Backup Documents 02/22/2011 Item #16I
161
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 22, 2011
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Airport Authority:
Minutes of November 8, 2010; December 13, 2010.
2) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December 9,2010.
3) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of October 7,2010; October 21, 2010; November 18,2010;
December 2, 20 I 0; December 7, 2010 special session.
4) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December 1,2010; DSAC Public Utilities/RPZ
Subcommittee December 6, 20] O.
5) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of November 9, 2010.
Minutes of October ]2, 2010; November 9, 20]0 no quorum.
6) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of December 15, 2010.
7) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of December ]5, 2010.
Minutes of November 18,2010 joint meeting w/EZDA.
8) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 8, 2010; December 13,2010.
9) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of December 16, 2010.
Minutes of November ]8, 2010.
10) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of October ]8, 20]0.
II) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of January 6, 201].
Minutes of December 2,20]0.
Jl:A~I' ~~~~~
\ ,. Collier County Airport Authority
~ ~ Advisory Board Meeting
./ BY: ....................... Everglades City Hall
102 Broadway Street E, Everglades City
November 8, 2010
~:it 6~~j) ?- P'I V
HenrliR~ -dJi-- /
Coyle---. ~ '
Coletta _...,_ _
Meeting Minutes
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM.
3. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum.
Advisorv Board Members Present: Lloyd Byerhof, Michael Klein, James Murray, Byron
Meade, Frank Secrest, Dave Gardner, Richard Rice and Floyd Crews.
Advisory Board Members Absent/Excused: None.
Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Debi Mueller, Bob Tweedie, Thomas Vergo
Others Present: Please see sign In sheet attached.
Action;
A quorum was announced as being present.
4. Introduction of Guests. All present introduced themselves to the Advisory Board.
5. Adoption of the Agenda.
Action:
Mr. Klem mode a motion to approve the agenda. Mr Murroy seconded the
motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
6. Featured Employee.
Debbie Brueggeman, the November Featured Employee, provided a brief overview about
her responsibilities with the Airport Authority.
7. Acknowledgement of Airport Information..
Items under this section of the agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board
action is requested.
.
U5DA-CCAA manufacturing facility at IMM.
The USDA has approved the contract documents, and a pre-construction meeting was
heid at the Immokalee Airport on October 19, 2010. The grant closing meeting will
be scheduled in the near future. The Authority expects construction to begin in
December 2010, the building to be substantially complete in 165 days, and completed
within 205 days from the Notice to Proceed.
Marco Island Apron (North) and Parking Lot Relocation.
The project will be complete by December 3, 2010. Construction of the taxiway is
expected to begin in January 2011, and will take approximately 15 months to
complete.
Southwest Florida Brewing Company (Brewery) Update.
The Airport Authority has identified a six (6) acre parcel of land, started the Airspace
Determination process with the FAA, and determined a point of ingre'll~~1 Two
Date: 0
Item.: 0
.
.
1 of 3
Cc:pies to:
161
1;j\ \
appraisers have determined that the Fair Market Value of the property is $0.14 per
square foot. The Brewery has not yet provided all the information requested by the
Airport Advisory Board. Mr. Curry provided a copy of his November 4, 2010 letter to
Mr. Ernest Sittenfeld highlighting the necessary steps to move the project forward to
the Advisory Board, and indicated that he has been advised that the Brewery IS
researching other possible locations.
. Everglades Airpark Update.
Mayor Hamilton has indicated that it is the intention of Everglades City to take over
the operation and management of Everglades Airpark. The Airport Authority has
provided the City of Everglades with information regarding airport operations. The
City IS working on a business plan to demonstrate its viability to run an airport that
will be submitted to Collier County and the FAA. The Advisory Board suggested that
any contract with the City indicate that the airport continue to operate as an airport.
Neither the Airport Advisory Board nor the Airport Authority is taking a position on
Mayor Hamilton's initiative.
. Fuel Pricing Policy.
The Advisory Board expressed concern at the September 13, 2010 Advisory Board
meeting that fuel pricing is not competitive. Based on an analysis of the Airport
Authority's costs and direction provided by the County Commissioners, Mr. Curry
presented a proposed tiered discount plan for Fletcher Flying Service and any other
large users of Jet A fuel that would be reevaluated annually.
Action:
Mr. Gardner made a motion that the proposed discount plan be
implemented for three months, diViding the annual figures by 4. The
motion was approved by a 4 to 2 vate. Mr. Meade abstained becouse af a
conflict of interest, and signed Conflict af Interest Farm 88. (Copy
attached. )
8. Approval of Minutes.
Action:
Mr. Rice made a motian ta apprave the Minutes for the October 11, 2010
meeting. Mr. Murray seconded the motIOn, and it passed by unanimous vate.
9. Director's Report.
Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda.
. Recommend approval of a Passarella & Associates Work Order in the amount of
$11,800 for modifications to the permits for construction of a taxiway at MKY,
pending review and comment by EnVironmental Services Division.
Action:
Mr. Rice made a matian that a Passarella & Assaciates Work Order in the
amount af $11,800 for modificotions to the permits for construction of the
MKY taxiway be approved, pending review and comment by Environmental
Services Division. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by
unanimous vote.
2 of 3
16'
1 Pn
10. Finance Report - Quarter ended SePtember 30, 201Q.
The sale of Jet A fuel at the Marco Island Airport has increased year-aver-year.
Action:
Mr. Murray made a motion that the quarterly report for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010 be accepted. Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it passed
by unanimous vote.
11. Old Business.
. Conflict of Interest Statement from October 11, 2010 meeting
Action:
As required by Section 112.3143 of Florida Statues, the Conflict of Interest
standard form signed by Mr. Byron Meade at the October 11, 2010 meeting
was read aloud.
12. New Business.
. Gliders at Immokalee Regional Airport.
The Executive Director recommended that Cross County Soaring, a glider winch
operation owned and operated by Don Ingraham, pay 15% of gross receipts as a fee
to utilize the Immokaiee Regional Airport for its winter soaring operations. Members
of the Soaring Club stated that Mr. Ingraham would not bring his operations to
Immokalee Airport at that cost. The Advisory Board agreed that Cross Country
Soaring should be permitted to operate at the Immokalee Airport this winter and pay
a tie-down or hangar fee as approprrate.
13. Public Comments.
Dr. Caldwell expressed concern about costs at the three County airports. Mr. Shepard
reiterated his interest in renewing his lease at the Immokalee Regional Airport that will
expire the end of December 2010, and provided pictures of some the aircraft currently
located at the museum he operates on this leasehold to the Advisory Board.
14. Next Meeting.
The next Advisory Board meeting will be held on Monday, December 13, 1:00 pm, at the
Immokalee Regional Airport, 165 Airpark Boulevard, Immokalee, Florida.
15. Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~., /) /
; - (. c~_ ,< )-rl-<..j.wj
Lloyd A. By.;rhof, Chairman t
3 of 3
161
1 A-\
Airport Advisory Board
Novemher 8, 2010
Public Sia:n-In Sheet
N a DJ_~
1::!1,1;UIJ J\[tiUlltjQl)
Phonc !1
_~_~lP.1lftt:R.
,
u:tfr" 1st y-~bc,", ,>", . 1~"-[i'-"lJdp...i'l5..i2J\J.
i
_____'=:1 -5 'i . '-i (j l::'_.B q Z.
A-J A ii:! v', A/ C C'(( // 7/2 I' /../ j-",:? /J ,f;~ / /1./ ,1//,' l/
-L' - ._...~ ..-- ...-'-!---.---..----.t--.- .,.----
~ ~_'!:_...~:..~~~lfi:2 -~~:l__:_'!L!__!_~_
(,~, i'vi
-----._-..-._.--
..... .~
,
~) ,
Let.. I'/~
h K
L
,i ,r}j
,< (
l
(,
'\
--; //2)(j
(__hr, >
(
'-
'j
i \) - ,
,~~ ';__\_~\""'......J
\
j
iI'(f
I ~''-- .
1./
') J8/J'
- -----..,,---.__--0
, . /'
t,:,:(t.._~______~~L~~'~': ~~_::=:______~~~~~_
-~~,-
I_/.!):/;:', I
--------- ~
,
I ..
",: i /
J
,:")/;~ ,.(i (. ~~J
Le'-
I
\., .)
k S .. p!1~Vj-"h-jll,
,
l"-i:.." d ,'> (~ jll ,,-,-'_:l< (/'(~
-'T_'_'
G/~:C)I
j/;:;!V~ 1':);-N-;-lZA(...~~< J.<b'-~,,\-.,.:.'-'r~((. \\.',.\~~(~/).ln!_
_~~_._-_._---~-.-.---------.- ,__._.______' _.w~..._._..__. ~...,._____
(--~
>// ( ~ ( I
I. ..... L'"
l-:..':-J./c\..L,~c_' J~""--4~..
JLl~._') ~,^_~u._
i "-.J.. .. /; j\.._~L~:~l~~i.t:~f__ _ LtuC>- '~_f~
~ i 21.:..Lt..;; "-'--_
, .,
r'v\ l<-<.- i~! t.. 1,_-,1.1
- - ____.__________.....':>.:.-__.._....._.~. ___n
,1-'"/,,
l....-tl~
c " 1,; i' '( (
, ,_ 1
l~~-J ')l~ v^L~ _________~\'--.::., .1'\":'; \ ~ " ,~'-......\ _-'--L
'~0:;.l}2- '1~u..._I-}-(' .1) /L,l .~,~.kC2
~ ~t~~f~: . .~ ;::0~:' i~-_~ (~,~;~__iL)"_' d,)j
',{ / .1 . .' ,'" C
/-iJ_____i'_-l~__0~_~J_''t<{~ t C_=_~:i~J{:_~_'jLJi/~,:_ {i <.
',' . i
u_ __ _____..______"__._+
.J / <. '-,~-I'
__L_~~_~_.:
:1' ---~ Y -'; r-'L ) e- 'G
u .~----f.-L-----.T--+~.Df.
. .' . ~ ; .
-'j -; /;',,_-: (: !; .>"i 1./
., ,
-'I \ i ,'..., L ,,) '-I" I) ('1 (,) 'z.n,
~ -t.-- - -- --- '--'T - _n____ -- ->7'-
- /I / M / ---;;- -vi /, ' .
Z(t~!Y:: _~J~ ~ ___ _ _ _ _.l~~p{~:~Ij{;-N~I.fl:::t.j::-(.~--_~~---L-
, , / I - - -
I: .J i)/. "
_.L.L~' ,.jL___U,LI-'.'..!..l.'.'<..-I-___
,.., .
i ,....+
C-J\c-{ ,
c;: -"
~'
';{/i'
7 <; //0
fl'./',
I'i.
~,_ f
---....-----_._-
Q_ l ,I'" '
(-
^' /
/11. (
/ /7"
t.e t~. .
(~-)
i<' ,
I
:~-'1 '
,/ '
. 1, ti . ') ,..
. (. IJ. /.' /. .." . .. '. ,~
-:16?-'1.c~/' .' , . .;) tLL.J...iJ..JlLjl2J."'.E0>.'~.llL_n2_'tlOL-f.__
,
~1:
)
) &,
;, c:,!)
I..C
... ZZ'1-fl_CJ
161
1 ~\
I FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LA.ST NAME--FiRST NAME.,-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD COUNCil, COMMISSION. AUTHO',iTY, C,R COMMITTEE I
I
rvleade, Byron Collier Coumy Airport Authonty Advisory Board I
I \'AiL!NG ADDKESS THE BOARD COUNCIL, ~OMtJiSSION, AUTHORi,v OR C':)MM!T noE 0N I
1303 Cob:a Court /l./HICH I SERVE is c',. ,,:N!T o~
DCITY 0CO,-J~;;' []OiHER~OCAlAGENCY I
c:r" COUNTY
Naples Coilier '~AME OF POL Ti(;;,:_ SUBDIV:Si()N
CO;,lcr CDUIl~,
DATE ON WI,IC)j VOTE OCCURRED MY P:-::'S!TION 'S
November 8, 2010 D EL;::CT;Vr. r71 APPOINTI\/E
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form IS for use by any person serving at the county, City, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of Interest under Section 1123143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced With voting on a measure in which y:lU have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position For this reason. please pal close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective Of appointive county. municipal, or other 'ocal publiC office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
Inures to his or her special private gain or loss Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other thar. a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained): to the special pnvate gain or loss of a relatlve; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163,357. FS., and officers of independent special tax distncts elected on a one-acre, (me-vote baSIS are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son daughter, husband, wife, brother. sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son~jn"law. and daughter-In-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, jOin! venturer, coowner of property, or corpJrate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange)
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the Situations described above you must disclose the conflict.
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEIN(:; TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your Interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting: and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responSible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting. who should Incorporate the form In the mlr,Jtes
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must ab~tain from voting III the SItuations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the dee:slon, wtlether orally or In wnting and whether made
by you or at your direction
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATIEMPT TO INFI_UENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
fAKEN
You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to Influence UK: decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who Will incorporate the form in tile minutes tContinued on other side)
161
1
AI
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
A copy of the form must be provided Immediately to the other members of the agency
The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the fOfm IS filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY D";CUSSION AT THE MEETING
You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict In the measure before partlcipatmg.
You must complete the form and file It within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must inc-Orporate the form In the mmutes A copy of the form must be provided Jmmediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form tS filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, Byron Meade
November 8
. hereby dIsclose that on
.2010
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
D inured to my speCIal pnvate gain or loss:
inured to the special gain or loss of my busmess associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative. _._______.__,_~_
X- Inured to the special gain or loss of New York Life
whom I am retained; or
by
inured to the speCIal gain or loss of
which
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
(a) Measure before Agency: Agenda Item 7. Acknowledgement of Airport Information, Fuel
Pricing Policy.
(b) The company I represent provides insurance for airport tenant/company affected by fuel
price
i
(
Date Filed
~-/
, r
).
/::;~~~/
/;;/
//
. /C
( (~~---C .'\...... . " ..
"
~// i'
Signatul-e
',</ .
NOTICE UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112317 A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING IMPEACHMENT.
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY. REPRIMAND. OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $1 0.000
CE FORM 88 - EFF 1/2000
PAGE 2
161
1 1\\ ~
o ~I~m~~~olr County Airport Authority
Advisory Board Meeting
: ..,....,.........--..~mmokalee Regional Airport
165 Airpark Boulevard, Florida 34142
December 13, 2010
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
p./
,/
-r ft/
/
v
Meeting Minutes
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM.
Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum.
Advisorv Board Members Present: Lloyd Byerhof, Michael Klein, James Murray, Byron
Meade, Frank Secrest, Richard Rice, and Floyd Crews
Advisorv Board Members Absent/Excused: David Gardner.
Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Bob Tweedie, Thomas Vergo, Tiffany Mendoza,
John Keith, Jimmy Mullins.
Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached.
Action:
A quorum was announced as bemg present.
3. Introduction of Guests. All present Introduced themseives to the Advisory Board.
4 Adoption ofthe Agenda.
Action:
Mr. Rice made a motiOn to approve the agenda. Mr. Klein seconded the
motion, and Ir passed by unanimous vote.
5. Featured Emplovee.
John Keith, the December Featured Employee, provided a brief overview of his history
with CCAA, his current job and projects presently underway or planned at the Immokalee
Airport. Mr. Murray complimented Thomas Vergo and the Immokalee staff about recent
noticeable improvements at the airport.
6 Acknowledgement of Airport Information
Items under this section ofthe agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board
action IS requested
. USDA-CCAA Manufacturing Facility
The grant closing is scheduled for December 15, 2010. Construction will start the
beginning of next year, and is expected to be compieted In the summer of 2011.
Mr. Courtright Inquired about whether the facility will be used for aViation or non.
aviation purposes, and if work on aircraft will be permitted in the building.
Discussion ensued regarding permitted use of t-hangars based on the current Airport
Authority's T-Hangar policy.
MISC. Corres:
1 of 4
Date:
Item#:
Cc-pies to'
161
1
k\
Action'
Mr. Meade made a motion that a copy of the T-Hangar License Agreement be
provided to the Advisory Board for review at the January meeting. Mr. Rice
seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
. IMM pricing structure/Cross Country Soaring
Mr. Curry informed the Advisory Board that this item is on the December 14, 2010
BCC Agenda The Advisory Board expressed concern as to whether their opinion
regarding what Cross County Soaring should be charged to operate at the Immokalee
Airport was adequately expressed at the November 9, 2010 BCC meeting.
Action:
The Airport Advisory Board unanimously agreed that the airports are public
facilities that should provide a service to the commumty, and that that the
gilders [Cross Country Soaring} should not be charged 0 percent of their profits
or revenues to operate at the airport. ;Chey should pay only for the use of
whatever facilities they utilize, such 05 0 i,angar or tie-down fee Mr. Murray
will speak on behalf of the Advisory Boord at the December 14, 2010 BCC
meetmg
Action:
Mr. Meade made a motion that the regularly scheduled AdVisory Board
meetings be taped Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous
vote.
. FAA Compiaints
The Executive Director Informed the Advisory Board that he is responding to two
complaints made to the FAA that are due by January 7,2011:
1) A complaint by Mr. Steve Fletcher that the Collier County Airport Authority has
denied hiS fight to self service fueling of his aircraft.
2) A complaint by Mr. Don Ingraham that the Immokalee Regional Airport fees
are unreasonable and discflminatory.
. Records Request
Mr. Courtright has requested a copy of the FAA response to Mr. Curry and any other
related communications between the FAA and Mr. Curry regarding the racetrack at
IMM.
. Aeronautical Museum Request
The Executive Director has received a request for a parcei of land located near the
southeast corner of the Immokaiee Airport adjacent to the property owned by the
Parks and Recreation Department for an aeronautical museum. Mr. Curry stated that
an aeronautical museum would be a favorable project to attract aViation enthusiast to
the Immokalee Airport However, the area requested for the museum is reserved for
future aViation development In accordance with the Airport Layout Plan, and a static
display museum does not fit the intended use for that property. Mr. Curry suggested
that perhaps thiS potential project should be located on land reserved for future non-
aviation development.
2 of 4
161
AI
1
7. Approval of Minutes.
Mr. Byerhof recommended several changes to the November 8. 2010 minutes. and the
Advisory Board requested that in the future approval of the minutes be moved to just
after the adoption of the Agenda.
Action:
Mr. Murray then made a motion to apprave the minutes for the November 8
meeting, as amended. Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it passed by
unanimous \lote.
8. Director's Report.
Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda.
. Approval of 2011 Airport Advisory Board Meeting Schedule.
Action:
Mr. Murray made a motion to apprave the 2011 Advisory Baard meeting
schedule. Mr. Rice seconded the matian. and it passed by unonimaus vate.
. Recommendation that the BCC approve Change Order NO.1 to DeAngelis Diamond
Construction, Inc. Contract No. 09-5234 in the amount of $104,797.20. increasing the
total amount of the contract from $752.277.80 to $857,042. pending USDA approval.
Action:
Mr. Klein made a motion to recommend thot the BCC opprove Change Order
NO.1 to Contract No. 09.5234, pending USDA approval. Mr. Rice seconded the
mation, and It passed by majority vote of 6-1.
9. Finance Report - Month ended October 31. 2010.
Action:
10. Old Business.
Mr. Meade made a motion to accept the Finance Report for the period ended
October 31, 2010 as presented. Mr. Murroy seconded the motion, and it
passed by unanimous vote.
. Conflict of Interest Statement from November 8. 2010 meeting.
Action:
As required by Section 112.3143 of FlOrida Statues, the Conflict of Interest
standard form signed by Mr. Byron Meade at November 8, 2010 meeting was
read aloud
11. Public Comments.
Prior to hearing comments from the public, Mr. Klein inquired about the possibility of
replacing the security building at Everglades Airpark. Mr Curry Informed the Advisory
Board that staff is working with Facilities to tie all the airports into the County
surveillance system.
3 of 4
16\
Mr. Marvin Courtright indicated that the County Clerk's office is reviewing Airport
Authority grants
12. Next Meeting.
The next AdvISory Board meeting will be held on Monday, January 10, at the Immokalee
Regionai Airport.
13. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 PM
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~
_ . . /i!, ~~.~ "^-
Lloyd A. yerhof, Chairman 7
4 of 4
1 Ih
161
1 AI
Airport Advisory Board
l)eeembcr 13,2010
Public Sie:n-In Sheet
)\,mm:
I'mal L_,0ftilill!iOll
l~bll!l<:.I!
__g/i!,~IJ/J_~. -----L-~~':.~-~~-~-~L7~~~ ~!::?~:_~"-t_?~~( J t.; I G,.
~ -
. t!i1LJ __Ai11.#Ji:.I1.______ ,vi/LA 1lt-<-.en.~4-U <:-.f-ff' &/;-7__ .. .1~1. -~~ irfnd.~'i' YO
('1,' -- 1$ /, .'
{lId/(' I '7j\Licd.?"{ (Jhtll____.__~L~.:::___ ._~_--_. L~~__________
~'0Xe r;1L__.c.0Lm//'Y/', ,'/Jol '" .j?!'j(uf?/.V
'-t~~5B- ( if? IlL__ ... _S4/8z~Z}fJ&l;l-",!'h.L___Jl)J.~_?5--tl-f 2~'
-C)\~bc.~'t-Sh'rov:~~- ____~:S;~\c.~_:\(J"'_v_:\"
===-'_j-e.. 01,--}~~VL::___.__(LPh~/' ~j "'\ .s.fH:k---,,_~:Jj " - f( LJ.L-d.p./ k'_
~J~?~J..:t__...,_C3..Jn'L':v_'- Ii " \1"& \ .') z,-,':. !'':'_: i'9 :1-0'L:___-~.o 'L<eCo...l1
VG:.....L-R,c*-~_.__________d'(-(~, YL&"i, _'< -<; Z Z)~_0Go2:5; S C/
:l\1"\fV:\_i--SD"-:\_U,lcl':,______-l3Ci__S.-;:rl Q3-::2.l
_r;rr; 11~ ~DcLQ2!;"L__d..'::J.9 -- ~":5,'1_- q~~3
HL/!;g._ TQ~o re____ ... . __.___ _ ~_____ ._____._..
1!i!2l2u.i Tpma_ m____
/~ h".} .:2 c.- ~1/.1 (4. ",/'c) h-1
----..---M-.-.--~....~__._..__~~_~-.L-_
~;;.'J __v___~..):-BjK
."""j-"""i
Fiala
Hiller
Henning _ J}}./
Coyle. V
CGIQlti'l~~~___
Tl"'
161 1 w
Uecember 9,2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, December 9,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Adyisory
Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
Herein, met on this date at I :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at
Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Goyernment
Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III
VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires (Excused)
Jim Burke
Murray Hendel
Robert Raymond (Excused)
Joseph A. Moreland
Victor Rios
Wayne Waldack
(Vacancy)
ALSO PRESENT:
Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney
Gail Hambright, Accountant
Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples
Misc. corresl' I
"
Date OJ..-.. J.;)...j II
'/ l' I "A
.., . .:' '" 1
Item # l i/2-L \ /,0:-
16 \ 1
December 9, 2010
(\-?---
I. Call to Order
Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at I :0] PM
II. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
Randy Moity, Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) candidate from Marco Island
was in the audience.
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried
unanimously 5-0.
V. Public Comments
Steve Feldhaus, Secretary, Pelican Bay Foundation provided an update on the
Management of the Clam Bay Estuary System noting the Foundation and the County
have been working closely togethcr to address the issues involved with the
Management of the Estuary including drcdging of the Pass and overall management
of the system.
At the next CAC meeting, the Committee will be revisiting a proposal for the
navigational markers of Clam Bay. The Foundation supports the marking of the bay
for navigation, and supports the boating rights of the Seagate Community, however is
not in favor of the red and green navigational markers.
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
1. October 14,2010
Mr. Moreland moved to approve the minutes of the October 14, 2010 meeting.
Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 5-0.
VII. Staff Reports
1. Expanded Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin
The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report- FY 2010 - 2011 "
updated through November 2010. He noted Tourist Tax collections for the first 2
months of the Fiscal Year are over budget projections in the amount of $82,] 77.
2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin
The Committee reviewed the "FY 2010/2011 TDC Category "A: Beach
Maintenance Projects" updated through December 1,2010.
Mr. Waldack arrived at 1:14pm
VIII. New Business
1. Wiggins Pass Bid Package - Review and Discussion
2
16\
December 9, 2010
1 -A"t-
Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Share Wiggins Pass
Dredging Bid Package and discuss issues and status with the CAC" dated
December 9, 2010 for informational purposes. He noted:
. This will be the 14'h time the Pass has been dredged and is currently on
an 18 month schedule for dredging.
. The County is developing a long term solution for the stabilization of
the Pass which is intended to lengthen the dredge cycle to
approximately 4 years.
. The proposed dredging "interim dredging" is necessary before a long
term plan for stabilizing the Pass is implemented.
. The permit for the "interim dredging" is expected to be issued by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection this month.
. The scope of work is out for bid and due on January 6, 2011.
. The contract will require approval by the Board of County
Commissioners.
. It is anticipated the work will begin in February 201 ] and be completed
by April 1, 2011.
. A portion of the waters involved in the activity are "Outstanding Florida
Waters" which require maximum Nephelometric Turbidity Units
(NTU's) during the dredging activity.
. The County has reachcd an agreement with the FDEP on the allowed
NTU's.
Mr. Moreland (Chairman of the CAC Subcommittee charged with developing a
long term solution to stabilizing the Pass) has been confronted by members of the
boating community who are concerncd with the impeded navigation of the Pass
and frustrated with the length of time it is taking to complete the "interim"
dredge."
Speaker
Doug Fee, Resident and boater verified the Pass needs dredging but expressed
concern that a "Letter of Consistency" issued on August 30, 2010 by County Staff
which indicates the proposed dredging is in conformance with the Land
Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. He cxpressed concern
that the "Letter of Consistency" was issued without public or Stakeholder input
and questioned how the public could provide input or challenge the "letter" if they
so wanted')
County Staff (Bill Lorenz) informed him the long term solution to stabilization of
the Pass will require public and Stakeholder input at the time of the proposal. Hc
cited sections of the LDC and GMP which requires reviews of development
within the Conservation District (which the lands in question lie within).
He encouraged CAC members read the Land Management Plans for Barefoot
Beach and Delnor Wiggins State Park and is concerned the "letter" did not
address all County Policies in effect.
3
16 \ 1 (tv
December 9, 2010
He recommended the Coastal Advisory Committee require input from the
Environmental Advisory Council and Collier County Planning Commission on
any proposed plans to stabilize the Pass.
Chairman Sorey noted any interested party could address the Board of County
Commissioners when the "interim dredging" bid package is on their Agenda.
Gary McAlpin noted Letters of Consistency are primarily issued by Staff and all
information requested was provided to Mr. Lorenz for his analysis. The issue
may be addressed by the BCC, if necessary.
Speaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted the Conservancy is
aware of the conditions proposed for the permit. They are conditions "they can
live with" and requests the County not pursue further variances in the NTU
requirements.
She recommended the benefits of the Wiggins Pass environment be assessed in
monetary means and will attempt to identify a party for anyone who is interested
in this type of information.
Gary McAlpin noted the County agrees not to request any further variances in
the NTU requirements.
The proposal for a long term solution to stabilization of the Pass will require
review by all nccessary County Advisory Boards (i.e. Environmental Advisory
Council and Collier County Planning Commission.)
2. Naples Berm Bid Package - Review and Discussion
Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Share the Naples Berm Bid
Package and discuss issues and status with the CAe' dated December 9,2010 for
informational purposes. Hc noted:
. The scope of work is to re-nourish hot spots in the area south of Doctors
Pass and Seagate.
. Last summer, the BCC authorized $1.5M to temporarily stabilize these
areas.
. Approximately 24,000 cubic yards of material will be placed in the
Doctors Pass Area to stabilize the area until a major renourishment is
completed.
. Staff continues to analyze the Seagate location to determine if interim
renourishment is required.
. Staff is working with the Chateau development to gain permission to
renourish the area controlled by them.
. If the Chateau lands are not incorporated into the scope of work, there
will be a grade break in the berm line which could cause a weakness to
the berm if it becomes "breached."
. The work is anticipated to begin in early February 2011 and be
completed by May 7th.
4
161
1 ~'l--
December 9, 2010
3. Doctors Pass Bid Package - Review and Discussion
Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Share the Doctors Pass Jetty
Rebuild Bid Package and discuss issues and status with the CAe' dated
December 9,2010 for informational purposes. He noted:
. The scope of work is to repair the existing Jetty at Doctors Pass.
. Staff continues to attempt to gain permission to access the area on the
north side of the Jetty to complete the work. This may require
cooperation with the City of Naples.
. Approximately 4,000 tons of stone will be placed to repair the Jetty.
Chairman Sorey requested Dr. Michael Bauer contact the Naples City Manager
to determine a City o/Naples "project contact "fiJr the proposed scope of'work.
4. Proposed Easement Document for Beach Renourishment
Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve
Easement Agreement between the Beachfront property Owners and Collier
County to provide public beach access, major heach renourishment, vegetation
planting and dune restoration to the property easement" dated Dccember 9, 20] 0
for approval. He noted:
. The easement is to grant pernlission to the County, or their
representatives, to access private properties to complete any work
required in renourishing County beaches.
. The proposal would require the landowner to grant an easement into
perpetuity for public use of the area in exchange for the expenditure of
public funds to stabilize their property.
Chairman Sorey reported property owners have indicated to him they are
concerned over a perpetual easement. Their position is, if the renourishment
ceases to exist, the easement should expire as well.
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney noted the directive given to Staff
by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) was to prepare "perpetual
easements" for public access. The BCC could consider allowing the easement to
expire iffunding is no longer approved by the appropriate parties (State of
Florida, BCC, etc.)
Gary McAlpin noted Staff will also meet with the City of Naples and the City of
Marco Island regarding the issue.
Chairman Sorey recommended a decision on the proposed document be
postponed until it has been properly vetted with property owners and the City of
Naples and Marco Island.
Colleen Greene recommended the Committee approve the "concept" so Staff
may move forward and review the issues raised.
5
161
1 A1,
December 9, 2010
Mr. Hendel moved to approve the document "in concept" subject to additional
inputfrom Stakeholders. Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 4 'yes" - 2
"no." Chairman Sorey and Mr. Waldack voted "no."
IX. Old Business
None
X. Announcements
l. CAC Schedule for 2011
Gary McAlpin presented a memo from Gail Hambright, Tourist Tax Coordinator
to CAC - Subject "2011 CAC Scheduled Meetings" for informational purposes.
XI. Committee Member Discussion
Mr. Waldack requested an update on the Hideaway Beach renourishment project.
Gary McAlpin reported the project is mostly complete and the contractor is in the
process of demobilizing.
Mr. Rios requested an update on the status of a possible interim renourishment for
South Beach for Marco Island.
Gary McAlpin noted a Study is underway and Staff has not formerly addressed the
issue at this point.
XII. Next Meeting Date/Location
January 13,2011 - Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 2:15 P.M.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
,.,.. ..// cc~?_, ~
\-... ",--::.7./ . -1 .<
. ,
ohn Sorey, III, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on Ii') / I
as presented '.x or as amended
6
By:.......................
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples. Florida
October 7,2010
, 1 k3
October 7, 201 0
I~~~~W~~
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Conunission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the tollowing members present:
Mark Strain. Chairman
Melissa Ahem
Donna Reed-Caron
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Barry Klein
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Ray Bellows. Zoning Manager
. ~~~ .>
D ~.t~\ ~1'
"~~. /'\
Vi'
ALSO PRESENT:
Page 1 of 85
::~#~
Itemd loJi ~
::c"'lies io
16\ 1
October 7, 20 I 0
~?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming, everyone. Welcome to the October 7th meeting of the Collier
County Planning Commission.
If you'll please rise for Plcdge of Allegianec and remain standing fix a few moments afterwards. Thank you.
(Pledgc of Allegiance was rccited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
As many which you prohably know, last weck our fanner County Managcr Jim Mudd passed away after a
long battle with cancer. We had interacted with Jim periodically on this Board and we knew him a man of great
intelligence and of !,'feat compassion for Collier County.
One thing that impressed me most, Jim had confidence. No matter what we went to him with, he always had
a solution and he always felt confident about how to proceed with the issue. That was true sign of leadership for this
Collier County at a time especially when thc county was going through a lot oftunnoil after just recently coming out
of some bad periods prior to 2000.
We will miss Jim, and our community is much beller otfbecause of his presence here. I sincerely extend our
condolences to the family, and we hope that he forever remains in pcace, and ask for a moment of silence on Jim's
behalf.
Thank you.
(Moment of silence.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much
*** And we have roll call today.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ycs. Ms. Ahern')
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiller?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I know. We'll do tlus slowly.
Mr. Midney')
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain')
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms.llomiak')
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Hcre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
We have what appears to be a short agenda, but in truth it may be a rather lengthy onc.
***Besides the advertised public hearing on the case that we have today, we're also going to be discussing the
-- I'm going to say it right, because they're pretty close in terminology -- the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
And then after that we have the Watershed Plan Update workshop.
We had received cxtensive amount of material on the watershed plan. I expect that will get into a lot of
discussion in length, so I don't believe wc'll be 1inishing before noon today, for those of you who arc trying to set your
schedules.
*** Addenda to the agenda. Another thing I need to add to the end of new business would be the annual
elections of ot1ieers for the Planning Commission.
*** And then we'll move into Planning Commission absences. Our next Ineeting is two weeks from today,
which would be the 21st. Does anybody know if they're not going to be able to make it to that meeting')
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll detinitely havc a quorum.
*'*Approval of the minutcs. The minutes were distributed to us for September 2nd. 2010. Does anybody
Page 2 of 85
'0/
16' 1 ~
October 7, 201 0
have any problems with the minutes?
If not -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was just going to correct that there were no Ms. Arnolds, it was all Mr.
Arnold who spoke. And that was the only thing that I saw.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to recommend approval?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, to approve.
Second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sccond.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak got the second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
***Ray, do we have any rccaps?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On September 28th, the Board of County Conunissioners heard the conditional use
for the collection and transfer station that was located off of Pheasant Route Trail. That was approved on the
summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. ***Chairman's report.
I have another interesting conunent to make, and that is I've been in this county for over 30 years, and during
most all that time that I can remember, I've had the pleasure of working with a gentleman by the name of Stan
Chrzanowski. Well, while Stan retired from Collier County October -- well, actually September 30th, last week. And
I doubt if he's listening to these meetings, because if I was him, that might be the last thing I'd be doing right now.
But he was a fine gentleman to work with, he is a lot of fun, very practical in his application, and he always
had a good attitude. So I want to thank Stan for his many years in Collier County, from this Board. I know the times
he came before us we certainly appreciated his input.
And he has someone in his shoes who's got some big shoes to till, and that gentleman is here today to. I'm
sure, respond to some of our questions when we get into the Flood Damagc Ordinance and the Watershed Plan.
***Consent agenda items. There are none, so we'll move right into the advertised public hearing.
***All those wishing to participate in this item -- first of all, I'll read it to you. It's the CU2008-AR-14078,
the Cemex Construction Materials, Florida, LLC, otherwise known as the Immokalee Sand Mine on the north side of
SR82.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly swom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with the applicant's representatives. Mr. Mulhere, Mr. Dempsey. Talked to
Mr. Varnadoc on the phone. And we will be going over the same issues we talked about today at this meeting.
Okay, Bob, it's all yours.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere, here this morning on behalf ofCemex. With me
Page 3 of 85
1 b \ 1 ~~
October 7,2010
this lnaming is Dan Beatty, also with -- with Cemex; Will Dempsey, with the Cheffy-Passidomo Law Finn, who's a
land use attomey; Emilio Robau with RW A, who is the project civil; Mark Stephens, who's going to deal with
hydrologic issues; Vijay Komala and Ron Talone for transportation related issues with David Plummer and
Associates.
We're here today this moming to request the Planning COImnission's recommendation of approval on this
earth mining conditional use. We believe the projcct is an idcal onc It)r several reasons. and we'll go over those as
part of our presentation.
I'll make a fairly brief presentation. Of course we have all these experts here to answer any specific questions
that I may not be able to answer.
If you look on the visualizer, you'll see the subject property highlighted in yellow at the top of the Hendry
County line and immediately adjacent to it. So I'll use the pointer to point out some things. Hendry County here, Lee
County here. This is the Immokalee urban area. thc ai'l'ort right hcre, Lake Trafford, State Road 82, State Road 29.
and the project is right here.
The actual site and the surrounding lands within Collier County are all located within the Rural Land
Stewardship Area open designation, which is the least environmentally sensitive. There are no habitat stewardship
areas, no tlowway stewardship areas and no water retention areas affcetcd by the proposed use. There is no panther
primary habitat on-site or near the property.
And obviously, as you can sec. thc sitc is in rural Collier County. It's been fanned for many years. It's for the
most part cleared of any native vegetation. I'll show an aerial that will depict that a little bit better.
This use will be relatively quiet. Therc won't be -- it's a hydraulic mining operation with no noisy drag lines.
We don't cxpect to have to do any blasting, but wc want to reserve the right. There may be some blasting needed, but
we don't think we'll have to do too much blasting, if at all.
(At which time, Commissioner Klcin enters the boardroom.)
MR. MULIIERE: This project involves the extraction ofa really very, very high quality sand not typically
ft)Und in these areas. It's critical in road construction, concrete manufacturing and glass making. It's very unique; the
material is very unique.
I want to mention that thc EAC reviewed this project and unanimously reconunended approval, and staff has
also recommended approval.
We'll walk you through most of the issues and then open it up for questions, I guess.
The project access or entryway -- let me just -- I did want to show you, this is the RLSA map which shows
the project. The pink color -- and some of you may know some of these items, but there's also -- Ms. Ebert's new on
the Planning Conunission, so I do want to go over some things that might be helpful. The pink is an open designation
within the Rural Land Stewardship Arca overlay.
This map shows -- is a blow-up of the project and panther telemetry.
And this is the site plan. And you can see we designed it so that the access road here on 82 leads quite a
distance up to thc actual production facility here. You have the lake hcrc. And this is a wildlife corridor.
So this access point is 6.5 miles cast of the Lee County line. Just a little bit down the road here would be
State Road 29, moving to the east. So there's really good cOllllectivity to the regional transportation network.
This site was elcarcd at least 35 years ago, and has been in active agriculture ftJr all that time.
Lct's talk about operations a little bit here. The idea would bc to mine tllis in phases. Obviously any mining
operation is going to be contingent upon thc market. Right now thc markct's a httle slow. Hopefully in the next few
years that will change.
Again, this is a very unique resource, and so there would be greater demand for this resource in terms of road
building. But the agricultural activities would continue as you phasc in the operation.
I talked about blastiug. It might be required. We're not really sure about that, so we'd like to reserve the right
for that.
This proJect -- based on the soil borings. there's resources going down to approximately 90 feet. And that
reminds me to let you know that we had two neighborhood infonnation meetings.
The first meeting we made a statement that was in error. We talked about the depth of the mine bcing 80 feet.
In order to clarify that. we actually had a second meeting.
There was two people at the first meeting and one person at the second meeting. That person was Chip Block
Page 4 of 85
r'
16\ 1 ~7;
October 7, 2010
from Lee County, he's here this moming, who attended both meetings.
And so anyway we clarified the mine depth was 90 feet, or thc confining layer, whichever is less.
Let's see. We've -- we'll have a de minimis impact on the level of service on the adjacent nearby roadway
network.
And that reminds me of another issue. State Road 82, there was an error contained in the AUIR which
classified that roadway as a Level 0 roadway. It's presently operating at Level C. And we confirmed that with staff.
And of course staff can respond to that.
We're reserving a section of property along State Road 82 up to -- the state is in the process of designing a
widening for State Road 82. And we've reserved 35 feet, almost 1,200 feet in length to accommodate stormwater
runoff for that project. They haven't really gotten very far in the design, so they don't know exactly how much of our
property they're going to need, but they've agreed at least in principle that it wouldn't be more than 35 feet and 1,200
feet in length along the State Road 82 frontage.
So after we complete the mining operations, we'll go through the process of reclamation in accordance with
florida law, and there will be a reclamation plan approved and include planted littorals along 10 percent of the lake
boundary. And so we know that we have to go through that process and that's part of the permitting process for us.
1 mentioned that we had two neighborhood information meetings.
1 mentioned that staff had rccommended approvaL EAC as welL
There's some housekeeping items we'd like to talk to, or about.
Item number four on the conditions of approval. we recommend a slight revision to that, and s\affhas agreed
that that was acceptable. The stipulation reads, prior to any vehicular use of the site the owner shall post two signs
along the entry drive, clearly visible to vehicles entering and leaving the site.
This was a stipulation of the EAC lor educational reasons so that the drivers would understand that they
needed -- that there was wildlife habitat out there and they needed to take care in terms of driving, especially in the
early moming hours.
The last sentence, we've proposed some changes. We proposed it would read as follows: The owner shall
submit and receive approval ofthe proposed signage plan in conjunction with the first to occur of either -- and that's
new lanb'uage, the first to occur of either -- the site development plan process, comma, and this is new language as
well, or other local development order as may be required which may allow vehicular use of the site.
And that's because we have seen that there was early work authorizations issued in other mining operations,
and just in case that becomes -- you know, the county needs the resource or something for early work authorization,
that would be the first development order issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bob, could you please--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- repeat the last part of that?
MR. MULHERE: Sure. The sentence would read -- for the last phrase?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So it would be, or local development order as may be required which may allow
vehicular use of the site.
Just looking to see ifthere's anything else specifically that I need to address before we go to Q and A.
I think that really covers my brief presentation. I'm sure there's going to be some questions, and we'll find out
who the best person to respond to those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into questions, I didn't want to interrupt your presentation, but I want
to welcome Mr. Barry Klein to the Planning Commission meeting. He's our new member.
Mr. Klein, welcome aboard.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Thank you. And I apologize for my tardiness. I thought it was 9:00 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's happened before to others, so n
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'm already leaming.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, arc there any questions of the applicant at this time?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just a quick question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, go ahead.
Page S of8S
16 ctober ~2010 ~?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: On the tratlic study that's in hcre, didn't it reference Level C"
MR. MULHERE: It did. The traffic study did reference Level C, which is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray. are there public speakers registered"
MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public want to speak on this as we go through the meeting? If
so, just raise your hands so I know the quantity.
Okay. one gentleman.
Because I have a series of questions, but some of them may be impacted by the questions or the comments of
the public.
Bob. in our conversations there were some issues that I had brought up relative to the way we've looked at
mines in Collier County in the past. Most recently is Hogan's -- I think it's called Hogan's Run or Hogan's Quany,
something like that --
MR. MULHERE: Hogan Island.
CHA[RMAN STRA[N: Yeah. The wheel wash aspect of that, I believe you've agreed to provide the wheel
wash that we had actually imposed on Hogan's Quarry as well; is that a lair statement"
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHA[RMAN STRAIN: In regards to the parking on SR82. your statcments to me were that the haul trucks
will not be permitted to park or stagc along SR82 right-ol~way. Applicant may allow haul trucks to stage or park on
the project's internal roadway prior to 6:30 a.m.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's acceptable as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wc talked about the eompcnsating light-ol~way and turn and decellanes.
and we also talkcd about acceleration lanes. And I've got comments Ii-om you in regards to that.
Can you just tell us your response to those concems that I had expressed to you about the length and even the
supply, for example, the acceleration lane"
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, wc understand that typically an accclcrationlane is required, and we would commit
to also providing an acceleration lanc. We would suggcst that we structure the stipulation such that the design actual
length be determined at the time of Site Development Plan.
We haven't really detennined how long it should be. But therc is a stipulation I think that provides for a
maximum length. I'm looking for that right now.
CHA[RMAN STRAIN: Ijust wanted to makc sure that on thc record the changes -- [will. when we get to
stipulations, suggest we include the language that you had provided. And ['II read it for the record at that time so
there's no mistaking that those lanes will be installed and utilized.
Does anybody else have any other questions"
Ms. Caron"
COMMISSIONER CARON: There werc several additional stipulations that Lee County had suggested. Are
there any of those that you have a problem with other than obviously the 80 versus 90 feet"
MR. MULHERE: [guess I'd have to respond that we have a problem with most of them, but we don't have a
problem with all ofthcm.
You said are therc any we have a problem with. so -- thc two that we don't have a problem with were the ones
that the Chainnan I think already referenced. One was a wheel wash. not a truck wash, a wheel wash.
There werc some perhaps just errors in the Icttcr, and Chip can certainly speak to that. But I think it said we
were a mile and change away from Lee County. It's actually 6.5 miles to our entry point. So that's quite a distanec.
But nevertheless, we've agreed to do a wheel wash, which will eliminate the dust issue and the mud issue.
And I think the second thing that we agree is appropriate is the limitation or the prohibition on staging early
in the moming on that roadway. So those two we think are appropriate.
With respect to other things, funding and so on and so t(,rth, I'm not aware of any situation where Lee County
is providing funding to Collier County iiJf impacts on mining trips coming into Collier County.
You know. there's certainly no rcason why they couldn't develop an interlocal agreement. But it would have
to he comprehensive, it couldn't be case by case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any mines III Lee County close to Collier County's border that may have
an ill1pact on us:
Page 6 of 85
1 b \ 1.f13
October 7, 2010
MR. MULHERE: I think we looked at that. And we have an exhibit that shows -- [ know when I was
involved in the DRGR hearings there were statements made that the majority of mines in Lee County provide
materials to Collier County. So we know there's impacts horn Lee County to Collier County.
Then we have this exhibit, which 1'11-- Kady, if you're in therc, we're going to go to the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kady, if you're in there? And you're talking into the lniC.?
MR. MULHERE: [don't know ifshe's in there.
So, you can see from thesc -- let me just back out a littlc bit. These are mines in -- thank you. Here's the Lee
County border, okay. So these are mines in Lec County. You can see there's a significant number of mincs here close
to the Collier County boundary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we don't have any impact from -- well, we have impact from them, but we have
no income off of those mines?
MR. MULHERE: No.
And there's reference to an interlocal agreement, but we are unaware of any existing interlocal agreement that
addresses this issue.
,[bere's an agreement to do general planning and communicate in that way.
CHAIRMAN STRA[N: Ms. Caron, did you havc any more?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think that's -- if you look at the rest of the conditions. they were not all
concernmg --
MR. MULHERE: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- road impacts, so--
MR. MULHERE: But some were very specific that wouldn't occur, like fire protection. You know, I'm kind
of surprised that there would be a -- even a comment on something like that. It happens here at the Site Development
Plan.
COMMISS[ONER CARON: [think we do that, yeah, already.
COMM[SSIONER EBERT: [have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRA[N: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: In reading this on the conditions, I see that there's a 12-and-a-halfhour, and yet
going back into the other pages in the traffic study it shows that the sales component, you plan on being open at 4:00
a.m. in the morning and you're plarming a 14-hour work day?
The two -- and operations are supposed to be from 6:30 in the moming to 7:00 p.m. at night. These two do
not jive.
MR. MULHERE: There's two separate issues. There's the mining opcration that occurs on the site, and then
there's the actual impact of truck traffic, taking the material to and from the site. TIlOse are the activities that are
limited. So it's -- those are the activities that are limited.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you arc limited to 12-and-a-halfhours?
MR. MULHERE: We're limited for truck traffic bringing the materials in and out of -- we're not limited for
the actual mining operations on the site --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, [understand. And do you really plan on working 24 hours a day, seven
days a week for 35 years?
MR. MULHERE: No, no, no, no. The only -- that's a -- that's a decision that's made based on market
demand. [I' there's a high market demand, you mine and then the whole mining operation goes away taster. If there's
lower market demand, you're certainly not going to have thrce shifts working when there's no demand for the
materials. So that's simply a question of demand.
It's actually probably in everyone's best interest if there's high demand to mine the resource more quickly.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And can you tell me, what do they plan on doing with this site when they are
finished with it"
MR. MULHERE: You mean other than --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's an extra 300 acres.
MR. MULHERE: Well, there'll be a commitment for the wildlife conidor, so that will be protected. And
then there's a couple wetlands I think that will also be protected. And then the -- there's a restoration plan, so there'll
be the littoral zones which will provide for wading bird habitat and nativc vegetation along the lake shoreline.
Page 7 of 85
16 I 1 i\?J
. October 7, 201 0
But beyond that, no, there's no -- it's so far away nobody has even given a thought to--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, because there's, as you say. cxtra 300 acres. I thought maybc they would
do somcthing later on or have a plan for it.
MR. MULHERE: No, no plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to the staff report.
MS. DESELEM: Good moming. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning.
We also havc -- I haven't looked but I'm assuming they'rc here -- Susan Mason for environmental questions.
Jack McKclma for engincering questions and John Podczcrwinsky for any transportation questions.
Thc staff report is a combined updated report [,)rthis hearing, which is a very short report. Last revised 9/7.
The main staff report is what was preparcd for the August 7th hcaring, and it has a revised date of 7/21.
In that statT report it goes into the information that's been provided by the applicant, tclling you what the
requested action is, where the project is located. what the purpose of it is, cxplains what the surrounding land uses are,
talks about the growth management consistcncy addressing particularly the Future Land Use Element. the
Transportation Element, going into the impacts on State Road 82 and mitigation that will be provided for that impact.
And it also provides the analysis ofthc coastal -- I'm sony, Conservation and Coastal Management Elcment.
And as noted, this project did go to thc EAC and reccivcd approval from that body.
On Page 7 of the staff report it gocs into the analysis for thc required findings. Staff is recommending that it
be found consistent with the Growth Managemcnt Plan and has provided the tindings in support of a recommendation
of approval.
We have provided the conditions for your consideration to go along with that approval rccommendation.
And if you have any qucstions, I'd be happy to attempt to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Arc there any questions of staff at this time?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFfER: Just one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay. in all the neighborhood meetings and in your analysis. has anybody
expressed any concerns about what uses could come alongside this?
For examplc, this might bring in other uses, cement plants. things like that.
MS.DESELEM: Not that I recall. Not to me, at least.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any othcr questions'l
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, does statIhave any objcction to the changes suggested to recommendation
number four by the applicant?
MS. DESELEM: No. sir. He did run that past us bet()rehand. but due to the timing wc couldn't present it to
you. I told him that we reviewed it and we were okay with it, both envirorunental staff and zoning. And we were
okay with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's obvious, but I want to be just certain. You have the supplemental
and you have the original. And in the original you had some of the Lee County concerns. recommendations by Lee
County. Do we take it that they have remained in this or arc we now Just dealing with the supplemental statement
with these reconunendations, the five of them'?
MS.DESELEM: I'm not sure I understand your question. In the supplemental information tbat we gave you
was the ofticialletter [rom Lee County that indicated what changcs they wanted made to thc list of conditions, and
that remains viable.
And as notcd, there is a stalf person herc from Lee County that I assume will be addressing those issucs.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so everything that they've requested remains; is that --
MS.DESELEM: As tar as I know, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It remains as a request just likc any other citizen's request. But it's not part of the
recommcndations by stafr.
Page 8 of 85
16\
1
.f\J
October 7,2010
MS. DESELEM: Yes, that's correct. It's not our recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, thank you, Kay.
Members of the public, one gentleman, please come up and identify yourselffor the record.
MR. BLOCK: Good morning, Chairman Schiffer and Planning Commission members. For the record, my
name is Alvin Block. but I go by the nickname of Chip. Rather obvious. a chip off the old block might come out on
that. So that's where it's come from. Alvin doesn't help with Alvin and the Chipmunks also. But we'll stick with the
chip off the old block.
As I said, for the record, I'm Alvin Chip Block with the Department of Community Development for Lee
County. I'm here today to express the concern that Lee County has regarding this conditional use application that is
before you today.
The primary concem for Lee County that we have with this application is regards to the amount of truck
traffic associated to this project and the fact that 65 percent, at least according to the applicant's traffic impact
statement, is going to be traveling westbound on State Route 82 toward Lee County, 60 percent of it stays on State
Route 82. the other five p~'fcent then shifts and goes onto what is known as Corkscrew Road.
Currently State Route 82 within Lee County has a number of multiple failing segments associated to that
within Lee County.
The first four segments as you look at it from Lee County has three segments that are level of service C,
which are just below failing, and one segment that is a level of service F, as in Frank, which is failing.
So as you go from the Lee County/Hendry County border westbound -- and by the way, the applicant's
presentation about where Lee County staff in this case has mentioned that it's only one mile from the mining operation
to the Lee County border is inaccurate. Their distance of six-and-a-half miles is accurate. It somehow got in the letter
to you all, and I apologize for that. But I do agree with that distance from their access point to the Lee County border.
We have been in communication with the Collier County staff since about December of 2009 on this
application when we became aware of this, and have been working with Collier County staff conveying our
comments back and forth from Lee County staff to Collier County stan~ making sure that our infonnation on the case
was up to date and accurate.
Lee County staff did send a letter in to Collier County, which I understand that you all have got a copy of.
Those members such as Ms. Ebert and Mr. Klein who mayor may not have that letter, I do have extra copies for any
Planning Commission member if you want to have that, but it is part ofthe record for your-all's consideration.
The suggested condition 19, which is found on thc last page of the Lee County letter. talks about depth of the
mining operation. And as Mr. Mulhere has mentioned during his presentation, there was a correction during the
second neighborhood meeting in which I was in attendancc for both ofthc neighborhood meetings in Immokalee.
And that correction was a depth of the mining operation. They had initially said 80 feet, then they said in the
second hearing 90 feet. We have no objection to that 90 feet.
So if you want to grant a maximum depth of 90 feet because their soil borings indicate that the material that
they want to pull out goes down to approximately 90 feet, we have no objection to that. But of course that's up to
your-all's review. And as --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to slow down just a little bit. She's trying to write everything
you're saying, so just take it a little easier, if you could.
MR. BLOCK: That's perfectly fine, Commissioner Strain. I do understand that. I have that tendency to be a
little fast in my presentations. I've even suggested in the past the court reporters pick up a pen and throw it at me to
slow me down. I don't know if she wants to do that but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She might throw the whole laptop at you.
MR. BLOCK: If she does, I'll do my best to try to catch it with my peripheral vision so we don't break it.
As I said, 90 feet would be acceptable to Lee County stan'. We have no objection to the depth.
Our concern has been and continues to be the truck traffic associated to the mining operation.
We have had several suggestions, as Chairman Strain has pointed out. It is only a Lee County suggestion,
recommended conditions. If you all choose to accept it. you all choose to accept it. If you all choose not to, we
understand that.
Page 9 of 85
16 Ilk,
. October 7, 2010
If the Planning Commission now has any questions of me, I am more than willing to answer those questions
right after I go through one little note trom the public hcaring that I would like to go to.
On the overhead that you have with the maps showing the Lce County mines, I think I would like to do some
corrections and just give you one small bit of information. The bit of' information is I've been with Lee County
government since 1985. Since 1987 I've handled the mining opcrations in Lee County, probably 90,95 percent of
them.
So those that you see in Lee County, I'd like to do some -- at least point out a couple of things to you all so
that you know what exists in Lee County today versus what was approved betore.
You can see on this drawing -- again, Lee County border being here and Corkscrew Road being here, and
coming up into Collier County here. llendry and Collier County here. There are no mining operations on State Route
82 in this location.
'rhis mining operation, which is most recently known as Wcstwind Mine, that mining operation is now no
longer operating. It's now no longer being operated, although it does have existing zoning on the property in which
they could possibly go back in and restart up the operation if market demands provide for it.
You then reach the intersection of what is known as Corkscrew Road and A1ieo Road. The onc south of
Corkscrew Road is no longer operating. It's completed, no longer in operation, and has beeu platted for a residential
subdivision.
The three dots in this location light here that arc together are all part of one mining operation now instead of
three separate ones. It's one mining operation known as University \\lest Lakes. So it's operating as one mining
operation today.
This separate mining operation here I'm going to presume is the Olde Florida Rock, which when I came to
Lee County in 1985 was already approved in Lee County. There were some mining approvals granted for industrial
plan development zoning, but all of the Florida Rock mining opcrations south of A1ico Road, which you see all the
rest of these dots here, is no longer in operation. So you have no mining operation between Alico Road and
Corkscrew Road, with the cxception of this one right here in the western pOliion which is called, as I mentioned,
University West Lakes.
On the north side Florida Rock had other mining mtercsts approved. These are operating in some ways. One
of them is Cemex Mining operation, anothcr one is Florida Rock still trying to get its operation approved tllr future
operations. They have a massive amount of acreage in that area for future mining operations.
All of these mining operations here access either AJico Road or Corkscrew Road. So just wanted to bring
that up to date with the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Just a minute, Bob.
Are there any questions of Mr. Block from the Planning Commission?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Mr. Block, I'm here.
With regard to State Road 82, do you have any plans, Lee County have any plans lor working with FOOT to
cure the problem of the F and the other designations"
MR. BLOCK: There arc some improvements that are currently going on on State Route 82 that FOOT has
been doing near somc ofthe intersections to provide some additional lanes where you have a turn fane, that way you
don't have traffic slowing down the traffic on lmmokalee Road.
But to my knowledge there hasn't been any comprehensive actions in that area to do any improvements to
Immokalce Road/State Route 82 in that area. It's kind of along at certain intersections to help alleviate some of the
backup traffic that might occur as people arc trying to make a left-hand turn.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the tailing portions arc the result of surtace degradation or iane size, if
you will, or width?
MR. BLOCK: No, sir. I would say it's entirely tral1lc.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Too much in the way oftratlic.
MR. BLOCK: Too much in Ihe way oftraftic. Although there is degradation of the roadway out there. that
doesn't go into the Lee County aspect of analysis Ill[ whether or not the road meets or does not meet level of service
requirements. That's a completely separate issue.
Page 10 of 85
16\
1
-A'J
October 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So the truck traffic is -- your concems are exclusively then by
definition exclusively associated with too many vehicles.
MR. BLOCK: Additional traffic, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: On the truck traffic, on one it says close to 800, 796, and on the other one it
says 600. That's a difference of200 trucks a day.
Which is it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before -- that's actually one ofMr. Mulhere's -- before we go into that question, is
there any other questions of Mr. Block"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. BLOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, if you could have the appropriate member of your team respond to Ms. Ebert.
MR. MULl IERE: I'm going to ask Ron Talone to come up, from David Plummer, and respond to your
question. Ms. Ebert. But I did want to just mention a couple of things in response to Chip's comments.
Probably the more relevant factor as it relates to trips is the peak hour trips. And we're only sending eight
truck trips into Lee County during peak hour, seven truck trips on State Road 82 and one on Corkscrew.
The purpose of this exhibit was to show the number of mines that were approved and that there wasn't any
funding coming into Collier County for impacts associated with those mines. The fact that some of them are no
longer operational, well, that's probably a good thing, it means there are fewer truck trips being generated.
With that, I'd like to ask Ron Talone to come up and talk a little about truck trips and the level of service. The
question was related to a potential discrepancy in the number of trips we were proposing to generate. I know 796 I
think was the number.
MR. T ALONE: Well, my name is Ron Talone. I'm with the consulting firm David Plummer and Associates.
We prepared the traffic impact statement.
The first thing I do want to address is the question about the numbers. We reported based on -- we came up
with our traffic generation based on a comparable mine, a comparable Cemex mine. and came up with an estimate of
approximately 611 truck loads per day. But you have to consider that for each of those truck loads there's an inbound
empty truck as well as an outbound loaded truck. So that doubled that figure, and that's accounted for in the traffic
study.
And then we added on some additional traffic for employees at the mine. So the total number ended up being
a h'fand total of around 1,280 trips that came from 611 truck loads.
So that's where the difference in those numbers arc. But they're consistent numbers and they're accounted for
in the traffic study.
I do want to address the issues raised. Mr. Block's raising the issue on State Road 82. And yes, there are some
level of service issues in Lee County. I do believe there is more being done to address those than was indicated.
For example, through a public-private partnership. the section of State Road 82 between 1-75 and Lee
Boulevard is scheduled for six-laning, and that should occur within the next year or two. And that's a major
undertaking to widen the road from its current two-lane cross section to six lanes.
The state has been programming right-of-way -- I'm sorry, design for sections further east.
Also, it's important to recognize that the state just completed a resurfacing project on State Road 82 for 7.5
miles in eastern Lee County. They resurfaced and upgraded 82, and that will make it better prepared to handle the
traffic.
One other thing I will mention is that, as Bob has mentioned, we have a fairly low -- a pretty low impact
during the PM peak hour. The traffic of the mine is actually highest at midmoming around -- from midrnoming to
noontime. And that does not coincide with when the traffic on State Road 82 is heaviest.
I have an exhibit here that shows the daily variation of traffic on State Road 82. What this shows is that
there's an AM peak and a PM peak. And during that PM peak we have a minimal impact. It's actually not a significant
impact and it's a de minimis impact based on the county reh>ulations.
Page 11 of 85
16 I 1~?
October 7, 2010
Our traffic is -- most of our traf1ic is coming in and out around noontime. And you can see that that's when
the traffic volumes on State Road 82 are rclatively low. So our impacts do not coincide with the impacts of the
background tratlic on Statc Road 82.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Arc there any other questions related to trame"
(No responsc.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR.TALONE: In closing, I do want to also mention that we're cooperating with FOOT. We'vc had
meetings -- or discussions with FOOT, and as Bob had mentioned now we've agreed to reserve right-ot:way. So
we're going to be working with the state in terms of the right-ot:way required to widen State Road 82.
The state bas completed a PO&E study. What we've agreed to is consistent with that PO&E study, and we'll
be continuing to coordinate with FOOT on making sure that the right-ol:way they necd will be available.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Are there any other questions of anyone at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, is there any turther presentation you have?
MR. MULHERE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that. we'll closc the public hearing and -- go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I want to speak to John for a minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John is sitting back there thinking he's getting away with not having to speak today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But he dressed up today so I wanted to make sure he got on camera.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ilc cut his hair too.
MR. POOCZERWINSKY: Cut my hair, lose 50 pounds.
Good morning. For the record, John P()dczcnvinsky, Transportation Plamling.
COMMISSIONER CARON: John, onc of the suggestcd conditions that the Lee County people had
suggested was that any damage directly attributable to the mine operation be paid ti)f by -- the repairs be paid for by
the mine operation.
00 we ever request that of--
MR. POOCZERWINSKY: On occasion we do. Wc typically offer an option between two choices: Either--
and some of you are familiar with this temlinology, the buck a truck, that's one dollar per loaded truck that's measured
contribution. Or as an alternative option arrhat. an agreement 10 maintain the roadway within a certain distance of the
project entrances.
In this case my understanding is that this applicant has chosen the second of those two options, that they've
agreed to maintain certain portions of State Road 82. The level to which their maintenance will extend will be
something that they'll work out with statl over time.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh. so you don't get that up tront"
MR. POOCZERWINSKY: Well, it's kind of hard to put that much delinition in such a document. It's hard
to define who the pothole belongs to. But we do work on that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of anyone at tllis time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
There are some stipulations I'd like to read into the record at whatever point a motion -- it's appropriate with
the motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Sclliffer"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we torward CU-2008-AR-14078, Immokalee Sand Mine, to the
Commission with a recommendation of approval, including statT recommendations one through eight, with ti)ur as
revised by the applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second'>
Pagc 12 of 85
16\
1
f\3
October 7, 201 0
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray.
Discussion. I have some information from the applicant that they had responded to in requests I had made
during my meeting with them. I'll read it for the record. And if the prime and second agree that it's acceptable, it's to
be added as a stipulation, thcn so be it.
The first one is the wheel wash station. Entire wash system will be installed to wash dust from the wheels and
underbody of all haul trucks existing at the facility. This system directs water under pressure at the wheels of the
underside of each vehicle as it passes through.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number two, haul trucks will not be permitted to park or stage along SR82
right-of-way. Applicant may allow haul trucks to stage or park on the project's intemal roadway prior to 6:30 a.m.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ah'feed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nwnber three, compensating right-of~way tor turn decellane. The owner, his
successors in title and assigns agree to reserve 35 feet of right-of-way along the northerly side of82 for approximately
1,190 feet along the property's frontage.
The boundaries of this reservation shall coincide with the preferred alignment shown on the FOOT PO&E
study. The owners, the successors and assigns agree to cooperate with FOOT during the design process of SR82,
endeavoring to eliminate the need for additional 35 feet by allowing conveyance of on~site stonnwater runoff, which
may be accomplished via dedication of an casement within the project at no cost to the county or state, if needed.
If the need for additional right-of-way cannot be reasonably climinated as determined by FOOT, then the
owner, its successors or assigns agree to dedicate up to 35 feet of right-of-way along the north side of SR82 to the
State of Florida. The applicant shall provide compensating right-of-way of up to 12-foot width and up to 460 feet in
length, including taper, for a westbound right turn lane at the project entrance.
Mr. Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: Staff has requested that we make one addition to that; we have no objection to it. It would
be to insert in the last sentence where it says up to 35 feet of right-of-way along the north side of State Road 82, insert
the phrase, at no cost.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. that certainly was the assumption. That's a good clarification.
MR. MULHERE: We kind of thought that, but we'll make it clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last item -- well, actually there's -- yeah, the last item I have is the
construction of a westbound acceleration lane. Applicant shall be fully responsible for designing, permitting and
constructing a westbound acceleration lane at the project entrance on SR82 for vehicles leaving the project.
The westbound acceleration lane will be up to 12 feet in width and up to 1,670 feet in length, including taper,
and will otherwise comply with FOOT standards.
Now, docs the motion maker and the second accept those stipulations being added?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark, but I'd like to comment.
There is an acceleration lane in the package. Is it the same length as Mark referenced, or -- in other words, it
looks longer.
MR. MULHERE: I think the calculation was based on a maximum, based on design speed, 1,620 feet. I
don't know if the lcnh>th in the package is the same as what we put as the maximum in the stip, but that should
sufficiently cover it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the staging on the site is a good idea, but should we qualify that in
any way? I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. if you have some ideas.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, obviously there's an entrance road that goes up to -- it appears to
look like a weigh station or something, Bob. Where would you intend to gate the site?
And then the issue of --
MR. MULHERE: Okay, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a turnaround becomes a problem, too.
MR. MULHERE: Well, if I could, I mean, you see this is a pretty long road right here leading up to the
Page 13 of 85
16'
1
~?
October 7, 2010
actual operations. If there was going to be any kind of staging done, it would bc done internal to the site.
So wc understand that prior to 6:30 there can be no staging along State Road 82 for obvious safety reasons.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so we'll just leave it where there's no trucks on the state road.
I accept everything, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. MumlY"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which brings the question, maybe it's moot. but after 6:30 you wouldn't
need to stage on State Road 82; is that correct?
MR. MULlIERE: Most likely the in and out movements wouldn't require a line of trucks. correct.
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: That's what I thought.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have a -- or Mr. Midney'>
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, Ijust had onc question, it just occUlled to me. A lot of times when I
see damage to the roads it's because the trucks come out dripping, and thcy're dripping sort of sand and water. Arc
these trucks going to come out dry? Or how are they going to come out"
MR. MULlIERE: Well, they're going to have -- the wheel wash will elean any residue or mud or sand or
whatever that's on the bottom ofthc truck, so you won't get that dropping of I.
I think we've covered really the maintenancc issue. We have a stipulation that already says that the county
adopts some sort of a maintenance fee, that we'll be subject to thaI. So I think we've kind of covered that damage
Issue.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if staff has any objections to what I read into the record, please come up
to the mic. now. Otherwise we'll assume that it's generally in conf(JfInance with what you're going to review for the
consent agenda.
Okay, therc's -- Mr. Murray"
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: One other thought, and maybe you might think it's premature, and this thing
is for 35 years, but we don't know when people will build around that area, if they ever will. And the concem I would
have for blasting, maybe we need to put something in there about blasting, that before any blasting can be utilized that
you must come back for verification in some form.
MR. MULHERE: I wouldjust respond. it's very well regulated by the county already. And we don't
anticipate a sib'11ificant amount of blasting. There's no -- there's one residence out there, welre not even sure if
anybody's living in it. It's quite a distance away. And I don't f(Jrcsee any rush to have additional residences--
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: I can -- what I was trying to do is -- with caution is to try to make it --
MR. MULHERE: There is a blasting ordinance that requires notitication and monitoring and all of the things
that I think you'd be --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm cognizant of that. Hut I will tell you that I live in Lely Resort and at one
time they wcre blasting and there was nobody coming around to check anything. so --
MR. MULHERE: It's A little more populated there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I can withdraw that, that's not a big deal. Thirty-tive years, I won't
be around.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion. A motion made and seconded. There's been a series of
stipulations accepted.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
Page 14 of 85
, ,
,~
1 b \ 1 'fvb
October 7,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Thank you very much for your time, gentlemen, we appreciate it.
