remains is plain unadulterated industry, misplaced
in a residential commercial neighborhood.
Industry has not been known to enhance a neighborhood; it
promotes its decline. While the need for the creation of higher
paying industrial jobs in Collier County is commendable and
undisputed, the intelligent placement of industry within the community
requires careful scrutiny and reflection in order to maintain the
highest quality of life for all residents, as well as to ensure the
continued attraction of Naples as a tourist destination.
As appointed monitors of appropriate local land use from a
practical, legal, aesthetic and environmental viewpoint, the Board is
charged with rendering decisions for the future. Hopefully, your sole
desire today will be to render a decision that will not only address
the needs of Naples today, but will also favorably impact future
generations of Neapolitans. Approval of Creekside would represent a
blatant disregard for appropriate land use. Thank you for your time.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Kluger, followed by Michael Fleisher.
MR. KLUGER: I'm Norman Kluger, I'm duly sworn, and I'm a
resident of Collier's Reserve.
I was a member of the ad hoc committee, I still am a member, and
there were some things that were said, I believe at the -- one comment
was made at the very first meeting on September llth by this
gentleman, Mark, right? When I asked him why this industrial plan
couldn't have been located at another site somewhere in the county,
his answer was we don't own any land in another part of the county.
Subsequent to that, I went to the Planning Commission meeting,
and the young man sitting at the end there -- and I don't recall his
name -- made the presentation. He said when Tyton-Hellerman came to
them, we had no place to put them. Well, that isn't a developer's
problem, that's your planning problem. There should be an upscale park
someplace, but it should be in a space that has access to 1-75, that
doesn't take big trucks through neighborhoods where kids are going to
school, that isn't in the middle of two prestigious residential
communities. Someone should take the ball. Developers probably
wouldn't.
In Pennsylvania, when we had all that 20 percent unemployment,
the county condemned land, created bind issues, created the
infrastructure, and made the land available, and subsidized the
industry on top of that. We have a two percent employment rate, we
don't need to go to that extreme, but there should be an upscale park.
And finding a site for it should be their task, not negotiating with
the lawyers to zone a piece that has an obvious better intended use.
Thank you very much.
MR. HcNEES: Mr. Fleisher, and your final registered speaker,
Roger Williams.
MR. FLEISHER: Good afternoon, my name is Michael Fleisher and I
have been sworn.
Residences and industry don't mix. They don't go well together.
The future doesn't bode well for it. I urge you to turn this down.
MR. HcNEES: And Mr. Williams.
MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Roger Williams. I have been sworn.
I started visiting Naples in 1954, and I think at that time they
had one stop light at Fifth Avenue and 41. And what struck me then
was the ambience and just it was a very delightful place. Through the
years my wife and I have returned, we are now permanent residents, we
live here year round, and are here for all the reasons that have been
discussed.
I kind of think what we have is a situation where the tail is
wagging the dog. The tail is the economic development council and one
plant. We seem to be bending over backwards -- and that's fine, this
is a democracy -- but we seem to be bending over backwards to try to
force an issue and bring in a facility right now; one plant that says
if you don't put us in, we're going to go someplace else. I highly
suspect that that's true, but let's assume that's the case. You have
more people living in one highrise in Pelican Bay than you have in all
of the employment rolls here.
If this economic development commission -- and I have nothing
against them personally, they've got a job to do, I think they're well
focused, but perhaps ill informed -- if they were here 20 years ago,
we wouldn't have Pelican Bay, we wouldn't have Bay Colony, we probably
wouldn't have some of the other golf course communities here. I'd
hate to think that where the Philharmonic is we'd have a plastics
plant, or the Ritz Carlton or the Registry or Waterside. I just can't
see that -- we're regressing back.
If we wanted to take Barron-Collier's concept and his dreams for
this place -- and he started out saying I want a place where my
friends can come down, enjoy the weather, play golf, go fishing, go
sailing, and enjoy. I think he'd turn over in his grave if he saw
what we were doing by putting an industrial park in next door to
Pelican Bay, which is great, and hopefully we're an extension of that.
I don't think anybody's considered the number of people involved.
This is democracy. You have a lot more people who are down here who
are residents, and you've seen a number of Collier Reserve's folks
today. We don't have horns, we don't have tails. We're honest
citizens. We pay our taxes. We support the Philharmonic. Perhaps
none of us even vote for the County Commissioners, I don't know.
The point is, you have a large number of people here who are
pleading with you to consider your actions. If you took a survey of
all the people who live here year round and say there were 10,000
people and you asked them how many of them came down here to Naples to
be close to an upscale industrial park or a factory, I don't know how
many responses you would get to say that's why they moved here. And
yet, what we're doing is this tail and the dog situation. We're
bending over backwards to try to force an issue. Somebody by accident
of birth has a piece of land, you've got a piece of land that's great,
and I think that there are better uses. Thank you very much.
MR. McNEES: You have no more speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, I'm going to ask the board
if they have any questions of our staff, of the petitioner or of Mr.
Garlick's team before I close the public hearing and we begin
deliberations on the decision before us today.
I'm going to start off with a couple of issues that I need to
know in order to make a decision today. One is -- I guess a couple
are transportation related.
Mr. Varnadoe, the concern from the residents regarding
transportation is one that I think is -- holds a lot of merit,
particularly since the time they moved in to now, there's been
absolutely nothing across the street. Division of anything, much less
something with a perceived or real intensity, stands to scare the
dickens out of a lot of people.
