CCPC Minutes 02/17/2005 R
February 17, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida,
February 17, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 AM in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F' of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd (Absent)
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Kenneth Abernathy
Robert Murray
Brad Schiffer (Absent)
Paul Midney
Lindy Adelstein (Absent)
Donna Reed Caron
Robert Vigliotti
ALSO PRESENT:
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Mike Bosi, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
_.~- .'" """~'~"~""'''''''.'--'-''-'--'~--'-'" .. .'-" _.~."_.",-~-'--"'-
-
AGENDA
-
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK. ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK. ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFFA MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC 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.
-
NOTE: The public should be advised that a member of the Collier County Planning
Commission (Bob Murray) is also a member of the C01llID,unity Character/Smart Growth
Advisory Committee. In this regard., matters coming before the Collier County Planning
Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory
Committee from time to time.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. }tOLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 6, 2005, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - JANUARY 25, 2005, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: BD-2004-AR-6799. Don Manley, represented by Michael D. Hawkins, ofTurreIl and Associates, is
- requesting a 30-foot boat dock extension to allow for a modification of an existing boat dock facility to create
a dock facility consisting of two boat-lifts protruding a total of 50 feet into the waterway. The subject
property is located at 201 San Mateo Drive, Southport on the Bay, Unit 1, Lot 34, Section 6, Township 48
South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst)
1
._---- ".~--_..__._. '_'..",..'"O""~.
B. Petition: BD-2004-AR-6827. John McNicholas, represented by Richard Y ovano~ich of Goodlette, Coleman
- & Johnson, P.A. and Michael D. Hawkins of Turrell & Associates, Inc., are requesting a boat dock extension
to facilitate two vessels. The prpposed structure will reduce the existing over-water structure (decking) by 35
square feet. The proposed dock and moored vessel will protrude a distance of 39 feet from the Mean High
Water (MHW) line into a waterWay that is 390 feet wide at its most restrictive point. The subject property is
located at 160 Tahiti Street, Isles of Capri No.2, Lot 284, within Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26
East. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur)
C. Petition: V A-2004-AR-6793. Leobllrdo and Maritza Gutierrez, represented by Daniel Peck, of Peck &
Peck, are requesting as-foot after-the-fact front yard setback variance from the required 75 feet, leaving
a 70-foot front yard to allow the already poured house slab to be utilized under building permit #2002090941.
The subject property is located in the "E" Estates Zoning District at 1815 47tb Avenue N.E., Section 12,
Township 48 South, Range 27 East, ColIier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) CONTINUED
FROM 2/3/05
D. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6300. Bethel Assembly of God, Inc. represented by Frank Veasley, of Frank L.
Veasley, II & Associates requesting Conditional Use #1 of the RMF-6 district for a church gymnasium.
The property, consisting of 4.79 acres, is located at 1225 W. Main Street, Section 4, Township 47 South,
Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer)
E. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6625. EcoVenture Wiggins Pass, Ltd., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of
RW A Consulting, Inc., and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, requesting a
Conditional Use of the C-4 zoning district for a Hotel & Spa per Chapter 2.04.03 of the Land Development
Code. The subject property, consisting of 10.45 acres, is located at 13635 Vanderbilt Drive, in Section 17,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Michael Bosi)
F. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-5967. Eco Venture Wiggins Pass, LTD., represented by Robert 1. Mulhere,
~-- AICP, ofRWA, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Good1ette, Coleman & Johnson reque~ting a
rezone from the C-4 zoning district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to be known
as the Coconilla PUD. The proposed change would allow for 95 dwelling units in two residential towers
with 10 floors of residential units, over one floor of parking, a public use tract adjacent to Cocohatchee River
Park and a marina basin containing 29 wet slips. The property is located at 13635 Vanderbilt Drive, in
Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.45:l:: acres.
(Coordinator: Michael Bosi)
G. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6888. MDG Capital Corporation, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of
Hole, Montes, Inc., is requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Mixed Use Planned
Unit Development (MUPUD) for a project known as the Arrowhead PUD for the purpose of amending the
PUD document to change the PUD type to a Mixed Use PUD, change the residential development standards
regulations, update the LDC citations, and add language to address affordable housing commitments. The
subject property, consisting of 307.4 acres, is located at the comer of Lake Trafford Road and the proposed
Carson Road Extension, in Section 6, Township 47 South, Range 29 East; and in Section 31, Township 46
South, Range 29 East, lmmoka1ee, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
H. LDC Amendments Suecial Cvcle 1a. 2005: An Ordinance Of The Board Of County Commissioners Of
Collier County, Florida, Amending Ordinance Number 04-41, As Amended., The Collier County Land
Development Code, Which Includes The Comprehensive Land Development Regulations For The
Unincorporated Area Of ColIier County, Florida, By Providing For: Section One, Recitals; Section Two,
Findings Of Fact; Section Three, Adoption Of Amendments To The Land Development Code, More
Specifically Amending The Following: Chapter 1 - General Provisions, Including Sec. 1.08.02 Definitions;
Chapter 6 - Infrastructure Improvements And Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, Including Sec.
6.06.02 Sidewalk, Bike Lane, And Greenway Requirements; Chapter'10 - Application, Review, And
- Decision-Making Procedures, Including Sec. 10.02.03.B.1. Final Site Development Plan Procedure And
Requirements; Including Addition To Appendix B Of A Cross-Section For A Typical Greenway; Section
Four, Conflict And Severability; Section Five, Inclusion In The Collier County Land Development Code;
And Section Six, Effective Date. (Coordinator: Susan Murray)
2
---"., -"-'~'~'-"'~~'
.'-~--""
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
2/17/05 eepe AgendalRB/sp
".,..-
3
----..-.--.-.....'. _'0. -'.-~""--"
February 17,2005
~- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we'll all stand for the
pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll proceed
with roll call.
Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Strain is here.
Let the record show that Commissioner Budd is absent.
Commissioner Lindy is absent, Commissioner Midney is absent,
Commissioner Schiffer is absent.
-- Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we barely have a
quorum. With that, we'll proceed with the addenda to the agenda.
Ray, from what I understand is Petition CU-2004-AR-6300,
which is the Bethel Assembly of God Church, has been continued.
Petition CU-2004-AR-665 (sic), which is Eco Venture Wiggins
Pass, more commonly known as Coconilla, has been continued.
Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-5967, Eco Venture Wiggins Pass,
again, which is commonly known as Coconilla, has been continued.
Anybody in the room that is waiting for either one of those
petitions, they will not be heard today.
And let the record show that Commissioner Midney just arrived.
Ray, is there any other?
MR. BELLOWS: No, sir.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that --
MS. STUDENT: And Mr. Vice Chair, acting as Chair, we
Page 2
H_ --
February 17,2005
,,- usually do -- when we have continued items, we usually make a
motion to accept the amended agenda.
And let the record reflect, too, that Mr. Midney just --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did that.
At the recommendation of the assistant county attorney, is there a
recommendation?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved. Seconded?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved and seconded.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning commission
absences. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, I will miss March 17
and April 21.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anyone else?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any special meetings, Joe,
coming up for the workshops in regards to the traffic one that we're
trying to set up that we may want to need know about ahead of time,
or has that been set?
-. MR. SCHMITT: We -- let me look at my calendar here a
minute. I know I have the date, I just can't recall what it is right now.
Page 3
_, ^' _,<",'_~____A,"~'_,~'"""'_~'.'".~'_''''__''''~'''''.''''_,"',__
February 17, 2005
--' March --
MS. STUDENT: Was it the 23rd?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 14th.
MR. SCHMITT: That was March 14th, 9:00 p.m -- 9:00 a.m.,
excuse me. And that will be out at Horseshoe Drive in the conference
room 610.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is everybody--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 9/14, 9:00 a.m.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically be the issues to
discuss concurrency, the 10 versus 12. So you can -- that's the 10
versus 12-month compilation for determining level of service, based
on the AUIR.
Just to refresh your memory, you do owe some kind ofa note or
report back to the Board of County Commissioners. But at that time,
we'll also discuss some other subjects as well related to concurrency.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Which brings up a
point. At the end of the agenda, I'd like to discuss the lack of
information I've received in regards to the AUIR questions. So --
MR. SCHMITT: I have the final report that I have. I have not
reviewed it yet. I promised you would get it before today's meeting. I
can give you a kit bag of excuses, but I didn't read it last night. I was
doing e-mail till about 11: 00, and I never got to finalize that. But it
will be -- it will come out final. We will get something to you -- hope
it's not a course of action in this case, but I hope by the next meeting.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Approval of minutes, January 6th, 2005. Anybody have any
comments? If not, I need a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Motion to approve.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
Page 4
"",-"-_.,,,,,..__. '.~--'"--""'-~-'--
February 17, 2005
.-" COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, BCC recaps?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. During the last board meeting, they
heard and approved the rezone RZ04- AR -6209, which is the County
Barn facility. That was approved on the summary agenda.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fidelity--
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Fidelity Investments
got their sign, Commissioner Abernathy's noting. That wasn't -- that
came up a while back.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: And just so the board knows, the issue
regarding the Emergency Operations Center has been withdrawn from
the Board of County Commissioner agenda, upcoming. I expect that
that item will be coming back to you for another review. There's been
significant changes made. Based on those changes and based on staff
recommendation, I think it's in the best interest of the public for the
county staff to go out and meet with the public again, present the
options, make some -- and discuss and then bring that back for your
review again prior to going to the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, while we're on that
subject, I'd just like to state for the record that I took certain exception
to Mr. -- is it Summers -- remarks in the paper the other day. I thought
they were very patronizing and condescending when he said we didn't
understand the problem with the center. I think he was the one who
Page 5
...._.___._, ""_""'~_'"~'~_W'U'.....' ,~_.~~".....
February 17,2005
- didn't understand. So I'll just leave it at that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very well said.
MR. SCHMITT: Very well said.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, under chairman's
report, one comment I'd like to make. I'd like to thank all my fellow
planning commission members for the honor they bestowed on me at
the meeting last week. It was very nice. I received the award in front
of the county commission. County Manager Mudd--
(Applause.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- did a nice -- thank you.
Thank you all. It was a very nice event, and I certainly appreciate it,
so thank you.
N ow we'll go into advertised public hearings. The first down on
the advertised public hearings is Petition BD-2004-AR-6799, and it's
the 30-foot dock extension for Don Manley.
Will those wishing to speak in this matter please rise to be sworn
in. Raise your right hand.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. HAWKINS: Good morning. For the record, Michael
Hawkins of Turrell and Associates, representing the petitioner, Mr.
and Mrs. Don Manley.
This morning the petitioner is requesting approval for a 30-foot
extension from the allowed 20 for an overall protrusion of 556 feet.
The site presently facilitates the mooring of one 25- foot boat.
The proposed dock design modifies the existing dock to facilitate the
mooring of that 25-foot vessel and a 35-foot vessel.
The protrusion is necessary, due to the limited shoreline, the
water depth and the existing shoreline vegetation.
As you can see from the aerial, it is congruent with some of the
other docks in the area and their protrusions.
It will not affect the navigation of the adjacent neighbors. And
I've spoken to the adjacent neighbors, and I have no objections there.
Page 6
".-.+",----...--' _.~."'~-"-- ,- ....-.---
February 17, 2005
Does the board have any questions?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from planning
commission?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, too, I
forgot to ask, any disclosures?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, okay. No
questions.
Staff have a report?
MS. ERNST: For the record, I'm Joyce Ernst, from Zoning and
Plan Review.
There's many other petitions very similar to this that have been
approved or granted for boat dock extensions in Southport. I've
received no objections for this petition. And they comply with five of
the five primary criteria, and five of the six secondary criteria.
Therefore, staff recommends approval.
And does anybody have any questions for me?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can't get much easier than
this.
MS. ERNST: I'm not complaining.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't blame you, I wouldn't
either. Not from times of the past.
Okay, thank you, Joyce.
MS. ERNST: You're welcome.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any registered
public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Not on this item.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close
the public hearing. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to
Page 7
~..._-,-
February 17,2005
- approve Petition BD-2004-AR-6799.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner
Vigliotti.
Any discussion?
MR. WHITE: Just for the record, Assistant County Attorney.
I'm assuming, Commissioners, that that is subj ect to the
conditions that were recommended by staff and agreed by the
applicant?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Of course.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's been confirmed by
the motion.
Okay, any further discussion?
'"'"'"-.., (N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I call for a
motion. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion passes 6-0.
Next item on the agenda is Petition BD-2004-AR-6827, Mr. John
McNicholas, another dock extension.
All those wishing to have testimony in this matter, please rise,
"-~'"'' raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 8
.. ......,,>o_~. ,~~_."...~--~.., . ---
February 17, 2005
,"- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the record, Rich Y ovanovich,
representing the petitioner.
Also with me here is the petitioner, John McNicholas and
Michael Hawkins, formerly with Turrell and Associates, representing
the petitioner as well.
This petition may look familiar to you. You -- about a year or so
ago, there was a boat dock petition for an extension of 21 and a half
feet. Before we could request a continuance, there was a vote taken
and the petition was denied.
Since that time, the petitioner has gone out and met with the
people who came and spoke against the petition the last time,
explained to them what exactly he wanted to do, and we obtained
"'-. some additional information that the planning commission should
consider.
I will start with having Ray assist me on putting this up. And I'm
not going to represent any directions as to where any of this is,
because I'll -- if you will recall, the last time the property is located at
160 Tahiti Street. And this is the property in question.
We have, for the record, letters of no objection from our two
neighbors adjacent to our property.
This request is for an extension of 19 feet. And with that, they'll
still be -- with that requested extension, you will see -- and I hope you
can read on your monitors -- the distances. The most constricted point
is 390 feet, until you get across the waterway. There is a distance of
286 feet to a channel marker that is shown on your monitor, and we're
392 feet from the nearest dock across the waterway.
At the last meeting there were some questions about navigability
- and depth of water. And as you can see, we have gone out and had the
entire area surveyed. And I'm sure you have this information in your
Page 9
a_~__ ..----
February 17, 2005
- packet. There is a distance of 84 feet from the requested extension to
the four-foot mean low water line contour. So there is ample distance
between our boat dock extension and what people were claiming was
shallow water.
And we have some captains here who operate some vessels that
are 21 feet in width, if you'd like to hear from them. They pass by
each other all the time in this area.
And if you'll note, if I can go back two exhibits, the captains who
needed -- who are coming out of the fishery over here actually go
through an area that's 84 feet in width already. There is not that much
water in width, but it's already 84 feet in width there, so they have no
trouble navigating in an area that's 84 feet in width.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, what's the boat speed in
that area?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The whole place is idle speed.
""'...... ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's an existing dock on the property
already. If they moor a boat on the outside of the dock, it swings out
approximately 28 to 34 feet already. They've done that in the past and
have not had any problems with people maneuvering around. So
we're just asking for, you know, a few additional feet to put a dock
there so we can have two vessels.
I don't believe there's anybody here to speak against the petition.
I believe there are people here to speak in favor of the petition, if you
want to hear from them.
I do believe you have a couple of letters of obj ection. I believe
they're located over here on this finger of property right there. So
they're not really adjacent to us. They were claiming there was some
navigability issues, but I believe the documentation that we provided
refutes that argument, because there's ample water death for vessels,
and width for vessels to maneuver.
If you need additional testimony, we can have Mr. McNicholas
Page 10
-"^'- .~.,.---,--.._~-'- .--...- -_.---,........>._..._..~'---
February 17, 2005
and the boat captain speak.
I do want to enter into the record, and I think you already have
the letter from Leslie Sebring, the immediate neighbor, saying that
they don't have a problem.
Also, from -- enter into the record the letter from the -- is it
Welders? Weldings, the other neighbor, that they don't have any
objection.
I also have a letter from Sam Wilson. I don't know if you were
able to get this letter or not. He is with Toe Boat, U.S. He's a captain
who also says he has no problems.
Do you have that one, Mr. Strain, already?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was passed out to us this
morning; all four of them were.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, good.
So -- Arty saying that he has no issues with the navigation in that
,-,- area.
And finally, a signed and sealed letter from Todd Turrell
regarding the possibility of really bringing this thing in and building it
over the rip-rap. He's got concerns with the seawall and the integrity
of the seawall, if we actually brought the docks in, up adjacent to the
seawall.
So with that, unless you have further questions of me, Mr.
Hawkins or Mr. McNicholas and the other captains, we would request
that you approve the boat dock petition, with the stipulations that staff
has recommended.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from
the panel?
I have one question, Richard. The way the traffic flows here, and
your aerial that you've got on the screen now has made me realize it.
The traffic comes down and looks like -- I know you're not good with
direction. Goes to the south and comes around and close to the marker
and back in. People are not apparently swinging around by this dock;
Page 11
."---- ..' 0' _".nu,",_,_,._. , - "0 ',._" , _.""."'_._...~,.._"."." "-_..--
February 17, 2005
-
is that a true statement? And the channel doesn't seem to be focused
near the dock, it seems to be out to the right of the dock at this point,
near the channel marker.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to let Mr. McNicholas answer
that question. But I believe -- go ahead, John.
MR. McNICHOLAS: Morning.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you state your name for
the record, please.
MR. McNICHOLAS: Yes. My name is John McNicholas.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. McNICHOLAS: The general boat traffic flows -- if I may
-- moves in along this way and then swings across here. The channel
markers that are out here, although they were placed there, are not
particularly useful for large vessels, so they come down across and
they swing across through there, through that way.
-- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a need for traffic to
flow up close against this dock isn't critical, because they're not
hugging the corner to get a direction that would -- they're going
actually away from the corner.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And there's ample water depth,
based upon the exhibit. And that exhibit wasn't present at the last
meeting to show that there's ample water depth for the
maneuverability of vessels.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's all the
questions I have.
Are there others?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff?
Ross, they got you back into docks for a while, huh?
MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, momentarily. Joyce is doing such
-- a great job, I don't feel like I have to show up much anymore.
F or the record, Ross Gochenaur, Zoning and Land Development
Page 12
-~.... ~ . ._'-"..'"----_..-.~' ,,'-,"--- '"_..~--".. . .- ~..~-"
February 17,2005
- Review.
