BCC Minutes 02/22/2000 RFebruary 22, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 22, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s} of
such special districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F' of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
James D. Carter
ALSO PRESENT: Michael McNees, Acting County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 22, 2000
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA
ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),
REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND
RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE
CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU
ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES
FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1
February 22, 2000
INVOCATION - Reverend Harold Brown, Lely Presbyterian Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
c. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 24, 2000 - Budget Policy Workshop
B. January 25, 2000 - Regular meeting
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation proclaiming the week of February 20-26, 2000 as
National Engineers Week. To be accepted by Mr. Ron
Waldrop, Project Engineer, WilsonMiller, Inc.
s. SERVICE AWARDS
~.) Zebedee Harris, Parks and Recreation - 10 Years
2 ) Denise Clarke, EMS - 10 Years
3) Lisa Taylor, Fleet Mgmt. - 10 Years
c. PRESENTATIONS
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Vera Fitz-Gerald, President of the Property Owners of Naples Park
regarding community traffic calming and request for a study to rezone
Naples Park.
]~. Dave Bell requesting guidance for the location of Holocaust artifacts.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
2
February22, 2000
3.0.
· .. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Discussion of requests made by the Development Services
Advisory Committee to amend Ordinance 99-51, The Collier
County Litter, Weed and Exotics Control Ordinance and
Ordinance 89-06, The Collier County Standard Housing Code.
2)
Clarification of transportation issues presented to the Board of
County Commissioners in the AUIR (Annual Update and
Inventory Report) on January 25, 2000.
PUBLIC WORKS
1)
Approve final alignment and typical section features for
Goodlette-Frank Road Four Laning Improvements between
Pine Ridge Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, Project No.
60134.
C. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Request by David Rice representing the Marco Island Sports
Festival for a waiver of user/rental fees.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Discussion Regarding the Results of Consultant Screening for
the County Administrator Vacancy.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
G. EMERGENCY SERVICES
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Recommendation that the Board approve a proposed settlement
agreement in the amount of $38,000.00 for the lawsuit styled
ARDYTHE VASS V. COLLIER COUNTY, Case No. 98-3533, now
pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,
Florida.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
3
February 22, 2000
Reconsideration of renaming of the Collier County Courthouse
(Commissioner Carter).
OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
ZONING AMENDMENTS
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 8,
2000 MEETING. Petition PUD-92-04(1), Rich Yovanovich of
Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, representing Bonita Bay
Properties, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate
Health Park PUD having the effect of changing the name to
Golden Gate Commerce Park, eliminating Hospital and some
Medical Center uses, adding Retail Commercial, Office, Hotel,
Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) and Residential uses for
property located on the northwest corner of C.R. 951 and
access Road #2 in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
2)
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 8,
2000 MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE
3)
MARCH 14, 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD-99-15, Michael
Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing
Dean Huff, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural
Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
Alexandria PUD for a maximum of 72 dwelling units for property
located on the east side of the future Livingston Road
Extension, south of Pine Ridge Road (S.R. 896) and north of
Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886) in Section 18, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
19.58+/- acres.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 8,
2000 MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE
MARCH 14, 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD-99-16, Kevin
McVicker, P.E., Phoenix Planning and Engineering, Inc.,
representing Gulf Sun Corporation, requesting a rezone from
4
February 22, 2000
1:3.
4)
"A" to "PUD" to be known as Whippoorwill Pines PUD, a
residential development not to exceed 180 dwelling units,
located approximately ½ mile south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R.
896) on Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 29.54_+
acres.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY
2000 MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE
MARCH 14, 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD-98-20, William L.
Hoover, AICP representing Gulf Sun Corporation, requesting a
rezone from "A" to "PUD" to be known as Whippoorwill Lakes
PUD, a residential development not to exceed 518 dwelling
units, on property located approximately ¼ mile south of Pine
Ridge Road (C.R. 896) on Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 76.85 + acres.
c. OTHER
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1)
Petition CU 99-30, Karen Blackwell representing Naples
Equestrian Challenge Center, L.C., requesting conditional uses
"19", and "24" of the "A" zoning district for a therapeutic
equestrian riding facility on property less than 20 acres per
section 2.2.2.3. for property located on Ridge Drive, further
described as Lot 21, Block 1, Pine Ridge, in Section 10,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
2)
Petition V-99-30, William L. and Charlene S. Hoover requesting
a 5-foot variance from the required 10 foot rear yard setback for
an accessory structure to 5 feet, for property located at 5690
Wax Myrtle Way, further described as Lot 94, Tall Pines, in
Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY
2000 MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE
MARCH 14, 2000 MEETING. Petition A-99-04, Richard D.
Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, PA.,
representing Kensington Park Master Association and the
Yorktown Neighborhood Association, requesting an appeal of
the determination of the Collier County Planning Commission on
5
February 22, 2000
1~.
15.
5)
November 21, 1999 that the changes to the Carillon PUD
Master Plan by adding new commercial building footprints were
insubstantial.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2000
MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. A-
99-03, C. Perry Peeples of Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards
and Roehn, P.A., representing Keystone Custom Homes, Inc.,
requesting an appeal of the Collier County Planning Services
Director's interpretation (I-99-06), that a sales center intended
to market residential development located on the south side of
Piper Boulevard east of Palm River Boulevard constitutes an
off-site sales facility and is therefore not permitted.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2000
MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE MARCH
14, 2000 MEETING. Petition V-99-21, David E. Bryant,
representing Alfred Luckerbauer, requesting a 7.5-foot variance
to the required 15-foot side setback for docking facilities to 7.5
feet for property located at 9 Pelican Street East, further
described as Lot 40, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 32,
Township 51 south, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
OTHER
STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
m mm! mm m m mm mm m m mm mm m m mm mm m m mm mm m ! m~mmm m mm m ! m m mm m mm ! m mm mm m ! ! m m m ! m m ! ! ! m em m mm m mm! m m m m m mm! ~ mm mm m mm! ! mm m mm m m ! mm! m m mm mN
$6. CONSENT AGENDA- All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Petition C-2000-1, Golden Gate Area Chamber of Commerce
requesting a permit to conduct the annual Golden Gate Festival
on February 25, 26, and 27, 2000, on property located west of
the Golden Gate Community Center.
2)
Petition C-2000-2, Annie Pappalardio, Immokalee Parks and
Recreation requesting a permit to conduct the annual
Immokalee Spring Festival from March 2,3,4, and 5, 2000, on
County owned property at the Immokalee Community Park
located at 321 North 1st Street, Immokalee.
6
February 22, 2000
3)
4)
S)
6)
7)
8)
9)
so)
:].~- )
Approval of the mortgage and promissory note for a two
hundred twenty-eight thousand ($228,000) dollar loan to the
Collier County Housing Authority.
Approve an alternative road impact fee calculation for the
Naples Philharmonic Center for the Arts.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a resolution supporting the Collier County Housing
Authority's grant application to the Department of Community
Affairs to develop FarmWorker Housing in the Immokalee area
for unaccompanied adult farmworkers.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to contract for consultant services and approve
the budget amendments necessary to develop the Collier
Community Character and Design Master Plan.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Audubon
Commercial Center".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Island Walk
Phase Four", and approval of the Standard Form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Unit
One", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra
Parcel 100", and approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra
Parcel 101", and approval of the Standard Form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra
Parcel 102", and approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
7
February 22, 2000
13)
14)
15)
Request the Board to authorize the Chairman to execute the
attached Federal Transit Administration Grant applications and
applicable documents.
CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2000 MEETING:
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit
No. 59.720, "Panther Island Mitigation Bank" located in Sections
5,6,7,18, and 19, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, bounded
on the north and west by undeveloped land zoned AG-2 (Lee
County), and on the south and east by vacant land zoned A-
MHO (Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary).
Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit
No. 59.728 Otero Lake 3 Commercial Excavation located in
Section 29, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, bounded on
the east, west, and south by vacant lot and on the North by 70th
Avenue NE R/W and vacant lot.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of Shores at
Berkshire Lakes Phase Two-B and approval of the Standard
Form Performance Security and Construction and Maintenance
Agreement.
PUBLIC WORKS
Award Bid No. 99-3026 for the purchase of four trackhoes.
2) This item has been deleted.
3)
4)
S)
~)
7)
Award Bid 99-3005 to selected firms for Manhole, Lift Station
and Wet Well Rehabilitation Contracting Services.
Approve the purchase of one (1) Backhoe/Loader on State
Contract.
Approve an Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
with Greeley and Hansen for design and implementation of 30-
inch parallel sewer force main on Immokalee Road, Contract
98-2790, Project 73943.
Award a Contract for Bid No. 00-3033, Hideaway Beach T-Groin
Construction to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of
$137,100.00.
Approve Tourist Development Category "A" Funding
Applications.
8
February 22, 2000
8)
Award Bid #00-3034 for Wellfield Maintenance and
Rehabilitation.
9)
Award a Construction Contract to Hannula Landscaping &
Irrigation, Inc. for C.R. 951 South (Part B) Landscape
Improvements, Bid No. 00-3031.
10) This item has been deleted.
11)
Approve a Work Order for Botner Land Design, Inc. for the
Bayshore Beautification MSTU Landscaping.
12)
Approve Work Order #PHA-FT-00-01 with Pitman-Hartenstein &
Associates, Inc. for the S.R. 84 and C.R. 951 Intersection
Improvements, Project No. 66065; Capacity/Safety.
13)
Approve Contract for Construction Engineering Inspection
Services by Johnson Engineering, Inc. for Immokalee Road (1-
75 to C.R. 951) Four Lane Improvements, Project No. 69101;
CEI No. 8.
14)
Execute a Joint Project Agreement between the State of Florida
Department of Transportation and Collier County for
Improvements to the 1-75 exit (Exit 16) Pine Ridge Road
Interchange under the Pine Ridge Road Six Lane
Improvements, Project No. 60111; CIE No. 41.
15)
Amend Professional Services Agreement with Hole, Montes &
Associates, Inc. for Engineering Services related to
Improvements at the South County Water Reclamation Facility,
RFP 93-2121, Project 73916.
3.6)
Board approve committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for Construction Engineering Inspection Services
for Golden Gate Boulevard from CR 951 to Wilson Boulevard.
Collier County Project No. 63041, CIE No. 62.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approval of budget amendment recognizing an additional
$73,052 in State Aid to Libraries in FY 00.
2) Approve agreement with performers for Royal Palm Music Fest.
3) Award of Bid 99-3021, vending machine services.
9
February 22, 2000
4)
Approval of a lease agreement with Golden Gate American
Little League, Inc.
5)
Approval of a Limited Use License Agreement with Nicaea
Academy, Inc. for use of County-owned vacant land in order to
hold activities for a festival.
6)
Approval of a lease agreement with CPOC Realty, L.L.C. for
warehouse space to be used by the Library Department.
?) This item has been deleted.
8)
Authorize the Chairman to execute an agreement between
Collier County and Bay Colony - Gateway, Inc. (BCG) for an
exchange of property, construction of a new and additional
beach parking spaces at the area commonly known as the
Seagate Beach Park and Naples Cay.
SUPPORT SERVICES
l)
Approval to Award RFP #99-2961 "Energy Management and
Building Automation Services" and Authorize Staff to Negotiate
Agreements with Selected Vendors.
2) Approve Repairs and Replacement of Capital Equipment.
3)
Approval of a Change to the Routine Physical Examination
Benefit in the Collier County Group Benefit Plan.
4)
Approve Work Order #vb-99-4 Issued to Vanderbilt Bay
Construction, Inc. for the Installation of Hurricane Shutters on
Buildings C-1 and C-2.
5)
A Resolution Approving the Satisfaction of Lien for a Certain
Residential Account Wherein the County has Received
Payment and said Lien is Satisfied in Full for the 1992 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
6)
Approval and Execution of the Notice of Promise to Pay and
Agreement to Extend Payment of Sewer System Impact Fees.
7)
Authorization to Execute Satisfaction of Lien Documents Filed
Against Real Property for Abatement of Nuisance and Direct the
Clerk of Courts to Record Same in the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida.
10
February 22, 2000
8) Award Agreements for General Contractors Services on an As-
Needed Basis, RFP 99-3025.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment
#00-134; #001-135; #001-139; #00-147; #00-149.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EMERGENCY SERVICES
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
~.) Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman
to sign Satisfaction of Lien for Services of the Public Defender
for Case No.: 90-6034-TM, 97-8240MMA, 99-6694MMA, 99-
2347MMA, 82-1050CJA, 82-1051CJA, 99-2704MMA, 99-
2869MMA, 99-7190MMA, 98-7434MMA, 99-6345MMA, 97-
8832MMA, 99-2022MMA and 99-3571MMA
2) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED:
:I:. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Request that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
expenditure of budgeted 301 funds for the purchase of 800 MHz
portable radios for the Sheriff's Office.
2)
Request that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
expenditure of budgeted 301 funds for the purchase of a
replacement photo lab system for the Sheriff's Office and a
related budget amendment.
3)
Amend the Civil Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer Grant-In Aid of
$12,094.08 from the office of the State Court Administrator and
authorize Chairman to sign the Amendment.
~T. COUNTY ATTORNEY
lC. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
SUMMARY AGENDA- THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL
11
February 22, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES
OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC
MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND
4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO
THE ITEM.
Petition PUD-99-22, Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman &
Johnson, P.A., representing James Vogel, Trustee, requesting a
rezoning from "A-ST" Rural Agriculture with Special Treatment Overlay
to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for property known as San Marino
PUD, a residential development and golf course with 353 multi-family
residential units, located 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard on C.R.
951, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 235.33+ acres_.
Petition PUD 99-26, Mr. Robert L. Duane of Hole, Montes &
Associates, Inc., representing H.B. Holdings, Michael Bahms,
President, requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned
Unit Development to be known as Da Vinci Estates in Olde Cypress
PUD allowing for 61 dwelling units for property located north of
Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and approximately 1.3 miles west of 1-75
and surrounded by the Olde Cypress PUD, in Section 21, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 40.4 acres
more or less.
Petition R-99-11, Mr. Alan D. Reynolds of WilsonMiller, Inc.
representing Long Bay Partners, LLC, requesting a rezone from "PUD"
to Planned Unit Development known as the Livingston Road County
Club, to "A" Rural Agriculture for property located on the south side of
east/west Livingston Road right-of-way (CR-860) and west of the
Imperial Golf Course development in Section 13, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Petitions CU-99-31 & ST-99-02, Jason Williams of Johnson
Engineering, Inc., representing Cocohatchee Nature Center,
requesting conditional use "23" of the "A-ST" zoning district for an
Ecotourism Educational Facility per Section 2.2.2.3 for property
located west of U.S. 41 north on the Cocohatchee River, in Section 21,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of 2.19+ acres.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 8~ 2000
MEETING. Petition CU-99-33, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover
Planning representing Richard and Jean Yahl and Teresa Yahl
Fillmore, requesting Conditional Use "2" of the "A" zoning district for a
sawmill, per Section 2.2.2.3., for property located on the south side of
12
February 22, 2000
Washburn Avenue SW in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida.
Petition SNR-2000-02, a Resolution amending the title and paragraph
two of Resolution 99-415, a street naming for property hereinafter
described in Collier County, Florida, to correct a scrivener's error in the
property's legal description and the street's former customary name.
Petition VAC-99-015 to vacate the 15' wide drainage easement along
the lot line common to Lots 33 and 34, according to the Plat of "North
Collier Industrial Center", as recorded in Plat Book 31, Pages 50
through 51, Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to accept a
drainage easement as a replacement easement on said Lots 33 and
34, Located in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Petition VAC 00-001 to vacate road right-of-way, being a portion of
Tract D (Vizcaya Way), according to the Plat of "Vizcaya at Bay
Colony", as recorded in Plat Book 18, Pages 37 through 39, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 33, Township 48
South, Range 25 East.
re
Petition ASW-99-1, MDM Services, Inc., representing Sam's Club,
requesting a 300-foot waiver from the minimum required separation of
500 feet between automobile service stations for property located in
Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGESTOTHEBOARD'SAGENDASHOULDBE
MADETOTHECOUNTYADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE AT774-8383.
13
February 22, 2000
February 22, 2000
Item #3
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, and welcome to
the Tuesday, February 22nd meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners.
I'd ask you to join me in standing for an invocation from the
Reverend Harold Brown from the Lely Presbyterian Church, and
stay standing for the pledge to the flag. REVEREND BROWN: Let us pray.
Our Father, from cybernet crime to lethal injection now in
our state, we are faced with a lot of challenges. We pray that
you would help us to see the greater good, the higher and more
noble aspects of your wisdom as we try to do business here, for
those who are especially less fortunate and for those who are
very privileged, and a whole lot of people in between.
In the mix of life, we thank you that you straighten out our
priorities and you give us a day. We thank you for the holiday
yesterday. We thank you for every president, and especially our
present president. We pray for them and those who are running.
We ask that you would guide us and direct us to make the
right decisions in these elections to come.
Bless us locally as well, and help us to know all that you can
give us, if we'd just open our hearts and minds to your wisdom.
Thank you for that guidance. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: ***Mr. McNees, we have some
changes to the agenda?
MR. McNEES: We do. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners.
Just a few changes this morning. We have two withdrawals
from the consent agenda. Item 16(B)(1) is an award of bid; Item
16(B)(3), another award of bid. Both of those have been
withdrawn due to bid protest. We'll be going through that protest
process.
Page 2
February 22, 2000
I have a note from the county attorney regarding Item
16(A)(3}, requesting a minor refinement to some of the language
in that item. And I don't know if David wants to submit something
or put something on the record? Just a note that there will be a
minor language change I guess in that item.
One other note would be I have a gentleman registered to
speak on Item 16(A}(14), which is consent agenda item. That
would be a Thomas Kiesel. And I don't know whether he's in
opposition or in favor, but I thought before we approved the
consent agenda, you might want to consider whether to pull that
one based on that gentleman's --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Show me an up or down and
we'll --
MR. KIESEL: We're in favor. I just wanted to make sure the
conditions which were stipulated were included in the final.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Very good. If he's in favor, I take that back.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In the next couple of minutes,
can we just touch base and make sure whatever it is he's looking
for, that we're in -- I assume comes from the previous meetings
on -- that are included?
MR. McNEES: ¥ince is going to take care of that.
And that would be all the changes I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: None, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, any
changes?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question, but it -- I'm not
sure, I guess I have to pull it off the agenda in order to get the
question answered. But I don't want to throw panic into the
individual, because I just -- it's a very minor question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Perhaps someone could answer it
for you and you don't have to pull it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the item?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: One of our -- I don't see Stan
Chrzanowski. He's not here.
Page 3
February 22, 2000
This has to do with the commercial excavation permit. And
I assume it -- it is a lot, so I'm assuming it's not a big commercial
excavation. That was just my concern about --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, just--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If they make that in --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- for clarification, if anybody
removes even one truckload from a residential piece of property,
they have to get a commercial permit?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They do.
sure that this is -- it's a lot. That's fine.
But I just want to make
Okay. Thank you, that's
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other changes?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I'd like to pull 16(A)(4} from
the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. McNEES: 3.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
16(A)(4) will become 8(A)?
3.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's it become, John, 8 --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 16(A)(4).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Becomes 8(A)(3}.
Any other changes?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. B(15}, I'd like to pull for
discussion. I think that will go under public works.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 16(B)(15} will now become
8(B)(2).
Commissioner Mac'Kie, any changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I have two. 16(B)(13) and
16(B)(16) -- the agenda was just too short today, wasn't it -- both
of which should be very quick. But they'll become 16(B)(3) and
(4), respectively.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the agenda,
the summary agenda --
Page 4
February 22, 2000
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, one more item, apparently. If
16(A)(4) was to be pulled from the consent agenda, apparently
the petitioner would ask that it be continued. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fine by me. 16(A)(4), now
8(A)(3), will be continued to any -- MR. McNEES: March 14th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: To our next meeting.
And just one other note. I had circulated a memo last week
and we've had it on both television and radio, and we asked the
newspaper. I didn't see an article. But on the Item 10(8), motion
for reconsideration, traditionally we don't have input on a motion
for reconsideration itself, only if the reconsideration is
successful, then it's placed on an agenda two weeks from now,
and at that time obviously the public input, as much as anybody
would like, will be encouraged and allowed. So just for that
clarification, if anybody's waiting on that item. NOW.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the agenda,
consent agenda and summary agenda with the changes noted.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a pair of
hesitant seconds. All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
FEBRUARY 22~ 2000
WITHDRAW: ITEM 16(B)(1) - AWARD BID NO. 99-3026 FOR THE
PURCHASE OF FOUR TRACKHOES. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
WITHDRAW: ITEM 16(B)(3 } - AWARD BID 99-3005 TO SELECTED FIRMS
FOR MANHOLE, LIFT STATION AND WET WELL REHABILITATION
CONTRACTING SERVICES. (STAFF'S REQUEST).
NOTE: ITEM 16(A)(3) - APPROVAL OF THE MORTGAGE AND
PROMISSORY NOTE FOR A $228,000 LOAN TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY - legal description requires some refinement but no
substantial change. (county attorney's request).
February 22, 2000
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 24, 2000 BUDGET POLICY
WORKSHOP MEETING AND THE JANUARY 25, 2000 REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the minutes
January 24th and 25th, 2000.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries
unanimously.
Item #5A
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 20-26,
2000 AS NATIONAL ENGINEERS WEEK - ADOPTED
We have a proclamation, 5(A)(1), proclaiming this as
National Engineers Week. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Carter.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe that's Mr. Carter.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry, you're right.
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Coming forward for this proclamation is Mr. Ron Waldrop
with us this morning.
MR. WALDROP: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good morning, Ron. If you want
to turn around and face TV land while we do the -- wave to all
your fellow engineers. This proclamation states as follows:
WHEREAS, engineers have used scientific and technical
knowledge and skills in creative and innovative ways to fulfill
society's needs; and
WHEREAS, engineers face the major technological
Page 6
February 22, 2000
challenges of our time when rebuilding towns devastated by
natural disasters, to designing an information super highway that
would speed our country into this new century; and
WHEREAS, engineers are encouraging our young math and
science students to realize the practical power of their
knowledge; and
WHEREAS, we will look more than ever to engineers and
their knowledge and skills to meet the challenge of the future.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of
February 20 to 26, 2000, be designated as National Engineers
Week.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 22nd day of February, 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Timothy
J. Constantine, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
Motion and a second. All those
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
(Applause.}
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we have three services
awards today. We have three employees who have been with us
for 10 years each.
First serving Parks and Recreation, getting his 10-year pen
today, Zeb Harris. (Applause.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Also celebrating 10 years and
serving in EMS, which we will point out was awarded the finest
EMS in the State of Florida, Denise Clark.
Page 7
February 22, 2000
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And from fleet management, we
have Lisa Taylor, also with us for 10 years.
(Applause.)
Item #7A
VERA FITZGERALD, PRESIDENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF
NAPLES PARK REGARDING COMMUNITY TRAFFIC CALMING AND
REQUEST FOR A STUDY TO REZONE NAPLES PARK - TO BE
BROUGHT BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have two public petitions.
The first is Vera Fitzgerald, president of the property owners of
Naples Park, regarding traffic issues and also a request for a
study to rezone Naples Park. Good morning.
MS. FITZGERALD: Good morning. As I -- I'm Vera Fitzgerald,
president of the property owners of Naples Park. And as I
mentioned --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: By the way, if anybody's not
familiar with the public petition process, you have up to 10
minutes to present --
MS. FITZGERALD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- your case. Usually no --
MS. FITZGERALD: I have two petitions, so I want to ask if
you would indulge me a little. I thought I would have time for
two petitions. And I'll try to be fast.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Vera, just so you know, there's
a single petition listed here. You can hit both topics if you want,
but there's a lO-minute window there.
MS. FITZGERALD: Okay. The first one is for a traffic
management plan. We're here to ask this board to direct the
transportation department staff to develop an access
management plan, along with an overall traffic management plan
for our neighborhood.
We're not asking for traffic calming. This is a whole
Page 8
February 22, 2000
different ball game. We're talking about a whole community
that's built on a grid system with 43 access points.
And our northbound left turns to and from 41 are going to be
limited down to eight avenues with median cuts, as opposed to
20. And this is going to create a huge volume on those few
avenues. And we can't allow these two avenues to bear the
brunt of all this traffic, so we have to do something to protect
them. You know--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Vera?
MS. FITZGERALD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We would be more than happy to
direct staff --
MS. FITZGERALD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- to do that for Naples Park, to
put together a traffic plan, taking into every consideration --
MS. FITZGERALD: Access management, traffic
management.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I see there's no --
MS. FITZGERALD: So shut up?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- no objection from the board
on that?
MS. FITZGERALD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Second item.