"'Next item up for today's meeting is a review and approval of the Flood Damage Prevention ordinance.
This is a document that started a long time ago, and now it's back in front of us again.
Mr. Wiley I believe is -- we're going to be taking this after Mr. Wiley's presentation. We'll be taking this a
couple of pages at a time, as we normally do for questions of the Planning Conunission as we work our way through
it.
Okay, Mr. Wiley, it's all yours.
MR. WILEY: Good morning. For the record. I'm Robert Wiley with the county's Land Development
Services Department. And we're coming before you this moming with the revisions that have been made.
We basically took the model ordinance that the State of Florida and FEMA have put together for the state on
flood damage prevention. We came to you a couple years ago. It's been a while. And we have gone back, taken to
the model ordinance, stripped it even of some of the provisions within it. stripped it down to the bare bones, even got
rid ofa few bones, as some of the phrases have been expressed by it.
So it is presented to you today for your discussion. And I guess my intention was simply to go through it as
you said, a page at a time, go from front to back.
There are -- in the paragraphs with the memo that accompanied this ordinance, there's a little bit of discussion
about some of the actual criteria that are in our existing ordinance that are not in this proposed ordinance, where there
is some weakening even of existing conditions.
The basic understanding we have to present to you today is our existing ordinance has been detennined by
FEMA to not be consistent with what they require us to have now. It has to be updated. So we do have to go through
the process. We're bringing it before you right now in anticipation, then going to the Board of County
Commissioners.
We have had this reviewed extensively by the Floodplain Management Planning Committee. We got their
vote of approval. We have had it before Development Services Advisory Committee. We did receive their vote of
approval.
If you will note in that second paragraph of the memo, there was the one discussion, what was the approving
motion trom DSAC, which is Development Services Advisory Committee. The one gentleman wanted us to include
in their provisions for up to 20 percent obstruction beneath the structure within the VE zone for sheer walls. That is
technically allowed within the Florida Building Code. Discussion with FEMA, they were real blunt about it, they say
if you put that in your ordinance we will reject it.
So we did get back in touch with the gentleman who put forth the motion at DSAC. He was understanding
exactly of their objections. He had no objection to us then not including that in. So that's why the information went
out to DSAC of what we have done with their recommendations in the ordinance, and it's also clearly stated in here so
you understand that that provision is not in here.
And then the last thing we want to talk about as we look at the end of the memo is an issue that staff wants to
put in so that we basically as new development is coming in, we are having them to prepare the impacts that that new
development has in relationship to the current version of the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
If they're proposing putting the development within the special flood hazard area, that will be any ofthe flood
zones that start with the letter A or V. Then as a part of that development they also provide the letter of map
amendment applications, the application fee, if it's a letter of map revision based upon till. Just depends upon their
site.
Some -- the wording that's here says wherever applicable. Some things apply in certain situations, some
don't, so this covers it both ways.
And that was just a statement that staff wanted to include in here in that one section of the ordinance. It is not
within the ordinance itself, but we want you to know that we would like to be able to put it in there.
And with that, I just want to go through it page at a time, answer your questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some general statements I need to clarify.
Page 15 of85
1 ~toLr7,2!o k?
First of all, where's Nick today')
MR. BELLOWS: He didn't tell me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bccause there are issues that are in this ordinance that will be pertaining to
the operations ofCDES that are critical. And without Nick's input, it's going to be hard to evaluate the impacts on the
economies involving it in Collier County, hard to understand how it's going to !low through CDES.
And I certainly would have apprcciated his input on today's meeting. I didn't know he wasn't going to be
here. I assumed with the magnitude of this document he would havc been herc.
Ray, so I'm not sure where we'll end up today, for my part. I'm not sure f')f the rest of the Planning
Commission.
The other item is --
MR. BELLOWS: I can send an e-mail.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where is the fiscal analysis of this document, the impact ofitO
I don't mean as a credit from FFMA i,"' any -- regarding how much it will help us oflour insurance policies,
if at all. But where is the tlscal analysis to Collier County based on the various paragraphs that are in here involving
personnel and review and administration procedures"
Did anybody do that?
MR. WILEY: 11's what we'rc doing riglit now, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the document? I mean, can I see the numbers')
MR. WILEY: Well, I mean, it's our operating budget. There's no negative impact. this is what we're saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's the floodplain administrator')
MR. WILEY: Teelmically it would bc the county manager's designee. whoever that is. which our
understanding is it would be probably Nick or Nonnan Fedcr.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nonnan Feder and Nick don't review plans, they assil,'Il that to other people.
MR. WILEY: That is correct, that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the staff impacts calculated into the County's budget for this? That's what
I'm asking. Have you seen a budget item that calculates the impacts of this document"
MR. WILEY: This is the same document we already have. sir, as far as impacts go. It's the same stafl the
same reviews. So ifs our current budget.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll. Mr. Wiley, as wc go through the paragraphs then, I'll ask you for financial
impacts, and weill see where we go from there.
MR. BELLOWS: I do havc an update. Nick is at a mandatory Collier leadership meeting and it will be all
day. He couldn't get out of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lucky Nick.
Has the County Attorney's Office reviewed this ordinance')
MR. KLATZKOW: We've been working with this office longer than I've been with the County Attorney's
Office, to be blunt.
Yeah, I mean. my strong reconunendation was to use the model ordinance and be done with it. I understand
that model ordinances are going through a review ii'om several conunittees. I askcd that those changes be made so
that you guys can see what those changes were to the model ordinance and make your policy decisions.
But honest to God, we must have liad at least f,!Ur attomeys over tlie years working on this ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is this a required ordinance t"r Collier County')
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it required to change what we currently have by some legal mechanism that
requires us to move into this, or is this optional based on a savings. say. on flood insurance?
MR. KLATZKOW: (Jur present ordinance needs to be updated. It just does. I don't know that it has to be
done right now as opposed to a year from now or two years trom now. But our present ordinance is dated. It's not
very good anyway.
So my recommendation is that we do it, whether or not you want to accept all these changes from a policy
standpoint. And I've been talking fiscal impact here tor as long as I've been with the county as well and yet to see
numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tlie procedures in here are concerning. And if they can be ironed out during
Page 1601'85
lbi
l~
October 7, 2010
discussion, that's fine.
But right now I haven't -- the questions haven't been asked, so as we go through we'll ask the questions and
see how the issues are responded to.
Okay, let's start with -- we'll just do Page I to begin with, then we'll do two pages at a time, because that's the
way it opens in our book.
So anybody have any questions on Page I?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Wiley, when I ask for questions, if you have anything to say on those
pages, just speak up and we'll move forward.
Okay, we'll be on Pages 2 and 3.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it a topical cyclone or a tropical?
MR. WILEY: Tropical.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A topical tropical.
MR. WILEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer"
MR. WILEY: Topical doesn't get caught in the spell check.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, why are you listing where the water comes trom? Is that important?
In other words, it's flood hazards. Is it important that you note where it comes trom') I mean, we could have
a tsunami, we could have other kinds of crazy stuff. But is it important to note that?
MR. WILEY: It is important from the standpoint of understanding the development of the special Hood
hazard areas. And those are your zones along the coast, which are the VE and the AE. But thc interior portions, we
have to be prepared also for rainfall analysis. That's what's ongoing right now through the FEMA process for the
development of the new Flood Insurance Rate Map.
But we're identitying so that everyone understands where the flood zones definitions get their origin.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Down in C-5, what you're saying is if you put a Hood barner, and I assume
it's on your property. and divert it to other lands, is other the best word, or adjoining" I guess other lands could be
downstream somehow or --
MR. WILEY: They could, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: And just for discussion here, again, you have the model ordinance, that's what's not
underlined and struck through, okay. So if you're seeing stuff that has been added onto, it's not necessary. These are
policy decisions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me understand something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We were given two things. One is I think our existing ordinance with a
strike-through and underlined. And then the second thing is an evolution of that.
But what you're saying is that there's the State's model ordinance --
MR. KLATZKOW: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that we've never seen with a strike-through and underlined.
MR. KLATZKOW: It should be here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That is the one --
MR. WILEY: That is the one with the strike-through. The County Attorney's office took the existing
ordinance and then word-by-word, line-by-line did a comparison, insertion, strike-outs to go from our existing
ordinance to the model ordinance. So you can see what wc used to say. where we used to say it to what the model
ordinance now says and where it says it.
Then thc document that we arc reviewing up front here for discussion takes that model ordinance language
and makes additions to it as we have gone through the various staff reviews.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So for example that word, the use of the word other, it shows that it's
underlined. So it was brought in by the model ordinance.
Page 17 of 85
1 ~t}er 7, 2tO ~3
MR. WILEY: And that is a part of the model ordinance. yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad','
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the second page, three, number lIve, it would be 1'-5. Ijust wonder if
we should add public facilities and --I just think adding essential services in there, I know we phrase it as all utilities
and then wc start listing them. but does public lacilities totally cover all the esscntial services we have? There could
be private essential services.
MR. WILEY: Essential services is ditlerent than a utility. An essential service is a service. It's something
even could be such as EMS or Sheriff~ things of that nature.
So this is taking f()rth the model ordinance pmvision. As you can see, the change there was to add the word
all in to make sure everyone understood it's every utility that's out there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So thc objective ofthc ordinance doesn't want to proteet essential services"
MR. WII JOY: It doesn't say it doesn't want to. This partieular provision is addressing the physieal facilities
you put in the ground.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It may bc -- we may be saying the same thing. In other words. minimize
damage to public facilities and, and then you list all the utilities.
So if you think essential services. EMS, anything private is covered, I'm happy.
Do you think it is"
MR. WILEY: Within their construction standards. they would [all within here, it just does not spell them out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're right, okay. That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else"
Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ycah, you're adding all to all utilities. Is that because it was felt that somebody
could interpret it to mean only some utilities would --
MR. WILEY: Yes, ma'am. That was thc rear that some people expressed, well, does that mean only publicly
owned facilities. was that private facilities') So thcy want us to put in the -- I mean utilities, they wanted to add the
word all in there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, does that ehange what had been the nann from bef()re" Would we have
done all utilities') Would we have covered all utilities'!
MR. WILEY: I think we would havc. I didn't think the word needed to be in there, but .-
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Ami thcn down under accessory structure it says in the notes that the
definition [rom FEMA is different trom our LOC definition. Is our detinition stricter or more lenient"
MR. WILEY: I would really ask Mr. Bellows to chime in on that one, because he did also some reviewal'
this definition. The best I could say is it's different in the way it's worded. This is FEMA's definition.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray flcllows.
I did have a discussion on this with Robert earlier, and it is different. but it's not substantially so.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So this doesn't -- I mean, this is not going to really atlect anything
by using the FEMA definition.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: If we have a stricter detlnition, that's what we should be using--
MR. BELLOWS: It's not substantially dilferent, it's basically the same.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For clarity, Ray, we can have accessory structures that have human
habitation in them in our LDC. This is saying you can't. So this is definitely a lesser type of structure.
I could have a gucsthouse as an accessory structun:.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it depends. A guesthouse has its own separate detinition, and maybe that's where
somc confusion is coming in. But you'rc right, technically that would be deemed an accessory structure also.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the definition here is lor this ordinancc and this ordinance only.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody clsc on Pages 2 and 3')
Mr. Murray"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, my question is probably going to go to our County Attorney.
In findings offact on Page 2 where we talk about we've deieted could and we say it results in loss oflife, and
Page 18 01'85
16l
1
ft3
October 7, 2010
so ifit says findings of fact I have to presume then that ovcr the course of years we have actually had deaths attributed
to flood hazard areas in Collier County.
And I wonder, if that's not true, I wonder by that statcment whether we're not helping actuaries and insurance
companies to hcap on the dollar costs by showing a greatcr gravity than reality.
MR. KLATZKOW: It definitcly results in property damage in the course ofthe ycars. I don't have an issue
with the language.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you're comfortable that it would be loss of life that would be.
I mean, it's possible, certainly.
MR. KLATZKOW: We do have flood hazards areas that are subject to periodic inundation. That's why
every now and then we have people lcave their areas when we have storms coming in. I mean, we ask people to
evacuate.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. My -- just that was findings offact. And I didn't know that we
had a factual basis to make that statement. I can sec thc statement wherc it could result in the loss of life. And I know
that may seem to be a -- I love that term de minimis basis. We're changing it. But I can deal with -- if you're
comfortable as an attorney --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not uncomfortable.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I'm going to be fine.
That's good. That's my question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Pages 2 and 3?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on the findings of fact, B-2, it says these flood losses are caused by the
cumulative effect of the obstructions in tJoodplains, and it goes on from there.
Is that the only reason that we can have flood 10sscs is because of a cumulative effect of obstructions in
floodplains?
MR. WILEY: If you look at the statement, it gives several, not just the one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but they're all some kind of a floodplain obstruction. Explain to me what you
mean by what you just said.
MR. WILEY: Well, flood losses, it says, are caused by thc cumulative effect of obstructions in floodplains
causing increases in flood heights and velocities. So that's one way you can have flood losses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WILEY: And you can have it by occupancy in the flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods or
hazards to other lands.
So basically when you are putting a structure, your dwelling within the special flood hazard area, it's subject
to damage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. But in the first part where it said effect of obstructions in floodplains,
what I guess I'm trying to ask you though, are the flood losses the one -- and sure, if you occupy a facility or a
building in a floodplain that floods, the causing ofthat flooding, is it limited to obstructions?
MR. WILEY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then my point is that the flood losses could be caused by other things
than just obstructions in floodplains. And [ don't mean by occupancy of buildings that are in floodplains, I mean the
buildings, when they actually flood, the flooding is caused by something that cause -- it's storms, it's water. it's storm
surge.
And I'm just wondering if that statement is too narrow and too tocused on just a singular cause, when there
are more than -- possibly more than one cause for a floodplain to Hood.
And my suggestion is that we make that so that it reads better that way, instead of focusing on this being the
sole cause, that we look at it as there are multiplc causes, or other causes just besides obstructions that would cause a
rise in water in the floodplains.
Okay, you don't have to comment. Ijust don't have to vote on it.
Item C-2 requires the uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected
against flood damage throughout their intended Iifc span.
What's the cost to the development community, building community and homcowners regarding that
Page 19 01'85
161 1
October 7,2010
f6
statement')
MR. WILEY: It depends upon which way they choose to protect thc structure. Most people elevate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much ofa cost dilferential is there with this versus what we have today? Is
what wc have today equal to this"
MR. WILEY: Yes. sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
On Page 3, under accessory structures, the third line, accessory structures should constitute a minimal
investment. I low do you define the word minimal"
MR. WILEY: You're not the lirst person to ask that question. We talked about that at the Floodplain
Management Committee.
As you get over into the ordinancc latcr on. you'll see that they do address what they consider to be a minimal
structure. It's over near the very back of the ordinance where they give a square footage size, where they give a cost
SIze.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just put that in thc delinition, if it's already delined.
MR. WILEY: They chose to not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's they')
MR. WILEY: The floodplain committee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought this was added -- or this was their -- oh, the tloodplain committee, okay.
Well, this is a recommendationlrom them. And if we wanted to make sure everyone understood what
minimal was intended to mean, it would bc best if we put it right in the definition.
Do you have any objection to that'>
MR. WILEY: Their discussion was over in, as you go toward the back of the ordinance. cost with -- the
dilference between a VI' zone and AI' zone. That's where some of the issue came up. So they chose to address the
cost over there. not in the uplront dcJinition statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going to be a long meeting.
Under area of shallow tlooding, the insurance rate map in thc second line with the base tlood depths. it did
say trOJl1 one to three feet, now it says lcss than tbree feet. What's the significance of that change?
MR. WILEY: Within the dclinition f,)r shallow flooding where it says flood depths Irom one to three feet,
the proposcd Flood Insurance Ratc Map that's coming out has extensive areas of All zone, as you know. You've
looked at them.
A lot of those areas are less than one foot 111 depth, yet they are going to be put within thc zone All because of
the methodology that we're required to use to take the base flood elevation until it touches thc h'fOllild contour.
So if we leave our definition here and say it's tram one to three feet, it then throws a controversy in. well,
what if my depth of flooding is less than one I,)()(.
So I did talk to FEMA Region 4 ot1ice in Atlanta. And that's where the note comes Irom, from Mr. Brad
Loar. And they go from any depth of flooding up to three feet is considered as area of shallow flooding. So that's
why I went and edited hased upon the direct statement that I had from him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they wcren't considered an area of shallow flooding by this definition, and
they were below one 1"0t, which would put them outside thc delinition. would they still be in a zone of AO or AH?
MR. WILEY: It would be in All. We do not currently have any AH or AA zones in Collier County. We are
proposed to have extensive areas of All. We would still not be proposing to have AO zones.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the All zone, where you would have less than one foot of flooding, would that
change the valuations of any insurance criteria'>
MR. WILEY: It would not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to Pages 4 and 5. Anybody have any questions on Pages 4 and
5')
Ms. Caron')
COMMISSIONER CARON: Coastal high hazard area. Again, we have a different definition. and I believe a
stricter definition.
MR. WILEY: Yes, ma'am, it is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And why wouldn't we use it in this ordinance'!
Page 20 of 85
'I
16 I 1 Ai.
. October 7, 2010
MR. WILEY: As we went through, this is the ordinance that was put forth through the model -- this is the
definition put through the model ordinance.
The comment here is for you to understand, this is an area where we. by using the model ordinance,
technically weaken an existing restriction. We went through the floodplain committee, we also went to DSAC. Both
of those organizations werc willing to say lct's weaken our ordinance.
So we wanted to make sure you understood this is a position of weakening it in the ordinance, because there
is a difference between the coastal high hazard area as defined by FEMA and the location of the CCCL.
In many places --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't see a problem with that one. But -- and then down further under datum,
do we even need to mention NGYD any longer? I mean, there's a note in here that we no longer support it. Why is
that even necessary? You told them what --
MR. WILEY: Historically we are keeping track of the statement, because there are many, many existing
structures which are based upon an NGYD elevation. So that's why we are continuing this reference, so people can
see.
If you have NGYD it does not mean you simply throw the elevation away. It's not supported but it's
referenced so that people know you can then go to NA YD.
NGYD is still technically supported. We carulOt deny somebody whatever they need to submit. If they've got
a historic elevation certificate, insurance agent has to accept it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Pages 4 and 5?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have any? No?
Pages 6 and 77
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on -- I mean, questions on Pages 6 and 7'1
(No response.)
MR. WILEY: Let me chime in here to address on Pagc 7 under floodproofing. You see that list of nine
topics? Those are definitive criteria that we have put in to help people understand what is expected should someone
choose to come in and floodproof a building.
So that's added for clarification purposes here, that is not a part ofthe model ordinance.
But the question has come up. well. if! floodproof: what is required. So we're trying to help people
understand what is required.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did have kind of a question about that. Because you are putting
regulations in the definition. But Bob, aren't they also further down the road so -- I mean, there's a danger in putting
regulations in the definitions of something, especially if you don't change it in both places.
MR. WILEY: The criteria within the definition is put here so that we don't have to duplicate ourselves in the
two different locations further back in the ordinance where floodproofing is discussed under two separate scenarios.
So we chose to put it in the definition. In those areas it simply says if you choose to floodproof.
At that point we felt we were better to put it with a definition everyone could understand up front.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This would be the only place then.
In number five you're describing that you have to remove water at a certain rate per thousand square feet. Do
you think that's clear that that's the square footage that's below the flood elevation?
In other words, if I had like a split level building, one part of it was below it, one part of it wasn't, certainly
the intent is the part that's below it. Do you agree that's clear in there?
MR. WILEY: Well, that's the square foot of the building at your foundation. If you have a split level
building, means multi-story, you're only really concemed about the portion which is below the BFE. I think it's clear
from the standpoint of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then number nine, normally we design these things so the flood waters
can enter, but it's also important to allow it to leave without collapsing the walls. So do you think after the word enter
we should add and leave?
MR. WILEY: I have no problem adding that.
Page 21 of 85
1 b \ 1 ~,;'
October 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because that can be a problem. It can collapse the wall by a
negative pressure.
We deline floodway, then you note that thcrc is no floodways in Collicr. And then at the bottom we define
floodway fringes, which means there's no floodway tringes in Collier either. correct'?
MR. WILEY: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCIllFFER: So is it a good idea to have that in there, or is it used in the code
somewhere?
MR. WILEY: It is not used anywhere else within our ordinance. However, this is one ofthose situations that
we again approached FEMA. A tloodway definition is a very vital part within the national FEMA concem.
So I asked them, f said we don't have tloodways, we never use the tenn in our ordinance, other than the
definition. Why do we have to leave it in'? Why can \ve not remove it? We know itls in the model ordinance, but we
would hke to remove it.
And they were pretty blunt. They said, if you rcmove it, we'll reject your ordinance. So they're adamant of
the definition being in to address complction of their standard prob'fam. So we left it in.
But you don't have a tringe if you don't have the flomlway to start with. you're correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could wc ever have a floodway"
MR. WILEY: Yes. Any time we have an update to the Flood Insurance Rate Map there could be the
creation of a floodway.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Okay, thanks. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything c1sc on six and scven"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move to eight and nine. We'rc still in detinitions.
Ms. Caron"
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. on the very bottom of the page, lowest adjacent b'fade. There FEMA
wants you to leave it in and you've taken it out, so I guess they didn't tell you they'd reject the entire ordinance for
that; is that why you're taking it out"
MR. WILEY: I have a boss. he said take it out, so it's out. We'll see ifit gets r"jected or not by FEMA. To
them the low cst adjacent grade is not as critical as the de!inition I()r floodway.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer')
COMMISSIONER SCI llFFER: Highest de!inition. The highcst adjacent grade. which is, I guess, the friend
of lowest, it's prior to construction. Lowest was after completion and construction. And building codes were used to
an adjacent grade after. So this is really confusing to me.
So what you're saying is you come upon a site, you do improvements on it, yet you somehow have to track
what that !,'fade was against the building before the building was there.
MR. WILEY: You really don't unless you're going to construct a structure within the approximate zone A
portion of the flood hazard. When you look at the Flood Insurance Rate Map, along the coast you havc the VE zones,
then you havc the AE zones, and then we go to Zone X, and thcn we have some D.
Bul further out in the portions thercls called an approximate zone A. And in those areas you do not have an
established base flood elevation, by de!inition. And that is the area where you usc the highest adjacent grade because
you are basing your structure oil of the highest adjacent grade bet(lre construction to estimate what is the local BFE
that you would have to build to t(lr the county to agrec to give the building pennit approval.
So it's sort of -- think of it as though Collier County is different tram most of the nation where FEMA deals
with sloping topography and people actually modify the terrain to flatten out thc ground to create a place to build a
structure. Here we pile dirt up. So that's why we're sort of the reverse direction here. Typically you're scraping the
grade down to create the flattened spot.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll go with that. So esscntially that would be in an arca which we
probably don't really -- do we havc any of those areas, Hob'l
MR. WILEY: We do, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So thcy would be looking -- and there's no street in those areas, because the
height would be set by the roadway that the site's accessed from. So you would --
Page 22 of 85
16 \ 1 ~J
Octobcr 7, 201 0
MR. WILEY: Thc elcvation is sct bascd upon your dctennination ofthc dcpth ofthc watcr that should bc
inundating the arca at the one percent annual chancc flood event.
Now, usually that then is measured from existing ground surfacc, which is your highcst adjaccnt grade.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Makcs scnsc, okay. The hardship thing is a confusing -- thc way it's -- thc
definition, does that come solely from -- it looks like it does. So that comcs from FEMA. Bccausc it --
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- has some strange wording. You know, thc community requircs that the
variancc is cxccptional. I mcan, wc'vc pcrsonificd thc community.
Inconvcnicncc, acsthctics considcration, physical handicaps, personal prcfercnccs or the disapproval of onc
ncighbors (sic) likewise cannot as a rule qualify. I mean, what kind of wording is that?
MR. WILEY: It's from FEMA
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And wc havc to kcep it that way.
MR. WILEY : Yes, sir. You have to kecp it that way if you want thcir happy approval. I'm not saying you
can't rcword it and havc thc County Attomcy discuss thc tcnninology with thcm, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: Bob, cxplain to thc Planning Commission why it is that wc'rc doing this. Why arc we
doing this?
MR. WILEY: Why are we updating our ordinancc?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Y cs, cxplain to thc Planning Commission what thc purpose of doing this is.
MR. WILEY: We're updating it to bring it into conformancc with FEMA standard for local communitics to
havc a Florida Flood Damagc Prcvcntion Ordinancc. And that rcquircs us to bring in somc ncw dcfinitions, somc
new terminology that they havc devclopcd ovcr the coursc of a numbcr of ycars. This happcns to bc onc ofthcm.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ifwc don't do this, what is thc rcpercussion, if any?
MR. WILEY: If wc do not updatc our ordinancc, by thc time wc takc thc prcliminary Flood Insurancc Rate
Map, which is out for public rcvicw and comment and all that period. that will takc us up in through probably thc
March, April timc framc at thc quickest maybe, but by the timc that documcnt is ready for adoption, if our ordinancc
is not updatcd and approvcd by FEMA, then they will declarc that wc havc an insufficient ordinancc.
Wcll, you can't havc a ncw Flood Insurancc Ratc Map adoptcd with an insufficicnt ordinance. So thcy will
writc us a Icttcr and say you havc 30 days to providc us a copy of your updatcd ordinancc. And if you do not thcn wc
will consider rcmoving you from thc Flood Insurancc Prob'fam. So thcy cany a fairly hcavy hammer that thcy havc
indicatcd willingncss to usc.
MR. KLATZKOW: Wc can bc morc strict than FEMA.
MR. WILEY: Ycs.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. lfwc try to bc Icss strict from FEMA wc run this risk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thc Flood Insurance Program is what providcs us with the ability to purchase flood
insurancc. And thc t100d insurancc ratcs arc controllcd by who?
MR. KLATZKOW: FEMA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By FEMA. So FEMA controls thc t100d insurance rates and thcy control the
demand that they put on us to have to have those rates by these documents that now cause us to causc thc local
economy a substantial more amount of money.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I guess at thc end ofthc day if you want to participate in thc FEMA Flood Program you
have to play by their rules. This isjust part of their game.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But by participating it means wc will still have to -- wc cnd up as individuals having
to buy insurance with thc ratcs set by thcm.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ycs.
MR. WILEY: The ratcs, sir, are--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: [s thcrc a cont1ict ofintcrcst thcrc?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's thc fcdcral govcmmcnt, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my point.
MR. WILEY: But thc ratcs arc sct by Congrcss.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's cvcn worse.
MR. WILEY: Ijust wanted that for clarification.
Pagc 23 of 85
16 \ 1 k?
October 7.2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm-- Brad, I think we lell oITon you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more thing. Bob. It's new construction, just to understand.
So what this is saying is that if you had a building built prior to the date shown and you added to that, is the
building now -- aller that date shown, is the building now new construction?
MR. WILEY: It really -- this is getting quite complicated to answer this, but we'll tlY.
You have a building which has a building permit that is approved prior to September 4th of '79. Now you
wish to make an addition to it, is that what you're asking?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: An addition was made, let's say, 1990.
MR. WILEY: Okay, an addition was madc in 1990. If the building's location was within the special flood
hazard area, it would have had to have had the addition constructed in confonnance with the Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance.
Now, with that being said, it also comes into play how much is thc value of the addition made to the building
as to whether it exceeds 50 percent ofthe value of the existing building. If it does, that's callcd a substantial
improvement.
Then depending upon whether or not you have an exiting opening or you have to cut a hole through the wall.
how you get to that addition. it is used to detennine whether just the addition goes up to meet the current base flood
elevation or whether the entire structure has to be clcvatcd to meet the base flood elevation. So it's real convoluted.
multiple pages within the manuals to S0l1 of explain what I'm trying to say to you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that would have been dealt with at the time.
The thing I'm trying to -- what is this phrase, the tem1 also includes any subsequent improvements to such
structures? Under -- it IS the definition ornew construction. I'mjusl not sure what that phrase means. Does that mean
MR. WILEY: Well, if you have a building that -- say you built a building last year. Since that's aller '79, and
now -- and you built it in conformancc with thc Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, that's considered a new
structure. So then you're going to add on to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. thanks
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, at this point we're going to take a break. We'll come back to these pages at
10: 15, with that 15 -- or actually it'll be a 12-minute break.
(Briefrecess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're there. Welcome back trom the break, evcryone. And when we went
on break, we leli offon Pages 32 and 33.
(Laughter.)
MR. WILEY: Motion for approval. good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I wouldn't go that far. But that's a good assumption.
MR. WILEY: I like that. Didn't wc vote on that? I think you--
CHAIRMAN STRAfN: Well, there might bc a few questions in between. so let's go back to Pages 8 and 9
and see ifthere's anything left from anybody.
Melissa')
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Since we removed the freeboard. do we have to keep that detinition in there?
MR. WILEY: Yes. ma'am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would expect the reason why is if we ever want to institute freeboard in the
future as a means of saving money on insurance rates, that dclinition would be useful.
MR. WILEY: lt is also used when you're talking about lloodprooling and -- the one toot above the base
!lood elevation is not really freeboard. but it's a One-l(lOt increase in elevation. If you don't want your building to be
rated one foot below -- but we'll get to that latcr on as we get into the ordinance, you'll see where that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody clse on Pages 8 and 9')
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go to Pages 10 and 11. Anybody have any questions on Pages 10 through II?
Mclissu?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Under repetitive loss, the -- it's showing that the increased cost of compliance
-- the maximum you can get is $30,000')
Page 24 of 85
\ 'l
161 1 .
October 7, 2010 A3
MR. WILEY: Within your Flood Insurance Program, each policy has a rider attached to it called increased
cost of compliance. And that gives you $30,000 coverage above your amount of coverage you purchased with your
premium for meeting local criteria.
Now, what FEMA is wanting to do is set up a program where they are able to use the ICC coverage quicker
into the program before a structure has to receive the 50 percent dollar value of substantial damage. So they want to
do that by having local communities modify their ordinance so that instead of 50 percent you suddenly come up with
an average claim of 25 percent to then declare the structure to be a repetitive loss structure and also to be substantially
damaged so then they can bring into play the ICC coverage.
Now, that's what was within the model ordinance. That was one of the editings that FEMA did to the State's
ordinance.
I did talk to the State Department of the Emergency Management. Joy Duperault advised that the State of
Florida does not like that definition. She advises to go to our changed definition, which is FEMA's standard definition,
not FEMA's new ICC program definition. So taking the State's direction, we have chosen to do so.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And we do have to have that provision in the local ordinance to require
structures that are repetitivcly floodcd but not substantially damaged to meet that requirement?
MR. WILEY: Well. what -- the delinition as we're proposing simply brings into play what the term repetitive
loss means by your local ordinance. That's where it comes into play with how we are able to work within the Flood
Insurance Program to document cases, and then essentially we're building a case history that is consistent with what
FEMA's already building. We're not making it more restrictive than what it currently is by using the definition we're
proposing.
Ifwe go to FEMA's editing of the model ordinance, it would be a much more restrictive definition and would
encompass properties a lot quicker in the process.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: In the -- under FEMA's ICC, they referenced that you do not qualify if you
participate in an emergency program.
MR. WILEY: That is correct. We are in a re!,'lIlar program of Collier County, have been since '79.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, that's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Page ]() and II?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm still -- I don't think I understand what you were trying to explain to
-- or you did explain to Melissa.
So what we're going to say is that a repetitive loss in Collier County is if within a I O-year period you've had
two $1,000 claims.
MR. WILEY: Within any la-year window you have been paid two $1,000 or greater value claims on your
flood insurance, that's correct. It's not by owner, it's by stmcture.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't that much, much more restrictive than what FEMA's wording is,
the 25 percent of market value in that period?
In other words, let's say I'm flooded and a car drives down the street fast and the only thing that happened to
my house is a wave came in and ruined the carpet. That's going to put me into this program if it happens twice in 10
years, when essentially it didn't do any -- wcll. that's a tinish and that may be the outcome.
But why are you coming up with this thousand? What's the advantage to that as opposed to the FEMA
wording?
MR. WILEY: The way FEMA is wording it is for us to make is so that when you have flood insurance
claims tiled against a property, that instead of having a 50 percent value threshold to declare a stmcture to be
substantially damaged, by changing the definition in repetitive loss and by changing the definition in your
substantially damaged structure to where it would include a repetitive loss stmcture, you hit the number that suddenly
over two claims of which the average is 25 percent of the value of the stmcture, then you get into being a repetitive
loss stmcture quicker and you also get into a substantially damaged stmcture quicker, which has its own impacts. For
a substantially damaged stmcture you have to bring the entire structure into compliance with the current base flood
elevation.
So instcad of having a 50 percent threshold, suddenly you find yourself with a 25 percent value threshold.
Page 25 of 85
. ,
16' 1 k?
October 7,2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you cross that --
MR. WILEY: Well, the purpose here is for them to be able to use the ICC coverage within the policy to
assist the homeowner who has received flood damage to mitigate the house. which in Collier County typically that
means elevate the house.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It must be something I don't understand. Because what you're saying is you
bceome a repetitive loss, you have to bring the house into compliance, the whole house.
MR. WILEY: No. sir. To become substantially damaged. Repetitive loss is nothing more than simply a
record keeping that we're doing right now. But FFMA wants us to change so that by becoming a repetitive loss
structure it is also automatically then a substantially damaged structure to lit within the program they are trying to put
together.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How come my brain makes me think that's an equal sign')
MR. WILEY: It isn't. Substantially damaged says you havc 50 percent of the value of the structure in
damagc from nooding.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you said in there that repetitive loss. FEMA is going to make it equal to
substantially damaged.
MR. WILEY: That's what FEMA -- between tliis delinition and over in substantial damage, between the two
detlnitions, that's wherc they were lieading by editing the State's model ordinance.
And the State does not ab'Tee with that. We did not ab'Tee with it either. When we made the ordinance, it's
bare minimum.
COMMISSIONER SCI lIFFER: So by you changing this to be two $1,000 cvents in aiD-year period. how
does that help us')
MR. WILEY: Well, that goes to what we currently arc right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the question was how does that help us in comparison to the way it read.
And Brad. I think I'm in the same train of thought you arc. Let's use real numbers. Let's take a house for
$ 100,000.
MR. WILEY: Okay
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A $100,000 home in aiD-year period has two claims oJ: say. $1,000 each. They're
repetitive loss under the way it's written now. A $100,000 home in aiD-year period. under the way it was written,
would havc to have two claims exceeding 25 percent each in order to be repetitive; is that thc way --
MR. WILEY: No, it was the average. So if you had one that was $40,000 claim and the other one was $2,
your average was greater than 25 percent of the structure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in that example you'd have to havc a claim that exceeded $25,000 for a
$100,000 home accumulatively -- or averaged over a 1 O-year period. That's substantially more of a value than $2,000
is over a IO-year period. So how -- wouldn't we be better olfwith that 25 percent')
MR. WILEY: Well, remember, if you're going to acccpt thc 25 percent value. we also then have to change
our definition for substantial damage. Because the two go together. When you go to this proposed delinition by
FEMA in the model ordinance. the two are interlinked.
We did not like the impacts of suddenly having a house that had two Hood insurance claims which averaged
25 percent of the value of the structure declaring the structure to be substantially damaged and requiring the entire
structurc bc mitigated, wherein our threshold all along has been 50 percent ofthc value of the structurc.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Bob. here's the problem I think I'm having. There's two situations in
which they really want you to Ilx your house. Onc is that if it's damaged more than 50 percent, and the building codes.
everybody are supportive of that, then you've got a problem, we've got to start looking at this thing like bringing the
whole house into compliance. True')
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other one is, hey, if within 10 years you're getting whacked with claim
after claim, we've got a problem and maybe we've got to bring this whole house into compliance. True')
MR. WILEY: Being placed on repetitivc loss does not require you to bring the house into eompliancc--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you could--
MR. WI!.EY: -- simply by putting it on the repetitive loss list.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you cross out the--
Page 26 of 85
1 b \ 1 k?5
October 7, 20 I 0
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What's the trigger?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the -- you know, they want you to add the term includes repetitive loss
structures as defined herein. So in other words, FEMA wants you to do that. You know, thc mitigation committee
you and I sit on, we watch projects come through where they want us to do that.
So in other words, thc intcnt is that thcy don't want to have repetitive losses. And if a project is starting to
become one, they want you to fix it.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're crossing that out. In other words, you're fighting repetitive loss
being something that would require you to bring the whole building into compliance.
MR. WILEY: What we're saying here is to take the ordinance to the barc bones minimum. Don't add in the
criteria that FEMA has proposed in the State's model ordinance to take a repetitivc loss structure and define it as being
substantially damaged.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Y cah. Now herc's the danger, though. You're reducing the threshold for
what is a repetitive loss, don't you agrec, with the two $1,000 claims. 25 percent?
MR. WILEY: That is current with what we have. What FEMA was proposing to go to the program to allow
them to throw in the ICC coverage was to bring in the 25 percent value avcragc between claims.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, down in substantial damage you're recommcnding we move in a line
that states that a repetitive loss is going to be considered substantial damagc.
What if we don't lose -- what ifthey make us keep that and wc're stuck with this $1,000 -- I mean, $1,000 is a
very, very small claim.
MR. WILEY: That's what I say, thc two definitions within their ICC program are linked. If you're going to
go with substantial damage as including repetitive loss structures, then your dcfinition would use the average 25
percent value for the two claims.
If it does not have a substantial damage, is -- if you have a repctitive loss structure but you're not saying that
automatically makes it substantial damage, then you use the two $1,000 claims over a I O-year period.
So if you go with the definition as proposed by FEMA, which we struck out, you are going to be promoting
the new ICC coverage program that they're bringing forward. But that is more restrictive than the bare minimum of
FEMA's definition, which simply says it's a repetitive loss structure. But that does not make it a substantially
damaged structure.
So you go either way, but you don't get to take a piece of one and a piece of the other, because that contlicts
with the program that FEMA has set up for ICC coveragc.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll trust you on that, or I'll have substantial damage to my brain here.
Let's move on to another thing. But let me just ask you today, with the two 1.000. what does that mean?
Let's say I had a house that had two $1,000 claims in the last 10 years. What does that mean to me?
MR. WILEY: It means you get put on a list and every ycar I scnd you a letter and remind you that your
house is a repetitive loss structure. I then have to include an analysis of all properties within a reasonable distance
from you that are approximately the same elevation, subject to the same level of flooding. I have to send each of
those houses a letter. So right now we're sending out over 3,000 lettcrs a ycar.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can imagine. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa and then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ijust wanted to follow up on that. Between the direct loss and ICC coverage,
the residential max is 250? So if you take out the $30,000 under Ice then you're basically maxed at $220,000
coverage for the residence.
I think the -- part of the issue is if you fall under this and then become a substantial damage, this is not
necessarily going to cover all of your cost. I mean, you know, if you're going to -- ifyou'rc forced to come into
compliance and have to do stem wall, I mean, at some point your site costs are going to exceed $30,000, and then the
balance of your house may not be covered.
Is that a fair statement? I mean, if they're maxing at 250.
MR. WILEY: I want to say it's a fair statement, but I'm not sure you and I are talking along the same line of
thought here.
Page 27 of 85
1 b \ 1 AJ
October 7,2010
The ICC coverage is coverage above and beyond what you purchase in your premium.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. But under thc ICC coverage it statcs the max combined ICC and direct
loss coverage for residential is $250,000.
MR. WILEY: Clnat is correct.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And that's combined, so--
MR. WILEY: So if you havc $250,000 W0l1h of covcrage on your house and the substantial-- the damage to
repair the flooding that has occurred to your house comes out to be $250,000, right. you gain nothing from ICC. But
if you have $100,000 worth of damage Irom flooding to your house, you have the $100,000 in damage plus the
30,000 to correct the mitigation e!1l)rt it takes to clcvate thc housc. So that is where it is additional above your flood
Insurance prcrTIlum.
Now, that's -- again, the max bctween thc two is 250,000, but that's only ifyou'vc had 250,000 damage to
your house. So where the ICC coverage comes in and gives you additional coverage, if you didn't really sustain quite
that much damage as the 250, it gives you up to 30,000 more to correct the problem that caused the tlooding.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: The process to bring your house in compliance is ditferent than just making
repairs on your house.
MR. WILEY: Yes. ma'am.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: You're not Just picking up the house and throwing some block under it.
MR. WILEY: I don't want anyone to think I'm giving thc impression that ICC coverage makes you entirely
whole. It is helpful.
Now you understand why we don't want to see a lot morc structures suddeniy declared to be substantially
damaged.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. And that was kind of my point of bringing it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Robel1, the current ordinance is $1,000. Why can it not be 15,000. 5,000.
3,500? Why are we set at I,OOO?
MR. WILEY: FEMA's program clearly states that repctitive loss is when they pay two claims 01'$1.000 or
morc.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's thcir detemllnation.
MR. WILEY: It's their determination. It's what they have paid in the claim ovcr any IO-year window.
Now, I will tcll you that once you get on the repetitive loss list -- we have some on the county right now that
have not flooded Illr many, many years but they stay on the hst because there's been no mitigation done to that
individual house. We haven't had rains occurring or storm surge occurring every year to keep flooding them back and
forth. Plus some of them have been quite a bit oftimc since they've last flooded and the current owners -- the one
gentleman called me up had no clue he'd bought a house which is on thc repetitive loss list. And it had been there for
years, but he did not know it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if I heard you correctly, every year letters go out to all oflhese, I think
you said 3,000 people, roughly.
MR. WILEY: There are two types ofletters: The repetitive loss property itsclf gets one letter, and then we
have to do an analysis. what's eallcd a repetitivc loss area wherein we take every repetitive loss property, they would
have to look at every tlood insurance claim that was lilcd Ic)r all properties anywhere in proximity to it. And then I
get to make the jud!,'l11ent call how lar was c1cvatlOn changc atfecting, what kind of stoml was it, similarity to storm,
different storm. Big, long convoluted process to arrive at what we call the repetitive loss area, of which then I must
send a letter to every person within that repetitive loss area, a letter once a year. and advise them that somewhere in
close proximity to your house there is a repetitive loss property.
I'm not allowed to tell them where it is, who it is, what it is, Just say it does exist out there and you may want
to give considerations that your property may be subject to similar type tlooding, and this is just to inlorm you there is
a National Flood Insurance Program and yada, yada, yada. here's some inlormation the county has.
So it's just a lcttcr that goes out to make people aware that there is a flood insurance program available. and
that not too far from you someone has tiled some claims.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the ordinance that we're using, the model ordinance, that means that the
data, the $1,000 was in there li'om FFMA rightlrom the get-go'.'
Page 28 or 85
"
lb~
1
A3
October 7,2010
MR. WILEY: What we're proposing --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No, you said that it's the $1,000 is the stipulation by FEMA.
MR. WILEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to find out whether or not our ordinance preceded any of this
revision business that's going on with FEMA and whether or not we had adopted the 1,000 or that was an adoption
that went back years and years ago.
MR. WILEY: This has been in effect for years and years, but quite frankly, I could not tell you the exact
years --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The same $1 ,ODD?
MR. WILEY: I cannot tell you the exact year from our ordinance to that one.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The reason I ask that question is, if you think about it, ifit was 25 years old,
$1,000 had a greater value that many years ago. And maybe it's time !()r us to look at that or question FEMA on that
notion.
Otherwise I find what Brad pointed out was very real. A person -- I mean, this is a bureaucracy situation. A
person gets into the repetitive thing, they get a letter every year which they promptly throwaway. We spend perhaps
thousands of dollars and a lot of valuable time reminding people of something that they have no anticipation of. I just
think maybe it needs to be qualified further.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for clarification, Robert, repetitive loss, I don't find that in the model ordinance as a
defined term. That's something we put in there') Because I do have the model ordinance in front of me.
MR. WILEY: Right. I'm looking at the underlined strike-through--
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm looking at the model ordinance.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Jefl it's an underlined thing given, so it is from the model ordinance.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Except I'm looking at the model ordinance and it doesn't have repetitive loss as a
defined term.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Our copy has. Pagc 12 it's showing repetitive.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's not nice.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute, now. Oh, yeah, on Page 12--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, it says optional.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an optional. It's an optional --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'mjust saying, I'm looking at the model ordinance online, it does not have it as a
defined term.
And my question is, is this our term that we've put into there or --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what he's saying. He's saying it's been there for years.
MR. WILEY: It's our term that we're using -- the existing FEMA definition for repetitive loss, we are not
using their optional 25 percent value. They want us to havc the definition within the ordinance, but we're going and
using the existing definition FEMA's using now and not a new program that is coming forward, which is reflected
within the State's model ordinance.
MR. KLA TZKOW: We need to come back to this, Mr. Chairrnan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have another question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
Bob, arc you finished?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: New topic. Okay, structure, you're crossing through principally. So what
you're essentially saying though, if! have a structure that has a basement, it's not a structure.
In other words, why do you want to get rid of the word principal? Because what you will do then is if any
part of the structure is below grade, ground, which is not a good term t(:>f grade, but anyway, it would no longer be
considered a structure. So [ think I would leave it in.
Page 29 of 85
16 ~ 1 k3
October 7, 2010
MR. WILEY: I would agree witb you. I'm including revisions made by committee, so--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Poor Bob.
MR. WILEY: So what is the direction here"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leave it in, unless anybody on tbis board objects to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the unpredictable result is somebody with a basement or somebody
with a sunken part of a waterproofed area would be eliminatcd as a structure. Not a good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything clsc on Pages 10 and 11 '?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Arc wc going to come back to the substantial damage, along with the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to come back to the rcpetitive loss. Yes, I think what's going to
happen, and then we'll probably go through a lot more of this document, the fact I am not getting responses to some of
my questions leads me to bclicve there may need to be some timc to think about them.
And the County Attomey pointed out one conccm they have that could be substantial. So I think what we'll
probably do today is get all of our points on reeord with Robert and ask that hc consider any changes that we
recommend and then come back with a final document to rcview. But we'll see as the day goes on to make sure we'rc
still heading in that direction.
Robert. you had said that under the repetitive loss criteria you've have to send out mailings to neighbors and
you have to keep track of things and repeatedly send them out for I guess where these issues occur. Is that -- can you
explain to me how that happenso
MR. WILEY: Through the county's participation within the community rating system. the CRS program, we
are required to provide notifications on certain different things. And repetitive loss program is one of those in the
CRS prob'Tam that we've said we would do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have we been doing that all along"
MR. WILEY: As far as I know we have. Now, the issue of repetitive loss area did not come up until a
couple of ycars ago. But rep. loss properties themselves have bcen receiving letters lor a number of years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If a house had a repetitive loss damage and it qualified as repetitive, one was in year
one, another was in year 10, and they got to the II th year. does that first year one drop off so they're no longer
repetitive loss?
MR. WILEY: No, sir. They stay a rep. loss structurc until eOlTective action is taken to the house, it's called
mitigation, so that it would relieve the cause I"r the flooding that created the two paid flood claims.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll. thc way that this reads, it says at least two paid flood losses of more than
1,000 each in any 1 O-year period. So really, you're saying in the life of the structure, not in a lO-year period, aren't
you"
MR. WILEY: No. wc're talking ahout within any 1 O-year period. Now, that 1 O-year period may have
occurred 20 year ago. But within that I O-year period the two claims were paid and nothing has been done to alleviate
the potential for flooding since then. So there may have been 20 years expired since then, but that original 10-year
period still created the rep. loss property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So once you get on the black list you're on torever, you can never get ofl
MR. WILEY: That is not cOlTeet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. thcn how do we get off that repetitive, other than having to spend more
money to repair something that cost $2,000 over 10 years'!
MR. WILEY: For the properties we have in Collier County that were rep. loss and are no longer rep. loss, we
have situations where the building was demolished and a ncw structure was built.
(Laughter.)
MR. WILEY: Well, you're asking, so I'm telling --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but since you're being so specific. and I'm glad you are, that goes back to my
findings of tact in the beginning, I don't believe there's enough specificity there.
So I understand where you're going, Robert, but I just -- and I know it's not your tault, I know this is a federal
rule of some kind, but it's pretty absurd that a building can sustain $2,000 in damage over a 1 O-year period 40 years
ago and because they did they're lorever going to be penalized I()r that as they go forward in the future. It's just
amazing. The more we read this, the more we Ical11.
MR. WILEY: I didn't say I disab'Teed with you, sir, I'rnjust --
Page 30 of 85
16 \ 1 ~~
October 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you don't. I'm not saying you do. Ijust think it's amazing. It's astounding
that it can be done this way.
Okay, Pages --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one quick question from what you were saying before.
You were saying that you can notify people that someone in the area, but you can't say who that person was
whose house was flooded. How do you know if somebody goes in to buy a home? How do the people coming in,
like you just said, this person never knew, is there a way that people can find out"
MR. WILEY: I would have to ask the County Attorney, is there a way you can find out someone's historical
flood insurance claims? I don't know how they would know.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know off the top of my head.
MR. WILEY: So it's all considered confidential information. We can't release it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can penalize people for it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you can penalize. In other words, a house is for sale, somebody does not
know, they go in and buy it, and now all ofa sudden they're penalized because they bought that house. You're right, it
does not make sense.
MR. WILEY: Thcre's no penalty to being a rep. loss structure and being on the list. It doesn't increase your
flood insurance claims. You're paying the same rate as if you'd never flooded because those are all set by Congress.
All it does, it puts you on a list that allows you to be able to apply to FEMA for certain assistance grants should you
flood again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on Pages 10 -- Mr. Schiffer'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, when you're trying to figure out the house flooding, the remedy, is it
always on the site that the house was on? What if -- if I live in a neighborhood and here come the fill pads, isn't it the
-- might not be my problem. But do you remedy that or -- never mind, let's move on.
MR. WILEY: Well. just to help you understand, some issues that arc there, things such as through the
stormwater management program of constructing improved drainage facilities to lower the elevation of the I DO-year
storm event. that is an acceptable form of mitigation. So there's more than one way to correct the problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 12 and 13, anybody have anything on -- we're still on definitions. Eventually
we'll get into the document.
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The document's easy, it's the definitions.
Wet season water table elevation. What is the wet season'? When do we -- there are communities that tell
you they need a water table measurement at a certain time. Do we have anything like that or --
MR. WILEY: Not that I'm aware of. We just go hy what is your wet season water table. Every engineer,
every development goes through thc same process to determine what it is at peak of the wet season, August,
September, where are your water elevations. Long term, not year by year. It's fairly well documented by different
criteria.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But we don't have, like I said, some communities say it has to be
taken in October, which is their -- okay.
So how do we know that data'? Because that is important, especially with septic designs and stutf. So--
MR. WILEY: How do they know it now--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- somebody just has to -- how do they know it now'?
MR. WILEY: It's based upon -- you've got environmental factors, you've got geologic factors. I mean your
different people are involved in establishing what is the wet season water table. Any time you get a development
pennit approval through the South Florida Water Management District you have to identity the wet season water
table. It's a standard criteria that everyone's using.
This doesn't change that, it just brings it into play to help everyone understood what you do within the
approximate zone A.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what piece of data do you get from that'? Do you get something in the
data, the NA VD, is that what you're looking for'?
Page 31 of85
16 \ 1 M
Oclober 7,2010
MR. WILEY : You do get an elevation Ii-om it yes. sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFfER: In a NA VD elevation
MR. WILEY: It could be NA VD. it could be NGVD. New elevations will be NA VD. But you could have
an old one.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not something like two feet below f,'fade, it's a datum.
MR. WILEY: I guess it could be two feet below f,'fade. it could be two feet above f,'TIlde. It just depends
upon your location.
For instance, wet season water table in the midst of a Big Cypress head, it's above grade. You can go look at
the lichen lines right on the side of the tree.
COMMISSIONER SClllffER: But this is saying the wet scason table elevation. How is that answer given
to you') Is it the NA VD or is it two feet below grade') I mean. in other words, you're looking for an elevation, how
does --
MR. WILEY: It is given in an elevation. It is provided -- what do you want to call it, NA VD. NGVD. But it
is on a survey datum.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should wc add that to the dclinition that it's -- in other words, you're
describing what it is. So should you not tell what that answer should be or -- because if you read this thing, it is kind
of confusing as to -- it describes what it is. It's somewhere underground there's water saturating. And yes, that's good.
But it doesn't -- you know, how the answer should be is not clear to me.
MR. WILEY: So how do you want to edit it"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think an NA VD would be perfect. Because then if there's surveys and
future data on that site you would be able to equate it.
MR. WILEY: So if atier the word elevation, you'll say the elevation, parenthesis, NA VD, closed parenthesis,
and then keep going, is that what you're looking for')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
You see my point? Because you're not clear as to -- you know, you're describing a condition, but we really
should have that elevation data. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa')
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I was just going to elarify, the delinition that's pulling Ii-om 64.1' is based on
the health code, and you have to auger 72 inches and then your water table is detennined based on the soils and then
the lichen lines and so {()lih. So then it IS given in a calculation of minus six or minus eight or plus 10 or whatever it
is below or under f,'fade.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on 12 and 13')
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, then we'll move on to 14 and 15.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schitfer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I like -- the interpretation, I like this one. Just a statement. Liberally
construed in lilYor of the governing body. Ilike that.
Anyway. penalties: These are pretty tough penalties. I mean, 1,000 bucks a day. A repeat offender, $5.000 a
day. And you know what, these aren't like !lames coming out of the wall at a nursery school. These are, you know,
Ilood deficiencies that are -- you know, they're going to be dil1icult to remedy. I mean, obviously you want to be
tough about it, but essentially the people arc being punished by insurance or by lack of insurance or -- so how do these
remedies come about? And why are they so tough" I mean, arc they -- it's Jen's lilUlt'i
MR. WILEY: This is language that was put into the ordinance by the County Attorney's Ol1ice.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. They're going to be very diflicult to remedy. The remedy, like we said,
could be, you know. a stonnwater sewer system in the neighborhood. So I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the model ordinancc language I()r penalties? Was it as severe as --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well. the modcl ordinance had criminal penalties. And this takes criminal
penalties out of it, so I think we're getting --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: We're moving forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What arc you in lor') Well. I violated the nood ordinance.
Page 32 of 85
161
1 k3
October 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Seriously.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, God.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In addition to the criminal penalties provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very sorry, Cherie', we're I'm getting a little out of order, but it's just too much.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you thought you had foreclosures before.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, that seems -- if it has to be there, it has to be there. But it does
seem tough. And obviously it's a no more than, so I guess some rascal could really deserve that, but I can't picture it.
In your permit procedures, you're describing how the plans, they have to be in duplicate. Well, you know,
actually, the plans have to be more than duplicate. So is it a good idea to get into pcrmitting at the micro level or
should you be saying things. you know, as per, you know, something, the requirements of the building department?
You see what I mcan, Bob? Down at the bottom, permit procedures, the following plans in duplicate, to
scale. I mean, the county would require more than two, so -- no comment?
MR. WILEY: This was just the language I received, so I--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, [mean, it should say something, you know, copies as per something
or other. That's -- this is where Nick would be good to be hcre to tell us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I kind of wanted to ask Nick. And Robert, maybe you have the answer. How
do we currently meet the intentions of A, section f'lUr on Page IS?
How is the process at the county currently doing tllis')
MR. WILEY: When an applicant submits for a building permit. they're providing the sets of plans, they're
providing the information that's needed here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then all the information here is not needed in this ordinance because it's
already required to be provided by another; is that right?
MR. WILEY: This is the basis upon which it requires us to provide it. It doesn't necessarily specify all the
details of how many copies of a plan or something. But it says you're going to provide certain information at a
mInImum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But didn't you just say it's already being provided? It's already done, right?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's done because it's required to supply for building permit under regular
standards that we have, like our building permit standards, our Land Development Code and other processcs.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a reason then we need to have it in this ordinance as well? Because if we
have to change it in one, wc have to go back and tlnd it in cvery --
MR. WILEY: Well, yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let's put this on the list of things to come back to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Jeff, my concem is by duplicating it --
MR. KLA TZKOW: I fully appreciate your concern. Duplication's a bad idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on Pages ]4 and IS?
Mr. Wiley?
MR. WILEY: Well, let me just address the question, because I did look it up within the model ordinance.
Penaltics for violation. What it said was there, any person who violates this ordinance or fails to comply with
any of its requirements shall upon adjudication therefore bc fined not more than $500, and in addition shall pay all
costs and expenses.
So it's a little bit different than the terminoloh'Y that was used in the original model ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 14 and 15, anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, on A on Page 14. the additional language, it previously read: This
ordinance shall apply to all areas of special flood hazard.
Now, that is limiting the ordinance to those areas that are special flood hazard.
Thc way it reads now, it says: This ordinance shall apply to all areas including areas of special flood hazard.
Now, would that mean then that it broadened the scope ofthis ordinance by moving it to every place in the
county, whether they were a special flood hazard or not?
Page 33 of 85
1 b \ 1 ~'!J
October 7,2010
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we do that"
MR. WILEY: It's explained there in the comment note to the side, that has to do with the criteria that we
currently had in ordinance, was just put back in the ordinancc, that we're getting ready to repeal and amend by this
one, that most commonly we think of in Golden Gate Estates, but it's also the older platted subdivisions where you
had the minimum 18 inches abovc crown or road if it was pavcd. 24 inches if it was unpaved.
Well, that many might be in a Zone X or a Zone D. The D's arc going away but you still may have Zone X's.
But that still is a minimum criteria within Collier County.
If we limit this ordinance to only arcas of !lood hazard area, then you're in a Zone X. Then the county's
minimum elevation criteria, which is incorporatcd within this ordinance, would not be applicable. So that's where the
change was to bring it into across the board without thc connt y.
Now, the reason welre blinging it in is it \vas previously the minimum -- excuse lnc -- the llnninlUln elevation
of 18 inches was in a differcnt ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want a drink of water?
MR. WILEY: No, I'll get ovcr it in a minute hcrc.
The ordinance was repealed years ago, about a year and a hal C two years, something like that. We just
brought it back in before the Board of County Commissioners and we put it as an amendment into the existing Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance.
So to keep that critcria consistent wc also have It in tlus document. But then to make it countywide, we had
to add that phrase in hcrc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to one of your earlier statements, and I try to remember what you had said,
you use the example of Golden Gate Estates, that if there was an area in Golden Gate Estates that didn't have a paved
road and was in the flood Zone X, thcy wouldn't have any criteria on which to set their floor elevation; is that what
that means') Is that what you're trying to say')
MR. WILEY: If we had thc IS-inch criteria established in another ordinance of the county, which is how we
used to have it, you then -- that would not atTect this ordinance. But because the most recent bringing of that criteria
back into effect in Collier County placed it as an amendment into the existing Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance,
then we need to make this ordinance cover all areas ofthc county.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You !,'1Iys accidentally took it out. then you told us to throw it into this ordinance. and
you're saying it has to he now countywide because you put this into this ordinance; is that what you're saying?
MR. WILEY: I don't know how it got taken out that the old ordinance got repealed. I was not involved in
that. But because it did get put back into this existing ordinance --
MR. KLATZKOW: At your department's request.
MR. WILEY: Yes. sir.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay. And now you're telling me because at your department's request you put this in
here, you now have to make this ordinance jrom countywide. Why don't you just take the 18-inch crown and put it
somewhere else?
MR. WILEY: We can. If you want to run another ordinance. we can do that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Geez, Robert, is that the only reason why this is countywide?
MR. WILEY: The reason for this countywide statement in here would be to allow that to have an effect, yes,
SIr.
MR. KLATZKOW: So you put this in here. then you say we have to havc it in here because of this 18-inch
requirement you put in here?
MR. WILEY: Now, let's look through the whole purpose of this ordinance. If you're outside ofthe special
flood hazard area, there's no other criteria within this ordinance that is applicable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't this ordinance supposed to be tor the flood zone') I mean, it's a Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance. Why would we want to put development standards that really aren't related to flood
damagc prevention in an ordinance that's writtcn tor !lood damage prevention when there are development standards
that should be part ofa Land Development Code or a building code or one of the other codes')
Brad, you're familiar with building codes. If we didn't put those two words in A, ineluding areas. you as an
architect. would you then have relinquished any requirement to put buildings IS inches above the crown of the road')
Page 34 of 85
. I
16l
1 {\3
October 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the building codes cover these same things. But I'm not sure -- the 18
inches I think is a local requirement. I mean, all counties have a minimum height above a road if there's no firm
elevation. So we'd have to have that 18 somewhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I -- I'm suggesting--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the 24 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- don't you deal with it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not in the building code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not in the building code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: Used to be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's one of these issues --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I could verify that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we need to do some research and come back on.
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: This came up, I believe it was originally in an ordinance that was more related
to environmcntal. And when they repealed that ordinance it was realized this really shouldn't have been there to begin
with.
And there was a discussion with the building department. I recommended maybe thcy add this to the fill pad
ordinance because they do directly relate. Once you go over the 18 inches with fill pads, then you have to go stem
wall.
But there was a request for it to go in here. But I think that's how it originally got deleted and maybe not
addressed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Robert, between you and the County Attorney's office, when this comes back
for a final reading, can you guys take a look at that, moving that lan!,'1Iage into a more appropriate, if there is a more
appropriate, ordinance?
Well, let's just provide the direction. When this comes back for re-reading, please look at that and determine
if there's a better place to put it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not so sure this isn't a good place, though, because it is due to flood
requirements that we have those elevations. So why would it not be a good location for it then?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just worricd as to what it encompasses and what it means in relationship to how
this ordinance is written versus the minimums if you're not in a flood hazard area.
See, if you're not in a flood hazard area and you don't have to abide by this ordinance, why are we dragging
the whole county into it, then? That's my concem.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And very much my concem as well.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was in an X Zone, and now I have to have insurance because the AH Zone.
And so when you're including all areas here. you are affecting all of Collier County. What the government I think is
trying to tell you is all of Florida needs flood insurance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a thought on that. Maybe in the beginning what we can do when we
do describe where this applies and the scope, you could take out those areas, put a qualification of just those two
requirements and then get on with it for the county that needs it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think a clean-up would be helpful.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What you say is so. But by including this in here, I'm thinking of
condominiums that will have a flood for whatever reason, maybe because their little lake overflowed. And then now
they're going to get their repetitive letters, and if they get into another situation they may be $1,000 a day, and for stuff
that just doesn't make any sense in the way that we're scoping it. The way I understand it. anyway.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're doing tltis because FEMA wants us to do this. My recommendation is you make
this as narrow as possible to comply with FEMA and no more.
Page 35 of 85
16 \ 1 ~~
October 7, 20 I 0
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the difticulty for me is not knowing exactly what -- I mean, FEMA
wants everything. And how --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, they don't want everything--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They don't'> Well, I'm getting the impression Irom Mr. Wiley that they want
everything. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A.nd Bob, I think if your lake overnows. that's a 1100d.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do ai,'fee. I'm not questioning that. But I'mjust thinking about the
implications of it for the cntire county and what it brings into. It means that all of these factors in this ordinance then
apply everywhere. And I think we'rc doing a disservice by introducing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron'>
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think it's really important to keep these things as simple as possible
and as single purposed as possible. Otherwise we get into these situations where nobody knows how this happened or
nobody can quite remember, nobody's willing to admit how something happened and came about. And so keeping it
naITOW and simple has got to be the best course lor everybody.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We sure haven't been there so tar today.
Okay, 14 and 15. Let's move on to 16 and 17. Anybody have any questions on 16 and 17'>
COMMISSIONER SCIllFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiller, then Ms. Ahem.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 16. I.E, where you're describing certification by an architect or
registered engineer.
First of all -- and Jctl you can do it -- when you use the term -- and they've crossed out the term registered
professional architect. When they say registered engineer or architect, does that legally mean that the architect is
registered'>
MR. KLA TZKOW: What section are you on, Brad')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm 1.1'. It happens in multiple areas where they crossed out. Before they
used to say a registered professional engineer or registered professional architect.
They'vc eliminated the deli nit ion of architect and engineer Irom it. That's kind of okay, but -- in other words,
if it says registered engineer or architect, I'm not sure the phrase is good. Does it mean that the architect is registered?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Do you want the architect to be registered'}
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the state does. yeah.
In other words, legally does that registercd apply to -- when you use the word or. It's a Boolean logic thing.
I'm not sure. In other words, if you stay registered engineer or ehee does mean that the chef has to be registered to do
this"
MR. KLATZKOW: I think lor clarity purposes -- I do think the architect has to be registered. But for
purposes of clarity, I don't have an issue if you threw in the word registered before architect.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, they could say certification Irom an engineer or architect. I
mean, there used to be a delinition of what an engineer or architect was. They crossed it out. And that -- maybe the
easiest thing to do is put that back and then you could use the word architect and engineer without getting involved in
professional, registered and all that other stuff.
But a thought, and it happcns throughout this thing, they use registered engineer or architect.
And then on that same thing, therc's one thing in there that's kind of violating our practice act, is it says that
they have developed, which we have to develop our work betore we certify it, and/or review a structural design. That
means we didn't have to do the work. And you're allowing me to sign somebody else's or review somebody else's
work. And that's against the practice act t(>r both of those professions.
So the way it was before was kind of a little bit where you had to have a certilicate Irom us and you didn't get
into how we did the work or whether we did the work.
Do you see what I mean? You're actually saying that I could -- Paul could be an engineer. he could design it
but I could take his paperwork and review it and sign and seal it and you'll be happy. But the state wouldn't.
Anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, when someone on the board suggests a language change, if you're in
ai,'feement with that lanb'lJage change or disagreement, let us know. And someone needs to be taking notes that these
Page 36 of 85
1 Q1ber 7,\10 ~2
changes we're suggesting need to be made so that this ordinance goes forward in a manner like it came from DSAC,
with their changes.
Yon don't comment sometimes. Is there --
MR. WILEY: I'm writing my notes. I put the word registered with a question mark before the word architect
and I have add definitions. It's in my --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that meaning that you're going to make that change then"
MR. WILEY: I will talk to the County Attorney about it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're used to a little more dialogue back and forth with staff members. And it
would be helpful -- it would move us forward faster too if you would say, okay, that's a good idea or do you have a
suggested language change, and then you say okay and we go forward. That just helps get the meeting going.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have to know the right question to ask with Robert, I think, in order to
get him to be responsive. That's his M.O.
MR. WILEY: I'm trying to not intenupt, sir, while the conversation was going on. I thought I'd wait till he
finished.
I would support putting a good definition lor engineer and architect both in the definition sections so it clearly
says registered professional engineer, registered professional architect. If you put the definitions in I think that's a
better way to go a it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it was crossed out. There was one.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I mean, are you guys all state licensed?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, havc to bc. You can't hold yourself out as an architect without any
license.
MR. KLATZKOW: We could just throw in the word state licensed. I'm not sure what registered means.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, there's is a lot of places where you use -- the intent is that an
architect or engineer does something. So rather than load that up with words, if you had a definition of what architect
and engineer means, then you could use the word architect and engineer.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahem, you were next, and then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Under construction stage, it makes rcference that you have to submit to the
floodplain administrator a certification. and then gives the process. And at the bottom it says failure to submit, you
can receive a stop work order.
Is there a time frame for that submittal?
MR. WILEY: Well, I understand it right now you've got a 1 O-day window to do that. But I'm not certain if
we want to state that in this ordinance. That's within the building department and that's your --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And that be stated thcre.
MR. WILEY: They're using a IO-day window is all I know right now, to get your -- and if you do any work
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So you just -- like a spot survey.
MR. WILEY: It's just your spot survey, that's what this is referencing, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I think it's going to happen. All I was going to suggest is I think we
need to make a decision about what we want to recommend.
So I believe it's the consensus on this board to add back in a definition tor architect and engineer so that these
terms don't have to be -- aren't confusing in the text.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's correct. And Donna, the only reason I hadn't -- I fib'1lred if anybody on
the board objected to something that was discussed we'd speak out. But we could work it both ways.
MR. KLATZKOW: So, !et'sjust lor clarity, so it is the will of the Planning Commission to direct staff to put
back in definitions for architect and engineer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Be my view, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
Page 37 of 85
16 \ 1 P0
October 7,2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Some sort of ddinition. And we haven't given you that--
MR. KLATZKOW: And I sce pretty much everybody shaking their head yes, Robert. So that's the direction.
MR. WILEY: That's what I havc in my notes, yes, add definition in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to bring you back on Page -- well, to E under application stage, the
elevation in relation --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page"
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: On 16 on the DSAC approved drall.
You then use in that, the last sentence in there, you use the practice in coastal high hazard areas. But in
another part where we had a discussion, it was associatcd with tllis ordinance would be intended to be for the entire
county.
So is that in contradiction" If you were to have the entire county covcred by the ordinance, would you be
referencing something very limiting"
MR. WILEY: I'm not linding the location of which you're speaking right now, sir. I'm trying to--
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Well, it would be under -- the title is pernlit procedures.