As you know, we're recommending approval of this petition. It
does meet all of our criteria. I don't think there's very much that I
could add to what the petitioner's agent has told you, but I'd be happy
to try to answer any questions you have about the staff report or the
code.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the
commission?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you,
Ross.
MR. GOCHENAUR: You're welcome.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nice and simple again.
Ray, are there any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: We have two registered speakers: Alexander
--," Mann and Charles Baughtman (phonetic).
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those were -- those were the two
captains I mentioned are available to answer any questions, if you had
concerns about navigability. Otherwise, they'll-- they don't need to
speak.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You answered my only
question. I don't know if the others have any.
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close
the public hearing. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll move to approve
BD-2004-AR-6827, subject to staff conditions.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion is made and seconded.
Any discussion?
"- (N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for
Page 13
,_._._~ ,,,_,~~,.,"-'" -, --"',... ....- "'-~...._..._...-_._- ------
February 17,2005
- the motion. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, that motion
passed 6-0.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think we were awfully
easy on Y ovanovich, but --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't get used to that, Rich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm leaving now.
.......... ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's unfortunate.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next petition is
V A-2004-AR-6793, Leobardo -- I butcher names, so sorry. Maritza
Gutierrez? Front yard setback in Golden Gate Estates.
All those wishing to speak on this petition, please rise and raise
your right hand.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: State your name for the
record, please.
MR. PECK: Good morning. Daniel Peck, for the petitioners,
Gutierrez. I am before you seeking a five-foot variance of the 75-foot
front yard setback requirement from the road to 70 feet for the house
under construction, 4885 12th Street Northeast, and 47th Avenue
Northeast, which is the "E" zone in Golden Gate Estates.
The house was intended and thought to be 1 00 feet, rather than
_.~- the required 70 feet from the front road -- from the -- as a setback. But
unfortunately the surveyor inadvertently measured from the lot line
Page 14
~". ~.. 'd______~"" .-'-
February 17, 2005
- rather than from the center of the road right-of-way. And therefore,
during construction it was discovered that there was a five-foot
violation, rather than a 25- foot surplus.
The home use is an authorized use, consistent with zoning, with
the land development code and with the growth management plan.
We have an extreme hardship because in accordance with this
letter from the builder, which I'd like to make part of the record -- I
don't know whether you can put it up on the screen or not -- there
would be a cost of about $98,500 to demolish the home or -- at the
present site and to reconstruct it five feet further away from the site in
accordance with the setback requirement.
The Gutierrez family, which had nothing to do with the violation,
has already been through an extreme burden with the delay in
construction and expense of the variance.
Five feet is a minimum variance to make a reasonable use of the
........,."., land, and no special privilege would be conferred on the applicant,
since others have been granted similar variances.
The staff recommended the variance, and without even finding
special conditions and circumstances or pre-existing conditions of the
property or peculiar conditions, but I respectfully submitted that you
could even find that all of those conditions are satisfied, since we
would not be here if the land were the same as a majority of the land
in Collier County and the setback was measured from the lot line
rather than the middle of the road right-of-way.
That peculiar special condition caused the surveyors mistake and
the Gutierrez's present problem.
Granting the variance is not injurious or detrimental. I don't
believe there's any objection. The setback is from the road rather than
from another house. The house across the street, even if the set --
even if the variance were granted, would be 70 feet plus 75 feet plus
,- 60 feet for the road right-of-way or a total of210 feet -- I'm sorry, 205
feet rather than the required 210 feet.
Page 15
---
February 17,2005
.--" And I think most people would recognize that when you live
across the street from a house, it's a street that rather bothers you, not
the house, whether it's 205 or 210 feet away.
The difference of205 or 210 feet with the road is deminimous
(sic), whereas, five feet on a side setback with a house right next door
would probably be a big difference when there is a small side yard
setback. The Gutierrezes, the applicants, are really the ones affected
here, since it's they that are closer to the road.
In conclusion, we support the staff recommendation of approval
and its conditions, and request that you help put an end to this
nightmare for the Gutierrezes, who had nothing to do with creating the
problem and in fact had intended to build 25 feet more than the
setback requirement.
If there are any questions, I'm more than happy to try to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, if I may.
- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have only one stumbling point
here. In the petition, on number six, will granting the variance be in
harmony, et cetera, et cetera. And the response: House being five to
six feet closer to the road but still 69 to 70 feet away. It seems odd
that that would still be at question, a one-foot --
MR. PECK: I need to clarify that. I as a lawyer am ultra
cautious, and I always have a nightmare that in the middle of the
reconstruct -- as it goes on, somebody remeasures it and says it's one
inch over. So the staff has converted that to 70 feet and we're satisfied
with 70 feet. That was my doing, just as an abundance of precaution,
to make sure if there was a three-inch mistake by the surveyor when
he remeasured it, that we're not back here again and said he was three
inches off on it. So that's me, nobody else, and that's just my cautious
nature.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other
Page 16
,--,---- .~_.. '.---
February 17,2005
- questions from the panel?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you, sir.
MR. PECK: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other staff presentations?
MR. MEYER: For the record, Robin Meyer, with zoning land
development review.
There's not much to add. He's been very thorough. We've heard
no objections from anybody in the community. We found it consistent
with the criteria and recommend approval. Other than that, I'd be
happy to answer any questions.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a--
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- question. What happened to
condition number two? It's not -- the supplemental staff report does
not give condition number two, which is if the dwelling is destroyed
for any reason, they have to put it back in the correct spot.
MR. MEYER: That would still be part of the resolution that
would follow this. I simply missed putting it in there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. MEYER: And the supplemental doesn't eliminate the
conditions in the original staff report, so it shouldn't affect that either.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Ray, do we
have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Just the petitioner who spoke, Mr. Peck.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public
hearing, call for the questioning. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion. I make a
--
motion to approve V A-2004-AR-6973 for approval, subject to staff
Page 1 7
"-- ""...">.__.~"",.,"." ,.0.' ..._-
February 17,2005
!,....."" recommendations.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's forwarded
recommending approval, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
MR. WHITE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second's approved. Okay, is
there any other discussion?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in
favor?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Motion passes 6-0.
Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is item G, MDG Capital Corporation.
Petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6888.
All those wishing to speak in this matter, please rise and raise
your right hand.
MS. DESELEM: If I may, for the record, we don't have a
petitioner, so I don't --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can you make the -- is
it requirement to have a petitioner here for a petition?
MS. STUDENT: Well, it's quasi judicial. I think so. I think that
Page 18
-"' - -, '_"'''--''''''_'_,.,a;,_,,''''''''''~_ ..,- .,...------.--... ---.--
February 17,2005
-- could cause us some problems. I mean, I understood that they know
that the meeting starts at 8:30. And what we might do, I don't know--
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Continue it?
MS. STUDENT: -- is take the land code thing, and then they
should probably be here, if that's not a problem.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would be a
good cause. Do we need a motion to that effect, Marge?
MS. STUDENT: You should, yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue
PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6888 to the last item on the agenda for --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Motion--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll move that motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by
Commissioner Midney, seconded by Commissioner Murray. All
those in favor?
,..-" COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
And I would expect that the petitioner saw the Coconilla item on
this agenda and realized that could be a nearly all day affair, so I'm not
surprised he may not be here for --
MR. SCHMITT: I did -- just for the record, I did get an e-mail
from Bill Clone (phonetic), I answered it last night, told him to be here
at 9:00, but of course that was about 9:00 last night that I answered it,
so I doubt he didn't read it until this morning.
In fact, here is the petitioner now. So he must have read my
e- mail.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, what have we
Page 19
-' - -<~.... -..-..-..,. ...~,,~ -.--'.-
February 17, 2005
,..-,~,., got to do to un-make our motion?
MS. STUDENT: Just make another one to put it back as it was.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I so move.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and
seconded.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, it's -- before you get up,
.-, we have a few other housekeeping matters.
Are there any disclosures in this matter?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I had a telephone
conversation with Mr. Clone, and nothing further than that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also had a telephone
conversation with Mr. Clone.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I too had a telephone
conversation with Mr. Clone, and my conversation strictly was I didn't
have any problems with the petition as I saw it, so I had no questions
to pose to him in the telephone conversation.
MS. STUDENT: If the other two commissioners who have
already disclosed would briefly state the subject matter.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Mr. Clone called offering to
answer any questions, and we went through briefly the number of
-""'. items and acquainting me more particularly with the locale and the
geography and just in general allowing me to be more efficient when I
Page 20
'-'"' ,--_...~._-- ~..."",,,,"_._"_c~'__" _ ...----
February 17,2005
- went through my papers and read the balance of the report.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Clone asked me if I had
any questions. At that time I had none.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, all those
wishing to have testimony in this matter, please rise and raise your
right hand.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Commissioner
Abernathy, for that revised swearing in.
With that, I guess the petitioner's here now, so we'd like to ask
you to make your presentation.
MR. CLONE: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, my
name is Bill Clone; I'm president of MDG Capital Corporation. We
are the petitioners in this matter this morning and also the developers
of Arrowhead Reserve at Lake Trafford, a 307 -acre community in
--. Immokalee, Florida.
I apologize for the confusion on being a bit late. The reason I'm
winded is I saw on TV you were going to continue it down in the
lobby, so I ran up the stairs.
George Hermanson with Hole-Montes is about five minutes
behind me, but I'll go ahead and get going.
The purpose in the PUD amendment was quite simple. We have
lot sizes that are 65 wide by 105 feet deep.
In our procurement of a home builder for the community, he
noted that some of his footprints for his floor plans were somewhat
longer than could fit in the building envelope, as prescribed by the
PUD.
We met with staff and staff was amenable to consider
recommendation of this to allow the front and rear setbacks to be
somewhat more relaxed so that some of these building envelopes
-." could be contained within. In the process as well, as everyone knows,
the Arrowhead project will offer affordable housing to a certain
Page 21
--."" _~'w_~". _."."-""--~"'~.....""^ .._~-
February 17,2005
- percentage of those residential residents. And in a prior BCC meeting,
I spoke and provided my commitment to be at an affordable status to
the extent of 15 percent for the privilege of fast tracking.
If you've looked in your notes this morning, you'll see the
affordable language at the end of the PUD amendment which states
that we did not require any density bonus credits to gain any density.
And really, to provide the commitment for affordable was merely
voluntarily to get the fast tracking.
The -- so those are really the two changes to relax the front and
rear setbacks in some of the lot areas. If I've not said that quite
accurately, I'll lay Kay readdress that. But it's real important that we
obtain this today to allow our builder to go forward out there.
This lot size and the setback changes only affects the
single- family component.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Are there
any questions of petitioner?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. Sir, I wish -- I would
have preferred that you just call a spade a spade and say you were
decreasing the setback's front and back. This euphemism of whatever
the word was that you used just sounds like you're trying to sand bag
me. I mean, I know adjust or whatever the word was that you used,
when we're really talking about decreasing them; isn't that right?
MR. CLONE: Yes. The rear, I believe, was 25 feet, and that
will be going to 12 feet -- is that correct, Kay? Yeah, if you look at
the table on Page 10, there's strike and underline that indicates which
front and rear yard setbacks are being modified. And in some cases
when there is a sidewalk, it's a little bit different in the front on one
side of the street as opposed to the other.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You had said that the reason
.-." this happened is because you couldn't get house plans that worked
well on that lot? Couldn't there be another set of plans?
Page 22
--- ~.e'___""~k_~.~~.,_....^ ..... __,~,._...____...~_,..__h'.",_ <-,--
February 17,2005
- MR. CLONE: There are about eight plans that the -- the
particular builder is America's First Home. They do about 800 entry
level priced homes per year. And all these builders have their set
models that they've designed over the years. There are about eight
plans that the builder proposes to build within our community. About
half of those will work with the existing setbacks, and the other half
will not work. And to deliver the affordability that we're trying to
deliver, the ideal world is that we have all eight -- you know, all of the
plans work.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I have a question. If the
problem is we want to lessen the setbacks, front and rear, because
these buildings are larger, why is it you're changing the square feet of
the entire property from 6,000 square feet down to 4,000 square feet?
MR. CLONE: Very good question.
To maintain the affordability, the larger the lot, the more
expensive the lot. In our minimum lot size, which is currently 6,000
feet, we are going to redirect the lot lines to have some of the lots 65
feet wide and some of the lots narrower. So when the lot gets a bit
narrower, the square footage of the lot naturally goes down, thus the
need for the adjustment to bring the minimum platform of 6,000 down
to 4,000.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What size home would that
produce in terms of internal square foot area?
MR. CLONE: The sizes of the plans -- I'm going from
recollection and my memory, I believe about 1,374 square feet up to
about 1,800 square feet.
And again, the reason for the elongation of the building footprint
after the setback amendment is that as the lot narrows, the length of
the home increases to maintain the same square footage.
r_'" ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The table that you have here
has a minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet for all product,
Page 23
--., '~"'".'_''''''''--''' - .,,-" .-.. ---
February 17, 2005
,-, basically. And does that change from your prior PUD?
MR. CLONE: No, I believe the 1,000 was--
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was already approved.
So the 1,000 is what you're sticking with; you're not going to go below
that.
MR. CLONE: That's correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I hope not.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I just --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So what you're saying is that the
lot area is decreasing but the home area is increasing?
MR. CLONE: The -- with the minimum of 1,000 square feet for
the footprint of the home, that was our absolute floor minimum. In all
of the plans that we're discussing with the builder, they happen to all
be over 1,000 feet. So we're not looking to go below 1,000 but above.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And my question, you were
saying that the models that you have, in order to do them, you needed
more room?
MR. CLONE: We needed a different platform for the buildable
area of the home. For those lots that were 65 by 105, many of the
products fit, but because we -- you know, where concrete and steel
prices have gone up, it's always a challenge to deliver the price points
for the first-time home buyer. So by narrowing the lots, we were able
to sell the lots to the builder at a less costly price. And because he's
still trying to maintain the same square footages on a narrower lot,
we're therefore asking for the setback adjustment.
So basically -- okay, good. So we're effectively able to sell a lot,
less expensive and deliver the same square footage. And that also
gives the builder a greater variety of price points for different profiles
of home buyers.
---. As you know, in the entry level or affordable price points, for
every $10,000 that a home goes up, it may -- someone may not
Page 24
. --~'-"~-'"'-'---""''''_._-''''-'. ~""--
February 17, 2005
^--;", qualify. So the more price points, the better, even though they may be
in small increments of $10,000.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And you indicated, too, I
believe, in our telephone conversation that you would have two-car
garages --
MR. CLONE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- am I correct?
MR. CLONE: All of the plans have--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And the square footage that you
cited was exclusive of the garages or in inclusive?
MR. CLONE: That was air conditioned square footage.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. So that's a -- that looks
like an attractive thing.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Abernathy?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is the builder a purchaser or
- is he just a contractor to you?
MR. CLONE: The builder to me -- I am the developer of the
entire community. I am selling lots to the builder and then he will be
building the vertical components, building the homes.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you have -- does he have
a contract to purchase?
MR. CLONE: Yes, he does.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, your application is
deficient in that regard, because it doesn't indicate that. Who is that?
MR. CLONE: The purchaser of the lots is America's First Home.
I am --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And the builder as well?
MR. CLONE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They are the builder as
well ?
-- MR. CLONE: They are the purchaser and the builder.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
Page 25
--- ,_..,.".,.,"~,._.._- -.-
February 17,2005
'^-~- MR. CLONE: But at this juncture, I'm still the owner and the
petitioner.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But this application
envisions that there might be a contract for purchase, and there's a
blank that says not applicable. So that's not really right.
MR. CLONE: I see.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions
of the petitioner -- of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have only one minor thing.
There's a drawing here; trying to relate to it. It's Arrowhead. In any
event, it shows all of the tracts. And I just wondered about, there's a
preserve area, or what appears to be preserve, and it runs as a very
narrow line and appears to cross a road. That surely has to be an error,
I would have to believe. I wish I could give you more clear -- it's at
the opening of the petition. And it's the site -- I could show it to you
,-- this way. It's in the packet --
MR. CLONE: Does this map help that we have up here?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Let's see if that's the one. I think
this has to be an error, but just out of curiosity, it appears that the
preserve runs across the road, which can't be possible.
MR. CLONE: Are you looking at this area, sir, where I've got
the pointer?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am.
MR. CLONE: Yeah, we have -- in this community we have 100
percent of all of our entitlements, construction permits, Army Corps
permits and so on. Our wetland area is generally down in this area.
Some of the sheet flow that we accept from northern lands comes
through the community at this point and there's actually a triple pipe
over that road crossing.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Oh, that's what --
MR. CLONE: That was part of our permitting --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
Page 26
"--', '^"'-~._~~" ~~.
February 17,2005
-" MR. CLONE: -- to allow that road to go over that part of the
wetland.
MR. DUANE: It just showed the prior connection.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you. Appreciate that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Could you tell me more about
the Indian burial ground and the storage structure?
MR. DUANE: Sure. The Indian burial ground was located, I
believe, down in these areas, in the non-buildable area. In our
archeological studies, the history of the mounds was not intact. They
couldn't even identify which tribe it was. Therefore, there was no
concern over that. And beyond that, it was all in our preserved areas.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And is that the historic
structure as well?
MR. CLONE: The historic structure, there was an older building
located up in this area with barn wood and interesting older type nails.
When we did the historical study, it was concluded that the house was
far beyond repair. Also the fact that the home was moved to the site,
there was no historical claim or value noted.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you.
MR. CLONE: One addition I'd like to point out. Mr. Abernathy
questioned one of the blanks in the petition with regard to is it under
contract. And my consultant pointed out that at the time that the
petition was done, it was not under contract, so --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay.
MR. CLONE: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other
questions of the applicant before we have the staff report?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you.
,c""'_ And Kay?
MR. CLONE: Thank you very much for your time.
Page 27
--- .' .", '_'~"'<>_"-,"._",_._C"~ .~--
February 17,2005
,-~'.. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning
and Land Development Review.
You have before you the staff report, a six -page document that
provides a summary of the requested action, tells you about the
location of the site, describes the proj ect, as far as what it is they're
proposing to do within this petition, shows the surrounding land use,
both in text and a pictorial rendition, similar to what is -- actually, it's
the same that's on the viewer right now.
And there is an analysis of the growth management plan
consistency, noting that the uses in this particular petition were
already reviewed for consistency when it was originally rezoned.