MS. FITZGERALD: Thank you very much. Okay, now, I'll
take a few minutes longer.
The reason for this petition is to restore the original
single-family zoning in Naples Park. I stress restore it. We don't
know when it was changed to multi-family or for whom it was
changed, but nobody asked us, the property owners living there,
if we wanted it changed. There was no public hearing, nothing.
It was just changed.
Then duplexes started. I don't think it was even brought
before the commissioners. I doubt it.
So we started out as a residential community of
single-family homes aimed at retirees; hence the 50-foot lots. It
was never an RV park, as some believe. And if it was, it certainly
wouldn't have been multi-family. The lots were sold through
Page 9
February 22, 2000
northern newspapers for $10 down and $10 a month.
When I discussed rezoning with Ron Nino, he suggested we
might need a petition from the neighborhood. But nobody came
around with a petition when our single-family zoning was
switched, so I see no reason to require one now to undo this
multi-family zoning that has caused the neighborhood endless
problems.
Many of the four-plexes, the triplexes, the duplexes, et
cetera, are really very unsightly, as you probably all know, and
they've reached the end of their economic life.
One owner of these, and I know you know who this is, rents
solely to migrant workers, and he makes a small fortune in
buildings that really should be condemned, they're so disgusting.
We don't want to see those ever rebuilt.
We don't want to increase the density with multi-family
zoning, but rather, we need to reduce our present really heavy
density, due to those multiplexes, and they only encourage
numerous illegally built extra units. As you know, we've had
converted garages, we've had converted breezeways. We need
to stop that.
Why coming now, you probably ask. Well, we've just had a
rude wake-up call. When Mr. Sabatino said he could build within
the present zoning the ugliest row houses imaginable if we didn't
agree to his plan for nearly a zero lot line and seven-foot walls,
we were shocked and we knew we had to take action while we
still had time.
We know that Naples Park is being eyed for future
redevelopment, and that it is a certainty, sooner than later. We
want to be ahead of the curve on this one. We need a
redevelopment plan as the City of Naples has. That is our next
step. Right now we need to protect our neighborhood by
restoring the single-family zoning.
We are also faced with creeping commercialism. I'm going
to add this, although one owner of a commercial lot on 109th is
going to try and slip in a rezone from residential to commercial
for an off-site parking lot during your June comprehensive plan
amendments. We want to draw a very firm line in the sand. This
Page 10
February 22, 2000
side is commercial and that side is residential.
We are also -- we're surrounded by up-scale developments
on all four sides. We need a long-range plan for our
neighborhood, and we know we have the support of these
communities on this. I'm sure Vanderbilt Beach would be only
too happy to see us do something. And I'm certain of the Second
District Association's support.
So step one for us is to nullify the multi-family zoning and
restore the single-family zoning, which was originally intended
for our neighborhood. Then we can plan in which areas or
whether to allow condos or villas, and which should remain
single family, rather than allow a haphazard redevelopment with
little walled enclaves here or there. If the Sabatinos have their
way, we're going to have one little one here and then we're going
to have another little one over there and it's going to be a
mishmash. And we don't want that. We want it planned.
So we ask you to direct your planning staff to prepare the
necessary paperwork, then bring it back to the board for the final
board approval. At that time there would then be a chance for
public input.
But if a public hearing is required, and your legal staff can
advise us here, then we could hold such a public meeting at
Veterans Park in the very near future. Then bring it back for the
board's final approval.
We ask that you add a reasonable time frame with your
direction. The same thing with the traffic management plan. Our
traffic plan was drawn up in February of '96. We really would like
a time frame on these.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question, Vera. What -- long
term what you're trying to do is get a redevelopment plan for
Naples Park?
MS. FITZGERALD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Short-term, you don't like the
idea of the row housing that we saw in the ugly alternative.
MS. FITZGERALD: Whoa. Nobody likes that. Nobody wants
it.
Page 11
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So your idea is to rezone --
blanket rezone everything to single-family --
MS. FITZGERALD: Not rezone it, restore this whole thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what we would have to do
is to rezone it. I'm wondering, A, if we can do that, because it's
taking, you know, Burt Harris private property rights. Would it be
-- I mean, that's my first question for the lawyers.
And the second one is, is there another way? Could we just
place a hold on rezonings or on multi-family development,
pending a redevelopment plan or -- I want to get to a
redevelopment plan like you do. MS. FITZGERALD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second. What
we do with public petitions is decide whether or not we want to
have this as a regular agenda item, rather than have that
full-blown discussion today.
Is there some interest in having that discussion and getting
some of those answers on a regular agenda item?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Absolutely. I think all the issues
raised by Vera should be addressed from the legal side, from
what you want to end up -- what you want to look like --
MS. FITZGERALD: We want to look --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- perhaps Cole will have some
influence on helping us with that process. But take it where you
want to go. And that is have a redevelopment plan for Naples
Park.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go ahead and put this on a
regular agenda at the first reasonable time. I don't know if that's
the next meeting or the following meeting, but that way we can
get to the bottom of this.
MS. FITZGERALD: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is our planning staff aware of the
issues that we want to have discussed?
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning
director.
If I understand correctly, you'd like us to evaluate the
options, especially the legal considerations, and come back and
Page 12
February 22, 2000
report to you what options are available, and what our
recommendations are with respect to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's correct. Let's try to do
that sometime in March.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And Bob, I would like you to
spend some time with Vera on that process so that there's no
miscommunication here, so we clearly understand what the
expectations are in Naples Park and what the staff can do or
can't do.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. And we've already had several
conversations with Vera --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: -- with regard to that.
Item #7B
DAVE BELL REQUESTING GUIDANCE FOR THE LOCATION OF
HOLOCAUST ARTIFACTS - STAFF DIRECTED TO INVESTIGATE
HOUSING FOR THE EXHIBIT AND BRING BACK ITEM ON MARCH
14, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 7(B), Dave Bell, requesting
guidance with the location of Holocaust artifacts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
this?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. BELL: Hi. My name is Dave Bell, and I'd like to thank
you for affording me the opportunity to speak with you today.
Each year-- I teach at Golden Gate Middle School, and each
year my classes do a project. It's usually a museum project. We
did one on Collier County, we did one on the Holocaust we just
completed. And I let the public review a civil rights and slavery
exhibit. Through the generosity of the NAACP and local artist
Jonathan Green, we were able to bring that to the public.
Has anybody on the board seen
Yes.
It's amazing. Fabulous.
Good morning.
Page 13
February 22, 2000
Our next one is Her Story; it's women in history. That will be
open April 1st. And we get the funding through grants or through
groups.
The problem I've had -- the next one we're going to do, it's a
four-part process, is going to be Hispanics in history. So what
we're going to do is include them all into like a diversity
museum, have all groups represented.
The NAACP and a couple other people came to me. They're
doing a River Park rendition, and they asked if I would like to
exhibit my museums there and make it a diversity museum. And
that's probably two to five years down the road.
The dilemma I have is with the Holocaust museum. I believe
Commissioner Constantine came out and saw it at our school
two years ago. Back then it was 640 square feet of artifacts and
educational resources. Since that time we have every
educational resource that the national museum makes available.
And a gentleman donated to the kids and myself 284 artifacts.
So if I find a place for it, it would be the fourth largest in the
country in square footage of artifacts. Not in square footage of
space, because all I have is 640 square feet in a classroom.
Clearwater/St. Pete is currently the fourth largest. Most of
theirs are photos, reproduced photos. My students have framed
well over 220 photographs, and some are original photographs,
that liberators at camp sent to us.
So here I am sitting with the artifacts. As I said before, I
have over 300 artifacts and no place to put them.
And basically what I'm here for is to get guidance on what I
can do. I want to continue working with the NAACP and the
Jewish Federation, to house them at the River Park complex, but
like I said, it's a couple of years down the road.
I have a time line of one year to do something with these
artifacts. The gentleman has a chance to sell them. He liked
what my students did with them. He said, '1 know what you and
your kids will do with them, and I'll let you have them." He just
gave them to me free of charge. I have them in my possession
right now.
But I have that one year to put them on display, and I have
Page 14
February 22, 2000
no place to put them. Dr. White and Dr. Smouth (phonetic) with
the school -- Collier County Schools worked diligently with me,
but there aren't any spaces available in any of the schools.
Every portable is being used. Every school classroom is being
used.
I've gone to Edison College, they don't have the space.
Florida Gulf Coast University, they don't have the space.
What I'd do is like to invite you and everyone here,
Holocaust Remembrance Week at Gulf Coast University is March
28th and 29th and 30th. They've asked my students and myself
to put our display up there to view for the public. I'd like people
to take a look at it. Because when Commissioner Constantine
saw it, it was a classroom of 640 square feet. And now it's at
least tripled or quadrupled in size. But I -- like I said, I have that
calendar year to find a place for it..
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When does it end? What year?
MR. BELL: I took possession of them in August, so it would
be for the next school year.
See, the problem is when I -- I do special exhibits for people.
I did one at the Macedonia Baptist Church for the slavery and
civil rights movement. That was part of our project.
But the problem I have with the Holocaust is because of the
enormous size of it. I lend it out -- except for the artifacts, I lend
it out to other schools. I never get it back the same way.
Collier County Museum took it for six weeks and there were
3,000 people came to see it. And I've worked with the museum;
there's no place there for it. It can't be a thing that's going to be
shown for a week or two and then packed up again. It's really
not doing anybody any justice.
And basically all I just want to know is how could I go about
finding a temporary home for it until the River Park Complex is --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any objection to asking
Mr. McNees and the staff to investigate that, and then we'll have
a full report in two weeks? But at least sit down, spend some
time with you and see if there are alternatives. Three weeks,
sorry. Our next meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no objection. And as a
Page 15
February 22, 2000
matter of fact, strong support for be creative, find a way to house
this, at least on the temporary two-year basis. In the park
system, somewhere, there must be something.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you, it was an impressive
display --
MR. BELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- even when you were limited at
640 and had fewer things than you do now. So I'm sure it's that
much better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last I saw, it was at the
museum, and it was awesome. MR. BELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wonder if maybe that big
conference room down at the Central library might be a potential
spot anyway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Staff, let's see what we can
come up with.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I would think within our
library and park system, we should be able to find -- our museum
system should find a way to do this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Frankly, if we have to give up an
aerobics room for a couple of years, I'd be willing to go there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll all be out of shape.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, because you don't do
aerobics.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Some people do anything to get
out of exercise.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, you'll bring this
back to us March 14th with some sort of a report? Thank you.
MR. BELL: Thank you very much.
Item #8A1
DISCUSSION OF REQUESTS MADE BY THE DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO AMEND ORDINANCE 99-51,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LITTER, WEED AND EXOTICS CONTROL
Page 16
February 22, 2000
ORDINANCE AND ORDINANCE 89-06, THE COLLIER COUNTY
STANDARD HOUSING CODE - AMENDMENT OF ORD. 99-51 -
APPROVED AND NO ACTION TAKEN ON AMENDMENT OF ORD.
89-06
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes us to 8(A}(1),
discussion of request made by the Development Services
Advisory Committee to amend the Collier County Litter, Weed
and Exotics Control Ordinance.
We do have a public speaker now, okay. Hi there.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, Michelle
Arnold, code enforcement director.
This is an item that the Community Development Services
division is bringing before you, because they've been asked by
the Development Services Advisory Committee to make
amendments to two of our ordinances. One is the Weed and
Litter Ordinance that was adopted or amended by the board back
in June of 1999.
The area in particular that we're -- that the Development
Services Advisory board is asking us to look at is the waste
management area that -- and particularly concentrating on the
containment areas. Currently the ordinance allows containment
areas in areas with an acre or more for trees and to put -- bury
certain debris in.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are the commissioners all
familiar with the proposed changes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have one public speaker.
MR. McNEES: Bob Pearson.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Bob Pearson.
MR. PEARSON: Good morning. Thank you, commissioners.
My name is Bob Pearson. I'm here representing myself, as well
as CBIA. David Ellis is on a delayed plane flight right now
somewhere in the middle of the country. He was supposed to be
here for CBIA.
CBIA would like to address this issue as one that was not a
Page 17
February 22, 2000
problem until a relatively unnoticed amendment was passed
back in the summer and went into effect starting in September.
The builders in the Estates have been operating with using
the fill from on-site in lots over an acre for several years. And
during that process, to the best of our knowledge, have been
little or no complaint, and it's saved customers 3 to $5,000 in the
process.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Bob, let me see if I can
summarize. It appears in some changes we made before, there
may have been an error. You guys are supporting the proposed
change to correct that error; is that right?
MR. PEARSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it in fact an error, or--
MS. ARNOLD: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it was an intentional --
MS. ARNOLD: There was an inten --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, I'm saying -- and I'm sorry,
thanks for that clarification. Not an error, something that didn't
work out the way it was intended. It was an intentional thing
that now appears to have some problems to it. And that's what I
mean by an error.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question, it appears to
me that the question is for the Golden Gate community. I mean,
the best I can get on this is maybe this is a distinction between
urban and rural, and in the rural area they don't mind this the
way it was in the past. But it sure sounds like a bad idea to me
to undo what was done.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In that case, I'll let Mr. Pearson
go. I was under the impression that this was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I may be the only one who feels
that way, though.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Bob, go ahead and do your
complete presentation. I'm sorry. MR. PEARSON: Thank you.
The issue is one that in the rural areas people have been
Page 18
February 22, 2000
using for several years, and again has been operating with little
or no problem. We actually -- on my company's behalf, we
actually explain to virtually 100 buyers a year in writing exactly
what happens and how they would prepare for it or be aware of
it. And to the best of my knowledge, no one has done or made
that change because of the cost. The cost is certainly an issue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: About how much money are you
talking about?
MR. PEARSON: The estimates by approximately 10 to 12
contractors who are in that business were 3 to $5,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
MR. PEARSON: And so it's a significant adverse affect to
the individual buyer.
There are also some other issues that I personally believe
that occur as a result. One of the changes was made to allow a
five-foot depth instead of a three-foot depth. That five feet, I
personally believe, is very dangerous and should not be allowed
as part of the ruling.
However, on appeal to the humanitarian side, Golden Gate
Estates certainly offers the opportunity for the first home buyer
and for much of our workforce to buy. And I can give you
numerous examples of people who, if affected by this, would not
be able to own a home tomorrow, because the price will change
that 3 to $5,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But your estimate is something
less than that, isn't it? Staff?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, staff is estimating that it will cost
approximately about 1,000 to $1,500.
And the point that Mr. Peterson (sic} brought up about the
depth, that's an option that the builder has. They don't have to
go down to five feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 24 inches or something, wasn't
it?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the -- the only concern that staff has is
the covering of the areas. And we did get some comments back
from the Health Department, as well as Mosquito Control, that
share staff's concern about leaving these areas uncovered. So I
Page 19
February 22, 2000
believe one of the issues is the mosquitoes creating a breeding
area for those. And I believe the Estates is one of the areas right
now that we're looking at as covering by the Mosquito Control
District.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a number of different
points here. One, whether it's 1,000 bucks or 3,000 bucks, for
many of the home builders out there, if you're talking All
American Homes or Florida Homes, or all this, you're building
80,000 to $100,000 homes, so that 1,000 to 3,000 to 5,000,
whatever it happens to be, no matter which number it is, does
impact the financial situation for a lot of those home builders.
And that's a concern.
Second, when they scrape to -- and Bob's suggestion, three
feet, they're actually trying to use that fill for their pad in an
effort to avoid additional cost of bringing in fill from off-site,
again, because many of those homes are on the affordable size.
It's the very thing we're trying to encourage. And to then require
to put fill over debris that goes into that three-foot depth, you're
just putting fill back in where you took it out. And you're kind of
defeating the very purpose of what you're trying to do there.
So I think this is one of those things where government can
be very well intentioned, but the homeowner has to take
responsibility for how they choose to do it themselves. And if
they're comfortable with this being dug to a three-foot depth,
some debris being put in there somewhere on their property,
which are usually fairly good-sized properties out there, that's
their personal choice.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question is, the only role
we would have -- because I agree with what you just said -- the
only role we might have is if it is as significant, to what extent is
it a public health problem? And we have this letter from Public
Health and from Mosquito Control saying it would provide places
for mosquitoes to breed. Well, duh, as my daughter would say, of
course it will. But it's not -- I mean, isn't everything out there?
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be overly generalizing, but isn't
everything out there pretty darn Iow? Isn't it already out there
pretty darn much a mosquito breeding ground, and isn't that not
Page 20
February 22, 2000
a terribly significant health hazard?
If it's not terribly significant, I don't want to dump an extra
1,000 bucks or 500 bucks on people who are trying to get their
first house out there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: On the other side of that, I -- we
studied the Mosquito Control District situation, and people come
back and start complaining about mosquitoes in that area, then
I'm not going to have a great deal of empathy if I don't go this
direction. I could certainly understand -- I would rather waive
this and say folks, you're going to have a few more mosquitoes,
or do you want us to do this, that's supposedly a mosquito
controlling device?
So I'm okay with I think the direction the Chair wants to go
with this, but I don't want to hear about mosquitoes later on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think one other concern that
hasn't even been mentioned, but if you're pushing this debris,
and they've mentioned here anywhere from three to five feet, I
think there's a problem that in and of itself, you're putting in
decaying material and covering it with the amount of ground
cover, that -- it's like -- it just sifts on down through.
And I would think it would be also a hazard in terms of the
people living there, little kids wandering back in those areas,
which they will, on property like this. I think that's as much a
hazard as the mosquito situation.
But I personally would like to see us -- I'm not sure we need
to go in this direction, and I'd like to make a motion that we
forego this particular part.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, the question that's before you is
currently, this -- the ordinance requires the covering of these
areas. And--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't mind your covering them,
but first off, I don't want them five feet deep. That -- I mean, to
me, just forget that. Because you're digging a hole. And as that
debris decays, you are going to have a five-foot pond out there at
some point in time. Now, it's not going to happen in the first year
or two, and it may not happen in the first 15 years, but at some
Page 21
February 22, 2000
point you're going to have a whole bunch of little ponds out in
these areas.
MS. ARNOLD: The ordinance requires that the area be
above the natural elevation so that we can address that
decaying of the vegetation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: And the CBIA, with support from the
Development Services Advisory Committee, is requesting that we
reconsider it and not require that these areas be covered; to
leave them exposed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm gonna -- I'd support the
CBIA's recommendation at this point. I realize it goes against
staff, and that's -- we need to do that carefully, but it sounds to
me like the public health risk is minimal compared to the impact
on a first-time home buyer out there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry made a
motion; that was to accept the recommendation not to require
the fill and the other things that are outlined here; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's pretty much correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for that
motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
8A)(2), clarification --
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I had one other issue, that the
Development Services Advisory Committee is also
recommending that we do away with the rental registration
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With the what?
MS. ARNOLD: Ordinance 89-06 is an ordinance that you all
adopted requiring the registration of rental units so that it will
help us in the Code Enforcement Department address
Page 22
February 22, 2000
enforcement more expediently. And the Development Services
Advisory Committee is recommending that we do away with that
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't support that for two
reasons: One, I think if code enforcement can get some help
there, that's great. But also, we got a little thing called the
tourist tax here, and if somebody's running it for less than six
months, it gets pretty tough to track otherwise. So --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree. I don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- think we should do away with it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I read the recommendation that
you want to retain it.
MS. ARNOLD: That's staff's recommendation, to retain it.
And the Development Services Advisory Committee was
requesting that we do away with it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
staff.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
to retain it.
This one we're agreeing with
Yeah, I agree with staff, we ought
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No action required if we're
going to retain it, unless there's --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like -- what was the reason for
wanting to do away with it, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Well --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you recall?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I'll have Vince answer it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know, Commissioner
Berry, what I read --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not -- I don't want to go there,
but I'd just like to hear what their reasoning was behind it.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record.
We asked them to consider a recommendation we made on
increased fees for registration, which we'll have to discuss with
them at another time. Not only did they recommend denial of
Page 23
February 22, 2000
that, they recommended that the entire ordinance section under
registration be repealed, because they felt the ordinance was
unnecessary. They opposed it the first time it came to you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #8A2
CLARIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION ISSUES PRESENTED TO
THE BCC IN THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON
JANUARY 25, 2000 - PRESENTED
Let's go on to 8(A)(2), which is clarification of transportation
issues.
We had an issue come up a few weeks ago that we were,
quote, adequate in Collier County. Took a beating for that. And
really, all we're looking for is a little help in defining adequate. I
think all of us realize there's a problem on the road, but there is a
state definition that we met, and so we're looking for a little
clarification there.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive
planning manager. If you allow me a moment, I have a couple of
handouts for you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Please.
I hope everyone at the Naples Daily News is adjusting their
TV right now so they can get all this information correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sure they'll do fine.
MR. LITSINGER: As the --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm sure I'll read about it.
MR. LITSINGER: As the Chairman stated its preamble to this
presentation, we're here today as an interim presentation to the
Board of County Commissioners, pending your March 7th
transportation workshop on the issues facing the county relative
to transportation.
Four weeks ago today we presented the 1999 annual update
and inventory report on public facilities, which contained some
Page 24
February 22, 2000
extensive information relative to transportation, which is the
issues today. And also on your other major facilities.
And what we're hoping to do today is to clarify some of the
points and facts that we brought to your attention on that day,
and also hopefully to alleviate some of the confusion and
concern that has arisen in the community as exactly what action
you took and what we were stating in presenting that report to
you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If Mr. Litsinger can 9o through
his report and then if you have questions, just jot them down,
we'll ask our questions at the conclusion of his presentation.
MR. LITSlNGER: What I will be referring to in the
presentation is the large spreadsheet that I handed out, which is
generally the document which has raised the most issues within
the community.
And specifically, the issues that are most prevalent in the
document are on the final page, which have to do with the issue
of the fact that we recommended that the board bind a state of
concurrency relative to our adopted ordinances and statutes for
the next 12-month period as a result of the report. And also to
point out to you some of the conditions or caveats relative to the
decisions we asked the board to make on transportation on
January 25th.
I'd like to make several points: As we pointed out on the
25th, we asked the board to make a concurrency determination
for a 12-month period. We in no way meant to diminish the
significant obstacles facing the community over the five and
10-year period, some of which will need to be dealt with in the
near term.
Specifically, the primary issues that this staff sees relative
to the Ion9 term; that is, five years or beyond, are the fact that
number one, one of your primary revenue sources for road
construction, the local option five cent gas tax, will Sunset on
January 1st of 2003. At this time there is no replacement
revenue.
Number two, we'd like to point out that the AUIR that was
presented to you on the 25th was balanced based on the
Page 25
February 22, 2000
issuance of a 17 million dollar bond issue in the current year for
which there is currently no revenue and for which there is
currently no debt service budgeted in your project cost.
As an example, taking the assumption if that bond issue was
issued at a probable coupon of six percent, the annual debt
service for 10 years would be 2.3 million dollars; 15 years, 1.78
million; and 20 years, one and a half million dollars on top of your
existing project costs that are identified.
I think another point that needs to be made here today is
that the impact fees reflect a 78 percent increase, as you had
previously adopted. These are projections, they're conservative,
and you will receive some updated projections on March 7th.
I think it's also noteworthy that this project list, as noted in
the footnotes, does not contain any grade separation projects
that average 10 to 15 million dollars per intersection, which will
probably be identified as a result of the grade separation study,
which is currently ongoing, and be added to this project list in
coming years.
One other point that I would like to make is that we tend to
react to situations as they develop. If you look at the column
under revenues and projects for the year 2003 and 2004, you'll
see a total of 7.6 million dollars in projects. It's a pretty safe
projection that by the time we get to the year 2003, 2004, that
number will be tremendously larger than you see there today, as
we identify new projects.
The other handout that I gave you this morning was a copy
of current construction projects that are currently underway
within the transportation department that either are under
contract or will shortly be under contract relative to some of the
roadways which have significant problems, as we speak today,
and which have been noted in many of the discussions in the
public forums in recent weeks.
And with that, that would be the end of my presentation.
And I would open it up to questions and answers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Litsinger.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stan, apparently what I -- in my
Page 26
February 22, 2000
vote not to accept the AUIR, what I had hoped to engender was
the discussion about whether or not it adequately measures our
transportation problems.
Since then, it's become clear to me that, well, maybe that
wasn't the right place for that vote, because -- my vote was
technically not correct, as I've said to you guys before. I know
that. I knew it when I was casting it. But I couldn't get anybody
to talk about what's wrong with the measuring stick that we use.
