BCC Minutes 10/28/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1997
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
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 9:06 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
CHAIRMAN:
members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Barbara B. Berry
Bob Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
October 28th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. This
morning, as we ask Father Joseph Spinelli to bless us with an
invocation, I would ask Father Spinelli and others to remember in your
hearts and pray for Ms. Ernestine Cousineau, one of our long-term
county employees. Ms. Cousineau is not doing well today, and Ernie
will be in our thoughts and our prayers today and for some time, and
Father Spinelli, if I could ask for your blessing and invocation this
morning.
FATHER SPINELLI: In the name of the father and of the son and of
the holy spirit, amen. We stand before you, holy spirit of God,
conscious of our sinfulness but aware that we gather in your name.
Come to us, remain with us and enlighten our hearts. Give us light
and strength to know your will, to make it our own and to live it in
our lives. Guide us by your wisdom. Support us by your power for you
are God.
You desire justice for all, enable us to uphold the rights of
others. Do not allow us to be misled by ignorance or corrupted by
fear or favor.
You unite us to yourself in the bond of love and keep us faithful
to all that is truth. As we gather in your name, may we temper
justice with love so that all our decisions may be pleasing to you and
earn the reward promised to good and faithful servants.
Oh, Lord, may everything we do begin with your inspiration and
continue with your help so that all our prayers and all our works may
begin in you and by you be happily ended, we ask this through Christ
our Lord, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Father Spinelli, thank you for taking the time
to be with us today, and for those of you that have never attended one
of his services, I think his other calling was as a stand-up comedy.
It's a pleasure to see you this morning, sir.
Good morning, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do we have this morning on the change
sheet?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have a number of changes to go over. The
first is a notice of continued Item 9(B). This is board consideration
for approval of a revised draft memorandum of understanding,
environmental impact statement Southwest Florida between the Army
Corps of Engineers, Collier County and Lee County. This is under the
county attorney section of the agenda.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we talk about why --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why are we continuing that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- why are we continuing?
MR. WEIGEL: No, in fact -- thank you. It's not continued. The
board actually continued it from last week to this week's agenda, but
it didn't appear in the agenda index -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: -- and I had concern for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not -- that's not to say we won't
continue or table it later, but --
MR. WEIGEL: Right, and it was, in fact, advertised in
yesterday's Naples Daily News, as it was the previous week, to give
notice to people, although there's no legal requirement for
advertisement here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, it's just an administrative add-on
really?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right, it's an add.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha.
MR. FERNANDEZ: But it was requested to be placed on the agenda
last week.
The next is an add. It's Item 10(C), recommendation to declare
vacancies on the tourist development council. It's at the board's
request.
We have three continuations. The first is Item 8(D)(1). This is
to be continued to the November 4th meeting. It's the approval of
purchasing productivity implementation plan. It's at the staff's
request in order to give the productivity committee an opportunity to
see our recommendations.
The next is Item 8(D)(2). This is a discussion regarding
requests from Isle of Capri Advisory Board. There's going to be a
town meeting on the 3rd, and it would be appropriate to consider this
matter after the town meeting on the 3rd.
The third item to continue is Item 9(A). This is a
recommendation to consider a proposed settlement agreement regarding
the Lely Barefoot Beach guardhouse litigation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about that one.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's at the county attorney's request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question about that one is would it be
helpful to the county attorney in negotiating this to have some idea
-- it may be that a majority of the board supports a compromise that
includes leaving the structure there, and if that's the case, then you
could go forward and continue to negotiate along those lines, but if
there's not a majority of the board that supports that fundamental
element of the discussion, it seems to me it would be useful to you to
know that as you're negotiating.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if I may, we have asked, specifically asked
for the Attorney General's office to provide the county and the
property owners, all parties therefore, the reasons that they have
question or take issue with the proposed settlement document before us
now. We have yet to receive the formal response or anything in
writing or specific other than, essentially, that they don't agree
with the gist of it and that it seems to be in conflict with some
principles that they believe are appropriate here, and without that
specificity, it makes it very difficult to get into a protracted
discussion, although I think your point is well taken that some
indication to staff of the general consensus of the board may be of
some assistance.
I will state, however, that there have been -- we must be mindful
of the fact that there is an appellate process in process right now,
and we are fast approaching by the end of this month the requirement
that our office will go forward to do all work necessary to administer
the appeal from the county standpoint of the original code enforcement
board action as well as assist and tend to the case that's in the
court presently.
We are at the point where the extensions and continuances do not
allow us to forbear any further in that regard, so we are going to
have to just go forward and start to work on that unless things change
more quickly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, for what it's worth, what I'd like
to do, and I don't know if anybody else on the board wants to state
their position, but my position is that I would very much like for you
to continue with that appeal. I would very much -- there's some
issues that are worth fighting over. Unimpeded access to the beach is
one of those. I think that we should be continuing the appeal, and
I'm not interested -- I won't be supporting any -- any settlement that
includes the existing structure remaining in its current location.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, would you also be
wishing to destroy the kiosks at the other parks, too, or just that
one?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, we might want to look at all of
those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I just wanted to make sure it
wasn't singling out one situation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I would want to -- I think we should
look at all of those, but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- I think we should, in particular, look
at any that have kiosks manned by -- other than county employees.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the
unusual position of agreeing wholeheartedly with Commissioner Hac'Kie
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hey, it can happen.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- however, however, knowing that we
have had this discussion hundreds of times seemingly in the past five
years, and we really are going to have a full-blown discussion on it
regardless of where we go after Mr. Weigel has talked with the state,
we are going to need to have a full hearing on it. I just -- I don't
think it's probably fair to either the homeowners who live in that
place or the folks outside who have been active for us to kind of
discuss it today and then discuss it again another time.
So, as much as I agree with you, I just think we probably ought
to wait until we have all the facts.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my curiosity has to do with
Commissioner Berry's position because I don't think we've discussed it
since she has been on the board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And I don't think today is the day that
you're going to find out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a problem --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: It's not on the agenda, and I agree with --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it was.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- Commissioner -- other than, yes, it's
here and it's been pulled off, I don't think that it is appropriate
unless we are going to have a full-blown discussion on it. I don't
mind telling anybody where I'm at on it, but I also have some concerns
over the current settlement and so forth. There's just a lot of
things that need to be taken into consideration, but I would like to
know where the Attorney General is at on this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So would we.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, from my standpoint, because I'm the
new kid on the block, I'd like to know what his opposition is to the
whole thing, and I don't think -- I'm not aware of it, and maybe the
rest of you are.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, no one is because we had a meeting with
them in which general broad issues were brought up with absolutely no
details whatsoever. We requested that their objections be listed in
detail and submitted to the county attorney's office by yesterday.
Do we have that, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, we do not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, we do not have that.
So, I think the protocol here is important. A majority of the
board asked that we at least move forward and see if there is a
negotiation, and I think to pull that rug out right now is
inappropriate. You have every right to not agree with it when it
comes forward, but I would appreciate allowing the process to
continue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And I certainly concur with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then that item is continued. Let's hope
further continuations don't have lengthy discussion attached to it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the last one, so --
MR. WEIGEL: We are continuing this indefinitely without a date.
Obviously, as soon as we have a date, it will come to the regular
agenda submission process and be part of the regular agenda at that
point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of which I saw the agenda printed in the paper
in full, and I thought that was fantastic. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Interesting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are hoping that that will be
sometime before Commissioner Norris and I conclude our time on the
board.
MR. WEIGEL: Are you going somewhere?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's been seven or eight years
since the issue started. So, another three doesn't seem like much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further continuations or changes to the
agenda?
MR. FERNANDEZ: There are none, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Seeing none, Commissioner Mac'Kie, do
you have any changes?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick note. Mr. Erlichman had
asked about one item on the consent agenda. We are actually getting
money from them on that issue, Mr. Erlichman, so I'm not removing it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There will be no changes to the
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's going to be interesting to read that one
on the record.
And I have no changes.
Do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1997 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to Item 4, approval of minutes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we
approve the minutes of the regular meeting of this board for October
7th, 1997.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: 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: Motion carries.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING NOVEMBER 30, 1997 AS ANA BARBARA DAY - ADOPTED
Five (A)(1), proclamations, Commissioner Mac'Hie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, it's my honor to get to read a
proclamation about the Latin-American Festival, and I'd like to ask
Mr. Modesto Reyes, if I'm pronouncing that right, to come forward. If
you guys will just come forward and face the camera in the back of the
room.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have to translate for him.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, wonderful. Come on up, come on up
here and turn this way, and if you'll translate, that would be
wonderful. I wish yours could be on the sound system instead of mine.
The proclamation reads: WHEREAS, Ana Barbara, better known as
the Queen of "Husica Grupera", is a native of Rio Ve de, San Luis
Potosi, Mexico -- and Commissioner Norris should be reading this since
he's the one who is fluent in Spanish instead of me. So, I apologize
for my bad accent.
WHEREAS, Ana Barbara's hits have reached the Billboard list for
30 plus weeks in the USA and Mexico; and
WHEREAS, Ana Barbara is the recipient of one of the most
prestigious awards in the Spanish market, "El Premio Lo Nuestro"; and
WHEREAS, Ana Barbara has also won numerous other awards,
including "Furia Musical"; and
WHEREAS, Ana Barbara has sold millions of CDs and is very well
liked by the Hispanic communities in the United States and around the
world.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that November 30, 1997 be
designated as Ana Barbara Day.
DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of October, 1997. Board of County
Commissioners, Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman, and I would move
acceptance of this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wonderful.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations.
(Applause).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you want me to brief everyone on this?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, why don't you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For all those that are a little confused right
now, you may remember a couple of years ago we had a meeting with the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board and had discussed community
celebrations that celebrated the different heritages in our community.
Ana Barbara is going to be the headline performer at an event
scheduled for November that is just that, a celebration of Spanish
culture and heritage here in Collier County, and along with Ana
Barbara is the well known Spanish group, the Platters. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a mix of cultures.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It is, and comedian Elver Ramiro and others --
and the date is November 30th of this year, and she is really the next
Selena as to what is going on in South America in the Hispanic
culture.
So, it's a tremendous headliner. It's going to be out in
Immokalee.
Is it going to be at the fairgrounds, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, it's going to be at the fairgrounds, and
I'd encourage everyone to intend, but to have somebody of that note
coming in for that kind of a festival, we thought, was worthy of a
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The next item on our agenda is service
awards. Commissioner Berry.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This morning, we are pleased to be able to honor four of our
employees. We'll start with the least tenured person, at this time is
Charles Williams with facilities management, five years. Charles.
(Applause).
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought we just needed extra security
today.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Expecting trouble?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Our next recipient, excuse me, is Jane
McDonald, veteran services for ten years.
(Applause).
COHMISSIONER BERRY: We are pleased to honor Robert Salvaggio,
building review and permitting, ten years.
(Applause).
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And our last ten year veteran today is Eric
Watson with the EHS department, ten years.
(Applause).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Continue to collect the hardware.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, it occurs to me we have some
county commissioners who ought to be getting five year pins, don't we?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yep.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of weeks.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER BERRY:
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
This month.
This month, okay.
Next month.
I don't know --
Actually, they are battle badges, so --
Purple Hearts.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those will be real imitation gold with real
imitation stones in them, so --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's worth noting, Mr. Chairman, I
think it says something about the county when you have people who do
stay with the county for a period of time, and it's nice to honor
people that have been there, and the five and ten year veterans, I
think that that says a lot. It continues the continuity within the
departments, and I think that says a lot for the county.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. I've even asked Mr. Fernandez and,
previously, Mr. Dotrill if that type of recognition means something to
the employees, and I'm assured that it does, and I just want them to
know that nobody sitting on this board has been doing this job for
nearly five years. So, it certainly is an accomplishment to them, and
we encourage longevity in the organization. You're close.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next month.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next month.
Item #6C
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT IN THE MATTER OF DWIGHT E. BROCK AS
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLLIER COUNTY V. MERIDIAN SECURITIES,
INC., MERIDIAN CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., AND MERIDIAN BANCORP, INC. AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR A GENERAL RELEASE FROM THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE
AFOREMENTIONED RESPONDENTS - ACCEPTED
The next item on our agenda is Item 6(C). This is a report
to inform the board of the clerk's settlement arrangement in the
matter of Dwight Brock, Clerk of Circuit Court of Collier County
versus Meridian Securities, Meridian Capital Markets and Meridian
Bancorp, and request the board to authorize a general release from the
claims against the aforementioned respondents. Mr. Mitchell, good morning.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, Jim
Mitchell, the director of the finance and accounting department.
Our purpose of coming before you today is twofold: first, to
inform you of the proposed settlement arrangement in the matter of
Dwight E. Brock as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County versus
Meridian Securities, Inc., Meridian Capital Markets, Inc., Meridian
Bancorp, Inc., collectively referred to as Meridian; and second, to
seek the board's authorization of a general release from the claims
against Meridian.
The clerk has asked Mr. Thomas Grady of Grady & Associates, who
represents the clerk in this matter, to provide an overview to the
board and discuss the proposed settlement arrangement. With that, I
would like to turn the podium over to Mr. Grady, and both of us will
be available at the end of his presentation for any questions. MR. GRADY: Thank you, Jim.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. It's nice to
be here again.
I was hoping that perhaps Ana Barbara would have remained in the
room so that we might have a five-part harmony as we make this
presentation to you, but without her, we'll do it anyway, and I'll be
very brief because I know the board is very familiar -- you're holding
a picture. Okay, she's here in spirit.
I know you're familiar with the background of this matter, but
let me just be brief --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She wasn't here before.
MR. GRADY: I'm sorry. I thought I heard something about she's
here, she's here.
What we have today is the presentation of a proposed settlement
by Meridian Securities of the claims asserted by Dwight Brock as Clerk
of the Circuit Court against that firm. The board will recall,
approximately two and a half years ago, Mr. Brock and I appeared here,
I believe it was in Hay of 1995, and advised the board of concerns
that Mr. Brock had regarding the investment securities in the
portfolio at that time.
Much has happened since then. Many experts have been retained to
look at the transactions and its securities and at the policies.
Two arbitration claims were filed. One was filed against
Securities America. The other was filed against Meridian Securities.
A separate lawsuit was filed against the accounting firm of Coopers &
Lybrand, and as the board will recall, a few months ago, the
Securities America claims were settled, and that settlement, like this
settlement, required, at least at the stage as presented to the board,
that the board consent to the agreement and release Securities
America, just as Heridian is requesting a release, and in exchange for
that, the board is released.
The board will probably recall some of the discussion, and there
has actually been litigation in the circuit court here in Collier
County regarding who the proper plaintiff in that action was supposed
to be. Mr. Brock had always asserted that he had the duty and the
right to bring the litigation in his name. The defendants in all
three actions at various times argued instead that Mr. Brock did not
have that authority, that the board had the authority. Judge Carlton
at the circuit court level ruled that Mr. Brock did have that
authority, but nonetheless, as cautious lawyers, the lawyers for
Securities America, and also the lawyers for Meridian, have requested
that this board release them in exchange for a release of the board
and, of course, in exchange for a payment to the clerk.
The settlement agreement with Meridian Securities calls for a
payment of 1.2 million dollars to the clerk in exchange for a release
of all claims against Meridian Securities. We are pleased with the
result. Meridian Securities has denied liability in entering into the
agreement, and that is spelled out in the settlement agreement that
has been presented as part of the agenda proposal to you, but
nonetheless, they have agreed to pay the 1.2 million dollar sum.
I'm pleased to make that presentation to you and to ask that you
join in the settlement agreement and that you join in making the
release in favor of Meridian Securities.
The monies have already been placed into trust in Collier County,
so they are here, and immediately upon approval of the board -- or in
the event that does not occur, the monies perhaps will be required to
be returned to Meridian or we may end up taking the claims to trial or
we may end up negotiating some other arrangement, but at this point,
the settlement agreement requires the consent of this organization,
and we would ask that that happen today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a thank you to the clerk. I'm sorry
he can't be here in person so that we can communicate that to him
directly, but -- and I thank you, Mr. Grady, for your good work
because it takes a lot of patience. One thing I've learned on this
board is that wheels move awfully slowly, and I guess they move even
more slowly when it requires litigation, but it is wonderful to see
that there has been a good result, and I commend the clerk for his
strong position on it and thank you for it, and I'm certainly going to
endorse it. I think there are a lot of technical questions about what
happens with the money now, as we've been advised by our -- well, the
county attorney, but it's just a wonderful result to finally have the
resolution. It's a long time coming.
MR. GRADY: Well, thank you. We are pleased that we were able to
beat the resolution of the guardhouse issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Mitchell, if I may, Mr.
Grady.
There's a requirement that we place a paper loss regarding
derivatives, in essence, on the books; am I correct in that? Did I
read that correctly?
MR. MITCHELL: I think what you're referring to is a new
pronouncement by the governmental county standards board which is
known as GASB 31. What GASB 31 says, that any fiscal cycle that
begins after June -- June or July 15th of this year, the portfolio,
through the financial statements, will be represented at market value.
So, in doing that, we will recognize a loss that will have to run
through the operating statement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess my question is that that amount right
now rested on this issue of approximately 1.2 million dollars.
MR. MITCHELL: No. The one point -- what we are going to be
recognizing through GASB 31 is approximately net, all investments,
because youwve got to take -- we have certain investments that have
gains and certain investments that have losses. Itws going to be
somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.1 million dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of a loss.
MR. MITCHELL: Of a loss.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How much of that is -- how much of that is
directed toward the derivatives issue?
MR. MITCHELL: I haven't gotten that far into the GASB 31
transaction yet. I could provide that to you probably by the end of
the day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: You know, the way that we are looking at this,
Commissioner, is it's really two separate issues; GASB 31 being a
financial reporting issue and the Meridian issue being more of a legal
issue, but I can, by the end of the day, provide you with what
information you want on GASB 31.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I ask is I think we operate or at
least operate under the impression that these legal actions were to
recoup losses that through the advice of Meridian and whatnot were
negligent in meeting the county's investment policy, and that when all
was said and done, our goal was to eliminate at least the derivative
side of that loss. I guess I just -- I'm curious as to how far we
have gone toward doing that in these settlements.
MR. GRADY: Your recollection is correct. There were essentially
three claims asserted against Meridian, and one of them was that the
securities that were purchased by the clerk did not meet the
investment portfolio or the investment criteria laid out by this
organization.
Other claims that were asserted against Meridian included
excessive markups on the securities. In other words, too much was
paid for them or too little was received when they were sold, and we
also had alleged that there was excessive trading, that there were
more transactions that occurred in the portfolio than necessary.
It -- I can't comment on the GASB issue because that's outside of
my area of expertise, but I can comment as to the numbers and as to
the damages, and one of the reasons that I recommended that the clerk
settle the claims was that through a combination of good fortune and
good management subsequent to 1994, the portfolio itself was managed
in a way that minimized those losses. I believe you may recall a
presentation has been made on at least one occasion where the clerk
explained that his policy adopted after this problem first erupted,
which then presented a multi-million dollar problem in terms of
unrealized losses, his position was going to be that he can't predict
what will happen tomorrow, and he may be accused at some point, as
would any claimant in any kind of legal proceeding, of not having sold
and mitigated losses when one should have, but he took the position
that he thought it was his duty to not sell these securities at any
kind of material loss.
So, when the market would rebound for any of these securities,
whether they were the CMOs or the ARMs or any other securities,
mortgage back securities under the portfolio, he would sell them.
So, in the intervening two and a half years, those securities
have been sold, and from an out-of-pocket standpoint, meaning
literally what you put in the account versus what you took out of the
account, there are gains. So, when you factor in the income earned by
the securities, there is no loss.
Now, you may have to book a loss in accordance with GASB because
that -- the GASB ruling, I presume, does not include the income.
You're just looking at what you paid versus what it's worth today, and
you're ignoring the income that has been earned on that security while
you've held it. When you factor that income into the equation, there
was actually a gain.
We believe that under the laws applicable and the claims, there
was still liability on the part of the firms under the statutes that
governs these kinds of transactions and that calculating legal damages
would still have resulted in liability owed to the clerk, but from an
out-of-pocket standpoint, one of the considerations, as I point out,
was that there was actually a gain in the portfolio.
So, we believe under those circumstances and because of other
factors that I'd be happy to get into if the board would request, we
thought this was an excellent result.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, this settlement really is aimed more at, I
guess, the administrative operation of the transactions as opposed to
material losses realized by the county? In other words, we are not
suing because we physically lost a million or two million or three
million dollars on this but because the transactions that occurred
between the county and Meridian were not -- did not comply with the
county's policies and -- I know it's much more detailed than that, but
in other words, we are not recouping physical losses here. We are
just really establishing that the activity was not appropriate in how
it was performed.
MR. GRADY: I think I agree, and I think the key is, again, that
legal damages are calculated in a way that is different sometimes than
calculating an out-of-pocket loss or than calculating what one might
be required to report under FASB or GASB or any other accounting
requirements.
So, again, from an out-of-pocket standpoint, no loss. From a
damages standpoint, yes damages, and if we go back in time to Hay of
1995 when we first considered the issue, very significant damages and
out-of-pocket losses at that time but they were unrealized.
So, because the markets did what they did and we can't predict
them, witness yesterday's event, we were very fortunate -- the clerk
was very fortunate in total, I think, when considering how the
portfolio has been managed and then adding to it the settlement from
several months ago with Securities America and the settlement today
from Meridian, I think the clerk has fared quite well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've got one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead, Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is the -- is it 1.2 million even, all
zeros?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, that's the gross amount. It's 1.2 --
$1,200,000. That is the gross amount of the settlement that's being
proposed.
Coming out of that, we do have a fee arrangement with Mr. Grady
and certain expenses that will have to be satisfied.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And what will that amount be totally?
MR. MITCHELL: Tom, what is the -- is it thirty-three and a third
percent, your contract?
MR. GRADY: The fees and costs will total -- I'll estimate about
a third. The fee portion is 30 percent, and costs are separate of
that. I do recall that Mr. Weigel had put in a memorandum to the
board that he thought it might have been thirty-three and a third
percent or 40 percent, which is customary in these types of
transactions, but the agreement entered into with the clerk was a flat
30 percent on the fee.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So, the net to the county then, Mr.
Mitchell, is going to be approximately 800,0007 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that -- those funds -- trying to answer
Mr. Weigel's question, those funds will be assigned to --
MR. MITCHELL: We are proposing to treat this transaction the
same as we had treated the Securities America transaction and we take
a very conservative approach, and that is we deposit the monies into
the clerk's fund. They are invested just like any other dollar that
the county has. The clerk's investment policy has the same
restrictions that the board's investment policy has, and what we do is
include those monies and turn back at the end of the fiscal cycle, and
I think that the clerk is preparing today his turn back for fiscal
year 1997, and that is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of
1.6 million dollars plus, which does include the gross amount of
Securities America's comeback.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And how much was that?
MR. MITCHELL: It was $250,000.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, what we will see next year is an increase
and turn back of 800,000 over what else the clerk may find. MR. MITCHELL: That's the plan, yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, hopefully, 800,000 plus whatever he
earns on it as he invests it.
MR. MITCHELL: That would be correct. It's going to be the
$800,000, plus the interest component of it, plus any other excess
fees that he has.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, does that form of settlement
conflict in any way with board policy that you're aware of?
MR. WEIGEL: Not that I'm aware, and I think that this
information before the board and me and the county's fiscal office is
helpful to have an explanation of what appears to be a distinction
between a reimbursement of losses of invested -- investment capital
itself and the damages explanation, which wasn't in the executive
summary, but I think assists us all in our review of this. So, I'm
satisfied.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The key being in the end, the taxpayer wins
and nobody can really argue with that.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, that's been our goal from the very
beginning.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Great. Further questions for Mr. Mitchell or
Mr. Grady?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
accept the settlement agreement and authorize the general release.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second.
Is that sufficient to meet the intent of the agreement, Mr.
Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely, but I would request that at your
earliest convenience, you execute the agreement because my goal is to
get the monies in as soon as we can and have them earning interest as
quickly as possible.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Filson, do you have it in your hot little
hands?
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Grady has it in his hot little hands.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. When it passes through Ms. Filson and
me, it will be signed.
We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Grady, Mr. Mitchell and to Mr. Brock,
thank you.
MR. GRADY: Thank you very much.
Item #SD1 & 2 - Continued to 11/4/97
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to -- let's see, we had two
continuations. Eight D(1) and (2) were continued.
Item #9A - Continued indefinitely
Nine A was continued.
Item #9B
REVISED DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (EIS) SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, BETWEEN THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
COLLIER COUNTY AND LEE COUNTY - TABLED TO MEETING OF 11/4/97
We are to Item 9(B), the Army Corps of Engineers' MOU. What I'd
like to do is, I may be able to make this a very brief discussion.
I've had telephone conversations with Commissioners John Manning and
Commissioner John Albion of Lee County. We have a couple of concerns.
The first is that the questions we alluded to or I alluded to
last week that Lee County was posing to the Army Corps of Engineers to
date have not been answered, and since some of them deal specifically
with the airport and its applications and, Commissioner Constantine,
you, I think, clearly stated how that would have an impact on Collier
County and should be a concern.
Without having answers to that, I don't think there's really any
need to rehash previous discussions on this. I'm not ready to move
forward, and I'll even go as far as to tell you that Commissioner John
Manning and John Albion sounded less than optimistic that they would
even table the item today. My gut feeling is that it will be -- it
will be quashed in Lee County. I know the two of them are -- did not
sound supportive. I know Andy Coy has actually written opinions that
they should not be involved at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who has?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Andy Coy, Mr. Andy Coy.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's the chairman, isn't he?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, he is. I'm sorry, Chairman Coy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, that's three.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, from my position, I think to have a
protracted discussion today to either sign on or not sign on, even
when questions remain out there, would have no material benefit or
impact on this understanding.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, do you think one more week
continuation would be appropriate or should we continue it
indefinitely?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think a one week continuation would tell us
clearly where Lee County is. If they vote not to be a part of this,
then without the three elements of the partnership, I don't think
Collier County has a place there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I will move to -- just to cut off
discussion for today's period, I will move to table it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion to table for one week?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seconded by Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the question do we yet know what the
questions are in Lee County?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, actually, I have -- and I'll
pass on a copy. There are actually 46 very specific questions that
Chairman Coy has passed on, and they range from questioning what major
federal action exists to compel EIS down to some very specific things
relating to the airport and relating to the flooding in Bonita and so
on.
I agree with you. One of the most frustrating things in
government can be how slow things go sometimes, testament by Lely
Barefoot Beach, but I think slow and cautious is the prudent action
here, and I agree wholeheartedly with you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Also, and I'll pass this around or have copies
made to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here are copies.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Chairman Coy also wrote an editorial, I
guess, commentary in the Bonita Banner on Sun -- Saturday, October
llth. I think it's worth looking at, but the whole idea here was a
partnership, and if one arm or one leg of that three legged stool
isn't there, I don't think there's enough to compel Collier County and
the Corps alone to reach an agreement on the EIS when really the
center of the EIS is based in Lee County.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, quite frankly, depending on the
answers to some of these questions that have been raised -- Lee County
has raised the question whether the EIS has been compelled under
federal requirements the way we were led last week. Now, it may very
well be, but until we have those specific answers, perhaps it's not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If those answers all come back in the
affirmative, my position doesn't change from where it was last week,
but I'm not going to make a decision somewhat in the dark today.
So, we do have a motion and a second to table. Is there further
discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. The item is tabled
for next week. I'll be following up with discussions with Lee County,
and I believe I also have a dinner scheduled next week with Colonel
Miller.
So, again, I'll do my best to bring what information I can back
to the board for next week's discussion.
Item #10A
RES. 97-406 REAPPOINTING ROBERT C. COLE AND GEORGE C. PEARSON TO THE
LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item, Item 10(A), appointment of members to the Lely
Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I move staff's recommendation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none --
MS. FILSON: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- all those in favor, signify by -- well,
yes, Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: We need to waive Section 7(b)(2) of 86.41. One of
the members has served more than two terms.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I'll include in my motion that we
waive that requirement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to withdraw my second because
what we have traditionally done each time that has happened, if a
person who is qualified applies, and we did that with parks and rec.
in '93 and so --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This guy is not qualified by virtue that he
does not live within the HSTU.
MS. FILSON: Right. We have three vacancies I'll have to
advertise for.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Filson is going to have to re-
advertise.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of these people is not eligible,
Mr. Saul?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, Mr. Saul is not eligible.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Sorry, I'll reinstate my
second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that includes the waiver of --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the aforementioned ordinance?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #10B
VACANCY ON THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT ADVISORY BOARD - TO BE
READVERTISED
We are to Item 10(B), direction from Board of County
Commissioners regarding vacancy on the Collier County Public Health
Unit Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Filson, can we get an explanation
on this? It says you tried to contact the applicant 19 times to
confirm they were applying, and you couldn't get a response.
MS. FILSON: Yes, that's because this was advertised early on in
the year, and they -- I think Tom's here to explain it. They talked
about disbanding, and since we had such a long time in between, I
called her to see if she was still interested in serving on the
community because she's a -- even though she's registered down here,
she's a part-time resident, and I couldn't reach her. I sent a fax to
her, and we called her like 19 times.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, is there -- I see no compelling
reason to appoint someone that you can't, at least, get ahold of. I
understand she's part-time, but maybe a northern phone number would
have been a good idea.
MR. OLLIFF: No, I agree. I think -- I think she is, in all
likelihood, a seasonal resident, and it makes it difficult to have
what is an ongoing annual committee meet and have a quorum with
seasonal residents.
So, our recommendation is we re-advertise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Filson, thank you for your diligence on
this. Nineteen phone calls, I think, is more than an effort.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to follow Mr. Olliff's
suggestion --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and re-advertise.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
Item #10C
VACANCIES DECLARED ON THE TOURIST DEVELOPHENT COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The next item is an add-on to declare
vacancies on the Tourist Development Council. We have two sitting
members of the TDC that are city council candidates on the City of
Marco Island. I have two questions.
The first -- well, one, I don't think we have a choice.
According to our ordinance, we must declare vacancies in those
positions, but the second issue, Mr. Weigel, is both of these
individuals voted at the last TDC meeting, and I believe that was
after they had been declared candidates for city council. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the protocol? If they had not been
there, we still would have had a quorum. I believe the vote may not
have changed, but they had input on each vote.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Stakich specifically spoke in favor
strongly of two applications that were approved, so I guess my concern
is, as a TDC recommendation comes forward to the board, it seems to be
somewhat tainted at this point, and I'm not sure how we should or
should not consider that impact.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think we should be careful to apply the
adjective to that, but the -- our ordinance --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I agree. Tainted only means that I'm not
sure what the policy applications are; not directed to the two
individuals in any way.
MR. WEIGEL: I think we have, to use a pun, conflicting concepts
coming into play here, and that is that our ordinance, Collier County
Ordinance 86-41 as amended by 92-44, specifically provides a duty upon
a member of a county advisory board or committee to -- a duty to
communicate to the commission, and that's the commission as a whole,
the fact that they've become a candidate for an elective office. It
states that the candidacy is an effective resignation from the post.
Our board earlier this year, this calendar year, had some similar
considerations concerning the Environmental Advisory Board where a
resignation under its ordinance paralleling our Master Advisory Board
Ordinance provided for a resignation to occur upon specific absences,
and looking at the ordinance as a whole and the entire paragraph
concerning vacancies and candidacy of our Master Advisory Board
Ordinance, it appears consistent with the board's previous discussion
of the EAB matter that that position is not vacant and vacated until
the board makes the determination of a vacancy based on the
information that's brought before it -- before us that's required by
the ordinance.
The issue of timing of a -- a board member who is a candidate
becomes more of a personal issue to them as opposed to an issue of the
ethicacy of the operations of the advisory board that they are on in
the first place, and that's where I mentioned we have kind of a,
quote, conflict, because if there is a conflict apart from the
advisory board ordinance, the conflict is considered under state law
the conflicts laws where an individual member may have a conflict to
go forward.
Now, I'm not stating that these individuals who are candidates do
have a conflict under state law, but I think that that's where maybe
the term of conflict would come -- come into play and not in regard to
the actions that were taken by these persons or the participation they
had at the meeting a week ago Monday.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. My intent is in no way to cast
aspersions at either individual, but merely to clarify that vote as it
comes to the board as a TDC recommendation. As I understand what
you're saying, we are to recognize that vote for what it is because we
did not formally declare the vacancies until today. So, that vote is
a valid vote as it comes before the board, and we can see it as such.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
Additionally, I mentioned to the board two Tuesdays ago that I'm
preparing or re-preparing the memos to go to the -- all advisory board
members, the staff liaison as well as to the Board of County
Commissioners about the Sunshine law, public records law, and part of
what we will be providing them is to make sure they also have a copy
of the Master Advisory Board Ordinance which pertains to all people
that are a part of that -- that are a part of any advisory committee
and appointment by the board, and there'll be no excuse for anyone not
to know -- I don't think there's an excuse really now not to know, but
I want to make sure and re-emphasize that through the staff liaison
work, that they once again will have Ordinance 86-41 and all that it
states before them and part of their portfolio to keep with them as
they come to the meetings.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed.
We have a motion and a second to declare vacancies on the TDC.
Is there further discussion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We did?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I thought we did. Did I skip
ahead?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We now have a motion and a second to declare
vacancies on the TDC in the seats of Ms. Butt and Mr. Stakich. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero, and Ms. Filson,
those vacancies will be advertised as soon as possible. MS. FILSON: Yes. I have it right here.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Luckily, that group, as you know, does meet
quarterly. So, it give us a little bit of time to fill those seats.
MS. FILSON: Yeah, I'm going to send the press release out today
after the meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let me ask you to wait one week because
I think we may want to look at the makeup of the TDC. If we have a
City of Marco Island, we have the mayor of Naples sitting on the TDC
because of the incorporated city, and we may want to factor Marco
Island into the makeup of that committee. That's just a thought for
consideration to ensure that the City of Marco Island has
representation.
If we could -- if I could ask you, Mr. Weigel, to prepare that
for discussion purposes next week --
MR. WEIGEL: I would be happy to.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to see if there's a direction we want to
give staff, and then we can advertise consistent with that direction.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Filson.
Item #11
PUBLIC COHMENT - TY AGOSTIN REGARDING LANDFILL ADVISORY BOARD
We are to public comment on general topics. Mr. Fernandez,
do we have speakers this morning?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do; Mr. Ty Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty
Agoston. I live in a less attractive Golden Gate -- northern Golden
Gate Estates.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ty, I hate to correct you again, but
it's a very, very attractive area. Your home, very attractive; the
property, very attractive.
MR. AGOSTON: At any rate, I have attended a meeting -- a public
meeting for the landfill last Wednesday, and I was sitting and kind of
musing over the membership of that advisory board and being that you
are discussing the consistency of the advisory board, I'd like to call
your attention to the landfill advisory board which is predominantly
environmentalists.
Ms. Payton, who is currently suing the county, is part of that.
A number -- well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ty -- Ty.
MR. AGOSTON: -- every major --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to correct you. Ms. Payton is
not part of that.
MR. AGOSTON: Well, she was sitting there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know she did come out and sit at the
table, but she's not part of that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: She sat at the table?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. AGOSTON: She was sitting there.
MS. PAYTON: I was invited to sit at the table.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Payton, you know as well as anyone not to
yell things from the audience.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can understand your mistake as she
was sitting at the table. She's not part of the committee anyway. MR. AGOSTON: Mr. Constantine, the appearance has fooled me.
At any rate, Mr. Fran Stallings, who has invited the Army Corps
of Engineers into the area, who is not a resident of Collier County,
not a taxpayer, into -- the life of me don't understand why is he part
of this advisory committee. Are we -- and let's look at some people
from New York City. I mean, if we are looking for out of county
people -- don't we have enough experts in this county?
There was another point I would like to comment on is this entire
scope of EIS. This disturbs me, frankly, because I see the
sustainable America, sustainable Southwest Florida is nothing but an
attempt to socialize America, socialize Southwest Florida and in that
order, and it already started, apparently, because in Naples, they are
using the principles. The gentleman who was the planner, and a
visionary planner he's called, pretty much openly admitted in public
that those tenements along 41 that's being planned are for the infill
portion of sustainable America which means that all the people outside
will be moved on top of the current Naples population in order to
alleviate them from the area and leave those to the animals.
Now, as far as the Army Corps of Engineers as a federal agency,
it's my understanding that they are working under statutory powers,
and it's also my understanding that they can do their work without
your input or anybody else's input. They are not looking for your
input, ladies and gentlemen, but what they are looking for is the non-
government agencies, such as the Wildlife Federation and what have
you, to call an end, and in large, what they are statutorily able to
do and allow them to take that as the legitimate voice of the people.
Look, I have sent the Army Corps of Engineers suggestions of what
they should do which never made it into the suggestions they have
listed. On the other hand, the suggestions that I have seen being
made by this NGOs made it into those. So, obviously, they are paying
-- their attention is selective. So, I would strongly urge you not to
sit down with them because it's a losing proposition, and as much as I
like Ms. Barbara Berry, I disagree that it is not a hypocrisy to not
sit down.
The situation with Twin Eagles is not parallel. You had a
proposal on the table and you have invited the environmental groups to
comment on it. You, at this point, have no proposal on the table.
They are looking for you to make the proposals.
Thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Agoston.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Mr. Chairman.
Item #12A1
ORD. 97-53 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE; ORD. 97-54 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT; ORD.
97-55 AMENDMENT TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT; ORD. 97-56 INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION; ORD. 97-57 POTABLE WATER; ORD. 97-58 SANITARY SEWER; ORD.
97-59 NATURAL GROUNDWATER; ORD. 97-60 SOLID WASTE; ORD. 97-61 DRAINAGE;
ORD. 97-62 TRANSPORTATION; ORD. 97-63 HOUSING; ORD. 97-64 GOLDEN GATE
MASTER PLAN; ORD. 97-65; IMHOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN; ORD. 97-66
CONSERVATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT; AND ORD. 97-67 FUTURE LAND USE
REGARDING THE 1996-97 EAR-BASED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT - ADOPTED.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED AND TO BE SUBMITTED TO DCA.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, we'll move into public
hearings, under advertised public hearings, 12(A)(1), comprehensive
plan amendments. This is the proposed adoption of the 1996/1997
EAR-based growth management plan amendments in accordance with the
adopted evaluation and appraisal report in accordance with the BCC
direction and in response to objections, recommendations and comments
report received from Department of Community Affairs, otherwise known
as Big Brother.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.
I'm not sure how to expand on that.
For the record, Stan Litsinger of the comprehensive planning
department. As you had noted, this is the final act of adoption of
your comprehensive plan amendments that evolved out of your evaluation
and appraisal report and the growth management plan that took place
over two and a half years ago.
As you're probably aware, the amendments before you were
transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs on April 22nd of
this year for their review. We subsequently received their
objections, recommendations and comments report on July the 6th.
Our proposal today is to present to you through the process of
individual public hearings on each element and sub-element the staff's
proposed responses to the objections raised by the Department of
Community Affairs, including the recommendations of your planning
commission as they arrived at those conclusions on September the 18th
of this year.
The process will take place through a presentation of staff
recommended responses. I might note that all of these responses were
arrived at through a two day session of meetings with officials of the
Department of Community Affairs in August, and we believe reflect a
common ground as far as a satisfactory response.
After staff presentation on each element and each individual
public hearing, we would ask that the board take public comment and
also have a separate motion and vote and close individual public
hearings on each element. This is a little bit of a change in the
process that we have done recently in previous years. We have adopted
the entire comprehensive plan by a separate single ordinance. The
reason that we are taking this new procedure is that in the event that
one or more of the elements is found not to be in compliance, it
doesn't eliminate the other portions of the comprehensive plan for
having the effective ordinance and being applicable for a daily
decision making process.
If you have no questions on the overall process, we'll begin with
the element presentations, and we can open the first public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me just, again, relate to the board and to
those members of the public wishing to speak on any items in this
agenda what Mr. Litsinger has just said, and that is that we will take
public comment on each specific element as staff concludes its
presentation and the board has completed its questions of staff on
that element. I'm going to ask that you keep your comments specific
to that element, avoid general statements, and let's stick to the
specifics of what is before us today.
With that, again, those of you that have registered to speak, if
you have not listed a specific element, please -- you may want to
retrieve your slip from Mr. Fernandez in order to do that or make that
note. If you're not sure of the element, you know, I guess we'll have
to accept comment and late registration at the end of each, but we'll
try and do that with as much efficiency as we can.
Any questions from the board about that process?
Okay. Mr. Litsinger, let's proceed.
MR. LITSINGER: If you please will open the first public hearing
which appears on Page 45 of your agenda package, and that is the
public hearing on ordinance for the recreation and open space element.
I would mention to you that the recreation and open space element
received no objections, comments or responses from the Department of
Community Affairs, and the staff would recommend that it be adopted as
originally transmitted back in April.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions from the board on the recreation
and open space element?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nada.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any members of the public wishing to speak on
that particular element?
Tell you what, anyone -- if you wish to speak on that element,
please raise your hand.
Seeing none, is there a motion on that element?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Close the public hearing on that
element.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve the
recreation and open space element.
COMMISSIONER MAC'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: That went rather quickly.
Next, Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The next element is capital
improvements elements, and here, we have a little different procedure
as we have two ordinances related to the capital improvement element.
If you would look on Page 49 of your agenda package, we have an
ordinance known as the update ordinance to the capital improvement
element which is a procedural matter in Collier County as we annually
adopt our annual update and amendment to the capital improvement
element simultaneously.
Just to tell you the differences in the two, the update ordinance
is merely an ordinance which allows you to update cost figures,
timing, without amending policies to the capital improvement element.
It's not technically an amendment, but it's a procedural process that
we adopt each year in order to have an effective capital program in
place in the event that the capital improvement element should be
found not to be in compliance through compliance negotiations, which
is a moot point due to the fact that we have no objections to the
capital improvement element.