It's been determined that since there is no increase in density or
intensity, this PUD doesn't open, quote, unquote the PUD document to
additional scrutiny. We're only addressing the issues of this particular
item, which is the changes to the table, some minor changes to fix
LDC citations, reflecting the newer LDC ordinance, and to address the
affordable housing commitments made by the petitioner.
The analysis begins on Page 5 of the staff report, and attached to
the staff report are the findings of fact in support of that
recommendation. And you have the other information as far as the
site plans in front of you, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy
to answer them. I would just say that staff does recommend that it be
found consistent with the compo plan, compatible with the
neighborhood, and we are recommending approval of the amendment.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question.
Under transportation review it says that you reviewed the
petition, and it was based on the 2002 PUD document. And I've
noticed that, you know, in the past three years, the traffic has
,.,-. increased quite a lot in that area, because we've had a lot of new
habitat homes and Jubilation come on line since then.
Page 28
--'~- """,'~-".,",. .".--
February 17, 2005
.-.
Is this vested in terms of its traffic rights because of the approval
in 2002?
MS. DESELEM: I would ask that Alan EI-Urfali from
transportation address your question. I think he can address it more
effectively than I can.
MR. EL-URFALI: Good morning, Commissioners. Alan EI-
Urfali, Project Manager.
The development is not vested. They are subj ect to concurrency.
And the new AUIR that came out, we had a slight decrease in traffic,
the background volume. So the remaining--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Decrease?
MR. EL-URFALI: Decrease, yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's hard to believe.
MR. EL-URF ALl: I understand. But we had the count stations
and we could prove that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did I know that was
coming?
MR. EL-URFALI: They have -- there is a remaining capacity
currently, but like I said, I don't know what their time line is. They
should be okay up to a certain extent on Lake Trafford Road and SR
29, which are the two segments for concurrency that we're running
right now.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you provide any theories
about how the traffic could have decreased when the population has
increased?
MR. EL-URFALI: Well, currently we have -- the numbers came
from two stations: One at the intersection of SR 29, or close to it, and
the other one further down the road.
Now, the volumes close to the intersections went up slightly. But
the volumes away, or down Lake Trafford Road, went down. So
_. basically they averaged out to a lower number.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know, I would have to
Page 29
.._.~ 1"'" '-"'_._n ~,-"_.,- ,~,... .. ,-""-,^-~",,,,-,-,-,,",-,-_.,
February 17,2005
--. conclude that your analysis is wrong, because the population has
increased. There's no way that the traffic could decrease. There's been
no new roads built there. I just question your data.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe to help the matter
along, the issue before us is a setback issue. The density's not --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I realize that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I just didn't know if you
--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I was just making a
comment.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just wanted to see if --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I don't believe they're
adding more impact --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, they're not, they're not.
"._~..~, ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Margie, did you have a comment?
MS. STUDENT: I was just going to reiterate that this is under
the newer process that we're doing where we're just changing pieces of
the PUD and the rest of it remain in full force and effect. So -- and
you're correct, there's no addition of density.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I think the project is great,
but I just question that traffic element of it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we all should be
questioning --
MS. DESELEM: If I may, the applicant's team member is asking
to clarify something, and may he --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather finish with
your -- with any questions of you first, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they want to stir the
mud to get us to ask more questions, they're more than welcome to.
Page 30
"-~ ._0__.....__--_ -"-
February 17,2005
,......~ So is there anymore questions of Kay?
(No response.)
MS. DESELEM: If I may clarify one statement. There was
some question about two-car garages. And I would note that there is
no commitment to that effect that I'm aware of within the PUD
document itself. So if you want that to specifically be a condition, it
would have to be added.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm glad you brought that up,
Kay, because I would not have made that statement, except that Mr.
Clone had made the statement to me, and so I took that as being part
of the process. That's why I qualified it this morning. I think it needs,
if we're going to approve -- recommend approval, I would suggest we
do include that in there.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think--
MR. SCHMITT: Include what? Could I -- I mean, we --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, I know we're not doing
site development, but the gentleman brought that up. And I don't
know, what is it on limitation? I mean, when he called me--
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we're here under an abbreviated
process to amend a PUD document that was -- specifically addresses
just the setback issue and some development criteria. That is it.
Anything else on this has not been advertised, nor is it open for
discussion.
The issue really has to do with the setbacks. And frankly, it's a --
the setbacks meet the criteria in the Land Development Code and it's
strictly an issue of whether the consumer wants to buy that product or
not. And that's really what the issue is here. It's a -- the lots were
being reduced to accommodate a specific product that is being
developed as affordable housing product that certainly we need in
Collier County. And to now pile on additional requirements is just not
part of this -- it's not even up for consideration.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, thank you for your
Page 3 1
"'-"~'.' ." ,'._-~,_..-,~ .._.~_.. .-- " ."---'-
February 17, 2005
- clarification. I just have to get used to the new process that we're
entering into here.
My intent was not to create an issue but to show that the builder
or the developer intended to benefit the community. And I thought
that might be something worthy of mention. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other
questions of Kay? I have one.
Kay, on Section 8.16, affordable housing of the PUD, your first
paragraph references Resolution 2005-21. Is that the right reference?
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, on--
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8.16, affordable housing.
MS. DESELEM: -- oh, I see it, okay. Yes, that is the new
resolution that was adopted for fast track and priority review of
affordable housing projects.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long ago was that
adopted?
MS. DESELEM: I believe in January.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was trying to find it to read
it and I wasn't able to on-line, so I must have missed it, or --
MS. DESELEM: I'd be happy to provide a copy to you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind. Just for my
future reference I'd like to read it.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I went through the
document with a limited number of changes involving this issue. I
didn't have any other questions.
MS. STUDENT: And that resolution, just to clarify, provides for
expedited review for affordable housing as a stimulus, economic
stimulus in the community.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that how the Target got
<,n'__ out-qualified?
Okay, well, we'll pass that one up.
Page 32
"'""'....."'--."'" " ^'~-'-
February 17,2005
- MR. WHITE: I think the distinction, Commissioners, and for the
community, is that fast tracking is seen as an economic development
tool, and that expedited review is given that specific and different
name so that when people hear it, they'll know we're talking about
affordable housing.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and the reason I wanted
to read that, County Attorney White, is just so that -- I understood how
it applied. Because it seems we could dilute the impact of expedited
permitting if we allow it for everything. And affordable housing's the
right thing to use it for. I'm just wondering about the others. Thank
you.
MR. SCHMITT: There are only two programs for the expedited
review process. One is the anything that's been officially sanctioned
as an economic development under the EDC criteria. And this is now
the second, which is the affordable housing. At one time we only--
--< we gave it priority, but this is now official. This was a directive of the
board and came out of the Affordable Housing Commission as a
recommendation. It was passed by the board, and if I recall, the
second meeting in January. I can forward you the copy of the
resolution.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd just like to read it for
future reference, and mostly for other projects that have come before
us that I had questioned the expedited permitting on.
Any other questions of staff?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public
speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: None registered.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did -- the applicant's
consultant, since they were late, didn't get a chance to speak. Do they
=.........,. feel that they want to stir this up a little bit?
MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson, Hole-Montes.
Page 33
--' _w..___..,.....<O.' _.__._--~~_.. ,<-
February 17, 2005
_. This had nothing to do with what we're asking, but I just wanted
it clear on the record, and I know Alan would agree with this, when he
said the proj ect was not vested, technically we have vesting of the
single- family lots because we've had plats approved. So those can
continue to development.
We have some multi-family, which are subject to the new
concurrency. But I just wanted that clear. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any
other questions of the commission?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll close the
public hearing, entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to move that we approve
Petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6888 for -- to the Collier County
Commission with a recommendation of approval.
.--.. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and
seconded.
I don't recall if there's any staff recommendations, but I would
assume it's --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, we need to deem it
consistent with the GMP and subject to the limitations contained in the
PUD.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker accept
those changes?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept those
changes?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, absolutely.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any
Page 34
--.-. --
February 17,2005
,- discussion on the matter?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the
vote. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes 6-0. Thank
you.
The next issue is an LDC Amendment concerning the Special
Cycle lA, 2005.
I'm assuming there's going to be a staff presentation, Mr.
Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Do you want to take a break before we
start this?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we'll take a 10-minute
break. That's a good idea. Thank you.
(Recess. )
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excuse me, if everybody
could come back to their seats.
Okay, the next agenda item is LDC Special Amendments Special
Cycle lA, 2005.
And Mr. Schmitt, we'll turn it over to you.
MR. SCHMITT: All right. Commissioners, good morning
again. For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development, Environmental Services Division.
This was a special amendment approved by the Board of County
.',...... Commissioners to address a specific issue dealing with sidewalks. I'm
going to run through a preliminary -- or the first portion of a briefing
Page 35
.-'"._.....,..~,_.."'~."...
February 17,2005
.--.- we gave the Board of County Commissioners so you can understand
what we asked of the board and kind of how we got to where we are in
regards to this.
This really dealt with sidewalks, bike lanes, pathways and
greenways. This was a workshop we conducted with the board, based
on the board's request.
I mean, the bottom line is staff recognizes the current LDC does
not work in all cases. And we went before the board basically to ask
the board to approve a special cycle to create a viable
payment-in-lieu-of program, to accept alternative designs, to add
reference greenways and to approve a special cycle, which we're in
right now.
Basically the LDC says a developer must, and underline the word
must, construct sidewalks and bike lanes where applicable. And it
defines where it's applicable. But basically they must be constructed
contiguous to all public and private roadways. So -- and I'm going to
go through some examples.
But the bottom line here is it works in 95 percent of the cases,
and it does. Developers are consistently required to develop sidewalks
as specified in the LDC, and developers have been providing
sidewalks that are consistent with the LDC changes that took place.
The reason for the change is there's about five percent of the time
where these requirements do not fit. And they would be excessively
disproportionate in regards to the construction versus the requirement
to put in the sidewalk.
But there are really no existing pedestrian -- where there are no
existing pedestrian or cycling facilities or sidewalks, it may become
disproportionately excessive. And I'm going to talk about -- show you
examples. But we were asking for the board to approve some kind of
a criteria or allow staff to develop a criteria for payment-in-lieu-of.
I can go through the review process, but that's not necessary.
Basically we proposed to the board that we would add and define
Page 36
--'''~.-... _"u....~___._ ... _...~..._^...
February 17,2005
~ greenways. As you know, or you may not know, but right now there
is no definitive definition for greenways. The attempt that we briefed
the board was to look at the comprehensive pathways plan, develop a
greenway definition, and proceed from there.
But this was based on ideas, or at least on our assessment at that
time, that this was a word that could be easily defined.
We want to increase the time frames from other aspects, and I
won't go through that. I think between the staff, we can discuss that.
But what I wanted to get into was really where we're going. This
was an example of a project called St. John Newman School.
$150,000 construction cost to comply with a requirement. They were
doing some modifications out there, and we were going -- to meet the
requirements would have been almost $150,000 in sidewalk. 150 to
$175,000. We were looking for a payment-in-lieu-of program.
And we can discuss that in the amendment, but this is basically
what it would do: It would allow them to pay an incremental amount,
and that would be part of this pathway funding.
Another one is Industrial Park. Somebody comes in in the
Industrial Park, we look at it, you're on a collector or arterial road, you
would have to put sidewalks in around the entire area. And it was just
fiscally excessive in regards to the requirements, cost to construction
versus the cost of the sidewalk.
What we were looking for is to -- the payment-in-lieu-ofprogram
would allow the county to collect some monies for sidewalks to
correct problems, as you see here, where a sidewalk ends or as we
know we need to put sidewalks. So we would have some source of
revenue to at least create interconnectivity with bike lanes, bike paths,
sidewalks.
We would fix and improve intersections. This was at Progress
and Airport. And we would include also any other intersection
improvements in regards to handicap access, cyclists or other types of
things.
Page 37
,.---. ,---"--
February 17,2005
-, I'm going to go through these quickly because you have the
language, but this is what we briefed the board, that you'll note that
the optional date is today. We did not have this ready for the 3rd.
And we take this to the Board of County Commissioners on the 8th
and then the 22nd as part of the regular BCC scheduled agenda item.
That is basically it in a nutshell. What has happened, other
examples where a application comes in to community development,
goes through transportation review, maybe a 40 or $50,000
improvement to a building and we're telling the individual, well, based
on the criteria in the land development code, you have to pay
$200,000 in sidewalk improvements. And it was just a
disproportional, frankly, application of the code, and it was somewhat
punitive in nature in regards to both the cost to construction versus the
requirement to build sidewalks.
So before you today is an LDC Amendment that has been vetted.
-. It was worked jointly with both transportation staff and my
engineering services staff and community development in developing
some language in regards to the program.
I think the issue you're going to hear today is the issue involving
greenways. I think that's the biggest concern.
You note that this has gone before the development services
advisory council in regards to the -- their position. And we noted in
your amendment what the DSAC recommended and changes. And
the issue really has been -- most volatile issue is dealing with
green ways.
We can -- I can turn it over to the staff in regards to answering
any questions that you may have specific to our intent, both in the
payment-in-lieu-ofprogram and some of the other issues. So subject
to your questions, that concludes at least my introduction.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Commissioner
Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a whole number of
Page 38
,..,,,,,,,,.,,,--....-.-... ,__.... ....."..~T'. -- ,--
February 17,2005
~.-- questions. And I don't wish to take up everybody else's time, but--
and it spans the entire document.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if--
Commissioner, I don't know if Mr. Schmitt wrote the document. Who
would be the best person to address the very specifics in the
document?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it depends on which area you're looking
at. If you're looking at the sidewalk criteria, bike path and sidewalk
criteria, either Nick or Russ, Nick Casalanguida and Russ Muller can
answer that; Nick from transportation, Russ from my staff.
If you're looking to ask specific questions in regards to greenway
or greenways in -- or the comprehensive plan, probably Ms. Collier
from transportation would be the one to ask the questions.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, let me strike out boldly
then and just pose some questions. And most of this is probably more
-- for my education, to be clear in my mind what is being presented and
what is being asked for approval.
Let's start out with the very first page. And this may come as
maybe even a legal question. Under 6.06.02( 1), it speaks of sidewalks
and bike lanes where required must be constructed within public and
private rights-of-way or easements which are adjacent to and internal
to the site. Okay, got that clear now in my mind.
Question with the bike lanes: Are there standards for the bike
lanes?
MR. SCHMITT: Let me turn it over to staff. Russ? Nick?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Standards widths, do they exist?
MR. MULLER: Yes, sir. For the record, Russ Muller,
Engineering Services.
Yes, they're standards widths. A width of four foot, if there's a
curb and gutter; a width of five foot if there is not.
MR. WHITE: And the reference then, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to
answer Mr. Murray?
Page 39
--,-,---- -,---
February 17,2005
,-'""" ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. WHITE: I think -- I'm not sure which page of your
provisions, but E-2, under the heading bike -- sidewalk, bike lanes and
greenway design and construction materials. I think it's probably Page
5 of your packet. It's capital letter -- new capital letter E-2 sets forth
what the standard is that's referenced for bike lanes, design,
construction.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you, Mr. White. I read
this and wrote my notes down consecutively, so I didn't
cross-reference. I apologize, I don't want to take --
MR. WHITE: Well, I think it's helpful to know what those turn
out to be in real world terms, and Mr. Muller's given us that --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I thank you.
Okay. Let me go on, if I may. When we speak of bike paths,
under the second page that I'm looking at, I guess it's after "End
'~~'. DSAC Recommendations", and going down to B, alternative sidewalk
designs that are determined by the county manager or designee. Are
bike paths, are they also subject to alternative designs? That's why I
asked if they were standards.
MR. MULLER: Actually, I think there's a definition problem
here. Bike path is basically a sidewalk in Florida. There are no bike
paths except for maybe the Pinellas Trail.
A bike path would be an animal that doesn't have a bunch of
driveways going through it and road intersections and has very -- is
connected with right-of-way altogether.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in my mind, if I'm trying to
visualize where along a right-of-way, for instance, 41 we have an
allocated space using paint, and then somewhere along the line it
could connect to a bike path, am I --
MR. MULLER: It's more likely to connect to a sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A sidewalk.
MR. MULLER: Yeah. We have -- bike lanes are the one that's
Page 40
.._-~-' "."..-....-.........- ..__._..,.,......~._".,.,_."....,,^..__<_,,__._".,,_...Y'._.."..,_,.",,_..~.
February 17, 2005
--. adjacent to the travel lane in the road, and then a sidewalk is parallel
with a road within the right-of-way. And then a greenway is outside
of the road right-of-way, generally in the canal right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to pass for a moment,
because I'm going to get my mind more clear on this, if there are any
other questions.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I will have quite a few,
but I wanted to make sure the commission's got their questions asked.
Does anybody else on the commission have any questions at this
time? Commissioner Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question for Mr. Schmitt.
What would you consider to be a proportionate expense? Can
you come up with a proportion? Or how would you quantify what is
proportionate and what is disproportionate?
MR. SCHMITT: In the regulation, we're asking is -- or in the
LDC -- and let me find the paragraph -- the proposal was 25 percent of
the cost.
Nick, can you cover that, or Russ? I thought that was in here,
and now --
MR. WHITE: I think it may help, Commissioner Midney, if you
could tell us specifically what provision you're asking us about, which
regulation that you're asking us about, where are the words?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what he's asking.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I was responding in general
to Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: In my briefing, where I said there was a
disproportion of cost. It was an example where there was a church
that came in --
MR. WHITE: Okay, I'm sorry.
MR. SCHMITT: -- to construct a vestibule or enclosed structure
..,....., between what was the church and the adjoining school. I think the
cost of that construction was somewhere around $40,000. When we
Page 41
--_.~ ........--. ~_-..'",- -".~.- ,,- '-',"-
February 17,2005
,........... looked at what it would cost, based on the requirement for sidewalks,
it was almost $200,000.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that's obviously
disproportional.
MR. SCHMITT: That was a --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But I was wondering, are you
thinking 25 percent, 10 percent? Or would it depend on the magnitude
of the project?