MR. WILEY: Okay. And so you're on Page 16 under E. right"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be eOlTect. And it would be the last-- it would be the end of the
paragraph there where it says: With accepted standards -- accepted standards of practice in coastal high hazard areas.
rmjust trying to ascertain whether or not we have a l:onflicl. I have no objection to the relevance of coastal
high hazard areas. But you remember you broadened this thing to the entire county. And if that were to remain in
fact, this then might not be applicable.
MR. WILEY: Well, this is a particular ecrtilication that is addressing an elevation within the coastal high
hazard area where you have to go to the bottom of the lowest horizontal member.
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: So I'm in error then, then this is only applicable to the coastal high hazard
area.
MR. WILEY: That's the only one where you have to provide the elevation for the bottom lor the lowest
horizontal member. That's why this is worded this way.
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: All right, then, I was under a misapprehension. I was -- what happens when
people want to have an exception, they'd like to have an exception to the detennination of FEMA map and they hire a
surveyor. Don't they have to submit some kind of a certification or whatever format is applicable to make that
exception valid or possibly valid"
MR. WILEY: By exception, arc you saying they're wanting to apply lor a variance or they--
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Okay, call it a variance, I don't know the appropriate tenninology yet,
because --
MR. WILEY: So they want to construct something that does not comply with the established flood zone
elevation. That would require the variance application that has to then be processed through the Board of Zoning
Appeals, which is the Board of County Commissioners. And if they approve it then that approval goes forward, we
must notify FEMA of the approved variance and they get the building pennil.
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: This is something that's even more challenging then.
So in other words, if somebody wishes to havc an exception or. as you call it, a variance, they don't want to
be considered within the 1I00d zone, and they hire a surveyor to prove that and the surveyor does not give an elevation
certificate. that's not --
MR. WILEY: You're saying to not be considered within the Hood zone. You mean -- you're saying you
want the --
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: That's why I use the exception, exception to the generality.
MR. WILEY: Okay, the map shows them as being within, let's say, an AE flood zone and you're saying, no,
I'mX.
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: That's what I'm trying to tell you. So wouldn't the surveyor--
MR. WILEY: That's not the issue here. The surveyor, they would subnlit the elevation certificate.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought.
MR. WILEY: Ycah. That's a !Otally scparate issuc from what this is discussing here, sir.
Page 38 of 85
1 b \ 1 f\'3
October 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But it does open up that other area of question having to do with -- I
had no idea that a person would have to then go to, what did you say, board of zoning appeals?
MR. WILEY: If you wish to apply for a variance. In this situation here, you're in the coastal high hazard
area, so you're in the VE flood zone, and you're wanting to build, let's say you're wanting to build a house slab on
grade because you like the view from the lower elevation. But within a VE zone you have to have an elevated
structure so water can pass beneath it.
If you wanted to pursue the variance, you would take it to the Board of County Commissioners for their
consideration.
But that's different than what you were talking about as saying the property is outside of the designated
special flood hazard area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. But I think you're also limiting what I was thinking. I wasn't
thinking about building a new structure, I was thinking about a structure that already exists and a person looking to get
out of being designated as a flood -- potential flooded area.
MR. WILEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right.
MR. WILEY: That process--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had no idea that --
MR. WILEY: -- is called a letter of map amendment. And of course being FEMA, they abbreviate it
L-O-M-A. And that is a process that you can submit the elevation certificate, the mapping that it takes to identify
where your property is, you submit that information directly to FEMA, there is no cost for you to do so to FEMA, and
they review it and approve it. It comes back with your approval letter.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is important to know. Thank you. That was important for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For members of the audience waiting for the Watershed Management Plan, it is
intuitively obvious to me right now we're not going to get thcre before lunch.
So if you all want to have a longer lunch, feel free to leave and come back, because by the time we resume
from lunch, it will probably be -- the earliest it will probably be is 12:45 but it may be 1 :00. And you're more than
welcome to come back then and enjoy the rest of the show.
But right now I don't think we're going to get to you this morning, so ifthat helps any of you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Rest of the show.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 16 and 17.
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: On the bottom of Page 17, it says interpret the exact locations of the
boundaries. And then it goes on, it says: The administrator shall make the necessary interpretations.
Interpret based on what?
MR. WILEY: When you look at a Flood Insurance Rate Map, you have to locate your property on it to
detennine what is the flood zone and what is the elevation of the flood zone.
So the ordinance hasically gives the floodplain administrator as appointed by the county manager the
authority to make the decision are you in such and such a zone, such an elevation, or are you on the other side of the
line. So it gives the decision to the administrator to make that call.
And most ofthe people don't question it, it's pretty obvious. But if someone should question it. there is the
process and you can go through to appeal that decision.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So there's no guideline that -- itJust seems very vague.
MR. WILEY: I mean, you look at your Flood Insurance Rate Map and here's your property. You have to
identify the proposed building, is it going to be in a flood zone such and such or not --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right, but this is contradicting between actual fill -- the way it reads is that
there's discrepancies between the map boundaries and actual fIeld conditions.
MR. WILEY: Right, right. That has to do with the elevation which we're speaking. When you draw the
location of the line on the map, it's from aerial position looking down. In the FEMA definitions that we have to live
by, elevation supercedes horizontal location.
So if you have a piece of property -- and it doesn't happen that often around here because we are flat, but if
you have a situation where a line is drawn and it would show the house itself is supposed to be in a flood Zone X, the
Page 39 of8S
16 \ 1 k?
October 7, 20 I 0
proposed house is in a tlood Zone X, but adjacent to it you know that your base flood elevation is 10, and you come in
and your natural ground is sitting there at ninc, well, it's pretty obvious that the horizontal location of the line was
drawn incorrectly and the floodplain administrator would at that point declare the property is within a special tlood
hazard area and you must comply. Because you're clearly in an elcvation which is below the mapped base tlood
elevation. So that's where he makes that call.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay
MR. WILEY: And reverse also, you might be higher.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: That was what I was alraid of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob. on 17. parcn four. you use the word assure. I think that's kind ofa
perfect word. Maybe verify would be better. I mean, I don't think you'd want the administrator's job to assure
anything, just to verify that that is -- that's up to Jeff
It's always dangerous to use the word assure, because that means it's got to happen and you're the b'llY to
make it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any objection to that" Okay.
MR. WILEY: Change it to verify?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd also like to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Robert, on 17 we already discussed this, the interpret the exact location of
the boundaries and so forth.
Again, inasmuch as you've broadened this ordinance to all areas of Collier County, do I interpret this
sentence, this paragraph to mean only lor the special Hood hazard areas or is this applicable then to all of the areas of
the county"
MR. WILEY: Well, it says he's interpreting the exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special tlood
hazard. That is your special Hood hazard area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're limiting it by that sentence or paragraph, you're limiting it, right?
MR. WILEY: You have a boundary bctween the special tlood hazard area and the Hood Zone X, which is
not special flood hazard area. Now. let's try to go through a bit ofFEMA lingo here quickly.
Every square inch of Collier County is within some type of a tlood zone. Special Hood hazard area is all
zones that start with the letter A or thc letter V. Thosc 1100d zones that are outside the special tlood hazard area
include Zone X and currently Zone D, although we know D is going to be going away as we go through time here.
So what they're saying is determining the boundary of the speeialllood hazard area, within the special Hood
hazard area those are your areas that start with the lettcr A and V. You also havc diffcrent elevation criteria.
Along the coastal surge areas you have the whole region for an AE-I n. an AE-ll, whatever, everything has
an elevation. He would also make the determination upon the location of that distinction, even though you'rc within
the special flood hazard arca.
So he makes the boundary call when you'rc close to it, is what this is -- so it gives someone the
decision-making power.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you were to have a map created that would show special tlood hazard
areas, would they be distinctive from the rest of the county" Because you said practically every square inch of this
county is potential Hood zone, which I could understand.
But is there any way of distinguishing that"
I mean, I know we have maps that have X's and A and whatever, but --
MR. WILEY: That is your distinguishmcnt right there, it has the X or the A--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the boundaries are clear, there's no -- I'm trying to remember what we
saw because it was a long time ago. I don't think it was in color. I remember Mr. Schmitt showing us a rather large
document that showed areas. But you may not have seen that.
I guess what I'm trying to relate to is I keep on trying to balance where you've wanted to include all of Collier
County, and yet in many instances this is really very limited in its intent originally.
MR. WILEY: The vast majority of the ordinance is very limited to those areas within a special flood hazard
area. The additional of that language was simply because we have added into the existing ordinance the elevation.
Page 40 ofS5
~
16'
1~
October 7, 2010
minimum elevation above crown in thc platted subdivisions.
While those may not be witbin a special t100d hazard area, so to include that within any ordinance we
expanded the area. But the criteria that is applicable only witbin a special t100d hazard area does not apply outside of
the special t100d hazard areas.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, Ijust want you to understand the basis tor my questions, probably all
of them in the future as we go forward. Every one of these things where it requires somebody, whether it's your job or
somebody else that works with you or for you who is responsible for making interpretations or detennining whether
somebody goes before the BZA or whatever they do, this opens up a whole new world of activity.
And I think that's one of the tbings where I understand a certain level of activity is required. My concerns are,
and I'm going to be asking those qucstions that way, is are we broadening tbis activity unnecessarily, okay?
And I would like your rcsponsc whcn I ask that question, more than just whatcvcr FEMA says, what is
logical for Collier County as well, if you wouldn't mind.
MR. WILEY: It's my understanding about the ordinance is we are not broadening what we're already doing
right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On top of Page 17, Robert, there's a parenthetical two. It says review all
development pennits including the review of certified plans and specifications for compliance to assure that permit
requirements of tbis ordinance have been satisfied.
Now -- and it goes somewhat to Mr. Murray's question, by saying all development pennits. First of all. does
that mean all pennits whether they're in the special t100d bazard areas or not? Because it says all developmcnt
pennits.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if I want to put a ceiling fan in a bcdroom. you guys have to sign off on that?
MR. WILEY: You have to right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I mean the floodplain administrator as defined on Page 16, Item B, duties of the
floodplain administrator. So whoever that guy is, hc's got to review my plans for a ceiling fan and he's got to say it
isn't impacted by this ordinance. Is that wherc wc're going?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. And that's what we're doing already.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, who is the floodplain administrator?
It's got to be a designee. so who is it?
MR. WILEY: As far as I understand right now, it is Nick Casalanguida.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, I thought that was your guy--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick doesn't review plans.
MR. WILEY: Wait a second. He is the administrator. He then assigns it to staff beneath bim. It's the same
as when it was Joe Schmitt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it has to be county manager or designee. So everybody is designated, is that the
way it works?
MR. WILEY: No, no.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, isn't it Jim Turner? Isn't Turner--
MR. WILEY: No, he is not the floodplain administrator. Right now Nick Casalanguida is acting in that
position.
MR. KLATZKOW: Who does the day-to-day administration oftbis ordinance, Bob?
MR. WILEY: Statf, underneath Nick.
MR. KLATZKOW: And who is that?
MR. WILEY: It would be cvcrybody in the Building Department. I can't name them all, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the next time we do meet on tbis, because there's going to be another meeting,
would you make sure it's scheduled the day Nick is not going to be somewhere else?
MR. WILEY: He indicated to me he was going to be here today, so I was surprised too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I understand. I'm not blaming you for that. Ijust want to make sure that the
next time we talk about this he is here, because we certainly would like some clarification.
And it is outside maybe of all the things that you do, because Nick is the department head, so I'd sure like to
Page 41 of85
16\ lA'"
October 7,2010
hear his comments on how this is delineated, who handles it.
And it says, after thc word pennits. and this was added lanb'1lage, including the review of certified plans and
specifications for compliance.
What signilicance does that addition add to the statement regarding the review of all development pennits"
What does it -- I mean, if it's all development pennits, it's going to be ones that are certified or not, for
whatever that means, and specifications l(lr compliance whether they are or not, for whatever that means. So what is
all that language being added for: do we know')
MR. WILEY: If you look further down on the page. under paren eight, which is shown as stricken through,
all we did is we took that paren eight and split it up to put it into areas where it was felt more applicable for addressing
the issue rather than lumping it all in that onc eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the criteria is to review all development pennits, are there certified plans and
specifications for compliance that are outside of the -- all developmcnt pennits? I mean, you're going to catch it by
the phraseology of all development pennits, so why are we restating it as though that isn't going to catch everything?
Is it intended to catch everything or no!"
MR. WILEY: It's basically just putting in the ordinance what we're doing right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't see the need for the highlighted language is what it boils down to.
And I don't know what it adds to the sentence. You're either doing all the permits or you're not. If you are, they're
going to be ones that include the ones that are certified and the specifications for compliance, would they not"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And he says that everybody in CDES, or formerly CDES, anybody who
reviews plans reviews them, so it's n you don't even need the first part of the sentence, if that's the case. If everybody
has the technical skill to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Nick's going to clarify that to us.
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's just strange, they took that first sentence in number eight and put it up in--
incorporated it in number two. Then they took the rest of the parab'faph eight and put it over on Page 20 under -- as
number 15, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna. that's interesting, yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the deal is that what you're trying to do here is distinguish duties -- general
duties and responsibilities in one section and then get -- what's this heading') These are the standards that you have to
go by"
MR. WILEY: Yes. ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In -- it starts on Page 18 under provisions tor flood hazard reduction, general
standards. So I don't know that that language is important eithcr. I think what they were trying to do here. if I get this
whole splitting everything up, was again to make -- give a list of sort of generic duties in this first section and then
delineate the standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see. I think in the lirst scntcnce in eight was the qualifying sentence to which
the rest of the paragraph applied. So what you did is you took out the qualifying sentence. threw it up into number
two and took the application for that qualification and moved it to Page 20 and added it as number 15.
Was that the intent of what FEMA was trying to do or whoever was trying to do when this was originally
written:
MR. WILEY: Well, that's the result of direction I was given trom stafT, my supervisor, to move things
around and split it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. who is your supervisor"
MR. WILEY: Bill Lorenz.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And his supervisor is"
MR. WILEY: Nick Casalanguida.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick's fault again.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Bill is here, if you want to ask Bill. So let's ask Bill what--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's easier with Nick not being here today, we canjust blame everything on
Nick.
MR. WILEY: Well, we can blame Stan Chrzanowski then, since he's retired. We can blame everything on
Page 42 of 85
16\
1
(Y3
October 7,2010
him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'll be happy to hear that.
I think rather than get into debate on this, would you guys take a look at that so when it comes back we either
have an answer or we've unglued it and moved it back whcre it's supposed to be or done something.
Because I think Donna's point is right, and you certainly have a qualifying sentence to begin with that the rest
of the paragraph follows, and when you split them up I don't know if you're getting the same meaning or intent out of
that entire paragraph.
But back on number two, another issue that certainly would be important to know is if we -- if this is left in as
all areas of the county, then all development pennits would have to be reviewed by -- at tlus level for all areas of the
county, regardless of whether in special flood hazard or not, which leads to Mr. Murray's point that he's made. So I
really think that's a concern and one that we'll defiJutely have to revisit.
Pages 18 and 19, anybody have any questions on Pages 18 and 19'1
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Page 19, number seven and eight. both are referencing septic systems. These
fall under the administrative code under 64. Do we need to also have them in here?
And if we need them in here. should we at least designate what codes they fall under?
MR. WILEY: Well, we're supposed to address thesc issues in our ordinance so that FEMA knows we have
addressed them. As to whether or not you want to refcrence any other state code, we have the ability to do so. It just
doesn't have to be to meet FEMA's minimum.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. Again, it's just vague by saying shall be located and constructed to
avoid impairment during flooding. It just seems to leave it up to interpretation, when there are specific health codes
that address these issues.
MR. WILEY: Again, we can be more specific if you want us to do so. But this is the bare minimum to
address -- FEMA wants to make sure we are at least giving this review when we review a building pennit.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So they just want to sce this in here.
MR. WILEY: They want to see it in there, yes, ma'am.
But if you wanted to tighten it up, we can add some more specificity to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what Melissa's saying is we have some codes that already tell us how
to do this. And since this is required by this ordinance as well, if we reference to those codes it would make it a nice
neat package for someone reading it. And that might just be helpful, not necessarily tightening it up, it might just say
this is what we're asking and here's where you go to read about it. Is that -- okay.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. At least you have something to reference instead oftrying to just make
that determination on your own.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on Pages 8 -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I think that makes sense, because even if it's a simple statement that
criteria for following these can be found in the building code or the Land Development Code or whenever it can be
found. It just can be a general statement. You don't have to cite every piece of code that you have to go and read in
order to find those standards, but just tell people where to go to reference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have three of them; I think it's six, seven and eight. One is water supply and the
other two are sanitary and disposal, so --
On 18 and 19, anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up on top. on two and three, the same lan!,'llage was added, as supported by the
current Florida Building Code and FEMA technical bulletin.
Are they consistent? Do we have any conflicts between -- by adding that as a reference does one conflict
with the other? Do we know that they're consistent in regards to what they're referencing?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They should not. I mean, we --
MR. WILEY: They ought to be consistent with each other, but I'm not going to stand here and say that they
definitely are, because I've not read everything on them. The Florida Building Code should not be getting you into a
situation that violates any kind of a FEMA technical bulletin that I know of. But I really can't say for certainty on
Page 43 of85
16 \ 1
October 7, 2010
k?
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you do construction. say. in number two or three? Could you do any new
construction or substantial improvements in Collier County that arc not supported by the Florida Building Code?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why would we have thc language?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There are a lot ofthesc requirements especially coming up that are in the
building code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but do we need to reterence the building code for each one of them as we do
here if they can't be done without the support of the Building Code in the first place?
If we start that process, do wc havc to follow it through then on basically every paragraph"
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: The question would be who would be naive enough to not realize you have
to go to the building code to build something new.
MR. WILEY: But if you think about it, that's the very same issue you just mentioned in six, seven and eight,
wanting me to rcfcrence other codcs. And we didn't thcre --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other codes that we're reterencing arc spccific ordinances that we have in
Collier County. Building code is a statewide act. I'm not sure that they're the same.
Somcone could read this, and everybody would know most likely if they're building that there's a building
code. But not everybody may know that six, seven and eight arc addressed by local ordinances. That's the difference
I saw.
But ifit isn't relevant. JIm not going to live or die 011 that issue. ljust didn't know ifit was necessary.
Well, then, let's move on to Page --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Maybe it's only necessary to reterence the fEMA technical bulletin.
Because I think absent that they may not know that that's relevant, if that's what you're intending to try to get across.
MR. WILEY: Well, in discussions that had occurred. the question simply came up, well, how do you know
what is meant by resistance to f100d damage. So that's why we tried to clarify you can go to the building code or
these tcchnical bulletins to get some understanding of what is meant by that. So--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: From my point of view, and I fully support the concept that we don't need to
repeat what is already unknown or should be known. hut thc FEMA technical bulletin may have -- it may be
important to somehow cite that.
So I'm with you in that regard, and that's where I'm thinking you might -- otherwise get rid of it entirely. If--
the technical bulletin, does it ever subordinate the Florida Building Code"
MR. WILEY: Not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you said that they should run in parallel in tenns of what they seek to
achieve.
MR. WILEY: That's the intention, but I said I can't --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But the manner of getting there might be considerably difterent.
MR. WILEY: Since I've not read the entire florida Building Code or every technical bulletin I don't know if
there's ever any conf1ict or not is aliI was saying there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know you probably haven't committed it to memory, but I feel certain over
the course of time you've had occasion to read extractions from both of those.
MR. WILEY: From both ofthcm, extractions, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you probably detcctcd some variation.
MR. WILEY: The technical bulletin tends to be less restrictive than the building code when you really look
at it.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Wcll, then take it out. Because ifour building code is better, that should
sunke.
MR. WILEY: But again, tbe building code doesn't neccssarily address every issue that FEMA considers as
an option that they would consider as appropriatc. So they tend to address things a little bit differently.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's more uncertainty as we go along.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's probably hann1ess to leave it like it is, and we'll just continue on.
Pages 20 and 21. Anybody?
Page 44 of 85
16 \ 1 ~
October 7, 2010
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Under 12.C on Page 20, a line was added at the end that says as provided by
appropriate agencies which have appropriate jurisdiction. I'm just not sure what kind of wiggle room that is or who
these appropriate people are. But it seems a strange line.
MR. WILEY: Well, this came from DSAC, and their concern was--
COMMISSIONER CARON: That doesn't mean it's not strange.
MR. WILEY: I rcally don't want to answcr thc question in that direction. I was telling you where it came
from.
Their concem was who's providing any kind of direction at all. And the question comes up, is it the Water
Management District, was it Anny Corps, various agencies. They just threw out a generic statement that says
whoever addresses drainage for that particular issue, that's what you'll go by.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the language that's been added though enhance anything that isn't already
known without it being there? You basically have to abide by whatever agencies overrule what area you're working
in, so why add that language to make it sound as -- I mean. it's rather confusing languagc.
MR. WILEY: I agree with you. sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's take it out--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- well, unless there's an objection, let's just drop that little addition where it's
starting with the word "as",
Anybody else on Pages -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And then down below in 13, and I want to just address the comment at the
side, it says that Collier County requires a tcchnically higher requirement. I don't want us to have conflicting
language, so if ours is stricter, whatever we use should be in here if we're already requiring it.
Thirteen.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's actually 12.C, I think.
MR. WILEY: That's referencing up in the 12.C area is what that comment is about.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. I thought it was -- all right. Well. regardless. the same
applies, whichever one it is. And you're right, it is C.
But if we have a stricter requirement already in our rules and our regulations, then we need to put it here so
we don't have conflicting language appearing one way in one place and another in another place.
MR. WILEY: Let me explain. The stricter language is in the existing Floodplain Damage Prevention
Ordinance. This will replace it. So this comment's here to let you see this is another location where we are
weakening existing requirements.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And why is that a good thing for Collier County?
MR. WILEY: I didn't say it was. We have taken this to the point that we have made it, as I've been given
direction to, the absolute minimum that it takes to meet FEMA's requirements as close as we can to the state model
ordinance. That was an existing condition within our ordinance which exceeded the state model ordinance, so
therefore we removed it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there conditions in this new ordinance that we're reviewing today that are in
excess of the current existing ordinance that we have?
MR. WILEY: I cannot think of any. If we come across them--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are we adopting it? Why are we looking at changing then? I mean, if
there's no reason to change because we'rc not making it any better, why are we even bothering?
MR. WILEY: There are changes within it. They're not more restrictivc, but there are changes within it for
updating purposes. Some definitions have changed, things of that nature. But to the regulated community, I'm not
thinking of anything right now that is more rcstrictive than what we are currently doing.
If we come across something and it jogs my memory, I'll let you know. But our intention was to strip it to the
bare bones.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: We'll come to that on Page 27.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-one.
Page 45 of 85
16 l 110
October 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. okay, we'll finish up on these two pages, then we'll go for our lunch
break. Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, 16, 21. Sixteen essentially is describing the minimum elevations, yet
in 13 you actually stale that the plans should show construction of the lowest tloor elevation meets the criteria listed
below. That's a requirement.
I don't tliink you should put that requirement in this situation. I think tlus has really defined the base flood
elevation; don't you agree')
In other words, there are a lot of circumstances. cOlilll1crcial, and when we come hack from lunch in the next
pages we'll get into some wlierc people build below the base 1100d elevation. But this is essentially telling you how to
establish the basc Hood elevation, the BFE.
So what my thought is. can we get rid of the -- thc plans should show it, but what you're saying is plans shall
show the construction of the lowest finished tloor meets the elevation listed below. And that's not exactly I t1unk
what we're doing here.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Isn't this part of the section we're looking at possibly removing?
MR. WILEY: Yes, it is. This is the text that was added in from the old ordinance, which was deleted and it's
been added back in.
And Jef1~ I want to say the last Board meeting. is that correct, where this was on? Either the last or the one
before, it was very recently here.
COMMISSIONER SCIllFFER: But let me ask you this: If somebody wanted to detine the BFE, this is the
criteria they would have to review; true or blse?
MR. WILEY: This goes for your building pad, that's correct. I think you're referencing the issue of a
nonresidential structure where you want to tloodproof and construct below BFE.
COMMISSIONER SClIlFFER: Seeing the lact that you added the requirement that the lowest finished floor
has to meet it. And I don't think that's thc casc.
And then the other thing is that you note where contlicts exist. And in building code land, we deal with
conflicts between codes. A conflict is when you can't meet the two codes. But there's a difference here. So I think I
would rather change the word contlicts to ditference and then -- and obviously the most restrictive would apply.
But I do think you should rework that and get rid of the requirement that the lowest linished tloor is in there.
Now, if you take the whole thing out, I guess that aclueves both ofthosc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the suggcstion earlier to put this in an ordinance where it would be more
appropriate so it doesn't cover all the county, I think that's the discussion that we probably need to have you and the
County Attorney research and come back with a recommendation on where that language would best fall.
MR. WILEY: That's what wc had discussed earher. sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I know. l'mjust saying so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We wouldn't see the ordinance. so it would be good if those changes were
made, just to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the changes are noted so thai when you and the County Attorney discuss
this. we can hopefully see that language appear more appropriately somewhere clse with those changes within it.
Anything else on Pages 20 and 21 betl1fe we break Il)r lunch?
(No response.)
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're so close to I :00 coming back. let's just come back at 1 :00 and have a
longer lunch. And we'll resume at 1 :00 where we left off. It will be on Page 22.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back trom lunch. And betorc we start, I want to kind of figure out this
afternoon. Because we have to finish the flood management ordinance, which we're about a little over halfway
through it. So it's still going to take a little time. And we have the watershed plan workshop scheduled to come up.
There are some people here lor that watershed shop (sic).
I need to ask Mac how much time your presentation will take. I'm not trying to end the meeting, ['Ill trying to
see if I need to move things around a little hit. Because we have some time limitations with Jennifer, so --
MR. IIATCHFR: Mac Hatcher, Stonnwater and Environmental Planning.
I would anticipate that our presentation will take about an hour and a half. And of course we would like to
Page 46 of 85
16\
1
f\>)
October 7, 2010
address any immediate questions that you all have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I was going to suggest we do is, during the workshop, through your
presentation, after your presentation. we go to public participation first, then have you rebut the public presentation so
then we have a basis on which to ask our questions that's more comprehensive and maybe minimize the amount of
questions we're going to have during our workshop phase, at least learn more that way.
But therein lies a problem. And Jennifer, if you don't mind, could you tell us how much time you are going
to need for your -- because you had asked for a presentation, and I said that would be fine.
You need to use the mic. I'm sorry.
MS. HECKER: Jennifer Hecker, fix The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I prepared about a 30-minute Power Point. I can try to go through it quicker, or ifthere's questions that might
take a bit longer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a workshop and we're probably going to have questions. But I want to
make sure that we get as thorough ofa review of this -- this is a plan that's been in the works for over a decade, so it's
important we get everybody's input.
You have a time constraint this aftemoon?
MS. HECKER: Just that we have a Conservancy board meeting this afternoon and I was needing to leave at
3 :00 in order to attend that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's important that we get your input. I know you've prepared a lot, we'vc
read some detailed correspondence that you've provided.
I'm trying to figure out how to fit it all in before 3:00. I didn't know at the time -- at the time I talked to you
originally, I had not -- this was a month ago, I didn't know that the flood ordinance was going to be this
time-consuming ahead of timc.
So with that in mind, Mr. Wiley, are you going to be here all atlemoon or were you -- did you have anything
scheduled for yourself later this atlernoon?
MR. WILEY: As long as I'm out of here by 8:00 tonight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can guarantee that's going to happen.
What I would suggest, with this board's pennission, that we kind of change gears right now and go into the
Watershed Management Plan and then from that point go into the public participation and then go back to the
floodplain -- flood control.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that satisfactory to everybody?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ycs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Willey, does that work for you?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Appreciate your cooperation. And that will kind of move us ahead in the
right direction, and we'll start there and we'll start with Mac lIatcher's presentation for the Watershed Management
Plan.
Now, there are some members ofthc public I know that want to speak on this besides Jennifer, and I don't
know why thcy're not here, but I think I told everybody I :00 at the latest. So we'll just have to proceed and they'll
jump in when they get here.
"'Now, this is an opening of the workshop to discuss the Watershed Management Plan. So it's not one in
which we would be making any motions or any decisions but just getting input and providing direction to the extent
we need to.
Go ahead, Mac.
MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher with Stormwater and Environmental Planning.
And yeah, what we would like to do this aftemoon is provide a brief overview of where we are on the
Watershed Management Plan development. We provided you all with all the technical memos that we've gotten to
date. We would like to go through those technical memos and then just a little bit further than that and brief you all
on the altematives that are being developed.
Okay, the objectives ofthc watershed plans are to protect the water resources of the county. And what we're
talking about here is surface waters, estuaries and groundwater.
Page 47 of85
161
1
(>r.,
October 7.2010
We've known through other studies f'Jr quite some time that the discharges to the estuaries are getting too
much water, and we want to try to move towards predevelopment discharge rates.
We want to improve the water quality in the developed areas, and we also want to address any nooding and
water supply issues.
So the specific tasks that we're going through to develop the plans, the first task in this phase of the project
was to update the Big Cypress Basin model. And it has bcen updated with 2007 land cover. the new LIDAR data,
updated. thc groundwater conditions, and it's basically a new model.
We are evaluating the existing conditions within the watersheds Irom a water quantity standpoint with the
model, we've reviewed the water quality data that we have to date, and also we've developed a functional assessment
to rate the habitat natural resources.
The next step in the process was to define performance measures. And we have performance measures to
address water quantity, water quality and tlooding, the aquifer storage and also changes to the habitat.
The next step in the process is to develop the alternatives. Then we will evaluate the altematives with the
pertannanee measures. And finally. l"r your Decembcr meeting we hope to bring the watershed plans to you for
discussions and recommendations.
And I have here today the PBS&J team that's developing the plans. And at this point I'm going to turn it over
to Dave Tomasko.
MR. TOMASKO: For the record. Dave Tomasko. I'm manager of the watershed resource and assessment
team of PBS&J Atkins.
The priority watersheds that we're going to talk about arc consistent with DEP's WBlD's, which were used in
the TMDL programs.
What we1ve done is we've --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to -- when you tirst start out with your acronyms, there are a
lot of people on this panel that arc new. Would you just kind of say them--
MR. TOMASKO: No problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- f," the first time say them out and then just tell us what the acronym is, so we're
familiar with it.
MR. TAMASKO: Sure, no problem.
wmD is a water body identilication designation. So ftll example. within Cocohatchee Corkscrew watershed
there arc a number of subbasins, smaller. you know, portions ot'that watershed. And what we've done is we've
aggregated the unit that DEI' uscs to characterize water quality into these larger subbasins. So when we talk about
Cocohatchee Corkscrew. Golden Gate and Rookery Bay we arc using an outline that is consistent with how DEI'
characterizes water quality.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: DEI' is the Environmental Protection Agency"
MR. I' AMASKO: Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sec, tirst timc is helpful.
MR.TAMASKO: Sorry. Apologize ahout that.
And so we characterize water quality within the watersheds and then in the estuaries. And we didn't do it in a
vacuum, we did it within the guidance that DEI' gives you for the TMDL program. The TMDL program is total
maximum daily load. It's how the State of Florida detennines whether or not you have a healthy estuary.
Let me just point out this one thing. It only fl,cuses on water quality, it uses standards that don't always make
a lot of sense. but it is the a priori, it is the default way that DEI' detemunes whether or not a place is problematic or
not. And there are some issues, particularly in Collier County, that wc have to work through.
But we did analyze the water quality, not in the way that you do in academia, we did it in a way that's
relevant to Collier County as you work your way through the TMDL program, which we'll discuss in greater detail.
So one of the things I'm going to talk about here is how this all kind of gets towards identifying potential
projects. You know, as Mac talked about, there are places where we've got too much watcr. There are places where
we havc too little water. The types of projects that we think that can address hydrologic alterations all have a water
quality component.
So if~ lor example. you found that your watershed drains oIT water too quickly and you want to hold the water
on the landscape t'or longer, that does a couple of benefits: It helps to restore the natural systems you got here, it helps
Page 48 of 85
16\
1M
October 7.2010
to infiltrate water into the groundwater, it helps protect water supplics, whether they're private or whether they're a
public water supply; and it helps to address some of the problems that we have oftoo much water that goes into our
estuaries in wet season and too little in the dry season.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry for interrupting you with all these rules, but you have to go a little slower.
Cherie' has to write -- typc everything you say, so it's got to take a little bit easier.
MR. TAMASKO: Throw your pen at me as well.
THE COURT REPORTER: If you could spell your last name for me, please.
MR. TOMASKO: T-O-M, as in Mark, A-S-K-O.
So the first thing we did is we went through existing conditions. You don't really know where you want to go
until you figure out where you are. So we did an assessment of the existing conditions. So what is the land use like,
what is the water quantity coming off these different watersheds, what is the water quality. And I'm going to spend a
little time on the water quality in particular, because it has an awful lot of relevance to Collier County as you work
through the TMDL program.
I think at this time I'm going to turn it over to Peter. I'll be back when we start talking about the water quality
in particular, but the model component is Peter's bailiwick.
MR. DeGOLIAN: Okay. Thank you. For the record, my name is Peter DeGolian with PBS&J. It's D-E.
capital G-O-L-I-A-N.
The model we're using is consistent with what the Big Cypress Basin and South Florida Water Management
District have used on previous studies in Collier County, which were both the Big Cypress Basin model and the
Picayune Strand restoration project model, the PSRP. It's what they call MIKE SHE, which is -- it's a model
developed by the Danish Hydrologic Institute that includes all components of the hydrologic cycle, both the surface
water, groundwater infiltration, evapotranspiration, irrigation routines and, you know, just all components.
And we used -- we updated the model to include rainfall and precipitation and evapotranspiration data
through 2007, which is as much of the data as was available trom the NEXRAD, which is the national weather
bureau.
So we updated the model. recalibrated, and some of the results we got -- and I'm not going to get into all the
details of everything that goes into the model, but I did want to talk about some of the results in particular from the
surface water budget. and we'll also look at the groundwatcr budget.
And these are really interesting, because if we look at each of the watersheds. we see that the
evapotranspiration in each of the watersheds is consistent across each year of the simulation; whereas, the rainfall may
vary pretty greatly, depending on what was going on that year.
But the interesting thing is the surface water outflow is greatly influenced by the amount of rainfall, as is the
infiltration to groundwater.
And if we look at the groundwater budgets in here. and this is again for each of the watersheds, we see that
during the wet season there's a lot of additional storage going on in groundwater. It's raining and the water is
infiltrating in and staying in the groundwater zone; whereas, in the dry season we see it being drawn out of the
groundwater for irrigation supply and potable water supply. And this is again occurring in all of the watersheds.
In Golden Gate, I would like to point tins out to you in particular. looking at the surface water transfer. What
we're talking about there is the movement of water out of the growldwater aquifer system into the canal network.
And we're seeing that in all times of the year there's a large component of water that's leaving groundwater into the
canal network, and that's a function ofthe density of the canals rclative to groundwater. And that's their --the canal
network is most dense in the Golden Gate watershed.
The other thing we wanted to look at was trying to get to this idea of how much flow is going to each of the
estuaries relative to what was in a predevelopment or natural systems condition. And we looked at this two different
ways.
There was a natural systems model, NSM, that was developed as part of the Picayune Strand project by the
Corps of Engineers. And we took that model and we compared that against the existing conditions model, the ECM,
that we've just recently done, and did kind ofa -- they were different model simulation periods. We couldn't do a
direct comparison but we kind of calculated an average year of flow from each ofthe watersheds into Rookery Bay,
into Naples Bay, into Wiggins Pass estuary and into the Ten Thousand Islands, and did a subtraction, if you will, to
detennine what the difference is between the two predicted results from each of the models.
Page 49 of 85
1 ~jber 7, ~]() t()
And another thing we did to kind of check ourselves to make sure and validate the use of the models for our
evaluations was we did an analysis based on salinity and flow relationships at each of the watersheds.
So we took flow data, measured flow data hom. like, Cocohatchee One structure that the Water Management
District maintains and operates and they have a long record of flow data through there. And we compared that against
salinity values that arc measuredjust downstream of that in the Wiggins Pass estuary, and calculated a flow salinity
relationship in that watershed.
And then we said well. what should the salinity values be based on a reference watershed. Got those values,
looked at them, plugged these reference value salinities into this equation, and were able to calculate what the flow
should be in dry season or wet season for each of the watersheds. And so we had a different set of calculations there.
And this first !,'faph I'm showing you is a comparison of the two models, where we subtracted the natural
systems model flow, predicted flow Irom thc existing conditions model flow for each of the watersheds. And we can
see that in particular for the Naples Bay. Golden Gate watershed we're seeing an exccss of flow in all times of the
year, both wet season and dry season. Wliereas in Rookery Bay, the Henderson Creek watershed we're seeing a
deficit of flow in all times of the year.
And it was interesting that in thc Wiggins Pass, Cocohatchee watershed, the total volume of flow that's going
out is about correct in comparison to the NSM. But the timing of the flows is inconsistent. We're getting a little bit
too much in the wet season, not enough in the dry scason. We need to try and identify projects or policies that will
help us better balance that need. And similarly, we see that in the Ten Thousand Islands watershed also, which is
coming out of the Faka Union, Fakahatchee and the Okaloacoochee Slough watersheds.
This graph actually shows a comparison of the two mcthodologies and the results we got. And you can see
that they're very similar in the types of results tix each of the methods. So this really helped us to say okay. we're
going to be good to use this idea of comparing our model results. And if we simulate our proposed projects and
things within our model we can compare them against the natural systems model and get an accurate assessment of
what's going on. And so we were very pleased that these results came out very comparable to each other.
So in general, from the existing condition perspective, YOll know, we did validate that the comparison of the
flow surplus deficit calculations using the model is a good tiling that we can use to define the perfonnance measures
and to evaluate altenlatives going fOf\vard.
But we also need to understand that we have to understand the limitations of these calculation methods. You
know, it is a model. its a mathematical computation. And we have to understand the limitations oftha! as we do our
asseSSlnents and work those into our evaluation ofthc projects and development orthe performance measures.
So I'm now going to give the ball back to Dave and let him continue with the water quality discussion.
MR. TOMASKO: Thanks. Again. f(" the rceord, Dave Tomasko with PBS&J.
I think it's really important for you to understand the hydrologic modifications that have occurred when we
start talking about water quality. And in essence you're seeing in a place like Cocohatchee too much in the wet season,
too little in the dry season. Rookery Bay has too little flow both in wet and thc dry seasons, because a large portion of
Rookery Bay's watershed was rerouted towards Naples Bay, Golden Gate. And that's why Naples Bay receives too
much water, Rookery Bay receives too little water, based on a comparison of what the water is now versus what it
should be.
Faka Union has very well documented an excess of water in the wet season. But what's also the tact is there's
too littie in the dry season. And Fakahatchee has its own issues, but 1(11' the most part Fakahatchee has been cited as
sort of the reference watershcd that we do a lot or our comparisons lor.
But you have to understand thc hydrological modilications that have occurred hefore you can actually start
understanding the water quality implications. Because the State of FlOlida uses a technique for characterizing the
health of estuaries that specifically locuses on nutrients and really doesn't have an awful lot of up front abihty to
consider other issues.
So if you're familiar with the TMDL process or not, let me just walk you through this. because it does have an
awliJllot to do with Collier County.
It's a five-step process. It's laid out by the Department of Environmental Protection. And the tlrst part is
assessing the water quality of the surface waters, do they meet existing standards. There are some locations in Collier
County where the data never went into the data repository that they use to assess water quality. So not every system's
been assessed.
Page 50 of 85
16\ 1 f5?
October 7, 2010
If you don't collect your own data, someone's going to come down and collect it for you, bccause the State is
not allowed to say I don't know, there's no data. So the best thing to do is to collect your own data to make sure you
that have enough data at the right locations.
Then you compare that data set against existing State standards. And some of the standards make a lot of
sense, some of the standards don't make a lot of sense. DEP knows this as well. They have an oxygen standard which
is quite problematic.
But they compare your water quality to the standard. And then if it doesn't meet that standard, there's usually
not a break where you get to say well, I wonder why it's not meeting it.
The next step in the process is establishing a total maximum daily load, which means you use a computer
model to figure out the causative factor, why do I have a high such low DO, which do I have such high chlorophyll,
which is a measure of how green the water is. Then they'll calculate a load reduction that you're supposed to
undertake.
Every model has got its strengths, every model's got its weaknesses. Some ofthese models are built on data
where no one's ever collected anything within that particular location. But that model gives you your TMDL. And
some of them are rather extreme.
Now, a TMDL doesn't mean that you next build a project, because some of them are so problematic that
frankly you shouldn't do anything except figure out what your real problem is. There are TMDL's that have not been
adopted because it's been easy to show that there are lots of problems with it.
But once a TMDL is set, the next stage is usually what's called a BMAP, a basin management action plan.
And that's where local govenunents, for example, obligate themselves to spending the money to get rid of houses on
septic tanks, do stormwater retrofits. pull off the 30 percenlload reduction for, you know, an entire watershed, that
sort of stuff.
And then you implement. That's the process as it's defined in DEP. And that's something to be familiar with,
because each step along this line is a monetary obligation for someone. And particularly implementing the BMAP
process is an obligation for Collier County.
So here's your impairments throughout Collier County as listed in the last time the DEP -- the DEP updates
these on a regular basis as well. But there's 15 what 1 call WBID impairment combinations. And WEID is again a
water body identification -- it's just basically, like the WElD for 3259W means Lake Trafford. So Lake Trafford is
declared impaired for dissolved oxygen, mercury and nutrients; Cocohatchee for dissolved oxygen; Corkscrew Marsh.
dissolved oxygen. You can see that the number one impairment that's out there is dissolved oxygen.
You also have impairments for bacteria and you have impainnents for iron.
If we summarize this, Lake Tratlord has the most impairments. Lake Trafford has the most problematic
water quality.
One of the issues here is that assessment was done with water quality before Lake Tratlord was dredged.
There is evidence that Lake Trafford has had a pretty substantial improvement in water quality. I'm not saying it's
going to be unimpaired, but Lake Trafford's water quality has improved.
The model that was done to get you the load reductions for Lake Tratlord was done in the n under conditions
that don't exist anymore. So at a minimum. Lake Trafford TMDL should be revisited because they used a model that
was calibrated with water quality data before the dredging.
Now the dredging's taken place, the water quality may not meet state standards. but it's not going to
necessarily be appropriate to run that model to tigure out what you have to do for Lake Trafford.
North Golden Gate and Fakahatchee Strand had the second highest number of impairments. And that's the
Fakahatchee Strand. That's basically -- you know, 80 percent ofFakahatchee Strand's watershed is wetlands. And yet
it had the second greatest number of impairments.
The most common impairment was for dissolved oxygen. So nine of the 15 impairments were for low
dissolved oxygen. And we think that's problematic. The State of Florida knows that that's problematic.
I tried to use an analogy that makes sense, but if you're familiar with Clyde Butcher photos, right, he goes out
in the middle of Fakahatchee, takes pictures oflike cypress trees, you know. ghost orchids, everything like that. The
water in most of those locations would fail the State of Florida's dissolved oxygen standard because the State of
Florida's oxygen standard has problems.
They know it has problems. They've come up with altemative criteria for the Everglades knowing that it has
Page 51 of85
16\
1 k?
October 7, 2010
problems.
We did a review of the Gordon River extension, which also has a TMDL. There arc load reductions called
for in the Gordon River TMDL. But what we lound is the reference sites that they used to ti!,'IIre out what should
nutrient concentrations be, the refercncc sites lailed the DO standard as well. So if it's a reference site that DEP uses to
figure out what nutrient concentrations would be because they'rc away trom human impact, and they also fail the
dissolved oxygen standard, then it kind of makes you wondcr whether or not the standard itself is problematic. And
that's the case.
There needs to be some dialogue on getting a dissolved oxygen standard that makes sense for Collier County.
Iron was thc second most common impainnent. It was lound to be an issue in north Golden Gate and Baron
River Canal. We believe that part of that iron impairment is perhaps related to groundwater, which makes up a large
portion ofthe water, particularly in the dry season in the Golden Gate canal area. And we've noted this belore in
places up in Northport.
Surficial aquifer can be rich in iron and therelllre that makes a big difference about what you should do to
deal with your iron impainnent. If you think that building a giant pond to trcat stormwatcr is going to get rid of iron,
when iron is really corning in Irom the canals blccding groundwater, which also by the way doesn't have much
oxygen in it, then you may be chasing thc wrong thing to deal with the impainnent that you've got.
But you can see that water quality becomes a big part of the types of projects we think that make sense.
For the estuaries themselves. Naples Bay had the greatest number of impainnents. Naples Bay was found to
be impaired by fecal eolifonn bacteria, by iron and by copper.
The iron could be associated with the groundwater intluenee Irom its highly urbanized watershed; a lot of
canals that drain a lot of groundwater with low oxygen and quite a bit of iron.
The copper has been looked at Ill[ a long timc by Collicr County stan: and it's believed that the copper has
perhaps a large role in maybe some of the treatmcnt of ponds for algae. If you have a pond that has an alga-bloom,
one of the Ilrst things that's done is to treat it with coppcr sultate. In that sense, better treating the water betore it gets
into the pond can reducc the problems fl)r the pond. can reduce the usc of copper sultate and thus actually help the
estuary.
But there's other sources of copper as well. As cars break down, therc's components of cars that can actually
add to the copper as wcll. But Irom work that's been done in a little bit greater detail, it does appear that herbicide
use, particularly for algicides trying to get rid of algae appears to be probabiy the most important copper source.
For Rookery Bay, it had the second highest number of impainnents. And this is particularly interesting
because Rookery Bay frankly is viewed by many people as one of the more pristine watersheds. It certainly doesn't
have the watershed that it used to have naturally. A lot of its watershed now flows to Golden Gate. Naples Bay. But
within at least the immediate environment. it's got a pretty nice-looking natural landscape. But it's been impaired for
dissolved oxygen, nutrients and bacteria.
The bacteria impairment in estuaries is based in part on a higher standard. Your waters are classified lor
shellllsh harvesting. And the amount of bacteria lor shellfish harvesting that you can have is a lot lower than lor
bodily contact.
So if you're just talking about swimming in a lake, you can handle more bacteria than if you're going to be in
an area whcre oysters could be harvested, because oysters and clams will filter feed and they can accumulate bacteria.
So a lot of your estuarine impainnents arc related to a more stringent standard. I'm not saying that's an
appropriate standard, but it's a harder standard to meet. It's about 10 percent the value that you have for recreational
bodily contact.
The impainnent Il)r nutrients is something we've discussed with Collicr County staff It was based on
one-year's sampling. Rookery Bay's been sampled lor years by lots of lolks who go out into Rookery Bay.
But in the year 2006 suddenly the numbers looked a lot higher. And what we did is we looked at the water
quality stations in the year 2006 and it looks like whoever was sampling in the year 2006 didn't have a boat and they
went to the docks and they wcnt to the roadside places.
And Mac is very lamiliar with this. But. you know, our conclusion was that Rookery Bay wasn't impaired,
that it met the water quality standard lor how green the water is every year except lor the year when whoever that was
started taking those samples. And that \vc think IS a really important point.
That doesn't mean there's not an issuc in Rookery Bay, but it does mean when only one group one year linds
Page 52 of 85
161
1 A?
October 7, 2010
a cWorophyll standard that's exceeded, maybe that's not exactly the right place to be sampling and call it Rookery
Bay.
The thing about a WBID is [ can have a ditch that goes alongside a road that's a saltwater ditch, because it's
lined with mangroves, and that's characterized as Rookery Bay, as well as a spot that's out in the middle of Rookery
Bay.
So these groupings oflocations is so broad that people can talk about Rookery Bay and mean completely
different things. Someone's talking about the bay, someone's talking about a ditch that runs next to the boat ramp.
The most common impairments that we see in the estuary were for dissolved oxygen, which we think is
problematic. It's very likely, and DEI' -- I'm on DEP's numeric nutrient criteria technical advisory task force for
estuaries, and we've discussed this in great detail up in Tallahassee last week. The dissolved oxygcn criteria is
problematic. DEI' actually used a DO data set from Collier County from Fakahatchee to argue that their own standard
doesn't make sense. So that's something that DEI' realizes as well.
The bacteria standard is what it is, but it is important to know as well that fecal coliform bacteria don't
necessarily come from humans. They don't even necessarily come from animals.
And Collier County has got staff that's worked very hard on this. This is a topic that is really important. It's
important for Collier County to go after those sources of bacteria that are likely associated with humans. And they
have found locations where the bacteria were coming from humans and it was a septic tank with a guy who had a
bucket next to it. Apparently when it backed up he would kind of do his own sort of maintenance.
But at the same time there are lots of places where bacteria lcvels are high. Because in tropical and
subtropical settings this type of bacteria doesn't have to come from humans, it doesn't even have to come from
animals. The literature is full of that kind of infonnation. It's another place where it may be worthwhile for Collier
County and the State to get into a discussion about more precise indicators. And there are plenty of more precise
indicators than fecal coliform bacteria.
And then iron, again. For Naples Bay and Wiggins Pass, iron is an issue. It could be associated with not
necessarily a pollution from stormwater runoff, but sort of dewatering of the landscape through the canals so that you
get iron rich groundwater coming into the systems.
So in general, low values for dissolved oxygen are found throughout the location. The watershed with the on
average lowest dissolved oxygen values was Fakahatchee Strand, which is used by a lot of people as sort of a
referenced watershed. lt may be a natural condition. or the low dissolved oxygen could be a function of groundwater
inflows, or it could be both.
Fecal coliform bacteria, that's appropriate to have a better source identification effort we think before you
pursue that.
The types of projects we're talking about are going to be consistent with reducing pollutant loads to your
estuaries, reducing pollutant loads to your streams, that sort of stuff. But water quality standards for your surface
waters and water quality standards for your estuaries are complex --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, could you please slow down.
MR. DeGOLLAN: Apologize.
Water quality standards for your surface waters and your estuaries are problematic. The State of Florida is
working their way through that.
EP A does have proposed criteria and they have not been vicwed universally positively by the scientific
community, as evidenced by the attendance we had at our meeting last Wednesday.
So [ do think it makes sense to talk about projccts to improve your water quality by reducing pollutant loads,
but setting specific criteria is a little bit more ditlicult at this time.
Nonetheless, the types of projects you're going to hear about are going to be the types of projects that should
improve the ecosystem health by dealing with the quantity of water, which is most often cited as the major issue that
you have in a lot of your cstuaries.
The natural systems methodology -- [ can go over this a little bit briefly. But what we tried to do with natural
systems methodolob'Y is we tried to figure out what type of impacts has drainage brought about. And we did that by
comparing what the natural systems are right now versus what we have for a predevelopment map. So we've got
folks who have worked on what the landscape looked like before anyone lived here. It's a little bit of guesswork in
some places. And we compared it to what we havc.
Page 53 of 85
16~
1 k~
October 7, 2010
And the most common kind of transition we see is a wetland becomes a dryer type of wetland or a wetland
that becomes uplands. That's the kind of scenario that we see. which is consistent with what you'd expect. As we've
drained the landscape we've reduced thc types and quantities of wetlands that we have.
We did a thing called a funetional assessmcnt. And we try to do this in a way that's consistent with how
regulatory agencies look at things like developments and mitigation, but we try to do it on a landscape level.
This gets a little bit tricky. but we looked at vegetation, hydrology and something that's called landscape
suitability index. So if you had an area that was a cypress swamp and it became a hydric pine flatwood, those are
both wetlands, but one of them is a drier type of wetland than the other. And that would be consistent with the change
in hydrology.
So we tried to compare and see whethcr or not thc vegetation matched with the hydrology. We gave a score
fix the vegetation, how different it was Ii-om what it used to be. We gavc a score for the hydrology, how different it
was Ii-om what it used to be. And then we have this last thing, which is called the landscape suitability index.
This is part of a process that you use when you look at dcvelopment or mitigation. And the concept here is if
I've got a wetland that's the right types of plants, it's the right type of hydrology but it's a wetland in the middle of the
median strip of an interstate, it doesn't have all the functional attributes of that wetland. And so on this landscape
suitability index, it matters not what you arc but what your neighbors arc.
And this is kind of important because agricultural dcvelopmcnt changes the hydrology, changes the
vegetation, but is of greater value for wildlife than big box stores. And so you can have a low score for some types of
land use conversions in tenllS of hydrology, you can hav"t; a low score in terms of vegetation, but you don't have as
low of a score fIX landscapc suitability.
So this allows us, for example. to takc into account that a lot of your landscape has changed from natural
wetland features to agriculture that has some inherent wildlife value. So the index that we use actually was developed
by folks from the University of Florida. and we think it actually helps to even out a little bit some of the criticism of
these ditferent types of development.
And we realize that. Agricultural development has wildlife value that urban development doesn't otten have.
And this index we think meets it. And it's from the University of Florida, who's looked into this in great detail.
So all in all water quality is a conccrn, particularly as you work your way through the TMDL process. But
frankly the literature in this area is pretty clear. When you go through and look at most of the assessments that have
been done by folks in the aquatic preserves around here, University of Miami, NOAA, folks who've worked on this,
the most often cited impact that you have to estuaries in Collier County is excessive amounts of freshwater inflow
associated with drainage to thc watcrshcd.
TIlE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down.
MR. DeGOLlAN: Sorry.
So the most eonunonly cited concern that we see in the literature is associated with drainage. So the water
quantity is more otten cited than what your nutrient concentrations might be. Doesn't mean you ignore the other one,
but the literature is replete with studies on excessive amounts of li-eshwater inflow causing problems. And we think
that ought to be, you know, one ofthc maJor things you focus on.
Projects to address that have a watcr quality bendit. But we think that that may be the most important thing
for these types of projects to be looking at.
I think I'll now turn it over.
MR. CABEZAS: My name is Moris Cabezas. I'm with PBS&J. And I think I better give you my business
card.
Okay. And if you had difllculty understanding Dave. just stop me.
There's got to be a way to measure, you know. how a proposed project is expected to bendit once it's
implemented.
And thatls what perfonnance measures arc about, you know. We need to know -- or it's a way to measure the
potential benelit of impact of implementing any proposed projcct.
And in some cases the majority of the projects have bendits. But every single one of them would have
downsides. Some of them -- if you increase storage, lor examplc. which would benefit your hydrology, you may be
impacting tlood elevations. And we arc trying to measure that as we compare or evaluate the various alternatives.
So these are the perfonnance measures that will be L1sed for evaluating the proposed projects.
Page 54 of 85
16 I 1 ~
October 7, 2010
We should point out here that pollutant load will be measured as strictly anthropogenic impact. So what is the
benefit of a project in reducing man-made pollution?
You could argue that, you know, wetlands discharge nutrients. But that's not what we're after here. Our
intent is to assess the benefits of any project, in terms of water quality at least, by the amount of pollutant -- man-made
pollutant that is being reduced.
Flood risk. We do not want to impact flood elevations anywherc, upstream or downstream of a project.
Now, you had a long discussion this morning and you will continue this afternoon on that particular topic. And so I
want to make sure that, you know, anyone of our proposed projects are not impacting Hood elevations.
We want to promote projects that -- we want to implement projects or recommend projects that promote
recharge and how we're going to measure recharge, but by the benefit provided in terms of aquifer yield. How much
more additional water would be available for water supply, for example, because of those projects.
And of course we want to evaluate the impact to thc natural system. And we will use basically the same
measures that Dave described previously when we evaluated existing conditions, such that we can compare before
and after project implementation.
Following -- this is a very short summary of the work that's been done over the past eight months or so where
we have presented our evaluation of existing conditions and have developed the perfornlance measures.
And the next topic after that is of course the identification of potential projects. And we have identified on a
preliminary basis a number ofprojects that we will be evaluating in detail and presenting the results ofthosc
evaluations to Collier County; will be presenting it to you, will be presenting to the public in general.
And once those projects are evaluated by the Collier County people, espccially. we will put together the final
Watershed Management Plan.
Among the issues that we're going to be touching is the regulatory and policy issues. And I'll be discussing
that a little later in this presentation. But we took a look at only preliminary basis now. We'll go into more detail at
what could be done in terms of water quality, water quantity, you know, some changes to thc Land Development
Code. And we have a recommendation about zoning.
At this time [think I'd like to bring Peter back here so he can present to you the -- some of the projects that
we have identified. And we are requesting everybody's input as to other potential projects that might be out there.
Ideas, any kind of ideas. We are ready to receive your input and evaluatc them and then include them, if necessary, in
the Watershed Management Plans.
MR. DeGOLIAN: Peter DeGolian, PBS&J.
As Moris stated, you know, we are looking at potential projccts. And when we talk about projects in this
context, we're actually talking about something where we get our shovels and go out and build something, as opposed
to doing some kind of a regulatory or policy-related issue to accomplish a similar goal. And so we'll touch on a lot of
these things.
First thing I wanted to talk about was kind of the methodology we're going through to identify these projects
without recreating the wheel. Because there's been so many studies that have been done in Collicr County over the
years that, you know, we don't want to start spending our time identifying projects that have already been identified.
And in some cases we want to better define projects that were identified previously but there wasn't much
detail to them. So we want to say well, what can we do to better define what it is that they'rc trying to do.
And then we looked at new project opportunities based on a study of the new LIDAR that was flown -- the
new topography data that we received in 2007. And again, our primary goal is to look at estuary flows and deficits
and see how we can better match those. But we also will be evaluating projects based on water quality benefits, as
well as groundwater recharge and thosc othcr performance measures that Moris talked about.
In terms of locating projects, we wanted to look within lands that are owned by the government or in control
of the government in some fashion, whether it be through a conservation casement or maybe it's in the transferable
development rights sending area or one of these things where we can actually bettcr make use ofthese lands without
having to go out and buy property.
So previously identified projects that we looked at camc from a number of studies that were done, including
the Picayune Strand restoration project, which is under construction now; the Southwest Florida feasibility study,
which identified a number of projects, especially over in the SR29 canal corridor over in the eastern portions of our
study area. Looked at the Belle Meade Howway restoration projects that were identified by the Water Management
Page 55 of 85
16\
llt~
October 7, 2010
District.
Wc took note oftbe Lcly area stonnwater improvcment projects and features that they're implementing there,
as well as the projects and features that wcre identilied in the Immokalec Stoffilwater Master Plan.
Of particular interest to us was the master plan for the regional irrigation distribution system, which was a
study of aquifcr storage and recovery opportunities. using both stonnwater and reclaimed water lor supplemental
irrigation water supply.
And just as a note, you know. the City of Naples has reccntly bcen pennitted to start using aquifer storage and
recovery ofstonnwater. you know, taking about 10 million gallons a day out of the Golden Gate main canal.
So if we look at somc of the previously identilicd projccts, and here's my -- [just want to use the cursor here
to show you a couple of things.
This blue area up hcre in the OK slough, you know, in the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study, they spoke a
lot about doing flowway restoration and wetland restoration, but there was not a whole lot of detail in there how they
would do that. So we wanted to look in very closely in there and see if there were specitic things that we could do to
help witb the restoration of those tlowways, which would then help increase h'fOundwater recharge and get more,
additional water quality treatment coming through there. And it would also afkct the timing of tlows coming down
the State Road 29 canal and out into the estuary.
Similarly, there was a numbcr of projects identified over in the Corkscrew Swamp area. And similarly, they
really weren't detined in any great detail or what they wanted to do. So we said, well, let's zoom in there, that's a lot
oflands that arc being managed by the Audubon Society and by the Corkscrew Regional Ecological Watershed, and
let's -- you know. if we can do something in there, we think that proJect would be well rcceived.
Similarly, Camp Keais Strand corning down through the centcr of the area, again. just how can we improve
the flowway through there and get more water quality treatmcnt, slow down the tlow of water coming through that
system.
This area here is called Horsepen Strand. And it's an area that's been evaluated by the Collier County Soil
and Water Conservation District. And thcre's been a lot of discussion about potentially, you know, defining some
kind of a preserve area there. And that's -- we think that's a good idea. But how we would implement that is a little bit
up in the air right now. But there arc somc potential f,)r some physically based projects that we could implement
within that area as we move forward.
Ofcoursc down here is thc Picayune Strand restoration project. There's a number of projects here in Golden
Gate City where they'rc looking at reconnecting thc culverts and thc lake systems in there to better move the water
around in that system and reduce tlooding.
And down in this area is the Belle Meade tlowway restoration projects that -- where there's a number of
proposed projects to install spreader swales and increase more surface water tlow in that area.
So as [ go through, I want to kind of go Ihrough on a watershcd by watcrshed basis and zoom in and look at
some of these physical based projects that we arc considering. And as Moris mentioned, we're listening to all ideas
for additional things that we might have missed as wc go through this.
So we'll start at the Cocohatchee/Corkscrew and work our way counterclockwise trom north down to the
south and east.
So the first thing we looked at is the Coeohatchee/Corkscrew. And, you know, as part of our methodology,
we wanted to look at all the conservation lands and lands that arc controlled by the government. And you can see in
most of this area, especially in the central pm1 where the Corkscrew Swamp is. is all lands controlled by the Audubon
Society and the Corkscrew Regional Ecological Watershed.
So we said. well, let's zoom in there and see what we can do. And we zoomed in very closely and we
identified a number of projects here and here. And over here is wherc the Inunokalee Stonnwater Master Plan
projects are going on. And of course, as Dave mentioned, Lake Traf1ord, they're doing an extensive amount of
dredging in there that's -- I guess thcy're going to tinish up that in, what, another year they'rc going linish the dredging
on that"
MR. CABEZAS: It's the sccond phase.
MR. DeGOLlAN: So they're in phase two of their dredging project on that.
And I'll zoom in closcly so we can see exactly what we're looking at lor these proposed projects here.
Thc first one is this Cocohatchce/Corkscrew number one. And this was an old agricultural area. And it, you
Page 56 of 85
16 l 1 *'8'
October 7,2010
know, put ditches and dikes around the area and made a number of roads and ditches to go out into the flowway. So
the idea would be to regrade all these lands, bring them back to natural grade and have some revegetation with more
native species, block the ditches and encourage overland flow through there, which would again increase some of the
groundwater recharge and slow the flow of water out into the Wiggins Pass estuary.
And we also have similar projects here. And this is the new topographic data is what's in the background
here. If you look in CC2, you can see there's a flowway that comes through the center of this but there's all these
roads with ditches along the side of them coming in from both sides, kind of finger canals and roadways from old
agricultural area.
And again we could, you know, fill these ditches, regrade these roads back to natural grade and get it back to
a more natural system where the water will move around in the overland flow plain and get more water quality
treatment through there.
And down here in the bottom half is the CC3. This is a -- there's a number of ditches that come out of this
ecological area into these ditches that flow through these golf courses. It's Twin Lakes and The Quarries, up in that
area. And in order to slow the flow coming down into those golf course systcms, we could, you know, block some of
those ditches and encourage surface water flow in there, as opposed to directional flow coming through that area.
Next is the Golden GatelNaples Bay watershed. And, you know, as we can see in here, there's not a whole lot
ofland that's in conservation easement or in control of the govenunent. There is some property here and also up in
here that's owncd by Conserve Collier, and that -- you know, thc Horsepen Strand, we've got this area coming down
through here which has been recommended for preserve status. And we want to look at that more closely.
But we do have a couple of projects that we can do in here. And a number of these are going to be based in
the canal network that's managed by the South Florida Water Management District, and maybe looking at how the
structures operate or how we can better store the water in these canal networks and control the timing of the
discharge.
And again, we'II-- this is kind ofa locational map of where they all are. And we'll zoom in more closely so
you can see what they are specifically.
First one we look at is this GG 1, which is a series of linear features. And these are actually the Golden Gate
main canal and a couple of the feeder canals that come in here. And right here is where the Golden Gate 6 structure is
and the Golden Gate 7 structure are right above it.
But there is an opportunity perhaps to put in some other kind of a weir structure up here to kind of stage the
water up a little bit higher in thc very headwaters. And this lower branch that's coming in there is a very deep canal.
We were out there last week, and it's like 12 feet from the top of bank to the water surface. So there may be some
opportunity to stage some water up in there. Because right now the water surface in there is controlled by this
structure all the way down at the south. So there's a lot of ditference in elevation relatively from that point at the
south to up through that canal network where we may be able to capture some additional storage up in there.
Up in here there's GG2. As mentioned, this is potcntially of the lIorsepen Strand area. This is property that's
owned by Conserve Collier. And it's an old cypress head. And right now all the roads have drainage swales on each
side of them, and they just -- all the water comes olTlhc road or comes through overland flow into those swales and is
routed right out to the canal network.
So the opportunity would be to put in some what we're were calling equalization culvers underneath the roads
and some ditch blocks to kind of hold the water and let that whole cypress system rehydrate and get more
groundwater recharge and some water treatment betore it would be allowed to flow out into the canal network.
Other things we looked at is this GG3 over here. And this is a wetland restoration, where we'd pull the water
out of a canal network, put it into the overland flow plain, let it move through natural flowway, do some water quality
treatment, get a little bit ofb'foundwater recharge benefit out of that.
This GG number fi)Ur -- and I apologize. I should have zoomed in much more closely on this one. But there's
actually a -- it's a very small area, but there's a drainage ditch that comes at a 45-degree angle through there from
northwest to southeast that comes into the drainage swale along Immokalee Road there.
And we can ditch block that -- put a ditch block in that channel and let the water go through an old wetland
habitat and it will go right back into the canal, into the drainage swale in Coeohatchee. But it's just diverted where it
has a chance to do some overland flow and get treated a little bit before it goes back in.
This number five over here, this is off of Wolf Road over here in the -- and it's an interesting place. There's a
Page 57 of 85
16l
1 k3
October 7, 2010
lot of Melaleuca and just non-native spccies growing in this lorest in thc middle ofa subdivision, but there's no water
source into it except rainfall. So the thought is we could divert some ofthc water from the drainage canals in there,
divert it into this area where it was an old wetland and let it work as a water treatment area where you get some
groundwater recharge and water treatment. We just have to be carelul we don't put too much water in there and cause
llooding in the surrounding properties.
GG6 here was something proposed by the South Florida Water Management District as part of the feasibility
study. And that's an offline reservoir that would take water out oftbe Golden Gate main canal that could then be
utilized lor either potable water supply or maybe to supplement the irrigation water needs.
And GG7 herc is similar to the other ditch canal features we looked at. We could put some -- we think we
could put some weir structures in there and kind of stair-step the water as you move down through that system.
GG8 down here again. it's a red-cockadcd woodpecker habitat area. But it could stand a iittle bit of
rehydration. It used to be cypress and now it's a hydric natwood, so it's not as high a quality of wetland as what it was
historically.
But tbere's no way to get water into there without a pump, so we would have to do a small pump station to
pull water out oftbe Golden Gate main canal and route it through the overland plain. and it would gravity release back
into the Golden Gate canal system atier some opportunity Illr treatment.
GG9 here, this is a drainage swale that runs parallel to Wilson Boulevard. And we went up and looked
through there, and -- you know. similar with some of the linear features. we thought there might be an opportunity to
put some very small, six, seven-inch weirs in that drainage SWede and kind of slow the water down as it moves
through there. We do recognize that this is an area that's had a lot ofnooding issues in the past and we want to be real
careful about implementing something like that.
GG 1 a -- I've only got three more to go in this watershed -- is another offline reservoir. It's an old mining pit.
And the idca again would be to pull water out of the Golden Gate main canal and store it. And you could either route
that water south into the Rookery Bay watershed where there's a delicit of now going into the aquifer and also into the
estuary itself, or you could rclcase it back into the canal later or use Il1r potable water supply or irrigation supply.
Last two we've got here, or in Golden Gate anyway, are this GG 11 down here. which is located conveniently
right next to one of the water treatment plants. So if we could -- the idea was to pull the water out of this -- out of the
Golden Gate main canal during the wet season. store it and then utilize it Illf potable water supply during dry season.
And this last project in the Golden Gatc watershed is GUI2, and this is something that the Water
Management District has on their list of proJects to implement. Thc idea is to put a lOa-cubic lllot per second pump
to pull water out of the Golden Gate main canal and let it movc through overland tlow down into the canal on the
north side of 1-75, go through existing structures into Hendcrson Creek and then migrate south into Henderson Creek
and into Rookery Bay.
And we think there's a possibility that we could actually cnlarge that pump and possibly divert some of the
water from out of the Henderson Creek canal into the canals and linear water features on the south side of 1-75 and
create some spreader swales on tlie south side to encourage overland now on the south side. And we'll talk about that
injust a second.
