BCC Minutes 01/27/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 1998
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry
VICE-CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Timothy J. Constantine
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the
January 27th meeting of the Collier County Commission.
If you'll rise, please, for the invocation by Pastor James Honig
of Grace Lutheran Church and remain staining for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Pastor Honig?
PASTOR HONIG: We pray. Lord God, you have called your servants
to ventures of which we cannot see the ending by paths as yet
untrodden, through perils unknown. Give us faith to go out with good
courage, not knowing where we go, but only that your hand is leading
us and your love supporting us. By your grace, enable us to attain to
the highest standards of excellence and integrity. Through Christ our
Lord, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Pastor Honig.
Before we go into changes on the agenda, may I remind anyone who
has any item that they wish to speak to this morning, now is the time
to register for that item, not at the time that the item is being
heard. So, it just gives you a little time to get that taken care of
before we get to those various items.
Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda this morning.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. We have a number.
First is to add Item 8(B)(3), is to adopt a resolution for
architectural lighting on U.S. 41, Davis Boulevard to Airport Road.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Another addition to is add Item 8(B)(4). This is
selection of a project delivery method for the Naples and Immokalee
jails. This is in response to the board's request last week.
The third item is to add Item 8(C)(1) to amend Chapter 89-449 to
authorize previously prohibited acts in parks.
I would like to continue two items. The first is to be continued
to the February 3rd meeting. This is Item 16(C)(1), a grant of
easement to Florida Power and Light Company upon real property owned
by the Board of County Commissioners.
And also we'd like to ask to continue Item 16(E)(1) to no
specific date. This is a line item transfer request from Gulf Bay
Marine Management, Incorporated to Tarpon Fishing Tournament, Tourist
Development Funds, Special Events.
Madam Chairman, in addition, I have received two requests to
speak on an item that's on your consent agenda. This is Item
16(B)(2), which is the request to reimburse the chairman of the Harco
Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee for expenses to be
incurred in the performance of his duties.
We think the appropriate place, if the board wishes to hear this
item, is to -- let me see -- place this under 8(B) -- I guess it would
be (B)(5).
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. Well, since we have two
people here wishing to speak to that item, then we'll go ahead and add
it at that time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, 16(B)(2) becomes 8(B)(5); is that
correct?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Is there anything else, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have nothing today. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and consent
agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #4A
MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 1998 - REGULAR HEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Chairman, I would make a motion
that we approve the minutes of January 6th, 1998, regular meeting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
This morning it's my pleasure to present some service awards
for some people who have spent a good deal of time with Collier
County. And the awards we have with us this morning are for 15 years,
Gary Hamm. Gary is in the Road and Bridge Department.
Is Gary here this morning? There he is.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Congratulations, Gary. Thank you very much.
You have a pin and a certificate.
Do you want to shake hands with the rest of the board members?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd be honored. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And in the Information and Technology area,
we have Sharon Ardrey for ten years. Sharon.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Obviously started when she was 127
MS. ARDREY: I like you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A very young employee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And Barbara Johnson in Parks and Recreation,
ten years. Barbara.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And last, but not least today, Russ Mullet in
transportation for ten years.
(Applause.)
MR. MULLER: If I was a teacher, you couldn't fire me, right?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I couldn't fire you, no, but you're well
tenured now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's got on the right tie, too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Russ, it seems like 20.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a good start, Russ.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Twenty more to go. Thank you very much.
Item #8B2
RESOLUTION 98-22, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR
CONDEMNATION OF NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALK,
UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SIX-LANING IMPROVEMENTS FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD PROJECT FROM PINE
RIDGE ROAD TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 97-360
- ADOPTED
Hoving along then to Item 8(B)(2), adopting a resolution,
acquiring some rights of way. Airport-Pulling Road from Pine Ridge
Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Adolfo, this is going to be a very short
presentation this morning.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez,
Capital Projects Director.
As always, the reason we -- this is a regular agenda item is
because we're requesting by gift, purchase or condemnation and it's to
give the property owners their due process. It's to acquire the
easements necessary to build a sidewalk on the west side of Airport
Road and some intersection improvements at Orange Blossom and Airport
Road.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Are there any other questions? We do
have a motion and a second.
Hearing no other questions, I'll call for the question. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #883
RESOLUTION 98-23, FOR ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING ON U.S. 41 (DAVIS BLVD. TO
AIRPORT ROAD). - ADOPTED
Item 8(B)(3), resolution regarding architectural lighting on
U.S. 41 and Davis Boulevard.
Mr. Bobanick, good morning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to have a couple questions
on this.
MR. BOBANICK: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. BOBANICK: For the record, my name is Dave Bobanick. I'm
transportation director for Collier County.
Commissioners, this is a housekeeping issue. On January 6th, the
board approved a joint project agreement between Collier County and
FDOT. The FDOT requires a resolution be approved to accompany this
agreement, and staff is recommending that agreement or that resolution
be approved at this time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for clarification, the -- where
it reads under fiscal impact, this will be funded by a combination of
available reserves and surplus carried forward in the road districts.
I assume that's just the carryforward and reserves from the two
road districts, I imagine --
MR. BOBANICK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and not all road districts.
MR. BOBANICK: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any
other comments or questions?
I'll call for the question. All in favor?
Motion carried -- or opposed? I'm sorry.
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Moving on then to item --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's one way to expedite it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll tell you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have no dissension.
Item #8B4
SELECTION OF A PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD FOR THE NAPLES AND IMHOKALEE
JAILS - STAFF TO PURSUE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK OPTION
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item 8(B)(4) concerning the Naples and
Immokalee jails.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning again, commissioners. Adolfo
Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director.
Last Tuesday, you had asked staff to look at alternative methods
of providing the construction services and design services for the
Immokalee jail center. Since that direction, we have met with the
county administrator and the public works administrator and tried to
brainstorm as to some options that are available to you.
The chart that I just handed out, which I have more for the
audience available, iljustrates -- compares and contrasts three
different types of project delivery systems. One is what I'm calling
the Design-Bid-Build or our conventional method that will continue to
be the prominent procurement method for the county.
We know the method. We're comfortable with it. It works for
many different projects.
The middle one is Design-Build, which has been used in the past
successfully in the county, and the last column, the one to the right,
is Construction Management at Risk.
In the first column are some of the issues that are of importance
to consider when selecting one method over another method. I won't
read those to you there. I tried to give you as much factual
information as to the benefits, the pros, the cons of the three
methods.
Staff is recommending that you proceed with a Construction
Management at Risk approach for both the Immokalee jail and the Naples
jail as a multiproject, multiphase approach to getting all of the
correctional facilities capital improvement program completed.
The reason for that is -- there's several reasons. One is we
could apply what we learn during the Immokalee jail construction,
albeit it's a simple project, but we can apply that information to the
Naples jail project. If we set up a positive relationship,
contractually and informally with the construction manager and design
professional during the Immokalee jail, we can carry that forward to
the Naples jail, which is a much more complex project.
In other words, we're paying for the learning curb on the simpler
project and applying the successes on the more complicated project. I
would recommend that we -- you would consider a multiphase approach so
that if we don't have a positive relationship, we always have the
right -- you have the right to terminate that relationship and enter
into another relationship with another contractor, another design
professional.
What I would recommend to you is that we first secure the
services of a construction manager, the firm that will ultimately
construct and be responsible for the constructive facility. That
construction manager would then sit in on the selection committee with
county staff to select the design professional and they would work
hand in hand during the design process. The construction manager
would give them constructibility opinions during the design process so
that, hopefully, by the time we get to -- close to the end of the
design when the construction manager would give us a guaranteed
maximum price, there are no more unknowns. Everything is well thought
of.
The construction manager has given us his opinion during the
design process, so we hopefully would avoid any claims or change
orders or unforeseen conditions that may pop up during the
construction process.
Another good reason is that we may actually save time on the
overall schedule. On the conventional method, we design it, we bid it
and then we construct it. Three different time processes in there.
Under this method, we would hire one construction manager,
hopefully, and then we would hire the design professional and that's
it. We would do that just once for the entire process. So, we could
do the Immokalee jail and Naples jail expansions and Naples jail
renovation with the same contract and we'll save on that proposal
process. We'll also save on -- we won't have to go through the
bidding process.
The construction manager would use our process but that would
occur toward the end of the design process and we would save time. It
wouldn't be sequential. Some of those would run concurrent. So, we
should save overall time for that process.
That's some of the reasons why I would recommend that you would
consider a Construction Management at Risk. The concept of at risk is
that the construction manager actually holds the contracts with the
subcontractors and the trades.
About a year, year and a half ago, I interviewed Dave Lesansky,
the Collier County Public Schools Capital Projects Director, who at
that time -- and I don't think that their opinion has changed -- was
very pleased with some of their construction management projects that
they were doing.
For those same reasons, it's used throughout the state by
municipalities and public schools. It seems to work where there is
either a unique project or a multiphase project or we want to ensure
that we get the quality -- well, we get what we pay for throughout the
design and the construction process.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've worked with both kinds of situations
here, and I'll tell you the -- the latter is certainly much preferable
over the -- the first one that you have, the Design-Bid-Build, all
those kinds of things. The latter is certainly a much better working
situation.
One other thing I have a question about is in regard to the
design that you'll be working with, whatever is the best practice in
terms of jail construction from an operating standpoint because I
think that's kind of the critical area. Building is one thing but the
operation of it overall is -- is certainly a big thing, a big question
that I have.
Commissioner Hancock, I believe you had a question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Two. First, Adolfo, have we
utilized the Construction Management at Risk process in OCPM to date?
MR. GONZALEZ: No, sir, we haven't. I do know that several years
ago, the original jail was built under an agency construction
management process and that, from what I've been told, was not a
successful venture on our part or the construction manager's.
In that case we held the contracts with multiple parties and
there was -- it was a nightmare of coordination, as I am -- I've been
told on that. So, that's the difference between this one and the
construction management process we've used in the past.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's always a risk when you're asking
the board to go into uncharted territory a little bit, particularly
when you throw the word risk in there. You clarified it a little bit,
but the at risk (CM), we need to be more specific so that that -- so
the next thing we don't read in the papers is, you know, the -- the
board pursued an at-risk pad -- path to building a jail.
At risk basically refers to the fact that you bring the -- the
contract manager on board and that contract manager is then the one
who is responsible for the performance where they are not paid more or
less, because they're the individual, the point person at risk -- MR. GONZALEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if performance does not meet the stated
expectation and the -- and the bars that we set. Is that correct?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. That's why they hold the contract. They're
the ones that are at risk at meeting our performance standards, our
specifications, our design drawings other than us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that have a tendency to reduce
litigation and the county's involvement in -- in subsequent litigation
in a construction project?
MR. GONZALEZ: I can tell you I don't have any personal
experience with it, but the literature I've read indicates that, yes,
it's less litigious than the conventional approach because he's
involved during the design phase. He's paid a fixed fee during the
design phase, not a percentage of the total construction costs. So,
he is serving our interests during the design incorporating what he
thinks is a constructible project which ultimately should avoid
claims, prevent claims, during the construction projects.
As mentioned here, if there are any -- the -- his books are open
to us. At the end of the project, we would actually audit it and they
would get paid for the actual costs incurred plus some prenegotiated
fee for general overhead, profit, general conditions.
Any savings below the guaranteed maximum price would come back to
us, whereas the other two methods, they're taking the risk. They
don't know exactly what the specifications are like at the begin --
for instance, a Design-Build, and any savings would accrue to them.
It's -- it's part of doing business for them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you say that -- I just want to ask
one last question.
Would you say that because the complexity, not necessarily of the
Immokalee facility but of the Naples facility, that having a
construction manager is -- is, say, the difference between this and a
standard road project that OCPM can handle, is that really why we're
looking at this seriously, because of the complexity of the project?
MR. GONZALEZ: Certainly, the Naples jail project is a complex --
drawn out over several phases. There -- that is a very unique
project.
The difference between the construction management work that OCPM
provides, and this is that, again, someone is holding the contracts
for the county. When we -- we are more of an agency type of a
construction manager. We advise the operating departments as to what
their needs are and coordinate that, but ultimately the risk in that
case falls with us if we hold the contracts, whereas with the at-risk
construction manager, the construction manager is holding the
contract.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, one of the things we discussed
last week is the fact that I had had the experience of going through
this in Alachua County and we did discuss that experience. We used
the construction manager forum there and we did have litigation and I
think it helped the county's position in that litigation.
One of the mistakes I think we made there is that we didn't bring
the construction manager on board early enough prior to the hiring of
the architect and that -- that was one of the flaws that we had in our
-- in our approach.
In this case we're recommending that we start with the
construction manager and I think that's the way to go. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I definitely believe that the complexity of the
Naples jail is what really prompts us to look at this forum, although
that -- the complexity of the Immokalee jail probably wouldn't warrant
this -- this approach, but the fact that we have both projects
ultimately to address and, as Adolfo mentioned, the fact that we have
the ability to test their relationships and the -- experience the --
the structure of this approach with a smaller project gives us a
definite advantage to determine whether we want to continue this as we
move in a more complex project.
So, we had a very good discussion of the alternatives, and I -- I
feel very confident this is -- this is the most prudent approach for
us to take.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This construction manager can obviously be a
contractor. I mean, in many cases -- sometimes, it's not always, but
it -- many times now it's -- it is a -- whoever the contractor is acts
as the construction management part of it. They have that
designation. But it works -- it can work extremely well.
It doesn't mean it's a hundred percent but it's -- it works, I
think, very well.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't necessarily oppose the idea
but I've got to ask the question when -- when you use the school board
as the example between yourself and Mr. Conrecode, in your position
before you. The county has a pretty good track record of actually
managing even the complex problems on time and on budget.
It's not a criticism of the school board but that hasn't always
happened on their side despite using a manager. And I'm wondering,
can you explain to me the disparity there and just give me some
assurance that we're not going to see that by changing the formula
that seems to be working for us?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I can tell you about two of the projects.
Those were not --
MR. FERNANDEZ: It changed the scope.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was a different situation. It was not
the construction manager.
The ones -- the successful have been Gulf Coast High School.
That's construction management, and it has worked extremely well,
ahead of schedule. The school is ahead of schedule and it's -- it's
gone along very, very well. The others were the bid process. So,
that's the difference.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's -- the bid process does provide
for a certain disconnect and makes -- the focal point -- it makes the
county the focal point and sometimes you don't always have the
expertise as well as our folks in OCPH are talented. Sometimes you
don't always have the expertise to be that point man in certain
projects, so I appreciate the recognition that this project lends
itself to seeking that kind of outside construction management. I
think that's -- that's a worthwhile recognition. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Gonzalez, the question I have relates
to the cost overruns under the construction manager at-risk scenario.
If the construction manager has to absorb the cost overruns, then
he is naturally going to inflate or pad his original contract price.
Now, that's only normal because he doesn't get to share in the cost
savings if that's the way the project goes.
So, how -- in other relationships of this kind that -- that we
have seen locally, perhaps in Lee County or maybe with our local
school board, what is the -- do we have any way of knowing how much
the construction management firm, who would be adding to his contract
price in order to absorb those cost overruns?
MR. GONZALEZ: From the literature that I've read and some of the
people in the industry that I've spoken to, there are two ways that he
will minimize that contingency. There will be -- there will most
likely be a contingency within the guaranteed maximum price, but that
contingency will come after the plans, after the specifications are
defined, and would cover any unforeseen conditions you would find
during the construction of any normal project.
The difference between that and, let's say, the conventional
method is, with the Design-Bid-Build, the bidder is, assuming he
understands what the owner's intent is, and he's putting in his own
contingency, he's burying it in the price somewhere. We don't know
where that may be.
With the Design-Build method, the contingency may be less than,
let's say, the conventional method but still the constructor has to
crystal ball what the specifications are going to be since we won't
have a full design by the time he gives us a guaranteed maximum price.
So, the -- there will be a contingency in all three methods. I
would think that under the construction management approach, the
contingency would be the least amount and, again, that would be open
for us to look at, for us to determine whether it's reasonable,
acceptable so that we can account for any problems encountered during
the construction project.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, his actual contingency and his -- his
final guaranteed maximum price comes at a later point in the process
than through the other methods is what you're telling me.
MR. GONZALEZ: I understand that it can come as early as the
schematic plans. I think that's a little bit too premature and it
could come as late as a hundred percent plans.
I'm comfortable with requesting the construction manager to give
us a guaranteed maximum price after the design is completed, the final
design, somewhere between 70 and 90 percent plans --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then, too, after you --
MR. GONZALEZ: -- after 90 percent plans were --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- after you get that, you can go back. If
that's not what you had in mind pricewise, you can go back and go
through value engineering, you know, and -- and say, look, you need to
take another look at this. You're saying that you're going to use A,
B, C kind of -- for example, brick, and we think that that, you know,
maybe is a little more costly than what we had in mind.
What's an alternative to that that is going to give us the
quality that we want but is going to be a little less costly? And you
can do -- you can go through various items, and not that you do it
personally as a board, but they will go through and -- and look at all
those items and then come back and tell you where you can save some
money.
Originally it's kind of like, you know, you get all your ideas
out here on what you think you want and then you start putting prices
to it and if it's more than what you think it is, you say, no, I'm
sorry, that's not -- you know, I can't afford that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just like home.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's just like home but, you know, maybe we
can reduce this a little here and -- and use something that's the same
quality but it's -- it's a little less expensive.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a good analogy because some people
will be calling it home.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, we hope for not a very long period of
time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as it takes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As long as it takes, that's true.
Are there any further questions for Mr. Gonzalez?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there's no further questions or
discussion, I'd move the board give direction to pursue the third of
the three options, which is the at risk for the contract manager
option.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any
further comments?
I'll call the question. All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #8B5
REIMBURSE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHMENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES -
APPROVED
Item 8(B)(5), which is an item that was pulled off the consent
agenda because we have a couple of people who would like to speak to
this issue, and the issue is the reimbursement of the chairman of the
Marco Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee for expenses to be
incurred in performance of his duties. Who do we have, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the first speaker is George
Derbyshire.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: George had to leave. He had a doctor's
appointment.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh. Then the next is Harold Appel.
MR. APPEL: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm a director of the Glades Country Club
Association.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name, please, sir?
MR. APPEL: Harold Appel.
And we've been working for the last four years to do something
about Palm Drive, slowing down the traffic --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This -- this is not the same stuff --
MR. APPEL: -- to protect the pedestrians, the bike trail.
That's not --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, sir. That's not this item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not this --
MR. APPEL: That's not the subject. That's why I was questioning
it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: 16(B)(2) is what you asked for.
MR. APPEL: Well, then that was put down wrong.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 16(B)(5) is what he wants.
MR. APPEL: I'm sorry. It's my understanding we won't even have
to talk on that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The neighborhood traffic management?
MR. APPEL: Palm Drive.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case, I assume we don't have
anybody for 16(B)(2)?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we don't.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nobody --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve 16(B)(2).
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. Now --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five is already withdrawn.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pardon me?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know, but we have no -- we have no
speakers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if you'll look at the record,
we will -- we moved 16(B)(2) --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and approved that, so we're going to
have to take action on that and then amend the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- agenda if necessary. Is that --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm getting there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In a minute.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to go ahead and
approve Item 16(B)(2), which is the Marco Beach Renourishment Advisory
Committee expense.
Is that correct? All those in favor?
Motion carries five-zero.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I was informed by Mr. Appel that if the item has
in fact been approved as it has been as part of the consent agenda, he
has no need to speak --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- so the item has been taken care of.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Then we'll go ahead and continue
on with the agenda.
Item 8 -- I'm sorry. I think we've gone through all of that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 8(C)(1), I think.
Item #8C1
AMEND CHAPTER 89-449 TO AUTHORIZE PREVIOUSLY PROHIBITED ACTS IN PARKS -
STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ITEM #2 - REQUEST FOR
BONFIRES; AND ITEM #3 - REQUESTS FOR OTHER ANiMAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS
DOG SHOWS
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(C)(1), amend Chapter 89-449 to authorize
previously prohibited acts in the parks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That sounds a lot worse than it really is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I don't know what you have in mind, Mr.
Olliff, but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Some bonfires, some wedding receptions and
nice things. And we've talked about this before. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's just a clarification.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bonfires out, wedding receptions.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I make a motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if you were at the -- and you -- you
were at the legislative delegation. I saw you there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yep.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was some real concern by Senator
Dudley and others regarding alcohol and events and whatnot. And I
think Mr. Olliff was -- wanted to seek some clarification from the
board to be more specific on the legislation so we don't throw the
baby out with the bathwater in case somebody at the state level has a
problem.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess -- I'm sorry. Go ahead and make
it. You're right.
MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, the Public Services
Administrator.
I think the title is a lot worse than the item. What's actually
here before you is an item that you've seen before when it was
presented to the legislative delegation. I think the bill that was
revised was revised by the attorney's office and with the best of
intentions was trying to clean up a lot of other items in the state
legislation outside of just bonfires.
When we reviewed the actual statute language, we realized that
many of the park rules are there in a state statute, and in order to
change a local park rule, because it is a special act, requires action
of the legislature in order to actually amend a local park rule.
That's a bigger issue and we'll deal with that at the next
legislative session, but we wanted to bring to you three particular
items for consideration by the legislative delegation. And I
appreciate you adding it on, but they had a 30-day advertising
requirement which forced us to have it on this Tuesday's agenda in
order to meet the Tallahassee agenda.
The three items that were -- are left here for your consideration
are, one, that I think is easy and we can dispense quickly, which is
the bonfire issue, and that's the one that was directed by the board
and that is one of the amendments.
The second one is a request that would allow animal activities.
And if you would, I -- I think several of the park -- friends of the
park's groups have Royal Lipizzaner stallion type fund-raising
programs. We have had animal control provide pet shows in the parks
to try and enhance our adoption program. Those kind of special items
would be allowed in the parks under this -- this amendment.
And the third one, the only reason it is in front of you is -- is
an opportunity for the board to discuss the use of alcohol on a
special case-by-case basis in parks. And the reason it is here is
only because there are requests that come from the public on occasion.
The most recent one that I can recall was at the Golden Gate
Frontier Days when there was a request to set up -- and -- and I can't
recall which of the groups wanted to do it. It was either a Kiwanis,
a Rotary or a Jaycee type group wanted to set up a beer tent as part
of the organization's fund-raising efforts. They wanted to do it on a
far corner of a parking lot of the Golden Gate Community Center.
We couldn't allow that because it was on park property and we
currently have prohibitions against any alcohol within the parks. And
the board -- because this is a state statute, the board couldn't even
consider that should they wanted to have brought it to you. And the
only reason we're bringing it here is because there is a -- such a
limited window. If the board wants to consider it, this is the only
opportunity that you actually have.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't we already have alcohol at wedding
receptions at the Golden Gate Community Center, which is a park?
MR. OLLIFF: We have and it is a very odd situation because you
can have alcohol in one half of the building, you cannot have alcohol
in the other half of the building.
One half of the building was funded through an HSTU. That HSTU
portion specifically included the use of alcohol within that portion
of the building. That's the only building in the entire park system
that currently is allowed to have any alcohol use at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which I think is perhaps ridiculous. I
mean either we can or we can't have alcohol in some of these county
park -- you know, on a case-by-case approval basis.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd hate to take something away from the
Golden Gate Community Center, but I'm picturing like, say, Veterans'
Park, for example. It's a multiuse building and there's a -- picture
a daytime wedding reception with an overly nervous groom.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Been there?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I'm just speaking from, you know, a
third party here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hypothetically.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but because it's a multiuse
building, the activity is not necessarily contained just to that
party. It's -- you know, the building is open for other uses and
whatnot. The parking area is used by everyone, including the kids
going to the playground and whatnot. And it's the mixing of those
uses that I think creates the problem, not the uses themselves.
So, my concern is, yes, that we have an anomaly at the Golden
Gate Community Center that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, but
it's also based on some of liability because of the HSTU existence and
the fact that the -- the center is operated in part by funds from
residents of Golden Gate, they can choose to do that.
If we start doing it at county parks, my concern is just the
mixing of uses. And I'm not sure we want to -- want to go down that
road. And as much as I'd like to see somebody's wedding reception
have a, you know, glass of champagne for a toast, I think it's just
too difficult to enforce consistently.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, what would be the -- is the request
that it be allowed across the board or that on a case-by-case basis
you would be able to come -- would you have to come all the way to the
county commission to ask for permission or staff permission? How
would it be authorized?
MR. OLLIFF: The way the language is currently drafted is that
there would be policies and procedures that would be adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners and it would be put in place. It could
be authorized at a staff level but according to whatever policies or
procedures were established here at this level.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if it would change state
statute, we wouldn't have to change here. We could still keep the
prohibition if we wanted.
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it would give us the opportunity to
discuss it and maybe figure out something that would work --
MR. OLLIFF: Right. And -- and if you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- more generally.
MR. OLLIFF: If, as a policy basis, you wanted them to come to
this level on a case-by-case basis, it could be structured that way as
well.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we actually have an opportunity to
discuss it right here today and I certainly am not supportive of
making any change to our current county policy of not having alcohol
at any of our county properties, not just the parks properties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to provide the public an
opportunity -- I mean if we're going to close the door -- well, since
this was an add-on, nobody -- not that I'd know if anybody even cares,
but I hate to shut down a public discussion with an add-on item where
the public didn't know it was going to be discussed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What -- what has been the request? I mean
what -- how many requests do you get, can you say?
MR. OLLIFF: You won't get an overwhelming number. I -- I would
say over the course of a year, if we get 12, I think that would be a
big number generally because the policy is known countywide.
The only real request that we will get is for that particular
fund-raiser type event, which may be off grounds or outside, and the
occasional wedding reception. Most of our community centers have a --
a surprising amount of wedding activity and the receptions generally
come with requests for alcohol; champagne.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd be willing to discuss it in the future
which is why I have a motion on the floor in favor of it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I think Mr. Weigel had
something.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, as Tom has stated, really in regard to any
aspect of proposed amendments to the local special act, in regard --
and in particular in regard to the prohibition of alcohol or the sale
or use, consumption of alcohol in a county park, the idea of this
amendment is merely to make it a home rule policy decision as opposed
to a policy decision of the state legislature, which it is right now
in the act, nothing more than that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's just a good, general
Republican philosophy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It leaves a message.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's home rule.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anyone -- was that a second?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I -- I certainly supported the home rule
aspect. Whether I support, you know, the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- alcohol portion of this or not is -- you
know --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that's another matter, but as far as the
home rule part of it, definitely whenever you can make rules that we
can deal with here, I think that certainly is -- is a better situation
than having Tallahassee tell us what we need to do down here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree that you might -- I don't have a
problem with it being prohibited necessarily, so I -- I don't --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I don't see the advantage to the home
rule in this area, but I -- I can -- as we simplify and count to
three, but here's my concern. There was some concern expressed by at
least Senator Dudley and I don't know if -- I think Representative
Livingston even made a comment.