So, I would ask the board to take comment and a motion and vote
on the update ordinance to the capital improvement element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have questions from the board or staff
on this element?
Seeing none, are there -- is there anyone who wishes to speak on
the capital improvement element?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A motion to approve the capital improvement
element.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the ordinance establishing --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the ordinance, the amendment ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'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: The next element, Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: In the -- redundancy, I would ask that the board
also open a public hearing on the amendment of the capital improvement
element ordinance hearing on Page 47, receive public comment, motion
and vote.
I would note there were no objections, recommendations or
comments on the proposed element as submitted to the Department of
Community Affairs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of staff on this?
Just so you know, we are well ahead of the curve on coordination
with the school board in this county. As I meet with commissioners
from all over the state through FAC, it's unbelievable the kind of
problems they are having. So, I think this just goes one step further
to accomplishing something that's much needed. Any questions of staff, again, on this?
Seeing none, are there any members of the public who wish to
speak on the intergovernmental coordination element
MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no, no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry.
MR. LITSINGER: -- we are adopting the amendment ordinance to
the capital improvement element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we are still ahead.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anyone to speak on that element?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You guys just keep that teamwork going.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next, the wonderful Ms. Lee Layne.
MS. LAYNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. LAYNE: Lee Layne, for the record. Now we are on the
intergovernmental coordination element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just ahead of my time, Lee, I'm sorry.
MS. LAYNE: There were only two changes that DCA had on that in
the staff report. They had a problem with our intergovernmental
agreement with the school board. They felt that we didn't have
language in there as to how we would look at schools in the -- outside
the urban area. So, we have recommended and the planning commission
had recommended for approval that we put some language in there about
school siting and its location.
The planning commission, as you see on the bottom of Page 1 of
the staff report, recommended that we change the language, that they
just comply with the state requirements adopted by the board of
education and the site shall be subject to all applicable state or
federal regulations, and with those two changes, recommend adoption of
the intergovernmental coordination.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we could have just said we are not going
to educate the kids outside the urban area. That would have been
easy, Ms. Layne.
I don't have a problem with the language. You have to comply
with the law anyway, so --
MS. LAYNE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- if it makes them happy, more power to them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have some idea if that's going to
satisfy DCA?
MS. LAYNE: No, we don't at this point. We felt that the
agreement that we had with the school board complied with the state
requirements, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This may be coming out of -- there are
concerns throughout the state that school districts are building
schools where the property is cheapest as opposed to where they are
needed. So, what happens is it forces infrastructure improvements
upon the county and its taxpayers unnecessarily.
Now, we really haven't dealt with that here, and I don't think
our school board has done that, but, you know -- so, maybe we are just
lucky, maybe not, but I think that's where DCA's concern is coming
from on this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It may also come out of the fact that
if some bureaucrat in Tallahassee let all of our elements go through
without comment, they wouldn't have anything to do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that too.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You think?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there questions of staff on this item?
Seeing none, do we have anyone to speak on the intergovernmental
coordination element?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go, John.
Motion to approve the intergovern -- intergovernmental
coordination element with the recommendations of staff. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's easy for you to say.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Layne.
Ms. Cacchione.
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione with
your comprehensive planning staff.
I would like to go over the water sub-element in Policy 1.5.1 and
1.5.2, we had recommended some changes in regard to allowing package
plants outside the urban boundary. DCA did have some objections to
that as well as in the sewer element, those two policies, and what we
are recommending to you today is that we do not adopt these proposed
changes, that we leave the plan exactly as it was and we come back to
you in the next cycle with a cjustering provision which would include
how we would handle water and sewer outside the urban boundary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, we leave as it reads on Page 57?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the problem with that is that in the
interim, we can't do -- I guess what I -- I need you to tell me if I'm
understanding this correctly, is that pending an amendment that allows
package plants, we are continuing to encourage those grid developments
outside with -- and we are also encouraging septic tanks.
MS. CACCHIONE: I think that the board did review that as part of
the Twin Eagles, and they did find that project to be consistent with
our current comprehensive plan. I think we can come back to you as
quickly as possible with the language on the cjustering, and during
the interim, those projects that comply with our current ordinances
could go forward, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: I'd just like to make a comment. For the record,
Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney.
We have been -- also worked on those policies and -- so that
means if they were to go through today, not that we have any fear of
going to admin. hearing with the DCA, but we'd be in admin. hearing,
and that element wouldn't be legally effective anyway. So, it
wouldn't have anything anyway because the law is that the comp. plan
is not legally effective until such time as it's found in compliance
or if it's not found in compliance, until the administration
commission issues a final order on that. So, it wouldn't be effective
anyway if there was a problem, and the board may be better served to
study that further in the next cycle.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Student.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, Ms. Student, when was that
change in the law? I know it's not very recent, but --
MS. STUDENT: I believe it was 1993, and the concern was that you
had adopted elements that were effective, and then it might be all
tangled up in hearings and change. So, that's the reason for the
change.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, that's just one of the most rotten
things that the state has done to us, is we can adopt them, but unless
they agree, it's not even law. I just think that's amazing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there's some pretty rotten things
they've done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's one of the many rottens.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, Commissioner Mac'Kie --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, we don't have much leeway here. I
don't like this, but we have to do it, because even if we didn't,
they'd have ultimate control anyway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess, you know, the only project that comes
to mind that this had a significant application to is Twin Eagles.
You know, we are not going to be extending water and sewer any time
soon outside of the urban boundary -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but at such time that it's determined to be
beneficial to do it, the retrofitting cost of any street in the
estates or any element of the nonurban area right now is going to be
significant to the homeowner because a central system isn't in place,
and these types of plants, I think, are more beneficial
environmentally and provide a central system for distribution, which
is the predominant cost of expansion of a lot of water and sewer
systems.
So, I want to move ahead in one way or another, and if six months
doesn't matter or a year doesn't matter, as long as I know we are
going to move ahead and try to address this, great, but I just don't
like leaving it the way it is, personally.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, you've just brought up an
interesting point regarding the septic systems. We've been also aptly
criticized recently because of the Twin Eagles project, but that was
one of the key elements and one of the biggest concerns that I had and
my reason for supporting, being very strong in support of the effort
that had gone into the Twin Eagles project, was that very element.
It didn't have anything to do -- we never talked about moving the
urban boundary. That was not the discussion, but what had been raised
and what had been achieved in the Twin Eagles project was that you
were probably going to have a package plant of some nature. You
weren't going to have individual septic systems out there, and anybody
that's going to stand out there and tell me that a septic -- an
individual septic tank is better than a package plant or a central
sewer system, I'll go to the mat and argue from now until next week
with you.
I totally disagree, and I don't think anybody could have -- could
stand up and defend that, and yet, we've all been criticized because
we supported that particular part. So, I'm very -- this makes me very
angry that we can't go ahead with that particular element.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, of course, we are on the water one,
and we are tying the discussion into what's coming up which will be
the solid waste or sanitary sewer, I mean.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My favorite is that we discourage urban sprawl
by not allowing systems.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I live near the intersection of
Goodlette-Frank and Pine Ridge, and I'm on septic.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, I lived closer in before I moved to my
current location. I was right off of U.S. 41 right across the street
from Park Shore, and we had septic systems. Now you -- you figure.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they still do.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: They still do, and they will have until such
time, and they are technically in the county.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, anyway, we have two choices here, and I
think -- I don't like it either, but if we are going to try to find a
different way to skin the cat to make it possible, I'm in favor of
that.
If we are looking just to appease DCA, I'm not supportive of
that. So, I guess I'm wanting a little direction from the board.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we should follow what staff
suggested, and that is if we can't do it now, we still need to pursue
it in the upcoming months. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
MS. CACCHIONE: There are really two options. One is we don't
change the plan in this process and we come back to you in January
with an amendment that proposes to introduce the cjustering concept
and the criteria for that as well as the water and sewer.
The second approach would be if DCA finds us not in compliance,
which they've indicated through the ORC report that they may, that we
come back through that process with a compliance agreement which would
involve the cjustering language as well as the water and sewer
changes.
So, there's two approaches. One is the regular amendments cycle,
and the other is after we would get challenged by DCA. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which one has a shorter time frame? Which
one ends first?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's impossible to tell. The drainage went on
for four years.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. CACCHIONE: It's -- I think us in control of our own
amendment would be better. We wouldn't be involved in the litigation
and trying to factor that through.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me -- if it's the board's desire, let's go
to public speakers over this. Do we have any member of the audience
wishing to speak on this element? If so, please come forward.
Okay. I see one person. Is there anyone else?
Mr. Cornell, if you'll line up behind Ms. Payton.
Is there any other members of the audience wishing to speak on
this item?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Those are the only two I have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, Mr. Agoston, you'll be behind Mr.
Cornell.
Anyone else?
Okay. We'll have three speakers on this item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Everybody needs to fill out a sheet,
though.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Ty, if you haven't already filled out a
slip for this item, please do so. Ms. Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation, and I'm
submitting a written statement on this particular proposed amendment
for both the sanitary sewer and the water sub-elements.
We are opposed to the elements that are proposed today and
support staff's recommendation, that there are a number of issues that
need to be looked at which were not looked at in the amendment, and
these include factors such as impacts on environmentally sensitive
lands, pressure on agricultural lands, proximity to the urban
designated area and the existence of undeveloped land within the urban
designated area.
Also, there have been a number of reports that have been issued
that staff needs to look at that do deal with septic as opposed to
package plants as opposed to central water and sewer, and I think
those are worth looking at for certain situations in the rural area.
Based upon our concerns that were submitted to DCA and have been
submitted to you and the planning commission, we do urge that you not
take action on these proposed amendments and have staff and concerned
organizations and individuals look at this issue more closely.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Payton, were you the author of this
position?
MS. PAYTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What are your qualifications in either
environmental science, engineering, whatnot? What is your background?
MS. PAYTON: This -- this position statement was done in
consultation with a number of folks that are affiliated with the
Federation. It was done in discussion with engineers and others in
just raising certain issues that we felt weren't adequately addressed
within the proposal that was submitted to DCA.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would be helpful in the future if you don't
possess the individual qualifications to author the statement, that
you give us a little bio of who did so we know really where the source
is coming from and what the technical background of the individuals
making the statements are if we're going to consider it with any
seriousness.
MS. PAYTON: Well, Commissioner, there are some instances where
it doesn't take a Ph.D. or a master's degree to raise certain
questions and to ask for certain documentation, and I think that I'm
certainly qualified to ask questions, to raise issues and ask for
further documentation.
I have been in advocacy for 25 years. I was recognized by the
U.S. Congress as an expert on certain issues, so I do not come to this
as somebody that's not without resources and not without skills to
raise questions.
If you notice, a number of the issues that were raised in my
position paper or the Federation's position paper were also raised by
DCA, and, therefore, I think that they had some legitimacy in terms of
raising questions and asking questions and asking for documentation
and clarification.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Ms. Payton, I think it's only reasonable
with the title of your organization, the Florida Wildlife Federation,
for me to ask and understand the background, history and bio of the
people forming the opinions that come forth under that letterhead.
That's all I'm asking for, and I don't have it, so I'm just asking
that it would be helpful to know that.
MS. PAYTON: Well, fine to ask. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Payton, you kind of switched back
and forth a little bit there. When you were reading a statement, you
said, we, we, we, and then when you responded to Commissioner Hancock,
you said, well, in my paper, and --
MS. PAYTON: Well, Federation's, yes.
I did draft it, and it was circulated for various comments.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just along the lines, we see your
group and Brad's group and others here frequently. How many members
from Collier County are there in the Florida Wildlife Federation, and
is it a paid membership or is it just --
MS. PAYTON: Yes, it is. The Florida Wildlife Federation is an
affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, which is the largest
environmental organization across the United States.
Florida Wildlife Federation has been in existence for 60 years in
the State of Florida. We have a membership across the State of
Florida of over 40,000 members. In Collier County and lower Lee
County, we have 1,500 members plus additional people that have
supported specific projects that we have.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know how many of those 1,500
are in Collier?
MS. PAYTON: The majority of those people are in Collier County.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how often does that group get
together?
MS. PAYTON: We have -- we do not have membership meetings, per
se --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So when --
MS. PAYTON: -- but we do issue a newsletter on a regular basis.
We also have publications that come from our local office. We have a
newsletter. We've had action alerts and various ways that we
communicate with our members.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When statements like this come
forward, is there a process gone through to get a good idea of what
the membership wants to do or is this your role to come up with what
direction you're going to head?
How is the decision made as to what you will object to, what you
will comment on?
MS. PAYTON: The Florida Wildlife Federation's board of directors
has a general policy statement on various issues that have been
invoked in various issues across the State of Florida, and that
position paper was submitted to Hanley Fuller (phonetic) who does have
a variety of qualifications to comment on this and to various members
of our board of directors, plus other people who have been involved in
growth management issues and related issues.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your local board of directors?
MS. PAYTON: We don't have a local board of directors. We have a
statewide local board of directors.
The headquarters for the Florida Wildlife Federation is in
Tallahassee --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MS. PAYTON: -- and the Naples office is a regional office of the
Florida Wildlife Federation. We don't have separate members. We
don't have a separate board.
We -- I am an employee of the Florida Wildlife Federation. Dr.
Kris Thoemke is a member of the Florida Wildlife Federation --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm --
MS. PAYTON: -- who also reviewed that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm
just trying to understand the -- so week to week when you come up and
share with us the feelings of the Florida Wildlife Federation, it's
essentially your interpretation of the --
MS. PAYTON: No, I'm not acting as a free agent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I finish the question before you
answer it?
It's essentially your interpretation of the statewide
organization's mission statement or how is -- again, I ask, how are
these different positions formulated before you bring them to the
board of commissioners?
MS. PAYTON: When an issue comes forward that I think that the
Federation ought to take a position on, I contact my superiors and
other appropriate people that I've been told that I should interact
with or suggested that I interact with, and I say, this is my read on
this situation. This is what I think we ought to do, and we talk
about it, and together, there is a position that is developed for the
Federation.
I don't independently, unilaterally do anything on behalf of the
Federation without consultation with the president and other
appropriate people that the president has directed me to interact
with.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where does the president live?
MS. PAYTON: In Tallahassee. Thatws where our headquarters are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And are -- who are the other
appropriate people? I donwt mean specifically names, but I mean, are
they --
MS. PAYTON: I find this incredible that Iwm being cross --
cross-examined to try and determine why I as a citizen and a
representative of a citizenws organization cannot come up here and
give a statement that has very basic information, thatws a statement
that was accepted by DCA, by the state and also make similar comments
in their ORC report, and I think that part of this is generated by the
fact that you donwt like what the Federation says and are attempting
to quiz us and harass us, quite frankly, and I think itws
inappropriate that youwre doing this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Payton --
MS. PAYTON: Iwll answer any question you ask. I just wanted
that on the record.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, Ms. Payton, you can interpret it
any way you want. I -- youwre here week after week sharing
information under the title of the Florida Wildlife Federation. MS. PAYTON: Thatws correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Iid like to understand whols compiling
that information and from where thatls coming, and if thatls --
MS. PAYTON: Well, I invite you to come to our office. We do
maintain headquarters here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But my point is, therels no need to
get defensive. Nobodyls trying to do anything here except have a
clear understanding from where this information is being generated.
MS. PAYTON: Iive been attending these board meetings for over
five years, and this is the first time Iive ever seen someone who came
in good faith to present a position, to discuss an issue that is
cross-examined in this manner and told to defend what the
organizationls position is, and the Federation is a reputable
organization. Itls a well respected organization in this state, and
Iim disappointed that you feel that you have to do this to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Payton, I havenlt asked one
question having to do with the position, so you donlt have to defend
any position. Iim just asking specifically where those positions are
formulated, and I donlt think thatls out of line. Iim asking -- if
youlre going to come and share that with us, we appreciate it, but we
ought to have some idea where that comes from.
MS. PAYTON: I thought I had said this a number of times.
They are done in consultation with the president of the
organization, with certain members of the board of directors. The
board of directors takes policy positions on various issues of the
Federation. We have a policy book.
Itls not something, again, that I have done as a free agent. I
am here representing the position of the Florida Wildlife Federation.
The past president of the Florida Wildlife Federation has lived
in Collier County for decades, and he is in the office, and we are in
communication on a regular basis.
So, I assure you that this statement represents the position of
the Florida Wildlife Federation, and every position that I come
forward in front of you represents the position of the Florida
Wildlife Federation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. Just a final question,
and that is -- actually, a two-part question, how big is the board of
directors of the Florida Wildlife Federation?
MS. PAYTON: The Florida -- well, there are a number of members
on the board, and I suspect there are probably over 20 members, but I
don't immediately know that, and I'd be glad to provide that for you.
We're divided into sections so that each area has representation on
that board.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's actually my follow-up
question. How many of those members of the board of directors live in
Collier County?
MS. PAYTON: Franklin Adams lives in Collier County, and he's on
the board and has been on the board for a number of years.
There are many board members that come into Collier County to
enjoy Big Cypress National Preserve, Ten Thousand Islands and other
natural areas that they can recreate, do what they care to do.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, the answer would be one?
MS. PAYTON: And there may be some property owners; I don't know.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the answer is --
MS. PAYTON: I haven't delved into that aspect, but I can tell
you that Franklin Adams does live in Collier County.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final, to make sure I'm clear
on that final question. The answer, to the best of your knowledge,
there's one of those --
MS. PAYTON: That lives in Collier County.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that lives in Collier County?
MS. PAYTON: Yes, correct, Franklin Adams.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll be making a statement. The Florida
Wildlife Federation is suing the county. Is it on this specific
issue?
MS. PAYTON: No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's not?
MS. PAYTON: No, not on water and sewer or septic.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: What was the -- what was the specific issue
then? Refresh me, please.
MS. PAYTON: Well, actually, we have three lawsuits against
Collier County.
One is Miller Boulevard extension, and we -- it's our position
that taking action with Miller Boulevard extension is a violation of
the growth management plan.
We still have pending the action against the county and Twin
Eagles for violation of, what we feel, is the growth management plan
by issuing a development order to Twin Eagles.
We also have an action against the county for denying us due
process when we attempted -- we paid our appropriate monies, and our
appeal was denied because we allegedly did not follow the procedures.
That one is still pending.
We are not alone in the challenge of due process being denied and
also against Twin Eagles. Florida -- Florida -- Collier County,
excuse me, Collier County Audubon Society is involved in that as well.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Just curious, do you -- you've come
up here to give us your statement, and you present it as trying to be
cooperative and in a helpful manner, but at the same time, you are
antagonistic to the county, your organization, not you personally, of
course, but your organization is antagonistic and is involved in
three, according to your figures, current issues in litigation.
So, you know, looking at it from a board member, it's kind of
hard to accept your premise that you're up here cooperatively to try
and help -- just give us your opinion and help guide us through this
process. It's a little difficult to balance the one with the other.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I don't have a problem with that. I
think that that's exactly what you're supposed to be doing. I respect
your ability to do that. I respect you for being here, particularly
in the face of the challenges that you have. I think it's often hard
to be the one who's standing up for what you believe in when it goes
against what the will is of the majority in control, and so I respect
you for that, and my only reason for speaking was I must be on a
different mailing list than some others because I'm quite familiar
with the National Wildlife Foundation and Florida Wildlife Foundation
and would encourage you to maybe add all of the board members to your
mailing list, because I don't get your newsletter, but I'm certainly
familiar with the organization and its credentials nationally and on a
state level. So, maybe that's just a general -- MS. PAYTON: Be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- lack of information that we could
remedy by sharing -- you know, get those newsletters to the board.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so there's no confusion, Ms. Payton, one
of the main reasons I questioned you and queried you today, quite
frankly, your organization has sued the county which will cost the
taxpayers some money on areas that I question your technical expertise
in the statements that have been made on the record; areas such as the
environmental application of centralized sewer systems versus septic
tanks. They happen to contradict what has been stated in the past by
the state DEP.
So, when you make technical statements, whether they be
environmentally based, biologically based, engineering based, I want
to know the background that goes into those statements, and if you
think you're being singled out, you haven't sat through enough
meetings. This board proffers testimony from experts and recognizes
them as experts based on their bio, on their history, on their
education, on their expertise in a given area.
If you are not recognized as an expert by this board, then your
comment is on the same plane as everyone else. Yet, I think because
you represent an organization and you said you are a part of - you're
an employee of the Wildlife Federation, because you represent that
organization, I think it's more than appropriate that this board know
the background that goes into these particular positions, because
without it, Mr. Agoston can stand up for the Taxpayer Action Group and
tell us that septic systems are awful, but he doesn't have the
background or expertise for me to feel that I can give a tremendous
amount of credibility to that statement, and that's a judgment I make.
So, by asking that question and you getting upset about it, I
don't know where that leaves me, but it leaves me no better than where
we started. I want to know the background and the expertise that goes
into the positions taken by the Wildlife Federation that you, as an
employee, purport here; that's all, and I'm sorry you've taken affront
to that, but Mr. Cornell will be asked the same question by me, as
will every other organization, whether it be environmental or not,
from this point forward, particularly if you're in a position of
constantly taking this county to court on issues that I think the
technical backing is simply lacking.
So, again, I'm sorry you've taken affront to that, but I think
it's an informational point that this board has a right to know.
MS. PAYTON: I want to draw your attention to the ORC document
that was returned, because there were statements from DEP that
supported the position that's in our paper, raising questions about
package plants and also advocating that septic can, in some
circumstances, be beneficial. It's not environmentally damaging, and
there's a recent report that was issued from the University of Florida
that supports that position.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Payton, I've read all of that.
I'm talking about your position and the expertise and background that
goes into it.
MS. PAYTON: Well, I certainly can consult with these people and
incorporate that into my position, and as an advocate, I don't need to
have Ph.D.s in every issue that I come up here and talk about. If
I've done the research and consulted with people and they have agreed
with the statement, I think that's appropriate, and if you're going to
challenge everyone who comes up here with goodwill --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not a challenge, Ms. Payton.
MS. PAYTON: -- as to what their expertise is --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It is not a challenge.
MS. PAYTON: -- and dismiss it because they don't have a
particular Ph.D. or a master's degree in that particular area, that's
unfortunate.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's unfortunate you're putting words
in my mouth. It's not a challenge, period. Thank you.
Next speaker, Mr. Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: My name is Brad Cornell, and I don't know that I
feel particularly welcome to speak, but I'm going to anyway.
I'm here on two accounts. First, I am here to represent your
Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board as its chairman and the
EPTAB board has stated some positions in regards to the EAR report
that the county issued back in March, and we also have followed the
process and would like to respond to the ORC responses which the
county is making, and in particular in this case, the public
facilities element, water sub-element and sewer sub-elements, Policies
1.2.2, 1.5.1 of the water sub-element; Policy 1.5.1 of the sewer
sub-element; the issue being the possible encouragement of urban
sprawl.
While it does not move the county -- the urban boundary de facto,
it does, in effect, result in the risk of urban development in
inappropriate places. For that reason, we do support staff
recommendation to not change the amendment, do not amend the growth
management plan as originally recommended. So, leave it as the 1989
plan stated for all those policies, and I will parenthetically say
that the -- in my second role as the president of the Collier County
Audubon Society, that we do concur with the EPTAB position.
Personally, I would like to say that the public hearing process,
I believe, is an important one for all of us, both for you as
representatives of the people and for us as people. I'm involved with
these two organizations here which are both citizen organizations.
One is appointed by you. One is a general citizen organization
in our community, and as citizens, all of us ought to be and should be
involved in our -- our -- our process of governing ourselves, and I
believe it's incumbent on everyone's part to study, do their homework
and come up with some opinions, and if that means consulting experts
and going to the journals and reading the papers, if that's the way
these things are done, I believe that -- in fact, in particular in
Florida where the general populous, the voters, vote on very technical
issues on the ballot, and we, as the state, have to abide by these
things.
Now, I don't know if you want to you have a test for everybody
who comes up to vote on the net ban, but perhaps we should have.
Perhaps this is not a good system, but it is the system,
nevertheless, and I think that it's important to listen with very,
very open ears to what your citizens are saying.
So, anyway, just listening to the previous conversation, I had to
say that, and I hope that you will consider our input. Both EPTAB's
input and Collier County Audubon's. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cornell, I appreciate your
comments --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait, John had something.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cornell, just one more time to try to
clear up before I ask my question to you. Ms. Payton came up with a
written statement for us to take into consideration during our
deliberations, and some of the board members were simply trying to
find out what was the genesis of that written document. We have no
objection to the public, obviously, coming up and speaking. Last
week, if you had been here, you would have seen 30 speakers on one
issue.
So, you know -- we didn't ask any of them their qualifications,
but they didn't offer us a document purporting to be on behalf of an
organization.
MR. CORNELL: But many people do come up here and do such as
that. Many people come up and say they are TAG, they're CBIA,
whatever.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And a lot of times we ask their
qualifications if we don't -- if we haven't asked them in the past,
but my question to you is, can you tell me what is your official
title, your function at the Collier County Audubon Society? MR. CORNELL: I am the president.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're the local president?
MR. CORNELL: Yes, the chapter president.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The chapter president. The Collier County
Audubon Society is in litigation with the county?
MR. CORNELL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At your direction?
MR. CORNELL: At our board's direction, that's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You also, I believe, said that you are the
chairman of a county Environmental Policy and Technical Advisory
Board; is that correct?
MR. CORNELL: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you see any conflict there in the
chairman of one of our county advisory committees also being involved
in a separate organization in litigation with the county on the
specific issues that you deal with as chairman of EPTAB?
MR. CORNELL: I do not because I believe that if you were to hold
that test, that all of us have conflicts in that way, and this is a
citizen advisory board, and you want diverse representation from your
community. The Audubon Society is one aspect of your community.
You also should have land attorneys. You should have development
interests. You should have scientists. You should have a whole
spectrum of representation.
So, presumably, my role on the board is equaled out by other
interests.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's -- I know I'm out of order.
I'm going to do it anyway. I think it's very important to have people
with differing opinions on county committees. I think it's critical
to democracy that we have people who disagree with us on advisory
committees; critical, very important to have it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, Brad, I appreciate your
comments on citizen input, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I
don't want you or anyone else to misinterpret my questions. I'm not
trying to discourage input in any way. I just -- if we have a group
such as yours or Ms. Payton's or anyone else who comes to us
regularly, particularly one who's costing our county taxpayers a great
deal of money in litigation, I want to have some idea of the makeup of
that group, how they form their opinions and how they get to the point
where they disagree so strongly that they're going to challenge us in
court and cost every taxpayer money.
So, I'm not discouraging anyone. I just want to make sure I
understand crystal clear from where these opinions are coming.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I believe the litmus test is higher when
you stand up representing an environmental organization. Anyone can
come to this board and speak as a citizen, and that is not only
allowed, but encouraged, and it's an important part of this process,
and I would never do anything to discourage that, but when you stand
at that microphone representing an organization and one of your
favorite things to say as these organizations is how many members you
represent, I think the test of accuracy is raised, particularly in
technical areas, and that's what I'm getting at.
If statements are going to be made in technical areas as a member
of an environmental organization or any organization -- CBIA can have
opinions and comments on everything under the sun, but when it comes
to the areas of expertise the contractors and builders deal with, you
tend to listen a little more intently, a little more to the details
because you realize that's their expertise.
So, I think when we're dealing with environmental issues and you
say you are representing an organization, you have raised a bar by
taking that position, and we must, therefore, also raise the bar in
understanding the expertise behind that position. That's all this is.
So, I really think it's a vastly different scenario than talking
about a member of the public wishing to address this board and talking
about organizations, and particularly paid employees of those
organizations, offering opinions and testimony. I think there's a
difference there.
MR. CORNELL: I -- I see what you're saying. However, I think
that, in essence, we all are the public, and you, as representatives
of the public, it's up to you to listen with whatever attention you
decide to devote. We would hope that you would listen to everyone
with equally devoted attention, but, obviously, everybody doesn't have
the same expertise as you point out, and that's your prerogative to
dismiss some testimony or accept some testimony.
I -- I think that it would be very unfortunate, though, that if
in the process of raising the bar, as you say, you would discourage
people from making that testimony regardless of their expertise
because in that process, you have -- you have squelched some of the
input that you really need to hear, whether or not you agree with it,
whether or not you even think it's valid, you still need to hear it,
and I think the process of examining and questioning your sources can
have a bad effect.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly agree with you that we
need to listen to all that, but I think the public also needs to be
aware when an organization is continually put forward, that those
decisions aren't coming from a board of directors that meets -- or
local board of directors that meets, and those decisions aren't coming
from the membership if they don't ever meet. If it's a group that is
primarily based six, 800 miles away, that's an important fact for the
public to know as well, and I don't think we are discounting anything,
or I'm not anyway. I don't think any of the board members are. I
think we do listen to each and every person that gets up, but I think
it's equally important for the public to know if a group is
representing -- you know, has an individual here, but is primarily
represented out of Tallahassee versus a group that is organized and
has a board of directors locally that has input into decisions. Those
are important factors for us to consider, but for the public to know
as well.
MR. CORNELL: And if you ask me, I will tell you that the Collier
County Audubon Society is a very local organization, and it has
expertise very well represented on its board, and we have membership
meetings and --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I happen to know that, so I didn't
ask.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm aware of that.
MR. CORNELL: But, you know -- and I also happen to know that the
Florida Wildlife Federation would not exist if it did not have local
support. It is the local support that created that entire office. It
was -- it used to only be a Tallahassee office, and the reason that it
even exists and has existed for, I believe, three or four years is
that there's a local constituency. If they did not believe in what
that office was doing, it would not be very long before it closed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Cornell?
Seeing none, thank you.
MR. CORNELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Board members, while the next speaker is
coming forward, I would like to comment that while Mr. Cornell didn't
see the conflict between one position of his being involved in
continuous litigation with the county and on the other hand sitting on
one of our county committees, I will remind the board that within the
last few weeks, we have declined to re-appoint someone to a board who
was in a similar situation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On a four to one vote. I disagree with
that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. You disagree on everything, so you
might as well disagree on this, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the
record, my name is Ty Agoston. I -- I'm going to forget about that.
You will see tomorrow a headline saying that you have harassed
the representatives of the environmental community, and Ms. Mac'Kie
will receive the compliment that she valiantly defended it.
The gentleman before me is part of the National Audubon Society.
I have a little piece of paper over here that quotes a Mr. Peter Berle
(phonetic), president of the National Audubon Society, making a
statement, we reject the idea of private property.
At one time, I had to read Karl Harx's Landmark Works of This
Type of Town -- oh, by the way, I have an HBA out of Rutgets, and I
started a Ph.D., and my wife kept me -- forced me to quit, and that
actually qualifies me to garden in my backyard. So, I have a very
extensive education in the area.
I also am an unpaid participant here. I don't belong to a
national organization and -- or president. I'm not making statements
against private property.
It irritates me every time I hear the words urban sprawl. This
is a beautiful part of the country. I know. I lived just outside of
New York City, and when I came here to visit, I bought five acres of
land.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ty, even though our questions went -- ended up
going far afield, your comments need to be pertinent to the element
and sub-element.
MR. AGOSTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mentioned urban sprawl, so you were
balipark.
MR. AGOSTON: Why do we discourage urban sprawl? What right do
you have of telling someone who pays your taxes on a five acre lot
somewhere that you disallow his building on it because that would
encourage the urban sprawl? I find that -- you know, I have a whole
range of problems that I'm not going to waste my time telling you and
I'm into going to waste your time listening to it, but let's be honest
here.
If you have -- I happen to have a number of lots because I have
five children, and I have invited them a number of times to come down
here, and they are not that anxious to live next door to me, other
than the one who does, but the fact of the matter is that the idea
that we're not supplying water and we're not supplying sewers into the
estates to make it unattractive to other people, I find it repug --
repulsive or repugnant. This is ridiculous. We are here -- not me,
you are here to do as much to your constituents as possible. You are
a public service operation. I assume, and I listen to, and I know
most of you, that you are, and as far as I'm concerned, when you say
or someone you listen to say that we want to contain, are you trying
to purchase like they are promoting the idea of putting them in
tenements along 417 Is that the idea?
I heard somebody say in a newspaper article that you will provide
eyes to prevent crime. Well, I hate to tell you, it didn't do that in
New York City.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What does this have to do with potable
water?
MR. AGOSTON: It has something to do, ma'am, with the expansion
of water and sewer in the -- outside of the urban area.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'm having trouble --
MR. AGOSTON: I know that you have a legal education, ma'am, and
I'm just a poor foreigner, but the fact of the matter is, is that
there is a connection.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just having trouble, despite my great
education.
MR. AGOSTON: I have no problem, ma'am. I'd like to explain
anything I can, which I'm in a very poor position to do so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Agoston, you asked about, you know, urban
sprawl. The reason there's an urban boundary -- this is something
that the previous two speakers failed to recognize -- is that if this
county built out at even four units an acre outside of the urban area,
there's no way we could provide the water, the road, the sewer, all of
the necessary infrastructure for that population.
So, you have to draw a line somewhere to say this is an area in
which we can provide for densities, higher densities to allow for the
provision of infrastructure. Outside of that, we just have to accept
rural services, which are lesser in character in nature than urban
services, and that's why that line exists is because we are saying
where we can provide those services makes the most sense to have
higher densities. Where we can't provide those services, those higher
densities would be detrimental to the overall community. That's the
reason.
It has to deal with density, the number of people in a given
geographic area is why we have an urban area; not because we don't
want people to use their land.
MR. AGOSTON: Mr. Hancock, I agree with you completely if it
wasn't for the fact that you guys declined to build sewer and water
and allow it to come into northern Golden Gate Estates. The area is
building very rapidly. I understand that Collier County is one of the
fastest growing areas, and of that, northern Golden Gate Estates is
the fastest area -- growing area of Collier County.
So, by extension, we are talking about the fastest growing area
in the country, and we don't allow water and sewer, I consider it
silly.
The density is not going to be increased -- I mean, currently,
the zoning is two and a half acres per dwelling. You're not talking
about density here. What you're talking about is the alignment of
people trying to force everybody back to those tenements they are
building along 41. That's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, there's another point, but you and I
can discuss that in private. There's an economic side to this that
you and I need to sit down and discuss. I think you'll understand it
a little bit better, but I'd be happy to share that with you at
another time.
MR. AGOSTON: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Ty.
Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning. For the record, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners, my name is Bruce Anderson.
I simply wanted to point out to you that there is an alternative
to raising a white flag of surrender on this water and sewer element
issue. What the Department of Community Affairs asked, if my
recollection is correct, is they asked that you specify the area in
the rural area that this would be permitted, because the way it was
written, it could have occurred anywhere.
So, you do have an alternative to delineate a specified area
where this would occur. So, I simply wanted to point that out. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Ms. Leinweber, were you to speak on this item?
MS. LEINWEBER: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And folks, we need to -- we need to kind of
get through this. We're past a break, and our poor court reporter's
fingers are about to fall off, so '-
MS. LEINWEBER: I'm usually pretty quick. I'm Julie Leinweber,
and I am speaking for myself, and I am not a paid employee.
I never thought I'd see a day when the developers -- and I'm
talking about Twin Eagles -- are better stewards of the land than the
environmental groups.
I don't know if you read last week's Forbes magazine with Carol
Brunner (phonetic) on the front cover. She's head of the
environmental groups. She gets billions of dollars from the taxpayers
to -- to run the environmental groups. Forbes magazine referred to
them as mission creep. When I read that, it really hit home that the
environmental groups are, I think, not for the people, not -- I'm
wearing green today. I think I'm a better environmentalist than most
of them are, but we need to look at them for what they really are, and
I think our county commissioners are doing it.
I suggest you go forward, take action. It's the taxpayers' money
they are spending on this, and in the long run, we all pay for it, and
I think we are seeing the environmentalists for what they really are,
creeps.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Were you to speak on this item, sir? Okay.
Please step forward.
Is this our last speaker on this? Okay, I'm going to make it our
last speaker on that then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was that related to water and sewer?
MR. BALM: Michael Balm, I'll just tell you for those who don't
know, co-founder of the Estates Coalition of Homeowners, however, I'm
speaking as an individual at this point, and I do want to indicate
that I did spend ten years in local government, public works
management, where one of my key responsibilities was managing water
and sewer systems, and I need to say up front that one of the
sacrifices that I made when I decided to build in the estates was
recognizing the economic problem of being able to extend water and
sewer facilities. This is why I am speaking as an individual because
most of my co-residents, I'm sure, would be greatly opposed to me when
I say give me water and sewer and I'll take it in a heartbeat.
What I think our problem was with all of it, and we really do
like to distinguish the fact that we're trying to just deal with the
estate residents as much as we can. Most of them understand that
they've made this sacrifice. I think their concern came with a lot of
misinformation, and the fact that we have a problem still getting,
primarily staff, to take us seriously and to meet with us on different
things. We get a lot of different stories. We get a lot of things
that are told to us.
I think all we are trying to say is when you're going to do
something, i.e., Twin Eagles -- as I read it, I think it was done very
well. I think it was done specific to that project, and I think
that's the way things should be done. The concern is still the fact
that if we do anything that's going to encourage that urban growth and
create that kind of impact on us and take away what we've already
sacrificed for and can't have, don't give us the stuff that we don't
want, and I think that's all we are asking for is when you come back
in the next element, that you listen to some of us, maybe you get an
advisory group of people out there that are willing to sit down with
you and explain not only their position, but the fact that if you plan
it properly, then do something about it.
The other aspect I guess that -- you know, I'm going to try to
quit here -- that I think is very important is everyone acknowledges
that there are still septic systems within the urban area. Well, good
faith effort to me, and not knowing all of the history, would seem to
be then let's bite the bullet, and if you're true to the fact that
you're going to provide these kinds of systems in areas where they are
needed, for schools, et cetera, beyond the urban boundary, then let's
bite the bullet and come back and let's get rid of the septic systems
that are within that urban boundary.
I'm an absolute proponent of having centralized water and sewer.
I know for a fact that it makes a difference. Anybody that tells me
that a septic system is better doesn't know what they are talking
about. I don't care how much expertise they've got, it is not good
for our environment. It's not good for the future, and I think we
need to find people that understand that and are willing to work with
all of what our choices are and work together, and I know we can do
it. It's one of the reasons why we live here.
We don't live here just for the climate. We live here because
this is one hell of a place to live, and we need to start getting
people together and let's get rid of all this other nonsense. You
know, it's a team effort. Let's just do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Yeah, but my grass grows really well around that septic system.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, it does.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's probably because it doesn't leak at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, do we have -- Ms. Cacchione, Mr.
Anderson had mentioned that there was an option. When we were going
to work with the Conservancy, and I assume we are still doing that,
and looking at places for appropriate -- appropriate locations for the
type of thing that Twin Eagles is talking about, cjuster development
and so forth, would those be limited to geographic areas? Was that
the anticipated direction?
MS. CACCHIONE: That was one idea that we had had, and we wanted
to take an opportunity to put that altogether as a package and how
water and sewer would work with the cjustering language, and so that's
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It seems to me we would want to mirror any
action on centralized water and sewer systems to the geographic areas
that that would be establishing. So, I want to meld those two the
best way we can, and I think it's premature to try and do it now. So,
maybe it is better that we come back in six months or a year and try
and do that with a rational nexus, being that we've identified these
areas for that type of potential development and centralized water and
sewer makes sense there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
MS. CACCHIONE: That would be on the water element, and there are
other amendments to that element such as cleaning up some of the
language because it was done in 1989.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to further give direction to come
back at the earliest possible date and have some sort of language that
may be more acceptable for a later date.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I would ask the motion maker maybe to
include the, I guess the general direction I stated which is to adopt
it or to identify the geographic areas for both of those amendments to
-- or both of those ideas to occur in.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I absolutely agree with that, so sure, I
incorporate that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and second. Any further discussion?
Seeing --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like his handicap corrected. I'll
amend my second to reflect that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, let's take a ten minute
recess and return.
(Small break was held).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We are going to reconvene the
Board of County Commissioners' meeting. If I could ask you to stop
your independent discussions or take them out in the hallway, we're
going to get back on -- hopefully back on schedule here. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, it's good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Somewhere throughout the day, I'm hoping
somebody changes that clock on the wall or I'm going to be in deep
trouble.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Your day is flying.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Cacchione, our next element this
morning.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next element is a motion on the sanitary
sewer element. I think you just had the discussion, and we need to
get a motion on that element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This really is a mirror of the potable water
element?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Ms. Cacchione?
Anyone wish to reiterate their exact same statements they made on
potable water or just stipulate them? Any speakers?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: You know how I feel about this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you want to include the same direction
we gave --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same direction; identical motion from the
last one.
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).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Cacchione, why was that presentation so
much quicker?
MS. CACCHIONE: I don't know. Anyway, next item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Here's a present for you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are drawing a blank at the podium, ladies
and gentlemen, not that that's a bad thing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who wants to do the next --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Folks with natural ground water aquifer
recharge sub-element -- that's a mouthful.
MR. GIBSON: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Gibson.
MR. GIBSON: Commissioners, Gail Gibson from your pollution
control department. The natural ground water aquifer recharge sub-
element was rewritten with consensus of a citizens advisory group,
staff and presented as continuation language to DCA. It went through
the planning commission and through this commission's vote.
The DCA reviewers decided that the language was vague, without
aim, intent, effect, it could not be meaningfully measured in that
continuation language. So, we went back and recrafted that language
to be, we think, less vague, to be able to identify, to be meaningful
and to have measure without changing the philosophy and direction that
the board had.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How about the fiscal impact, Mr. Gibson?
MR. GIBSON: None.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do these changes represent any fiscal impact?
MR. GIBSON: No fiscal impact.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Mr. Gibson?
Seeing none, do we have speakers on this element?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Mr. Gibson, thank you very much.
The next item is the solid waste sub-element. Do I have anyone
to make a presentation on the solid waste sub-element? I thought I
saw Mr. Russell.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears that the only difference is
that the state wanted to make sure we assure public awareness and that
we've done that by adding the wording of, by requiring all issues to
be addressed in advertised public meetings.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And recognizing this board's tremendous high
priority of public involvement on any and all issues, then -- MS. LAYNE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Ms. Layne.