Next watershed is thc Rookery Bay. And again, we can sec there's a great deal of prop CIty here that's
Picayune Strand State Forest. Up on thc top here is a lot of the lands that are designated as sending lands through the
transferable development rights. But at this point in time most of those lands have not -- the development rights have
not been severed Irom the property. So tliere's some issues there. But we'll take a look at some potential projects in
here.
And this is kind oC again, just an overview of what they all look like. And we'll zoom in and look at them,
cach of them individually.
First one we want to look at is this potential spreader swale up at the top that would potentially have source of
water lrom that Golden Gate number I a offline reservoir. And we need to be real careful about this one because we
know that in the luture transportation plan, Wilson Boulevard is expected to come all the way down south down to
about 1-75 belore it turas and goes back over to the west. And there's going to be large lakes that kind of serve as a
buffer zone between the mining pits that are going to go in in this area here.
So these lands over here are kind of being targeted lor mitigation by these mining properties, so we want to
be able to utilize that to promote overland now coming down through this system. Again, we're gctting water quality
Page 58 of 85
.'
16\ l.fq
October 7,2010
treatment, we're getting groundwater recharge, and we're rehydrating old wetlands that were in there. And this would
-- we're putting more water into the Rookery Bay watershed, which will eventually help with the deficit of flow
within the estuary system.
Now, tying into that, if you're going to pull all the water north ofI-75, you've got to do something with it
when it gets to 1-75. And there are a number of culverts that go underneath 1-75 through there in addition to the one
on Henderson Creek there.
So we've got to look at the flow. the available capacity in those culverts. Water comes underneath the
culverts. gets into another series of linear water features and canals on the south side. And thc idea would be to pull
the water out of that canal system again, put it into an overland flow spreader swale and let it migrate south through
the Picayune Strand State Forest.
Other features we've looked at, or possibilities we've looked at, thcre's again an old mine over here off
Henderson Creek, use offline storage, pull the excess water out ofthere, out of the system during the wet season, store
it, release it during dry season when it's needed in the bay.
And that could also be used to augment the City of Marco Island water supply, which is located a little bit
farther south on Henderson Creek.
In Picayune Strand State Forest, these projects, RB4 and RB5, there are a lot of old I guess access roads for
hunters and horse trails and things that go all through Picayune Strand State Forest. And these things over time,
they're actually six to eight inches below grade, so they serve as a preferential flowway and they almost collect water
in there and they're very compacted. So water just gets in there and just stands there and evaporates away, and it really
doesn't provide much benefit in terms of groundwater recharge or things, and it does speed the flow of the water out
of the system.
So the idea would be to go in there and just regrade some of these properties, bring them back up to grade
with their surrounding lands and let the water movc in a more natural flowway through that area.
This area highlighted in pink is actually the Forest Service is installing some new culverts under Sabal Palm
Boulevard in there to encourage the flow from north to south. As you get farther to the east over here, there is a lot of
overtopping of the Sabal Palm Boulevard. where it's just -- you know. it's the dirt road out there.
Down in the south thcrc arc a fcw projects that were recommended as part of the Belle Meade flowway
projects, alternative projects. One of these is a stormwater treatment area here. It's about six-and-a-half acres in size
with a pump station to pull water out of the canal system on the north sidc 01'41, provide some water quality treatment
and let the gravity flow -- too fast" I'm sony.
So it's a stormwater treatment area that's about six and one-half acres in size that would have a pump station
to pull water out of the canals on the north side of US-4I. The water would go through the system and gravity flow
out of the treatment area back into the canal system.
And there is also a proposal to do some drainage improvements along Manatee Road down here where water
coming underneath US-41 here would be put into a spreader swale that would migrate water through overland flow
through this system as opposed to just discharging directly out into the canal over here.
And finally the last one is what they call the Fiddler's Creek spreader canal. And we may have to look at the
configuration ofthis one. It does seem to conflict with some improvements that City of Marco Island has down there
with some spreader swales and things. So we need to further evaluate that one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: City didn't do those improvements.
MR. DeGOLlAN: City did not do those?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. DeGOLIAN: I stand corrected, thank you.
Other watersheds, conservations, this is thc Fakahatchee, Faka Union and OK slough, SR29 watersheds.
Again. the southern part of these watersheds is Picayune Strand State Forest and in federal lands.
Big projects going on in the Faka Union watershed and along -- if we look more closely, we've got the
Picayune Strand restoration projects going on here whcre they're putting in ditch blocks and canal blocks and big
pump stations and spreader swales along each the Miller, Faka Union and Merritt canals there.
The Southwest Florida Feasibility Study has recommended a number of projects along the State Road 29
corridor there with again canal blocks, removal of the structures and a lot of culverts to divert the water to the west
and kind of rehydrate Fakahatchee in there, as well as some pump stations and spreaders up hcre to rehydrate some of
Page 59 of 85
16'
1
to
October 7,2010
these wetlands up there.
But again as we mentioned earlier, these areas up in herc. The feasibility study just said restore hydrology,
you know, rcstorc the flowway. So wc soid, what can we do in hcrc to actually accomplish that goaL So we zoomed
in very closely. And we'll look at each of these.
The lirst is up in the headwaters of the Fob Union watershed. And again, this is property that's owned by
Conserve Collier. And they've actually already instolled some cqualizotion culvel1s underneath this road right here.
But we did notice when we went out there ond looked at this site that the swales on the side actually have a berm on
the side away from the road, which is going to discourage -- you get equalization but you still can't get it out of the
swale, it's still being divertcd into the canal network.
So thc idea would be to gradc thot bock down and then put in some ditch blocks to encourage some of the
overland flow in there but still not so high as to flood out any of the residents that live out there.
We go over into the Fakahatchee, there's a number of areas up in here. And these arc really kind of
interesting, because thesc are a lot of ogriculturallands and pocket wetlands where they went in and they dug a ditch
right through the center of a wetland to drain it. maybe for logging or just for drainage to make the agricultural lands
more available.
We wanted to look at some of these. And when we zoomed in really closely, just as an example. we can see
in the topography there's these ditches here and here and there that arc coming out of this little pocket wetland. So we
could do some ditch blocks in here and keep more water in that wetland system to encourage groundwater recharge,
water treatment, and again slow the volume of water that's moving south.
And that was the type of projects we saw in both thc Fakahatchee and the headwaters ofthe OK slough were
similar types of projects for that.
From a countywide perspective there are some things we can look at, lirst of which is looking at all the
structure operations. You know, the Water Management District has, you know, 40 something structures that are
gated structures that they operate to maintain water levels throughout the canal network in Collier County.
And then you put all the Collier County managed stmctures, the Obermeyer gates and various weir structures
that they operate, and we want to look at within our modeling components of how can we operate those structures
better to meet some of these flow requirements into the estuary systems.
Other things we wanted to look at ore public tilcilities. Can we do retrotits of parking lots at schools and at
parks and here at the government center to encourage. you kno\v. keeping the storn1water on site and not letting it
escape. And we can do that with pervious pavement ond intiltration basins and rain guards to capture rooftop runoff
and things of that nature.
Moris will talk a little bit more about this other, but how can we come up with incentive programs to get
private property owners to do retrolits of their properties') Bccause there are large numbers of parking lots around the
county that could stand to be retrolitted to better manage their stormwater and keep it on site.
And finally is dealing with aquifer storage and recovery. We know the City of Naples is implementing this,
City of Marco Island is implementing this. Collier County has a permit that they've put on hold for aquifer storage
and recovery. And there may be some opportunities to explore the use of ASR in Golden Gate Estates and places to
rehydrate and improve the -- well, I guess put more water into the groundwater system during the dry season to make
sure those homeowners have sufficient water fjx their water supply needs.
As an example of one o I' these retrolits, this is 0 picture I took up at the Golden Gate High School on Monday
oflast week at 11 :00 in the morning. And I was amazed that this parking lot was empty while school was going on.
When I was in school. you couldn't tind a parking place at my high schooL
So, you know, I think there's a real opportunity to go baek into parking lots like this at these schools and
rctrofit them.
This is an example of a location that was up in northem Florida where they put in pervious pavement in the
areas that have low trat1ic. You know, instead ofthc water draining around these islands that are raised higher than
the parking surface, the islands are lower and they're vegetated, which will keep people out, you know, cars out of
them. They allow the water to intiltratc into the system and you can also install some rain guards and some things
throughout.
Now I'm going to turn it back over to Moris to talk about some of the regulatory and policy issues.
MR. CABEZAS: Okay, I'm sorry you have to go through all of this. We hope it's --
Page 60 of 85
.'
16l
1 ~3
Octobcr 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's -- we're here to learn, and that's going to be the best asset we can
have is the more time you take to tell us. So this is fine.
MR. CABEZAS: Very good.
A very important component of a Watershed Management Plan is the regulatory and policy. And we have
taken a look at that in tenns of water quality, water quantity, you know, land development codes and even zoning.
We do understand that a lot of these regulatory issues or recommendations pertain to new development.
Peter had indicated that something is possible with -- through redevelopment, you know. That's encouraging.
Now how to motivate people to address other ways of doing or managing the stonnwater is an issue that must
be addressed in the Watershed Management Plan.
I'm going to talk about thc -- a little bit of background, some objectives, and the implementation of low
impact development policics in the county. And many of you will already -- or are already familiar with these issues.
But just to reiteratc, as you know, the state water policy states that dischargcs to water bodies must be subject
to a pollution removal of -- a pollution reduction of 80 percent. Somc years ago the State initiated the TMDL
program that Dave talked about. And Ijust can see thcir faccs when they look at the numbers in the evaluation that--
ail thesc impaired water bodics throughout the state, all over the place, even though we have had stonnwater
management regulations for 26 ycars.
So they must have said, well, this is not very good. And they started looking at why. So thcy went back to
evaluating the rcquirements ofthc currcnt ERP process, and they realized that the requirements for treatment,
particularly those treatment processes that are so common hcre in Collier County, like wet detention, in tenns of
nutrients particularly wcre not ncarly achieving the removal standard of state water policy. Nitrogen was being
reduced by 40 pcrcent instcad of 80 pcrccnt, phosphorous hy probably 60 percent at the most.
So they engagcd -- or FDEP engagcd in the proposed stonnwater rules, which will take care of some of these
problems.
Now, in tenns of our project, I'll be talking about regulations from state as well as from the county. And I
already mentioned the topics that we'll be addressing in tenns of those regulations.
But the objective will be to implement some kind of sustainable stonnwater management program. I think
that's -- we've got to abandon the ideas of the past and implement something new that will lead us to promote a more
effective site planning and minimize pollution loads, you know, promote prcservation of the natural systems and at
the same time help reduce development cost and help reduce the cost of having to improve the drainage system
because new development poses more impositions or -- I'm repeating the same word. but new development is creating
new requirements for those, the existing drainage facilities.
And a way to do that is to go back and look at the implementation of low impact development. You are
probably aware of this, but LID promotes management of the stonnwater by encouraging development or
management at the site. And I'm not talking just the whole development site, we have to encourage management of
stonnwater on each individuallot, if that's possible, you know, minimize the extent of impervious areas, particularly
directly connected impervious areas. Minimize site disturbance, because many studies have demonstrated that
disturbed soil, soil that is even lightly compacted, loses infiltration capacity up to 80 percent.
So even ifit's an open land, when you disturb the soil you lose that infiltration capacity and recharge of the
groundwater. The idea is to maintain or rcstore the site's original hydrology and at thc same time maximize the site's
assimilative capacity.
You've probably seen this. This is a comparison of predevelopmcnt versus the impacts of our reh'1llarly
applied post development. It just means that a lot of the -- of thc stonnwater excess goes directly into runoff, thus
going down the drainage system into the receiving water bodies.
On the other hand. these are examples of/ow impact development. And Peter showed some of this. Again,
the idea is to treat and maintain the natural hydrology, treat the stonnwater on site.
So iet's look at some --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, but before we go too much further, about
every hour-and-a-half we try to give the court reporter a break. And I don't know how much further you were going
to go but I think it might be a good time just to break for 10 minutes.
Then when we come back, there's a young lady that's bcen waiting patiently all day for a presentation that is
going to show a different pcrspcctive on yours that I think we would benefit from. She has to leave at 3:00. So I'd
Page 6101'85
16\
1
k?
October 7. 2010
like to take a break right now till 2:30, let her do her presentation, then resume with yours right after that. Would that
work for you?
MR. CABEZAS: Yeah, no problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Then that's what we'll do. Let's take a break. We'll come back at
2:30.
Jennifer, when we get back, if you're prepared, we'll go right into yours.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please resume their seats, we'll get moving with the rest of
this. And before, I have one announcement to make. I talked to Mr. Wiley. He was cooperative to work with us on
getting a better schedule for the remainder of his presentation. And his schedule worked out that we can finish the
Flood Management Plan. the one that we started with this morning. wc can finish that on the 21 st at our meeting,
because our meeting that day is rather light.
So today we'll just focus on the rest of the attemoon on the watershed management plans. We'll finish up
with that -- and generally we try to be finished by 5:00. So we all need to be working towards that goal.
Jennifer, it's all yours.
MS. HECKER: Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide this presentation. My name is Jennifer
Hecker and I am here on behalfofThc Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our 6,000 members.
First we'd like to thank Collier County stafI particularly Mac Hatcher, who has been very professional and
has made the time to meet with us pcrsonally to discuss our concerns with regard to the development of the Collier
County Watershed Management Plans.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can tell that you're going to get ofTto a very last start here. So -- I'm already
looking at Cherie' and I can see the frown. I'm thinking, okay, let's nip this in the bud.
MS. HECKER: I'm going to try to make my 29 minutes work, okay.
The Conservancy has actively supported the development of these plans. We were involved in advocating
for their funding. We strongly support them. And personally I havc also been working on state and federai water
policy regulation, and -- such as the statewide stonnwater rule. the numeric nutrient criteria and revising regional
South Florida Watcr Management District stonnwater pohcies.
So these definitely all interrelate. And wc'rc here to, you know, show our support. And hopefully what we
offer with regard to comment is perceived as constructive input liJr trying to create effective plans.
We are in a bit of a situation, and it's really no one's fault, but we are essentially, from our perspective, trying
to address major problems with the foundation of this whole planning process when we arc near the end, when the
drywall is essentially being hung on thc building. And that creates intrinsic problems.
So, you know, you'll see that wc're actually going to layout a case for why we believe at this point it would
be valuable to take some additional time to make sure that tliese plans arc as scientifically solid and that there's
adequate public stakeholder input and that they truly will effectuate the intended result that we all want them to
produce.
The first problem that we sce with the technical documents that we have reviewed to date is the fact that the
watershed management planning process is not adhering to state and federal water policy. It is one of our major
objectives from these planning process. We laid out in a 2007 letter to the county, and it's posted on the watershed
management plmming websitc, that ollr primary objective was that water quality be restored to current water quality
standards.
Well, that can only happen if we acknowledge that thosc standards are legitimatc and aim to achieve them.
And one of the primary things that reoccurs and resurfaces through the technical documents with regard to water
quality is questioning whether or not those standards arc in fact valid, whether the assessments that have been made
by the state and fedcral govemment with regard to violations arc credible, are valid. And so that prevents us from
moving forward with addressing those problems if we can't acknowledge that they're there.
And so we arc very concerned with this. It has a lot to do with rules and responsibilities. The county provides
data but so do a lot of other organizations to the DEI'. The DEI' has been responsible for taking all that illIta and
assessing it according to state regulations. So it's really a blending of science and policy. There's very specific legal
b'llidelines to how the data is to be interpreted, how many violations have to occur within such a time frame in order
It)r it to be technically verified impaired. Then that is sent to EPA and EP A then assesses it according to federal
Page 62 of 85
1611P\3
October 7, 2010
regulations.
So we heard earlier that the consultant did acknowledge and review according to DEP guidelines, but there
are actually differing federal guidelines. And the EP A has oversight ability and has actually exercised that by having
47 different subbasins otherwise known as WEill's added back to the impaired waters list that the state had removed.
And that was based on federal regulations.
So there's this very complex checks and balance process in detennining impairmcnt. And looking at the data
is part of it, but looking at the state and the federal regulatory guidelines is the other part. And these agencies already
are tasked with doing that.
One of the concerns we had is why would the county invest so much time and enerh'Y in reassessing what the
state and federal government have already assessed and verified as impaired. And we'll lay out some very specific
concerns with regard to, you know, where we feel there werc some, you know, biased assumptions and whatnot made
in reviewing that.
So before we get into the specifics, we just wanted to kind of explain again how water quality regulation
works.
The first thing that drives what standards are applied to a water body are its designated use. Is the water body
intended for drinking, for shellfish harvesting, for swimming and fishing, for agricultural or for industrial use. Each
use then drives a set of standards that will then be applied. Because of course you want higher standards for drinking
water than you would for swimming and fishing. So those things correspond.
Then once you have the standards in place, the data, as we mentioned, is assessed by DEP. It's collected and
assessed in a data base and then they look at it to detennine where they see repeat violations.
Now, after -- this is not a light, easy process. There's a lot of data screening, they make sure that the data is
sound. that there wasn't incorrect sampling, you know. And it has to bc a repeat violation, it cannot be just one
exceedance for it to be verified impaired. But ultimately if it's defined to be not mecting standards, it is determined as
verified impaired and goes on what's known as the impaired waters list.
That's really where we're talking about today are things that have been verified impaired and now they're
being called back into question.
We would rather that we acknowledge those impairments and move forward in the process. And we feel that
by moving forward a lot of the concerns that are being expressed about groundwater or other natural contributions
would be addressed later in the process. Because once something's impaired, they then zero in at the watershed level
and say what is the right pollutant threshold for this water hody.
That's what's called a total maximum daily load. And that is detennined by teasing out the natural
contributions of pollution and figuring out, you kilOW, how much is this water body -- it's not no pollution, but how
much can the water body take and still meet its designated use, that becomes the threshold. And then in the BMAP
process they tease out the natural versus non-natural contributions and they make the municipalities who are involved
with taking care of that area accountable for removing only that that is non-natural.
So when we're talking about we're worried that we're going to he, you know, dealing with things that are in
fact natural, that is eventually addressed but not at this step. It's really too early to expect that that would be teased
out. And if we let the process work and move fi.,rward, that should be addressed.
One thing that we kept seeing reoccur is just again this misunderstanding that if you have a natural
contribution that you can't be impaired. And, you know, in the case of iron, for instance, where we were talking about
there was a lot of groundwater influence. even if there is, you can look at this graphic here, this comes directly out of
EP A guidance. You see bar B, which is a combination of man-made and natural pollution. If it's below criterion, it's
not impaired. But if it's above criterion, Iikc in bar C, where you have man-made and natural together, as long as you
exceed standards you are verified impaired.
And that's because that is understood that the next step of the process will then separate back out the natural
load and not require you to try to correct, let's say, a bird rookery. If you have a fecal coliform problem, you know,
the regulations aren't meant to make you go destroy the bird rookery, they're meant to identify that you're over the
level safe for swimming and fishing and then to see if there's any man-made contrihution of, let's say, wastewater
discharges that are contributing to that fecal coliform, and then address those, the man-made. So that's how the
process is supposed to work.
And we have a situation where, you know, we've seen throughout the documents, you know, a dispute of
Page 63 of 85
19ctLr7,lo p
dissolved oxygen impainnents. We do of course have a statc numeric dissolved oxygen standard. And in many places
we are not meeting that standard.
Now, a lot of the reasoning that has been laid out about why the dissolved oxygen standard is wrong centers
around the fact that the Fakahatchee is impaired. But when you actually look at where the sampling is oecuffing in
the Fakahatchee, you see that it is occurring in many cnscs in canals along roadways. So you wouldn1t say that the
water quality there really represents the beautiful natural wetlands in the Fakahatchee Strand.
That is why we havc in that case an impainnent and wc have brought this up to DEI'. And I know that the
numeric nutrient criteria meeting that was referenced that occurred last week that a stakeholder also brought that up
and said that it was wrong t(lr DEI' to continue to try to say that that was an approptiate reference to show what
natural levels of pollution should be. So we continuc to try to work that oul.
Now, why is dissolved oxygen important" Well, dissolved oxygen essentially is whether or not you have
enough oxygen in the water to make a water body sate f()f aquatic life. If you don!t have enough dissolved oxygen,
you get fish kills. And that's what you have here in this picture is a lish kill that occurred in Lake Trafford.
So it is important that we try to maintain hcalthy levels of dissolved oxygen if we want our waters to be
fishable and to support aquatic life.
Now, in the technical documcnts there are policies embedded in them. In this case there was a
recommendation that the county pursue countywide dissolved oxygen deviations.
Now, from our point of view if you're not going to abide by state standards, which of course we would hope
that the county would, and focus on trying to achieve those standards, you have to bring the seientific basis for a
[annal deviation, which is known as site specific altenmtive criteria. You cannot say I disagree and not bring enough
science to be granted an alternative criteria. And that's our issue.
When we've approached staff about whether or not these deviations are in tact being pursued, we have gotten
very mixed information about not yet can they take a lot of timc and resources. maybe in the future. The problem is
the plans are being developed now. (fwe arenlt resolving this and addressing this issue now, then we're not going to
have plans to try to address some of thesc other types of pollutants, like dissolved oxygen, which is influenced by
nutrients. And I do acknowledge that they are including some things that would help nutrients, but we also -- there
are lots of other things that can be done. People have talked about installing aerators and things of that nature that
could help address dissolved oxygen as well. But tirst we have to recognize the problem.
There1s technical infoffi13tion that disputes the salinity characterization ahout what is fresh versus what is
marine. You bJUYS arc aware that those water hodies of course mix with estuarine areas, and the line between fresh
and marine moves back and forth so it's -- when you put a line on a map and you try to separate what is fresh and
marine, well that line is in reality going to move back and t()rth.
The reason it's important is because there's different regulations t()[ fresh versus marine. So in some cases if
you're not meeting one standard but you might be meeting another. you could see if maybe if you just readjusted the
line then maybe you'd be back in compliance again.
However, looking at the examples that were in the technieal document. they would have failed either way,
whether they were fresh or marine. So we felt like it was a moot point. And we didn't understand why the county
was even raising this. Thc county was involved itself and working with DEI' to revise the subbasin boundaries just a
couple of years ago. And we can't atford tojust keep recontiguring the puzzle pieces. We need to stick with a
process and follow through and get to the point where we actually are striving fix real improvements to water quality.
The impairments were disputed as well, and they wcrc speculated as natural. Again, the data that was being
relied upon was the same data that DEI' used in determining thaI they weren't natural. DEP has a notation that it puts.
it calls them categories on its listing proccss where it denotes if it thinks that an impainnent is from natural causes.
They did not denote that these impainnents were natural.
So again. the question is what is the basis fDr contesting the assessment that has already been detemllned by
the state and confirmed by the federal govemment"
And again, going baek to federal h'1lidance. it has to be cntirely natural in order to not be an impairment. If
there's any anthropogenic sources of iron that could be contributing to the impairment, then it should continue to stay
on the list.
Well, the teclulicat memo mentioned, welL wc didn't see any anthropogenic sources. But I think that one of
our concems is how hard was the assessment to try to identify that. We went on DEP's website, found that one of the
Page 64 of 85
161
1 ~0
October 7,2010
potential, you know, contributors to iron impairments is solid waste and waste materials, and then we mapped the
areas that were impaired for iron and found that there were, you know, many identified facilities within that subbasin.
So again you have to rule out the fact that whether there's any man-made pollution that could be contributing
to this in order to get something quote, unquote, not impaired. And we wouid rather these watershed plans just focus
on assessing the measures needed to meet the state iron standards rather than try to deviate from them.
There's, as was mentioned earlier, a process that DEI' does. Once it assesses what areas are impaired, it sets
that pollutant limit for that water body and then it develops a compliance plan. How do we meet that target? And
when the DEI' takes the lead in doing that, it crosses jurisdictional boundaries. They would get everyone involved.
They would get agricultural. DOT, City of Naples, Marco [sland. So it wouldn't just be the county on the hook for
100 percent. The DEI' process actually brings all the stakeholders to the table to try to figure out who's responsible
for what and how much should each of those entities reduce their pollution by in order to meet the overall common
target.
And we don't feel that these plans are going to have the ability to replicate that, so they should not be
considered a surrogate for that process. those basin management action plans, but they should be consistent with basin
management action planning, whieh means adhering to DEP's assessment of what's impaired and what isn't impaired,
adhering to the TMDL's that have been set.
There was a reference in one of the teclmical documents calling into question a TMDL that had already been
adopted and again approved by the federal government as well. So we need to bring the county and the state and
federal process into alignment if we're going to ultimately create plants that are going to address our water quality
issues in the appropriate way.
Also, I wanted to mention that a BMAP is -- has more ability to be binding and enforceable because it is
adopted by Secretarial Order. So you would have DEI' directly able to then work with the various stakeholders in
trying to make sure that they are making adequate progress.
Now, there's a perception that it could be onerous, but our experience with the BMAP process is they set a
five-year target, which -- they don't expect you to correct the problem overnight or even in five years, they set an
interim target at five years. And then if that's not met, they've told the stakeholders that they would then roll the
remainder into the following five years. As long as you're making adequate progress, then that would fulfill your
obligations with regard to the BMAP process for the most part.
So the watershed management plans should be used in evaluating land use changes with regards to reducing
impacts to water resources. wetlands loss. changes in quantity, timing and distribution of flows. That's what we
thought was going to be the emphasis of these plans, not water quality.
Again, we want water quality to be handled such that these plans are complementary to the existing and
future total maximum daily load limits and the basin management action plan compliance plans that DEI' is
developing.
So the current status of addressing these water quality problems: We haven't received any further
information indicating that these tec/mical memos that were generated challenging DEI' and EP A assessments are
being revised. The watershed management measures proposed thus far address nutrients, but other common verified
pollutants such as iron and copper are not in our -- you know, trom what we've been able to review thus far, we do not
see those being adequately addressed.
Again, we've sent a letter years ago identifying this as a major objective of these plans to make sure that were
they were focused on meeting current water quality standards. But now with only a month until these plans are
complete, we really don't have any assurance that these identifled water quality problems are going to be adequately
addressed in these plans.
Another issue we have is that we believe in science-based policy, that science should be used to percolate up
and create policy. An example being the perfonnance measures that we talked about earlier. Instead of developing
the projects up front and then using the science, the hydrology scores, landscape suitability index to measure the
effectiveness of those projects, we would have preferred using that science as the foundation to identify where the
projeets are that we want to pursue.
The problem with going about it the other way with having your projects up front and then just evaluating is
you could be missing important projects, especially restoration opportunities, hydrological restoration. You know,
this approach I understand that they didn't want to reinvent the wheel and they wanted to utilize what was available.
Page 65 of 85
16 l 1 A~
October 7, 2010
But again, it isn't -- it leads itself to potentially missing some key restoration projects that have been identilied by
others or that would have been identilied if you just applied the mcthodology of scicnce across the whole county. So
that is a concem that we have.
We brought up about the hydrology score thc t'lct that ago lands were getting a zero. And we don't feel that
ago lands should be treated like parking lots because they do have some hydrological value. In most cases they can
seasonally flood. they can allow Illr intiltration of water. So we feel that they need to be ditTerentiated from urbanized
areas.
And we did receive a memo on Monday of this week that had actually been provided to the county about two
weeks earlier which outlined this new methodology based on the MIKE SHE model. But the issue is that the MIKE
SHE model is a very good model, but models arc only as good as their input value. And in the memo it said that still
it should be noted that the scoring process assumes the hydrologic score of non-natural areas to be zero.
So we are concerned that ifag. lands are pm1 oflhis non-nalurallands being zero, that they're not being given
any hydrological value in the scoring.
This methodology looks at the dek'fee of hydrological alteration, but we feel that there should be more locus
as well on restoration potential, the need of restoring key flowways that have already been altered or hampered by
agricultural activities. That needs to he part of the scope ofthcsc plans as well.
Another eoncem we had about the technical side of this was the undervaluation of the natural resource vaiue
of agricultural lands. Therc used to be a third thing called vegetative index where ago lands were not being given a
value. That seems to be removed now and now they're using that landscape suitability index instead in combination
with the hydrology score.
So I think lor the most part we are making some progress there. We just want to make sure that ago lands are
recognized to provide signilicant wildlife habitat. Somc of our most endangered species in the area, the wood stork,
panthers and whatnot do rely on these agricultural lands and ditches.
These are just some k'faphs that were taken fi-mD survcys that were done on agricultural lands indicating
widespread use by wading bird species.
So the recent technical memo again seems to have eliminated this aspect. We still feel there are other
elements with regard to wildlife that need to be considered: Preservation of key wildlife movement corridors on
non-natural lands, for example. Non-natural lands arc really being scored very low, and there are some strategically
important panther corridors. for instance. that cross citrus groves and agricultural landscapes that need to be identilied
and configured.
There's wetland-dependent species that also are using some of these kcy areas that we want to make sure are
included.
So we also have brought up an issue with statT that we are concemed that there's policy that is embedded in
these technical documents that we feclthat the county and public stakeholders should be developing and given
direction more actively on these policy decisions. For instanec, the county policy currently states a very pronounced
prelerence for nonstructural natural stonnwater best management practice types of solutions versus structural, build-it
engineering solutions.
These plans, the way that they're currcntly bcing written to indicatc no preference betwcen the two. but do try
to assess which is the least costly. So in essence you're changing what is the prioritization of the difTerent alternatives
that will be considered. And we did bring this up with stall' and I think that they arc addressing this issue.
But there's other issues that have even popped up as rcccntly as ycsterday in the presentation to thc EAe,
where we heard the consultant say that thcy thought that the flood protection levels of service were unrealistic and that
thcy weren't sure that they were going to be striving to reach those or whether they would be changing policy to make
them more realistic.
And again the question is, is this a policy decision that is really appropriate for the consulting finD versus the
county and the public stakeholders to make and then to task the consultants with developing plans of action that
would then meet those policy objectives.
I guess, you know, overall we're kind of up against the wall herc. Aller two years we only have a couple of
tasks out ofthc seven tasks that wcre OIigillally identilied complete at this point. We've had a lag in getting some of
the infonnation.
One of the issues we tried to bring up yesterday to the FAC is that it's very hard for public to comment
Page 66 of 85
.'
161 If(,
October 7, 2010
intelligently when we're not getting the information ahead of the actual workshop where we're supposed to comment
on the issue.
Yesterday was the first we saw the presentation that was given to you today where some alternatives were
laid out. We don't have any information to support how those alternatives were generated, you know. There's nothing
to evaluate to comment on from a public stakeholder's perspective.
So that's a procedural issue. I mean, it's really -- no one's to blame, but we are at a point now where we're not
able to provide the type of participation and input that really we should in the planning process. And so we would
hope that this could be looked at and addressed through perhaps an extension.
And that's one of the things we wanted to bring up today was that we need to build a solid foundation with
adequate stakeliolder input to make effective plans. And that's going to take more time. And so our reconunendation
is that you -- you know, I know you can't make a decision today, but in going forward that you consider
recommending a six-month extension, at least, making sure that we have more public workshops.
It's also very difficult to give input in the context of, you know. brief responses, you know, in an EAC or
Planning Commission format. If we could have a workshop where there was more back and forth and collaboration, I
think we could end up with more consensus and a better work product.
So I tried to cut some things out there, but that really just hit the highlights of why we feel it would be
beneficial to all involved to take some more time to work together and try to resolve some of these things so that we
can bring the best work product and consensus to the County Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you made your point very well. Thank you very much, Jennifer. And I
know you have to run off.
Mr. Murray has a question.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to say thank you very, very much. That was an extremely clear
presentation and I got an awful lot out of it, and you have made some wonderful points. Thank you.
MS. HECKER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Can we get a copy o[(hat?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Can you send this bye-mail? Or actually, send it to Ray and then Ray can
distribute it, if that's okay.
MS. HECKER: I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Wc appreciate your time today. Sorry we had to rush you.
but that's unfortunately the way public meetings go sometimes.
Now we'd like to resume with your group, and we'll continue and finish up your presentation before we go to
other public speakers.
MR. CABEZAS: Thank you again. My name is Moris Cabezas, and I'm with PBS&J.
Let me start by saying that, you know, the purpose of these presentations is to receive input. In the end the
watershed management plans are going to be yours, not ours. And, you know, any input that we receive is
appreciated. And be sure that we will be addressing any comments and taking all of them very seriously.
We were talking about regulations. And the categories that at least so far we have reviewed that regulations
are in terms of water quality, water quantity, the Land Development Code, and we have a couple of comments on
zOlllng.
Talking about water quality regulations, the main issue is, you know, we talked about implementing low
impact development approaches, you know, changing the way we do things at this time and trying to work the
regulations into facilitating the implementation of new concepts. Now, these concepts can be implemented only if we
get support or if the county has the support from the public and the development community.
So one question is how to provide the watcr quality credits for development, such that developers would
consider applying the proposed new approaches to land development. We know that it's -- that the current state
regulations do not allow for providing credits for water quality. They will be allowed under the new proposed
stormwater rules. But currently it's not possible.
Let me give you an example. If somebody develops an area, that developer has to take part of the land to
create a treatment facility. That treatment facility has to have a capacity to treat one inch of the runoff over the
drainage area. Regardless of what he does in the watershed. he or she have to provide treatment for one inch of runoff.
So there's no incentive to doing work in the watershed when you have to develop -- when you have to
Page 67 of 85
16\ 1}:3
October 7, 20llJ
implement or construct a treatment facility to take care of a lixed amount of runolf.
We're hoping that with the implementation of the new stormwater rules that will change. But for now. let's
see what the county can do to promote the use of low impact development.
And it just happens that the county requires that tor developmcnt to treat 150 percent of the environmental--
of the ERP requirements.
So thcre is this 50 percent. And that could bc changed in the current regulations to allow that that 50 percent
be converted into low impact development approaches. And that's what we'll be recommending as far as the master
plan.
Now, we do understand that those rules would apply to new development or redevelopment.
Now, what to do about retrofitting. And Petcr was describing some of this before. You know, wc need to
develop incentives to retrolit private property. Marcia yesterday gave us an excellent idea. Well. educate -- and
education would be part of the watershed management plans. You know, we will dedicate a chapter in the Watershed
Management Plan to indicate that education to the public must be promoted.
But she was saying, well, educate the MSTU or the citizens in the MSTU's such that projects arc
implemcnted through the MSTU to benetit water quahty. That would be an excellent way to promote or to
incentivate (sic) retrofitting of private property.
Another way may be -- and I'm not advocating this al all -- but may be through a stonnwater utility. You
know, that's more ofa political issue. But the stonnwater utility does provide mechanisms to motivate property
owners into retrofitting private propcl1y.
In tenns of water quantity, currently regulations for large evcnts, and that's what I'm talking about, focus on
controlling peak discharges for the 25-year and I think it's the 72-hour design event. That's for the state and that's for
the county. There's nothing else in tenns of controlling the discharge trom -- resulting from large stonn events.
What we are recommending is that regulations be approved to provide not oniy peak control but also volume
control such that the excess runoff crcatcd by development is not discharged into the drainage system. That has to be
contained on site such that areas upstream or downstream of a proposed development are not impacted.
That way the hydrologic control will includc the peak, the volume and thc timing of stonnwater discharges,
which arc the three parameters that generally arc affected when YOll change the natural conditions.
Something was mentioned here about our proposed recommendation oflooking into the flood protection
levels of service. And there must have been -- there might have been a misunderstanding of what we were trying to
say. But let me try to clarify or at least try to explain now what we mean with recommendation of modifying the
levels of service.
Our -- Collier County current levels or scrvice indicate that there are four categories of service. And by the
way, the levels of service depict the goal that a system should be designed for in order to -- let me rephrase that. The
level of service is the maximum allowable Hooding that a system can allow. And this applies particularly to roads.
And the current criteria with the county indicates that, you know, you have these four criteria, alternative
criteria. A, B, C or D. At the current time there's no distinction as to what type of road it is, what type of return period
it should be covered, it simply says it's either A, B, C or D. And when you apply that idea to the drainage system,
well, it just happens that the entire drainage system in Collier County is a D condition.
Well, I think you -- or we helicvT thiJt the levels of service indicates which areas are problematic that you
should go into and try to resolve. If you get a D on everything, that indicates that you've got to do and increase the
capacity of your entire drainage system, which is -- which has brought up the problems that we have right now, you
know, because the drainage system has been so badly managed in the past by construction of canals and ditches. We
realize that, you know, the ideas are changing over time. But at this point the problems were caused because of the
construction of those canals.
If we have as a goal that level B, t(lr example, should be acceptable, which is barely any Hooding, you would
have to go and increase the size of every typc or conveyance facility throughout the county. [don't think you want to
do that. I think it would he more fcasible to look at your standards and say, well, what are the criteria that we can
accept as Hooding for various desib'll event conditions without putting into risk the health and safety of the population.
And here's an example or what we would he proposing in the master plan. You know, evacuation routes,
obviously. You know, they should not be affected by tlooding, even under the lllll-year event conditions. But
neighborhood roads may be -- accept some Hooding depth. And these arc just examples, 12 inches, nine inches, six
Page 611 or 115
"
16' 1 ft3
October 7, 2010
inches, whatever is decided.
But most people are willing to accept some degree of nuisance flooding under, you know, certain conditions.
Ifi!'s once in a hundred year, [think most people would accept, okay. you know, six inches is okay if the -- again, the
health and safety of the population is not at risk. You know, if ambulances can pass, emergency vehicles can pass,
well, that may be a good way to go.
And that is what we are thinking about proposing. But of course it's all under consideration, because this is
your plan, not ours.
In terms of land development regulations, I think it's important to continue to promote the use of cluster
development and try to modify the Land Development Code to apply certain concepts that tend to reduce the amount
of impervious area. For example. modifying the road width for some residential streets in some cases from 20 feet to
16 feet. It's not a large inconvenience, but at the same time just think about the length of minor roads that you have in
the county. And so think about the significant reduction in impervious area that you achieve by just doing that.
I think the -- we think that those road widths should be modified and the width should be based on the actual
average daily traffic. Ifthere is very little traffic you can accept a narrower road.
It's probably a good idea to take a look at the lot setbacks. In somc cases zero lot lines may be feasible as
long as you don't have directly cOlmected impervious areas. I think that could be implemented and promote cluster
development.
And I had mentioned that we will be making some recommendations in terms of zoning. And this is just
general, not only for Collier County. And it's believed that large lot zoning is an answer to preventing environmental
degradation.
We recognize that it's a good way to control the discharge ofnmoff, or the excess volume of runoff. But it's
got limitations. It increases the cost of development because you need to extend utilities. The road len!,'ths to reach
those areas is generally larger. The more roads, the larger the pollution load. It promotes the use of septic tanks as
opposed to centralized systems.
So there are several problems that could be -- that arc related to large lot zoning. And those may be avoided
by promoting again cluster development.
Now, when you do zoning, we believe that instead of basing the zones exclusively on -- basically on
population density, they should also be based on the extent of impervious areas. So the zones should indicate both
acceptable density as well as acceptable or maximum acceptable extent of these directly connected impervious areas.
In summary, there are opportunities to modify the current regulations. The objective would be to implement
this sustainable stormwater management program in that through the application oflow impact development concepts
and by various methods, including promoting cluster development.
So with that, if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Befixe we get into questions, I would like to get the input from the community of
those residents that are here to speak, and then have your -- have Mac respond to those to the extent needed. And then
this Board may have basically a full concept to ask questions from, while some may be answered by responding to the
public.
So if that's okay with the Board members, then we'll proceed with -- [ think Marcia Cravens during break
asked me if she could have a few moments to speak to us.
Marcia, I ask that bL'Cause there are other people that now have to speak. we try to be succinct in our
discussion.
MS. CRAVENS: I will try to be succinct and still try and get my points across.
Hi, Marcia Cravens. I'm a full-time Collier County resident. My background is that I worked as a registered
nurse for over 20 years, so I'm very concemed about wellness. However, I've always been an ardent environmental
supporter and conservation supporter. I am a Florida Master Naturalist for coastal systems.
And I watched the presentation on television that went before the EAC yesterday, and I observed the
comments by Nicole Ryan and also the gentleman that's here today trom Golden Gate Estates, as well as the EAC
members. And then I later last night attended the public meeting where this presentation was also done and made
some of my own cOlnments at that time.
One of my concerns is that I'm a full-time resident and taxpayer. It's taxpayers that are paying for this
project. And it seems to me that there's something fundamentally wrong with where the focus is here. The focus
Page 69 of 85
161
1
-A?
October 7, 2010
seems to be towards luture development and rural areas when the vast majority of the taxpayers funding this are in the
urban areas, in existing development with existing problems such as the TMDL's and impaired waters.
Also, I have to infonn you that I've been following the United States EP A conceptual infonnation on
watershcd management online, and I've obtained a CD a couple of years ago of watershed management that has
something called thc waterslied academy, which anybody in Collier County can go to. it's linked on a Collier County
government website. I would encourage all of you to take a look at it. You can go through that information and get a
really good handle on what the federal government considers watershed management in a day or less.
And the thing that strikes me is somcthing that Nicole Ryan and Jennifer Hecker and also Bradley Cornell,
who was at last night's meeting all commented on, and that's stakeholder involvement. It seems to me that we kind of
tend to go about things in the wrong process here, where we put stakeholder involvement at the tail end. And my
feeling is it necds to be at the front end.
And whcn you look at the conccptual int,mnation from the United States EP A, which the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection has to bc compliant with the federal EI' A, and Collier County having to be compliant
with Florida DEI', in a sense what you really have to understand is that Collier County has to be compliant with the
United States EPA, bccause that's where (sic) the Clean Water Act. and that's what all of this is predicated on is the
Clean Water Act.
But on the U.S. EPA websites where they provide a grcat deal of inlimnation. and they provide media in a lot
of different I,mns, training tools, there's all kinds of public information that's readily available for anybody's use free
of charge.
But they very much -- tbe conccpt very much wants thc stakeholder, the citizen participation and involvement
at the front end. They arc the ones who are alfected. We're the county, you know. We're paying for this. We're the
ones who are affected by the water quality and we're the ones that want to have good water,
So the TMDL's and the numeric nutrient standards, the impaired waters rule, all these things are all meant to
meet the Clean Water Act and to be compliant with it and to provide safe drinking water to meet the purpose and use
of the classes of water body.
And Jennifer touched on that a little bit. I don't know if you're alll,mliliar with the lour classes, the main
classes of water. One was drinking water, two is essentially tishable. swimmable, suitable 1,)1' shelllish harvesting.
Three tends to be the boating use within our waterways. Four is -- might bc waterways that are utilized by wildlile
but that is not sale for human use.
And I don't really want to see standards lowered. I mean. those are good water c1assilications. And I really
don't want to see site specilic standards used that actually lower the water quality within our neighborhoods and our
water bodies. They need to be consistent with the purpose and use.
And I do think there needs to he some tweaking. For instance, a mangrove estuarine area, the nutrients and
dissolved oxygen there, you can't just put that on a flat Icvel and say well, it's this amount all the time. becausc it
fluctuates and it needs to be taken into consideration.
And I do think that we need to bring the stakeholders in. And we need to do it before there are finished
projects. This point at which projects are being recommended, I ccrtainly support some ofthesc projects. particuiariy
the ones that would like to bring in more retention and detention arcas where tbey've been lost.
And if they're within wetlands, I would want to know that there arc not going to be negative impacts to the
existing flora and launa in those wetlands. I think yes, rehydrate them. but let's be sure that we're not ending up with a
net negative impact.
The state of Florida has developed comprehensive Everglades restoration plans that haven't been mentioned
here. I've heard Southwest Florida Feasibility Study but I haven't heard anything about CERI'. And CERP exists.
And it's not just for the Everglades, it can bc used in our waterway areas as wcll.
There's sometbing called conceptual ecological management. And it's guidelines that can be used. What they
do is they recognize that individual water basins, subbasins and water bodics need to be looked at independently. And
that's a little bit of what those WBlD's arc supposed to be. I think they still need to be tweaked a little bit.
But again. the stakeholders need to be involved in that process. The stakeholders should be involved in
determining the boundaries of thc WBID's and tbe water bodies ill tbeir neighborhoods. They should be involved in
reaffirming what those water body purpose and uses are.
And actually I don't know if this project IS t,uniliar with new water IUles that Florida DEI' just came out with
Page 70 of 85
'~. (
16' 1 (1?J
October 7, 2010
in early December, but what they said was these water classes that I spoke about that are based on use are actually
based on attainable use, not just historic use and not just current use, but attainable use. And those water bodies don't
necessarily have to be achieving those uses today. For instance, if it is a Class 2 water body that is -- should be
fishable, swimmable and suitable for shellfish harvesting, that does not mean that you have to be able to harvest
shellfish from those waters today. It means -- and it's attainable use. And we would hope that if we've lost that use
that we can put into place some projects whereby we can resume and at some point reattain those uses.
[ did speak with the consultants and Mac Hatcher last night about, you know, addressing the stakeholders and
that I feel that largely our citizenship is unaware of all of this.
When I talk with people about water quality issues and WBill's or TMDL's in Pelican Bay, they're learning
what it means, because the mangrove action group has done a big push, and we've been very involved in best
management practices, advocacy, and it is one great neighborhood that really embraces trying to be hanllonious with
nature and trying to have a low impact, the LID, being a low impact development.
And I believe that most if not all of our neighborhoods within Collier County, if they were educated and
informed, would be the same way. I think we havc homeowncrs associations in most if not all of our neighborhoods.
And there's leadership within each of those homeowner associations.
And most if not all of Collier County consists of areas that have MSTU's or MSTBU's whereby the citizens
provide non-ad valorem assessments to address these issues. But they need to know what the issues are. They need
to be informed and cducatcd and solicited for input and feedback.
And, you know, my request here is that this watershed management step back. I would agree with Jennifer
Hecker, with Nicole Ryan and with Bradley Cornell, that we really need stakeholder involvement. At this point we
should not go forward with proceeding on projects until after you've had significant stakeholder input. And I hope
that's done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis and that there is massive public education. If you take a look at
the EP A's website you'll see that education, the tools are already there.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Ray, I know we have some public speakers, but since there's only
three members of the public here, I'm just going to ask you all to come on up one at a time to the extent that you want
to speak and let's move forward.
Tim?
MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, thank you much for your courtesy.
am here today -- my name is Tim Nance. I am representing Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, and the
members and residents in the Golden Gate Estates area.
And I want to talk to you just a little bit about our involvement and concerns in watershed management
planning and kind of where we've gone in the past year.
Residents in Golden Gate Estates and tlie Estates Civic came to the conclusion well over a year ago that many
forces were coming togethcr that wcre going to greatly impact our community, which is the Golden Gate Estates area
and Collier County as a whole. And we began to become very actively engaged in that, through a series of meetings
and letters that we sent out and people that we met with in an attempt to try to gain some idea on what could be done
to improve watershed management in Golden Gate Estates and ensure the wellbeing of both the water supply, surface
water and also to manage stonnwater.
Through our conversations with the Big Cypress Basin, we were invited to attend the strategic plmming
meetings for Big Cypress Basin for their I O-year strategic plan in February of this year, and we went out and very
carefully considered what we thought were some major points and we delivercd lctters to them and presented at their
meeting.
We also were very pleased that Mr. Ricardo Valera from the South Florida Water Management District
hosted a multi-agency meeting in his oftice at our request in the month of May, which had representatives from South
Florida Water Management District in West Palm Beach. the Big Cyprcss Basin, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and also Collier County at that time CDES members Jerry Kurtz and Mac Hatcher were
there at the time.
In those discussions and in a follow-up letter that we sent, we outlined some of our conccrns. And basically
what we were trying to get our head around was the fact that if we continued at build-out with the current
methodology that was taking place. we were convinced that there was going to be an increase in the risk of future
Page 71 of 85
. i
16 \ 1 M
October 7, 2010
Hooding and property damage in Golden Gate Estates, correspondingly loss of watcr quality not only in Golden Gate
Estates but in Collier COWlly and in all watersheds south of Golden Gate Estates area, and that we were really looking
for somebody to lead the charge for a realistic functional and al1()rdable approach to tlood managcment and watershed
management in Golden Gate Estates.
Well, when we looked at it, we evaluated all tbe different agencies that were involved and we determined that
we were being -- that the people that had input were a large collection of pennitting, operating and reh'1l1atory
agencies, all of which seemed to have very little coordination. All of them seemed to have what they figured were
their own purview or their own impact into tbis issue. but they didn't seem to be working in a coordinated manner that
we could determine.
It seemed like what we had was we had a division of labor kind of like what Henry Ford envisioned. We had
an assembly line method but nobody knew what it was that they were putting together. Thcy were working on one
part of it but they didn't know what kind of an outcome they were going to have.
And those agencies included South Florida Water Management District in West Palm Beach, who has their
goals and objectives, not to be confused with the Big Cypress Basin, which is a sub-unit of them but they don't seem
to play wcll in the same sandbox from time to time; Florida DEI'; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Collier Soil and
Water Conservation District; and several agencies of Collier County government, including Collier County
Stormwater, Collier County Transportation, and now thc group that's putting together this Watershed Management
Plan.
Well, when we distilled all this togcthcr, we came to the conclusion that nobody wanted to take responsibility
for Golden Gate Estates. And of course every time 1 show up at a meeting and I mention Golden Gate Estates,
somebody says, well, you know, that never should have becn built and it's just an awlul thing, and it's destroying the
countryside and everything else. But the laet remains is that today Golden Gate Estates is in the center of your
county. it represents approximately SO squarc miles. 50,000 acres, and some day it's going to be home to 50.000
people, or you can go to some different estimates, they'll tell YOll 50.000, SO.OOO, whatever.
It's here to stay. 1 don't think it's going away. And it is constantly the red-haired stepchild, or the elephant in
the middle of the room, or whatever you want to call it. But all of these groups that I named walk around --like when
you mention Golden Gatc Estates, they all go like this. And thcy all will tell you that it's not their responsibility. And
we're very concerned. And we think it's going to have a quite negative impact on the Watershed Management Plan.
If you notice some of these projects, and you looked on a map, you'll notice that they kind of went in a circle
and there was this void in the center. That's what they call north Golden Gate Estates.
So [ certainly do not think that it's Mac Ilateher's or these consultants' responsibility to resolve this issue. It
certainly wasn't in their scope of work. I do not want to minimize the work that they've done or the projects they've
come up with. But what I will say at this time. that out ofa Watershed Management Plan, if we're working on
something, what is needed is what we don't have, and that is a comprehensive surtace and stormwater management
plan for Collier County.
1 don't see how we can ignore Golden Gate Estates and I don't see how we can possibly manage water quality
issues when we cannot get our head around water quantity issues.
Most of the water quality issues, if you sleuth it back upstream, you're going to find out it's related directly to
the fact that you're either applying too much watcr or not enough watcr to whatever natural systems you're hying to
manage. And llnt()rtllnately fix all of us outside of some of our more ptistine and less impacted areas in the eastern
part of the County, we have to come to grips with the lact that our watershed is now a tully managed system. And
with more management comes more responsibility. The more you manage it, the more responsibility you have.
We werc very pleased to meet with these gentlemen the other day at their presentations. What I would like to
do today is I would like to share with you very briefly, and I don't want to extend an already long day for you. but I
want to talk about tive bullet points that we came up with and concerns that we have for our community. And I also
want to add a lew suggestions that we have. A very wise man said, told me multiple times, if you're going to stand up
and complain about something, you're going to say something's \VTong, you better be ready to propose some solutions.
So I will also do a little bit of that.
But I will tell you the live things -- the basically topics that we wanted to talk about.
A thing that overlies almost everything we're doing is the t"ct that we need a wetland mitigation system that
mitigates within our own functional drainage basin.
Page 72 of 85
;~J.
16\ 1 it?
October 7, 201 0
Collier County is almost 100 percent inside the Big Cypress Basin. That's why we're fortunate enough to
have a division of South Florida Water Management District for its management. We're in one drainage basin.
However, a great deal of the mitigation that we do in our county is sent to a mitigation bank in Lce County, which
means that we're not doing oursclves any good.
South Florida Water Management, in my opinion -- I'll get myself in trouble again -- but I think for their own
selfish cconomic reasons want to sell their mitigation bank up in Lee County. And what is it doing? It's putting us
increasingly, our watershed at risk. We can't tolerate this. We need to do something about that.
One of the things that we can do, and has becn proposed by Transportation Division, is to develop some
systems for mitigation for transportation elements and transportation infrastructure within our own county. Golden
Gate Estates Area Civic Association supports that, and we think that wc ought to have a dialogue to open up the
opportunity for mitigation in our own county.
We certainly want to continue and hope that we get, even though our community is not a permitted
community, we would like to make sure that we always receive an evaluation and analysis of development permit
applications that are adjacent to and impact Golden Gate Estates. We're surrounded by potential and future
development, and we want to make sure that we understand the impact to Golden Gate Estates.
Why is that important to the county? Because Golden Gate Estates and its 50,000 acres is a major, major
recharge area for municipal watcr for all Collier County. It's where the well fields are located. It's where there could
possibly bc some aquifcr storage and rccovery enhancement. That's never been really looked into. But, I mean, it is
-- it's important. It's the hole in thc donut of the county.
And certainly we hope that some of our suggestions, if this Water Management Plan is going to consider
regulatory and policy issues, we would certainly like there to be more focus on consideration of surface water
management and flood mediation issues and concepts that can complement and maximize the efficiency of our
limited primary drainage system.
The only water utility we have right now is Big Cypress Basin. The only thing they touch is the primary
water system -- the primary drainage system, excuse me. Collier County Stormwater runs around and deals with
ditches and secondary and tertiary, but Big Cypress Basin handles our primary drainage system. And they've made it
very clear that we're pretty much maxed out on that. So we have to enhance other things.
Suggestions and discussions that we would like to open up coming fi-om Estates Civic is opening up the
concept of on-site water retention in Golden Gate Estates. Current Collier policy discourages the digging of ponds or
any water retention in Golden Gate Estates. We think that this on-site water retention is an opportunity that's being
missed.
Secondly, we would like to see an incentive program for lot consolidation, particularly in the eastern portion
of northern Golden Gate Estates.
Why do I say that? Out in the eastern part of northem Golden Gate Estates there resulted in thousands of
acre-and-a-quarter lots where larger parcels were divided. There's thousands ofthem. If all those were to turn into
homes, at build-out 1 think it would be disaster relating to the number of septic tanks that would have to go in, the
amount of fill that's going to go in, the amount of runoffthat's going to be pushed out. Certainly the flood elevation is
going to be raised just by the fact that we're going to have that many more house pads out in that area. So I think that
there's an opportunity to talk about incentivizing lot consolidation.
Another thing that we could possibly look into would be a transfer of development rights program for
wetlands lots in appropriate areas of the Estates where we could gain -- help foster reestablishment of some of the
flowways, similar to what's been proposed by Collier Soil and Water Conservation District, to let some of those
people out of lots that are unbuildable. There's no reason, I don't think, why we couldn't have a transfer program to
give those people development credits where they could then convey those wetlands lots to an agency for better use
and hopefully better flood control and water storage.
Finally, we're certainly interested in protection of the limited potable water supply, not only for ourselves as
Estate residents, but also Collier County as a whole.
Finally, you know, we've got significant events right now that are impacting all of these and feeding all back
together one on another, and that is the FEMA flood maps and insurance issues that are going to go on and the
potential restudy of the Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan. All ofthose things need to be brought together,
including, you know, ifthey restudy the Rural Fringe Mixcd Use District, and with things that they do in the Rural
Page 73 of 85
161 1 f\?
October 7. 2010
Lands Stewardsbip Area, this all is going to impact Golden Gate Estates. It's all surrounding, abutting and adjacent to
that big 50,000 acres.
So thank you very much ror allowing me to make these comments. These gentlemen have asked to mect
with us and talk to us about somc or our ideas. We cenainly appreciate it. We appreciate any opponunity to input
and open discussions. We're not expens. but we do have many professionals that live in Golden Gate Estates and
havc a personal interest. And you may hear hom a couple other ofthosc that have specific input.
But thank you so much for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim
Mike or Peter, either one or you'>
MR. RAMSEY: Good aJiemoon. everyone. My name is Michael Ramsey. I am a resident of Golden Gate
Estates. I am the president or Ramsey, Inc. Ecological Consulting. I've been working in the South Florida area for
the last 30 years, specifIcally in wetlands and pennitting and agricultural and anything that has to do with water.
wetlands, and permitting with Water Management District and DEI'.
I'm also the vice president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, and I'm also on a little group
called the Water Symposium of Florida. Inc., which you might have heard about. We did some median
demonstration projects, whicb has to do with some or thc things that PBS&J was talking about.
We did two demonstration projects, one in Marco Island. and one in Everglades City you might want to go
look at because it invokes somc or thc concepts these gentlemen were talking about.
I'm here today representing the Estates Civic Association hut I've spent a lot of time doing pemlitting,
permitting a!,'fieulture. studying endangered species and trying to bring all that together. The whole thing about
pennitting is taking all these essential componcnts and trying to bring them together.
Now my main concem today with this whole thing with the watershed planning study that I'm seeing in front
of me, these guys are doing the work they're supposed to be doing, what they've been told to do. I don't think they've
been told enough to do. I think there is a lacking in direction in the path they should be on.
Number one, before we get staned in this, you need to know these two components about surface water
management. There will never, ever be another canal dug transferring water from the uplands to the ocean. That will
never, ever happen again, never.
Number two, in all those areas that had canals, Irom now on all water that has to do with drainage or surface
management will have to be land stored. It cannot drain off the property into the ocean. That's out.
Now the second issue you need to know is that in the South Florida Water Management District there are two
basins. South Florida Water Management Dishict starts north orOkeechobee and goes all the way to the east-soutb
tip of the Everglades. The two basins of Collier County is in what is called the Big Cypress Basin. It makes up
almost that entire area. Thc Big Cypress Basin is Collier County except tl,r a few little pieces.
Everything else under Water Management District rule is called the Okeechobee basin and is considered to be
hydrologically isolated for Everglades till1ction. And Big Cypress Basin in Collier County is hydrologically isolated
just ror us. We're not a part or that system. All the water that f"lls on Collier County does not drain into the
Everglades. Just the way it is. It's been proven. And that's the reason the Water Management District has those two
classifications.
Now, in this issue that I look at, I'm out in the field all the time. I have empirical data or empirical
knowledge. I watch the system's function, I go out and look at the animals, I look at the wetlands and I watch what
happens after we build projects.
In this issue water quantity is the most imponant. In this issuc we havc to deal with how to deal with water
quantity or surface water management. We havc to move the water. store the water, detain the water, retain the water
before you can do anything with water quality. The primary issuc lirst is managing the quantity ofwaler, then you
deal with water quality issues. Because you can't deal with water quality until aller the infrastructure is built.
So once you understand this. the thing that seems to be lacking or most important here is we need a -- on a
countywide basis a countywide surface water management system. which I donlt see any attempt to try to do that.
Now, to understand this. like it was said bellxe, we have three primary agencies/departments that deal with
countywide -- deal with surface water management in Collier County. South Florida Water Management District via
BCR Now, the BCS, the Big Cypress Basin, is only charged with the management of primary drainage canals and
the maintenance of those canuls. They have no other function in this county. You need to know that since they were
Page 74 or 85
r.~
16 \ 1 ~'J
October 7, 201 0
created they receive 14 to 15 million dollars a year to manage those canals.
Now. me saying that, I want to bring up the point that this is your in-place, non-functioning stormwater
utility. They need to do a little more. But because ofthe separations of powers that be, that's kind of been left out of
the equation.
Then there's Collier County. They do not deal with primary, they deal with secondary and tertiary
stormwater issues.
The other one that's overseeing some of this is the South Florida Water Management District permits projects
out of Fort Myers, not in coordination with BCB. And we've got all these little projects around subdivisions and other
stuff pennitted by the Water Management District that are like little islands in the ocean. They're pennitted for their
little area but the rest ofthe county area is not taken care of.
So -- and what I'm saying is I'm putting forth the idea that Collier County needs to step up and take control of
the entire area and manage it and tell the Water Management District what they necd to do.
Now, in this issue as I'm presenting it, Collier County needs to step up and do that. And the very first
objective under this goal is that thc protcction of human life and privatc property should be the first objective in
developing a countywide pro6'fam.
Water quantity will be second because people that came to this county and got a building permit under the
right conditions, and it was issued legally, they have this -- they have acquired this right. They have depended on
Collier County to provide them stonnwatcr, surfacc watcr management to protect their private property.
This is also an issue when it comes back to septic and drainage systems. If you've gone through and correctly
got all your pennits, then there's a responsibility !Tom the county to help manage that surface water system. I don't
see that present in some of these discussions.
Now, my second concem and what I've seen before is to develop a countywide surface water management
system. The way I was taught to do to develop projects in biol06'Y, ecology and that kind of issue is that we would
define an objective first, then I would go do an inventory. After I did the inventory, I would assess the status of the
items I found in my inventory and I would compare it to my objective.
The third step would be I would define the limitations of what it would take to overcome those limitations to
achieve the objective, and then I would implement projects to do that.
Then the last step would be you monitor those projects to see how you did both functionally and
economically. Well, I'm not seeing that here because of the separation ofthe components.
What I think you should do first, because I've seen projects set out like this before, and this is the way we do
pennitting for large ago projects. I have to go out and do an inventory of the area I'm in and detennine what is the
existing natural flow systems and flowways and water systems.
I don't see that here. What I did see was they went out and picked up an existing inventory done by DEP and
the Water Management District. And I can tell you now in that inventory of watersheds and systems, there's already a
discrepancy between the two agencies as to what the boundaries are, and I cannot -- and they've going to maintain
their difference.
I've heard of a functional watershed and a traditional watershed. Now so's you understand a watershed, a
watershed is an area ofthe ground where all the rainfall hits it and it all drains to one collective point. That's a
watershed. The two agencies have a difference on that.
So what should be done. I thought, is you do a predevelopment watershed inventory and function. Then you
do a current inventory of existing function. And then you detennine. you assess the lilnitations of the difference
between the two so that you understand what's going on.
Now doing that you may come up with different basins and watersheds different from the two agencies,
because if you're more detailed in your local, you may come up with a more customized practical functional situation.
I don't think I've seen that done.
Now, once you've done your inventories, you come back and you prioritize your problem areas. I don't see
problem areas prioritized. I actually think the problem areas are almost everything west of the ago areas. Golden Gate
west is where all the flooding occurs, not east.
So you prioritize yourself to the west side. To me the problem areas over the last 20 years has been the
Estates, North Naples, East Naples, Everglades City. I don't see any projects addressing the real problems with
flooding.
Page 75 of 85
16~ 1 +t?J
October 7. 2010
So after you've done that, to me the last part is -- and I see where a real lacking is hcre on that -- to seek
solutions, you need to get a group togethcr that combines all the problems.
Now, here's all the problems as I understand it. Stonnwater management, surface water management,
mitigation, aquifer storage, wildlife, FEMA insurancc. Wc might have got a break on that if we have had a better
system in place. Floodplain protection. These are all tied together. I don't know if they're talking to each other. And
long term intra structure and maintcnancc and cost sccms to be very important and stuff, giving it back to the
residents. So that's kind of the area where I see that this thing kind of needs to be going, and it kind oflacking in that.
And more time might be needed for that.
Now, the more input is needcd to develop solutions. I think to bring all that together. And at this time I think
proposed projects and regulations are a little premature at this stage. I feel like we're just starting to get into this and
trying to ligure our systcm out.
So here's some ofthc problems that have to be addressed that's going to come up as we do this.
Onc of the things I know that's a current problem right now is issues of impervious surface. Surfaces that we
build are put down that rainlall cannot absorb through to go to the groundwater.
As was expresscd before, the current mitigation banking systcm set up by the Water Management District is
putting impervious surlace in what I call a functional watershed, especially south of 846 and west of 29, is putting
impervious surfaces in there but mitigating I()r the functional loss of storage and habitat outside the watershed, and
outside the county.
Now here's a great example of that. Lely development was built under Water Management District permits
and they had to pay I(lr mitigation for wetlands. In the last five years they had to go back in after that pennitting and
build an additional surl"ce water managcmcnt system called LASIP, Lely area stonnwater improvement system.
Okay, so now wc've paid twice. This has got to stop. This is not good management of resources or funds.
Also in this study is kind of leaving out -- I know lor a tact Marco Island is dependent on the Henderson
Creek canal lor raw water supply to their municipal water. Thcy depend on the water coming down that canal, goes
in there, is pumped down to Marco utilities and processed. That's a big issue with this.
And so in last and kind of bringing it alltogethcr, I don't think there's a need for stormwater utility. I think
there's a need for existing opcrations to have a very stern talkmg to and be brought into line for the residents' benefit,
because the operations are there, they're just not eoordinatcd.
And so with that. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mikc, thank you vcry much. And I think it's an opportunity now to give Cherie' --
oh Peter, did you havc -- I didn't know if you --
MR. DeGOLlAN: I havc a real, real Sh0l1 statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. Then we're going to take a break and then we'll come back and
finish our comment.
MR. GADDY: Peter Gaddy, president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association.
Based on what I've heard here. based on a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the specific objectives
which the Watershed Management Plan is supposed to meet, from what I can see. they've only met two ofthe seven
so far.
This is sehedulcd to go bel()re the BCC I(Jf approval in December.
I've also heard that there's been no stakeholder input so far. So I think it's impossible to complete the
proposed schedule. And I would concur on Jennifer's recommendation that a six-month delay in this process or a
six-month extension should be put in placc so that thc required elements of the plan can be completed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Peter. Okay, when we come back Irom break. the Planning
Commission will begin its discussion and comments. We're gomg to try to wrap thc meeting up today by 5:00. So
with that in mind, we need to linish a little bel(lre 5:00 with our comments and be done.
So let's come back at 10 after 4:00 and resume.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. everyhody, welcome back trom break. If you'll please take your seats we'll
resume and try to linish up.
Mac, I'd like to ask a question of you. What were you expecting out of this commission today'!
MR. HATCHFR: A dialoguc, discussion, education.
Page 76 of 85
1\
16l
11\~
October 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think you provided a lot of education, you and members of the public
who were patient enough to sit here all day. And that's one ofthe better points oftoday is that we did get I believe a
fairly good education. So that the documentation that you scnt us on Friday, all five or 600 pages of it may now make
some sense when we go to read it, which I think will help us to get to the final product.
We had a lot of input today, and I think the best thing we could probably get for the Planning Commission
now is to provide you with comments rather than as many questions. I think statements might be helpful based on all
we heard. There are probably a slew of questions from what I've seen on the Power Point presentations you provided,
I've got a whole page of them. but I'm not sure they're as relevant as getting a feeling on what this Planning
Commission thinks as a whole based on the input we've had from the public and your people today.
So why don't we start with that. Does anybody on the Planning Commission wish to opcn it?
Mr. Murray"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You betcha. Appreciate very much all of the effort that you put into the
program. But I will tell you that I got the distinct impression. especially after having listened to The Conservancy's
representative, that I think that the charge or the scope might either have been lost or may havc not been as complete
as we would have hoped once you hear it all. And I've listened carefully to the public and I will tell you that I think
we are at the beginning point rather than anywhere ncar thc cnd.
I must tell you that The Conservancy's Power Point was so strong and effective and so clear as to what
needed to be done that I think that we would not be wrong to seek to have them work with your consultants, work
with yourself, and have members of the conununity who understand what is necdcd to have that begin the process.
Now, it can be accelerated, bl'Cause a lot of the work has been done. And it may only be nuance here and a
tease there. but it needs to come back where I, for sure, and I sense others would feel a lot better if it was more
coherent and more clear for the purpose of the clarity of the water and the genuinely cleanliness of the water, and the
future of that water. And that really is where it's at.
An awful lot of work has been done, shouldn't be thrown away. That's not where I'm going. But I think the
combination of the stakeholders helping out, moving it around a little bit here and there will go a long way.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer then --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ladies tirst.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Ahem. Okay, Ms. Ahem.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I do have one question in terms of the implications if this is not completed by
the end of the year.
MR. HATCHER: The deadline is somewhat self-imposed. It is a policy in the CCME. DCA, when we went
through the amendment process in, what was it 2005, 2006, kind of pushed us towards that deadline. If everybody is
working towards an end. that deadline may not be somcthing that anybody argues about. But we've committed to it,
we'd like to try and shoot for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Mac, and it really goes back to the memo that's our objective today.
And I really -- these are interesting things, but I'm not sure wc got near them.
First one was select an appropriate hydrologic-hydraulic model. So what are we going to use for a model? Is
that MIKE SHE or whatever that is --
MR. HATCHER: Right. The MIKE SHE, Mike 11 model that the Big Cypress developed in 2000, 2001
was used for the Picayune Strand Restoration Plan, has been updated with new data for all components. And that's
what we're using to base our quantity estimates with.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wc will then, as wc're dealing with development projects in the future,
be able to plug into that and see the causc and effect, essentially Sim City with the MIKE SHE model; is that right?