My concern is that if we include this, we don't want to lose the
bonfire issue, which is why we started this in the first place. So, I
would like to give the authority to our staff to monitor this and
should there be some resistance to the local delegation sponsoring
this because of the alcohol provision, I would rather see it pulled
and see the bonfires and the dog shows go ahead because I think
they're -- they're, you know, good ideas.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I amend my motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I can -- you know, I support home
rule but there's -- there's many, many, many instances --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: True.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- all three are outlawed where federal,
state and local agree and always will agree and just to -- to amend
the state law that -- that everyone agrees with just for the principle
of saying, well, now we can -- we can have home rule, I -- I don't see
the point in that.
We don't -- we don't have any objection to a federal law being
administered from a federal level for treason, for example, our state
law for -- for capital murder are those sort of instances, so why
would we object to a state law that prohibits alcohol in the parks
when we all agreed that that's what we want to do except for one?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm not sure if I agree. I haven't
-- I don't have a position yet. I'd like for the public to be able to
take -- make their say about whether or not alcohol should be allowed
in public parks, but the answer to that question is because we're
talking about local parks. We're not talking about federal treason.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I appreciate
the amendment. I'm not going to support the motion just because I
would rather have that debate before we ask the legislative
delegation. I'd rather put it on agenda and have the public tell us
what they do or don't want from their county parks before going to the
delegation.
So, I'm not trying to talk you out of it. That's why I'm not
going to support the motion but I do appreciate the amendment just the
same.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure, because that -- I don't want to lose
the bonfires. That is the most important thing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, are we cutting off our nose to spite
our face here? You know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're giving the staff the authority to
ask if there can be delegation support for the bill as proposed and,
if there's not, then to withdraw the alcohol provision and propose
only dog shows and bonfires.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why can't we do that today? I don't
understand why we can't do that today, just say --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we do the bonfire portion of this?
MR. OLLIFF: Oh, absolutely. You can do --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, pick -- you know, you don't have to
do it on --
MR. OLLIFF: One out of three, two out of three or none of three.
It's completely --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can on --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go with two and three.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's -- that's my
preference. I just -- I thought I heard three people supporting at
least moving ahead on the alcohol side to give us that choice later
on. I understand you're not making the decision today, but that's why
I suggested the amendment.
It would be my preference to just proceed with items two and
three as a request. I think that would breeze through the legislature
__
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure.
COHMISSION HANCOCK: -- without a problem.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't have a problem because you make a
good point about having the public discussion before we go to the
legislature.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I think so. I think so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case, I'll offer a substitute
motion --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that we authorize staff to proceed with
the amendment to Chapter 89.449 for items two and three on Page 1 of
the executive summary.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
Do we have -- obviously don't have any speakers on this, I'm
sure.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
Item #8El
FINAL RANKING OF PROPOSALS AS RECOHMENDED BY THE SELECTION COHMITTEE
AND INSTALLATION AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED MEDIA SYSTEMS FOR
INSTALLATION AND TRAINING FOR THE BOARDROOM AUDIO/VISUAL AND BROADCAST
REPLAY SYSTEM, RFP #97-2758 - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to Item 8(E)(1), approval
of ranking of proposals and installation agreement with Consolidated
Media Systems. Miss Herritt.
MS. HERRITT: Good morning. For the record, Jean Herritt,
Franchise Administration.
Presented to you today for your consideration is a contract
between the county and Consolidated Media, Incorporated. This
agreement is for the installation of equipment in the boardroom that
will provide an integrated media system that will allow for an easy
exchange of information in the room promoting presentations of
documents, charts, maps and other materials relating to agenda items,
whether they be printed materials or on computer file.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Herritt, if I may be so rude as to
interrupt, has the whole board seen this, because I was very impressed
with what your department put together and the work that you put into
it. I think the public has been asking for more clarity and more
visibility for exhibits and whatnot, particularly through the
television, and I think you've met that on a shoestring budget and I'm
very pleased with it and would be pleased to move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just an additional endorsement, what a
-- what a thrill. When you and I came on the board, there was a
regular agenda item to spend this money out of general revenue funds
to do this and we -- we, as a board, turned that down.
And Miss Merritt was successful in getting this funded, you know,
without taxpayer money by having the media companies pay for it
essentially. So, wonderful work.
MS. MERRITT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For the public, one of the things that this
is going to mean to you is that many of the documents that we are
handed when individuals come up here and present things to us, many of
those documents will now -- you'll be able to see them as well.
They'll be on big monitors that will monitor -- will be placed up here
on either side and the public will now have the access to see the same
information that we're looking at. So, I -- I think that that's going
to be beneficial to the general public as well as to us.
I think we have a motion and a second. Do we have any speakers
on this issue?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nothing? I'll call for the question. All in
favor?
Motion carries -- oh, opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
MS. MERRITT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine is not saying
anything so I'm not sure if he's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a mumble.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't believe A1 Perkins isn't here for
this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure he'll be --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you bemoaning that fact?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just -- hi, A1. We did it.
Item #10A
LETTER SUPPORTING THE OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ADOPTED BY
THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The next item on the agenda, Item
10(A), the overall economic development program proposed by the
Regional Planning Council. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you like to talk about your item?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Will you talk us out of this, Madam
Chairman?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd be glad to give you just a brief
summary. It just -- the Regional Planning Council has done some work
for us. They've applied for a blanket approval of grants and we can
piggyback on their grant application by simply writing a letter
stating that we do, and that's all this item is.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fantastic.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any -- I'm sure we don't have any
speakers on this issue. I think I have a motion and a second.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
We are now to the public comment portion of our agenda.
Do we have any speakers, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no speakers registered for this section.
Item #12B1
RESOLUTION 98-24 GRANTING EXTENSION OF SIX MONTHS, REGARDING PETITION
R-97-8, COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "A" AGRICULTURAL FOR THE VENCENTIAN
RESIDENCE PUD LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST -ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers. Then we will move on into
the public hearing section of our agenda and we will open the first
public hearing for Petition R-97-8.
Any of the people who are planning to speak to this issue, if you
would rise and be sworn in by our court reporter?
(The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.)
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from Planning Services.
This is a county initiated fezone. The Vencentian PUD located on
East Trail consist of 30 acres owned by the Diocese of Venice and it
is zoned for churches and private schools and community facility types
development.
This PUD was approved in 1985, still vacant in 1997. Pursuant to
the sunsetting provisions of the Land Development Code, the board has
reviewed this and recommended that the applicant amend the PUD within
six month. They have failed to do that.
Staff recommended -- originally recommended to the planning
commission that the property be rezoned to agricultural, to its
original zoning; however, at the planning commission, Mr. Greg Stewart
representing the church requested a six-month delay.
They are planning to fezone the PUD; however, for some reason,
they did not pay attention to the letters we sent them and they just
filed them without really reading what was going on.
And staff recommends that the board table this petition for six
months, allowing enough time for them to fezone. They have come
before the board for a preapplication meeting and they are actively
working on rezoning their property.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is on a smaller scale than the R and
D that we looked at, but I have the same -- same comment since the
representative of the property owner is here.
As far as I'm concerned, this board today has within its legal
right to take this back to agricultural zoning. So, when something
does come in in the form of a fezone within the next six months, we're
going to be comparing that versus what could be done on the property
today as opposed to -- you know, I don't -- there's -- sometimes
there's a scare tactic where you say, well, well, we could do this so
this is much better.
I don't want to really see that in the next six months. I'd just
like to look at it on its merits compared to ag zoning, which it could
be after today's action, so I'm happy to continue it for six months
but I just don't want to see the -- the bait and switch, no malice
intended in that statement, but it's occurred before so I just want to
issue that as a caution if you -- if I may.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my only comment is to our staff and
Vince that we could probably write these letters in plain English a
little -- you know, maybe some bold statement, you know, please pay
attention to this because your property may be down zoned unless you
acted quickly or, you know, something, because thank God everybody who
receives one of those letters is not a lawyer who can speak legally.
So, you know, we should -- we should address that so that people
understand what they're getting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, maybe we should put maybe you may have
won a million dollars at the top and that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Something like that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- will get them to the next line.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You may have lost a million dollars if you
don't apply for a fezone, but something in plain language.
I hope you respond to, you know, revise that accordingly, but I
agree. I don't have a problem with the delay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Chairman, I have had no contact on
this item. I'll base my decision on what I hear in this hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've had no contact.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've had no contact as well on this item.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disclose no contact.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Identical disclosure, no contact on the
item.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could we hear from Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No disclosure is necessary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless there -- unless there is nothing.
I don't see any reason why I can't just make a motion for a
six-month extension.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's one reason.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the public hearing hasn't been
closed.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. The public hearing --
MR. STEWART: Greg Stewart for the record, Madam Chairman, fellow
commissioners, representing the Diocese of Venice. If you do have any
questions, I'm here to address them. Clearly, we will be able to get
this revised PUD in within a six-month period and go forward with the
project.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll now close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I will make a motion that we extend for
six months.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in
favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Thank you, Mr. Badamtchian.
Item #1283
ORDINANCE 98-7, REGARDING PETITION R-97-9, ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE,
HONTES AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING ADAM FUEREDI REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM "C-3" TO "C-3" FOR PROPERTY ON LOTS 2-7 AND 81-86,
PINELAND-ON-THE-TRAIL IN SEC. 13, T50S, R25E, CONSISTING OF 2.5 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED
Moving on then to Item 12(B)(3), Petition R-97-9. This is a
request of a fezone for Dr. Fueredi out on the East Trail, I believe.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Bellows, good morning.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray Bellows,
Principal Planner with Current Planning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll open the public hearing, by the way.
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Swear in the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Swear?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, do we need to -- is there anyone here to
speak to this item? Yes, I do.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no -- nobody registered.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, Mr. Duane, I hope.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Duane is here to speak.
MR. DUANE: If necessary.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If necessary? You need to be sworn in just
in case.
(The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I'd like to disclose that I have had
contact from the petitioner.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I spoke with Mr. Duane on this regard,
too.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Identical, same disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. The intent of the -- of this
application is to amend the ordinance that was first adopted creating
the C-3 zoning district under the commercial zoning criteria.
Basically, the intent is to allow a secondary access onto Outer
Drive. There are five other commercial uses existing along this road
that have a secondary access out on Outer Drive.
The transportation department doesn't have a problem with the
secondary access onto Outer Drive but they wanted a clause put in that
if at such time the proposed medical office use reverted to retail
use, that that secondary access be converted into an emergency access.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that one consideration, would
this qualify as a no-brainer?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. And -- and I'd also like to add that
in the East Naples sort of redevelopment discussions, both at the
Gateway Triangle and the Bay Shore group, the need for medical office
space in East Naples has been widely discussed so I think this is real
positive.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this thing?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None registered.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We'll close the public hearing.
Do I have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero.
Item #1284
ORDINANCE 98-8, REGARDING PETITION PUD-91-11(1) RICHARD HENDERLONG
REPRESENTING KENSINGTON PARK TRUST REQUESTING TO REPEAL THE CURRENT
KENSINGTON PARK PUD MASTER PLAN AND TO ADOPT A NEW PUD AND MASTER PLAN
WITHOUT ESSENTIALLY CHANGING THE LAND USE STRATEGY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
The next item is 12(B), Petition PUD-91-11. It has to do with
the Kensington Park area.
I would like to open the public hearing. I will also disclose
that I have had contact from both sides of this issue.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As have I, but I will base my decision on
the information presented in this hearing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a brief conversation with Kevin
Coleman about this, about five minutes. That's the only discussion
I've had with anybody.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have had contact on this but I'll
base my decision as required by law.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've met with the petitioner and received
phone calls on this matter. I'll base my decision on the information
presented.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: Good morning. I'm Susan Murray with the Planning
Services Department.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, we need to swear in --
MS. HURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- all individuals that may be speaking to
this issue. Would you please rise and be sworn in by the court
reporter?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's everybody who may want to speak.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's everybody that's here to speak on this
issue.
(The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.)
MS. HURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray, Planning Services
Department.
The applicant is requesting to repeal the current Kensington Park
PUD document and master plan in order to generally first update the
plan to current formatting policy and references.
Second, the applicant wishes to add .98 acres of land on the
south side of the existing maintenance site facility, rezoning this
additional property from agriculture to PUD and incorporating it into
the existing Kensington Park PUD.
Third, the applicant would like to amend the language in the PUD
document to permit multifamily land uses along the southern project
boundary, whereas the current PUD document requires single family land
uses.
Fourth, they'd like to remove language requiring an interconnect
with the adjacent property to the west upon the development of the
525th dwelling unit.
Fifth, they would like to amend the PUD master plan to move the
portion of the Kensington High Street -- excuse me -- right-of-way
along the southern project boundary further south, replacing an area
which is currently designated for single family land use with a
60-foot wide Kensington High Street right-of-way, and to increase the
currently required ten-foot landscape buffer to 20 feet adjacent and
parallel to the existing Grey Oaks PUD 40-foot wide landscape buffer.
And, last, they'd like to remove the western fire access easement
from the master plan.
I would like you to note that within the entire proposed
amendment, there is no proposed increase in the maximum number of
permitted dwelling units, which is 600. There is no proposed increase
in the previously approved density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre.
Also, note that there is a proposed change to the development
standards in order to clarify the maximum allowable height of
multifamily structures to 35 feet from the currently permitted three
stories and to allow single family residential dwelling units to be
constructed at a maximum height of 35 feet from the presently allowed
30 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have some questions about that
three-story 35-feet thing.
What -- what's the variation that could be ascribed to three
stories? I mean that could go from as low as to as high as how many
feet? What does that mean in planning lingo?
MS. MURRAY: That's exactly why we're clarifying that in this
amendment, because the Land Development Code does not define how big a
story is. I think it's generally acceptable that it's about ten feet
__
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty plus ceiling.
MS. MURRAY: -- but that's not defined in the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I mean, that's what I was
trying to figure out --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's a standard --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what's the range.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's a standard unit without a picture,
if you're looking at 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean a flat roof. And we don't do flat
roofs '-
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- anymore. So, you're adding it -- it's
going to be minimum 40 feet if you do three stories with any type of a
pitched roof at all. If you do vaulted ceilings in any of the units,
then you go up by that. So, you're probably looking at a minimum
reduction of five feet to a maximum reduction of realistically 15
feet.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. That's -- that's exactly what I was
looking for. Thanks.
MS. HURRAY: Okay. Two issues that may warrant further
clarification and generate further discussion or just the two I want
to touch on, first being the addition of the .98 acres to the PUD, it
is the desire of the applicant to expand the existing maintenance
facility 110 feet to the south, which necessitates the need for the
additional land area.
Staff's analysis shows that the addition of the .98 acres and
subsequent rezoning from agricultural to PUD will not have a negative
impact on, nor will it increase impacts related to traffic utilities
or density of development.
The second major requested change is related to the proposed
language allowing multifamily residential development along the
southern boundary of the PUD. Staff supports the proposed language
change to allow multifamily residential development at this southern
boundary for the following reasons: First, that single family and
multifamily land uses are residential in nature and are generally
deemed compatible; second, that lands in this area of the subject site
are undeveloped, thus no impact to any existing structures on-site
will occur; third, and I would mention or reference a graphic that you
have in your packet that might help you to picture what I'm going to
describe and that is that the northern boundary of the Grey Oaks PUD
is platted for and partially developed with single family residential
structures.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have a page?
MS. MURRAY: Six.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Six, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Six?
MS. MURRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got a couple of graphs.
I'm sorry I interrupted you.
MS. MURRAY: No problem.
Along the Grey Oaks PUD boundary, there's a 40-foot wide
landscape buffer, which consists of a densely landscaped berm. And
based on the proposed relocation of the Kensington High Street
right-of-way, if you add the existing 40-foot wide Grey Oaks buffer,
then the proposed 20-foot wide Kensington Park PUD buffer, then the
60-foot right-of-way and the required building setbacks, there's at
least 150 feet of separation between the closest single family
dwelling units in Grey Oaks and the proposed multifamily development
in Kensington.
At the January 8th, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting, the Collier
County Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners by a vote of five to one to approve PUD 91-11-1, except
the proposal to amend the language of the PUD allowing single family
development along the southern boundary of the Kensington Park PUD for
which they voted unanimously not to approve.
I would note that the Planning Commission's recommendation was
primarily based on concern over a commitment that was made at the
original adoption of the Kensington Park peach -- PUD which ensured
single family residential land uses at the southern boundary of the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question about the graphic?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to wait until she's done with
her presentation.
MS. MURRAY: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the -- the graphic that you referred us
to, Page 6 of our packet, I just want to be sure I understand what's
on the right, of course, is Grey Oaks in which you're showing there is
two stories but I'm getting old and I don't have my bifocals. I can't
read what it says. Is that -- that's single family.
MS. HURRAY: Single family detached.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what you're showing is a two-story
house. Is that typical in Grey Oaks? Are they building two-story
houses? I'm sorry. I don't know.
MS. HURRAY: Oh, in Kensington?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. What I mean is, is that a fair
graphic or should it be a one-story house on the Gray Oaks side and a
two-story --
MS. HURRAY: It's fair, very fair.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you think it is fair --
MS. HURRAY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- because they're building two stories
over there?
MS. HURRAY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I just wanted to know. I'll bet
I'll hear from other people --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- if they disagree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Hurray, the -- on the issues of
compatibility, which is really what we're dealing with here, would you
say that low density, single family, and low density, multifamily are
compatible adjacent uses?
MS. HURRAY: I would. And if you look at the Land Development
Code, the minimum landscape buffer that's required between those two
uses and -- and that even incorporates what I would consider high
density multifamily. It's 16 dwelling units per acre. It's a minimum
of a 15-foot landscape buffer, 80 percent opacity at one year,
six-foot trees planted at the time of planting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, this '-
MS. MURRAY: This far exceeds --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Standard code?
MS. MURRAY: -- standard code.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was trying to get at.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I'm -- based on this graphic, as I
understand it correctly, if I'm standing at my property line in Grey
Oaks, which I see there are one, two, three, four, five lots that
actually abut up against or very near the Kensington property line; is
that right?
MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I'm standing in my backyard, what
currently can be built, I'd have to get a ladder to see what's on the
other side of that hedge.
What's being proposed, I'd have to get a taller ladder to see
what's on the other side of that hedge. Is that a fair assessment?
MS. MURRAY: It's a fair assessment. In my opinion, yes, it is.
It's -- it's a very -- it's landscaped with ficus trees and hedges and
the berm ranges in height from, I'd say, upwards of ten feet in those
areas.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The visual impact for what's being
proposed appears to be less than over what currently is permitted. MS. MURRAY: I would agree with that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And farther away at the same time.
MS. MURRAY: And farther away.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I wanted to -- you know, Miss
Murray did all the staff report and I just wanted to get her opinions
and thoughts on that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And is that based on sight line? You
know, can you -- could you -- or is there a graphic in here of those
sight line drawings so we could see -- I'd like to know what can be
seen from the Grey Oaks side.
MS. MURRAY: It really depends on what lot you're on. Three of
the lots that are closest, you're actually -- they're actually the
side property lines that would be facing the -- the northern boundary
of Grey Oaks and southern boundary of Kensington Park PUD.
If you could go further west --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, tell me, on those three lots, would
you be able to see a structure at Kensington under the new proposal
from those three?
Is it too hard a question? I don't know.
MS. MURRAY: No. I don't want to say never. I suppose if you
stood on your roof, you could probably see it. If you directed your
views from the -- your side -- the side structure of your house --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From your second story window.
MS. MURRAY: On a second story, perhaps, you could. I really
don't feel like I'm qualified to answer that. It really depends on
how the buildings are built and structured and we just don't have that
much information. Those lots are currently undeveloped in Grey Oaks
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The immediately adjacent lots --
MS. MURRAY: -- and Kensington, so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- are currently undeveloped with the
exception of one if I -- if I'm correct.
MS. MURRAY: The -- I would say the third closest one and I can
point it out on the map if you'd like.
It would be on Silverleaf Lane. It's Lot 109 and 108. Actually,
it appears that these lots were combined and a single family structure
was actually built on 109 and 108 just functions as a side yard, so
there's quite a bit of distance even there but lots --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are combined lots for a single
family?
MS. MURRAY: It appears to be, yes. When I went out on-site, the
-- there was a single family residential unit on lot -- what appeared
to be Lot 109 and then Lot 108 appeared to function as their side
yard. They had quite a bit of citrus trees and landscaping planted
and it integrated in with the single family residential unit.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that a single story home or a two-story
home?
MS. MURRAY: Testing my memory. I think it's a two-story home.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, apparently it's a one-story home.
MS. MURRAY: Sure. It's the people that live there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It had to be one or the other probably.
MS. MURRAY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The more relevant question would be
how tall or how large --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the building is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm real interested in the answer to
the question and then I respect you for not answering it if it's
outside your scope of ability or, you know, expertise but that -- that
sight line question, I guess, is a real important one for me if
there's somebody who can answer it.
MS. MURRAY: Perhaps the applicant could clarify that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks.
MR. COLEMAN: Madam Chairman, we have graphics that will --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself.
MR. COLEMAN: For the record, Kevin Coleman, representing the
petitioner.
We have graphics that I'm going to take you through piece by
piece that will actually physically take you and show you computer
generated graphics and exactly what's there that I think that will
answer all those questions for you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. COLEMAN: Do I make my presentation now?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Miss Murray, are you finished?
MS. MURRAY: I'm done.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Coleman.
MR. COLEMAN: Thank you. Madam Chairman, for the record, Kevin
Coleman of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing the Petitioner
Dudley Goodlette, trustee, on behalf of Kensington Park.
What I'd like to do, Madam Chairman, if it's okay with you, is we
have a considerable project team and rather than having each one of
them come up and make a long presentation given where we are with the
public involvement, I'd like to make a presentation of approximately
ten minutes in length, go through some graphics and if you have
specific questions, you can ask my representatives. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine.
MR. COLEMAN: In that regard, I'd like to submit for the record
-- yeah, give me one second -- I'd like to submit for the record a
booklet we've prepared listing these exhibits and we've got some
larger drawings of those.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Since we have copies in these books, would
it be useful for those to be viewed by the public? Just an idea.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: After our new technology advances, that
could happen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That could happen, okay. Please.
MR. COLEMAN: I'd like to compliment staff. I think Miss Murray
has fairly depicted what we're asking here.
And I'd like to introduce the team just so you know who's here
for purposes of your questions. There's Mr. John Asher from Coastal
Engineering who's responsible for the project's engineering facets.
There's Mr. Ray Pezeshkan of Architectural Network for planning
and design. There's Mr. Richard Henderlong from Kensington Golf and
Country Club also for planning and real estate development, Mr. Rick
Armalavage of Armalavage and Associates for appraisal marketing and
economic analysis. There's Michael Elgin and Jack Liebet from J.
Roland Liebet, P.A. for landscape architect and buffering and there's
Michael Vranek of Kensington for sales marketing.
A brief overview of this PUD, I think, would be helpful.
Kensington was approved in 1992 and has never been amended. This is
the first time we've come before you for an amendment.
Kensington consists of 369 acres. The overall density of the
project is 600 units or approximately 1.6 dwelling units per acre. Of
those 600 units, 379 of them have either been constructed, platted or
approved to date, which leaves 221 available units which are located
primarily along the southern quadrant here of Kensington. And that's
what we're talking about.
If you look at Tab 1 in your books, it's a smaller version of
this graphic here called the Existing PUD Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you guys just creative in your
spelling of golf course or is that a typo? Sorry. I'm an old English
teacher. C-e? Never mind.
MR. COLEMAN: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. Apology.
MR. COLEMAN: Minus one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Minus one.
MR. COLEMAN: Our existing PUD, as shown on our master plan, this
is what we could do right now under the county's PUD without any
additional approval from the Board of County Commissioners other than
platting. We could do this at the site development plan process.
As you will see, along the southern boundary, we have 46 single
family residences of 65 -- 60-wide lots by 150 feet in depth. And
that's what we're constructing in Kensington already.
And, Commissioner Mac'Kie, to answer your question, I'll show you
a drawing or a -- a description later. We have two-story structures
on 65-wide lots right now.
Those single family structures may be two stories in height.
That's permitted right now. The multifamily lying just to the north
of the single family and across from High Street, those are up to
three stories in height as you've heard, and there's no height
limitation. They could be 45, 50 feet depending on the architectural
design we're imposing. Again, this also is permitted without BCC
approval other than the site development plan process.
The setbacks for the property, the minimum landscaping
requirements on the southern border along Grey Oaks is a ten-foot
landscaping buffer and then the single family picks it up with a
15-foot rear yard setback if you had a pool cage. And that setback
could include the landscape buffer. So, you literally could have a
pool cage 15 feet from our southern property line on the single family
site. I think that's very important to remember.
The multifamily structures, the setback is approximately 185 feet
from the rear property line, those three-story multifamily structures.
Our petition that Miss Murray outlined to you, and I think
staff's done a good job of explaining to you the project, there's
really two primary components. One is to add an acre to the east
boundary of the property to expand the golf course facility.
That's the portion of the petition. It's really
noncontroversial. The Planning Commission has approved that. That
property is zoned agricultural and I think it's a fairly
noncontroversial point.
The more important thing is what we're doing down here with the
second boundary. We plan on locating the internal street of
Kensington closer to the property line, bringing it down, eliminating
the requirement to construct single family and basically locating the
multifamily closer to the property line. There's no question about
that.
If you look at Tab 2 of your books, it shows what our proposed
plan is. Go through some of the additional requirements we're
consenting to on Tab 2. We're going to add a 20-foot landscaping
buffer on the southern property line and a berm. We're going to move
the road and buffers closer to the south and we're going to increase
the minimum setback for any unit then from the property line to the
first multifamily structure, now would be 105 feet. It used to be 15
feet. Now it's 105 feet.
We're also going to commit or agree that the height for the
multifamily structures will be reduced from three stories to two
stories in height, which is what we can build again for the single
family right now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I'm reading '-
I'm looking at this properly. It appears that instead of 46 units on
that border, you'll now have about eight?
MR. COLEMAN: Actually, Commissioner Constantine, to the south of
the road we'll have none.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. COLEMAN: To the north of the road we'll have -- those are --
those aren't necessarily units. Those are multifamily structures.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: Okay?
We're also agreeing to density reduction for the overall project
of 30 units which effectuates a five percent over all property,
decrease in density. So, from 221 units, we're going to go down to
191 units on this southern pod. We agree to this site plan.
Now, let me say this. That site plan has not been engineered, so
there will be some minor tweaking in terms of location of buildings,
but we will agree to the number of buildings, the number of units, the
setbacks, the buffering and the single family set aside for Tract B as
you see in the middle that this site plan shows.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tract B, that is the tract that is -- or
the section of your property nearest a single family lot? Is that
correct? Other than the one on the -- there's one on the corner over
here that's real close.