I understand that phase one includes the I.C. portion that will
have the post office and Tyton-Hellerman on it, plus what looks to be
two or possibly three business tracks between the internal road and
Immokalee Road. Is that the extent of phase one?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, if we can, we'll put the exhibit up and it
will be a lot easier for us all to see.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, and that's also in our packet. So that
is the extent of phase one.
All of those trips, if this project is approved, will be put on
those two accesses to Immokalee Road.
The concern from the residents and -- I think is twofold: One is
those people that want to access Goodlette-Frank Road in or out can't
in this phase. And the future development to the south may somehow
connect to this roadway without again accessing Goodlette-Frank Road.
This was something that you and I discussed previously, because
it has been a concern of mine. And what I am looking for, if this
project moves ahead today, is a specific commitment of time or
triggers that places the roadway just south of the post office and
Tyton there on the common property line between them and the adjacent
parcel. Puts that road connecting through to Goodlette-Frank. And
I'm looking for a very specific time frame on that, that regardless of
what happens financially with the park, that that will happen, and
that the truck traffic from Tyton and from the post office will then
use that roadway.
MR. VARNADOE: Put the site plan back up.
You're talking about the road that comes from Goodlette-Frank and
cul-de-sacs to the west?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct, because that's the only road that
would allow the dispersion of traffic to Goodlette-Frank and not put
it all on Immokalee.
MR. VARNADOE: And we're -- I have prepared a handout on that.
I want to say something about that. We are ready to make
commitments on it, we do have triggers. You know, some of us have
been here a little bit longer, and I guess we did come down here with
the hopes there'd be some industry and some economic development and
not just golf courses and retirement homes, even though I do enjoy
golf. And if I live long enough, I'll probably enjoy our retirement
home.
I was involved in the zoning of Pelican Bay. When we started
Pelican Bay -- and I can't tell you how many units we built with one
entrance on U.S. 41. And you've got a situation just like -- it's
very comparable to this entire project right down the street on north
and south Horseshoe Drive. It's approximately 110 acres. It's a
quote, park at Commerce. How many access points does it have?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two that I know of.
MR. VARNADOE: Two that I know of, and they both are on the same
road.
So when we start talking about traffic and traffic dispersion,
I've got two main roads and we're putting six, you know, points of
access on it. So this will be a lot better situation than that.
But what I'm saying is, the first phase traffic is not a real
problem. But let me address your specific concerns, sir, because I
know that you have concerns. And I put it in writing, because that
way I don't have to try to remember or don't get it confused. And if
somebody want to put it in a motion, then we have it on the record
here.
We're talking about now the southern road west of Goodlette-Frank
Road. And the commitment is to complete construction, not start
construction, because I didn't want to get into some comment how long
it would take us to build it and we'd start it and never finish it.
Excuse me, Mr. Milk.
When the following occurs: The issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for any use on that southern parcel. So point it out for
me, Bruce, please. So any use on that southern parcel before there's
a C.O., that road will be completed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not the entirety of the parcel, any part of
it.
MR. VARNADOE: Any part of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One.
MR. VARNADOE: Any use.
Second, the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the second
business parcel to be developed west of the Pine Ridge canal. West of
the Pine Ridge canal. Bruce? Bruce?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: West. It's been a long day.
MR. VARNADOE: A long day.
There are actually three parcels that are west of the Pine Ridge
canal that are allowed for business uses. Those ostensibly would put
us more traffic on one of those two intersections. So before the
second one of those is developed and our C.O. is issued, that road
will be complete and Tyton and the post office will have agreed, both
have agreed -- and that's in that letter I sent you -- that they would
hook up their service entrances to that southern route.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are these in the alternative or
cumulative?
MR. VARNADOE: This is the first to occur.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The first to occur of the following
events.
MR. VARNADOE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You described two.
MR. VARNADOE: The third one is within three years of approval of
this P.U.D.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the one that really catches my eye,
because to put it on the development side, one gentleman said about
how the finances just don't work. And although that may be true for
the Collier family, if you're a resident, you know, banking on the
potential development of a parcel, is something not really attractive.
So this is saying that the roadway will be complete, assuming this s
approved today, within three years of that approval, regardless of
economic factors.
MR. VARNADOE: We're taking the risk on that, yes, sir.
And the fourth one is that the -- as you know, we've been looking
for obtaining some funding from another source for construction of the
road -- whether it's Enterprise, Florida, or some other loan -- within
nine months of obtaining that financing, I don't want to hold out the
date as -- you know, that I have financing lined up, but that's just
another trigger, if you would. It'd probably take six to seven months
to build the road, and nine months gives us the leeway that it will be
completed within nine months of obtaining that financing. So that is
our commitment on that subject, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions on that area?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't exactly understand the second
condition. The first one is the issuance of a C.O. for the southern
parcel. Which is -- I wish we could identify it a little better. Are
those parcels numbered, or -- you know, because there's a lot of
southern on that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's the one closest to Pelican Marsh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, there you go, the southwest or --
MR. VARNADOE: Well, if you read this on -- if you actually read
it, it says to the parcel herein called the southern parcel that is
west of Goodlette Road and abuts Pelican Marsh, so I think it is
identified --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: -- in the written statement. I just didn't bother
to go into --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the other issue of --
MR. VARNADOE: She had a question on --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was really about the second
one, the issue of a C.O. on the second business parcel to be developed
west of the canal. The business parcels are the pink ones as opposed
to the orange ones.