MR. HATCHER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good.
The next one, select appropriate perfi)rmance measures to evaluate altemate land use in land management
scenanos. Is that something wc havc the ability to do that, or--
Page 77 of 85
1 ~to~cr 7, 2~0 M
MR. HATCHER: Well, we have proposed performance measures to address water quantity, aquifer storage,
land use and water quality. So we think we do have perfonnanee measures that will be useful to identify gains and
bendits of the projects.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. because essentially I think my impression of a watershed
management plan is, you know, we drop a drop of water, we know where it's going, we know the trail it's going to
take to the sea or be absorbed in the lP'Ound and be evaporated. But -- so do you think we, when we study thesc
projects -- because what we're looking at as the Planning Commission, we want to be able to judge PUD's, judge
projects within the scope of this Watershed Management Plan. So you think we have that ability now and you'll be
able to make those recommendations')
MR. HATCHER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. HATCHER: Yeah. we can quantify the bendits by watershed with the model.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next one's essentially the same thing.
Okay, I mean, bccause I think again, what we imagined the thing to be is a tool that we could use so that we
could sce -- you know, the volume of water I think is really important. We have some decisions. especially in Golden
Gate. I mean, just the mention of a pad scares me in tCl111S or where water management's going to be in those areas
that are blocked in by roads and stuff.
So at that micro level of a block in Goldcn Gatc is thc model picking up the data in there? So that if
someone's coming in for a permit is going to stick a couple of pads. you know what that's going to do in the area.
MR. HATCI lER: The model is a regional model. It's intended to look at watersheds or basins. It's not
intended to look at a single-Iamily residential lot.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the small -- so it's -- okay, so it's not --
MR. HATCHER: It's for large projects.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you give me a, you know. where it drops olt" I mean, la-acre PUD,
it's handy?
MR. HATCHER: 50 acres is good.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So ifwe're studying something, 50 acres, we will know what watcr's
coming into that now, what water's leaving that now and be ablc to dcsign and study a project and how it affects that?
MR. HATClIER: We will. When you get a stormwatcr pennit application, they typically will come in with
a model that's developed l()r the size project that they've got. So for the individual projects. a lot of times those
individual models may be better for that situation.
But for looking at the whole watershed, this regional model is a better approach.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because wouldn't it be good if you had a 50-acre site that you would know
what water flow that site has on it today, right"1 mean, again, we didn't have time to look through all this stuff But
some of the stuff I did look through, you showed historical and you showed current and you showed the differences.
It's kind of difficult to see.
But the impression I got, that this watershed we would be able to -- or a deveioper or somebody doing a study
would know what water is coming into that land, if there's a sheet tlow problem or something like that, and that they
could deal with that and essentially kcep it in the naturalllmn.
MR. HATCHER: The individual grid cells that the analysis is perfonned on are 1500 feet by 1500 feet. So
you can tell from one cell to the next which way thc water moves and what happens to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. HATCHER: So what you're asking there is you would be able to see the flows on a 50-acre project.
But this might not be the best model to do the analysis with thcm.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Within that. So thc micro Irom that, you would take this data and then use
something else to go down.
MR. HATCHER: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: I'm through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else"
MR. DeGOI,IAN: Pcter DeGolian. I'd like to just make a comment on that. Bccause the models as it's
currently set up is covering almost the entire Collier County. So we used a relatively large !,>rid cell to get modeling
Page 78 of 85
)
16\
1 f0
October 7, 2010
efficiencies.
Now, we do have the ability to make the model zoomed in where you're using a much smaller grid scale size.
So we could go down to, instead of 1 ,500 feet maybe a 50D-foot grid cell size of something if we needed to. It would
be a separate model that's cut out ofthe larger model and then, you know, at a much smaller area, but we could, you
know, refine that to look at more detail within a smaller area if we needed to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the model, let's say we had a major rainstorm in eastern Collier, would
that be able to protect a sheet flow through the county all the way down until it jumps in the Gulf'
MR. DeGOLIAN: Yes, sir, it sure would. [mean, the model encompasses the overland flow routines, the
infiltration into groundwater, movement through l,'foundwater and resurfacing into the canal network. So we would
be able to track. And we could do an individual water droplet if you wanted and track its movement throughout the
county.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. I'm good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa"
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Can we get some feedback from statT or the consultants in reference to some of
the comments made by the public"
MR. HATCHER: Anything in particular'>
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Well, the fact that it's not addressing a lot of the issues that are current. We
also heard that we're not mceting DEI' and federal guidelines. The fact that nothing's being done within Golden Gate
Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the elements ofthe discussion frDln everybody we heard, and members of
the public, was that there hasn't been enough time to deal with this from a stakeholder's viewpoint. And after 10 years
of waiting for it, to rush it through now seems kind of silly.
And thc reason that I didn't approach this with a rebuttal to the public's side of it was simply because if we
recommend that an extension of time is the most reasonable outcome, then those issues would be what that focus
would be for the next six months.
And maybe that helps you respond, because I don't know if you can, in the little bit of timc we have left
today, respond to -- I've got a page of issues the public brought up.
And I agree with Melissa, they've got to be addressed. But I see the solution that this Board could propose
was the six-month extension recommended and the demand that you perform stakeholder meetings in various
localities of the county that are affected most.
And one of the those in particular, and I heartily al,'fee with Tim Nance's presentation and Mike Ramsey's
arguments about Golden Gate Estates. It is just sitting therc in the middle of everywhere. And to hear some of your
recommendations that show how illogical some of them him are in regards to how unprepared you are to know the
local environment.
To do away with big lots. No, you can't. We havc got big lots. The basis should be how do we deal with 80
square miles of big lots, not do away with them, because that isn't going to happen. How do we deal with them.
Clustering, well, it's a good idea but we've just about clustered all the county's provisions we god. We got the
urban area, we've got the RLSA. I've not heard you even discuss how you've coordinated with the Van Buskirk model
that this county paid nearly $300.000 for. And I would love to see your plan overlaid with theirs, showing how the
buildout of the towns and the road corridors in the outlying areas are going to affect your plan.
I heard no discussion on thoroughfares and the corridor plans that Nick is going to grid all across -- if Nick
and Norm had their way, we'd have six lanes roads throughout this whole county every 10 feet apart. But that's a
reality. They are planning major road thoroughfares fares.
I think as a Board that's the kind of stutTwe need to see to help understand where the public's concerns are.
And maybe within a six month time ti-ame those concerns will 50 percent go away, 70 percent go away or at least be
mitigated by enough conversation and back and forth that hey, we got a way to work this out, we can live with this.
I think, Melissa, to answer your question as to responding to the public, I wasn't -- and they can still respond,
I don't know if they can adequately in the time we have left. And I think the consensus ofthis Board ought to be six
months more and the stakeholders demand --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: That was my thought in asking what the implications were in doing that. So if
that's where welre leaning, then Ijust wanted to make sure we were addressing some of these issues.
Page 79 01'85
16o!tobert2010 k3
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the Board's already heading in that direction. We can't vote on it because
this is a workshop, but I think our consensus is going to be along those lines. And my God, if you didn't take the hint
today that you need to spend more time with some of these people that attended today.
And I'm not saying you're going to come back and resolve every issue. I don't think that's possible in this
government system, not just Collier County but the world as a whole. But I think that we can go a long way to
meeting a lot of the criteria and concerns that were shown today and be more encompassing in all the other documents
that you have to benefit from.
And I mean that Van Buskirk model, if it's even a tenth of what it's supposed to be, it ought to give you a
really good road map to start with and show us how it all fits together. And a visual in that regard and how you're
fitting it together and then how those projects tit to an overall visual would be tremendously helpful to sell the
product.
And I didn't mean to jump in with my comments. but n
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Didn't mean to get you started.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, well, I've been sitting here quietly holding all and I--
COMMISSIONER AHERN: It's the obvious elephant in the room and no one was bringing it up, so I
wanted to make sure that n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on the table now.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Dorma's been patiently waiting too, she hasn't even had a lirst tum yet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I actually was going to actually answer Melissa, so you've done that more
than adequately, thank you. I don't need to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN Okay. Brad')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mac, this is the golden goose in the room. This is a private consultant.
So what does this mean') We can't just n you know, they havc outcomes that they have a schedule, they have a scopc
of work. Is what we're asking for part of that scope of work or is this a change order') You don't just go to a
consultant and say take six months longer.
MR. HAfCHER: You're correct. It would probably be a change order.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So? I mean, you know n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're thinking--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: n if we're telling them to take longer. If their scope of work, their deal was
to meet with the stakeholders and we're telling them we don't feci you adequately met with the stakeholders, they're
still within their deal and they should catch up on that. If their deaL that didn't include that, then we're writing a
change order liJr it. And whether it's a good idea or not, it's just a fact of life.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark'
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane')
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I really feel that Golden Gate Estates are important. We talked about the flood
maps. That's a big tliing. And we're talking the water. It all kind of goes together. And I feel that we need more time
and get some of these good opinions out there.
You're doing 50 acres, Golden Gate Estates are, you know, tive-acre lots. So Ijust feel tliat you're right, we
need more time. Ifs very important.
I happen to live in the Cocohatcliee slough. They just drained my canal. And boy, we went down in water in
n it seemed like overnight. And it was not good because guess what, I don't think it's coming back this year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mac, what do you feci about all this now'? We've expressed ourselves, the
desire for a longer period oftime. Stakeholders meeting, more involvement with some other comprehensive plans
that this COWlty has, the RLSA, the transportation corridors, the Van Buskirk model. Even the soiln you know Duke
Vasey'? You must know him. Okay. Duke's a mountain of in!'lfI11ation. I would suggest you get with him or his
board and get input tram them too.
All that stutl could take timc to do but it would be highly benetieial. This is not a project that's going to have
a minor impact on the county, it's going to have a phenomenal impact on the county. And I think that after 10 years
of being delayed, another six months isn't going to be a problem. So--
Page 80 of 85
1 ~1ber 7,~JO t\3
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm still worried about the deal, that's all. I mean, poor Mac's -- I mean, is
he going to go back and they're going to say, okay, let's rewrite the contract after the Planning Commission? We
didn't vote, remember, this is a workshop. All's we can do is give you a hunch on how we feel.
(Commissioner Midney leaves the Board room.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know, just maybe if you have to look at that deal and see if they in
fact did what they were supposed to do with the stakeholdcr situations. I mean, none of us have any privy to the
contracts or anything.
But, you know, just to say go take six months longer in a professional consultant, I'm not sure what that
means.
MR. HATCHER: We can have those discussions with the consultant, but we can also, and plan to, have
further discussions with the stakeholders and try and resolve some of these issues so you have a little bit more comfort
with them.
I have never envisioned that we were going to solve all of the water issues with this study. That is a gigantic
undertaking. The extent ofthe knowledge when we started this was not satisfactory to answer all the questions.
We're further along now, the water management has more gauges in. We know a lot more about the system than we
did when we started this.
But we're nowhere near -- I mean, you've heard the divergent discussions on water quality. EP A and DEI' are
arguing about setting nutrient standards. We're not going to resolve those issues between now and December, nor are
we going to resolve them in him another six months.
But I think it's still worthwhile to move forward and try and resolve as many issues as we can resolve now
and work towards resolving the other issues, identifying ways to work towards solutions on the other issues in the
future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mac -- Max, I think it is. Max, correct?
MR. HATCHER: Mac.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your objective is to protect water resources and the welfare of Collier
County residents by completion of the Watershed Management Plans.
Now, you just said that you never envisioned it to be the total plan. Maybe you need to change your
objective. Maybe when the scope of work was presented for the RFP, maybe it was a scope of work that was
envisioned by you as not reaching that.
But everybody that I have ever talked to rclating to watershed concerns has always been concerned with
taking the totality because they feel that you must look at the totality in order to appreciate what must be done.
And it has to consider even what will happen parcel by parcel hy parcel ultimately, because every home that's
built will represent a hindrance to the flow of watcr and the accumulation of water.
It seems that there has to be either on the part of those responsible, and I assume you are, to either change the
objective to limit it or to realize what we're saying. Because quite frankly, if this came for a vote today, I certainly
would not vote for what was presented as a solution. It has the elements of a solution, but it doesn't strike me that it is
suftlciently broad to be a solution.
MR. HA TOlER: We certainly did not bring this forward as a solution. This is an initial discussion for you
all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron'?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer's been concemed about the contract you have with your
consultants. And I would sayan more than one occasion, Mr. Gaddy brought it up and I believe the other person that
brought it up was Ms. Hecker, that we've only managed to plow through two of the eight things that were supposed to
happen.
So I don't think we have an issue with the consultants saying that they might not want another six months to
get through the issues they were supposed to get through in the first place on top of additional ones that have been
brought out by Commissioner Strain and members of the public.
So I really don't think that should be an issue. I think extending the time period only makes sense. We set up
a deadline. The reason that we set up the deadline for ourselves was because without it no one was doing anything.
You weren't even beginning the discussion of these watershed management plans which were supposed to be started
Page 81 of85
16 \ l-k?
October 7,2010
back in -- after '97, with a deadlinc originally of2000. And we didn't even fund them. We thought so little of having
to meet that 2000 deadline, we didn't evcn bother to fund the process until 2007.
So [think that thc most important thing is to do it and do it right and do it thoroughly. And if we're going to
spend any money, let's spcnd it wisely and get it done correctly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mac, it would bc helpful if you would send Mr. Bellows an electronic copy of
the contract and any addendums issued to datc. And Ray, would you distribute that to every member ofthis Planning
Commission.
MR. BELLOWS: Would be glad to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ihcn if you get a change order for any extension that is possibly coming out of
today's discussion, I'd like to see that change ordcr too. I deal with contracts every day of magnitudes equal to what
the county does, so I will read that contract thoroughly.
Anybody c1se havc any other issues')
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac, do you have adequate direction at tIllS point?
MR. HATCHER: I believe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, all is not lost. I think it's a good progress point. And today was a
good check and balance to see if the direction going nceds to be relined and moved a little bit. And I think that's why
you're here today.
So I do want to commend your sell: your stall and especially the people that worked on this at PBS&J very
much for all thcir work they've done to dale. And I think that they've got a product that through some molding we'll
have a better product in six months. So all is not lost.
Go ahead --
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: When do they come back'! When do we -- because it would be interesting
for us to review this material and then have a conversation with you.
One thing I noticed in this matcrial, some of it's old. And it could have been fed to us maybe as it went along
rather than drop a bomb on us. It would have been n you know, we're curious enough that I think we would have
enjoyed the installments. But anyway, when do wc come back')
I'm really intcrested in the program. I think thc outcome of that is the most important thing to me. So I
wouldn't mind following that drop of water through Golden Gate, you know, watch it go tram fill road block to till
road block.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think to do that, it would be hclpliJl to have more of the coordination with
some of the other products we've already paid for. And I think that's really important. That visual will give the public
who isn't into the minutia of the acronyms that you guys use and all the scientific data that Jennifer uses, for example,
a visual of how this tits into the county's master plan.
And that master plan is the one we'rc paying for. Why not use it. Show us how it tits to that plan. Show us
how the projects that you've selected arc going to have the impact that might work, versus being more focused on
projects that may be contributing to the problem.
So I think there's a lot of ways to go. And I think we could spend anothcr two or three hours on questions,
because I've got a whole page that would involve lenb'lhy discussions back and lorth that wc don't have time for in this
workshop.
And I look torward to anothcr point. If you feel it would bc beneficial to have further discussion on this at a
future Planning Commission meeting, by all means, get with Ray, let's get it scheduled and we'll follow up.
MR. HATCHER: Well, we had intended, and I b'lless still intend to make another update presentation at your
first meeting in November and then come back in December.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be excellent. I think wc would look t(lrward to that, and that would be a
better time to even bring in more questions that we have as a result of -- see, today was a learning experience, it gives
us the ability to read these documents, thcse five or 600 pages and know what they mean more thoroughly than just
reading thcm cold. So I think your November presentation would be an excellent idea.
MR. HATCHER: We would apprceiate -- the questions that you didn't ask, if you would like to submit them
tous.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, ['m going to. Every onc oflhem. But thank you, Mac, we appreciate it vcry
Page 82 of 85
16'
1 P<:,
October 7, 201 0
much.
Anybody else have any tinal comments to staff at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We sure appreciate your time and your patience here today, gentlemen. Thank you,
and members of the public. We'll get there.
Okay, we're going to come back on the 21 st and resume the Floodplain Management Ordinance that we didn't
quite finish with Mr. Wiley. That's a difficult ordinance. It's going to be difficult for us. I know it's going to be
difficult for staff and Robert Wiley to have to handle, because it's a distasteful subject, since it's forced on us by the
federal govemment. No one likes it. And somehow we need to come together to make sure we have the best product
we can for the people of the county. And I think we're all working to that same--
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree, it's important to have, but it's also forced regulation to have to deal willi.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's no other h any old business'? If not, well, the only other new business
is the elections of ofl1cers for the Planning Commission. And at this point we'll seek a nomination.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a nomination to have Mark Strain appointed as Chairman of the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was the same nomination I was going to make except I was going to
give him the ability to pick his own officers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it. Donna, does that tit well with you?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Works for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- and that was my concern, because Donna's been a very good
Vice Chair. And if the motion's made that way, I certainly would accept that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is made that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I very much appreciate it and your confidence. Thank you.
And as far as I'm concemed, Donna has done a great job in being at my right hand, and I hope she would like
to stay there.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: She did a great job in your absence.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: We noticed you were absent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since you have to be at my len, would you please mind taking over the Secretary's
position that Bob Vigliotti had? And what that would mean is each meeting you would have to basically make sure
any documentation that was supplied was given to the cOUl1 reporter and you'd have to take roll call at the beginning
of each meeting.
Does that work for you?
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Sure. That means I have to get here a couple of minutes early so I'm not out
of breath when I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's right. That's all part of it.
Well, if that pleases the Board, I just as soon we set it up that way and we go forward. Is that okay with
everyone?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, seem's to be acknowledged.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we going to vote'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion with those people in mind, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed')
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Page 83 of 85
1 ~Jher 7, 110 t<3
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, what is that, 7-1. Mr. Midney had to leave early.
Okay, with that, any other discussion?
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just one conUllent. And Ray, I asked staff to change it again. The e-mail
address that's on your contact list is my personal e-mail, and I've asked Jt" that to be removed. It is the Collier.gov
email.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Ray, as soon as Barry has an e-mail, would you send that to us in
the new format I assume --
MR. BELLOWS: We'll rcvisc the contact list with the correct Collicr.gov.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mine also.
MR. BELLOWS: You also. And we're going to work on getting Barry his account set up today -- or
tomorrow, I guess.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Barry, you've got a whole pile of books possibly coming to you, orientation
and all kinds of good things.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (jood. I've had a tour too n
MR. BELLOWS: We had a n
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'm going to go to the LDC workshop tomorrow, and I'm trying to dive in --I'm
sorry .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie' takes earc of us, she kecps us straight.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: We already did at least a couple hours or so. And I'm going to go to the LDC
workshop. Anything you -- I've got a whole hunch of books, I almost got a hernia going up to my car.
MR. BELLOWS: lIe's been provided the l.and Developmein Code and the SIC Code. We're in the process
of putting together the Comprehensive Plan booklct for him. And we also had all the other inltmnation that everyone
typically gets, the organizational chart, the rules and regulations Itlr thc CCPC and how they operate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's important too because some new members haven't realized it as they come on,
the Sunshine rules in regarding discussion amongst members attenvords and before meetings.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I have a date, I think is it next Thursday, I've got it right here. I'm going to a
workshop on that.
MS. ASHTON: It's October 13th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Is there any other business of the Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is therc a motion to adjourn')
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa, seconded by--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
And we're adjourned. I don't think anybody', going to objcet to that.
Page 84 of 85
16 Ilk?;
October 7, 2010
*************
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 4:43p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
7htuLN.;J S1h~)V
MARK p. STRAIN., Chairman {1
, '-J}
f.i!-rv}~-) /C/e(,:( 'd..JY-n
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
11/4) /0
( ,
, as presented
1/
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHAI~F OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE'
NOTTINGHAM
Page 85 of 85
m~~~~~l~~
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
17'/ / /
:1), H: ~ / tl.. I 1.k;
V / bltofier21, *'0
v'
By:.......................
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
October 21 , 2010
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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of
the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
~r
XQf~~/'1
v5
Mark Strain, Chainnan (Absent)
Melissa Ahem
Donna Reed-Caron, Acting Chairwoman
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Barry Klein (Absent)
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schitler
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Misc. Carres:
Date:
Item #
Page] of 56
CCpie-S :j
1 ~ctler 21,~10 K?
ACTING CI IAlRWOMAN CARON: Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the October 21 st Collier
County Planning Commission meeting.
If you'll all rise, wc'lI pledgc.
(Pledge orAlIegianee was recited in unison.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Good morning. We havc to muddle through today. Chairman Strain
is out sick, so we will just lIy to plod along as best wc can.
Ms. Homiak, will you do the roll"
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Sure.
Mr. Eastman.
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahem.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Me Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midncy.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Herc
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain is absent.
Ms. Homiak is here.
Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And Mr. Klein is absent.
ACTING CHAJRWOMAN CARON: Yes, I believe he had mcntioned that at our last meeting, so we knew
he was going to be -- he had a prior commitment before accepting his Commissioner position.
*** Any addenda to the agenda by anybody"
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I havc nothing
***Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is November 4th. Everybody going to be here as far
as we know? Good.
***And now we have approval of minutes. And we have scveral here. We have August 25th EAR, AUb'llst
27th EAR, September 16th regular meeting, and the September 20th AUlR.
Does anybody have any notes on any ofthe -- everybody's okay"
I would just note that on September 20th, it's Ms. Ramsey, not Mr. Ramsey. But other than that -- Mr.
Schiffer, did I hear you rumbling?
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: No, I'm sorry.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: How about making a motion"
COMMISSIONER SClllFFER: I was rumbhng but -- move to approve the minutes.
ACTING CHAJRWOMAN CARON: Do I have a second"
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sccond.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All those in tavor"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAJRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Thanks.
'..
Page 2 or 56
16'
Ih
October 21,2010
***BCC report, Ray'?
MR. BELLOWS: There were no land use items heard on the October 12th BCC meeting.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: There will be no Chairman's report because we don't have a
Chairman. ***Which brings us to consent.
Mr. Basi's up first.
MR. BOSI: Mike Basi, Comprehensive Planning.
As I provided within the agenda item package number 8-A, the recollUllendation memo from the Planning
Commission to summarize the September 20th special meeting for the AUIR, I believe that I entailed (sic) and
summarized the recommendations of the Planning Commission to the BCC within all the components of the AUIR.
An additional component I provided to you was the updated transportation section that has been moditied,
based upon the impact fee reduction that was approved by the Board of County Conullissioners --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I think your mic. is off.
MR. BOSI: Mike Basi, Comprehensive Planning.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And Mike, do it slower this time.
MR. BOSI: Yes, ma'am.
As I provided within the distribution pack for agenda item 8-A, there was a summary memo ofthe
recommendations that the Planning Commission had provided during the September 20th special meeting on the
AUIR. All the components I believe have been summarized as accurately reflected by review of the minutes.
The one area that there is additional infomlation, it's the updated transportation section. At the last meeting in
September, the Board of County Conunissioners had adjusted the transportation impact fee by a 42 percent reduction,
and it had a corresponding reduction within the transportation overall CIP program. That updated AUIR section will
be provided to the Board of County Commissioners during their November 10th special meeting for the AUIR, the
CIE adoption.
Any questions or corrections that are needed within the memo'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody have any'?
Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I had a couple of questions on the transportation AUlR. I'm not sure if there's
anyone here.
MR. BOSI: That was provided -- that was provided as an informational piece. Because we are not hearing
the AUIR, I'm not sure how far we can get into it. What would be more appropriate I believe is when we hear the
CIE. The CIE is also based upon that information that's contained within that supplemental packet. And that's where
the pertinent discussions I believe should be had, because this is the consent agenda.
But those items and those questions can definitely be addressed at the CIE portion.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, in point offact, Mike, we did reserve the right to discuss this--
both in terms of the AUIR, as well as with the CIE--
MR. BOSI: The recommendation that was provided was you reserved the right to modify the
recommendation based upon the updated CIE information. And so with that recommendation, and consistent with
that recommendation, during the ClE you can make that action or make those approvals and it will be retroactive in
terms of reflected in the AUIR record.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mike, it's on potable water. In there -- and it's discussing the
dissenting vote. And as the dissenting vote, I was thinking, could you add non-county utility providers. Because the
intent was those county residents provided service by the City of Naples. I mean, I'd rather you say that.
MR. BOSI: I can make that clarification.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Good. Do I have a malian, then'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will move that we accept this memorandum as being what we did in a
meeting with the changes that we madc.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you, Ms. Homiak.
Page 3 of 56
16'
1~
October 21,2010
All those in favor'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sometimes Ray gets it, sometimes not.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, what was the vote?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, but I've hecn trying to hear. The two of us are having stmggles
here. There was a vote --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I'm sorry, I didn't reaJizc that.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: There was a votc for approval of the AUIR, as offered.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I would go along with that, I'll say yea.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Can you hear now')
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you have to talk into the microphone. See, we should be able to get it
through this speaker and we're not getting it. There's a button on that thing there that works.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: For the tclevision audience, we're just kind of waiting so we can get
our microphone issues squared away. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you get it, we're going to know it inU11ediately.
All right, well, Ijust ask Mr. Schiffer ifhe could talk a little louder. He's got great tones, but I can't hear
them.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Is it better, Mr. Murray? Are you able to hear'?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll stmggle with it. They'll get it tixed at some point. It's not functioning
yet. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. Because I don't want to proceed if you can't hear. I mean--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I will stmggle -- but I'll pipe up if! can't hear.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, thank you.
Then you're all set on that --
MR. BOSI: Sure, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- Mike, thank you. and we are on to CU-2008-AR-14078, the Cemex
C onstmction.
Does anybody have any questions on that consent itcm?
(No response.)
MR. DEMPSEY: Good morning, Madam Chair. For the record, I'm Will Dempsey from 821 Fifth Avenue
South, representing the petitioner, Cemex Constmction Materials of Florida.
I can confiml that we've reviewed --
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. DEMPSEY: We've reviewed the materials that were prepared by staff following the last Planning
Commission hearing. Can confirm that the approval document. the stipulations and conditions attached to the
approval accurately reflect the outcome of the last hearing.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you. Anybody here have any questions?
I just have one. The Iifc ofthe mine was stated to be 35 years: is that correct?
MR. DEMPSEY: Yes, ma'am.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: That's not reflected anywhere in this resolution. Should it be'! And
I'm asking that of staff.
MR. DEMPSEY: And that's actually the expected life expectancy of the mine, Ms. Caron.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Right, I understand.
MR. DEMPSEY: The actual life expectancy llfthc mine is going to depend on market conditions, the
volume of sale. Thc mine could wrap up sooner than 35 years if the market is hot. It could last a little longer than 35
Page 4 of 56
16 1 1 (0
October 21, 2010
years --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Right, I fully rmderstand that. But I would ask the County Attorney's
OtI1ce, should a tinal date be stated so that the conditional use would have to be renewed if it went beyond 35 years'?
Wouldn't we want to have the ability to re-review this --
MR. KLATZKOW: In 35 years'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- after 35 years'?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure that I personally see the point in that. But ifthat's something that the
Planning Commission deems pertinent, it could make the recommendation.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: That's fine. I don't have anything -- you know, I don't have any dog in
the tight, I just was asking a question.
So you don't --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, what I'm saying is it's your prerogative.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah, okay.
MR. DEMPSEY: If I might, Madam Chair, such a stipulation would be unusual in the context of a rnining
operation. Obviously history has some relevance on this approval. And we're not aware of any mining operation, any
conditional use mining approval that is subject to such a timc limitation.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I know of one mine that has a number of conditions for the approval. And was
Jones mine. So that's not quite so. I mean, you can put conditions on it if you so choose. But I don't really--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My thought is this, that it's already in the record. It was addressed in the
record. And whether or not that record is attended to the resolution is another question, which is your point, I think.
And there was also a reservation in there that they desire that should they need it, further time, that they could
come back seeking that. That was also in the record.
So I'm comfortable. The people 34 years from now will have that struggle if they have to amend it.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right, then, do I have a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will make one. I move that we accept this as representative of exactly
what we did in the hearing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All in favor')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Thank you.
MR. DEMPSEY: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: "'Now we are into our advertised public hearings.
And tirst up is PUDA-2007-AR-11961, Sonoma Oaks Mixed Use Planned Development.
Mr. Y ovanovich, thc floor is yours.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ex parte?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yes, I would like you to swear everybody.
(Speakers were duly swom.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Now, disclosures. We'll start with Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: None.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich briefly.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich too.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: None.
Page 5 of 56
16 I 1 f<'3
October 21, 20 I 0
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner.
With me I have several people that can answer any questions that I can't answer. Todd Dubovy with
Bessemer Trust is the owner's representative, as is Rick Almalavagc and Mark De Sabado. Margaret Perry with
WilsonMiller-Stantec is the professional planner on the project. And Dave Wheeler is the transportation consultant
on this projcct.
I've put on the visualizer the zoning map and the location map.
This property is approximately 37-and-a-halfacres. It's already zoned the Sonoma Oaks MPUD.It's located
on the west side of Collier Boulevard, just north of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
The current zoning permits 112 residential dwelling units and 120,000 square feet of commercial otlice uses.
The purpose of to day's proposcd amendment is actually to correct the residential density based upon the
acreage that exists within the residential parcel Irom the 112 units that werc previously approved to 114 units and to
add senior housing such as independent living units, assisted living units and skilled nursing units as a pernutted use
on the residential portion of the project.
The maximum number of senior housing units that can be approvcd or built on the residential portion of the
project is 456. There's a conversion formula in the document that says fiJr each four senior housing units, you give up
one, I'll call it regular, residential unit. So there's a conversion f,mnula in there. So the maximum that you could do --
if we did a totally exclusively senior housing project would bc 456 seluor housing units on the residential piece of the
property.
The development standards table has been rcvised to inelude appropriate development standards for the
senior housing units. The maximum zoned height would be 61 feet and the maximum actual height would be 69 feet
for the senior housing units.
I'm going to put the master plan up next. So I'm talking now to the area labeled R on the master plan.
We'vc ineluded a minimum setback of200 feet for any buildings that are greater than 51 feet in height from
the western boundary, which is the Black Bear Ridgc subdivision within thc Wolf Creek PUD. For buildings greater
than 51 teet in height.
And we've also ineluded a I OO-foot setback I'lr a prohibition I'Jr buildings being oriented parallel to Black
Bear Ridge.
These setbacks came about when we were having discussions with the developer of Black Bear Ridge, and
we've carried those forward in our neighborhood inlonllation meetings and as conditions lor the senior housing
project.
I've spoken to a few of the Planning Commission members, and in those discussions a common question that
was asked was regarding the development standards t'lr what I'll call regular multi-family within the project, not the
senior housing. A couple questions were raised regarding the height, and another question was raised regarding the
minimum unit size.
Not to take you through the long history of what we werc going through but at one timc -- and we start the
amendment process it was in 2007, I believe. The market actually was still pretty good for residential at that time and
prices were still pretty high. We were considering doing an at1"rdable housing project on this site, and actually had
had a NIM on regarding doing alTordable housing, which would have allowed us to get some bonuses.
So those development standards that you see in the multi-fanuly section actually got carried lorward Irom
when we were considering doing multi-family as an atfordable housing project.
We have gone back and looked at if we were to do just a regular multi-family product, which would be the
114 units. We do not need the height or the minimum unit size that we had previously included in the table if we
were going to do an at1'lrdable housing project.
So wc would be prepared to go back to the original multi-family development standards. And really, the
major change is you would have a zoned height of 45 feet li1f the rcgular multi-Iamily that was the original standard
in the original PUD, and a minimum unit sizc of I ,OO() square feet. So lor plain multi-family, we would go back to
those development standards.
We've also asked for a modification for the detached single-family to go tram a six-loot side setback to a
live-foot side setback, which results in a minimum building separation instead of the 12 feet to 10 feet. The thought is
therc is a lot of popular product that's being sold in Lely Resort, in Autumn Woods and in Verona Walk that have
Page 6 of 56
16' 1.f<'?
October 21,2010
these standards. And we would like the ability to have that type of product in this community. So that's the reason we
requested the change from a six-foot side setback to a tive-foot setback to allow us to offer that type of product that's
popular in other communities.
For the commercial parcel we added a few business services, such as advertising agencies, adjustment and
collection services, credit card services. We've added medical and dental labs as an allowed use. We've added
lniscellaneous health and allied services as an allowed use. And we've added on the commercial portion also the
ability to do senior housing. And that's a common allowed use in the conunercial zoning districts.
There would be a point six floor area ratio for the senior housing on actually both parcels, both the residential
and the commercial parcel. But wc've added that as an allowed use.
We've kept the height the same in the commercial, which is 42 feet zoned height, but we've allowed for the
ability to have two-story uses on the cOllUllercial parcel instead of just single-story uses on the parcel.
When we started tllis process of amending the pun, it was our goal to not change the transportation impacts
that were associated with the original PUD. We simply wanted to add uses that would be allowed but not increase the
traffic intensity that was allowed under the original PUD.
So as you review the TIS we've providcd you, we analyze what were the traffic impacts related to 112
residential units and 120,000 square feet of commercial office uses. And under that TIS, we had 583 new trips. And
as you look at the formula, you have more trips than that, but there's internal capture and there's a formula you use.
So basically the net new trips that resulted from the original PUD was 583 new weekday p.m. peak hour trips. And
that was the most intense hour, or use.
We have kept that commitment in the PUD that we're moving forward with in the development standards
commitment. So whatever we put on this property, however many single-family, multi-family senior housing units or
commercial uses that go on this property, we're still capped at the same 583 p.m. peak hour trips that you originally
approved along with the PUD. We're just asking fi.lf some additional allowed uses to try to attract an appropriate use
on this property.
We've had a couple ofNIMs, but the most recent NIM involved the senior housing aspect of it. I didn't really
receive any negative comments regarding putting senior housing on this property if we're able to attract a senior
housing provider. It's a compatible use to the single-family to our west, to the proposed single-family to the north, to
the fire station to the north, to the Mission -- r think it's Mission Hills shopping center to our south.
So we believe it's detinitely a compatible use with what surrounds us, and frankly will hopefully be a
welcome use to -- as that area develops more, there's a lot of rooftops out there, and as the community ages, we think
this is a good location for senior housing.
Your staff is recommending approval. We're requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of our request to the Board of County Commissioners.
And that's an overview of what we're requesting. We can answer any specific questions the Planning
Commissioners may have regarding our petition.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Bob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are there -- you said that the floor area ratio is point six-four, I think.
MR. YOV ANOVrCH: Point 6.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so I'm clear. I think that was a slip of the tongue, but that's minor.
With regard to the commercial area, if you were to put in the -- just to verify now, if you were to put in the
assisted living or the others, you would still be limited to the 42-feet zoned height there in the commercial'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Oh, no, no. On the senior -- for senior housing for the commercial standards,
we would be allowed the same development standards as far as height goes on the conU11ercial piece, which was --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought would be the case. Okay. Well, the documents as you
know relate to just what you had otJered in the first instancc. Did you prepare a modification document to show the
new offerings, as it were?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the -- really, the only changes we would make is if you go to Page 8 of your
document, that's Exhibit B-1.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There would basically be two changes. Under the rninimum floor area, under
multi-family, that would go to 1,000 square feet. And then where you see height under -- you would have, instead of
Page 7 of 56
16'
1
~?
October 21, 2010
61 feet zoned height or 69 feet actual height, that would be 45 feet zoned height and I think 55 feet actual would be an
appropriate number there. And we didn't have actual heights in the last pUD, we only had zoned heights in the
original PUn. But that 45 feet is consistent with the original Sonoma Oaks pUD document.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be the same as the elubhouse height then'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you n should this be approved, you would n would you not offer a
document that at least consent that would retlect all of n
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Yes, in your consent agenda we would come back with those two changes to the
development standards table.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Any other n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Schilfer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to get the unit count. On the residential property you can have the
what, 456 would be the maximum number of n
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Senior housing units.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: n senior housing. On the conullercial it would be solely limited by the
floor area ratio.
MR. YOV ANOVICII: Floor area ratio, conect.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And you can do both senior housing and commercial, so you're not
limited n if you do thc senior housing, you're not taking away any of the commercial'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. But remember, we're still capped by our overall trips of the 583 that
was approved in the original pUD.
The reality is we will not bc able to do all 120,000 square feet of commercial and, you know, a point six floor
area ratio of CCRC on the commercial piece. And in fact we will not be able to do 456 senior housing units and the
full 120,000 square feet under the trip cap of 583.
So there will be an adjustment to one ofthosc two standards when we come forward, it's just n it's an allowed
max of each of those two uses. But reality is wc won'tmax out both, because that will exceed the 583 net new trips
that we've capped ourselves under the PUD document.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one qucstion. I low do you see mixing the use of senior living with the
commercial'? I mean, this is a mixed use pUD. How do you sec the sites being developed'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Arc you talking about if we were to just n on the same site or are you talking about
the R?
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFFR: Do you scc commercial lirst floor and then three stories above it of --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think that we would do that. I don't think we would have that type of a
development. I mean, they probably n I mean, we haven't really designcd anything that would put both, but I would
imagine there would be some separation of uses.
I don't think this would be a n maybe the market would allow that. I don't know, Mr. Schiffer, ifthe market
would really want senior housing abovc retail. I don't see a senior housing Mercato really coming about. I don't mean
that to be flip, Ijust n but I don't know, who knows what people may want in the future. Maybe that is a concept they
would like.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It might bc a good idca.
Okay, thanks.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Donna')
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Rich, how many senior housing has been zoned in the last
five years?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wcll, I'd likc to say I've done all of the zoning in Collier COWlly but I haven't, so In
and I have not gone back and looked at every rezone. I could tell you the projects that I've been involved in that allow
senior housing as a use. I believe thc Taonnina PUD, which I did within the last year or so, which is down on Santa
Pagc 8 of 56
-
16 I 1 f(,
October 21,2010
Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard allows it as a use.
Will it ever be built? I do not know.
I was recently involved in the Sienna Lakes PUD, which is on Orange Blossom. That project is exclusively a
CCRC project. So that's the only exclusive CCRC use that I've recently done. And that's on Orange Blossom and
between Livingston Road and Airport Road. So there's quite a distance separation from both of those projects from
this piece.
I did another independent living project on Vanderbilt Beach Road, a smaller one on Vanderbilt Beach Road
right by Wilshire Lakes. That's another one that's just indcpcndent living.
And then there's one, the old Szabo Nursery, which is on U.S. 41, that one would allow independent and
assisted living units together in the same project.
So those are ones that I have personal knowledge of. I have not had a chance to go back and look at all the
other zoning that's happened in the last five years.
But again, what we're looking for is what does the market want. If the market says this is an appropriate
location to put senior housing, then scnior housing will come here. Just like on the PUD's that have asked lor senior
housing on the use, again, the market's going to dictate if that use is actually developed or not developed.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it just seems that every one lately is for senior living, and I thought
maybe you wanted to get all the residents in Collier COWlty in senior living places, because you just did another one,
And you're right, Szabo was run right next to my church. But you just did another one where you're asking
for the old Toll Brothers on Immokalee Road.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Correct, we haven't done It. We're in the process. And you're right, I mean n
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Everything is senior housing, is--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Ebert, we go through cycles of what is the -- what is the market
asking for as far as potential uses in the community. And again, the market will decide whether any of these other
projects actually become senior housing products or not.
I mean, I equate it to n first of all your Comprehensi ve Plan allows senior housing to be an allowed use
anywhere in the urban area. Just like it allows residential uses to be allowed anywhere in the area. So I think you'll
see more and more PUD's coming through with the full range of residential uses, and the market will dictate which
ones of those or which one of those will actually be developed,
I mean, we have tons of residential PUD's that come through and not all of them are going to get built on the
same schedule. The market will dictate what the product mix is. I think you'll see more and more of that because it is
a popular potential use on property, as people age and that need goes there. Eventually we'll hopefully all live long
enough to want to live in that type of--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you know how many have been built in the past tive years?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: None of the projects that Ijust spoke of have been built in the last five years. Sienna
Lakes was probably approved, I think it was last year, as was Taormina. I think they were both '09 projects. Szabo
may have been in '08. So they're all lairly n they're all fairly recent, you know. They're all in that time lrame of they
were started when the market was still pretty good and then, you know, the market as we all know has slowed a little
bit. So I'm not surprised that they're a little behind on their hoped-for start datcs.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: To Ms. Ebert's point, we are going to end up in this county with
CCRCs on every comer, as we have Walgrcens or CVS, the way things are going.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Donna, maybe that's a good nImean, if this becomes the baby
boomers' dying grounds, it will be good lor the economy.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, we're certainly trying.
On your standards table n
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which one"
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: The n well, both of them.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: You have n well, I'm seeing two different things for the CCRCs, and
it's 61 and 69, is that correct, on the residential portion?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Y es. You're talking about Exhibit B-1 now, just so you and I are on the same page.
Page 9 of 56
161
1
~?
October 21, 2010
Yes, ma'am.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: 13-1.
On B-2, it's listed two different ways. One is 61 and 65. And the other is 61 and 69.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for catching that. It should be -- they should both be 61 and 69.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is that, Donna')
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: On the commercial B-2 cxhibit. It says maximum building height. It
says 61 and 69.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, out of curiosity, wherc do you come up with eight feet more for the
actual? You know I don't believe in putting the actual in, but just out of curiosity --
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Unfortunately wc have no choice but to put actual in now.
We've donc some preliminary layouts of -- is this actually a site that would be -- or can we give building
types of people who develop CCRCs would want. And bascd upon other product type that's out there, those are
actual numbcrs based upon product that's out therc.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you know my coneem is that it's going to end up causing flat roofs
instead of the beautiful roofs that we havc, just to -- becausc you can hit the height with a flat roof. So that's not what
you're doing, saying oh, we1re going to have a flat roof and that's just the OVelTIlll of an elevator or --
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: No, I think that it ,- we've addresscd that a couple of ways with -- and remember, I'm
not allowed to use tippy-top.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can here--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can but I n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's your use of tippy-top that causes problems.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, actually I was told I have to use tippy-top in truth in advertising because people
want to know exactly what the top is, so -- we'llliave to -- we've done parapet roofs to basically give the appearance
of not -- to not have a flat roof. if you will. Although that's technically a Hat rooffrom a measurement standpoint.
But the parapet puts a nicc little roof treatment up there.
And we could also do -- and help me on the terminology, I'll.lust call it a regular root; if that's the right way,
where you measure it to the midpoint of the root; we would have that flexibility.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Donna.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, Ijust wanted to on Page 9 and 15 of B-1, residential
developmcnt standards, under numher two, you were going to change the second line to all buildings.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's tine.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVlCII: You're right, we did talk about whether that meant all buildings. And it does mean
all buildings.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So it will read all buildings within 100 feet have to be oriented--
cannot bc oriented parallel.
Any other questions t()r Mr. Y ovanovich bel(Jre we go to staff'
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: You're olTthe hook for a few minutes anyway.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For thc record, my name is Kay Deselem, I am a principal planner in
zonmg.
You have received a copy of the stall report with the rcviscd date at the hottom of 10/5/10. And the statl
report goes into the typical detail of a statl report, explaining who the property owners and applicants are, explaining
the requestcd action, giving you information about the gcographie location as well as providing the location map tor
you so you can see where the property is in relationship to the rest ofthe county and what the adjacent zoning might
be.
Further details are provided in the purpose and description of the project on Page 2 ofthe statf report,
continuing on to Page 3 where you will see a discussion about the surrounding land use and zoning.
Thc growth managemcnt discussion is on Page 4. Staff has gone into detail about the requested density and
Pagc 10 of 56
16 I 1 ~?
October 21, 2010
finding of consistency with the Growth Management Plan land use designation.
On Page 6, you have a discussion about the transportation element of the Growth Management Plan and a
discussion about the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
The conclusion of the Growth Management Plan discussion is on Page 7, finding that -- or recommending
that the petition be found consistent with all applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Staff's further analysis begins on Page 7, going into environmental review, transportation review, providing
comments from Utilities staff, Emergency Management, and Parks and Recreation staff.
The zoning services review comments begin on Page 8. And staff has tried to do an in-depth analysis
showing the proposed differences between the existing PUD and this amendment.
There is one deviation that is being requested as part of this approval, and that deviation was approved in the
original PUD, and they're carrying it forward as part of this.
Beginning on Page II you will find the PUD findings wherein staff is providing the findings to support their
recommendation. And those continue on Page 12 with the rezone findings, which again support staff's
recommendation of approval for this petition.
In summary, staff, as I've said, is recommending approval, finding that we recommend that it be found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
And if you have questions, I know there is somebody from transportation here, as well as myself to respond
to questions you might have.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Questions')
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to make a verification, the change that was offered this morning by Mr.
Y ovanovich having to do with this change in standards, he's consulted with you in this matter and you're aware of it
completely'?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, those are acceptable to statf.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And you anticipate either you will produce a document that reflects
all the new detail and/or I think on their Page 9, I guess it is, just reviewing that, the standards, that's dated September
27th, unless I'm in error, which I probably am, looks to me at least first blush that they've already said that they would
go with the 1,000 feet for single-family and then the 750 for multi-family. No, that needs to be changed to 1,000,
correct?
So that is the one that needs to be adjusted.
But you also need to, if you're going to provide the docwnent as you have in your sUnllnary on Page 8, I
would think you'd also want to provide that at consent.
MS. DESELEM: Staff and the applicant as well as the County Attorney's office do a combined effort to
come up with a revised PUD document that reflects the changes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That will be fine, as long as we have a clear and concise statement.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, I show changes on Page 8 and nine and ten.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Okay'?
MS. DESELEM: That is correct. And staff is in agreement with those changes.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anyone else, questions for Kay'?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Kay, these may -- it looks like at least the first one will require John's
comments, John Podczerwinsky's comments. But you had given me a copy of an e-mail from Mark Strain with
questions regarding this PUD. So why don't we get into those now, since they're directed at staff.
MS. DESELEM: I don't know that they're directed at staff. They were sent to staff so that they could be
brought up today. But I think a lot ofthem will require the response of the petitioner, with the exception of--
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I haven't read the whole thing here.
MS. DESELEM: The first one I iliink is --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: But the first one specifically says John Podczerwinsky, so --
MS. DESELEM: Yes, that one is definitely a Transportation Element. And if -- we haven't read those into
the record or anything but I can ask John --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, I'll read them into the record.
Page 11 of 56
1 ~jer 21, ~1O ~
MS. DESELEM: Okay, so I'll ask John to come up so he can respond.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Good morning, John. Let me just read these questions, that we do
have it on the rccord.
It says John Podczerwinsky's statement in the stall'report saying this project has no additional impacts seems
erroneous when one scenario that I think could occur is that they could have 114 residential units, 120,000
commercial, and CCRCs up to a point six-four on the commercial.
The reason 1 think this is pertinent is because the only conversion for CCRC is in the R tract. And there is no
conversion, just an add-on, in the C tracts.
I would suggest that if this use is intended to stay in the C tract, then either a new TIS is needed showing the
worst case scenario, or they provide a conversion in the commercial as they did in the residential.
As far as this being somewhat protccted by capping the traflic count, that still leaves us with a TIS that is
inconsistent with the standard policy statf has applied t()r all rezones, and that is to look at the worst case scenario.
For a clean record, this PUD, it would seem, should have a TIS to match the uses.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: Yes, ma'am. I do havc a copy of the letter and this question.
Taking a look at the traflic study, I do recognize that there has not been a conversion factor between the
120,000 square feet and the CCRC units that could be allowed in its place on that tract C.
After a brief reviewal' this last night -- and I'm going to put an exhibit on the overhead here and I'll show you.
Okay, what I did was I took a look at the existing shopping center trips that they have in tract C, which you'll
notice there towards the top, they came out with roughly 480 total two-way adjusted trips that would be adjusted for
internal capture and pass-by.
Adhering to the 120,000 square foot limit, assuming that that is the maximum you guys could have under the
point six FAR in tract C, and then making the assumption that you would have roughly 700 square feet per CCRC
unit, I calculated that out --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I'm sorry, say that again.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: Looking at 120,000 square feet, which is the maximum that they've looked at for
shopping center in tract C, okay, and then making the assumption that is the maximum square footage that they're
allowed under the point six FAR, and Rich can n that's not it"
Well, these are very round, rough numbers. These arc cstimated numbers for me. I had to come up with this
last night real quick just to make surc that we had this analysis in thcre.
Using that 120,000 square loot basis and giving us a rough conversion to units, CCRC units, and assmning
about 700 square feet per CCRC unit, we came out with about a maximum of 171 units that they'd be able to fit in
there.
In any case, what that came out to when I did the trip generation tor 171 units, potential units there, it came
out to about 70 total two-way trips. And my understanding with the FAR cap, and also the trip generation cap, as long
as both those are adhered to, there is no way thcy would exceed 583 p.m. peak hour trips oll~site.
They would be able to have both uses allowed within tract C, trommy understanding, but they wouldn't be
able to exceed the total trip generation that has been approved. And Rich is shaking his head yes that they are
adhering to that trip cap and the FAR cap.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, I tried to address this in my comments. What we've said is t'>f the entire
project, which is 37-and-a-halfacres, give us 583 adjusted net new peak hour weekday trips. Here's the laundry list of
things we would like to put on the propcrty, but we will nevcr exceed those 583 net new peak hour trips.
So we think the comment that's addrcsscd in number one is addressed by that cap. You don't need a
conversion formula, because the cap in the trips limits what we can placc on the property. And as I said, I already
know that I can't -- because of that cap which is based upon today's zoning, I alrcady know 1 cannot do the full 456
senior housing units on the residential and the ti.Jll 120,000 square teet on the commercial. I already know I'm not
going to do that.
So rm going to have to give up something. I'm either going to give up conuncrcial retail and max out the
senior, or I'm going to reduce the senior and -- to max out the commercial. Morc than likely therels going to be a
combination of the two. I'm going to reduce -- thcre's going to be a reduction of one of those.
And that's why we think Mr. Strainls comment numher one is actually addressed in that cap. We didn't
address the worst case scenario because we didn't want a worst case scenario, we wanted it to be consistent with the
Page 12 of 56
...(~
;1
16 \ 1 r3
October 21, 201 0
existing zoning today.
And we shouldn't be penalized for voluntarily capping ourselves from a worst case scenario. And that's what
the intent was with those numbers.
And I hope that that satisfactorily explains that I can't ever go above 583, so I don't really need a conversion
formula because I've already taken care of it in the cap on trips.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on this -- and it's really Ray for staff. Ray, is this going to be
something you're going to be able to track, because this is going to come in in multiple projects. You're going to have
to keep some sort of a matrix or an inventory as to where the trips are generated, right'?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
As the project develops, they'll be coming in with site development plans. And as part of that process there's
a concurrency review and a traftic study submitted at each stage, and that's how we would track and monitor.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
And then, John, would they be able to benefit from mass transit if it's out there? I mean, obviously if people
are using buses and stuff, they should be able to take trips offwjth that, right'?
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: There is currcntly no rcduction for mass transit use that's allowed in the TIS. We
analyze it as though there's no reduction for that. But yes, they would be able to take advantage of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If we start to analyze that way. I mean, we should encourage benefit of
that, so --
MR. pODCZERWINSKY: Understood.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody else'? Questions, comments'?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So if we're not taking mass transit into account, why shouldn't we be'?
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: I'm taking a look towards my supervisory staff and asking the question.
At this point really, we don't look at it because there's no reduction that's offered by the lTE Trip Generation
Handbook, which is commonly used to calculate how many trips are generated on a site based on the uses that are
allowed on that site.
At this point there has been no conversion ratio offered from lTE that shows a direct reduction that we could
take from trip generation when considering mass transit as a use.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It seems as though there should be.
MR. FEDER: I'm going to defer a little bit here, but in your reporting, it's going to be actual trips generated.
So if in fact mass transit trips are utilized, that's going to reduce the actual trips generated, and that's how that would
be taken advantage of.
So while you're not factoring that in to your initial costs as a review, as you're looking at the trips that are
generated out of the project with these of each phase or successive development, that would come into account
because it would reduce the number of trips generated out of the site, auto trips generated.
MR. KLA TZKOW: So you're going to allow an increase in density based on buses?
MR. FEDER: If in fact they're utilizing that, or people are walking, bicycling, or doing anything where
they're generating an auto trip, that would come into account in your annual mports, would it not'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just on that also, John, it is a two-way trip we're talking about'?
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So theorctically this could be designed wisely enough to bus people into it,
thus allow further benefit --
MR. FEDER: Theoretically, yes --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- mass transit.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but you're not capping the density here this way. What you're saying is that if we
get more efticient in transportation, this one particular devclopment will be able to take advantage of that and increase
their density.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: No, it will be capped by the unit counts and their trip generation cap--
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, the trip generation could change based on--
Page 13 of 56
16 \ 1~?1
October 21 , 20 I 0
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: It's based on calculated ITE trip generation rates. They're a common formula--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the leak would only occur if ITE starts to allow for it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: But that's now becoming more of a policy qucstion, are we going to allow that
countywide or just for this development. I'm not saying it's bad policy, I'm just saying this is a little different from
what I've heard in other developments.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Ycah, I think that's a very different statement than I've heard in the
past as well. And I don't know, I don't think wc're in a position to do that at this point.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like the idea of projects benetiting from mass transit, I mean, so I really
don't want to help a solution where they don't. Although thcrc is an easy one, I won't tell you what it is.
MR. KLATZKOW: But usually you'll say, Iikc for 100 acres you get tour units per acre, so you're 400. And
now we know what it is -- but whether or not you have buses, trains or planes. On this one, we don't know what it is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For two reasons, one, it's the tloor area ratio and it's the transit eount.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, cxactly.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That density is totally the result of design, and good design will benefit it.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Which probably gets us -- maybe gets us here to this second question,
or comment that says besides the FAR, a unit cap should be noted here that docs not exceed the available conversion
ratio.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. Our intent has always been that on the residential piece, our cap is 456.
If we need to put a sentence in there that says, I think what Mr. Strain is, let's just say that clearly that one 114 times
four is 456. That's fine.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, let's continue on here.
Outdoor recreation. I'm gathering by this comment that he just would like items listed. It says just what is
that and could we not put it as a list of items like tennis courts and swimming pools and tot lots.
His thinking is that tlie term, just that tenll without any definers is too ambiguous.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And actually, that term is in the existing Sonoma Oaks PUD and probably in a lot of
pUDs because it's difticult to figure out what, you know, if I list bocce ball and I list horseshoes, if I've done that list
and something new comes out, does that mean I have to corne back and now amend my pUD. That's kind of a
catchall.
I know we don't like catchall's but I don't know another way to address the situation where an outdoor
recreational activity -- and they have to be customary to the types of uses we're asking for, which is single-family,
multi-family and senior housing.
So I hope, since it's already there in the existing PUD, we can allow it to continue.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I don't have a problem with that myself. Anybody else have a
problem just leaving it as outdoor recreation?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It should stay.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, number 29. I'm guessing that has to do with uses here. This
use -- this is an added use that needs to be amended per discussion in bullet one bctore.
Okay, I don't -- I'm not understanding. This is just a list of allowable uses.
MR. YOV ANOVICI I: I think that lie belicved, and again, I think what he was saying is he believes that we
should have a conversion formula for CCRC units to commcrcial. lie doesn't think the 583 cap is sufticient.
If you think the 583 cap is sul11cient, I think this comment goes away. I think it relates to there should be a
conversion formula, because item number 29, I believe, is the CCRC independent living, assisted living use.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It is, ycah. Okay.
I'm sorry, but l'mjust trying to read ahead here so that I can--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna'>
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Page 4, it says needs cap as referenced in bullet number two. The last
sentence here also is turther good example of why a eap of 456 is needed over just a FAR calculation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're tine with that. We thought we had addressed the cap. And it may be one
Page 14 of 56
"
161
.t<.'J
October 21, 2010
1
of those things I've talked about it so many times I didn't really -- I didn't put the 456 number in.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, the 456 number is -- the only place I've seen it is on the--
actually, it doesn't have it on either place.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I think what we need to do is in the R tract we need to include a statement
where appropriate that the maximum number of senior housing units is 456, based upon the conversion formula of
four rmits for each one unit of --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: But whetl1er you're using it on either -- I think what's being said here
is whether you're using it on either the commercial or the residential tract, it should not exceed that conversion ratio,
which is 456.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't think so. Because Exhibit B one only goes with the R tract. So the
footnote he's referring to refers to the development standards table for the R tract.
Then there's the development standards table for Exhibit B-2, which is the commercial.
So I think he was referring to on the residential we need to make it clear on the R tract we will never have
more than 456 senior housing units.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just going to make a suggestion. You had that piece of paper that related
the formulas, the calculations and so forth. Let me suggest that that be made a part of the evidence today, and that
should help to qualify that information, I think, rather than it keep on coming up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's clearly part of the record. And I think we could take care of it with a simple
statement probably in Exhibit A somewhere that makes it very clear that that conversion formula that we refer to in
Exhibit A will yield a maximum of 456.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You may do that, but my suggestion is that, because I don't think that what
you showed us on the overhead projector was part of the documents that we had--
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- it was something you prepared --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will take care of that, Mr. Murray, and put it in the document. You'll see it when
we come back --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: At consent.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then I think that will satisfy a number of these questions that have been
raised.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And the final question has to do with sidewalks on this master plan.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And what the master plan allows for is the option to have only one sidewalk
on the north-south road, the connector road, if you will, between Wolf and, I think that's Mission Hills Drive or
Mission -- yeah, I think it's Mission Hills -- Boulevard.
So we would have the option to build a sidewalk on only one side versus both sides of that, is what the master
plan would allow.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Does -- what about along the entry? And do you have to do
sidewalks along Collier Boulevard'?
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: If they don't already exist. I think they do. John, do you know if they already exist'?
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: I don't have that for -- you know, that information for the record at the moment.
However, I will tell you --
MR. KLATZKOW: There's sidewalks--
MR. pODCZERWINSKY: -- that tI1e LDC will apply. And it would require, ifthere aren't existing
sidewalks, which I believe there are, along Collier Boulevard, then they would be required in compliance with the
code.
The allowance for the connector road between Wolf Road and Mission Hills Boulevard, again, would be
deferred to the LDC, unless there's a specific deviation listed in the pun.
And is there, Rich, a specific deviation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what needs to happen is -- it's on the master plan. We need to reference in the
-- and when we ask for the deviation to go to 50 feet versus 60 feet, I think we need to add a sentence that says that we
Page 15 of 56
161
1
~'?
October 21, 2010
can -- it's optional to put it on one side of the road. Because it's been on the pUD master plan. I guess it was not
referred to in another portion of the document.
So, again, you know, you don't want to n I feel like it's a little overkill with sidewalks. You've got one on
951, and do you really need that many sidewalks internal to the project.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I'll let other people comment tirst.
Go ahead, Ms. Homiak, first.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: The sidewalks, though, in the LDC, isn't it determined by how many -- I
know in the residential, it's detenllined by how many units there are. Ifit's over four units an acre then you need them
on both sides of the street.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I believe under the LDC, every road you build, right, is supposed to have a
sidewalk on both sides, regardless of the number of units you have in your project. You'll see sometimes where we
have projects that don't have units on both sides ofthc strcet and you'll see us come in and say hey, can we have a
deviation, only put it on one side, because the other side isn't scrving any residential uses.
So that's what we're saying, is in this pm1icular case we've already got a sidewalk on 951 -- Collier
Boulevard, sorry. Why do I need two morc internal to thc project lor a total really ofthree sidewalks serving the
eOllUllercial portion of this project. Give us thc option of deleting one of those sidewalks. You already got the one on
951, we may just want to have one internal to this project.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Even ifthcre's going to be CCRC in the commercial, you're going to have
one sidewalk -- connecting residential to the commcreial it's going to be one sidewalk on that access road?
MR. YOV ANOVICII: Correct, but if there's already a CCRC internal to the conrmercial, they're not going to
be out on the north-south bisecting road, they're already within the commercial. So they won't need a sidewalk to get
there.
If you're going tram the residential, you take the sidewalk that's on thc north-south road and takc a crosswalk
over to the commercial or over to the sidewalk if it's on the east side of the road. We've just simply asked for it as, you
know, we feel like there's plenty of sidewalks in close proximity to gct people to the commercial property.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: 1 just want to also add that there is an allowance in the Land Development Code
that allows sidewalks on one side of the road. If that is pursued hy thc applicant through thc LDC, there are some
special allowances that have to go with that. 1 think it's a wider sidewalk requirement if it's only allowed on one side
of the road.
I'm not specifically familiar with the sidewalk codc, but as my understanding --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I understand I know thcre's diflerent, you know, if this, then this -- you know,
there's a lot ofdiflerent scenarios to what goes where. But Ijust thought that there should be two -- sidewalk on both
sides of all the streets in there, especially if it's a CCRC -- if you have assisted living and that type of thing. And the
residential and the commercial I would think. But I guess It's all governed by the LDC the way it's written --
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to pursuc that, because she actually asked the same question I was
going to ask, but I want to pursue it a bit further, if I may.
Would you movc the paper over to show thc master plan, please.
And in that connection, the point that Commissioner Homiak makes, it occurred to me as well that you could
have a CCRC sitting over in one or more ofthosc commercial spaces. And then you have setbacks and you have
landscaping and so tOl1h.
In the areas that are deemed to be although in commercial they're residential in fact, there would be sidewalks
surrounding the buildings, presumably. Then if they were walking and they wanted to walk, where all would they be
walking toward if they were going west" I assumc the map orientation is north-south. If they wcre going west, they
would then he crossing the landscaping and then the road in order to get to a sidewalk')
Arc you not lollowing me"
MR. YOV ANOVICII: I am There would be a eOlUlection to the internal sidewalks that would get you to
the external sidewalks.
Keep in mind, tIllS deviation were -- a typical 50-foot wide public unplatted access easement applies to this
and this.
Page 16 of 56
"I
16 \ 1 k3
October 21,2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are the only places it applies to. We're not asking for any internal project
changes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So why don't you go back to that again with the microphone and then we'll
point out and I'll try to b'1Jide you so that I can Wlderstand it, at least.
Between the two C's, the two commercial tracts, in between there there's a road and those dashed lines, those
are setbacks.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll tell you, Ijust got the sib'll from my client, we'll put them on both sides.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What a wonderful thing. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, this probahly is a silly question, but I enjoy those too. If a guy did a
trip within the thing, would that count in your study, I mean, if you had counters out there, or would it be stupid for
them not to keep people out of their cars, wouldn't it'?
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: That actually is counted as part of the first trip generation calculation. It's called
an internal capture reduction. And what that is is just a reduction off of the raw trip reduction rate. So it's calculated
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's cOWlted for already.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: And that's why we need to make sure that our cap refers to new trips, or whatever
tel111inology John says, that's 583 new trips, based upon our calculation.
I think he wants to say it's 583 adjusted trips, instead of just -- and that would be added after the 583 to make
sure we follow through how the calculation occurs in the TIS --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the document now says 583 --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Oh, so now we're lessening iliat standard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, we're not. We're exactly what we had -- it has always been 583 net new trips,
as based upon the -- correct'?
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That has always been the number. Because it would be unfair to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What that does, Donna, is that prevents my stupid question from becoming
a smart question. Because it would be internal capture, which is an adjustment.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it would be like grandma on a Segway, wouldn't necessarily want to
be counted as -- but it's intemal capture, that's fascinating. So if there were a number of stores and she went back and
forth to those stores, that's a trip each time, I b'1Jess?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we're not penalized for that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would hope not.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, yes. That would be a trip between the mixed uses within the
pUD.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: How do we make that judgment'? Do we put a county staff member out
there with a clicker?
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: No, actually, we don't. We do ask for annual traffic monitoring reports where
they do count their trips up through the time that the project is built out. They do not count internal trips. It's
something that's relatively Wlquantifiable --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense to me. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Kay'?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, ma'am.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: In the surrounding area, in the area surrounding this project, is there
any project with heights as high as 69 feet?
MS. DESELEM: If I may take a moment to look. I believe we tried to represent what the surrounding land
use heights are. And to the north there's two-story and three-story right with a maximum of 45 feet high, To the east
it appears to be 35 feet high. And I don't have the designation for the shopping center, tor the Mission Hills shopping
Page 17 of 56
. ,
16 I 1
October 21,2010
~~
center.
To the west with Black Bear Ridge it appears that therc arc 35 feet and two-story limitations, cxcept that the
multi-family can be 38 feet and two-story.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: If they did this CCRC on the commercial portion, what are the
setbacks for that?
MS. DESELEM: I've got to look. Hang on. According to --
ACTING CHAlRWOMAN CARON: So they can be 25 teet back?
MS. DESELEM: The extemal setback is from the roadways themselves, and it's 25 leet for Wolf, Collier and
the loop road that they show.
ACTING CHAlRWOMAN CARON: Thanks.
Anybody have any further questions for either stall or Mr. Y ovanovich or anyone of anybody's team'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wcll, Donna, you know, this last thing, I mean, I'm not worried about the
height. But if we do allow people living 25 feet of lor Collier Boulevard, not cool.
So Rich, would it be a problem -- I'm not wOlTicd about the commerciaL but could you -- woufd it be a
problem pushing back orforCollier thc resldenti"ltype uses') I mcan, I can't helieve in your design that's import"nt.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why don't wc say any senior housing component would have to have a minimum
setback from Collier Boulevard of 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's better. And that's the -- under the category thc ILF, ALF, that whole
thing --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, we would have that as -- wc would change that nWllber from, I believe it says
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-tive.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- 25. We would change that number to 50 lrom Collier.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For the sake of those residents.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we would have put them n you're right, we need to put that -- I think
that's a good catch.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, irnobody has any questions, then I guess we're looking for a
motion.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's speakcrs')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it if you want.
Oh, public speakers, yeah.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Actually, Cherie', yeah, you just said that to me. Were there any
public speakers')
I think it was all just mcmbers of the team that stood up. If I'm not mistaken.
We don't have any slips.
MR. BELLOWS: Excusc me, I was working on something elsc. No, no speakers have signed up.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Try to stay with us, Ray.
Okay, I don't think we have any public speakers, so we're !inc.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion, Dorma. Subject to the comments we've made and
recorded, I move forward pUDA-2007-AR-11961, Sonoma Lakes (sic) mixed use planned unit development with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CIIAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, anybody want to make any comments? Okay, I'm not going to
be supporting the motion. I think that 69 feet for thesc -- for the CCRCs is out of scale with the neighborhood.
I'm concerned ahout the -- \vhat can happen on this tloor area ratio in conunercial combination and what that
can actually bring us. I think the stall has tried with this maximum or 583 to keep it down to something manageable,
but I'm not sure it's really going to work the way they think.
But I think that the CCRC portion of the project is out or scale with the neighborhood. So thanks for at least
setting it back 50 feet off Collier Boulevard.
All those in favor')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 18 of 56
II
16\
1 1\;
October 21, 2010
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And opposed.
So the motion carries 6-1.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know you're done, but can I ask for a question about tI1e objection? Was it for both
portions of the CCRC or was it just the commercial portion? Your concem about the height'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Just the cOl1U11ercial portion. I believe you got the setbacks okay on
the residential portion.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wasn't sure what the concern was, whether there was a concern on the
residential. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Were you the second'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob Murray was the second.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What did I say'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: You were the second.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes. Wish I could hear.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thanks, everybody.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Jamie, Kady knows how to put that thing on.
MR. FRENCH: I've spoken with her, so I'm hopeful that she'll patch this in --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At a break'?
MR. FRENCH: Right, at a break.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Why don't we take a break now and let that happen.
Cherie', it's only 15 minutes one way or the other. So why don't we take the break now, get this fixed so you
guys can hear. It's too important. Thank you.
(A recess was taken.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right, hopefully this is working.
Ms. Ebert, can you hear any better?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: No. Okay, so I guess it didn't work any better.
And Mr. Murray is not here, so I'm not sure whether his is working or not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But mine -- none of them are working.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Good, Mr. Murray's back and he can tell us whether his is working for
him.
MR. BOSI: Try it now.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Somebody has to speak into it for me to --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Mike, will you--
MR. BOSI: Testing, testing, testing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, they're not. They would all work, Donna.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think none of them are working at this point, so--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So that means two things.
Good, I'm glad Kady is here. But it also means that everybody needs to speak slowly and distinctly so that
people can hear and understand.