MR. COLEMAN: Let me show you -- which is known as Tab 3 in your
books. Let me show you, which, I think, was Commissioner Hac'Kie's
question earlier.
This shows the relationship between the platted Kensington lots
and the Grey Oaks -- and the -- between the platted Grey Oaks lots and
the Kensington PUD.
As you'll see, there's basically five lots of Grey Oaks that
arguably abut Kensington. Lots 130 and 131 of Grey Oaks, there's a
golf course that lies between it and Kensington. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
MR. COLEMAN: The World Tennis Center, if you can see, is lying
to the west of us. They actually have multifamily structures.
They're going to be located much closer to Grey Oaks lots than what
we're proposing.
I'd like to show you some aerial photographs, which I think will
answer your question, Commissioner Hac'Kie, in terms of what
residences are there and not.
Those aerial photographs -- this is a view of the photographs
looking west between the two property lines, Grey Oaks being on the
left, to your left, and Kensington being to your right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, so there is one house. Yeah. I'm
sorry.
MR. COLEMAN: There's one house on the very eastern portion of
the property.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Got you.
MR. COLEMAN: That's correct.
The next photograph looks east which is the same view but just
looking in the other direction.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This would be looking from --
MR. COLEMAN: Airport Road.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Airport Road. Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: In the final drawing, which probably is more
impressive, is the photograph looking north which shows the Grey Oaks
golf course coupled with the existing Kensington project.
This photograph shows the existing golf course buffer that Grey
Oaks has in place together with the 40-foot landscaping berm that Grey
Oaks has on their side of the property.
If you look at Tab 4 of your package, that's a photograph, a
closer photograph of the berm that's in place. It's fairly dense and
that exists on Grey Oaks' property.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This photo is from the Kensington side
looking at Grey Oaks.
MR. COLEMAN: Looking south, that's correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: We also agree with your staff report that what
we're asking here is compatible with Grey Oaks.
If you look at Tab 5, there's some objective criteria which
really goes through issues such as landscape buffers and open space
and impervious surface, stormwater runoff, driveway curb cuts and as a
result of the lower units, lower density, lower traffic impacts and
greater landscape buffers.
So, based upon this graphic, we can show you that what we're
proposing really will be less impactful to Grey Oaks than what we can
do right now.
If you look at Tab 6, we have an opinion letter from Rick
Armalavage, a certified appraiser in town, confirming that if our
proposal is taking place, the impacts generated will not exist and,
more importantly, the property values of Grey Oaks will not be
decreased.
Perhaps the most dramatic documents we're going to show you is
shown on Tab 7 and 8. But let's start with seven first.
This is a drawing prepared by J. Roland Liebet and Associates and
basically depicts the top of that drawing, and there's a blowup of it
in front of you, but the top of that drawing is what we can do now.
The residence at the top right is a -- assumed Grey Oaks
residence. It doesn't exist yet. But if it did, we would then have
the existing 40-foot Grey Oaks buffer, coupled with the minimum
landscaping requirements which we're obligated to maintain under the
existing PUD, a two-story single family residence, coupled by a
three-story multifamily residence.
The bottom portion of that graph indicates what we're doing if we
are successful in our proposal today. Again, a two -- a single family
Grey Oaks residence coupled with the Grey Oaks berm, our new berm
we're adding, the roadway buffering and landscaping we're now adding
together with a reduced height two-story multifamily structure.
If you look at the second page of that tab, Tab 7, that shows the
detail of the type of landscaping that we're willing to commit to. It
shows the spacing of it, the nature of the type. We want to be very
specific in what we're proposing so that you don't see a nice drawing
without a commitment. That's what we're going to put on there. You
can limit your conditions to that of your approval today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Coleman, is this new information or
have the people in the room from Grey Oaks, who are obviously scared
about this, seen that, that sketch with the -- Mr. Lieber's drawing,
Tab 77
MR. COLEMAN: That sketch was used at the Planning Commission is
my understanding and there have been discussions between Kensington
and Grey Oaks.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd turn that one around and let the
public look at it if I were you because that's awfully persuasive.
MR. COLEMAN: I think the most persuasive is Tab 8, if you don't
mind, commissioners --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: -- if you can look at that real briefly for me.
Tab 8 is a computer generated report prepared by Mr. Pezeshkan, the
top of which shows, again, what's in place if we added our landscape
buffer with the Grey Oaks buffer.
The middle drawing, Elevation 1, is a view standing 200 feet into
the Kensington -- into the Grey Oaks property line, looking towards
Kensington, assuming there's no existing Grey Oaks buffer and assuming
there's no Kensington buffer that we're committing to. That's what
Elevation 1 is.
Elevation 2 is that same position without the Grey Oaks 40-foot
buffer but with the buffering we're putting on today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: If you turn the page, View A now is with the
existing buffer of Grey Oaks in place, our buffer in place and our
multifamily structure as constructed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's from 200 feet.
MR. COLEMAN: Onto Grey Oaks property looking north.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How fair is that as a choice from -- as a
choice of a viewing point? If you were -- if you were in one of those
-- if you were a house on one of the lots in Grey Oaks, how far away
would you be?
MR. COLEMAN: I don't -- again, the platting, if you look at the
plat for Lot 107, which is in your tab -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. Yep.
MR. COLEMAN: -- I think the minimal distance is well over 100
feet and I think it's probably closer to 150.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, then you have View B here that
is 50 feet?
MR. COLEMAN: That's correct.
If you look at View B on Page 2, that's 50 feet in the Grey Oaks
property line looking north, again, it's complete opacity.
And if you look at View C, that's visualized standing on the
property line, Grey Oaks' berm is now at your back and this is what
you see.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's -- thank you. That answers my
question.
MR. COLEMAN: Again, we're willing to commit to the site plan
today. That's what we're going to build. You can condition your
approval upon that.
If you look at Tab 9 -- this is my last exhibit -- this is the
architectural theme that we intend to construct for the first phase of
what we're asking for. We certainly don't want to make all one
hundred and nine -- ninety-one units look the same -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good.
MR. COLEMAN: -- but for the first phase, this is what we're
willing to commit to from an architectural design standpoint. And
there's a larger drawing on the -- on the podium.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the building height on that, Mr.
Coleman?
MR. COLEMAN: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the building height on the
Wellington Place exhibit?
MR. COLEMAN: It's less than 35 and more than 30.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thirty-one and a half.
MR. COLEMAN: Thirty-one and a half --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty-one and a half.
MR. COLEMAN: -- I'm being told.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: As a further condition, we agree to construct the
landscaping and berm we're proposing prior to receiving a Certificate
of Occupancy for any of the multifamily units located along the Grey
Oaks property line.
Again, we stipulate to the two-story requirements. We think what
we're proposing goes far and beyond, I think, what is fair. We think
it's compatible and we urge your approval.
If you have any questions, we have our experts to answer them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Coleman, the product that was
originally intended along this southern property boundary, is that the
same product that is in part being constructed on the western property
boundary?
MR. COLEMAN: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where you have a mix of single, one-story
and two-story, almost coach type homes? MR. COLEMAN: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Narrow lots and whatnot?
MR. COLEMAN: And I want to agree, Mrs. -- Commissioner Hac'Kie
indicated that we wouldn't build all two-story. That's true. It's
coming at about 27 percent of our structures are two-story structures.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One out of every four, one out of three is
going to be -- going to be two-story.
What is your building height of the two-story structures that
were -- that are currently anticipated along the property line?
MR. COLEMAN: Approximately 35 feet, between 30 and 35 again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I read your line of sight exhibit here,
is that to scale?
MR. COLEMAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. As I went through and worked at it,
if you construct one of those two-story homes where it currently can
be located, forgetting a pool cage or screened attachment, it's an
equivalent line of sight -- in other words, your -- what you're
proposing has a 22-foot high line of sight, whereas what currently can
be done is 30. In other words, you'd have to build everything below
22 feet in its current permitted location to give the same line of
sight as what you're proposing.
MR. COLEMAN: I can't confirm that, but certainly you have a
better background in that than I do, but I think that would be
accurate.
Mr. Liebet is indicating it would be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one more question. What -- these
computer generated drawings, for lack of a better term, are they
something that's been made available to the public, or was that
available at the Planning Commission? Can you share that at this
point, if not, with people who are worried about it?
MR. COLEMAN: Yeah. Absolutely. They were prepared -- quite
frankly, Commissioner Hac'Kie, we were watching the Planning
Commission, and didn't think this would be a big deal.
So, the time we spent in the last few weeks has been somewhat
last minute. Those drawings were finished for the -- for the first
time yesterday, so, no, they haven't been shared, but we'd be happy to
share them with them now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll be glad to loan somebody my copy if
anybody wants to look.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, question?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-uh.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Coleman.
MR. COLEMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does that conclude your presentation?
MR. COLEMAN: Unless you have questions. To the extent there's
points made, we'd be happy to reserve some time for rebuttal at the
end, too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Looking at the clock, I'm going to give our
court reporter a bit of a break here, so we'll recess for about ten
minutes and then we'll come back here at about 25 till 11.
(A recess was had from 10:27 a.m. until 10:43 a.m.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time we'll go to public speakers on
this particular issue. Public speakers are limited to five minutes in
regard to this particular issue.
Mr. Fernandez, if you'll call the first public speaker and he'll
also call the second ones so we can have you ready and if you would
just stand, waiting, so we won't waste your time actually in being
ready to speak and -- and we'll have our order.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if I may --
CHAIRPERSON HAC'KIE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because a lot of people here may never
have comments -- spoken on an item before. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you were not sworn in, when you come up
to speak, you need to let us know because we need to make sure you're
sworn in because all testimony is sworn testimony so we just need to
make sure that happens.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Are you ready?
The first speaker is Judy Rinaldi and then Ray Northup.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And any comments that you may have, you must
be up at the podium rather than commenting from your seat. Okay.
Comments are to be made at the podium to the chair. Thank you.
MS. RINALDI: I'm Judy Rinaldi and I'm buying in Kensington and
I'm also a realtor in the community.
And I'd just like to say that I think the new approved plan is
much better -- or the new plan that they're -- they've submitted is a
much better plan than what they originally submitted.
And I think the fact that there's going to be a much larger
buffer there with the street and the improved greenery that they're
planning, I think -- I don't see how this can do anything but help
both communities, actually.
You already -- as you're showing property in Grey Oaks, you
already see all those rooftops in World Tennis Center. And I'd just
like to say that I'm really for this new plan and that the lesser
density should help also in Kensington, and thank you for the
opportunity to speak.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ray Northup and then the next is James Ink.
MR. NORTHUP: I'm Ray Northup and I also reside at Kensington.
We're there eight months a year, and I'm in very much strong support
of this new proposal also. And I'm chairman of the golf committee at
Kensington so I have a lot of exposure with the people there and it's
my consensus from all the people that I've talked with that are in
favor of this and think it will both benefit us as well as Grey Oaks.
That's all I had to say.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is James Ink and then Richard
Stetkewicz.
MR. INK: Good morning, James Ink, Graves Development,
representing the homeowners.
Kensington has done a fine job of technically showing how
changing from single family to multifamily can possibly work. It
really boils down to the fact of they made a commitment in 1991. It
was an important commitment. That commitment was they would have
single family on that border.
We designed our project around and platted our project around
that commitment. Host of the single family homes orient to the north
even though they show that they're east or west. The views down the
golf course look directly at Kensington.
They've tried to mitigate that problem by installing a bigger
buffer, moving the road back, setting their units back a hundred feet,
but it's all a mitigation and mitigation is to lessen the impact.
We knew. We marketed the fact that it was single family on that
side. You have basically 25 percent two-story and single family. I
think it's a good historic number. It may be as high as 30 percent.
That was what the residents expected. That's what we told them would
be there.
World Tennis is mostly two-story. That was a given. That was a
known fact. It was there when we started. We buffered accordingly.
We increased our buffer. We changed the orientations of the lots to
minimize that impact.
Here today we're changing or potentially changing to a
multifamily which has a bigger mass. They are all definite two
stories, a hundred percent of them, not 25 percent of them. The sight
lines will look at that.
These enhanced drawings are very good. They're very effective
for lush trees such as they are right now. If we had a freeze, if we
had any adverse impact of pesticides, as we all know buffers change
over time, they get lesser, they get more. There will be a visual
impact.
And it really goes down to one of the things when you look at
this is, is the county made the agreement that this would be single
family. And that's like a contract. For that contract to change,
there has to be some benefit to both sides. Here there's a benefit to
Kensington. They've obviously presented that, but to the residents
and to the county that's outside of that area, I'm not sure what that
benefit would be. There's an obvious impact. It's an increased
impact. And I don't understand where that benefit would come from to
disregard that motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the obvious increased impact?
MR. INK: The obvious increased impact is the going from single
family, 75 percent, single story, which is roughly 20, 25 feet tall to
a hundred percent multifamily where the views of the Grey Oaks
community are long views. They showed their presentation from 50 feet
away, which is one house. There will be many, many houses and a lot
of those houses are -- you know, the homesites are sold, but the
houses aren't presently constructed that will view those long views
and with a sight line when you expand those lines horizontally, it
minimizes the vertical part where you can see it, you know,
potentially more.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You understand the impact of distance
on line of sight?
MR. INK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, you say that there should be a
benefit to both sides, all parties, and I agree. And when I look at
that schematic there on the wall that -- Mr. Lieber's drawing, it
looks to me like the benefit to Grey Oaks is the significant setback,
additional setback and the significant additional buffer. Can -- do you disagree with that as a benefit?
MR. INK: That would be one that's hard to agree or disagree
except for the fact early on before the petitioner submitted the
petition, they came to us, we had discussions, we went to some of our
residents, they set up cherry pickets and some targets and types like
that and you could see the impact. I mean it was -- it was a visual.
They could see the cherry picket and say this is where our house was.
And that was not going -- you know, that is not going to change
with the addition of their buffer, which is shorter than the Grey Oaks
buffer that's already in place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got to understand that.
Do you guys know what he means about they could see the cherry
picket? Could you -- could you tell that? I don't understand that.
MR. INK: What Kensington people did in the early negotiations is
they came to us and said we would like to do this. We talked about
those issues. They went out with some targets and a -- and a cherry
picket, like a scaffolding, raised it up to the height and says, this
is where the second floor will be, this will be the roof line.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you're saying that from -- from Grey
Oaks' property, you could see the roof line or the -- MR. INK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- or the cherry picket that --
MR. INK: It was in the homeowners' --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- stood in.
MR. INK: -- opinion at that time that the additional berm that
they wanted to add in would not lessen the impact of visually seeing
these two-story structures which are -- you know, I don't know the
exact dimensions, but they're probably 65, 75, 80 feet wide. You
know, it's -- it's a bigger mass than looking at a house that's
sitting on a 60-foot lot with side setbacks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The big houses, and then I'll stop. This
is my last question, I promise.
But the big houses in Grey Oaks, the mass question is what I'm
trying to get here.
MR. INK: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Compared to that Wellington -- if you cut
off the two outside garages, is that about the size of a typical Grey
Oaks house?
MR. INK: I would agree with that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Kind of ballpark? I'm just trying to get
a picture in my head of the different mass.
That's all. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The question I have, if you're talking about
single family homes in Kensington, there's nothing to stop them from
building a two-story house under the current plan and then put it
right up against the existing buffer.
MR. INK: That is correct. That's what we planned on, but also
we understand that if you go through most communities, two-story homes
are in the minority.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, but you can't count on that.
MR. INK: We can't count on that, but it is easier to explain
that it is going to be single family of which two-story is possible
than it is to explain it's going to be multifamily, which this is a
typical drawing, but may not be the final two-story when they get down
into Tract C and B and -- and some of their future areas.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, with all due respect --
MR. INK: Their two-story that they have out there now is a
bigger mass than what they show here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With all due respect, I need to -- for you
to try to explain to me why a two-story building 15 feet from the
property line is less impact than a two-story building a hundred and
whatever feet from the property line?
MR. INK: The reason being is there --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And, also, why -- why you would even
contemplate controlling someone else's property a hundred feet deep
into their property?
MR. INK: Controlling a hundred feet deep into their property is
not what our intent really was. Our intent was its single family, of
which the majority would be single family, which would be 20, 25 feet
high, which means rooftops would be over top of our existing 40-foot
berm.
There would be cases where there would be some that would be
above that. But we just look at historically that 25 to 30 percent
two story.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm looking at the proposed map and the
-- the lots that are probably in question. 107 and 108, would be
directly across from proposed single family -- MR. INK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- which is now moved back across the road
right-of-way instead of being 15 feet from the property line. How is
that a worse impact?
MR. INK: The mass of the building has increased. I mean this
building that they show here --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no. Go -- we're going -- we're now
talking about single family, which is directly across from --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's an improvement, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- from 107 and 108, for example. Directly
across the berm from that is a proposed area of single family but it
is now, instead of being right on the property line, it's back off
across the road right-of-way.
MR. INK: The way 108 exists -- 107 is a vacant lot -- or 109.
The end lot is a vacant lot and the home is set one lot back. I think
that might be 108 or 109. I'm not exactly sure.
But that house is directly oriented to the northeast. All the
views out of that house are to the northeast.
So, the fact of -- they're not looking directly across the berm.
They're looking sort of sideways to the berm so they see the whole
line of the two-story multifamily area.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not according to our drawing. You won't --
you can't see even through it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. What -- I think what he's talking
about is they walk out their front door, they're looking in a somewhat
northeast or northwest -- MR. INK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- orientation.
MR. INK: Host all of our orientations are in a
northeast-northwest.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What that doesn't change for me though and
because of your -- and the only reason I'm asking you this is because
of your detailed involvement in the development of Grey Oaks is, as I
draw it to scale, assuming what I have here is to scale, any roof in
the single family area that exceeds 22 feet presents a greater visual
impact from the Grey Oaks side than the proposal.
So, knowing that single family homes being cathedral ceilings,
pitched roofs, were above 22 feet in most single family homes, it's
not just the two-story that the residents in Grey Oaks will see. It's
the one-story also.
So, my question is, these are 65-foot wide lots. If I'm walking
out the front door and I'm the closest property and I look down that
line and I see whether it be three feet or 13 feet, house after house
after house after house versus seeing nothing along that line but
seeing a similar height a hundred feet back, I -- I just -- visually,
I disagree that the former is less impact than the latter.
I don't -- I don't see that because of the standard height of
single family homes alone.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the only --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And on top of that -- excuse me, but on top
of that -- you know, I started this line.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's okay. Sure.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: On top of that you're saying looking to the
northeast, you'll be able to see the tops of these two-story
buildings.
Well, right now, they're allowed to build three-story buildings
in essentially the same place. I mean the two-story buildings that
are -- that are being proposed will be a few feet closer but not
materially from that particular audit. That's the one we want to --
to use in question in Number 108, 106, whatever one you -- you want to
talk about.
You're looking over to the northeast, it looks like it's got to
be 500 feet to the closest building, but it will be a two-story
building now instead of a three-story building, say 525 feet.
So, tell me how that's a --
MR. INK: You are correct --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- a greater impact.
MR. INK: -- in your statement. Having single family along that
line, you will see mostly predominately rooftops which are
architectural shingles of a neutral tone and do not provide a lot of
definition as the front of a second floor would provide and it lessens
the visual impact of that view by looking at rooftops that are usually
browns and reds and muted tones versus looking at the side of a
building with windows and -- and a vertical face.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But, Mr. Ink, once again, under this
proposal, there won't be any rooftops at all along the property line.
MR. INK: But they will be --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: None at all.
MR. INK: But they will be in the visual impact even though it's
set back a hundred feet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They'll be viewable and, as I've listened,
I think the only -- the question that remains unaddressed for me is
the mass question but -- and -- and you make a very good point about
looking at a porch on a -- you know, the walkway into the second-story
apartment as different from looking at the slope of a roof of a single
family home.
So, I'm clear about that, but if the -- if the mass -- if there
-- I'm looking for some way to solve the problem, frankly, and what
I'm thinking about is if there's some way we can commit or have the
Kensington developer commit to a mass that's no greater than this
Wellington Place design, since its impact from the standpoint of mass
is not that much greater than a two-story --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- residential house.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- can I ask a question along those
lines? Let's talk about simple physics and math.
If I hold this glass 30 inches away from me, it blocks a certain
percentage of my view. If I hold it -- if you take it and it's 137
inches away from me, it's the same mass cup but it blocks a lot less
of my view. And, so, I don't buy the mass argument whatsoever.
If you've got a building 15 feet away or 40 feet away and you've
got a building 137 feet away, it -- the mass is going to appear
visually by simple physics much smaller, so I don't follow your
argument there at all. It just doesn't follow physics.
MR. INK: What we assumed on the mass wise was a predominant
single family where the things it would view would be sloping roofs of
neutral colors. Setting a mass back and increasing that mass, but
making it more vertical creates a more opaque line.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And by the laws of physics, it's
actually lower in your sight of -- line of sight. And I asked you
before if you understood line of sight and you said, "Yes." MR. INK: I do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you understand, it is actually
lower in your line of sight.
MR. INK: But they're presently at 30 feet of which if it was
single family, the peaks -- if it was a ten-foot ceiling, would
probably be in the twenties, where they're going to a 35-foot height
of which if it's pressured properly can be over 35 feet by the Land
Development Code by how you measure the slope of a roof.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But, again, let's do simple physics.
How far away are you and I right now, roughly? MR. INK: Fifteen feet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if you are 22 feet tall and I look
there or you go 30 feet but you go 137 feet away -- MR. INK: I would look smaller.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And -- and, so, I don't think
your argument holds --
MR. INK: But I'm the same size --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- when you just apply simple physics.
MR. INK: My contention to that is I'm the same size. If it's a
single story, single family versus a four-plex two-story with a roof
on top of it, you have two different masses that you're looking at.
And the fact that that larger object is farther away, in our
contention, creates a larger visual impact than that home closer up.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And in the contention of the laws of
physics, I think you're mistaken.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ink, Grey Oaks has done a terrific job
for those of us that live outside the borders of Grey Oaks. As you
drive down Airport Road, I think we're all thankful for the attention
to the detail that the community has shown.
Part of that attention to detail on this property line was the
planting of a berm and buffer that is some 30 feet in height that is
strictly under the control of Grey Oaks, both maintenance, planting,
height, all of that is controlled by Grey Oaks.
The ficus trees you have planted to top that berm don't hold
themselves at 20 feet. They can mass much larger than that if they're
-- if they're cared for in a proper manner.
I guess what I'm getting at is the impacts we're talking about
and what mitigation Kensington does or doesn't do with the exception
of distance is really secondary to what Grey Oaks has already done in
trying to block out what is to the north to the greatest extent
possible.
So, I guess, my question is, is this really more of a marketing
issue for you than a sight issue?
MR. INK: No, I don't believe so. We built that berm and put
those ficus trees specifically in anticipating the single family
product that was going to go there. Granted, ficus trees do get
larger sometimes on top of berms when they're exposed. More so they
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The root system is not as healthy.
MR. INK: -- they are stunted.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I understand that, but I just
needed to ask that question because there's a lot of debate about this
foot or that foot or distance or mass but I -- and a lot of confusion
between -- apparently between you and members of the board, but I -- I
guess in your standpoint maybe I'd be concerned that if I'm showing
somebody a lot, multifamily versus single family on the other side of
the property line, it would be more of a marketing concern if I felt
compelled to ask that.
MR. INK: I appreciate your time and I hope that you deny this
petition. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Richard Stetkewicz and then Tot
Kolflat.
MR. STETKEWICZ: Good morning. We bought over in Kensington.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Name, please?
MR. STETKEWICZ: Richard Stetkewicz. I'm sorry.
We bought over in Kensington here about three years ago, and
we're still building our home as the builders are not what you call
real expedient --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pretty good.
MR. STETKEWICZ: -- mainly for the people and the location.
Everything was ideal, the way the single family homes were laid out
and so forth.
I, as of recently, have only seen the old drawings, so I had not
known what this new set of plans looked for. We objected completely
to the old set. The new set we -- we seem to like quite a bit.
I think that our main contention was for the -- the traffic
aspect because we felt there would be a great deal of traffic coming
down there, and if we had a four-plex versus a single family home,
well, three more times and -- but I just want to state that we -- we
have no objection as far as the new set of plans goes. All right. Thank you.
Oh, and one other thing. The only problem I found, as many have,
the communications between Kensington and myself, as a homeowner, has
been very nil. We would have liked to have been told a little bit
more of what's going on out there. It seemed like there's a closeknit
out there and everybody should know equally. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Tot Kolflat and then Robert
Ranalli.
MR. KOLFLAT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tot
Kolflat and I've lived in Collier County since 1980. I am a homeowner
and I live in Grey Oaks.
When I and others purchased our property, we relied upon and
placed our trust in the integrity of the Collier County Commission and
their original planning decision that immediate and nearby areas would
remain single-family homesites.
The proposed change to allow the erection of multiple family
units instead of single family units will have an adverse visual
impact for us and an adverse effect on our property values.
As an affected homeowner, I ask that this proposed change be
denied. As a resident in Collier County, I believe a consistent and
sound planning process is essential for successful growth management.
I gained some insight into the process when I served several terms on
the Naples Planning Advisory Board and as its chairman.
In my opinion, the proposed change in the Kensington plan is
flawed since it relocates the more compact and dense multiple family
units to the south boundary. This location is remote from the
Kensington egress and ingress on the north boundary and will increase
traffic flow through the development.
However, a more significant land planning issue in this matter is
the importance of maintaining consistency, reliability and integrity
in land planning decisions. Repeated changes granted developers to
alter or flip-flop the original approved plans erodes public
confidence in the process and those associated with it.
As we witness with the current Naples referendums, if public
confidence in the process is eroded, segments of the public may
attempt to place severe restrictions on the process. As a resident, I
certainly do not want to see this happen in Collier County.
In conclusion, as a homeowner that relied on your original
decisions that our neighborhood would consist of single family
homesites, I ask that this petition be denied.
As a resident of Collier County, concerned that planning
decisions be sound, consistent and reliable and the public confidence
be retained, I ask that this petition be denied.
There are other Grey Oaks homeowners that have come in here in
the audience that agree with me, and I would ask them please to stand
at this time.
We very much object to this and hope that you will deny it.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kolflat, I have a question, if I may.
Your face and name rings a bell and I think it's because we saw you at
the public hearing where the Grey Oaks development was requesting an
increase in height for the commercial building at Golden Gate Parkway.
Is that correct?
MR. KOLFLAT: That's absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You were objecting to their increased
height request of 15 feet at that time.
MR. KOLFLAT: Exactly. On the same basis of maintaining
consistency, when you commit to something as the commission or
anything else and you make a promise, let's keep the promise.
(Applause.)
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems, Mr. Kolflat, so far you're far
more consistent than Grey Oaks has been because they're the ones that
came in and requested a height variance and didn't listen to you as a
resident. So, I applaud you for your consistency but I'm having a
little difficulty with consistency on the other side.