MR. VARNADOE: Right. And there's actually -- those -- see,
those three business parcels are in the first phase.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have trouble not seeing -- I can only
see two business parcels.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, you see two pink blocks, but there's
actually three sites in there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you look at the phasing plan in your
document, it shows I think the one -- the larger pink one divided into
two lots.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Each one approximately plus or minus an acre
and a half.
MR. McNEES: Okay. I understand now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My second question on the transportation side
goes to the traffic impact statement that you presented to our staff.
What we have heard today from opposition and from our staff is
that based on a couple of elements in the P.U.D., we could see some
substantial fluctuation from what was presented to what could actually
occur. And part of that is because of the ability to put showroom
space or whatnot that has a retail element to it in the I.C. zoning
district.
My concern is, and it's always on T.I.S.'s: I know their
averages, but we seem to have difficulty holding people to what the
T.I.S. says will actually happen. And if you tell us there's going to
be 17,000 trips generated, I understand that's not an exact science,
but 29,000 would far exceed what I would be willing to consider. So I
need some -- again, I need some triggers that we are not putting
30,000 trips on the adjacent roadway, because I simply couldn't
support that.
MR. VARNADOE: Neither would we propose that. I need to get on
the record -- and I'm going to let Mr. Reynolds do that, because he
can combine the amount of conversion with the traffic summary, and
I'll -- so it will make it much shorter. But we do not object to
going with a phased updated traffic T.I.S. as we go through this
project.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That T.I.S. would eventually -- if you brought
uses in that were in the high end of the range -- would limit your
uses down the road, because you had to comply with what is --
MR. VARNADOE: We'd be back before you telling you we got to do
something differently, or you're going to have to approve more or do
something not supported by T.I.S., yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many phases do you have on this project?
MR. VARNADOE: Well, you don't know. What I would suggest we do
is that when we come in for each subdivision plat, we simply would do
an updated T.I.S. at that time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would like to see also at the time of site
development plan -- because you could very well plat this in two
phases, and we may not have substantive traffic in the first place to
make a reasonable decision in the second.
MR. VARNADOE: That's fine, because we don't envision that. We
envision in probably three phases west of Goodlette and perhaps one
east, but we don't have any objection to that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that would be at S.D.P. instead of -- in
other words, you have to basically provide the -- fill in the
cumulative trip generation once the uses are known to make sure that
what has presented by your T.I.S. is what ballpark actually happens so
the residents can count on that. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Other questions for Mr. Varnadoe?
Has outdoor storage and display been permitted, and all the I.C.,
or just east of Goodlette-Frank Road?
MR. VARNADOE: I'll let Mr. Reynolds deal with that planning
issue. I don't think -- I think it's outside storage if it's buffered
from the street, but I don't think there's any outside display, is
what I'm --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what caught my eye.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm going to let Mr. Reynolds talk to it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Varnadoe?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a question then for Mr. Reynolds on the
storage and display.
My concern is that what we are being asked to look at is an
upscale Commerce Park. But when I think of outside storage and
display, the word upscale doesn't seem to apply.
Because of the existing industrial zoning on the east side of
Goodlette-Frank, that doesn't create as much concern for me because
the screening and buffering requirement from Goodlette-Frank would
apply.
My concern is the internal roadways that eventually, if all goes
well, would become public roads, that we don't have outside storage
and display visible from those roadways. That's my predominant
concern.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From the internal roadways, because
they're already buffered from the external.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. But the internal roadways -- somebody
had mentioned stacking of pallets. And you can have a seven-foot
fence and stack pallets 20 feet, and the fence does you no good. So I
need to know that outside storage and display is not permitted, not
just from an external view but internal roadways also.
MR. REYNOLDS: The way the provision is written in the P.U.D. --
and we're going to find the specific language -- is that any outside
storage or display must have the seven-foot high opaque screen.
That's the way it's written. Regardless of where it can be viewed
from.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But if it's a 20-foot high stack of pallets, a
seven-foot fence doesn't matter.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not going to mean anything.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John Deere equipment.
MR. REYNOLDS: What we're saying is that it will not be -- we'll
reword it, if we have to, so it's not visible from any public roadway.
Is that satisfactory?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I'm looking for.
MR. VARNADOE: I think that and limit the height of that
stockpile or stacking in that area. And to the rear yard. We could
also do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are all the internal roadways shown on here to
be public roadways?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I had a note here to cap the amount of retail
and square footage, but it seems to me --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Traffic, uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the determining factor there is the trip
generation. I want to make sure we're ballparked at what's being
presented here today that we don't approve something with an 18,000 or
17,000 number and end up with 30,000. So if that's going to govern,
then I don't think that cap is necessary. I guess I need to --
MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. REYNOLDS: Can I make just one comment on that? Because I
think it's important just to clarify the record, and I think Brian
clarified part of that.
The 40 percent retail area that was described by the opposition's
transportation consultant is only an accessory use to principal uses
of industrial only in the I.C. district. It is not allowed as a
principal use.
The way that it was presented to you in these worst case
scenarios was treating that as converting to a freestanding retail
use. That's simply not allowed. And what we have done is when we did
-- when we selected the I.T.E. category to use for modeling the
transportation, we did not take the best case or the worst case. In
fact, what we took was the business park category out of I.T.E. which
has a 14.37 A.D.T. per thousand square foot rate, generation rate.
That compares to less than seven for light industrial use. So we did
not --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The two numbers again, seven and?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fourteen.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fourteen.
MR. REYNOLDS: It's less than seven four light industrial. It's
14.37 for business park. So that already accommodates the
understanding that in a business park district, you do have some of
those ancillary and accessory retail functions, but they are not
permitted to be principal uses.