MR. WHITE: We have come up with I think some more precise
-- something other than just the general -- and I think Nick can help us
with that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The number that put in the
schedule of fees was 25 percent of the proj ect cost. And so if
someone came in to put in 500 square feet of pavement and it only
cost $200,000, the most he would pay towards the sidewalk fund
would be 25 percent of that. And the idea behind it was to really try
and not -- for the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation -- was to
not disproportionately punish someone coming in to do a minor
modification where that modification would trigger an SDP.
If that modification triggered a site development plan under the
current code, it would be brought up to sidewalks as they're required
right now. So a small modification could trigger a substantial cost to
that applicant, and that's where that 25 percent came in.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Joe, you came up with a figure
of $37,000 on that last example you gave us. How did that work out?
MR. SCHMITT: Nick can -- you want to go back to that one?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, I can explain it.
St. John Newman's School, their applicant was proposing to
donate a building to the school, and the applicant gave us a cost, like
Page 42
'-'- ....~-"._._"." ----.__...~'".~.,,- -..---"..-" ----"-
February 17,2005
- they would put on a building permit. Cost of the addition would be
$150,000. Under the current code, he was going to put in $170,000
worth of sidewalks. He could have put in, as my previous example,
500 square feet of pavement and it would have been $170,000.
So the way the code is written now with the schedule of fees
would be 25 percent of his proj ect cost, which when we ran the
numbers, it equated to about $25,000.
The idea behind that, it would go into a pathway fund and then
we would use that to connect sidewalks in the area or to do a proj ect
that made more sense, rather than say build it around the whole site.
And that's what the code says now. So the number came from the
project cost, 25 percent.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So 37,000 is 25 percent of the
--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Cost of the applicant's project, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I can see where that could be
really a good thing. I'm thinking in terms of Immokalee, because we
have a greater need for bicycle and pedestrian safety, since we have a
much higher facility rate than the rest of the county. We have more
walkers and bikers. And a fund like that, you could put it to use where
it's needed the most.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. The idea is to put the funds
to that area. But I think county-wide, the whole idea was to take this
money and say where can we -- you know, put it where it makes
sense. Not to say indiscriminately please build the sidewalk because
the code says so. And we don't want it there, you don't want it there.
MR. WHITE: If I can embellish on that, Mr. Chairman?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir.
",,--.. MR. WHITE: The legal parameters of how to utilize those funds
that we've discussed with the staff and have been presented to the
Page 43
"._-_._,~,--_.,-,- ~'''-
February 17,2005
,_.-. stakeholders group and others is that those dollars on a priority basis
are to be used as close to the subj ect site from which they're derived as
possible, consistent with the then present plans for construction of
bike lanes, sidewalks, whatever, in a comprehensive system way.
That's why you'll see that this provision starts out talking about
the reason for the change is to address interconnectivity. It's to try to
improve system performance. It may not be lawful to take monies
from area A and then in an unconnected and disassociated fashion
utilize those dollars across the county in some area B.
So we're just going to have to try to track that. We've talked
about making sure that we can do that in an administratively efficient
manner. And my belief is we can accommodate it in a way that will
continue to allow the provisions, if they're approved, to be lawful in
their actual operation.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But we could write it in such a
-.-- way so that it could perhaps go to where it's needed the most. If a
sidewalk is in an area, suppose the whole area is not that much in need
of that, as opposed to other areas.
MR. WHITE: They'd have to be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis on the facts. And it is possible that there may be some
geographic distance of, you know, miles between the two.
But like I said, you'd have to assume that otherwise the rest of the
system had been pretty much developed at that point.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I need to understand something
absolutely.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at D now, and it
pertains to funds provided as payment-in-lieu do not release the
developer, blah, blah, blah, and it has to do with vesting.
I wanted to be clear in my mind that if we take money from a
developer or from an owner of a parcel, for that matter, and it
represents 25 percent of the value, or whatever, it says in here they
Page 44
"-"'" '--',""-",,=--_.",,,-"""~"" _.w.._. " ",_~_,_",,_.,_'~"'_W__M.._.._.__
February 17, 2005
-",. shall still be obligated -- I want to be clear --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can explain that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
-- that they're not going to be -- when the cost of everything has
risen considerably that we're not going to go back to them and say
okay, we need you to have the balance paid now. Is that the way that's
going to work, or no?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In an example of St. John Newman's
School, if they paid, say, $25,000 towards the sidewalk funds, the idea
behind this amendment is to say in today's dollars what have you paid
for proportionally if you had to build that sidewalk, if it was 10
percent of the sidewalk proj ect. In other words, if you had 100 feet
and it's $20,000 built, 10 feet. Numbers don't work, but for case of
example, we would say, and we'll keep track of it, you've paid 10
percent of that. If you built it, you build (sic) 10 percent.
Going forward, if the applicant comes back again and decides to
build a $2 million gymnasium and that 25 percent would come in and
figure -- to finish the rest of his proj ect out, the applicant would then
be responsible for the remaining 90 percent of that sidewalk
application.
So we tried to make it fair to the applicant and to the county. In
today's dollars, if you pay a proportionate share, that percentage would
be applied in the future. But not in the future sense of money as well.
It would be today's dollars. Whatever you paid for today, that
percentage would be carried forward.
MR. WHITE: I think if you read the provisions that follow the
one that you started with, Mr. Murray -- and I caution everyone that I
think this is something that you really need to read more than once or
twice or three times to truly appreciate all of what it's trying to say as
simply as I think we could make it do so.
-- But moving forward from the example that was given, to answer
your question, generally any remaining obligation would have to be
Page 45
--.-.".. _._--~.~. '~-----'~~'-"
February 17,2005
met at the then current dollar rates and the then current regulations.
You would be vested fully as to the part that you had completed on a
percentage basis.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me give you a question then
that relates, and maybe it doesn't relate, but I need to understand it.
Someone out in the Golden Gate Estates -- and I believe this
pertains as well -- puts in a sidewalk because -- or pays in lieu, okay,
in this case, and their sidewalk surrounds their property; they have a
corner lot. They're done, they're finished, they'll never be bothered
again, correct, if that sidewalk sits there?
How about the other guy, where they put in a sidewalk and for
some reason or other the sidewalk starts to break down because of
trees or whatever. Now they come out, Code looks at it and says
sidewalk's not right, you need to redo the sidewalk. What now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe, sir, that would be a
maintenance issue. Once we approve the sidewalk, it would on behalf
of the county -- it would behoove the county to payor replace that
sidewalk, if it was something to do with sidewalk failing.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Patrick, you were saying -- I'm
confused about the funds. Most of the funds from this I believe are
going to come from the city area out here, and you're saying we can't
transfer those funds to Immokalee where they could use the
sidewalks?
MR. WHITE: If I understand your question, I think -- I'd have to
assume that there are disconnects in the sidewalk system, and I think
the answer in that case would be no, you could not. Because the
present reality is that they're not connected.
The idea here is to take the dollars from a particular development
site and as in as close proximity as possible utilize them consistent
Page 46
February 17,2005
<",<-" with what other then ongoing construction activity that's going to
provide greater system interconnectivity, those are the determinations
that need to be made. And there has to be a rough proportionality
between those.
I think that the example, making the assumption that I've added
to yours about the system not being connected, wouldn't allow us to
take those funds. It would be too much beyond where they need to be
used. So it isn't like some of the impact fees we have that may be
collected somewhere in the southern part of the county, and because
we only have a single district impact fee for that type of impact fee,
you can use them arguably anywhere in the system to provide the
necessary level of service improvements.
These aren't impact fees, per se, they are the equivalent of
construction. And our -- I think it's pretty clear that if you were going
to construct instead of pay-in-lieu, the construction would be on-site
or facilitate that site. So in order to make it as lawfully permissible as
possible to do this, we need to tie the actual use of those dollars to the
site from which they're derived. As close as we can to in what
lawyers and judges would call rough proportionality.
So I hope that helps. I don't know that it did.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. It's not what I wanted to
hear, but -- one more question, I don't know who to address it to.
They made reference here on the greenways that -- about the
plan, the pathway plan. Does anybody have a plan we could see or
look at or --
MS. COLLIER: This is the current plan. I'll discuss this.
Mindy Collier, for the record.
What you have in front of you right now -- and I'm sorry, I just
have the one copy, although I do have copies of Exhibit B, which is
the current greenway plan. Let me make sure these -- here we go.
..""--- What you see there is a plan that was adopted by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization in 1994 and, therefore, also
Page 47
"'.,~--'_." "..-......,., ~_.-
February 17,2005
referenced in the transportation element of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan, which I would also like to distribute, which
describes the greenways.
In Exhibit B in that plan right there, I should have it marked with
a little tab, and then the map that's going around is a map of the
greenways that are currently proposed for Collier County. And that
was again adopted in 1994.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So this is from 1994?
MS. COLLIER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The plan from 1994?
MS. COLLIER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It hasn't been updated?
MS. COLLIER: It's in the process of being updated. We
anticipate it to be done by June.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- another question. Let's see
what page this is. The pages are not marked, but it's --
MR. WHITE: I apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- it's under Roman X -- that
would be Roman 8 (sic). Roman 8, sidewalks -- actually, it's above
that; it's in lower case "i" of the -- and the question I have is detailed
on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements.
Would somebody clarify that for me, off-site infrastructure? Is
that -- when we say off-site --
MR. MULLER: That could be something like a crosswalk or
pedestrian head added to a signal.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Okay, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the
,,.-~, commission? If not, I'll start mine.
The language calculations on the report from staff talks about a
Page 48
.,.".. _..'O____~M' _..._."~......-
February 17, 2005
,---' five- foot sidewalk price, six-foot sidewalk price, 12- foot bike path and
a 10-foot right-of-way. Where is the 10-foot right-of-way shown?
How would you -- where -- why did you bring that into play, since the
greenway or shared use path that you're showing as exhibit has a
minimum of 10 to 12 feet with widths on shoulders after that. How
does a 10- foot right-of-way factor into the discussion today?
MR. MULLER: We put the 10- foot right-of-way in there to give
you an example in case we need additional right-of-way for a
greenway. What we're going to try to do is fit them within existing
South Florida Water Management easements along the canal.
That pathway will be used not only for bicyclists and pedestrians,
it will also be used for maintenance vehicles to access the canal.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Russ, that's not what the
document says in front of us today. In fact, it says that you're going to
be taking the lands from developments that would be built along
o'....~..... greenways. So therefore, the cost and the fiscal cost would be very
relevant to those developments that would have to sacrifice a wider
area for -- if they happen to be unfortunate enough to be along a
greenway path.
Now, and the path that you're showing isn't 10 feet, so the cost
here isn't relevant to what's the example you've got in the back of the
book. At least the back of -- I shouldn't say the book -- the back of the
package we have. If you look in the back of the package, your Exhibit
A has a 12 or 10-feet minimum, but it's showing an overall width of
13 or 11 feet. So now, if someone had to provide one of these
greenways as part of a sacrifice for their development, then they
would have to provide how much, 10 feet or 13 feet or more than 11
feet? Do you have a number? Because then the cost that you've
proposed here isn't relevant to what you're extracting from the
developments.
--, MR. MULLER: That is unknown. We're hoping that the
greenway would fit within the canal right-of-way, but there may be
Page 49
---.. ,_. ..."_.,~ -"._--
February 17,2005
additional right-of-way needed. I think this was one of the
considerations that DSAC came to when they said that the greenway
should not go forward.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if these are going to fit
into existing Florida Power & Light easements and canal
right-of-ways, was it your intent then to write this document that that
applies to those areas and not to developments that are already putting
in bike lanes and sidewalks; now on top of bike lanes and sidewalks,
you're telling them they've got to put in greenways as well? Because
the way I'm reading the document, it isn't applicable specifically to
what you've just stated.
MR. MULLER: Okay, the greenway would probably be in lieu
of a bicycle lane and/or a sidewalk.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The green book, the Florida
DOT green book, has that as a statement. But I didn't see it carried
over into your document. So now you're saying that if a developer
were to provide a greenway, he wouldn't have to provide a bike lane
or sidewalks, and that greenway would be in lieu of bike lanes and
sidewalks?
MR. MULLER: Right, yeah. A developer doesn't have to pay
for the bike lane adjacent to his project now. He has to pay for a bike
lane if it goes through his project.
A good example would be Arrowhead. There's a collector road
that goes through that, and that would one that should have a bicycle
lane on it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But he'd have to leave the
necessary width for the roadway, the additional width for that
right-of-way, provide the bike lane in the right-of-way, would he not?
MR. MULLER: No. We haven't been asking for additional
right-of-way or the bike lanes for adjacent projects.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I guess maybe I'm
confused then. If you have a road that is standard width, pavement
Page 50
,"_0'_0 '"-"~-'-'-" -,'-- ~'--_"""'-"'-""-"-- ._-......~--
February 17,2005
......,..,'c width, say 12 feet and the bike lane width in those roads, according to
the green book that you all referenced is supposed to be four to five
feet. Does that add width to the road, or not?
MR. MULLER: Well, if it's adjacent -- if the project is adjacent,
like on Airport Road, and they come in and -- a small development
comes in, we don't require that development to knock out the curb and
put on an additional four or five foot of pavement in there.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm -- your example of
Arrowhead, let's use that.
MR. MULLER: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's say the road's not in but
he's coming in to design his road and he's going to apply for a permit
through your department, and the bike lane becomes a requirement on
the collector or arterial road.
MR. MULLER: Right.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those lanes, according to the
green book, if I'm not mistaken, are to be four to five feet and there's
supposed to be alongside the travel line of the traffic --
MR. MULLER: Right, okay.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- not in the travel lane. So
that means if he has a standard travel lane of 12 feet, he's not going to
have a 16 to 1 7 - foot travel lane.
MR. MULLER: Correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULLER: And that's shown on our cross-sections for an
arterial or collector road in the back of the LDC today.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So he is providing additional
right-of-way for that bike lane?
MR. MULLER: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then -- now we're
- asking that ifhe happens to be adjacent to a greenway, he has to give
up additional -- I don't know if you call it right-of-way, but whatever
Page 51
-...,--.-"- ._. --.._--
February 17,2005
"..-'~ you want to call it -- provisions to provide a path for -- a greenway
path; is that right or wrong? I mean, say he was alongside a canal that
you all wanted to put a greenway along. Would he have to provide
the land for that greenway, pursuant to this document in front of us
today?
MR. MULLER: I might defer this to transportation.
MR. SCHMITT: I think Ms. Collier's going to have to answer
that one.
MS. COLLIER: We have situations like that already occurring.
For instance, along Collier Boulevard where they would not be putting
in a sidewalk, but they would be putting in the greenway. And also
along Immokalee Road, where instead of putting in a sidewalk, they
would be putting in the greenway.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the greenway is in lieu of
bike lanes and sidewalks?
.'-'- MS. COLLIER: Not always in lieu of a bike lane, but would be
in lieu of a sidewalk, yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is a greenway used by
bikers?
MS. COLLIER: Yes. It's a shared use path. A greenway is
really more or less defined as a shared use path.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why wouldn't--
why would they have to be put in the same thing twice? Why would
they put bike lanes in, then why would they still have to come back
and put greenways in?
MS. COLLIER: A lot of people don't ride bikes on the paths. I
mean, a lot of bike -- cyclists do not prefer to ride bikes on the path.
And cyclists actually have the ability to use the road, I mean.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have a path there and
they don't want to use it, we just build them another path. I'm not sure
<.~-~ that's fiscally responsible, that's where I'm going.
MS. COLLIER: Okay.
Page 52
" " "._;,..__...",..,,".e - -. ..'-"" "'-
February 17,2005
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that gets back to the
fiscal analysis that was provided with this report. I can't tie it to
anything practical based on the balance of the report. And I'm not
saying that you couldn't, I'm just saying if it was -- someone needs to
go back and look at these numbers and tie them to the reality of the
cross-section that you all supplied.
MS. COLLIER: I can tell you where those numbers came from.
They came from the FDOT 2002 transportation costs. I mean they
come directly from the FDOT manual.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that doesn't fit the
cross-section that you provided. That's what I'm --
MS. COLLIER: I'm not the cross-section person, but I
understand where you're going.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the cross-section that
was provided came out of the Florida DOT green book language.
,,- Because I've read that language in detail. And it's a little different
than what -- the one that was in the book was changed slightly, and I
want to find out why. And maybe you're the person that can answer
it, I don't know.
The width of a -- according to the Florida green book, the width
is supposed to be 12 feet -- no, the minimum recommended width for
a paved two-way path is 10 feet. In many cases it is desirable to
increase to 12 feet. In a few cases it may be acceptable to decrease the
trail width to eight feet.
MS. COLLIER: Correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, when you look at the
cross-section that you've put in the back of this LDC request, you have
the minimum of 10 to 12 feet, but that minimum requires four bullet
point items. The four bullet point items in the green book for the DOT
correspond to the eight-foot reduction.
"'- MS. COLLIER: I understand, and I know where this came from.
I was not the author of this, but I can tell you that the bullet points are
Page 53
--<'- -""'-"'''--''--.'"'' ""'.-,."'"'-...-.-.. ---.---
February 17,2005
- relating to the 10 -- the 10- foot minimum came out of the Florida
Bicycle and Design Handbook. That is where that came from.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have that--
MS. COLLIER: Chapter five, shared use paths.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will pull that up in a minute.
MS. COLLIER: Okay, but that is where that came from.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the language that you've
got here came out of the green book as the alternative needed for an
eight - foot path.
MS. COLLIER: Okay, then we need to change that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I think someone needs to
look at why it was up in width for some reason.
The Collier County Comprehensive Pathway Plan that you
presented here today, is that the one that everybody is working on
today?
- MS. COLLIER: Currently. Yes, it's being updated right now.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the update isn't
going to come out till May 1 st. And the MPO is under the impression
that when it does come out before it is adopted, that they're going to
have a series of public meetings --
MS. COLLIER: Yes, the first is March 10th.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How many
stakeholders meetings and public meetings have there been with the
development community, the business community who are going to be
paying for a lot of this work in this community? How many currently
have there been?
MS. COLLIER: Honestly, our department is not involved with
the development of the Comprehensive Pathway Plans, it's the
Metropolitan Planning Organization. So I have not even physically
met with the consultants. So, I mean --
- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a little -- maybe it's the
cart before the horse? If this came out and was presented to us after
Page 54
",",-"-"~,,,-",~"'-"" ...-. --." ...-"- .---
February 17, 2005
,- the pathway plan was circulated to the public and to the stakeholders
and to those who would have to pay for it, it might be more fair.