MR. KOLFLAT: Well, not even my wife listens to me all the time.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Robert Ranalli and then
Sheilah Crowley.
MR. RANALLI: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Robert
Ranalli. I'm a resident of Collier County. I'm a homeowner at Grey
Oaks. My home is on Lot 122 which has an unobstructed view right now
up -- up the lake and across the golf course and up to that boundary.
We could debate the physics of whether or not if I stand in front
of -- of a barrier and look up, my line of sight is this way versus
where I am. We can debate the issue of whether or not mass of
multiple family houses in that area is good or bad, but what you can't
debate is whether or not when someone comes in, like most of us, who
came in from other parts of the country and very much depend upon the
integrity of the developer and the integrity of the decisions that are
made by commissions such as this.
We had choices in terms of where we went. We had choices in
terms of the environment in which we wanted to live. You may not
think that multiple family homes makes a difference. It happens to
make a difference to me. I made a choice in terms of how I spent my
money. I depended upon your integrity and I believe you should deny
it.
Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, sir.
MR. RANALLI: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you aware that multiple family houses
are -- are now permitted all along that same area at three stories of
height, not two? Are you aware of that?
MR. RANALLI: I'm aware of the original plan.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you aware that this has -- this
proposal has less units, some of those units are taken out and the
building heights are limited to two stories? Are you aware of that?
MR. RANALLI: Yes, I am.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then your comments are just puzzling, sir,
because --
MR. RANALLI: Well, they're not puzzling to me, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it certainly is. We're saying we're
having less multifamily units at a lower height. What --
MR. RANALLI: They're not -- they're not in the same location.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They're within scant feet of being in the
same location, sir. And a -- and a big piece of the middle of that --
that east-west line of multifamily houses is -- is gone. It's taken
out of the -- out of the mix.
MR. RANALLI: You're -- you want to debate the --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't want to debate. I just wanted to
make sure that --
MR. RANALLI: You are missing something though.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- you were operating on the --
MR. RANALLI: You're missing how people make judgments about how
they spend their money and you're missing the issue of integrity of
choices that people make.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me -- let me ask you -- let me
ask our County Attorney something or perhaps the Development Services
Department would be better for this. MR. RANALLI: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Has the Grey Oaks PUD ever been amended
and, if so, how many times?
MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere for the record, Current Planning
Manager.
I'm not sure I could give a definitive answer but I could say
that at least two times that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So, the argument that seems to be
coming from some of our speakers that once a PUD is approved, it
should never be again amended, does not seem to be consistent with
what has happened at Grey Oaks.
MR. RANALLI: It does, too.
MR. MULHERE: I can say that on a fairly regular and consistent
basis, PUD's approved by this board or predecessor boards are brought
in for amendments and reviewed on a case-by-case basis as to whether
or not that amendment is appropriate. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the appropriateness -- for my vote,
the appropriateness of the amendment depends on whether or not the
change will harm or help the -- the innocent bystanders.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's the question today.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agreed with you for a change.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, let the record reflect we agreed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll have a tough time finding that
record in six months but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our next speaker, please.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Our next speaker is Sheilah Crowley and then
Barbara Cawley.
MS. CROWLEY: My name -- excuse me -- my name is Sheilah Crowley.
I live in Grey Oaks on Buckthorn Way and I own a home, a single family
home, also in the World Tennis Center.
When I came with my family down to look where to live in Naples
three and a half years ago, I went to Kensington. I was told by their
salespeople that the area at the back would be single family.
Last night, when I was contemplating coming to this meeting, my
husband and I went out and we walked up the berm in the area behind
Grey Oaks. And I didn't know it was 30 feet high, but we looked back
and we could see the lights. It was about dusk at our house.
One thing that no one has mentioned here is that the quality of
life that you come to Florida for is to enjoy the evenings, and while
you're all talking about what you can see in terms of a house in the
daytime and your impacts change tremendously at night, we enjoy
sitting on our lanai. And the difference between single family and
multiple family, because if you walk and look at -- from the front of
my house, you can see the World Tennis Center at night, too.
And multiple family homes tend to have security lighting, more
safety lighting. Single family homes more have the low voltage
landscape enhancement lighting.
When we purchased at Grey Oaks, we did it with the knowledge that
we'd be on -- we're sort of on a lake and part on the golf course but
on the other side there is green area that we will have across from
us.
So, at night you're sitting out, the impact of multiple family at
the end of what is Silverleaf Lane will be there. And the -- one of
the reasons, if you'll look at the plan, the Grey Oaks plan, right at
the end of the cul-de-sac, there's not going to be a house right at
the end.
The cul-de-sac goes up toward the berm. So, your change here
will affect the quality of life of my family. And we really enjoy
sitting out on the lanai and enjoying this beautiful weather in
January and February, which we could never do at home, and the
lighting on a multiple family development will make a big difference.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, you --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe eventually this will be home for
you.
MS. CROWLEY: Well, it is and we live here full time and my
daughter is in high school down here --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let this be home.
MS. CROWLEY: -- so, yes, but -- but I just want you to
understand that -- that this does make a difference and I don't think
anyone has addressed the nighttime ambience and beauty.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a very good point. You said you're
on Silverleaf Lane?
MS. CROWLEY: I walked over on the berm up there. I live over on
-- on Buckthorn Way.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Buckthorn.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You live on Buckthorn?
MS. CROWLEY: And our -- our lanai looks, as you look across, you
can see that area. And, like I said, we went after -- it was a little
around dusk, like dark, so that we could see what the difference would
be by turning our lights on and looking back that way.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, do you know that there is -- there is
already approved multifamily at the area you're '-
MS. CROWLEY: I'm just looking at what I understood to be the
differences today. And I know that when you get more dense
multifamily in one spot, you do tend to have more lighting as that '-
I'm comparing it with the type of lighting that they do at the World
Tennis Center. When you have walkways up high, they must be lit.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But, excuse me.
MS. CROWLEY: I'm sorry. Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think I got your point but I -- I just
want to ask you if you are aware, and I assume that you're -- you're
referring to that corner where Kensington and World Tennis Center come
together? Is that the corner?
MS. CROWLEY: I'm -- I was at the Silverleaf, you know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cul-de-sac.
MS. CROWLEY: -- berm there. The cul-de-sac, and I -- I walked
up and stood at the top of the berm, turned around and looked toward
my house.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, you had to get up on top of the berm to
see the other '-
MS. CROWLEY: Well, that's where I figure the lights would come
over.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But the light won't go over.
MS. CROWLEY: No. They'll be up there from the second floor of
those houses, I would assume.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's just interesting that you had to get
up on top of the berm to be able to see some impact.
MS. CROWLEY: Well, there are no lights -- I couldn't see the
lights from my house now.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly my point --
MS. CROWLEY: They're not there.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: -- yes. Exactly my point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'd like to point out, as I
understand it, and I'll be asking the Kensington folks this to make
sure it's the case, if you look at Wellington Place, which is the
design that they are committing to today, if this moves forward, when
we talk about lights, I lived on a third-story condo for about 18
months and I live now in a single family home.
And you're right. You go up on the third floor and the lights
outside are brighter than, say, you know, the light ten feet off the
ground at my house. But as I look at Wellington Place being limited
to two stories, the eave, which there's no lights on the roofs of
buildings, they're all below the eave.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The stairways.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The eave is below the height of the berm.
MS. CROWLEY: Is that the front of it or is that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MS. CROWLEY: -- the side of it that's going to face Grey Oaks?
Is the -- the garage, is it going to be entered --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some --
MS. CROWLEY: -- from the back?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some fronts will face, some sides will
face because it's a cul-de-sac, but the point is that the highest
point that any visible light would be would be at or below the eave of
the structure, which is the bottom edge of the roof and that is going
to be no higher than 22 feet, according to that drawing, which is
eight feet short of the top of the landscape berm.
So, I understand your point, and if we're talking about
three-story units, you are absolutely correct. You would probably be
able to see the lights outside those three-story units from your
house.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But they're not.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But from a two-story unit, which they're
currently permitted to build -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but from a two-story unit, the eave is
below the top of the berm.
MS. CROWLEY: Are they going to have -- do you know that there
will not be security lighting up there to light that driveway --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can --
MS. CROWLEY: -- for the whole area?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can make that a condition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can ask those questions. Whether they
have street level lighting or not we can look at the heights of it and
whatnot and make that part of this because I -- you've got a valid
point about lights at night. I want to make sure we address it fully
if this project moves forward.
So, I think the -- the concern you now list is probably the --
the more important one. If they're limited to two stories, we need to
look at street level lighting, what its height is and whether it can
be seen from Grey Oaks. I think it's a good point.
MS. CROWLEY: I would ask that you please deny.
Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think an interesting point on that, too,
it's not like you have in some of the units where you have the open
stairways going to the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- second level which are normally lighted.
This is not the case here.
All of -- I live in a very similar situation to this. All the
lighting is down low. There is not one -- one house where I live,
unit that I live, that has lighting that is above. You're not
permitted to do it and I'm sure that the covenants of Kensington
probably would not allow it in the first place.
So, all the lighting is done where our mailbox is. There's a
light that's placed on top of that. And -- and there's -- there's
nothing visible from the berm and the wall and the people on the other
side of where we live.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whereas, if we leave things like they are
and they could build --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- a three-story --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You would.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- there could be --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You'll see housing --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- lighting that's visible.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- lights.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's going to have to be because three
stories you have to have an elevator --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in addition to stairwells and that's
usually an external access and lighting is required, 88.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Interesting.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, that's the point I was making is the
difference in height for exterior lighting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Miss Cawley.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker after Miss Cawley is William J.
Johnson.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MS. CAWLEY: Good morning, commissioners. Barbara Cawley. I'm
here representing the homeowners' association at Grey Oaks again.
This commitment is a little bit different than a standard
commitment with inside a P -- the PUD. The commitment was a -- was
specifically part of the motion back in '92 when this project was
approved. And it was based on a negotiated agreement between the two
property owners.
And I'd like to put on -- just read a little bit about the
motion. It was Commissioner Saunders who made the motion and he --
well, first of all, it turns out Mr. Brugger was the representative of
Kensington -- Kensington at the time. And he says, John Brugger
stated that he has agreed to the modifications proposed by Grey Oaks
regarding buffering and things. And then Planner Saadeh confirmed
that staff had no problem regarding that.
Commissioner Saunders reiterated the motion. Also includes all
other stipulations and comments proposed by staff.
Commissioner Volpe stated that the motion also includes a change
agreed to regarding the development standards along the southern
boundary line of the project as it abuts Grey Oaks subdivision.
Commissioner Saunders acknowledged that it does.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I didn't get -- Commissioner
Volpe is who asked does this specifically include that -- MS. CAWLEY: Yes. Earlier --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- note?
MS. CAWLEY: Earlier in the discussion, Mr. Brugger made the --
made the statement that they would comply with -- with putting no more
than single family homes along the southern boundary of the Kensington
project.
And then when the motion was made by Commissioner Saunders, he --
he didn't specifically say that, and Commissioner Volpe then came back
and said, does this include the commitment that you have made, Mr.
Brugger, along your southern boundary to commit to single family
homes?
So, it's not like a 15-foot height in a -- in a project or a
typical 30-foot setback or something like this. This was a specific
agreement between two developers and the county commission.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Was Grey Oaks represented at that hearing
in '92? I mean, do you know if the --
MS. CAWLEY: I don't know. I assume they were because that was
-- or there had been a negotiated agreement. The minutes in '92 are
not word for word anymore.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
MS. CAWLEY: I mean, they do that now but back then they did a
summary of the minutes.
And, so, the folks in Grey Oaks are really dealing with a
specific commitment made by the county commissioners and by Kensington
at that time to put nothing but single family residences along the
southern border.
So, it's -- that's a little different than -- than coming in for
just a change of -- of a lot size or something. So --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hiss Cawley, can I ask you a quick question?
MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you -- was there any discussion at that
time whether those single family homes would be one or two-story?
MS. CAWLEY: There was nothing in the minutes about that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MS. CAWLEY: So, I don't know that. But, generally, as you know,
the -- the two-story homes in the community are, as we've discussed
earlier, they're -- they're not as common as a one-story single family
home.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Twenty-seven percent.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Back in -- yeah, true, but back in '92 that
was probably definitely the case, but more and more -- I mean we're
looking at 1998 and they're becoming more prolific, and that's what I
wondered, if there had been a discussion back in '92 when this was
talked about?
MS. CAWLEY: I think it also was a value question, a negotiation
between the developers that they knew this was an area of Grey Oaks
that would be single family only and that they wanted -- they
negotiated and determined that the -- the exact same type of product
would be put on the northern side of Grey Oaks and the southern side
of Kensington.
So, it was a -- there was a value question. There was a question
of -- of views and densities. And at that time it was agreed to very
strongly by the developer of Kensington to maintain that single family
use.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's happening now with this new plan is
that the density is being reduced. We're reducing the density.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, not along that southern border they're not
reducing the density. They may be overall reducing the density.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Cawley, you said something that's a
little -- a little -- I think maybe just a mistake. You said the same
kind of product on the Grey Oaks side as on the Kensington side. MS. CAWLEY: Single family.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because nothing could be further
from the truth when you look at the homes in Grey Oaks versus a
single family that was originally proposed on 65-foot wide lots with a
setback, I would guess, no more than 15 feet between structures versus
the more estate style of Grey Oaks.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, I think at the time, they're -- the plan
that's shown here is different than the plan that Grey Oaks has been
using to determine what kind of lots would be located along there.
And the plan in 1993 was 29 single family lots and it was an STP
plan that was submitted to the county.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But is nonbinding as Grey Oaks knows.
MS. CAWLEY: But that was the -- that was what they felt the
intent was, that there would be 29 single family homes along the
southern boundary that would be adjacent to Grey Oaks.
And, so, it's really a question of mass and -- and, as you know,
single family homes have space between them. And in this case, you
don't have space between the multifamily units. It's a very -- it
becomes more of a wall type structure than does the single family
homes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How much space can you have between single
family houses on 65-foot lots, Miss Cawley?
MS. CAWLEY: Well, again, we were using --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fifteen feet?
MS. CAWLEY: We were using more 70-foot lots, 70 by a hundred.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are you employed by?
MS. CAWLEY: Who I'm employed by? I'm not employed by anyone.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I see. You --
MS. CAWLEY: But I'm working for Grey Oaks Homeowners'
Association right now.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. You've been before this board
several times in your professional capacity. Have any of those
appearances ever been to represent a petitioner on a PUD amendment?
MS. CAWLEY: Yes. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many occasions would you --
MS. CAWLEY: I -- I wouldn't know how many occasions.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would it be a hundred?
MS. CAWLEY: I don't know. Seventy-five. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's been a lot, hasn't it?
MS. CAWLEY: A lot, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So, in your professional opinion then,
would you say that there's nothing particularly unusual per se about a
PUD amendment?
MS. CAWLEY: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And how many times have you represented
Grey Oaks in a PUD amendment?
MS. CAWLEY: One.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just once? On the one occasion?
MS. CAWLEY: And that's -- that's an interesting point because
when we did come before you on that PUD to ask for the additional 15
feet, you were very concerned about that.
And in order to get that amendment, Grey Oaks gave up 100,000
square feet of commercial density. And that was -- that was at -- at
your request so that we could show a community benefit to -- to asking
for that 15 feet.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a very good point. I'm glad you
brought it up because here the petitioner is -- is reducing densities
and increasing the distance between Grey Oaks' properties and the
first building in Kensington, which in, I think, everyone's rational
opinion would have to be considered a reduction of impact.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, I think it really boils down to a commitment
question.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MS. CAWLEY: And what is committed -- specifically committed in
this case and it's a little different than most PUD amendments. And I
-- I know because it was a specific negotiation between two property
owners at the time and the -- and the county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I ask one more question?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, could you grab the two
displays behind you on the floor, the existing PUD master plan and I
assume the proposed --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Behind it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- one is right behind it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. On the same --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the same board.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a flip-over sheet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- if we look at the bottom row on
the existing, you just -- you mentioned again, Ms. Cawley, as a couple
other folks have, mass on the impact.
And if you look at the bottom of that, the southernmost part of
that and then we flip up to what's proposed, can you explain to me how
the second one is an increased mass '- MS. CAWLEY: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because I look at all those on 65
lots and there are 46 of them, and then I look at these and there are
eight, I think, over there and one, two, three, four, five '-
MS. CAWLEY: When we -- when we came before the Planning
Commission, this was designated as multifamily. I didn't realize it
was this big.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, that's a big improvement over Planning
Commission. I mean that's a big change.
MS. CAWLEY: What size lots are those going to be, the detached
single family?
MR. COLEMAN: Minimum 60.
MS. CAWLEY: They're going to be the same small 60-foot lots.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MS. CAWLEY: So, we're going to end up with those along there?
Is that what you're saying?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, just -- as I look at those two,
the -- the difference is remarkable and it does not look like
increased mass at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Will you put the top one back one more
time?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's internal into the project.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's internal but it's also --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- considerably less dense.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It looks like a lot less mass.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it's further away.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go back.
MS. CAWLEY: Again, this is -- this is really the worst case in
that the plan that they had before only showed 29 and there's nothing
to say that they're going to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know how they could market that.
MS. CAWLEY: I don't know how they could market that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, who would buy that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's actually happening --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, it is?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on the western boundary --
MS. CAWLEY: So, they're showing the best to you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of the project right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, really?
MS. CAWLEY: The worst as they're -- as they're given space and
that's not what's marketable. And you're going to see views across
here where you -- where there's no -- there's no breaks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But those are zoned in the existing
one. If you go back again --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Go back --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to the front one --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- again.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- those are already zoned anyway up
in there. So, you would look across and see that. There's no change
there.
MS. CAWLEY: Now, again, that's not what's shown on the plan that
I have either.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, excuse me. There is a change.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They moved them forward.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: These are -- are permitted to go to three
stories under the old plan and now they won't be so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're -- but they are closer to the
property line by, I think, 15 feet or something to that effect or --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sixty.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, the original plan that I have has multi -- has
single family across the street and up the cul-de-sacs as well. So,
that's not -- this is not what --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh.
MS. CAWLEY: -- we've seen in the future. We have multi --
single family all along the southern boundary of the property.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But which -- which plan is the plan here,
guys?
MS. CAWLEY: I don't know. That's the question. I mean we have
no '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The petitioner -- the petitioner has
labeled this exhibit Existing PUD Master Plan.
Miss Murray, as we pull out the PUD, the zoning document, is this
the plan that is consistent with that document?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the current PUD document, what's the
page?
MS. CAWLEY: Are you going to be allowed multifamily right across
the street from single family? I thought there was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That transitional word?
MS. MURRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, that's straight right out of the PUD?
MS. MURRAY: Yes. It's -- PUD master plan is very general.
They're showing platted lots but the configurations of the cul-de-sacs
and the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, somebody --
MS. MURRAY: -- lots are the same.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- has been using the wrong plan to show
people in Grey Oaks about what's supposed to go on the other side of
the property line.
MS. CAWLEY: And within Kensington.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because that's the plan of record right
there.
MS. CAWLEY: And within Kensington. That's -- this is the plan
that the Kensington folks have been shown.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that was their STP. And, you
know, so it's not like somebody made this up. That was the -- that's
-- I've seen that and it's got a stamp on it that shows it's a Collier
County STP.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that, but my point is people
are comparing different things here today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The official plan of record for zoning
purposes is the PUD master plan. And that --
MS. CAWLEY: Which doesn't show this, Mr. Hancock. It shows --
it shows tract, a tract along there. It don't show the units.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It didn't show the lots, the individual
lots.
MS. CAWLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and I've just got to say this not
to you but maybe to the petitioner. It seems like there has been so
much change so quickly, and I appreciate your responding to issues
that were raised at Planning Commission, but I'm afraid that half of
the people in the room who are objecting don't know what you're really
proposing today because they saw what you proposed at Planning
Commission and it looked awful.
And, so, now you -- I guess I'm saying that to the people in the
room that there are changes since the Planning Commission and I wonder
if you know what those are.
MS. CAWLEY: And one of the points on that, Commissioner Mac'Kie,
is that they had -- at the Planning Commission said they would meet
with us --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's very telling.
MS. CAWLEY: -- and they did not do so.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And why is that?
MS. CAWLEY: And we -- I know that Mr. Ink called a number of
times to try to get the meeting to try to understand what was going on
and we were never responded to in that case.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, that's not good.
MS. CAWLEY: Because we were, you know, wanting to work with them
and that was not -- they weren't forthcoming in working with us.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: On the other hand, this morning we did hear
from the petitioner. We heard certainly from our staff and then we
had about a ten-minute break when these boards were turned around and
people did have the opportunity.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It doesn't take a long study to come up here
and look at what's existing and what is proposed. So, all you need to
do is come forward --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- take a look at these boards and anyone
that's in this room this morning did have the opportunity to take a
look and -- and see what has been proposed and, certainly, to hear
what the petitioner is asking for.
We can sit here and nitpick and -- and do all those kinds of
things. I can't take on and take on the responsibility of the
petitioner and -- and that kind of thing. This is something that if
there was a problem, they needed to work that out before they ever got
here before us this morning.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Agreed.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But we're here to look at what we've been
shown and, thank you, Hiss Cawley.
Is there anything else that you needed to get on the record?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have -- I do have one question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry. Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you represented, I assume, Grey Oaks
Development on the Columbia '- MS. CAWLEY: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Building height increase, okay, where
you were going, I think, 50 to 65 feet in height, Mr. Kolflat was one
of the people, actually the only person, that took the time to come
down and raise an objection to it.
I believe, and I'd have to go back to the record to make sure,
but I believe -- and I take all commitments in a PUD seriously. I
don't care if they were negotiated, I don't care if they were written
in, I don't care if they were extracted by the board, they're were
commitments.
In order to alter one of those commitments, there has to be
appropriate mitigating circumstances. One of the mitigating
circumstances that you stated, addressing Mr. Kolflat's concern of
visibility, was that it was so far away from where he lived, that the
15 feet would be almost imperceptible.
That is the exact same argument -- you're very convincing. I
think it was a four-one vote to allow for that change in the Grey Oaks
PUD. That's the exact same argument we're hearing from the Kensington
folks today, and so I find it difficult to say on the one hand the
commitment, when mitigated, must be held to; on the other hand, it
shouldn't. I -- that's difficult because it's the exact same
argument.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, again, in order to get that -- that 15 feet,
Grey Oaks gave up quite a bit. They gave up 100,000 square feet of
commercial. And that was -- had nothing to do with what the view was
going to be like or anything. That was something that -- that you
felt was important and there was a -- a quid pro quo, basically --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MS. CAWLEY: -- between the board and the developer. In this
case, I don't see that quid pro quo.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, coincidentally they've said, I
think, roughly, was it 30 units are being cut, your average home in
this -- this community is about 30,000 -- 3,000 square feet, so it's
90,000 residential or 100,000 commercial, but you're awful close on
the square footage that's being given up.
I just -- it's very hard to listen to you argue one thing very
passionately and two months later come back and argue the exact
opposite side.
MS. CAWLEY: Well, I -- I think there's a difference. The reason
there's a difference is because it was a different kind of commitment.
And I understand the -- the PUD's are -- the information in a PUD is
important and the PUD master plans are important. And I -- and I
totally agree with you, Commissioner Hancock, but this was an
agreement that was worked out between the two developers back then and
-- and approved by the board as a specific type of commitment.
And I think that -- I know -- I know that the Grey Oaks folks
have a height limitation along their border with Carriage Lane, and
they intend to keep that height limitation along Carriage Lane. They
also at Hawksridge had -- and have, in fact, lost sales because they
had an agreement that they would have a certain type of unit adjacent
to Pine Woods and have complied with that commitment because it was a
specific commitment between Pine Woods and Hawksridge and between
Carriage Lane and Grey Oaks.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we could -- we could go around --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We could go on and debate that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that one again. If they came in and
said we're going to put in a new buffer and we're going to reduce our
height, that's the position we're in today. They're going to put in
an additional buffer and they're going to reduce their height.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Eliminate units.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eliminate units.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And move them farther away from the
property line.
MS. CAWLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
Mr. Fernandez, how many speakers do we have after Mr. Johnson?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Probably about 15.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Fifteen? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I'm going to hold all questions
till the end.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Johnson.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And then the next is Kenneth Ricci.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Kenneth Ricci is the next speaker.
MR. JOHNSON: My name is William Johnson. I'm a property owner
in Kensington.
I guess I spoke rather strongly in opposition to the proposal
when it was presented to the Planning Advisory Board and while the
basic -- my basic feelings about this proposed change haven't really
changed dramatically, I guess I've been told often enough by the
petitioner's representatives what a fool I've been to believe in a
site plan that was being distributed to prospective purchasers.
And they're quick to point out that this is -- this is labeled a
Conceptual Master Plan. I don't see any language on here about
subject to change at the whims of the developer and the Board of
County Commissioners.
If I may, let me provide you a copy of this. This was --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Johnson, if you're going to speak, you
need to be on the microphone.
MR. JOHNSON: This was distributed to prospective buyers, at
least from my experience while I was a prospective buyer from June of
'95 through the end of the year. We closed on a lot purchase in
January of '96.
I -- I relied on this document, whether I should have or not, in
-- in making a decision. As you can see, the multifamily residential
is up in the northeast corner of the property. The whole southern
half of the project is single family.
I looked at factors like traffic. All the roads leading to the
back of the property are not boulevards. They're -- they're
residential streets. I would question how seriously we've considered
here the capacity of these residential streets to handle the traffic
to the multifamily areas that were put in the -- in the -- along the
southern portion of the property.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Johnson, the elimination of 30 units in
your opinion will increase or will it -- did it decrease traffic?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, if you look closely at this plan, as I did, I
provided for you at the bottom of this page the count of units that
are shown on this plan.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, do you mind answering my question
before you go off on another direction, please? MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My question was --
MR. JOHNSON: Would you repeat it?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in your opinion, will the elimination of
30 units from the PUD increase or decrease traffic on these streets?
MR. JOHNSON: Obviously, it depends on where it is you're
deleting it from. But --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead with your --
MR. JOHNSON: -- in general -- generally, to answer your question
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're not going to answer my question, are
you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's trying to right now.
MR. JOHNSON: It will reduce it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: But to -- to a given homeowner, it may not reduce
it for him because of where it's -- it's removed from.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, he's counting the cars that are
going to come by his house. I mean I assume that's what you're
counting, not --
MR. JOHNSON: And I -- and I would suggest to you that -- that --
what is the true capacity of a residential street to carry this
traffic?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thousand cars a day is the average
standard.
MR. JOHNSON: If -- if you look at other communities, you don't
-- you don't have traffic going to multifamily areas traveling down
single family streets. If it is, it's very rare. By and large you
have boulevards and single family homes are off on pods off of that
main thoroughfare.