And let me just put that discussion in the context of what -- a
comparison to the first phase. If you take our first phase two uses,
Tyton generates five per thousand. Our T.I.S. used 14.37 per thousand
for that allocation in the park. Post office is higher. But when you
average the two, the combined traffic, actual traffic out of the post
office in Tryton is less than what we used when we used our T.I.S. So
it is not an unreasonable -- in fact, it's a very reasonable
representation of what the traffic would be expected to be. And I
just wanted to make sure that was clear on the record.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question before we leave that. I
want to be sure I understood the conversion issue. And I apologize,
because I am getting sort of dull. But conversion can only be for
accessory uses.
MR. REYNOLDS: Right. There is no ability to convert our I.C.
uses to retail uses. The I.C. use has an allowance that the floor
area within a building, 40 percent of that can be allocated to display
areas, which are treated as a retail type of a use. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: But it's only an accessory use.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Only accessory.
MR. REYNOLDS: So you cannot convert the square footage to a
freestanding retail use --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I visited one of those in Railhead. It's where
they make marble tubs.
MR. REYNOLDS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And when you walk in the front door, there's a
reception area with --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's the pretty part.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. And then the manufacturing is behind it
in an enclosed building.
MR. REYNOLDS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that what we're talking about here?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's what we're talking about. So it's not
reasonable to treat that as being converted to freestanding retail
uses and then present a scenario of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's extremely significant in those
traffic numbers. Because I was scared to death with those traffic
numbers, because if we were converting industrial to actual
freestanding retail, then those worst case scenarios have more
validity. But they have very little validity in an accessory use as
opposed to principal. That's big time. MR. REYNOLDS: That's very true.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If someone is manufacturing widgets and in the
front office they begin selling things not associated with their
product, they in fact will have a zoning violation in the manner in
which the document is drafted; is that correct? MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, this is not a deed restriction that will
be a zoning violation, which this Board would then enforce?
MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's great.
MR. REYNOLDS: Brian described that the cap on our principal use
for retail is 40,000 square feet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Period.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's a very small amount of square footage for
retail use. And that -- we used all of that as retail in our T.I.S.
So it's a very balanced T.I.S. It was not trying to paint an
unrealistic picture.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realizing the likelihood of actually
-- of everybody using 40 percent of their spaces -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's pretty small.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if they did, what's the total
square footage including that?
MR. REYNOLDS: We are allowed approximately in the I.C. district
600 -- 620,000 square feet. So every user in there at 40 percent of
their building area allocated to retail display, it would be 40
percent of that or 240,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's 240,000.
HR. HILK: And that's used for display area, show rooms,
conferences --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Only accessory to the --
MR. MILK: Permitted principals.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- principal use of manufacturing, not --
they can't sell somebody else's widget.
MR. MILK: That's a whole different animal. In other words, they
can't sell somebody else's widget. That's a big difference.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a good example. The clothing shop with
a lumber store would be very obvious.
MR. REYNOLDS: We would have to take Tyton and the post office
out of that, because they're not using that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. REYNOLDS: -- feature. And we wouldn't expect all of the
users to use that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No purchasing of plastic ties from Tyton in
the front shop?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Darn.
MR. REYNOLDS: The other point I just want to make clear on the
record, because it was discussed -- I'm not sure anybody put it on the
record -- is that there are no additional access points allowed other
than those that are shown on the P.U.D. master plan that was presented
to you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Getting to my next transportation point. You
show an access point east of Goodlette-Frank Road, south of what is
shown as a lake on the master plan. That is -- I understand what
you're doing there, that you may be separating the two parcels for
individual use. You know, I'd love to see that accessed internally,
if that's possible.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That one?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Just because of the proximity of the
stoplight to the north. I know it exceeds access management
guidelines, but if that's going to occur, I'm going to suggest that it
be a ride-in, ride-out only, that it not be a median cut at that
location. Because I don't want another full median opening with
what's going on to the north. That just doesn't seem to make sense to
me.
MR. REYNOLDS: We could agree right now that that would be
restricted to a ride-in and ride-out use. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: That was the intent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I didn't have any more transportation
questions. I had some land use questions. Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I've got -- the second district
association had a note here about requesting deletion of silos and
storage tanks. Are we going to allow silage here?
MR. REYNOLDS: What we'd like to do is agree that those cannot be
any higher than the height of the principal structure, which is 35
feet. Because you may need to have that use, but if it's integrated
into the height of the building, we'd like to be able to retain that
as a use.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Off the top of your head, can you give me an
example of who would use a silo or storage tank?
MR. REYNOLDS: Well, a long time ago, I was -- I worked in a
manufacturing operation, and the packing material that they use to put
in the boxes, the Styrofoam pellets, typically have these things, and
I guess you could call it a silo if it's integrated into the roof.
You know, sometimes those extend above the roof line. So, I mean,
that's the best example I can give.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just to clarify, is it already in your
P.U.D. proposal that those are limited to the height of the building?
MR. REYNOLDS: Right now, the way the P.U.D. was written is we
were limited to -- I believe it was 40 feet west of Goodlette Road and
50 feet east of Goodlette Road. And what I'm saying is that we would
be willing to, if -- we'd like to keep the use because we think it's
an important use, but we will make the height the same as the
principal structure so it doesn't extend --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In thinking of silos and storage tanks,
there's no provision here, as I read it, for any type of bulk
petroleum product or -- when I think of storage tanks, I'm going back
to my days in the Coast Guard and oil fires, and -- you know. So we're
not talking about anything in that area, because those have been
prohibited uses, if I've read this correctly.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, those are prohibited uses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Milk.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that then that there are no structures
higher than the principal structures?