MS. LAYNE: I guess Mr. Russell had to step out. Lee Layne on
the solid waste sub-element.
Most of the changes that we received on the ORC were based on
requiring that any discussion be an advertised public meeting. So, we
recommended those changes be done. There's also a definition of
permittable capacity.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's pretty much what we do already,
isn't it, Ms. Layne?
MS. LAYNE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would be kind of hard for us to
vote on changes without doing that in public.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to know how to pronounce
putrescibles.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Putrescibles. You need to sit down with Dr.
Stokes for about an hour.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just learned a new word.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You'll have putrescibles down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Putrescibles, got it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Those things that rot.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rotten stuff, got it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of Ms. Layne on this item?
Seeing none, is there anyone here to address us on the solid
waste sub-element?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve staff's recommendation.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
MS. LAYNE: Mr. Litsinger will present the drainage.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive
planning.
The drainage element, I'm going to present that. It's more of a
policy and procedural matter as opposed to technical issues. If there
are any technical questions, Mr. Boldt will be here to discuss those
with you.
As a little bit of background, as we're all aware, about four
years ago, we had an amendment, extensive amendment to our drainage
policies and capital improvement plan which subsequently was found not
to be in compliance due to consistency issues with state statutes and
our own internal consistency of our comp. plan. After four years of
litigate -- preparation for litigation, discussions on potential
settlement agreements, two of which were brought to this Board of
County Commissioners, about six months ago, the Department of
Community Affairs unilaterally dropped their challenge to that
original amendment and found the amendments of 1993 in compliance.
The reason I mentioned that is the nature of the comments or
potential objections raised in the ORC report to the EAR amendments
are substantially of the same nature. The reason I say that is we may
or may not be headed down that same road again.
On Page 78 of your agenda package, we have the proposed responses
to each of the objections on the various policies for DCA, and I would
like to point out that these proposed responses were arrived at after
extensive discussions with DCA staff here in the county on August the
20th. The key issues have to do with the definition of existing
deficiency, whether or not Collier County has any deficiencies in its
drainage level of service standard and the intent of the Board of
County Commissioners upon adoption of the water management master plan
in 1989.
The gist of the issue is -- relates to may versus will take
action. The position of the county has always been that upon
presentation of the water management master plan, as stated in the
language, it left the option of the board, may use the water
management master plan to amend the level of service standards.
However, we did have an adopted level of service standards which was
in compliance and remains in compliance.
To go on from there, the nature of the objections had to do with
the Department's definition that we did not outline proposed capital
improvements and studies to raise what they call a deficient level of
service standards. We believe through our discussions with current
staff at DCA on August the 20th, we were able to relieve their
concerns as to whether or not there is an obligatory action due from
the county to change the level of service standard for drainage. We
cannot guarantee that this amendment will be found in compliance, but
it's our best effort to try to alleviate their concerns.
Very specifically, what we've done in these policies is we've
delineated specific studies that we are all aware of relative to the
Gordon River, the Belle Heade area. Those capital improvements will
be outlined in the capital improvement element relative to Lely and
those capital improvements currently taking place up in the Naples
Park area. We extended the language in some of the policies to
reflect their annual update and inventory report to clarify that each
year we not only review our facility capacity, but also its
performance against the standard, and that we also update our maps
annually relative to drainage issues.
At this time, I would ask if there are any questions.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Litsinger, just so the folks watching on
TV and those here today understand how their state tax dollars have
been spent; in 1993, we proposed similar recommendations. We're found
not in compliance, and after four years of wrangling with DCA, we were
found to be in compliance; is that correct? MR. LITSINGER: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A different bureaucrat.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, now we are proposing a similar -- almost
the same recommendations, and we are probably expecting DCA to find us
not in compliance again?
MR. LITSINGER: Highly probable.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If that's the case, I think -- that
case history of what's gone on there is something we need to make our
state legislatures aware of, because if they've got that much time on
their hands, maybe their budget needs a real hard look up there.
Questions for Mr. Litsinger?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a good idea, Mr. Chairman, passing
these things along to our state representatives. It's really
important that we have someone up there that will pass that along to
DCA and see if they can do something about it. Apparently, the group
that we have up there now is not doing too well.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: We need somebody up there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Mr. Litsinger?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I couldn't agree with you more,
couldn't agree with you more.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, are there any members of the
public that wish to speak on the drainage sub-element?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion on this element?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff recommendation
on the item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you, Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next up to the plate, Mr. Lorenz on the
conservation and coastal management element. MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning.
MR. LORENZ: Good morning. The -- for the record, Bill Lorenz,
natural resources director.
This particular element, DCA had roughly 25 to 30 objections from
the transmittal document that the board approved in the spring.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We didn't have 25 or 30 changes.
MR. LORENZ: Close to that. Yes, we did, but that's what they
commented on.
Their -- the nature of their objection was that we did not define
a precise enough intent or aim or effect with proposed language. So,
sitting down with that meeting that we had with DCA earlier, in I
believe it was August, we received some direction in terms to try to
-- how to reword the policies that would make for those specific aim
and intent. The staff put together the information that basically
provide -- provides that language with the intent of not going beyond
the board's direction, whether in scope or degree, and that's the
nature of the document that's in front of you.
I do have to bring up Ken Pineau, however. There is a particular
objective or policy in emergency management that deals with evacuation
zones that I think would be worthwhile for him to explain the change
for that one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's deal with that one first.
Mr. Pineau.
MR. PINEAU: Good morning, commissioners. Ken Pineau, county
emergency management director.
The Department of Community Affairs defines the coastal high
hazard area once again to be the category one; not storm surge zone,
but the category one evacuation zone. So, we've had to expand it a
little bit further. For example, Naples Park is a very good example.
The 500 block of Naples Park, about 90 percent of that is outside of
the category one storm surge vulnerability zone, but in order for us
to evacuate populations, we have to do it by street. So, we had to
include the 500 block into that zone, and Marco Island is another
exception.
The highlands of Marco Island -- we consider all of Marco Island
to be in a category one vulnerability zone, so everybody would have to
evacuate, but it puts even the folks living in the highlands in this
coastal high hazard area. That's primarily the only significant
change.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The difference being vulnerability is much
broader than storm surge because storm surge is based on technical
data, the landfalling storm and whatnot.
MR. PINEAU: That's correct, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Pineau?
Thank you, Ken.
Mr. Lorenz, I know you have a lot to get to, but I can't help but
ask this. On Page 95, through the mechanisms and criteria contained
within this element, control West Indian Manatee deaths to no more
than the five year annual average of 1983 through 1987, which is 11
total deaths per year. We're going to control the West Indian Manatee
deaths according to this. If we can do that, I think it would be
elevated to something that has a higher power than the county
commission, but I don't understand, one, how we control the number of
deaths, and two, if there are 12, what does that mean?
This just seems like a very odd -- I know it's in the plan
previously, but it just seems terribly odd.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Something to add to that question, it
seems like it should be as -- perhaps a more logical way would be as a
percentage of the population as opposed to a specific number, because
from what we've been told, the number of manatees have actually grown
in the past several years because of the protective efforts, and so if
we have more there -- hopefully we don't have any more deaths, but if
you have 12 instead of 11, that could theoretically still be a lower
percentage of the total population.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's the practical side of this? I'm
missing it, I guess. I mean, we've adopted slow speed zones and taken
measurable steps to try to protect the manatees in the inland and
shallow waters, but what is quantifying the number of deaths per year?
I mean, is it caused by boating traffic? Is it caused by natural
conditions? I mean, this just seems odd.
Is it something we put in there to pacify DCA that has no
meaning?
MR. LORENZ: I believe in the original 1989 plan, which, of
course, you see the language, has the 11 deaths. That was based upon
the regional -- the regional plan was identified to that particular
level of death rate, and that was a way to quantify that particular
objective.
We use that -- we used a variation of that -- that -- that policy
from the regional plan to put in the original 1989 plan, and we are
just trying to simply clarify the language. DCA came back to us and
didn't think it was very clear.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, if 12 deaths occur, what happens?
I mean, granted, I'd love to see none, but if 12 occur --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a legal question --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what happens?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- so Harjorie, why don't you tell them.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, again, Harjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. I don't know that really anything happens, and it's
my understanding it was supposed to be for accidental deaths, not for
deaths from some sort of disease, and I might add there's a 9J-5
requirement that this was written to address that, being restriction
of known activities that have an adverse impact on endangered or
threatened wildlife, and I believe that that policy nine years ago or
objective was written to address this 9J-5 requirement.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, we would have to have 12 deaths created by
some form of human contact directly in order for us to take any
remedial steps, whatever those may be; is that a fair assessment?
MS. STUDENT: I think it might be, but I -- as far as the effect,
it's just for us to be able to do something which I believe the
policies under there show how we are going to achieve that, and that's
just to have some measurability to it, but as an adverse impact, I
don't think there is any.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
Mr. Lorenz, did you have a -- I'm sorry I interrupted you there
-- but a balance of presentation on the remaining items?
MR. LORENZ: No, not unless you want to go through each and every
one. I think the only -- the only specific difference that you would
want to take note of is on Page 12 of my report, and I think we may
have to cross-reference, because I don't know your agenda page.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ninety-five.
MR. LORENZ: Page 95 of your agenda packet, just above the
manatee objective where it shows that wetlands shall be delineated,
DCA recommended that particular wording, shall versus should, to be
more specific. This particular wetlands delineation is required by --
the county is required by the state to adopt or use the state
definitions. So, I felt comfortable using the word shall versus
should in terms of that degree of commitment from the county.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Mr. Lorenz?
I think, appropriately, I'd like to remind everyone, there's a
sign out in the hallway that asks you to turn all cellular phones and
pagers to a silent mode or off when in the room. I'd appreciate you
complying with that.
No questions. Do we have members of the public that wish to
speak on the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question, what happens if we just
don't include them, and I concur with your concern that we just picked
this number 11 total deaths, and I'm not comfortable doing that. What
happens if we simply don't do that? What if we eliminate that entire
objective?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then we'll get notice that we aren't in
compliance with 9J-5.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We go to court over that item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And part of my concern is, again,
referencing population, is it's not a big difference in numbers right
now than it was in '83 through '87, but it is a higher number of what
our population estimates -- what I've been told.
If that number continues to grow, we're stuck on number eleven
here. There's no logical reason for that. It just seems like -- you
know, I think of the alligator population in the '70s and the
alligator population now, you could have picked a specific number that
made perfect sense in the '70s, but there's certainly no shortage now,
and I would hate to have us tied to a particular number and be
penalized ten years from now if through our efforts there are five
times as many manatee.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. I might be able to
answer the questions, Commissioner. I've dealt with the specific
situation before, specifically with the manatee plan in and of the
county.
What DCA would do in a situation like that, my prediction would
be they would find that objective not in compliance, and then you
would simply negotiate language that they were comfortable with, and
you may have part of the solution there in dealing with averages. I
notice the objective now deals with that. We've altered that a little
bit to try to accommodate DCA's concern.
The key to remember is with objectives with the Department of
Community Affairs, they are looking for numbers always. They are
looking for something that is measurable rather than a general
statement which is more along the lines of a goal or a policy.
So, one of your options might be to leave the language to -- the
way it is now, and then we might be able to talk to them about what
type of average, what type of number they are comfortable with.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two specific --
MR. CAUTERO: I wouldn't eliminate it though. I wouldn't
recommend that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two specific concerns, one, I'd like
to see it as a percentage as opposed to a specific number, a
percentage of some group -- you know, whatever is the recognized
population estimate, and then secondly, I think we need to have the
word accidental in there because as it reads, you could have 12
manatees die of old age, and that's 12 deaths, so -- MR. LORENZ: Boat related or --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I think more than accidental. It's got
to be some --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Collision with boats.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, collision related because, you know,
unless we've got manatees committing suicide out there, all of them
are accidental. A little manatee hara-kiri going on.
I think we do need to do something to open up the door to
negotiating a percentage of a total number because that does make
sense because we can get trapped in this that ten years from now --
you know, hopefully the manatee population will -- will -- will just
boom like the alligators did in the '80s, but if that happens, I'd
hate to be tied to a number that's unrealistic.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just need the record to reflect that we
do still have a height requirement in the county administrator's
office.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, did you request Hike
specifically to do that job?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Not me; somebody else did.
MR. CAUTERO: Commissioners, what I would recommend is, perhaps,
giving us some time during the course of your public hearing today to
craft some new language that we could bring back to you before you
adjourn today.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'd like to see that happen. So,
rather than take a motion, shall we table this item?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A motion to table the item --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- until staff returns with the
wording.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we'll do is we'll table the item, and
open it up with the language and then public comment on this item
later. All those in favor of the motion to table, say aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second -- aye.
That was for the whole element; not just that one objective?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. So, the entire element has been
tabled until later in the day.
Thank you, Mr. Lorenz.
The next item is the transportation element. I see Mr. Jones
heading to the microphone for this one.
Good morning, Mr. Jones.
MR. JONES: Good morning. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, Gavin
Jones from the MPO for the record.
I'm bringing you the staff's responses to DCA's comments on the
elements -- the amended element that was sent to them. I understand
you have a description of our memo back to them describing the changes
that we were going to make in the element.
The most substantial ones would be the combining of the aviation
and the mass transit and the traffic circulation into one -- one
element called the transportation element. DCA also wanted us to
include some maps that would show the operating level of service of
county roads years out into the future. Those would be included.
They wanted to see maps of pathway facilities. Those are being
included.
The amended element essentially includes by reference now the
aviation elements for the Everglades and the Immokalee and the Marco
Island airports, their master plans and the comprehensive pathway
plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Jones?
Seeing none, do we have members of the public to speak on the
transportation element?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'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: Motion carries five-zero.
Mr. Jones, thank you.
The next item is housing element. I see Mr. Mihalic. Good
morning, Mr. Mihalic.
MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, I'm
Greg Mihalic, department of housing and urban improvement, and
commissioners, this is not a typical EAR report like you've seen for
the other elements. We've chosen to rewrite this element completely,
and I think -- and large because of that, we've got 25 recommendations
from the DCA on how we can change this element, and we have had some
technical assistance from them and discussions, and we have made the
changes in large part that they've requested.
I think there's only one open issue that I can think of. Unless
you'd like me to go through each of those responses -- and that has to
do with the letter you've gotten from the migrant farm worker justice
project in which they would like us to delineate a particular number
of farm worker housing units we will build in any particular year, and
what we've responded in the element to DCA is that we want to use some
more updated methodology. We are a joint participant in an evaluation
of farm worker housing needs with the Southwest Regional Planning
Council, and that will be done in June of 1998, and we will
incorporate whatever requirements that study comes up with for the
need in Collier County to be adopted within the element in a future
cycle.
However, right now, when this letter arrived, we called around to
those facilities that have farm workers set aside requirements, and
almost all of them had vacancies of one kind or another at that time,
which indeed, is off-season. We also have 80 units that have been
approved by this commission for Farm Workers' Village, Section E that
cannot get financed because there's a question about what the needs
are for farm worker -- migrant farm worker housing within Immokalee.
You also have your fresh vegetable agri. business market down by at
least 50 percent over the last two years as well as six packing houses
that are out of business at this time.
So, that raises serious questions in my mind about how much
particularly farm worker housing we need within Collier County at this
time.
If there's any question about -- about that area, I'd be happy to
respond.
Secondly, you did get a memo from the city council -- this is
joint city/county element, which I must say, is the only one in this
state, which I think is a cutting edge in part of what we're moving
toward, and I think that might have gotten DCA to look at it a little
bit more closely and give us more recommendations, but the city
council's recommendation, some word-smithing and some of the
objectives is fine with us, and we recommend those changes because
they request.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MIHALIC: Can I answer any questions?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Mihalic?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead, Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Proposed objective one on Page 113
provides the number of affordable housing units shall increase by 750
units each year.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How do we make that happen?
MR. MIHALIC: Well, in the past, we have an interlocal agreement
with the city that we would build at least 500 units per year within
the urban area. We've looked at the tracking of that, and we believe
that we can achieve 750 units within the whole county.
We also, with better computer systems that we have now within the
development services area, we can track multifamily housing units at
the same time. So, we are looking at low cost condominiums in that
number as well as single family houses within that number as well as
any affordable housing units that are constructed within that number,
and we believe that we can achieve the 750 number.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happens if we don't; if one year
it's 600?
MR. MIHALIC: Well, this is -- this is a best effort. I mean,
this is a rewritten element. We will make our best effort to achieve
750 units a year. We would evaluate that in five years and let you
know how we do toward that goal. If we don't achieve that goal, we
don't achieve that goal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But it's a goal and not a mandate. In other
words, if we get to 600 a year in a given year, are we going to get
sued by DCA?
MR. MIHALIC: I -- I would want the attorneys to speak to that,
but I believe it is a goal.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because, you know, you can -- as stated
previously, you can't force a property owner to build, so I'm just
curious what our -- if we fall short of that, Ms. Student, what are
DCA's remedies.
MS. STUDENT: I don't think that DCA really has an option until
we get to our next EAR. We would have to report on how we did, but
DCA has an opportunity to get involved for review of the plan itself
for amendments at this juncture for compliance with state law, and the
only other way would be to challenge a development order if someone
were to do that -- not DCA. They later can become involved, and I
don't really see how that might come about either.
So, I really think that this is in here to give us a goal to
achieve and also give some measurability so we know when we do our
next EAR how we -- how we've progressed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mihalic, you've heard me say before that
the growth management plan is the stick we give the state to beat us
with.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern is that we go from 500 to 750, and
I think everyone on this board would call that an admirable goal and
would hope that it be achieved, but opening up the door for the state
to find us in noncompliance with our own plan by increasing the number
is probably not a wise move even if that is the intent of the board,
and that's the unfortunate adversary relationship we find ourselves in
with DCA on these plans.
So, I'm torn between what I think is a positive goal for the
community and DCA's inability to recognize it as a goal instead of a
mandate five years from now. So, I'm not sure which I give deference
to, but that is a little bit of a concern to me.
MR. MIHALIC: I believe we can achieve it, Commissioner, but we
will work toward achieving it. If we can't achieve it, we can't
achieve it.
I must say that obviously there are many factors that go into
building affordable housing. One of the major ones is financing, and
if the state cuts us off from financing for those multifamily
affordable housing developments, we will -- we will have a difficult
time meeting that section of this goal, and of course, that would be
our response back to DCA, you didn't provide the financing to allow us
to build these communities.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood.
Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: There's another point, too. If we find that we
can't meet this, we can, at any time, amend the comp. plan to reflect
what we can meet with the appropriate data and analysis provided to
DCA.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Mr. Hihalic?
Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that was my -- the question I was
going to ask as well is about the number 750.
Do we have an opportunity today to return that to 500 or are we
already committed to 750?
MR. MIHALIC: The 750 was in the original plan, and there was no
objection to that 750 number. I guess the attorney would have to
speak to whether we can now go back to the 500 pre-submittal number.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And one of the things I'm thinking about is
that a couple years ago, we were seeing a number of affordable housing
proposals come through, but there hasn't been very many lately. So,
perhaps, the marketplace is saying for the moment we are a bit ready
and we don't foresee in the next year or two putting any more on line.
Now, when you interface that with the 750 number, it looks like,
perhaps, if there's nothing out there in the pipeline -- and you may
be more aware because you'll see them before we do, but if there's
nothing out there in the pipeline, maybe this is not a realistic
number, especially for this year.
MS. STUDENT: That's the point exactly, Commissioner. If we can
show that that number, 750, perhaps, is unrealistic, but I think we
need to be able to demonstrate that to the DCA to be able to reduce it
at this juncture, and also, whenever we change anything without the
benefit of the ORC, we run the risk of having them object to it and --
with the opportunity to negotiate something out, but we are in an
administrative process at that time, so --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, if they object, so what?
MR. MIHALIC: I'm not quite sure if that means we can or can't
change it, commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then we can have a discussion on it,
but my goal is to best serve Collier County, not to please DCA and
never get an objection from them. So, I mean, if they object, so
what.
MS. STUDENT: We just need to be able, I feel, to support that
reduction, and -- because we're supposed -- legally, we are supposed
to have data and analysis to support the numbers and so forth that we
come up with. So, if we can support that and you provide us with
something here on the record, Greg, to support the 500, I don't know
that there's any problem with that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, in fact, the data and analysis -- the
analysis that you've done has produced data to indicate that 750 is
the appropriate number.
MR. HIHALIC: It's an achievable number, Commissioner, and I
think Commissioner Norris is right that right now we have a lot of
affordable housing, multifamily units under construction. You must
add to that the single family units that we also track. We have
almost 500 single family affordable units that are coming on line
every year. So, we're adding at least 250 multifamily developed units
to that.
Right now, this year we have a lot. Next year we may have a dry
period, especially if the financing incentives are not available from
the state and federal government to do that, although I think that
explanation can be made in the future to DCA.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you just -- you just hit on the key for
me which is we are relying on state and federal funding to be there,
yet we have no assurances from the state or federal government that
that financing will, in fact, continue, and if you look at what's
going on in Washington, I think there's real questions as to whether
or not it will be there in five years.
So, I don't mind committing to goals, but the problem is goals
are contingent upon certain things happening and not happening, and
that's why I asked if it was a goal because goals generally are not
enforceable unless you're the Department of Community Affairs. Then,
apparently, you can enforce goals. So, you know --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: It's a catch-22, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It is a little bit. I agree.
We did transmit originally with 750 in there.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, the only thing I can find that would cause
us not to feel comfortable with 750 is that it is contingent upon the
state and federal subsidies continuing or assistance continuing, and
we don't have guarantees of that. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless there's other questions on that
particular item, I have several others in this section that I have
questions on.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Item Number 5 on Page 12-A or Page 114
of the entire packet, objective two, by the year 2000, create a
nonprofit housing development corporation formed with a cross section
of representatives from businesses, government, housing advocates and
community at large which will assist the city and county in achieving
the new goal.
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that mean salaried positions?
Does that mean operating expenses? Does that mean desks and chairs
and --
MR. HIHALIC: None of those things. It means creating a
partnership of housing providers within the county to try to meet
those housing needs, some of which are nonprofit housing development
corporations.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why would we form a corporation
specifically as opposed to just a committee or advisory board or --
MR. MIHALIC: Well, they would, obviously, incorporate
themselves, but the reason you do that is because there is federal
funding and state funding out there specifically for those nonprofit
development corporations that are not available to cities or
municipalities.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we be assured that there will be
no expense to the county in creating this?
MR. MIHALIC: It isn't meant to be an expense. We may use some
of the money we receive from either community development, block
grants or our SHIP money to assist in that happening. I don't
anticipate it being ad valorem taxes being used for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On Page 116, 12, Item 2-12 at the
bottom, actually 2-13, talking about the completion of a regional farm
workers' study completed by UF. MR. MIHALIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Following that completion, the county
will review the recommendations and begin an implementation program.
MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully the word review means we can
look at it and still decide what's in our best interest; that doesn't
mean we are required to implement whatever people at the University of
Florida come up with?
MR. MIHALIC: No, that is really the IFAS study that I've talked
about that we are a partial funder through the regional planning
council, but yes, we will review and look at those numbers, and it
will meet the DCA methodology which is what that letter to you
questioned, and it should meet those guidelines.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next couple concern me the most.
Objective three on Page 117, by 2000, increase the number of housing
programs and the amount of funding available to promote preservation
and protection of existing stable residential neighborhoods.
Increasing government programs just raises an immediate red flag
with me, and I'm -- what's the purpose of that, and why would we
possibly want to do that?
MR. MIHALIC: The purpose is to reach out for the other programs
that are available at the state and federal level that we don't
participate in, bring more of those resources back to Collier County
to be utilized.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The comfort I have in that, Commissioner
Constantine, is what follows is it identifies the SHIP and community
development block grant and what we are already doing rather than
trying to seek new funding sources or local funding sources.
So, by that follow-up -- I had the same concern, and when I read
the second half of it, I thought, well, it's just doing what we are
doing now. It doesn't seem to be -- because admittedly, the SHIP
funds have really had a good impact the last couple of years. So,
that's where I found comfort in that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next one concerns me as a private
property rights issue. Collier and City of Naples will monitor all
identified historically significant housing to ensure that these
structures are being conserved, maintained or rehabilitated.
From time to time, you'll read horror stories of people who own
property that, at some point, has been declared historically
significant, and then they are somehow prohibited from doing what they
want to with their own property. Also, we've had several items come
before this board where the local historical archaeological group has
asked them to be recognized as historically significant, and we
specifically asked the question, will this have any impact, will this
force any requirements, we've always been told no. It can only inure
to all of our gain. These appear to read as though once they've been
recognized as historically significant, there may be some restriction
as to what we can do or what a private property owner can do with
those properties.
MR. MIHALIC: Well, Commissioner, under 9J-5, we are -- we do
have to look and monitor those historically significant structures,
and we will do that. We cannot speak to the property rights issue
that will go on, and this should not mandate the property rights
issues, but even within the SHIP program, we must have those funds
available for historic uses if that's what's necessary within a
residential structure within the parameters of our structure.
Again, in my opinion, it will not affect property rights, but I
think the attorney should speak to those issues.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Marjarie, to help frame your question, it says
that structures are being conserved, maintained and/or rehabilitated.
Does that mean it forces our hand on the historically significant
structure if it's planned for demolition by the private property
owner? I'm not sure what historically significant means, but --
MS. STUDENT: The camp. plan language is usually very broad.
This is the language in 9J-5. We do have a historic preservation
ordinance. I haven't had a chance to really go over it in quite some
time, and it's my understanding that that ordinance is what would
implement such a policy.
I don't know that we're necessarily hamstrung. I think the
language is broad enough where we can craft something, and as we must,
legally to recognize private property rights and not work a taking,
and I think that's what our existing ordinance does.
Typically, camp. plan language is very broad and in many
respects, it's aspiratianal as well. So, I don't know that
necessarily hamstrings us at all because we have further regulations
to implement it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good point, though.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm not comfortable with that
wording as it is. I just -- she's not comfortable that it does ham --
or not sure that it does hamstring us, but I didn't hear a definite
no, it doesn't either, and frankly, I just don't like that direction.
We've been told -- I've been told for five years, when those are
passed, it has no impact other than, perhaps, making those properties
eligible for funding from various groups, and if it has an impact
through this, if it alters what we've been told, that's a very serious
concern.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How about this -- the recommendation from
DCA says -- I guess that's the DCA recommendation -- is that it's to
establish an aim, intent or effect -- well, an aim -- or an intent is
really not the same as -- I think the wording there in the objective,
the proposed wording to ensure is a little stronger than an aim or
intent.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we -- would it be possible,
perhaps, to change that to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Encourage.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: -- encourage.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I knew that's where you were going. I
knew that.
MR. HIHALIC: The attorney recommends the word determine if
that's acceptable to the board.
MS. STUDENT: I think --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What word?
MS. STUDENT: Excuse me. We've had some problems with the use of
the word encourage in the past as being a little bit too wishy-washy,
if you will. How about determine? That doesn't -- ensure is like
you're guaranteeing something. Determine is just to -- make a fact-
finding type activity. So, it seems to me that determine might be
better off.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know, to determine that these
structures are being conserved. I think that's considerably stronger
than I termed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The term Commissioner Hac'Kie claimed sometime
ago of sufficient wiggle room, I think.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, it's cracking me up because what
we're trying to do is make it wishy-washy enough that we don't have to
-- you know, that we're not hamstrung and DCA is going to catch us if
we use the word encourage. They might not catch us if we use the word
determine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You got -- if you know the bite of the snake,
you treat them a little more --
MS. STUDENT: I suppose that we could perhaps say to encourage
the conservation, maintenance and rehabilitation. I don't know if --
it's like pulling out a crystal ball to determine what -- you know,
what they are going to pick out and what they're not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can determine a lot of things without
ensuring that they happen, so the word determine is fine by me.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll go with determine.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Determine works.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have three for determine, okay, and maybe
more, but we'll just cut it off there. Next.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do notice that the next item in
Policy 5.1 does use the word encourage, ah-hah, will be encouraged to
maintain their historic value, and that appears to me more
appropriate.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, but in the use of it there, though,
they're saying that they want this to happen through technical
assistance, so it's kind of we encourage you to take advantage of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The technical assistance we are providing.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- technical assistance, right, yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anything else on that element?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That concludes my comments on this
section.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions for Mr. Hihalic, and
do we have anyone to speak on the housing element?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny the housing element
section.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second to the motion?
No second on the motion. Is there another motion on the table?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve with the one change in
objective five to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Heavy breathing coming from the podium
over there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- change the word ensure to determine in
objective five, but with that one change, to adopt the element as
recommended by staff.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hihalic, you have a --
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, commissioners. Can we include the City of
Naples' recommendations that you received on 10/20 --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought you incorporated those into
yours. Sorry.
MR. HIHALIC: I don't believe it's been updated with those
changes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are -- does your motion include any
changes to the first item we discussed, the 750 units? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. Goals are good.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion on the floor that does
incorporates the City's recommendations -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and changes the word ensure to determine in
Policy 5.
Is there a second for the motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Guys, if we send back -- if we send it up
once with 750 and then send it back with 500 without some data to
support it, we are asking for an argument; not that that's the end of
the world, but what changed to make us -- a few months ago we liked
750.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just in answer to that, how long does
it take, though, for DCA to go through this and have some response?
If they happen to note that, I've got to assume it's several months
from --
MR. HIHALIC: Four to five months.
MS. LAYNE: Forty-five days.
MR. HIHALIC: Oh, excuse me, 45 days.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Forty-five days. I would assume in 45
days, we can put that together, and it opens a discussion. I mean,
there's not a penalty unless we just refuse to discuss with them, and
I just --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask a question of maybe Mr. Hihalic
or, actually, I know Ms. Golden is here from the City of Naples? Does
it help or hurt us as we seek to obtain this federal and state money
to have the higher goal? In other words, if we go to the state saying
we want money; we've got this goal of 750 in our element, does it help
us to get that grant money or does it have no effect?
That's what my bottom line concern is, is I don't want to impinge
-- impede the effort.
MR. HIHALIC: I don't think that in that -- in the comprehensive
plan it would make any difference in applying for monies whether we
have 500 or 750 in as that number.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, other than just goal setting is good,
is there any other real world effect to the change?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I offer a suggestion, Commissioner
Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We talked earlier about manatees and
populations. If you looked at the anticipated growth curve of this
county -- you know, the '80s were a boom, and the growth curve
continues to slow because the availability of land becomes less and
whatnot. As that occurs, a fixed number of required housing units
becomes a larger and larger percentage of the actual built units in a
given year. So, it becomes my concern that if we raise the number
now, we are not just raising it now, but also increasing the
percentage of built units per year required to be affordable housing,
and that, in itself, if you look at that growth curve, could be
problematic.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that sounds really logical, but I
think that the actual effect -- I think the 750 is a smaller
percentage of total housing units than the 500 was.
MR. MIHALIC: I think it will be a smaller percentage because of
the rise in our median income every year, commissioners. So, what
could be considered affordable housing, that pool is getting larger
and larger every year, and I guess it depends on the house price,
median value rise versus median income rise, but so far, medium income
has been the fastest growing in the State of Florida -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good, because I'm median.
MR. MIHALIC: -- far out stripping -- far out stripping most
other standards.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I live in a median house in this county.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to leave the 750 in because I
haven't heard any good data and analysis to support a change to
reduce. So, that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second for the
motion?
Motion dies for lack of -- fails for lack of a second, excuse me.
Is there a substitute motion or an additional motion?
Let's craft one here for the table here, folks. I make a motion
we approve the housing element with the changes being that ensured is
changed to determine, objective five, and the total number of units
incurred -- or requested in affordable housing or listed affordable
housing is changed from 750 to 500. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Incorporating the City of Naples?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, I'm sorry, that also is included.
We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Aye
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries three-two.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I think it takes four.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Student, in order to transmit to the
state, is it four affirmative votes required?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, we have a resolution that provides for four
affirmative votes, so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then the motion does fail.
At this point, we have no changes approved by this board to
transmit to the state.
I assume by --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the way it is then.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I assume then by lack of action, it is
transmitted back as originally contained in our growth management
plan.
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask a question? Could we consider
transmitting it -- that we would accept all of the changes of staff's
recommendation except for the 750, and it goes back to original?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask you a question?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hate to do nothing to this element
because we've gotten an ORC report to which we must respond.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that was mine -- that really was my
motion, was the original was 500. My motion was -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The original was 750.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, I meant prior to the change we transmitted
to the state.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I wanted to clarify. If
no action takes place, it won't go to this all new stuff, it will go
back to the prior existing --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: No -- sorry.
MS. STUDENT: The 1989 element would be what's in place because
you just transmitted this previously. It wasn't adopted by ordinance
or anything --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MS. STUDENT: -- so -- the only concern, and I need to raise this
for the record as your legal counsel, is as part of the EAR process,
we were to update each element based on our evaluation and appraisal
report, and we may run into -- I don't know that we would, but we may
run into a legal problem with that, and it may be difficult to defend.
That's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I make a -- try one more motion?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How about with staff recommendations, with
the change of the word to determine, with the City recommendations,
and with 650 instead of 750 as the number of housing units? We need
to do something instead of just nothing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to ask a question of our legal
staff, and that is when you stand up and say, well, we could have a
legal problem, and I don't know what will happen. It might not be
defensible. It's an extraordinarily vague and somewhat threatening
comment, not that you're threatening us '-
MS. STUDENT: It wasn't intended as such.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- not that you're threatening us, but
it sounds as though it could be a threatening situation from the
state. When you say, gosh, we can be open to a legal thing,
specifically what are you talking about, and when you say you don't
personally feel it may be defensible, I need you to specifically
address that as well.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. Well, Commissioner, we've had some other
matters that I've been through in my almost ten years with Collier
County doing this, and when you go to an administrative hearing, it's
my opinion based on my experience and talking with colleagues in other
counties, that the cards are stacked against local government with
administrative -- in administrative proceedings, and I think that's
just the way it is, and so, therefore, based on my experience and, you
know, contact with colleagues that do this throughout the State of
Florida, that's why I stated that. I think what you might --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Specifically, what is the concern that
the legal action would be? I mean, I understand if they take some
legal action, whatever it might be, that the cards might be stacked
against us, but when you say I fear in my expert opinion, and I would
certainly recognize you as an expert in this field -- MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that there may be legal action from
the state, what specifically do you have a concern about?
MS. STUDENT: It would be an administrative hearing, and it would
go through the process of a hearing before an administrative law
judge, and then it would go to the administration commission which is
the governor and cabinet. Their ultimate stick with local government
is to take away all sorts of funding that we receive, revenue sharing
and so forth.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Understanding the process;
specifically, what is it you think they will object to, though?
MS. STUDENT: Well, the specific objection could be that to leave
the housing element as was in 1989 does not reflect the evaluation and
appraisal report, and that is why you're in this process. We do a
report that reflects changes and facts from when we originally did our
camp. plan as well as changes in the law and rule requirements, and if
we fail to address these items, then we may be in for a challenge for
failure to be consistent with our EAR report.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, the other -- the other possibility
is to --
MS. STUDENT: Not to mention 9J-5 because I believe 9J-5 has been
updated since we did our original -- Greg could perhaps -- it has been
updated. So, there could be some problems with being in compliance
because of 9J-5 requirements.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other possibility is that they
might make no comment or that they might make some specific
recommendations.
MS. STUDENT: That's a very -- in my expert opinion, that's a
very remote possibility because this element was scrutinized greatly.
It got more objections than any other element in the camp. plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the rewritten part. I mean --
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'm not sure if you're arguing
against yourself there because the rewritten part -- MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- got more objections than any other
part.
MS. STUDENT: No, that's correct, but meaning that the element
was under a great deal of scrutiny from that perspective.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sure because it was all
completely new, that would very clearly explain why it would be under
so much scrutiny.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, I think --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure that bolsters your
argument. I think if we're creating something new and it had more
objections and more scrutiny than anything else, maybe there's
something to be said for what we had. I don't know. I understand
your argument but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think you're saying that --
something that was quite acceptable under the rules six months ago,
why isn't it today. That's what you're saying in effect, I believe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, the question as I understand it
is it was acceptable under the rules in 1989, and we are required to
-- when it was adopted, it was perfectly fine, but the state law
requires it to be updated and amended in accordance with the changes
in state law. So, it would really get their attention if we send back
to them our 1989 housing element.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, but we go through this process
every year, and a year ago when we went through -- you know, whatever
our most recent update was as far as affordable housing and all those
issues, we came to some agreement with the state. So, it's not as
though the county and the state haven't communicated since 1989.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. I guess what I'd like to bring us
around to the focus here is what is -- is the only -- I know you had
several issues, but for a majority of the board or the balance of the
other four, are there -- is the only problem we have here the 750 or
do we just generally want to throw this whole element out, because it
has had a great deal of staff work, and as Greg said, it's one that's
cutting edge, and it's got a lot of state attention by being a joint
city/county element. I hate to see us throw it out because of a
problem -- if the problem is 500 versus 750.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I entirely understand your point, and I don't
disagree that maybe the housing element of the plan needs a lot of
work at the state level, but I like to choose my fights carefully, and
I'm not -- I'm not disturbed enough to choose this as a major fight
with DCA, and that's why I made the motion supporting the number 500
for two reasons.
The five year EAR report requires you to look at your successes
and failures. Through Mr. Mihalic's hard work and a lot of others,
we've had good successes in the affordable housing area, and that has
caused him to recommend raising that bar a little bit. I don't
necessarily disagree with that, but I think we can raise the bar
locally without asking the state to do it for us, and that's really
the crux of my concern there is that when you have boom years in the
stock market, you don't, you don't turn around and expect that every
year. You recognize it as good years, and you hope it continues, and
I think this is much the same way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I propose a statement this way?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, it is, so before the housing market goes
crash on us and we have DCA breathing down our necks because we
couldn't meet the criteria we set forth to them, I'd rather go back to
the 500, recognize those years as good years and be thankful for them
and not, again, give DCA something to hurt us with.
So, that is the issue between the 750 and 500 for me. I am not
supportive of eliminating the element or sending it back in it's '89
form.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, your motion, again, that you
had was to change the word in objective five to lower to 500.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And to incorporate the joint city/county
policy.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct, that was my motion that failed
three-two.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There is a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, we do have a motion to -- same motion
except 650 instead of 500 by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was that seconded?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second for that motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will second it if the number is amended
to 500.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask Mr. Mihalic --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's no second. The motion fails for a
lack of a second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hihalic, a question, we've had
several references to the 1989 plan. Have we made any changes since
19897
MR. HIHALIC: Yes, there have been updates since 1989.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you know when the most recent change that
was approved by DCA was?
MR. HIHALIC: I would say -- the legal settlement of the issue of
what incomes we should -- we should be servicing, and we had a
disagreement with them that was settled about five months ago during
an administrative hearing. It took five years to settle that issue.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to be clear. I don't
think we are dealing with a 1989 plan. I think we are dealing with
the latest version, which, frankly, is a 1997 plan and had been
approved as recently as five months ago.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just trying to measure the potential --
when we talked about solid waste earlier, we spent four years fighting
them on something from '93 that finally, four years later, they said,
it complies, by the way. I don't want to spend Mr. Hihalic's time
doing that, and so I'm trying to avoid that, but I can't agree to
raising the bar to 750 because, honestly, I don't trust DCA to act on
it as a goal. They are going to act on it as a mandate, and I'm not
comfortable with that. Mr. Hihalic.
MR. HIHALIC: Well, if we put this in perspective, commissioners,
DCA, through one study that they've done statewide, says that we need
14,000 additional affordable housing units within the county. Whether
it's 500 or 750, it's a small number.
I think -- I need to have an approved element or I'm afraid that
our SHIP funding and some of our other funding may be in jeopardy next
year if we don't -- if it doesn't meet our comprehensive plan, which
must be approved. So, I'm a little bit concerned about that, about
transmitting something that, obviously, isn't going to meet their
evaluation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll change my motion to 500 so
Commissioner Norris can second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The motion failed for a lack of a
second, so we need a new motion on the floor.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I repeat my motion.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With the number being --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will you repeat what it is?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The 500, the City of Naples language in
and the word changed to determine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Policy 5. Okay. There's a motion on the
floor. Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second. Discussion on the motion?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just want to ask a question. Regarding
the joint city/county policy, and this is just a practical question, I
think. If they are involved in this, and I'm not -- I'm just asking,
does this mean that there would be some units built in the city? Is
that what we are getting at here?
MR. HIHALIC: Well, any units that we built in the city or the
urban area of the county would be counted toward this joint element on
the city side, but, I mean, this really reflects that affordable
housing is a multi-jurisdictional issue, and both the city and the
county are involved in this.
Right now, we received the city's SHIP funding, and we administer
that for the benefit of both city and county residents. We also
administer some other funding that they receive and can use now within
the county. So, there's cross jurisdictional issues. We have an
interlocal agreement that talks about how much housing will be
produced within the urban area and we renew that every three years.
So, those are some of the issues involved.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because technically, there's very little
area in the city that they could possibly do --
MR. MIHALIC: That's very true, Commissioner, plus much of my
operation is funded out of the general fund 001 which was a shift
several years ago from 111 reflecting the city's contribution toward
the efforts to run my department.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm ready to vote on this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
No further discussion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one.
MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mihalic, thank you very much.
With that, we are past the noon hour. We will take a one hour
lunch break to return with the Immokalee Area Master Plan; reconvene
at 1:15.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We're going to reconvene the
Board of County Commissioners meeting. We are in the -- still in the
-- excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. If I could have your attention,
please. Thank you. We are still in the EAR based amendments with the
Immokalee Area Master Plan. Let's go ahead and proceed then if we
may.