MR. FRENCH: And directly into the mic. as well.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Right into the mic.
Go ahead, Mr. Basi, you may begin.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. And I will reassume my personification -- or my persona
Page 19 of 56
16 I 1 ~'?
October 21, 2010
as the soccer coach of last night, so I will be loud and clear, hopefully.
Corby Schmidt, who was the coordinator l'lr the CIE amendment, is not feeling well, so I am standing in his
place.
I'm going to actually start this with the end orthe process, just to clarify what we arc seeking Irom the
Planning Cooullission to the Board of County Commissioners. And that's the specific recommendations. And those
are contained on Page 2 or the CIE stalTreport.
One we're asking for, to provide a recommendation for the school district CIp to be included in the FY I 0-11
scheduled capital improvements annual update by referencc. The school hoard this past September had approved
their capital improvement program which contains no new schools. And we're asking that to be updated by reference,
as well as you'll see the text based amendment that is provided within your CIE packet that references the specific
dates of that approval.
And then second is to provide that overall recommendation to transmit the crE update and amendment to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
Within the packet that I had provided, both the Erst five years, the Schedule A of capital improvements are
provided and summarized, as well as Exhibit H, which is the six through 10 years, the outer years for the capital
improvement programming.
From review ofthe tables, each of the components or the Category A facilities which make up and establishes
our concurrency system are in line in what was approved for by this Board at the September 20th AUIR review, with
one exception. And that one exception, as we notcd earlier bet(lre, was the Transportation Element. And that
transportation element has been adjusted based upon the Board of County Conullissioners reduction in impact fees.
Mr. Norm Feder, the administrator for Growth Management, has indicated that he's here and prepared to
make remarks in terms of the updated AUIR section and how that updated AUIR section retlects upon their Exhibit A
and their tive-year capital improvements.
With that, Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: Thank you very much, Madam Chainnan, Commissioners.
I'll be tairly brief.
First thing I do, though, want to do is in the addendum, which is the AUlR, as modified in your package on
Page 23, I need to correct an item on that, and then I'll go through very quickly to give you what's been done.
On Page 23 you should see Attaclmlent E on the AUlR. If everybody's with me on thaI"
Unfortunately on the project dollars, that was not updated to the reduced levcl of thc 239.6 that you'll see
every place else as I'll show you in the AUIR and the CIE, that Erst item which shows a total of 193 million 63 should
be 163,989,000. And that will be adjusted and cleaned up in the tinal item. And that does bring the program in
balance as you'll see as noted in every other portion, to $239,646,000.
The other thing I'll note on that same page is under the expcnditurcs, the notes, expenditures are based on
current unit costs, and it says and include utility relocates. That add, includes utility relocates needs to be removed.
That's no longer the casc. The action taken by the Board subsequent to our meeting previously with you was to
reduce the transportation impact fec by 32 percent and to remove, and that is being worked on right now, about 10
percent, which was the utility relocation. And that will be handled by utilities. And they'll be coming back to the
Board relative to their impact fees to address that.
So if I can, what I'll do is Just go through the AUIR as I said very quickly with that noted correction.
On Page 17 --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Nonll, you did want to also show that it's not a negative.
MR. FEDER: That is correct. The resulting change to make that li~'1Ire at 163,989,000 for the project
program commitments will bring the total expenses down to the 239,646,000 consistent with the revenues, therefore
thc balance, as you point out, Madalll Chair, correctly, is zcro. And wc're taking out that clause rclative to includes
the utility relocates.
Thank you.
Again, going back to the AUIR, and as I said, I'm going to try and be brief: but I did want to at least show you
what's changed.
On Page 17, which is the tirst page of the AUIR itself, you have lIlajor change, obviously it was impact fees.
You now see 39,150,000, that's down from the prior 67,500,000, or exactly 42 percent reduction, which is the action
Page 20 or 56
16l
1
f'(-3
October 21, 2010
taken by the Board.
That brings the subtotal on resourcc down to 241,313,000. Previously of course it was tI1at difference,
270,395,000. And of course that then that brings you down in balance when you take out the carry forward and
reserve the negatives, to 239,646,000, which is the figure of the program as it stands now.
[won't hit anytl1ing on 18 Wlless you want me to.
Nineteen, we already talked about the fact that O&M has become a bigger and bigger concern for us. Not
only is the capital program, as you'll see, very significantly reduced, we added a lot to the need for maintenance, and
yet we haven't funded that, so it's sort of the double shot of issues.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have a -- NOITI1, on Page 19, really at the very bottom, and it's more --
we're more looking for you to give us a sense of rather than a specific answer, because there isn't any real absolute
here.
But it talks before the level of standards, level of service standards already set at the lowest acceptable levels
of D or E, operation and maintenance construction, level of timding needed to be increased or supplemented by
additional revenues sources. You have safe operations and preservation of the network is to be attained
commensurate with planned expansion.
How do you go about, with such a condition facing you, how do you go about setting up any kind of plan for
operations and maintenance, especially now you put a 40 year cycle in order to recognize the totality that you have to
deal with? But in reality you also have some things that are coming up at you. So how do you conceptually go about
it? That's what I'm really interested in.
MR. FEDER: I'll hit it a couple of ways. First of all, thc most direct answer is you become very responsive to
problem areas as opposed to preventive maintenance. So that's the first thing that happens.
'Ibe broader answer to that is that you basically go after worst first. So for instance, as an example, pavement
condition, basically you want -- it's graded pavement ratings on one through ten. And a ten would be just done, and
done well, new pavement.
Basically that will last tor a period oftimc. If it's an arterial, it's about six to eight years, I'd say seven years.
[fit's a non- arterial, they say 12 to 15, l'II say 15 to 20, but -- in that time framc.
So as you're looking at it, it'll stay 10, move down to nine very slowly, starts to move to eight. But then as it
gets to about seven, and there's a lot of graphics on this the state's done and everything, as it starts to go to seven, it
starts deteriorating fairly rapidly. And then you get down into conditions like you may see on Santa Barbara north of
Golden Gate, about a four or five very quickly, and then it deteriorates beyond after that. And then you're into
subbase and it's no longer a resurfacing, it's now a reconstruction.
So essentially what the state's process is, you try to go, and as you get into a seven or eight, you should have
in your outer years of your program monies to resurface that to keep your investment.
From a practical sense now we're not able to work under that sort of a preventive maintenance. We're trying
to make surc within the funds we have, and we added a little bit this cycle, in spite of everything going down, to
resurfacing, as an example. But basically you're trying to go after the threes and fours, so nothing gets to a very bad
condition.
Again, we enjoy a pretty decent condition compared to what you might see in other parts of the COWltry, but
we're trying to maintain that and not lose the investment. Repair the leak in the roof before you all of a sudden have
structural issues and have to replace it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'll just make a comment that I see your problem very clearly, I
believe, and it is a very significant problem. You've been trying to address it now for several years. And I can say that
while you're now almost all reactive, the proactive is just as important in getting some dollars for that.
I hope the Board of County Conunissioners hears these words that you're offering, then they can react to it.
That would be my thought. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you very much. I believe they are hearing. We're going to continue to raise it to them.
The problem is the ability to react where the funding availablc to respond. And as I said, we'll continue to try and
maintain the systems as best that we can with the available resources.
On Page -- I'm going to skip forward, unless you have it. Page 22 is the essence of what has changed. As
you know, we're just about 30 million down on impact fees. We had to adjust to try and respond to that. We met with
you previously. We were concerned since we only had two rcal constmction projects in the outer years, years two
Page 21 of 56
161
1
t<';
October 21,2010
through five of our program, one being 41, 951, which has developer contribution money on it, as well as a SIGp state
grant, as well as a state resurfacing project to the south of 41.
And we're going to take on that resurfacing with what they budgeted, which is now at a little over seven
million, do the resurfacing and add the balance that we see that we can to thc project at the intcrsection.
The other one was 951 lrom Golden Gate Boulevard where the prior north project ended down to Green that
had 7 million in a trip grant from the state on it. Those are the only two because everything in our program now for
capital is either impact fee or it is grant TCA money. We've had to move the other to maintenance. And so that's
what we have in our capital program.
We were able to maintain both of those. The way we did it is shown to you here. Basically what we did in
adjustment is we took some dollars out of our current Fiscal Year II budget. And that's where you see some
negatives, which arc unusual to see on this, but numbcr 11 is already budgeted.
So you took two-and-a-half million out oC -- the Santa Barbara-Polly project was completed, we closed it out,
that gave us two-and-a-halfmillion that fortunately we did not spcnd. We had it in there as an allocation if we needed
it for change orders and issues. And we were very successlul on that project and had those lunds, so we've identilied
those and freed thcm up.
Additionally wc've looked at both of the projccts about to bc let that are in ten and are rolling into II. That is
the Davis Boulevard Irom Radio ovcr to 951, and 951 up to the Golden Gate canal. Those two projects, we're
finishing the last of the right-of-way acquisition with the courts and working through a couple of issues with DOT on
951 so we can let the two projects together. And we'll get 20 million in reimbursement, which is ret1ected in the
monies COIning back to us.
Those two we now have better estimates on because we full planned and we're fairly conlident that we can
reduce the ligures you see here, 2.7 million and 2.5, respectively, lrom what we had previously programmed on those
projects.
And then lastly to note is Vanderbilt Bcach Road, that right-of-way. We took out dollars not only in II, but
you can see throughout the program We originally had in the prior IIJ.3 million in total. We now are down to
actually, and ifs an interesting item, I've never seen a total with a negative, but by taking out tlrree million and not
adding a lot in subsequent years, we've got a negative one million.
So you took II million out oCthere. You also took some additional monies out oCthc right-ol~way on
Golden Gate Boulevard. That was previously 8.9 million, it's 3.1 total now. And that gives you an idea generally.
You took the right-of-way projects, we took current year dollars in savings Irom a prior project and were able to
maintain both of those construction projccts and both of the grant monies that would come in.
What have you done, back to the question. We already talked about the maintenance implications. The other
part of that sentence that Commissioner Murray read was that it takes you a period oftime to produce a capital
project. So you try to keep a reasonablc production cycle going. And what you've done is you've sort of bOlT owed
against your year six, seven and eight and mayhe nine ability to produce a project.
We're down, we've slowed, but we'rc up two-and-a-halfpcrcent on traftic. So a little bit looking at deja vu all
over again. We're a little bit back to the early 190's where things had slowed, savings and loan crisis, other issues. We
decided that we didn't have to build it, we've got plenty of capacity. We consumed it. By the time we decided maybe
we consumed too much we havc to do something about it, we had a huge backlog that we paid the last 10 years to get
out of it.
I'm hoping we don't do that is the only reason I mention it to you. But we have funding constraints and we
are where we are. So I'mjust asking you to maintain those two projects, to maintain the grant monies. We are
sacrificing by not moving ahead on production on other projects, basically your ability to be responsive, particularly
past the live years of this AUIR.
As I said, I've got a correction noted alrcady on 23, it's consistent with Page 22 in the CIE --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Norrn, bet'lfc you go on.
MR. FEDER: Yes, Chainllan.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: On Page 22, all oCthe things that you have taken out of your tiscal
year 11 budget are starred. And the star says at the bottom, the asterisk refers to anticipated savings. But you know
that these are actual savings, correct? I'm just --
MR. FEDER: Some are actual savings. The only one that's really anticipated, I'll call your attention to right
Page 22 of 56
}
16\
1
it,
October 21, 2010
at the middle oftl1at list, 60092 and 60073, Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard, we reduced 2.7 million and 2.5.
That's because we have a very strong engineer's estimate. And based on what we had prograllU11ed there, we are
comfortable that we can pull that back. But that one's anticipated.
The obvious reduction in right-of~way programming is a given. The monies coming back on Santa Barbara
up at the top, 2.5 million, that's a given. We've closed out the project and identified those funds that can be freed up
and used to keep those other two projects in tl1e program.
So the only one that's really unanticipated, Madam Chairman, is the Davis and the 951, and we're pretty
comfortable that we still have within the budget sufficient dollars to let those and be successful.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anyway, that's about half of what you cut out. So in order for us to
have a CIE, it has to be -- I mean, we have to know for the ClE that these are real dollars and they're actually going to
be there or else we don't have a -- we don't have a --
MR. FEDER: Understood. And that's why you have contingency. And that contingency is in there to
respond. What I will tell you, we're very comfortable that those estimates are solid. The only other prospect we had
was to give up 7 rnillion in trip funds on the 951 project in an outer year.
So I understand your concern. What I can tell you is I don't use always and never, because I found those
don't work. But we're very comfortable with those estimates, and we wouldn't have put it out there if we weren't,
because we agree with you, this is supposed to be and is financially feasible.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: We're supposed to show specifically where the dollars are and how
we're going to get there, so --
MR. FEDER: And I think this shows you that to be the case. I think we've shown that as the case, here. We
have sufficient funding to address this program.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a question that comes up with regard to that. I know that -- I think it
needs clarification sometimes. Change orders are not in your initial budget. Change orders are in fact something
that's a discovery and a conclusion and then a request or demand for dollars to take corrective action.
So what we're looking at in the budget here, we're talking about solid engineering estimates, known pricing
from bidders and contingency of a specific percentage so that if you do havc some slop in there, to be able to work it.
I think that you need to qualify that.
MR. FEDER: That is the major qualifier. We don't call it contingency within the project, but you do have an
allocation for any change order issues that might come forward, And just like I said, as we were very successful,
especially with in-house CEI in managing the Santa Barbara extension, that allowed us at the end to take what was
almost three million of allocation for any contingency and two-and-a-halfmillion of that we're able to now plow back
into the programs.
So the projects as they are estimated do have in a levcl of, and I'll use that term contingency, in them, and I
have some contingency in the program.
But yeah, your point is still well made, Madam Chairman.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: My next question has to do with the other asterisk, which relates to an
Arthrex repayment.
MR. FEDER: Yes. That has already been accomplished. That was done at the last Board meeting.
Basically because they had qualified under the economic, or EDC program for jobs, and then decided not to do it
when they qualified, they were going to get impact fee credits in various areas, including transportation.
We were then given general fund to cover that impact fee loss. And then when in reality they didn't go into
the program, I didn't have the impact fee loss, I had to return that money. And so that's what that asterisk is referring
to. And that's already taken into accoWlt in the program. And actually, it was done by the Board last meeting.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So what project are those dollars being assigned to? There's nothing.
MR. FEDER: There are no dollars that it's assib'11ed to, it's just a reflection that that came out of my program.
I had to repay that back and I have done that already. So it's not something out there that's a liability.
There was a question when we came to you at the last time that Arthrex was pulling out and therefore we had
received some funds we were probably going to have to pay back. And so this is showing you that we have done that.
That's the only reason for it.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay.
MR. FEDER: Barring any other questions, 23, I already noted the changes. And that pretty much reflects
Page 23 of 56
161 1
Octobcr 21, 2010
~?
through, I think you've seen all the other when we discussed. I'm happy to go over anything you'd like to.
And what I will tell you what we just reviewed is now, as you go to your CIE, which is the issue of the day,
really, those numbers are directly reflected, the 239 total. And hopefully I gave you an idea how we got there. But
everything else is consistent with the AUIR as it's been adjusted.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody have any questions')
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, thank you, Nann.
MR. FEDER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: Do we need to makc a motion on that or anything, DOIma?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think you just do it at the end. Do you have to do it by n
MR. BOSl: No, no, the ClE n the amendment is a wholesale recommendation and not by section by section.
But it is one overriding motion.
And as I had mentioned within thc -- Mike Basi again, with Comprehensive Plarming.
As I mentioncd in my opening remarks, the transportation section is the one area where there was a deviation
Irom the information in the numbers that were approved during the AUIR. But we can most certainly take any other
questions that you would have on any of the components of the Capital Improvement Element.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Does anybody havc any other questions?
Melissa?
COMMfSSIONER AHERN: No, Nann answered my questions during break.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Ijust have onc. And it relates to the schools. There's an entire
paragraph that you want deleted, or part of a paragmph that says updates to the CIp and the work program shall occur
annually thereaf\er, all the way to the end where it says that the county is not responsible Wlless things are mutually
agreed upon.
Why are we taking that out?
MR. BOSI: That's inconsistent with the actual, the Florida Statutes and the clarification that was provided
within the Hillsborough County. We have just updated the infornlation to accurately reflect what the statutes do
require the county, require to capital improvement progranmling related to the school district --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So right now the school districts don't have any capital improvements
on the horizon, so that's fine. But ifthey did, and if t'Jr some reason they failed to pay for those capital improvements,
the county would be responsible, is that what this --
MR. BOSI: No, what this means is the school board is responsible for capital improvements that are
contiguous to their site, as provided f')f within the statutes. And this elimination ofthis paragraph is just basically to
be consistent with how the statutes read.
And just to give thc Planning CommiSSIOn another piece of infonllation, we are cuncntly updating the SBR,
the school board review poticy between thc county and the school board, which clarifies and which is dictated by
statutes and clarifies the responsibility of each parties within the capital improvement programming process.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Docs anybody else have any questions on anything else in the CIE?
Again, I don't think there were any changes other than to transportation.
Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: What happened to the revenue f,)r parks"
MR. BOSI: There is no revenue, other than interdepaltment transfers. If you remember tram the AUlR there
is no actual expenditure of dollars. The way that the park acreages are being acquired is through interdepartment
transfers --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Impact tees') You're not going to collect any impact tees'?
MR. BOSI: Impact fees will be utilized to pay prior debt.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right, but that whole -- all of that is missing.
MR. BOSI: That's traditionally not inl,mnation that's provided within the CIE portion of the parks
component.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It comes out, Melissa, just because there are no capital improvements.
Page 24 of 56
16 1 1 ~,
October 21,2010
MR. BOSl: Correct, thank you, Madam Chair.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It just shows in -- we find it in another--
MR. BOSI: Within the AUlR we show you with impact fees and how they're satisfying past debt obligations.
Wiiliin the ClE, the state and the concurrency management system only requires us to allocate a revenue that is
directed towards capital expansions.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. And my other question was we had discussed the values that were
being used. It was based off of the 230,000 for the impact fees.
MR. BOSl: Those have all been updated with the -- to the books that are being provided to the Board of
County Commissioners, it's now $197,000, as well as the 2.7 acres per thousand population for regional park. That
was part of their recommendation that the Planning Commission had offercd in terms of adjusting the level of service.
lbose have all been incorporated within the updated version that's going to be provided to the Board of
County Commissioners on November 10th.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: The conversation that we were having, why we weren't using actual values.
mean, we purchased and the county currently owns these properties, why aren't we showing the value as what we
actually paid for them, as supposed to an arbitrary impact fee analysis study value'?
MR. BOSl: The impact fee study is not arbitrary. The impact fee study is based upon the actual values of the
land within an inventory, and that provides us ilie average of the land acquisition holdings of the parks department to
be utilized for purely an accounting process.
Whenever there's an acquisition, when that future acquisition is of the next parcel of land, we're not obligated
by what's indicated within the impact fee or what's indicated as an average cost wiiliin the AUIR or a CIE, we're
proceeding on fair market value. But we have to have a placeholder. That's a discussion that we've had for a number
of times related to the AUlR.
And maybe I'm not understanding your question in relationship to the CIE component.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: My question is why aren't we using actual values -- what the land was--
Pepper Ranch that was purchased at $13,000 an acre, why aren't we using that actual value as opposed to--
MR. BOSI: I h'1less the question is, where would you like to see that actual value applied'? I'm not sure of the
context ofthe question.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: You're given a value of$11 million, 11.5, but we actually paid $13,000 an
acre, not $230,000 an acre. So I'm trying to understand why we're representing the transfer at a value that's not
realistic.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I take a shot at that'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Sure, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you recall, and I realize that it's very much of a struggle trying to capture
this stuff, but the $230,000, as they call it, is a placeholder. It's an arbitrary number that -- well, maybe not arbitrary,
but it's a number that purportedly was derived by taking all of the purchase costs from throughout the entire county
and coming up with a number. And we know that has changed.
But a book value of the properties, he's talking fair market value when they exchange it, I believe, as opposed
to a book value, which is the purchase. And I'm not sure you can reconcile that on there. If they put the book value, it
would then be different whm they exchange it. lbat's my sUmllse.
So I'm looking to see ifl'm correct in my assumption. But I can believe that since no activity is yet
detemlined on the CIE, there's nothing to put down. So if it's the $230,000 thing that's confusing, and it is, that's just a
placeholder, it really has no real relevance to this.
Does that help"
COMMISSIONER AHERN: No, but that's okay, No, I understand the 230,000, I understand where it's
coming from. My -- what I don't understand is what the intent of showing the higher value.
MR. WILLIAMS: You know, and gosh, we've been down this road before. For the record, Barry Williams,
Parks and Rec Director.
And I'll try. And it is contusing. And if you're relatively new to the Board -- and I would say that all the
Board members here have had this same discussion and the same concern. I don't know that I can offer more clarity,
other than what's been spoken.
We do use it -- and with the CIE component we aren't spending any money. I would start with that. There is
Page 2S of 56
16 1 1 ~'?
October 21,2010
no money being exchanged for these transfers that we're looking at.
When we're looking at the value of the transfer, though, and your question is why don't we choose to use the
existing -- or the value that we paid, for example, Pepper Ranch. For us, I mean, what we're looking to do is to meet
the requirements based on level of service on acrcs per 1,000 people. So the dollar amount doesn't really come into
play. We use the 230,000, now 197,000, based upon past purchasing that we've made of property, and that gives us
that average cost.
When we're looking at identifying potentially Pepper Ranch, a component for recreational use, we need to
apply our recreational unit cost, that 230, or now $197,000 an acre to reflect it. There is no money that's being
exchanged. It is a placeholder. It is a recreational amenity now versus, you know, some other amenity. It: for
example, we have another transfer with Rookcry Bay, they may have paid an "X" amount of money for their property,
but when we count it in our inventory -- and again, our f"eus is on the acres per thousand, not so much the cost -- but
when we have to put that unit cost, we would still use that average unit cost that we have, that 197 at this point.
So it is confusing. It is -- you'rc asking vcry valid questions that I think all the Commissioncrs have asked
over the years. And we've said the same thing. And I appreciate Mr. Murray's -- he's been paying attention, I can tell,
so I apprcciate that. I don't know that that helps you with your logic. And I think that's the challenge, it doesn't sound
logical what we're doing, but --
COMMISSIONER AIIERN: l'orrcct.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- I offer that as why.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Barry, because it isn't logical what you're doing, here's what you really
__ and we talked about it, we talked about it a lot. We're going to have to soon stop talking about it or develop
punishments or something.
Do the level of service based on acreage, because that's the reality. Then if you need parks, you're going to
have parks in different areas and they're going to have different land values and price them accordingly. To find one
denominator acreage cost is not a logical process. It's not good for inventory. Because Melissa's right, it's not good
for prediction of across-the-board purchase of new parks.
So I think you have to get this to where you do your level of service solely in acreage, and then when you
need acreage, put price on the acreage based on where you need it and what it is you're buying. Then we can start to
get a -- let me put it this way: We can stop wasting timc on this acrcagc cost.
Enough said. No, you don't need to answer.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Very logical.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Mike, you did not provide the parks update, though, you just did the
transportation when you did the AUIR, right"
MR. BOSI: No, the updated parks section with the revised numbers was not provided as part of the -- as part
of the distribution package.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thanks. Might have been good just to note it though.
Melissa, did you have other questions"
COMMISSIONER AHERN: No. I'm all set, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: We don't mean to cut you ofT.
I think since nothing else has changed here, we can just seek a motion.
And the motion, Mr. Schiffer, if you're going to make it --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would be two motions.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: n is on Pagc -- yeah, is on Page 2.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And should this be two motions, Mike, or should wc blanket it"
MR. BOSI: You can just blanket it. Imcan, you can make both statements and forward those as
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that wc forward with a recommendation of approval the school
district's -- that the school district's ClP be ineluded in the Fiscal Year 'IOta 'II scheduled capital improvements of
the CIE by amendment by reference, and also again by approval that we adopt the CIE update and recommend
sending it with approval to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
Page 26 of 56
\ ;1
161
1 1\3
October 21, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can clean that up a little bit.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: That would be Cherie's job.
Thank you. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Any opposed'?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you, Mike.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nobody seconded.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yes, Mr. Murray did.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't hear Bob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was guilty of being away from my microphone.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob's soft voice. I missed the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: "'Now we are on to old business.
MR. WILEY: Does that mean I'm old'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Mr. Wiley, that's you.
MR. WILEY: Oh, that means I'm old.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: You've got old business.
MR. WILEY: For the record, I'm Robert Wiley with your Land Development Services Department, with the
Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Section.
We're going to resume discussion today on the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, what you have received
in your package. There was a memorandum that accompanied the revisions to the ordinance that we discussed in our
previous meeting on the 7th of October. Wc can go through that memo or, if you have no questions I will assume that
you had gone ahead and looked at them and we can move torward from here.
Before we really go into our discussion, I did want us to try to go through just a little bit of a Power Point
presentation, if we can, to get just a feel for what we're trying to really say about this thing. So if we can do that, I
would appreciate it.
As we're talking about the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for 2010, this is just to give us a little bit of
background basically to answer hopefully some of the questions that we were going through the last time. And just to
give you a little bit of inforrnation, the picture you see on the screen and behind those title blocks, that's actually a
Collier County picture. And that shows you a typical flooding situation in this particular location.
There were six paid flood insurance claims. This was from a rainfall of somewhere between six to eight
inches in about a day to a day-and-a-half time period.
And so to give you a perspective on that, that is about half of the rainfall that you would be expected to
analyze when you do the mapping for FEMA to establish Hood zones.
So just a little background on that one to help us get through this.
What I want to talk about today is some of the history of the ordinance. We've been in the Flood Insurance
Program since 1979. That's when we also adopted our first Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Ordinance 79-62.
There's been several revisions through the years. In 1986 there was a major revision and a rewrite of the ordinance.
That was 86-28.
And that's the basic ordinance we use today. We're using 86-28 as amended. And it has been amended
several times as you'll see in the next bullet point there, '87, 1990, 2005 and then most recently just a few weeks ago
in 2010 when we added the criteria into it for the minimum floor elevations in some of the older platted subdivisions
where there are no designed storrnwater management systems.
That whole section was put back. Actually, it was put into the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for the
Page 27 of 56
16\ 1
October 21, 2010
~~
first time. It had been in a different ordinance that we talked about, had been repealed, and we needed the language
back in.
The current re-drafting of this Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. it's based upon direction we got from
FEMA and the insurance service office. Once every five years we get a tield visit. They come and they look through
our t1Ies, they talk to us, they actually drive all around thc county. They review everything, including your current
ordinance. And we were told specifically our ordinance is out of date. it must be brought into compliance with the
current FEMA requirement. So we knew we already started thc proccss, but we're continuing it on even as of today.
A question was asked, well, how do wc usc this ordinance" How does this affect the people of the county')
And primarily its eflect you'll sce in thc dcvclopment approval proccss for plats, SDp's, that's your site
development plans, and building permits. And out of those three, most people really don't see it until it comes to the
building pennit level. Your designers for your SDP's, your plats, they're all addressing the issues. But really, it hits
home with the individual builder when he applies t'Jr the building pemlit.
I've been a part of the standard county rcview process since '79. This is sort of an ordinance that is
implemented in the background. It's not ncw int'1nllation that we're bringing before you today as far as processing
goes.
The staff when they recob~lize that a structurc is within the special flood hazard area, they just know it has to
be evaluated. it's just a part of the standard review that we're already doing.
And just so you'll know where to tind it, if you went to Chapter 62 of the county's Code of Laws and
Ordinances, that's whcre you would tind the coditicd version of our currcnt Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
So these are situations that we're, as I said, already using every day as applications come in.
Now, let's talk about the State olTlorida model ordinance. And we sort of call it model just so you
understand that it is set up in a generic f"l1nat and there are places where you fill in the blanks.
We got it from the Department of Emergency Management. They actually e-mailedittome.Anditnwe.ve
received two of them. And so we are using the most recent update, the January 29th 01'2009.
We worked with the County Attorney oftlee. What they did is they took that model ordinance and compared
it line by linc, word by word with our CUITcnt ordinance 86-28 as amendcd, and they wcnt through and simply did
underlined/strike-out to show if you took our cUlTcnt ordinancc what you would delete and what you would add to
make it then exactly format up with the model ordinance.
Then they took that document, which I'll call it our basic document, they took the model ordinance and began
to fill in the blanks, making it applicable for Collier County.
And one of the things that I want you to understand in the model ordinance that we have, our basic county
version of the model ordinance applicable to the county, it does not include higher regulatory criteria. Even the state
model ordinance had optional higher regulatory criteria huilt into it so you could automatically acccpt it if you wanted
to. We did remove that.
Also, we replaced the penalties section for violation -- penalties tor violation section to make it in compliance
with what Code Enforcement's already using tlU'ough their ent"rcement board. At least that's my understanding of
what that lanb'uuge is. And I hope I'm not incorrect on that.
We also know that as we went through it, we were finding some things that we wanted to change, to clarify,
so staflbegan to make some editing remarks. And those are what are in the balloons on the side of the document as
you'll see through there.
The Floodplain Management Planning Committee reviewed it and made some comments, some changes.
Those are noted. Also Development Services Advisory Committee, same thing. With the Floodplain Committee and
with DSAC, they both did give a vote of recommendation forwarding it on for approval.
So that's what you're looking at today is that documcnt.
How does this proposed ordinance relate to regulatory capacity with the current ordinanee that we have? It
does do a tew things differently herc.
It automatically adopts updated tJood zone mapping whcn finalized by FEMA. Under the current ordinance
we would have to go back and every time we receive a new map trOlll FEMA we would have to come het'Jre the
Board, amend our ordinance to adopt the new map. You have -- within the regulations ofFEMA, you have up to six
months to do that before you Ire found in noncompliance.
This puts an automatic adoption provision right in the ordinance. So as soon as the map is finalized, we adopt
Page 28 of 56
16'
1 1\''3
October 21,2010
it. That way we don't have to come back before the Board.
It updates the ordinance to use FEMA's definitions and programs requirements. And then also there are some
areas within it, especially in the appeals and the variance section, that updates it to current cOWlty practices. That's
some of the things now.
The next slide is interesting, where you see there are some areas where the proposed ordinance is actually of
lesser impact than the current ordinance. And we talked about the first one here. The coastal high hazard area is now
limited to the FEMA, the VE zones, instead of also all of the land seaward of the coastal construction control line
established by the DEI'.
Our current ordinance, it says both of those areas are considered as coastal high hazard. So it is a bit ofa
step-down here.
Pool construction is an issue. If you're building a pool within the VE zone, currently right now you have to
attach that pool to a colunm or pile fOWldation. That's a local criteria that's being removed because it is not a
minimum FEMA criteria.
And then final plats will not include flood zone lines on them. We have that in our ordinance. It's not
required by FEMA. It is a higher criteria you can have in your ordinance. They encourage it but it is not required. So
it's also been removed.
Increased impact deals primarily with the penalties --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Robert')
MR. WILEY: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Going to these lower standards, how does that help our COWlty'?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good, because I was going to ask that.
MR. WILEY: Well, I'm not going to say that it helps our county, but neither does it hurt our county as far as
FEMA is concerned.
To the individual property and the potential damage you can have, by lessening the requirement here, it does
have the potential to increase damage to that individual property owner. But the owner always has the option to build
higher than the minimum regulation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a follow up on that.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because that's thc same question I had. Who-all made that decision that, for
instance in the pool construction, which a pile foundation can stabilize that pool from complete collapse, who-all
made the detennination in the county that that should be removed?
MR. WILEY: After we brought the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance before the Floodplain Committee,
DSAC and the Planning Commission the last time and we received basically a very, very negative response toward it,
and the direction I was given then was to go back and put together the bare minimum requirement removing all higher
regulatory criteria. That was my dircction. That's what I havc done.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You received that direction from this Planning Commission'?
MR. WILEY: I received that direction trol11 my Division Administrator, following the discussions that were
held before the Planning Commission when we were so negatively received by having higher regulatory criteria
proposed in the model ordinance that we carne with before.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can appreciate the intent to try to satisfy the needs that we -- it's a fine line
we have to find all among us to help our people. But just wondering, we may have taken all the flesh offthe bone.
I'm not so sure that that's ideal.
Now, you've given one example. There may be other examples where if we knew them we might have some
view on that. Is that the only one that you've taken -- you said bare bones. I guess you must have taken others out
too.
MR. WILEY: We did remove -- what you'll see hcre, we removed these three criteria that are in thc current
ordinance, because they were not rC'quired as a minimum by FEMA, they're considered as higher.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's only these three.
MR. WILEY: It is only these three, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That gives me a little bit better thought.
lfwe would -- if we would -- I know that it's up to, I presume would be architects and engineers to make that
Page 29 of 56
16\
1
K3
October 21, 201 0
judgment about a pool. But many times developers, when they want to get something done, their cost is a major
consideration for them.
I guess you're just taking away that particular constraint where they must do that little bit more that would be
helpful in the long ternl. I'm not sure that helps our community.
All right, I'll leave it to others to make comments becausc --
MR. WILEY: Let me also remind you, if the Plalming Commission chooses to reconullend to the Board that
certain items be left in, we will take that forward. But we were going to the absolute bare minimum to make our
ordinance conformable to FEMA. Wc can always increasc it. FEM/\ would not object. But we just need some
direction.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I'm only one voice. I heard Ms. Caron makc the comment, and
it was the same thought I had, I think. So we'll see what happens.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, arc you through with this? Arc you going to go into other areas
like the building code, or is that it"
But anyway, let's assumc you're not. The building code governs that pool also. So is there -- you know, there
may be rcquirements in excess of our ordinance that would tic that pool down, which I believe there would be.
MR. WILEY: My understanding is that the only requirement is it has to be designcd as a foundation that is
able to withstand the buoyancy torce as well as the lateral and vertical forces that will be exerted against it from the
stormwaters in the VE zone. But it doesn't specify pile toundation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that would probably occur. And the pool will be designed, I'm sure, by
the building code, so it won't go smashing into the neighbor's property and stufl.
MR. FRENCH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you know, lthink mayhe what's happening here is we're keeping
regulations that arc provided somewhere elsc in the state. We adopt the building codes and you get the credit for the
building codes tc)r that reason, !c)r our rating. So it would really be those codes that would govern and can be changed
easier than this ordinance, lo --
MR. WILEY: Actually probably casier to changc the ordinance because it is a local document versus the
building code. But we can always h in our ordinance we can put in critcria. Because this is a Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance, we can put criteria that would strengthen the rcquirements that would effectively strengthen
the building code without it being declared a direct amendment to the building code, which is a very extensive
process.
MR. KLATZKOW: We just rescinded our local Collier County code. There was Board direction to just go
with the Florida standards and be done with these locals. So unless the Board directs to go back, I don't know what
elsc to say.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Ijust had one other question tor you, Jeff. Where it says here, coastal
high hazard area will now be limited to FEMA VI', that is just for the floodplain ordinance, that does not aflect other
parts of our code where we detine the coastal high hazard area and it affects all kind of other n it affects
transportation, it affects the density, you know -.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I view this as a standalone ordinance that doesn't bleed into the rest of the code.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It doesn't bleed into the rest of the code. Okay, that's very important.
MR. WILEY: That is correct. This is a separate definition for the Flood Insurance requirements that we had
through FEMA and it's the same terminology but diffcrcnt n as Jeff said, diflerent parts of our COWlty govenullent
have a different tenn for it. So this onc is ordinance speeitie here.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right, now we're on to increased impact.
MR. WILEY: Increased impact is the addition of higher penalties to retleet current code enf"rcement
processing as it goes through. It is higher than what was in thc Statc's model ordinance.
We have added in criteria t"r the Approximatc Zone A. Wc ncver had an Approximate Zone A until 2005,
and the 1986 ordinance could not havc anticipated that. So there are criteria in here. These are the criteria that are
within the model ordinance itself with the one exception wc will talk about when we get there, and that deals with a
nlininlUm elevation. And we'll explain why we propose to make a change there.
And then what is not listed therc but we had already talked about it betore deal within the definition for
Page 30 of 56
, '}
161
1
k~
October 21 , 2010
floodproofmg. If you recall, we had some specific criteria to help identify and clarify what was meant by
floodproofing, That's different that was in before. But you understand as we went through it why we did that, so
everyone knows what is meant by floodproofing so that we all have a standard to design against.
From a fiscal impact, staffing costs, it's the same stuff we're already doing, We considered -- yes, sir.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to go back to the areas of increased impact. Penalties for
violation. I recollect that there was a -- I think it was a little bit of a shock that ran through us when we heard $1,000 a
day, if! recall correctly. It was $1,000 a day; am I right'?
MR. WILEY: That is correct. That is the up to number.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, that strikes me as something a little bit subtly different than
what we heard the last time. I thought it was straight $1,000 a day the last time it was represented. Fair recollection.
But you're saying that's to reflect current code enf'lfcement penalties, So that would be under their premise of
incremental penalties associated with people who show a disregard for those.
How does that work when you're relating to an issue associated with flood'? I'm trying to understand. This
ordinance is a standalone, and we're going to adopt the most severe, apparently the most severe penalties. How do
those penalties -- where would thcy be applied? After the flood, aftcr the collapse of the pool, what?
MR. WILEY: They are -- no, what they have done, they are applied when they're in violation for being in
non-conformance with our ordinance, which relatcs to the building code requirements. So you're given a pennit and
you do not build in accordance to that pellnit. That's why it is regulated through code enforcement. It is at the
building permit when you find the failure to comply. That's where that comes tram. It's not whether you flood or not,
it's whether you build as you're supposed to.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to have that clarity, because that's very important to me as we try to
distinguish between what will happen as opposed to what we need to do before. All right, thank you very much.
MR. WILEY: Just so you'll know, in the penalty section it says to be fined not more than $1,000 a day. So
code enforcement, that givcs thcm up to the $1,000 a day violation; is what that is referring?
MR. FRENCH: If I can, Madam Chair. We currently have a system of processes in place under the building
official. But this would be the most extreme of cases to where we had complete disregard to the building code.
So if we determine that they have not adhered to the plans that were sublnitted, we would stop the work at
that point. If they chose to either go forward with the work or if they chose not to correct or come to confonnity, then
at that point then it would become a code enforcement matter.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a problem with a major hit on anybody whom openly, you know
has disregard for that. But when it was presented the last time, at least to this person, it seemed quite shocking,
because it wasn't oriented in that fashion initially. Thank you.
MR. WILEY: From the fiscal impact section, as wc said, there's really a neutral impact for staffing costs,
because staff is already doing the work. With the reduction in the criteria it could result in some cost reductions for
the applicant, should they choose to not design above and beyond the bare minimum from those identitied above,
those areas oflesser impact.
So your potential is there lor reduction costs, but it's pretty limited in areas where that would be applicable.
With that, I'm ready for us to go into the discussion on the ordinance, unless you have any other questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, I have a question on procedure.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Last time wc did this we went through 20 to 21 pages of then the best
proposal. Since then, Robert, you went back and you revised those first pages and made some changes and stuff.
You actually made some changes further on down too, past where we left off.
But what I would suggest we do today, could we continue where we lett off and then not review the revisions
Bob made, and then we'll come back and review the whole thing with a clear trail rather than, you know, go back to
go and come back up to Page 22'?
MR. WILEY: I would support that, with one little preface: That if you would look on your new document
that you have, on Page 2 under Findings of Fact, which is Paragraph B. Under sub-paragraph number two, as a part
of our discussion betore Mr. Strain had been concerned about where it says: These tlood losses are caused by the
cumulative -- he was emphasizing he rather it be saying these flood losses may be caused by.
Page 31 of 56
16'
1
K?
October 21. 20 I 0
I have no problem making that change. That was not actually a change that I was directed to do but had
subsequent discussion with Mr. Strain, and his preference is we change that. I'm good with that because it's not
stating that absolutely this is it; it may be, and start listing options t"r us. So I actually prefer the may bc language. If I
get a concurrence and direction tram that, I will also make that change.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that will be shown on the next version that we review.
MR. WILEY: It would be shown on the version n yes, sir, going forward.
Okay, with that, if we would go over to --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Twenty-one, I think.
MR. WILEY: Well, actually, it's now Page 22 becausc of the way the renumbering came about with some
pages. It just happened to flip the page, just barely.
We were tinishing up right at the bottom of Pagc 21 , top of Page 22, on thc building floor and slab minimum
elevations for all areas of Collier County. And as wc notcd in the memorandum, this is one spot where we didn't
make the change, so that the whole ordinance is not applicable to the whole county but only specitied areas. This is
the specified area with the addition of that lor all arcas of Collier County in that paragraph 16. So that was how we
addressed you-all's issue, and hopeiully that was agreeable to cveryone else.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: It was 16 what, Bob'?
MR. WILEY: Well. it's on Pagc 22. It's suh-paragraph 16 where it says: Building floor and slab minimum
elevations. Then we added in that text lor all arcas of Collier County.
If you recall, early on in thc ordinance areas or applicability at thc tront of the ordinance we said was for all
areas, including special flood hazard arca. We took that back out, so now it would say it's for the special flood hazard
areas or unless otherwise noted. This is the one area it was otherwise noted in.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I'm not looking at the same thing you arc. On Page 22'?
MR. WILEY: It's on Page 21. Page 21, thc bottom of the page n well, actually, the middle of Page 21. You
have that paragraph 16, which flips all the way over into the top of Page 22 there.
ACTING CIIAIRWOMAN CARON: All right, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what you did in the newcr vcrsion, the one that just came out with our
packet, you killed the unusual conditions clause?
MR. WILEY: I don't wlderstand that statement, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If I go down, okay, we have paren 16. This is 5, I think B, paren 16, right'?
There's a n there Llsed to be an A --
MR. WILEY: It will be 5.A(l6), but --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Cia back to go. Hold on. It is 5.A, General Conditions, 16. It used
to have an A and a B. Now it just has ml A. conect'?
In other words, in the newer version of 16 is not the same as thc prior one.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is the same'?
MR. WILEY: All we did on that very tirst line of sub-paragraph 16 where it says building floor and slab
minimum elevations, we added in thc wording: For all areas of Collier Cowny.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And removed the word pad and stufflike that.
And then you eliminatcd -- the next thing, 1 have a paren A that says: Ground elevations. That's gone. lsn't--
I mean -- in other words, someone had to havc worked on that paragraph.
MR. WILEY: Oh, oh, I see what you'rc saying there. Wow.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So things have changcd here.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: This is not the samc.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got to admit, this process lor this Hood thing has been confusing. We
last touched it, we were doing the CRA for the county, now we're doing just this.
MR. WILEY: I don't know why paragraph A is not thcrc. Whoa.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then if you go down to Roman numeral V -- and again, why do we use
Roman numerals? But after V there used to be a Roman numeral VI. That I think has disappeared, A B cropped up
tram somewhere. And then you started going back to A and B. So something -- a little funky work here, but --
MR. WILEY: I have no idea what happened here, That was not supposed to bc gonc.
Pagc 32 of 56
~
October 21,2010
Can we go back to our docwnent we had before then and we'll discuss the changes'? I don't know why those
paragraphs are gone. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would prefer to stay with the DSAC as well, that's where all my notes and
what I've --
MR. WILEY: That's where we were supposed to have no changes other than what I did, so -- I've got to
figure out what I did.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you think other than this, maybe a scrivener problem? Other than that
there is no changes from this point on from the prior version we had'?
MR. WILEY: There's not supposed to be, sir, unless something glitched that wasn't supposed to glitch here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That makes life easy.
MR. WILEY: Ifwe can, let's use our 9/1/10 DSAC approval draft. And then you'll rmderstand from the
memo that was here what changes I put in it.
I will have to go back and figure out why suddenly some parab'Taphs disappeared. I have no clue why they
did that.
Well, with using the 9/1/10, September 1st of2010, DSAC approval draft, that would put us on to Page 22
then. Okay'?
With this particular page, the one thing I want you to note is in the nonresidential construction we do have a
balded note in brackets under sub-paragraph two, tloodproofing to adjust the base flood elevation will result in a
higher flood insurance premium rate for the structure because the Flood Insurance Policy requires a rating -- rating a
structure at one foot below the floodproofing elevation.
Now, we had this in as a bullet point over on the side, a balloon point on the side for information. As we took
it through DSAC, they directed us to put it into bold text right in the middle of the ordinance. And we eXplained to
them the implications of this.
When a building is built, it's only required to be built with floodprooting. If you choose to use floodproofing
as the building option, it has to be built with the tloodproot1ng to the base tlood elevation. But the insurance for that
building, the first thing you do with a flood-proofed building is subtract one foot offthe top. So it gets rated as being
one foot below the BFE. Your cost of insurance increases dramatically.
I've got the spreadsheet set up here, you can give me any insurance number you want, I can put it through, but
basically it's about a fivefold increase in your cost of insurance if you build so that you're rated one foot below.
DSAC wanted us to make the note in here. I can tell you that having a note in here is fine. It will meet
minimwn requirements. I'm not sure that a lot of people will be aware of it when it comes down to actually building,
because as the plans come through for review, the model ordinance starts off with the direction -- or an assumption, I
should say, that you're wanting to do for floodproof, you're required to be tlood-prooted to one foot above the base
flood elevation.
But technically that's a higher standard, so we removcd it. Ijust want to make sure you fully understand what
our ordinance says right now before we go forward.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, my opinion on that is ] think you should require them to be one foot
above it. I mean, first of all, we'll discuss some regulatory stuff above it. But if anybody built floodproofing and did
not build it the top of that floodproofing to be one -- to be -- well, wait a minute. The top of that would have to be one
foot above the base flood elevation. Why don't we just set it there so that that's not a confusion.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah, so it's not an issue.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: The cost is minimal to go one more foot to floodproof.
MR. WILEY: This is where we really are very at a crossroads here on whether or not we consider it to be
higher regulatory criteria.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or stupid.
MR. WILEY: Well. Whether we want to make it optional or mandatory is really the issue here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's make it smart. The smart thing is that it has to be one foot above the
base flood elevation. And the intent is you're building essentially little dams to keep water out. So if there's wave
action and stuff, water is going to come over those dams.
MR. WILEY: You would be making the whole structure so the water would not come through either the
openings or the wall itself up to -- and the issue comes into the hydrostatic head you design against all those factors.
Pagc 33 of 56
161 1 k;
(lctober 21,2010
So it becomes a criteria that we want to make sure you're very comfortable going lorward with it, do we make it
optional or mandatory. The State wants it mandatory, but it doesn't have to be. I will follow your direction though.
COMMISSIONER SCIIlFFER: But could you build n I came in lor a permit, could I get a pennit to build
my tloodproofing to be exactly at the base !load"
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFFR: And you would give me thc pcnnit.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I go out the door, I build it, and then my insurance agent arrives at the
completion of the project and he's the one who's going to disappoint me.
MR. WILEY: Y cs, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why would we do this"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have no problem making that a requirement.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It just seems to make scnsc.
MR. KLATZKOW: We don't know the fiscal impact. It mean, I don't know -- I understand what Robert is
saying, okay, that your cost of insurancc will go higher. But I don't know what the cost of construction is.
And before we can make a recommendation to the Board to go off of what IS required and maybe above
what's required, I think a fiscal impact analysis by the county is something in order. And then to take it hack to
DSAC for their review.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: But Mr. Klatzkow, didn't Mr. Wiley just say that the State would like
us to do that, they would like the higher standard" So is that part of their ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, what we're giving you is the minimum requirements. All I'm saying is that if we
were to providc fiscal impacts to potential changcs and thcn run them through DSAC, this Board could then make a
reconunendation to the Board of County Commissioners based on dollars and cents.
I mean, on one hand it's easy for a developer to do thc minimum and then the homeowner has to pay the
increascd cost of insurance. But then again, if the home cost gocs up tens of thousands of dollars, it may he worth
paying the extra insurance. I don't know, because there's no tlscal impact attachcd to this.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So I guess at this point then I will need a consensus from this Board
whether we think we should do a liscal impact to tlnd that out.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it strikes me, if our County Attorney has suggested that's a way to go,
I would have no problem going that way. But my tirst leanings of course would be to make sure that we don't
undercut any future purchaser of a home or structure and let them get nailed that way.
But it makes sense to have a fiscal analysis, if that's doablc. And I guess it's doable.
MR. WILEY: And I do need to clarify something I()r you. This is not for homes. You can only !loodproofa
nonresidential structure. You cannot use floodproofing on a rcsidential homc. So this would not be the individual
homeowner, it would your businesses --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Evcn with stem wall" Even using stem wall, that's not considered
floodprooting" The elevation --
MR. WILEY: That is not tloodprooting, that is elevating above. FloodprooIing says you put the lowest floor
before the base !lood elevation and then you hold water out.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Thank you t'Jr the orientation. Then a J1scal analysis is absolutely
requircd.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If that's all we're talking about here is this specific one you're on, and it's all
cOlnmercial. This is just for commercial?
MR. WILEY: It is nonresidential. Now we tend to think of commercial, hut nonresidential would be
anything othcr than a home someone would livc in, from FEMA's definition. So they consider a hotel as
nonresidential, they consider a church as nonresidential. Dilferent things. So it's not --
COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Assisted living facility.
MR. WILEY: It's a non-living !;\cility is what they consider, that's COlTect.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, an assisted living lacility is in thc commercial.
MR. WILEY: Well, that is correct, it would be considered as nonresidential if they stay there tor less than six
months duration. That's corrcct. Some people do stay there tor less than six months, so that's why they rate it that
Page 34 of 56
,
~
October 21, 2010
way.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Help me out a little bit more then. If they were to build the structure
intending for it to be an assisted living tacility, I guess the assumption would be that it's for people intending to live
longer than six months at it, and it therefore would quality and be required to build floodproofing'?
MR. WILEY: They would be probably required to elevate it at that point and not allow floodprooting.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not allow floodprooting.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the residential component of it.
MR. WILEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In transient, I think the building code is 30 days. In Collier, a good example
of floodprooting is 5th A venue where you see all the little screws on the wall where they're going to come in and put
in protection along those openings. lbat's about the best example of floodproofing in Collier. Most everybody else
gets above the elevation.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Melissa'?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Jamie, is there any way to address this issue actually at pennit in form ofa
disclosure or something that people have to acknowledge?
MR. FRENCH: We currently are through building block. I would tell you that you do have
residential-commercial settings. In other words, you have condominiums -- and commercial is anything that's
considered more than two families.
So if you've got a n so they're also not going to be able to do this type of floodprooting if you had an
apartment building or if you had a condominium. Even though it comes in as a commercial inspection, goes through
commercial tire plan review and all of those other items that a commercial pennit sees, they would not qualify
because that's full-time residential units.
But yeah, there is a disclosure form, if you will, that we are heavily promoting this. And we're currently
getting feedback, because it's not something that we've done in the past. Especially when they're coming in even for
remodels. We're saying okay, we'd like to see a tinished floor elevation because we believe you're going to exceed
the FEMA 50 percent rule, and you really necd to be aware of this. Especially the land owner needs to be aware this
-- property owner needs to be aware of the insurance stipulations that they may be tacing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Robert, can I ask a question'? Who worked with you on these FEMA maps'?
How much help did you get on this? Was this just your project?
MR. WILEY: Well, it's a totally separate subject but we can go there if you want to.
The proposed mapping that's being put up by FEMA, the preliminary DFIRM, the consultant the county hired
is Tomasello Consulting Engineers, and so I was the project manager working with him, providing information,
giving direction, helping them get through the process.
From FEMA standpoint they hired through -- their national service provider was Michael Baker, Jr.
Corporation who also subbed out with Dcwberry. So we had engineers from Michael Baker, we had engineers from
Dewberry, we had our engineer, you had me, all of us working together to develop those preliminary mapping. And
that is what is out for release now.
But it's a totally separate subject tram this ordinance, just so you understand. They work together, but they
are non-related as far as how you get lrom one to the other.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I'm asking bL'Cause I was at the tirst FEMA at Saint John's, and I -- the
map that was used is 10 years old. I mean, for the people with this new flood insurance that's coming up, and I
understand we have time to go through it, but a 1 O-year-old map doesn't help residents out at all. In fact, I had a map
done, and we have to call someone in for the whole community and -- because the map was so old.
And it's -- everybody, we were in an X Zone and now it has completely changed. So I would think we would
get a more current map to do this. Are we going to change some of the things?
MR. WILEY: Well, what you're talking about is an item that we're going to be going to the Board of County
Comrnissioners with on Tuesday addressing the new elevations that we have with the new LIDAR, which is Light
Detection and Ranging technology, to develop topography. We are going before them on Tuesday asking for their
direction on whether or not to proceed forward with additional remapping.
Page 35 of 56
16 I 1 A~
October 21,2010
But that's totally separate from this ordinance, so I don't want to rabbit trail too far if we can stay on topic
herc.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Cia ahead, Robert
MR. WILEY: What should I do" Do we --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Do you want to do the fiscal impact"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a dit11cult fiscal impact, because it would depend on the design of the
building, how many openings it had, tons of stufllikc that, so --
MR. WILEY: Everyone's dillcrcnt.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: -- everyone's ditl'erent. It just goes -- I think it goes from smart to stupid.
Do you do the smart thing or you do the dumb thing. So I vote smart.
So I would -- let's do a straw vote. I vote that wc should make thc requirement to be one foot above the base
flood elevation.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would agrce also.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would votc for the fiscal.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would -- are you still doing a straw votc') I would agree, but I would put
the other issue back because now I understand more c1carly, as a eonullercial enterprise it could be signilicantly
increased in cost. I think you ought to tic it to a tiscal analysis because every building being different, some might be
considerably less, some might be considerably marc. So if a tiscal analysis is workable, then that's probably what
should be done.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think we tried to do thesc betorc and the problem bccomes getting--
as Brad said, all the buildings are dill'erent and then all the insurance companies don't want to give you rates. What
did we try to get insurance rates for the last time" It may have been this.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Wouldn't it help, Bob, our rating, too, if we did this, our community rating'?
MR. WILEY: It won't hurt it. Whethcr or not it will actually give us additional points, I would really need to
think on that if that's sufficient to give us -- becausc what they gencrally do -- it's called -- you're talking about the
issue of criteria lilr freeboard, and in freeboard would be everything --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, don't bring up lrceboard.
MR. WILEY: No, this is not where we're going, we're limiting this just to the tloodprooting issue. So I don't
suspect that it would help us tremendously, becausc we don't have rcally cnough facilities where this would be
implemented to account. Because they're going to prorate any increase above minimun1 as a proportion of this
structure impacted. And that is a very minimal amount when you consider everything else, which is mostly
residential in the county.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Robert. was the reason DSAC wanted this note put in here based on cost'?
I rcmember a discussion about this, and wasn't that part ofthcir concern?
MR. WILEY: Their eoncem, as I recall, was the tact that the person who builds it is probably not going to be
the person who subsequently owns it. And so this is basically therefore, everyonc who is building a building or
purchasing a building, iCthey had the li)fcsight to look into cvery ordinance that the county has, this ordinance in
particular, they would see that oh, there's a note there that if I'm tlood-proofed to only the BFE my flood insurance
may go higher.
I guess you would -- if you had a very due diligence type person doing every purchase you made. But they
just wantcd it to be noted somewherc so that when it was built the person building it would be fully aware so that
when they chose to sell the building it's up to them to disclose it.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right, but they didn't recommend making it mandatory lor a reason.
MR. WtLEY: They did not rccommend making it mandatory. Again, their position was go with thc
minimum, put people on notice whcn they choose to build to the minimum.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So cost wasn't really discussed.
MR. WILEY: Cost was not really discussed at that point, tram what I recall.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think it was put in there just to take them off the hook, you know, is
what it amounts to. They can go back and they can say but, you know, it was right there in our floodplain ordinance,
Pagc 36 of 56
-k?
October 21, 2010
your warning was there, and if you didn't look at it, too bad.
So I think it's a nice ofl-the-hook thing. I don't know iliat it actually helps anybody in reality.
So anyway --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the score'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I believe that most people said that they wanted a fiscal analysis; is
that correct'? If that's feasible.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If we're going to proceed making it mandatory.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So maybe you just need to check and see if that's even a feasible thing
to do.
MR. WILEY: I'm asking for your direction, how do I go forward? Do I change it, go back to DSAC with a
tiscal impact, back to you folks? What are you asking me to do'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask another question, Bob. If! built a building or have an existing
building that's below tlood criteria, you note that. Don't you note that in your data base?
MR. WILEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, sir'?
MR. WILEY: It would be built as shown flood-proofed to that base flood elevation. That would be -- the
pennit would be approved for that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For this building.
MR. WILEY: For the building, if you chose to n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wouldn't be shown that it was built one foot below.
MR. WILEY: Well, we're talking here you have to tloodproofat least to the base flood elevation, You could
never --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't this building not be classified as being flood-proofed"
MR. WILEY: It would not be able to receive an approved Collier County pennit if you did not floodproofto
at least the base flood elevation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But if! floodproofto just the base flood elevation, what you're
stating here is that it's not classified as being floodprooffor n
MR. WILEY: For !load insurance d that is for flood insurance purposes, that is not for building permit
purposes. And with FEMA you have to be very careful, they do make a distinction between what's pennittable versus
what they're going to charge you through the Flood Insurance Program to then insure that building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it would be -- okay, compliant building.
MR. WILEY: From the pennitting standpoint, it would be considered as compliant, that is correct. From
flood insurance, it just got a lot more expensive for you.
Now remember, not everyone has tlood insurance. If you do not have federal dollars attached to this building
in a form most commonly of a federally-backed mortgage, there's no mandate that you purchase flood insurance.
That's why we consider this to be higher regulatory, because for the person building it they're paying cash for the
building up front, there's no federal dollars attached to it, it would be a higher requirement than what they could at a
bare minimum construct.
So that's where we get really into the situation do you really want to think for the future, for the benefit of
who's going to own this in the future or what is the absolute bare minimum. As we've said, we stripped it down to the
bare minimum, but we want to make sure you fully Wlderstand what this does.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just read something quick out of the building code. It says:
Construction standards nI'm going to do this paraphrased. But the code specifically defers ilie authority to the local
government by Title 44, CFR, Sections 59 and 60. So is this the ordinance they're referring to'? Are they saying
essentially we have the local authority to come up with what tloodprooting is for our community, and the building
code, you know, stands back from that?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is the ordinance we're writing today.
MR. WILEY: This would be the basis tor how we review it, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if we don't say it here, it's n as far as the building code, have fun.
MR. WILEY: That's correct. Whatever you say here is what the building code will implement, whether you
Page 37 of 56
16 l 1~?
October 21,2010
say at the BFE or one foot above.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I still think it's a good idea. The only reason I do is I can't come up with
being the guy that would think it's n here I want to build a building, oh, I want to save the cost of floodproofing that
extra foot.
I guess if he's going to sell the building and he's value engineering it to the bone, he would go there.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Or ifhe didn't have to have thc flood insurancc.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And he wouldn't get flood insurance. Anybody buying it doing due
diligence would look at the insurance rates or hopefully catch this balded clause. But anyway, we're stuck on it. It's
not worth getting stuck on.
What was the tally of the score? Do a tlscal analysis and we'll think about it"
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I would think, yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This is including all condominiums basically too, right?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it wouldn't. Because if you had a residential thing on your tirst floor,
you would have to get that above tlood criteria anyway.
MR. WILEY: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's say that you did a split-level, you could bring amenities down into the
water if you wanted to, into the tlood.
MR. FRENCH: A parking garage addition or something.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So it rcally wouldn't hurt things anyway. Somewhere there may be a
guy that wants to put thc rcc. area, the lounge or something into the Hood zone. But if you're up there with the resi -- I
mean, I don't think there's a lot of money to he saved tor somebody to do this anyway, so -- anyway, have fun with the
tiscal analysis.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's not going to do anything other than what we tcll him to do. We didn't
get an answer to whether a fiscal analysis is even feasible. Perhaps no one in this room knows the answer to that.
I mean, I'm vacillating now, and I don't generally like to do that at all. And it's a struggle, because you do not
want to encumber additional costs t'Jr pcople on the front end, but you don't want to get them hurt on the back end
either.
Now, one thing that I keep on relating to is that my undcrstanding of it is that ovcr the years FEMA has raised
the height of the floodplain, wherever thc Hood zone or whatcvcr the heck you want to call it. Am I correct in that,
they have raiscd that over the years, have they not"
MR. WILEY: Areas have raised, areas have decreased.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I love you, you makc it so easy.
MR. WILEY: Most areas tcnd to sce an increase as the studies come in. What wc are looking at right now is
the current map mostly has increases. Marco Island area actually had decreases from the '86 map to the 2005 in some
portions of it. The preliminary DFlRM that is coming t<)rward right now as a general rule along the coastline has
decreases. But then you expand the area because of the rainfall analysis as you go inland.
So welre seeing increases as well as decreases in the proposed map.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, here's the thing. And if it ever -- ifany of this ever becomes reality
that the oceans -- you know, that the ice cubes are all going to melt and the oceans are going to rise, FEMA's going to
raise the limit again. And while I may not be around to watch it happen, ethereally maybe, perhaps, I might be
ovcrlooking it, but I think it needs to -- it needs some consideration. I'm not sure that we have an answer. I certainly
n at this point I don't.
Because I think that thc tlscal analysis makes sense, even a simplistic one. If you think ofa fivefold, I think
that's what you used, a tivetold increase in cost tor insurance, if you j;1il to have that --
MR. WILEY: That's your almual premium.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right. Over an amortized period, if you will -- wrong word amortized -- but
over a prolonged period could be considerable. Hut then you have the other factors that some may not want to have
insurance, et cetera.
So I don't know, I'm lost in that regard. That's certainly a difficult challenge.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think it is pretty much the consensus ofthis panel that they would
like to see it raised a toot. Because we don't have a tiscal analysis, it probably, as a first step, would be wise to go
Page 38 of 56
~~
October 21, 2010
back to DSAC and ask their opinion. Our opinion is we should do the smart thing and just raise it.
Is that going to cause a lot of angina, you know, here, or at DSAC or not'? I'm guessing it probably won't.
So take it back there and ask them what they think and then you can come back to us and we can discuss it
agam.
'lbey may be able to give you enough of a tiscal impact tI1at it will satisfy the Board of County
Commissioners in bringing it forward to them one way or the other.
And let's move on.
MR. WILEY: Okay, moving forward. On Page 23, there--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me move backwards on 22. Up at number one, you know, tI1is
requirement for the lowest floor, including basement, you and I discussed it. We gave the example of the Seventies
sunken living room, the bottom of that sunken living room would have to be at flood. Where is that requirement
coming from, Bob'? What regulation?
MR. WILEY: That is the lowest point of the lowest living floor. That is how you define lowest floor
elevation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that is coming out of what regulation?
MR. WILEY: That comes out of FEMA's regulation, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If I wanted to check that, where would I go, just to make --
MR. WILEY: Www.fema.gov, and then have lunch with you, because it will take you a while to find it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's hiding in there somewhere.
MR. WILEY: It is hiding in their definitions section.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll go hunt. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Are we on to--
MR. WILEY: If you look on Page 9 of our detinition, lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest
enclosed area, including the basement. Because that's considered a living area.
Now we -- I only know of two basements in Collier County, and -- what'? That's aliI know of. And actually,
I think both of them are within the City of Naples Iilnits, so I'm not concerned about them, because that's their
jurisdiction.
But generally speaking it's our living floor slab on grade. So that would be the lowest floor. And you go to
the lowest floor is how you measure it. It's not just the door threshold.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my grief is it has to be above the base flood elevation.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
Shall we go to Page 23?
I really don't have many comments on Page 23. As we go through, do you see the balloons over on the side
which describe why we made what changes we did and what additions are in here'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I was just curious as to why we cared if a basement area was
temperature-controlled or not.
MR. WILEY: The concern you have is when you come forward with a building and you declare an area to
be your lowest floor, but it really isn't, because you then enclose something, temperature control, AC, and then you
tum it into living space, that is what this is to address.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Right, [understand us not wanting it to be living space. But what
about air conditioned storage space? I mean, I see how it would be hard to write a --
MR. WILEY: Right, the issue here, and I'll give you a good example, is where you have your lowest floor of
the house is for the living area and they put that at the BFE, at the base flood elevation. You have an eight-inch
step-down going into the garage. The garage floor is below the BFE. And then someone converts that to living
space. That's what you're not allowed to do by this. That's what you're making sure you understand.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So [couldn't just air condition my garage because I leave my car there
for six months and, you know, I've seen them grow moldy.
MR. WILEY: If you choose to put the floor of the garage below the base flood elevation, you also have to
have in there vents. Well, the vents are open to the outside. You're really not going to want to air condition it anyway
unless you really like paying super high power bills.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, this means air condition. Can I put ventilation'? Can I pull air through
Page 39 of 56
161
1
~~
October 21, 201 0
that space? I'm not temperature controlling it. So I guess I'm allowed to, correct'?
MR. WILEY: You could just simply put a lfm type system through it, you could do that, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's climate controlled, Donna.
MR. WILEY: Okay. As wc go forward, I really don't have many things to say about it until we gct over to
Page 26. So if someone has some other comments getting to there, we'll try to addrcss them.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: ljust had a question on 24. It says under -- wcll, just as an example,
under D.2, it says such housing when provided. I just wondercd why you needed when provided.
MR. WILEY: This is language that was put in the ordinance by our Emergency Management statrfor
following a disaster and we get the FEMA housing that's coming in. They wanted to address all the situations that
basically allow them to install different types, whether they be RV trailers, regular mobile homes, whatever they bring
in here. So this is their language of when it's to be placed. I really can't address it other than show what's there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, I think that's important that at a time like that that we're not
lighting ourselves with our wrong ordinances.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: No. I'm not trying to do that. I think that's tinc. Ijust don't know that
we need the words when provided. I think it refers to the paragraph right above it. And it says what they're going to
provide.
MR. FRENCH: If I can, this language was dralled by Dan Summers' group over at Emergency Management.
And I know that he did work with an outside contractor and FEMA directly.
Thcrc was some conccrn, primarily becausc FEMA takes a rule, or they take the position that if you're within
a I OO-year floodplain, no matter what thc elcvation is, they will not install any assets whatsoever.
That becomes problematic under the new lloodplain maps that are -- or the now flood maps that are coming
forward and some of their rccollUllended maps. Primarily because then what happens is that then you're building
these communities very far inland, and that's not what FEMA has n that's not what the intcnt would be n would be if
you were going to create these housing type villages, they would be very elosc to thc ncighborhoods that they
commute in, it would control tratTic, it would keep kids in school and it would get thc intra structure back up and
running much faster.
So that's the lanb'llagc that -- and I may stand corrcetcd, but I belicve that's thc languagc that Dan SUllUllers
brought l(lrward that he had worked out an agreement with FEMA in order f'Jr them to say, okay, so in the evcnt that
we agree, at least thc county acknowlcdges that it's allowablc.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're also, Donna, doing a study of housing alter a stornl and weeding
out code problems. This is obviously one of thcm that they want in therc.
ACTING CHAIR WOMAN CARON: Yeah, no, I havc no problem with the thrust of what it was saying, it's
just n
COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: The English teacher in you')
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 25 -- Pagc 25 question, if it's appropriate.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, on seven you'rc discussing that projects have to be elevated no lower
than the 100-year flood criteria. This is seaward of the coastal controllinc. And the building code covers that very
carefully. And their wording is much better than yours.
You say elevated no lower than. When they discussed it, they're discussing that the forces from a I DO-year
storm. So you're not addressing the fact that it's really to the bottom of all the structural systems and everything that
that thing has to be elevated to.
MR. WILEY: This is addressing within the coastal area, which is again right next to the VE Zone. And at
that point you measure the bottom of thc lowest horizontalmcmbcr.
So this simply addresses elevation. FEMA through its requirements always requires that anything within the
coastal high hazard area be designed to withstand thc wavc action as well as the wind action simultaneous to it. But
the ordinance addresses elevating to a sutTicient height so that the wave docsn't create the damage, it just passes
beneath it.
Now, with the situation on a coastal constnlction control line, because that is a regulatory line and the DEP
does regulate along that, it's not Wlcor11Jll0n lor their elcvation to be higher than the FEMA elevation. That's what this
Page 40 of 56
"
"
,
~
October 21, 2010
is making allowance for, whichever elevation you're coming to is higher, you have to at least elevate to that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. My question is I would just reference the code, the building code as
it's clear on this. Clearer than your phrase.
MR. WILEY: In some situations what we actually do is we use the building code for pennitting, but within
our ordinance we're trying to use FEMA's language back to them instead of referencing a code that they don't know
when it may change.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I doubt the building code will defy FEMA in regulation, I mean, since
FEMA is requiring you to meet the building code. So that would be a circle.