MS. COLLIER: I can see where you can construe it as such.
Except for the fact that we do have a current comprehensive pathway
plan which does reference greenways, it does have a map, and it is
referenced in the Growth Management Plan under the transportation
element.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show me exactly
where in the growth management plan?
MS. COLLIER: Yes, I would be happy to.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. COLLIER: I have copies for everyone.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have copies.
MS. COLLIER: Of the transportation element?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked the
,- question, because I've read it.
MS. COLLIER: I'm on page --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirteen, Policy, Objective 4.
MS. COLLIER: 13, Page 3. Okay, if you'll look at the handout
that I just gave you, under Page 3(b), intermodal and multi-modal
transportation, does talk in the middle paragraph here about the Collier
County Comprehensive Plan developed by the Naples/Collier County
Metropolitan Planning Organization was adopted. And it references
that this is the document that's going to be used for developing a
systematic completion of integrated sys -- of paths.
Then if you go back into Page 13, it has the actual policies and
objectives. Objective number four, County shall provide safe and a
convenient movement of pedestrians and motorized -- non-motorized
vehicles through the implementation of the Collier County
Comprehensive Pathway Plan.
..."","- And then it also identifies Policy 4.6, the County shall provide
for the safe movement of motorized vehicles through implementation
Page 55
,.-..-' ---,~,-,,,,,-",,_.,,~.".,..,., ._-,." -......,.,...........-.. -- .........--..---
February 17, 2005
- of its Land Development Code and highway design standard
ordinances, and shall incorporate both bike lanes, sidewalks and
pathways as deemed appropriate in new construction and
reconstruction of roadways.
MR. WHITE: And I'd note for the commission's -- for the record
and for the commission's information that when you look on Page 1 of
the amendment request, in fact under the Growth Management Plan
impact, those precise policies, objective and goal, as part of the
transportation element are made reference to.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I saw that. I went and did
a word search. I couldn't find the reference to the word greenways.
Can you show me where the word greenways is used in this
document?
MS. COLLIER: The greenway is only in the Comprehensive
Pathway Plan.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there's no
reference to greenways. Their definitions are what they're -- how
they're supposed to be applied in the GMP, is that --
MS. COLLIER: The GMP only references implementing the
pathway plan.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pathways is a defined
term in the Land Development Code that is not consistent with the
greenways definition that you're bringing here today. And I was just
trying to find the reference to greenway, since greenway seems to be
the issue in this LDC Amendment that doesn't appear in the GMP.
The detail that you provided on the back of the Land
Development Code presentation here today, where is the South
Florida Water Management District maintenance easement going to fit
along those canals, and how would you deal with that in regards to
how a pathway fits in there?
MS. COLLIER: We currently have a -- we're currently working
on a greenway along Collier Boulevard, along the South Florida Water
Page 56
--,. ^.....,-_..'~."".~,.."'._"..-"'-""- ,,_._ ... ..,., _...._._~,.~.._..___._e.~_".
February 17, 2005
~_.."' Management easement. And I'm not sure if I understand how you say
-- how's that going to work?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a 20-foot easement from
the water edge up. Generally it's on a sloped surface. Are you going
to be --
MS. COLLIER: Right. And we're looking at a 10-foot path right
now, although there's a possibility that it could go down to eight in
order to leave more room between where the path ends and the slope
to the canal.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the cost of doing
that?
MS. COLLIER: Right now -- I mean, we're just in the design
phase. I'm not -- I don't have an opinion of cost at this point. I do
have, you know, a budget line item for Collier Boulevard at 300,000
right now, but --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a -- do you know
where the funds will be coming from to pay for it?
MS. COLLIER: I believe gas tax revenues. At this point we do
have some payment-in-lieu going in for some areas.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know what the
cost to build the program presented here in the screen for us today is,
the overall cost and implementation of that?
MS. COLLIER: No, I'm sorry, I don't.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think that would be
coming out when the MPO revises the plan in May.
MS. COLLIER: Yes, I do, because they have already asked us
for some costs, estimated costs.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you're involved in
writing grants or you're familiar with grant writing. Is there any grants
available on this? Have we searched that as a use?
-....... MS. COLLIER: Yeah. As a matter of fact, I wrote a grant a
couple years ago for Collier County and we are using some of the
Page 57
-,.~.." --'"'-<~-""""'~ . ....-,,-
February 17, 2005
- money for that on the FP &L greenway. And there are Rails to Trails
Grants, and we'll certainly go after any grants we can get. I mean,
that's leveraging county dollars.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your thoughts are gas taxes
and grants for funding this?
MS. COLLIER: And if we have -- you know, and if there is a
payment-in-lieu in front of a property where the greenway's going in.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These paths are used by
everybody in the County? Anybody that wants to use them?
MS. COLLIER: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only people, though, that
would have to be providing land for them, other than the land that's
already in possession of the county, are developments that happen to
build along these pathways; is that the burden put on the individual --
MS. COLLIER: They would be contributing to the cost of the
,.....,. greenway. It's a benefit to their community. It's a benefit to them to
have the greenway.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How?
MS. COLLIER: I think there's a lot of research out there
showing that people want to live near areas that they can walk, you
know, where there's a path, connectivity.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure in Collier County
that's the case. I mean, homes seem to sell a lot better when they're
not having people walk through their backyards, so I would have to
disagree with you on that point.
The stakeholders' meetings, there haven't been any, to your
knowledge?
MS. COLLIER: Pardon me?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stakeholders'meetings,
business community, meetings with the people that are --
,- MS. COLLIER: Regarding the Comprehensive Pathway Plan?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 58
-- ~.. "."~~""-"-"<..'" -.---
February 17,2005
- MS. COLLIER: To my knowledge, we have not -- the MPO has
not had one scheduled. And I don't see anybody here from the MPO
to address this.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. COLLIER: My hands are kind of -- I'm not really involved
in that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the downsides to these
greenways that was talked about in the green book and by one of the
other books I've read is that the speeds, if there's not something done
to curtail bicycle speeds, the speeds can get quite high. I've
experienced this with my son and I when we've taken our bikes out.
Guys have gone by looking like spider men and just tried to ride us
over, or wouldn't -- if we didn't get out of the way, they would have
run us over.
Are we looking at speed bumps to be put in along these things to
,,"- slow down the traffic, or not?
MS. COLLIER: No, but I would say that the majority of your
speed riders prefer to be on the road, and that's a selling point for
having bike lanes, as well as greenways.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they don't want to be on
the road, these pathways are built for them as well?
MS. COLLIER: They can use them. Again, it's as dangerous for
the cyclist to be on those paths as it is for a pedestrian.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have quite a few other
questions, but hopefully they'll be answered by some of our other
speakers.
Ray, do we have any speakers on the issue?
MR. WHITE: Before you get to that, I just want to put on the
record, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, that you made a comment
about the comparison between the definitions in the LDC presently for
pathway and the terms proposed in this amendment for greenway as
being, quote, inconsistent. I don't know how you mean to use that
Page 59
>",-~_.........-,- .-------
February 17,2005
,."""'"",," word, but I'm hoping it's not in the Growth Management Plan sense.
And all I wanted to do was put on the record that the definition of
a pathway is a defined corridor for the primary use of non-motorized
travel. And I'm not disagreeing with you about your assessment about
being inconsistent, but just want to point out that to me they seem to
be able to coexist in the LDC at the same time. And it would depend
upon how they may be individually used in a particular provision that
we'd have to look at to see whether they'd be harmonized or
inconsistent.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, the fact that one is
defining a corridor for non-motorized travel and the other is defining a
very structured and costly system is where my concern is. I don't
believe that we've researched the cost of the system that's being
proposed in this definition. But yet pathway wouldn't have any more
cost than a simple linear park with landscaping.
Now, maybe one is better than the other, and it goes back to cost.
How much can the public bear. Because right now, from my
interpretation of the impact fee ordinance we're limited to use on
impact fees for this use, which means it's got to be gas taxes or grants,
and if that's the case, fine, but if it has to go to ad valorem taxes, I
think that'd be another consideration we need to look at before we go
too far with it. So that's why I was asking the question, how it would
fit into the GMP.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if I may, Mark, for--
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would ask Mr. White, how do
we obtain the rights to use the easements that exist? By license
agreement with the easement owner, or is it by in some cases eminent
domain, or how is that done, sir?
MR. WHITE: The question that you're asking isn't one that has a
-- simple and every-time-you-do-it-the-answer's-the-same answer. It is
very fact dependent and it goes back to that idea of what is the rough
Page 60
--..- ....~---- _.~--
February 17, 2005
- proportionality between a particular development's use of those
facilities.
It is somewhat analogous to roads in the sense that yes, the public
travels all those roads, but they also do -- specifically to the extent that
they're widened using land from a particular development -- provide
safer access for that site. And that process, as you know, I hope, is
one that when transportation and community development divisions
are dealing with applicants, has to be discussed on a case-by-case
basis. And some of the factors that are involved are amount of land
that may be required, the type of facility that's being constructed, the
size of the development that they're dealing with. And so I'd like to
give you an answer, but if I had to give you a one or two-word answer,
it would be it's negotiated. And some of it is done at zoning, when
land is rezoned. Some of it's done at site planning.
So that's the best I think I can give you. If you have a more
specific question, I'll try to --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No, I think you've --
MR. WHITE: -- hone in on it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- helped me -- I think you've
helped me a lot there. But I was thinking about the implications of it
if a development were charged with the responsibility to come up with
another lot of land, which is a loss in their dollars, or participate in the
construction, that leaves it to the County Manager or his designee or
the designee of the County Mnager's designee to make a determination
in negotiation. And I just wondered if that's in complete fulfillment of
the intent of the commission.
MR. WHITE: Well, I certainly think that we take some direction
from them in respect to how we handle any of the public infrastructure
that we're trying to create. And the means by which we attempt to do
that is efficiently in economic terms as possible. And that's why it is
.- essentially a discussion and a negotiation with property owners where
part of the bargain for exchange, for example, in a PUD zoning
Page 61
__~".,._.,m .,.--.,--.. -~---
February 17, 2005
-- context is a discussion of just those types of issues. And sometimes
it's done with great clarity.
I think more recently this Commission, as well as the Board and
the staff, have done a far better job of creating the type of clarity on
the ground in terms of when things will happen, how much will be
provided and in what means, if any, additional compensation beyond
that development approval itself will be provided to the landowner, to
the developer. So these are good questions and wonderful discussion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the first speaker, George Hermanson,
followed by Bob Mulhere.
MR. HERMANSON: Good morning. I'm George Hermanson,
with Hole-Montes. I'm a member of the Development Services
Advisory Committee. And I know Bob Mulhere is here, he's chairman
of our group.
I'm going to just address a couple of things on behalf of the
committee and in my own personal observation. I'll try to make the
distinction which is which.
I want to make very clear that we -- when we discussed this a few
weeks ago, we unanimously recommended several changes to this, the
proposed amendments. The most important of which I think is that
greenways do not belong in the code. Greenways is a special project
that's being developed by the county. It's for the general use of the
county. I don't believe it's good to impose this on individual
landowners. I'm an avid biker myself and I wish we had this, but it's
something that I don't think is fair.
If you look at that plan on the screen, that's the first cut on the
plan. Next year there's going to be more and the year after that they'll
be more, especially when there's more money to fund it. So I think
.-' there are going to be more and more properties to be impacted by this,
and I don't think it's fair to impose it.
Page 62
,_.~. .~"o~ '"'-~"--'~~-"~ -.~"-
February 17, 2005
- Remember that the ultimate entity who's paying for this is the
consumer. And it's going to cause lot prices to go up and it's going to
make some properties less desirable to live in. So I think you need to
look very closely at this. I don't think it belongs in the code.
Couple of other things just in general on sidewalks and bike
paths. I think you have to be very careful -- and this really applies to
the way the code is administered -- there's a tendency to require
sidewalks for parking lots in the same way that they're required for
roadways. And I think the distinction has to be made. There is a
provision for, quote, alternative sidewalk plans. I think maybe that
needs to be expanded. To require sidewalks to the extent that we're
being made to put them in, for parking lots, I think is way over and
above what their practicality is. We've had multi-family projects that
we're doing and shopping centers that look like spider webs with
sidewalks on them. People don't use them. They walk the nearest --
the quickest way to get to their car is across the parking lot and that's
the way they're going to walk.
So I think the way staff is administering the sidewalk ordinance,
particularly for site development plans needs to be looked at very
carefully.
And also, I think you need to look at how it's being administered
for existing projects that are expanding. And I just took this St. John
Newman as an example. Staff said that the computed cost of the
sidewalks for that project would have been $175,000. You can build a
sidewalk for $3.00 a square foot. $175,000 at $3.00 a square foot for a
five- foot wide sidewalk would give you over two miles of sidewalk.
How in the world could you possibly require St. John Newman to put
two miles of sidewalks in for a building addition?
If you use the county's unit cost of $6.00 a square foot, which I
think is inflated, that's still over a mile of sidewalks. Now, how in the
-- world do you come up with that?
I think projects that are existing that do some expansion or
Page 63
- .....--,..,-,---. -,-.-
February 17,2005
-< improve their property maybe need to put some sidewalks on, but not
to make up for everything that's lacking in the paths. So I think you
ought to look at very carefully, and maybe staff needs to be clarified
on how they administer these codes. Because they get way out of
hand, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: In your calculations for
sidewalk, did you use the same standards that were applied in terms of
six-inch of concrete and the underlying base and so forth?
MR. HERMANSON: Well, that's another thing. The standard is
over-designed. A four-inch concrete sidewalk is perfectly adequate,
and that's what it should be. You don't need six inches of concrete
with base under it. In fact, the two really are not compatible. If you
use concrete, you don't use base, or else you'll get a thumping effect,
and I think more tendency to crack. You use base if you have asphalt,
a flexible pavement.
So I think -- and that was one of our recommendations, to change
the standard to what we think it ought to be. Of course it's going to
cost you more, if you put more concrete into it, but it isn't necessary.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: I'd note for the record, Mr. Murphy -- if I may,
Mr. Chairman -- that the provision that I think Mr. Hermanson's
referring to is E-l on what is Page 5 of your packets. And what it says
is that -- the new text says that, and constructed over a compacted
four-inch limerock base. That's to provide for a four-inch con -- four
inches of concrete. If it's going to be six inches, a minimum of six
inches thick of concrete, it may be constructed without a limerock
base.
,- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I read that.
MR. HERMANSON: I'll repeat that the -- a sidewalk, if it's built
Page 64
-- ,..........."---,,,,,_.....
February 17, 2005
with four inches of concrete without a base is perfectly adequate.
Normally you don't put limerock base under concrete at all, because it
doesn't drain well. Concrete needs a base that will drain well. So a
sand, a native sand or a good granular sand compacted underneath it is
the best thing. You use a limerock base if you have a flexible
pavement, such as asphalt.
So our recommendation was to go with four inches concrete with
just a compacted granular base or asphalt with a base. That's the way
the standard was years ago, and it really was adequate. If it gets
broken up by concrete trucks or somebody building a house, they have
to replace it. It's not intended to carry that kind of a traffic flow.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you're saying in terms of a
base that it could be sand, it doesn't have to be limerock?
MR. HERMANSON: It has to be a good sand, similar to what
you'd put under the slab of the house.
.-. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you wouldn't recommend just
putting it on top of the ground that's there?
MR. HERMANSON: Well, it has to be built to grade, so you're
going to have to grade -- you might have to grade the level up so that
it's higher than the street so the water will drain into the street. But the
material does not and really should not be limerock, I don't think. I
think it should be a --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George, you know, I'm
putting in miles of sidewalks, and this new rule we've abided to since
it's come out. In fact, the alternative going to six inches works very
well. I mean, I don't see an objection to that; I don't know why
anybody would.
So I -- I know what you're trying to say, but we beat that horse to
death a year or two ago when this came up before, so I'm not sure we
need to open that can of worms --
#....... MR. HERMANSON: One of the staff said the reason they
recommend six inches, because when you specify four-inch, you only
Page 65
-- '....k___~"., ..-..,- --
February 17,2005
.""- get two. I don't go along with that. If you watch the contractor and
you tell him four inches, that's what he's going to give you, or you
reject it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Thank you.
Next speaker?
MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere.
And I'm here this morning speaking in my capacity as chairman of the
development services advisory committee.
I wanted to just take a few minutes to go over specifically the
DSAC recommendations. As George indicated, they were unanimous.
I want to talk about greenways, but since I have a little bit more
to say on that, I'll maybe go over some of the other recommendations
first.
And piggybacking on the comments and discussion you were just
having relative to sidewalks, the DSAC recommendation was to leave
the requirement for sidewalks at a four-inch width, concrete depth,
whatever.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Depth.
MR. MULHERE: Depth, yeah, thank you.
The discussion -- my recollection was that it was part of the
motion, but I could be wrong -- the discussion with staff and the
development services advisory committee was one in which it was
discussed that sidewalks often are not built to the required
specification and that this increases the likelihood of the sidewalk
failing, cracking, whatever the case may be. That is that in reality four
inches of concrete are not utilized to construct them in many
circumstances.
And to me and the committee, this really was more of a failure of
monitoring and not necessarily a failure of the specification. And the
suggestion was made that well, if we stay with a four-inch, then we
....._~ need to do an inspection, just like we do on a roadway, to ensure that
that depth is in fact what it should be. And if it's not, you take it out
Page 66
~ ~.- .-,,-,-..-., -_.
February 17, 2005
-,~- and you redo it. And the committee felt that was more palatable than
increasing the specifications so that now you're asking for six inches
so you really get four inches.
It seems to me that that is a viable alternative. I don't know what
the cost implications of requiring a boring or some sort of an
inspection of -- pressure inspection or however they do it. But I'm not
a civil engineer, I certainly don't know what that entails. But I think
I'm accurately relaying to you what the position of the development
services advisory committee was. I'm sure Stan, you know, could
provide some additional input on that issue, Stan Chrzanowski.