MS. PRESTON: For the record, Debrah Preston, senior planner with
the Comprehensive Planning Section. DCA had four comments on our
policies and objectives that we had proposed. Staff is recommending
to revise those changes according to their direction except for one
new policy that -- DCA had comments on policy 3.2.2. Staff is
recommending deleting the policy altogether. This deletion will not
change the intent or the objective of 3.2 which deals with
implementing the housing study. Support document has also been changed
to correspond with DCA's comments on population figures.
And if you would like me to go over any of the specific changes,
I can do that at this time. If not, I'd like to go to the future land
use map and explain a change that we're bringing forward to you today
based on the Planning Commission's direction at their September 4th
meeting and at their September 18th meeting when they approved it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If you would be so kind as to state
that direction in your explanation of how it affects the land use map.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Deb, I'm sorry, but was this proposed by
the Planning Commission or proposed by staff and approved by the
Planning Commission?
MS. PRESTON: It was proposed -- the Planning Commission directed
staff to consider a change in the future land use map based on some
input that they received from the property owners that own Lake
Trafford Marina.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks.
MS. PRESTON: And so we looked at it, and then we brought it back
to them on September 18th.
The property in question is 240 acres. It's located on Lake
Trafford. The property contains four owners. The county owns the
Immokalee Park there. There is the Lake Trafford Marina. There is
one parcel of five acres that has a single-family residence on it.
Then the remaining 220-some-odd acres is owned by one other
individual.
The intent of this new future land use map designation would be
to help stimulate ecotourism in the area. The marina owners are
interested and have already begun doing airboat rides and fishing on
the lake. And the gentleman that owns the other 220 acres is looking
at setting up a preserve for environmental observation.
The language that would correspond with this RT, which is
recreation tourist district, would be again to provide recreation and
tourism activities that utilizes the natural environment. It would be
low intense uses while preserving the natural features. Transient
lodging such as motel and hotel uses would be allowed at 26 units per
acre. Any rezoning of the property would be -- we recommend would be
with the PUD with a minimum requirement of two acres. The property
right now is basically zoned agricultural with a mobile home overlay
on it, except for seven acres that contains the county park and the
marina which is zoned park right now.
If you have any questions about this land use change or the
future map use change, I can answer them right now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one. I understand that those are
the property owners who have come forward with some particular plans,
but how is that line drawn? I mean, would it not be more appropriate
to go on around the lake or down at least the edge of the lake that's
in the future land use plan for Immokalee or '-
MS. PRESTON: Well, most of the other lake property here --
right here is owned by individuals that have single -- some
single-family homes developed on it. There's not any large tracts of
land that we feel would be appropriate for development of ecotourism.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess -- here's my concern is, when you
-- when you create a category on a particular piece of land then, you
know, we're affecting the market value of that piece of property. It
all of a sudden has a whole different value in an appraisal process.
And if the 500 homeowners wanted to conglomerate their property and
have the option of, you know, some sort of a combined application --
it just troubles me to make something so site specific when it really
creates market value where it doesn't otherwise exist. I just wonder
why -- what would be the negative of allowing those other individual
properties to -- to come into application for this kind of use?
MS. PRESTON: We haven't had any interest. I mean, we can always
come back in and, of course, amend the plan with this creation of the
new land use district. But at this time we've only had really two
property owners that have shown any interest in creating any kind of
ecotourism opportunities around the lake.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that. And then I'll stop
after I try to ask this one more time. Because here's -- my question
is, from a planning perspective, not from a property owner's
perspective, but from a planning perspective, when you create a
category like this, if you didn't know who owned the property or you
didn't know any -- you know, is that where you would draw the line or
might you draw it somewhere else?
MS. PRESTON: Well, I've looked at the area, and I believe this
is appropriate just given the different characteristics of the land
uses there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition, if you do it in this area, the
only way to access it is through really the center of the Immokalee
area. And if you look at how we want all of the pieces of the puzzle
to fit together in Immokalee, you can link ecotourism to some of the
restaurants and so forth in the town. It seems to make sense and also
the thing that concern -- the only concern I have is I like -- I very
much like the concept of what's being proposed, the ecotourism, the --
you know, low impact cabins in the area or, you know, I think even bed
and breakfast was mentioned or whatnot, but that doesn't jive with 26
units per acre. Twenty-six units per acre comes from coastal
hotel/motel requirements where you have an acre of land to build a
high-rise hotel or motel on.
So I think if it wouldn't harm the approach, I would like to see
a far lesser density or potential density in the transient lodging
facilities than 26 units per acre. Otherwise, we're not talking
ecotourism; we're just simply talking tourism.
MS. PRESTON: I think staff would agree with your suggestion if
you wanted to lower it to 12 units per acre. Or if you want us to
look at it a little bit more and come back before the end of today, we
can do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because I know some of the property owners are
here, I would like you to discuss with them how low we can take that
density, because even though it's -- it would come back to us for
approval, it may not come back when these five people are sitting here
who understand the intent of this change. It may come back at some
other time, and I would hate to see the -- even 12 units an acre. I
mean, that's dense when we're talking about, again, an ecotourism
proposal. So if you can give me some benchmark as a maximum that is
less than 26 units an acre, I happen to find the rest of it very
appealing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's a lodge? I mean, what's the
density for a hunting lodge kind of --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One unit per 300 acres.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The idea of a lodge is a central housing
facility so the rest of the property can be used in its environmental
state. And I like the idea of like little cabins or whatnot, but the
idea is to have a natural system around them. I know the lake exists
for that purpose, but I don't think we want to build up the shoreline
of the lake.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, gosh, no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, some of the folks that are here
probably don't want that on the other property that they don't
control. So that's why I'd like for you to discuss it with them and
maybe come back with a little more of a -- what I'd call a realistic
approach to, quote, transient lodging facility density.
MS. PRESTON: Okay. We'll do that soon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, can we get a motion to table this
item till later in the day?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For that particular item or the whole
Immokalee --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do the whole thing since it requires a single
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there any other areas of the
Immokalee --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I personally don't have a problem with the
rest of it. That's the one thing that caught my eye.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's the second held over and tabled
to hear later. Okay.
Next item on the agenda is the Golden Gate Master Plan. I see
Miss Layne coming up to bat.
MS. LAYNE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. The Golden Gate Area
Master Plan, the ORC report that was received, the basic objections --
and I think we all probably knew this -- were on Goal 2 that we had
the comments on. The first was about -- we had not originally placed
any of these regulations on the southern Golden Gate Estates area. If
you remember, we had the old DNR regulations.
What staff is recommending is that these reg -- ACSC regulations
only apply to those parcels that are actually in the ACSC, which they
have to comply with anyway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for Logic 101, Miss Layne.
MS. LAYNE: The others were -- if you remember are objectives and
policies said that we were telling state agencies what they had to do,
and we were politely told that we cannot tell a state agency that they
shall do something. They said you can recommend monitoring. You
cannot tell them to complete something.
So Objective 2.3, we said we will monitor DEP's completing its
purchase of the southern Golden Gate Estates project. The work plan
was submitted. If you remember, when we had the transmittal, that we
put a date of October of '97 for them to submit the work plan. It was
submitted in May of this year, so we put the new dates in there based
on that work plan with completion of the reappraisals by December of
'98 and coordinate with them on the interim goals based on the work
plan that was completed in May of last -- of this past year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go too far, just to refresh,
it was six months ago when we had this discussion and we had a roomful
of people who were property owners in that part of the county. And
earlier in this meeting Commissioner Hancock referenced we would like
to select our battles carefully. This is one where we've had,
supposedly, coordination with DEP for 15 years, and I had a newspaper
quote with me. I don't have it today. I can go back and dig it out
of the files. But I had it with me six months ago. It word for word
was we are, quote, on schedule with our purchase program in southern
Golden Gate Estates. It's been 15 years. They have purchased less
than 20 percent, which means if they're on schedule, it will only take
about 60 more years to complete buying all of it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's a long-term program.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And it's kind of a long-term
program. Right now there's no specific plan. There is no specific
funding. And we said very clearly we're not telling the state what to
do. We're saying if they can't do that -- and ironically one of the
comments in here, it says -- from the DEP -- is that 2000 -- we had
asked by December 31 of the year 2000 they should be able to complete
this -- that date came from one of their documents. That was one of
their alleged goals for what they were trying to achieve. And then
it's them turning around and saying but that's not a reasonable time
frame. And that came out of their own paperwork.
So this is one of those battles that I would choose, because we
have a number of homeowners out there right now who have been through
15 years of not being able to use their property because some day the
state might buy their property with some money if they can get it.
And in the meantime, they can't do anything with it.
Just a minute ago, Commissioner Hac'Kie, you talked about
affecting market value. Boy, what better example can you have of
destroying market value? So I don't have any interest in the fluffy
changes we've done, that we'll monitor it, and that we'll work with
DEP. That's exactly what we've been doing, and it hasn't been the
least bit effective.
This is one of those I think we should choose to draw the line
and on behalf of the people who own property in Collier County and
can't make use of their own property, we need to challenge the state.
We need to have them either move forward and have a specific way or
they're not. And we had some time frames in here six months ago. If
they can't meet them, then great. Let's go ahead and challenge them
and ask them, because either they can do what they set out to do in a
specific time frame or they can't. And if they can't, we can't keep
holding these people hostage.
MS. LAYNE: Well, basically, Commissioner, these are the time
frames that we transmitted except for the reappraisal which was based
on the work plan that you asked them to submit which they did. And
within that work plan the only time change was the change from -- that
we had set October of '97, because originally we had had December, I
think, of 2000, and now we're recommending '98 because of what they
had in the work plan. These objectives and policies are based on what
the homeowners as well as staff and others in that area have agreed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The dates are the same.
MS. LAYNE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The substance is not. The dates were
they shall complete it by then. Now it's we shall monitor to see if
they do. And what -- you know as well as I do, Lee, we're going to
get the year 2000, they won't have bought the land, and we'll be right
back where we are right now, and we'll say, well, maybe we should
challenge again.
MS. LAYNE: Well, I understand the complete that -- that goes
back to where supposedly we cannot tell a state agency what they shall
do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know. And the one way we can do
that or can challenge that is by not accepting this goal and let the
state challenge us, and let's do what we need to do to get an answer.
I think we will win in that case. I think you have literally
thousands of property owners who have been -- the use of their
property's been taken away. And for us to just roll over and give
them another two or three years and then, well, we'll monitor it, and
if they haven't done it by 2000, we'll look at it again.
MS. LAYNE: So it's your recommendation instead of putting
"monitor" to leave it back the way it was and transmit it --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think you've seen enough nods on this
board that that's -- I mean, that's what I'm going to support is just
tell them we're very sorry, but we don't monitor anymore; we're back
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my recollection of our discussion
six months ago was if they can't meet what we originally had, we were
just going to eliminate Goal 2 altogether and --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: And there was a lot of discussion about that
they didn't -- you know, other people didn't want us to do that, other
agencies didn't want us to do that. However, they're not cooperating
here. I mean, they're not working with us either, so --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The whole purpose of eliminating Goal
2 isn't necessarily to have that area developed; it's to force the
issue. Either they are going to purchase it and dedicate money or
they're not. And if they're not, they need to let it go.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Put up or shut up.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's right.
MS. LAYNE: I need to -- I didn't understand your statement
then. You're saying that --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll tell you what, Lee, before we try and
encapsulate it into a specific change, let's get through some board
discussion because, Commissioner Norris, you had something.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I was just going to say that the
only time we got any action at all and any cooperation at all in the
last 15 years is when we told them we would -- we were going to bail
out and take it out of our Growth Management Plan and then forget it;
that got some action. And what we should do now is to put some
stringent time limits on here, and if they don't -- if they don't
proceed in a timely basis, then it's out of the Growth Management Plan
and we ain't considering putting it back it in, you know. But I don't
know how you'd formulate that into the plan, but that's what we would
need to do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we can. Miss Layne, what they have
expressed to you is true, but the ultimate cop out. It's when they
stand here and tell us, well, we believe we can do X, so we put it in
our plan that they do X, and they say, well, DCA tells us we can't
tell DEP what to do. Technically, they're correct. We could have in
this plan the federal government should treat us fairly. It doesn't
mean it's going to happen, and it doesn't mean it won't happen.
There's no enforceability there.
What we should have here is, if there's any leverage at all, is
recognizing the time frames that were agreed upon by the DEP, that
were agreed upon between the DEP and the homeowners from -- exactly --
from that podium right there. And if any of those time frames are not
met to the day, this goal will be subsequently eliminated altogether.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Irrevocably.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Irrevocably.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Automatically.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Automatically. And that's not us telling the
state what to do. That's us trying to state what we're going to do if
they don't live up to their end of the bargain. That we do have
control over.
So if the wording can be changed where you just basically add to
each one of these or preface to any of those policies or objectives,
that should the state not meet its goal as identified below, Policy 2
will be eliminated at the earliest opportunity by the Board of County
Commissioners, period. We have the hammer then and we're not trying
to tell another organization what they do or do not have to do. That
would be my suggested remedy to bring both sides together.
MS. LAYNE: Then if we put back in policy 2.3.3 which states that
if none of these are completed, that this goal shall be deleted in the
next amendment cycle of the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, If you can add the word
"irrevocably."
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably can't legally but still, you
know, because we can't bind the future boards and all that stuff but
__
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's our issue, not DCA's.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. And the only other thing I
want to say in support of it is that we don't have the room packed
here today because I think they finally trust us to do the right
thing, and I'm not about to forbear them that trust.
MS. LAYNE: And then do you want me to change -- the way I
understand the 2.3 and the 3.1 where we have "monitored," go back and
put in the language "completion" in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, our position is not to tell the state
what they have to do. We understand that. Our position is to tell
the state what we're going to do if they don't meet their guidelines,
their --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If they don't live up to their word, we're
out. That's basically what we want to tell them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It won't say the State of Florida shall.
It will just say the State of Florida has indicated that by this date
it will do A, B, C. Collier County hereby advises that if they don't,
we'll remove.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's simpler by just using the word
"will." The State of Florida will do X, the State of Florida will do
Y, and the State of Florida will do Z. Otherwise if any of these
goals are not met, then the Board of Commissioners shall --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then Goal 2 will automatically
disappear.
MS. LAYNE: Well, it can't automatically disappear. We'd have to
go through public hearing process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MS. STUDENT: Just a suggestion, if I might, on wordsmithing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name for the record, please.
MS. STUDENT: Oh. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney.
Could we state that policies, whatever, shall remain in effect so long
as -- that way it makes it more plan language as opposed to putting in
there a list of goals, because we're supposed to put in here as you
cur -- as you state, what the county's doing. So if we put a time
line that these are effective so long as the state does A, B, C, and
D, then I think that gets us to where we're going.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As long as there is an automatic removal if
one of those is not met. In other words, it automatically comes back
to the board for approval if any -- yeah, I know it can't just be
dropped out. We have to approve it. But that it says it
automatically will come back to the board for removal if --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask if there's any interest in
doing the following. Part of the reason I ask is that what Lee just
said about it won't automatically go. It would take, in essence, a
full year whenever it comes back. And that's once. It would come
back again in six months and -- is there any interest in removing Goal
2 now and forcing the state to address the issue? Either they're
going to -- at that point they will say -- they'll be forced to say
from a legal perspective that they have a particular plan and ante up
what it is, or they'll be forced to acknowledge there isn't one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, in light of the fact that there's
been a settlement agreement, you know, of some sorts recently where
they've agreed on the appraisal process and there is a procedure in
place, that was a big step in the right direction to change the
process for the appraisals, you know, so that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But there's still really not a
dedicated funding source. I mean, that's the key.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, yeah, there was. The -- we were told
there was X number of dollars. But here's what I don't understand.
You can have a reappraisal process. Now, if you do that, and you do
it honestly, you have no idea what the dollars are going to be; right?
Well, then, how can you have X number of dollars allocated over here
and say this is what we're going to use, but oh, yes, people, we're
going out there and reappraise your property and give you fair market
value. That doesn't make sense. Because if that was the case, you
wouldn't know what this dollar amount was over here, and you would
have sufficient funds to cover whatever that reappraisal process is.
It doesn't make any sense.
And I think they know very well what they're going to do. I
think they know they may have X number of dollars. I do not think,
personally, that it's going to be an honest reappraisal. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: It's not really fair if you put it that way.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If I might, the point is that today the
state has made some commitments to go forward with this, and until
they break their word and don't live up to their commitments, I don't
think it would be right to -- for us to go back on ours by taking this
back out just unilaterally at this point. Give them an opportunity to
fulfill their commitments. If they don't, fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection, though, is that they
are not meeting their commitment. What we had talked about six months
ago is that if they didn't agree with the wording we submitted, we
would eliminate Goal 2 and particularly --
MS. LAYNE: Excuse me, Commissioner. What it was, if they had
not submitted the work plan by October of '97, we would delete Goal 2.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MS. LAYNE: And they have done that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I believe there was a secondary part
of that where they had to have a particular time frame in it.
MS. LAYNE: And that's why we have changed some of the dates in
there. We changed the appraisal from October of '97 to December of
'98 -- or '98 based on that work plan, and also with the leaving the
2000 in there which was included in there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And their comments about the
year 2000 tell us that it doesn't establish a reasonable time frame
for completion. What date do they think is reasonable? MS. LAYNE: Staff did not read that objection --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm asking a very specific question.
What date do they think is reasonable?
MS. LAYNE: I don't think they have an objection to the date,
Commissioner. I think what they have a problem with was us telling a
regulatory authority what to do, not the problem --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me read the agenda item one more
time. In proposed Objective 2.3, which was directed to complete by
December 31, 2000, did not establish a reasonable time frame for
completion. That doesn't say anything about objecting. It's a
different section that complains that we're directing the state
agency. It very clearly says they don't think that establishes a
reasonable time frame for completion.
What, then, do they think is a reasonable time frame for
completion?
MS. LAYNE: Okay. I see where you're reading. That's from --
that's from DCA. Between the time that the work plan was adopted in
Hay and we received it, it was crossing paths with that work plan
coming in and the DCA comments review coming in. That plan does have
the 2000 date in it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As of December 31, 2000, they will
complete it?
MS. LAYNE: That's what the work plan says. But I think that
was, like, a crossing-in-the-mail situation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there any -- as part of that, are
there any goals or hurdles or check marks as they go along so we know
they have purchased halfway by June of '99 or '-
MS. LAYNE: I don't think there's any specific amount of acreage
that says they will purchase by any such date, not in the plan, no.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Isn't that amazing? Our Growth Management
Plan, you have to have measurable objectives, but yet they don't have
to be -- there's nothing there for us to know if they're on track. In
other words, we can't measure what they're doing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Apparently what's good for the goose doesn't
apply in Tallahassee.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I guess not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if you want to move forward in
that -- if you want to move forward with that direction, Commissioner
Norris, I won't object to it, but it just seems to me --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I understand your point, and I
understand your frustration, but they have submitted a plan, and we
really in all good conscience need to give them an opportunity to
fulfill their commitment. If they don't --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you and I had been sitting here for the
last 15 years, and if you and I and this board 15 years ago asked for
this and it didn't occur, I agree with you. But the citizens
rightfully so drew this board into this and put us in a position we
needed to be in to try and do what's right by them, and we've tried to
do that.
So I agree with Commissioner Norris that let's proceed with this
as dates provided we've the language in there that says if you don't
meet them, at the first available cycle, this board will remove Goal
2. And I know they'll come back and say you have to use word "will
consider removing," but regardless it's the same impact.
And I tell you this, by the year 2000, I have every intention of
being here. And if I'm not, I'll be out there arguing with whoever is
here does it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Was that some sort of an announcement?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's coming next week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and I just want to be very, very
clear because you asked the question two or three times, I think we've
all said, I don't want to read "shall monitor." I don't want to
monitor anything. I don't want to just check in. We expect them to
meet those dates or it's coming back to the board to be '-
MS. LAYNE: I can preface all of those but recognizing the time
frames that they submitted in the work plan and put the language in of
the 2.3.3 that we had before that we will recommend deletion during
the next amendment cycle.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on that one item, will you do me
a favor and forward the wording to me when you send it out to -- when
you craft it, before you send it up?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the board comfortable at this point that
enough direction has been given that the wording can be accomplished?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go to -- are there any further
questions of staff?
And that being the case, do we have members of the public that
wish to speak on '-
MS. LAYNE: I have other parts but that was the big one. We got
that one out of the way.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and -- let's go ahead
and go through the whole thing. I guess that -- that makes the most
sense since we're --
MS. LAYNE: Okay. During the Planning Commission public hearing,
we had two members of the public speak on the neighborhood center at
White and Pine Ridge and 951.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the one that's been requested to be
withdrawn as a request, though? MS. LAYNE: Part of it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Part of it, okay.
MS. LAYNE: Part of transmittal -- if you remember we had
recommended that the tracts -- that there will be 10 acres on the
northwest corner of 951 and Pine Ridge and 10 acres on the southwest
corner. During the Planning Commission hearing, the property owners
on this side (indicating) which included some of the tracts that we
had recommended as a -- for an additional 5-acre tract on the south
side and plus 2 1/2 acres on this side, and then property owners on
the east side of 951 and White Boulevard, 5 acres on the north and 5
acres on the south.
Since that meeting, we have had a letter from the property owners
on the northeast and southeast recommending that their parcels be
withdrawn and they will submit it as an amendment in another cycle of
the plan. Staff has no objection to that. We had recommended that
that not be approved at this point anyway.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So those items that are east of County
Road 951 are no longer under consideration for '-
MS. LAYNE: Correct. And then the parcels on the southwest
corner -- staff had agreed to a portion of them. And I think the
property owner has their map over on the wall to your right. What
staff had agreed to --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You'll get your exercise here, Hiss Layne.
MS. LAYNE: The original area that was transmitted back in April
was all of this area and this area to this point (indicating). The
property owners requested that this five-acre parcel with the two and
a half acres -- southern half of that be for a buffer and this
approximate two and a half acres be a buffer area. Staff still
recommends that it go to this point as well as all of these parcels.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hiss Layne, what is the distance, linear feet,
of the property -- property line abutting Pine Ridge Road there? MS. LAYNE: This way?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. Do you know offhand?
MS. LAYNE: I would say that's approximately -- most of your
Golden Gate tracts are approximately 660, so you're looking at 660 and
probably 185 so --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Therein lies -- now, there's a lot of
philosophical, you know, disagreement over whether there should be
commercial zoning at major intersections in the Estates, and I happen
to find that without -- with that lacking, you're just forcing trips
into the urban area on those roadways that otherwise may not have to
occur. That's a personal feeling. That aside, if you look at the
mistakes we've made at activity centers, it's been because we have not
required an internal circulation plan in the activity centers to avoid
simply congesting an existing intersection.
My concern about this as well as many of the other smaller pieces
is that the small parcels, with the lack of single ownership in many
cases, makes it is all but impossible to put in the proper
transportation network to alleviate the congestion concerns at the
intersections. It has less to do with it being appropriate or
inappropriate mistakes, and that's a whole 'nother argument. My
problem is, what we're going to do here is create little pockets of
commercial zoning that only cause that intersection to work in a less
efficient manner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What limitations are there for ingress
and egress right now, because it should address -- even though those
are divvied up, I'm under the impression that there are some
limitations as to how you can get in and out of those properties. If
I'm mistaken, then I need to know that now.
As far as the Estates, I don't think the objection for the west
side is nearly as strong. I think when the issue, that has now been
abandoned, for the other side of the canal and into the actual, where
the residential estates is was more of a concern. This being on the
951 corridor, I don't think was as strong of an objection. But I think
you're right. If we're causing problems here, and we need to correct
that.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: It still goes back to the traffic problem.
I mean, you still have two parcels of land on the same side of the
roadway, and who knows what will happen in the future. But unless you
can deal with that traffic, as Commissioner Hancock has spoken, you're
going to end up with a problem. They have to dump out onto 951 or --
if that's the direction they dump, you still have that problem.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It sounds odd, but I'm more supportive of a
larger area --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I am too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that allows for a master planning of the
transportation requirements than I am a smaller pocket area with 660
feet barely meeting a modified median opening in our access management
guidelines. You can't have a full median opening until you're 1,320
feet from the intersection.
So here we have commercial zoning that the only way to get back
westbound on Pine Ridge Road is to get out on 951 northbound. But
guess what? That takes a full median opening or at least a
directional median that precludes some other turning movements.
until you stretch these boundaries to meet the access management
guidelines for transportation, we're really sticking -- sticking our
foot in it here. Because what we're going to have there is not going
to work transportation-wise, and that's been the single biggest issue
at our activity centers. The aesthetics we can handle. The problem
is the transportation and the way they move among each other.
So, you know, I'm not by any means berating anyone. This was
brought forward as a request. I completely understand that. But I
don't think it goes nearly far enough to answer the concerns of
activity centers in the current proposal and I, in fact, think if
we're going to do, let's do it right. Let's expand it out to the
proper size.
MS. LAYNE: Well, I think in this point -- not to correct --
well, yes, to correct you. These are not activity centers as to what
we have in the urban --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But --
MS. LAYNE: These are neighborhood centers which are supposed to
be low intensity, 10-to-20-acre development parcels. So just to
correct that they're not an activity center.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. But 10 acres, you know, could
equate to a hundred thousand square feet. MS. LAYNE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you know, 20 acres is 200,000 square feet,
and we're talking 20 acres now. You could have a full shopping center
on 20 acres, because you got -- 200,000 square feet gives you enough
for an anchor retailer and some others.
So you're going to create traffic that there you need to have the
ability to handle, and the geographic size of these parcels to me
doesn't do that well enough. So I understand and appreciate the
distinction, Miss Layne; you're absolutely correct. But unless the
transportation issue can be resolved, you know, 200,000 square feet
of retail space, that needs more than 660 feet of distance to provide
us transportation-wise, in my opinion, unless our engineering staff
can show me otherwise.
MS. LAYNE: Right. The only thing that -- I think it was
Commissioner Constantine that asked about the access. The only thing
that is in the existing plan and which we are recommending to transmit
is access is limited to one per 180 feet commencing from the
right-of-way.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want us to go in strong support of
what Commissioner Hancock is saying. And it sort of follows on that
concern I had in Immokalee that we don't let the Comprehensive Plan
for the county be driven by individual property requests. As
important as those are, we count on you guys to give us, you know, a
big, broad picture, and this one worries me for that -- for all of the
reasons that Commissioner Hancock already expressed.
MS. LAYNE: Well, we're recommending against this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. But the reasons are what I'm getting
to. The reasons why I'm don't support it is not because I had a
problem with commercial activity at that intersection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's a great idea myself,
because of the same reason you said, less traffic into the urban ar --
you know, into the coastline. There's more opportunities for people to
buy a loaf of bread near their house instead of having to come all the
way to 41 to do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So what I'm trying to do is offer an option to
you outside of what's being proposed here, and that is to not just
propose -- not just -- and I'll say proposed on your part, but not
just to show the board a zoning scenario, but a transportation
scenario, because if the two are not linked together -- I mean, they
really aren't independent decisions; so we have to see -- I have to
see both of them in order to feel comfortable with it. And I'm
certainly not comfortable with the configuration alone that that can
occur. And it almost, in my opinion, needs to be mandated to occur in
new activity centers to a greater degree than it is -- and I know
theywre neighborhood centers, but to a greater degree than it is in
existing activity centers.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Because wewve seen how those have failed.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Exactly. So it needs a broader, more
comprehensive look for me to support it. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Letls go to the next item.
MS. LAYNE: I think thatls all staff has at this point.
believe, Commissioner Constantine, you had --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, there is one other item. I
donlt know if it even appears in our book. I canlt find it anyway in
the pages, but itls in the section having to do with the Golden Gate
Parkway professional office commercial district.
MS. LAYNE: Itls on page 22, and I have a handout that I gave
each of you this morning.
CHAIRNLAN HANCOCK: Oh, the handout.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it defines the -- that -- itls
intent is to provide Golden Gate City with a viable professional
office commercial district, and it really has two purposes. One is to
serve as a bona fide entryway into Golden Gate City. You may recall a
couple of years back we changed the zoning on the parkway from
multifamily to professional uses, so that -- for the very reason that
we wouldnlt want -- thank you -- welcome to our community and having
multifamily directly on the main thoroughfare; and also to provide a
community focal point and sense of place.
It talks about the uses permitted within this district, and Iim
just suggesting -- and if therels more than one of these printed --
but I wanted to add the words and institutional type uses such as
churches. It talks about uses permitted within this district are
generally low intensity office development and institutional type uses
such as churches, which will minimize vehicular traffic, provide
suitable landscaping for ingress and egress, and insure compatibility.
I know therels a specific church in the community that wants to build
-- itls actually -- and if you can picture driving into Golden Gate,
the parkway curves just a little bit and you will go over a bridge,
and therels some vacant property on either side, and then therels
Barnett Bank and some others. They would like to build right as you
come across that bridge, so visually what you would see as you come
around that curve and as you drive, yould see a big, beautiful ornate
structure, and I think thatls --
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Thatls wonderful.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- thatls much better, and it meets
the exact intent of what welre trying to do is to serve as a bona fide
entryway into the community.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Wonderful addition. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any comments or questions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would they be competing with Father
Spanelli?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be Father Spanelli.
MS. LAYNE: Commissioners, I just need to get one clarification
on the neighborhood center. Are you saying not to go with what the
Planning Commission has recommended and just have what we had
transmitted back in April, which are the existing 10 acres north and
10 acres south?
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Oh, youlre back to this issue?
MS. LAYNE: Yes. You said you could not support this. The
proposal different --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think we polled the board. I don't
think we polled the board. We had two people speak, and we didn't
hear from three or the public.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'd like to do is -- and that was for
purpose of discussion -- what I'd like to do is hear from the public
and then let the board make its direction from there.
Any further questions for Hiss Layne?
A nice, easy issue there, Lee.
Let's go ahead. I assume there are -- are there members of the
public that wish to speak on this element? Please raise your hand.
Okay. If you would just kindly step forward one at a time and
kind of line up along this wall, we'll take each of you in turn.
And, again, if you have not filled out a speaker slip, please do so
for the purposes of the public record.
MR. SPAGNA: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name's Neno
Spagna, and I'm here on behalf of the Brooks family who are the
property owners of the subject property under discussion. And I think
you-all are very familiar with this property, because it's been before
you many times before. Also, Hiss Layne has done a very good job in
explaining what the situation is.
So what I would like to do is set forth the proposal which we
have made and which we are requesting, because we feel that it's an
excellent opportunity at this time to be able to go into this property
and place the conditions and requirements on there that will eliminate
many of the problems that I've heard you speak about this afternoon
and also make it a better development for the future use and the
benefit of the community.
As you recall, not too long ago there was -- the north property
was rezoned to, I believe, C-3, if I remember correctly, on the
northwest corner. The Brooks owned the property in between the VFW
and the corner, which was rezoned to C-3. And we are asking that that
property be designated on the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use,
because we don't feel being sandwiched in between the VFW and the
commercial property south of it makes it conducive to residential use.
Also on the southwest corner -- I would like to go to that
momentarily -- we feel that there is a tremendous amount of advantage
to having this developed as one unified shopping area over having it
developed in bits and pieces. And I think some of them have already
been mentioned. By having it all developed as one parcel of land, we
are better able to control the architectural and visual sight of the
subject property. We're better able to control the ingress and
egress, the pedestrian traffic that will take place on the property,
and we are also better able to utilize the land for landscaping,
buffering, et cetera, for the surrounding properties.
Also, we feel that by providing buffers that this will discourage
any furtherance of the extension of the commercial property along
these streets in a strip zoning manner which has been -- which has
been avoided or tried to be avoided in the past in rezoning land in
Collier County. Also, this buffer area will protect the surrounding
neighborhood from the uses that would take place on this commercial
property.
The owners of this property want this to be a first-class
development that the people of Golden Gate Estates can be proud of.
We feel the best way to do that is in partnership with the county so
that you-all will have a say in how this can be developed and where
the access is, landscaping, et cetera. The best way to do that in our
estimation is to show this as a PUD on the future land use plan so
that we do have to come back here, work with the staff and the county
in ironing out all of these problems that may surface at the time of
the development.
The -- I think our request at this time is to -- is to amend the
future land use plan to show this type of development. And I have
spoken with the Brooks family. If the board feels that this can better
be done by designating this as a PUD with the requirement that we come
back in at the time of the development, that's acceptable to them.
So there are two possible alternatives. Number one, we would
like to have it -- the future land use plan amended as we have
requested because we feel that's in the best interests of everyone
concerned. Number two, if the board feels that they would like to
designate this as a PUD, that would be fine with us, also.
And I would like to say in closing that there's been some
confusion about mixing our request with that on the east side of 951.
It never was intended to be that way. We've had no communication or
part or any -- any contact with the people on the east side. That's
their problem. As I had mentioned to the Golden Gate Estates Civic
Association, it's up to them to come before them and you or anyone
else and justify their reasoning for it.
I'm happy that that has been eliminated now and we're back to
just the property on the west side of the street, and we would request
that the land -- future land use plan be amended to show this type of
development, either by designating it for future commercial or buffer
and landscape area, or if you wish, as a future PUD. And I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Spagna. Mr. Spagna, the piece
to the southeast there, that's all unified ownership; is that correct?
MR. SPAGNA: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Southwest, excuse me.
MR. SPAGNA: Everything you see there is owned by the Brooks
family.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. You had an opportunity to hear my
concerns individually about internal circulation and trip generation
and so forth. One of the things that has become very beneficial,
whether it be neighborhood centers or shopping centers, is an internal
circulation route so that people traveling, let's say, east on Pine
Ridge Road could go into the development, do their shopping, and then
go south on 951 without ever hitting the intersection.
Can you accomplish that under current access management
guidelines on that southeast corner?
MR. SPAGNA: Yes, I believe we could, allowing for the distance
separation of the curb cuts. It would be a matter of how are you
going to route your traffic through there, and I can't do that right
now but -- because we don't have any definite plans for it, but I
would say, yes, it can be done.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the northwest side, where you do not have
control over the parcel that is immediately on the corner of Pine
Ridge and 951, is there any way that you could accomplish a similar
transportation scenario in that quadrant?
MR. SPAGNA: There is if we can get together with the property
owners to the south of us.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But you don't have control of that and
you have not broached that with them to date?
MR. SPAGNA: We've discussed it, but there is nothing definite at
this time. There are proposals on the table for that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Without requirements of internal circulation
that access or that conform to our access management guidelines --
just so you understand, that's one reason why I didn't -- unless those
are in place, I simply can't support it, because that's one of the
failures of the smaller and medium size activity centers we've had in
the past.
So, you know, your comments, I appreciate it and that will help
me a little bit, but those have got to be included as performance
standards for my support.
MR. SPAGNA: I cannot make that commitment at this time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
Any further questions for Mr. Spagna?
Thank you, Dr. Spagna.
DR. SPAGNA: Thank you.
MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning. I'm
just representing myself. One of the things I wanted to bring forth
to the board was the professional office district. I think there's
four or five PUDs been rezoned there, four or five, and except for
Avatar, the properties are typically 125 feet wide and 125 to 135 feet
deep. So you get a third-of-an-acre parcel. And when you read
through the development criteria in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,
it's very stringent and what they were trying to do was to lead to
high quality development that would be environmentally very strong,
create pedestrian-type activities or promote pedestrians, minimize
traffic impacts, things like this.
I think what may have happened, now looking in hindsight, is that
no one -- there's a lot of properties for sale along there. There's
virtually nothing been developed. Now, if this church comes in, that
would be the -- I think the first one. And the problem that the other
people are really facing there is if the county owned the utilities,
there'd probably be three or four buildings up already, but since
Florida Cities owns it, they have no money, and if you do -- if you do
own a parcel, unless you just happen to be one of the luck ones where
the sewer line is up front, the cost of -- what we have is a lot of
the people have to extend the sewer line underneath Golden Gate
Parkway, which would be a jack and bore on your four-lane road, which
is a serious number; a waterline extension, which would probably
include a fire hydrant; a turn lane unit's required as well as a
shared driveway.
So you -- from what I understand these properties are up for sale
for anywhere from -- I heard as low as 60,000 up to $125,000. With
the cost on infrastructure, before you even start on their own
blacktop or landscaping, is typically priced seventy-five to a hundred
thousand dollars. And so because you got fragmented ownership, it's
very, very difficult for them to come together because the -- no one
wants to build two at the same time. So I think if the staff could
relook at some of those development criteria and maybe there's some of
those that can be loosened up.
Now, I think aesthetically that was maybe the first one that came
in where we had aesthetic and architectural-type guidelines as well as
very strong landscaping standards, so I'm not stating to remove that,
but I think maybe one of those maybe to even consider is to use septic
tanks on an interim basis.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As you can tell from our earlier discussion,
we're not septic tank fans.
MR. HOOVER: Well, I was -- that might not be the best one. But
if there's a way to maybe even do an HSTU with the -- maybe if the
county could help sponsor that along there where it could be a tax to
the people or something like that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hoover, you're aware of that process. All
we need IS the property owners to come forward with 51 percent to ask
for the MSTU, and we will consider it. MR. HOOVER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you know, what you're talking about are
financial hardships that, you know -- and Commissioner Constantine
here is as familiar with those as anyone on the requirements out
there. If we need to relook at it, we could do that, but that's -- we
certainly can't do that today.
MR. HOOVER: No. And I think one of the other things that --
there's probably some more land uses that could be appropriate along
there. I think staff's -- initially when that came through, it was --
looking back, I think it's too stringent, and if they could just look
through all those -- just like sharing driveways, rather than having a
driveway, I think it's every 450 feet; maybe something like one for
every 300 feet, and maybe turn lanes are not even appropriate in all
of those cases.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tell you what, I don't really have
any interest in loosening up the criteria. They were put in place
through a community effort and have been reviewed a number of times
since they first were put in place and they were put there for a very
specific reason. And they will encourage a certain level of
development, and I would rather have that happen slower, but end up
with that quality than have it happen sooner and have a lower quality
development there forever.
And, I mean, I was in Tampa recently and I was in Orlando
recently, both of which certain areas grew so quickly they had no
opportunity to plan, and they have curb cuts with some regularity.
And it's just impossible to travel on -- conveniently on those areas
or to get in and out of those shopping or office areas because there
are so many cuts. You're stopping and starting every 200 feet.
This is a great opportunity for us to plan that area very
carefully, and I think that's exactly what we've done. By making it
more difficult, we've raised the level of what will go there. And the
suggestion to have more driveways and more places for traffic to come
and go on a four-lane major thoroughfare, the primary carrier of
traffic -- I don't know what the counts are every day, but it's pretty
darn high.
MR. HOOVER: Probably low twenties, twenty-two, twenty-three
thousand, I would estimate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe even higher than that -- I don't
think more curb cuts and more driveways is the answer there. It may
create development quicker, but it's going to encourage --
MR. HOOVER: Maybe the answer is the next time the county has the
opportunity to take over a utility district, that may solve a lot of
problems there and get rid of --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're certainly not going to get anywhere near
that today, Mr. Hoover. I appreciate you bringing the matter up, but
probably the most effective way to address this is to get, you know,
the property owners together with the civic association that goes out
there to help form those standards and try and arrive at a consensus
among that group, and then bring that to our staff and the board so
that we can consider it, rather than sitting here with a shotgun
method pointing out all the things that are wrong without really
having any solutions at hand.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to address the one other
issue that -- Mr. Grant is behind you as the next speaker. You said
perhaps there should be more available uses of that property. And Mr.
Grant came back with his PUD and asked for some specific uses over and
above what had originally been approved. Some of those were approved
by the board and some weren't, but the board is always open to look at
those if an individual PUD owner or the group of PUD owners wants to
come back and has some specific suggestions, we're open to hear that.
That doesn't mean it's going to get approved.
MR. HOOVER: Well, this is very -- it's very unusual that in
professional office district, there's about 10 or 12 uses that list
those, so it's -- the PUDs came in basically under those guidelines,
so it really would need to be reviewed. You would need to modify the
Comprehensive Plan first before you could really change the PUDs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, we don't have that in front of us
today. I appreciate you bringing it up as an issue, but we probably
spent too much time on it already since we can't really take action
today on it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, the bottom line for me
is I would rather have the development happen slowly and happen to the
level that we've set the bar at instead of lowering the quality of
what's going to be there.
MR. GRANT: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Tom
Grant. I am one of you people that have been here 15 years. You've
argued with the state, and I've argued with the county and the staff
and everybody. But everything is in place, and I think it goes back
-- just to refresh everybody. The whole intent of this was to control
the access points, keep an overall theme coming into Golden Gate. The
one problem that we have is the marketability of the property at the
present time. Things have changed over 15 years. They've changed over
the last five years. And I've talked with staff, and I've talked with
a lot of your staff people and asked them for their help, and they're
very cordial, and they give me recommendations. But, again, they
can't change things. They have to get the direction from you-all to
relook at it, which I've talked to Barbara. Barbara says that she in
a sense understands where we're coming from, because we've already
been in place five years with commercial zoning out there, and you
have not seen one thing happen out there, and that's not going to
happen, because by the time that a situation that has arised to there
-- it's not going to happen, because I've been trying to do
everything.
I've got a sign up there. We've done everything. I'm not trying
to rehash this. All I'm trying to ask you-all is what the original
intent was the community wanted commercial in there because that's
their commercial street. I've asked staff and staff has been real
nice and cordial about it saying that if I can convince you-all to ask
them to take a look at it, it's something that can be looked at within
inside of this window or whatever.
I mean, I understand now I can do something else with the
utilities. I'll try that next, but I'm kind of at the end, because
after 15 years, I mean, I don't know what we got to do to try to get
something developed there. I only own one piece of property. I want
to build one small building with a very nice building that I would be
glad to put my business in or anybody's business. The criteria's
there. We've said it. We've hashed this over for 15 years, but all
I'm saying is by you-all putting that, whatever district it is, for
us, it's just too restrictive. If it wasn't, there would already be
something developed.
I've seen two major shopping centers come in to Golden Gate. I'm
going to see a church now come into Golden Gate, and I'm still
standing here asking the same stupid question, why can't I build?