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, that's the net result, because that was the
only use I think we had that was an exclusion to that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that's really no restriction
whatsoever. I mean, are you restricted to that height anyway?
MR. REYNOLDS: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They weren't allowed 50 feet.
MR. REYNOLDS: No, the way the P.U.D. was written -- in fact, the
way I believe your zoning code was written is, there are certain kinds
of uses that can extend beyond the height of the building. So what
we're doing is, we're capping it at the height of the principal
structure, 35 feet.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Reynolds?
Any questions by any member of the Board to staff and the
petitioner?
(No response.)
I'll close the public --
MR. MILK: Excuse me, Commissioner, can I just back up a couple
of paces here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, Mr. Milk.
MR. MILK: In regards to the T.I.S. with each site development
plan, that site development plan process is an administrative process.
The board will not have a chance to look at or review that. That's a
function of traffic engineer staff, engineering.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. But understanding that it's based on
the original T.I.S. submitted. Because again, what we're doing is
saying that, you know, within, you know, a thousand trips that what
was proposed is what needs to happen there. And, you know, we don't
want the extremes that were shown by Mr. Garlick's folks from
happening. That's my concern.
MR. KANT: Mr. Chairman, we agreed -- Mr. Varnadoe approached me,
and we've agreed to do it both at S.D.P. and P.S.P., so you've got
every shot at it, which will alleviate Mr. Milk's concern.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So then it does come before us and also
as an administrative function. Because my concern was they could --
if you go and plat the whole thing at once, then we're done. So I'd
like the S.D.P. --
MR. MILK: And the other point was the fencing storages allowed
in both the I.C. E district and the business district. Was the
thought here that we were going to limit the storage to the rear yard,
the front yard.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not to be visible from public roadways, either
internal or external, period. That was my intention.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions?
Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've kept a list here. I'm going to try
to make a motion. It's motion for approval subject to the conditions.
There are one, two, three, four, five of them that I've noted, and
there may be more, so I'm open to additions to the motion. But the
first condition is the written submittal from the petitioner about
complete construction of the southerly internal roadway. Yes, what
Mr. Norris just held in his hand, and will be submitted for the
record, so I'll reread that to you, that condition. The best one of
that being that within three years of approval of the P.U.D., the
road's got to be in under any circumstance.
The second one is that the -- that at preliminary subdivision
plan and site development plan process, that there be cumulative trip
generations, ongoing traffic impact statements, so that we can monitor
the cumulative traffic impacts with the understanding that if they
exceed the expected -- or the T.I.S. that we have by more than ten
percent, it's a significant problem.
The third one is that there be no outdoor storage or display
visible from any public roadway, whether internal or external.
Fourth, that the most southeasterly I.C. parcel access point be
limited to ride-in, ride-out only, and that no structure be higher
than the principal structure. That was directed toward the silos.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there
a second on the motion?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
Is there a discussion on the motion? Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to support
the motion. And I know you-all have been trying to work on making
this as good as you can. But I don't think it fits here for a number
of reasons, and I ask you to bear with me as I go through these,
because I think we have some very serious questions as to whether or
not it's appropriate.
The first deals with compatibility in the future land use
element. We had a couple of our experts raise 5.2 and 5.4 of that.
But in our own packet, it goes into an explanation. And if you go
look back at the history of this property and how it came to have some
industrial zoning anyway, it raises the issue of whether or not
industrial is compatible at all.
Our packet reads that during implementation of the county zoning
teevaluation program, about seven years ago, the industrial zoning
portions of the site were determined to be, quote, improved property,
end quote, or were granted a compatibility exception. And that phrase
is very important, compatibility exception. They recognized it was
not compatible, but granted an exception because the packing house was
seen as improved property.
So clearly, as part of that process, they raised a red flag as to
whether it was compatible or not. But due to property rights issues
having to do with the packing house, and that being that it was indeed
improved property, they granted an exception and let that go through.
I would say that if anything, it has become less compatible in
the last seven years, certainly not more compatible. If that question
was raised during that process, it certainly is more intense at this
point.
We had a number of traffic issues raised as well. I think there
are some very real questions raised by Mr. Calhoun. Level of service
D issues really give me concern to pause. But the area I want to get
into the most and that is in our packet we have fezone findings for
petition. And there are 17 different questions in there, and every
single fezone we have has these. And no particular question by itself
necessarily knocks out -- if it doesn't answer verbally will
absolutely knock out a petition. But they are each kind of red flags.
And as I go through the 17 questions, nine of the 17 have answers that
I'm not comfortable with or appropriate for us to move ahead. If it
were one or two, perhaps we could address them. But -- a couple of
them I'll just read. Three or four of them I want to get into
specifically.
The existing land use pattern I think is a valid question. It's
already been raised by some of the homeowners, as well as Mr. Garlick,
so I won't get into detail. And the possible creation of an isolated
district, unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. I think that's
valid. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
Now, frankly, I would say the conditions as they are changing or
as they have changed if anything make this less appropriate for the
area.
Item number six on these questions, whether the proposed change
will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. And I
think we've heard very clearly from both the experts and the residents
that it will adversely affect their area.
I thought it ironic that Mr. Varnadoe brought up Collier Park of
Commerce on Airport Road and used that as an example. He said well,
gosh, there's only two entrances there, and it was a traffic issue.