MR. WILEY: Just trying to clarify so we don't get into a circle here of one thing representing another that
may change without you knowing it, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The impression I get in reading your seven is iliat I can put my floor
elevation at the I OO-year flood elevation. FEMA is saying no, I can put -- I have to protect all the forces or I have to
put it someplace where all thc structural systcms are above that elevation.
So that's my only comment, just the wording of that.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Sounds like you may want to look at it, Robert. I don't know whether
it is better or not. I don't have the language in front --
MR. WILEY: I'll talk to Brad separately to tigure out what we can do there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll give you the building code if you want. Just read the scope of that, it--
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Just one thing above that where, the paragraph under six, it says
located in areas of special flood hazard. If you go down in that para!,'faph, it talks about a regulatory floodway. And
in the next paragraph it talks about a regulatory tloodway.
Didn't we take regulatory out of everything" That was under your definitions, that floodways were floodways
were floodways.
MR. WILEY: What we did in the definition on Page 10 is we leave the term regulatory floodway in as a
detined term and it simply says see tloodway.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. But why in yom text do you need to keep regulatory floodway
in here'? Why wouldn't you just say tloodway'?
MR. WILEY: I'm trying to duplicate the language we got from FEMA is what I'm trying to do here. So
that's why we -- instead of having two separate detinitions, we simply refelTed to the other one.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Fine.
MR. WILEY: I mean, I'll take your direction. I'm just trying to avoid--
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Melissa, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Page 25, number eight. It looks like we're redefining accessory structures. And
then we added multiple items wlder that. That's not part ofthe model ordinance, so is this not in excess of the
minimum?
MR. WILEY: It is an addition for claritication for what we would consider under the Flood Insurance
Program to be accessory structures. You'll find them referenced through FEMA as called appurtenant also at times
when you get on FEMA's website.
It's additional criteria. It is not higher regulatory, it is more explanatory than anything else. It's not placing
higher regs against anything.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Bob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This regulatory tloodway, see tloodway, I'm assuming in a regulatory
floodway may be a canal?
MR. WILEY: Well, since we do not have any of them in Collier County, it's easy to say, well, ignore the
term. But let me try to explain to you what it is.
In a riverine situation, not the coastal surge, but from rainfall, typically you have enough topography to create
a valley. We do not have that in Collier County. But we have very, very gradual sloping change in elevation. The
regulatory flowway is that portion where you have the tlow of the water, how much can you keep increasing the fill
materials to pinch that tlow of water down till you increase the height ofthe flood elevation by one foot'?
That extent of squeezing in the system is the point where then you have the regulatory floodway is that
Page 41 of 56
161
1
~~
October 21,2010
distance remaining.
Now, since we do not have them detined in Collier County and in our de!inition section, we say we don't
have any regulatory tloodways. We do not have them now, they are not proposed to be on the new map coming out
by FEMA, simply because we are so t1at.
The term really becomes needless. But I was informed by FEMA if we do not leave it in our ordinance, they
will reject the ordinance. I don't follow their logic but I do lollow their direction on this one. So that's why the term
still stays in even though we will never use it, because it's a nonentity in the county.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I clearly understand you and it's a good explanation. And you've used the
statement in here, I guess parenthetically, regulatory t1oodway, see t1oodway?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess that's just as good as saying hereatier, floodway. Okay, it's really
moot isn't it. I mean, it's -- but it is, I suppose someonc's going to have to explain it to someone again and again and
agam.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, thank you. You have no options.
MR. WILEY: Shall we move on') Okay.
As we get over onto Page 26, we entcr into the subsection C, specitic standards for A Zones without base
tlood elevations and regulatory tloodways. This entire scction has been added in. It's a part of the model ordinance.
So it adds into what will become our ordinance, becausc we do have extensive areas in the eastern portion of the
county which are -- they're called an Approximate Zone A. There is no base tlood elevation identitied with them, and
they have some unique characteristics.
One of the situations you run into is that when you have a propcrty which is tive acres in size or larger or
proposed to be subdivided down into 50 lots or more, whichever criteria you reach tirst, the developer is required to
come up with a basc tlood elevation and havc that approved by FEMA. So that can be fairly onerous for particular
situations out there.
And so when we looked at howls the county going to regulate this in some situations, if you notice in
paragraph number seven, or sub-paragraph seven, it's on the middle of Page 27, it says when the data is not available.
Now, they're talking about tlood elevation data from any source that the county can tind. And these sources
obviously have to be reliable sources. It can't be well, I picked a number off of the dice in my kid's Monopoly game.
But if you cannot find any inf,mnation to cstablish a base t100d elevation, then what do you do? So this is
where we have some bare minimum default criteria for use.
Within the model ordinance it simply said to be elcvatcd no lower than three feet above the highest adjacent
grade. And this is where the tenll highest adjacent gradc is important. That is the preconstruction groWld elevation
immediately adjacent to the proposed site of the building.
So that's before you put a !ill pad down, bcfixe you stm1 a stem wall, you go to your site and you measure
what is the ground elevation. And in those areas that arc thc Approximate Zone A, you would then be required for
our building permit purpose by thc model ordinance to be three teet above that.
What wc looked at was the implications that that may not be sut11cient here in Collier County by the time you
go through the process with the Department of Health, you design a septic system. And I do want to remind you these
are areas generally around State Routc 29 and further east, cxtremcly rural, there arc no public water and sewer
systems out there, so you are going to bc on septic and well. By the time you go through the process, our county
engineer at the timc, Stan Chrzanowski, rccommended very strongly that we change that to be four feet to betlcr
comply with what is bcing built today.
Then we also took the consideration that some areas may be in a situation of a wetland, where you have wet
scason water table elevations above ground. So that's why wc thcn addcd also the staph or the wet season water table
clevation, whichever is highcr. Because your highest adjacCIlt grade may be below the water elevation at that point.
That's the reasons for the change that you'll see here.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Good changc.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Melissa'?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: When you'rc calculating for your gravity tlow, you have to meet the 42-inch
separation from the limited layer, which is usually going to determinc what your tinished floor elevation is. And in
Page 42 of 56
, I
~
October 21,2010
most cases it's higher than 48. So I'm not sure what the benetit of increasing the minimum from three to four is,
because you're going to n it's going to be what it's going to be.
MR. WILEY: It is going to be what it's going to be. We did not feeln Stan felt we should at least go to tour,
because he says three gives somebody an option that they may think they have and they really don't. He was trying to
get it to reflect more of reality of what they're going to have anyway.
I will also give you a little bit of infomlation from the preliminary digital Flood Insurance Rate Map that
FEMA has released. I did go along the eastern perimeter of our study area. And hopefully everyone understands we
didn't map everything all the way to the east county line. We did have a bOWldary on it.
I went along that interface tram the proposed AH Zones into n and also some of the AE Zones -- into the
current Approximate Zone A, because that's what will remain where we have not studied.
Typically what I was tinding was elevations for the proposed flood elevation do have a water surface from
two that -- you know, one-and-a-halfto up to two-and-a-halffeet. Thai was real common. I did tind areas where
there were places it was three-and-a-half feet.
So that made me feel even better that Stan had a right thinking at the time when he said go to four as a
minimum because if we said three as a minimum, there are some areas that from the modeling it would show the
water would be deeper than three feet above adjacent 6'fade right now. So at that point I began to support him a lot
stronger.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: To do gravity flow isn't the only option. So when -- in some oftl1ese cases you
could be talking at a 65 to 70-inch finish floor elevation. So you still have an option of dropping the elevation and
putting in a lift station.
MR. WILEY: That you do, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So it seems like considering this really doesn't cover the majority of gravity
flow situations, that really the extra foot is really putting an additional cost burden when it may not be necessary.
MR. WILEY: That's why we had our discussion and consensus among staff Stan was right, so that's why we
did propose to change it. If you do not support that, if you give direction to lower it, that's what we will go to the
Board with.
So far we have gotten support tram the floodplain Committee and DSAC to accept the four foot.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would recommend leaving it at the minimum.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think you've got support from DSAC on this. I don't think there's
anything --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They support it for?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Uh-huh, they support it for.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you remember any of that conversation?
MR. WILEY: We didn't really discuss it. We went through and nobody had any comments on it when they
looked at it.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Well, if you're not tamiliar with gravity flow systems and calculating
elevations then you're not going to really know this doesn't reflect the majority of these cases.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Let's do this. We have our current engineer in the house, why don't
we have him come up and weigh in on the issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, while he's coming in, this whole n
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Saying again, FEMA, we're trying to minimize, and they're having it at three.
But this is another example of where we're increasing it higher.
MR. McKENNA: Good morning. For the record, Jack McKenna, your Collier COWlty engineer.
As was mentioned, Stan had reviewed this, and I have trouble tinding reason to dispute it.
I think what we're trying to do is to provide information that people will use in detining their expectation of
what they're going to be building to. It's true, if you had a 6'finder station or something like that you might have the
ability to go lower.
What we rnight consider doing is putting that t1exibility into the language, putting in a less condition in there,
because that would be an exception. And I think it's a valid point that you're making there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. That helps.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So you'll be working with Robert on revising some language'?
Page 43 of 56
161
1 .
kl
October 21,2010
MR. McKENNA: Yes, I'd be happy to do that.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, isn't (sic) these zoncs, cspecially the A Zones, aren't they areas of
shallow zoning, which is a maximum of thrce feet'? So why would this condition raise that'?
MR. WILEY: In the Approximate Zone A there is no established base flood elevation. It can be anything.
The situation, from the way FEMA cvaluates, is they say we'vc not done a detailed study to establish an elevation but
we have given a generalized look at the area and detelmined that it is higWy susceptible in our opinion to inundation
ofland, Hooding. So therefore they declare it to be the Approximate Zone A.
Then they leavc the responsibility to thc local conununity on the regulations to enforce it so that as pennits
are approved thcy are flood damage resistent. In other words, you arc elevating above the flood elevation that have to
identify and establish yoursel f.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have areas of shallow Hooding which are AO, All Zones, right?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, those arc not your Approximate Zonc A. thcy arc differcnt. They havc an established
base Hood elevation with them through a detailed study. This is areas outside the study boundary.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you think they would bc a higher elevation than that area of shallow
flooding.
MR. WILEY: Well, alii was relating to you was along the current preliminary DFIRM that's been releascd
by FEMA, as you compare the basc Hood elevation to thc UDAR clevation attached to it, which gives you your
topography, there were some areas that as a general rule they were between one-and-a-halfto two-and-a-half feet in
depth differencc.
The three-foot would appear to be close, but it gets you there. I did End some areas though where there was
up to three-and-a-half foot of difference in clevation lrom the ground to the water surface elevation. So at that point I
began to like Stan's proposal of four feet better because it covered n and again, that's just at the edge. I really have no
way to confirm anything out beyond that edgc interfacc.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, Cherie', it is noon. We have scven more pages.
Yes, how about that" And then we'lljust plow through the rest of this afier we nlet's take a lO-minute break
and we can -- for Cherie' and then wc can plow through the rcst of it.
Good, 10 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Welcome back evcryonc. Thank you, Robert. Let's pick up where
we left off, on Page 27.
MR. WILEY: We are on Page 27 and subsection D, specific standards tor coastal high hazard areas, the V
Zonc.
So if you have any comments on that section, I will try to address them.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Essentially nothing changed in that section other than to name
professional engineer or registered architect. Everything else seems to have been pretty much the same, right?
MR. WILEY: If you will look right at the very bottom line of Page 29, flipping over to the top of Page 30,
you will see local criteria explaining some stuff that we're currently doing being added in. It will be sub-paragraph
13, accessory structurcs. Now, these are acccssory structures within the coastal high hazard area.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: For us it's Pagc 30.
MR. WILEY: Really, you see the text at the top of Page 30. Yes, you do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I havc a Page 28 qucstion.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In paren thrcc you use this, and I'll read it from your revised. A
professional engineer or registcred architect shall dcvelop or review the structural design specification and plans.
That "or reviewH kind of takes us out of our practice act.
In other words, welre not allowed to ~- you know, if Jamie did the drawings, I can't review them and certify
them. I have to develop them myself. Thcrc is a process as a successor architect. In other words, if Jamie quit a job,
there's a process in which I could take it over, assuming Jamie is an architect.
MR. FRENCI I: That's a stretch.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in other words, I cannot review the structural design of somebody else's
Pagc 44 of 56
,'\~.,
.'
~
October 21,2010
work.
So can you phrase it'? And this kind of wording is in tI1ere quite a bit. I don't think a professional engineer
can either. It's against our practice act, so --
MR. WILEY: The wording that you have here is not intended to reflect any difference than what the Florida
law has for our current act under which we practice as engineers or architects. This is simply discussing the options
that are there.
As you said, if you design a system and then you decide to move to Montana where we can't get ahold of you,
and Jamie, who just got his architectural license last week, he got a good box of crackerjacks so we know where he
got it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He can--
MR. WILEY: Well, you know, we're using a good farfetched example here, but he could pick up the design
MR. FRENCH: Better pull out the org. chart.
MR. WILEY: Yeah, right. lIe could pick up the design and review it.
Now, he assumes at that point responsibility for tI1e design after his review, do the signing and sealing on it.
That is not any different as I understand tram what Florida law allows.
But this is not intended for an engineer or an architect to simply look at something and sign and seal it. He is
putting his license on the line at that point. This does not grant him any loss of responsibility when he signs or seals.
I don't see the problem with the language as is here. It doesn't really conflict. It's not intended to say any more than
what the current law allows right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're allowing an architect to come in, review a building, certify. Okay,
maybe that works.
ACTING CHAIR WOMAN CARON: Anybody else'?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Then we're on to 30.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would -- he's leaving it hanging. Maybe that works. Does it satisfy you, or
no?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, let's say a flood certificate. Who can do those, the floor
elevation, the land surveyor, right?
MR. FRENCH: Professional land surveyor, correct.
MR. WILEY: Professional land surveyor is required by law to establish the elevation, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's say that it's an older building and you want to get an engineer to
certify it. That would certainly make sense. You could hire an engineer and he would, to the best of his ability, be
able to do that.
I mean, the concern I'm trying to prevent is, and we have a problem in the profession, is an architect stamping
plans prepared or studies prepared by somebody else.
MR. WILEY: This does not allow him to do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It allows him to develop, which I'm perfectly happy with, or review the
structural design, specitication and plans, you know, plans he didn't prepare, you're reviewing.
MR. WILEY: Again, this does not conflict, though, with the Florida statutes on their responsibility. So it's in
there to allow, as you just said, the older building. You have to have someone do something and you can't get back to
the original engineer --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll let it go. This won't allow somebody to do something they're not
allowed to do by state law.
MR. WILEY: It will not, that is correct. It will not.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Brad, I think it doesn't, because the end of that sentence says in
accordance with accepted standards of practices. So I think you're covered.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, yeah.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Or I think the COllilty's covered.
MR. WILEY: Now we are at the top of Page 30 where we are referring to some oftl1e discussion or text on
accessory structures. Were there any concerns about what's stated here"
Page 45 of 56
16 1 1 ~~
October 21, 201 0
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: This is again all permitting. This is in permitting, not in looking back on
something. Let's say you had an accessory structure in excess of 100 square feet and it was as a result of flooding,
while the example is here, and it's broken down, replacement has to be in excess of 100 square feet; is that right'?
MR. WILEY: Well, why would it have to be in excess" If you look at B, it says the maximum allowable
size is 100 square feet. So it would have to bc less.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm sorry, I had it backwards in my question. I apologize. And that question
was in error then.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Questions, Donna')
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Schit1er.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In A you'rc using the word disposable. Is that what you nI mean, in
building codes we havc a concept or lrangiblc, which is something that u you know, like we do explosive sheds, they
can be hlown apart. But what's a disposablc building')
MR. WILEY: It's going to be a very minimal low cost construction. You know that when a ston11 comes
through it's going to get tom up, and you know it's not going to be designed to withstand the force of the storm
commg lll.
COMMISSIONER SCI IlFFER: Then maybe the trangible is something u would be a bettcr word. Because
that essentially means that it can bc n you're not going to try to protect it.
MR. WILEY: As I understand 1"0111 Irangible, it's desipled to specifically break up into certain sizes. This
one just simply says it won't survivc is what we're saying by disposable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But disposable I have, you know, the act of throwing away
somehow is in that -- for me. But anyway, irIs --
MR. WILEY: If you'll notice the word is in quotc marks too, to hclp sort of understand this is a cheap
building. I don't want to identify any particular person who may sell this building, so I'm avoiding names.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And they would argue about the disposable word.
MR. WILEY: At this point it really becomes the discussion that your Building Otliciallooks at. This
language camc from them. This is what they are using right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who'l
MR. WILEY: The Building Dcpartmcnt.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Detached garages are not allowed in V Zones. But, I mean, that
could be the garage to a high-rise or something that -- what does that really mean?
MR. WILEY: That's exactly what that means.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in othcr words, you build a high-rise development in the V Zone, you
have to attach a parking garage?
MR. WILEY: Your garage would bc a part of your building or it would not be allowed to be built as a garage
with enclosed sides and all. It would have to be n you could havc a carp0l1.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're not saying enclosed sidcs, you'rc saying a garage.
MR. WILEY: Right. But I said it would he n you think of a garage as an enclosed space. It has to be a part
of your building. Then that then allows you to detennine what enclosure you can and cannot have. And in the VE
Zone, as you know, it's supposed to be open so the water can go through. So they're simply saying you catmot have a
separate detached garage building sitting therc because that would be a hlockagc t'Jr thc flow.
Now, you could have an open carport where the roof has the lowest part of horizontal member at or above the
BFE, but you could not have a detached scparatc garage bui Iding.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're also saying that it's only 100 square feet and cost 2,500 bucks,
so --
MR. WILEY: That is a separate type or sItuation here. Those are scparatc individual shed buildings you
want to have. It's not the same as calling it a detached garage.
COMMISSIONER SCI IlFFER: The t,)lIowing standards arc rcquircd to regulatc acccssory structures. They
all don't apply. In other words, you don't want a IOO-squarc-foot with garages.
MR. WILEY: Right.
Page 46 or 56
,
.'
.(>(1
October 21, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're talking about ilie big parking garages. And they can't be
standalone? I mean, I'm not really worried about it because we can mess around with canopies and trick you into
thinking it's part of the building. But, you know, but there are standalone parking garages in V zones in Collier.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: But they're open.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, they're definitely open. But it's a -- well, he didn't say enclosed. Ifhe
wants to clarity that, he can -- detached enclosed garages might make sense then. They have to meet the requirements
of a building.
MR. WILEY: They have to meet a building requirement, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I don't see why -- but I !,'1Iess you're -- it's late, let's not hang on that. I'll
bow.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Does anybody have any questions on Page 31 '?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: This gets into variances and the appeals board and appeals
procedures.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Do you have questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have one quick question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On 31, under C, appeals procedure, under 4-B, what's the difference
between an administrator's decision or a determination'?
MR. WILEY: If you go and look, earlier in the ordinance it talks about the floodplain administrator being
able to make a detennination on the structure's location as to which flood zone it is in or out of. So those are the
areas, those are his detennination decisions. And I'm not sure there is a huge difference in the language between the
two terms.
But basically decisions are, as I've looked at them trom the standpoint offor pennitting purposes,
detenninations are for opinions of making a judgment call on a location.
And Jetl, please clarity if we need to change the wording here, but I don't really see an issue between using
the two words. Whichever way you choose, though.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do think it provokes questions that may not be necessarily needed to be
provoked.
MR. KLATZKOW: Where did you get the language from, Bob, on this'? I'm talking about the entire section.
MR. WILEY: You know, I don't remember ifl got it from our current code on how we place an appeal
before the BZA or not. I don't remember, Jeft~ on exact locations.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Because that's sort of what I'm getting at. If this language is our current language, then
I'm okay with it. If this is brand new --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Why don't we check that.
MR. WILEY: I got it somewhere.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, yeah. Probably out of the same crackeIjack box.
MR. WILEY: Well, you know, it could be. I don't eat crackerjacks h
MR. FRENCH: That one wasn't a fine quality --
MR. WILEY: I got the cheap box, right'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So you're going to get back to us on that and check that language.
Because it should be the same as the language we're currently using.
MR. KLATZKOW: If it's the same we already have now, we've worked with for years, I'm okay with it.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Does anybody have anything else'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What pages, DOIma'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: We're on 30 and 31. Actually, 31. Those are the variance procedures.
And Robert's going to check ilie language to make sure it's consistent with what we've been using, are
currently using.
So this was just adding ilie section because we need to give people an appeals and a variance procedure, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, actually it is the 31, because I'm looking at the new version.
Page 47 of 56
/1
161
1 ~'?
October 2!, 201 0
The Board of Zoning Appeals, going at\er the technical data, isn't there a way in FEMA that you can appeal
some of the technical issues?
In other words, the regulations that you put in here you'vc always said comc from FEMA. So would it be the
BZA that would actually be trying to vary tram those')
MR. WILEY: If you were going to go through any kind of a variance procedure, it would be a variance
typically that's complying with thc minimum requirements for that zone. But any other particular regulation, I'm not
following what you are asking --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's thc technical -- in other words, all the technical criteria you pulled
out ofFEMA documents.
MR. WILEY: That's what we use, ycs, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The Commissioners didn't come up with, you know, it has to be one toot
above the whatever. So anybody trying to vary that, wouldn't they go to the source of those technical documents for a
technical variance?
MR. WILEY: If you're trying to have a variance based upon some technical criteria, that's the call that we
make. And if we do approve any kind ofa development that varics, even ifit's so directed by our Board of County
Commissioners through the Board of Zoning Appeals, if we choose to make such a variance, we've got to note that.
And then we do have to tell that to FEMA. It does get reported to them
COMMISSIONER SCI-IIFFFR: And obviously we're putting technical requirements in by this review. But
you're saying that if they want to vary from it, they go to that. Okay.
It's not quite on Pagc 31. Can I go to the next page?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah, 32, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCH1}'FER: It would be 32. And I'm going by thc prior II. What does that really mean,
that one of the criteria is that the relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and flood? I mean, that's
the reason their -- I just can't get to come up with an example of where that would be available.
MR. WILEY: Let's use an example, and I hope I'm correct in this. But where we have a conservation area
and it happens to be in an AI' tlood zone and you have 3n applicant coming in and they say I want to build docks.
Could they do that"
Whether or not a Comprehensive Plan would allow that intensity, these are areas where you get to make
judgment calls. It's within your floodplain. Your plan doesn't really support building -- and I hope McDonald's is a
correct use here, but I'm thinking of a VCIY highly intense type of development f'if tratlic potential impacts. You're
going against what your Comprehensive Plan says, you're trying to build a variance to not even comply with the
minimum requirements of your floodplain. So you're having to evaluate. Do you have a legitimate right to grant
variance for situations such as this'?
I don't see it happening in the county. But remember, FEMA's language addresses everywhere in the nation
and everyone has to duplicate it so--
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: I think that's okay.
COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: Arc we on Page 32 yct'.'
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: We arc.
COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: I have a question. Under I, where we talk about limiting it, it's actually at the
very end on Page 33, possible such temporary waivers or exemptions following a disaster housing etTort shall
teTIninate within 18 months of issuance.
I recognize the desire to minimize the involvement, but I do know that in a number of situations it's been
several years where somc ofthcsc temporary housing facilities have been established, and they camlot do anything
much.
So 18 months is a good target to shoot tor, but based on the int<mnation that's available, and FEMA is
probably a good resource for that, is that reasonable')
What do we do if it's after 18 months, come in for a meeting with the Commissioners"
MR. WILEY: In that particular situation, if you notice what it says, that it shall terminate within -- it's where
possible such temporary waivers shall terminate within 18 months.
If you go beyond that 18 months, it would come back to the Board tor the extension. It would not have to be
abandoned, but you would go through an extension process. The purpose here is to make it very clear when the
Page 48 of 56
f\~
October 21, 2010
Board is issuing this variance, this is never to be intended to be interpreted as allowing pemlanent use for this.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: [appreciate that.
MR. WILEY: So you give an 18 month, which is from the standpoint of FEMA in the overall perspective of
them working with our Emergency Management statl, they were the ones that were working with them to come up
with 18 months, knowing what is a typical situation they go through.
With FEMA you do have the l8-month provision in there. And at that point they really start shutting it down
and telling people you've got to leave this temporary housing.
Now, it doesn't always happen, because there is a legal process to go through and it does extend it, but they
start shutting down at 18 months.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I have no quibble wiili it. Just that based on knowledge, general
knowledge that in many instances the emergency situations have not been cleaned up after 18 months --
MR. WILEY: And you can extend. This is not precluding negotiating to extend it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate it. So that's not going to be a problem that this ordinance
then by irrference alone suggests that we go back to the Collier County Commissioners and seek some kind of an
extension as appropriate.
MR. WILEY: You would go back to the Commissioners to seek the extension, but it would allow them to do
so.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know, does that have to be spelled out, or by strong inference'?
MR. WILEY: [don't think it would have to be spelled out here, because it simply says where possible. And
that I think would give us the ability to then grant extensions beyond 18 months.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And this is a mailer big enough that would not be any individuals being,
quote, unquote, picked on. It would be something that we'd instigate, the county.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, through the Emergency Management Department. They would be right on top of it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, this is, I think it's 32, conditions for variance. It says here these are the
conditions in which we can offer a variance. It says here that it only can be on a lot size of one-half acre or less.
So that means we write all this code and it's only for little lots that we can apply this'?
MR. WILEY: For the variance, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So all this writing we just reviewed only applies if you have a lot one acre
or less?
MR. WILEY: This is when you're choosing to construct a building, you're wanting a variance. You're
wanting to construct the building and get a variance to the minimum requirements. Then to do so, under FEMA's
guidance they say it must be on a lot of that particular size or less, half acre or less.
And I'll tell you where they're coming from is in their criteria that they use, you've got to show what is unique
about the property that requires a variance to allow reasonable construction. That's where they're looking from the
standpoint, if you've got more than half an acre, there's going to be no reason FEMA can tigure that you could justify
what is so unique iliat you could not build in some other fashion on it and be in compliance.
And remember for FEMA and their criteria, cost is not a consideration.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the only variances that the BZA will be looking at tor new construction
are on the lots under one-half acre.
MR. WILEY: I'll give you an example of one of the conditions where a variance is allowable. Now,
remember, the ditlerence between desirable and allowable is drastic. You have a vacant lot in an old subdivision
where everybody has built years ago, they're pre-FIRM, meaning the houses were build before the tirst Flood
Insurance Rate Map was ever established. So they were built very low.
Now you're coming in and where the floor elevations for all of the houses on ilie entire street, everybody's got
their little quarter-acre lot, and everybody's sitting at an elevation of six, and the base flood elevation is 10.
Now, you can apply for a variance to knowingly build your house down at that elevation six so your house
does not stand out like the beacon in the whole subdivision and you can comply. They don't recommend it, but you
could in that situation. That's what this is addressing. You are the unique last remaining type situation here.
Page 49 of 56
161
1
~~
October 21,2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't that -- that's only what they're addressing. So that's the only
variance you're allowed; is that right?
My question really isn't focused on that. It sounds like this is a variance of the base tIood elevation too. And
there's a lot of other requirements.
But if these are the conditions t,,, variances that have to bc mct, if your project doesn't meet paren one, you
can't apply It" a variance; is that right"
MR. WILEY: That is correct. Let's say it this way. You cannot--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's ironic is that the--
MR. WILEY: You can always apply. You can apply. The county can always choose to grant the variance.
The local entity, the local govefllll1ent has the ability to grant a variance. They can find yes, we grant it.
Now, when you choose to grant the variancc, you do so in contradiction to what your ordinance tells you to
do. At that point you do put your participation within the Flood Insurance Program at risk.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my point is the irony is we have all these pages for variances, which
probably a half acre of pages, and the only variance you can go t,,,. is the ones that meet paren one, which is a
halt~acre site.
MR. WILEY: They are speeitying vcry elearly, there's a unique situation that you would qualify for a
variance; that is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got to be missing something.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: This is only t,,, new construction. So there should be no reason that
you would have to seek a variance. It's new construction. So you should be meeting all the guidelines, Brad. This is
not --
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: And substantial improvements.
But you're right. I mean, you have a tiny, tiny, you know, the eye ofa needle option for a variance.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I need to make a--
COMMISSIONER SCIIlFFER: As outlined by 10 pages.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yes. Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I remember -- I don't remembcr how many -- couple of years ago,
several years ago, we had a lot of rain and we had people who were out in the Estates who were gelling flooded that
had not been flooded before. And they havc f'lirly large tracts of land.
And the issue when it was qualified further, concern was expressed that as people continue to build, the
nonpenneablc surfaces keep on squeezing the water to smaller and smaller areas.
And it seems to me you made the statement, a blanket statemcnt, which I understand, you tried to make a
point. But under those eircwnstances where those lots are -- there may be no place on that two-and-a-half acre lot that
you could satisfy that on a half-acre portion. I mean, are we counting the lot or arc we counting what'?
I'm trying to understand. Thc way I understood that initially was that it's a halt~acre lot, period, end of story.
So that would mean that all of Golden Gate Estates doesn't qualify, right"
MR. WILEY: That's what it would mean. Now. relating that to the past situation, Golden Gate Estates was
either located, thc west em portion of it had some Zone X. Thc majority of Golden Gate Estates was Zone D. Neither
of those areas are within a special tlood hazard area. So therett)fe the whole issue of a variance is not even applicable,
because this is where you're trying to vary trom the established tlood elevation.
Now, as we move the tlood zones t"rward into the preliminary DFlRMS that are out where there is a great
expansion because of rainfall analysis tt" tlooding, and you now have the AH zone, that would move out into the
Estates. And that's the good situation you're looking at.
Once a base flood elevation is established throughout the Estates, and of course the Estates being very large
the elevation does vary, we all undcrstand that, with the slope of the ground. So then if someone wanted to come in
and propose to build a tloor clevation below the establishcd clevation that's out there, that's when they would be
corning for a variance. They would apply t<Jr a variance.
The criteria says to approve the variance you had to be a half acre or less in size. Right otTthe bat would
eliminate thcm for the proper approval of thc variance. Can the Board approve it'? A decision of the Board with the
votes, they can say approve. But they would be in violation of their ordinance. We would then have to report the
Page 50 of 56
~J
October 21,2010
variance as approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
If FEMA then decided that it was an improperly approved variance, that's when we would put our flood
insurance program participation at risk.
The basic word is you avoid approving variances unless there is clear conformance with the very tight
restrictions that FEMA has for them.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood everything you've said. But what jumps through my poor brain
here is that when you go further east you have 25-acre and greater parcels. Then you get to Immokalee and you may
have some smaller tracts. You know, I'm just wondering, are we setting ourselves up for failure or is FEMA setting us
up for failure in that regard'?
And I'll end it with that. Because if you're telling me that the language is a requirement ofFEMA, and we
can take issue with it but apparently it will do us no good, then I would have to withdraw my comment.
But I tell you, it seems very strange. It doesn't seem to comport with what rcality is for us.
MR. WILEY: In what way?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just my view.
MR. WILEY: Okay.
If you would look on Page 33, near the middle of the page, it's in paren four, the statement that has been
added in there by the t100dplain management planning committee. DSAC did review it and had no comment on it. It
says: No variance shall be issued for unpennitted work.
And this is the issue where someone without an approved building pennit goes and constructs something and
then it is discovered that this was built, usually it's through a code enforcement action is how this comes to light.
What we're saying is by putting this language in here the Board of County Commissioners through the Board
of Zoning Appeals would very clearly have stated there was no approved building permit for it, you have no proper
basis then to grant the variance.
That was a very strong statement put in there by the Floodplain Committee. DSAC looked at it and they left
it alone. I want to makc sure you understood what was here.
In discussions with Mr. Strain, he did have some concerns about just that. And Jeft~ I'm probably going to
blow the tenninology, so please clear me up on this. He's asking about a due process of law, does that eliminate some
consideration. It's my understanding rrom talking to Jennifer White that it would not eliminate that because they had
done something without seeking pennit approval and obtaining pennit approval.
So can you e1arify that?
MR. KLATZKOW: You got two issues, Bob. One is we lost a lot ofpennits over the years, so we've got a
lot of structures out there that may have been pennitted and we don't have the records for, and that's problematic with
this language, okay.
The other issue is you build something without a permit, we can make you take it down. It's as simple as that.
So, you know, putting language in no variance shall be issued for something that's unlawful, I don't know
why you really need to put it in there. But it's okay by me.
But your big issue here is we simply have lost a lot of records over the years tor the older structures. And I'm
not sure how you're going to handle that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me add a third problem, is you bought a house and three owners
ago they did something without a pennit. You really wouldn't know that. I mean, if you're sleeping in the garage
there might be a clue, but --
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. But really, having said all that, Bob, we have this variance procedure now, don't
we?
MR. WILEY: We do, sir.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay. And how many times in the last I () years has the Board approved a variance
under these procedures?
MR. WILEY: For unpennitted work considerations'?
MR. KLArZKOW: No, no, no, for this entire -- for any variance under the !load issues.
MR. WILEY: I'm going to guess, okay. Understand this is a guess, because I know there is a listing of
approved variances, and it's in the tiling system we have within the county's network. I'm thinking we're in the range
of about a dozen, maybe IS variances that have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Page 51 of 56
16' 1 ~~
October 21 , 2010
I will tell you the most -- and that's going back quite a few years --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm saying over the last 10 years.
MR. WILEY: Oh, the last 10 years I'm not aware of anything --
MR. KLATZKOW: Of any --
MR. WILEY: -- that I can think of.
MR. KLATZKOW: We don't do it. The reason we don't issue the variances, Robert, is because this would
hurt our rating system.
MR. WILEY: We got very serious about our participation in the Flood Insurance Program--
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why we had to build a bathroom on stilts, because -- well, really, because, you
know, we thought about going for a variance, but it would impact the COWlty'S rating system, right?
MR. WILEY: Well, we have not applied t"r that particular restroom yet, sir. We did have discussions about
it--
MR. KLArZKOW: We did havc that discussion.
MR. WILEY: We had -- yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, we got this cntire procedure hcre that we never usc.
MR. WILEY: This is a procedure that we do have people coming to us, asking for tlood variances. If I was
in apreaI'. meeting just yesterday with one.
MR. KLATZKOW: But wc've ncvcr issucd in thc last 10 years.
MR. WILEY: We have not issued that I'm aware of variances in the past, that's correct.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think you can leave the language just as we--
MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's thc advantage of putting that in')
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Deat with it when it comes up. I mean, I do think you have a n
MR. WILEY: It was a statement that the committee felt very strongly about. So at their direction we put it
tn. If you wish to take it out we can. I just want some direction here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only strenh'lh is if, you know, somebody would try to do something
without a pen11it, this would be a way to punish them. But we -- len's right, we get them some other place.
MR. WILEY: Well, the situation that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Send the van aticr them.
MR. WILEY: Let's use the illustration that you mcntioncd and it does hit home--
COMMISSIONER SCHiFFER: The garagc --
MR. WILEY: -- the garagc, where they convert the garage into hving space--
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: And now it's below.
MR. WILEY: -- without a pennit. And it is below the base flood elevation.
For them to be able to clear up the code violation, they would come seeking a variance to the Board of
County Commissioners. The Board could say yes, we understand the situation, okay, and they would approve it.
This would preclude the Board from doing that. They would have to hold tight to the line that you
inappropriatcly modi tied your structure. Whethcr wc want to have that strong a restriction is the question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And wouldn't that come about when they're actually trying to remedy the
situation that they enclosed the garage without a penn it" So they start with that. And that's one big problem why
people shouldn't enclose the garage, because nornmlly the builder sets it right at the Hood criteria of the house. And in
the old days the garage had to have that step down.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. You can bring it up 10 eodc t,)r wiring, things of that nature, but you really have
dit11cultly with this. If you put that stipulation in, it would preclude it from being acceptable. They would then have
to take those improvements out and turn it back into the garage as was originally designed.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Can you apply t,)r a variance, Bob, for old construction, or just new construction'?
MR. WILEY: Basically you apply tor the variance for new construction you're proposing. If you do have
something that is deemed to be in violation, you could apply for the variance, yes, sir, you could. We rarely see it.
Mostly it is for new construction, the applications that I'm aware of. But in this particular situation, if you were cited
and it was found that your garage tloor was bclow BFE --
MR. KLATZKOW: Or just say a variance may be issued t"r old construction or existing construction.
Pagc 52 of 56
A\'3
October 21 , 2010
MR, WILEY: It says a variance may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements. The
decision is was that a substantial improvement to your house when you converted your garage.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the clause below says that if you did that conversion without a permit,
don't come to us, you Ire --
MR. WILEY: You could not seek a variance for relief from the requirement to elevate that up. So basically
that would say you'd have to go in your garage and bring the floor elevation -- living space now, since it's no longer a
garage -- bring your floor elevation up. It would not require you to not use it for living space, but you would have to
raise the floor.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for clarity, are we allowing after-the-fact variances?
MR. BELLOWS: That's what that seems to prohibit.
MR. WILEY: This is pretty much what this is prohibiting. That's what this is doing is prohibiting an
after-the-fact variance.
MR. KLATZKOW: So if you've got existing structures, you can't get the variance.
MR. WILEY: That's what this would preclude.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Unless you're substantially altering it, in which case it's like new construction.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you were applying for a pennit to enclose your garage and you didn't
want to raise the floor, you would come into this permit process and if you're not that big a site, you can do it.
MR. WILEY: That would be correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you know, let's not come up with ways to reward people for
enclosing the garages. I mean, people hire people to do it correct and they tend to raise the floor. So there's no reason
to go out of our way to make it easy for somebody not to do it right.
MR. WILEY: The question is do you want it to state that here?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with Jeff, it goes without saying here.
MR. WILEY: But do I leave it in or I take it out'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think, you know, the biggest point Jeff made is we don't have
control of all the pennits. So, you know, we live in a world where you're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent
on the pennit problem. So when you're in that hole, how can you have a statement like that fairly?
I mean, this is the only place in the legal system where you have to prove your innocence. And if we have a
county that lost a bunch of records, that doesn't make that any fun. So I would recommend taking it out.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I agree.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Taking it out?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can argue an affirmative defense if the county doesn't have your
records.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then we have an unnecessary argument. So let's take it out for that
reason.
You know, when Code Enforcement -- I've seen Code Enforcement's hearings about people enclosing the
garage. I've never heard them discuss the flood elevation. I don't even know if they look for it. That would be the
best example of where you would have been eligible and you're not, so--
MR. FRENCH: In order for them to be able to get a C.O. on that if they did unpennitted work, they're going
to have to bring up the tinished floor elevation anyway.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. FRENCH: And there is an affinnative defense as well as an unpennitted work or pennit after-the-fact
process in place, and the Board has addressed that in the past in our fee schedule.
So it makes no difference simply from the pennit process in regard to this. We have already addressed this
within the n as far as the building code goes. But that would only be for those areas with detined flood elevations.
Now, in the Estates years ago when they were undetennined, there was no way to make that detennination.
If someone enclosed their garage they did so without a flood elevation certificate, because it wasn't required.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Robert, didn't the crown of the road measurement exist for a long time?
MR. WILEY: It has existed for a long time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they had a regulation back then.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Eighteen or 24 inches above.
Page 53 of 56
16l
1
-!\"J
October 21, 20]()
MR. WILEY: Which is still the lan!,'1Iage today.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I mean, it wasn't like they were in no regulation land.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- iryou want to add to this craziness, under F it says the issuance of a
variance to construct a structure below the base flood elevation will result in increased premium rates, increased
premium rates, for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 per $100 dollars.
Facing that, I mean, tirst of all it says you can get a variance by that. Should you get a variance you're going
to pay the piper in your insurance costs. But we have rules that say you can't build, you can have it below the base
flood elevation. So tell me where I am on that.
MR. WILEY: Okay, let me explain the situation. And I cannot tell you where, I cannot tell you the who, but
I will describe the situation.
A tcw years ago an owner chose to build a house. He sought and obtained a variance to build the house
below the base flood elevation. And he was line with that. lIe even got his letter of notilication.
The issue really came to light when the next person bought the house. That person's tlood insurance policy
exceeds $40,000 per year. They lound that out atier thcy closed. But they had an approved variance, which did meet
the criteria. Small lot size, other adjacent houses. There was nothing the ncw owner eould do about it.
So that shows you the impacts that variances can have down the road also.
But let's go back up to the other one. No variance issued for unpermitted work, is it the consensus to strike
that or leave it? So I know what to do.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Strike.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Strike.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: You want to strike it"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see n if I have it correctly, if something wasn't permitted, it gets caught by
code or some other lashion. They say bring it up to code. And then I don't think it's a variance anymore, it becomes a
permanent.
MR. BELLOWS: They'd havc to get atlcr-the-Iact building pennits then meet the code requirements. But if
they don't want to meet code requirements in regards to base tlood elevation n
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But don't we have one Jim Dandy expensive penalty if they don't want to
meet code requirements'!
MR. BELLOWS: In regards to the tlood elevation. Then they eome in for the variance.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the cost of the variance is penalty enough. I mean, it's not an easy
process. But they could still come bcCore the Conunission and be denied the variance too, based on the
circumstances.
MR. FRENCH: If they seek voluntary compliance, it's no ditferent than a new permit coming liJrward. The
only time that you would lind that it would be punitive is if there was a Jinding against them by the Code
Enlorcement Board or the Special Master. And you're absolutely light.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And they'd be -- assuming they could have tlood insurance they'd be
getting a double or triple whanU11Y because they'd be lining them and they would be paying an extraordinary
prenuum.
MR. FRENCH: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure that that has any real clear relevance then, no variance shall be
issued liJr unpen11itted work. I think it's a statement of Jact that is already understood, correct'? And it's in our IDC
that way, is it not'?
The key question I guess is in this particular ordinance do we want to cite issues that are clearly Wlderstood or
hopefully clearly understood within the realm that we normally work in" Which is land use planning and zoning and
so torth.
I don't know. I could havc it taken out of there. I can't sec a downside if we take it out of there, that's my
problem. I'm hoping somebody can tell me I'm wrong.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, this is new language. It's not been a problem in the past. I don't
see the need for it. I think we've been handling these things right along, and handling them well, and not approving a
lot of variances for things that are unpermitted. lmcan, obviously we're just not doing that. I mean, I cantt even think
of an example where that's happened.
Page 54 of 56
. ,
~
October 21,2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it should be removed.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think take it out.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's nice from an education point of view, but I don't see that it proves
anything.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: If one comes by us in another month, though, I'll be having a fit.
MR. WILEY: Okay, continuing on then.
Are there any more questions between now and the end ofthe ordinance'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Are you done'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. Unless there's something in here about lunch, I'm done.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: What about this side of me'? Anybody else have any questions? Mr.
Murray, Ms. Ebert, Ms. Homiak?
MR. WILEY: Now, were there questions related to the changes from your first hearing where we referenced
them within the memo that was attached to this one'? And then, again, I apologize for whatever happened to that word
document. [have no idea why the paragraphs disappeared, but they weren't intended to. So we'll go back and figure
out what happened there.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, when you bring this back, you'll have corrected that, number
one.
MR. WILEY: Right, right.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And, yeah, then we'll have all of this --
MR. WILEY: I just want to make sure that the changes that were made for this memo follow the direction of
the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you come back, you can add the new ones today to that list.
MR. WILEY: I will, yes, sir.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I didn't notice any. Did anybody notice any issues with the ones that
we had done earlier the last time around?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, I was trying to think if we had any.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I didn't. The notes I had, I didn't notice any problems.
All right. You're good to go then, Robert. You've got your next round.
*** And do we have any new business'? And the public is obviously clamoring to give us comment. So do I
have a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right. So moved.
We are adjourned.
***************
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Acting Chair at I :08 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
) -~1 /7
~--yJ rl.t.-, J.::j.-l /l. C bU'2-!'---", j
DONNA REED-CARON, Acting Chairman
Page 55 of 56
16 1 1 ~
October 21, 2010
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on __,1/' <ll "01 ~___, as presented v'
or as corrected Uf-~
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE'
NOTTINGHAM
Pagc 56 of 56
By:............
-.-
.,/
Fiala ~
Hiller
Henning /
Coyle v' /
Coletta V
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
November 18, 2010
~mLI8'!1O ~
m~~~~~l~W
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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" ofthe Govefllll1ent Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
I . f \.0\
,NY- Mark Strain, Chairman
, \}.i Melissa Ahem
f' . ,~t Donna Reed-Caron
\ rv Diane Ebert
,_..\ !,,~ Xl; . Karen Homiak
..~ ~. Ii Barry Klein
~} ,y1r Paul Midney
~'~_-\ \'; Bob Murray
" fJ/U' ~~ Brad Schiffer
\lY \J' " ., \.-
N y; \;; 'S\\).~ ..~ \\
{/\} 0JP- \ ,4 ~~
..,Ji1' <I, _' .,y;.-- tV ;-
V " yJl XJi1" \Y'\ \ \ \.,
\}' ." I) v<' '"~ l.i
. .0 ~ < 'I,!l ~r
v ,~,)~) ~ XjJ . xV" /
\'\J'tp ,;fr I
\ ~' \v1{ A) \f'y
xV' /' ,;'1. "'"
'0 - ryJ'rt'
"" _~\fl f', c(
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Date:
ltem#:
Page 1 of3l
C~ri~~S to
16 I 1 ~?
November 18, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, and welcome to the Thursday, November 18th meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission.
Ray's in the process of making sure we've got our croissants and donuts and coffee here this morning.
And with that, will all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, roll call. Ms. Homiak'
COMMISSIONER I10MIAK: Mr. Eastman','
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER 1I0MIAK: Ms. Ahem"
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Mr. Schiller"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midncy is absent.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Mr. Strain"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is herc.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Ms. Ebert"
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein"
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you
*** Addenda to the agenda. We have an item on 10.A that's been continued to December 2nd.
Ray, I understand December 2nd may be kind of crowded. We may want to consider putting that off even
further unless it's some pressing issue. But check our calendar, but I've heard this morning we may have a real packed
agenda on December 2nd.
MR. BELLOWS: And it's about the same level of petitions on the second meeting in December, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, really" Okay, well, put it wherever it tits in best time-wise, that's the only thing
to worry about.
MR. BELLOWS: I looked into it, and wc thought maybc the 2nd would be the best.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: Because one of those items is a companion item on the 2nd.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay, Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're not going
to make it to the December 2nd meeting"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we will have everybody here.
***Approval of the minutes. The October 21 st, 2010 minutes. They've been distributed. If there's no
corrections, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak. Second n
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Ms. Ahem.
All those in favor, sib'11ify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
Page 2 of3l
16 1 1 f0
November 18, 2010
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will be abstaining because I wasn't here. Motion carries -- what are we,
seven, with one abstention.
***BCC reports and recaps. Ray'?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on the November 9th BCC meeting, the Board of County Commissioners continued
the pUD rezone for Davis Reserve to December 14th.
They also approved on their sUll1ll1ary agenda the pUD amendment and DOA amendment for City Gate.
That was on the summary agenda.
And they also approved the conditional use for the Immokalee Sand Mine on the summary agenda also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
***Chairman's report. I'm glad to be back.
Cherie', I hope I'm talking slower now. Without that caffeine it rnight just work out well for everybody.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We're glad to have you back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
***Consent agenda items, there are none, so we'll move right straight into the advertised public hearings.
***First one up is pUDZ-2009-AR-14425. It's the Happy #4 Farnily Corporation, Larry Pomposini,
president/director. It's also known as Addies Comer CpUD. It's around the Immokalee Road and 951 intersection.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- other than staft~ I don't think I spoke to anybody about this.
You -- I mean, Rich, we didn't talk about this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we called and you were a little under the weather.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, just staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just staff, okay.
Thank you, Richard, it's all yours.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, thank you.
Good morning, for the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner.
With me today I have several individuals that can answer any questions that I can't answer. Bob Duane with
Hole-Montes, who's the professional planner on the project; Terry Cole, also with Hole-Montes, who's the
professional engineer on the project. Chuck Mohlke, who did the market study is here to answer any questions. And
David Wheeler with TR Transportation is here to answer any transportation questions you may have regarding the
project.
The petition before you today is a request to rezone a little over 23 acres of agriculturally zoned land to a
commercial pUD which would allow up to 135,000 squarc feet of retail or office uses on the property.
On the visualizer you'll see a zoning map for the existing zoning. To the right of the property, which is
shaded, which would be east, is the Tree Farm pUD, and that's a mixed use pUD with commercial uses allowed
adjacent to our property.
To the left or the west of pUD is the Mirasol pUD, which is a residential pUD.
To our south and across Immokalee Road is the Richland pUD, but basically the Pebblebrook community.
Immediately to our south is their preserve, and a little bit southeast is the commercial portion of that project.
The property is located within activity center number three. And as the Planning Commission knows,
activity centers is where the Growth Management Plan almost forces retail and office uses to occur under a limited
Page 3 of3!
i'~
1b \ 1
November 18, 2010
~'?
circwnstance. As you know, you can have those uses in other locations. But the Growth Management Plan really
dictates that activity centers be where commercial uses are allowed.
The Growth Management Plan allows the full range of commercial C-I through C-5 to be asked for within
the activity center.
What we basically did is we looked at the uses that were allowed within the Tree Fann pUD as far as
commercial uses, and essentially mimicked those but eliminated some of those uses that we felt may not be
compatible immediately adjacent to the Mirasol pUD.
I tried to, Ms. Caron, go through the entire list and ligure out where they were in the C-1 through C-5
spectrum. But it actually turned out to be a much more difficult exercise than I had hoped. So I think I have them all
listed, if you want to go through them. But I think the list of uses are compatible with the Mirasol people to our west
and the Tree Farm pUD to our east, as well as the Pebblebrook PlID to our south.
The development standards would allow I(Jr the retail to be in two stories, not to exceed 45 feet zoned height,
65 feet actual height. And the office would be allowed I"ur stories not to exceed 55 feet zoned height and 65 feet
actual height.
I noticed in the __ and Ms. Caron pointed this out, I noticed in the stalfreport sunU11ary of the NIM, there was
a reference to basically all the buildings would be 45 feet. I've conlin11ed that that's not an accurate summary of what
was said. That reference to 45 feet was in reference to retail uses, not in reference to the office uses as well. So we
are requesting 55 feet for the office buildings in order to accommodate four stories.
The Tree Farm pUD allows for a building 77 feet in height, and actually portions of the Mirasol project allow
for up to 75 feet. So I think we're consistent with what has been approvcd around us.
We're consistent with all of the aspects of the Growth Management Plan. Your comprehensive planning stall
has concluded we're consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
We have __ or we're consistent, your trat11c -- your transportation statf has said we're consistent with the
Growth Management Plan and that we don't have any traftlc related issues.
There's one stipulation that wc have not agreed to, and I think there's some confusion as to whether or not it
really is supposed to become part of the PUD process that we're supposed to include in the zoning document, a trip
cap. We analyze __ our traftic analysis analyzed the worst case scenario here. So my understanding is the instances
when we're including a trip cap stipulation is either one. there's a tratlic related problem, or two, we have not analyzed
the worst case scenario I'lf a transportation -- or for what we're asking for. Like when we did the Sonoma Oaks PUD
a couple of meetings ago, we had asked for a maximum of CCRC of onc number and a maximum of rctail of another
number. We never intended to reach the maximums on both, so our trip analysis was based upon a combination. So
we included a trip cap to make sure wc could never max out.
So I think in those instances it's appropriate to include a stipulation for maximum. In other instances, I don't
think it's appropriate to include a stipulation I(lf maximum trip counts.
Your staff is reconu11ending approval to you. as well as the Board of COWlty Commissioners, and we're
requesting that the Planning Commission forward our petition to the BCC with a reconu11endation of approval.
That is a summary of what we're requesting, and we're able to answer any speeitic questions you may have
regarding the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll start with questions of the Planning Conunission. Do we have any?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, you go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, my questions arc on the development standards. First one, maximwn
distance between buildings, you have 10 feet or one-half the sum ofthe heights. The 10 feet would be two IO-foot
bnildings, which then nothing would be really smaller. So can we just make that one-half the building heights? I
mean, leaving it in doesn't hurt anything either, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing on the retail, it's 45 feet or two stories. So does
Page 4 of3l
. i
16' 1~.
November 18, 2010
that mean I could do a taller building with two stories or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we need to clarify that. It's supposed to be two stories not to exceed 45 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 45 feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Zoned height.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you'd do that -- because carrying stories and feet not going to--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's a triple asterisk iliere that says whichever is less. So 45 feet would--
you know, two stories may be less than 45 feet, but we can clarify that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And comparing feet and stories is in a Boolean logic's kind of
confusing too. So I think clarify that.
And then down at the bottom, essentially what you're saying is that if you do group housing, you're going to
calculate the area of that group housing site, and at that ratio remove it from retail.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we really have commercial is our maximwn unit. So, I mean, is the
intent not to remove it from office, or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I think that's a good catch, and we should say from the retail and/or office.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or commercial, which is what you call it every place else.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right.
That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a ton of questions, because I live in the area. And I was also at the NlM
meeting back in 2009.
One thing I noticed in our paperwork is there is no map of the activity center. Normally there should be I
would iliirik a map like that.
And the other thing is the multi study. I am looking for -- it is so -- it's so out of context, I can't believe it. On
Addies Comer they ask you to give two miles from there. And in that area is the Olde Cypress Preserve, commercial,
and they say they've only used 5.4 acres and there's 7.02 left, and it is completely wrong. That is completely tilled up.
Our pUD is completely done in iliat section. It has utilized all the space. We are close to 165,000 feet.
The other thing is, they talked about Jersey Joe's Bar. And I don't know how long people have lived here, but
I cannot tind Jersey Joe's Bar.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's gone. It's been gone. It used to sit where ilie high school is.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But in here it's got that it's 9.2 -- wait, that it's 4.25 acres and it's got 8,150 --
and I'm going what is -- I mean, this -- I mean, I just kind of--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, what we ought to do is focus your questions one at a time.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then ask them to respond to the questions as you ask them. And that way we
can get all your issues on the table.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we go back to your -- I guess the most relevant issue right now is the
commercial study. Is that what you're focusing on now?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, there was no map in--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It would be nice, staft~ to have a map, or somebody put it in with this so we can
know what's going aroWld it.
And I also fOWld -- okay, then we'll just go --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let Chuck respond to the map.
MR. MOHLKE: Commissioner Ebert, I regret I cannot respond to the issue of the map. That material was
prepared or not prepared either by staff or by the Hole-Montes tean1 that is here. That I am not able to respond to
directly. And perhaps you can ask that question ofMr. Duane.
Let me respond in as forthcoming a way as I can to your very good questions regarding inventory of
commercial. This--
Page 5 of31
,
" ,
16\
1
~?
November 18, 2010
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me, if I may. And again, I don't have a complete packet of what you have, but--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Obviously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: With our -- you have our application, our complete application? You should have
our complete application.
And if you look in our application materials, right after the minutes of the meeting, at which you'll see there's
a sW1U11ary, a checklist of -- the environmental review checklist?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: In the back"
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Within there. And you will actually see an activity center map. And this is what it
looks like right here, that shows you the boundaries of the activity center. So it's within the materials that we provided
to staff. And you should have that, that map, as part of our application materials.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is not --
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Now, if you want it on a larger scale where we give you an aerial to put it in context,
we'll take that and we'll take that as constructive feedback and we'll do that in future applications. But we did in fact
provide as part of the backup the activity centcr boundaries as they'rc currently existing in the Growth Management
Plan.
But Ms. Ebert, if you want it on -- if you want us to pull out a little bit to put it in better context in future
petitions, we'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'd like to see what's around it --
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: We'll be happy to do that, Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- to know what's there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll take that as constructive feedback for the next one to make it easier for you.
MR. MOHLKE: Commissioner Ebcrt, if I can go back to the questions that you began your comments with.
These -- this data a was based upon an inventory conducted by the comprehensive planning department for
the years 2006, 2007. This analysis bcgan in those years. And that inventory of commercial has been relied upon for
planning purposes for some years. Is it as contemporary as it needs to be" No, it is not.
The material which you found both in the memorandum dated November 6th, 2009, and the original study
that was completed about a year and a half prior to that time was used as the baseline information for the purposes of
this submission and the memo to Mr. Duane on November 6th.
If that needs to be corrected, if I may otTer this view: That modest amount of acreage and conmlercial space
in the larger context of the study that was undertaken t'lf this purpose is very material to the point, but is not as, shall
we say, large enough in terms of its potential for impacting the proposed petitioner agreement, when considering all of
that within the two-mile radius ofthe study, or the area ineluded in the analysis attested to by Mr. Schmidt and others
in regard to their response to the November 6th memorandum.
It is an important point, it's material to your discussion, of course. And if the material needs to be amended, it
is a point which we will consider, of course, and modify the supporting material accordingly.
Again, this is based upon the latest available comprehensive planning inventory of commercial published in
2007 at the beginning of the analysis, which you havc belore you.
If we necd to modify that in respect to this, wc'd be very pleased to do that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, in reading this, in reading the report, which is dated November 6th of
2009, in this study they asked for road miles to the subject property within two miles to be accounted. And it says
west of the commercial development is the Oldc Cypress Preserve, 12.9 cornnlercial property north, leasable space
and everything.
And it says these properties -- it's just they were done well before -- they were done by 2008. These
properties were all done.
The thing also is, it says it's approximately 1.5 mIles west of the proposed Addies Comer CpUD, well outside
of the activity center. And a mile and a half is not well outside of the activity center.
MR. MOHLKE: Commissioner: that calculation was made based upon the 160 acres, 40-acre quadrants
within the activity center. That is, in this particular sense, outside. The question of whether or not it is well outside is
an important issue.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: What it's written in your report (sic).
MR. MOHLKE: Yes, it is. And I stand by that calculation.
Page 6 of3!
A
~o~m~er 18,!1O ~
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's all for right now. I will have some more questions, though,
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Commissioner Ebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions at this time'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ms. Caron, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because it was referenced at the beginning of this meeting, Mr.
Y ovanovich, as you know, I was most concerned about what might qualify as C-4 or 5. Not everything --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, I know that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on this list, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think -- I'll give you some examples, if that will help. For instance, on the--
let's go on Page 1 of 13 of Exhibit A. Items tive, six and seven are technically C-4 uses. Now, I think those are
probably fairly benign, similar to C-3 type uses. But those technically fall within the C-4 category.
And I'm not going to go through every one, but I'll just kind of give you some examples. Like carpet and
upholstery cleaning, that's a C-4 use. If you go to the next page, dance studios, number 42, is technically a C-4 use.
Drinking places are a C-4 use.
And there are others. Hobby and toy game shops. But, you know, by way of example, those are the types of
C-4 --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Were there any C-5?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There was one that I know -- that I know of, and that is item number 96, which is tI1e
medical equipment rental and leasing is the only one that I think is a C- 5 use. Again, I don't know how some of these
uses find their way into C-5, but those are -- now, again -- and wait a minute, there's one other one I can see.
Newsdealers and news stands was a C-5 use. That's item 107.
So I mean, again, I -- we did a quick look, but I can't tell you that I caught every one that might be a C-4 or
C-5 use, but those are some examples of the types of uses we discussed the other day.
Oh, you're right, hotels and motels is a C-4 use. Thank you, Bob.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, the other thing was on drinking places, we don't have any qualitiers on
that for --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be anywhere within our pun.
And ironically, one of the neighborhood comments was is they will need one, so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, they wanted a nightclub.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: A nightclub. You're right, we talked --
COMMISSIONER CARON: They wanted a nightclub.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We laughed about that, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is even more intense.
MR, YOV ANOV1CH: So -- but anyhow, you're right, we didn't say it has to be in connection with a
restaurant, and it didn't seem to be a concern for anybody who attended the neighborhood information meeting that
there would actually be a location somewhere in town that would allow a bar to occur.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, right up against Mirasol. That's good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they're next to their road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you done, Ms. Caron')
COMMISSIONER CARON: With those particular questions, yeah. A lot of mine are for staff, so I'll wait
until staff --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Homiak'?
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- does their presentation.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Speaking of drinking places, do you think maybe it would be a good idea to
prohibit bottle clubs? I mean, those tend to be an all-night after bar--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we would have an objection to excluding a bottle --
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: And cabarets?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- club.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: I don't know where the closest cabaret --
Page 7 of31
"
16\ 1 t<~
November 18,2010
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can honestly tell you, I've never been to a bottle club.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- I'm not sure what that means.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- so I don't really -- a cabaret n
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If I recall, they tend to be something that you go to after the bar is closed and
you bring a bottle.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you've been there.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So they're all night --
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: That's your understanding. That's all hearsay.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I heard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that -- I guess we can preclude a cabaret. You know, I honestly can tell you, I
don't really know what one is. I don't mean to --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, that sounds kind of risque. I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that iI"
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, number -- the retirement communities I asked you about --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We did, and we n
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- number seven; is that correct"
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Number seven.
You know, I think number seven is actually more restrictive than what we're currently used to. As you all
will recall, we did an assisted living -- an independent and assisted living project up on U.S. 41. And this is kind of
where we came up with this list of seven --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, I'm sorry, Page 6 of 13. It's under on--
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Yeah, you see, number seven, this is -- in the context of these are the seven
requirements for senior housing, in order to qualify as senior housing. And we had come up with this list. I think it
started with the project up on U.S. 41, the old Szabo Nursery. And the old language used to say that we would
construct these in a manner that would allow you to retrofit them for people who needed them. I think what this
language says is we're actually going to include those requirements up front as far as handicapped grab bars and
things like that. I think this is more restrictive. But we could go back to the old language that we're all used to about
making them retro -- that's probably not a word, but that we can retrofit them.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Design to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, designed to bc rctrofitted. So we can -- at the consent stage we'll come back
and put in that language, if everybody's more comfortable with thatlanl,'1Iage. And it may make more sense for
independent units and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you ought to suggest the language. I'm not sure -- what language are you
specifically suggesting to replace --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Strain, I apologize, I don't have it with me, but what the general context was
is that we used to provide that each of the units would be constructed in a manner that they can be retrofitted so
someone could kind of age in place. So if they necded -- for instance, if they needed to lower the sink because while
they were living there something happened to where they could no longer use a standard level sink or we needed to
installl,'fab bars in the showers so they wouldn't have to move to another unit, that's the language that we've seen
many times. I don't havc that exact language in tront of me, but that's the context of how wc used to address that
condition number seven.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wouldn't it be in addition to number seven so you're going to have a number
eight that says that? Number seven would still apply regardless; you have to be applicable to the federal and state
codes.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Correct. But I don't think that every unit would be required to address individuals
with physical impairments. I think from a building code perspective, the way this reads right now is every unit would
be. What we used to say is we would build the unit but we would build it in a manner that we could address physical
Page 8 001
16' 1
November 18,2010
~;
impairments that come along for that individual while they're living in that unit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a certain number of units within each building that's been designed as group
housing by federal regulation or codes that is -- a certain percentage that are required'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. So you've still got to have some that meet that physical --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But this list is not -- correct. I'm not saying you're -- we'd have to meet that anyway,
whether it says that in the pUD or not. We'd have to meet the building code.
CIWRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we said on the other ones is that all units would be constructed in a manner for
people to age in place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I think that language is probably the better language to go back to. I apologize for
not having that specitic language, but I think when you all see it again, you'll say yeah, we've seen that the last four or
five times these projects have come through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer -- oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Homiak, okay.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So on Page 4 of 13 on 130, you have no SIC Code for that still'? It says not
available. You just won't have one, like 6513 --
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: There is no code for retirement communities in the SIC book.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It refers to 6513, which is retirement hotels and apartments. If you look--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I brought -- I'll look at that when you're asking staff. We brought the SIC Code book,
we'll look at 6513 to see if that's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Okay.
MR, YOV ANOVICH: It was my understanding iliat there's not a specitic SIC Code that kind of hits the
retirement community wnbrella.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think this seven, the mtent there is that this thing is really outfitted
for a retirement community with people with disabilities and needing nursing. If you don't put seven in like that, you
could build a condo and just age limit the people that live there, correct'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no, and that's what the other -- the other requirements were intended to address,
which is -- first one is age, if you go to the previous page. We'll have on-site dining. We'll have group transportation.
There'll be an on-site manager for activities, there'll be an on-site wellness center. All of those things were intended to
distinguish it from a regular condominium project so that we -- and that was usually in the context of additional
density. In this case it's really not an issue in an activity center, but it was an issue when we were bringing projects
that were capped at four units per acre under the typical residential calculation. And we were -- we put these seven
criteria in there to make people Wlderstand we weren't doing what you're saying, it's just building a condo and making
it 55 and older to get additional density.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have a problem leaving seven as it is? You put it in there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Uh.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't it work best for somebody ruuning the place, that way they don't
have to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, but again, I'm trying to think, if I'm moving into an independent unit and I'm
physically able, do I want all ofthose things? And you know, do I want the grab bars in my bathroom, do I want the
-- I may not want that as a person who's physically -- who doesn't need them. So why -- you know, so I think the
answer is we probably ought to take seven out, let the code address what we have to do Wlder the code and then make
them retrofit -- I don't want to say -- make them capable of being retrofitted in case something were to happen to me
where I needed those services instead of going in.
From a marketing standpoint I'm not sure I'd want to see that if I don't need it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But now I'm getting suspicious what you're marketing, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what -- retirement communities are independent, assisted and skilled nursing.
It's your typical -- you know, and we could do anyone of those things. And I've known people who moved in just to
purely an independent living facility where they didn't want to be around anybody who needed any assistance at all,
Page 90f31
I,
l~118, 210
~
and then I've seen the purely 100 percent assisted living and I've seen the purely 100 percent skilled nursing, and then
you have the continuing care retirement communities, which is a combination of all of them, We have the flexibility
to do any of those. So if we want to do independent, we have the ability to do that under the category of retirement
community.
So, you know, it may be -- you know, it may be that we decide to do an independent eonununity where
people are older, want to be with other older people, but are physically tine and don't need all of the handicap
accessories within their units.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Ebert"
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, another ALF type, huh"
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Well, no.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, wejust had you on the 21st with Sonoma.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which was one. And boy, there's just kind of all clustering -- and I Wlderstand,
it's going to be like a CVS and a Walh'feen's, but I mean, everything that's coming up you're putting it in as a permitted
MR. YOV ANOVIClI: As a potential use. And as we discussed the last time, you know, tram a market
standpoint, we know that not every pUD that asks for this use is actually going to end up with this use.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know, but there's some way we're going to have to track them. Some way
we're going to have to track these.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: And I think the market will do that. Because at the end of the day, you're not going
to build another assisted living facility or continuing care retirement conmmnity if there's no market for people to buy
into that concept.
It's not a -- again, we talked about this. The pre-sale requirements for these in order to build them is pretty
signiticant. It's not a build it and you hope they will come type of atmosphere out there for anything. You know,
you're going to have to prove a market in order to gct a loan to build it. And you're certainly not going to build it with
your own cash if you don't think you're going to be able to fill it up.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The hotel use that is -- that you have put in there--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry"
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- all the things, that would probably be good in that area with all the homes
going in. I feel that was probably one of the better things that was in here for this property.
As far as the liquor stuft~ apparently they miss Jersey Joe's Bar too, because apparently he had liquor flowing
at the time back then.
The other thing is, on the maps, there are two dillerent maps in here. One is Exhibit C and that -- which is on
Page I of 16. And the other one is on Page 8. And they are different maps, which is a little confusing to me.
Because where you cnter tram lmmokalee Road on Exhibit C, it just shows nothing really on the Mirasol part. And
when you get to the other one on Page 8 of 16, you have it outlined in red.
MR. YOV ANOVIClI: This is the stall report, right"
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, this is where we're talking about documents that stail has included for your
review. So--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Should Ijust ask stall'.'
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be better answered by stafT.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It may be, because Exhibit C is our actual PUD master plan that does show you
where we intend to get access off of lnu110kalee Road. And the interconnection with Mirasol and the interconnection
with Tree Fann to the east. But that's the master plan and all our proposed access points. I think statlwas trying to
show you in a context of what's around us. hut --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Don't worry, I'll ask.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll linish with Richard.
Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
Page 10 0131
'J.
16 \ 1 ~
November 18,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like I'm next.
Richard, what's the status of Mirasol?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is it n the reason I'm asking, is it's relevant to -- it's the next door neighbor of
this site; therefore, it's going to be impacted.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You produced a site plan as part of your backup data that showed Mirasol with a
road up against your property. My question is, what's the status of Mirasol so I know if that road is a reality.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's an existing and approved pUD that is going through the pennitting process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hasn't there been some legal actions, and did those influence the site plan at all'?
MR, YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, In I don't know what the status of that litigation nl'm not involved in it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was something with the flow ways and the Corps of Engineers and the
pennitting and all that process.