Because I'm sitting in the middle. I'm not trying to disagree or
agree.
I'm just asking you for the help -- help me with a solution and
the community, because the community wants it there. They don't want
it shotgunned out there. They said this is where they want it, and why
this is such a problem is so far beyond me. I mean, literally I'm
giving up. This is the last time I'm coming in, because I'm just
tired up here talking. I just keep talking over 15 years. I mean,
you know, what do you -- what does the community have to do? And it
keeps changing and changing and changing. And if this commission
changes again, I am going to through a whole 'nother. None of you
were here when this started. Not anybody was on the board. Tim just
was basically here -- I met him as a young guy. He's getting older
like me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He no longer young; just point that out.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, when was your PUD last before us?
MR. GRANT: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When was your PUD last before this
board?
MR. GRANT: I came -- the last time I came in was just probably
six months ago, because I was talking with a Christian television
station of trying to get them to come down here. Because it wasn't
set into the criteria, I had to go through a big whole process
whoop-de-do, you know, to get a Christian television broadcasting
studio or just a facility for them to put their offices in. I mean,
that's not in the criteria.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If memory serves me correctly, though,
we did allow -- we don't allow an antenna-type facility, but we did go
ahead and make some changes to allow some extra uses that hadn't
previously been in. So I understand your frustration over 15 years,
and you and I know each other and have been through this in some
detail. But while the district has been in place for five years, most
of those PUDs or all of them have only been in place for two years or
less. I think one of them has been a little bit longer than that. A
couple of them are not even a year yet that they've been in place, so
it's been -- you may have had your property for 15 years, but the PUDs
and the actual criteria by which they must build in some cases has
only been in place for a few months, for eight or nine months.
MR. GRANT: But, again, I understand that. And I'm not
disagreeing on that point. The point is we were the test case. We
were the ones that went through the 15 years of talking to the
community and all the business association originally, the Chamber of
Commerce, and as it went on. And the thing was the only main concern
about the community was is -- granted the access points and they did
not want 40th Terrace solid wall type buildings. And we all agreed to
that, because we want aesthetically pleasing buildings. We want to
have a walkway for people to walk or a sidewalk.
We wanted those things, and those things were fine. But, again,
it's like myself. I was stuck with five other property owners, and I
was forced to do that. I had no choice. But we did it. We got it
done.
We have met all of the criteria. The only thing I'm asking is,
again, talking with your staff is, they aren't even disagreeing with
me. They are saying that they understand the situation. The point is
the PUD is basically been in place and I've been trying to get people
in there for over five years, and it can't be done. They won't,
because by the -- because of the, quote, the way that it's written or
whatever. I mean, if it was -- the whole intent was not to have gas
stations in there, 7-Elevens in there, that type of thing. We're not
talking -- I can't even put a beauty shop in there. Can you explain to
me why a beauty shop can't be placed? They're allowed across the
street. That's -- that's what I'm trying to say, and I mean, again, I
know you're all busy, but --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It has nothing to do with being busy, Tom. We
can't -- we don't have something before us to even effect the changes
you're talking about. Believe me, I heard your frustrations the last
time when we talked about the uses that could -- were not permitted,
those that seemed reasonable but weren't allowed. And I felt like we
had opened the door a little more to try and help you do what you're
trying to do there.
So I feel like we've done more than just, you know, cause you to
come back and talk to us. I think we're listening, and I think we're
trying to act in your behalf. But, again, at today's meeting, there's
nothing we can do to alleviate the concerns you're representing. So
I'm just trying to put them in the context that we can do something
about them.
MR. GRANT: Exactly. The only thing -- then I'm under the
misconception is that I thought by coming because of the changes that
are going to be made, if staff is already looking at and going to be
changing, is it not feasible for them to look at just kind of look at
the overview because the market changes -- is really changed. And
that's what I -- I'm sorry, but, again, that's what I assumed I might
be able to convince you to ask staff to look at what I'm saying is
that -- and, again, I mean, I apologize because, you know, I'm the
buffoon then.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would have been more appropriate before we
transmitted it to the state the first time. We're responding to
something we already transmitted. So what I encourage you to do is,
in conjunction with Commissioner Constantine, have this discussion
with our staff before the next cycle so we have an opportunity to look
at if there should be changes to the master plan or not that this
would entail.
MS. LAYNE: Mr. Chairman, I think that's what he's asking. He's
asking you to direct staff -- for us to look the office professional
district and look and see if what he is requesting could be possible.
I think he's asking you to direct us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm not prepared to do that at
this point and for the reasons I stated. I understand the frustration
you've had, but I don't think we've kept changing the rules. I think
there was some architectural requirements put in and now the PUDs have
passed. The only changes that have happened in your particular PUD
are the ones you came and requested. We opened the door wider. So
the rules haven't been continually changing and -- I just -- I'm not
ready to lower the level of uses that can be there.
I understand your frustration, but there are a number of
businesses that are allowed in there. And I know you've talked to
some of our existing businesses at other plazas and want to get them
down. I think it would be a great gateway to our community if we
could do that, but --
MR. GRANT: Yeah, but, again, I'm saying how long can I wait for
that type of vision. My vision is I started 15 years ago. They all
envisioned the same thing down here buying this property 15 years ago,
the state did. And if somebody -- if it doesn't come to a head, all
I'm saying is for you to direct staff to do it. I don't think it's a
request that is out of order because, again, after five years of
having it as a PUD, I would presume that it would make logical and
prudent sense to go ahead and try to put something in there so it
does become a gateway, rather than just a bunch of empty lots and a
bunch of empty duplexes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess I'd be to happy -- again,
you and I get together every now and again anyway, and we can talk
about that in some more detail, but I'm not prepared to give staff
that direction now, not having heard that from -- there was a huge
group of people in the community that put together this plan in 1991.
And I'm not hearing from any of those folks in your community,
activists or leaders, that it's not appropriate. I'm hearing from
you, a landowner there, but I need to hear from more than that to say,
okay, we need to make it more -- you know, lower the bar.
MR. GRANT: Well, I understand. Okay. And I appreciate your
time. But, again, see that's something that has to be brought up.
So, again, it sits there. So you have to become an activist, and I've
got to go get -- rally the troops for something they presume that was
already done. That's my point. I don't see why I have to keep
fighting for something that I thought was already there. And I just
presumed that staff would be able to or you could direct them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Without having more particulars, Tom, I also
am not comfortable giving staff directions. I'm not really sure what
I'm directing at this point. So I would prefer that you and the other
property owners work with either Commissioner Constantine or our staff
to identify specifically something and let us take a look at it,
because right now it's just -- it's just all over the place. It's all
over the board.
MR. GRANT: That's what I'm saying. You know, that's what I was
asking --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But they work for the people -- the taxpayers
of this community. I mean, you know, to pick up a phone and talk to
Hiss Layne or talk to one of our planners doesn't require board
direction. You know, you can talk to our planning staff about -- they
have opinions, you know, and what they think may or may not occur.
And if they think it's valid, they have come to this board in the past
and asked us to consider things. So I'm not putting it solely in their
court, but it needs to be more specific than go look at this.
MS. LAYNE: Or the option is that he can apply for an amendment
and go through the process himself.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that, too.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me ask a dumb -- dumb question. Isn't
this the process in which we look at this district and decide whether
or not those uses remain appropriate? So it seems like we have --
that staff has just done exactly what we've asked them to do.
MR. GRANT: That's the reason I talked with them, and that's what
they advised me is to bring it up so that possibly they will look at
it in part of your sequence or in your window at the present time.
I'm not asking you to get specific. I'm just asking for them to look
at it through the process that they're doing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question for staff is, having just
looked at it, do you have recommendations that there are changes that
need to be made? For market reasons or for any other reasons, are
there changes that you would recommend at this point? I assume it's
no.
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record my name is Barbara Cacchione.
This district was -- you all know the history -- was developed some
time ago before we had design guidelines. I think there may be some
opportunity for other types of uses other than just office and church,
but we haven't looked at what those uses are or could be, and we did
not look at them through the EAR process.
We have amended that whole district by taking out the list of
specific uses and moving that to our Land Development Code, so it does
allow the board the flexibility that they used the last time to add
uses into the Land Development Code. But we have not taken that look
again at all the uses and the design guidelines and how it all works
together.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is this. There are five PUDs
there. At least three of those have happened in the last eighteen
months. It seems to me if I had a piece of property and I was coming
in to request a PUD and I wasn't happy with the existing allowances
there, that would be the time that I could ask. And none of them have
asked. And so I think what Tom is perceiving a problem, I'm not sure
that every other owner up and down that strip is perceiving that
problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: May I say something, please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've spent about a half an hour on this
one unfortunate gentleman's specific problem. There's three people up
here I know of that are not willing to give staff direction to
continue. I think it's time to bring this to closure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I just wanted to understand if there
was a staff recommendation, because sometimes people don't apply for a
zoning change when the comp plan would have to be amended to
facilitate it, because it's such an overwhelming burden. And I don't
think that's necessarily an indicator that there's no other people in
the community who would join you in that concern.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just heard Miss Cacchione say that we did
move the uses into the Land Development Code which is amended twice a
year. So if the uses are the issue, there's a process by which a Land
Development Code amendment can be initiated, and I would refer you,
Tom, to that process. And I'm going to tell you, Commissioner Norris,
I agree with you. We're done with this item. Thank you.
Any other items within the Golden Gate master plan?
Oh, we have another speaker. I'm sorry.
MS. BAUM: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Linda Baum.
I'm the other cofounder of ECHO, the Estates Coalition of Homeowners.
I'm also a member of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. And
even though I know you're not today at this point considering the
northeast and southeast corners for commercial development, I did feel
the necessity to come before you and let you know that the citizens
out in the Estates from both groups have had meetings within the past
10 days regarding this issue. And I would hope that when and if the
owners of those two properties come to you in the future, that you
will keep in mind that the residents do not want to see commercial
development east of 951. It has been misrepresented that it's 951 and
White, while it is actually 39th Street and White. There's a canal
there and a large buffer zone along 951, so we would hope that you
would keep that in mind.
On the other hand, the two groups do not oppose the commercial
development of the northwest and southwest corners of Pine Ridge and
951. And I would hope that Neno and the Brooks family would be able
to come in on a PUD, solve the traffic flow problems, and get some
commercial development. Small neighborhood centers there would be
fine, but we're asking you to limit it to the west side of 951. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. DELLECAVE: Good afternoon, gentlemen and ladies. My name is
Frank Dellecave. I live in Golden Gate. In fact, I've lived there
for 28 years working for the developer, three developers, and I'm
still there. That's very unusual in a big company. I'm here for both
St. Elizabeth Seton and Avatar. I'm a project manager in Golden Gate.
And to get them -- to get you people to allow the church to be built.
I had to twist some arms and executives to get a good price for the
church. I'm a member, and there are quite a few people here that are
members of the church. And, you know, we're -- I'm tired of standing
up. I got bad knees. And I feel -- in fact, it was my idea -- I
don't want to keep going on , it's getting late. It was my idea to
change the zoning. I had the president who would listen to me. Not
too many over in the Coral Gables office listen to me. But I said the
-- the people, the residents of Golden Gate are sick and tired of
duplexes on the main highway. And I said I think we can get the
commissioners at that time and the residents to go ahead and get a
zoning change, which we did. It's my idea. I got a medal for it; no
money.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But a great deal of pride.
MR. DELLECAVE: And I feel -- in fact, it was my doing to get the
original land for Elizabeth Seton church. And I helped -- I'm a
member -- and I helped build it. And I hope I go to heaven. But you
feel even though office commercial --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You understand we have no control over that?
MR. DELLECAVE: Okay. It's all to be one parcel. I don't know
if they submitted plans to you, but it would be suitable and favorable
to have the church, and they're all anxious to get going on it through
the procedures. And that's about all I can -- oh, one -- in
conclusion, if you believe in Christ, and you're going to meet your
maker, I wouldn't want to say I denied you a church.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't voted against one yet. Now you
know why.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, I'm dammed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm scared to vote against a church.
MR. WARD: My name is R. J. Ward, and I'm here on behalf of St.
Elizabeth Seton Church just to urge you to adopt the wording that
would allow institutional uses and community facilities in the office
district.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ward, in the interest of time,
would anybody object to the wording I suggested? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Love the idea.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you want to talk us out of it?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excellent presentation. You get bonus points
for that one.
Any other speakers on the Golden Gate master plan?
Then I'll close the public hearing.
Miss Layne, we have several elements of varying levels of
discussion, and I think we may want to move through them, but
Commissioner Constantine --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman let me try to --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can put them in a motion. I've got the
minutes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I was going to do the same
thing. I do want to mention one thing, and that is just we have a
number of letters here that -- on 951 and Pine Ridge corner. We'll
enter those into the record and -- with the exception of the property
owners -- and I realize the ones on the east side are moot at this
point, but with the exception of the property owners, no
correspondence was in favor of it on the east side. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to make -- would like to make
a motion that we adopt most of staff's recommendations, but that we
revise Goal 2 as we discussed in the original part of our discussion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Using the hard wording?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The harder wording. Number two, that we go
with staff's recommendation specifically on Pine Ridge and 951. MS. LAYNE: Which is our original transmittal?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. And number three, that we
add language to the Golden Gate professional and office commercial
subdistrict allowing institutional uses as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have two questions. I don't understand
what the Pine Ridge and 951 original -- can you just sort of describe
that for me, Lee?
MS. LAYNE: Yes, ma'am. The original that -- and basically what
exists now -- just to explain a little bit, the existing plan has that
little half-moon which is kind of difficult to tell where that goes,
so in order to clarify that, it would include those three parcels on
the north side, that pink, the orange, and the white. On the south
side would be that little half-acre parcel --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you go over and point?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may want to place an X in each parcel
since that will be entered into the record.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you can reach it.
MS. LAYNE: It will be this parcel, this parcel, this parcel
(indicating). It would not include this one, this one, or this one.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. I understand.
MS. LAYNE: And then we would have to change -- go back and
change the acreage language for how much could be developed based on
that deletion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But what's the downside to including
the two side acres if they are to be used solely for buffer?
MS. LAYNE: Well, this almost three acres would have to be
included.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MS. LAYNE: And then this is all owned by the same property
owner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a downside to including the
Pine Ridge buffer then?
MS. LAYNE: This one?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me amend my motion to -- I didn't
understand exactly what we were going to include, but I think all of
that demonstrated piece up there, the entire thing is what I was --
MS. LAYNE: This whole (indicating) --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Including the buffer requirements and --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As long as -- Mr. Spagna committed on the
record that he was going to submit the plan as shown on this plus have
an internal traffic circulation design in it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that was my question if we could
include a requirement for internal circulation. I was hoping maybe
Commissioner Hancock could give us some words in there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is it going to be big enough?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, he's already committed to that on the
record that he would do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think the way in which we want to --
rather than just have that commitment on the record, is that future
development of those parcels shall -- the board shall require an
internal circulation plan for the purpose of relieving, you know,
traffic.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll add that to my motion.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. I like both of those. And
then on the Goal 2 language, just to restate -- and I swear I'll do it
fast -- we're going to say that these deadlines, these goals must be
met by the state. If they are not, we will remove Goal 2. And we're
going to draft it the way that Miss Student proposed it?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's essentially correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We've a motion and a second. Is there
any discussion on the motion?
MS. LAYNE: May I just correct one thing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
MS. LAYNE: Because we took -- we had some acreage requirements
on that neighborhood center, that based on the amount of acreage we
have, they were limited to a certain amount they could develop. We
have taken those 10 acres out. Originally, it was 20 acres that
could be developed. That means if we leave that at 20 acres, every
piece of land under that except for the buffer could be developed as
commercial.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that would be bad.
MS. LAYNE: Originally it was that a percentage of that. They
could not develop that whole quadrant as commercial --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like an activity center, it was a mixed
use. This would likewise --
MS. LAYNE: Right. It would be still limited to the 50 percent,
but we would have to change it back, I believe, to the 10 acres.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. But 50 percent of that doesn't
give them any reason for doing the internal circulation.
MS. LAYNE: That's correct. That's why I wanted to clarify.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I'd just as soon that it all be designated
as available to go commercial, because the other 50 percent is going
to be what, affordable housing?
MS. LAYNE: With no limitation on the percentage requirement?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't want a percent as a requirement
because it takes away their incentive to do the internal circulation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't that have to come in as a PUD?
MS. LAYNE: It does not have to, but they have committed to it
being a PUD.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because then we get to look at that mix.
If it -- you know, I wonder if we want to require it to come in as a
PUD?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we should.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hold it. Miss Student's going to tell you
why you can't do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I didn't say we could do it. I just said we
can ask them.
MS. STUDENT: We can encourage, but as stated there, there's case
law to the effect that you cannot require a PUD. It's because of the
nature of the document. But courts in the state have ruled that it
cannot be a requirement. And to that end, we've placed language in
the comp plan before that talks about encouraging PUDs. And I think
really the property owners prefer that mode of zoning anyway but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we were fine on our direction
until Miss Layne tried to explain what we really want. And no offense
to Miss Layne, but I was crystal clear until we started then
tinkering with what acres meant what. And I think your initial
direction you just gave a moment ago was very clear. We'll ago ahead.
We'll approve that with all of those things. The lower half has to
have the transportation portion inside.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You don't want to ask for a percentage?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that we need it, no. You
know, if we start with doing that, then as you said, what are you
going to end up with on the vacant part?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's going to be a hundred percent
commercial built out.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Within the confines of our existing
requirements. In other words, between -- by the time you get done
with your setbacks and your landscaping and all that stuff, there's
nothing out of the ordinary.
MS. LAYNE: That's what I wanted to clarify. Because right now it
would limit that only 50 percent of that quadrant could be developed
as commercial. The rest would have to be conditional uses or
whatever. If you want that whole area to be developed as one
component as a commercial PUD, then we need to take that percentage
requirement out.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
percentage requirement.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. SPAGNA: Pardon?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
My motion is amended to remove that
Would you add encourage PUD?
No. He's already got one filed.
Do you already have one filed, Mr. Spagna?
Is there already a PUD application filed?
MR. SPAGNA: No, there is not, but we will be very happy to let
you include that as part of it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Since testimony from the second row is
not accepted, let the record reflect that Mr. Spagna indicated that he
has no problem with the requirement of PUD as a part of this decision.
Is there any wish to amend the motion to require a PUD or to
encourage a PUD?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I will be glad to amend my motion to
reflect that since Dr. Spagna has already committed that he will do
that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five, zero.
MS. LAYNE: And I will make sure I forward all of this to
Commissioner Constantine so he can --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we will forward all the phone calls to
you.
And let's do this. Because the next item is going to be a little
on the lengthy side, let's go ahead and give the court reporter a
break now and return at three o'clock. Ms. Cacchione.
MS. CACCHIONE: When we come back, could we start with Immokalee
and natural resources and kind of finish those up?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Get them out of the way?
MS. CACCHIONE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly. Reconvene at three.
(Heeting reconvened at 3:10 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We're going to reconvene the
board meeting. Before delving into the Future Land Use Element, we
had two elements that were tabled until later in the meeting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you need a motion to take them off
the table?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, I do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion by Commissioner Constantine, second by
Commissioner Hac'Kie to untable those two elements.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous affirmative response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Preston, the first one is the -- addresses
the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
MS. PRESTON: Right. In regards to the recreation and tourist
district. First off, I guess, staff had picked the 26 units per acre,
which is typical throughout the county to use. But after talking to
the property owners, they felt that it probably wouldn't be more than
eight units perfect acre, and that's what we would like to recommend
at this time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since what we're granting is a maximum and not
necessarily as a right, eight units an acre, I'm comfortable with that
reduction.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me make sure -- do we have any additional
speakers on the Immokalee Area Master Plan?
I'll close the public hearing recognizing the motion by
Commissioner Norris as seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie. Any
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Five to zero, Miss Preston. Thank you very much.
The second item that we untabled. My memory is absolutely
failing me. This was a language -- a specific language request. Mr. Cautero, the element is?
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. Bill Lorenz and I
looked over the data. While it is not possible to obtain good data on
the total number of manatees that inhabit Collier County's waters as
well as waters of the state for that matter, we do have some
statistical data regarding number of watercraft in the county, which
may be a good figure to use if we're talking about the number of
manatee deaths that we may be able to avoid.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Vince. For those of you holding
conversations, could I ask you to either tone them down or move them
out in the hallway. Thank you. Please continue.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Commissioner. The number of manatee
deaths that we may be able to have some control over deals with those
that are not natural or, if you will, due to watercraft incidents.
And what we have tried to do is craft some language that bases it on
the number of boats that are registered in the county. There are just
over -- or just under 17,500 watercraft registered in Collier County
as of 1997. And what we did was use the 1990 to 1996 historical data
as a time line for the number of manatee deaths based on watercraft
incidents, and we have found that that is a little over 3.2 for 10,000
boats. For the total number of boats, it's approximately five. So
what we've recommended to you in an objective is to try to control
that number based on that historical average for the last seven years.
And that's what the data is. So I'd be glad to read it into the
record, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does this really answer the question of the
manatee population growing because, you know, a panther getting struck
on Alligator Alley 10 years ago was one of a hundred and some odd.
Now it's one of less than a hundred, and it seems to carry a greater
weight. The same was true 10 years ago of manatees. If you heard of
a manatee hit by a boat, it caused a lot more concern than it does
today, because the population itself was down.
So this relates it to number of boats, but we can expect that if
the manatee population were to increase dramatically, the number of
deaths by contact with boats would increase also without the boat
number changing.
MR. CAUTERO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I think this is a step in the right
direction on the side of finding something to relate it to, but it may
not -- without having some relation to the total number of manatees or
the manatee population, I think we're still missing a piece of that.
MR. CAUTERO: Well, I think you are, too, and as I said earlier,
I don't think you're going to get a good number on the count, because
it's always debatable. We will endeavor to find that number, but I've
never been comfortable with the numbers that I've seen in the past and
the counts. They're always disputed. Game and Fish and other
agencies even dispute those. The data sources are just not that
reliable.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, they're taken by helicopter in the
regions on different days, so it's not exactly, you know -- MR. CAUTERO: That's absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's hard to get them to all show up,
though, for the census.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Most of them have their forwarding addresses.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, it's very complicated.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Actually when I was -- when I was in
the Coast Guard, we coordinated manatee counts one year. And it was
unbelievable that you had people 50 miles apart doing counts and then
interpolating that number into the manatee population, and they're
doing it by basing it on the number of manatees that were there the
previous year versus this year and it was ridiculous.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Spending your tax dollars.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is everyone comfortable with this? Since it
does at least coordinate that the human impact element does play into
at least a number of deaths? I think this is a better number.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're right that we do need to maybe in
the next amendment cycle come up with a coefficient of manatees, and
that would be the population of manatees relationship to the 10,000
boats.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And so rather than -- than the way we're
doing it now, we'll need X number of boats per coefficient of manatee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you using your algebra to figure
that out?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Host calculators have the coefficient
button these days.
Okay. What we have is the proposed language as a substitution
for the '83 to '87 deaths to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve that language in the
balance of the element?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The coastal and conservation management
element?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Second on the motion. Any discussion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, again, let me ask, is there anyone that
wishes to speak on this item?
Seeing none, I'll recognize the motion and second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, Mr. Cautero, thank you for putting that
together.
Now we're to the granddaddy of them all, ladies and gentlemen,
the Future Land Use Element.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, good, while we're fresh and, you
know, start of the day.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You haven't seen anything yet, kids.
Miss Cacchione, where do we start?
MS. CACCHIONE: I think probably the best place to start would be
on page 190, and you can through the objections received by the
Department of Community Affairs and staff's responses to those
objections for your review.
The first objection was that we didn't have a table in there
reflecting the intensity of all our land use districts and
designations. We provided that table. It's Table 2-A, and it's
included in your backup.
The next item was one that sort of hit a lot of different
elements and, again, that's the measurability of the objectives where
they are consistently asking for numbers and measures and the aim and
intent.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is where the state wants us to determine
exactly many square feet of commercial space our residents need.
MS. CACCHIONE: That comes just a little bit later.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I'm jumping the gun on the
measurability idiocy. I'm sorry.
MS. CACCHIONE: They have hit on that in a couple different
areas.
Objective 2 and the policies under it relate to concurrency, and
we have rewritten those policies to make them more measurable based on
what we're currently doing and what we have adopted in our Land
Development Code today with the adequate public facilities ordinance.
I won't go through each one, but if there are any questions on
Objective 2 in the policies -- and the same thing goes for Objective 3
in the subsequent policies. We've rewritten all of those to provide
what we are doing now in our current ordinances that we have adopted
and to provide measurability and to identify the aim and intent of the
policy.
There is one change on Page 194, Policy 3.1(b), and this was
suggested at Planning Commission. The second line where we talk about
the preservation of 25 percent of the -- and we should add the words
"viable, naturally-occurring native vegetation," so that mirrors our
conservation element.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Viable naturally-occurring native vegetation;
is this grass in a prairie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it's less restrictive than
currently. You know, it's got to be viable and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm still concerned about the application.
I'm sorry. Take me to that one specifically. We're on page number '-
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 194, Item B. Our current conservation
element has the language "viably naturally-occurring native
vegetation." I think that sort of provides a measure in terms of what
we're talking about for native vegetation, and it would be consistent
with our conservation element, as the board approved that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the practical side -- and we heard this,
and it comes to mind in the Twin Eagles -- that it's former pasture
land. So prairie grass is growing there or just grass, what we call
weeds if it was in our yard, but it's grass if it's anywhere else.
And we heard from someone from the CREW lands that said that's
important native vegetation. I don't want to get to the point of
preserving weeds. Can that be interpreted that you must preserve 25
percent of grasses?
MS. CACCHIONE: We could also -- there's one other option, and we
could say preservation of native vegetation and not put the 25 percent
in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess I'm just curious '-
MS. CACCHIONE: It would be worse, though, wouldn't it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I always want to define native vegetation
because it seems somewhat subjective. It's not like there's a list of
all the things that were here when, you know, when -- when Hagellan
first tripped on --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't want to preserve sandspurs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my concern with this is what do we
determine to be native vegetation, is really where I'm having a
problem.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Isn't that defined somewhere else, though?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I'm asking, the definition of
native vegetation.
MS. CACCHIONE: For that I'd ask Bill Lorenz if he's still here,
but he's not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Bill conveniently skipped out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, Bill was in the boardroom just a
second ago. If you can hear us Bill, because this is on in there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bill, this is the spirit of the
commission.
MS. CACCHIONE: If we could --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Come to us. Come to us in the boardroom.
MS. CACCHIONE: If possible, in the interest of time, if we could
just continue that discussion until Bill gets here, and we'll look up
the definition of native vegetation that's currently in our plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No problem. Just want to look at the
application.
MS. CACCHIONE: Okay. And, again, that is one suggested wording;
it does not have to read like that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next item was also related to policy 3.1 and
all of those policies under it, and we feel that we've provided
language that corrected that issue as well.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need a page number.
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 196.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next two issues, E and F, relate -- relate to
DCA's objections in regard to -- certain districts that we have have a
mixture of uses, the business park district, the traditional
neighborhood district, the activity center district. And what they
have asked as part of this and as part of 9J5 requirements is that we
define what that mix of uses is. It's totally up to us in terms of the
local government in terms of where that threshold should be set and --
but the mix of the different uses needs to be in there. And I'll go
through each district with you specifically.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And you're referring to proportions?
MS. CACCHIONE: Proportions, the mix of different uses. If you
have commercial, residential, and industrial in a district, you're
mixing each of those types of uses, the maximum amount for each of
those types of uses.
And the second issue is the intensity overall in the entire urban
area, the intensity or the amount of each district and designation.
Now, what we have done is we've suggested some changes to you,
and we can go through each of those to try to identify how we tried to
measure the intensity. Within the urban designation --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need a page again.
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 197.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. CACCHIONE: We have identified the amount of the area that is
used for the urban designation. For instance, under the first item,
10 percent of the county is within the urban designated area. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Say that again.
MS. CACCHIONE: Ten percent of the county -- less than ten
percent of the entire county is within the urban designated area.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did everyone hear that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that tells Ms. Berry how big her
district is.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have two-thirds of Collier County which is
rural America. The rest of you have got the other one-third.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we do a good job with it, I think.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, you should. You got four of you to
deal with it.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make sure I clearly understand.
Over 90 percent of the county is outside the urban area?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct, based on acreage.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That leaves only 10 percent of Collier
County is urban.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've never seen this board so verbose.
It's like we want to be here at midnight.
MS. CACCHIONE: It's actually less than 10 percent.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Less than 10 percent of the entire county
is urban.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I do a pretty darn good job with my 90
percent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We think so, too.
MS. CACCHIONE: What we have done, also, is in the urban
mixed-use district, we've identified how many acres -- and I won't go
through each one of these, but we did that in each district here -- is
identify how many acres, what the overall intensity for that land use
desig -- district would be.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When you say intensity, you mean a hard
number like 116,000 acres of urban mixed-use, et cetera.
MS. CACCHIONE: That was -- that was our way of meeting their
objection, and it's a very simple view of it, and we hope that this
will meet that objection.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you read their objection, it says we want
you to plan today for your maximum amount of commercial acreage,
industrial acreage, res -- you know, we want you determine what that
acreage should be. And if you -- if you know anything about Collier
County, you know that we can support a larger commercial base based on
the economics of our area than most other counties can. So why the
heck somebody in Tallahassee would want to either limit that or expect
us to determine that is just ridiculous. But they're looking for
numbers.
And I think staff has given a good job of giving them numbers
that, you know, quantify something but don't go to the level of detail
they want, which is not their job anyway. So I agree with the manner
in which you proposed it.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next district is on page 198, the PUD
neighborhood village district, and we did not put any thresholds or
mixture of uses in that district, because what we're going to do is
come back with a Land Development Code amendment which will put the
acreage with the number of units. So if you have a certain number of
units, you get so much commercial acreage based on how much population
that area would generate and how much of a need.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How is that different from, for example,
urban residential fringe? I mean, why doesn't that same theory apply?
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, in the PUD neighborhood village
subdistrict, we have in there that -- the last sentence, that the PUD
district of the Land Development Code shall be completed within one
year. And we also have in there that it will vary with the amount of
commercial.
This, again, is the mix of uses. They want to know how much
commercial. Well, that's impossible for us to tell them, because we
don't know how many PUDs we're going to get or how many different
sizes in terms of number of units. So what we've tried to do is tell
them that within our Land Development Code, which is the more
appropriate location, we will come back and show them that basically
this is being done through the Land Development Code.
The next district is the business park district, and there are a
few changes in this district. First of all, the mixture of uses is in
Item A, and we were looking at 30 percent of the total acreage for
non-industrial uses to be allowed and the non-industrial uses are
specified in Item D below.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Question. I'm sorry, but commerce
park, what percentage? Well, you can't answer that question because
of the flexibility. Never mind.
MS. CACCHIONE: Now, we will be coming back to you with a
specific zoning district called the business park district. We have
one in our code today, but we will be revising that. And what we have
looked at is making offices and industrial uses -- certain offices and
industrial uses permitted uses, and then certain accessory retail that
you wouldn't normally have in a development such as this would count
towards that 30 percent. So we will be coming back to with you a
district that will try to flush all this out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We talked about it earlier, the Lake Trafford
concern. I don't mean to seem single issued on this, but the 26
units per acre for hotel/motel uses, you know, along interstates where
you have, you know, a Super 8 or something like that where the rooms
typically are smaller, that's one thing. But if I think of what we
try and create in the business park subdistrict, I think of the
Creekside proposal. I don't think of a Super 8 in there. I think of
something that has more conference space and meeting space and so
forth, and the total number of units per acre wouldn't seem to be the
maximum that is really buildable out there.
So before agreeing to 26 units an acre as what's allowed there,
I'd like to know what some more conventional convention properties are
occurring at, things such as, you know, the Registry hotel. What are
the units per acre there and so forth?
MS. CACCHIONE: Right now the only place where we do permit
activities -- 26 units per acre is activity centers. Everywhere else
it's basically 16 units per acre. We've been told that the way we
look at density with hotel and motel is a bit outdated and that maybe
we should look at revising that altogether.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Been told by whom?
MS. CACCHIONE: Pardon?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Been told by whom?
MS. CACCHIONE: We've been told by different consultants that
the way they -- the way we look at density in regard to hotel and
motel is very different here than other places. It's also very
different than the City of Naples as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just trying to understand clearly.
Are they consultants that the county has hired or consultants that
private property owners '-
MS. CACCHIONE: Private property, people that deal in the
hotel/motel industry, attorneys, everybody that knows something about
hotel and motel.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Like most things I like to have a picture in
my mind when we either grant or deny a petition, and so to have a
feeling for what locally is developed and the character of it and what
its density is, so when I think -- when I think 26 units an acre, I'm
thinking -- and there's nothing wrong with Super 8's or so forth, but
they are -- I mean, it's -- you know, it's stacking people is really
what it is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have an excellent Super 8.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do have a good Super 8, and they've
sponsored basketball teams --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But -- and so in this I'm thinking this may be
more appropriate at 16 units an acre in the business park subdistrict
than 26.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just because of the conference nature. So
that would be a suggestion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There's three that agree, so we'll go
to 16 units per acre there.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next change is in Item D, and this basically
says that where there is already industrially zoned or designated
land, that when you come in as a business park and take other property
into account, you can move the location of that industrial land
provided you don't increase the amount, and that allows a little more
flexibility in how would we look at industrial within an overall
business park.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is -- I have to ask the question.
A week ago we were told when Creekside came to us that it wouldn't
have been impacted by this change anyway. But as this is written, it
appears it might have. Am I mistaken on that?
MS. CACCHIONE: I don't believe that's correct.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We didn't have any limits --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- as I'm reading it. I mean, the business
park subdistrict as it's written in our packet, and not this one,
there were no limits. So if you had no industrial, you could have 40
acres, and if you had 5 acres, you could have 40 acres.
MS. CACCHIONE: I would say it was at best unclear before we
included this change which limits it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree with your statement, until I read a
little bit further on D, and it seems like we didn't have any limits.
MS. CACCHIONE: No. So I think what we've tried to do is based
on your discussion that we heard on Creekside was try to allow some
flexibility in the location of industrial but not increase the amount
of the intense industrial uses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If somebody comes in for a business
park subdistrict and has no industrial zoning on the land right now,
they are not allowed any industrial uses under this?
MS. CACCHIONE: Only those industrial uses that are specified in
the industrial park itself, which are those uses identified such as
research and design and product development, printing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: Those types of uses that are lower intensity
industrial.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's almost like going back to our light
industrial zoning.
MS. CACCHIONE: Similar.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But more controls this time.
MS. CACCHIONE: And you will be able to look at each use in that
district and basically approve which uses you think are appropriate
and which are not.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have we excluded wholesale cats altogether?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You weren't here for that, so that's okay.
And House of Worms, it was something --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Wholesaling of cats is something we
don't want to see in this county.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just trying to find out what the
hotel density at the Registry, for example, is and what I'm wondering
is that it's more than we would think.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That maybe 26 to encourage a hotel of the
quality that has convention facilities, that you need a higher density
instead of a lower-density hotel. I don't know. I'd like more
planning opinions, but maybe 26 is the right number.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'd like to do is err on the side of
caution until we have that information.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, is that anything we could do today
or '-
MS. CACCHIONE: If -- if you wanted to give us direction to
research that issue and come back to you with information, we can make
the change today to 16 units per acre, and then if you choose at some
later time to relook at that based on the information we present to
you, we can do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what I'm hearing, though, is that if
we go to 16, it's pretty useless; so I just wish if you could get us
any good information, you know, today, that would be useful to have.
Where did the 26 come from?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Remember that like in the recent proposal it
was limited to 35 to 50 feet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pick a hotel that's less than 50 feet other
than the Beach Club, and they have one wing that's less than that,
you're not going to find it. So if we're talking about true
compatibility, the height limitation may prohibit 26 per acre anyway.
MS. CACCHIONE: I think the city's is higher than ours is. And
with -- with the Registry and the Ritz, it's hard to tell, because
you're looking at a 500-acre project there. If you just took the
acreage that the property sits on, I'm sure it would be pretty high,
but I couldn't tell you what that would be. And I don't specifically
know what the industry standards are. I haven't looked into that so
__
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I heard three commissioners say
okay to 16, so I don't intend to change my mind. I mean, if you want
to do that homework in between now and next time around, I don't have
any objection to looking at it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. It takes four, but I guess there's
not four for 26, but there's three for 16.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and move on to the
balance of this, and if we come back -- if that's a sticking point, we
can deal with it.
Mr. Doyle, I want to get through everything first before we get
to any speakers. I know you're offering assistance, but we just don't
want any right now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't help us.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next change on the business park there is on
-- at the very bottom, which is Item J, which says that approximately
500 acres would be allocated to the business park district within our
entire urban area, and that would be exclusive of open space and
conservation areas. This is based on our industrial study where we
show by the year 2020 there may be a need for about 630 acres of
additional land within the coastal area. That study was based on one
year's worth of data, but it did show that, and we think we can
justify the 500 acres.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What does that number add up to
totally then if you count the open space and '-
MS. CACCHIONE: I think you could tack on another 30 percent on
top of that, and then it just depends on the conservation lands and
how that property's situated.
That concludes the remarks on the business park.
The next district is the office and infill district. And, again,
we put in a standard of 250 acres. We feel there's about 207 acres
that would be eligible in the county under this criteria, so we think
that's well within what we think we could see. And we also wanted to
add a provision when we are transitioning, when you're -- have
commercial on one side, that you can only use this one time, because
if you kept doing it, you would piggyback and leap frog all the way
down the street. So -- and that is similar to the provision we had in
there before.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The maximum acreage eligible 250
acres. Is that on one site or cumulative?
MS. CACCHIONE: Cumulative in the whole county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And the reason I asked that, I
didn't realize that when I first read it, and I circled at the top
where it says the intent is for small parcels, and then I saw the 250
acres and was getting myself confused.
MS. CACCHIONE: The largest it can be is 12 acres in size.
The next district is the neighborhood commercial district, and on
this, if I could, I'd like to direct you to page 8 of your executive
summary in the front. This was the language presented and approved by
the Planning Commission. It's on page 8 in the very beginning of your
document in your executive summary packet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The blue pages?
MS. CACCHIONE: No, in the executive summary itself. So in the
front of the book in front of you it's on page -- agenda page 8.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agenda page 8.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. I'm there.
MS. CACCHIONE: I apologize for the confusion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you for keeping me in line.
MS. CACCHIONE: This district is -- has been approved by the
Planning Commission, and basically the changes are that a small scale
map amendment is required, that it has to be adjacent to residential
-- it has to also include residential, and that it only be one half a
mile from an activity center boundary that has commercial within it,
and that also we do design standards for those items that you see
underlined.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You mean it can't be any closer than a
half a mile? It has to be farther than half a mile?
MS. CACCHIONE: It has to be at least one half mile from an
activity center that has commercial within it or another one of these
districts.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain that to me, because it
used to be, I believe, a mile, and then what's the benefit of making
those every half mile instead?
MS. CACCHIONE: Staff does not support the neighborhood
commercial. We would recommend that you don't put it in the plan.
Frankly, I think the half a mile spacing criteria is too close. I
think if anything it should be at least a mile and it should be from
any commercial whether it's in an activity center or it's not, because
it serves the same function. And, again, putting neighborhood
commercial on your collectors and arterials just doesn't seem to fit
the scope of neighborhood type commercial.
And what we've also done is introduced neighborhood commercial
into your PUD concept where within a large residential PUD you can
have commercial. So staff does not support this district, and I think
you'll hear from people that have represented --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So what you're saying is that staff
says don't have a stand-alone neighborhood commercial, but you're
saying integrated within a PUD is fine? MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's the distinction?
MS. CACCHIONE: That is the distinction in our minds.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think where that's important is -- one of
the selling points of neighborhood commercial is that it integrates
with neighborhoods. Well, you know, if there's not a neighborhood for
a stone's throw, this idea of walk to the corner for a gallon of milk
in 95 degree heat is something that -- we need to recognize this is
south Florida. You know, this isn't New York where you can't park
your car within 12 blocks of your house or -- you know, I mean, this
is a convenience environment. So the problem I have with the
neighborhood commercial subdistrict -- I know we're going to have
speakers on this -- is that if it's going to be included, it needs a
lot more work than what's presented here. What says -- what it says
here, basically, is we're going to have one and we'll determine later
the building size and placement standards, the buffering and landscape
standards, the parking lot design standards, the pedestrian system
standards, the lighting standards, and signage standards. Well, what
are we doing then? This is -- this is incomplete in my opinion. It's
a way to just kind of get the door cracked open so if something
happens in the LDC. And I'm just -- I'm just not sold that it
accomplishes anything.
I like it even less when I see the small 5- and 10-acre parcels
rather than only being developed with high density housing or whatnot
have some options available to them. But maybe those options exist on
a conditional uses as opposed to neighborhood commercial. I don't
dislike the idea. I'm just having a tough time with the application
the way it's presented here today.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I can't visualize this, Mr. Chairman. I
mean, I can't think of where -- how this would --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. You'll get a -- I'm sure we'll get a
presentation on it, but what this concept does is it piggybacks some
of the newer, traditional planning concepts which are where you'd have
apartments above shops, and people walk to the shops instead of
driving and all this kind of thing. The problem is it kind of takes a
piece of that overall scenario and tries to make it happen on an
individual basis. The reason those concepts work is because they're
central to a larger theme. If you --
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, this is what's happening in downtown
Naples.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, is that the kind of thing that we're
-- that we can relate this to?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay. What I'm having difficulty, then,
doing is doing this out in the county.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's why I think staff is supporting
doing it within PUDs, because we've seen on a limited basis it having
some success when you relate it to the surroundings. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So this is -- this has a lot of feel-good
things with it that are good planning principles, but when they stand
alone, they seem to many times fail the test of accomplishing that,
you know, that goal of getting people out of cars and becoming a
neighborhood center. And so I think we really need to look very
carefully at that.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. I can visualize this with our bigger
developments. I mean, I know that this is happening, but what I'm
having trouble visualizing it with is a smaller area. So I'm not sure
how this would work.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and continue.