So, probably what I'm -- the -- the most valid point I can bring
to you this morning is maybe the manner in which the county controls
or fails to control the kind of information that's disseminated to
prospective buyers, why something of this nature should be put in
print, stacked up on the table with all the plans and the model of the
community and purport to be what was to be built.
And I did sit there and count and was told that the -- the
density of homes -- of residential units in this community was going
to be substantially below the PUD allowance.
So, how the whole system -- how -- how this is controlled maybe
needs some attention from both this commission and -- and staff to
assure that what a developer is presenting as his plan is indeed valid
or not. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want to quickly point out, sir,
because I don't think it's changed, the first indication you should
have had that something was going to be different was when about 30
lots became a lake to the south of the cul-de-sac, south of Kensington
Gardens, that street is now a lake.
So, there are already some alterations before units were sold,
and I don't know. We've had similar complaints in the past. They're
civil complaints because for this board to become the policing
authority of real estate land use plans is just an area that is -- is
-- that's a civil matter between the buyer and the purchaser, and if
we get involved in that, we're going -- we're going to spend a lot of
your tax dollars.
MR. JOHNSON: I agree it's not a matter that should come before
this commission.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to point that one change out
though. It's significant.
MR. JOHNSON: Do you realize that none of these streets are in?
I mean, for someone to determine whether that road was there or
whether indeed it was a lake, you'd be tramping across wild ground.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't sure where your home is but I --
I'd just --
MR. JOHNSON: It's -- it's very close to this area.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Kenneth Ricci and then R. J.
Hobeft.
MR. RICCI: Hi. My name is Kenneth Ricci. As a future resident
of Kensington and a resident of the proposed area in question, this
will be brief. I approve, and that's about it. It's been rather
lengthy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put your money where your mouth is
already, huh?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: R. J. Hobeft and then Joseph A. Batty.
MS. HOBERT: Good morning. Rosemary Hobeft. I'm going to be a
resident at Kensington. I have purchased a lot actually right in the
same area where Mr. Johnson is, where there might be a concern as far
as traffic is concerned.
When I purchase -- and I will tell you that I do currently work
at the sales center. I've sold real estate in Naples for 13 years,
decided to go out to Kensington to sell and liked what was going on
and decided to purchase in there. I could get another job anywhere
tomorrow. I do want to live in Kensington.
When I first got there, I also looked at a conceptual and I did
ask questions and was told, this is what we'd like to do, this is what
we'd like to do, but I did understand that things might change.
I prefer to live in a community that's completed as opposed to a
community with some lots that perhaps might be a little bit difficult
to sell.
I appreciate all of your questions this morning. I think you've
cut to a lot of what the true issues here are. I really -- I strongly
urge you to approve this request.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Where --
MS. HOBERT: I'm in the Canterbury Green section.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which would be?
MS. HOBERT: Which would be on the east -- right near World
Tennis.
I'm on Lot 2 right there. Mr. Johnson is there.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just describe where --
MS. HOBERT: I'm on Lot 2 that I just pointed out to you in the
Canterbury area. And down in that one corner is where -- are some
proposed multifamily. So, by living on that street -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh?
MS. HOBERT: -- you know, I mean -- I would be in the same area
where Mr. Johnson is. And there is going to be another exit to the
community on the other side where most of the multifamily would be, so
I don't even really think that we're going to have any more traffic on
the west side of the community than we would have if we did put all
single family down there. Actually, probably less. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Joseph A. Batty and then Tom Brown.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Dr. Batty had to leave on a commitment.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Tom Brown and then Susan Brown.
MR. BROWN: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. BROWN: My name is Tom Brown. I'm a resident of Kensington
and a happy resident, I might add. The Bateman Community Properties
don't build motels. They build very beautiful coach homes and I have
many friends in various communities in the county here that -- that
live in them.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry. Mr. Brown, you said Bateman
Communities. Is that who is anticipating building these units?
MR. BROWN: I think that's true, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I didn't know that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. BROWN: Oh, okay. They're very lovely, lovely buildings.
And Mr. Ricci has bought a unit in them.
And the lighting discussion that you had, I think the
commissioners fully agree that it just -- this isn't a lighting
problem with it. The 30-foot elevation is lower than the typical
two-story home in a community I live in right now.
I lived in Canterbury Green, on the most southern end of it. In
fact, I'm the last house in Kensington and I face World Tennis Center.
And, in fact, my buffer between my -- my lanai and World Tennis
Center it's about 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thirty feet high?
MR. BROWN: No. Thirty feet in distance.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Distance.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thirty feet in distance?
MR. BROWN: Yeah, right. Just like it is along the -- the west
side of Grey Oaks. They have the same situation there. So, at any
rate, my point is that it's a quiet community. Kensington is also a
quiet community and -- and I don't see where the problem -- the
builder is -- is proposing such enhancements to the Kensington
community and I think that's a commitment that the builder has also,
the developer.
He's -- he's improving the roads, he's reducing density, he's
positively impacting, reducing the infrastructures as far as water,
sewage, police, fire, et cetera.
And I -- and I think those are all very positive things that I
hope the commission will -- will look upon very favorably.
This sight, line of sight, for a three-story structure, which
they're entitled to build, and they may very well build that, is going
to be detrimental to the Grey Oaks community. And I -- I just got a
feeling that, like you folks, some of them have not understood that
completely.
There's never been a question in my mind. I spoke at the last
meeting, at the Commission Planning Meeting in favor of this as well.
One of the gentlemen there, I don't know his name, excused
himself from the -- from the panel -- he was sitting over there --
because legal -- the legal counsel advised him he had a conflict of
interest.
Well, I guess he did because he lived at Grey Oaks. And -- and
in his dissertation to -- to me and to all of us, he explained that he
was a citizen and a -- and a resident and he had a -- he fully had a
right to sit up there even though he had this conflict of interest.
And I thought -- I took exception to that. And he testified and he
did an eloquent job of that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does this soon get to something relevant
on the petition because I don't want to talk about individual, you
know, who did what, when. MR. BROWN: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, I don't think --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there's something in his testimony you
wanted to --
MR. BROWN: Yeah, it is. When Dr. Batty, who is a very
distinguished, respected physician in this community who -- who had to
leave. He's giving a lecture at the Naples Country Club at 12:00
o'clock. That's why he had to leave.
This gentleman called him, in front of everybody and everyone --
and most everyone heard it -- a big jackass. And I thought that was
very, very --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A member of our Planning Commission?
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, but what relevance does that have to
what we're taking about?
MR. BROWN: Only that I think this gentleman owes Dr. Batty a
public --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well '-
MR. BROWN: -- apology. And I --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I suggest you write a letter or something
like that.
MR. BROWN: I will do that. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll say this. If we have members of
our Planning Commission acting inappropriately, that's something we
ought to review the record and take a look at and -- and we can take
corrective action, but that's separate from this hearing.
MR. BROWN: Okay. Well, I didn't -- I'm sorry I'm out of line in
that regard, but -- but I do support the -- the proposal and I hope
you, gentlemen and ladies, will -- will look favorably upon it. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Susan Brown and then C.
Patricia Grimes.
MS. BROWN: Good morning. I'm Susan Brown. I'm a resident at
Kensington.
You know, it's the American way to improve products and I think
that includes developments. If there -- that were not the case, we
would all still be driving black Model T Fords.
In this case I think the developers of Kensington have done a
very good job of proposing something which is better, and I think
we're fixated, some of us, on language to the point where there is the
assumption that anything which is a single family home has got to be
better than a multifamily product.
I think if you look at what is currently permitted and the change
that's being proposed, you would have to say that it's better even
though it's a change. I'm in favor of it and I hope you will vote for
the petition.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: C. Patricia Grimes and then Glenn Morton.
MS. GRIMES: I'm Patricia Grimes and I'm planning to build a home
in Kensington. I think you should know I'm also on the sales staff
and very, very pleased with what Kensington is proposing here.
I think it would enhance our community as well as Grey Oaks based
on the fact that our setbacks and buffers are much deeper. The
Bateman product is very attractive.
And based on everything else that we discussed here today, I hope
that you will approve this petition. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a requirement for the sales staff
to live there?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Glenn Morton and then Terry McGee.
MR. MORTON: I'm Glenn Morton. I live in Kensington. In fact,
I'm the first person to ever live in Kensington. I still live in
Kensington and I'll continue to live in Kensington.
I've seen a lot of things come and go and everything I've seen
has been very helpful and very beautiful. I also might add, I live on
a corner lot. I have traffic this way and this way. It's never been
a bother.
So, I'm asking you to approve this because it can only be for the
best. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Terry McGee and then Jo Ann Hirsch.
MR. MCGEE: My name is Terry McGee. I've been a member at
Kensington since 1995. I hope to be a resident there some day, but
what I can attest to is if -- I know you don't all have the
opportunity, but if you get a chance to drive through Kensington, one
thing that always impressed me were the berms that they built to try
to protect the neighbors to whichever; north, south, east or west, and
their intention is nothing but to improve the neighborhood, so I hope
you vote for it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Jo Ann Hirsch and then Robert Greenspahn.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Jo Ann Hirsch left.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Robert Greenspahn and then Carl
Steinhouse.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Greenspahn is making his way to the
podium.
MR. GREENSPAHN: Yes. Old and slow. Good morning, everybody.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning.
MR. GREENSPAHN: We first purchased in Kensington in 1994.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, sir. Can we get your name for
the record for the court reporter?
MR. GREENSPAHN: Oh, Bob Greenspahn. And I'm sorry.
We first purchased in 1994 at -- in Kensington. Our first house
was a two-story. We're now building our second one, which is a
one-story, and I can't tell you honestly whether it's one foot taller
or one foot shorter than the two-story.
My wife is a chemist. She can spend money.
As far as density, I think that's very important. You spread it
apart, you have less units. Some of the units are smaller than
private homes. That means less guests. That means -- at least to me,
it does. I mean you don't have the bedrooms. I know my wife's family
is going to come down. I'm going to have more cars there than they're
going to have at the Ford line.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is kind of a personal thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll say.
MR. GREENSPAHN: Oh, yeah. This is history, trust me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: More of the American way.
MR. GREENSPAHN: The one thing that I don't think that was
brought up -- at least I didn't hear it, I may have missed it -- is
the noise level.
With that road being farther back and the homes being further
back, the noise can't travel as far. I just don't see much of a
problem. I -- it's -- I -- I think something has been built up out of
misunderstanding. Maybe we haven't gotten together with the right
people and maybe the -- the right answers haven't been -- questions
haven't been asked and the right answers haven't been given.
And I think if there was a little more communication, probably
everything would be fine.
Thank you very much. I don't have anything else except for one
thing.
The gentleman from Grey Oaks, he says his wife finds him wrong
every once in awhile. I'm 95 percent wrong. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The last speaker we have, Madam Chairman, is Carl
Steinhouse.
MR. STEINHOUSE: I'm Carl Steinhouse. I'm a resident of
Kensington, a new resident. I moved in about a month ago into my
house, but I formally lived in Kensington in the condo, so I've been
around for about two and a half years in Kensington.
And it's very important to me and, I think, to the people that
live in Kensington that the developer has viability and it's important
that he's able to sell his homes.
Now, I consider the existing PUD master plan an abomination in
terms of trying to sell homes, a whole bunch of small homes abutting
onto the -- immediately onto the back of Grey Oaks.
And this plan is a tremendous improvement for everybody, for
everybody. Fallow land won't help anybody except possibly the Grey
Oaks developers who compete with Kensington in the sale of homes in
the area.
Now, as a former prosecutor for the Justice Department's
Antitrust Division, I always take with a large grain of salt when a
competitor comes in and attempts to throw a monkey wrench into the
improvements of another competitor.
And that's what I view this as, and I'm not talking about the
residents of Grey Oaks. They have legitimate concerns, but I'm
talking about the developers of Grey Oaks coming in and objecting to
what is obviously an improvement for everybody here including Grey
Oaks.
So, I would urge you very strongly to approve this amendment to
the PUD. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, there are two speakers that signed
up too late to speak.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. HARKINS: Madam Commissioner, could I please request this?
I'm the first original resident of Grey Oaks.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. I believe that when we started
this meeting this morning, I announced and -- and we have it printed
on our agenda, that if you wish to speak to an item, you have to
register prior to that item being heard.
In other words, you don't come up while the item is being heard
and kind of think of something that you'd like to rebut.
If -- when you come down here, you come down here with the
intention that you wish to speak to an item or you want to listen to
the proceedings or what have you, but we need to know ahead of time
what we have in terms of how many people are going to speak and so
forth. So --
MR. HARKINS: I would have been happy to --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, sir. If you want to address me,
you need to come up to the podium.
State your name for the record.
MR. HARKINS: Yes, ma'am. My name is John Harkins. I live in
Grey Oaks and --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not going --
MR. HARKINS: -- unfortunately --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I haven't decided -- I'm not going to give
you permission to speak, Mr. Harkins.
MR. HARKINS: No, ma'am. I'm not going to speak to -- to
anything.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. HARKINS: I would have -- I would have liked to have talked,
too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MR. HARKINS: I just want to say that I was not aware of your
particular policy and I didn't -- I didn't find any place to register
when I first showed up here, so I don't know where I would have gone
to have done that, whether that was the second floor or out in one of
the offices here. I -- I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you inquire of anyone?
MR. HARKINS: Yeah. I -- I came here to speak.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I -- I regret that.
MR. HARKINS: And I'm sorry I wasn't in the -- in the room at the
time you gave your initial thing. I would hope that you would please
make a small exception. I do have one or two questions that I -- I'd
love to ask and, perhaps, you know, if it wasn't an inconvenience to
you, you might just make this --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I appreciate that but we did take a break and
I'm sure you were here at the time we took a break.
I was accessible. I was speaking to reporters. I was also up
here at the board table. I was accessible. If you had a question,
you're certainly welcome to address me. I'm -- I'm here. I'm very
willing to talk to the public. I'm sorry for this inconvenience.
MR. HARKINS: I don't mind sitting down and I understand that you
do make your rules, but I would hope that you would at least look at
the issue of noise pollution and the fact that they've moved the road
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They have. Thank you.
MR. HARKINS: -- you know, 85 feet closer to Grey Oaks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how about we could improve the -- the
signage out there, Mr. Fernandez, about, you know, register to speak
here, big red letters on a big white sign, because, you know, we're so
used it. We know and apparently --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We could do that but I've also made it a
point, commissioner, to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You have, excellently.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to announce this at meetings because it
has been a change and we will continue to do this at the beginning of
every meeting and, as well, the agenda, which I believe the agendas
are placed out there on the table.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the very first paragraph
on the agenda states that very --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, it does.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- situation, so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that would be one additional --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. I understand. We can certainly put
some signage out there that will aid the public and I'm -- I am in
favor of that. That's a good suggestion, commissioner.
At this point in time, there are no further speakers. Do any of
the commissioners have any further questions of the petitioner or
anyone else; staff?
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see Mr. Hancock does, too.
A petitioner question and, actually, this is -- I don't know who
the representative from the in-house developer is. I'd rather ask
them than their attorney, but I'll tell you what the question is.
The question is, did you make a specific commitment? Did you --
is there an integrity issue here? Did you guys make a commitment?
Did you make a promise that now you're breaking? That's important to
me.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know who to ask that question.
MR. GOODLETTE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, my name is Dudley
Goodlette, for the record. And I'm the trustee, having succeeded Mr.
Brugger as trustee some 14 months ago.
And I can assure you on this record that we have not made any
commitments that we're not standing before you today reconfirming.
To the extent that there are conceptual master plans that were
out there in 1992 or 1993 when this was first approved by this board,
which is not binding, which is a civil issue to the extent that there
are those kinds of issues outstanding, yes, there are master plans
with -- that are conflicting.
But -- but what we're showing you here as an existing PUD master
plan is what we discussed, but we didn't have this drawing when we
appeared before your Planning Commission some three weeks ago.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my question --
MR. GOODLETTE: We specifically discussed 46 lots along the
southerly boundary of this property. I made that presentation. That
has not changed. I have spoken personally --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question is a little different.
MR. GOODLETTE: I'm sorry. I've spoken personally with
representatives of the Grey Oaks Association and there's nothing that
we're telling you here this morning that is inconsistent with any
representations that we have made to the Grey Oaks people.
One of the members of the Grey Oaks community stood before you
and indicated that they met with us before we even submitted this
petition, PUD amendment, which we did, and we discussed these issues
in some detail.
We understood that we needed to proceed in good faith with our
neighbors and we have done that, and I can assure you on this record
that since we have been involved in this project beginning in November
of 1996, we have consistently communicated.
One of the reasons that we're here now is because of a need for
the changes that are reflected in this PUD amendment that's before you
that we think are an integral part of the success of this project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Goodlette, thank you, because you know
that I have the highest respect for you. I would never question your
integrity, and that was not my question.
My question was, can somebody who's been there the whole time,
because I know that you're new and Brugger was not -- you know, you
can't tell me whether or not Mr. Brugger made a promise.
My question is, did Mr. Brugger, as your predecessor, make a
promise that is now being broken and not you personally because I
don't have any question about that.
MR. COLEMAN: Again, for the record, Kevin Coleman. Commissioner
Mac'Kie, I'm going to have John Asher speak to you in two seconds
because he was at that 1992 hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That's important.
MR. COLEMAN: I will -- I will let you know that that condition
that Miss Cawley referenced to you was not in the staff report, it was
not a condition imposed by the CCPC. It was one of those heat of the
battle commitments. And from a legal standpoint, and your County
Attorney can verify this or give you his opinion, to me that carries
no greater weight than a condition that was negotiated with staff,
decided by the Planning Commission and that we also agreed to.
So, having said that, let Mr. Asher discuss with you the
circumstances surrounding that commitment.
MR. ASHER: For the record, my name is John Asher. I was
employed with another engineering firm that represented Kensington at
the time in 1992, and we came to the meeting not knowing of -- of any
concerns or issues with anyone.
At the time, Mark Morton from the Grey Oaks development showed
up. Mr. Brugger asked him what he was here for or what he -- what the
concerns were. He said he's strictly here to observe and his only
question was what was going out at the south property line.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was that an off-the-record conversation or
on the record?
MR. ASHER: That was an off the record. Just prior to the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to know.
MR. ASHER: -- to the hearing.
And Mr. Brugger came back and spoke with the project team and
said Mr. Morton was concerned with that, and he said, I think we can
commit to the single family. And as the consultants, we were kind of
dismayed. There's no reason to. There's no compatibility issues.
There's nothing really that would require that.
And then the issue got brought up in the meeting and it was that.
But there was no long, drawn out discussions of this prior to that
meeting as, I think, at the Planning Commission someone was on the
record as saying that they talked about it for months. That just
didn't happen.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, can I piggyback
on that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did Mr. Brugger waive his right to
ever apply for a change to the PUD?
MR. ASHER: No.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. My -- my question isn't about whether
or not it's legal because I've got no question about whether or not
this is a legal application. You know, if they have a contract
between the two parties, they can go fight that out and I'm -- I'm
looking more for a gut integrity question than a legal question.
And -- and what I'm trying to understand is if this was a deal
made, a verbal deal made at the time, and it sounds like it was. It
sounds like that was a condition of Grey Oaks not objecting to the
petition in 1992 and you shook on it and that's what I'm asking.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's different from Grey Oaks'
commitment of 50-foot height at Golden Gate Parkway how? Now, wasn't
that a commitment to the community?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, it -- I can make a distinction,
you know, and I'm struggling with this. I'm absolutely struggling
with this.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe I can help you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, go ahead.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe I can help you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I might caution you against using that
piece of information in your decision-making process because our job
as county commissioners --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- is simply to look at this PUD master
plan as it exists today, gather the information relative to the
amendment, listen to the public speakers on both sides of the issue
and make our determination on that.
If you interject something that -- that is a private matter
between two parties and could possibly be a civil matter at some point
in time, assuming that one party would be sufficiently aggrieved, I
think that that is probably going outside of our official duties as
county commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are -- is Mr. Armalavage here?
MR. ASHER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Could I -- I need to ask you a
question, if I may.
Some of the comments we heard from Grey Oaks residents, and when
you buy in a development that's not built out, there's always fear of
the unknown, fear of the unknown both within your development and
what's across the fence.
You performed, according to our package, a review of the proposed
plan and made several statements that I think are important. In an
absent contrary comment from the Grey Oaks community on a professional
level, I need to clarify this.
You stated that the proposed PUD amendment and proposed buffer
modification at the south end of Kensington will not create a
diminution of value to the Kensington community and will not create
diminution of value to Grey Oaks or World Tennis Center. How did you arrive at that assessment?
MR. ARMALAVAGE: For the record, Rick Armalavage, local real
estate appraiser with Armalavage and Associates.
Merely by just studying this situation versus like kind
situations throughout the county or other areas, other areas of
Southwest Florida, any time you get into a location that borders
another community or a separate use or a property line, you have these
situations that exist and you either have buffers or berms or in some
cases nothing.
But if it's handled correctly and with the right types of berms
and when you -- or buffering, and when you go in in advance knowing
what that location is all about, in the case of Grey Oaks with the
homesites already being there, you have an existing condition that's
already there. You have a berm that's already there.
So, in my viewpoint and -- and based on everything I could study
and find, there's no evidence of diminution of value now or in the
future.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is -- is it your intent to be recognized
as an expert --
MR. ARMALAVAGE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in this matter?
I think we -- we're going to --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's all I had for Mr.
Armalavage.
MR. ARMALAVAGE: Any other questions?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could we continue on on the next page of this
particular statement that is -- has a bullet and is highlighted? It
says the existing Kensington PUD allows residential housing along the
south side bordering Grey Oaks which creates significantly greater
visual impact on the adjoining community than the proposed Kensington
PUD plan. The proposed plan will have minimal, if any, visual impact
on the surrounding properties.
MR. ARMALAVAGE: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's based on the buffer and --
MR. ARMALAVAGE: And my study of the plans and -- and again based
on like kind situations. And it's my professional opinion that this
proposed plan will have very little impact on the adjoining Grey Oaks
properties.
And, in fact, I think the single family along that south border
would indeed have much greater impact. I think in the spirit of what
was trying to be achieved here, I think the spirit of that and the
consistency and the compatibility is much, much greater actually.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The last statement you have here is the
existing berm located along the north side of Grey Oaks, and this is
the one we've been talking about, and the south side of Kensington is
one of the largest berm areas separating residential communities in
this area.
And what again is the size of this berm? Do you remember?
MR. ARMALAVAGE: The berm width is approximately 40 feet to 50
feet and the -- the height of that berm is in the range of 20 to 25
feet.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And with plantings on top?
MR. ARMALAVAGE: Plantings on top of that would probably be close
to 35 or 40 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question, if I may.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's just about something you just said,
that it was your professional opinion that the exist -- the existing
PUD plan with the single family, that those proposed or potential
single family homes would have more of a negative effect, more
negative impact on the property values of Grey Oaks than the proposed
plan.
MR. ARHALAVAGE: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why is that?
MR. ARHALAVAGE: Just by mere proximity. I -- I think the
likelihood of having mass or more intensity of use is -- is much
greater and it gets down to a marketability issue. The only way to
sell those units there is by masking them closer together --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And selling them cheap.
MR. ARHALAVAGE: -- and at a lower price, and most likely you're
going to end up with a fair amount of two-story units and although in
the community, you'd only end up with maybe 25 or 30 percent two
stories, they tend to go in the cheaper products in the inferior
locations and I would bet you, it would be closer to 50 or 60 percent
of a higher more intensity form of use.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because of this area not necessarily
having a view of a lake or golf course or a --
MR. ARHALAVAGE: It doesn't have a view. People will seek size,
scale. They'll be looking for more square footage at a -- at a price
point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any further questions?
Then I'll close the public hearing.
Do I have a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, these PUD amendments are
-- are sometimes difficult and particularly difficult when you have
one community pitted against another -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as we have here today.
For the sake of consistency, what has always been my concern in
amending a PUD is what are the physical impacts realized as a result
of the change? That's what planning comes down to.
You can talk pie in the sky theory all you want. The bottom line
is physical impacts; what you see, smell, touch, hear, feel from the
proposed change.
I find it difficult to support the idea that single family homes,
some 30 percent of which will be two-story, within 15 or so feet of
the property line, or pool cages within 15 feet of the property line,
is a lesser impact than the same height of buildings one hundred feet
away from that.
That is very, very difficult physically to swallow. It just --
it defies logic. That's not to say they're going to do what is in
this plan. They could change that tomorrow. That could be changed to
all two-story, that could be changed to all one-story. We don't know.
But what we do know is the product in there that's been selling
is very similar to this. It's been selling on a perimeter property
line just as this is being composed. So, it's logical that it could
be a product that would sell here.
Based on that, based on -- I do have -- I do want to attach a
stipulation that street level lighting be no higher than 20 feet above
grade. That would keep it below the height of the berm. The lighting
on the exterior of the buildings be no higher than the eave, the
underside of the eave, of any of the structures.
And that with those two elements and the information submitted to
us regarding the additional buffering plan, I think they've met the
compatibility argument very well and I'll move the -- I'll move the
item with those stipulations in addition to staff requirements.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second and there's a
question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my question has to do with -- the
Grey Oaks amendment as a good analogy where they wanted to add 15 feet
of height and we made them reduce 100,000 square feet of commercial in
order to do that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think we made them do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well '-
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe that was an offer that was made.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It was an offer that they oh so willingly
made when they were counting their votes and figured they couldn't get
them otherwise.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it was in transportation
before they ever got here, but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Well, my question is, I think I
agree that this is a wash. That's probably a wash as far as impacts
on the neighboring development, Grey Oaks. I'm having trouble and I
hope that someone can identify for me what the -- where is the million
square feet of commercial space and 90,000 residential area?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's 100,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. A hundred thousand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, actually --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A million. Sorry. A few extra zeros.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We talked about that earlier and assuming
a square footage of 2,000, 2500 square feet of house, you're reducing
60 or 75,000 square feet of residential.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's hard to compare.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But more importantly, we have to remember
that residential units are indeed -- generators attract. A single
family home generates ten trips a day average. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A multifamily home generates a 7.4 or 7.5
trips a day average. The fact that they're going to more multifamily
than single family actually reduce trips exiting Kensington.
So, the reduction in density has a direct impact on reduction of
traffic on the adjacent roadways. When you reduce commercial, you
reduce the traffic in that localized area but you don't eliminate
trips. If you have to go get a gallon of milk, you go get a gallon of
milk. The question is where do you go to get it?
But when you live in a house, you leave from it and you go back
to it every day. So, there is a difference in impact to the roadways
that this reduction of 30 units actually will have a true reduction on
potential impacts to the roadways. The reduction of commercial square
footage doesn't compare -- it doesn't compare apples and apples.
That's -- that is an exterior benefit to the project and we have
at every turn tried to reduce density in projects every chance we get
because --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of the roadway constraint problems.