The second item I wanted to discuss was the two alternatives that
are provided in red, if you have a color copy, on the amendment on
what would be the third page. And these deal with more specific
exceptions from the requirement to have sidewalks on both sides of
the street for projects that are substantially built out. And that's
defined in there, 75 percent or more of the project land area has been
approved as of the date of this ordinance for site development plan or
final subdivision plat.
There are numerous examples of projects that are nearly built out
that were only required to provide sidewalks on one side of the street,
particularly for cul-de-sac lots that are relatively short and don't have
that many dwelling units on them. It's very, very typical to have
sidewalks; in fact, it's very typical to have no sidewalks in those
examples, but in Collier County, the sidewalk was required on one
side of the street. And we think that exception should be -- the DSAC
felt that that exception should be spelled out in the code.
The second exception was to bring back in an allowance for
providing sidewalks only on one side of a cul-de-sac lot with 25 or
fewer lots.
Many of the projects I'm speaking of, again, a small street with
--- 25 or fewer lots, very little traffic, a fairly wide roadway, a sidewalk
on one side of the street, we believe it works, and we'll continue to
Page 67
-,,'.._-,.... >o____.,~,.<
February 17, 2005
-, make that recommendation, I'm sure, if it comes up again.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understood that the intent of
this LDC amendment was purely to provide a method or mechanism
to have an alternative in-lieu-of pricing in case it was impractical to
put sidewalks in. It seems to have evolved to being an entire rewrite
of all the sidewalk issues and adding major items like greenways and
things like that.
MR. MULHERE: I agree.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, getting back
to the intent of the whole thing, are you concerned about the intent of
what this started out to be as far as providing a payment-in-lieu-offor
sidewalks?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think we are -- no, we're not concerned
with that. We think -- I'm sorry, in general I believe that the DSAC
recommended approval with four very specific issues. And I've
already spoke to three of them. You know, I think because we have
the opportunity to comment, we took that opportunity.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as a lot of people have,
I can see.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
Now, I do want to talk about greenways. I think there's been
very good discussion. And during our discussion at the development
services advisory committee meeting, very many of the same concerns
that you all have raised also were discussed. And I think the initial
comment was the way the language reads, it basically says that
greenways must be constructed by the private property owner at the
time of site development plan or plat approval, as shown on the
pathways advisory -- or I guess the pathways master plan. I don't
~~~-<.~ know if I'm using the exact correct term.
You look at the pathways master plan, and we did, there were --
Page 68
_._~. .~-'.","-"..,,~ .._--~- --
February 17, 2005
,,-- we had the opportunity to take a look at it during that meeting and
really couldn't tell how that impacted private properties. It looked to
me, though, at least from the one that was adopted in 1994, that the
master plan did align with FP&L or canal easement rights-of-way.
But it was hard to tell whether that might run directly through
potentially a development. There's no provisions for an alternative. In
other words, if the pathway plan showed a greenway -- a desired
greenway running through a project, could you not perhaps realign
that to skirt the exterior of the proj ect so that you didn't have it
running through your project? It's really not provided for here.
But probably more importantly, this discussion centered around
the fact that this doesn't appear to be the appropriate location or the
appropriate way to acquire these greenways, which are really linear
parks.
The language in the comprehensive plan uses the terms safe and
-. convenient. I believe that was what was cited. But what's the
definition of safe and convenient? I assume that sidewalks meeting
the code requirements and bike lanes meeting the code requirements
meet the test of safe and convenient. That's why we have those cross
sections, that's why we require them.
A greenway certainly will be safe, maybe convenient, may not be
convenient. It certainly goes above and beyond what is the minimum
requirement, to meet the comprehensive plan test of safe and
convenient.
Seems to me that once the comprehensive plan is developed
showing the location of these desirable greenways, there's a public
benefit that goes way beyond the single development. It's a broad
public benefit, and I don't think anyone objects to them, it's certainly a
great idea, but how do you go about acquiring the ability, the right to
use these, whether it's through fee simple or through an easement?
Certainly, why should this be any different than the way we
acquire other public benefits? And generally, for example, a
Page 69
--.. '_U'"~'" _.~_.,- --, ---
February 17, 2005
right-of-way, a public right-of-way, it can be negotiated during the
zoning process, but often it's, you know, included in the capital
improvement plan. Ultimately the right-of-way is acquired for that,
there is a cost associated with that because there's a public benefit.
It seems to me that the greenway plan ought to be developed, it
ought to be funded and then the opportunity to acquire that the
necessary rights-of-way through easement or fee simple ought to be
handled in the very same manner that public rights-of-way are
acquired. It doesn't make sense to me that it becomes all of a sudden
becomes the burden of the property owner, because you show where
that is, that they have to provide these. And it goes well above what I
see as the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan relative to
safe and convenient motorized and non-motorized improvements.
And I think that was the position of the development services
advisory committee. And that was why our recommendation was
simply take this out, look at it more comprehensively.
And there are other issues discussed as well. For example, in
terms of funding, these really are linear parks. Is there the ability to
use park impact fees to construct these improvements? I don't know.
Can you then get park impact -- give park impact fee credits to a
developer if he is willing to provide the greenway through his proj ect
or adjacent to his project on his property? I don't know. I certainly
haven't done the research as to whether or not -- I mean, can you use
impact fees -- transportation impact fees? I don't know what the
answer is. Can you use transportation impact fees for sidewalks?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only ones you can use
them for are on construction of new roads, according to the impact fee
ordinance part that I read. So--
MR. MULHERE: So that's probably not --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you're retrofitting, I'm not
-- sure it would work.
MR. MULHERE: But I think the funding opportunities need to
Page 70
--.
February 17, 2005
.- be visited more comprehensively. It seems like this was -- we have a
'94 plan that really hasn't been implemented to any degree that I'm
aware of. Although I do think there are some, at least one -- I think as
Mindy Collier indicated there's at least one greenway perhaps moving
forward some 10 years later.
Seems like the -- this just became an opportunity to place the
burden of the greenway on the developer once again. Doesn't make
sense.
So I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I think that
summarizes the development services advisory committee position on
this.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Fred Reischl, followed by George
Dondanville.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, you're coming from the
dark side, huh?
MR. REISCHL: Yes, sir.
Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, Agnoli, Barber
and Brundage.
I'm just here to express my support for the alternative sidewalk
language in the proposed amendment and encourage you to include it
in your recommendation. This will encourage a little more creativity
in sidewalk design, instead of the traditional five feet of concrete,
three feet off the edge of pavement.
We have worked on one design with Ms. Collier's department
where the PUD actually allowed alternative sidewalk designs, and I
think we both agreed that it came across with a good plan, but that was
because the PUD did allow alternative designs. And we'd like to see
that across the board in the LDC. Thanks.
Page 71
---. .._--~,.._.-
February 17, 2005
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Fred.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: After George Dondanville will be David Ellis.
MR. DONDANVILLE: Good morning. My name is George
Dondanville. I reside at 2460 14th Street North in Naples.
As brief history, I was on the original Pathways Advisory
Committee that was formed to advise the MPO in regards to
sidewalks, pathways. We didn't really use the word greenways so
much, but it was pathways. We've gotten in some discussion about
what is what this morning. So with that history in mind, I helped
developed the original comprehensive pathways plan with the MPO.
I come today before you to reiterate what I spoke to the
Commissioners about in this very room back in December. And my
brief remarks to them were a lot around to please be very careful how
this LDC amendment is worded and not to gut the comprehensive plan
by taking things out of it and allowing the developers to take us once
back to where we were prior to the LDC where the developers could
opt out of even putting sidewalks in, through various different means.
And we see what had happened here, if you go out into the
developments in the area. We've got a lot of developments without
sidewalks, and we're having to go back in and retrofit those kind of
things.
So I ask you today for your recommendation to the Board of
Collier County Commissioners to go forward with the
recommendations that came originally prior to the wording that has
been added from the development services end. I see them only again
as the developers looking out for their interest and their interest only
and not the interest of Collier County residents.
Every place that I've done my research in regards to greenways,
and we'll call them pathways, if you want, they are a huge benefit to
the community, they are not a detriment. Developers go out of their
way to help build these things. And I would hope that the
Page 72
-" -"_._.,.~,..>,,. "~"''"--~;-' ---
February 17,2005
~- developmental firms in this county would recognize that, and I think
for the most part they do. But when they speak to you as they did
today, I think they're speaking for their developers who are paying the
bills.
I understand that once in a while bad things can happen on a
greenway, where maybe some cyclist is taking it upon himself to
travel beyond the speed limit. But that can happen anywhere. That
can happen out on the street and Mr. Strain's child could have been put
in danger there as well. I apologize for whoever that cyclist was. I'm
a cyclist myself.
I also want to let you know that in my position in my job, I come
into contact with a lot of the new people that come to this area, and
they're younger and younger people, and they come to us in areas
where they had green ways, they had parks where they could go out
and recreate, if they wanted to ride a bike or they wanted to walk.
They didn't have to do it on sidewalks. They didn't have to put
themselves in jeopardy in streets like they do in the City of Naples,
because they don't have the sidewalks there yet.
But they ask me time and time again, where can I go -- where's a
pathway? And I have to tell them all the time, there aren't any.
Hopefully we're going to get some developed. Well, if we start taking
it out of the language that we have here and we get rid of it, the next
time it comes up it makes it easier to say well, we don't need
greenways, it's something separate and apart, when in fact it is really
integral to the whole sidewalk/pathway / greenway system that we're
trying to develop here in Collier County, to make Collier County a
much more attractive area for people to move to so that the
environmental -- excuse me, so that the Economic Development
Council -- I read yesterday in the paper -- is looking for ways to get
business to come here. People that come here with these new small
businesses that are going to drive the economy here are looking for
that type of activity.
Page 73
--, ~._M'._._~.' ,--
February 17, 2005
---, So please, I urge you to move forward with the recommendations
as they came to you prior to getting rid of the greenways. Thank you
very much.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sir.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some questions. Go
ahead.
MR. DONDANVILLE: As best I can.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You were involved in the '94
report. Why has that not been implemented? Why is it 10 years later
and --
MR. DONDANVILLE: That's a good question. I don't know the
answer to that. I stepped off of the Pathways Advisory Committee
after having served I think about eight years, served as its chairman
for a while. Probably a lot has to do with funding in this area, is I
think my initial reaction.
And also, we were concentrating more during that period of time
I think on trying to fill in sidewalks with what little money we had to
get kids to and from schools, et cetera, et cetera. If that answers your
question.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, sir, if funding is the
problem, and you're probably right, don't you find it somewhat
confiscatory to make the developer, each developer, underwrite the
cost of the program?
MR. DONDANVILLE: We're not asking the developer -- I don't
think this amendment is asking the developer -- you've gone beyond
what this amendment was intended to. We're only looking at the five
percent of where along your property the sidewalk is going to be
burdensome economically for you to do, if it's over 25 percent.
And I think that's where this greenway thing is in here, too, if I
~-" understand it correctly in my reading of it. We're not saying hey,
you've got to build the whole corridor, we're just talking about this is
Page 74
-' H,__' --
February 17, 2005
~_."c part of the system. It may cost more money, and I will agree with
you, to put in a greenway perhaps than to put in a sidewalk.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, and I -- what you're
saying makes more sense, but that's not the way I'm reading this
document.
MR. DONDANVILLE: Well, I would hope that it would be
written in that way, but be written so that you don't take out
greenways. That's my argument.
MR. SCHMITT: Paragraph one clearly notes that greenways are
required to be constructed along identified areas that the pathways --
the comprehensive plan identifies.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree, and that's what
gotten my concern up. And I think -- when my son and I ride our
bicycles, I have to put them in the back of my pickup truck and drive
somewhere in the county where I can get on a road that's fairly safe.
I think these are good ideas, but I think they need to be well
thought out and well presented. And knowing that you have a master
plan that is not going to be this one, it's going to be updated in May,
plus you could identify proper funding sources, you could get the
business community, and you should get all the business community
involved with you. Because if you come forward as a team on
something everybody agrees to, it's going to move a lot better.
That's what I see missing in today's meeting. I see the lack of
communication with the business community who's going to have to
pay for part of it if that's the way this goes, and a lack of explanation
for funding and maintenance sources and things like that.
MR. DONDANVILLE: What prevents us then at this part--
we're not all the way to the final vote, folks. I mean, what prevents us
from slowing down the process a small bit and get it worked out
correctly so that when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners
.,.- that it gets enacted rather than pull it out completely now and who
knows when it's going to come back in.
Page 75
,-- ' -.--",--'"-,,
February 17, 2005
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the issue about the
sidewalks being built with pieces to nowhere is becoming a pretty --
more of an issue for developmental services to have to handle. They
need an alternate method of getting -- of alleviating that. And that's
what this started out to be. And if it goes forward with just that and
you guys come back in as a group and when there's proper public
meetings like the MPO says there's going to be and a new plan comes
out a few months from now or towards the end of the year, we'll be
better off. We'll have a better comprehensive way of looking at it,
transportation can identify how they're going to maintain it, how
they're going to put it in, how they're going to acquire it. None of
that's -- that's all vacant today.
MR. DONDANVILLE: I have two responses to that: One is we
may be right back to this 10-year, the question I was asked earlier,
what happened, we're 10 years down the road now since we came up
with the initial one.
I also think that we are the point in this county -- I've been here
since '86 and I think most of you have been here as long as I have.
We're in a cusp situation, as I would call it. We're at the point now
where now we see these people coming back from high school, kids
that would have never come back here who left and were gone and are
now coming back here, they want to make this their home, and they're
coming back asking these questions about this type of stuff.
So if you can look at me in the eye and tell me yes, George, I will
continue to drive this horse and we will get this greenway situation
done and it won't take us 10 years, then I will agree with you, Mr.
Strain.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you'll come back to
this committee with a more detailed plan and one that actually fits
together and the pieces are explained, I have no problem with it. But I
do have a problem with it the way it's being presented today.
MR. DONDANVILLE: Could I also get your hand then in
Page 76
-- ., ___",_".u......~ ..-
February 17,2005
- helping to make the staff go that direction?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you call me to a meeting,
I'll attend. As long as I haven't got a conflict that I can't. But if I can
possibly make it, I'll make it and I'll be glad to lend my two cents to a
meeting, for what that's worth. But I really would like to see this
come back in a more comprehensive manner.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Just to make sure you understand, and what,
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned, the reason for the expediting this was
exactly what you referred to, there are many proj ects awaiting this
payment-in-lieu-ofprogram, pending at least approval. Otherwise,
they're going to be compelled to comply with the existing code as it
reads today and that is construct sidewalks. I have no other option.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I didn't have any -- I
wasn't going to try to stop that from happening, Joe. I'm just trying to
figure out a way to make the greenways part of it be more practically
applied. I don't think that can be done today.
MR. SCHMITT: But certainly the Board of County
Commissioners at any time can direct staff, and I think it would be
integral as part of the approval, eventual approval of the -- or updating
an approval of the comprehensive pathway plan, you can certainly
direct staff to come back at any time and amend the LDC to include
any of the issues that may be removed from this LDC amendment.
MR. WHITE: In fact, it would seem logical, if I may just
interject, that once the comprehensive pathway plan has been or is
about to be adopted, that one of the aspects of how it will move
forward would be direction either from the MPO or the Board of
County Commissioners as to where it ought be added into the land
development code amendment process.
We typically have two standard cycles a year. This is a special
cycle that the board voted on to implement more expeditiously. If that
is desired with respect to what ultimately comes out of that
Page 77
--- .__.,,"-,..~..-..~ -
February 17,2005
- comprehensive pathway plan amendment process and the board or the
folks in the community who would desire to see it be done more
expeditiously than the second regular cycle of the LDC, that is a
possibility and certainly one that would be up to the board to make
that determination on a super majority vote.
MR. DONDANVILLE: Can I have 10 more seconds, if I might?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. DONDANVILLE: I would like to put the shoe on the other
foot, if I might. I'm just a volunteer. And by doing it the way you
want to do it, you're putting the onus on volunteer people like myself,
Mr. Housh out here, in the community to drive this wagon. I
guarantee you that if you leave the greenways in there the way it's
written, the shoe will now fall on the other foot and Mr. Mulhere and
Mr. Herman (sic) will be in here pounding at the door tomorrow to
correct this -- I don't want to say correct it, but to bring in the language
that you want to hear -- and it will be done by people who are getting
paid to do that, rather than putting the onus on volunteers such as
myself to have to continue this process and fight for greenways.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't the MPO taking this
issue up as well, and aren't they the ones --
MR. DONDANVILLE: Only through the pathway advisory
committee, which again is a bunch of volunteers. They're fighting
tooth and nail for every penny they can get from the commission to
just keep the sidewalks going, let alone the greenways.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I honestly don't feel this was
adequately aired in the public with the number of people that should
have been involved who are going to end up paying for this, and that
the facts involving the financial part of it are not well explained. And
I'm having trouble with it.
MR. DONDANVILLE: They've had some pretty good shots
before, before this meeting. That's all I've got to say. Thank you very
much again for your time.
Page 78
.-- ..~,~--,~" .--.>._--
February 17,2005
- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: David Ellis, followed by Richard Housh.
MR. ELLIS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is David
Ellis. I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association. I apologize
for my voice, I've got the bug that's going around.
Just some brief history. A couple of years ago we took a hard
look at the sidewalks in Collier County. Some of you were on the
Planning Commission at the time. And it was a good dialogue. I
stood here and I had some issues with some of the things we did. But
by and large it was very good work. There was a lot of input from
different community groups, as well as the pathways folks, and it
came out to be a good process.
At the time I remember very specifically making a statement that
there would still be need for flexibility with the sidewalks, because
from time to time a one-size- fit-all approach doesn't work. At the time
I was accused of saying when developers say flexible, they mean no
sidewalks. Well, the truth is, you have to build sidewalks in Collier
County. You fixed that several years ago. And those exceptions aren't
given.
But one of the things we did discover in the past couple of years
is there were opportunities and times when flexibility was necessary.
The things that Mr. Schmitt mentioned in terms of the pay-in-lieu
seems like a very good process. Hopefully as it's implemented it will
go as well as the design was in the examples today. We're hopeful of
that, because certainly there are times when that flexibility can be
helpful, as well as some of the alternative designs in working with
staff.
We obviously need to have these sidewalks as a part of our
system, but there is a flexibility need in that. And I think most of the
recom -- the recommendations that have come forth add to that.