MS. CACCHIONE: If I could direct you -- I'm sorry, back to page
200.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: The traditional neighborhood design district we
put in a maximum amount of acreage that if someone comes in with one
of the traditional neighborhood design, they could also look at 15
acres of commercial as a maximum. And, again, that would fall in line
with what Commissioner Berry was saying in regard to an overall
project. In the mixed-use activity center on page 201 and 202
specifically --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Barb, before you leave the
traditional neighborhood, I think that the majority of the board, and
probably unanimous, said this is what we want to encourage. This is
what we wish we could have more of in this community. Do you think
we've gone as far as we can go to encourage traditional neighborhood
design?
MS. CACCHIONE: I think there may be some other things that we
could do in terms of incentives, and those might include a density
increase and that whole issue of whether density should be increased
or not.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think that gets us there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me suggest something -- let me
suggest something maybe for next cycle's consideration. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There are already ordinances for traditional
neighborhoods that have been developed for other communities. Andres
Duwaney (phonetic) has done a lot of them. I mean, I don't like all
of his ideas, but I think it's a good start. What they do is -- and
I've seen this in business is that you come in and meet certain sets
of criteria to comply with the stand-alone limits on traditional
neighborhood design, you get fast-tracked on the permitting side.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be an incentive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because anyone who's developing knows time is
money, and we've seen in the business side and economic development,
fast-track permitting really gets things going. So rather than -- you
know, the criteria is more detailed and what is allowed is more
detailed, but if you're willing to conform to it, you get fast
tracked.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm real interested in seeing that maybe
in the next cycle.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you know, I think rather than -- you know,
I like this as a start, but if we're going to look at how to promote
not just the commercial side of it but how it integrates with whatever
community is being planned, I think we don't need to reinvent the
wheel. We can go see how it's done elsewhere and develop our own
incentives.
MS. CACCHIONE: We do have those districts. We've looked at
them, and we've even drafted some that we thought would be appropriate
for Collier, and we can put that together, and that would be more
appropriate in our Land Development Code rather than in the comp plan.
I mean, we can do that in the next cycle in January. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we finish our discussion today,
I know we're going to have the density discussion and the growth
discussion, and I'm not planning on getting into that now, but I did
hear you mentioned, gosh, we could look at increasing densities and --
MS. CACCHIONE: Did I say that?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, yeah, and I don't want -- I
don't want you to spend --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you like to take that back?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a whole lot of time or effort doing
that, because I don't hear anybody in Collier County saying we need
more people.
MS. CACCHIONE: And, in fact, we did take out the density
increase that we had in this provision.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. In other words, message received,
I think.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next item is on page 202, and these mixed-use
activity centers, we needed to provide how much commercial-residential
community facility type uses would be appropriate, and all of these
activities you -- activity centers you see listed, except for No. 6,
they are all between 80 to 100 percent already developed for
commercial or zoned for commercial. So what we've done is said
basically in all these activity centers, the maximum amount of
commercial would be 100 percent, and it could also be 100 percent
residential, and it could also be 100 percent community facility.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ironically No. 6 has somebody that
wants to put in light industrial there now so --
MS. CACCHIONE: Number 6, we were faced with some compatibility
issues because we looked at taking the size of that activity center
down, and we did have -- see some compatibility issues with reducing
the size. That's only 60 percent zoned for commercial.
The next five activity centers we looked at changing the language
a little bit from before, and the requirement that they all come in as
master planned activity centers. Most of them are large parcels.
There is one activity center, the one at Rattlesnake Hammock and 951,
that does have some smaller properties, so we are suggesting that some
language be added there that if a property owner owns less than 51
percent, he may still request a rezoning for that property but that --
I can't read my writing -- may still request a rezoning under the
mixed-use activity center subject to the language below which requires
justification, and with less than 51 percent are encouraged to
incorporate vehicular access within the activity cent -- pedestrian
and vehicular access. That's the last time I write anything.
The other change has to do with activity centers three and seven.
We had a lot of discussion about those. That's on 951 and Immokalee
Road and 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock. Both of those are pretty much
undeveloped. There is only 26 units at Sierra Meadows down on
Rattlesnake that has commercial within it. And I think we've looked
very carefully at reducing the size of those. And what we're
recommending to you today is the Planning Commission recommendation
which would allow for 25 acres per quadrant in each of those activity
centers for a maximum of 100 acres. That reduces it 60 acres from the
size it could have been under our prior activity center boundaries.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much?
MS. CACCHIONE: One hundred acres would be a maximum.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And reduces it by what?
MS. CACCHIONE: It was one sixty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Cacchione, the contributing population
for those activity centers, is it roughly equal to one that would be,
say, in the center of the urban designated area because of the lack of
commercial in the Estates?
MS. CACCHIONE: The northerly one I think has potential, and I
also think the one at Rattlesnake Hammock does because of the school
and things of that nature. I would say the northerly one has more
potential than the one at Rattlesnake Hammock.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern is that we don't limit them beyond
a point that makes sense for the contributing population, because
we've seen the ones in the urban area develop at the one sixty very
quickly. So I understand the desire to keep them smaller scale, but
if we are going to avoid commercial -- and which I hear some people in
the Estates really advocated avoiding -- then we need to allow for it
on the edges of the urban area to avoid some of the -- the road
impacts westward of that or that that decision would cause. So -- I'm
sure we'll hear some speakers on that, but that's kind of where I'm
coming from.
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, if you use -- you know, that could be
roughly a million square feet at each of those. So I think that should
accommodate -- if you use 10,000 square foot an acre, I think that
would probably accommodate a pretty large population east because the
density is low, one unit per five and one per two and a quarter.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I was going to say, do you know what the
per capita commercial square foot right now in Collier County is?
MS. CACCHIONE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your point is just the density is
lower, but if there is another commercial to relieve in those
particular areas, so you're going to have a larger area you're drawing
from.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Exactly. I think when you look at build out,
the Estates is going to have a population that is tremendous, and I
just want to make sure we provide for the commercial services --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's tremendous growth there right
DOW.
CONNISSIONER NORRIS: My question would be, Ms. Cacchione, can't
we increase these areas as demand grows?
MS. CACCHIONE: Sure. We can basically look at it every year and
judge -- I think right now being on the edge of the urban area given
our development further to the east, right now I think that's a pretty
good size and probably a little bit large. We might want to look at
some other opportunities further to the east, and I think in terms of
the Estates area, we probably need to relook at that whole area in
terms of the road network and a couple of other issues.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Amen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It does all dovetail together, that's true.
MS. CACCHIONE: They do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: And the last change is the Golden Gate Parkway
and Goodlette Road activity center. The maximum size on that would be
45 acres, and since the quadrants on the north side of that are in the
city, we would just take out that language about the two intersection
quadrants and just have a maximum of 45 acres for that activity
center. That's the piece south and east of Golden Gate Parkway and
Goodlette-Frank Road.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we're not going to convert Staver Field
into a shopping center, huh?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not real soon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Apparently no one really understands what I'm
talking about.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. Football field. We ain't going to
do it. Got it.
MS. CACCHIONE: I have to direct you back to the executive
summary one more time, page number 9, and I promise this is the last
time. This is in regard to the interchange activity centers and --
where we had the discussion particularly on interchange activity
center No. 9 about adding White Lake and the northwest quadrant,
there's 140 acres on that side. What we'd like to recommend to you
is that we include all of those in the activity center but we do a
specific plan on how we're going to handle access, how we're going to
look at how much commercial, how much industrial and residential to
really plan out a more detailed plan. And we would recommend to you
that the maximum amount of commercial -- it says 50 percent here.
We'd like to go with the Planning Commission's recommendation of 55
percent; that gives us a little more flexibility.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have you hit on the -- you hit on the absolute
key for me which is master planning the access at that intersection,
because right now it just stinks.
MS. CACCHIONE: I wish we could have done the mall.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah.
MS. CACCHIONE: Starting on page 204 -- in the agenda page 204,
we've provided the industrial district. The amount of industrial land
is 2,200 acres. On page -- the top of 205, this is an error, and it's
a mistake on our part. The last -- next-to-the-last sentence under
agricultural rural designation, where it also a provision of new
centralized water and sewer systems whether the public or private
facilities are prohibited except for preexisting agreements made prior
to the adoption of this plan. That sentence should have been
deleted.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: And that pretty much concludes those two issues
and how we tried to deal with the mixture of uses and the intensity of
those uses.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions on those items?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just a real -- I can't find
activity center No. 19. Where is it?
MS. CACCHIONE: Activity center No. 19 and 20 are down on Marco
Island, and we deleted those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. It was driving me nuts.
MS. CACCHIONE: On page 205, DCA had a concern that we referred
to our industrial study but we didn't include it in our plan, so we
did a summary and put that in as an appendix.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They're working on getting this plan upwards
of 50 pounds, aren't they?
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, actually we've cut it down probably in
half.
The future land use map, and there were a couple other maps where
we had to amend the coastal management boundary based on what Mr.
Parnell said to you earlier about the boundaries of the evacuation
zone for the category ones, so we've had to make those changes.
We omitted a couple subdistricts on our future land use map, such
as the business park and a couple other districts, and we've put those
on.
And we also addressed their concerns with regard to the well
field protection ordinance and the uses that would be controlled in a
well field kind of influence. And we addressed that in policy 3.1(d).
There are some additional changes that we're recommending at the
staff level. The comments are here for your review. We are not
required even to respond those. The staff --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's page 207?
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 207, the staff recommendations are -- Port
of the Islands is listed as an overlay. It is not an overlay. It
should be listed under urban mixed use so we're saying that that
should just be moved in the plan, and the language stays the same.
The wetlands map is required by 9J5 to be in our Future Land Use
Element, not the support document. In policy 5.1 we will intro --
introduce a measure of flexibility into all those properties that have
gone through zoning teevaluation and allow them to make changes as
long as they don't increase their intensity.
The new policy 5.12 is a policy which is on page 4 of your
executive summary. And what I'll do is just read that to you.
Properties determined to comply with the former industrial under
criteria provision or with the provision contained in the former urban
industrial district which allowed expansion of industrial uses
adjacent to lands designated or zoned industrial as adopted in
Ordinance 89-05 in January 1989 shall be deemed consistent with the
Future Land Use Element. These properties are identified on the
future land use map series as properties consistent by the policy.
What that does, briefly, is we had two provisions in the plan. One
had allowed for C-5 along the perimeter and C-4 along the perimeter
and another that allowed expansion. We had five fezones that would
now be inconsistent unless we put this policy in. So it is a way to
make those existing properties consistent with our plan. The final --
there are some map changes as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Cacchione, wouldn't it be cleaner just to
say properties rezoned consistent with former industrial under
criteria provision rather than determined to comply with the former
industrial under criteria provision, because that would cap those that
did it and exclude those that don't?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's a good change.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're hired.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A raise comes with that one.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Real job.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Get a real job.
MS. CACCHIONE: And we're also adding C-4 and PUD that have been
rezoned along the perimeter so that those are not out of compliance
with our plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: If you'd like, we could go through the map
changes. There's a few of those.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and do that.
MS. CACCHIONE: On page 210, we have amended the boundaries to
reflect the actual boundary of the Riverchase Shopping Center. And it
just has a square on there now, and what we've done is reflect the
boundaries of that shopping center. On page --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's activity center number what?
MS. CACCHIONE: Activity center No. 2 on page 210 of your agenda
packet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next change is activity center No. 3, page
211, and this is a minor change to reflect actual property boundaries.
The next change is on page 213, activity center 5, and this was
to remove Pavilion Lakes, which is residential under C-4.
The next --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. The C-4 is existing?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're taking it out of the activity
center?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. We were modifying that boundary
and just taking the Pavilion Shopping Center. It doesn't affect their
current zoning, because they're already improved property, and they
can -- they can rebuild and --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They're deemed consistent by being in
existence '-
MS. CACCHIONE: They're deemed consistent by policy 5.9.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So why would we take it out?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because otherwise it creates a gap in the
activity center by removing Pavilion Lake, and it would have a little
leap frog if you -- we're trying to clean up the edge of the activity
center.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: So the dotted line is what's real now?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Where the solid line is what was?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Got it now. Thank you.
MS. CACCHIONE: On page 215, activity center No. 7, which is 951
and Rattlesnake Hammock, we are amending that to reflect property
boundaries.
Activity center 10, page 218, 1-75 and Pine Ridge, the Planning
Commission recommended that the church and the agricultural property
to the east go back into the activity center. That was in the
activity center prior, and they are recommending that that go back in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's the two within the dotted line there.
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right.
MS. CACCHIONE: Activity center No. 11 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Can you clarify that last
one for me?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yeah. Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is it?
MS. CACCHIONE: Page 218. When we transmitted this document, we
did not have the ag piece in and the bottom part of the church where
the dash line is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're just putting that back in?
MS. CACCHIONE: And the Planning Commission recommended we put it
back in. It was originally in the activity center before we
transmitted it to DCA where we cut it out. And then the Planning
Commission, based on public comment, recommended that it go back in.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. CACCHIONE: The next item is on page 219, activity center 11.
And on this one there's a recommendation to add back into the activity
center Lafontana PUD, which is a PUD approved for either multifamily
or adult living facilities and the CF parcel. This is recommended by
the Planning Commission. Staff did not agree with that change. We
don't feel --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's CF?
MS. CACCHIONE: Community facilities. I think those are tennis
courts. I think we're -- staff didn't agree with that change. We
feel that that is an appropriate use for what it's currently zoned
for, and it does not need to be in the activity center for those uses
that it currently has.
The final map change is activity center 13 at Airport and Pine
Ridge.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Cacchione, so on that last one, if we make
no changes, we would be approving the CCPC recommendation on this or
staff's?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, the CCPC recommendation, because that is
what we forward to you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. I just wanted to make sure I was
clear on that. Thank you.
MS. CACCHIONE: On activity center 13, we're recommending that
the YMCA, which is community facilities, come out of that activity
center.
There is one final change.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question. If we take that
out of the activity center, that then frees up more to be developed?
MS. CACCHIONE: No. Those boundaries are defined and they
represent --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not boundaries, just as much as total
usage, maximum usage of what's left?
MS. CACCHIONE: I think it's -- I think it's a hundred percent
developed for commercial right now. Well, it's not developed; it's
zoned.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pioneer Lakes is there.
MS. CACCHIONE: Pioneer is 150 acres, and there's only about 10
or 15 acres --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the result of taking that out
of the activity center?
MS. CACCHIONE: That the YMCA would not be able to come in and
request it go to commercial at some point in time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It has no impact whatsoever on any of
the other commercials? It doesn't alter anything? MS. CACCHIONE: No.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: They probably could apply for office commercial,
but that would be about it under a different provision, but not the
full range of uses.
There's one last change, and I'd like to just go over that with
you real quick. This is an error on my part, and it's in the area of
critical state concern. The fourth sentence down, it says that
Chokoloskee and Plantation Island are excluded from the Big Cypress
area of critical state concern. That's not true. Plantation Island
is in the critical area, so I'd like to include that. Right after
Port of the Islands, put Plantation Island and Copeland, because it is
in the critical area, and I made a mistake there.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Chokoloskee is not?
MS. CACCHIONE: Chokoloskee is not, but Plantation Island is.
And we did receive a letter in support of that from Barbara Cawley.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But more importantly let the record show you
made a mistake, Ms. Cacchione.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It can happen.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. I'm just not used to it.
MS. CACCHIONE: That concludes my presentation. I'll be available
for any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Ms. Cacchione?
Seeing none, okay. Let's go ahead and go to speakers. I know we
have members of the audience here to speak on this item.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just make a suggestion. I think
we're going to have a number of speakers on this, and in the interest
of time, can each of us try to restrict ourselves and if we have
questions raised through the comments for our staff, jot them down and
perhaps after all the speakers get done, we can ask all our questions
at once.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even I have gained that level of
self-control.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition, if there are no real firm
objections, because I think some of the speakers are going to be
suggesting either support of what the CCPC recommendation is or is
not, I didn't hear any substantial objections to CCPC recommendations
on activity center boundaries. Does any member of the board wish to
register an objection to the Planning Commission recommendation in
those areas?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not based on what I know now.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Just for -- just for the audience's
knowledge. You already have a list of registered speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have eight.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go to the registered speakers
first, and then if there's anyone else who did not register, we'll
take them in turn, so go ahead, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First is Nancy Payton. Still here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That would be absent.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Albert Vannini and then Bruce Siciliano.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Vannini, step forward to the microphone,
sir. And, again, we need all speakers to state their name for the
record.
MR. VANNINI: My name is Albert Vannini. I'm one of the owners
of activity center No. 11 there on the southwest corner, and we
purchased that in 1989 and hate to say this, we paid the high dollar,
because in the newspaper at that time they said the money was there
for the road, the Vanderbilt Beach Road and it would be done in 1991.
So it didn't happen that way, and then somebody came and mentioned
about putting a spa in the one area. We wanted to apply for a
commercial zone, but we couldn't get it in time because the road
wasn't in, so all we could get was the PUD.
And so now that it was designated for an activity center, and
after eight years more of paying interest and everything, we're
finding out that they're trying to take 10 acres of our 15 acres on
that corner that was designated for activity center, and I just don't
believe it's right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Vannini.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The number of that activity center again?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Activity center No. 11. It's page 219. This
is the portion that staff does not recommend keeping in the activity
center, but the Planning Commission recommendation is to do so. It's
an ACLF or multifamily approved parcel.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But is it developed?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. It is zoned ACLF, I believe, or
multifamily, but it is not developed.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Bruce Siciliano and then Barbara Cawley.
MR. SICILIA_NO: Yes. Commissioners, for the record my name is
Bruce Siciliano. I'm also here representing the landowners on that
intersection. I know it's been a long day. If there's not questions,
I can hold off making a presentation or I have a little exhibit even.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you say you were representing Mr.
Vannini?
MR. SICILIA_NO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. My question on that is, when was the
application for PUD applied for and granted?
MR. SICILIA_NO: The PUD Lafontana was approved in the early '90s
as essentially they -- there's a history. They bought the property in
'89. This is the one activity center that's been designated as a
future activity center. They've kind of been in this position for
years of you can't get commercial zoning until the road gets built.
In the early '90s they had somebody approach and said, you know, let
us put it under contract. We'll get it zoned to an ALF and buy it.
They got it zoned, didn't buy the property. They're stuck with the
ALF zoning, and it's about to expire.
And in the interim, after waiting all these years to be able to
get commercial, we build the road and then within less than a year,
we chop the property in half and say it's going back out again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just kidding.
MR. SICILIA_NO: I think there's -- there's some other arguments.
If I give you a little exhibit, I think it gives kind of --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Give it to Mr. Fernandez. He'll pass them out
to Commissioner Mac'Kie.
Thank you, Bob.
MR. SICILIA_NO: I mean, certainly I think there's a very strong
compelling reason to -- to not pull them out the way we're proposing.
I think -- on top of that I think there's some very strong planning
reasons to leave them in.
Commissioner Hancock, you hit on something very important early
on and that's the access question. The 1,320 spacing for this piece
of property or for this intersection is literally at the west property
line of that 10 acres that's in yellow.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So if we ever want to do an internal access
road that meets our access management guidelines for a full median
opening, this needs to be a part of the activity center.
MR. SICILIA_NO: Exactly. And not to mention that you only have
15 acres there, which is a very modest shopping center. We've cut
the property in half. You're going to have five acres on the corner,
which is going to be, what, maybe a Walgreen's, which is two acres,
and then probably a McDonald's or Arby's, that kind of stuff. And
then you're going to have a multifamily with not enough units to put
any decent amenities in, so you're probably going to have a very
mediocre multifamily project if anything, no cross access -- I mean,
to me it just doesn't make any sense.
I mean, they have to come in through PUD zoning, ultimately.
This thing could be designed as a decent center, unified signs,
access, landscaping. Something nice can be put on the corner. It
can't be under the current configuration.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for Mr. Siciliano?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I disagree. That I think this is an area
that ought to be left in there and, again, it relates to the traffic.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's the only way we can have an option for
providing access relief in an internal roadway is to leave this in, so
I'm going to disagree with the staff recommendation and agree with the
Planning Commission myself.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Planning Commission said leave it in?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one other thing. You have common
ownership with the piece on the corner; is that correct?
MR. SICILIANO: Yes. Everything that's hatched is owned by this
property owner.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not on our -- it is on the one you
gave us?
MR. SICILIANO: Yeah. Everything that's crosshatched, so the
yellow plus the crosshatch that's next to it consists of their
ownership, which is a total of 15 acres.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But the five-acre piece that's on
the corner is not zoned in the same PUD; right?
MR. SICILIANO: No. It's still unzoned, so it's separate from --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I could support leaving this in if I knew
that all 15 acres were going to be developed as one unit, as a PUD or
something.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would want to go further. I would want them
to join -- but we can't require them to that --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And obviously --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want it to be done in a more aggregate
fashion.
MR. SICILIANO: Well, let me say this. They have to -- they're
aware they have to come in to get PUD zoning, and I think clearly
there is no objection to saying that they're going to come in with a
PUD, zone that whole corner. You're going to see what they're going
to get.
And let me add also that as far as the rest of the activity
center, they have also dedicated a right-of-way already on the south
property line. If you look on the little drawing, you can see a
street to the bottom, so there is already a piece in a sense of a loop
road to interconnect this whole corner.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not looking for an objection from you.
What I was looking for was a commitment that those -- all 15 acres
will be unified and brought back at some date in a single PUD.
MR. SICILIANO: And I apologize, Commissioner. I was trying to
give you that commitment for the property owner.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: For the -- but the question is, do we have
the commitment or do we not have the commitment? MR. SICILIANO: Yes. Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, we do have the commitment?
MR. SICILIANO: Yes, we do have the commitment.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. SICILIANO: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Pulling teeth.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any further questions?
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Siciliano.
MR. SICILIANO: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Hiss Cawley and then Larry Brooks.
MS. CAWLEY: Barbara Cawley with Wilson Miller. I'm just here to
go on record in support of my clients, and I want to -- for policy --
actually, it's Section V.A. of the Future Land Use Element. And I'm
just submitting a letter. It's the same letter I've sent to you, Mr.
Hancock, and to Miss Cacchione on the area of critical state concern,
and it's on the record. I just wanted to go on the record and say
those things.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who are those clients?
MS. CAWLEY: The clients are Barton Collier Partnership, Collier
Enterprises, Russell A. and Aliese P. Priddy, John Price, Jr., and
James E. Williams, Jr.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. CAWLEY: You're welcome.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What is this your last cycle before the
retirement?
MS. CAWLEY: This is my last one. No, not quite.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Brooks. Then Wayne Smith. Dr. James Odom.
MR. SMITH: My name is Wayne Smith. I have got a -- Wayne. I
have got a little visual here I'd like to put up on the map. I
believe you wanted to save that for the record; was that not correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can just pin over it if you like.
MR. SMITH: Again, my name is Wayne Smith. I'm the property
owner in the commercial activity center No. 7, and I happen to be in
the northwest corner of it. And if you can see, that's the property
that's outlined in orange in the drawing. That particular quadrant of
No. 7 is divided into five separate parcels. The other three
quadrants are either owned by an individual -- each owned by a certain
individual or are under the control of one individual.
The southeast -- excuse me, southwest quadrant already has a PUD
on it, and the Planning Commission voted to leave that in intact as it
is, even though it does have a piece that's outside the quadrant.
Excuse me. Staff had recommended it needs to be reduced to 20 acres
per quadrant and at the request of attorneys representing other
property owners, they increased it to 25. By increasing it to 25,
what they've done in my quadrant is basically created a race to see
who the first person is to get in for rezoning.
There was a factor of 51 percent ownership in the quadrant in
order to even be able to apply. They have eliminated that by some
wording, but that still means that someone in our quadrant is going to
be left out in the cold. If I was to apply and get it, then possibly
someone lower than me -- but the piece there in between wouldn't have
it, so we wouldn't be unified at all. And I have already been to the
preplanning meetings and got my traffic analysis and this sort of
thing. So I do intend to get it rezoned commercial.
Now, I've been talking to some of the other property owners, and
as recently as, well, a few minutes ago, one of them that is here as
well, and last night with Mr. Larry HcHillan, which is a gentleman who
owns just south of me the other five acres. And there isn't anybody
that doesn't want commercial. And I actually wanted to use it --
wanted to use the land and develop it myself. But what I'm requesting
today is that you consider keeping that quadrant as a full 40 acres,
and the other 20 -- other quadrants can be left at 25 or whatever the
PUD comes up to. I'm not sure what that is, like 28, I believe or
something like that. Because by the time you take out the special
treatment areas, buffer areas, you know, green spaces and that sort of
thing, they're basically going to be using 25.
What we're going to see here is -- if I owned this land, being a
square, I would probably want to develop the commercial kind of in
this misconfiguration being this frontage is the best, and so
consequently we are going to be giving up this ST, some buffer area
and 25 acres would probably suffice us. Yet that same thing would
probably apply down here, this here being -- 951 here and the swamp
buggy roads or Rattlesnake Hammock Road extension.
Right here, if you notice I have -- this is where my entranceway
is, and this called The Better Way. It's a -- it's a culverted
roadway. And I have a full median access there with turn lanes both
north and south. And I understand that traffic is a big concern,
internal traffic, which means if they were to come off here and into
this development sometime in the future when it is commercial that
they would probably want to have access back out, which means it only
stands to reason that I'm left in there. But unless the whole thing
is left as a -- in the commercial activity center, then we're
defeating that concept of the internal flow of traffic with an
additional ingress-egress to the north.
I don't see any other way to do it. I've been on that property
now for 13 years, raised my family there, lived in a mobile home,
refrained from ever building a house because the land was deemed to be
commercial. So we've lived in a mobile home all this time.
The other alternative I understand for this property is put 1.5
homes per acre. I don't know what the marketability is going to be in
land in that area because of the homeless shelter to the north which
is just to the north of it. And believe me, I do support the homeless
shelter. I believe it's a great thing. I kind of wish it was
someplace else other than my backyard, but it's where it's going to
be. But still the best use for it -- for that particular quadrant is
going to be as a one master planned commercial unit.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smith, your time has expired.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand that Dr. Odom has waived his time.
The next is Tom Killen and then Dudley Goodlette.
MR. KILLEN: My name is Tom Killen, and good afternoon. I'll be
very brief, but back to No. 11, Lafontana PUD. Briefly, approximately
five years ago Rosemary Wards called me. She had a buyer for the
property. They wanted a specialized type of residential facility for
people who had cosmetic surgery and needed a place to hide for a
couple of weeks. That was the entire basis of Lafontana, and that's
what the buyer wanted to build. So I prepared the PUD. It was
approved. Shortly thereafter she got so excited, she bought the
additional five acres adjacent to it with her friends because they had
that sold, then the sale fell out. So she was saddled with a PUD that
she really didn't want by someone else's reasons.
We could build out. She says what do we do now. Well, we will go
back and revise the PUD at some point, and once the activity center is
approved, incorporate your five acres and perhaps incorporate Chris
Smith's five acres adjacent to that for a 20-acre PUD, but we couldn't
make that decision.
Over the years this thing's progressed on the new road
construction. I would send her newspaper clippings and things by fax,
over the phone, and we became very good friends. She called me a
couple months ago and said, Tom, I guess it's time now. The road's
in. Let's revamp the PUD, add the five acres to it, and go on, and
revisit the entire thing, and get it ready to do something with it.
So I went merrily down to the county building, and visited with
Bryan Milk. Bryan said, no problem, this is what you do, here are the
procedures. He said but you better check with the future growth
management before you get started.
So I went down and visited with David Weeks, and David showed me
a map. He said, Tom, you might be interested in this. I took the map
which showed Lafontana being removed, went back to the office, faxed
it to Rosemary, called her on the phone and said did you receive my
fax? She said, it just came in. I said, well, sit down and look at
it. So she sat down, and I didn't hear a word on the phone for about
a minute and a half. I thought the poor lady had had a heart attack,
because her 10 acres had been bumped out of the PUD.
So she said, what do I do? I said, well, Rosemary, I just -- I'm
a designer, but you might have to hire a better consultant or an
attorney to handle this, because you might have some problems here.
So as this went along, I was scheduled to be on vacation at the time
this thing came up. And I'm just here as a friend trying to help out.
I did want to say one thing, though.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tom, as a friend are you trying to talk us out
of leaving it in the activity center? MR. KILLEN: No. No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I wanted to check.
MR. KILLEN: Yeah. Right. I want to put it in the activity
center.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what we've said, too.
MR. KILLEN: Now, Rosemary asked me , she said -- well, let me
back up. I get along great with most of the county employees --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, let me try it one more time. I
think I just heard at least four voices say --
MR. KILLEN: Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Dudley Goodlette and then Greg Stuart.
MR. GOODLETTE: Capture this festive mood. Dudley Goodlette with
the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson. We're here
representing the property owners in Activity Center No. 7, and that's
the one that you addressed earlier. And what I have just asked Mr.
Fernandez to hand out to you is a colored in area of the service area
for activity centers, specifically No. 7, trying to respond to your
question, Mr. Chairman, that you asked earlier in this hearing. And
although we have worked closely with your staff, both in the
transmittals hearing back in March as well as the Planning Commission
hearing when 20 acres was being recommended and that was increased to
25 acres, I do think that there's a basis upon which you may --
particularly having listened to all of your discussion this morning
and into this afternoon, to leave these activity centers 3 and 7 at 40
acres and not have to tussle with the Department of Community Affairs
in future years when clearly it appears to me that those areas are
going to -- because of the breadth of the service area as outlined
there -- and I just didn't color in activity center No. 3, Mr.
Chairman and members of the commission, but I think you can see that
it's the same. And so with the -- I would just simply urge you to
consider accepting the staff's recommendation including the master
planning of these mixed-use activity centers on the six, but leaving
40 acres for Activity Centers No. 3 and No. 7. And that's all I have
to offer this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that would solve Ms. Cacchione's
concerns as well.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But this -- and Mr. Goodlette's exhibit goes
to what I was referring to earlier. When you look at the number of
activity centers that serve the urban area, and then look at the gap
between 1-75 and 951, you begin to get a sense of the contributing
population to those centers and how -- I think you said it best,
fighting with DCA next year or five years from now to size them up is
not something I want to do.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Your final speaker on this subject is Greg
Stuart.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Stuart is coming up. Are there any other
members of the audience that wish to speak on this matter? Okay. Dwight, if you will follow this gentleman.
Anyone else wish to speak? Seeing none, we'll make Mr. Nadeau
our last speaker.
MR. STUART: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and fellow
commissioners. Greg Stuart for the record of the planning firm of
Stuart and Associates. I am representing the Pullings.
I would like to speak a little bit on the neighborhood commercial
policy. In my opinion the neighborhood commercial policy as
recommended for approval and transmittal by the Planning Commission
does fill an unmet commercial need. The neighborhood commercial
policy recognizes the shortcomings of mixed-use activity centers. I
think we're all aware of that.
It also recognizes the shortcoming of the proposed new PUD
commercial and also the new infill business commercial. The reason
why I say that is that the -- for example, the PUD commercial as
proposed by staff will not address existing PUDs. For example, take
the intersection at County Barn Road and Davis with the Bretone Park
PUD. It doesn't address existing neighborhoods that have an
legitimate neighborhood retail neighborhood office type need.
In terms of the proposed commercial infill, in my opinion that --
you will be limited by the nature of the development that seeks
economies of scales, and you just can't do something that significant
that meets the market needs within a half-acre, one acre type concept.
The record shows that the state didn't object to the proposed
neighborhood commercial, and again, the record clearly shows that the
Planning Commission would like to see the policy in front of you
transmitted and ultimately adopted.
So I would like to suggest that a number of the criteria that are
imbedded in that policy certainly does go a long ways towards meeting
staff and hopefully legitimate public concerns. These type of uses
have to be implemented with an amendment. These type of uses have
very specific locational criteria. For example, they have to be
adjacent to an existing neighborhood use. Again, that helps tie into
the interrelationship between the neighborhood and the commercial
functions.
I can go on, but there are a number of criteria that really helps
tighten this up. It certainly won't lead to any type of
overcommercialization of the county. Looking at the staff's handout,
they have documented that this may lead to an additional 70 acres of
commercial land uses within the county. Seventy acres isn't that
much.
So I would suggest that if you-all feel that it has merit, and
certainly I do, and if you feel comfortable with transmitting it and
then adopting it, I would encourage you to do so.
If not, possibly a solution would be to work some of the kinks
out, to continue this for the 1998 cycle. That way, again, we could
have a continuing dialogue with staff, and then also you would have
better input, and also the Planning Commission would have better input
into this issue. Certainly I'm available to address any comments on
this issue.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Regarding Mr. Pulling's property for
pedestrian purposes, how far is the nearest residential or multifamily
home?
MR. STUART: The -- there is an existing conventional residential
neighborhood immediately adjoining the property to the east. I just
don't know the name of it.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Walden Oaks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Walden Oaks. Walden something.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. It's immediately to the east, however,
the access --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You have to climb a wall to get to Mr.
Pulling's property.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. So if you're going to use sidewalks,
you're going to walk through Walden Oaks all the way to Airport Road,
get on Airport Road, get on the sidewalk, walk south of Mr. Pulling's
property to get a loaf of bread.
MR. STUART: And also there is an existing neighborhood, again,
to the east of it, so you would be walking along the future Orange
Blossom Road. So, again, there are two residential communities.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How far is this property from the
nearest commercial property?
MR. STUART: The nearest activity center or commercially zoned
property?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Either.
MR. STUART: I can't address the nearest commercially zoned
property because, again, you may have a scattering of old commercial
lots. I believe it is at one half of a mile from the edge of the
zoned area of the activity center immediately up the road.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect that's why the suggested
language is one half rather than one mile.
MR. STUART: I would suggest that your suggestion is correct,
yes .
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions?
Thank you.
MR. STUART: Thank you.
MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good afternoon. For
the record, Dwight Nadeau, HcAnly Engineering and Design. The reason
why I came up was to try and clarify your first question regarding the
native naturally functioning provision. At the Planning Commission I
found this omission in this policy 3.1(b) of the Future Land Use
Element. The Conservation Coastal Management Element has similar or
identical language, being naturally native functioning vegetation as
it relates to the preservation of 25 percent of native vegetation on
developments. This clarification or this addition to that policy
would maintain the status quo as far as how 25 percent is reviewed by
development services staff, and it relates to if there is a
significant portion or a portion of a project area that has
predominantly exotics, that's not native, that's not naturally
functioning, therefore, it would be removed from that preservation
requirement. That was the whole reason for that language to be in
there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions?
Thank you. And make sure you fill out a slip, Dwight.
MR. NADEAU: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have additional speakers on this
element?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Bruce Anderson has given me a request to
speak.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner members, I want to
address myself to the -- one of the first issues you talked about was
the density for hotels and motels in a business park. By way of
background, before I went to law school, I did work as a front desk
clerk in a hotel.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was a bellman, Bruce, so we'll just start up
a business one of these days.
MR. ANDERSON: No. I've never tendered myself as an expert but
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So exactly how many days did you work as a
front desk -- no just kidding.
MR. ANDERSON: The -- I wanted to give you a couple of examples
of hotels in the city and what they allow. They have allowed recently
as much as 52 units per acre.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Shame on them.
MR. ANDERSON: Our firm handled the Marriott Courtyard on U.S.
41, which is a typical businessman's, businessperson's place to stay
when they're traveling.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm watching you. Good catch.
MR. ANDERSON: And also the Inn of Naples is about the same. I
would -- I would venture a guess -- and I tried to confirm this with
your planning staff, and I believe they agree with me -- we are not
aware of any new hotels which have been constructed since 1989 in
Collier County outside of activity centers or existing residential
tourist zoned areas. Those are the only two that allow 26 units per
acre and, again, that's half of what's allowed in the city. Certainly
you don't want the city stealing all the nice, new hotels, do you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just leave the Super 8's out in the
county, not that they aren't wonderful. Sorry
MR. ANDERSON: No, not that there's anything wrong with them. I
would suggest that you take the density out of the Comprehensive Plan
and deal with it in the Land Development Code. Many other local
governments deal with -- regulate the size of hotels by either a floor
area ratio basis or a combination of lot coverage and building
height. And with business parks you've already got half that done
with the building height. And I just think if you -- if you lower it
to 16 units per acre, you might as well just take hotels and motels
out of business parks at all.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's reasonable.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I hate it when the facts contradict my
direction, but in this case they seem to. My concern, obviously, was
to avoid the unknown of overintensification. In other words, using
business park subdistricts to actually get a hotel zoned. That was my
-- really my concern. So I didn't want to make it overly attractive
in that arena.
So, Miss Cacchione, is there any possibility we could just put
hotel and motel as a use in there and then use the Land Development
Code to regulate the density or is big brother going to suggest
otherwise?
MS. CACCHIONE: In my opinion, I think you would still have an
issue with the Department of Community Affairs, but if that's what
you'd like to try, we -- usually we would put in a floor area ratio to
give the mix of intensity or the maximum number of units, which is
what we do for almost -- for every residential category.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we would obviously need some assistance
to develop them. I'm sure if Mr. Anderson gets a paying client in
that arena, he'd be glad to step up and help us. But, you know, we do
need to -- I mean, if we're -- if we're doing something wrong -- I'm
not sure I want 52 units an acre hotels, you know, throughout the
county, because they do generate a lot of traffic in season. MS. CACCHIONE: If we were to look at --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- at 35 feet anyway, so there's nothing
to be concerned about.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's true.
MS. CACCHIONE: If we were to look at 26 units per acre in
business parks, and then we can come back and look at that whole issue
and whether we need to amend the plan in the LDC.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't you think DCA would be satisfied,
though, because of the height limitation, that we've adequately --
MS. CACCHIONE: There is no height limitation in the comp plan,
and they continually direct us back to the comp plan, because if it
isn't nested in there, you can change your LDC any way you want to.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: God forbid they not have a say.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Either leave it at 26 or remove it. I
am fine with those. I'm not going to bump it to 52.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In that zoning district, I think it's going
to be fairly self limited unless somebody wants to go 35 feet up and
10 stories underground.
MR. ANDERSON: There are some strong --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And they're not likely to do that, but I
think it'll be fairly self limiting, and I think you can put 26 in
there, and in that particular zoning district, it's not going matter,
because with 35 feet you can't --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Support.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Fine. Whatever.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, are we ready for the next speaker?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, sure. Is this the final speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: This is the next final speaker.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is this the next final speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next final speaker.
MR. DUANE: Robert Duane for the record. I just wanted to mirror
Mr. Anderson's comments, and I support you taking it out and
addressing it in the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So mirrored, Mr. Duane.
MR. DUANE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He was the latest in a long line of final
speakers.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. No more speakers on this item?
I will close the public meeting.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there appear to be three
or four areas that we need to address, and it looks like we have
general consensus on them, but just let me touch on quickly. Area
seven that Mr. Smith and Mr. Goodlette talked about. It appeared we
had consensus to leave those at 40 acres in each quadrant?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My only question is -- wait a minute. It
may not be too pertinent, but in Mr. Smith's particular case there,
he's got one piece out of all those five or whatever it is up there,
and our idea is to consolidate that and have an internal traffic plan.
How are you going to do that with five owners? I mean, we can't force
them to that, can we?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. But if an internal traffic -- internal
circulation plan is key to the development and they're not able to
work together to get it done, well, then they're just going to sit for
a while.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I see. Okay. That answers my question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On activity center 11, we talked about
leaving all 15 acres in there rather than cutting that back to 57
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have got to find it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the neighborhood commercial
subdistrict, it appeared we had general consensus not to support that.
Staff didn't support it.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Planning Commission did.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, Commissioner Hancock had brought
-- yeah, Commissioner Hancock brought up the point it appears to be
incomplete.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I make a comment on that?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, I've been a supporter of the
concept all along. What I would like to see the staff do, if the
board supports the idea, is to do some more work on this before the
next cycle. If you have a stand-alone neighborhood commercial
proposal, it has to integrate itself into a neighborhood.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thus neighborhood commercial.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. But to try to shoehorn a piece of
property into this district when it really doesn't fit the criteria
and doesn't service any neighborhood and does not have access --
really good access to a neighborhood, I think it's the wrong thing to
do. So if there's some way that the staff can work on language and
criteria where if there's -- you know, there may be an existing
neighborhood somewhere that you could put one of these things in and
actually legitimately serve the neighborhood. If you do that, fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me see if I can form that into a
suggestion because Ms. Cacchione suggested two things earlier and that
was one mile is more appropriate than a half and also that it should
be from existing commercial, I think you said, as opposed to just an
existing activity center.
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if both of those are part of the
direction, I would suggest they go away and try to use those to
formulate what you're suggesting.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm not sure the distance -- the
distance requirements are even material to what I'm talking about.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think what I'm saying is, if you have an
existing neighborhood -- I live out in Lely. If there would happen to
be a piece of property that would be suitable and somebody could do
this, and there was access from all the neighborhood to go there, I'd
support that.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm saying is, you know, you'd
have -- if the purpose is to serve the neighborhood, you don't need
more than one in a mile.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll tell you what, rather than -- since we're
not going to vote on that today as language it sounds like, but
directing staff to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I was just going to see if we
had a majority to make that one instead of half. If we don't, that's
fine.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The distance is less important to me than its
access provisions, because as Commissioner Norris says, if you're
accessing neighborhoods, then you're not relying solely on drive-by
traffic. If you're relying solely on drive-by traffic, then you just
got commercial. I don't care how pretty you make it.