But if you look at what is directly across the road from those
entrances, it's another industrial park. And if you look at what's
directly across the road here, it's one of the highest level
residential communities in the county. It's just -- it's not
appropriate.
Number seven -- and this really goes hand-in-hand with that -- is
whether the proposed changes will create or excessively increase
traffic congestion, or create types of traffic deemed incompatible.
And as we look at the types of traffic, particularly, we'll see the
increase -- and we can have the argument, and I appreciate you trying
to put the trigger mechanisms in there for congestion -- but the type
of traffic I think is every bit as much of a concern as the volume,
because the type of traffic going into an industrial park is very
different than others. You have heavy truck traffic, you have U.S.
Postal Service. You're going to have an unusually high volume going
in there. But you have trucks, you have larger vehicles, vehicles
that are not traditionally compatible with people coming and going
from their neighborhood.
Item ten is whether the proposed changes will adversely affect
property values. And again, we go back to what the neighbors have
shared with us today. They have a very real concern there.
Number 13, whether there are substantial reasons why the property
cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Frankly, no. I
don't understand why it can't be used with existing zoning.
And that goes hand in hand with item 15, is whether it is
impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed
use in districts already permitted. We have the Industrial Park
Guide, which the county in concert with the E.D.C. has put out, and it
shows 15 industrial parks that are appropriate for this within the
urban area. So clearly the answer -- and I'm not sure if it was Mr.
Varnadoe or who, but at the beginning of the hearing I had raised the
question whether or not there was anywhere else you could have this.
There's not just anywhere else, there's more than a dozen other
locations that are already zoned that way, including the industrial
property that already exists on the east side of Goodlette.
So I just -- as I look at all of those, I think the issue fails
to meet over half of the questions that we commonly address on every
single one of our petitions having to do with the land development
code. And when you cite all those, along with the future land use
element and the compatibility issue, I just -- I can't support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Some of the bases for your argument I find
myself disagreeing with.
This is probably one of the hardest decisions for me, because I
think I'm faced with what my gut is telling me in the long-term
interest of this community as a need. And it's a need to develop
places for quality companies to come to employ the children we raise
here, to bring jobs and sustainability of commerce in this community.
It's something this board, until two years ago, and previous boards,
never applied themselves to.
We are in the first year of applying local tax dollars to an
economic development effort, making this a priority; making all the
issues I just stated a priority.
So as much as Mr. Garlick said to us that those are not
considerations, in half he was right. He's right in that we cannot
fezone a piece of property based on economic development initiatives.
That doesn't hold the legal litmus test. However, if doing something
appropriate carries with it those additional reasons, I think that's
icing on the cake. I think that's well worth considering.
The issues you raised about compatibility are the -- is the
single issue that drives me to consider this. These sites that you
state as where Tyton Hellerman could go? With all due respect to the
property owners, I did the fezone on one of these when I was in the
private sector. And a quality company who wants to build a
nice-looking development will only go places where their neighbors
will do the same thing. And what happens is the first one in sets the
pace.
And as you look at all of these that have development, the first
ones in set a pace that feeds the concern of industrial areas in this
community. The first one in was an asphalt batch plant, or the first
one in was a -- you know, an automotive repair shop or a tire
retreading service. And you're not going to get companies like Allan
Systems or Tyton-Hellerman to go in next to a tire retreading
operation.
The truth is, there is one place that has right now quality land
available for those types of businesses, and it's the Collier Park of
Commerce on Airport Tyton Road.
The reason I cite that is because that project was approved and
developed with Coconut River Estates, a high quality, single-family
community, less than a third the distance away than Collier's Reserve.
Not only do the property values there not fall, they have increased
over time even with the increased traffic on Airport Road.
In addition, the Collier Enterprises then constructed
single-family homes immediately adjacent to their park of commerce.
And the reason is, there is a difference between a park of commerce
and an industrial park. And if what we were looking at today was
placing an industrial park this close to Collier's Reserve, I would
find myself in absolute agreement with you, Commissioner Constantine,
but I don't think that's what we're being asked to do. I think we're
being asked to look at what can become a part of the landscape and
whether it in itself is compatible through mitigation of impacts,
whether they be through buffering, through location criteria, through
roadway impacts, to make it compatible.
What works against the incompatibility argument is simply that
people who bought in Collier's Reserve bought about 300 yards from a
piece of land zoned right now for uses such as upholstery repair
shops, automobile exhaust system repair, tire retreading, transmission
repair, major communication towers, manufacturing with electric motors
and power generators. All of these things right now can happen within
a few hundred yards of the entrance to your community. None of those
things can happen in what's being proposed here.
And although the immediate reaction is simply not going to be
favorable -- and I don't expect it to be. I expect the long-term
reaction to be one of compatibility. And for that reason, I find
myself in a position to support the motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie and
seconded by Commissioner Norris, knowing that what I'm doing is not
politically popular. But what I'm doing is what I committed to do
when I took this job, which is to look beyond the years of my term of
office and try and plan for a balanced diverse community that serves
everyone. And that's simply what I see as my charge. Questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, you made a good point
about locating -- if we were being asked to locate an industrial park
next to Collier's Reserve and Pelican Marsh, I wouldn't do it either.
But, in fact, we're doing just the opposite. We're taking away an
industrial park that's already zoned, it's already there, could be
built on tomorrow without ever coming before this Board for a public
hearing. We're taking that potential away, and what we're doing is
guaranteeing that there will be more compatible and far less intensive
uses on this property than are today possible. So you're right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm going to support this motion
basically because of the use of the land. I guess I'm one of these
long-timers here in Collier County as well. And had we made some
choices a long time ago, many of you wouldn't even be here.