So, it's difficult to turn a blind eye to that and say that's not a
benefit to the general communities.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not if it's a fair trade.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know either but my assumption and
my assessment is yes.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's true that any time we do anything
that impacts neighborhoods that's always a tough issue and I think
we've said in five years pretty near a hundred times, that our number
one priority is to protect the integrity of existing neighborhoods.
And I -- and some of the concerns may have been raised by the
fact you were looking at a plan other than what is the existing PUD
plan, and I have no idea who circulated whatever and whether that was
Kensington or whether that was just an error or what happened.
But I think when you look at the actual issues that the concerns
were raised for, will it affect my sight, will it affect lighting,
will it diminish my values and my home and -- and each one of those
has been knocked off.
So, I -- when we looked at it, I just wrote a checklist here of
the change to PUD will reduce the heights, will reduce density, will
actually reduce the line of sight from the Grey Oaks property, will
increase the buffer, and according to the expert testimony, it will
not impact it negatively, it may even positively impact the values of
property.
And, so, with all those things in mind, I don't think we can in
good conscience not approve it. I'm not sure where -- we have --
we're required -- you have to understand it's not just on a whim.
Somebody said the whim or nature of the board of commissioners
and we -- we cannot just vote on our whim, we feel good one day or
have a headache the next day. We're required to cast our ballot
within certain parameters. Certain legal hurdles must be covered and
I think here they clearly are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I agree. I'm just going to say it one
more time and then I'll stop, that there is a wash, that it's a net --
no net loss, but -- but I think, and I don't know if it's a legal
criteria and for reviewing a PUD amendment or not but I know that the
practice of my three years has been if we're making a change and
people have relied on the previous deal, we've got to show a benefit
to the public and I don't see that, adhere your traffic.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you mind telling me what you -- what
you mean when you say it's a wash or --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- you can swap. What are you swapping?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that in fact there's no -- that
the visual impacts are not significant, that the -- that the fact of
increasing multifamily, which is not as valuable a market to be
abutting is reduce -- is balanced by the reduction in total number of
units.
You know, as you go through point by point and positives and
negatives of the amendment, that they balance. But I don't see that
and I can't think of one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand -- I understand your point
because we always try to draw that out in some way, but legally --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we can only extract, if you will,
related impact, impact related changes, to a request before us. In
other words, we can't say that the community has to benefit.
As you said, if there's a wash, if there's no net impact to the
community, then we can't really count that as a strike against them.
If there is a reduction in the impact to the community, I just think
certainly that stands in their favor, but it isn't reason enough alone
to make the decision.
So, there is -- as you mentioned earlier, the legal test we have
to meet and that's always a fall back. That's really kind of chintzy.
You know -- you know, the truth is, does it make sense or doesn't
it? And in this case it depends on what side of the berm you're
standing on here because it makes sense on the one side and not on the
other and we've just got to try to use information presented today and
make that determination for ourselves.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You mentioned something -- maybe I didn't
quite understand what you said, Commissioner Mac'Kie -- in terms of
the public on this particular issue.
Well, the very fact that we're reducing density in this
particular development, is that not a plus in terms of our community
in Collier County? Isn't this -- hasn't this been a concern in
Collier County when you talk about density?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not that you're not welcome.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It certainly is a benefit and then --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean that's -- that's what I'm looking at
here, too. I mean when you start talking about reducing units, I
believe that that is a public benefit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it were a bigger number, it would
probably be what tips the scales.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, how big is beneficial?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, I think we're entitled to what they
currently have at X, Y, Z and then they come in and say we're going to
take it down and reduce this. I think it's a benefit. There is no
question.
At any rate, we have a motion and a second and I'll call for the
question unless there are further questions.
No further questions?
All those in favor?
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one.
At this time it's lunchtime. We'll reconvene at 1:30.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Before -- before we go, Mr. Weigel, there
was some mention made of perhaps inappropriate behavior by a member of
our Planning Commission. Could you supply me and -- and perhaps the
rest of the members of the board with those minutes so that we can --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like a -- if we can get an audio
tape as well.
MR. WEIGEL: I think those are available.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Will do.
(A Recess was taken.)
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 98-25, REGARDING PETITION SNR-97-13, JACQUELINE R. CONRECODE
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM CARROTWOOD ROAD TO PALMETTO WOODS
DRIVE LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the meeting of January 27th,
and our first petition this afternoon, SNR-97-13 concerning a street
name change.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Reischl, I'm terribly sorry to
interpret, but let me cut to the chase here. They changed the names
from street numbers, they didn't like the name they had, they looked
for a new name; is that right?
MR. REISCHL: Basically, yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That the majority of the people there
want it. Have the mappets -- we're not creating the mapper windfall
act of 1998, are we?
MR. REISCHL: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if there's public
speakers, but I'll suggest that we approve the item -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'll second it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- when we close the public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. We haven't done that yet.
Are there any questions regarding this?
All right. I will now --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Give our speakers opportunity.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers?
MR. HCNEES: You have the petitioner registered to speak,
Jacqueline Conrecode.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then we will --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably fair to assume she's in support
since she's the petitioner, so -- okay, she's waived --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sat here through that morning one
and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: After that, God bless you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve the
item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any questions
or comments?
If not, all in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #12C2
PETITION SNR-97-11, WILLIAM L. HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE
REPRESENTING FRANK COOPER OF NORTHBROOKE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED REQUESTING
A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF NORTHBROOKE DRIVE AND
OAKES BOULEVARD EXTENSION IN ITS ENIRETY TO CYPRESS WOODS BOULEVARD
LOCATED IN HUNTINGTON SUBDIVISION - TABLED FOR FOUR WEEKS
Next petition, I'll open this public hearing, Petition SNR-97-11,
Northbrooke Development, Limited requesting a street name change. Good afternoon.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record,
Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a
street name change for the northern portion of Northbrooke Boulevard
and Oaks Boulevard Extension in its entirety to Cypress Woods
Boulevard.
The petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements for submittal.
We have received no phone calls or letters objecting to this proposal.
The reason for the petition is, it extends from the county's
blocking of Northbrooke Drive and dividing it into two segments. The
petitioner feels that renaming it as an entire road as depicted on his
map, which you can see on page eight, would more clearly define the
traffic patterns. Staff recommends approval.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And an amazing coincidence, the
community's going to be called Cypress Woods?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Sir, I just address the question of the street
name.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's okay. Don't worry about it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This happens to -- it starts on the north
side of Immokalee Road and swings around in front of Huntington Lakes;
is that correct?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess my only concern is that when
streets normally line up the way this one and Oaks do, I do have an
emergency response question about that. The continuation on Oaks, and
when you cross the street, it's still Oaks, I personally hate crossing
a street and the name changing --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pine Ridge to Seagate. Drives me nuts.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. It doesn't make a lot of sense
tO me, So I '-
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This will remain a public road?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume this will remain a public road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sir, public road?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Otherwise, there's some impact fee credits
due, so since it's a public road and since it meets Oaks Boulevard, I
just don't see the benefit in naming it for the adjacent development.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we can hear from the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll hear from the petitioner. Is there
anything else you wanted to --
MR. GOCHENAUR: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nothing? Mr. Hoover?
MR. HOOVER: I didn't get swore in on this.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My indication was --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know that it requires --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nah.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, it requires four votes, but it doesn't --
MR. HOOVER: Do I need to be sworn in?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, you don't need to be sworn in.
MR. HOOVER: Okay. Fine. I don't know if I have a good answer
for Mr. Hancock's concern there and there's nothing in any planning
course I've ever taken that's probably addressed that.
The -- I think one of the things we're trying to do, the way it
is right now, I think it's more confusing than what we're proposing,
and the Northbrooke, the fact that to go on Northbrooke, you can make
a left turn, but that's going to only get you into the commercial
portion, so to get to Northbrooke Drive, if you're a new resident or
you're visiting somebody there, you'd be going down Immokalee Road,
you'd be going west -- you'd be taking a left on Oaks Boulevard, and
then that's going to -- the way it is right now, once you got to the
southwest corner of Huntington Lakes, the road -- the name changes
back to Northbrooke Drive, so I -- I agree with Commissioner Hancock's
point, but I think what we have here is not an ideal situation anyway
and I think what we're doing would make a significant improvement.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There's no break in Immokalee Road that you
can -- if you're going east on Immokalee Road, you can't turn left
into Northbrooke Drive right now?
MR. HOOVER: Yes, it's blocked off though, so you've got a --
what they're doing --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In other words, you do have -- I drive this
every day and I guess I've never paid any attention to it, but --
MR. HOOVER: I've got a handout that sort of shows that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's in our packet, but it didn't
really help.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem is, the way I see it, we have
a silly situation right now. We have Oaks Boulevard going into Oaks
Boulevard Extension going into Northbrooke Drive. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Northbrooke Drive has a split at Oaks
Boulevard Extension North and South, so it's just kind of a -- a bad
intersection, a bad design now.
I understand the reason for connecting them, but if we're going
to connect them, let's connect them in a way that they function
properly, and the fact that Northbrooke continues down to Immokalee
Road, I just -- I think the whole thing's bad. We really need to step
back from a traffic engineering standpoint and determine how this can
best work before we go changing street names and whatnot, and Mr.
Kant, you're the guru on that, so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, before he -- before -- I need to
know something before. Just there's a trustee owner here and I don't
find the trust beneficiaries, so I don't know if there's a conflict
question. I don't think that I have one, but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have that list?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's two owners and one of them is a
trustee and there's no disclosure of the beneficiary, I mean nobody
wants to talk about it if none of us know if your mother happens to be
an owner.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm confident on that one, but there may
be other questions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bill, do you know who the owners of
this property are other than just the trustee?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We've got Mr. Hardy owning one piece,
Robert Hardy owns A, Exhibit A, and then Exhibit B says it's owned by
Richard Bennett, Trustee, and he owns a lot of land all over the
county as trustee. I just don't know for whom in this case.
MR. COOPER: I'll answer the question. Frank Cooper, for the
record. The question is -- if you would please give me the question
exactly what you want.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who does -- who owns Exhibit B property,
Richard Bennett, Trustee, do you know who the beneficiaries are,
although Mr. Cautero is saying to me it doesn't matter. Maybe I'm
barking up the wrong tree. Seems to me if it's going to benefit
somebody, I need to know if it's going to benefit a client.
MR. HULHERE: I think that you're absolutely entitled to an
answer to this question. I think we didn't consider that relevant
information to a street name change. It's not exactly a land use
petition where someone benefits from that action.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I think there's some question about
would the property owners accrue a benefit, you know, perceived, but
not physically there.
MR. COOPER: I'll be happy to -- I'm just confused which parcel
you're discussing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exhibit B is Land Trust 5405.
MR. COOPER: I don't have an Exhibit B.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know which one's which. Land
Trust 5405, Richard K. Bennett, Trustee. I'm sorry to cause so much
trouble, but --
MR. COOPER: At the time that this application was submitted, if
you would look at your map, this particular map -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's page eight.
MR. COOPER: -- the entire property from Immokalee Road to Quail
West on the west side of Northbrooke Drive and the property line
abutting Huntington Lakes and Quail Creek, since Northbrooke does
diverse from the property line, was owned by Richard K. Bennett,
Trustee for a land trust.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what I'm --
MR. COOPER: The property was under contract to Northbrooke
Development, a limited partnership. Since the time that this had been
submitted to the county, the property, consisting of Cypress Woods
Golf and Country Club, has been sold to Huntington -- excuse me, sold
to Northbrooke Development, Limited.
The property on your map here which says Northbrooke PUD which
abuts Immokalee Road and Northbrooke Drive, is still owned by Richard
K. Bennett, Trustee of Land Trust 5401. The property for the golf
course itself and the related development is now owned by Northbrooke
Development, Limited.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we usually know who the shareholders
and officers -- I don't --
MR. COOPER: Northbrooke Development is a Florida limited
partnership and has two limited partners -- three limited partners at
this time and one sole general partner. The limited partners consist
of Land Trust 5401, Richard K. Bennett, Trustee. At this time, we
also have two limited partners that are jointly together. Earl St.
John and Robert Hardy are now limited partners. They were not limited
partners at the time I was in the commission six months ago.
The general partner is a Florida corporation, Bonita Grand Hotel
Corp., which has three shareholders; myself, Frank Cooper; Dennis
Brichette (phonetic) and Robert Hardy. Dennis Brichette and Frank
Cooper are the active parties doing the development paperwork or
process -- I shouldn't say process, building the project.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We still get back to the question then
of Land Trust 540 -- 90120, whatever it was that you said there. We
need who know who those people are and --
MR. COOPER: That list has been previously provided to this board
and to the county planning department. I'm sorry I don't have a
handout for that, but it is part of your public record.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if I could vote, Mr. Cautero -- or Mr.
Weigel, if I could vote on the -- when this PUD came in, that 5405 was
the land trust and the beneficiaries were disclosed and I determined
that I didn't have a conflict at that point, is that safe enough to
rely on at this point?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. If your determination, based upon
the knowledge that you had at that time with the same elements today
has not changed, then your decision should be the same.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you're representing that those are the
same that they were at the time?
MR. COOPER: At that time -- no, they are different because there
has been a closing on the property. At that time in June or whatever
it was, the information given you was correct. Since that time, we
have closed on the property and it is no longer owned by Richard K.
Bennett, and at that time, Mr. Hardy was not a limited partner of the
partnership. He is at this time.
However, I do know the article in the paper, there is not
sufficient ownership and there is no control -- Mr. Hardy has no
control of the partnership, nor is there sufficient ownership by him
to represent that there would be any kind of DRI requirements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know the Regional Planning Council, I'm
not on it, but they're the guys who watch out for DRI's and
aggregation rules.
MR. COOPER: They approved the project in June.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not the issue. I think the
only question is that the board members who do business outside of the
Board of Commissioners want to make sure we don't have a conflict.
Has the make-up of that trust, the people in there, changed in
that time period, and if we don't know, then we can't deal with this
issue today.
MR. COOPER: To my knowledge, I am not the trustee, but to my
knowledge, the beneficiaries of that trust have not changed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to get back to the transportation
question, if we're done with that.
MR. COOPER: I'd be happy to address that too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let me ask Mr. Kant first, because
this was never a perfect intersection in the first place. It was kind
of, you know, it was gerrymandered a little bit.
Mr. Kant, before we go changing road names, is there something we
should be doing in kind of correcting, if possible, the alignment and
scenario that we have here?
MR. KANT: For the record, Edward Kant, transportation services
department.
Did I understand correctly this is not necessarily sworn
testimony, because I have not been sworn?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right.
MR. KANT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that change what the testimony
is?
MR. KANT: No, I was gonna go through the motions there and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rather Clintonesque. Sorry.
MR. KANT: Sorry, lost my head for a second there.
Let me, if I may, just give you a very brief history of how this
road came to be and -- and I know what -- I think I know what some of
your heartburn is over the geometry there.
Northbrooke Drive was originally built from Immokalee Road -- if
you have -- I believe everybody has this exhibit or something very
close to it. If you look at its intersection with Immokalee Road,
originally when Northbrooke Drive was built and platted, the
Northbrooke Drive right-of-way and the road itself went directly from
Immokalee Road on up through the curves and twists up to the county
line.
About a year and a half after that was built -- and that was
going to be the -- the main access through there, was at the
intersection with Immokalee Road, and that's that median opening that
I believe Commissioner Berry was addressing a little earlier. About a
year and a half after that, the Oaks Boulevard Extension, so called,
that S shaped portion was built by the developers of the Huntington
project.
At that point in time, and anticipating that, when the platting
of the original Northbrooke Drive took place, staff had required that
a note be placed on the plat that that southern several hundred feet,
and unfortunately, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but that
that would then be realigned, and this drawing is -- is not exactly
correct, it's a little bit nicer, smoother curve, be realigned so that
the -- that southern portion really served nothing more -- no more
function than a driveway and that it would be limited to right in,
right out on Immokalee Road when Immokalee -- the earlier of two
occurrences; when Immokalee Road was four-laned and there was a median
barrier, or at such time as traffic conditions, either through the
FDOT or the county, dictated because of safety and operational
conditions that that be somehow closed off. So the -- the -- at the
time that Oaks Boulevard was open, we put a traffic signal up there at
the intersection of Oaks and Immokalee Road.
All right. That's where we are today. From a transportation
perspective, we look at that southern X hundred feet of Northbrooke
Drive, for lack of a better description, as merely being local access
to that southern Northbrooke PUD parcel. As a matter of fact, that is
in for review and they are using that as their access, and in addition
to which, they're also using the portion north of the S curve for
access to the rear part of the property, which is fine, it works.
Ultimately, the piece that's -- it shows as existing county
barricades, ultimately that piece of pavement and everything will be
removed, it will be cleaned up. The intent was that, not knowing what
the development schedule was at the time that was put in, we thought
things were a little more imminent than they were, and as a result,
it's been sitting out there for a year and a half, but I suspect it
will move a little more quickly now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have the ability to expend --
extend existing Northbrooke Drive all the way up to Bonita Beach Road?
MR. KANT: We have, if my -- going by memory now, we have either
75 or 100 feet of right-of-way platted along the westerly line of
Quail Creek -- between Quail Creek and -- I'm sorry, between Quail
West and 1-75, and again, I'd have to look at the plat to tell you how
much that is, so yeah, theoretically, we could move on up. I
understand that there may be some environmental issues that would have
to be resolved, the typical --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And proximity to 75 is --
MR. KANT: Yeah, there's some issues there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I'm bringing that up is, for
continuity sake with that option out there, it seems to make sense
that as you drive north on Oaks, you should still be on Oaks when you
cross Immokalee and you should still be on Oaks unless you make a
turning movement onto another road, and I just -- it was originally
named Northbrooke Drive because I think there was a proposed
development called Northbrooke, and now we're being asked to change it
to Cypress Woods because there's a proposed development called Cypress
Woods, but I think it doesn't meet the logic test of the fact that you
should still be on Oaks Boulevard for continuity.
MR. KANT: I would agree with Commissioner Hancock that -- that
my recollection of why it was named Northbrooke Drive was because the
Northbrooke PUD preceded it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, and I think that probably was a
mistake. We probably should have named it Oaks at that time, but --
that's just my comment.
I -- you know, it probably doesn't -- it's probably never going
to go to Bonita Beach Road. It's going to be a single access road and
it may not cause too much grief, but for response times, you know, for
emergencies, the continuation of Oaks just makes a lot of sense.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, two comments. One of them is that we
may have a right-of-way along Quail West, but that's not going to get
us to Bonita Beach Road because the county line's a mile short of
Bonita Beach Road at that point, and the second comment is that,
actually, the way I'm reading this may be a little bit different from
Commissioner Hancock, because if you come up north on Oaks Boulevard,
cross Immokalee, you're still on Oaks Boulevard until you come to what
is going to be the Northbrooke Plaza, and at that -- and at that time,
you're going at a perpendicular angle, essentially, to what is now
Northbrooke Drive, so I don't really see any conflict in changing the
name at that point to whatever you want to change it to.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I disagree, because to me, it's not
perpendicular. We have actually eliminated the perpendicular
intersection, the 90 degree intersection, and contoured it so the
majority of traffic will continue north and the south road acts solely
as a driveway, so semantics, but I -- you know -- and the beat goes
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one question for staff, and that
is, the -- you said that they've met all of the requirements of the
ordinance for street name change. Is that basically just that 51
percent of the owners of adjacent property ask for it, and in this
case we've got two, and maybe now one owner. Is that all you have to
do?
MR. GOCHENAUR: That's basically correct. There is no ordinance
that governs the procedure. Those are only requirements for
submittal. Staff actually has no criteria to judge the merit of the
street name change itself. We simply review the submittal
requirements. When they're met, we have no choice but to request --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just to clarify, by getting a
majority of the signatures doesn't guarantee the name will change. It
guarantees you get a public hearing.
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've listed my concerns, maybe the
petitioner can --
MR. COOPER: Yeah, I'd like to address -- one of your concerns
was one of our concerns.
If you recall, again, from transportation, and Ed can do this for
you, is part of -- you might recall, part of our PUD is that we would
not be using Northbrooke Drive for access for residents living in
Cypress Woods. They would come from -- from Oaks Boulevard Extension
and that stoplight and left turn lanes, right turn lanes.
Second of all, if you -- we do not, Cypress Woods itself, does
not have any property out on Immokalee Road, nor have signage on
Immokalee Road at this point, nor is there, you know, unless somebody
wants to give us something, but we don't own any property on Immokalee
Road or within 50 feet or 100 feet of Immokalee Road.
So if you're a resident, you're living in Cypress Woods, and two
things, we can talk health and safety. You call up, I've got a
problem. Where do you live? I live in Cypress Woods. Where's that?
Well, you know, they've got to explain where it is.
We felt, this way, you've got one -- because the road at Oaks
Boulevard is really a very small piece compared to Northbrooke Drive,
one name is correct.
The question really is, is it Cypress Woods Boulevard or is it
Oaks Boulevard Extension. We choose -- we thought in terms -- yes,
I'm going to market my project. I'm not going to lead you wrong, you
know, since we don't have exposure. I knew at that last meeting, you
all really wanted to eliminate a lot of signs, which makes sense. It
would probably make sense to try to use the street name, change it to
the project, as the original Northbrooke Drive was intended, that
original road also, so when you -- you can convey to somebody, where
do you live? I live Cypress Woods. Where is that? Right -- first
stop right after Immokalee Road, follow that road, you're in the
project. You may not be in the project the first, you know, 600 -- or
I guess first 900 feet. Thereafter, you're in the project for the
next, you know, mile and three quarters, you're in the -- so it's very
easy to find the project.
It's going to be very easy for the health, the fire departments,
police, wherever, in terms if somebody is confused and panicking and
saying, where do you live, where is that, and trying to understand
where it is, and because it doesn't necessarily line -- it lines up
with Oaks at the stoplight, but Oaks is a continuous street, straight
street. This thing's going to start going through the curves and the
gyrations, so, you know, I agree for health and safety, it needs to be
one word, one name, and that's -- obviously we looked at Huntington
Lakes, we looked at this and we have more access points than they do.
We have more residents than they do.
Three owners actually support this, since at this point, there's
three -- four owners since the property has traded hands. Richard K.
Bennett also supported it as -- as the owner of the commercial parcel,
still as to land trust, since we don't own that piece at this point.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Have you heard from any of the residents in
Huntington Lakes?
MR. COOPER: No, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are they aware of it?
MR. COOPER: I can't say. I will tell you, I did go see
Huntington Lakes five months ago, four months ago prior to the
petition being submitted to the county and met with them. They really
didn't want to meet. They sent me over to one of their marketing
people in Palm Beach. I spoke to him a couple times. He said, well,
talk to our attorney. I talked to their attorney a -- I don't even
remember their attorney's name here in town. He said, well, I don't
know why they told you to call me, this is their decision, it doesn't
matter to me. I called back and they just didn't really care -- I
don't know -- I don't know what their opinion was. They did not
respond.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many residents are there in
Huntington right now.
MR. COOPER: I believe right now there may be -- balipark, I
don't know, they have maybe ten or 15 buildings, 20 buildings built,
maybe got 160 units or so.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'm wondering is, it sounded like
you -- when you said I talked to the folks at Huntington --
MR. COOPER: I didn't talk to the individual people.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I finish my question? You may be
clairvoyant, I don't know.
When you said you spoke to the folks at Huntington, it sounds
like you spoke to corporate Huntington. I'm wondering if you spoke to
any of the residents who actually lived there?
MR. COOPER: No, sir, I did not speak to them. None of their
streets -- they don't have addresses off Northbrooke Drive. They have
interior streets, same as we have, and so, no, I did not speak to any
of them. I don't know who they are, but I thought, you know, being
Levitt as the corporate and the developer would be -- I can't tell you
what their response -- that's the response they gave us because we
went to them on the front end and said, here's what we want to do, and
there really was no response.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is going kind of long. It's not like
a huge matter of principle for me. I'm just trying, that when we have
similar things in the future where there's continuation of roadways,
what makes the most sense from a planning standpoint is all I'm trying
to consider. We could go either way, and the truth is, the only
people it's really going to affect are those that live on this street.
With our computer-aided dispatch system, you don't say I live in
Cypress Woods. They ask you for your street. They enter it, it comes
up on the computer and directions actually, I believe, also come up,
so, you know, it's probably not that big a deal. I just -- I just
want to try and avoid as much as possible switching street names when
you cross a road because I think it's silly, you know, that -- rather
than drag this on, you know, let's get to a decision.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing unless there
are other speakers.
Do we have any other speakers?
MR. HCNEES: No, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I believe, unless there is a second,
the motion fails for lack of a second. Is there another motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if the petitioner's amenable
to it, but for consistency, is Oaks Boulevard North --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was gonna say --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- better than Northbrooke Drive?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At least there's some --
MR. COOPER: Well, obviously, again, since we don't have
marketing out on Immokalee Road for -- just -- now, general people,
other than emergency, you know, people, where do you live? Cypress
Woods. Well, where is that?
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: On Oaks Boulevard North.
MR. COOPER: It's difficult sometimes, and again, I'm a
developer. I know that was a question you had earlier from --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I live on Burning Tree Drive. Where is
that? Off Goodlette. Where is that? Off Pine Ridge.
MR. COOPER: Burning Tree Drive is in one of the developments
there, but anyhow --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we make that minor
adjustment to Oaks Boulevard North rather than Oaks Boulevard
Extension. Extension always kind of sounds to me like, okay, you must
be in the midst of nowhere, so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And would that continue along the entire
line of Northbrooke Drive to the termination at Quail West?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will that make you comfortable?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Makes more sense to me, but I believe
because it's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I think it makes the most sense.
I'm just trying to get a consensus opinion here.
MR. COOPER: Hay I make a suggestion maybe? Can we ask for a
continuance so we can all discuss what -- maybe how the name works
versus trying to come to something hasty. I don't know how the
landowners here would like that name or not and I'd rather come back
at a later date and maybe --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we can -- yeah, I don't
think we can change it to a name he doesn't agree to since he's the
petitioner. We can either turn it down or approve it, so if he's not
willing to agree to it, then --
MR. COOPER: I can't answer that. I really -- you know, I'd be
happy to get support for Cypress Woods. We're happy to pay for the
signs and all that, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I support -- for your information, I
support Commissioner Constantine's Oaks Boulevard North all the way to
the termination of Quail West.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a second?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a second, but I think Mr. Weigel
tells us we can't change a street name against the petitioner's
desires.
MR. WEIGEL: I think I would say that, if I were asked.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're being asked.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Consider yourself asked.
MR. WEIGEL: I think I would say that as a safer course here.
Now, if the matter were to be continued and additional information
from the petitioner's standpoint was brought forward to you that could
provide you the flexibility, then I think there wouldn't be an issue.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't really want to get into
hearing this thing -- I mean, we've heard it for 30 minutes now for a
name change. I don't want to come back and hear it for another 30
minutes.