MS. CACCHIONE: The other problems with this district, again,
it's focused on arterials and collectors. And also when you go and
you take commercial and you plop it down into an existing residential
neighborhood, you very often have conflicts as well. And that's why
we preferred to give you the option of putting it in a planned unit
development so can all be planned at the beginning before the property
is developed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I like Mr. Norris' idea, too, that it
could come up in an existing residential development.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Commissioner Mac'Kie, Commissioner
Constantine is about to hammer me. Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Go ahead. I don't want to miss
that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aren't you the one that said this is
Southwest Florida and people aren't going to walk there anyway; it's
too hot, and they're going to drive.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, no. In a round-about way.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we'll give staff direction on that?
The one other area was the 26 units instead of 16 in the
business park subdistrict. I don't know if there were any other areas
that I've missed, but I know those five.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Cacchione, I'm sure you were taking
comprehensive notes as we went along.
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, I rely on Lee Layne for that.
In the business park district, there is one thing I neglected to
point out earlier, and that's in Item E. The language that should be
taken out is that portion of the business park designated or zoned
industrial.
And so it would read that if you are in an industrial designation
and you have industrial land zoned, that you can move it within the
business park but you can't increase the amount. So I needed to take
that line out.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But if you don't have industrial, you
Can '-
MS. CACCHIONE: You're only are allowed the business park uses,
and you don't get that heavier intensity of use.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can't create new industrial?
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Outside of what was identified as the --
MS. CACCHIONE: You can just move the location of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And did we settle on viable naturally
occurring native vegetation?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was my next note. The explanation we had
from Mr. Nadeau got most of the way there, but I don't know. I guess
in application, it's been there and it hasn't been problematic. I
just -- I worry about somebody twisting this thing and making
somebody, you know, save weeds. That bugs me a little bit, but I
guess I understand the reason it's been changed. I'm not going to
argue that point, particularly because it's getting late. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's an honest comment.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions or comments on
elements in the Future Land Use Element? Seeing none, is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve consistent
with the six areas we just outlined and came to consensus upon.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ladies and gentlemen, we have to change court
reporters now.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And are we completely finished with this
thing?
MS. CACCHIONE: There's one more discussion item and that's the
issue of the density.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's not going to happen within five
minutes, so let's go ahead and change court reporters, if we may, and
get to it when we come back.
Take a five-minute recess.
(Brief recess taken at 4:45 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We are going to reconvene the
Board of County Commissioners' meeting. Unfortunately, Commissioner
Constantine isn't back just yet. I needed to clarify that last
motion.
I just heard the door open. Maybe he's coming. That last motion
on the activity centers --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There he comes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- Commissioner Constantine, I was under the
impression that we were keeping at 160 acres activity centers numbers
3 and 7.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm sorry. I missed -- on my
motion I did not include 3. So if I need to either make a new motion
or change the old motion, I will do whichever is required to include
activity center number 3.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's take a new motion regarding activity
center number 3, then. I think that would be appropriate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
include, with activity center number 3, we stay with the original 40
acres per quadrant.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before a second occurs, I need to open the
public hearing, I assume? Is that correct, Mr. Weigel, as a way of
procedure?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you don't necessarily have to open the public
hearing, you can have the public hearing closed. But technically,
this is a reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: And so you've got a motion that was hopefully
approved and acted upon. You need to reconsider that motion. You
will vote to reconsider right during the very meeting that you have
today, which is the easiest way to do it, of course.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: You vote to reconsider upon a successful vote, if
there should be one, then you move to the item itself.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's hold off a minute.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mean to nitpick, but if it
wasn't included in the last motion, can't this just be a separate
motion? I mean, we can go through the exercise of making three
motions to get to our motion, but we didn't include the other one.
What's the difference if we just make a motion specific to that at
this point?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Maybe his ability to defend it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Short answer.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm thinking that the agenda item is over and you're
reopening the agenda item.
MS. CACCHIONE: Actually, though, agenda item 12-A, which is the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, are still open. We are just making
motions on each element as we go along. I don't know if that
clarifies anything.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then will there be a final motion to
transmit?
MS. CACCHIONE: There will be a final motion to close the whole
public hearing and to adopt the Comp Plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tell you what, rather than talking about this
for five more minutes --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw what I
just said a moment ago and make a motion we reconsider the motion we
did before the break.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Motion and second to reconsider
the Future Land Use Element --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To placate our attorney over here.
Let me put that part in.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(All respond aye.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are in a reconsideration mode of the
Future Land Use Element. Is there --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that we approve all of what was included in the prior motion
and activity center number 3.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just to clarify for the record that when
you say activity center number 3, you're saying leave 40 acres in each
quadrant.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we are now to a wrap-up of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Mr. Arnold, we have obviously taken separate motions on each
individual element. Do we now need a motion to transmit to DCA?
MR. ARNOLD: We do, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
MR. ARNOLD: I just wanted to add, as part of our discussion of
the Comprehensive Plan, it was obvious that we did not propose to make
changes relative to the issue of density and our density rating
system.
And it's something that we have discussed over the last year,
year and a half with the Board of County Commissioners at varying
times, culminating lastly in the report by the David Plummet and
Associates who came back to you modeling the scenario that took
approximately 100,000 people out of a population scenario, modeling
the transportation network that resulted in that.
You had seen a memorandum prepared by Mr. Cautero, and it
discussed residential density, provided some scenarios looking at
agriculturally zoned areas, still within our urban area, as those
areas that we can most easily make change and effect change, with
probably the least possible argument relative to legal challenge.
And I think what we're trying to seek here is really some firm
direction on how we might approach this issue in the near future. We
do have the issue of cjustering that's still out there, looking at
agricultural rural subdivisions.
I think from some of your environmentalists in the community,
they see the urban issues very strongly related to those areas outside
the urban boundary, and I think we agree it's all very much related.
It's a pretty complex issue. We've been involved with a
technical working group for the last few months and hearing what they
have to say about the issue of density, how we might approach this,
what we might do.
And I think we all recognized, based on the David Plumber study,
that to significantly impact our transportation network, we have to
make some significant adjustments for a future population.
One thing I'd just like to clarify is there are a lot of
population numbers, build-out numbers that have been thrown out there.
And I think the build-out study estimated we would have a build-out
population in our urban areas of 458 thousand and one people. I think
that number gets confused at times with what was a 2020 projected
population for our urban area, or for the county, for that matter,
which was around 393,000 people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was that number?
MR. ARNOLD: Roughly 393,000 for a 2020 population projection for
the county, county-wide now, comparing that with a build-out
population of our urban area of about 458,000 people.
And in the David Plummet study, for instance, we took
approximately 18,000 agriculturally zoned acres, modeled that at a
rural density scenario, just assuming that the only density that you
can achieve on any of those parcels that are still agriculture in an
urban area at one unit per five acres, that model of population to
urban area of about 429,000 people.
It didn't quite achieve the 100,000 reduction that we had hoped,
because they looked back at some of our traffic analysis zone data and
decided to take some of the small ag. parcels along the Airport Road
corridor, Goodlette Road north of Immokalee Road, that are very well
urbanized around them and it didn't make sense to take some of those
parcels out.
We have also since had Island Walk DRI PUD on Vanderbilt Beach
Road, that area comes out. Fiddler's Creek added acreage last year of
690 acres, comes out of that inventory, as well. So we are down to a
little over 17,000 acres of agriculturally zoned land still within our
urban area, that are subject to future zoning actions at urban
densities.
I think one thing that's become clear through not only our
discussions with our technical working group, but the last
conversations we've had with the Board, and even focus -- has really
come to focus on the transportation impacts of the population growth
and what impact it has aesthetically and functionally on that road
network.
I think what we have suggested is that, even though you have
different scenarios, the Plummet study did go ahead and point out
several alternatives related to transportation, and that means linking
up some of our corridors and doing some further corridor studies.
We believe that it would be a necessity to go back and really
fine tune the traffic model that we're currently using and better
utilize some data that we could gain relative to employment and
population numbers on a specific analysis zone, and maybe give you
some better information than we have in the past.
A lot of that isn't cheap to come by, and certainly, some of
those traffic models can be a fairly significant cost. I think given
enough time and the right -- the right data, I think we on staff and
our HPO have enough -- I think we have enough responsible staff people
to do some of this analysis in conjunction with our contractual
transportation plan.
And I guess with that, that's sort of my wrap-up, and I would
hope that we can have some discussion. I know it's a late hour and if
we choose to bring this back at another Board meeting, we certainly
will.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It a late hour combined with probably one of
the most important facets of our responsibility here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- I had put together a little
paper, and I know Commissioner Hancock had put together a paper on a
couple of ways to approach this. And I think ultimately, those
combined, or combined with other things, may well be the answer.
But what I thought was interesting was just less than an hour
ago, Ms. Cacchione mentioned, just in passing on some mildly related
issue, something about increasing density, and everyone out there's
eyes got big. And I think we made it fairly clear that having a
higher number of population is not where we want to go. We all hear
that phrase, "we don't want to be another East Coast, we don't want to
be Hiami" and I don't think we are really in danger of that.
But the smaller the population, I think, the better, and I think
we all hear that message over and over. Obviously, how the
transportation network unfolds is an important part of that.
My thoughts are fairly simple, and I outlined them in my little
white paper in probably too simple a manner, but there is an ultimate
cap, there is a finite number that we can reach right now. Because we
have certain zoning restrictions, you can only put so many units per
acre in different type zoning. And if you fill all of those up, there
is a number you reach, there's a finite number.
Just simple logic tells you if the finite number then is
restricted or is lowered, if we lower the cap, then you end up with a
smaller population. Now, I realize there are assumptions that we make
and that everyone doesn't use their property to its maximum density
anyway. But we can, by using the same formulas our long range
planning department uses now, have a real impact on making that finite
cap smaller and having the ultimate build-out number or the 2020
number smaller through lowering densities.
Last year when we talked about this topic, the example I often
used was in single family homes, but I don't think you would just do
one number across-the-board. I think single families would have a
particular number and you'd still have a different number for
multi-family and all.
But where I'd like to see us go is focusing, as part, anyway, of
our attempt to reach what the public is clearly asking for, and that's
a smaller build-out population, is to lower that finite cap, lower
that number. And an immediate and very real way to do that is through
lowering some of our densities.
Now, I suspect it will be more complex than simply changing
single families from 4 to 3.1, and I think some of the examples Mr.
Cautero and Mr. Arnold and some of that crew have given us show some
of those possibilities.
I have a clipping here from earlier in the year from the Plummet
study, and the headline reads: "Reduced density will slow need for
expanding area's road system," and talks about it could be fewer than
-- 100,000 fewer people than otherwise. I think we need to pursue
that.
I first brought it up to the Board in October of '95, and we have
had, through various committees and otherwise, we've gotten delayed
along the way and I'd just like to see us give some fairly specific
direction to staff and have a goal in mind before we leave tonight.
I don't know if we're going to answer exactly how we're going to
do it, but I think we can certainly get on that path, rather than
continue to flounder around and wonder if we're going to do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think precisely what you said is what our
staff is looking for, and that is, a direction. There is no question
that you can use density to limit an ultimate population of a given
area.
My concern is not with the concept, but with the legalities, and
the ability of communities to arbitrarily determine a population that
-- and by arbitrary, I don't mean without thought. But I think the
courts would look at it as somewhat arbitrary. That's why, in putting
together what I distributed to each of you yesterday --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was asking Sue to get another copy for
me.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have another one here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Never mind.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is something that we started two years
ago talking about this. What has occurred to me is that there are
communities in Collier County that are high density communities, but
don't feel like it, don't look like it, don't act like it. It's
because of their individual makeup, their individual chemistry: How
they're built, the mix of units and whatnot. They are higher density
than what's next door, but maybe generate less traffic or have people
that live there fewer months of the year, or whatnot. Their impact on
the community is overall less.
What that shows me is it's not just density that dictates the
impact of a community, and I think that goes hand in hand when we look
at what we legally have the ability to limit, without calling in a lot
of unknowns.
And so what I felt was most appropriate was to go back and look
at what our infrastructure requirements are. And although we all know
infrastructure extends from waterlines in the ground to library space
provided or number of books provided on the shelves, the key pieces of
infrastructure for government really come down to water, sewer and
roadways. I mean, when you think about just traditional government,
water, sewer, roadways and there are other services. But I think
that's -- for concurrency, that's what's important.
The most limiting factor of all of those -- we've all heard the
reports on water -- we can provide water to a half million people or
more based on what we received just several months ago from our water
department. The same is true of sewer. And we know through the year
2020 we can provide a roadway network for 400,000 people.
Well, when you put a water line in the ground or sewer line in
the ground, who cares what size it is? Nobody sees it, nobody cares.
As long as they turn the tap on and the water comes out, they couldn't
care less.
The roadway system doesn't operate that way. People do care
about what it looks like, and how it feels and how it acts. And since
it is a legal, limiting concurrency issue, and since it has a direct
impact on quality of life, and since it is one of the most limiting
pieces of infrastructure we have, that seems to me to be the place to
start in looking at how we do or do not limit growth in the future.
Commissioner Mac'Kie has brought the 2020 financially feasible plan
which shows potentially 19 grade separations or flyovers --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the red crayon.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- which is basically a bridge over another
road.
When I talk to community groups, just like all of you, I get the
same reaction: What are you, out of your mind? How can you let this
happen?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now you see why Vanna gets the big bucks.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you hear what he said? "Now you see
why Vanna gets the big bucks." I think that's a great line.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In concert with your recommendation and your
drive to look at density, I think hand in hand with that we need to
look at what, how we can limit legally. We can drop the density
tomorrow by affecting those ag. parcels and it will have a positive
effect on the roadway system. No one's arguing that.
My concern is, are we winning the battle and losing the war,
because the product remains the same, which is a roadway system in a
community that aesthetically nobody wants.
So what I have asked -- I don't think in the history of the Board
there's been a Board-written white paper, and in two days, we get two
of them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Term paper thing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I've put together is a four step approach
that does not preclude what you have suggested, looking at the density
issue and looking at the options. But what it does do, I think, is
put us on the road of ultimately defining the most limiting element of
community, which appears to be our roadway system.
The four steps are as follows: Step one, identify the future
roadway system as this community's most restrictive infrastructure
element. In other words, if we don't agree upon that, then I'm in the
wrong place.
If there's another infrastructure element out there that's more
restrictive, we should be dealing with that. But I believe it's
roadways.
Step two, design a roadway system that will meet the community's
expectations of character, while providing optimum capacity. Some of
this work has been done through FoCuS.
In a nutshell, 19 flyovers are not acceptable. Find a way not to
have them. Design a roadway system that doesn't contain those kind of
things.
The next thing you have to do is determine the vehicular capacity
of that alternative and the population it will serve. And I'm not
going to fool anyone. When you look at the roadway system you, quote,
unquote, want, and the population it will serve, it will be probably
less than our current population, plus the approved units on the
books.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it will be less. So we're already
going to find a deep, deep chasm of difference there, I mean, just
something that we're not going to like. But we need to see that
number.
And the last thing to do -- and this is really where the work is
-- is after factoring the difference between the current build-out
scenario and the newly proposed capacity population based on this
roadway system, develop the necessary alternatives to reconcile the
differences. That's a general way of saying find the solutions. And
I think that is where, with the reduction in density, potential
reductions in density, maybe two flyovers instead of 19.
That's where we find the middle ground. That is a roadway system
that will handle a reasonable population, that aesthetically does not
conflict with the character and the quality of this community, but
does not limit, remove or eliminate the private property rights that I
think the five of us up here continue to stress as a very important
part of being a citizen of the United States, much less of Collier
County.
That's it kind of in a nutshell. And I think what it's going to
do is, it's going to put this Board in a position no other Board has
voluntarily put themselves in, and that is making some decisions that
are going to make a lot of people unhappy, but give a great deal of
comfort to everyone in the end, and that is to ultimately define where
this community is going.
Because every time we look at the 2020 build-out or 2020
financially feasible, when we look at the build-out scenario, we all
get big eyes, we shirk, our constituents are upset about it; yet we
continue to change the course a small amount at a time without ever
changing the end product.
And I think we have to look more comprehensively at that end
product and redefine it, and make sure we can get there.
And, you know, initially, this seems like an absolute threat to
development. Whether it is or isn't is to be seen and that's in how
we handle it. But it seems to me the most logical course of action is
to look at the one thing that restricts you the most, and use that to
make your decisions from that point forward, to ensure you don't get
an undesirable situation. Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a couple of questions, Mr.
Chairman. One happens to deal with my particular area.
When you're talking about this, are you talking mainly within the
urban area of the roadway system, or are you talking about all of
Collier County?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's a two step approach, because you
can't -- just because you draw an urban line doesn't mean the people
who live one mile on one side of it don't use the roadways on the
other side.
COHHISSIONER BERRY: Okay, that's precisely my point. And I have
to use the example of Golden Gate Estates, the area east of 951, which
is a huge area, as all of you are well aware. But you have a road
system out there that is not adequate for the number of people that
are now building out in that particular area.
Two roadways of concern, of course, one is Golden Gate Boulevard
and the other one is White, which are two of the major areas that
bring the people out of the Estates in towards the City of Naples.
You go out there any morning at 7 o'clock in the morning, you observe
the traffic coming in off of those roadways, when it was dark out it
was a solid line of light.
You can't, the people that live out there cannot get on to those
roadways conveniently. I mean, it's not a matter -- they have to
judge their time as to what is a convenient time for them to get out
there and get on that roadway and be able to arrive at their place of
work.
So this is a concern, and I was concerned that you were only
going to look at the roadways within the urban area, because I think
when you start looking, you've got to look beyond that. And this is a
primary concern of mine right now, because not only the Estates, I
mean, that is already zoned. But go on out into the Orangetree area,
and now you're going to be impacting a major roadway, which is the
Immokalee Road corridor, which is an area, you know, that I have to
deal with out there, as well. And there's a lot going on out in that
area.
And until we take all of that into consideration, I just -- I
need to know how this is all going to play out.
But another effect, too, when we start looking at this, how does
this affect the total economics in Collier County?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's an important part of what we have to
look at. The way this works is, if you begin using a traffic model,
traffic models are such that you plug in a greater number of users of
the roadway in a given area and it shows dispersion, and it moves
throughout. We may find that the county is best served by residential
densities that are zones. Some zones may be able to handle 40 units
an acre because the roadways that immediately serve that area are
sufficient, while others may be in three units an acre, or two units
an acre, or one unit per five acres, or one per ten.
The bottom line is, it forces us to look not just at the urban
area, but county-wide at the deficiencies that are there, and
identifies the difference between an unattractive decision, to create
a roadway that is detrimental to the community, and the other options
available to us. And I think to date, we haven't really had those
options presented to us and, but I mean, we're not requesting them.
I'm not putting that strictly on Planning's shoulders.
But I think what has happened is in the past, everyone sees where
we're going and nobody really likes it, but for now, everything's
okay.
So that decision hasn't really been forced upon this Board. I
think it's important enough, and we have the smarts enough on this
Board and a talented enough staff, to begin handling those tough
questions and stop putting them off for future Boards. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Where do we go from here?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me -- I have my idea, but that's
only mine. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I like where you're headed,
because the crux of my density issue is that it gives us a finite cap.
You know there's a number you can't go over. And it give us a very
real number to hang our hat on, as far as lowering the ultimate
population. But by combining that with what you're saying as far as
dealing with the infrastructure, I think it addresses those concerns.
I've had a couple of business people approach me concerned that
they acknowledge that you can lower the population number by lowering
densities, but does that spread it out and does it cause a greater
impact on the infrastructure.
So I think if you do a combination there, and you look at, okay,
what's the manner in which you handle that, and as you say, you may
end up with different zones. I think that's very good. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that what has happened here is the
two of you have said the same thing, and they dovetail together really
perfectly, in that Commissioner Constantine's white paper is step
three of Commissioner Hancock's white paper.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hine's on yellow paper.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In other words, what we need to do is what
we've talked about, and that is, I don't think anybody's arguing that
the roadway system is the most restrictive infrastructure element, and
then look at what are we willing to do to our community by way of
asphalt, what are we willing to build as a road system, and determine
what its capacity is, and that will give us Commissioner Constantine's
very good maximum number.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's interesting because the things,
like you mentioned flyovers, and I had said to you before today's
meeting I was up in Lee County and for the new bridge going to Cape
Coral they've got flyovers on the way, and it works effectively. It's
not very attractive if you're driving on 41.
I was just going back through the Plummet report, and by doing
this, those are some of the things that we can ultimately avoid.
And I have just a little checklist here. It can avoid proposed
land increases in ten of our major roadways. It adopts some of those
overpasses that are suggested; it loses one of the 1-75 interchanges
that would ultimately be at Vanderbilt. The great thing is our
long-term plan shows not one more, but two more Gordon River bridges.
And if you thin down the population, you get rid of one of those.
The conversion into expressways for Golden Gate Parkway or 951 or
Livingston or any of those, all go away. So I think the two do very
clearly go hand in hand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess the question is -- and I'm sure we
have speakers on this -- but the order in which we move ahead,
because, as you mentioned, two years ago, we began talking about this
and I think part of the frustrations, I've talked to our staff about
this, is that we as a Board have kind of been giving them pieces. And
we say well, look at this piece and tell us what this piece does, and
look at that piece and tell us what that does. And to the, I guess to
the merit of this Board, at least we've gone that far.
But what it does is, it changes the immediate course, but not the
long-term picture terribly. So I don't want to be counter to what
you're suggesting, but I think the two dovetail nicely. It just means
that a density reduction today probably is a little premature without
knowing the larger picture.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, and I agree with you
wholeheartedly. I don't think October 28, 1997, we're going to lower
density. But I do think we need to give -- I think we're all saying
the same thing -- we need to give very specific directions, so that we
don't find ourselves two years from now still talking about something
that seems like a neat idea. We can find ourselves six months from
now having made the change.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have met with the staff on this concept
before today, on two or three separate occasions. Everyone recognizes
that what I have proposed is not perfect, but represents a logical
course.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I always thought it was perfect.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which, mine or the secretary's?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Both.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. It does represent at least a course
that I think gives us the answers to some very uncomfortable
questions. And we're just going to have to come to that decision,
because if we don't do it, we'll pass it along to the next Board.
And as a couple of residents in one of the communities in my
district mentioned to me a couple weeks ago, they are worried somehow
we're going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. In other
words, what it was that created the character and quality of this
community gets destroyed because we make little decisions that
cumulatively represent an adverse impact.
And I think that's where we're slowly heading, and we've got to
change that course, but we've got to do it in a reasonable, legally
defensible manner, and I think this is the easiest way to go there.
What I have talked about has probably scared Mr. Weigel and Ms.
Student to death, but I think there are some Supreme Court cases that
supoft us, and I cited one in my correspondence about Petaluma,
California in 1976.
So even though we have some things locally, such as the Bert
Harris Private Property Rights Act, that presents problems for
existing zoning, I think we have some Supreme Court decisions that
give us the ability to the look beyond the Private Property Rights Act
and see if maybe there are other options available to us to effect
even existing zoning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we have to. And I don't know if
the appropriate action, and maybe Mr. Weigel or somebody could tell
us, but I'd like to do something very definitive today, and what I'd
like to propose is that -- and maybe a motion is appropriate, and
unless somebody corrects me, I'm going to make a motion -- that we
adopt the four point plan outlined in Commissioner Hancock's memo,
acknowledging that the third step incorporates Commissioner
Constantine's goal, that that will be our ultimate build-out number,
and that we're going to bite that bullet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I guess I'm having a little
trouble seeing how determining the vehicular capacity is there. I
guess that's the population part of that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think Commissioner Constantine's proposal
actually falls into step four, because you have to determine
solutions.
When you determine what our dream roadway network will serve,
that number is going to be so low comparatively, that we're going to
have a lot --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- of legal issues to face. So I think the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- specific density reductions that
Commissioner Constantine has proposed fall into the solutions
developed in step four.
And that's where what has been proposed becomes one element of
our consideration; the others may be two flyovers here, or whatnot.
Does that make more sense?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, absolutely. Do we have -- we
have general consensus, it appeared from our earlier conversation with
Ms. Cacchione that there really aren't circumstances where we're
looking at increasing densities.
MS. CACCHIONE: A net increase, no.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we made that clear.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Arnold, if we passed a motion similar
to what I proposed, does that give you some direction and at that
point you could come back. Well, frankly, in my motion, I'd like to
skip step one and let's acknowledge that the future roadway system is
the most restrictive element, and direct staff to begin with step two
and work through those four steps.
Will you know what to do at that point? Will we have been
perfectly clear?
MR. ARNOLD: I think the direction is clear. I would just like
to reserve the opportunity to come back to you once I've met with some
of our HPO staff and we look at our work program, as well as some
contractual dollars we have. So that if I need to come back to make
some budgetary adjustments in our building fund, or with the HPO
budget or something, that I can accommodate the end result we're
looking for.
And I'm going to assume that members of the technical working
group and others in the community might willingly be a part of this
and lend some service to us, as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need clarification on one
thing.
You had said no net increase and I don't really want to see
increase in some areas and decrease in others. If we decrease some
areas, great.
But I'd hate to see us increase them anywhere.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess all I don't know yet is about some
particular infill parcel that may be in the three that should be four,
or you know. I just don't know.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we recognized that there can't be a
net increase. We've already realized we can't handle the potential
build-out anyway.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We want a net decrease.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As much as -- I'll be honest with you folks.
I'm flattered that there's even been a motion made giving direction to
this, when my idea today was to start a thought process, not
specifically give direction.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've had the thought process for awhile.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We've thought about it for so long.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I guess I feel I've gotten a little bit
ahead of our staff here, in that I put this together, and Mr. Cautero,
you saw it yesterday for the first time. I think it's based on
discussions we have had, but I don't think Mr. Fernandez has even seen
it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it makes you feel any better, I've
been talking to Vince for a couple months about it, so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just -- I would like -- I would like
-- I appreciate the direction, but I would like it to include a report
back from our staff on what it's going to take to accomplish this.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we get that report within a month?
MR. ARNOLD: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then that's in my motion
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we get it sooner than that? I
mean, if --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we get it in two weeks?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the report is simply what's it
going to take to accomplish this.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would suggest that a month may be
appropriate, because we're talking about something that we can start
it today, but don't expect any answers in six months. This is a real comprehensive look.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to know what we are expecting
then, because I don't want it to drift for another two years. I want
to have some specific goals in mind, and if you say well, don't expect
anything in six months, what are we expecting?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm -- if you want to say a month.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'm saying is, a report in a month
that gives us a time line, tells us what the budgetary implications
are, so that -- because we're going to have to fund this effort. We
know that.
And then it gives us a time line for when those reviews will be
completed and when the recommendations -- as each step, when each
step, we'll have a report.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And part of that is the County Attorney
looking at the proposal to determine if there is no way in heck we can
defend what we're doing in court, we need to know that. I would have
a real problem with that, because I believe a community does have a
right to determine its own destiny. But I need to know what case law
either agrees with me or disagrees with me and I think that's a big
part of that, and to have that in one or two weeks would be all but
impossible, would be my guess.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just like to see us -- when we
talk about what's it going to cost and all, I think it is a fairly --
for me, anyway, it's a high priority item and I'd like it to be one of
the top priorities for our staff to be working on.
So as long as it's people that are already salaried, there will
be some additional expenses, but hopefully not a high cost. I don't
mind if we have citizen input as part of this, by any means, but I
hope we don't spend six months having yet another citizen review
committee talking about the issue.
Because we had the advisory board two years ago completely blow
it off; we had your technical committee look at it for a few months.
We've been through that process.
So it just seems we ought to make it a high priority for staff;
we ought to have a realistic time frame in which we get it back. I
just don't want to -- yeah.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A month is not acceptable.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, no. I'm not talking about as
far as just getting back the report on what's necessary, but I'm
saying when will we have this back to actually take action on it. I'm
just a little discouraged when I hear you say this isn't going to be
something we're doing in six months. I would hope within six months
we'd have some idea, okay, these are your options, where do you want
to head. And we might not get to the final place, but we ought to be
pretty darn close.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That we would at least know the number
that is the bottom line, and then we look for solutions to get there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, I agree, and I apologize if I
misrepresented.
What I was saying is that this type of process with the modeling
involved, we may know the disparity, the difference between the two,
per se, in that time frame, but I didn't want anyone to expect that 90
days from now, you know, we're going to have all the growth management
problems solved in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my motion is that within a month,
staff come back to us with recommendations for implementation of steps
two through four, with a specific time line and budgetary
implications.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think, one step further, I think
they need to take a look at this and I think there needs to be
something there feasibility.
Is this a logical -- I'm not saying it's not. Obviously, you've
got a background in planning, Tim, so I recognize that, and I think
what you've got here is an orderly progression. But I want to hear
from the staff on do you think this is a feasible thing that we could
accomplish here?
At the same time, as I said, I want to know, too, the economics.
There's a lot of factors that enter in in Collier County and I
think we need to look at all of this.
We've all heard about limiting the population. But don't forget,
people who came here 10 years ago, their vision of what Collier County
is or was at that time is different than the person who arrived last
year.
I mean, keep the perspective of what's out there. And don't lose
sight of that, and don't, you know, don't get nervous about it.
And I'm not one to go out here and cement and asphalt Collier
County.
But you've got to be careful, you've got to think through this.
This is not something that you throw together and in six months, we
want to have something that we can tell the world.
I mean, yeah, I'm not excited about having a million people in
Collier County, or anywhere close to that. But at the same time,
let's proceed on a very logical progression here, and let's don't get,
in our zest for trying to prove to the people that we're up here
trying to limit growth, that we do something that's not the way it
should be done.
Whatever we do, let's do a good job with it, and make sure that
we've got a good thought process in this whole works. I don't want to
be out here spewing this stuff, and having the whole thing come down
around my ears when I'm retired out here because this is something I
voted on I thought was a great idea, and it sounded good, and it
played well to the public. I'm not interested in that.
I want to make sure that the decisions we make here are good,
solid decisions with a lot of thought process put behind them. If
that means it takes this staff six weeks to get it here, or two
months, that's what I want, and I want the best thought process in
doing that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think you'll find an ounce of
disagreement with those statements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, there is a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you clarify or repeat the motion
for me?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. The motion is that we direct
staff to implement steps two through four in Commissioner Hancock's
memo, with the recognition that step four dovetails with Commissioner
Constantine's memo; and that we ask staff within a month to be back
with a report telling us the budgetary implications and a specific
time line for completion of steps two through four.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I think we need to understand also this
is going to take a lot of time and dedication on our part when we get
to the review, and so forth. I know we hate the word "workshop," but
it may be most appropriate for us to have these discussions in a
workshop scenario instead of board meeting, where we can be more open
and free with how we address that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have to do it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I make this statement as a part of this --
but we do have a motion on the floor.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a second on the floor.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a second on the floor. Is there any
discussion?
Mr. Weigel, this is not something that was on the agenda, per se,
and we're giving staff direction. Is there any requirement to go to
public speakers on this? You don't have any registered, because you
didn't know it was coming up.
MR. WEIGEL: No, and there is no requirement. It's kind of
curious that we're still in the middle of this agenda item. But this
is an aside and you may do so.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's related to but not --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Interesting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you want to ask if anybody wants to
speak, just for, at least for a good record, if there's anybody.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there members of the audience that would
like to speak on this particular item?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One brave soul.
MR. DUANE: Good evening. For the record, Robert Duane.
The EDC Chamber Coalition does have a letter in front of you.
Some of us have not seen the white papers.
I would suggest that a workshop, while I know that could be a
buzzword sometimes, but if this is as important an issue as I think
that we all agree it is, I think taking a week or so and formally
advertising the item, until we can have some more public input, I
would like to proceed on that basis or at least have you consider that
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Duane.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would assume that when we have staff
come back --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: People will show up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would be a wonderful opportunity
for the public to be very active.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think at that time we can set any type of
workshop schedule we can deem appropriate, and move from there.
This is a work in progress, folks, but getting started is more
important than anything right now to me.
So we have a motion and second on the floor. Is there any
further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. WEIGEL: Reminder that you need to take final action on the
Comprehensive Plan.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And for those members of the public,
I've got just in my hand four or five copies of what I put together,
and of course, if you need additional copies, request them of my
office and they will be made available to you as public record.
We do have to take final action on the elements of the Growth
Management Plan that are a response to your base report. Is there
anything specific this motion needs to contain other than aggregate
motion of action taken?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a motion to transmit, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Adopt and transmit?
MS. STUDENT: It would be a motion to adopt your base 1997
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, the afternoon agenda.
Item #12C1
RES. 97-407, RE PETITION AV-97-019, VACATING A PORTION OF A 15' WIDE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT 11, BLOCK C, FLAMINGO ESTATES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're all the way up to item 12.C(1),
Petition AV 97-019, a request to vacate a portion of a 15-foot wide
drainage easement on Lot 11, Block C, Flamingo Estates. Mr. Mullet, good afternoon.
MR. HULLER: Good afternoon. Yes, item 12.C(1) is a public
hearing to consider Petition AV 97 for a vacation of a portion of a
drainage easement in Flamingo --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this a vanilla proposal?
MR. HULLER: I would say it's a no-brainer with the exception
that the Petitioner is requesting a waiver of a portion of the filing
fee, from $1,000 to $300, based on the complexity or the lack of
complexity of the application.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you deem that to be consistent with the
level of review required by your office?
MR. HULLER: We would like for the filing fee to be consistent.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that's better, too.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. I think that sets a tough precedent,
and you all of a sudden have to start gauging how much work it's going
to cost you to do it, and we've set it as an average in the past
because some were lower. We can't charge somebody 1300 if we spend
more time on it, can we?
MR. HULLER: I wish we could.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. I think that's an average, and I would
agree with that.
Are there registered public speakers on this?
MR. WEIGEL: No, there are none.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Iwll close the hearing. Is there
a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. And that motion to approve
does not include a -- or includes a $1,000 Petition to Vacate filing
fee?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. MULLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: ANd Mr. Mullet, once again, impressing
me with the necktie.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: King of the brief presentations.
Item #12C2
ORD. 97-68, AMENDING ORDINACE 90-105, THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR'S
LICENSING BOARD ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
Item 12.C(2), recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance 90-105, Collier
County Contractors' Licensing Board Ordinance. Who do we have on this fine item?
MR. PALMER: Commissioners, Tom Palmet, Assistant County
Attorney. I think this item is explained in the Executive Summary.
The vast majority of the changes in this ordinance are discretionary.
Several are mandated by recent amendments to Florida Statutes. I can answer any questions you might have.
It's been before several boards, all the affected trades
acquiesce and it's not controversial.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Acquiesced under severe pressure.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As the bamboo is sliding beneath their
fingernails.
Any questions of Mr. Palmet?
Seeing none, do we have any speakers on this?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the hearing. Is there a motion?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
The next -- Mr. Palmet, thank you.
The next four items, I think, were all similar, and on all those,
separate motions can be taken on each. I think a joint hearing on the
four would be appropriate. Does any staff or any member of the Board
have a problem with that?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I have a question for Mr. Weigel,
though.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me just announce the items.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
Item #12C3
RES. 97-408 REGARDING PETITION SNR-97-6, CAROLINE SPOUNIAS, REQUESTING
A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 2ND AVENUE S.W. TO MAHOGANY RIDGE DRIVE
LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 32 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Items 12.C(3), (4), (5) and (6). These
are petitions SNR 97-7, 97-7, 97-8 and 97-9 -- I'm sorry -- 97-6 was
the first one.
Go ahead, Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I recently had a contract
on some property on one of these streets. That contract fell through,
the purchase is not moving forward. However, being ultra sensitive to
accusations in press and otherwise, I want to make sure -- we'll
continue to shop and we're shopping all over the county, not
necessarily just on these streets.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Stay out of my district.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I want to make sure, in your legal
perspective, there is not a conflict of interest and perhaps you can
also explain the requirement to vote on issues.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, thank you. Yes. Well, in regard to a
conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest, it's guided by
two sets of statutes.
One is Chapter 112, particularly 112.313 and .314(3) of Florida
Statutes, which indicates that there is an obligation of a
commissioner or elected official in a voting capacity to vote, unless
there is a conflict.
Another statute, which is, oh, yes, 286.012, does provide that
there is an obligation to vote pursuant to Chapter 112, the statutes I
just mentioned. If there is a possibility of conflict, the elected
official in a voting situation may opt out.
So it comes up fielder's choice for you, that if you think there
is a possibility of conflict, you may legally opt out. But if there
is no relationship presently and no relationship anticipated, I think
it's certainly within the province and appropriate for you to vote.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, since the name
changes are not anticipated to cause property values to skyrocket or
plummet in the area you're looking in, I don't see any financial
hardship.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, seeing whereas I have no
property --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyway --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I have no offers on any property --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I may shop out there, you know. You never
know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I don't think it's a conflict,
but I wanted to make sure that was very clear on the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, good afternoon.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
Planning Services.
These four petitions are for street name changes within Unit 32
in Golden Gate Estates, the unit which you see --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, I think we're all familiar
with this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're familiar.
MR. REISCHL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Has anything changed since we were supposed
to hear this before?
MR. REISCHL: We have three times verified the signatures, so
they have met the 50 percent plus one of the property owners fronting
on the street.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I say, Commissioner Constantine, you've
been involved in this, I know, discussing with Mr. Reischl. Do you
have anything additional?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Got a couple of letters.
MR. REISCHL: Yes. We've received numerous letters, phone calls,
personal visits, generally in favor, but we have received letters and
phone calls in opposition. Based mainly, the primary concern would be
that they don't want to change checks, letterheads, business cards,
things like that.
The second one would be opposed to the name Carrotwood on the one
petition.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we could only approve one street,
that would be the one that would be approved.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's where you're going; you know it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Absolutely. I'm buying the
whole darn street.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Champion of the Carrotwood.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me give you a couple of numbers
here, as far as what we got in for phone calls and letters: 111 in
favor, 24 opposed.
I understand on a couple of the streets, at least, they have over
75 percent in favor; for signatures, all of them are over 50 percent.
There are a few people fairly well heated up on the issue.
But the one thing that -- you may have seen an article in the
newspaper a couple of weeks back, and I've spoken with the fire chief
out there. There was some concern about response. And his primary
concern, and mine, too, when I first heard this is, there are numbered
streets below, there are numbered streets above, and we don't want to
do a hodgepodge of pick and choose where the names are going to be.
But we've got pretty much equal indication from the streets to
the north, the four streets directly north of this, that they'd like
to do some sort of name, as well. So then you'd have the whole strip
from Pine Ridge to Vanderbilt who will have names, and those obviously
will be a separate petition.
But Chief Peterson of the fire department said that would
actually be his preference. If we're going to change some, let's
change all so there won't be confusion by having those numbers
separated.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: And I also said I would mention that two members of
the public were here in opposition and had to leave due to the hour.
I said I would mention that they showed up and stayed from about nine
until about an hour ago.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go to public speakers. Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: First is Sam Spounias and then Richard Parlante.
MR. SPOUNIAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My
name is Sam Spounias, and I'm a homeowner on 2nd Avenue, S.W. I have
a big speech prepared, but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All that?
MR. SPOUNIAS: No, just kidding.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Either you're a fast talker or you gave away
an item at a time on this.
MR. SPOUNIAS: Obviously, I'm in favor of the petition, and there
are several people here also in favor of the petition.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I see a show of hands of those who are
here to support the application? Let the record reflect seven hearty
souls have endured.
MR. SPOUNIAS: We don't -- we can -- we don't need to present the
whole dog and pony show, if need be.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In fairness, let me ask for a show of hands of
individuals here to speak against.
Okay, we do have one gentleman. Let's go ahead and go through
the public speakers, and I'll leave it to you as to whether or not you
wish to speak. But I think we can see where some of the direction is
coming from.
MR. SPOUNIAS: Can we go directly to the opposing speaker?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and call them in order as Mr.
Fernandez has them, and if you wish to waive your right to speak by
just saying you are here to support, that's fine, too. MR. SPOUNIAS: Can we make comments?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you wish to speak, you can, yes.
MR. SPOUNIAS: All right. We brought these petitions to create a
community identity within Golden Gate Estates, just as Livingston
Woods did about six years ago. Like Commissioner Constantine said, we
have a majority of people, property owners that support the petitions,
and I hope you will today, too. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Richard Parlante and Dale Danford.
MR. PARLANTE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
My name is Rick Parlante, I live at 5060-8th Avenue, S.W. in
Naples.
I'm speaking in favor of the petition presented here today to
rename the streets A through 2nd in Unit 32, along with Commissioner
Constantine's suggestion to take that through into Unit 95.
I just want to spend a moment, I was actively involved in the
petitioning process in the beginning, starting in Hay, and went door
to door all over a period of two or three weeks. And generally, the
consensus was from everyone that this was something long awaited.
The community atmosphere, I think, has already started. There
are some streets that already have gone ahead and on their own,
purchased bicycle racks at the end of the streets; they've gone ahead
and purchased and manufactured wooden street signs. So they've wanted
this community atmosphere for quite some time.
Being in real estate, I have dealt with the numbered streets for
the last 11 years, and although I do understand the logistics and
mechanics behind it, it has not been an easy thing to get across to
the public.
Boy, I did a count and currently, I think there are 15 number
eights, there are 14 number sixes, there are 12 number fours, and God
knows how many number twos. There is only one Central Avenue, there's
only one Goodlette Road, and I can see where just in an identity
neighborhood, it would be well worth having it done.
I did interview some folks from Livingston Woods, and I actually
have a letter here -- and I won't bother reading it -- but in the
letter basically one homeowner said she would never sign the petition
to rename the streets back to numbered ones. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've been lost so many times.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Dale Danford, and then George Schmelzle.
MR. DANFORD: My name is Dale Danford. I'm a homeowner in Unit
32, where my wife and I have lived in retirement for the past 10
years, and I'm here to speak in favor of the name change.
I feel that these petitions are about gaining a heightened sense
of community. It's a natural outcome of past activities in our area,
in such areas as Neighborhood Watch, neighborhood newsletters,
neighborhood directories. I suggest that a strong sense of
neighborhood or community is one step from a strong sense of family
and involves such binding issues as pride in the place where we live.
And I think surely this is a good thing for our county.