But I will tell you that this piece of land, you may be looking
at a tomato field today, but for economic reasons it's not really
economically feasible to go ahead and continue growing tomatoes on
this piece of land. That's the decision by the owner of this
property.
The alternative, and there was a lot of havoc raised about that,
was a mega mall. You didn't like that idea, either. And so
consequently, when this came forward -- and I certainly saw the
particular description of what this Commerce Park was going to look
like -- I also availed myself to go to Tyton, and I also went to
another company that's down off of Horseshoe Drive called Arthrex. And
if any one of you are familiar with that particular operation, you'll
know the design of that particular building. I would not be
unfavorable to have that building next door to me. And I would hope
that this would be the kind of thing, and this is what I'm hoping that
this park is going to be. And I believe that we have tried to write
enough things into this. And I can't imagine that the Collier family
wants to build something in Collier County to screw it up. Because
they've got too much at stake in this whole county.
And so I'm going to go along with this and support this motion,
because I think it's a good project, I think it's an upscale project,
and I think this is one level above what most of the industrial parks
have been in the area. And I think this is an opportunity to set
something out as a standard above and beyond what other communities
do. And I believe we can prove with this park -- and there's a lot of
burden on you guys out there that are going to do this -- that this
park has got to be absolutely superb and the best neighbors possible
to the Collier Reserve group or to the Pelican Marsh group, or,
frankly, to anyone in that entire area. So you have a lot of burden
and a lot of responsibility on your back to make this project top
notch. So I'm counting on that and I'm supporting the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One last thing I just want to say, and
then I'll stop too, is that I hope that the people who have been
watching us talk about our lofty goals about economic diversification
will see that today is put your money where your mouth is for the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Because no question that
it's politically unpopular to make this choice. I hope, though, that
it sends a message that we are serious about economic diversification,
even though we recognize that it's going to be politically unpopular
and cause some headaches. So I hope that that message is received.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly hope that's not
suggesting that because I oppose it --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'm not all in favor of economic
development --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Strictly referring to district.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: God bless you all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that I'll call the question. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one.
I know we have a lot of people exiting. Let's just take about
two minutes, let them get out, and we'll continue with the agenda.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 97-52 CREATING THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICAITON ADVISORY
COHMITTEE; PROVIDING FOR APPOINTMENT AND COMPOSITION; SETTING FORTH
TERMS OF OFFICE; PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE; FAILURE TO ATTEND
MEETINGS; PROVIDING FOR OFFICERS, QUORUM, RULES OF PROCEDURE; PROVIDING
FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES; SETTING FORTH THE FUNCTIONS; POWERS AND
DUTIES OF THE COHMITTEE; SETTING FORTHE THE DUTIES OF THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE; PROVIDING A REVIEW PROCESS; PROVIDING
FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I call to order the Board of County
Commissioners meeting for October 21st. We are to item 12(C)1.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, it is an absolutely no
brainer, if you'd close the public hearing, I'll be happy to make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any registered speakers, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: No sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, apparently you're going to slow
this train down a little bit.
MR. WEIGEL: And I dearly wish I didn't have to, but we're in the
-- as you know, under the process of getting all the advisory board
ordinances that are already existing to conform with our 86-21 as
amended, our general advisory board ordinance. Particularly in regard
to vacancies, absences and things of that nature. And I would suggest
that what is called paragraph B on page four of the agenda item, which
talks about failure to attend two meetings, that that be -- that I be
given the prerogative to -- and with your endorsement -- to make that
meld with 86-41 as amended, because that's really what we're
attempting to do here, and not have some automatic vacancies created.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is the public hearing closed?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will now close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to move
staff recommendation, inclusive of Mr. Weigel's comments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK:
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Motion to second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 97-402 RE PETITION AV-97-015 TO VACATE, RENOUNCE AND
DISCLAIM THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN ALL OF
WATERWAY DRIVE AND TO VACATE, RENOUNCE AND DISCLAIM THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE 20' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2 AND TO VACATE, RENOUNCE AND DISCLAIM THE COUNTY'S
AND THE PUBLIC'S RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE 20' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "A REPLAT OF TRACT 'L'
MARCO BEACH UNIT SIX" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12, PAGES 55 AND 56,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now, we are to item 12(C)2, the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have just got to feel bad for these
folks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, in addition to everything else, this is
a quasi judicial matter for what -- anyway, I'm going to swear
everyone in now. Would staff and the petitioners please stand and
raise your right hand.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Anybody that's going to speak.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone that's going to speak on this matter.
(Witness duly sworn.)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go too far, Mr. Chairman I
think it's very important we point out Mr. Hulhere's tie perhaps beats
out Whit Ward's tie as the best tie in --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cool.
THE WITNESS: It is for sale.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, is this another no brainer as you
brought to us so many times? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're a good man.
I assume that all provisions for proper drainage have been made,
now that these easements are potential being vacated so that no
property owner will be adversely affected by this action? MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good answer.
Any question of the petitioner or staff?
(No response.)
I close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seconded.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Third.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Motion carries five-zero.
Mr. Mulhere, once again, a fine presentation. Thank you for
spending your afternoon with us.
MR. MULHERE: I won another case.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Stellar presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just hope you were paid by the hour,
sir.
MR. HULHERE: I'm the attorney for the Southwest Planning
Council. I just wanted one more property case. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You just needed one more.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Folks, we are to staff communications.
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees is already shaking the head no.