And hopefully what is going to come out of this is at this
transportation workshop, but probably more specifically on the
piece that I'm interested in, the long-term part, is something
we're going to discuss at MPO, and I'm just -- rather than
discussing it again here, I'm just going to mention again that
there are alternatives available to us that we may find ourselves
in a place where we unanimously smile and nod at this annual
inventory report so that the state gets their forms filed. That
would be okay. Although not the best, that would be okay if we
can create a community standard by which we measure our
success,
And hopefully that's something that we'll agree to do at the
MPO meeting and direct staff to develop. And then this becomes
the rubber stamp that it is, but we have an effective system
that's more meaningful for our community.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, this is a measure, but it
doesn't mean we're in any way limited to making that our only
measure. And I think your point is well taken. Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I don't think we ever --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second.
Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, the only thing, I look at this
report as one of those things that this has to be filed with the
state, correct?
MR. LITSINGER: No, ma'am, actually this is the requirement
of our own internal concurrency management system that we
adopted as a result of the Growth Management Act, but is not a
report to the state, it's a report to you.
Page 27
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's required because the
concurrency statute requires that we measure. The statute
requires that we have the system. This is the system we've
adopted.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. And I think where we've
gotten into problems is this certainly doesn't meet what
everybody is experiencing, and so we definitely have a real
dichotomy here of what people are seeing every day and then
what this report ends up reflecting.
And I think the misinterpretation was that -- the vote was
that four of us apparently said oh, this is fine. But that's not
what we said. And I think this is where we -- you know, that
there was a great misunderstanding about what this report really
was. But anybody will not agree that we're all happy with the
road situations. If we were, we would not be having a workshop
coming up in March where we're going to be talking about this
and spending a great deal of time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We may meet that legal
definition of adequate. I don't think there's any commissioner
who thinks our roads are in a practical -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- sense adequate.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, do we have roads? Yeah,
we have roads. Okay, that's basically what I'm saying here.
Yeah, we have a road, you know, and that's fine. But is it at the
standard that we would want.
And yes, Pam, at the MPO we have talked about this letter of
service. In fact, back when Peter van Arsdale was still on the
MPO, and several years back we started talking about how we
could increase and what we would have to do for the level of
service. So it wouldn't be -- what everyone is paying for now is a
level of service D. And a lot of people, "Oh, well, I didn't know
that." Well, fine, if you want something better, than open your
pocket books, because that's what's going to be required.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because basically-- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on.
Commissioner Carter?
Page 28
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: To me, you know, this whole
thing is like a movie. And what we did is we got one frame out of
it--
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- and everyone jumped on the
frame and began to criticize us, that we had no comprehension
about the road system, we were doing nothing about it. And
nothing -- to the community, that's going to be -- nothing could be
further from the truth. We're looking for a bigger picture. This is
one frame in it. We said okay, but it did not mean that we were
satisfied with the movie. And that's what we're working on on
the 7th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, do we have any
speakers on this?
MR. McNEES: You have none.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Litsinger, thank you very
much,
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
really do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
You know, I find that amazing. I
I do, too.
That we have asked for this to
come back, be reviewed, and the public has been noticed on this,
and they certainly have attacked this board repeatedly over this
whole issue of roads, and there isn't one person sitting here in
this room today that wants to talk to us about it. I find this
absolutely amazing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Such is the joy of public service.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they may all be at work. And
maybe --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the fact that we've, you know,
scheduled this workshop --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right, all right, let's move
along.
Page 29
February 22, 2000
Item #8B2
AMENDMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
HOLE, MONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SOUTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, RFP 93-2121,
PROJECT 73916 - APPROVED
8(B)(2) was 16(B)(15). I believe Commissioner Berry pulled
this out. It was a professional services agreement with
Hole-Montes on the south county water reclamation.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I didn't do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did somebody--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I did.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- pull this?
I'm sorry, Commissioner Carter, you got your question
answered?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a couple of questions on
this. And the reason I pulled it is some of the considerations to
me seem to be just plain logic that if you're building a facility,
that you would cover equipment so that it didn't end up getting
damaged.
And my question is, in its designs, maybe this was a mistake
in the past, but I sure hope we're not doing it in the future,
number one. And the second thing, the reason I pulled it was
that we have a $99,000 fee for delays, reimbursable expenses
because of weather to the consultant? That seemed like a pretty
stiff number to me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Finn.
MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, Edward Finn, interim public works
administrator. I'm going to let Mr. Boyer address that. And I'm
going to point out to the Chair that I think we missed 8(B)(1).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. I'm sorry, I checked it off.
You're correct. We'll finish this item and we'll go back to 8(B)(1).
Thank you.
I suspect we've got a few folks here interested in that one.
MR. BOYER: Thank you. Carl Boyer with your public works
Page 30
February 22, 2000
engineering department. I was out in the hallway and I didn't
hear -- I heard the second half of the question. I don't think I
heard the first half, because I was caught off guard by you guys
moving ahead one item on us here, so please bear with me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Do you want me to go
back to the first part?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If you would, please.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Under considerations, it says the
entire design of the pumping system needs to be revisited to
achieve a better balance between actual irrigation demands,
pump size, electric motors and controls, et cetera, but it seems
the problem was all this stuff was exposed to the weather. And
it seemed to me the logic would have been be when you built it
that you covered it so you didn't end up in a situation.
MR. BOYER: Okay. There are two distinctly separate items
associated with this proposed contract amendment. The first
one has to do with the tropical storm events that we experienced
this past fall.
Second and totally unrelated item is the issue of the Royal
Palm irrigation pumping station and their requirements that it
has to have to eliminate recurring problems we've experienced
with that pump station. It -- so there are two distinctly separate
items. We don't want to mix them together.
The reason why we cited that the existing equipment is
outside and exposed to weather is that we may want to, as part
of this design and enclosure for that facility, for various reasons,
such as noise control; other reasons such as protect any
specialized equipment we may be placing out there. So that
particular lift station survives the storm events just fine. It was
other work that we had ongoing That was impacted by the storm
events.
Would you like me to go into further detail about that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, it helps me a little bit. But
then you had a -- you've got a charge here of $99,000, based on
time and reimbursable expenses to the consultant because they
were delayed to do their fieldwork? It just seems like a very high
fee to me.
Page 31
February 22, 2000
MR. FINN: Let me focus on that for you.
We have some specialist engineers from Chicago flew down.
They're working on the tank. The weather forced them to have
to abort their mission. They came back a second time. And it
just so happened, we had another storm event. They had to
abort their mission two times.
Of the $99,000, only $8,000 of that is for the additional fees
associated with the outside consultants coming in from out of
town.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, what makes the other
91,0007
MR. FINN: 91,000. That is to reevaluate this particular lift
station arrangement, come up with a better approach to
eliminate a source of a problem that is becoming a thorn in the
side of the operations department. They are on a regular basis
going out, replacing electrical components, and which is causing
manpower and disruptions to service to our Royal Palm Country
Club customers.
This equipment preceded me. I've been with the county for
seven years. It's there, I would say, at least 10 years. There's
been problems with the equipment over the years, having the
pumps not -- motors not sized properly, the controls not tuned
properly. And over the years something keeps getting added to
it, added this, added that. So we've got a real mess of a
situation out there as far as the equipment not functioning well
together as a system.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If it's been a problem for years,
why is this an amendment then to -- shouldn't this have a been
part of that contract originally? I don't really want an answer to
that. I don't know what the rest of the board supports. I'm not
going to support that final item that Commissioner Carter's
brought to our attention. The rest of these amendments are fine.
The proposed amendment nine, I'm not going to support.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's our options at this point?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Approve it, disapprove it, or
approve any part of it.
Page 32
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I can approve it. My
question to you is, do I keep seeing the same picture over again
up here? What I'm saying is let's get out ahead of this stuff and
let's get it designed right, and let's do the proper expenditures
and quit doing a lot of the patchwork stuff, because this is very,
very expensive.
Short-term, it may get us through this period. But are you
going to come back to me a year from now or two years from
now and tell me gee, we've had expanded services and the
equipment's not quite doing what it should do?
I see too much of this as I go through here every month that
troubles me. And I'm not picking on any one person, I'm just
trying to send a message to public works, is quit doing this to us.
MR. McNEES'- Commissioner Carter, I guess maybe I need to
jump in here. That's exactly what this executive summary is
about. In fact, if you'll look at the third sentence of the second
paragraph, the entire design of the pumping system needs to be
revisited to achieve a better balance between the actual
irrigation demands, the pump sizes, the motors and the controls.
This is where they say we've been piecemealing this thing which
hasn't worked very well for us. We need to spend $100,000 to
get in there, redesign the thing on a larger scale. So this is
exactly what this item is to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this is the response to the
problem that -- because Commissioner Carter's right, it's -- we've
seen little pieces over and over, but this should be the last one?
MR. McNEES: Well, there's never a last one. So you're
talking about mechanical systems --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 3.8 million. I hope it's near the
end.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I guess what I'm saying, Mr.
McNees, is this: I don't know how many of these situations are
out there, but in the budgetary process, I would prefer to see
staff getting out here looking at these, telling us this is what has
to be done, rather than little by little bringing them in here. And I
see these numbers and I keep saying what's going on, how many
more are out there?
Page 33
February 22, 2000
MR. McNEES: Well, Commissioner, I can tell you, that's
exactly what staff does. There are items on here, if you take
them kind of individual, that have been previous amendments to
this contract. For example, you see the Lakewood design for the
reuse master plan. That was an item. The rest, the
commissioners will recall, came forward to us an issue where we
did some changes to accommodate the people in Lakewood. We
used an existing contract.
So not all of these are the same type of thing. And
generally, I mean, you've got somewhere in the neighborhood of
400 million dollars worth of assets out there at any given time in
any different state of being repaired or restudied or -- and it is
staff's intention absolutely to look at them on as large a scale as
possible, which is why we have the master plans that we do.
This is a specific item where this pumping system just
needs to be revamped, and we're trying to do exactly what you're
saying, look at the bigger picture. Rather than spend dimes, let's
spend what we need to do to go in there and fix it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have no public speakers.
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed? Aye.
Motion carries 4-1.
Item #8B1
FINAL ALIGNMENT AND TYPICAL SECTION FEATURES FOR
GOODLETTE-FRANK RD. FOUR-LANING IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN PINE RIDGE RD. AND VANDERBILT BEACH RD.,
PROJECT NO. 60134 - APPROVED WITH CHANGES AND CARICA
RD. S. TO BE CLOSED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go back to 8(B)(1).
Approve final alignment and typical section features for the
Page 34
February 22, 2000
Goodlette-Frank Road four-laning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope you guys are going to have
better pictures for us than you've got in our packet.
MR. RYZIW: Good morning, commissioners. For the record,
Lad Ryziw, public works engineering department. I do apologize
for the clarity of the pictures there.
The purpose of agenda 8(B)(1) is to discuss the four-laning
of Goodlette-Frank Road, the four-laning project of
Goodlette-Frank Road, between Pine Ridge Road and Vanderbilt
Beach Road.
The length of that project is about 2.4 miles. Through the
consulting team, Johnson Engineering, we have completed
project development stage for Goodlette-Frank Road, and we've
done a value engineering analysis, a value engineering analysis
on the project.
We're at a point in the project where we're asking the board
to go ahead and adopt alignment of the highway, along with a
typical section for the highway.
Before I go any further, I wanted to just take a moment and
express my thanks to both communities, Pine Ridge subdivision
and also Calusa Bay. I've been working with both communities
for over a year on this particular project to address some of the
concerns, and they've been real helpful and cooperative and
offered some extremely good comments.
The Goodlette-Frank Road corridor, I wanted to just take a
moment and kind of visualize the existing corridor that's out
there, from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road. The
facility that's out there right now, the two-lane section, lies
primarily within a 100-foot right-of-way corridor. For the first two
miles north of Pine Ridge it's two miles, and then the right-of-way
corridor does expand on a latter northerly .4 miles to 130 feet.
So essentially we're dealing with a, in general terms, 150-foot
right-of-way corridor.
There's also an existing 15-foot right-of-way easement on
the east side, and also north of Orange Blossom Drive we have a
40-foot drainage easement.
At the outset of the project --
Page 35
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: East side?
MR. RYZIW: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me, do you have
something to put on the visualizer so our folks in the listening
audience have some concept of what we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm trying to follow you,
but I'm in the listening audience, too. So far I was staying with
you, but it wasn't going to last. I need pictures. Just like
kindergarten kids, I guess.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you please speak for
yourself when you make those comments?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did. I meant for myself.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I said I need pictures.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Moving right along.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Moving right along.
MR. RYZIW: I was trying to summarize the existing
right-of-way corridor for Goodlette-Frank Road. This particular
drawing shows alternative number six. There are some
dimensions at the top that shows the existing l O0-foot
right-of-way corridor. And also adjacent to that on the side of the
screen, to the east of the lO0-foot right-of-way corridor, there's a
l O0-foot Florida Power and Light easement. The l O0-foot
right-of-way corridor needs to be expanded to address the
project objectives.
Through the consultant and also the communities, we've
established four objectives on a project, and each of the
objectives require right-of-way demand. Those objectives real
simply are a roadway system. We need to have land to provide
the lanes and so forth. We need to have a utility system, which
is a utility corridor, to construct water, sewer and effluent
facilities. We need to have a space for an intermodal system,
which consists of bicycle lanes and sidewalk facilities.
And the last and real important is space for a greenway
system. Those were the four objectives set up for the project, as
far as the right-of-way demand on the project. The alternative
number six, which I'm showing before you here, shows the
Page 36
February 22, 2000
right-of-way need approximately 150 to 165 feet for the project.
The alternative number six does have space available for
the roadway system, intermodal system, utilities, and also
greenway. The alternative number six and the other alternatives
do show a greenway on the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road.
With the development of alternative number six, which is the
base recommendation, by the way, for the project, alternative
number six is the base recommendation on the project, with the
exception of the area of Calusa Bay.
We've interacted with the communities out there, and
there's some physical constraints and there's some objections to
the land impacts on Pine Ridge and Calusa Bay side.
To that extent, to address those impacts of-- we've looked
at four different alternatives, and they're in your packet. The 6-A
alternative, 7-A alternative, and the 7-B alternative. Those
alternatives are just applied to the length of the roadway along
the Calusa Bay/Pine Ridge community, which again approximates
2,300 feet.
That's the -- in brief, that's the extent of my presentation. I'll
be glad to respond to any questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It is my understanding that that's
the throat that we have to go through, that we have 100 feet in
there, it was deeded to us. I mean, that's our right-of-way. And
we've got 100 feet to start with. 7-B gives us an opportunity to
stay out of the drainage easement on the west side of the road
and allows us only to take eight feet out of the east side of the
road.
I understand there may be some sacrifice with green space
in the center, but I think in this situation perhaps that's an
appropriate sacrifice, is to come down the road, go through the
throat, you sacrifice the green space, but you still, if I
understand it right, keep your bike path and walk path on the
east side. Am I correct on that?
MR. RYZIW: Commissioner Carter, there's a -- under 7-B, the
option 7-B, we would have an eight-foot bicycle path/sidewalk.
With 7-B we also have a six-foot sidewalk on the east side. So
Page 37
February 22, 2000
with 7-B we have sidewalk facilities on both sides of the
highway.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So what's the problem
with going to 7-B?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're taking some property off of
the berm.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, you have to reduce that
berm a little bit, but not completely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How about if we get a response
from staff? What do you see is a problem with 7-B?
MR. RYZIW: 7-B is the public works management
recommendation. 7-B does provide for the roadway system. To a
large extent it provides for the intermodal system. Obviously,
there's absence of space available for a greenway. And another
perhaps aspect, that we can meet totally the objective of having
underground utilities, trying to avoid them from being under the
roadway pavement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We cannot or can?
MR. RYZIW: But I think even with 7-B, we would probably
accommodate utilities within the roadside, and perhaps within
the median area.
I think the primary objective that's not being met here is the
greenway.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, my questions go beyond this,
because I go to the recommendations. And there's one
recommendation that I don't think this board can actually
address today, because it has not really been addressed on a
previous meeting. I mean, there was some thoughts and some
intent given, but there was never, in my understanding, a vote
taken. And that has to do with the perpetual closing of Carica
Road South. And going back and doing some research, and this
is a real hot topic and not one that anybody really wants to
address, but I would think that after the Kings Way issue, that
perhaps we might learn a good lesson here.
This road, though there is a temporary closing of Carica Way
South, that was done during the construction of Vanderbilt
Page 38
February 22, 2000
Beach Road, with the intent that after Vanderbilt Beach Road
was finished, that that section would open back up again.
And it was my understanding that there was a temporary
permit given to establish a, quote, berm or some type of closure
there, but there was never any official board action taken for the
closing off of Carica Way South.
So before we do that, how do you reaffirm something that
was never done properly in the first place? I'm not going to
reaffirm it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just jump in and say that that
was the one thing that I was able to grasp clearly on this staff
report is to reaffirm to perpetually close.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Now, you want to talk -- there's
been an uprising about county road going through Kings Way.
Well, that road, quote, was never built with county money, it was
built by developer money. However, Carica Road and those
roads up in there, those are county roads. That's a whole
different story than Kings Way.
So I can't imagine, you know, why do we perpetually and
perpetuate a problem here? I would think the people in Pine
Ridge at this point in time, they've got Vanderbilt Beach Road,
why would I want to wander through Pine Ridge when I can drive
down Vanderbilt Beach Road? And if I want to go 70 miles an
hour and risk not getting caught, I would do that as opposed to
wandering through a residential neighborhood with stop signs. It
makes no sense.
Plus I would think that the residents there, if you want to
access those people who have children that attend Barron
Collier High School, I would think they would love to be able to
get out, get over to Airport Road without having to go south and
come on Pine Ridge Road. I think that would help with the traffic
flow. I'd like to see an overall study before we reaffirm this
closure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just for a second, setting that
part aside, because I think the point you raised as far as
reaffirming is a good one. As far as the alignment, is there
anybody on the board that thinks a greenway is more important
Page 39
February 22, 2000
than people's personal property? Because Commissioner Carter
I think raises the point that while we'd love to have the road --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: To me this is a situation -- I'm not
trying to set a precedent here, but it's a situation we've got to
get through by going down the throat, give us the road, do
everything we want to do. I think in this case we sacrifice the
greenway. In future planning I would certainly want more than
100 feet so that we could encompass that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But communities needs have
changed.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question I have is, this is
about a mile, Lad?
MR. RYZIW: The 7-B option, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
Approximately 2:3, 2,500 feet. So the 7-B would apply to about
23, 2,500 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the -- that would be an
interruption in the otherwise beautiful medians, but it would just
be a brief interruption, considering -- I think this is a creative
response to a difficult problem. I don't know how we got in it.
That's another whole story. But I think it's a good response, 7-B.
MR. RYZIW: On the median, just to clarify that, the median
width for the entire corridor is 19 and a half feet. That would be
19 and a half feet on the full build-out condition at the Calusa
Bay area. But we're reducing the median to 15 and a half.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a number of public
speakers on this. How many do we have?
MR. McNEES: You have, I'd say, 12 or so. 10 or 12.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from them. We'll call
them two at a time and whoever is second in line, if we'd just ask
you to come up into our little on-deck circle, that will save us a
little bit of time.
And also, just so speakers are aware, it appears we're
considering an alternative which wouldn't take property from
either side. It would -- if we've got to eliminate something,
eliminate the greenway during that half mile.
Page 40
February 22, 2000
MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I may for just a minute before
we go to public speakers, I appreciate Commissioner Mac'Kie
recognizing -- if you'll think back to the Golden Gate Boulevard
project where we unveiled the typical cross-section to huge
public outcry, that project then got wrapped around the axle and
it took another two years probably to get it to the point where it
was ready to be built.
On this project, the same thing happened. We unveiled the
cross-section. There was public outcry, staff knuckled down, got
to work, came up with some options and brought it back to you
within a couple of months as opposed to a couple of years. And I
think what you've been asking for from them is to be more
creative and get these things done. They deserve a pat on the
back in this case for having done that, and I want to make sure
they get it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would agree, Mr. McNees, that's
truly the case. And I commend you and the staff for taking that
action, because we had that conversation about 60 days ago,
let's get this resolved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the public.
MR. McNEES: Your first speaker would be Sally Barker,
followed by Arnold DeHart.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And again, if the second
speaker would come up and be standing right behind so that --
thanks.
MS. BARKER: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, my name is Sally Barker. I'm speaking only for myself
this morning.
It occurred to me the other night that I've been making this
trek down to the commission chambers to talk about various
Pine Ridge road and traffic issues for over 10 years now. And it
also occurred to me as you were handing out the longevity pins
this morning for your staff, that perhaps you ought to create a
special category for issues that never go away.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would take too long.
MS. BARKER: I did want to just briefly address the Carica
Road South issue that Commissioner Berry raised, since I have
Page 41
February 22, 2000
been intimately involved in that issue since, what, 10 years now.
I want to make one slight correction. Carica Road South
was never opened to the public. Technically it doesn't fall in the
same category as Foxfire or other roads that the county actually
have closed to traffic, because it was closed at the time that
Goodlette-Frank Road was under construction. And it was never
technically opened for public usage. So you're not taking away
something that the public has now, because the public has never
had it.
The Pine Ridge community has reaffirmed, time after time
after time, that it would like Carica Road South to remain closed.
Yes, there are residents within Pine Ridge who would like the
road open, but by and large the community itself has voted time
after time to keep it closed. In fact, we even presented a traffic
plan to you at one point about -- what was it, 1993-94, asking
that that road remain closed in perpetuity.
The problem with opening Carica South at this point is that
yes, Vanderbilt Beach Road does exist. It has helped to a great
extent to be a cut-through traffic problem in the north part of the
subdivision. However, we have a significantly growing
cut-through traffic problem in the southern part of the
subdivision at this point. Traffic coming in at Center Street,
coming down Goodlette-Frank, turning in on Center Street and
then going down to Pine Ridge Road or over to 41, wherever
they're going.
If Carica Road South is opened, this cut-through traffic
problem is going to escalate exponentially, especially when
Orange Blossom, to which it connects, is opened up to Livingston
Road. And I don't think this is a problem that we should create
at this point if we can head it off by keeping the road closed.
Off onto one other subject before we get sidetracked onto
other things here. The -- it occurs to me that if this
Goodlette-Frank Road issue had been handled with a little more
sensitivity, as it were, a lot of the recent controversy and the
hard feelings that have arisen might have been avoided.
The concept of partnering is an excellent one. It brings all
the parties together at the outset of a project to discuss issues
Page 42
February 22, 2000
and problems and concerns and so on. And it's kind of a shame
that the partnering concept was dropped, that the ball was
dropped on this one. And this was the first project, whether it
was supposed to be a full-blown partnering, and it didn't happen,
and we're sorry about that. And I hope that this doesn't
discourage the county from implementing the technique on
future road projects in other parts of the county.
And that's really about all I have to say. I certainly hope you
do go for 7-B. It will preserve the integrity of our neighborhood
and allow traffic to circulate up and down Goodlette-Frank as
needed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. DeHart will be followed by Dorothy
DeSimone.
MR. DeHART: Arthur DeHart from Pine Ridge.
May I use your visualizer?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
MR. DeHART: Sally mentioned --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You need to come over to the
microphone, please, and identify yourself for the record.
MR. DeHART: Arnold DeHart, from Pine Ridge, for the
record, speaking on the subject of the Goodlette-Frank Road.
Sally mentioned a partnering agreement. I have a copy here
that some 24 of us signed last December the 8th. It sets out
several objectives, goals. They state from the spirit -- I'd like to
read to you the one statement at the bottom: "The team will
sincerely cooperate through open communication in a spirit of
trust and dedication to create a quality plan." Signed by some 24
participants involving the county, consultants, people from Pine
Ridge.
Although they were invited, there were no representatives
from folks across the road. The fact of the matter, the first time
I met any of them is when you had the presentation here last fall.
But we from Pine Ridge have been working very actively with
Lad over the years, trying to develop something that would work.
I do have -- let's see, where are we? Shortly after the
presentation, I mentioned the fall I wrote a letter to Lad and to
Page 43
February 22, 2000
you folks on the commission asking how was it possible that the
road was not built on your right-of-way, as it was to the south.
And I have not yet received adequate answer to that question.
I have drawn here a modification of 7-B where I'm not really
aware, I'm not privy to the different kind of easements, but the
easement to the right says it's existing county easement. I
assume for road of way (sic). The easement on the left is
mentioned for drainage. I think the description of the easement
does not permit a road. Don't know, but I don't think so.
If this is so, and to preserve the distance in the center of 19
and a half feet, if you merely go to the extent of the existing
easement to the right, which, according to Lad's report was not
abandoned, then you can have the full width that's needed.
There's adequate room for wide sidewalks on both side. And I --
from my limited knowledge of such things, I don't see why you
don't move in that direction.
As far as the berms are concerned, if you go up and look,
actually there are two berms. If you remove the first berm, the
folks living in Pelican Bay from their side won't know the
difference.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Calusa Bay.