MR. COOPER: Approve it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know what new things you're
going to bring to us. Either it's going to happen or it isn't, and if
you would prefer to keep Oaks Boulevard Extension instead of Oaks
Boulevard North, that's fine.
MR. COOPER: Well, I think, regardless, something has to be done
because of the roads now, and I think even transportation agrees. The
question is, what's the name. We have -- we agree it needs to be one
name. I think -- transportation, I think you agree. I guess -- we
propose that it be Cypress Woods Boulevard.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me suggest one of two things and I'll
make a motion following this. We can either continue this and they
come back and say Oaks Boulevard North is fine or suggest a second
name, we thumbs up or thumbs down and off we go, or we can just
decline it now, but then what happens is, if we want to change it to
Oaks Boulevard North, it has to be a staff initiated petition or staff
initiated amendment.
MR. COOPER: I have a good suggestion. Let's -- for the sake of
-- because I know what your problem is. I would -- from my
standpoint, I would say, let's approve it and then I think you need to
go back to staff and they need to come up with standards for the
future purposes, because it's not just our name road change. You've
had lots of these changes and they come in all the time. It's, how do
you want to address it, and again, that saves your time and my time of
coming back again or doing something, but it also gives you the
ability for the staff now to develop procedures.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean to approve your petition to
Cypress Woods?
MR. COOPER: Approve it now and you can direct staff that we need
to have discussions of how we want this approved in the future.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would go down in the history of
Collier County as one of the dumbest things -- MR. COOPER: I disagree.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But it would solve your problem --
MR. COOPER: I agree with that. It solves my problem.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wrong. I don't think so.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got to admit, you're a heck of an
advocate. I'll give you that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I made a motion. I thought I heard
Commissioner Hac'Kie second it, and I don't know if you recognized
either one of those, but I mean --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I did second it and then Mr. Weigel says
we can't do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Well, let's make no change
because I don't have -- I have no understanding what a continuation
would do. What information can we possibly get that we don't have
now?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to -- I'm going to suggest or
make a motion, substitute motion that we continue the item for four
weeks with the focus being whether or not the petitioner's accepting
of Oaks Boulevard North upon their return. That kind of limits the
discussion, doesn't it?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to add in
this --
MR. WEIGEL: No, because the only thing that's missing is the --
this is a petition initiated item. The petitioners need to have the
opportunity to approve or make a request or acquiescence to the change
that's being suggested and they would not have that in the forum
today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we should just deny it and let
them reapply.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It sounds to me like this is either up or
down, and I think we really need to go in that direction, and if it's
not, then does this mean they can come back to us?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, they can, but you could continue, if you wish,
and in continuing, receive the additional information of petitioners
if they wish to -- if they approve the suggestion that's come thus far
from this meeting today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I can't imagine
anything that's going to be new and I think -- I'll withdraw my motion
and I would just suggest we take no action, and if they want to come
back, then great, they can come back. They can go through the process
again, but I don't have any interest in continuing because really
there's nothing up for discussion. There's no new information out
there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm gonna leave my substitute motion stand
because I think it avoids our staff having to go back and initiate an
amendment to fix Oaks Boulevard Extension, which I think is not very
attractive, so I'll leave it stand. If there's no second, that's
fine, but then we -- you know, at least we have -- we know where
that's going.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And your motion was to continue?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was to continue for four weeks and to
return, focusing on whether or not Oaks Boulevard North is acceptable.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Did I
close the public hearing?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question of the
petitioner?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You may.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is it you think you'll
contemplate in the next four weeks in the parameters of that motion?
MR. COOPER: I can't answer that question today, Commissioner. I
really don't know. We do have a real interest in terms of people
being able to recognize where the project is. That's all I can tell
you, so I can't answer what I would give you, but at least it would
let us look at alternatives versus me coming up today and saying,
great, go do that, because I don't -- first of all, I don't control
the partnership either. So I really don't think I should be making
that decision for them because this does affect the project as a
whole. It affects the lives of 756 people for the next 50 years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And maybe I misunderstood Commissioner
Hancock's motion, because it sounded like he said it was to give you
time to go thumbs up or thumbs down on Oaks Boulevard North, and what
I hear you saying is that will give us time to go look at other
alternative names.
MR. COOPER: Well, again, whether it's thumbs up, thumbs down or
I come back and say why don't you look at a different name entirely
that you all can agree on, or we all, I should say, agree on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't be the first time a petitioner's
ignored our -- the elements of our motion when they returned. I would
encourage you not to do it, but that's my consideration. I don't care
-- hang on.
I don't care if it's Cypress Woods, I don't care if it's
Northbrooke. The problem remains the same, that it's -- it's a
logical continuation of Oaks Boulevard and it makes sense that it
should continue as Oaks Boulevard in some form, and so that's kind of
where I sit on it. That's it.
MR. COOPER: I would look at the original Northbrooke name then
in terms of when the Northbrooke --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was here for that decision and I didn't
like it, so you know --
MR. COOPER: I understand that either -- also, but I would say
the same point, that took precedent at the time. I don't have the
right answer either. I'm just saying, I don't know what the answer --
I don't know what I could give you or would give you, but I'm just not
in the position today to say accept that name.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Weigel, you had a question?
MR. WEIGEL: No. The only thing I would say is to reiterate, is
that to save the -- the idea of having the petitioners come back, and
that's the only thing that really would occur, is that if this were
continued to a later date, it's an advertised matter and the
petitioners could come back, since there's so few, and ownership
interest along the way, that they could become of record to indicate
whether, as petitioners, they amended their petition for the name
change that's being suggested today.
Otherwise, as you've stated, it's purely an up or down, based
upon the petition name that's been suggested at this point in time.
So the idea of continuing this merely to an economy of not having to
go out, and again, either have staff do it as a staff initiated, board
directed item or the petitioners start from scratch and come up
through the process again, we have the virtue of the fact that this is
advertised and it can be continued for up to four additional weeks
from here.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll pass --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a -- if Commissioner Constantine's
motion, which was to go to Oaks Boulevard North, if that motion is
actually tabled, then the ensuing discussion is strictly about that
motion; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That would be correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to withdraw my motion and move
that we table Commissioner Constantine's motion for a period of four
weeks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to table
the name change to Oaks Boulevard North for four weeks. Does
everybody understand what we're doing here?
Okay. The public hearing is closed and I'll call for the
question.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So when we come back, that motion will
be on the table?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct, it will be on the table.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Correct, it will be on the table.
Item #12C3
PETITION HD-97-2, THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PRESERVATION BOARD REQUESTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO
OFFICIALLY DESIGNATE A CALUSA INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MOUND/SHELL WORK
COMPLEX AS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT - DENIED
Okay. The next petition is Petition HD-97-2, has to do with the
Collier County Historical and Archeological Preservation Board
requesting to designate a parcel of land located in Chokoloskee as a
Calusa Indian archeological mound, slash, shell work complex. Wow,
all that.
Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bellows, does this restrict or
impact private property rights in any way? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the issue at hand, I guess, is the property
owner is in opposition to this designation by the Preservation Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why I wanted to start it off
that way.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Preservation Board is allowed to make a
recommendation of -- to the Board of County Commissioners to designate
a site as historic if we follow the advertising requirements and
notify the property owner by certified letter, which has occurred.
The property owner, Mr. Morris, attended the Preservation Board
meeting. The discussion of the merits of the archeological site was
discussed.
There was a survey and assessment prepared by a certified
archeologist that designates -- that had the recommendation that there
are significant artifacts on the site.
As you see on your map on page 11, it shows a black dirt midden
near the northern portion of the site. I think that's where most of
the concern is, from an archeological standpoint. The property owner
is proposing to build a -- construct a single family home on the site
and has agreed to have a certified archeologist present to monitor the
construction to make sure that artifacts aren't damaged with any
subsurface construction.
However, the concern the Preservation Board has is future
development. It's a six acre site. It could be subdivided or, since
it's zoned VR, it also could come in for a site development plan for
multi-family.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if it did, we would probably turn it
down, because under the section about historical or archeological
significance, you would say this is a big deal archaeologically, and
so that would be factored in at that point in time.
MR. BELLOWS: That's true. We do have two ways of going about
preserving archeological artifacts. One is, designated as a local
historic site. The property owner would receive some benefits, tax
abatements and could also apply for federal state grants.
The problem, I think the property owner has, is that it's also
listed on the site then and pot hunters or sightseers may be wanting
to intrude on their property.
There's also a second layer of review by the Preservation Board
of local historic sites. When there is a change or building permit
pulled, it would change -- what was approved as a local historic site,
the Preservation Board would issue a certificate of appropriateness or
deny that -- that requested building permit or change. That, I think,
is one concern that they had. Another concern is that sometimes the
time it takes the Preservation Board to meet to hear some of these
items.
Staff has also mentioned that anytime a petition comes in for a
site plan or preliminary subdivision plat and they're in a probability
area, they are requested to have a survey and assessment prepared, so
if there is a -- a site development plan for multi-family housing,
that would be sent to an archeologist to review in conjunction with
the archeological site and he would make recommendations and we would
take that into account in a site development review process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the basis -- why would staff be
recommending that this be designated -- I understand why archeologists
and people in the community whose --
MR. BELLOWS: It's based on their recommendation that there's an
additional layer of review with a local historic site that the
Preservation Board would be involved in every aspect of the review,
through the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. That's
why staff is recommending an approval, but the applicant is correct,
Miss Cawley is here, she -- she has pointed out that the same layer of
protection can be obtained through our existing ordinances as it
currently exists.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the issues I think this board
has felt most passionately about is private property rights, and while
I certainly appreciate the attempt to preserve some of these things,
it seems like, as I read through here, what the role of Collier County
is, the Land Development Code indicates that preservation regulations
are necessary to halt illicit digging or excavation activities. I
don't think they're looking at doing anything illicit which could
result in the destruction of prehistoric and historic archeological
sites.
I appreciate that that's -- that can be construed as our role,
but as I read just above that, it says the property owners had offered
to have a certified archeologist on site to monitor the excavation and
construction to ensure that significant archeological artifacts would
not be destroyed when they build their home.
It seems to me that's the best of both worlds; you can protect
the artifacts, make sure we preserve our history, but let these people
use their own property and build their own home, and I think anything
short of that, if we start telling people they can't build their home
or can't improve their home on their own property because there might
be something there just isn't fair to them. It goes completely
contrary to what this board has stated time and time again in the
past.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What I thought was kind of remote in this
situation was that this probably didn't come to light until these
people purchased this and started to clear this particular piece of
land, and if this is so valuable from an archeological standpoint, I
would have thought that others would have pursued this earlier on, but
then, now that it's purchased and these people do have the -- I think
the personal property rights certainly does come in here -- into play
in this particular situation, but Commissioner Hancock, I know you had
a question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, what are -- I guess my big
problem is that we don't have a way of saying, okay, we can go in,
without expending taxpayer funds, and in 12 months declare the site
free and clear of artifacts. In other words, we don't have someone
who's standing there saying, I will go in and remove the material
within 12 months, replace it with fill and you can have full use of
your property. I don't know of any way to accomplish that, and that's
the middle road, because otherwise, what we do is we kind of freeze
the future development of the property and -- and actually give, you
know, permission to people to traverse this person's property in the
pursuit of artifacts, and that just seems rife with problems.
I don't see that there's an organized structure to accomplish the
proper recovery of these artifacts without sticking these people in
limbo for year after year after year.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the county's been involved in several other
sites where archeological artifacts have been involved. One was in
the April Circle PUD and the preserved tract was prepared and no
construction entered into that area. There was another site down on
Marco Island where artifacts were found accidentally during
construction. The owner was willing to stop some of the things that
they were doing and allow an excavation to occur on the site, and then
once that was done, construction proceeded. Now, the property owner
has expressed willingness to work with the Preservation Board to a
certain extent, but they're not willing to go for the historic
designation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's kind of what I'd like to see is if
the Historic and Archeological Preservation Board will work with them
and set up, say, from these times and these times on these days, we'd
like permission to come out and do the digging and whatnot, we may be
able to kill two birds with one stone here without taking away
someone's property rights or sacrificing the history of these
artifacts. I think we can accomplish both and that should be our
goal.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And again, it looks like the property
owners have offered that. They've offered to have a certified
archeologist on site to monitor that and make sure stuff's not
destroyed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see the need to hammer the
property owner just yet because they seem willing to work with -- but
if we find out that they are out there disturbing artifact areas
without notifying the county, yes, there's going to be some loss
incurred, but I think that's the kind of motivation we need to go to
this kind of legislation because it shows a dishonest attempt, and so
I would rather save this hammer for if it's needed and require them to
have the archeologist on site during all digging, that if they uncover
artifacts, just as according to our ordinance, they have to stop the
current activity and clear the area of artifacts in an appropriate
manner. They have to do that anyway, so I'd like to see us go ahead
and send it in that direction and encourage the Archeological
Preservation Board to work with the property owner in a voluntary dig
so that they'll have benefit of their property in the future. That
makes sense to me.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who -- who on our staff or otherwise can
answer the question of -- of the relative level of protection of the
certified architect (sic) on site as compared to designating this as a
historically significant site?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the certified archeologist, you mean from an
insurance standpoint?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sorry, I said architect, but I meant
archeologist, of course.
MR. BELLOWS: They're hired by the property owner to survey the
site and monitor --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm saying what -- who can answer the
question of the relative level of protection between the two?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure I understand the question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean against --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The question is, are we going to get the
same level of protection from having the certified archeologist on
site as we would by designating it as a historically significant site?
MR. BELLOWS: Now I understand. I believe there would not be any
great difference in the level of protection of the artifacts. The
only thing the historic designation would add upon what we would
normally require anyway and where we would have an archeologist on
site to monitor any construction is that any future proposed changes
to, say, subdivide into six or 12 lots or to build a multi-family
complex on -- on the site, those plans would be sent to the
Preservation Board for review and comment, and if they felt that the
artifacts would be protected, they would issue a certificate of
appropriateness.
That's the additional level of review and protection of the
resources. Otherwise, they -- even if it was not designated and that
site plan came in, we would still want a certified archeologist there
to monitor --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one other difference is that it
would provide an additional level of protection for private property
rights to have the archeological expert on site. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's my point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to hear from the petitioner or
the doee on this to find out, you know, what level of cooperation can
we expect, because that may answer some of these questions, because I
don't think anybody up here is saying that we want to preserve -- or
reduce the level of protection for the artifacts. We want to maintain
that constant. We have that pretty solid right now. We're just
trying to seek the balance, so maybe the property owner or their agent
can help us strike that balance.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Before we do that, Commissioner Constantine,
I think, had one more point that he wanted to make.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, just a second point. As I read
through here, I was a little concerned by the rationale. It says,
since the Morris property is one of the last remaining areas on
Chokoloskee that has not had significant development activity, it
therefore represents some of the best records of the area's
prehistoric heritage.
If -- if -- that therefore concerns me. If that is the
rationale, why we're looking at doing this, it appears they're being
penalized for preserving it as long as they have.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that was my point though, to a certain
extent, that if this has been so valuable, why wasn't something looked
at a long time ago?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have some Preservation Board members who
worked with the archeologist who might shed more light on the history
of the site.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Again, I'm not saying -- I'm not saying not
protect these things. I'm just -- all of the sudden this has become
-- it's a big issue now, you know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems to me the authority and
enforcement with which we have the ability to place this assessment on
the property should be reserved for those who are abusing it, those
who are not taking the necessary steps to preserve artifacts. That's
kind of the difference. I don't see it as a willy-nilly thing. I see
it as an enforcement element for those that are violating, you know,
disturbing the designated areas.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's hear from the petitioner, and then if
they have any questions for them --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think the property owner is --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The owner, I should say.
MR. MORRIS: I am the property owner. For the record, I'm Batty
Morris. I'm now a resident of Collier County and I own a -- I own a
condominium on Smallwood Drive in Chokoloskee. I bought the land
originally to be far away from the maddening crowd and to be a
peaceful and quiet place, which Chokoloskee is. It's also a great
place to go fishing.
Mr. Bellows has pretty much stolen my thunder. I -- I do feel
that designating this property an historic archeological site will
increase the traffic and reduce the peace and tranquility that can be
there. It is true that I have been required to have an archeologist
on site anytime we do disturb the soil to any degree. I have done --
I have cooperated with that fully and willingly and will continue to
do so.
I would request that an additional red tape layer not be placed
on things I would like to do with my property because the certificate
of appropriateness, I'm told, will take 90 to 120 days each time that
you want to change -- plant a tree or whatever, so that is the reason
that I would prefer not to have the designation.
I do understand that Mr. Bellows has said that the staff's
existing county regulations, as long as I abide by them, which I will,
are sufficient to protect the property, so I have requested and do
request, respectfully, that this petition be denied.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you spend 12 months a year down here or
do you have another home that you split time between?
MR. MORRIS: I'm sort of in a transition in my life now and I
spend six months or better in Florida, but not 12.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess the reason I'm asking that is, if
there is a willingness for certain periods of the year, certain times
that can be restricted and agreed upon to allow for voluntary digs on
areas of your property to recover the artifacts, I know that's opening
a little bit of a hornet's nest for you, but again, I'm trying to
strike the balance between -- by cooperating now, the next time you
want to do something on this property, it may be easier to move
through that process than it is now. It may be less costly.
If an area has been dug and certified not to have remaining
artifacts, you can avoid this process altogether, so is there a
willingness on your part to establish those kinds of times and
agreements?
MR. MORRIS: Mr. Constantine, two --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be him. I'm Mr. Hancock.
MR. MORRIS: I'm sorry. The parallax -- Mr. Hancock, I
apologize. At two of the archeological and historic board meetings, I
offered that -- that I would permit digging there for a year or two
years on the site and I was told at those meetings that they would
prefer not to dig, that people 100 years from now would understand
better what the Indians meant than -- than we do now today, so they
actually -- I've offered that and it was declined.
I would -- I would be willing to have the midden, you know, dug
on again if, you know, if that's the --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I made an assumption there. It may have
been incorrect. I assumed that recovering the artifacts was
important, but --
MR. MORRIS: That's what I thought.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perhaps preserving them in the ground is
what's important. Maybe we'll learn that from our archeological
board.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any further questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No further questions?
Thank you, Mr. Morris.
MR. NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: You do have three other registered speakers. Arthur
Lee will be followed by John Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Good afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon.
MR. THOMPSON: My name is John W. Thompson and I'm a member of
the Florida -- I should tell you that Arthur Lee prefers to follow me.
Is that all right?
I am a member of the Collier County Historic and Archeological
Preservation Board. I also happen to be treasurer of the Southwest
Florida Archeological Society and the Florida Anthropological Society,
which is a mouthful.
A couple of things I heard our president say yesterday, let's get
the record straight. There is no desire on the part of the -- I'm not
a professional archeologist, but there is no desire on the part of
archeologists to dig up anything if they don't have to. Most of the
big digging that's been done in this area is salvage work. The idea
being that having designated such a property to make sure that this
owner, particularly a future owner, does have something reviewed when
he's ready to build something.
The question then becomes, where do you put the house. If it
isn't going to damage any archeological materials, that's great. If
it could be moved, as you were talking about in some of your other
discussions today, ten or 15 feet right or left and he's agreeable,
then that's fine. If the area does have archeological remains and
needs to be salvaged, then it is dug up, analyzed, reported and goes
into a museum.
The other thing I want to correct is, nobody wants to go into any
piece of property and dig up all the archeological materials. That's
destroying it, and we're much better off if they're left inside if it
doesn't inconvenience the property owner. I used to be a realtor. I
don't see any violation of public property rights here. It's a
cooperative thing.
Just about a week ago we were all down at Horrs Island, or Key
Marco, as it's now known, where the people there are completely
cooperative on the naming of the Captain Horrs House to the National
Registry, and it is going beautifully.
I guess -- I'll just wind up by saying this, I volunteered to be
on the board and I got an understanding of how there is a state
private -- state land use or growth plan which requires a historical
and archeological preservation ordinance. You people or your
predecessors decided to have a preservation board and we are to
recommend to you actions. This is -- just seems to me to be a
classical case of that role.
In other words, we have a site which was discovered when the land
was cleared without a permit, and that wasn't our matter, that was
another part of the county government. It was deemed to be very
valuable and -- and we're concerned not as much about Mr. Morris, as
I've heard from the archeologists that he is a most agreeable and most
cooperative gentleman, but if he sold it in a year, then what happens,
and that seems to me is the process, and so I am hoping you will pass
it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Lee, and the final speaker is Art Quinnell.
MR. LEE: My name is Arthur Lee. I'm a former chairman of the
Historic Preservation Board, currently operate an archeological
laboratory here in Naples. This whole hoverall started because we got
into it backwards. The gentleman who bought the property moved in
with a bulldozer and started to work. He scuffed up some of the
archeological area. He -- he got into a -- a midden, a place where
there had been a residence, and he also nudged into one of the ridges.
It's very interesting. Chokoloskee's a manmade island right up
from the -- from the ground -- or from the water, and it was -- it was
a planned community. It was made in ridges so that the house is on
top of the ridges and out of the reach of the storm waters and canal
ways, and actually, a plaza for gatherings in the middle.
unfortunately, when the thing was developed, it was developed before
there were -- there was any sort of protection for archeological
material, so when we came -- when we came into it, it was, from our
standpoint, an emergency situation because this work was being done.
Normally what happens is, in an area that is known to be
sensitive, such as Marco Island, Chokoloskee, when an owner comes into
the county with a request for a building permit, that is examined by
our people as a matter of routine and where -- when he gets his
permit, he's issued a piece of paper saying you are in an
archaeologically sensitive area, you're -- if you encounter
archeological material, you are to get hold of an archeologist and
have him go over the thing, examine, and the result, the end result is
that they -- either the -- the owner opts either to have a salvage
excavation made, in which case the scientific dig is done and this is
done at the owner's expense. The -- and these can be fairly expensive
operations, or he can go ahead, plunge in with his excavation, with
his construction and if he uncovers archaeologically sensitive
material, then he is required to have an archeologist come in and tidy
up that area, do a salvage job on that area and then proceed with his
construction.
The Conservation Board comes into this, as you've heard, simply a
little bit belatedly, and we regarded this as the way most gentle to
the owner. In other words, if this is declared as a -- an
archeological area, then he has -- we -- the county has the protection
against his dying and leaving it to successors or his selling or his
subdividing or something of the sort. It -- it provides that sort of
protection.
There is no need for a plaque to be put up. There's no need for
there to be any additional traffic. This is simply -- given the way
this procedure was started, it's the only way we can see where
adequate protection can be given with the minimum cost and hardship to
the owner. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No questions?
MR. LEE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: And your final speaker's Art Quinnell.
MR. QUINNELL: For the record, Art Quinnell. I've lived here in
Collier County for over 30 years and have seven professional licenses
and I've worked around these type of proceedings for just about all of
those 30 years.
I find one thing to be true, whenever something like this is
designated, in this case right here, I know what will happen. One, it
will attract all kinds of fanatics, it will attract all kinds of
notoriety. It will attract all kinds of -- other kinds of people
coming here that you don't want, that you wouldn't want on your own
property, for example. Just to show you what I mean, I was out there
during the entire dig with Mr. Cart from the Archeological Society in
Hiami. Most all of the time I was there -- and while he was there
digging, there were three people come out there and started digging
also and he had to chase them off.
I was there another day with Mr. Morris himself and the fellow
come up there and started digging, and I have found from the people,
the local townsfolk, who I know quite well, they've told me that they
have seen 15 or 20 people out there digging on his property, so that
kind of notoriety, he doesn't need, and I feel, like the owners, that
everything that Mr. Lee just outlined will be given to the county
throughout the regular procedure as opposed to having it declared an
archeological site.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly appreciate and respect the
attempt to preserve our heritage and to try to maintain those things,
but I've got to disagree when the first speaker said the ideal is to
leave those things undisturbed. To suggest that a clay pot or what
have you buried six or eight feet below the ground and left
undisturbed is more important than an individual property rights
ability to plant a tree or improve a porch or something, do something
else in their own home, I just can't agree with that. I think it's
very well-intentioned, and the idea of trying to make sure we preserve
things is -- is fine, but to do that at the expense of the private
property rights and the penalty, not only in expense, but in the
scenario Hr. Quinnell just described, just plain isn't fair to the
property owner, so I don't know if you need to close the public
hearing if we're in that format or --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We've got one more comment here.
Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I agree with Commissioner
Constantine's comments. I think it was Mr. Thompson that said that
this would be a cooperative effort, but it seems to me that if we --
that we have an offer of a cooperative effort from Mr. Morris. He's
agreed to have an archeologist on site, but if we designate this as a
historically significant site, then it's no longer cooperative, but
mandated, so I have to take issue with that comment. I feel
comfortable, from what I've heard here today, that proper protection
will be given to the site and I intend not to support this petition.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, under VR zoning, how many
units could be built on this property?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe we made an estimate of approximately 12
to 13.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think therein lies the problem. If this
were a quarter acre or eighth acre lot and somebody's trying to build
a home on it, I think there would be some, you know, some concern
that, well, you know, there's not a whole heck of a lot else that you
can do with it, you know, they'll do the recovery at the time of
excavation if necessary and so forth, and that seems to make sense.
The concern here seems to be the future disturbance by what, I
think, Mr. Lee and others would term over-development for a historical
area, so I guess maybe the property owner could -- if you could answer
for me, what are your long-term plans for this property?
MR. MORRIS: As I understand it, the property is zoned VR-2?
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you identify yourself again.
MR. MORRIS: I'm sorry. I'm Batty Horris, the property owner of
the property in question.
I think that the property is zoned VR-2, which I understood was
for trailer parks at 16 per acre, which would -- which would make it
possible to build 96 --
MR. BELLOWS: There is no VR-2, it's just village residence. It
allows for a wide range from single family to multi-family and mobile
home.
MR. MORRIS: My intent since the beginning and my intent now is
still, first, to build a house for myself by the water at
approximately two acres, maybe two and a half, maybe three acres.
Then there will be three acres left, and maybe I would be interested
at some point in having those divided into three -- possibly three
lots of an acre apiece and sell them to friends.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess that's what I'm -- I'm trying to
get to is the concern for 12 units and the entire site being disturbed
and excavated, I think, is valid. I can understand that concern. If
there is a way that we know now the limitations of the potential
disturbance to the site, that's helpful to me because it tells me a
balance of the site will be left undisturbed, which is -- again, I'm
trying to meet both, you know, both sides as best I can without unduly
burdening one side or unduly eliminating the concerns from the other
and I -- again, whatever assistance we can get in that would be fine,
but that's where I'd like to go.
MR. MORRIS: I hope that it's evident from what I have told you
that I intend to do that. I'm not -- I did not buy that piece of
property to primarily see if I could develop it or make money on it.