We're to BCC communications.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, you mentioned you have something under this
item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's so funny that I thought I had an
announcement that would be meaningful at the time. That is that at
7:00 this evening -- if you get in your car now, you can make it --
there is the very first public meeting with the outside consultant on
the Gateway Triangle, the Davis triangle redevelopment program, and we
are very seriously hoping that people will show up. Apparently it's
been very well attended so far today. There have been meetings with
people in the public. Like 50 business owners showed up this morning.
And I don't know from there whether it's less --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And rumor has it, if anybody has a tiara,
Commissioner Hac'Kie is accepting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a whole collection of tiaras. I
will be wearing them at different functions around the county in my
role as queen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I hate to compete with you, Pam, but I'm the
queen of everything.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a shirt that denotes that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, what? I'm not going to compete with
you on being the queen of anything.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm no queen.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I hope not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one item. We, on about three
occasions, have given staff direction on the items coming back to us
on dealing with growth issue, and we asked them to look at various
alternatives with densities and so on. Perhaps we can limit the
ultimate build-out number in some way. And they're going to be coming
back to us shortly with that.
Ironically, one of the proposals I have heard rumored, fairly
accurately I'm told, is increasing densities. So just so you're kind
of prepped for that for -- I think it's coming at us next week. And I
just thought it kind of funny that we're looking to decrease the
number of people ultimately of build-out, and somehow that's been
twisted around that increasing densities will do that, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You just don't let as many people live in each
house.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, yeah. They do that in China, I
think.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so you know, I'll have something put
together for you. I've been working with a group from our planning
staff to try and really get our arms around this issue a little bit
more. When we hear their presentation, I think I'm going to be able
to offer to the Board a direction that is going to do something that's
never been done before, which is to stop dealing with potential
build-out population and mirror the potential build-out to the
infrastructure desires of our community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it's kind of a different way of doing
things, but I've been doing a lot of work on it. And I think once you
hear it, it will take some of the Band Aid approaches that we're
looking at and put them all together into one comprehensive approach,
so --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will respectfully offer some very
specific suggestions next week, too. And I first suggested this in
October of 1995, and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Was that two years ago?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, roughly two years ago. And only
in government would we be getting our report back two years later, but
-- so I appreciate the fact, and perhaps --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because of the lateness of tonight's meeting,
I'm sure you won't mind, let's go ahead and have the goal-setting
workshop now. And -- okay, there's no support for that by the Board.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My goal is to get out of here by 6:38.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So done.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Filson has some things she wants to
talk to us about.
MS. FILSON: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
FINAL PLAT OF "LONGSHORE LAKE, UNIT 5D" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WALK, PHASE FOUR" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 97-396 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SAVANNA"
Item #16A4
CONTRACT GC526 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(FDEP) TO CONTINUE TO PERFORM PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY ASSESSMENTS
WITHIN THE COUNTY
Item #16A5
FINAL PLAT OF "COURTHOUSE SHADOWS" - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
AMENDMENT #2 TO WORK ORDER ABB-FT96-3 FOR REPAIR OF THREE SCRWTF
PROCESS TANKS, PROJECT 70023
Item #1682
CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 97-2731 AWARDED TO MID-CONTINENT ELECTRIC, INC.,
FOR SITE ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR SUGDEN PARK, PROJECT NO. 80081
- IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,900.00
Item #1683 - This item moved to Item #SB1
Item #1684
CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;
RESOLUTION 97-397 FOR HIGHWAY SWEEPING AND RESOLUTION 97-398 FOR
HIGHWAY MOWING
Item #1685
AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH GEORGE BOTNER, ASLA FOR THE DAVIS
BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION AND STREETSCAPE MASTERPLAN, PROJECT
60013 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $28,875.00
Item #1686 - This item has been deleted
Item #1687
RECLAIMED WATER USE AGREEMENT WITH LAKEWOOD COHMUNITY SERVICES
ASSOCIATION
Item #1688
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY UPGRADE CONTRACT 1, BID 96-2509, PROJECT NO. 73916
Item #16B9
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $665,182.00, FOR DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF GOODLETTE FRANK
ROAD FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENTS, CIE PROJECT NO. 065 (RFP NO. 96-2599)
Item #16C1
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING REVENUE RECEIVED AT VINEYARDS COHMUNITY
PARK AT THE END OF FY 97 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,939.00
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE IHMOKALEE
SPORTS COMPLEX/FITNESS CENTER - IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,400.00
Item #16C3
THE SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK SPECIAL EVENT USAGE POLICY
Item #16C4 - This item moved to Item #8C1
Item #16D1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF PLANT MATERIAL ALONG U.S. 41 AT THE
MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX DUE TO CONSTRUCTION - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$20,000.00
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 97-399 RE FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND CONGRESSMAN PORTER GOSS
Item #16D3
CONTRACTUAL AGREEHENT WITH GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
FOR FIRE AND RESCUE PROTECTION SERVICES WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT
Item #16D4 - This item has been deleted
Item #16D5
AWARD BID #97-2736 TO EVERGREEN LANDSCAPING OF COLLIER, IN THE ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $58,080.00, FOR GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AT SATELLITE FACILITIES
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 97-503 AND 98-009
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or directed to the
various departments as indicated on the miscellaneous correspondence.
Item #16H1
ACCEPTANCE DOCUMENT FOR THE $2,025,000 COPS UNIVERSAL HIRING
SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT #95CCWX0265
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:20 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
BY DAWN M. BREEHNE, KAYE GRAY, RPR, AND CHERI LEONE, RPR