MR. DeHART: What did I say? Oh, Calusa Bay. Wrong side.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all right, we know what
you meant.
MR. DeHART: The -- on the subject of opening Carica South,
we visited that several times. The road was really built by the
developer, donated to the county. The people who know about
roads tell me the roadway is not built for that kind of traffic.
There are 13 roads in and out of Pine Ridge. We're just
trying to stop the direct traffic that's coming from Orange
Blossom. Some of the folks on Orange Blossom say they already
have a traffic problem. If you let them have a direct access to 41
through Pine Ridge, it will give you more of a problem.
I think that's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Dorothy DeSimone, followed by Jay White.
MS. DeSIMONE: Good morning, commissioners. Dorothy
Page 44
February 22, 2000
DeSimone, from Calusa Bay.
I would just like to bring a little attention to the negatives
that you mentioned in 7-B. We at Calusa Bay are definitely in
favor of 7-A. The negatives being the median being reduced to
40 miles an hour I believe minimizes the safety of people
crossing over, people -- school buses, emergency vehicles, et
cetera, the slowing down of traffic. I think all of this brings a
concern to Calusa Bay, the entry into Calusa Bay.
The greenway system is nonexistent so, therefore, the
aesthetics that the commissioners seem to be -- or the
engineering department seem to have been addressing are lost.
The bicycle path is gone. What do people do? Do they ride
partway up Goodlette on their bicycles and then suddenly are out
on the road? This presents another safety issue.
The utility system for the effluent and the water and sewers
are not met so, therefore, you have another problem with that.
The privacy wall. We have a noise issue at Calusa Bay
because of Goodlette Road being as close to us as it is. We
definitely hear the traffic now. As I see it, there is no wall being
provided for in 7-B. I therefore wonder how is this noise going to
be handled? I know a wall -- a study was going to be done in the
future, but I implore you to watch what happens with this.
The drainage ditch is certainly far from anything
aesthetically beautiful. It is an eyesore. There are dead animals
in there, there is decay in there. If that was covered over, as it
had originally been planned in 7-A, we felt that that would be
met; therefore, nothing could decay in there, it would be
underground and through a system that you had provided for us.
Calusa Bay has a beautiful front now. I don't think anybody
can have any controversy over that. Why would you want to take
that away and leave that unsightly side unattended? And that's
basically what I would like to say.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Just a quick
clarification. She indicated that would take away the sidewalk.
7-B does not take away the sidewalk, does it?
MR. RYZIW: 7-B provides a sidewalk on the east side,
Commissioner, six foot wide. On the west side an eight-foot
Page 45
February 22, 2000
pathway, which will have to serve both bicyclists and
pedestrians.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. DeSIMONE: I erred, I meant bicycle path. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. McNEES: Jay White will be followed by Beth Matthews.
MR. WHITE: Good morning, I'm Jay White from Calusa Bay.
I want to compliment the public works engineering
department on a very, very excellent summary that I received a
copy that was dated February the 10th, and it supported at that
time 7-A and discussed various reasons at that time why 7-B was
not acceptable.
Today it appears that the only thing that is considered to be
a detriment to the ?-B alternative is the greenway. The previous
speaker alluded to some of the problems, and I'd like to really
address the safety issue. Because in the proposal that was put
out on February 10th, it says 7-B as a compromise and then
proceeds to say that the reduction in the median width from 19-5
to 15-5 will not provide sufficient refuge for vehicles entering the
roadway in Calusa Bay for westbound to southbound turning
movements.
To me that indicates there's a threat to anyone and their life
driving out there, as it would be to anyone in Collier County
that's driving on the road. It's obviously recognized because
they also say they have to reduce the speed to 40 miles per hour,
which apparently is consistent with medians that are 15 and a
half feet.
I think anyone that thinks that in that short chute, as they
would talk in racing terms, that anyone will go down to 40 miles
an hour in 2,300 feet, it will never happen. It doesn't happen at
45 miles an hour right now. As a matter of fact, you can hardly
get out there then.
The majority of the people that live in Calusa Bay, the
residents like myself, are in the springtime of our golden years.
Our driving skills aren't what they used to be, and now we're
going to be asked to try to become more proficient than probably
we should be. But nonetheless, that's the way it is.
Page 46
February 22, 2000
School buses enter, school buses exit. Again, I go back to
the statement that indicates that there will not be a sufficient
lane to enter safely. I assume then we're going to put the school
kids at risk.
One other thing I would also point out is that 7-B states
space constraints that may severely limit the installation of
highway lighting fixtures. I think this is very important. First of
all, if we're on the section that is well lighted and now we go into
the dark and then we're back into the light, I would again say in
the evening with an aging population, or with anyone, that's a
problem.
I just feel that there are more things we're giving up than
greenway. I would love the greenway, I think everyone would,
but if we sacrifice lighting and safety of the population, I would
like you to consider that in your final analysis. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Beth Matthews, followed by Judy LeDoux.
MS. MATTHEWS: Hello. I'm Beth Matthews. I'm the
president of Calusa Bay master association.
You received an E-Mail from me last Thursday morning. In
that, I supported the county staff position of 6 and 7-A. That's
because on February 10th I received the executive summary that
stated that that was what Johnson Engineering, who you've been
paying money to, and the county engineering staff felt was the
best alternative for that roadway.
On Thursday afternoon, February 17th, I received the final
executive summary that you have now before you. I'm
concerned that the process has been aborted. When -- we were
never involved in the whole Goodlette-Frank Road. The
partnering never included Calusa Bay.
In 1995 to '97, while the developer was building that, there
were a lot of issues brought out. We now have a drainage from
Goodlette Road Frank (sic} that's going to go into the Calusa Bay
lakes, okay? That was done in an agreement so that -- for the
15-foot right-of-way which the original berm is on.
The south side of our property, we have two berms, and
there's a lake so that there is some protection for those
Page 47
February 22, 2000
residents in the south. The north side of our entrance, there is
no -- they're right abut -- the buildings abut that second berm, and
there's only the FPL road in between. There is not that kind of
protection that you would want. So that we do have a problem
that we have to protect all the residents, their privacy and from
the road noise.
The process that public works started a minimum of two
years before, Calusa Bay was not involved, the developer was
not notified. Our residents did call up transportation, who they
were referred to, to find out what was going to happen with the
road, and they were assured, which again was the original plan,
that the two lanes were going to be on the other side of the road.
I'm concerned about the process that happened, that we
have -- that it did not go into the ordinance that drainage was
going into Calusa Bay lakes, and it did not happen when the
lawyers were going to do the vacation. We now got to the point
this past spring that it was a moot point, it wasn't going to
happen, we needed it for the roadway.
When we got involved last April, we spoke with Lad and we
tried to work on any kind of compromise that we could. That
was part of the results of 6-A and 6-B coming forward, and
eventually 7-A.
Now, we've worked with our community so that they didn't
come barrelling down here saying why was the county lying to us
when transportation did so and so. We tried to educate them.
We've had two or three informational meetings a week with
them, we've had numerous meetings with public works. We had
a meeting in June with Commissioner Carter, who stated to us
that the four criteria had to be upheld. But the only way the
commissioners were going to vote for anything was for the new
plan that we're planning for the future of the county, that we're
planning for all the visitors and all the population that's going to
be coming here and we're planning for their safety, that just --
you know, it's unfortunate that the berm issue came up, that
we're going to have to lose something.
We worked diligently to try to come up with community
participation, to come up with a plan. And your staff did a
Page 48
February 22, 2000
wonderful job and spent extra money with Johnson Engineering.
I'm shocked that today -- on February 10th, we get an
executive summary that echoes the public workshop on October
29th. And yet, you know, only with one business day to do
anything last week, we're given a whole new plan, 7-B, which
does no cost analysis, has no real diagram. There were issues
why 6-A was rejected, because of how cutting into the berm was
going to affect and might require the relocation of the Calusa
Bay entryway.
We have a 70,000 gate system there. We have -- we made
the county code for the turn lanes and so forth. If you cut that
back, that may have to be redone. That's a whole extra cost this
process is going to be required to look at. There's been no public
hearing which included a 7-B.
The other issue, what that 7-A does, it does enclose the
drainage ditch. As you know, there's tremendous controversy
regarding the whole well situation and lake situation. The fact
that the aquifer, there's a porous layer instead of the normal clay
between the surface and the lower aquifer. 7-A would allow --
the ditch being enclosed would allow a protection for that area
of the city well water. Without doing that, we have the same
problem.
Hartman Engineering, which was paid by the City of Naples
to review that, felt that the problem was not just the corner of
Calusa Bay, but it went over Goodlette Road.
That's my two-second mark? I have no more time.
So at any rate, obviously I appreciate your interest, but I
would hope that you would reconsider to 7-A. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. McNees, how many more speakers do we have on the
item?
MR. McNEES: You have four more.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're going to take our 10:30
break for the stenographer. We'll be back in about five minutes.
(Recess.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there. Welcome back. If
everybody would take their seats, we'll reconvene. And our next
Page 49
February 22, 2000
speaker, Mr. McNees, is?
MR. McNEES: Judy LeDoux, who would be followed by
Barbara Cacchione.
MS. LeDOUX: Thank you very much for pronouncing my last
name correctly.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. May I
approach you, please? I have some --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you have a hand-out, Mr.
McNees will be happy to distribute them.
MS. LeDOUX: -- audio visual. Yes, if you'd start one at both
ends, they're both the same. Thank you.
My reason for talking today is really beautification; the
beautification of Goodlette-Frank Road. As you can see by the
pictures, and these were taken last Friday, the 18th, so they are
current as of right now. We took these pictures to show you the
difference between one side of the street and the other side of
the street.
Under 7-A, Collier County stays as beautiful as it is. One of
the reasons that I am a permanent resident at Calusa Bay is the
fact that Collier County is a beautiful county. We have beautiful
skies, we have nice greenway, we have nice weather most of the
time. We can't say that all of the time. But it's a beautiful
county. If I wanted to build anything, this is where I would build
it, because of the way the county is and how pretty it is. I know
that, and I know how the county has been, since my parents
have lived here for 18 years. So I have been here many, many
times.
When I decided to buy, where is the first place I went? That
was Collier County, because how pretty the county is. I feel that
we should keep the county as beautiful as it can be. Keep our
roadways as nice as they can be. Yes, maybe we sacrifice a
green space here and there, but all in all, shouldn't our green
space be a compliment not only to the residents, to the people
who are coming into our county that say hello, this is gorgeous, I
love this?
We are trying to do something here to keep our community
in the best lifestyle we can, whether it's for ourselves or whether
Page 50
February 22, 2000
it's for our neighbors. This is what we would like to do. I thank
you very much for listening to me. I know I haven't taken all of
my time, but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You get extra points for that.
MS. LeDOUX: Oh, do I get extra points? Marvelous.
But this means that I've tried to show you the value of what
beautification can be. I think we all agree that we like to see
things that are pretty and not things that are ugly. Thank you
very much --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. LeDOUX: -- for listening to me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Barbara Cacchione will be
followed by?
MR. McNEES: Dick Steele.
MS. CACCHIONE: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, my name's Barbara Cacchione, and I live at 580 Hickory
Road.
The issue I'd like to discuss with you today is noise. And
the proposal that is before you, 7-B, the one that's recommended,
I think we're supportive of that -- I'm supportive of that.
And the concern I have is I don't really see where there is a
wall provided or some type of noise buffering. With additional
two lanes of traffic and the increased traffic along the roadway,
the second concern is that the road is higher than the properties
on the west side. And also, the berm in Calusa Bay also deflects
some of the noise as well.
It was unfortunate that we didn't have the advantage of
planning like Calusa Bay did to put the berms that they did put in.
Of course, you know, when Pine Ridge was developed, it was an
awful long time ago, and that was a railroad track. So we really
-- I would really like to have some clarification on whether a wall
can be built with a drainage easement in place, if there's enough
room.
And the height of that wall, I know there's a noise study
coming, but I think it would really help the residents to have
some assurance that in fact a wall would be built along that
corridor, particularly north of Carica, where you're dealing with
Page 51
February 22, 2000
much less space in a constrained area.
What I'd also like to do is present to you Mr. DeHart's map,
showing that the 19 and a half feet in the median can be
accommodated with his proposed plan where you use some of
the right-of-way on the east side. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Steele will be followed by Rebecca
Torres.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. STEELE: Good morning, commissioners. My name is
Dick Steele. I'm from Calusa Bay.
Lad, it's always good to see you again.
MR. RYZIW: Thank you, sir.
MR. STEELE: As Commissioner Carter and Lad know, we at
Calusa Bay, a few of us, have been in fairly constant
communication with the county in developing the various
alternatives relative to the road expansion. We've attempted to
understand the road expansion program as being developed by
county staff and to provide constructive input to this whole
process, and to understand the implications of county mandated
design criteria; that is, transportation, utility, greenway and
multiple leaves, and ultimately to try to cooperate in the road
development in the corridor in front of Calusa Bay.
We were convinced of the wisdom of the mandated county
design criteria. It provides for future growth, it's aesthetically
attractive, provides for safe highway development not available
in a space constrained environment. We were pleased to see the
development of alternative 7-A, which meets these objectives
without compromising safety.
In a December meeting with Lad Ryziw, he outlined what
has become alternative 7-B, which is a space constrained
alternative. Provides for transportation need but compromises
safety. Does not incorporate a greenway. Does not provide for
full intermodal use. The utility corridor is not defined. I presume
it's under the pavement, in large part. And it does not clean up
the ditch and its potential pollution problem on the other side of
the road.
Page 52
February 22, 2000
Frankly, commissioners, I must conclude that if 7-B is
adopted, we at Calusa Bay will have to seek legal advice relative
to the incursion at our entryway, and any other construction
easements that may be needed.
7-A is the way to go. It's the safest alternative. Most
attractive alternative. Meets all county design criteria. Solves
potential pollution problem to the aquifer. Most cost effective.
But there is a price. And the price we pay at Calusa Bay is that
for a distance of 500 feet going north from Orange Blossom
Drive, our berm will be moved.
And the further price is that there is an irrigation line
underneath the berm that will have to be put in. And the
entryway will have to be changed. And so we were prepared to
pay that kind of a price for 7-A. 7-B we do not accept. We
accept -- we recognize that as being a serious problem with
respect to our community.
So we at Calusa Bay have cooperated throughout these
planned developments over the past 10 months, and we are
willing to accept the conditions imposed on the Calusa Bay
frontage by alternative 7-A. 7-A is the best for all the citizens of
Collier County, not just the few. Please adopt 7-A. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Rebecca Torres. And your last public speaker
would be William Dearborn.
MS. TORRES: Hello. My name is Rebecca Torres. I live in
Pine Ridge. I was born in Collier County. I've lived here my
entire life.
Our new neighbors are welcome. It's not that -- I have a
feeling that at one time they had said that I was against people
coming here. And it's the new development, it is not the people.
My property is extended to the west side of the ditch, which, if
you took the ditch, you would be taking my property.
The other problem with that is that we have animals that
live on the property. There are wild ones, plus the ones I own.
There's a woods -- an endangered species wood stork that lives
in the trees that you would have to cut down to make the road
onto my side of the property. That's the one point that no one
Page 53
February 22, 2000
has brought up.
There are -- all the property on the west side you would be
taking from property owners. I may not be, you know, as
knowledgeable as most people about these things, but this is the
first time I've ever had to stand up for anything in my entire life. I
just want you to know that my animals and Collier County is my
entire life. And since Goodlette Road has come in, there has
been problems, because there's lots of animals that have been
killed on the road. It has nothing to do with the ditch or Calusa
Bay.
And the 7-B is the way to go. I was not aware of that until I
got here today. And I am very pleased that Lad came up with
this idea, and the County Commission. At first I was very upset
and very -- you know, what is Collier County doing? You know,
I've lived here my entire life. And I was just like, I hope that
Collier County and the commissioners wouldn't take advantage
of just regular people. The developers have more money than the
normal people that just live here and work here on a daily basis.
And I thank you.
And 7-B is the way to go. But just think of the animals, the
property, what you would have to be -- I never saw anything
saying how much it was going to cost to buy the property from
the property owners. Just taking a few -- right now Goodlette
Road is only about 12 feet from my property. And my next door
neighbor, if you took the 40 feet, their garage would be five feet
from the road. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Final speaker?
MR. McNEES: Mr. Dearborn.
MR. DEARBORN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is William Dearborn. I live at 450 Gordonia Road, in Pine
Ridge. And I came here today to speak in support of the
recommendation that is before you; that is, 7-B. 7-B is the one
that would impact my property in Pine Ridge.
And I just want to bring to your attention a couple of things
that I don't know that have been included in the thought process
that produced some of the other recommendations, such as 7-A.
Page 54
February 22, 2000
I went out yesterday and measured the 40-foot easement
from my property line. And if that property were to be taken and
used, it would mean that the new property line, the new edge of
the road easement, would be within 10 feet of my stable.
Now, I bought agricultural land. It's still agricultural land.
And I don't think that it's right for the county to come in and take
an easement which isn't theirs. And I say that based on a review
of the abstract of my property in which I could find no dedication
of that drainage easement to Collier County. And I believe and I
suggest to you that this is something that was overlooked.
The easement is, in my belief, a platted easement. And it's
an easement to the benefit of the property owners surrounding
Mockingbird -- Mockingbird Lake, in Pine Ridge. And it is used to
drain Mockingbird Lake when the water goes in there. So I think
some of the recommendations in 7-A are based perhaps on a
false premise.
You've heard others speak that their buildings may be even
closer, as close as five feet, to a permanent building. Now, it's
my understanding of the building codes that you can't even build
that close to an easement lot. So why is the county then seeking
to take what I suggest to you is private property where there is
no easement?
The easement of the Florida Power & Light on the other side
of the road is a public easement. It's not private. And I suggest
that all of those things need to be considered.
I don't believe that the people who developed some of these
other alternatives ever went out and walked the ground to see
the impact that it would have on people's homes. What they did
-- and I'm saying this without any direct knowledge. I believe
that they just looked at maps and diagrams. You need to go out
and look at people's homes and see the distance from their
buildings to the edge of this easement.
Finally, I just take a moment to mention about the closure of
Carica South. I lived there when it was open and I've lived there
when it's closed. When it's open, there's a huge amount of
cut-through traffic. Since it's been closed, that's not been a
problem.
Page 55
February 22, 2000
And I haven't really heard that many complaints, like we
used to in the old days when the barricade went up. And the
reason is that there are now alternatives, and that alternative is
Vanderbilt Beach Road. So there haven't been any complaints.
And I suggest to you that opening it up could have a
detrimental effect, not just on the property owners abutting
Goodlette-Frank but to the interior property owners as you get
cut-through traffic. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Lad, would you clarify
something for me? Is the Calusa Bay berm actually on our road
right-of-way property?
MR. RYZIW: The berm does lie physically on an existing
15-foot Collier County right-of-way easement. 15 feet wide; that
is correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a couple of questions. The
-- I talked to you on the break, and see if-- I understand basically
the differences between 7-A and 7-B, except for one question.
On 7-A we show the actual road lanes as being 33 feet. And
then there is next to that a two-foot space for curb and gutter.
And then on 7-B we show the roads, the actual lanes, as 35 feet
within which there is a two-foot curb and gutter.
So I don't understand. It looks to me like there's two feet --
looks to me like that there are -- there's four feet. There's two
feet on either side that we could take and put into the 15.5-foot
median and have a 19.5-foot median and then have our cake and
eat it, too.
MR. RYZIW: Clarification on dimensions. The 35 feet
includes the two-foot curb and gutters. But for both options, 7-A
and 7-B, clearly there are six travel lanes at 11 feet wide, so it's
33 plus 33 for 7-A and 7-B.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if you look on your drawing --
MR. RYZIW: 35 feet would -- includes the two-foot curb and
gutter.
Page 56
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it shows two feet on the
outside of it. Is it just an error on the drawing itself on 7-B? It
shows the two feet as part of the 14 and a half feet on the west
and as part of the 15 feet on the east. It shows that there's 35
feet and then an additional two on the outside. So is that -- am I
reading that right on 7-B?
MR. RYZIW: 7-B has three lanes, 33 feet, and then two feet
for a concrete curb and gutter, and then two feet for a grass
strip. But again, the 35 feet includes two feet of a concrete curb
and gutter.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I believe
that two feet is between the curb and the sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. And on the other drawing,
on 7-A it shows the 33 feet and then two feet as curb and gutter
between the lanes and the sidewalk.
Lad, put the picture on the visualizer of 7-B?
Okay, see there, it shows the two feet outside of the 35 feet.
So why can't we --
MR. RYZIW: Commissioner Norris was correct that that two
feet is a grass strip, and that's the distance between the back of
the concrete curb and gutter and the sidewalk. It's a two-foot
grass strip.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay. So we couldn't have --
I just don't understand why it can show us 33 feet on one and 35
feet on the other.
MR. McNEES: Commissioner, if you extend the line down,
the 35-foot drawing, you'll see that it comes down to the outside
of the curb. If you extend the line down on the 33-foot, you'll see
it comes down the inside of the curb. I think that's probably the
difference.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I get it now. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Couple of questions. Is it
possible, taking 7-B to incorporate Mr. DeHart's suggestions into
that, which might alleviate some of the concerns on Calusa Bay's
side?
MR. RYZIW: I had glanced at his drawing quickly. We surely
Page 57
February 22, 2000
can take a look at it quickly and make that determination, but I
didn't really have a chance to study it. It wouldn't take us a
couple of moments to make that conclusion, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Second thing is, there's
been some issues raised about the safety aspect of this. I guess
I don't see in here where that's an insurmountable problem, that
we could work through that so that we do not compromise safety
in 7-B.
MR. RYZIW: Perhaps with Mr. DeHart's sketch, I think the
key here is with respect to safety is a median with the reduction
in speed. That's a design engineering item. People will travel
what they may, but I think what has been discussed here is
safety, with respect to Calusa Bay exiting the development to
make a southbound left.
Airport Pulling Road is a good example of that. The median
width on Airport Pulling Road is 15 and a half feet. And as an
engineer and a representative of public works engineering
department, I would not recommend 15 and a half feet for the
entire corridor. That is only that one location. But again, with
Mr. DeHart's suggestion, we could maybe increase it back up to
19 and a half feet, which it should be.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's why I would like to
support 7-B with those considerations, so that we can work
through this issue and get back to my original statement that
we've got 100 feet that is ours, we've got to go through the
throat, and we may have to sacrifice some green space in there
-- I mean greenway to accomplish this. But it seems logical to
me that this is a workable solution to move this project forward
and still do a good job of protecting property rights.
So I would move that we accept 7-B, with the incorporation
of Mr. DeHart's suggestions, if feasible.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And could you outline those for us
clearly again?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we still have his drawing
there?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
DeHart's drawing?
If you could put it back up, Mr.
Page 58
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What he is suggesting is that we
take five -- if I remember correctly, it's five and a half feet out of
the drainage easement side and five and a half feet on the other,
which again protects that drainage easement, doesn't go in there
taking the whole 40 feet, but it takes five and a half.
Does restrict some of the greenway, or some of the
plantings, if I understood it correctly, on the west side. But it is
doable, as I understand it from landscape architects.
MR. RYZIW: And I have Mr. DeHart's sketch shown there.
Essentially Mr. DeHart has done a -- he has incorporated the 115
feet. He has a wall system at the 115-foot mark on both sides.
And that's how he has increased some of the dimensions.
So Mr. DeHart's derivative of 7-B does involve some
additional loss of the berm. That is a critical item. And I have
that displayed here. He has a wall shown at the 15-foot
right-of-way easement.
The key here is we can always improve upon the design and
the safety aspects. It's a matter of how much space we want to
consume. But he has encompassed -- occupied the entire 15-foot
right-of-way --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
MR. RYZIW: -- where the berm is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate the attempt at a
modification, Commissioner Carter, but I'm not sure -- I think the
bottom line for me is if I lived in Pine Ridge, I might think it would
be wonderful to take -- to fill in that ditch, frankly, and put the
drainage underground and put some beautiful trees on top. It
would make sense to me. But I don't live in Pine Ridge. And Pine
Ridge is unique in the community, and I don't want to do anything
to monkey with Pine Ridge. They were here first. They're
entitled to have their neighborhood the way they want to have it.
So I don't want to change it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you could kindly keep the
hissing to a minimum, we would appreciate it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner-- I'm sorry, I
thought you were done.
Page 59
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
And I'm hesitant even to taken five feet out of their drainage
ditch. I'm scared to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Commissioner Mac'Kie, the
only reason I'm going that direction is that Mr. DeHart, at that
meeting with me, believed that that would be acceptable to Pine
Ridge. If-- and I was going on that basis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that would be a critical
component for me, that something that Pine Ridge would
support, then so be it. But to take it forcefully, I'm not going to
support.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Ryziw, option 7-B, the
drawing that we were shown here for 7-B, does that envision
using all of the easterly right-of-way that we have, or are we not
using it all?