I would say that the things that the Development Services
Advisory Committee brought forth also tend to lend themselves to that
Page 79
--. -- ,",,_.<'
February 17, 2005
type of flexibility, particularly in those communities that are by and
large built out and coming back and causing some retroactive
implementations that just might not be possible almost in those
communities. I think those are some things that are reasonable, as
well as the recommendation about the cul-de-sac streets. These are
things that make sense in the big picture.
And as far as the sidewalks go, I think you've got a good grip on
that. And it looks like we're moving forward in a positive way in
continuing to improve that area.
To the greenways, I have to agree with much of the dialogue
you've had today. It's a concern. And I think for the people that I
represent, work for in my industry, we think it's great. The idea of
pathways and greenways, that makes a lot of sense for our
community. And I don't think anybody would resist that in
generalities. How it's being implemented I don't think has enjoyed
some of the similar vetting that we had during the process with the
sidewalks. I think if we're changing, we're updating that plan, let's
update the plan, let's evaluate the funding mechanisms we have as a
community to implement the plan, and let's get about it.
When we talked about sidewalks several years ago, we said
really the same thing, let's make sure we've got a good master plan,
let's -- you know, if it's a community interest, let's find the community
money to implement it and let's do it. Certainly we want to have a
good walkable and safe community in that regards.
I appreciate you all's time on this today. It's very important. And
once again, until we know the economic impacts and certain other
unintended consequences that may come from the green ways, it would
certainly be our request and recommendation that you remove that
from this at the time and certainly keep it strong on the table so we can
addresses it going forward. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David.
Any questions?
Page 80
,_.~.. .._,._-----'-~.. ---
February 17,2005
,- (No response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Mr. Housh?
MR. HOUSH: Good morning. My name is Richard Housh. I
live at 160 Seventh Avenue, in Naples. And I thank you for the
opportunity to address this group.
I serve on the Pathway Advisory Committee and have for three
years here in Collier County. And I also serve on the advisory board
for the Florida group of Rails to Trails Conservancy. So I know a
good bit about what transpired with the FP&L greenway that's
happening right now and things like that.
So I could talk about a lot of things, I could talk about the Better
Homes and Gardens survey of 60,000 readers that said 88 percent of
their readership thought that having a walkable, bikeable (sic)
community was more important than anything else. I could talk about
lots of things.
But really, a few things I've heard today that have been brought
up I think are better. I think Ms. Caron -- I'm not sure if I'm
pronouncing it correctly -- your question to George about why the
pathways plan hadn't been implemented is the very best question of
the hour, of the decade.
When I retired in Naples three years ago, I thought I was moving
to a bikeable, walkable community, only to find out how extremely
dangerous and hazardous it is for families, seniors, all sorts of folks. I
mean, there are -- sure, there are a few hard core bikers out there in
Spandex that are riding dangerously, if you will, at 7: 00 in the
morning, but the vast majority of the people that are trying to get
around on bike or on foot are just regular folks like us. And I'm very,
very concerned about the safety of these folks.
I think one of the reasons the greenways are needed and
--~, important -- and when we brought it up, it was to give the developers
some flexibility. Because we have ignored the pathways plan that was
Page 81
..'.... ._--~-~"-_.- ,..'~-
February 17, 2005
put in place. It was adopted by the MPO and the Collier County
Commissioners in 1994, and absolutely nothing was implemented, or
virtually nothing. I mean, a tiny bit.
Two years ago we went through the whole sidewalks LDC cycle
thing, and basically the reason -- one of the reasons why the pathways
plan wasn't initialized and implemented was because there were two
or three pages of loopholes in the land development code which the
developers took full advantage of and circumvented the process and
got out of putting in sidewalks wherever they possibly could.
We heard the same group of folks that were here two years ago,
voted -- the DSAC group voted unanimously against any changes to
the land development code, because they liked having a couple of
pages of exclusions. But we eliminated those exclusions. Now they
have to build bike lanes and sidewalks, and so this opportunity comes
up to address five percent of the problem and all sorts of roadblocks
are being thrown up again.
I think it's time for the Collier County Planning Commission to
follow what the growth management plan calls for, and what the -- I
just pulled this down off the web last night, Collier County
Community Character Plan, which has been adopted and paid for, and
it talks all about connectivity of neighborhoods, no matter how we
have to do it. If it's a greenway, if it's a pathway. We're not practicing
what we preach. So we either say we're going to do it and do it, or we
keep kidding ourselves and acting like we're going to be walkable and
bikeable and nothing will happen for another 10 years and we'll be
right back here. I'm not going to be back here. And I'm amazed that
George is still hanging in there, after developing a plan and serving on
the Pathway Committee for years and nothing happened. The guy still
takes time for from his business to come down here and plead for
safety for the residents of the county.
-- So the point is are we going to do what we say we're going to do?
Do we really care about making this community bikeable and
Page 82
--"^ ,. ---~_.,~~- .~~-
February 17, 2005
walkable, multi model, or not? That's what I think.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Housh, you bring up the
Community Character Plan. That plan does have references to
greenways. In fact, it even suggests that a policy be added to the
growth management plan identifying and discussing greenways.
Eighteen months after the community character plan came out, the
GMP was changed. The language that was added was not greenways
language, it was pathways language, and the pathway, as defined in
the LDC.
The estimated cost of greenways, as told by the Dover-Kohl,
which was a 2001 document, say there were 3 -- estimated at $32
million. They suggested two revenue sources: Gas tax and grants.
And they also suggested that if you wanted to accelerate it, we could
increase impact fees to pay for it.
I'm not saying that's right or not wrong. But I'm saying nowhere
in that document do they suggest that the individual landowners who
happen to be unfortunate enough along the greenway would be
obligated to pay for it. And that's where I see the unfairness to this.
And also, you mentioned a survey. Are you aware of a survey in
the City of Naples that 80 percent of the people there really didn't
want --
MR. HOUSH: As a matter of fact, I am very, very aware of that,
because the survey was conducted by the Old Naples Association. I
didn't receive a copy of it, nor did lots of other folks in Old Naples.
And I think you should be aware of the fact that the Naples City
Council just voted 6-1 to move forward with the staffs plan for
sidewalks and greenways.
So this was a survey that again the language, like the language
that you just used, I'm sorry, that says people that are unfortunate
enough to live on the greenway? That was kind of the language in the
Old Naples survey. And the Old Naples survey came out with
sidewalk alert, emergency. This is a dastardly thing.
Page 83
-- ",. "~-''''''~-~-'''''''"
February 17, 2005
,- Well, frankly, the Rails to Trails Conservancy has statistical data
where property values have actually increased more by living on a
greenway than they are by living on golf courses. I really think if we
could get the development community in this county to understand the
inherent benefits of greenways, then I think probably the principals of
these developers would go for it.
I think what we have is a group of hired guns that are looking at
low first cost rather than the benefits to the community and also the
increase in property values. So I think you've got to be careful with
that language, because it's really not proven to be true.
I mean, my wife and I have had the benefit of riding rail trails all
over this country and utility trails all over this country and within the
State of Florida. There are many, many opportunities for funding.
We just haven't pursued those in Collier County.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, I think
.._.~, maybe I -- if I misstated something, I apologize. I thought I said for
those people unfortunate enough to own developments or lands
adjacent to these greenways, they'd have to pay for them. I didn't
necessarily say living to them in that context.
MR. HOUSH: But if their property values increase therein,
what's the problem?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're actually taking
some of the land that has increased in value, you'd be actually taking
lands from them to put in these greenways, plus charging them for it.
And I'm not sure how it's going to affect affordable housing and a
myriad of other things. And all I'm asking for is that it merely be
studied.
MR. HOUSH: Well, we have -- but the problem is we can't
really study it -- we have commissioned an update of the pathways
plan, comprehensive plan. I was on the selection committee for the
contractor. And we selected Sprinkle and Associates out of Tampa
that's done pathways plans all around the country. They have a
Page 84
"-- . . _."----,,~-_...... "^~"~--~-'-""-"""~- . --
February 17, 2005
- world-class reputation; they're an excellent firm. It's an MPO, you
know, selection committee though the pathway advisory committee.
The county funded the project. I think that's wonderful. The
problem is the project came in over budget and so the contractor had
to take money out of his bid to expedite the project. So here's the
pathways plan. We could be sitting here talking about a pathways
plan that was already real, had the project not been stretched out and
protracted. Now it's two years old, okay? So I talked to the contractor
in a telephone conference the other day with Chuck Barnbee
(phonetic) from the MPO. Bruce Landis, the principal with Sprinkle
and Associates, in charge of the project, could barely remember
Collier County, because it's taken two years to complete a project that
was supposed to be completed over a year ago.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that one of the
most unfortunately things that have occurred is that your group's been
--- very active in this issue, and you've been active because you've been
notified two to three dozen times when things are occurring in Collier
County about various actions involving bike paths. The same courtesy
has not been provided to people who may have further input or need
the input, like the business community or CBIA. Had you had these
meetings with them present and you worked out your differences
before today's meeting, maybe the questions we've been asking would
have been answered.
MR. HOUSH: Well, I would think so as well. As a matter of
fact, I was invited to a meeting that was supposed to be held between
the pathway advisory committee and the DSAC group to work out
some of these issues. Two hours before the meeting was to occur, I
was notified that the meeting had been called off. I'm not sure why.
And I thought it would have made sense, too, to meet with the
folks that were opposed to this and see if we could work out some
language that made sense for everybody.
I just think we're going to protract the process again. And one of
Page 85
--.-.,.- _._-,-~,.. ""-,,'..._-- -_.-
February 17,2005
_. the reasons we need greenways for connectivity is because the
pathways plan has been ignored the last 12 years. And so we don't
have very many ways to connect neighborhoods anymore. Because
roads have been built without sidewalks and bike lanes, developments
have been built without sidewalks and bike lanes, and that just
exacerbates the problem. And at the rapid rate at which the county is
growing, if we don't do something now, it's just going to be unsolvable
later. And that's my heartburn with it. I think we need to take action
now.
I mean, there's another thing to consider: We have one pathways
person in this county. One. That position has been unfilled more than
it's been filled, in my three years on the Pathway Advisory
Committee. Lee County just to the north of us has five pathways
people.
So you can't tell George and me and folks like that to come back
with a program, because we're not getting paid to do this. We love the
county and we want to make it a safe place for all to bike and walk,
but we don't have staff to even address these issues. So if we can't get
our leadership to do the right thing in terms of implementing the intent
of what we're trying to do and grow wisely and smartly as a county, it
definitely won't happen. That's the problem. We -- somebody's got to
take a stand here. And I'm looking to you folks to do that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. HOUSH: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is there any further
speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: None registered.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I have one document that's been
provided bye-mail through Ms. Collier, and she's asked me to read it
into the record. And if you'd allow me to do so, I will also submit it to
.'--, the minutes keeper afterwards.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it's relevant to the
Page 86
- ..--- l ...--
February 17, 2005
-, issue at land.
MR. WHITE: I'd have to leave that to your determination, and
the only way you'd know is if I read it, so --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who is it from?
MR. WHITE: It is from Maureen Bonness. It will take less than
a minute.
Dear Commissioners: The most amazing thing is happening on
Immokalee Road. This highway, which is expanding to six lanes
between 951 and Randall Road has a portion of the new road segment
paved, although traffic still continues on the old road. The new paved
road segment has temporarily become a wonderful, safe bike pathway.
The pathway is rapidly gaining attention from residents. This
afternoon near 3:00 p.m. you could see perhaps 20 cyclists on the
route. That is a great spontaneous participation. This leaves no doubt,
if Collier County had pathways, residents would use them. This
-_. activity demonstrates to me the need for, quote, greenways, end quote,
in Collier County. If you build it, they will come. The residents have
unintentionally spoken loudly through their actions.
I participated in several public meetings in which LDC sidewalk
amendments were discussed. The amendment before you is quite
different than the one agreed upon by representatives at those
meetings. The recent changes eliminate, quote, greenways, end quote,
and reduce the responsibility of properties to provide for bike lanes
and sidewalks.
I recommend the commissioners pass an amendment that
includes provisions for greenways, such as the amendment prior to the
DSAC changes. I encourage residents to be healthy through
non-motorized recreation and transportation, and I encourage the
Commissioners to provide a safe place for this activity. It is to
everyone's benefit to provide a bikeable and walkable community.
Sincerely, Maureen Bonness.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I pity the court reporter for
Page 87
--,- -,"'-. -----,~'- '" ""_M_
February 17,2005
_. that.
MR. WHITE: She's good.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If she didn't throw that
notebook at you during that, you're lucky.
Okay, with that, I think then we basically are in a position to
decide what to do with this matter. And I don't know what the rest of
the planning commission is thinking. I have some suggestions that I
certainly think we ought to consider, if you're willing for me to speak
them.
That the intent of this document was to find an alternative
method for sidewalks that didn't make sense going to nowhere. I
applaud that, I think it's the right thing.
I also think that the greenways is a good item, too. I think it
ought to be pursued. I think that the MPO is working on a plan to do
that. And I think that all the elements and all the questions we asked
.,",._~ about today could be answered when that happens.
I think it's inappropriate to include it with a recommendation in
this particular language. And, therefore, I would like to recommend
that we pass the green -- we pass the LDC amendment, with
everything that's stated, with the exception of the DSAC number four.
Leaving number three. And that we eliminate the references to
greenways until such time that a comprehensive pathway plan through
the MPO, the new one they reference, is produced and approved. And
also that the greenways portion is found inconsistent with the GMP,
with objective 4, policy 4.1, because an updated plan is not provided;
4.3, because improvement provided as funding permits inconsistent
with the plan; 4.4, establishing a choice of projects hasn't been
provided; 4.5, identifying state and federal funding; 4.6, providing
sidewalks, bike lanes and pathways, no mention of greenways; 4.8,
design in the green book has been admitted it is not consistent with
that design, and it's inconsistent with objective 7, 7.4, and that the
considerations and references to community character plan. And until
Page 88
- "--"'"~'~~'-'~"""-' _.~".' -.._-
February 17,2005
"-...- all those items are resolved, which I surely hope they will be over the
next few months, I think this ought to go forward as I stated, with just
the elements of the bike, sidewalk and bike lane.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When will the MPO --
MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, what -- in
essence, in layman's terms what you just recommended is to remove
all references to the greenways in this amendment?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: And I think more specifically, if I may, for the
record, that as to any of those provisions, you've indicated that it is --
it would be this commission's finding that those provisions would not
be consistent with the comprehensive plan --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. WHITE: -- the GMP.
- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is what I read.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When will the MPO plan be
ready, Mark?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to their website,
and I have a copy of the page from the website in case that question
was asked, May 1 st of '05. And I can -- in fact, and then they're going
to supposedly -- this section will be devoted to bringing the public
up-to-date information throughout the studies, including a calendar of
public meetings, dates and opportunities for public comment. Please
check back for updates.
They didn't -- the M -- this one doesn't have the May 1 st -- I can't
remember where the May 1 st date came from, but I found it in some
of the literature.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And after they're done with it,
when will -- how long will it take to get back to us again?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. That would be a
staff process.
Page 89
._--. _.~'._"-"~._-".' ~-
February 17, 2005
-~. MR. SCHMITT: That will really be up to the Board of County
Commissioners. The -- if in fact the plan is accepted, of course it's got
to be budgeted, it's got to be part of the budget cycle. If in fact it's
deemed appropriate, would it become part of the capital improvement
plan in regards to identifying funding? So there's -- that would be a
board responsibility.
And then of course as Mr. White mentioned, once the plan is
accepted and approved, even if it isn't funded but if it's approved, we
would, based on the board's guidance and the MPO's direction and
subsequently the board, we would amend the LDC to include the
language based on the criteria that's been approved in the updated
plan.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Joe, with this
recommendation, the intent was to keep it alive and not let it die. And
that's why I said it needs to come back after it's proceeded through
approval of a comprehensive pathway plan, as revised by the MPO in
their most --
MR. SCHMITT: Keep the --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep the idea of greenways
alive.
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, absolutely.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want -- I think the
gentlemen that spoke today are correct, this is not something that
needs to be tossed to the wayside.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just needs to come back in a
more comprehensive manner with the questions of funding, other
issues resolved. That was the intent of the motion, so --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I also have a question. Why
haven't we been able to staff our pathways staffing so that -- to help
--. this move along? He said that we only have one position, and more
than half of the time it's been unfilled.
Page 90
- .~_._-~,--_.~,..~.~ --
February 17, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: That is a -- that's an issue that would have to be
addressed to the Board of County Commissioners. It's based on their
decisions for funding and staffing of the BCC staff. I mean, that's
strictly an issue that I certainly can't address. I would have to defer to
Mr. Feder, the administrator for transportation, because he heads --
that responsibility is not under my division.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Joe, what would be the
consequence of passing this with the objectionable to Mr. Strain
material left in on pathways? What would happen then? I mean, you
all have brought it forward. I assume there's a tacit endorsement of it,
or is there not?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I think there's some -- we're at a point in
staff that frankly there is some question as to the basis, frankly, the
underpinnings that justify the pathway issue in general. What Mr.
Strain brought up in particular clearly identifies it. I think it would
become a legal question based on the requirements of demanding that
the pathway -- that the greenways be constructed.
Bottom line, I think I'm going to have some trouble
implementing it.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So you're dumping it for the
time being.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to defer to the county attorney for
some legal advice.
There you go, how's that for passing --
MR. WHITE: I appreciate the opportunity to provide legal
advice, but it sounds like what --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Policy.
MR. WHITE: -- everyone is struggling with is essentially a
policy question. And I think Commissioner Abernathy is correct in
that regard.
Our office's obligation is to, as I've indicated, more so to the
DSAC than to this body, that when push comes to shove, would a
Page 91
~--".__.- "-
February 17,2005
..,....'"" court consider these provisions to be lawfully enforceable? I think the
answer IS yes.
Now, is that to say that it is the appropriate point in time at which
to make this policy choice? That is something for your commission to
decide and the board ultimately to weigh in on.
I understand that there's a strong desire on this commission, as
evidenced by the motion, to bring this back in a timely fashion and to
not lose the momentum that has been gathered in bringing forward
what was a staff consensus recommendation.