I bought it as a place to live.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, from your comments,
I'm not sure whether your main concern is how many units are going on
the property or whether the historically significant artifacts are
properly protected. I think the discussion that we've had here today
indicates that now that we know that this is a historically
significant site, that we do have the mechanism to properly protect
those artifacts, and it's really fairly immaterial about what's
finally built there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think I agree with that too, in that the
process, even with the shaky start, worked this time. The process
will work next time. When somebody comes in, you know, we have
adequate protection in the ordinances already to -- to prevent the
disturbance or destruction of the site, and I appreciate that, you
know. Thank goodness we have that. We have to have that, and if we
didn't, then we would have to do something more significant like get
designated a site --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you please stop agreeing with me.
People are gonna talk.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good Lord, John. Two in one day? I don't
know. I may have changed my mind.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is a historical day in Collier County.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, are there any further comments from
board members? If not, I'll close the public hearing
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we deny --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Petition HD-97-2.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any other
questions from board members?
I'll call for the question.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gee, I hope we can spend just as much time
on every remaining petition as we have spent -- good Lord, we're
talkative today.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 98-26, REGARDING PETITION SV-97-2, MR. WILEY H. PARKER
REPRESENTING LELY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM
SECTION 2.5.5.2.3.12 OF THE LDC TO ALLOW FOR A 20 FOOT HIGH
DOUBLE-FACED OFF-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN WITH A COPY AREA OF 72 SQUARE
FEET FROM THE CURRENT LDC REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-PREMISE SIGNS OF 2
ONE-SIDED OFF-PREMISE SIGNS WITH A COPY AREA OF 12 SQUARE FEET EACH AND
A HAXIHUH HEIGHT OF 8 FEET TO BE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF C.R. 951 AND
LELY CULTURAL PARKWAY - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Continuing with the public hearings,
Petition SV-97-2.
All those individuals speaking to this petition, please stand and
I will have the court reporter swear you in.
(Speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Badamtchian?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. Chaharam
Badamtchian from planning services staff.
Mr. Wiley Parker representing Lely Development Corporation is
requesting this variance on behalf of the Edison Community College.
The land for the college was donated by Lely Development and they have
also granted an easement along 951 for a pole sign.
However, the Land Development Code does not allow off premises
pole signs, only allows 12 square feet directional one-sided sign.
This variance is to allow them to install a 20 foot high double-sided
sign between -- 72 square feet of area. The Planning Commission
reviewed this petition on December 18 and unanimously granted approval
of the petition.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's allowed right now?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Twelve square feet sign, one-sided sign, eight
feet high.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And they're asking for 72 square feet,
two-sided?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is the architectural iljustration in the
plan -- I mean in the packet committed to? Because if it is, it's
beautiful. Certainly the identification of Edison Community College's
Collier County branch is positive. I -- I think this is something
that we should support and I don't think I have ever supported a sign
variance, but this looks beautiful and certainly is an asset to the
community.
Is this -- Mr. Badamtchian, is this -- if we approve this, is
this the sign that we are approving?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is the sign that you are approving, and
this is not a business, so other businesses, they cannot claim the
same variance.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's more like an entrance sign?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a monument sign at the entrance to Lely
Cultural Drive -- Cultural Parkway which leads to the college.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you receive any objections?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I have not.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Parker, did you want to say something to
the board?
MR. PARKER: Wiley Parker. We were the architects for -- we were
the architects for Edison Community College at this -- for their
Collier County campus there and it has been a bit of a problem in
location and -- and through the very good cooperation with Lely
Development Corporation, they made this site available and the college
deems is pretty important.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do any of the other commissioners have any
questions that you need to ask?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there any way you can get away without
going 20 feet high? I mean, that's -- that's two and a half times
what our code allows.
MR. PARKER: Well, the -- it was a design that was -- was created
with certain objects in mind or purposes in mind, and that was what
we've kind of come up with as far as a design that presented to the
college and to Lely Development Corporation. There's nothing that
sets the -- the particular height at that as an exact height.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, then if there's not, would you have
any objection to making the same sign somewhat lower?
MR. PARKER: It would be a matter of just making the proportions
correct, from how it kind of looks with -- we thought this, as
architects, this looked best for the -- for the purposes and where it
was and deciding on a particular corner there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's pretty significantly set back, I
think, from 951 and very set back from Lely Cultural Parkway, which is
what affected my thought about the height.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, question?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, did you have a
particular height in mind that you were thinking was more appropriate?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, but I mean, we've been through a -- a
long road of restricting --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's true.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- sign clutter and sign --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pollution.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- codes. We've been through a long
process of that in the commercial architectural standards, and now --
you know, I understand that Edison Community College is very valuable
asset to our community, but at the same time, I don't know how we go
about making exemptions for people based on their relative benefit to
the community.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let me ask this to our staff, if I
may. The -- does the proposed sign meet our commercial architectural
standards?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It meets our commercial code. As you well
know, the area is heavily vegetated and the speed limit on 951 is 55
miles per hour. Two or three years ago, this board approved a similar
variance for the Naples Sports Park -- swamp buggy sign.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's before we were tremendously
enlightened though.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We would want this to have more of a
presence than the -- I mean, God bless the swamp buggy sign.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You get an education in either place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I must say, Commissioner Mac'Kie, we
have been successful at dragging yet another item out as long as we
could.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have. We're good at it today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess my concern is, we adopted
commercial architectural standards. I encouraged the elimination of
pole signs, going to ground signs only. We moved off of 25 feet to 20
feet. We're moving in the right direction, you know. Based on the
use here and the speeds and what can and can't exist in that road
section, I don't think clutter's going to be an issue, you know. If
it is, then we need to make sure this conforms entirely. If it isn't,
then I think we can make an exception, but it's the issue of clutter
and adjacent properties, what could be developed there, that I don't
have a firm grasp on.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think aesthetically looking at what is
proposed here, to me, is a little different than your typical
advertising, whatever the business is or something like that. It
looks more -- more of an educational gateway kind of sign than -- than
perhaps just your typical pole sign that we're used to seeing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can see that I'm going to be in the
minority. I just wanted to raise the concern. If you would like to
close the public hearing --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, I'm so used to that. See, we're
trading all kinds of things today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, does this require three
votes or four?
MR. WEIGEL: Three.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This requires three.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask the petitioner, would you be
willing to reduce the height to 15 feet?
MR. PARKER: I certainly can go back to the board and -- I think
they are -- would put themselves at your disposal. They were hoping
for this because of the commercial sign limitations and falling within
that and -- but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But there's not likely to be an opportunity
to come back to the board. We're going to approve or deny your
recommendation today.
MR. PARKER: No, not at all. Obviously, we'll take your counsel
on this, your reaction to this --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that height -- reduction in height
is a fair mitigating factor for the variance being requested, so if --
if that is agreeable with the rest of the board, I can support that, a
15 foot maximum height.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have no idea what that does to the
dimension of the sign.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will -- do we have any other speakers on
this issue?
MR. MCNEES: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Parker. We will
close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we approve this
variance with a 15 foot maximum height.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Show me, what's 15 feet. I mean, I have --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He too.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I am terrible --
MR. PARKER: It has something to do with that setback you talked
about this morning.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize you were here for all of that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Half the height of the berm.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically the bottom --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you five feet tall, Pam?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A little bit more than that, but not much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The bottom of the sign, which the sign
face itself is four feet -- four feet, four inches, the bottom base of
the sign would be about two feet above the eve of a single family
house, so if you imagine you're looking at a house and you're looking
at the first story, about two to three feet above that would be the
bottom of the sign starting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It doesn't make as much of a statement. I
mean, I just hate -- here we go again, but I just hate to -- you know,
it does look like an educational gateway as designed, and staff --
MR. PARKER: It will be a monumental kind of sign. The -- the
ground level there is a little -- it's several feet below the --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the public hearing's closed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, you're right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe we closed the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, it still makes a statement.
You drive up and down there, there's going to be limited stuff allowed
on that stretch anyway. It's already how many feet higher than -- 15
feet is how much higher than we allow normally now? So, I mean, it's
clearly going to make a statement. That's a fair compromise, but I'd
prefer we stay within the current standards, but if everybody else is
comfortable going to 15, I'll support 15.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only because it's Edison Community.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did you make the motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I made the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Who seconded it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't hear one. I'll second the
motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to
accept this drawing and limit the height to 15 feet.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Seeing none, the motion carries five, zero.
Item #13A3
RESOLUTION 98-27, REGARDING PETITION CU-97-24, WILLIAM L. HOOVER
REPRESENTING RICHARD AND TERESA YAHL REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF
THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW A HORTICULTURAL HULCHING FACILITY IN
AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SEC. 31, T495,
R27E - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS OF THE CCPC
And the last item has to do with Petition CU-97-24, Zone A --
Conditional Use 2 change of the A zoning district to allow a
horticultural mulching facility in an agricultural zoning district.
All those wishing to speak to this particular issue need to stand
and be sworn in, please.
(Speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, planning services department. Madam
Chairman, did you want me to elaborate on my presentation or, in light
of comments from the commission, do you want me to kind of keep it
short and sweet? I can do both.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there's any questions from the
commissioners --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got a concern about one of the
complaints about smell at our existing landfill has to do with
horticultural waste and I just wonder -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mulching.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess, Miss Murray, maybe you can give
me the benefit of your comments on the transportation side. We're
talking about five or more dump trucks a day on a lime rock based road
creating a higher maintenance level on the roadway. This is an area
with some residential development, or homes, anyway, no sidewalks,
very low enforcement level from the Sheriff's Office due to the remote
location. I have concerns there.
How -- how do you feel the petition addresses those concerns?
MS. MURRAY: That was staff's concern exactly in light of the
fact that it's a remote location, the road does function as the main
entranceway to Sections 35 and 36 in the county, so it is fairly
heavily used, although there isn't a lot of residential development
right around the subject site.
Staff had made an original recommendation, if you look on pages
25 and 26, Exhibit D, number two, the portions of Crawford Avenue from
its intersection with Landfill Road and Washburn Avenue to the subject
site's driveway entrance where trucks enter shall be maintained in a
dust free condition and topped with a minimum of a prime coat surface.
That was staff's recommendation on how to address that.
At the Planning Commission meeting, they forwarded a
recommendation to you and they -- with the stipulation that they
wanted to amend that number two and say that the portions of Crawford
Avenue from its intersection with Landfill Road and Washburn Avenue,
subject to the site's driveway entrance where trucks enter the site,
shall be maintained by scraping the road a minimum of two times per
week or more if needed and sprinkling the road at least one time per
week. They felt that the affected roads could be adequately
maintained by that.
There was some testimony given by the petitioner that they would
need to maintain the roads in a good condition in order to reduce
maintenance loads on their trucks. I -- my problem -- only problem
with that is I don't want the county or would not like to see the
county get into policing of whether or not the road is adequately
maintained.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Difficult to do.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: One question I have. How close is the
nearest home to this particular site?
MS. HURRAY: The nearest home -- there are three homes to the
north and one to the east.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: About how far?
MS. HURRAY: If you're looking to the north, you're going to go
across a 60 foot right-of-way and then there's a 50 foot front yard
setback to the east. It's probably --
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not very -- not a quarter of a mile?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To the 30 yard line.
MS. HURRAY: About 110 feet.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's dimensions I can understand, the 30
yard line. Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Hurray, can you tell me why there are
60 parking spaces on a site plan?
MS. HURRAY: The applicant plans on storing, in addition to the
horticultural mulching operation, they would like to store roll off
containers, dump trucks and other trucks on the site in addition to
the equipment that they would use, plus their employees. Why they
chose 60, I don't know. They're going to have to meet the minimum --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm afraid of is -- I'm afraid it's
designed as a de facto outdoor storage area for commercial equipment
and that would not be a -- that, I believe, would require a separate
conditional use or maybe even be disallowed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under N-2, I think they --
MS. HURRAY: Under Exhibit D, under condition number six, we do
limit the -- what can be stored, maximum of 15 dump trucks and 45 roll
off containers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They only use five a day, but they can
store 15 and 45 roll off containers. Again, my concern is that the --
you know, are we turning this into a storage area for dump trucks and
heavy machinery by this approval, because it seems excessive for their
operation?
MS. HURRAY: I -- staff recognized the potential for that to
happen and in hopes, put that stipulation in of the 15 dump trucks and
45 roll off containers hoping to -- to eliminate or alleviate that. I
do believe, and the petitioner can probably shed a little bit more
light on that, that they do have other businesses elsewhere that
utilize the roll off containers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At some point, are you going to talk about
the smell issue associated with this?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was gonna tick off three or four
specific concerns before the petitioner got up, so if you can answer
those, great, and if you can't, you'll know what the concerns are.
The smell is one, just horticultural waste is naturally going to
have some odor to it. We have outlined in our package the problem
with dust in some detail. The concern about waste other than
horticultural could potentially be dumped and stored on the site.
Negative visual impact. Operation of machinery may create a safety
hazard to adjacent property owners, I don't fully understand that.
MS. HURRAY: I went out to the Collier County landfill and
watched the primary piece of equipment that they would be using to
grind up the horticultural waste into mulch and also spoke with the
manufacturer of that equipment and did notice that there was a
tendency for debris to fly out of the top of the machinery as it --
depending on what was being put into the grinder, sometimes you get
construction debris that causes it to jam or stop and/or large logs or
stumps cause things to fly out of the top.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the dust, potential other
types of waste, negative visual, the odor, the danger aspect, the
trucking, and particularly if -- I don't know if you all have driven
out there, these are private roads, but they are really, really bad.
You could lose my Chrysler in one of the holes in some of these roads
and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In canals also.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just concerned long term, again, I
don't want to get into an enforcement situation on private roads, but
I am concerned about what's the impact of several big trucks a day
using those, so those six areas are my specific concern.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me add one. I don't know if this is
related to the operation on Yahl Street or in place of or any
relation, so if you could clear that up for me.
MR. HOOVER: Okay. For the record, Bill Hoover representing the
petitioners.
On the aerial photo, one thing we'd like to point out, the homes
across the street, they're actually, I believe, set back about 200
feet would be my estimate from the road and all of them have wooded
front yards or tree -- heavy trees in the front yard, and all four of
the neighbors that abut this property that there's somebody living
there, they've signed a petition supporting this project, and the
neighborhood here, I think it should be pointed out, is a little bit
different than what we may have in North Naples where, especially if
you relate it to a condominium project, what we have here is, Mr. Yahl
actually put this road in for the neighborhood at his own expense
quite a few years back, so that's how this road actually came about.
In the -- they're going to fix this road up through the
intersection which is just to the east of this project if the petition
is approved. The -- what they -- they actually do, is when a property
is being cleaned for development, they would be taking the trees that
are salvageable and storing them on the site and a semi would come in
sometime, I presume, or a medium duty truck and haul these away so
they can actually be used for making timber.
Right now, the county does not have any facilities for recycling
logs on any basis. All they have at the landfill is a giant chipper
that shreds everything up into mulch, so what we would be doing, if
you think about it, when you have a tree in here that's maybe 15
inches in diameter, if that's running through a mulcher like this,
that's going to generate more stuff flying, but what we typically
would be putting in here would be more like branches.
Now, one other thing, I believe the -- the reason they have the
smell from the county landfill, a lot of that ends up being grass
clippings that have fertilizers, pesticides and things like that on
it, so we're more into virgin type land that -- where a project's
going in, and I think if you look at the alternative, maybe as the
Sports Authority, when they went in there, so rather -- what we would
be doing, rather than bringing the grinder to the site, in this case,
it would have been Pine Ridge and Airport Road, we would be taking the
stuff to the facility here. The trees would be separated. The rest
would be turned into mulch and then it would be taken to sites that
they're working on, so it may go to, let's say maybe Calusa Bay needs
mulch, it would be brought into there.
If you remember when the Sports Authority was -- was going in
there, I was a little shocked, but they brought in a giant box and
they had like a giant -- couple end loaders in there, they were
throwing the logs right in the box and it had some kind of a -- maybe
it was propane tanks, they were burning the logs inside the giant
metal box right there at Pine Ridge and Airport Road, and I think what
we're proposing here would allow that not to be an alternative.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're saying a benefit is you don't
contribute to global warming, is that the point?
MR. HOOVER: Yes. Mr. Russo that's going to manage this for the
Yahls, he works there right now, he would be living on the site in the
house there and he would be maintaining the road and he's got -- he
can address the rest of the comments.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask -- I did ask a question. Is
there a similar operation under the same ownership in the industrial
park on Pine Ridge?
MR. HOOVER: Mr. Yahl -- or Mr. Russo could answer that. I'm not
sure if there is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. RUSSO: For the record, Bill Russo, and I work for Yahl
Mulching and I'd be living out here at 2250 Washburn, which is the
physical address of this petition, and your question was now?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have a similar operation in the
industrial park off Pine Ridge, a mulching or construction and
debris --
MR. RUSSO: No, no, that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody does.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, there's one in there that's a really
bad neighbor, and that's why I was asking.
MR. RUSSO: No, that's Yahl Street, which is named after Mr. Yahl
who put Washburn in, but no, we have nothing to do with that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can see where I made the connection.
MR. RUSSO: I can understand that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. RUSSO: Okay. There was a -- okay. There was a question on
-- on the -- as far as the smell and what have you goes, and as Mr.
Hoover pointed out, that basically a lot of the stuff hauled in from
your golf courses, the grass and what have you, is the main cause of
that, but also at the Planning Board meeting, we had agreed that the
mulch would not stay on the premises for any longer than 120 days to
-- to kind of satisfy, you know, any concern as far as the smell and
what have you go.
I'd like to show you something that -- basically, what we're
trying to do is a recycling of our natural resources and I would --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Russo, you have to be on the microphone
to speak.
MR. RUSSO: I don't have an additional one of these. All I have
is -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you'll hand it to Mr. Weigel, he'll
pass it --
MR. RUSSO: I just want to show you what's being -- what can be
done with mulching. This is -- this is brand new. I don't even think
this is -- this is what's been developed within the last three to six
months.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, there was a problem in Code
Enforcement where somebody off of Bayshore, I think, was complaining
about there being -- City of Naples had put mulch on a property and,
you know, that just caused, to say a big stink would be a bad pun, but
caused a big problem, but --
MR. RUSSO: Well, this new process is -- they're running it
through a machine and they're actually staining it, they're painting
the mulch and they're using it for decorative -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's kind of cool.
MR. RUSSO: Yeah. As a matter of fact, in Orlando, this is very
big now. They've been doing this for quite some time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Disney mulch.
MR. RUSSO: Yeah, they stain it any color you want.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hickey mulch.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's almost as bad as saying they're doing
it on the east coast, you know, we just kind of recoil from that.
MR. RUSSO: I'd like to touch on a couple things. The parking, I
think was a question. When we originally put in for this petition and
what have you, we were told to put in for what's the worst case
scenario. If we have a hurricane tomorrow morning, naturally, we've
got to pull our 70 containers in which we have and have someplace to
put them. We work with 70 containers. We can't -- I don't see any --
at any one given time having 45 containers on this particular site.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Unless there's a hurricane.
MR. RUSSO: Yeah. I mean, if we have a hurricane coming, we're
going to gather all of our equipment, we're going to store it and then
do what we have to do afterwards. We make our money with our
containers. Leaving our containers stored on this site is not what we
want to do. We were just looking at -- this was over like a five or
ten year, what the worst case scenario could actually be.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you have that area paved?
MR. RUSSO: No, it's all lime rock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. RUSSO: It's all lime rock. As far as the maintaining of the
road and what have you, I live out there with my wife and my two
children. I maintain the road. It's -- I would say right now, at
this point, it's 100 percent better than what it was three weeks ago.
I have graded this road. We have a piece of equipment out there to do
this on a daily basis, if need be. I do it myself. Mr. Yahl will
also be doing it.
We -- we don't want to -- we want to keep happy neighbors. We
don't want to have any problems with our neighbors and I can't afford
to run our trucks up and down this street if the conditions aren't
satisfactory. It's just -- the maintenance and repairs is -- it would
be astronomical.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Hurray, if -- on a conditional use, if
we find at some point that the road conditions are not being kept up,
what is the recourse? Is it a zoning violation then because it was a
part of a conditional use application where it has to come back before
this board?
MS. HURRAY: It would be a code enforcement case.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be a Code Enforcement case?
MR. HULHERE: For the record, Bob Hulhere. If you put a
condition on -- on the approval of this and that condition is not met
at any time, then it would be a Code Enforcement case which could --
could ultimately end up at the Code Enforcement Board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Hurray, do you have any opposition
from neighbors?
MS. HURRAY: No. In fact, the petitioner was correct in stating
that I have received one, two, three, four letters in support. In
fact, the -- the person I was most concerned about was the property on
the east and they sent me a letter also supporting --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When you were out at the county landfill,
I know you said you know there was some debris flying and it -- that's
not a fair question. I was gonna ask you if it smelled bad, but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's stick to the issue here,
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not gonna go there.
MS. HURRAY: I'll give you my opinion that's in the staff report.
I personally found it to smell pretty nice compared to what else was
around there that smelled pretty bad.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Can I get you to come back
in March?
MR. RUSSO: Your concern about the flying debris, this tub
grinder, it has deflectors in it. The machine we're getting has
deflectors. They also -- they run this operation right in Naples.
You can stand on Goodlette Road and you can watch this operation going
full time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that where that flying debris comes
onto Goodlette from?
MR. RUSSO: There's no material debris, and a lot of it depends
on the material you're putting in and the operator who's operating
this equipment, you know. I mean this has all got to be taken into
consideration.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are you going to do this fancy Hickey
mulch?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hickey mulch?
MR. RUSSO: That's what we're looking for, yes, that's it. They
do have it there, by the way, because this is where it was started.
This is why -- Shetwin Williams actually is the supplier for the stain
and stuff.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So you can really buy colored --
MR. RUSSO: Yes, you can. Yes, you can. It's recyclable.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I hate to get back to the land use issue,
but you know, this -- to me, this borders, it's questionable as to
whether or not this is an agricultural versus a production or
industrial use, but the fact that the immediately adjacent properties
don't have an objection to it and we have commitments of road
maintenance with a history of road maintenance, I'm a little more
comfortable with this than I was 20 minutes ago. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there were some concerns or complaints
by adjacent residents or no history of road maintenance out there, I
don't think I'd be inclined in any way to consider this, but based on
what we've heard, it's a little risky, but I -- I don't know that it's
all bad.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Are there any further questions? Then
I'll close the public hearing.
Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve.
MS. HURRAY: Excuse me, two stipulations that were recommended to
you by the Planning Commission. Did you want to include those?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Those are included, yes, in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Certainly.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question.
All in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you very
much.
Item #13B1
RESOLUTION 98-28, REGARDING PETITION CU-94-20 FOR A THIRD EXTENSION OF
A CONDITIONAL USE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON BAILEY LANE WEST OF AIRPORT
ROAD, MIDWAY BETWEEN PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
And the last petition is related -- or is CU-94-20.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I'd love to drag this out --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a third extension of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same old, same old.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, I assume nothing's
changed since the last two extensions?
MR. HULHERE: That's correct, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is the final extension?
MR. HULHERE: That is correct, final -- third extension request.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if you would close the
public hearing and the petitioner doesn't mind, I'd like to make a
motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will do that if you'll stop talking.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval of CU-94-20.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you put applause in parentheses?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're just jealous because I beat you to
the motion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to accept this
-- approve this petition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Speaking of dragging things out.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, after -- this is the third extension.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero.
Item #15A
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS - LUNCH WITH THE COLLIER
COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998, AT 12 NOON
AT THE PALM COTTAGE
Down to staff communications. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing, thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good answer.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. HcNees?
MR. HCNEES: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. County commissioners?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wouldn't think of it.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've had plenty of discussion.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to aggravate you guys a
little bit.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I cancelled appointments, so take the rest of
the afternoon.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. Fair enough.
The Collier County Historical Society, I mentioned last week they
wanted to get together with us. We have set February 17th, a noon
luncheon that day at Palm Cottage, and they are -- have a -- we're
crafting an agenda for that right now, which we'll get to each of you
and, of course, to the county attorney to make sure we advertise that
we'll all be lunching at Palm Cottage.
Second thing was, Commissioner Norris already mentioned it before
the break, and I was just -- I don't know what happened with the
Planning Commission member, what that outburst was all about. If
there was something that went on inappropriate there, we ought to deal
with that. If not, that's fine, but we've already covered that.
Item #15B
DISCUSSION RE AUDIO/VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS
Just a final thought, and that's on the audio and video
enhancements that we approved earlier, what seems like weeks ago now,
but earlier today, not only will that make these meetings more
efficient -- the equipment they've put together is very, very good,
it's good value for the money, but not only will it make it more
efficient and more user friendly and audience friendly here, it's
gonna really allow them to beef up the use of Channel 54, and while we
have filled in much of that, I think this is gonna allow them to do
some fairly inexpensive production on what the county offers,
different places, what programs are going on, and really take
advantage of that asset, so I wanted to compliment Jean and the crew
on that.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good. Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am, I only need to be reprimanded
once.
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have nothing further either.
Miss Filson, anything?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing. Thank you.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie ,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted with changes:
Item #16A1
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.631, TO THE CLUB ESTATES L.C. (RICHARD K.
BENNETT, TRUSTEE) - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A2
AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF "SAWGRASS", A SUBDIVISION -
SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO WORK ORDER WHBP-FT-96-4 WITH WILSON, HILLER,
BARTON AND PEEK, INC., FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FINAL DESIGN PLANS FOR
LIVINGSTON ROAD BETWEEN RADIO ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY IN THE
A_MOUNT OF $16,130.00
Item #1682 - Moved to Item #885
Item #1683 - Deleted
Item #1684 - Deleted
Item #1685
PETITION TH 96-007 FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TO CALM TRAFFIC
ON PALM DRIVE WITHIN THE GLADES COUNTRY CLUB, NAPLES SUNRISE AND
SUNRISE III COHMUNITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,225.00
Item #1686
REDISTRIBUTION OF A PORTION OF FUND 152 RESERVES FOR ADDITIONAL
MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION HSTU - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $18,500.00
Item #16C1 - Continued to February 3, 1998
GRANT OF EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY UPON REAL PROPERTY
OWNED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD FROM FY 97 AND GRANT
REVENUES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THE PARKS CAPITAL FUNDS (306, 345,
365, & 368), AND $1,640.00 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE BLUEBILL AVE.
OFF SITE PARKING PROJECT
Item #16El - Continued Indefinitely
LINE ITEM TRANSFER REQUEST FROM GULF BAY MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR
TARPON FISHING TOURNAMENT, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS, SPECIAL EVENTS
Item #16G1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC
has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
EXECUTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTHENT OF
COHMUNITY AFFAIRS, STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN GRANT DOCUMENTS AND
APPROVAL OF THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT
CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Meeting is adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:18 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD (S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING
BY: Heather L. Casassa, RPR