MR. RYZIW: It occupies and utilizes the 100 feet fully, 100
percent. And then also eight feet of the existing 15-foot
right-of-way easement, the land is owned by Calusa Bay. So it
utilizes the entire 100 feet and then eight feet of encroachment
to the east and to the berm area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It didn't answer--
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not my question.
MR. RYZIW: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question is then we are
leaving seven feet of our existing right-of-way unused; is that --
MR. RYZIW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't support that. I mean,
you're -- Mr. DeHart is saying, you know, we have seven feet over
here, let's don't use that, let's take five feet off of somebody else
that doesn't -- that we don't have an easement on. You know, I
can't support that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you.
Commissioner Carter, you had --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll go back to 7-B as presented in
this outline, working out any necessary safety considerations,
because that seems to be a little vague here. But I will support
Page 60
February 22, 2000
7-B and I move that we accept 7-B.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the
motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A question first.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's see if there's a second for
the motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second the motion if that -- if
what Commissioner Carter is doing is moving staff
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: He's moving 7-B.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 7-B.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, there was three
recommendations. Staff recommended three things.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, staff actually at one -- let
me go back here. Well, what staff is recommending is adopt and
approve an alignment and typical section alignments number 6
and 7-B for final design and construction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he's wanting to support --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, there's two more
recommendations there, too.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You want to take them one at a
time?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I want to take them one at a
time. I don't want to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right, motion on the floor is
to approve 7-B.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you had a comment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a question. Because I
could second the motion --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's already been seconded.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if the concerns about safety, if
in fact there are concerns about 15 and a half feet being
inadequate, that those concerns would be absorbed with the
balance of our seven-foot right-of-way easement on the east side,
but not pushed farther over toward where we only have a
drainage easement.
Is that your intention, Commissioner Carter?
Page 61
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I believe that's what I'm
understanding. Mr. Ryziw, is that where we are in this discussion
with 7-B?
MR. RYZIW: I think 7-B, the four-foot additional either can
be taken from the west or east side. And I think a couple of the
commissioners are preferring to take it from the east side,
bearing in mind that Mr. Steele, the public speaker, did mention
perhaps some legal action against the county for even adopting
7-B, so --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, tell him to get in line with
everybody else.
MR. RYZIW: But we can -- the four additional feet again can
be taken from the west or the east.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think regardless of any threats
we get from the public, what we're saying is if there is an
existing road easement, why would we ignore that?
MR. RYZIW: One reason, the correspondence, public record,
shows the intend to agree to vacate the easement. And Calusa
Bay has agreed to work with the county staff to allow the
eight-foot encroachment, but they prefer not to have more than
eight feet of encroachment or even 15 feet. That is on public
record that the county had agreed in principle through
correspondence to vacate the 15-foot right-of-way easement.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't believe the county
commission ever did that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's where I was going to go,
thank you. I don't know that this board, who ultimately makes
those decisions, had agreed to that. So someone on staff may
have written that letter. I'm reasonably sure these five people
didn't say that.
Commissioner Ma¢'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' That question's what I wanted to
put to Mr. Weigel. Has the county abandoned its interest in that
15-foot right-of-way easement?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Legally.
MR. WEIGEL: It's my understanding that the county, and
particularly through the Board of County Commissioners, has
Page 62
February 22, 2000
taken no action to abandon the right-of-way that exists there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, then I want to exercise our
right to keep that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I will second the motion,
conditioned on that if safety concerns require widening of the 15
and a half foot median, that it be taken on the east side, out of
the existing right-of-way easement. Is that acceptable to you?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's acceptable to me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. McNEES: I think there may be one more piece. We
need to make sure. I believe that the alternative six for the rest
of the alignment you need to adopt as well. MR. RYZIW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve alternate
number six for the balance of the road.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Seeing none, any objection?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, it's a 5-0 vote.
Did you want to address those other two items?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Carica Road South. I would like
to reaffirm that we perpetually close Carica Road South.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No physical connection with
Goodlette-Frank Road.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion?
Page 63
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry. I thought
perhaps.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that before we approve this,
that this ought to be brought at our transportation workshop
we're going to have. And when we look at our overall roadway
plan, I think this is an item that ought to be looked at, instead of
dealing with this piecemeal. So I will not support this motion
today, and I would suggest that we bring it back at that time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the finest tradition of Rush
Limbaugh, ditto.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm going to support the motion,
because we're not having a problem there right now, so why
would we want to dig it up and try to create one? We haven't
had complaints --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Of course you're not -- excuse me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We haven't had complaints, we
haven't had -- really haven't had any action whatsoever. So I'm
going to support Commissioner Carter. Looks like we may have
a split vote.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, you certainly haven't had any
complaints certainly from Pine Ridge, because with the berm up
there, there certainly can't be any traffic going through there.
But then let's start looking at a lot of other areas, too. And I'm
sure there will be many more.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but let's go back. You
know, we -- I don't know if you've been on the board since we've
had this discussion.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. It tried to come up, but died.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's go back and look at
history. When Pine Ridge was built, there was no Goodlette Road.
It was a railroad.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There was a railroad there. The
original intent of Pine Ridge was to develop a mirror image of
what's there now on the east side of the railroad. That's why
those two or three roads stub out there. They were never
Page 64
February 22, 2000
intended to connect up to any public road. They were always
intended to be internal to Pine Ridge neighborhood roads. And,
therefore, that's why I've always supported leaving them closed.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The motion is to keep that
closed, to affirm that from the board. Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just by, I feel, an obligation to
point out, if -- I do regularly get complaints about that. I regularly
get complaints about that road being closed and get asked,
"When is it going to be reopened? It was a temporary thing." So,
I mean, I just feel the obligation to put that on the record. I hear
about it a lot.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's call the question.
All those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 3-2.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a gender thing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's a woman thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a woman thing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And is there a third portion
there, or have we covered that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we've done it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we need to do that noise
study, don't we? I'd like to move to direct staff to conclude a
final noise study on the roadway designs and talk about the
technical findings for what the repercussions are to the area for
this road widening.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
discussion on that?
All those in favor, please state aye.
Page 65
February 22, 2000
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8B3
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
INSPECTION SERVICES BY JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. FOR
IMMOKALEE RD. (I-75 TO C.R. 951) FOUR-LANE IMPROVEMENTS,
PROJECT NO. 69101; CEI NO. 8 - APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF
$566,445 AND WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,500 TO
FORGE ENGINEERING APPROVED
Which takes us to 8(B)(3).
MR. RYZIW: Thank you, commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Weigel.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is it really important?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Just to make it clear for the record that your
decision today for Carica Road will require staff to do the
appropriate advertising and bring back a vacation of the element
that exists there. And staff can do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What will we be vacating? We
did just the opposite.
MR. WEIGEL: It's my understanding -- I'm told by my staff
that it appears in the record and would need a vacation. If it
does not, we don't do so, but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, let's explore that and I'll
try to figure that out.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, thanks.
16(3) and (4) I pulled off the consent agenda. Both those
items have had my questions answered, so I will move what is
now 8(B)(3).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Page 6 6
February 22, 2000
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8B4
COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
INSPECTION SERVICES FOR GOLDEN GATE BLVD. FROM CR 951
TO WILSON BLVD., COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NO. 63041, CIE
NO. 62 - STAFF TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH WILSONMILLER,
INC.
I'll also move 8(B)(4).
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
discussion?
Any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0.
Any
Item #8C1
DAVID RICE REPRESENTING THE MARCO ISLAND SPORTS
FESTIVAL FOR A WAIVER OF USER/RENTAL FEES - APPROVED
8(C)(1) is a $700 waiver request.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Move approval.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion.
second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
item, Mr. McNees?
MR. McNEES: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
motion, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
Is there a
Any public speakers on this
Seeing none, all in favor of the
Page 67
February 22, 2000
(No response.)
Item #8D1
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE RESULTS OF CONSULTANT
SCREENING FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VACANCY -
MERCER GROUP TO NEGOTIATE WITH TOM OLLIFF
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes us to 8(D)(1), which
is discussion regarding the results of consultant screening for
county administrator vacancy.
I assume everybody has received the Mercer report, had a
chance to review it. Has everybody also had a chance to talk to
the in-house applicants themselves?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For about the last six years, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
board today? Obviously we want to talk a little bit about the
Mercer report. We can talk in greater detail or set a date
specific, whatever we choose.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the Mercer report showed
what we expected. You and I have, at least, have worked with
these two gentlemen for several years. We know them quite
well. The Mercer report said that there's good news and bad
news, which I agree with. The good news is you have two really
highly qualified, dedicated employees that are applying for the
same position. And the bad news is you've got two highly
qualified, dedicated employees applying for the same position.
You've got to pick one. That's the bad news.
So I agree with them, I think they're both -- either one would
do a fine job. I think the decision that the board needs to look at
today is are we going to pick a candidate from in-house or are we
not? If we are going to pick the candidate from in-house, I see
absolutely no reason to wait any longer to do that, because what
would you be waiting for? What would you expect to gain if you
waited? I think if we're going to pick in-house, we should do it
Page 68
February 22, 2000
today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which is a good question. If
everyone has had an opportunity, we all know these folks, we've
all had an opportunity to talk with them, we've seen the Mercer
report.
Does anyone on the board at this point prefer to open
advertising to outside candidates as well?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I was an advocate
of doing that, but based on this report, I am satisfied that even if
we looked externally, we wouldn't find any better candidates
than we have right here in the room this morning. So I am
comfortable with this. And I agree, either one would do an
excellent ]ob in that position.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You okay--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- or do you want to look
outside? Anybody want to look outside? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Then the question is, do we
want to make that decision today, or is there some piece of the
pie that we are missing at this point that we need to fulfill before
we make that choice?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question would be public
input. Do we have -- has this been advertised in a way that there
is the opportunity for adequate public input or question?
I'm not sure that people know that, you know, the time has
come for them to speak up on these two candidates yet and tell
us what their experience has been like. That's my only
hesitation. You guys already know that I've been out of the box
way too early on this question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you, particularly since
we had the closing date for in-house candidates and they did the
story in the newspaper and other media announcing who those
were, I have had probably a couple dozen calls anyway, maybe
more, with thoughts or suggestions, and so I think the answer to
your question is yes, I do think there's been adequate notice and
adequate opportunity for public input. I don't know that we'd
Page 69
February 22, 2000
have a tremendously big change or more input if we said okay,
we're going to do this two weeks from today.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think I would agree with that,
Mr. Chairman. I have had numerous calls from people voicing
their inputs on the situation. But I -- the big question is, when
are you going to do it, more than gee, we want to talk more
about it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any objection to making
a choice today?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Based on that, I make a motion
that we offer the job and have our chairman negotiate with Mr.
Olliff.
My reasoning for that, I will tell you that I'm more impressed
with consultants than I have been in the past, based on this
Mercer report, because there were a couple of things that they
highlighted here that I thought maybe I was only smart enough --
it was only me who was smart enough to see those particular
skills, and apparently that's not the case. And I'd want to point
those out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As the kindergartner?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Sarcasm, guys, it was just
a joke.
The three in particular that I want to point out is the
understands the need and processes to place -- understands the
need and processes to place emphasis on completing projects on
time and within budget. Knows how to remove impediments to
work and get the job done.
And then more particularly, the one that I think Tom has an
especially good skill at is in identifying the root cause of a
problem and then working on a solution. It's been my experience
with him that he does and has done those things. I think that's
where we've been lacking in the past. That is the reason why I
could make a very close call between Mr. McNees and Mr. Olliff.
So I would like to move that we seek to negotiate a contract
with Mr. Olliff.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
Page 70
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'd
like to ask you to modify your motion in one way. I was
impressed with Mr. Mercer as well, the thorough job he does, and
then discussion with perhaps some other people. It turns out
that he's probably very good at developing performance
standards for a contract. I would like to see him remain involved
to develop those for the contract, and negotiate the contract as
well. So if you'll modify your motion to that degree, I would
certainly second it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's an excellent
suggestion. I appreciate it and so modify it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I assume the Chair can still be
involved in that. We're not going to completely open the
negotiations up or limit it to an outsider. Only having done this
before, I'd like to participate in that, just --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With their guidance.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Obviously use that.
I think one of the things that has been lacking in the past are
those performance guidelines that you outlined. We ran into that
with our most recent county administrator.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And my reason for asking Mr.
Mercer to negotiate the contract was to perhaps allay any public
perception that the board may not be fully performing its duties
by negotiating a contract itself with any kind of a conflict.
And of course nothing intended toward you or any other
chairman, but I thought maybe that that would take some of the
controversy out of the discussion by doing it that way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ultimately the responsibility of
whatever we approve or don't is up to the entire board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's for sure.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if any of us don't like
what's in there, and I've made the suggestion or any of the
others who have made the suggestion, I'm sure we can all
swallow our pride and take whatever criticism comes our way,
as we do each and every week.
Other discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I agree with Commissioner
Page 71
February 22, 2000
Norris. The framing -- having Mercer help frame that contract
with the Chair brings that objectivity to the process that really I
think it's good for whoever sits in that chair to have that kind of
contract.
I was not pleased with the contract that we had before, and
so I think this gives us an opportunity to develop really a well
thought-out, superb contract.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm just happy to announce, I
voted against the previous contract.
Other discussion? Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I have a little bit to say.
Very briefly. This is a real tough decision, because you've got
two very capable individuals that are sitting here. And I think
the -- what kind of the message we're sending partially -- I think
we could have had perhaps the best of both worlds with a
different motion and a different suggestion, but it's what it is.
I feel very strongly that Mike McNees has served Collier
County very well in the two different attempts that he has had in
sitting here as our acting administrator, at the time that Mr.
Dorrill left and also at the time that Bob Fernandez left.
And I think that all due respect to Tom Olliff, Tom hasn't
actually sat in that chair and been in charge of running the
day-to-day activities of the county. Yes, he's had some
experience in some of the departments and that's commendable
and I certainly am not faulting him for that.
But my personal choice would have been to have Mike
McNees as the county administrator, and make a strong
suggestion to Mike that he hire Tom Olliff as the assistant and
get him in there and serve in that administrative capacity as the
assistant. And I think it would have been a compliment to two
individuals who are extremely different in personalities, but
would have been a compliment to each other in this particular
capacity.
So I'm not going to support the motion. It has nothing to do
with my feelings toward Mr. Olliff, but it has a lot to do with my
support of the position that Mike McNees has held on two
different occasions when we asked him to step in and be the
Page 72
February 22, 2000
county administrator. And I think he's done a fine job.
I think certainly since he was named acting after the
release of Mr. Fernandez, I think he's done an admirable job. He
certainly hasn't sat around just waiting for things to happen.
He's been out doing things. And I have to commend him for that.
And I thank you for that. It's a real difficult situation to be in,
but I will not support this motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, do we have public
speakers on this item?
MR. McNEES: You have one. Fran Erlichman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While she's coming up, I just
want to take the chance to ditto what you said, Commissioner
Berry, about Mr. McNees and the outstanding work he has done,
and hopefully will continue to do for the county. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Erlichman.
MS. ERLICHMAN: Fran Erlichman, from East Naples.
I agree with Barbara Berry, I don't understand this. If a
person's good enough to fill a spot twice, why doesn't he get the
job? I know if I worked for the county, I would just sit and do
nothing, because why would I knock myself out to get ahead if
I'm not picked for a position?
I worked in the business world. I never came across
anything like this. The man has done a very good job twice. You
just don't turn your back on him. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll just make this point. I think
Mike McNees is a very, very capable person. And I don't want to
lose Mike. I don't want to lose Tom. I'd like to keep both of
them.
And I would hope Mike would continue as our chief -- see, I
see the assistant county manager as the chief operating officer.
And I think the two of them would make just one hell of a team to
stay in place. And I hope Mike will stay. If he doesn't, I can
understand if he didn't.
But you're a very, very capable person, Mike McNees, and I
appreciate what you've done for this county.
Page 73
February 22, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll call the question then.
those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-1.
Congratulations, Mr. Olliff.
All
Item #9A
RECOMMENDATION FOR A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,000 FOR THE LAWSUIT
STYLED ARDYTHE VASS V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 98-
3533, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FL - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which takes us to the county
attorney's report. Recommendation. The board approved a
proposed settlement agreement in the amount of $38,000 for the
lawsuit styled Fast Fee, Collier County.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, commissioners. I have
presented the key information, I think in the executive summary,
and much of this recommendation is driven by the fact that our
local court is now using a system of non-binding arbitration,
especially in this type of lawsuit.
This case was sent to non-binding arbitration. It was heard
by former Circuit Court Judge Carlton. He listened to my
argument, the argument of Mrs. Vass's attorney, and he looked at
the deposition testimony and exhibits that had been
accumulated in the case and rendered a decision that essentially
determined that the county did have some exposure here.
And based on that -- and of course Mrs. Vass also had some
exposure based on that decision. And based on that, Mr. Walker
and I looked at the case, Mrs. Vass and her attorney looked at
the case, and we negotiated the settlement, which takes into
account Judge Carlton's appraisal, plus cost of trial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Reluctant motion to approve the
settlement offer.
Page 74
February 22, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that, reluctantly.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Discussion -- I'm sorry, go
ahead, Jim.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My concern is I hope we fix the
situation so that we don't end up sitting here two months from
now where somebody else stubbed their toe over a rock.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The county is prepared.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But I understand the process and
I understand what can happen. I understand where you're
coming from, and that's why I reluctantly support it, because
we'd be getting into court, be getting into a jury trial. I fear that
we will pay a lot more dollars than we are right here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other discussion?
All those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye.
Motion carries 3-2. Commissioner Norris and Commissioner
Constantine opposed.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2000-62 RE-APPOINTING MAURICE GUTIERREZ
AND BILL L. NEAL MEMBERS TO THE BAYSHORE/AVALON
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Appointment of members to the
Bayshore/Avalon beautification committee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to reappoint the two
applicants.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are two openings and two
applicants.
Page 75
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There appears to be a motion in
favor of those, and a second.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #t OB
RECONSIDERATION OF RENAMING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COURTHOUSE - APPROVED TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON MARCH
28, 2000 MEETING
Item 10(B), reconsideration of naming the courthouse.
Commissioner Carter.
And keeping in mind again what we said at the beginning of
the meeting, if anybody wasn't with us then, reconsideration is
really a technical item. It's a scheduling item. We're not going
to debate the item today. All we're talking about is whether or
not to reconsider. If we do, that will be on the agenda for two
weeks from now. Everybody will have every opportunity they
want to participate in the discussion at that time.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three weeks from now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Three weeks. I keep saying two
weeks. I'm sorry. At our next meeting three weeks from now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm bringing this back for reconsideration this morning
because as I stated in my press release, I believe it was a hasty
decision on the part of board, and particularly on my part. If I
had to do over again, I would have moved to table that that
morning. And the reasons for that is, is that we don't have a
process for naming public buildings in this county, and we
haven't set the criteria for doing that. And that's very important
to me.
And my research indicates out of the 66 counties in the
State of Florida, courthouses only have names other than being
Page 76
February 22, 2000
the county at which they are located. So that tells me
something.
Commissioner Berry also shared with me the Florida
statutes in terms of some guidance and how you name public
buildings, state-owned buildings in the State of Florida.
So this needs a process, and I think it needs broad-based
community input from all the citizens of the community before
we take actions in these areas. So I'm asking that we reconsider
this, and I will support an effort, if we have community groups
like the NAACP, the Black Advisory Council, the same for the
Hispanic Advisory Council, civic associations, whatever those
may be, that if we bring them together, community involvement,
before we embark on this process, then we would have a good
criteria for doing this type of thing.
So I'm asking the board this morning to reconsider that
decision, and once we have established a process and a criteria,
I would be the first one to honor a memorial to Dr. King, as long
as we have had this broad-based community input. And until that
takes place, I am not comfortable, and I don't think that we have
done the right thing for this community.
So I am asking the board this morning to consider the
naming of the courthouse that was done in that meeting and
bring that back until we have established a better criteria for
doing the naming of public buildings.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If that's a motion, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I want to just clarify one thing,
and that is I understand your comment that there wasn't a
process to get a broad range. I don't have any argument with
that. That has been misinterpreted by some to suggest the
board didn't follow whatever the, quote, appropriate process
was. The board followed the exact same process that we used
about a month prior to this that we did to rename this building.
And so if there's a question of we don't like the process
that's in place, I understand that, I appreciate that. I don't want
that to be confused in the public to suggest that we ignored what
was the normal process, because we used the exact same
procedure that we used when we renamed the building we're
Page 77
February 22, 2000
sitting in right now. Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my follow-up to that, my
question is, if we are -- I don't think that there's much chance of
persuading the majority of the board not to reconsider this, so I'll
save everybody's breath on that. But if we are going to
reconsider it, subject to establishing a policy, I wonder if we
shouldn't likewise undo the naming of this building subject to
establishing a policy, and let's do it all right. I mean, is there a
process for that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter, any
objection to that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't have any objection to
that other than -- and I don't know if we're in a reconsideration
time line, and I would have to ask legal counsel for that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sure we're not. It's 30 days.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're beyond it for that. I
understand your point.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We're beyond that.
And I think the other point is that this building was named
after a gentleman who lived in this county, contributed to this
county and was here as the first county administrator. And I
think that's probably where we started down this line and maybe
didn't anticipate that we were going to have a lot of other
opportunities to name buildings and it was going to be a broader
kind of input than perhaps any of us even thought about.
So I think we need to establish a process so that in the
future that we don't tumble down a slippery slope and get
ourselves into a situation that we're in today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One more comment and then
we'll go ahead and move the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, is there -- once we've
named this building, is it permanent? We can't decide today to
un-name it?
MR. WEIGEL: Excuse me, I have to cough one more time.
Pardon me.
Actually, the naming of buildings, such as this building, or
Page 78
February 22, 2000
the recent action for the courthouse building, was done by
proclamation. There are two processes available, quite frankly,
legally, and that is the reconsideration process here. Or there's
nothing that would prevent this board or some future board to
issue another proclamation at some point in the future to make a
name change or any kind of clarification that the board at that
time wished to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I would respectfully ask the
majority, if you're going to reconsider Dr. King, maybe we'll end
up right back where we started as the name on this building, but
let's establish a process and stick to it for everything, not just
Dr. King.
And then my second question is, that hopefully will get
settled in the process, is when we named a building after
somebody, did we name the building after them or did we
dedicate it in honor of them, or -- you know, I thought we named
the building the Martin Luther King building. And I think that's
what the proclamation read. As a matter of fact, it did. But
since then, I've heard some question, and I've been asked by
reporters, are you dedicating it, are you naming it? You know, so
to that extent I'd like to be perfectly clear, once we name a
building, what that means.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's why we need the criteria,
and that's why I'm bringing it back.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: How far back does this go in
renaming public facilities for individuals? Because if you're
going to do that, all due respect to the late Max Haas, you've got
a park sitting out there that was named for him. And how far
back do you want to go --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aaron Lutz Park.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aaron Lutz Park. I mean, come on,
guys, this gets to be a little ridiculous here. And --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, none of this is on the table
here today. The only --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I understand, but it was
Page 79
February 22, 2000
brought up, John.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. But it shouldn't
have been. But it --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what, we -- I
understand your point, and I understand the issue. If it was just
a matter of process, should have been raised after the Harmon
Turner building. It was not. The reconsideration is on the
renaming of the courthouse. That's the motion we have in front
of us.
I've explained to you why I brought the item forward to
begin with. I'm unlikely to change my mind on that. However, I
have no opposition, if public wants to talk more about it, then so
be it. We can talk about it till the cows come home.
So if you want to reconsider it and talk about it in two
weeks, that's fine. And we can do that and we'll see where we
go. Three weeks. Golly, I just can't get that.
So let's go ahead and call the question. All those in favor of
reconsidering the item, which again, so everybody is clear,
doesn't mean we're changing it, it means we're going to talk
about it in --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three weeks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- three weeks, please state
aye.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 4-1. And with that we'll go to --
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman? Pardon me. The -- if I may, the
reconsideration ordinance, which has been in effect when we
had weekly meetings, provides that it should come back at the
second regular meeting following the meeting when the motion
was adopted.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Lucky for us, we're having a
workshop March 7th. So any objection from any board member if
this comes back three weeks from today?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It might not be legal if it has to
be the second regular board meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: Regular meeting.
Page 80
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's in the ordinance.
MR. WEIGEL: That's in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, then, let's make sure we
do it right, because process has been the question all the way
along. So I guess we'll bring it back March 28th. We'll drag this
out as long as we possibly can.