The problem we're going to have is if there are findings made
with respect to inconsistency with the GMP at this point, those would
have to be resolved in a way that would allow us to bring it forward,
consistent with the GMP so that the implementing Land Development
Code revisions would be lawful.
Now, how long will that take? That is something that will take,
-- in my opinion, less time than the public policy issues with regards to
financing and other types of infrastructure commitments or staffing
commitments on the part of county.
But to tell you would we be able to bring this back in the fall
cycle once the comprehensive pathway plan was adopted and
finalized? My answer to that would be yes, that we would be able to
create an integrated set of LDC provisions that would implement both
that comprehensive pathway plan and the Growth Management Plan
. .
prOVIsIons.
Now, whether that is what the board wants to do, whether that is
what this commission thinks is an appropriate time line, or if there's
the need for a special cycle, as I'd mentioned earlier, those are beyond
our office's ability to really comment on, and certainly our choices that
we weigh in on.
MR. SCHMITT: Just to follow up, though, to answer your
question, I fundamentally have to agree with the chairman's
assessment. And I think between -- this is a j oint effort between the
Page 92
---"-"--"'.. ..-.-
February 17, 2005
- staffs, but in reality it's going to be difficult to enforce because there is
no basis for some of the issues in here. It's arguable. And with lack of
clarity, in my judgment, I would prefer to take that ambiguity out this
ordinance, or this amendment, bring it forward to the board. Because
if I bring it forward to the board the way it is now, it will not pass. It
will not pass because of the -- your recommendation and the DSAC's
recommendation, clearly this is dead on arrival. What I'm going to do
is go back --
MR. WHITE: And in fact--
MR. SCHMITT: Pardon me?
MR. WHITE: I'm sorry.
MR. SCHMITT: What I'm going to have to do is go back with
my staff, we'll have to look at this and package it in a way that we
think it could get to the Board of County Commissioners. But the
issue really becomes some of the things in here now pretty valid that
,--- we'd be on thin ice to try and enforce.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I agree with what
we're trying to accomplish here, but I'm going to vote against it,
because I don't like the way it got here. I'm not trying to point the
finger at anybody in particular, but this just doesn't seem to me to be
the way to do business.
MR. WHITE: If I may address Mr. Schmitt's point about the
status of your recommendation and what would be within the package
that the board would consider at that time? If the motion that's on the
floor is adopted, effectively all of the greenway related provisions
would be stricken, and they would not be in those packages, because
of your finding of non -- or inconsistency with the Growth
Management Plan.
The board can only adopt those provisions that are consistent
with its growth management plan. As the local planning agency, this
commission makes that determination for our community.
And my point is to make clear to everyone that there would not
Page 93
- --''''-0'''''___.''''-- .'. -_._~,~---_._.--",."-",~,'. --
February 17,2005
- be arguably the ability to have a debate in front of the board as to
whether those provisions ought be in or not, except to the extent of
desiring to create a way by which they could be made consistent to
this commission. That's what I was saying in my last set of comments
is that you needed to make it consistent with the comprehensive
pathway plan and the GMP.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that gives me a
second reason to vote against it.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mr. Abernathy, are you saying
that you're voting against the motion or against the --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Against the motion. Yes,
I'm in favor of the program, but we're depriving the County
Commission of the ability to look at it. And I don't like the process
that has evolved that got it here with nobody wanting to do it. I mean,
what the hell, as they say.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the County Commissioners
requested that this matter be brought forward for review, do they --
can they not, at discernment -- can they not say that they wish it to be
brought again? In fact that they were not satisfied, or this commission
was not satisfied with what was presented. I don't see that there's an
encumbrance there.
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. They can remand it back to the
planning commission for --
MR. WHITE: This is their land development code.
MR. SCHMITT: This is their land development code.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so they're not operating in a
vacuum anymore than we are.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a question?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have comments.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I will vote with Commissioner
Abernathy, because I'm not happy with the way this came forward.
Page 94
.._'"~ -~_...,.,..-"'- < . M~ _..,,_.~~ ,.~-
February 17, 2005
,- And we do not have 10 more years to implement. We put together
these plans and then we let them sit on shelves, and that is just not
what needs to happen for this community.
I am uncomfortable with the fact that we're going to have an
updated plan here in another few months and the MPO hasn't had their
meetings. I mean, it's just -- this is not -- but we need to give the
commissioners a chance to look at it. It's come this far. And we have
to do something to jump-start this, and I think that's the only thing that
we can do is pass it through.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand what you're saying, but your
proposal doesn't solve the problem of the past in regards to funding. I
mean, that's not what the LDC is for. The LDC is to implement land
development guidance so that staff can effectively review and
implement the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Believe me, I understand that.
However, if it doesn't get to the BCC, they won't have a chance to talk
about funding.
MR. SCHMITT: Just for discussion purposes, are you using this
as the instrument to bring that forward? Because those kind of issues
should be brought forward in the budget discussions --
COMMISSIONER CARON: You brought it forward.
MR. SCHMITT: I did. The staff brought this forward, yes. And
I'm just saying, your justification for bringing this forward to the
Board of County Commissioners seems to be based on something else
other than the consistency with the GMP, and that's what I'm asking. I
mean, this has to be based on it's either consistent or not consistent
with the GMP. That's the -- that's this commission's role in regards to
reviewing LDC amendments.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Why is staff bringing forward
things to this commission that are inconsistent with the Growth
Management Plan?
MR. WHITE: That is not, I believe, the position of the staff.
Page 95
-"" ,- .~-,.",..._,~."._., - ~_","'-~"-".'~ .~--
February 17, 2005
- The staffs position is that we're asking you to tell us in your role as
the LP A, you have a statutory duty to give us your opinion in that
regard. Our belief is, the staffs belief is, that it would be consistent.
Now, that is not the final word. Now, just turn to the factual side
of this rather than the policy debate. In the real world today, as you'd
heard, there are, as projects come forward under the plan that's on the
screen, discussions ongoing with those property owners as to how
these provisions will be effectively applied. Regardless of whether
there's any, quote, further implementing, end quote, language in the
LDC.
So I think what's before you is not so much whether or not this is
going to come back, but rather how it ought come back, so that it can
be given a balanced and complete consideration as part of the
comprehensive pathway plan or not.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- you know, we --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Then can we be more specific?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the specificity needs to
come from the proper presentation of this by staff through -- after the
MPO, after the comprehensive plan's revised and everything else.
And at this point and at the options with the BCC can discuss anything
they want at any time, I don't see what harm's being done by asking
this to come back in a proper forum and a proper manner. So I'm
going to be firm with my motion, I'd like to call for the question.
MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Strain?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes?
MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like clarification on the rest of the
DSAC recommendations before you take a vote.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The DSAC had two
recommendations, three and four. I suggested dropping four, keeping
three, and that the greenways removal, which they suggested too, I
upheld.
MR. WHITE: And I otherwise understood what you to be
Page 96
. " ^ ~,~~._--~.. ""-
February 17, 2005
<- saying, if this motion goes forward, is that the provisions, as otherwise
brought forth by the staff, not the DSAC recommendations, are the
ones that would be brought forward to the board.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Patrick?
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does this require five votes,
by any chance? There's some things that we do that do.
MR. WHITE: This is legislation. It does not require any kind of
super majority. A majority vote would carry the ultimate finding with
respect to the comprehensive -- the GMP and as to your
recommendation. If you wanted to sever those issues, they are
severable.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to call for the
question. All those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
hand.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three in favor.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Indicating.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three opposed.
Motion is tied, which is motion fails for lack of majority.
Okay, we'll move on to the next item which is old business.
MR. WHITE: We have to have some determination as to --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm pretty familiar with
ties, and if I'm not mistaken, the tie vote means it fails.
MR. WHITE: Okay, your motion failed. That's my point. And
there is no, quote, recommendation or finding having been made by
Page 97
,_... ~--'--"""--""'._.' .... <-- ,u,_
February 17, 2005
-~".'".. this body that we can carry forward. And we would like to have some
outcome we could deliver to the board on the summary sheet.
MR. BELLOWS: Another motion.
MR. SCHMITT: Would the planning commission like to have
staff review this again and bring it back?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a fine thing, if
you guys want to go that route, but it's going to delay your process in
front of the BCC.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many weeks are you talking
about?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, though, that's still
not going to change the lack of items that have been addressed today
that we don't have that aren't even going to be available until after
May 1 st. There's no budgeting going to be known until we know what
the new plan is. There's no maintenance cost provided to us today.
The fiscal costs that were allocated were inaccurate. The sketch that's
attached to the LDC amendment is inaccurate or is inconsistent with
the green book that says it should be consistent with it. It just goes on
and on.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why can't you bring this to
the County Commission, telling them we had a 3-3 tie vote, therefore,
it comes without a CCPC recommendation?
MR. WHITE: The absence of a recommendation is not a
problem. It's the absence of any finding with regards to the
consistency with the comprehensive plan, the GMP. The statutory
duty that you have is the local planning agency, the LP A. We have to
have something. It isn't just a kind of add-on.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Dance that we're going
through.
MR. WHITE: Exactly. It is probably, out of all the duties you
have, one of the most significant.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if nobody budges.
Page 98
- ,~--,,~_.- ---
February 17,2005
-< MR. WHITE: Well, I think that you have to consider some
alternatives in terms of motions, and that's why I suggested that those
issues were severable, both as to what your recommendation may be
and as to what your findings may be with respect to the Compo Clan.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we made a motion to
recommend approval of sidewalks and bike lanes consistent with the
DSAC recommendation number three but say not four and resolve that
and then made a separate motion involving a language of greenways;
is that what you're suggesting is a solution?
MR. WHITE: It is a possible solution, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think we should do that.
I think that's a very appropriate idea and I would make that motion.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you made a motion
to recommend --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The portion with having to do
with sidewalks --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And bike lanes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And bike lanes as consistent
with the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. And excising anything
having to do with greenways as not being consistent with the Growth
Management Plan.
MR. WHITE: Well, I think you may have stepped back across
whatever that line was we were trying to create here.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Then I remain silent with regard
to the greenways. You're right, I reincluded it.
So it is just the finding that it is consistent with the growth
management plan having to do with sidewalks and what is it,
pathways?
-~ MR. WHITE: Bike lanes.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Bike lanes, yes.
Page 99
,- _.-~."..~,.",- --
February 17, 2005
-- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that with DSAC's--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, with the stated number
three, I believe it is.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With number three ofDSAC's
recommendation.
Okay, I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have discussion on that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mr. White has said that the plan,
as put forward to us, is lawful and enforceable and consistent. So that
kind of goes against what that motion is saying in terms of the
greenways.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's just addressing the
sidewalks and bike lanes. He's saying they are consistent.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He said the whole plan was
consistent. That's the staffs position.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I made a motion, I thought, that
related only to that portion, the bike lanes and the sidewalks, that that I
found as being consistent with the GMP. And I did not address the
others that remain silent.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought you did.
That's what I thought I seconded.
Is that clear enough, Mr. White?
MR. WHITE: It's clear enough for me. I turn to staff to see if
they know how to apply it.
MR. MULLER: I've got a question, Mark. I thought the first
time you said it, you were in favor of number four over number three.
You want to relook at --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I was in favor of number
three over four.
-- MR. MULLER: Number three being 75 percent of --
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You're three-quarters
Page 100
--~-~ -"'--~'-'--- .---
February 17, 2005
away through a proj ect, I mean, it seems logical that you shouldn't
have to be burdened by the other 25 percent.
So now the motion is that sidewalks and bike lanes, pursuant to
this LDC recommendation, are to be found consistent with the GMP
and further forwarded with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the DSAC
recommendation number three incorporated; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is correct.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made, I
seconded it. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Four (sic) in favor.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you were in favor,
Donna?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Um-hum.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, five in favor, one
opposed.
Okay, now, on a separate motion for the greenways issue, I. Had
previously made a motion to find them inconsistent with the growth
management plan. I believe it is inconsistent with the same reasons I
had stated earlier, and I'll make that motion again.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would second that again.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, we're right back.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see if we are. We
need discussion. Okay, all those --
Page 101
,"-_. -._-
February 17,2005
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I think we can deal
with greenways in a way consistent with what you've been saying all
day is and that is that it needs further study without tramping on this
inconsistent with the growth management plan issue.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't understand, I'm sorry.
What were you recommending? What are you suggesting?
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That we refer the greenways
part of this proposal back to the staff for further study, period. We can
deal with whether it's consistent with the GMP or not at a later date.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, if we do that, how
does it go -- what does the BCC then deal with?
MR. WHITE: Arguably you have the whole cloth of the LDC
amendment for them to consider, but there would not seem to be any
finding of consistency or not with respect to the greenway provisions.
That arguably puts the board in a difficult position of having to adopt
a regulation with which they don't have an LP A opinion.
They may, if they choose to carry that part forward, ask to have
you give your reconsidered opinion at another meeting before they
finally adopt it. Remember, there are two board meetings on this. So
between the two meetings, there may be an opportunity for this
commission to further consider, based upon board's policy discussion
and direction, kind of on demand, if you will, how you would then
vote. I cannot say.
MR. SCHMITT: Would it be helpful if you put a provision on
your recommendation that upon completion or at least the public
vetting of the comprehensive pathway plan, that staff bring this back
to the planning commission as a future amendment?
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that is legally permissible.
That's the intent, it's been the intent. I mean, the intent is bring it back
in a better format.
MR. WHITE: That's absolutely legally permissible and in fact I
--
Page 102
,._~. --,-
February 17, 2005
--~ MR. SCHMITT: How about the planning commission putting
that on the record, and as the local planning authority would make that
an official position of this committee or this board and put staff on the
hook for bringing it back.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Either that or you just
withdraw that portion of this package. You all have withdrawn LDC
amendments from us before without even telling us why, so --
MR. WHITE: I think that that is something that has to be a staff
consensus, and I'm not going to walk down that path. I just wanted to
say that when you were having your discussion earlier, I wanted to
remind you that you do have as one of your powers rolls making
recommendations with respect to what it might be or should be in
terms of what the board considers in terms of not only growth
management plan provisions but the whole array of regulatory fabric
that the county --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's fine, Patrick, but
we're walking right back in to the consistency with the growth
management plan quagmire.
MR. WHITE: I understand. And it's not one that's easy to
resolve.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not if we send it back to staff.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like Joe's suggestion
that we add language to the motion that indicates we want it to be
brought back to us after the comprehensive pathways plan is updated
and revised --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Makes sense.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Makes good sense.
MR. WHITE: Well, that effectively I think results in the board
perhaps having the option of giving you some further direction in the
intervening time between their two meetings, or not.
But regardless, it would seem to be clear that at the end of the
Page 103
-- --~'-'--'-'-~ ~-_._-
February 17,2005
- process, we would have an understanding that this needs to come back
effectively as soon after it could be scheduled for your consideration.
With the caveat the comprehensive pathway plan would have to be
effectively approved and adopted.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, then this proposal
doesn't involve us taking a position one way or another on the
consistency of the pathways.
MR. WHITE: And I'd probably have to --
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does it?
MR. WHITE: You're right, it does not.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does not.
MR. WHITE: It does not. But I thought you were going to say
more about the GMP. And I was going to say that where that would
leave the board, I think our office would have to look at in greater
detail. It's not to my knowledge a circumstance that has ever been
considered, certainly by our office.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That ought to be an
interesting outcome.
With that done, I'll call the question. All those in favor?
MR. WHITE: If I could just beg, is the staff clear with what the
motion is?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like the motion restated.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The inconsistencies with the
GMP, that were quoted earlier, with the caveat that this is being done
to -- that staff will come back with a new comprehensive pathways
plan, once that is developed, for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, then inconsistencies
with the GMP. We're right back to it.
MR. WHITE: I think that there may be some confusion about
which of the two plans the motion pertains to. And I'd ask the motion
maker and second to confirm what their intent is so the rest of the
commission is clear.
Page 104
--.-"-
February 17,2005
-, ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I just did. The--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't understand.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The greenways portion of this
is at this point incon -- I believe, based on the elements that I read
earlier, is inconsistent with the growth management plan, and because
of that, we're asking that they come back with a complete and updated
comprehensive pathway plan so that we can reconsider the
consistency.
MR. SCHMITT: The first part of the amendment was for it.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sidewalks and bike lanes,
it's already done. We're past that at this point.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's already done.
MR. WHITE: I understand your motion to be that you'd be
making a finding of inconsistency as to the greenway provisions. I'm
saying that loosely. And that they immediately be brought back for
your consideration after the comprehensive pathway plan amendments
are adopted.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the intent of the
motion, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: The second agrees with that.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now I'll call the
question: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and
raising your hand.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five.
All those against?
.~,~"~- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Indicating.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5-1. Motion passes. Thank
Page 105
--'-
February 17, 2005
.'.-. you.
Joe, the only thing on old business, I know you stated earlier that
I'm going to get the results. Again, I'd like to ask you to make --
please make sure I get those --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we don't have to discuss
this anymore.
Is there any other new business?
MR. SCHMITT: I have some new business.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Every year the Florida planning officials
conduct training. They have a conference. I'm not sure where the
conference is this year. Mr. Budd attended last year. And normally
there's one day devoted to Florida planning officials' training, training
for planning officials. So in regards to that, is there any interest of
members of this planning commission to attend that training?
Normally what happens, you're volunteers, we would pay for any
of the registration or we would pay for the associated cost of the
training, but normally the travel, we do not. So I don't know, it may be
in Orlando. I'm not sure where it is this year. But it's usually part --
an integral part of the annual AP A conference.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could e-mail me the
data, I'm interested.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to find out more about
it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Me, too.
MR. SCHMITT: I'll get more information. You certainly don't
have to give me an answer now, but what -- that's in Pinellas County.
Well, thank you, Fred. That's not too far up the road, right, Tampa, or
-- Clearwater.
So that normally is -- there's usually a day devoted to training for
that. And certainly -- I just want to know if there's interest so I can
Page 106
',--
February 17,2005
- look at budgeting it, and then we'll get you more information.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you e-mail it to us,
we'll respond that way.
Any public comment?
(N 0 response.)
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion addenda, nothing.
Okay, motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made to
adjourn.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody seconded it.
We're over, thank you.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :43 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, Acting Chairman
Page 107
--~~-_.,- __>_'''"TA_