Some have argued that Unit 32 is already part of the Golden Gate
Estates community, and to that, I would reply that Golden Gate Estates
is not a community; it's a 172 square mile geographic territory. I
think Commissioner Berry made reference to the vastness of this area
that we're talking about here, and it's not too conducive to
neighborhood identity.
I'd like to make just a few summary statements on the initiative.
It's identical with past street name changes that were approved
in Golden Gate Estates such as those in Livingston Woods. It has no
environmental impact. It has no growth management impact. It has
minimal fiscal impact, mainly street sign changes, and the citizens in
the area will cover those if that should become an issue.
It is supported by your staff in the Executive Summary, and most
importantly, is supported by over 70 percent of the residents in Unit
32, while only 50 percent plus one was required.
I therefore urge the commission to approve. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: George Schmelzle and then Laura Burkhardt.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Schmelzle? Okay. Ms. Burkhardt?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They left.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who's the gentleman --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, he didn't turn his slip in. Come on
up, sir, and give him your slip.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead.
MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Bob Finn. I live on 4th Avenue,
S.W.
The reason why I didn't turn in my slip, I went home, took a
shower, and I forgot it.
(Laughter.)
I think I speak for a lot of the people on my street, and a lot
of them did not like the name Carrotwood. We'd like a second chance,
if it's going to be changed, to change that name.
And I also, I really don't agree with the street name changes. I
don't think it's really going to do anything for, you know, the public
finding the area. I like Logan Woods, I like the name Logan Woods. I
think that would make it more prestigious, but I don't see why we
would have to change the names.
I think it should have been handled as two different issues. I
think the petition, when it first came out, was not handled correctly.
I think it should have been, do you like the name Logan Woods as one
issue, and do you like the street name changes.
I even talked to some people that approved of it and they say,
well, I like Logan Woods and I don't like the street name change. But
they signed it because of the Logan Woods thing.
I think it should be re-petitioned, you know, as two different
issues.
Pretty much -- I'm not really a speaker. The person that was
here that was going to do the speaking had to get home, but she handed
me her notes here.
And again, the fire chief did mention it's not a good idea to
change it, because I don't know, the way they have it grouped, the
area.
Then again, it was mentioned about Livingston Woods. They had a
definite reason to change their name because there were duplicate
number addresses. I don't know the gentleman that spoke here said
that there were two Sixth Avenues, or whatever. I don't know if there
are two Fourth Avenue Southwests, you know. But he said Sixth Avenue,
he didn't say Sixth Avenue Southwest or Northwest. I don't know if
that's justified.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think he was just saying -- I'm up here, sir
-- whether it's northwest or southwest, there's just like a dozen that
are named sixth, and it can be confusing. I think that was his point,
not that it's necessarily duplicative.
MR. FINN: Right. And again, if it's called Logan Woods, I think
it would be easy to find the street. Logan Boulevard's only what, a
couple miles long. If you told someone I live off Logan Boulevard, I
think they could find your street, if it's a number or a name.
I just wanted to get up here, and I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Reischl, what was the
percentage of petitions signed in favor of this on the proposed
Carrotwood, which was 4th Avenue S.W.?
MR. REISCHL: Carrotwood, we had 28 signatures out of 53 property
owners fronting on the road.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, so it was just over the 50 percent?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We -- I had my office -- I had some of
the concerns Mr. Finn has talked about as far as the petitioning
process. My office contacted literally every single property owner in
the area, and that's where a lot of those letters I put up were
generated.
I had some fairly serious concerns when we started this, and it's
important to note they were concerns I shared with the fire chief and
with a couple of staff members, as far as that we didn't end up with a
hodgepodge of streets randomly named in between numbered streets.
And the concern isn't just these four streets. We're looking at
the big picture of what happens in other areas that are zoned estates,
both on the west side and the east side of 951. That was one of the
reasons the fire chief had said, if you are going to change them, I
would prefer you change all eight, as opposed to just four.
So I think if it does pass, a petition will come forward for the
other four, as well. But more importantly, we are actually working
with a couple folks out in that area and are working with staff on
establishing some methodology, so that we don't end up with a random
hodgepodge of named streets in between numbered streets in other
locations.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, do we have any more speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Close the hearing. Is there a
direction or motion from the Board?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just -- I'm sorry, I did.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, you did?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did it quietly, so you couldn't hear it just
to mess with you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we approve Petition
SNR 97-6.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question on the motion, because I
definitely support this idea. But I do want to be sure we take into
consideration the fire issue.
Should we make it a condition that the other streets petition
within, you know, three months or something?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I'm working with the area to
bring that forward myself, so it won't even have to be a petition.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So you know it's going to happen.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to approve SNR 97-6. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question, though,
just for --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just for information, how are all the legal
documents changed on the properties now, with this new designation of
a street name? Is there anything on any legal documents that this
affects in terms of the Government Center?
MR. REISCHL: I'm not on attorney, but I think the --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I play one on TV.
MR. REISCHL: No, not even that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have a tax ID number that's the magic
number for counties.
MR. REISCHL: Right, but I think you mean like zoning maps and
things like that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
MR. REISCHL: Yes. Those all have to be changed, including the
street signs. Those would be the fiscal impact.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one question. Commissioner
Norris has made that motion that now is passed. But one of the
residents had mentioned, and they mentioned this to me in the past,
that it's not a big expense. I think it's 800 bucks to change the
signs for all those streets, but that they'd pick up the tab on that.
We may want to take advantage of their offer.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, we've already moved on it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have, we've already moved on it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just was curious as to how that's dealt
with.
That's all.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a good question, because I think we
update the zoning maps every year anyway, because we have new
developments coming on line that we have to add.
MR. REISCHL: They are updated as each zoning action occurs.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. To be honest, it's $800. But you know
what, to have consistent signage that meets county standards is
probably as important as anything else.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can do that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I appreciate the offer by the residents, but I
think to make sure fire and safety get there, fire and police get
there in time, we'd rather have consistent signage.
Item #12C4
RES. 97-409 REGARDING PETITION SNR-97-7, CAROLINE SPOUNIAS, REQUESTING
A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 4TH AVENUE S.W. TO CARROTWOOD ROAD LOCATED IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 32 - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
approve SNR 97-7.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, the controversial Carrotwood just went.
Item #12C5
RES. 97-410 REGARDING PETITION SNR-97-8, CAROLINE SPOUNIAS, REQUESTING
A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 6TH AVENUE S.W. TO TAMARIND RIDGE DRIVE
LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 32 - ADOPTED
Next. SNR 97-8, is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Move approval.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who came up with that name, is my only
question.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #12C6
RES. 97-411 REGARDING PETITION SNR-97-9, CAROLINE SPOUNIAS, REQUESTING
A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 8TH AVENUE S.W. TO SYCAMORE DRIVE LOCATED IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 32 AND 34 - ADOPTED
Petition SNR 97-9.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was a lengthy process, ladies and
gentlemen, but thank you for all your efforts.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why did you guys come so early, anyway?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, gosh.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Enjoy the hour or two you have before bed,
folks.
Item #12C7
BAR 97-5, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 BUDGET -
ADOPTED
Item 12.C(7), recommendation to adopt a resolution approving
amendments to the fiscal year 1996-97 Adopted Budgets, which we've
seen already in detail individually. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All these items have been approved on
their own merit, correct?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Want to close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, Mr. Smykowski, an excellent
presentation.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You are always the picture of efficiency.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: So much for my verbosity.
(Laughter.)
Item #13A1
PETITION NO. CU 97-19, HR. HICHAEL K. CORRADI REQUESTING CONDITIONAL
USE TO ALLOW FOR A FORTUNE TELLER, PALM READER, ASTROLOGER AND
SPIRITUAL COUNSELOR, TO BE LOCATED AT 10401 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH IN
NAPLES PARK SUBDIVISION - DENIED
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are into our advertised public hearings
item 13.A(1) is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Need to swear?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. That's a conditional use petition which
is quasi-judicial and must have all speakers sworn in. So members of
our staff, the petitioner, and any members of the public wishing to
speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in?
(All speakers were sworn.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. Chahram
Badamtchian from Planning Services.
Mr. Michael Corradi is requesting Conditional Use 1 of the C-3
zoning district for a fortune teller, palm reader, astrologer and
spiritual counselor business to be located at 1041 Tamiami Trail
North.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wonder how the fortune teller
predicted how this hearing would turn out.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know. Is he or she here? That might
be a sign. I'm sorry, it's late in the day and this item is just
going to get hammered with jokes. Go ahead, Mr. Badamtchian.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The Planning Commission reviewed this petition
and by a vote of six-one recommended approval of the petition. Staff
also recommended approval. Staff has not received any letters in
opposition.
I only met with one lady who represents a homeowners'
association, I believe, who is here today to make her case.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a -- if my memory serves me correct --
this is a building that is fairly old. It's one of the old strip type
buildings and it sits fairly close to the roadway and -- no offense
intended to anyone, but -- not in very good condition. Is that a fair
recollection?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the one.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of Mr. Badamtchian? Seeing none,
let's go to -- do we have a petitioner on this matter or an applicant?
Sir?
MR. CORRADI: Good day, my name is Michael Corradi. I'm the
property owner there. I bought the property three years ago and I
moved down to Collier County, and it's been a dream of mine to
eventually develop the property. And you said it wasn't in good
condition when I bought it from the gentleman who bought it 20 years
ago. He's ran it down considerably.
Every month for the past three years, I spent out of my pocket
every month trying to hold on to this dream.
And I have a tenant that wants to move in there. He's been in
business here for 15 years and I went to his establishment, and I went
to some people in town and he's ran his business with no problems, no
citations for 15 years.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where was he located?
MR. CORRADI: He's located right here on, almost right across the
street from here.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Airport Road, right across the street from
Scotty's.
There's a big sign.
MR. CORRADI: And he was in business there five years ago and
they're looking to branch out. So it's a way for me where I can keep
the building up, keep the payments coming in and actually make it look
a lot better than it did from the previous owner, which I think I
have. The previous owner only had one tenant in there. I now can
have three in there, which can bring in a little more income.
I've painted the outside of the building. I've sealed it. I'm
trying to keep it as nice as I can with the income coming in and this
just makes it a little bit nicer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CORRADI: That's all I'm trying to do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for the petitioner?
Seeing none, thank you, sir.
Speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have one speaker, Mr. Chairman. Vera
Fitzgerald.
MS. FITZGERALD: Hi. I'm Vera Fitzgerald. I just have a problem
with this because the word "sleaze" keeps jumping into my mind when I
think about fortune tellers and Tarot cards and stuff like that.
I can understand the petitioner's desire to have a tenant who
pays the bills and stuff like that. But this kind of thing, I'd like
to see it in a circus where it folds and goes.
You wouldn't see it in downtown Naples; you're not going to see
it on Fifth Avenue; you're not going to see it on Third Street. And
you've got to ask yourself, would you like to have it two lots down
from your home?
They say it's no impact on the neighborhood. It's just when
people arrive here, one of the first things they see, if they are
coming down 41, the first part of Naples they see is that strip
running along 41, and it has been pretty ugly for a number of years.
But now it's beginning to get rather upscale, and we've got some
really nice-looking, new buildings there, and the whole area is
changing.
This is definitely not a change for the better. This is a change
for the worse. And we discussed this at the property owners' meeting
and I've discussed it since with a number of people who live in Naples
Park, and none of us want to see this.
It's nothing against the guy who owns the property. It's just
that this isn't the type of business we really want to see. As we're
going out of our community, we don't want to see this great big red
palm.
Sorry. To me, it's so fraudulent, it's ridiculous.
So we are against it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mrs. Fitzgerald. Commissioner
Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just, I guess, for staff. I am -- I can't
see how this conditional use can be compatible with adjacent
properties or other properties in the district, because it just seems
common sense that it's not compatible with a residential neighborhood
in that close proximity.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask how -- what's the -- and
I'll use just kind of an extreme example, but there was a petition two
or three years ago for a truck stop. Somebody got up and said they
didn't want the truck stop nearby, not because they don't like
truckers and people coming in to dine, but truck stops generally have
prostitution.
And that was their logic, and you can agree with it or not, but
that was their logic. And I'm wondering, what is the perceived
offensive part of this? I mean, setting aside the moral side or
whether you like that or not, I'm looking at from a land use
perspective, what is the concern there?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess my answer to that is that being
adjacent to a residential neighborhood, it's impossible to set aside
the moral issue.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is the moral issue? Yes, that's what
he's asking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the moral issue?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just what do you perceive as the
problem?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What do I -- this is a hard question to
answer. It's sort of like if we had something that -- a witchcraft
shop, would you think that's okay, adjacent to a residential
neighborhood? I think this is akin to that kind of use, and that
that's not appropriate next to a residential neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern is in that area, as Vera mentioned,
we'd like to see them upgrade it. And I had discussions, I believe,
with Mr. Corradi when the drainage system was going in, and we
discussed a lot of the financial difficulty he's been having.
On the one hand, I am excited about having somebody coming in
that can give you revenue, that will see that building be improved.
But I would want to know specifically what those are.
Unfortunately, I can't tie that into this decision. I can't tie
those building improvements, per se, into this decision on the
conditional use. If it were a PUD or a new zoning, we might be able
to do that. So I --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, but if Mr. Corradi volunteered
some information on the record, unprompted by you, there wouldn't be a
problem with that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's true. Does this need four votes, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it does.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The problem I have and why I ask, I'm
not trying to be difficult, Commissioner Mac'Kie. Why I asked is I
don't particularly like the red palm sign down here, either. But
signage aside, if it is operating a business in Collier County
directly adjacent to a residential area now, and there has been no
record of problem, I'm looking for something to hang onto. If there's
an objection, I need something there finite to hold onto as to what
that objection is.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the best, the most tactful way I
can say it is, although there is a whole lot of innocent use of Tarot
and palm reading, and that kind of stuff, it also is tied to the
occult, and I don't think we want to encourage the occult to have a
place of business this close to a residential neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I tell you what. I would like to hear from
Mr. Corradi, if I haven't closed the public hearing at this point.
Mr. Corradi, I had asked some specific questions about upgrading
the property. Is there anything you can tell me about that? Because,
you know, the occult or not, my problem is we're trying to upscale
that area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nice shrubs outside the occult.
MR. CORRADI: I live in old Naples, and my goal is to take the
property and develop it one day. But, you know, one day -- it takes a
long time and it's not, you just can't do something overnight.
The property, as I bought it from the gentleman, he had two
vacancies sitting there for 20 years and they were rotted through the
floors, you know. I've gone in there and cleaned the building up,
painted it, and fixed the outside parking lot. I maintain the
property. I'm out there every single day.
There's also -- there's another center -- I can't think of the
name right now, which is next to the bowling alley -- that is also
spiritual and they have cards. There's lot of people that go there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know.
MR. CORRADI: Okay. You can get massage there, there's spiritual
books there. I understand what you're saying, and as a landlord, I
want that area to come up, too. There's -- at 105th, they've got 15,
20 people living in one house. That's as detrimental to the area as
anything.
But on my property specifically, I'm there every day. And in the
lease, too, just to state, in the lease, if this isn't run the way I
want to see it be run, they'll leave.
I mean, if you have concerns, I have concerns, too, and I'm not
going to let my property be ran down. It's a tenant that I have came
here and talked to the Sheriff, I've checked on their background.
They've been in business for 15 years here and have had no records of
doing anything but conducting their business in a proper manner. And
I did my background research on him and he seemed to be a very nice
guy and a nice family.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Corradi.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One of our speakers, Mr. Chairman,
mentioned that you wouldn't see this type of business down on 5th
Avenue. But actually, there are several businesses on 5th Avenue that
are involved in predicting the future. You have Smith-Barney, Legg
Mason.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Good. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to
approve, just to see where it goes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
Motion fails. Four affirmative votes needed on a conditional use
petition.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who voted against?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Myself and Commissioner Mac'Kie.
My concern, it's just a neighborhood concern that the aesthetics,
and so forth, are things that don't jibe with what is trying to be
done in that area.
I wish I could feel differently, Mr. Corradi, to be honest with
you.
I just don't.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just out of curiosity, you said there
are three units, the other two were in use now? MR. CORRADI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are those two uses? You need to
come up to the microphone, just for the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tony's Barber Shop, and the other one is --
MR. CORRADI: One's Tony's Barber Shop and the other one is
Corinne's Barber Shop. She operated at the Registry hotel for nine
years and just located her business there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. CORRADI: So you're denying it, I take it?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
MR. CORRADI: On it's not conducive to the area?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my personal opinion and then we have
the occult at the end. So, yes, sir.
Item #13A2
RES. 97-412 REGARDING PETITION NO. CU-97-18, WILLIAM L. HOOVER
REPRESENTING MR. W. CHRISTIAN BUSK REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE FOR
RETAIL PLANT NURSERY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD US-41
AND 500 FEET SOUTH OF THE COLLIER-LEE COUNTY LINE, IN SECTION 10 -
ADOPTED
Next item, 13.A(2), Petition CU 97-18. Bill Hoover
representing W. Christian Busk, contract purchaser, requesting
conditional use 21 of the ag. zoning district for retail plant
nursery.
This is also companion item 13.A(7), if I noted correctly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is another great looking necktie,
tOO .
MR. BELLOWS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, where are we on this?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the petitioner's requesting conditional use
21 of the agricultural district to allow for a retail plant nursery.
He's going to operate that in conjunction with a wholesale plant
nursery which is a permitted use in the agricultural district.
As you can see, it's located on the west side of Old 41 just
south of the Gadaleta PUD, which has a driving range, there's a lumber
shop here and the Arbor Lake Country Club.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Mr. Bellows. On this, again, it's
quasi-judicial. I need you, Mr. Hoover, members of the petitioner and
anyone to speak on this item to stand and raise your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in?
(All speakers sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We understand testimony given
already is under oath?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: The retail portion of the plant nursery will be 900
square feet, with a maximum square footage that it can expand to
11,500 square feet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, but
is there a downside to this?
MR. BELLOWS: Doesn't appear to be any. A variance is only for
lot area and lot width. It doesn't apply to setbacks. The buildings
conform with the setbacks.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You said variance; it's a conditional use?
MR. BELLOWS: There's two items, the companion item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We're dealing with item 13.A(2)?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I apologize. The downside is the site needs
a variance, but it's not for setbacks, it is for the lot area and lot
widths. The lot was created by a previous owner and they did not
follow the proper subdivision process.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's north and south of the lot right now?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Something called Arbor Lake.
MR. BELLOWS: The Gadaleta PUD to the north, to the south is
Arbor Lake, Old 41, and the Sterling Oaks subdivision to the west.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Mr. Hoover has
an extensive presentation, but if he'd be willing to waive that and
you'd be willing to close the public hearing, I'd be willing to make a
motion to approve the item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd be willing to second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, do we have any public speakers
on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have none.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing, recognizing a
motion and second. Is there discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(All respond aye.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: CU 97-18 is approved.
Item #13A7
RES. 97-413 REGARDING PETITION V-97-7, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, REPRESENTING
CHRISTIAN BUSK REQUESTING A 0.91 ACRE VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED LOT
AREA REQUIREMENT AND A 33 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH FOR
AGRICULTURALLY ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD US-41 AND
500 FEET SOUTH OF THE COLLIER/LEE COUNTY LINE IN SECTION 10 - ADOPTED
Let's do the companion, Petition V-97-7, which is a request
for a .91 acre variance and 33 foot variance as required on area and
lot width, respectively.
Tell you what, I'll take a chance on closing the public hearing,
because I might have a motion on this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion we approve Petition V-97-7.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wonderful.
Item #13A3
RES. 97-414 REGARDING PETITION NO. V-97-9, SUSAN HEBEL WATTS OF WCI
COHMUNITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING A 250 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIRED 1000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM FOR MULTI-FAMILY UNITS TO
750 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN PELICAN HARSH EAST, IN
SECTION 25 - ADOPTED
Next item, item 13.A(3), Petition V-97-9, Susan Watts of WCI
Communities requesting a 250 square foot variance from the required
minimum 1,000 square feet for multi-family units. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino for the record. You want to swear us
in?
Mr. Chairman, do you want to swear us in?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Thank you. Would all members of
the public and staff here to speak on this matter, please stand and
raise your right hand?
Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in?
(All speakers sworn.)
MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, the petition V-97-9, while it alleges to
be a petition asking for a 250 square foot reduction of the minimum
floor area for multi-family housing on a site specific parcel fronting
on the south side of Immokalee Road in the panhandle of the Pelican
Marsh area, while it alleges that, nevertheless, the resolution as
crafted would provide that the minimum floor area would be 806 square
feet for one-bedroom, one-bath units, and 911 square feet for
two-bedroom, one-bath units.
I merely point that out to indicate the significance of the
variance is not, in fact, the 250 feet, but 806. And I would
therefore advise that the resolution that has the number 250 be
changed to 800.
Mr. Chairman and members, in reviewing the criteria for
variances, I think it's important to point out that condition number
A, are there special circumstances, we think there are. And those
have to do with the fact that no development has occurred in Pelican
East. Therefore, no person's expectations can be abridged, there is
no investment made by private citizens in that area that would be
affected by changing the development regulations as they apply to the
Pelican Marsh area east.
Again, condition number B, it's important to point out that the
panhandle, or that portion of Pelican Marsh, is located in an area
that, in the opinion of staff, is similar to the variance that is
requested.
Immediately to the east --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, Mr.
Nino.
However, I don't know that I need you to go through each of these
items that are already answered in the record as part of the staff
report.
It appears that they have met the various hurdles that we asked.
And I don't know if Susan wants to come up and speak or if there are
other speakers here, but it seems like if it's as clear as the staff
report has it, then perhaps we can move right along.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have speakers other than the petitioner?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No speakers? Okay. So close the public
hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There are some benefits for waiting all day
for your item to be heard.
Item # 13A4
RES. 97-415 REGARDING PETITION NO. CU 97-20, VICTORIA CARR,
REPRESENTING HOUSE OF PRAYER OF THE LIVING GOD REQUESTING CONDITIONAL
USE TO ALLOW FOR A CHURCH AND CHURCH RELATED SERVICES TO BE LOCATED AT
619 NORTH NINTH STREET IN IMHOKALEE - ADOPTED
Petition CU 97-20 in 13.A(4), Victoria Cart representing House
of Prayer of the Living God, requesting conditional use 3 of the VR
zoning district in Immokalee, to allow for a church and church related
services.
Mr. Badamtchian, good to see you again so soon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Swear.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We will swear in Mr. Badamtchian. Would any
member of the public or petitioner's team here to speak on this item,
please stand and raise your right hand?
Madam Court Reporter?
(All speakers sworn.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from Planning Services.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Chahram, is anybody opposed to this?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In a great attempt not to say no to God, as
was referenced earlier --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- are there speakers on this item, Mr.
Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, there are none.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, does the Board have any questions
of staff?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The petition is granted.
Item #13A5
PETITION NO. SV-97-1, EVERGLADES PRIVATE AIRBOATS REPRESENTING CHC
HEARTHLANDS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SEC. 2.5.5.2.3.1 OF THE LDC.
WHICH ALLOWS A POLE SIGN FOR BUSINESSES WITH MORE THAN 150 FEET OF ROAD
FRONTAGE ON A SINGLE ROADWAY TO ALLOW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL POLE SIGNS FOR
A TOTAL OF THREE, FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US-41,
APPROXIMATELY 19 MILES EAST OF SR. 951 IN SECTIONS 26 & 27 - DENIED
Next, item 13.A(5), Petition SV 97-1, Everglades Private
Airboat Tours, representing CHC Hearthland, requesting a variance
regarding a pole sign, the dreaded pole sign. Mr. Badamtchian, nice to see you again.
Let's swear in Mr. Badamtchian and any members of the petitioner
here to speak on this item.
Madam Court Reporter?
(All speakers sworn.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from Planning Services
staff.
Ms. Tammy House is requesting a variance to the requirements of
one pole sign per business to three pole signs, asking for two
additional pole signs, for a total of three pole signs.
She operates airboat tours and they have a property which is two
miles long, and the speed limit on U.S. 41 being 60 miles an hour, in
her opinion that causes some traffic hazards, people driving 60 miles
an hour, and by the time they see her business, they have already
passed the entrance to that side.
Therefore, she's asking for two additional pole signs mounted on
airboats parked on the side of the road, like 85 feet from the road,
so people can see the sign and know that the business is there.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where are the signs that have been on airboats
in the past, sitting there without a permit?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have been there for I believe three years
and we asked them to be removed. That's why she's asking for this
variance, so she can put them back up. Planning Commission heard this
petition and by vote of three to two recommended approval.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a number of people that had
conflicts on that or what happened to the other four planning
commissioners?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Two of them they had conflicts of interest, and
one of them was absent.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Because this is on the Collier property
they abstained?
MS. HOUSE: -- Collier Enterprises, and the other was my sign
man.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. One was Mark Davis, the sign contractor.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, gee -- let me --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask one question?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Chahram, that was a close vote at
three-two. What was the reason the two opposed?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe the two who opposed, they felt it
would create sign pollution and allow this business to have more sign
than we allot to other businesses to have.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And of course, staff recommended denial.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Staff recommended denial; correct.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There is nothing prohibiting them from putting
their sign far enough up the road that says, slow down, you're about
to miss our entrance, is there?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. I mean, that's a sign, that's a business
sign.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm just saying if they're allowed one
sign, I mean, rather than three, allowing one sign in a more
appropriate location is a potential solution, instead of one on the
property and two further up the road.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: But Tim, if you think about which direction
you're going. I mean, you're going, you've got people, potential
customers, going two directions on that roadway. Now which side of
the entrance are you going to put one sign?
Okay? This is the dilemma. You're coming down this roadway at
60 miles an hour, if you're lucky, and by the time you see the
entrance, if you're going to hit the brakes and then turn in, it's a
problem. It's just a practical problem.
And I understand the sign pollution part of it and I'm sure Tammy
or Teresa would say the same thing. But the problem is, how do you
alert people that you do have an entrance coming up there, without
using some kind of signage? And one sign isn't going to cut it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem I have is, just down the road
there is also Weeks Airboat Tours. Now, they have a big billboard
that they rent, I guess, across the street. But if we permit this one
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and there we are with Weeks, one up the
road, one down the road.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And really, we need to no further --
MS. HOUSE: Can I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just a second, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we go through our own analysis,
you know, the ABC's Mr. Nino was going to go through on the last one,
maybe we need to on this.
Are there special conditions and circumstances existing? No. I
mean, this is no different than any other business, unfortunately.
Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not
result from the action of the applicant? No, not really.
Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work
unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? No.
I mean, we haven't had some radical change in code or in land use
out there forever, really. So we can keep going through the questions
item by item, but you could make those same arguments of some sort for
any business anywhere in the county.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In this particular instance, I would be
more inclined to grant a height variance for the sign so that you can
see it from a farther distance, than I would to grant extra signs.
We've had too many cases in the past where people have asked for
extra pole signs and we didn't do it, and we're going to have plenty
of them in the future, as well. And we need to be consistent on that.
Perhaps a bit more height as a variance on this particular sign,
since it's way out in the middle of the grasslands.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we then going to have Weeks and
the others come in?
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- okay.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and go to speakers. Yes,
ma'am.
MS. HOUSE: I'd like to comment. Number one, I'm Teresa House
from Everglades Private Airboat Tours.
Number one, I don't think you consider these pole signs, because
I believe a pole sign has to be eight feet above the baseline of the
road.
They are not; they are sitting in boats below the road. So
they're not actually pole signs; they would be ground signs.
They would be considered a directional sign, which is allowed for
in the Land Development Code of up to 12 square feet. The problem is,
we have a 150 foot right-of-way on the south side of the road there,
so it's not necessarily the height of the sign, it's how far away you
have to put it to be able to read it from the road.
And as far as my next door neighbor, if he's got a permit for
that sign that's up, he got a variance for it. And the billboard
across the street's not his.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you can obviously file a complaint on
him, if you like.
MS. HOUSE: I don't want to. I mean, I just would like to be --
and there's others on the highway.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, my point is, just because someone else
does it illegally doesn't make it right.
MS. HOUSE: Oh, I agree. But they are not pole signs, I would
not consider them. I would consider them ground signs --
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But then you're still you're asking for a
variance
MS. HOUSE: -- directional signs. So basically asking for a
variance just to make them a little larger, so you can read them from
150 feet, rather than place several directional signs which I might
could put one word each on and spread them out two miles.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, Mr. Badamtchian, if they are
directional signs or ground signs as opposed to pole signs, are they
legal?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The code allows directional signs 12 square
feet in area maximum.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And no limit on the number?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We allow usually two of them, one in each
direction. But the problem is the distance from the right-of-way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. I'd like to see those photographs.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a state right-of-way, I think.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Pardon me?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A state right-of-way?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes.
MS. HOUSE: Excuse me. Here's a picture of my existing sign.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, we can't have you speak unless you're on
the microphone, because the court reporter can't pick it up. Thank you.
MS. HOUSE: That is the sign that's existing in front of my
building now, which is the maximum allowed, 100 square feet, and
that's as close to the road as it can possibly be.
I also have some pictures at the Collier Seminole Boat Park that
also are doing exactly what I would like to do, saying that the
entrance is one mile and then three-tenths of a mile.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you leasing this property or do you own
it?
MS. HOUSE: Yes, I'm leasing it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How long have you been leasing the property?
MS. HOUSE: Five years. And those were my boats.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And you've been operating a business for most
of that time period?
MS. HOUSE: Yes. And those were my boats that had the signs in
them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can see this as a positive for
ecotourism, you know, if they can be done in good taste.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just, I mean --
MS. HOUSE: I believe Mr. Badamtchian has pictures of them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, you can make that argument
on any part, you go up and down 41 and say, you know, well, if we put
extra signage it's good for tourism or if KHart came in and wanted to
do something for their drugstore, you know, that would be good for the
retired folks, because they could find the pharmacy easier.
I mean, we could make excuses, but --
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Hold on just a minute. There may be
something else that doesn't currently come into play that may well
come into play in the future.
On November 12th, the State's going to be looking at the scenic
highway designation, and I don't know what effect this may have on all
of the signage out there. So the whole thing, I don't know if that
will preclude what the county does in terms of signage in that area, I
don't know. But on November 12th, that's going to be dealt with.
We should know shortly thereafter. There is no reason to think
that that will not be approved at this point in time. So I really
don't know how or what effect this is going to have.
But I don't know if you want to deal with this now or if you want
to hold off and see what happens, and have some research done as to
what the effect might be.
MS. HOUSE: The signs are mobile.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- approving either way.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'm just telling you. If you're not
aware this is coming up, it is coming.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just assuming, though, it would be
more limiting, certainly not more allowance.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's my point; that is my point. I mean,
I understand what she's saying, and the dilemma. But on the other
hand, I also know, and I'm not sure that she's aware of it, but -- MS. HOUSE: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wait a minute. We're not going to have a back
and forth here, okay. What I need you to do is, if you have further
comments to state on the record, if you would please go ahead and
present those and then we'll go to Board discussion, if anyone has
questions of you.
That way the court reporter doesn't go crazy on us.
MS. HOUSE: To answer the question about the scenic highway, I
sit on the committee, actually, so I am aware of the proceedings
there. These signs are mobile. I'm not looking to put the framework
into the ground.
They are sitting in boats, so if something like that happened and
they came through and said all of them have to go, then they have to
go. But at this point in time, there's probably five businesses in
that 14-mile stretch and the majority of them are allowed directional
signs.
Port of the Islands has nine that are 32 square feet each.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you mention -- you said that you
actually used airboats to put these up?
MS. HOUSE: Oh, yes. They're sitting in airboats. I believe we
have pictures.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see them.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- my point in asking that
question is that they are not simply directional signs. If they are
sitting in an airboat, they're very clearly trying to advertise.
MS. HOUSE: Well, it says, "Everglades Private AirBoat Tours,
next right."
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But I mean, you could have a
little sign that said that, or you know --
MS. HOUSE: Not to read from 150 feet. That's a long way.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the airboat itself goes way
beyond the 12 square feet that you're talking about for a directional
sign.
MS. HOUSE: Oh, well, let me clarify that. They're sitting in
airboat hulls. The airboat's not finished. It's just the actual
hull, so that we didn't put anything in the ground.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which I bet is still bigger than --
MS. HOUSE: No, you can't even see the boat.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 12 square feet.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can show us the photographs, though.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any other information on
this?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for Mr. Badamtchian.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll pass them.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, did you have a question?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is -- what would prevent the
petitioner from having directional signs within the right-of-way out
near the road, small directional signs?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have to get the right-of-way permits from
the State. Through the county, we do not allow directional signs on
the right-of-way for private businesses. We only allow for not for
profit organizations like churches, and things like that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the likelihood of the State granting
that permission?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't have the slightest idea. But I have
never seen a directional sign on any State road, so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we just saw a photo of one.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Collier Seminole, the state park.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The state park.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if there's no other
speakers, perhaps you'd close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any further questions for Ms. House
or for Mr. Badamtchian?
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion to deny
Petition SV 97-1. I appreciate what they're trying to do, but I just
don't know that we can make it, with any legally defensible reason,
give them what they are asking for.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I likewise am concerned with the application
beyond this decision. So motion --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second to deny. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Three-two under -- three-two motion to deny,
Mr. Weigel. That's not a clear win, because you need four affirmative
votes to approve. But do you just need a simple majority to deny?
MR. WEIGEL: There's -- I don't know, Margie may want to chime
in, but there's a couple ways. You can put a motion to approve that
fails, and then you miss your four vote requirement. But clearly, you
have nothing that passes at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if a majority votes to deny it,
very clearly --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A variance is just three votes; right?
MS. STUDENT: A variance is three votes.
MR. WEIGEL: That's what I'm thinking of, the first part of it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the majority votes to deny it, very
clearly, the majority is correct.
MR. WEIGEL: You got it; you got it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then we're fine. Then Petition SV-97-1
is denied.
Item #13A6
RES. 97-416 REGARDING PETITION NUMBER NUA-97-2, MR. ARTHUR C. QUINNELL,
REPRESENTING NAPLES LAND YACHT HARBOR, INC., REQUESTING A
NON-CONFORMING USE ALTERATION IN ORDER TO ALLOW UNIT OWNERS TO REPLACE
EXISTING NON-CONFORMING MOBILE HOME UNITS, AS NEEDED, IN CONFORHANCE
WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CODE AND SO AS NOT TO INCREASE THE
EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2801 PALM STREET IN
SECTION 11 - ADOPTED
Item 13.A(6), Petition NUA-97-2, Arthur Quinnell representing
Naples Land Yacht Harbor, requesting a non-conforming use alteration.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for the County Attorney
before we start. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I swear everyone in first?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let me ask that all members of staff
and the public that are going to speak on this, please stand and raise
your right hand.
Madam Court Reporter, please?
(All speakers were sworn.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, my parents live there. Do I
vote?
MR. WEIGEL: That's a good question, because --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got a written legal opinion from Mr.
Weigel last year because my dad lives in Countryside. I was required
to vote.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think I am required to vote then.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. And I was thinking of the previous opinion
that I provided, I still ask the same question, and that is, do you or
anyone, blood relation in your family, receive any remuneration or
private gain, personal private gain by virtue of the action to be
taken today?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They pay money to live there.
MR. WEIGEL: No. Well, I mean from the action that's taken
today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: I think the answer is no.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: So I would advise you that there would appear to be
no conflict, but thank you for asking. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Planning Services.
Petitioner is requesting a non-conforming use alteration in order to
allow unit owners to replace existing non-conforming mobile home units
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only way I can vote -- dare I
interrupt - to tell you that what this is, is if they have mobile
homes that are falling into disrepair, they would like to be able to
replace them with nice shiny new ones. We've seen this before and
approved them. I think it's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not looking for any additional
ones; we're just replacing the beat-up ones? MR. BELLOWS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And they're not going to extend beyond the
existing configuration? MR. BELLOWS: No.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I like those answers. Further questions of
staff?
Mr. Bellows, is there anything you feel you need to get on the
record?
MR. BELLOWS: Just that the Planning Commission approved it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anyone have questions of the
petitioner?
I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Quinnell, thank
you for spending the day with us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't charge them by the hour, now. You
were here all day.
Item #13A8
PETITION V-97-8, STEFANI LYN O'NEILL REPRESENTING HOWARD J. AND KAY L.
KRAPF REQUESTING A 17 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK OF 25
FEET TO 8 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1725 WINTERBERRY DRIVE -
PURSUANT TO THE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND THE OPINION OF
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THIS MATTER MUST BE REFERRED TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR MARCO ISLAND
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 13.A(8), note by the County Attorney,
"Pursuant to the Charter for the City of Marco Island and the opinion
of the Office of the County Attorney, this matter must be referred to
the City Council for Marco Island".
I don't believe we then are required to take any action on that;
is that correct, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We are to staff communications. Mr.
Weigel, anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Happy to be here finishing about eight minutes
prior to last week's long meeting.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I knew we were going to pay for the short one,
folks, it's just a question of when. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good answer.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do want you to know Bob and I met last week
and he wondered if I was concerned that he was not using this time to
update everyone as to what's going on. I told him he was using the
time exactly as the Board would hope --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We really like it.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- was to deal with timely and priority
issues, and we appreciate that.
Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Quick question. I don't want a lengthy
answer, just a yes or a no.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: When we transmitted our concern regarding
the committee on ethics to the school board and to the City Council,
have we gotten a response from either one of those bodies? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: We have a response from the City of Everglades only,
that I saw.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you make copies for all of us,
please?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's all I'm asking.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. We have not received any
from the City of Naples?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, or the school board.
MS. FILSON: Not that I saw, no,
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just had this in my file and I
wanted to include these as part of the record. They were letters for
that last item we discussed and should be included for the record.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The only item I have quickly today is
that tomorrow, is anyone taking bets on whether the headline will be
bashing of environmental groups or changing the path of Collier County
for the betterment? Anyone want to pick which one of those will be a
headline?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me think. Which will it be?
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All the reporters have gone home by
the time we get to the good things.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for your careful thought and
application on that growth issue. I think we can expect some good
things on that.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I tell you what. I
really commend you for bringing that issue forward, and Commissioner
Constantine, as well, especially the plan as you outlined it there, to
go ahead and try to not only limit the density, but try to guide the
density to certain locations.
I think that's admirable and I certainly would encourage you to
stick around and guide us through this process over the next few
years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go ahead and make that announcement any
time.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to have to change my speech now, but
thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm pleased we're doing it. It's
been a source of frustration, not aimed at anyone in particular, just
that the way government seems to work is awfully slow, and we've been
slow getting to this point. So I'm excited that we are actually at an
action phase at this point.
CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We can all say we were there and now we can
all say we are no longer there.
Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris, and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda
be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
FINAL PLAT OF "LONGSHORE LAKE, UNIT FOUR" - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 97-403, RE PETITION AV-97-018, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF
"STONEBRIDGE UNIT FOUR" A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF A PREVIOUSLY RECORDED
PLAT KNOWN AS SOUTHAMPTON UNIT ONE, AND AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A
PORTION OF TRACT GC9, OF A PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLAT OF SOUTHAMPTON UNIT
ONE - SUBJECT TO PERFORMANCE BOND, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 97-404, RE PETITION AV-07-012, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF
CARLTON LAKES TRACT G, A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF A PREVIOUSLY RECORDED
PLAT KNOWN AS CARLTON LAKES UNIT NO. 1, AND AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF
A PORTION OF A PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLAT OF CARLTON LAKES UNIT NO. 1 -
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 97-405, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER, AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "STONEBRIDGE UNIT
TWO"
Item #16A5
CONTRACT RENEWAL BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP), FOR THE CLEAN-UP OF PETROLEUM
CONTAMINATED SITES IN COLLIER COUNTY - A_MOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $454,289.05
Item #16A6
MODIFICATION TO COHMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.206 "WILLOW RUN
QUARRY" - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF SILVER LAKES PHASE TWO-D - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT,
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY
REGARDING THE GORDON RIVER EXTENSION BASIN STUDY
Item #1682
ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED FOR THE MARCO TRANSFER STATION FROM THE
DELTONA CORPORATION
Item #1683
ADJUSTMENTS TO WATER MANAGEMENT CAPITAL FUND 325, AND STAFF TO PROCESS
THE APPROPRIATE BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #1684
FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED; VENDORS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TO BE USED IN THE FY 1997-98 RECYCLING ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Item #1685
BUDGET AMENDMENT WITHIN THE UTILITIES OPERATING FUND (408) TO PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TWO (2) DUMP TRUCKS AND A BOOM MOWER
Item #1686
CONSENT ORDER WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Item #16C1
ADDENDUH III RELATIVE TO THE SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK PRESERVATION 2000
STATE GRANT AWARD
Item #16C2
AUTHORIZATION TO TERMINATE THE OCEAN STATE LEHONADE CONCESSION
AGREEMENT AT THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC FACILITY
Item #16C3
ENDORSEHENT OF THE GRANT PROPOSAL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COLLIER
COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NAPLES COHMUNITY HOSPITAL, COLLIER HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., AND THE MARION E. FETHER MEDICAL CENTER AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE LETTER OF INTENT FOR
FORWARDING TO TALLAHASSEE BY NOVEMBER 3, 1997
Item #16D1 - Deleted
Item #16D2
RFP 97-2688 FOR THE PURCHASE OF AMBULANCE BILLING SOFTWARE - AWARDED TO
SWEET COMPUTER SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,975.00
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD AND EXPENDITURE BUDGETS
FOR OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 1997 IN FISCAL YEAR
1998
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-503, 98-009 AND 98-024
Item #16E3
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND A
FORMER COUNTY EMPLOYEE
Item #16H1
EXPENDITURE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT
Item #16J1
BUDGET AMENDHENT WHICH INCREASES RESERVE FOR DEBT SERVICE AND GRANT
REVENUE TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR THEIR SHARE OF THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
REHABILITATION PROJECT
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:30 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
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
presented or as corrected
as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Dawn
Breehne, Debra DeLap and Kaye Gray, RPR