We've got public comments, and then we're going to take a
lunch break after that, and we'll be back with the conditional use
hearings.
Anybody signed up for general comments?
MR. McNEES: You have six or eight. Fred Thomas would be
first, followed by Mary Dunavan.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have how many?
MR. McNEES: You have about eight.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Public comments?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I apologize, Fred, I am
going to have you leave you now. I have a speaking engagement
at noon. It is not to you or to any of the public speakers. I quite
by mistake scheduled something on a Tuesday. So I apologize
and --
MR. THOMAS: You know how personal our relationship is,
so this will be okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: James, it's all yours.
(At which time, Chairman Constantine exits the boardroom.)
MR. THOMAS: No, I just wanted to take an opportunity to
say something -- I'm sorry, for the record, Fred Thomas,
Immokalee, Florida --just say something to you publicly that I've
written to each one of you individually.
It's unfortunate that in this day and time I can't relax and
just say forget that I'm Black. We're not about taking a gallon of
white milk, pouring in some chocolate milk, a cup of orange
juice, a little tomato juice. That's only going to make a mess. It
would be a beige mess.
But if we go and provide a quilt to protect this great county
of ours --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fred, we're up here.
MR. THOMAS: Yeah, I'm talking to --
Page 81
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You talk to us if you're going to
talk, okay?
MR. THOMAS: Okay, I will do that again, sir.
If we're going to develop a quilt, we need to develop a quilt
to protect this county with some linen, white linen, some fine
black wool, fine red silk, some beige cloth, so that when you look
at it from a distance, it's like that drop behind you, beige. But
when you come up close on it, you can see the individual
characters of the various things and people that made this
country great.
I can't see any of that in Collier County right now. This was
a perfect opportunity to do that. And hopefully you'll remember
that when you come back on the 28th, that unless you can enjoy,
respect and embrace the diversity that made this country a great
place, unless our children can go and see what this great place
was and the diversity that made it, unless those things can
happen, then we're doomed to end up with a mess.
I respectfully submit to you that we need to consider that as
we look off into the future. You are our leaders. Please, lead in
a way that we can all follow. Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. McNEES: Ms. Dunavan will be followed by Gill
Erlichman.
MS. DUNAVAN: My name is Mary Dunavan and I'm speaking
for myself.
In naming of buildings or highways or anything else, we
should consider the cost to the taxpayers. All taxpayers.
And talk about diversity, are we really? Just because
somebody is Black, we have to say something about the Indians,
do we have to say something about the Mexicans? And where do
you stop?
Thank you for the reconsideration, and that I feel that our
constitutional right to speech and opinions will be heard then.
On our roadways, thank you for getting busy to build the
roads. Too little, too late. I assume you all have relatives and
friends out driving on these unsafe roads. Couple of weeks ago I
could not get home. I live east on Immokalee Road.
Page 82
February 22, 2000
At Greentree I decided to go south on Airport Road. It took
me two hours. Emergency vehicles had to go into the median. If
you beautify these medians, where are your emergency people
going to be able to get through? Immokalee Road was all the
way from 75 -- in fact, a mile east of 75 to 41 was closed, totally
from wrecks or whatever. And then of course Airport Road had
the golf tournament. And I was just going to Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension so I could get home. It took me three hours to
make a half hour drive.
So I would ask you to consider the median beautification
through the fact that animals also will be more road kill. Saving
a human life is first and foremost, in my opinion.
The Audubon Society is asking to build I believe at
Corkscrew a three-story building. They are against -- or anti
building people. I would like for you to not let them build the
three-story building out at Corkscrew.
And having to register prior to speaking, if we do not know
sitting there such as I'll use the example of Pam Mac'Kie
bringing up a motion to put somebody into office. We did not
know you were going to do that. Some people then do not have
the right to speak. So would you please change that back?
Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Erlichman, followed by Jerome VanHook.
MS. ERLICHMAN: Good morning. Gil Erlichman. I reside in
East Naples. I'm a taxpayer and elector in Collier County.
No one has mentioned a person whose birthday is usually
observed today, the 22nd of February, George Washington. If it
wasn't for George Washington, the founder of our country --
rather, the father of our country, I don't think we'd be here today
speaking like this. We wouldn't have free speech, I know that.
But when I was a boy, we observed George Washington's
birthday as a holiday from school, we had parades. Everybody
observed George Washington's birthday. Today I think it's in the
trash can. No one -- everyone forgets. But yet we celebrate
Martin Luther King's birthday in January and now we've got
Black History Month. Well, so be it. If we want to forget about
the founders of our country -- well, that's it.
Page 83
February 22, 2000
My next subject is in the local news section of the Naples
Daily News on February 12th, it says a local leader of the NAACP
contends Collier County Commissioner Jim Carter bowed to
outside influences when he decided to reconsider the naming of
the county courthouse after Martin Luther King, Jr. Jerome
VanHook, president of the local chapter of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he
believes outside pressures swayed Carter's decision. VanHook
wouldn't elaborate on who he believes exerted those pressures.
Quote, in my opinion it shows a lack of backbone, end quote, he
said of Carter's actions. Quote, no one can give me a concrete
reason as to why he has rescinded his vote, end quote.
Well, I don't want to make Commissioner Carter's physical
condition a matter of discussion, but he seems to have very
perceptive hearing when he heeds the wants of the taxpayers of
Collier County and is not influenced by a national organization
headquartered in Washington D.C. Thank you very much.
MR. McNEES: Mr. VanHook, to be followed by LaVerne
Franklin.
MR. VanHOOK: Thank you very much for taking this time to
listen.
I would like to say first that the NAACP and the community,
again, we are not surprised at, you know, Mr. Carter's decision --
Commissioner Carter's decision. But at any time we're not going
to do any negative bashing, because it is not our position, and I
hope it is not the position of the community.
However, I feel that it is time to express the problem for
what it truly is. But in order to do this, I want everyone to put on
their thinking caps and really try to understand what I'm about to
say.
First of all, the reason that we are here today is to listen to
the explanation that Commissioner Carter's given on his
reconsideration of his vote, due to a process that never was in
place.
Now, you all have read the papers and the news as to the
turmoil surrounding the issue of renaming the courthouse. The
truth of the matter is that the people on the pro and the con side
Page 84
February 22, 2000
of this matter has been greatly misinformed.
Now, if everyone could remember just a week or two ago,
there was a remaining of the building, which was the Turner
building. The NAACP and others watched the tape of the
decision of the Turner building. And everyone was so joyous.
There was no debate, there was no issues, and there was no
defined process.
Now, also remember that at the time that the MLK
courthouse naming came up, there was an option that was
brought by the NAACP to name the courthouse MLK and name
the entire complex after Joe Smith. Now, this was brought up
only after Judge Blackwell had disapproved of the courthouse
being named MLK.
The fact of the matter is that Judge Blackwell was quoted
as saying that he had nothing against MLK and he would rather
see the complex named after King and the courthouse named
after Joe Smith. If that is a sincere statement, and since that
was one of the main reasoning in which we feel that there was
not a unanimous decision on the courthouse, if ever there was
going to be an option, the only option that should exist would be
that of either the courthouse or the complex.
Now, if these statements were only smokescreens for the
courthouse naming, then it is obvious and sad that the reasoning
that the courthouse or complex is not to be named MLK or Dr.
Martin Luther King, it would be not for the national honors that
he had received or the martyr identity that he represents, but
this great man would not be honored in Collier County because of
some individuals who feel that nothing as important as the
courthouse or complex should be named after an Afro-American.
Now, you know what the true irony of this whole matter is?
The irony is that it was not the NAACP who approached the
commissioners and asked for the courthouse renaming. The
County Commissioners came to the NAACP and asked if they
could offer the courthouse naming. And you know, when that
happened, I was so proud. I was so proud to be a part of Collier
County, for it finally seemed as if our total community was
making big strides in unifying all cultures.
Page 85
February 22, 2000
Then as quick as the offer was made and instituted, you now
want to tell us that you made a mistake and you have to snatch
away the courthouse name being called Dr. Martin Luther King
because you did not know that some people would be so against
naming the courthouse after a Black man.
Let me ask you this question, because many of you are
parents. And since you are county commissioners, I will say, if
the state was to come to you and offer your son or daughter a
scholarship for being valedictorian of their schools and also to be
honored by the president himself for being in the top one percent
of their class, and after coming to you and offering you that
money, then they turn around and one week later came to you
and said that we no longer can offer this scholarship money
because we didn't realize that your last name was Romanowski,
how would you feel? How would the family members feel? And
how would other family members feel whose kid's name was
similar to that?
You, in our opinion, are promoting racism at its highest
degree by not naming the courthouse or the complex after MLK,
since it was the commissioners that came to the minority
community with the offer. You would have done the entire
community a bigger justice by not offering the courthouse than
having some individuals hide behind a process that never ever
was.
I ask the commissioners who are opposing, and I repeat,
who are opposing the courthouse naming, what are you truly
trying to convey to the minority families and the children of the
community of Collier County?. Please, in three weeks we would
really like to know.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Jim, I'd like to comment.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. VanHook, I'd like to comment
on one statement that you made repeatedly. You said that the
Board of County Commissioners, commissioners, came to the
NAACP? That's not true, and you know that. We did not come to
you as a body. You know that.
MR. VanHOOK: But the fact of the matter is --
Page 86
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, there is no fact of the matter.
The fact of the matter is that the Board of County Commissioners
did not come to you. Maybe an individual commissioner came to
you, but the Board of County Commissioners did not come to you.
MR. VanHOOK: Who does he represent?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: He was not authorized --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Himself.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: He represented himself, because
there was no board action taken that asked him to come to you.
(Applause)
MR. VanHOOK: Thank you. So this proclamation was done
by him and himself?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's correct.
MR. VanHOOK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And it was voted on here at this
meeting, and it was a three-two vote. And that's also been lost
on some individuals.
MR. VanHOOK: We still feel the same way. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Next speaker is LaVerne Franklin.
MS. FRANKLIN: My name is LaVerne Franklin.
I think the commissioners need to be really cognitive of your
actions. I think that it sends signals not only to the minorities
but to the county at large. And I think the ramifications of what
you do and what you do not do is important, to say the least.
I think that even though it's okay because ordinance
dictates that you can within a time span change your mind, but I
think that what should take place -- if you make a commitment
that you know the laws, you know the ordinances, that you
should have thoroughly thought about what should take place
and not to go to a certain point that something of this magnitude.
I think people should have the insight to realize what's going to
happen in Collier County.
I'm a newcomer, per se, to some others, but I do know some
of the ramifications and things that will take place. And I think
that people should be responsible for their actions. I really do.
And to now go back and to reconsider, I think it's a
disservice; not only to a small group, but to people at large. I
Page 87
February 22, 2000
think what is happening -- well, I know, by going out, being very
active in the community, there is a movement to unite minorities
throughout this county, because they want to become more
politically, have a force in this community, and they feel as
though that their concerns have not been addressed. Not only
you by commissioners, but also in this city and throughout this
government.
And the emphasis is on voting and on trying to get people
aware of what's taking place in the county. And we are in
motion now to unite minorities. Believe it or not, diversity is
here, it's here to stay. People from different backgrounds, from
all areas of the country are coming here to live in Collier County.
And the complexion of Collier County is changing. And we in
government--you in --well, I'm not in government, I'll correct
that. You in government need to really look at it politically. You
need to address the needs and the concerns of not only the
majority at large, because that's going to change eventually,
because more minorities are coming here. So we need to
become diverse. We need to respect diversity.
And no one I think here from minorities have used the word
racism at large. I mean, because we can't say anybody is or is
not. And that's not our position. We need to be fair, we need to
be honest with people.
I think when you talk about policy or procedures that were
not in place, I think now to go back, because it was already
mentioned, it was already voted on, we did have public input.
Now, since you have named the county courthouse in honor of
Dr. King, that should stay. But then when you go back to
establish policy, I think from that point on then these people
have to be -- buildings that are going to be renamed have to go
according to the new policy that has yet to come up.
I think we are perplexed at what's taken place here. I am,
and I'm involved in it from day one. We need to know about
clarification on the reasons -- and you stated some, but I think
they're very vague -- for that consideration. Who's going to be
involved in the decision-making process of the so-called
procedures? When are those procedures going to take place? Is
Page 88
February 22, 2000
it going to be in a public forum?
The public needs to know what's actually going to take
place in, say, three weeks -- I have to change my notes -- in a
three-week period. Are we actually going to have a vote on it?
Public input? Are the procedures, So-called procedures, going to
be in place at that particular time? Yes or no. We don't know
that. We need to know that. We need to make intelligent
decisions based on what's going to happen from the
commissioners.
We also need for you to establish these in a public forum so
everybody can have input on these so-called procedures, okay?
And it was already suggested that we cannot, because of
ordinance, go back beyond that 30-day period and rename all the
buildings that have not. You know, that's -- to me it's not even
feasible. But yet and still, it's a good point.
Because I did look at the tape between when they did the
Turner and when they did the Martin Luther King. Drastic
differences. Why are the differences? I mean, I cannot justify.
And I believe if I showed this tape to anybody here, you cannot
justify the difference between the Turner building and the
courthouse.
What -- what's the big difference? People are saying
because he's Black, that's the only reason. People are saying
that and can we disprove that? I don't know the difference,
because I wasn't in the process about the Turner building, but I
did watch the tape. These things need to be cleared up.
I also think that we need to be more sensitive. I think you,
as our leaders, need to be more sensitive to the needs of not just
the people who have money and the people who have power in
this community. People here in Collier County, you know, were
brought here who are in the so-called minority, that they were
brought here for reasons, okay?
And the thing is, is that they helped build this county, too,
with the blood and sweat of their tears and their commitment to
Collier County. And they're here to stay and more are coming.
So not only people to be recognized with the money and the
power. So we need to pay attention to the people, the so-called
Page 89
February 22, 2000
little people. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: A couple of comments. Number
one, when we come back and have this discussion as a
commission, that's when I talk about criteria, that's when we
begin to establish a criteria to determine who will make up the
group that comes forward with the policies and the procedures.
And that involves all of the community, whether it's the NAACP,
whether it's the East Naples Civic Association, whether it's the
Greater Naples Civic. People from all over the community need
to be involved in setting those policies and procedures.
And they will come to us with recommendations. We will
not sit here arbitrarily as a commission on that day and establish
that. We will have a discussion about it. That is truly the
government process and how it works. That's what we're all
about. That's what we're trying to do. That's why I'm bringing it
back. I did not bring it back, I am not a bigot, I am not a racist.
I'm bringing it back because I think it violated a process that we
didn't have.
And you mentioned Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner lived in this
county, contributed to this county for over 20 years. And if you
look at the historical data of how county courthouses are named
in the State of Florida, you will find, as I stated this morning,
most of them were only by the name of the county. And when
they are named, they are after somebody who lived and
contributed in that county, in the community.
And I think that is part of the issue here. It is no disrespect
to Dr. King. Dr. King was a fine man, he was a national leader,
and I have no problem in honoring Dr. King. But I think the way
that we went through this process was not correct.
And I sat here and I made a bad decision by not tabling it
that morning. Now, that to me takes backbone and courage to
come back and say I made a mistake. You know, I am not a
perfect person. I will probably make other mistakes here as a
commissioner. But I will do the best of my abilities to deliver in
this job. That's what all the people here, we're elected officials.
We're trying to do that.
And please separate governments. You have county
Page 90
February 22, 2000
government and you have city government. So all governments
need to be responsible to all the needs of the constituents in the
community. I couldn't agree with you more. But I'm not a
perfect person. When I make a mistake, I'm going to look you
right in the eye and tell you I made that mistake, and I'm going to
try and correct it.
Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. McNEES: Next speaker is Ty Agoston, followed by
Frances Barsh. Ty has left the building. Frances Barsh. Your
last would be Jane Varner.
MS. BARSH: Good morning. My name is Frances Barsh, and
I'm a resident, voter of Collier County.
To rename the Collier County people's courthouse, the
Collier County government complex or any of the buildings
therein after any single person is in fact the practice of a politics
of exclusion and special interests.
It is crucial to the practice of impartial justice and
government that the halls in which they reside are neutral and
dispassionate in identity. This the vital to the acquittable
dispensation of justice and the reasonable practice of
government in serving Collier County's diverse and multi-cultural
population.
The process in record of Item 5(A)(3) of the January 25th,
2000 Collier County Commission meeting raises serious
questions. LaVerne Franklin stated that the idea of renaming the
Collier County Courthouse was brought to the NAACP, that
Commissioner Constantine was 100 percent behind this, and that
the NAACP talked with Commissioner Constantine approximately
two weeks prior to January 25th.
It raises questions. Advanced public notice of the agenda
was loudly touted by Commissioner Mac'Kie. However, it was
not pointed out that such notice, which appears in the Sunday
newspaper before the commission's Tuesday meeting allows the
people one day, not two weeks, one day, to make arrangements
to be present and to be heard.
Channel 54 runs the agenda on Friday, Saturday and Sunday
prior to the Tuesday meeting on a very limited and inopportune
Page 91
February 22, 2000
viewing schedule. At 9:00 a.m., 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.,
traveling hours on Collier County's congested roads. Thus, the
majority of Collier County's people who volunteer and work, such
as the judges and attorneys, et cetera, were virtually excluded
from the public notice process.
To compound the injury of brevity of notice, the newspaper,
which is the main public notice source of Collier County's diverse
and multi-cultural peoples, announced on Monday, January 24th,
that Item 5(A)(3) was not going to be heard. In spite of this
breach of public notice, Commissioner Constantine insisted on
hearing Item 5(A)(3), disdaining Commissioner Berry's request for
a postponement.
Postponement was cited as, quote, a slap in the face to the
NAACP, closed quote. Was not the breach of public notice a slap
in the face to the people of Collier County, as well as to this
county's judiciary?
The name Collier County Courthouse is reflective of what
justice should be -- itself should be: Neutral, unbiased,
dispassionate. To name those who hold this view as bigots is in
itself unfair, intolerant and prejudiced. It is only fair to include
the diverse and multi-cultural people of Collier County in the
question of renaming the Collier County Courthouse.
The best solution, no building in the county should be named
for anyone. The county complex should be named after no one.
It should reflect the identity of all the people who live in Collier
County, and that is Collier County Government Complex, Collier
County Courthouse. That is impartial, it is unprejudiced and it is
fair. If you don't do that, if we don't do that, then it is to pander
to special interests. Thank you. (Applause)
I would like to add a little note that I observed this morning.
And I just wrote a few comments. It is disheartening to see the
total exclusion of George Washington from the common memory.
Even this morning's invocation, which collectively honored all
presidents and singled out our present President, omitted
mention of George Washington, the nation's first President and
Commander in Chief, the central figure of creating the office of
Page 92
February 22, 2000
President, and the kind of government which is the basis of
individual freedom and the model of representative and
democratic government in the world today.
I invite you, all the members of the County Commission and
all the diverse and multi-cultural people of this county, Red,
Yellow, Black and White, to join in remembering George
Washington, the father of our country, this February 22nd, 2000,
his 268th birthday.
To George Washington, first in war, first in peace, first in the
hearts of his countrymen. Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. McNEES: Ms. Varner, and then, Mr. Vice-chairman, you
had two other speakers who had registered on 10(B) who would
like to be heard under public comment. That would be at your
discretion.
MS. VARNER: Well, that's a hard speech to follow.
But I do want to thank you for revisiting this. I thank
Commissioner Norris and Commissioner Berry, who initially saw
the problem. And when there were a number of requests for
postponement and that was turned down, but they recognized
this and voted no.
Now I want to thank Commissioner Carter for revisiting this
and bringing it back. Thank you very much.
And of course then for Mr. Constantine, who ultimately also
voted that this would be revisited. I thank you for allowing us to
be included, because I myself, I had called when I heard that this
was going to be on the agenda, because I couldn't believe we
were renaming the courthouse. The courthouse had a name, it's
Collier County Courthouse. And I think we were all amazed that
there was even a consideration that that name should be
changed.
I have never lived anywhere, ever heard anywhere, where
the courthouse wasn't named the county courthouse after of
course the county it resides in. So I was amazed and I did call
and they said it was pulled from the agenda. And the paper said
it would not be on the agenda. So I felt that something had
changed, so I didn't speak. And I think that lot of people didn't
Page 93
February 22, 2000
speak. We felt we were shut out of the process and shut out of
being able to voice our opinions and feelings about what was
taking place.
So I just wanted to thank you again because the courthouse
in itself is a unique circumstance and a unique situation as a
government center for all the people. And therefore, I -- as
Frances said, we have to be really neutral, show no bias on this
whatsoever. So thank you again.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. McNees, we'll hear the other
two items on lO(B).
MR. McNEES: Your next speaker will be Marilyn VonSeggern
and then Leif Christensen.
MS. VonSEGGERN: Good morning. My name is Marilyn
VonSeggern.
It is beyond my understanding that anyone would be
offended by the naming of the courthouse in honor of the
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, a man who devoted his life to
economic justice and human dignity to all Americans.
With your vote today to reconsider this decision, it is very
easy to understand how you may offend everyone who may
believe in the principles that Dr. King stands for. Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Christensen will be your last registered
speaker.
MR. CHRISTENSEN: Commissioners, regardless of whether I
agree or--
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your name, please?
MR. CHRISTENSEN: I'm sorry, Leif Christensen.
I want you to know that I appreciate that you serve the
county and take a lot of time from your life to do that.
Many years ago my parents came to this country from
Denmark. And my brother was also born in Denmark. And I can
remember that our neighbors called us foreigners and often
would not even speak to us. And that is as close as I came as a
little boy to be discriminated against.
And in subsequent years, I grew up, as we all do, I became a
Navy veteran and I found out that the bigotry still reigns. I was
in Hawaii and I went to a hospital for a minor injury, and it
Page 94
February 22, 2000
happened to be the week that the Chinese crossed the Alou
River (phonetic) in the Battle of Korea. And I was in the hospital,
and in the Navy you're either sick or well. You can't be getting
sick. So I had my little operation, and I was very much
ambulatory and could do all kinds of things. And I spent a lot of
times -- because I could walk around the hospital, and I saw the
soldiers, many of whom were Black, who were terribly maimed
and wounded, and it occurred to me that here these Black
veterans were going to leave here and go into a life where
they're always being criticized because of the bigotry and the
racism and so forth.
I don't understand -- I do understand what a wonderful
person Martin Luther King was. I was inspired by him when I
was a young man. And when I came to Florida -- I'm originally
from New Jersey -- and I saw that racism definitely was more
common here than where I lived, and I was surprised then and
happy to see that they were going -- the commissioners were
going to name this courthouse after this wonderful man. That
made a good example for all of us. That's all.
MR. McNEES: One more asked to be removed from the other
pile. That would be Frank Loney.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let him speak. I know Frank.
MR. LONEY: Good morning, commissioners, Chairperson.
My name is Frank Loney. For the records, I live at 131 Tahiti. I'm
not representing the Hispanic community. I'm by myself, even
though I'm part of the organization of the Hispanic community
and this community. I do not come on behalf of the NAACP, I do
not come on behalf of none of your commissioners. I just seen
that the standard taken by these commissioners is getting to
create to be a pattern; a pattern where today we say one thing,
tomorrow we do anything. And I think it's time we should draw
the line.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Frank, we're up here now. You're
talking to us.
MR. LONEY: I'm talking to you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that would be up to the
Chair.
Page 95
February 22, 2000
MR. LONEY: I think that we should draw the line in double
standards. If my sister come and tell me that she halfway
pregnant, I cannot understand that. You're pregnant or you're
not.
One of the things I am addressing to you all, commissioners,
is the double standard we live on, Collier County. Is the double
standard that when we present English only, we didn't have a
due process? When we named other buildings, we did not have a
due process?
Today we come up and we're having a due process to
benefit commissioners or a commissioner, or whoever. I think
that it's time we addressed you as my leader to put down your
foot on the ground and let us know where you stand.
I was -- I received a comment from the he 8th of February
where one of the commissioners showed a female in this room,
he said shut up. You know, we seen this on television. This is
the kind of things my leader give to the community. I live in this
community since 1969. I've been involved with this community
since 1988. Today I coach kids of soccer and I push for a lot of
support. Because if you didn't know my background, you would
understand why I give it back to my kids, to all of the kids of
Collier County. I was fortunate enough to travel the entire world
by playing soccer. And I lose everything because my alcoholism.
Today I'm in recovery and I can tell you plain straight that that is
one of the reasons I do it for my community, and I would like to
see my community change with the leaders what we got. Thank
you a lot.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, we're going to take our
lunch recess. We will re-adjourn at 1:30.
(Lunch recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We are back. This takes us to the
advertised public hearing portion of the agenda.
Item #12B1
PETITION PUD-92-04(1), RICH YOVANOVICH OF GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN & JOHNSON, REPRESENTING BONITA BAY
Page 96
February 22, 2000
PROPERTIES, INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
GOLDEN GATE HEALTH PARK PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE N.W. CORNER OF CR 951 AND ACCESS ROAD #2 -
CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER
Petition PUD-92-04(1), Mr. Yovanovich representing Bonita
Bay.
Everybody who is going to participate in this in any way,
shape or manner needs to be sworn, so if you'll kindly stand.
(The speakers were sworn).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
meeting with --
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
I think I disclose that I had a
I have met with the petitioner.
I have as well.
Mr. McNees, is there public speakers on this one?
MR. McNEES: One.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I met with the petitioner as well.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As have I.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Representative, I should say.
MR. BELLOWS: Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to
hand out some summary revisions made to the PUD document by
the applicant based on staff and citizen input. Do you have
them?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is what we got this morning.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: How hot off the press is that one?
MR. BELLOWS: It was this morning.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, we may have the same thing
here.
Yep, yep, yes.
MR. BELLOWS: This is different.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: A little different.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, only -- for the record,
Rich Yovanovich. Only the last two on that list are different from
what you have already previously seen.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The last two?
Page 97
February 22, 2000
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and that was in response to some
questions from the Golden Gate Civic Association. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good.
MR. BELLOWS: My name, Ray Bellows for the record.
The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the Golden
Gate Health Park PUD. The Golden Gate Health Park PUD is
located on the west side of County Road 951 and just north of
the 1-75 interchange.
The petitioner -- the PUD was originally approved for
hospital, health park facility uses, approximately 170,000 square
feet of medical office uses. With the completion and the advent
of the Cleveland Clinic, the petitioner now is requesting to
amend the PUD to allow for commercial uses, and that's possible
with the Golden Gate Activity Center Number 9, which has been
expanded to include this property. That ratification of this
growth management plan amendment was due sometime in the
next couple of months. The PUD document is subject to the
activity center being incorporated and adopted and ratified.
Petitioner is proposing 25 acres of commercial and retail
uses at nine units per acre as noted on your summary sheet. The
traffic impact review based on nine units per acre results in
about a thousand more additional trips over the currently
approved PUD document. It won't affect the level of service of
any roadway.
It's consistent with the growth management plan once the
growth management plan amendments have been ratified. It's
currently approved at seven units per acre, and the additional
dwelling units cannot take effect until the growth management
plan amendments have been ratified.
The EAC approved this petition during their hearing by a
unanimous vote. The Collier County Planning Commission also
reviewed this petition on January 6th, and they also
recommended approval by an eight to zero vote.
Staff has had some correspondence with one resident, had a
concern about height standards, and the petitioner has revised
the PUD document to limit the height of building along the
northern property line.
Page 98
February 22, 2000
There's also, as you notice on the summary sheet, they've
added architectural design standards and all principal structures
shall be designed in accordance with the doc -- adopted
interchange master plan. After -- and they also have
architectural standards for multi-family housing that require a
provision of roofs of two -- two more roof planes.
I think I'll leave the other changes to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just a point of clarification, Ray,
am I to understand currently it will be seven units per acre based
on existing road situation and only with the improvements in
those roads would it go to nine?
MR. BELLOWS: Currently the PUD is approved at seven units
per acre. They are proposing an amendment once the
interchange master plan is adopted, which may affect traffic
circulation in that area. Yeah, once that interchange and the
activity center has been ratified, that language in the growth
management plan, then they can go up to nine units per acre.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. In the interim, we are
protected so that if they started development prior to that, it
would only be seven units per acre?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The change you're saying
though is changing the classification in that area when you're
talking about making that in a --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, becoming -- it's now -- the property is
now incorporated into an activity center. Under its current
approval, it's outside of the activity center within a density band.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Reality is whether it's in an
activity center or not, Commissioner Carter, that area is
tremendously congested.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I will tell you, I had a meeting
scheduled here at 8:00 a.m. about ten days ago, and I conducted
that meeting on the cell. phone because I sat on County Road
951 trying to get down just as far as Davis, and so whether we
Page 99
February 22, 2000
change a piece of paper that says that's an activity center or not,
that road is terribly congested, and to increase what is now the
current density there makes no sense to me unless there's
additional lane miles going in there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So, all of -- all of that needs to be
built into this approval --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- or --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there's additional laneage put
in there on that whole stretch north and south of there on 951,
great. I don't if that's scheduled anytime soon, but --
MR. BELLOWS: No, it was my understanding that through
the interchange master plan process, traffic impacts will be
addressed at that time, and it could result in additional laning, or
a limitation of square footage of commercial is a possibility.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Which leads me to this question,
that if it is approved, it may not -- we can stop the building permit
process if, in effect, those improvements are not made on the
roadway or the interchange; am I correct on that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But there's nothing proposed
one way or the other right now.
They're saying they'll do a study. They'll look at an overall
plan. It may require additional lanes in their mind or it may not,
regardless of what we do with this particular one, and I would
hate to have them say, well, we're not going to require additional
lane miles, but we had already approved this, because I'll tell
you, it's just a bear, and this falls right back into the category of
when we talked about what was adequate, it meets the legal
definition, perhaps, but in practical, everyday sense, to try to put
nine units to the acre out on that road right now or a year from
now or ten years from now, if they don't add extra lane miles, is
just nuts.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. That answers my question.
Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome.
Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the petitioner.
Page 100
February 22, 2000
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, Richard Yovanovich
representing Bonita Bay Properties, the petitioner in this matter.
I'd like to -- I've got Anita Jenkins, the planner on this
project, with me, Margaret Emblidge with Bonita Bay, and I also
have Mark Gillis, the transportation engineer on this project, and
I'd like Mr. Gillis, once I'm done with my few comments, to talk
about the traffic issues for you in greater detail.
I will say as a brief comment to the traffic issues that the
traffic study that was done would -- did show that there was no
impact to the transportation system at 12 units an acre, and we
reduced the dwelling units down to nine units an acre.
We've also gone through the process of contacting the
property
owners and the chamber of commerce and the Golden Gate Civic
Association to gather their input to our petition and to
incorporate their suggested revisions, and what you have in front
of you is a compilation of the revisions that were requested of us
by both the immediately adjacent residential neighborhood as
well as the civic association and the chamber of commerce, and
I'd like to run through those quickly.
Their primary concerns were on the commercial -- primarily
on the commercial, they were concerned with what was
happening on the northern portion of the commercial parcel from
this roadway north. As you can see, we are immediately across
from a golf course here, so we basically had limited some of the
uses on the C-2 area, which is in your agenda package, and on
the C-1 area where there is residences, we've also agreed to
further limitations, and in the C-1 area, there would be no 24 hour
uses, and there would be no retail buildings in either one of these
areas at this point, and we also agreed to a 35 foot height
limitation on the northern portion of that boundary right there.
With regard to the residential development, their concern
was they did not want anybody looking over into their -- into their
neighborhood and requested that we agree to a building height
limitation of two stories there, which we did agree to
accommodate.
There are other benefits to this project. There's a pathway
Page 101
February 22, 2000
that runs the entire length of the northern boundary of the
property, and that was requested by your parks and recreation
staff, and we were -- we were happy to accommodate that
request.
We also agreed to increase the canal in the rear portion, the
western portion of the property to 51 -- 51 feet for that easement
area.
We agreed to an additional buffer on the commercial site on
the northern boundary to be 25 foot wide with 75 percent opacity
at planting. Gurrently, there is a 25 foot buffer requirement with
no opacity requirement.
We've agreed to eliminate the conditional -- we've agreed to
go to a conditional use for the assisted living facility, and we've
agreed to eliminate tire retreading shops, which was the latest
request from the civic association.
So, I believe we've done everything we could to be good
neighbors to the project. We've agreed to architectural
standards, and we've agreed to proper maintenance of the
residential area, and those were the concerns from the people
nearby and the civic association and the chamber of commerce.
I brought for you a sample of the proposed architecture.
What they wanted was, they wanted tile roofs, and they didn't
want -- they wanted multi-plane roofs, and we've agreed to all of
that as well as perpetual maintenance of the common areas.
There's a letter of support from Shaw Aero -- Shaw Aero
Devices which was sent to Commissioner Constantine, I don't
know if the other commissioners received that, as well as there's
a representative here from the chamber who will speak in favor
of the project.
I think you'll see after hearing from Mark Gillis that right
now the level of service is at B/C in that area. We do not
adversely impact that level of service on Collier Boulevard. We
believe that we are -- our requested is a reasonable request and
consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods, and we would request that the Board
of County Commissioners vote in favor of the PUD as changed by
our list of uses here, and with that, I'll have Mark Gillis talk to
Page 102
February 22, 2000
you about the traffic issues.
MR. GILLIS: Good afternoon. For the record, Mark Gillis
with David Plummer & Associates.
The increase in traffic due to the rezoning, once we take
into account the internal orientation of trips and the retail
pass-by, is approximately 215 in the peak hour and a little over
1,200 on a daily basis, and that's the increase over the approved
PUD. The project or the increase in trips because of the rezoning
does not have a significant impact on any of the roadway
segments within our study area.
The level of service on CR-951 on a peak season -- peak hour
basis is level service B basically from north of our entrance and
level service C to the south. Now, that's on a road segment
basis. Certainly there's congestion in the area, and the
congestion is primarily at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and
CR-951. The congestion at the intersection is due primarily to
the proximity of that intersection to the 1-75 interchange.
The County has a plan that, I believe, will be under design
fairly soon to extend the southbound right turn lane and the
southbound left turn lane at the intersection with Davis
Boulevard. The State, I believe, is also looking at the
intersection for long-term improvements, potentially grade
separating the intersection, and I believe the study that the
County will be embarking on fairly soon, the grade separation
study, will be looking at this intersection also.
Certainly improvements to the intersection are needed
under existing conditions and future conditions. The
improvements would be primarily on the side street of Davis
Boulevard, and certainly when we have in the neighborhood of
500 to 600 southbound right turn movements and eastbound to
northbound left turn movements, we need to start putting in dual
turn lanes at the very lease.
The project, again, though, does not have a significant
impact on CR-951 and does not change the level of service on
CR-951.
That concludes my statements. I'll be happy to answer any
questions.
Page 103
February 22, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Thank you.
yOU.
It appears there are none.
Anybody else on your team you want to send to the plate?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Not at this point.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, I have a question for
We gave an excavating permit a few months ago to a
property that falls between this one and the park. MR. OLLIFF: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As part of that, we had asked
them to be
sure in their development plan to leave room for a sidewalk or
some sort of pedestrian pathway. Originally, it was by the canal.
Later, it was agreed to move it through their community. There
appears to be some impediment along the way on the western
bounda~ry of this property. Is there a waterway in between, and if
so, how do we anticipate traversing that? If we put the
requirement on the other folks and, apparently, put a pedestrian
requirement on these folks, will we be able to connect these?
I didn't see it on the maps, but someone brought that to my
attention.
MR. OLLIFF: I believe you can traverse that. I've actually
driven that area, and it's a very small ditch that runs north and
south along that, I believe the property line there, and it's one
that I think you could easily bridge.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Is there anybody else that wants to speak to this item?
MR. McNEES: You have one public speaker registered,
Mario Valle.
MR. VALLE: Hi there. For the record, Mario Valle. Today I'm
representing the Golden Gate Area Chamber of Commerce.
Our main concern when we first took a look at this item
brought forward by the petitioner was simply the fact that we
wanted to assure ourselves that we were not going to have any
more blighted area, blighted zones throughout Golden Gate.
They have generously worked with us and followed our request
to institute a property or homeowners' association within the
Page 104
February 22, 2000
residential portion of the development. That made us feel much
more comfortable with our request, and we just want to make a
recommendation to the county commission to make sure that the
PUD monitoring of this project continues forward, and with that,
we would like to endorse the project.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
With that, we'll close the public hearing.
Are there any other questions or comments?
MR. YOYANOVICH: Commissioner, if I might make one
comment before -- I didn't realize you were going to close the
public hearing so quickly before I got back up here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure, we'll reopen the public
hearing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: As far as the traffic issues go, I want the
board to know that we are still subject to the interchange master
plan that will be coming back to you which will be master
planning this area, and if it says that we need traffic
improvements, we are going to be subjected to that, and we'll
have to accommodate those in our -- in our -- going forward with
our actual development, and I just wanted that to come to the
board's attention, that it is not -- you're not going to exacerbate
traffic issues at this point because we are still subject to the
interchange master plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How many acres is the
residential portion?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Approximately 49 acres.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what's the timing on the
master plan, interchange master plan?
MR. BELLOWS: That's required to be commenced 60 days
after
ratification by DCA of the growth management plan amendment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that -- which amendment -- is
that the one that's in litigation? Is that the one that hadn't
gotten there yet? I mean, tell me reasonably when we might
expect to see that interchange -- I mean, will you be able to build
before we have the master plan?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we will not be able to do that, and
Page 105
February 22, 2000
as I understand it, this issue will be resolved, hopefully with DCA,
by -- in a few weeks, and Bob can get into that in detail, but a
draft of the interchange master plan should be available in April.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning
director.
Rich used the word will be --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Were you sworn, by the way?
MR. MULHERE: I probably was not, no.
(Mr. Mulhere was sworn).
MR. MULHERE: I would say that we are very optimistic that
these issues will be resolved by mid April and that we'll have a
comprehensive plan in effect, so we're talking six weeks, maybe
eight weeks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But regardless of when that is,
will the plan for resolving the traffic generated by this project
and the traffic problems already out there, will that plan be in
place and the remedy prescribed before they can do anything?
MR. MULHERE: For the commercial portion, it will. I think
I'd defer to Rich on the residential.
What is your plan for development out there on the
residential portion?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We are subject to the interchange
master plan entirely on our project --
MR. MULHERE: So, yes, it will be.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- so both residential and commercial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the net effect of that is
nothing gets built until the master plan is designed? That's the
bottom line?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't do any good to have a
master plan if you don't have the infrastructure in place. You will
still have the traffic problems, so let's clarify that.
Can they build before the infrastructure that the master plan
requires is in place, that's the question?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think two things would happen. The
master plan will identify what improvements need to be made.
Page 106
February 22, 2000
At that point in time, I think the board would have the ability to
put some restraints or constraints on their ability to move
forward if certain physical improvements were required to
improve the transportation network at that time.
So, I think that when the interchange activity master plan
comes forward, you will have the opportunity to either phase or
hold off the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And what's the mechanism for
that?
MR. MULHERE: By placing language into the interchange
activity center that certain things will have to occur prior to
development or by -- or simply by declaring a temporary or partial
moratorium while the construction goes on.
Technically, they would be permitted to go forward as long
as the improvements are funded. So, that's an issue that we'll
have to deal with at that time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which is why I made a
reference to the AUIR. It's just it gets us right back there, and
it's whatever between what may be allowable and what's
reasonable and practical, and I'd ask any one of you go out there
tomorrow morning at eight o'clock, and you wouldn't vote in
favor of increasing density.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I've heard the words, but I
want to make sure that it's there, that you can have a master
plan and you have to do the physical improvements prior to the
construction taking place, and if that can be incorporated into
this process, then I'm okay with it, but if we can't do that, then I
am not in favor of this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We also don't know what those
physical improvements may be.
MR. MULHERE: Well, there are two -- I think two issues, one,
the PUD document requires that the development be consistent
with the interchange master plan, and secondly, it's a little
premature for me to comment on what improvements might be
required since we haven't done that work yet. So, that makes it
a little bit difficult for me to tell you, but I can tell you that you
will have the option of not allowing any construction or some
Page 107
February 22, 2000
portion of construction to occur depending on what
improvements are necessary at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: However, if the State comes
back and says, well, we don't think improvements are necessary
for X number of years and it shouldn't impact it, our hands are
tied. We can't go back and say, well, wait, we really only want
seven units to the acre now.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, I think to make it
ultimately clear, we are willing to be bound by the
determinations in the interchange master plan. If they decide
there has to be improvements in place before our going forward,
we will agree to that as a condition.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I appreciate that.
I'm telling you I don't have any control over what they do,
but we do have some control over what the State suggests and
what ultimately comes up. We have, you know, some voice in it,
but it's not the same as what we sit with here, and so because I
don't know what will be tomorrow or six weeks from now or six
months from now, the only thing I am sure about right now is
everybody in the county tells us they don't want to see increased
density. They don't want to see more units, and that's what
you're requesting, and I just want to say I appreciate -- you guys
have bent over backwards, and I appreciate that, between
architectural codes and putting limitations and working with
community groups, I wish everybody approached their proposals
the way you-all have. You have gone out of your way.
It's just on that one issue, I don't think -- I can't. I don't
know about the rest of the board, but I can't in good conscience
ignore the message that is driven clear to me every day, and that
is we don't want extra units.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Isn't there a way, Mr. Chairman,
to work this until -- they can withdraw this until the interstate
master plan comes back, and then we can look at it --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we'd like to continue it and come
back with you with greater information on the traffic issues at
this point.
Page 108
February 22, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll continue it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to continue it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Indefinitely?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Indefinitely, because we don't
know when -
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second.
We don't take discussion on continuation.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: May I speak to the issue?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sir, we don't take discussion on
a motion to continue.
All those in favor, please state aye.
And when it comes back and you have a -- you'll have an
opportunity at that public hearing to speak on it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: At what time?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's indefinite right now. So,
whenever it reappears, you'll have a chance to speak on it.
Thank you, Rich.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 2000-63, RE PETITION CU 99-30, KAREN
BLACKWELL REPRESENTING NAPLES EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE
CENTER, L.C., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USES "t9" AND "24"
OF THE 'A' ZONING DISTRICT FOR A THERAPEUTIC
EQUESTRIAN RIDING FACILITY ON PROPERTY LESS THAN 20
ACRES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RIDGE DR. - ADOPTED
That takes us on to 13-A(1), Petition CU-99-30, Naples
Equestrian Challenge Center.
Anybody who's going to participate in this, please stand and
be sworn.
(The speakers were sworn).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, commissioners; Fred
Reischl, planning services.
Page 109
February 22, 2000
This is a request for a therapeutic riding facility in the Pine
Ridge subdivision. As you can see on the visualizer, it's located
at the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road, Center Street and
Ridge Drive. Once again, you see the three roads in yellow. The
existing buildings are in blue, and the green is the proposed
drive-in or existing drive-in, proposed parking area.
This is an existing facility. The reason it's before you as a
conditional use is that the use as a riding facility was
discontinued. It was discontinued for a long enough time that it
requires a conditional use.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How long was it used as a riding
facility?
MR. REISCHL: I believe Mr. Pickworth said it was over 20
years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As far as I'm concerned, this is a
technical issue, and I appreciate they're dotting the "l"s and
crossing the "T"s in getting this in here to approve it, but I can't
imagine why this wouldn't be approved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Were there any problems during
that 20 years of its use as a riding facility?
MR. REISCHL: I can't speak for the entire 20 years.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are you aware of any?
MR. REISCHL: None that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree, it's always been a riding
stable. It's a conditional use as a riding stable. All they're
asking is a conditional use to continue to use it as that or you
can sell it, it's still a conditional use. It's always been a riding
facility.
MR. REISCHL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the public, shall we?
MR. McNEES: Your first speaker is Rita Babineau followed
by Dr. Hank Gendron.
MR. REISCHL: While the speakers are coming up, I just want
to mention that the planning commission recommended approval
unanimously. Several speakers had questions. All those
questions were addressed. One speaker did maintain her
Page 110
February 22, 2000
objection that this was commercial and treating it as residential.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What we'll do is, whomever is
mentioned second in our speaker list, if you will just kindly come
up and stand behind the podium so that we can move this along
fairly rapidly.
Who was the second speaker, Mr. McNees?
MS. BABINEAU: Rita Babineau.
MR. McNEES: The second speaker is Dr. Hank Gendron.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's not here.
MR. NIcNEES: After that would be Jim Vogel.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. BABINEAU: This is a little -- I'm sure you're tired of
listening to everybody else. This is about people.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Not at all, and again, if you'll
just identify yourself for the record.
MS. BABINEAU: I'm Riat Babineau.
My daughter, Melanie, born with spina bifida, was paralyzed
from the waist down, confined to a wheelchair. I am grateful
that we moved to Naples where she volunteered for the sheriff"s
department and the Lely Elementary School until she found the
equestrian challenge program.
At that time, it was in Golden Gate, and it cost me $20 each
way for cab fare. Then when it transferred to this location, it
was much better because I could drive her when necessary.
Always a great lover of horses, Melanie became the
volunteer coordinator for the group, and it changed her whole
life. She made so many friends that when she died three weeks
after being diagnosed with cancer, her memorial service was
attended by more loving friends than any celebrity we ever knew.
I beg you not to deny these wonderful, devoted people their
space, which is convenient for attendance by the handicapped
riders.
The therapy received by the riders is so important to their
well-being but will be denied to many if they must relocate.
It is amazing how the horses sense that they are helping
these people. So, I hope we can all use some of that horse sense
and let them stay where it is convenient for all.
Page 111
February 22, 2000
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Vogel will be followed by Daniel Davison.
MR. VOGEL: My name is Jim Vogel, and my son, Dylan, is
nine years old, and he's a rider in the program, and I'm here to
speak in favor of the conditional use permit.
Dylan was born with cerebral palsy. He's also confined to a
wheelchair and needs assistance for most of his daily tasks, but
through the Naples Equestrian program, he's able to once every
Saturday morning ride a horse. He -- he's one of the more
disabled children that is in the program. He has to use what's
called a back rider-- a trained rider, frequently a therapist, will
ride behind Dylan and help him balance on the horse.
The primary goal here is physical therapy for the children,
but just to be real quick and give you an overview of the -- or a
better idea of the program, it's just not the therapy that the kids
get out of this, it's the social interaction, the mental challenge,
the confidence it inspires in a disabled kid to be able to do things
that he hears about in school that his peers are going to do.
My son, Dylan, has two sisters who participate in
gymnastics and dance and sports programs like was available
yesterday at one of the county schools. Those things, it's not
always practical for Dylan to participate because it requires an
adult to do it, and Mom and Dad are frequently doing something
else. This is an opportunity once a week for Dylan to do
something analogous to scouting or dance or something like that
that he wouldn't otherwise have.
So, I mean, it's going to be really hard for anybody to say
anything bad about this program, I'm not telling you anything you
don't know.
As far as the location goes, I don't live in Pine Ridge, but I
own property there. I hope to live there someday with my wife
and family. We do live right around the corner. The location is
very convenient for us. It's very convenient for a lot of the other
riders. I, being a real estate attorney, am very well aware of the
NIMBY issues. I'd be happy to live next door to this program.
They are great neighbors, and the volunteers are wonderful
Page 112
February 22, 2000
people. It's just a positive situation all around.
The program did bounce around for a few years. We had to
go to a lot of different locations. It was very difficult to keep
track of where we were meeting and where we were supposed to
go, and I think the biggest difference has been is, now that the
program is back at the Pine Ridge location, we've seen a large
increase in the number of volunteers that we receive to help the
children ride, and that's been very beneficial because we have a
lot more people there to help and assist, and I think that comes
from the location and having a permanence. That's what we are
trying to establish today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
MR. McNEES: Mr. Davison will be followed by Lynn Zachary.
MR. DAVISON: Dan Davison for the record.
Have you ever made a choice that didn't turn out anything
like you thought it would? Five years ago I made a choice, and
the end result of that is I lost both of my hands and both of my
feet. I was 28 years old. I had no idea what was going to come
of my life. There were so many things that I wanted to
accomplish, so many things yet that I wanted to do in my life,
and one of them was to learn how to ride a horse.
Through the Naples Equestrian Challenge, I rode a horse for
the first time in my life with prosthetic hands and prosthetic
legs. At first, I had a couple of side walkers and a person
actually leading the horse, and after several lessons, I now ride
fully independently.
This program has done outstanding things not only for me
but for the whole disabled community here in Collier County. It
is remarkable when you're there on a Saturday morning and you
see these young disabled children interacting together. They're
learning how to socialize. They're learning how to love and care
for each other, and they are amongst their peers. They are
making contacts that they will carry with them throughout the
rest of their lives, a regular support system.
If this program is moved, I believe, according to the records,
it would need to be on a lot that's 20 acres. That would be
Page 113
February 22, 2000
putting us practically in Immokalee. A lot of these families are
so financially strained. They have to pay for physical therapy.
They have to pay for medications. They have to pay for orthotic
prosthetic devices. They might not have the financial means to
actually pay for the gas to get out to Immokalee and back. Plus,
some of them, from their physical limitations, wouldn't be able to
make it out there and back.
This program is helping the handicapped community as well
as the community as a whole. Now you guys have a choice. Let
us keep our ground where we are. Thank you very much.
MR. McNEES: Lynn Zachary, and your final public speaker
would be John Cowan.
MS. ZACHARY: For the record, Lynn Zachary.
I don't have disabled children. I can't speak like they can
from personal experience what it's like, but I've been there, and I
volunteer there, and I think it would be a shame to move it. I
think we should be proud.
I'm a Pine Ridge resident. I love having horses in my
backyard. I love seeing them ride down the street, and I love the
look in the eyes of the children when they see them, and I think
that we should be proud that it's here, and I think it should stay.
Thank you.
MR. McNEES: Final speaker is John Cowan.
MR. COWAN: Good afternoon. For the record, John L.
Cowan.
I've been active in the real estate business in Collier County
and Lee County for the past 35 years. I've been active as a
significant investor and as a licensed real estate broker. I have
a particularly keen interest in Pine Ridge and the present
question before the board, although I have no clients there, and I
do not have Naples Equestrian Challenge as a client, nor do I
have or ever had any business interest in them, although I do
support them financially.
There are two reasons that are paramount for people moving
into Pine Ridge. There are generous size residential lots,
obviously. There's, obviously, a horsy ambiance, particularly on
Page 114
February 22, 2000
the east side, and that's where the properties are that I have
owned for some 22 years, and I'm very happy with the ownership
of those properties.
People who don't like the horsy atmosphere very
infrequently move into Pine Ridge because it's so obvious what's
going on there, and except for certain persons who may have
inherited property there, they don't live there very long. So, most
of the people there, at least, have no objection to the horsy
ambiance there.
Are there any negative effects of extending the Naples
Equestrian Challenge in this area? I think not. Property values
now and in the future are not going to decline if you extend the
challenge there. If I thought they would, I would immediately run
out and sell my properties there, and I have no intention of doing
that.
I have observed on quite a few Saturday mornings the traffic
patterns around this area, and there's not any particular
disruption of traffic because the riders, the so-called clients are
scheduled out on such intervals that they don't particularly flood
in and flood out, so I wouldn't say that there are any negative
effects of extending this at all.
There are positive effects if you do extend them, and I think
a lot of them have already been presented to you and you
understand them. There are great, great benefits for the clients,
the riders, and they are not just children, they are of all ages as
Melanie was.
Also, the benefits for the volunteers are hard to measure.
They get enormous psychic benefits for taking care of these
people and taking care of these horses.
One last point, if the challenge doesn't stay, I suggest that
you mull over in your minds what will replace it, what will go in
there instead? Will it be another 15 C-3 type corporation, and if
so, there's a very real possibility that it could be a lot worse
influence on that particular community.
I thank you for your attention. Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in the interest of FYI, I
Page 115
February 22, 2000
volunteered for that, to help those kids, and if you ever have the
whinnies, you know, feeling sorry for yourself, spend just an hour
out there on a Saturday morning, and it will straighten it right
out.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you abstaining?
COMMISSIONER MAG'KIE: No, definitely not. As fast as the
public hearing gets closed, I'm going to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pickworth, I'm not a
psychic, but I play one on TV. No, I'm pretty sure you're going to
9et some support here, and if you want to 9et up and say
something on behalf of your client, you're more than welcome to,
but --
MR. PIGKWORTH: What you heard says it all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
We'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A motion and a second from
Commissioner Berry. Motion from Commissioner Mac'Kie,
second from Commissioner Berry. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let's do it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, please state
aye.
Motion carries five-oh. Thank you.
Item #13A2
RESOLUTION 2000-64 RE PETITION V-99-30, WILLIAM L. AND
CHARLENE S. HOOVER REQUESTING A 5-FT. VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO 5 FT. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5690 WAX MYRTLE WAY - ADOPTED
Petition V-99-30, Bill Hoover representing himself, oddly enough,
requesting a five foot variance.
Page 116
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if a lawyer represents
himself, there's something about a fool for a client or something;
I don't know, Bill.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anybody who has any intention
of participating in this public hearing, if you would be so kind just
to stand and be sworn.
(The speakers were sworn).
MR. REISCHL: Again, Fred Reischl, planning services, and
this is a request by Bill Hoover for a property that he is the
contract purchaser. It's in the Tall Pines subdivision.
As you can see, the property, the rear of the property abuts
a lake. It's platted as a lake. Mr. Hoover calls it a lake and
preserve. As you can see by that aerial that he supplied, the
term preserve is pretty apt. There is water back there, but there
is also a lot of forested area.
It's an existing house, and the variance is to allow a pool to
protrude five feet into the setback.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody around it --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why is this not on the summary
agenda?
MR. REISCHL: Staff recommended denial because of no land
related purchases.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
Questions from the commission?
At the risk of having to reopen it for Mr. Hoover, I'm going to
close the public hearing and see if there's a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the variance.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Congratulations, Bill. Nice
presentation.
Item #14A
Page 117
February 22, 2000
STAFF RECOGNITION REGARDING THE EMPLOYEES HEALTH
FAIR
That concludes today's agenda. We go to staff
communications; Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: I have two items, Mr. Chairman, maybe along
the lines of recognition more than information, but it's become
popular in this room to ask county staff to think outside of the
box and get out ahead of things and be creative with some of
their solutions. I think the only way we are going to actually
accomplish that is when we recognize people who do it and give
them a little bit of a pat on the back, and I'd like to do that today
in a couple of instances.
We talked to you a few weeks ago about some of the hiring
and employment problems that we are having in this competitive
]ob market. Just to give you a little example of something that
staff did, we had some folks in the public works and human
resources department who got a little creative, I know it's
shocking to suggest that, but they got a little creative and
actually purchased some radio ads in the country and rock and
roll stations over the course of a weekend, had people prepared
on Monday morning to do quick intake on those individuals who
might have heard the ads, had supervisors on standby to actually
conduct on the spot interviews with people, had, by this next
day, already placed one person, and I think they were expecting
to place three or four more probably in the ensuing days, and
they are nodding their heads. It looks like they probably did that;
so just an example where -- and I want to recognize Diane
Janson, who's in the back of the room, who is a unique
employee. She is an employee of the human resources
department, but she's actually located in public works, which is
another creative thing that we've done.
Both the human resource department and the public works
division got together, suspended the bureaucracy and actually
took people from a radio ad to being on the ]ob in a couple of
days, and their thinking was, the idea is to get these people in
Page 118
February 22, 2000
before somebody else snatches them up when they were good
ones. So, they didn't -- people didn't have to wait for an offer.
They got one on the spot, and I just -- they deserve, I think, to be
recognized for some real creative work.
The second one would be -- we've been in here a number of
times over the years with some attempts at Wellness programs,
and we've asked you perhaps to fund some things or to do some
different things. Well, we had one of our employees, Gary Stagg,
who manages our fitness operations, along with Maria Ramsey,
go really one step further and created for us a health fair that
didn't really cost you any money, but the idea was to get as many
of your employees as possible through a screening process.
As you know, our prescription drug program costs and your
self-insured medical insurance program continued to cost you
more money. The idea being to put as many of your people as
possible in conjunction with the risk management department
through a health screening, and they were -- had a goal of 250
people to go through that. I think they put more than 600, is that
the number that we ended up with, through that. They sent three
or four directly to a doctor to get immediate attention for things
like high blood pressure, and I know I participated and got the
cholesterol and the blood pressure, and the bad news was I'm in
perfect health, so I'll be around a while, but they did a great job
of recognizing a need and not spending a lot of money and doing
something that will make a real difference in time in your direct
cost for providing the health care, and I thought they deserved to
stand up and be recognized.
Maria and Gary, why don't you guys stand up and be
recognized?
Just so you know, these folks don't get a whole lot of
recognition for these kinds of things, but when they do think
outside the box stop, I think it's important that we stop and point
at them as an example to show what you-all people are really up
to.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Page 119
February 22, 2000
Item #14B
DISCUSSION RE ROCKS ON THE BEACH
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything for us?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, briefly. Mike talks about the box. I'll talk
about rocks. We've been waiting for and clearly are --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would you eat them with a fox?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: A box of rocks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We are tired.
MR. WEIGEL: At any rate, the rocks on the beach report,
we've been waiting for a long time just as interestedly as many
people from many sectors who really do believe it shall be
available through our consultants rather quickly. We are not in
litigation stance, and so the discovery and some of the requests
for documents have been slow, but it's been culminating because
the more information we have, the more that's been asked for.
We should have that shortly, and I look forward to providing that
to you.
Item #15
BCC COMMUNICATIONS
Secondly, we went out immediately upon the last board
meeting and met with the consultants that you approved
concerning the review of our noise ordinance, and they are in the
field right now. They're about halfway through their work; a little
more work to do. In our meetings with them, they had requested
that they think they can give us a little better report if we don't
go on the March 14th date on the ordinance but the March 28th
date, and so I would ask you to indulge us to advertise -- we shall
be advertising for the March 28th date, and let that be known for
the public too on the noise ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry?
Page 120
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. I just do have a question.
When does the administration switch?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would assume until we
consummate a contract, we'll still have our acting administrator
on board.
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I'll just tell you that the county administrator
ordinance indicates that the County shall appoint a county
administrator. So, I think technically under the ordinance, Mr.
Olliff is the county administrator at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not what my motion was.
My motion was for -- for the chairman with the counsel of this
Merit (sic) -- whatever company, to negotiate a contract.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Merser (phonetic).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Merser.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. So, you have not appointed a county
administrator.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Frankly, going back to our
comments during the discussion on that, I don't think we are
going to have a hard time no matter which of you gentlemen is in
charge of the --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there needs to be clarity.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, what's the answer?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We still don't get an answer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I gave you what my
interpretation was. I guess it's up to the board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was your interpretation,
Tim?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just that Mr. McNees is acting
administrator until we have a contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought, too.
That's -- I made the motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that was my understanding.
If there's not any legal difficulty with that, I think that's what we
need to do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
Page 121
February 22, 2000
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just a couple of questions
for Mr. Weigel based on what he had said earlier. When we get
the rocks report, is this the one that's going to tell us where we
go from here?
MR. WEIGEL: It sure will. It's going to be very
comprehensive, and it will have legal as well as factual
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, because the factual I've
seen, but it doesn't draw any conclusions.
And the other is just I fussed before when you said that
there will be another public hearing on the closing of Carica
Road, but then I asked Heidi Ashton about that on the break. Is
that what you were trying to tell us before? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I was.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, we will have -- that will be
scheduled for a separate board item, a separate agenda item in
the future?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I just wanted to be sure I
understood. That's all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Although, considering the board
direction today, I suppose one option is to have that as a consent
item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. It would be a summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't have anything.
Ms. Filson, may we be excused?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by
Commissioner Berry, and carried unanimously, that the following
Page 122
February 22, 2000
items be approved and or/adopted: *****
Item #16A1
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2000-02, RE PETITION C-2000-1, GOLDEN
GATE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PERMIT TO CONDUCT A
FESTIVAL FROM FEBRUARY 25 - 27, 2000, ON PROPERTY
LOCATED WEST OF THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
Item #16A2
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2000-03, RE PETITION C-2000-2, COLLIER
COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATIONS, PERMIT TO CONDUCT A
FESTIVAL FROM MARCH 2-5, 2000, ON PROPERTY AT THE
IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY PARK AND WAIVER OF APPLICATION
FEE AND SURETY BOND
Item #16A3
MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE FOR A $228,000 LOAN TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Item #16A4 - Moved to Item #8A3
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2000-53 SUPPORTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY GRANT APPLICATION TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TO DEVELOP
FARMWORKER HOUSING IN THE IMMOKALEE AREA FOR
UNACCOMPANIED ADULT FARMWORKERS
Item #16A6
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000 FOR
PROJECT #99-2976 NECESSARY TO CONTRACT WITH DOVER,
KOHL AND PARTNERS, FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO
Page 123
February 22, 2000
DEVELOP THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND
DESIGN MASTER PLAN
Item #16A7
RECORDING FINAL PLAT OF "AUDUBON COMMERCIAL CENTER"
Item #16A8
RECORDING FINAL PLAT OF "ISLAND WALK PHASE FOUR"
INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY, WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
RECORDING FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA UNIT ONE" INCLUDING
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
PERFORMANCE SECURITY, WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A10
RECORDING FINAL PLAT OF 'MEDITERRA PARCEL 100"
INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY, WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A11
RECORDING FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL 101"
INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY, WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A12
RECORDING FINAL PLAT OF 'MEDITERRA PARCEL 102"
INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY, WITH STIPULATIONS
Page 124
February 22, 2000
Item #16A13
EXECUTING FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION GRANT
APPLICATIONS AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
Item #16A14
EXCAVATION PERMIT #59.720, TO SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
WETLANDS JOINT VENTURE FOR THE "PANTHER ISLAND
MITIGATION BANK", BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY
UNDEVELOPED LAND ZONED AG-2 (LEE COUNTY}, AND ON THE
SOUTH AND EAST BY VACANT LAND ZONED A-MHO
(CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY) - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A15
EXCAVATION PERMIT #59.728, FOR OTERO LAKE 3
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION, BOUNDED ON THE EAST, WEST,
AND SOUTH BY VACANT LOT AND ON THE NORTH BY 70TM
AVENUE NE R/W AND VACANT LOT - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A16
RECORDING FINAL PLAT OF "SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES
PHASE TWO-B" INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY, WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1 - Withdrawn
BID NO. 99-3026 FOR THE PURCHASE OF FOUR TRACKHOES
Item #16B2 - THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED
Item #16B3 - Withdrawn
BID NO. 99-3005 FOR ANNUAL CONTRACTS TO SPERCO, INC.,
Page 125
February 22, 2000
PAINTS AND COATINGS, INC., AND CHAZ EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, INC., FOR MANHOLE, LIFT STATION, AND WET WELL
REHABILITATION CONTRACTING SERVICES
Item #16B4
PURCHASING ONE BACKHOE/LOADER ON STATE CONTRACT
FROM CREEL TRACTOR COMPANY
Item #16B5
AMENDMENT 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
GREENLEY AND HANSEN FOR DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF 30-INCH PARALLEL SEWER FORCE MAIN ON IMMOKALEE
ROAD, CONTRACT 98-2790, PROJECT 73943
Item #16B6
BID NO. 00-3033, TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $137,100, FOR HIDEAWAY BEACH T-GROIN
CONSTRUCTION
Item #16B7
GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT -
CATEGORY 'A" FUNDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,790
Item #16B8
BID NO. 00-3034, TO AQUIFER MAINTENANCE & PERFORMANCE
SYSTEMS, FOR WELLFIELD MAINTENANCE AND
REHABILITATION
Item #16B9
BID NO. 00-3031, TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $314,687.23 FOR LANDSCAPE
Page 126
February 22, 2000
IMPROVEMENTS TO C.R. 951 SOUTH (PART B)
Item #16B10 - THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED
Item #16B11
WORK ORDER NO. TS-BL-0004, TO BOTNER LAND DESIGN, INC.,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,176 FOR BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION
MSTU LANDSCAPING
Item #16B12
WORK ORDER NO. PHA-FT-00-01, TO PITMAN-HARTENSTEIN &
ASSOCIATES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,800 FOR
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO THE S.R. 84 AND C.R. 951
INTERSECTION
Item #16B13 - Moved to Item #8B3
Item #16B14
RESOLUTION #2000-54, JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 1-75 (EXIT 16} PINE RIDGE ROAD
INTERCHANGE, SIX LANE IMPROVEMENT, PROJECT NO, 60111
Item #16B15 - Moved to Item #8B2
Item #16B16 - Moved to Item #8B4
Item #16Cl
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL STATE FUNDS
THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY IS AUTHORIZED
TO RECEIVE IN STATE AID
Item #16C2
Page 127
February 22, 2000
AGREEMENTS WITH MAXI PRIEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000,
AND WITH INNER CIRCLE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,500 FOR
PERFORMANCES AT THE ROYAL PALM MUSIC FEST
Item #16C3
BID NO. 99-3021, TO NAPLES VENDING, INC., TO PROVIDE
VENDING MACHINE SERVICES TO COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
Item #16C4
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH GOLDEN GATE AMERICAN LITTLE
LEAGUE, INC., FOR USE OF A PORTION OF MAX HASSE
COMMUNITY PARK
Item #16C5
LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NICAEA ACADEMY,
INC., FOR USE OF PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER FOR A CHILDREN'S FESTIVAL TO BE HELD
ON MARCH 31 AND APRIL 1, 2000
Item #16C6
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CPOC REALTY, L.L.C. FOR
WAREHOUSE SPACE ON HORSESHOE DRIVE FOR THE LIBRARY
Item #16C7 - THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED
Item #16C8
AGREEMENT WITH BAY COLONY- GATEWAY, INC. (BCG} FOR AN
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AND
EXPANDED BEACH PARKING LOT AT THE SEAGATE BEACH
PARK AND NAPLES CAY
Page 128
February 22, 2000
Item #16D1
RFP NO. 99-2961, TO JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., AND TRANE
INC., FOR THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND NEW
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING
AUTOMATION SYSTEMS
Item #16D2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND/OR REPAIR
OF COUNTY ASSETS AND EQUIPMENT
Item #16D3
APPROVING A CHANGE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEE
HEALTH PLAN, INCREASING THE ANNUAL ROUTINE PHYSICAL
BENEFIT TO $350, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 9,
2000
Item #16D4
WORK ORDER NO. VB-99-4, TO VANDERBILT BAY
CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $82,785, FOR
INSTALLATION OF HURRICANE SHUTTERS ON BUILDINGS C-1
AND C-2
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 2000-55, APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Item #16D6
Page 129
February 22, 2000
EXECUTION OF THE NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT
FEES WITH GREYSTONE MOBILE HOMES, INC.
Item #16D7
EXECUTION OF SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED
AGAINST REAL PROPERTY, AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY, FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
Item #16D8
RFP # 99-3025, AWARDING AGREEMENTS FOR GENERAL
CONTRACTOR SERVICES, ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS, TO
VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., WM. J. VARIAN
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, AND THE CHRIS-TEL
COMPANY
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS #00-134, #00-135, #00-139, #00-147 AND
#00-149
Item #16H1
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER
Item #16H2
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 130
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
FEBRUARY 22, 2000
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1.
Satisfaction of Lien: NEED MOTION authorizing the Chairman to sign Satisfaction of
Lien for Services of the Public Defender for Case Nos.: 90-6034-TM, 97-8240MMA,
99-6694MMA, 99-2347MMA, 82-1050CJA, 82-1051CJA, 99-2704MMA, 99-
2869MMA, 99-7190MMA, 98-7434MMA, 99-6345MMA, 97-8832MMA, 99-
2022MMA AND 99-3571MMA
2. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
o
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter
136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period:
A. January 19 - 25, 2000
B. January 26 - February 01, 2000
Districts:
A. Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Minutes of December 16,
1999 meeting
B. Collier County Housing Authority - Annual Financial Report FYE 09/30/99;
Approved Budget FY 1999-2000; Registered Office and Agent; Schedule of
Regular Meeting for 2000-20001; Description of Outstanding Bonds FYE
09/30/99; Public Facilities Report and Audit & Management Letter FYE 09/30/99
C. Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Agenda for February 9, 2000
meeting
D. Cow Slough Water Control District - Annual Financial Report FYE September
30, 1999 and Annual Local Government Financial Report for fiscal YE
September 1999
Minutes:
A. Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board - Agendas for January 21, 2000 and
February 11, 2000 meetings and minutes of January 21, 2000 meeting
B. Bayshore Avalon Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee - Agenda for
January 5, 2000 meeting and minutes of December 1, 1999 meeting
- AGENO~ ,]~EI~I
No. //,~,,'r~.~ _
FEB 22 2000
P9
Do
Fo
Go
Jo
Ko
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee - Minutes of January 3, 2000
meeting
Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 2, 2000 and
minutes of January 5, 2000 meeting
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for February 3, 2000 and minutes
of January 6, 2000 meeting
Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 14, 2000
and minutes of January 10, 2000 meeting
Library Advisory Board - Minutes of December 8, 1999 meeting
Collier County Community Health Care Ad Hoc Committee - Agendas for
January 12, 2000 and February 9, 2000 and minutes of December 8, 1999 and
January 12, 2000 meetings
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for February 26, 2000 and
minutes of December 15, 1999 meeting
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for February 2, 2000 and minutes of
December 1, 1999 and January 5, 2000 meetings
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Agenda for January 26,
2000 and minutes of January 12, 2000
no. /(,,fly-
FEB 2 2 2000
February 22, 2000
Item #1611
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF BUDGETED 301 FUNDS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF 800 MHZ PORTABLE RADIOS FOR THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Item #1612
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF BUDGETED 301 FUNDS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT PHOTO LAB SYSTEM FOR
THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Item #1613
AMENDING THE CIVIL TRAFFIC INFRACTION HEARING OFFICER
GRANT-IN-AID OF $12,094-08 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR TO INCLUDE NAMING THE CLERK OF
THE COURT FOR LEE COUNTY AS FISCAL AGENT
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2000-10, RE PETITION PUD 99-22, RICHARD
YOVANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A.,
REPRESENTING JAMES VOGEL, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A
REZONING FROM "A-ST" RURAL AGRICULTURE WITH SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS SAN MARINO PUD, A
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE WITH 353
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, LOCATED 1.5 MILES SOUTH
OF DAVIS BOULEVARD ON C.R. 951
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2000-11, RE PETITION PUD 99-26, ROBERT L.
DUANE OF HOLE, MONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING
H.B. HOLDINGS, MICHAEL BAHMS, PRESIDENT, REQUESTING A
Page 131
February 22, 2000
REZONE FROM "A" AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS DA VINCE ESTATES IN OLDE
CYPRESS PUD ALLOWING FOR 61 DWELLING UNITS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846)
AND APPROXIMATELY 1.3 MILES WEST OF 1-75 AND
SURROUNDED BY THE OLDE CYPRESS PUD
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2000-12, RE PETITION R-99-11, ALAN D. REYNOLDS
OF WILSONMILLER, INC., REPRESENTING LONG BAY PARTNERS,
LLC, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE LIVINGSTON ROAD COUNTRY
CLUB TO "A" RURAL AGRICULTURE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST/WEST LIVINGSTON ROAD RIGHT-
OF-WAY (C.R. 860) AND WEST OF THE IMPERIAL GOLF COURSE
DEVELOPMENT
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2000-56 AND 2000-56A, RE PETITION CU 99-31 &
ST 99-02, JASON WILLIAMS OF JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
REPRESENTING COCOHATCHEE NATURE CENTER, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE "23" OF THE "A-ST" ZONING DISTRICT FOR
AN ECOTOURISM EDUCATIONAL FACILITY PER SECTION 2.2.2.3
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF U.S. 41, NORTH ON THE
COCOHATCHEE RIVER
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2000-57, RE PETITION CU-99-33, WILLIAM L.
HOOVER, AICP, OF HOOVER PLANNING, REPRESENTING
RICHARD AND JEAN YAHL AND TERESA YAHL FILLMORE,
REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF THE 'A" ZONING
DISTRICT FOR A SAWMILL, PER SECTION 2.2.2.3, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WASHBURN
AVENUE SW
Page 132
February 22, 2000
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2000-58, RE PETITION SNR-2000-02, AMENDING
THE TITLE AND PARAGRAPH TWO OF RESOLUTION 99-415, A
STREET NAMING FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN
THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND THE STREET'S
FORMER CUSTOMARY NAME
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2000-59, RE PETITION VAC 99-015 TO VACATE THE
15' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE LOT LINE COMMON
TO LOTS 33 AND 34, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "NORTH
COLLIER INDUSTRIAL CENTER", AND TO ACCEPT A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT AS A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT ON SAID LOTS 33
AND 34
Item #17H
RESOLUTION 2000-60, RE PETITION VAC 00-001 TO VACATE
ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, BEING A PORTION OF TRACT D (VIZCAYA
WAY), ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "VIZCAYA AT BAY COLONY"
Item #171
RESOLUTION 2000-61, RE PETITION ASW-99-1, MDM SERVICES,
INC., REPRESENTING SAM'S CLUB, REQUESTING A 300-FOOT
WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 500
FEET BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS
Page 133
February 22, 2000
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:30 pm.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD O~QFZi~NING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICT-S UNDER ITS CONTROL
',. /'/ t ,,' i-/ ~,
TI Mo~HYJ~//CO~TANTI N E, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
~"' . Attest as to Chatrm~l'$
. ~ i gr~a~ur~ o~ 1 y.
' ¢, : '/~-ese ~nutes approved by the Board on
presented ~-~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE R. LEONE AND DAWN M.
BREEHNE
, as
Page 134