My concern is if we're relying on the Mirasol site plan that exists today and the basis for your impacts and
compatibility determinations for the Mirasol project, if they change in the future, we could have different impacts.
Right now Mirasol's got a major roadway going up against your project.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the areas of the Mirasol pUD that address the flow way that you're referring to is
the north and west sections of Mirasol, not in this general area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I Wlderstand that. But I mean, when you change one area ofa masterplan, a lot of
times it changes the others. And with time, products and ideas and ownership changes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can tell you that the representatives of Mirasol were at our NIM and have been
monitoring this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm more concerned what happens to the after market, the next market buyer,
the buyer of the homes. With some ofthe uses you have asked for, the intensity of those uses up against a residential
project could be problematic. And if the residential project is closer to your property line than the site plan you
provided us tor Mirasol today, we end up with a problem maybe like Pebblebrook with Stevie Tomatoes with
residential being too close to drinking places and eating places with outdoor activity.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and we can include limitations like we've done in others where we don't n we
prohibit outdoor amplified music, TV. You know, we're not opposed to those same stipulations being included in this
pUD to address that concem, Commissioner Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's an element that has not been incorporated into the pUD because tI1e
petitioner believes there's no LDC or other mandate to require it, and that involves the issue with the traffic COWltS.
I disagree with your position, and I have talked to staff about it and I have talked to Nick about it. And Nick
was emphatic, it should be included. That gives the transportation department a handle on how many traffic COWlts
they can rely upon for that area.
I disagree with the fact you did it to the most intense use. You did it at 820. 820 is a shopping center
category and it's used to minimize the traffic counts, not maximize them. And if you were to do it for a 135,000
square foot Home Depot or Target or Wal-Mart, I think your traffic counts might be quite different than a general
shopping center category that averages out some of your traffic counts. There are individual uses that take higher
traffic COWltS than a shopping center traffic COWlt. And since there's no maximum size, unless you can tell me there
is, is there a maximum size for any particular building on this site'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, any particular use that has a higher traffic count than 820 could
be a single use on that property generating more traffic than a shopping center use rnight.
But regardless of all that, I think the protection to the public and tI1e traffic analysis should have a limitation
on it. We've done that customarily. I don't believe the limitations werc done for the reasons you've stated on the
record earlier. It was a practical application based on the applicant's input in their traffic statement. You say you're
going to put this much traffic on the road, then you ought to be limited to that much traffic. And if you go beyond it,
that becomes a problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Strain, a couple of n from a practical standpoint I don't have a problem with
anything you just said. But I think we need to distinguish a couple of things. One, the zoning analysis is not a
Page 11 of31
16 \ 1
November 18,2010 f(7
concurrency analysis. We don't get concurrency by getting zoning. We don't have the ability to go forward. We deal
with all of that at the site development stage or platting stage. And we have to provide another traffic analysis to
address whether or not there's capacity on the roads for that. So there is that additional safeguard and additional
traffic review that happens subsequent to the pUD.
If this is going to become a condition of every PUD tram this day forward, then that's tine. Ijust want to
make sure that every pUD, whether I do it or someone elsc does it, when I read it I'm going to see that same traffic
cap in there. Because Wltil recently we didn't have that. And I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying about
maybe it's a good need. I just want to make sure it's going to be implemented from a policy standpoint tram this day
forward that we're going to do tlus.
The language that we've addressed with staff I think works. My concern really was is what if the ITE manual
changes and it becomes -- it assesses additional trips to a particular use and yet there's still those additional trips
available on the road. So I think this language addresses that, so that addressed my concern about changes in the lTE
manual.
All I'm asking for is again, unifornl application trOl11 this point forward. Because really, to this point the only
time I remember n and obviously I've not done every pUD, but the ones that I've been involved in -- what I said
earlier is really, it's only been implemented when we had a less than n we haven't done it in every pUD. I'm okay if
we're going to do it from this point forward for every PUD, as long as wc use the language that stall's proposing. And
I'm hoping you're comfortable with the lanb'1lage that staffs proposing is the stipulation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this issue was a hot issue for a long time and the resolution to it was the idea
of putting these in pUD's, putting the traftic counts in it. And to the best of my knowledge, especially pUD's with
COJlU11ercial components or mixed use components, I thought we've always included those because we've always had
a sinular discussion. Now, if I'm wrong, okay, ti'om the future I won't try to forget. But I thought tlus has been
included all along since the discussion came up a wlule back.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I'm not nl don't know. It's only the last
__ these are __ the last two that I've been involved in they've come up. And maybe that's because that's when it became
a hot issue.
And again, I'm not saying n I'm not disagreeing with it, as long as it's, you know, tirnuy applied. And it
sounds like we're doing it uniformly. And if the language that you n as long as the stipulation that staffs
recoJlU11ending is okay with you and your colleagues, it's okay with us, because it addressed my concern about
changes in the ITE manual.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item is there's a n you'rc attempting to mininuze or reduce or eliminate
setbacks if the Tree Farm MpUD next door somehow has similar lanb'1lage so that you can create a building
apparently across boundary lines, property lines')
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, do you have some knowledge of the ownership of Tree Farm
pUD wanting this'? Is this something -- because they'd have to amend their pUD to get the same thing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wc n back when the economy was a little bit better, there was some discussion about
that occurring, that there would be a subsequent amendment to the Tree Farm PUD to allow for the combining of the
two commercial projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And earlier we talked about in your presentation n I'll get into the document
in a minute. In your presentation earlier you talked about the NIM and you -- the height reference. The staffs
statement in our document says that applicant represented the proiect is a 23-acre parcel. that they are proposing a
cOJlU11ercial use tram agriculture up to 135,000 square feet of office/retail use, and the buildings are to be no higher
than 45 feet.
Now, I think you said that was meant t'lr the retail buildings but not thc on1ce buildings. But yet in the staff
report it says oft1ce/retail.
Have you since got any document or any kind of minutes from the meeting or something that indicates that
you didn't mean oft1ce/retail. as stated in the statl report?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I asked Mr. Duane, who made the statement, what was the context of that statement.
And he told me the statement -- the context of that statement was it was 45 feet for the retail and not for the office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, you were at the meeting, I assume, or -- I see Jamic getting up and wanting to
Page 12 of3l
16 1 1
November 18, 2010
~7
answer for you, but --
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I was involved in another conversation. I believe your question--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need the staff report, I need to know just this one answer to this question I
just asked. Did you hear it or you want me to repeat it'?
MS. DESELEM: I heard your question about the 45 feet.
I didn't realize this was an issue so I didn't go back and check. I can go back and check.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When'?
MS. DESELEM: I don't have any way to listen to the NlM tape right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: [mean, it's a relevant issue. We just had to continue an earth mining pit discussion
because they said 80 feet instead of90 feet. That's 10-foot difference. This is a serious issue. And if they've included
in their statements on the record, ifthey've said office retail would be limited to no higher than 45 feet, we need to
know that.
So however that needs to come out. I didn't know it was an issue until I heard it this morning, so --
MS. DESELEM: Right, and I agree with you, yes, it is an issue and I need to find out. But I don't have the
ability to do it here, so -- I mean, maybe if we took a break. But this is the only petition, so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have a--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have a potential -- how about -- I really don't want to get continued over this issue.
If there's an -- and I don't want to reduce the issue either.
Let me ask a question: Other than what may have been said at the NlM, is the request of 55 feet zoned for an
office building a problem'? Because what I would propose is that we kind of give -- if you're inclined to approve this
project, say the height will be based upon Kay's listening to the NlM and reporting back to you her opinion --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's the problem, Richard. And you just set the example by what you
discussed with me regarding the traffic language. You wanted to be consistent; you wanted to know how to do it in
the future and how we were going to -- from basically how we've been doing it all along.
Well, I can tell you how we've handled NlM's. If someone says something at a NlM, that becomes part of the
document. And if they -- if they're in error or they made a mistake, if they don't like it, they've got to go back and
redo the NlM to get it corrected, or we've got to have a reasonable testimony that the NlM was or was not stated in a
certain way.
In this case we've got two different parties: The applicant's representative saying they didn't say office/retail,
but the staff report saying they did. And it's got to get resolved.
I don't know how to say you're approved subject to a resolution on a consent when the vote has to take place
today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the only issue is verification of what -- you have contrary testimony. You have
Mr. Duane saying that 45 feet was in the context of retail, and you have Kay saying I don't know, I need to go listen to
the tape.
What I'm saying to you is if height is not an issue other than what may have been said at the NlM, say the 45
feet is conditioned upon verification that there wasn't the commitment to reduce that height to 45 feet at the NlM.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow'?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we render a decision on an approval that goes to consent for veritication but on
consent that issue isn't verified properly or there's still some concerns over it, does that nullify our approval'?
MR. KLA TZKOW: You can condition it. How's that? Why don't you condition your approval pending
getting back from staff what exactly was said. And if you're not comfortable with what was said, then you reopen it
up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Kay, what evidence are you going to be looking at to give you information that you're seeking'?
MS. DESELEM: The applicant provides a tape of that neighborhood information meeting and I will go back
to the office and listen to that tape.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What format is the tape in'?
MS. DESELEM: I believe it's on a disc. I'm not certain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, could you send that tape to the Planning Commission members'?
Page J3 of31
)
lJ~J 18,21 fl(3
MS. DESELEM: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll listen to what you have to say at the consent agenda, if we get that
far with this project, and at the same time we can come with a full understanding of what was said ourselves so we
can all know how to agree or disagree on it.
MS. DESELEM: Okay
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair'!
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Carol. do you remember what was said? You said you were there.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, this was well over a year ago. There were only five of us there, Brad, so--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: And just for -- it'we're going to have to reopen it up, we're going to have to readvertise
it. So, you know, if that tape doesn't say what you think it says--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm asking you to approve either 45 -- 55 feet conditioned upon the NlM. And if the
NlM comes back and says we committed to 45 feet, approve 45 feet.
MR. KLATZKOW: That would bc fine.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's all I'm asking. You know, again, it was a while back, you know, it's not fair to,
you know, ask Kay to remember. She's been to a few, and Ms. Ebert's been to a few.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, I mean, if we can move forward under that issue -- for that issue, that's
tine, we'll keep at it.
In the actual document, the pUD document, Page I of 13, Exhibit A list of permitted uses, number six says:
Agricultural uses until such time as the issuance of the lirst certitlcate of occupancy.
That's not how things normally happen. You don't leavc cows there qualifying for ago after you've been in
there and knocked down all the trees and started pouring concrete. And the tax assessor needs to collect his money as
soon as the entitlements are realized.
So I had talked to stall about this. I don't know if they got back to you. The development order -- some form
of development order past the pun is what should trigger that. It' you go in after the pUD is approved -- or asswning
it's approved, it'you go back in for any other development order on that property, at that timc you lose the ago
exemption.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: No, you don't. You don'tlosc the -- because I can get an SDP approved and it's good
for three years. I may not actually start work on that SDP, but n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. the certificate of occupancy isn't going to work, Richard, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not disab'feeing with you, Mr. Strain, on that, but I don't -- I don't think it should
be SDp plat, I think it should be something much further along.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, give me an example. Once you break b'found on something, if you get an
SDp and you let it sit and it still stays ag., I'll go along with that, you're not doing any development. But as soon as
you go out there and start some kind of activity on that site, it's an active sitc and shouldn't be qualitied as ago after
that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, shouldn't we actually leave that to thc property appraiser, since the property
appraiser is tasked with detennining when you losc your--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not when you put in a list of pen11itted uses in your pUD we can't leave it, because
you brought it up. You added it to the list of pen11itted uses.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exactly I've added that, because it's an ago property today and the -- there are
guidelines for the Property Appraiser to deternline when it is you lose your ago exemption. And he may very well say
you losc it the millUtc you start moving dirt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, on number six, see the word agriculture?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Drop everything afier that word and it works. It'you want to leave it up to the tax
assessor, then that's all you've got to do, because that's what everybody else does.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 2 you havc a classification for group housing, which is number 70. And I
Page 14 aU 1
./
t~mLr 18,110 f0'
think Karen started to hit on this when she talked about your number 130. 130 talks about retirement communities.
And I understand you believe there's no SIC Code for this.
What in the group housing section wouldn't cover you under the activities listed in l30'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think that 8051, 8052 and will 8059 address independent living facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other SIC codes that do or--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not aware of one, Mr. Strain. There might be, but I'm not aware of one that
addresses specitically independent living facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm -- it becomes important is under your tive asterisks on your
development standards table, in the last sentence it says for each acre of group housing or fraction thereof developed,
you have a certain square foot reduction against the max gross leasable commercial area. But--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you could do a retirement community and you could say it doesn't have any
impact.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right. And we do need -- and I saw that and I meant to mention it, but I forgot
to.
We need to add retirement community to that other -- to that laundry list of things that for each acre you lose
10,000 -- what is it 193 or 10,000 something. So add -- I think we should either replace those -- I think you should
put group housing and retirement communities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would have to be retirement communities as referenced in your number
130, so maybe just reference the numbers of your uses. That might make it even --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, that would be tille.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- clearer, because that's unique to your pUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So uses 70 and uses 130.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only group housing in there, I believe.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe you're right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, and on -- I've got to keep writing all this stuff down.
Okay, and Page 5, you have a Roman numeral III. We recently moditied the LDC to better detine what are
passive uses and what aren't. You're going I don't know where in regards to that. You'd be better off just leaving the
reference to the LDC.
And I think Kay may have discussed that with you, I brought it up to her yesterday.
Kay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't thirik Kay and I had a conversation yesterday, did we'?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I did not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, sometimes you till him in on issues when I bring them up, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Usually we do, we just didn't this time.
MS. DESELEM: Yesterday was too hectic, I did not get a chance to get back to the applicant and agent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you had a solution to number three, based on our conversation, and based on
what I just said. Could you repeat that solution?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. I think we could just make the reference to the LDC, because the LDC has pretty
clear guidelines as to passive uses within a preserve area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would eliminate all the other verbiage so you'd end up with just one two or
three-sentence paragraph on the top.
MS. DESELEM: The only thing additional you might want to add is Item E if -- for the future, but I don't
even know that that's necessary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it would be, because if they're going beyond the preserve uses and
standards in the LDC, he would be the only solution to that anyway.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. I was thinking the same thing, but I was just leaving the door if you wanted to do that
to allow them the opportunity through a public hearing process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They could have it anyway, right? They just come in and amend their pUD and--
MS. DESELEM: That's true.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that opportunity's always there, whether we put it in print or not.
Page 15 of31
16 1 1
fX?)
',f ~
November 18, 201 0
MS. DESELEM: Right.
If you'd like, I can give you the exact citation for that preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, what was it?
MS. DESELEM: Just a moment, I'll get it fClr you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any problem with this line of reasoning'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what you're here tc,r.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Since I don't u and maybe I can be provided a copy of the section reviewed if we
have a break. I just want to make sure that all the uscs I've asked for are currently in the Land Development Code. I
don't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, there's more uses than you asked for. I was actually doing a benetit to you,
not hindering you.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Thank you, that's all I'mu I'm just trying n I don't want to object to something that
helps me, but I don't want to consent to something that may hurt me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to simplify--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm all IClr simplitication.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n the document.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to makc sure I didn't inadvertently leave something out by simplifying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We won't get donc before break, so you certainly will have time to look at it at
break and we'll go back and visit it then.
On Page 7, your development -- yes, Kay')
MS. DESELEM: If I may, I can give you the citation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MS. DESELEM: It is Section 3.05.07.H.I.h. And I will give a copy of this information to Rich on a break.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And after break we can see if you have an objection to it or not.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7 of your development standards table, your fourth line down where it says
minimum yards from northern boundary as shown, can you show me what you're talking n where the dimension is on
the northem boundary? You've got a plan up there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know.
I don't know, Bob, can you answer that"
He's asking from external, what's the minimum yard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, it just says as shown, and I couldn't tind it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think you'd have to n if you look at the master plan, you'll see, and that's now
pointing n the north is actually pointing down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: But you can see that the preserve is upon our northern -- the northern boundary is
agricultural adjacent to that preserve, which is u gosh, I don't know how many feet that is.
Bob, can you read that number')
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that you takc a minimum distance and put it in your table.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that is a not to scale drawing, and I'd hate to rely upon that drawing and
staff coming out with different rulers to come up to see what the distance is you should be from the northern property
line. And you narrow tram one side to the other. So pick your narrowest point. That's fine.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wc ought to put a number therc.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You want mc to put -- how about -, if wc put 100 feet, it's going to be in the middle
of the preserve. So why don't we just put something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it ought to be close to where you're at but isn't nl'm saying, put a
minimum so you don't have to worry about coming back in if you're a few feet off here and there, that's all.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, we'll n
Page 16 of3!
i
161 1 ~
November 18,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the last item in that table, it refers to max gross leasable commercial area,
135,000 square feet. Then it says group care facilities, .60 FAR, and hotel and motel .60 FAR.
Now, just so there's no -- I know that you have a footnote that attempts to clarify it, but the FAR's, whatever
square footage they would calculate is included within the 135. So you're not under any circumstances asking for
more than 135,000 square feet of gross leasable area, whether it's a group housing care facility or a hotel/motel.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't believe that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then explain to me what the total build-out of this project's going to be.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe do an office and retail, it will be 135,000 square feet. If we do a hotel
exclusively, it will be a .6 within the development standards. And if we do a retirement community, it will be a .6.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .6 of what'?
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: .6 FAR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the entire acreage of this property?
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: I believe we intended ofthe 12 point something acres of retail, the net number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, wejust got done -- well, I wasn't here for that fun one called Sonoma,
On Sonoma you included the preserve as part of your calculation for FAR. Had I been here, I would have been
objecting to that as I am right now to this. Right now you're saying on this project you don't want to include the
preserve as part of your FAR calculation; is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I'm saying, on this project I don't want to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay'? Yesterday when I asked you if the .60 FAR's were inclusive of the 135, I
thought you acknowledged to me they were. He's saying something ditJerent.
MS. DESELEM: That was my understanding as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now we have a different problem. So now you've got 135,000 square
feet, but if you use an FAR in the buildable area of .6 on this acreage that you're now saying is net acreage, what is the
total capabilities for square footage on this property?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It couldn't have been 135. It could not have been 135.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, it's a matter of what was -- how this project was reviewed. If it was
reviewed as 135,000 maximum, that may have an impact on staffs calculations and how they may differ if it's greater
square footage.
MS. DESELEM: Based on his statement right now, I don't know what the maximum would be. I thought it
was 135,000 square feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wouldn't have included an FAR if it was the same. Because simple math tells you
42,560 times 12 is almost 600,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's what you want --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you multiply that by .6, that's 360,000 square feet. There would have been no need
for an FAR calculation if we were capped at 135, nor would we have needed to include a conversion formula that says
for each acre of retail -- I'm sorry, each acre of group housing retirement we would take out 10,000 something square
feet ofthe retail or office. I mean, it couldn't have been that number or else I wouldn't have needed an FAR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but let's back up another step. Let's say 300,000 square teet or what -- what
number did you just come up with the .6, approximately 300,000 square feet of --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. See, I rounded up on the 50,000 square feet per acre because I can't do
42,560.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say you could put a 300,000 square foot--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: CCRC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But -- well, no, you could only do -- well, it would be a big one, but you
could do a hotel/motel for that size. But when you come back and you eliminate square footage tram the 135, you do
it at 10,900 square feet per acre.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you put a hotel offon what is it a four net -- how many acres are we talking
about?
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: 12.3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's gross, isn't it'?
Page]70f31
,
. .,
l~mLI8,!1O ~?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that's what's leti at the end of the day I think for the commercial piece.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 12 acres. Say you use six acres for a hotel.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's 36 times 10,000, that's 60,000 square feet. So out of the 135 you're saying
you can have the hotel at 300,000 square feet, but you take 60,000 square feet out of the 135 and you still could do all
the retail and commercial on top ofthal; is that what you're saying"
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'rc talking about a half million square feet by the time this is -- or 400,000
square feet or so by the time this is all said and done.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I don't -- that isn't what was portrayed in this pUD. I think everybody's
been concentrating on 135,000 squarc feet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
Kay, this is critical to stall's concern. And John, transportation wise I need to know what you guys were
revlewmg.
Heidi"
MS. ASHTON: This was advertised for 135 square feet (sic). We didn't separately reference the hotel and
the group housing. Because the way the ordinance was written, it said 135, including office and retail and permitted
uses in Exhibit A. And Exhibit A includcs group housing and hotels. So maybe there was a lapse of communication
in what he thought he was applying for--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure sounds like it.
MS. ASHTON: -- but apparently there was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what about the NIM?
MS. DESELEM: I believe that Heidi's correct, the idea all along has been 135,000 square feet.
And I might add that the applicant did approve the titlc wording. It's not like they never saw that before. And
I just talked to John Podz, and he reviewed it n he can speak for himsel( but it's my understanding that he reviewed it
also for 135,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, [ think wc have a problem. How do you want to proceed?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let's -- hang on a second. My understanding -- can we take a five-minute or
I O-minute break? Because I need to look at the TIS. Because it's my understanding the TIS did in fact analyze --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', we'll take our break here now and we'll come back at 10 minutes till 10:00.
That will give you timc.
So we'll come back at lOaf 10:00. Pleasc try to straighten this out. I would suggest you talk to our County
Attorney to make sure whatever legally insufficient advertising we had is figured out as well. So we're on break.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's resume the meeting. I don't know what was resolved, so Richard, would you
please till us in?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. First of all, I think trom a traffic standpoint it's an academic discussion,
because we have trip caps. So regardless of what I put on that slide irom a traffic impact standpoint, transportation is
a wash because I've got trip caps.
The larger problem is the advertisement that went out. ['m being told that I'm capped at 135,000 square feet,
regardless of the fact that my development standards table had the .6 FAR in it. And if you did the math like I did for
you, you would realize that the FAR is over 135,000 square feet. I wouldn't have put an FAR in there if f was capped
at 135.
But the interpretation I've been given is I have two choices: Continue this hearing, go have another NlM, and
then come back by readvertising to put thc .6 FAR in thc legal ad.
That's not acceptable to my client trom a timing standpoint and a cost standpoint. So the only option I have is
to I guess remove the .6 FAR and just leave every use as capped at 135. Although I think that's an untair result for my
client. He has no choice at this point because the cost of going back and readvertising this in time is not something
he's willing to do at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I believe, Richard, that when a dOCW11ent is produced and given to staff,
Page 18 of 31
.,'
lv~JI8,2l ~
County Attorney's Office, all of us, we all read it one way. But if that's not what you meant, maybe it wasn't written
clear enough.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we had the very same discussion, Commissioner Strain, on Sonoma.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't here for that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm talking about with staff. You know, we had that conversation, Now I will
tell you Sonoma came in later. So as we were talking, we all reserve the right to get smarter as time goes along and
catch things. And it got caught in Sonoma. It didn't get caught in this particular petition.
But again, I say there would have been no reason to have the.6 in there if! was capped at 135. So we are
where we are. And we're stuck with going forward with the 135 cap, unless someone could fmd us a way out ofthe
135 cap applying to the hotels and the retirement community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think it's interesting -- and Bob, I'll get you injust one minute.
I think it's interesting tI1at you wanted a release from the paragraph that limited tI1e traffic on the project when
we had a TIS that provided us -- that limited the limited the traffic strictly to the shopping center. Now, had we done
that, then the traffic generated by the hotel or all the other FAR uses, which will be three times the square footage of
the shopping center, would have gone on without any trafllc count analysis having added to it. It would have been
part of the process.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: And my traffic consultant tells me that's less than what we analyzed tor the 135,000
square feet of retail and office.
But be that as it may, we are where we are. You have your trip cap in there and we're stuck at 135 unless we
can find a way out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray'?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, you made a statement that I want to be clear on. When you said you
would be -- you know, with the 135, you're then saying you're going to do retail and office only. Because if you take
out the .60, you can't do any of the assisted living --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I can do it, Ijust am capped at the 135, and tor each acre that I do, I lose 10,914
square feet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you're going to have it in your standards, won't you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's in my standards'?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The .60.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it's an unnecessary number.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So how do you lose the 10,000, if you don't have tI1at'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: For every acre I do of --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't know that was in the Land Development Code, that's why--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's why 1'111 wondering how you can do that kind of calculation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we'll have to. When we bring in a Site Development Plan, we'll have to show
what is dedicated to office and commercial versus -- office and retail, versus what's dedicated to either a hotel or a --
actually, you're right, we probably don't need it, just calculate the square footage. We don't need it. We don't need a
conversion formula anymore.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what you have to do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which further evidences the reason why the formula was in there in the tirst place,
was to figure out how to address that. But, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I don't know who your clients are, but, you know, if this site is better
developed with a hotel/motel or whatever operations you want, to redo the NIM and come back to us at this stage is
more cost effective than accepting this and coming back in and having to amend the pUD. It takes much longer and
probably more involved dollar-wise process to get that done.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the ditlerence, Mr. Strain, at this point is you're not dealing with someone with
unlimited pockets.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I mentioned this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So there's kind of -- they're kind of stuck. So whoever comes in to buy the property
-- this is a family piece of property that was inherited. They're going through to tinish the process. They've been in it
Page 19 of31
16\
1
k?J
,
November 18, 20 I 0
for quite a while. They're trying to finance this process, get it ready for a developer to come in and buy it. They're just
going to have to let the developer who comes in and buys it, if they detennine that they need more square footage for
either a hotel or a retirement community use, bear that expense.
But they don't -- you know, the expression they told me is they just need to stop the bleeding, So that's kind
of why we are where we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I'm sorry that it got to this, because the question was asked, and
everybody thought we were on the same page until you told us difJerently today. So--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I appreciate there was a failure to communicatc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so as far as the development standards table in Exhibit B, after the words
maximum !,'fOSS leasable commercial area, 135,000 square feet, everything below that gets removed from the table.
It's not going to matter, because you're going to be part of the gross square f()otage; is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Yes. And I'm assuming that means the quadruple asterisks go away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, those both go away. That gcts you where you need to be.
And then the only other thing we have outstanding f,)r thc similar issue would be the height, which is going to
be resolved by the NIM tapc.
John, could you verify to us that you're comt"rtable with the traftie impact statement cap as it is now, and
will apply it this way"
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning, Mr. Strain.
Yes, I am satistled with the trip generation cap as it's bccn proposed in the stipulation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, it's on the development standards. And it's the minimw11
distance. You use the word structures. Could you change that to buildings? And here's why: There are things that
are structures that aren't buildings, and you don't want to get into a distance issue.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you're totally talking about buildings.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 8, Roman numeral II, development with adjacent property to the
east. The last six or seven words puzzlc me: And all other pertinent LDC requirements shall be applicable.
Does that mean if you didn't say that they wouldn't be?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I had my hcad somewherc else when you started the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roman numeral II on Page 8.
MR. YOV ANOVICII: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last seven words of the paragraph: And all other pertinent LDC requirements
shall be applicable.
You know, if that wasn't there, does that mean they aren't? I think it's language wc don't need. I think it can
end after CpUD is what I'm trying to say.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Okay, it's your language, wc'lI take it out. Not yours, it's the county language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the site plan on Page 9 of 13, below the site summary table -- where did
he go? I'm talking to a microphone over there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob will answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Come on, Bob. This is Bob's drawing, he can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can wait for him. It's not a problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm really bothered by this ad thing, and I've got to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. use the microphone, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've got to ask a timing question. If we were to continue this hearing and do another
NIM, can I have a January 22nd, I think it is, BCC date? Or thc February.
It's in the executive sUIlU11ary. Does anybody remember right now?
MS. DESELEM: I think it's February 22nd.
Page 20 01'31
161 1
November 18, 2010
~?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it's February 22nd.
MR. BELLOWS: I can confirm, it is the February 22nd.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just think that might -- I'm going to pay for the ad, I'm going to do tl1e meeting, the
NIM for free. I think that this isn't right for my client to give up the .6. Ijust don't want to lose my BCC date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I want to make sure that we can make that happen, But can we resolve all issues
other than that so when I go -- I know that -- and obviously the public may come and raise the FAR issue, but I'd like
to know if it's an issue for the Planning Commission to do that FAR, the height of 55 feet for office. I just want to
know ifthere's any Planning Commission issues subject to the public showing up. Because I don't want to go do this
if the Planning Commission's already going to tell me they don't like it. I don't want to continue something ifthere's a
feeling of the Planning Commission that those development standards bother you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the height issue, I'd like to know, is Tree Farm Road the same height as
you're asking for here?
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: We're actually lower than Tree Fan11 pUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your site plan where you produced a large building in the back and three
buildings in the front, I didn't have any objections to that site plan. So if that's the basis for your coming forward but
now you want to clarify it so it can be legally sufficient, I don't see a problem with it. I'm not saying it's going to get
approved, I'm just saying that we have other issues to deal with, we --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I want to get through all of those, if we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, the consent, the review of that NlM meeting is going to be crucial, but you're
going to have another --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But again, I have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- one you can clarify.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- another one I can -- I want to clarify any issues, but I don't want to spend my
client's time. It's not going to cost him any money, but any time if I come back and I did all of this for naught because
the Planning Commission doesn't like the .6 FAR or the Planning Commission doesn't like tl1e 55 feet. That's all I'm
asking you.
And I understand that if there's huge public outcry against that, you reserve the right to include that in your
consideration. But I don't think there's going to be a big issue. There were tive people at the NTM. I really -- I think
it's a non-issue, but it's a technical issue that I want to tix.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Diane brought up a good point earlier. She said a good thing to put
here would be a hotel. ACLF's and retirement communities are also good things. They're quiet neighbors, they
generally do a good job in Collier County.
My -- and we can poll the Planning Commission intormally, subject to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I Wlderstand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all this criteria. Nothing's pem13nent. But I didn't have an objection to your site
plan. And if there was a hotel in the back witl1 the three units in the front like you've shown here, and if that took up
the square footage to the extent you're talking about with the FAR, I didn't have -- I don't think I've got a problem with
it, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I think there's flexibility, though, Mr. Strain, to modify that plan, to combine it
into a little bit -- a larger building. The building itself, but still within the same development standards --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to detine--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- maybe a hotel or something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's critical for you to detine the maximum square footage in all the buildings,
including the FAR build-outs --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll do that, we'll put it in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's the package that we're not seeing here today. It's what we thought we
had. But now we realize we don't have it. When you get that full package together, I mean, I expect I would think a
hotel/motel in the back of this -- anywhere on this property would be a good thing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
Page 21 of31
lV~be~ 18, 20~ ~?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because this is a high activity center. It's where cOIlU11ercial's supposed to go, it's
where these heavy uses are supposed to go.
But, now, keeping them compatible is the kcy. And that's going to be dependent on how much commercial
square footage or how much buildable square footage you're going to come back with.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: And I understand that. And we already know that 135 of retail and office seems to be
okay. If we went to an FAR -- and again, it's somewhere around 300,000 square feet if you calculate it quickly in
your head for hotel or a CCRC. I'm just asking if the magnitude of those numbers right now scares anybody off from
the Planning Commission. Because that's what you're asking me to tell you, how many square feet it could be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad'>
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, I think the thing you might want to clear it up with is don't use FAR.
There's two problems with thaI: Is people can't picture what that really means, and people can't picture what area on
the ground you're even talking about.
So why can't you come up with some maximum square footages for those two uses?
MR. YOV ANOVlCll: Well, I can, I'll just do the .6 times whatever, and I'll put that number in there instead
of --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. then it's going to be like 200 something thou and it's going to scare
the willies out of everybody, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it's -- okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I think, you know, get some reasonable numbers. There are. Because
when you really read this, what you mean here is that you can build n what you intended to do, you could build
135,000, that's comfortable, and/or you could build the group facilities, reducing--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- by your little equation.
And even though it says herc group care, you also meant retirement would be part of that, correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, we'll fix --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you should add that to the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And/or a hotel at .6.
So you really could put those three uses. And the .6 could be really hard. So I think the .6 is a variable where
you should actually define I think a number.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But again, and I'm not arguing with you. What I'm saying, Mr. Schiffer, is you're
looking at a 23-acre site. And if we were to simply put 200 and something thousand square feet of development on a
23-acre site as a hotel or CCRC, I don't know why the community would be upset. Although that square footage
sOWlds like a lot, it's on a 23-acre parccl. That's awfully small.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A 23-acre parcel with halfofit in preserves. So, you know, you can take
that density, and that's --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I haven't taken the density. I was n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's a -- scaling the objects, the buildings. When you take half your
property ofl of buildable area, that number is crllilched on a smaller piece of land.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. Like we do cverything.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAlRMAN STRAIN: I think Brad hit on a good point, us trying to Wlderstand an FAR and a sizing is
important. I think you'd be better off with the square footage.
But also, Richard, there's a lot of projects in this county that are built out to a lot of square footagc. Give us
some examples that you're comparing yourself to that are projects that are appealing. We might -- that will give us a
visual to feel more comfortable with what you're proposing. I think it would help your arl,'llment is all I'm saying.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I hear you. Again, I'mjust -- gut feeling, I'm saying, is anybody telling
me there's no way you're going to convince me yet what that .6 yields on a square toot number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not at that point.
Is anybody on this commission steadfast against that'!
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the problem is, and I'm an architect, I can't picture that until -- and if
Page 22 of 31
.1
161 1~~
November 18, 2010
I do, in other words, I start taking .6 times the gross area of the site --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I'm not asking for that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I've got a huge building. And I've got another huge building with a
hotel/motel. I mean, I've got a convention center, I've got a huge group care thing, and I've got some commercial left
over. So you can max -- I mean, I think obviously a hotel is only going to be so big for that site, and you could give
us that nwnber. Obviously the group care is only going to be so big. Leaving it as a variable is what's the scary part of
it. Even to me who deals with those variables.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I only have one other issue that I think is pertinent for you to know before you
come back. That's a small reference on the site plan. I started on that, Page 9.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Which Page 9 of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9. See where it says the word site summary, the box in the bottom?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And down below there's some verbiage. The one that says maximwn development
intensity, and it says 135,000 square feet of office and retail development, along with other permitted uses. I just don't
know if you need the words along with other permitted uses.
Now, ironically it takes a different meaning after the explanation we've had here now. Because when I asked
what other permitted uses were, I was told it was things like the preserve board walks and stuff!ike that. But I think
what you meant by that now is this FAR issue. But Richard on --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, we know where we are. We'rc going to tix it. I'm going to fix it. I'm going
to fix it, okay? I just -- I'm going to tix it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've said that. I just want to make sure that if I'm spending time and effort fixing it,
I'm not going to be back in the same place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you're in a bad place now. I think we would have done a lot of
stipulations and conditions. But it's a matter of just seeing what the reality is when you come back, so --
Ms. Caron'?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just back to your table here, four, group care facilities and hotels. Well,
how do they relate to the height?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They have the same height.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But we don't know what the height is yet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We need to make that clear that the -- we'll take care of that. And it will have to be--
I need to look at it and see if! need the -- I'm probably going to need more than two stories, but I don't know what I
need. I'll get you a development standard for that.
ClWRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For a hotel, two stories'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure -- I've not seen -- I can't think of one that's only two stories.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, I know I'm going to need more than two. I don't know if I need four. Maybe
I need the four. I'll probably come back with the four, but I don't want to put --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would say that you should probably reference--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- each of the categories, and that would make it a lot clearer for all of us.
MR. YOV ANOVlCH: We're going to need to add that category.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, all these changes, just make it real clear in the neighborhood
informational meeting so that we flesh it out real good this time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will. We learn.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one comment?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On stories, is it -- Rich, I mean, I'm not against not even telling us how
many stories. I mean, you're going to give us a maximum of volume. How you play around with the stories; with
Page 23 of31
"
N!e~be} 18, 20~ ~J
mezzanines you can trick the stories anyway. So to me I think defining the maximum geometry is the appropriate
thing. The stories could trip you up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean as far as a maximum height for zoned and a maximum height for --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I think the height's important. How he does -- and there is like I said
tricks with stories with mezzanines too. So how many stratas he has in that height I think is irrelevant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would tend to agree. We have a zoning document that relies on height, not stories.
Height's a real good way to look at it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the only times I really think it really becomes an issue is when you have a
residential neighbor right ncxt door to you. There's always been a concern if you have a second or a third floor could
people look in the back. So I think in this case we don't have that issue.
But, you know, I'll take -- if it's okay with everybody, I'll take the reference to stories out and just leave the
height as it -- you know, a maximum zoned height and a maximum actual height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron')
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean. I think your point is well taken. That's why we had used stories
was because this is going to be up against Mirasol, which is residential. And yes, there may be a road there, but I
don't know what -- if there's four stories against a single story, then that might be an issue for the future people who
actually live in these places.
You also have a situation to the east in that mixed pUD. Therc's going to be people living there. So -- and I
don't know how it compares, bccause I didn't look up the Tree Fan11 n
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, and I don't know. And my thought is, if you're willing to live in a mixed
project where you have retail on the b'HlUnd and you're above the retail, are you really going to be overly sensitive to
having potential retail next door to you ifyou'rc willing to live above it, or--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe not.
MR. YOV ANOVlCII: -- even a hotel? I'm.lust saying, that's -- and we talked about this --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- I just think that that's compatible.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think it probably is in this particular case. But I was just relating back to
what you were saying, the reason we had always done it was because we wanted to protect residential people living
on either side of these projects. So--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are thcre any other comments anybody wants to make before I assume
Richard's going to ask for a continuance'?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think all this is -- we just have to reenter everything and start over again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when the ncw NIM's done and we get a new application, we'll review it right
tram scratch, yeah. And hopefully all the stull' wc brought up today will have been effected or been modified, if need
be, in the new document.
Ms. Homiak"
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So the limited hours and outdoors amplitied music and all that you do later
on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they'll come n he said that they would put something in there tor outdoor
amplified noise. we talked about that. I mean, we talked about a dozen different things ['m assuming somebody on
their team made notes about so that the cleanup gets as comprehensive as possible.
Is that where you're at?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's my expectations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Richard, do you want us to vote or do you want to ask for a continuance'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought I kind of had asked for the continuance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't heard the words yet, so let's just get the record clear.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought I had askcd for the continuance as we had discussed so I don't lose my
February 22nd, BCC date. And it seemed like that would work for everybody.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Ray, I would ask that stafltry to work tllis into the schedule so that
BCC board date is not nlissed.
MR. BELLOWS: That would have to be a .lanuary Planning Commissionmecting, since Kay will be out in
Page 24 of 31
,
16 I 1 ~,
November 18,2010
December.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well that's -- I mean, December's booked pretty bad anyway, but that will
give you time to have that NIM before Christmas and then January we have the CCPC meeting and a consent after
that and then you still make the board date.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I agree, I think we could probably make the tirst meeting in January for you, that
would give us the second meeting for the consent --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- which would tit tI1e schedule.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if -- Ray, you're comfortable with that'?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There's really not a lot of additional staff review involved in this, just that Kay will
not be here in December. So we can do a January Planning Commission and then the February BCC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody to--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron. Is there a second'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Schiffer.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was productive, although not tinal.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't get all the way there. We'll get there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, the other items on today's agenda was continued.
*** Anybody have any old business'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's to Ray. He's doing some paperwork.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you have a question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray'? I think, and based on this hearing and the past hearing, it really would
be clear to make it obvious as to what people can develop. There are a lot of times where we have multiple uses and
they really can overlap each other. So I think the confusion we had today, we've had that it in the past and we've had it
in the past and it hasn't come up that when they do put other uses in there the fact is that they can be overlapping each
other or along with and stuff like that.
MR. BELLOWS: I think in this case my understanding, when I was reviewing this with Kay, was that the
cap would apply for the commercial retail uses. And then for every acre they subtract out of that commercial project
and build an ALF or some other community facility that's part of this group housing or is allowed by the pUD, you
subtract that commercial square footage.
But that's not the intent that was conveyed in the advertising, that was the problem with this situation.
Page 25 of31
I
lv~Jr 18, 2lo ~
And I understand the concern with the Planning Commissioners that when you're reviewing these things
you're not sure what is the actual maximum impact when they're mixing apples and oranges under the list of pennitted
uses,
And my recommcndation is any time someone has a group housing/group care type facility, whether it's an
ALF or anything related under that, that we create a separate category, not mix those with the commercial uses.
Because those are going to fall in a different cap versus the general floor area ratio that's allowed in the LDC for
group housing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the development standards, that's not what it said. It clearly said that it
had a maximum of 135. It clearly said, and essentially I'm adding it, but it's on -- Mark said, like he said, it's on the
chart, on the drawing, along with group housing along with a maximum of .6. And there was a ratio to remove it.
It also didn't say retirement, so theoretically they could have made an argument that that didn't include the
retirement. And thcn along with a hotel without a reduction of any acreage for the conmlercial.
So it was pretty clear what they wanted in that chart. So I think we just have to be not worded that way.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we'll discuss it with all the planners, not just with Kay, and we'll make sure that as
we proceed in the future with similar mixed use type of projects that we separate out these noncommercial
retail/office related uses that generally fall under the maximum square footage that thcy'rc providing and studying as
part of their traffic study. And ifthcy are allowing a portion of that property to be convcrtcd to some group housing
then we have that conversion ratio. And I thought that's what we typically use, but it's just not clear how the impact
is, and we'll make that clear.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And also, you know. another thing you can study, that a parking
garage that would obviously have to start supporting these large numbers isn't part of the description, part of the mass,
it isn't counted as part of the area, correct'?
MR. BELLOWS: Freestanding parking garage would --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My understanding it isn't n
MR. BELLOWS: -- not be counted towards --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, you said you could have 135,000 square feet. That doesn't
include the parking that's required t"r that. If you built something that big, you would have a parking structure also on
that site.
MR. BELLOWS: Ycah n
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Which begs the question about the elimination of the word structure in there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me n
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know if a parking garage is a building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I forgot what -- hold on, I had another point.
But go ahead, Bob, you can go, I'll catch up on it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, my comment was when you think about the activity center where you
want to concentrate thc effort, 135,000 square feet of retail alone, that's the way I looked at it, might be rather small or
a bad use of that space where thc space was intended all along to be utilized for more.
So it clearly -- I went with the 135. I didn't dig any deeper. my bad, but --
MR. BELLOWS: That was tlie impression I had in reading the document and discussing it with Kay is that
that was the maximum.
But the group housing is not a conrmercial type of -- it's a community facility use as provided in our LDC and
falling under group housing.
And we typically allow those uses in residential districts, and we have a conversion ratio of about
approximately three to f"ur units per acre for every acre converted tram residential to an ALF type use.
And this was kind of the similar process. For every acre that they're converting from commercial to an ALF,
we subtract that square footage. The trip generation from ALF is far less than the commercial retail, but when you
start mixing the ability to have a combination of commercial retaillotlice space and they're going to try to maximize
that 135,000 square feet, plus somewhere else on the site they're going to put an ALF, that's where that conversion
ratio becomes a big part of this that you're subtracting that square footagc.
Page 26 of3!
,".
16' 1~?
November 18, 2010
So in my opinion there was not going to be an impact when you start subtracting that. And from a planning
standpoint, I think we were covered. But where we weren't really covered is how it was advertised and what could be
misleading -- someone's perceptions of bulk that results from this.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think the presentation was not covered because of the 135.
MR. BELLOWS: I think the real issue is the bulk of the development. If you mix the ALF and the
commercial, you're going to get a reduction in commercial square footage, but you're not necessarily going to get a
reduction in bulk based on the ALF and the .60.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, I fOWld the point.
And also using floor area ratio, we're only using it for these ALF's.
MR. BELLOWS: That's what the LDC provides.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it provides like a number of.3. So essentially aren't they always
increasing a higher number?
MR. BELLOWS: Through a pUD they're asking--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we're not discussing that as a deviation tram the LDC at the time.
So first of all, I don't think it's a good idea to mix ALF, certainly not a good -- obviously everybody got
tricked here. You got tricked, I'm sure the public got tricked.
If you're going to insist on using FAR, which I don't think they should, you should provided in parenthesis the
number that that means. So if he saw that the .6, the way they're doing is up and close to half a million square feet for
a hotel, half a million square feet for that, then let everybody deal with that.
In other words, is the floor area ratio a way to hide a number, is it a way to keep flexibility for a number, what
is it'? And I definitely think that if they want to use it, you've got to tell us what that maximum number could be.
MR. BELLOWS: From a planning perspective, the reason staff went to a floor area ratio in the first place
was because of differing types of living arrangements allowed through an ALF from independent versus dependent
care. Or you might have kind of a multi-family type arrangement or dorm type of arrangement where you might have
six different individuals living in a larger room type of setting.
So you really couldn't calculate that very easily. And we used to, before we went to floor area ratio, calculate
beds in regards to density of an ALF. But that didn't really tell you how big the building would be. And floor area
ratio at the time we adopted it gave you a sense of bulk of the building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But it doesn't -- I mean, in this case this would be a huge thing. So I
do think that if they insist on staying with it, then require in parenthesis what that number is so that the boards and the
public realize what they could be up against.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And I think we've done that to a certain extent in the past when the projects are all
ALF. The one off of Orange Blossom Road where we had a kind of a footprint of the building, you got a sense of
what that building was.
The problem is when you have these mixed use pUD's where they're kind of speculating, they don't have an
end user in mind and they want this flexibility. And that's where you get a general sense of -- the floor area ratio gives
you a certain -- if they do a five-acre site then a .60 over that five-acre site you get a general sense of what that could
be, plus the maximum height standards and setbacks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron'?
MR. BELLOWS: But it is difficult when you have a mixed use project.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think too this ever creeping number on the FAR is what was originally
done so that when you were combining independent and CCRC and having the full range, that allowed those
independent units to be larger. It wasn't to increase the density on things, it was to allow.
So when we're working with speculation, as this clearly is, there's no project here, and we're working not with
a master plan but with a master sketch -- and we probably should call them that -- we probably should require that
they go back to the .45 FAR as well. I mean, we allowed this creep for sometlling that was supposed to be specific
and now it's just morphing into every last one of them.
MR. BELLOWS: That was debated with staff when the issue was first raised a couple years ago when a
pUD wanted to vary tram the .45 that's specified in the LDC. And in discussing with Susan lstenes, the zoning
director at the time, we felt that that was regulating intensity of use and kind oflike being found consistent with the
Page 27 of31
16 \ 1
November 18, 20 I 0
K7
Growth Management Plan in regards to residential density or intensity. We're not quite qualifying that as a deviation
tram like a setback or a landscape buffer requirement.
So we treated it as an intensity and note that they're going ti-om a .45 as allowed in the LDC to a .60, which
will allow for a more intense project and a greater in bulk.
So we treated it that way other than a deviation. But we can revisit that and call them deviations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But ifit is a deviation from the requirements of the LDC, shouldn't it be listed as a
deviation?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, like I said, we weren't treating it that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I don't think you get the choice, do you?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because a deviation is a deviation. If we're not consistent nlike if you put a road in
that's not 60 feet wide and we do 40 or 50. while that's practical and everybody accepts it, and it's almost a policy that
we accept it, we still list it as a deviation. So why wouldn't we list this one?
And by the way, if you did that, it may discourage people from keep asking the greater number. Because
they know they've got to go through additional hoops to figure out how to explain it.
So why don't we look at it like that?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, like I said, we just feh it was an intensity issue of the project. But we can do that.
We'll make that change in our procedures.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But look at what you -- we did the .6, we thought that worked, but that was
for standalone ACLF's. This one's on site with other buildings.
So what's happened is again, this is another cxample of the stealth code that we don't see is the stealth code
has become the de facto standard, even when you're mixing it with other buildings.
So I think yes, a standalone ALF mayhe .6 makes sense. But along with a hotel with .6, where did the .6 tor
that come from? And mixed, you know, with commercial uses on it.
So I think that you've got to be careful with the stealth code if it starts to become de facto standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Kay, it's unfi.,rtunate that Richard didn't stay for this part of it. I understand,
though, why he didn't. We got in -- this is another tangcnt to that project.
You might want to explain to him our discussion herc so that he's aware of it. I don't want any more surprises
from either side if we can help it when he comes back.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Especially the .45.
MS. DESELEM: Is it your direction then that you do want this done as a deviation if they want to go to the
.6?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it should be done --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How can you not"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n as a deviation. I don't know why we would want otherwise.
MS. DESELEM: As Ray said, it has been practiced before Just to include it in the property development
regulations as what thcy're proposing to develop their property with. But wc can -- I can so direct him to do it as a
deviation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
John?
MR. pODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, transportation question for the Chairman.
With the change that is being proposed here, do you wish for transportation to take a second look at a revised
TIS, or should we remain in the same vein that we're in with the current trip cap?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the trip count is not going to be exceeded, I'm not coneemcd with it. I think the
trip count you have put in there, we've already accepted that. And if they're willirig to stay with that trip count, why
waste anybody's money on an additional TIS?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: AI,,,reed. Ijust wanted to clarify and make sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, let me ask a question, though. And Rich brought up a point we're
going to do this torever, so let's discuss this forever. Not with this specific, let's not have the hearing.
Page 28 of3l
, ,
I
16 \ l~?
November 18, 2010
But essentially what you're going to be able to do now is you're going to establish maximum trip counts.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're going to let them adjust the counting with updated ITE
documents, right'?
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, you're going to say it's fixed with what we have today or
they can use -- as the world gets smarter with transportation count, they'll take advantage of that; is that right?
MR,pODCZERWINSKY: Yes. As -- if we're framing that in the reference of the ITE manuals, the Institute
of Traffic Engineering, as those are updated throughout the years, they take into account usually more data points for
their studies. Oftentimes it's more just a refinement of the trip generation per square foot for a given type of
development or per thousand square feet for a given type of development.
That's not to say that in the future the trip generation rates themselves per thousand square foot would go up
or go down. Those sort of things are -- we hope that they hold relatively steady. And they have for things like this
sort of zoning where it's shopping center as a use. That trip generation rate has held relatively steady between the last
few versions of the ITE manuals that give us our natural averages that we work from.
The problem that I have with the question that you pose is will we update their maximum. And maybe I
might need to restate this here.
Are we comfortable adjusting their maximum trip generation rate as the rates adjust over the years'? No, I'm
not comfortable with that.
If we say a maximum of 500 trips for a given development, I think we should stick with that, even if the way
to get to 500 trips, the rates change. I think 500 is 500. Otherwise -- and Mr. Bellows can correct me if I'm wrong,
but I think we may be struck with revising pUD documents --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: -- every time the ITE documents change.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I didn't mean changing that number, I meant changing the calculation
to show that number.
Would they also then have the ability, should we give them the ability, because we don't want -- you know,
we want people to take advantage of a guy could bring a bus line in, a guy could do a lot of stuff.
So would we be able to take advantage of actual counts'? So in other words, you've got your -- the book, the
ITE's a standard, it's essentially an estimate when they build the building and in reality they can get real data.
MR. pODCZERWINSKY: It's possible, hut it's very costly at this point. The technology is available, it's just
not cost efficient to do updated to the day trip counts.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, not to the day, but you know where I'm going is that designers might
be able to maximize or minimize the access to the site and still have it fimction. And it would be nice to reward them
in this.
Okay. But, you know, the cap should be the cap, and how they get to it, they have options.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, did you have a comment'?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, it's my understanding, John, is that we're going to start limiting development by
trip counts'? Is there an LDC provision that gives you standards and criteria for this?
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: At this point there are no standards or criteria for that. But there is an LDC
reference. And Mr. Strain, I may refer to you for this one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah 4.07.02.B, external relationships. The pUD shall provide protection of the
development from potentially adverse surrounding influences and protection ofthe surroWlding area from potentially
adverse influences generated by or within the pUD.
I think that opens up all of the concurrency issues that we would want to bring into play, including traffic. So
if we limit traffic counts, we're protecting the surroWlding area for potentially adverse conditions.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: I think also section two of that LDC ordinance, the one right above the one you
read is also applicable. Where it talks about nonresidential square footage.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not specific enough.
MR. KLATZKOW: [don't think you have criteria to look at here, sir. I mean, you may want to think about
Page 29 of3}
161 1 h,
November 18, 20 I 0
suggesting to the Board codifying this --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah
MR. KLATZKOW: -- as a general principle. Just a suggestion, not a--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's -- Jamie, it's yours. I mean, if Nick was here, he'd have to deal with it, so 1--
does the board have any objection to seeing that as a stronger language')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I think -- I definitely think it should be. And I definitely think
landowners/stakeholders should have a part of this conversation. Because essentially you're going to start limiting the
value of land based upon traffic.
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: From a staff standpoint, my reconu11endation to Jamie would be that we update
the TIS guidelines as time and money allows, staff time and tunding allow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the limitation is only to the extent that the applicant states it. That's the truth in
advertising that we imposed a long time ago. If an applicant says, I'm only going to put 1,000 trips on the road,
therefore I qualify, tine, you're limited to 1,000 trips then. We didn't volunteer that, they did.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's what they're going to say and volunteer, we should hold them to what they
say. This isn't a place to play games. We're dealing with a lot of concurrency issues out there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And whenever one !,'llY gets and expands on beyond what hc's supposed to have it
stops the other development, the other progress, the other economic benefits from going forward because he mislead
us. And so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I see the wisdom in that. And he does take too much out of the
checkbook that we're supposedly working against.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it -- I mean, Nick's got this checkbook concurrency. It would be useless
without this application, so --
MR.pODCZERWINSKY: After some statf discussion here, stafe you know, reconunends that we'll be glad
to work with the County Attomey's Office with any suggestions you guys have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest you look into it and see if there's a way to get it accomplished. And
then come back and let us know.
MR.pODCZERWlNSKY: Right.
MR. FRENCH: Next meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else under old business"
***New business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody from the public's herc.
Chuck, did you have something you want to add, you're the only public member here.
Okay, then motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one question betore that. What is discussion of agenda addenda? Item
13 on our addenda. What is that, we just discuss --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the trivial comments we just talked about. The side bars.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like trivial so I'll go with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahem made a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Secondcd by Ms. Ebert. We're done.
Page 30 01'31
16l
1
~?
November 18, 2010
**************
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 10:32
a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
IJ~
M
These minutes approved by the board on 11rl(, 10 as presented~or as corrected_.
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 31 of31
16 1 1 ~
December 2, 2010
i<,..,,', ..
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION~~~'a
Naples Florida ' er
, He .
December 2, 2010 f' , nJnmg .
-....;0'>'8
Celette
y~/
,.~..... '-"'"
~"" ~"'. ,"'''''- "''''"''''
. '
, .
_;Mi'~
'j'\ ."
,~'. L.~;; i
/'
\/
V
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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
PRESENT:
Mark Strain, Chairman
Melissa Ahem
Donna Reed-Caron
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Barry Klein
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
ALSO PRESENT:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Nick Casalanh'llida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
MIsc. Corres:
Date:
Page 1 of 48
Item#:
'.~:;liesiO:
D!e~)2. 20101 ~
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the December 2nd meeting of the Collier
County Plarming Commission.
If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by the secretary. please.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman"
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms Ahem')
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Mr. Schiller'!
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Mr. Midney'>
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron')
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain')
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here.
Mr. Murray')
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ebert')
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein'!
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Herc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. We have an item under old business which
was to discuss the watershed management update. That's been continued to I believe December 16th.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. good
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry mentioncd he'd like to address us with an issue under new business for--
brietly, so that will be added. Just your name at this point, Barry.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Barry Klein
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to do it under new business, so that will be towards the end of the
meeting.
Then now into Planning Conunission absences.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Onc thing under old business, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance was
supposed to be today. Was continued until today, except it's obviously not. So is that going to be on the 16th as well,
or do we know even?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll find out. But I'll check with Robert. I believe he's working with the DSAC
members to get that information you guys had requested.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. I talked to Robert yesterday and he's still trying to get all those
little fine points worked out.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. so it's just sort of continued indcfinitely until n
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. (iood. thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Planning Commission absences. We have -- because it's holiday season, we're
doing doublc time. So I have three dates coming up currently that wc're scheduled for. Next one is December 7th,
which is Tuesday. It's our EAR adoption hearing.
Does anybody on this hoard know if they're not going to make it next Tuesday?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a continuation of that meeting on to Wednesday, it might be a
two-day meeting. Does anybody know irthey can't make it on Wednesday"
Page 2 or 48
16 \ 1 ~~
December 2, 20 I 0
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Maybe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe not Paul. Okay, well, that still leaves a quorum.
And then we have our regular meeting on December 16th, and I understand we have a full agenda that day.
Does anybody know if they n
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I can't on that day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- can't make it?
And you won't make it either.
Okay. we'll still have a quorum, so we're good to go.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the meeting on the 6th and 7fh at Horseshoe Drive?
COMMISSIONER CARON: 7th and 8th.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 7th and 8th, I mean.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I n I'll check right now. I don't remember -- I don't recall if it was or not.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It says board room.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we try to schedule them all here now because of the acoustics and the cost to
move all the electronic gear over to Horseshoe Drive.
***Okay, approval or minutes. The set that were distributed were from November 4th, 2010.
Anybody have any changes, corrections or deletions')
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Is this my time?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you have anything to do with thc minutes --
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See all the people in the room, when they all go home, that's when it's your time.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: As it should be. As it should be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be late in the day, I think.
And Barry's new on the board, so his -- some of the scheduling of the agenda he's not used to. So that's
probably why that's -- now, as rar as the November 4th, 2010 minutes, lfthere's no correction, is fhere a motion to
approve"
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak.
All those in favor, sib'11ify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
***BCC reports and recaps, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Since the BCC has not met since the last Planning Commission meeting, there are no
recaps today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. ***Chairman's report. Nothing new other than I would like to make the
audience aware or our schedule today. in particular, because I believe some of you are here to discuss the map change
Page 3 of 48
~C~bC~2,20! ~
for Ave Maria.
We have five items on the agenda today. Last two are the issues with Ave Maria. They'll be discussed
simultaneously when the issue comes up. Therefore, a map change for the DR! and a map change for the SRA. The
DR! is development or regional impact, and the SRA is the stewardship receiving area. They have master maps, and
those maps are moving some or the property to the south.
That will come up after the other three items on the agcnda.
First two itcms are dock requests for extensIOns or docks. The third item is a golf course driving range
request. So you'll have to bear with us and move through that and then we'll get into the issues that many of you may
be here about.
By the way, thc discussion today is about a map change, a zoning issue. And I ask that as you see how this
board reviews things, we focus on thc technicalities of zoning issues, thc Land Development Code and the Growth
Management Plan. So maybe when you decide to speak today. if you locus your issues on technical issues that were
(sic) related to, it would help us understand your concerns.
*** And with that wetll move on to -- there's no consent agenda iten1S so we'll move tirst right into our first
advertised public hearing.
And this is ror -- Ray, the fonnat of our agenda. why is 11 done like this" Everything's in caps. Can wc go
back to thc way it was' This is -- what was the mistake that caused this"
MR. BELLOWS: I'll look into it. I believe it might be a CityView issue, but we can eertainly go back to that
fonnat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a lot casier to read if we Just go back to the way it was.
MR. BELLOWS: I have no prohlem with that. We'll get that done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay, this is Petition No. BD-PL-20 I 0-1194, Bayfront Gardens Subdivision,
and it's a boat dock extension. With all the eaps, it looks likc it's eight-foot dock extension.
All those wishing to testify on behalfofthis Item, please risc to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosurcs on the part of the Planning Conmlission.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than I ran into (,luin yesterday when he was in the building, he passed me
going out of one or the otlices and we briefly touched base on thc issue. But other than that, I've had no other
disclosure.
So with that wc'llmove into thc presentation by the applicant.
MR. KURTH: Good morning. For the record, (,luin Kurth of Kurth Consulting, representing my client,
Maryann Kriger. Maryann is the owncr orthe subject property which is located at 205 Bayfront Drive in Bonita
Springs.
The site location map is located on thc overhead, which IS also in your stall report.
This moming we are presenting to you in order to pursuc a boat dock extension approval of eight feet rrom
the allowed 20 fcet. As such, the total dock protrusion in thc waterway would be 28 reet.
Currently the subject property has a boat dock and lilt facilitating one 21-root vessel. This dock structure was
authorized in 1995 by Collier County Planning Commission to protrude 29 feet. However, per the most recent
as-built survey completed, this dock was construetcd to only protrude 28 feet, as shown on the existing conditions
drawing, and that survey was done this year.
We'rc now requesting to modify thc docks desih~lcd to facilitate one additional vessel up to 35 feet in length
and a boatlitt. The total protrusion will not exceed the previously approvcd 28 feet, which has been measured from
the most restrictive point, the mean high water line.
Setbacks are met, square rootage of dccking has been minimized, and there are no impacts to the navigation,
nor view impacts to adjacent property owners.
Water dcpths will be sut1icient. This proposed expansion IS congruent with the neighboring docks and no
submerged resources such as sea !,'Tasses. oysters or corals will believe impacted.
We have designed this dock addition to prevent all possible impacts arc within the total protrusion previously
approved.
This is all I have, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.
Page 4 of 48
16 I l~?
December 2, 20 I 0
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nancy?
Thank you.
MR. KURTH: Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner
with the Department of Land Development Review.
And staff is recommending approval of this boat dock petition. And it would be my pleasure to answer any
questions you might have this morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, I'm got just two, just so we're clear.
The existing facility is already at the 28-foot level. so we're just going parallel to the shoreline with an
extension of the old dock that was there, the floating dock, and adding a second boat.
MS. GUNDLACH: The floating dock is going to be removed and replaced with a permanent dock. But the
extension will still remain at 28 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRA./N: Okay. And has the County Attorney seen any problems in regards to the -- this is
on two lots. Is there any issue with that? I know there's another one coming up afterwards that's on two boat dock
lots and you were looking at that concerning how they arrange the lot lmes.
Is there anything on here that concerns you in the fact they've got this one dock servicing two lots?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Oh, Steve.
MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams, for the record.
But no, I've reviewed this one and had no issue with it, Cornnussioner Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Are there any -- thank you, Nancy.
Any speakers, Ray, registered ror this item?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers on this item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure there's no rebuttal by the applicant.
With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Caron. Seconded by"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schifrer.
[s there discussion"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing no discussion, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
That will go down as a record for today so far.
***Next item up is Petition BD -- another boat dock -- PL-2010-l297. It's a 26-foot boat dock extension in
Page 5 of 48
16 l 1
December 2, 2010
~
Little Hickory Shores.
All those wishing to testify on this item, please rise to be sworn in by thc court reporter.
(Speakcrs were duly swom)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on thc part of Planning Commission"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hcaring none, the applicant may proceed.
MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, Rocky Scofield, Turrell, Hall and Associates, representing
the owner, Michael McKee.
I'd like to ask, I haven't been here in a while, excuse me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sure haven't.
MR. SCOFIELD: -- Commissioner.
On the agcnda -- I have another question. They eliminated the applicant and the -- and also the person
representing the applicants. Is that lor a reason')
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just because it was you, Rocky.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I thought I was special
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm hoping that as with the instructions given this morning to Ray, we'll get
back to the old format. That was much more user friendly and provided better information than the format we have
here today.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You bet.
MR. SCOFIELD: The boat dock extension here this morning is up in Little Hickory Shores in Bonita, Bonita
Beach. north end ofCollicr County there, 267 Third Street West.
And these are the lots on both sides of the street there that are zoned boat dock lots. They're too small to have
residential units on them, so they'rc just deemed !,)r boat docks.
Most orthese lots are 28 to 30 feet in width. Most orthem have zero lot lines that were approved by LDC,
which means a lot or these people can have two boats, two slips on their lot and go right to the property lines.
That's an aerial overvic\v of where the dock is: it's outlined in red there. And those are the distances across
the watern'ay. You can see it's mangroves on the other side. No houses. That's a preserve. No houses. And it can be
built over there.
The one area measures -- is the wider distance. the 420 feet. The other distance is the navigable waterway,
which you can see measurcs to the sand bar which is 220 feet from the shoreline. And you can see from that aerial all
these boat docks in that area are pretty mueh the same confi!,'llration. They come in perpendicular to the shoreline, so
they're in and out. That's because ofthcsc narrow lots. It's really the only way boats can get in and out of the here.
Most of the docks are the same protrusion into the waterway. This one certainly is sticking out no further
than the rest.
The owner has two lots, and he is proposing one doek with two boats on thcse two lots. He's kind of
precluded from doing what the other people have done there where they have two lots. because if you can see the
dock that's angled just to the west -- excuse me. the east side of him was put in a while ago. Didn't really adhere to the
standard riparian lines which we adhere to now. which usually run perpendicular to the center hne or thread orthe
channel. So that's -- he's a httlc bit hindered hy that. But the owner's okay with it.
And so the riparian lines that you received in your paeket. we had to go back to the old way, which they
usually did. And they just -- it was an extension of the side property lines where they continued them straight out in
the water line. So that's what we had to do here. So he's kind of restricted on these two lots to the two slips.
Welre asking for a 26-foot extension for a total of 46 feet.
And this is designated the Outstanding Florida Waters by the DEP in this area. We have a natural shoreline
with manhJfoves on it.
And we mcet all the criteria f'lr the extension. and I'll answer any questions you have.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr Murray. then Mr. Schitler.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good moming, Rocky.
MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning.
Page 6 or 48
\2Jer2,210 ~1J
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looking at it as light as it is in there, do you have a distance between that
newest boat area -- well, I guess they're both new. The distance from -- looks like a tarp on that other one, I'm not
sure what that is. But can you tell me how far it is from that proposed boat to where I h'lless the pilings would be, at
least? It looks like it's really tight.
MR. SCOFIELD: It's -- the riparian line -- the neighbor to the west you're talking about there --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am, I'm sorry.
MR. SCOFIELD: -- the two slips.
Yeab, those are the canopy covers. We're also proposing one of fbe canopy covers for Mr. McKee on his lot,
which is covered under the LDC.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I don't have any problem with it.
MR. SCOFIELD: There's -- on the survey it is a hair a foot between the riparian line and that owner with the
blue canopy cover that you see. There's a foot and a half -- excuse me, one-half of a foot there from our riparian line
to that.
And a lot of those are built that way on the -- they're zero lot lines, so as long as they stay just off of the lot
line, they're permitted.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was thinking more of the safety issues associated with bringing a vessel in
under those conditions.
What I wondered, would it not have served to come out even further to allow that other vessel to not even
encroach or get near enough to that other vessel" Would that be -- would that have been a problem, bringing that one
arm out, so to speak, another say three or four feet, whatever?
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I don't think it's going to make that much difference. You know, there's piling--
that's a boatJift there, there's pilings on that side. They stay inside. That keeps them away from the neighbors.
All these people up here, they're pretty cramped in and they know the situation. And I don't think that's going
to cause that much problem. Nonnally we always try to -- we get the survey, the Bathymetric survey. We try to stay
in as close as we can. The owner's fine with this situation. I don't think it presents any hardships.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the presentation that you have here suggests that it's going to be two
outboards or VO's, one of them. And I can see that you could have a better control than say a single prop, certainly.
MR. SCOFIELD: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would be the concern that I would have, any single prop going in
there is really going to be hard to maneuver.
That would be my concern on that. Other than that I don't have a real problem. I see where they're really
squeezed.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schifrer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, since the canopy's covered in the LDC by right, would you have a
problem taking it off ofthis thing just so we -- because there's no setbacks for the canopy. We don't really show the
canopy, we just note that there will be a canopy. But you're allowed that anyway.
There is setback requirements, height requirements, stuff like that for the canopy, so would you have a
problemjust taking it offorthe exhibit of the proposed dock? The word with canopy.
MR. SCOFIELD: Are you asking me not to build it at all or just take the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, just take it orf of this exhibit. You can build it by right.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So once this is -- you know, once we give you the approval, you can put the
canopy on it. And then at that time they'll be studying the canopy. I don't want to give the false impression that fbis
location is okay ror the canopy.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, as long as you get clarification from the attorneys. Because what I've run into
before is when I get a boat dock extension, anything's that's not on that boat dock extension that's outside of the 20
feet I can't do unless it's stated, and that -- you know, we used to be able to do it that way. Then I ran into those
problems later on where we wanted to come back and do anything. And even though it was by right, you can't do it
because they said it's not in the approved extension.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I kind of see where you're going. But, you know, we really don't get
Page 7 of 48
16 I 1
December 2, 20 I 0
f<?
into what the canopy is here, you know, what the overhang's on it. how close they are to the property line, the stutr--
there's no analysis of the canopy in this thing. So I wouldn't rnind if we worded it that the thing would be allowed the
canopy as per the LDC.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. I mcan, I -- and you can do that 5.0 -- the 03.06.G.I.2 and 3. That's the
LDC code. And if you want to do that, put that in there, that's line with us.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the way to do it, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. anybody else have any questions"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Nancy?
Where did Kay go" Shc bc didn't fall asleep somcwhcrc. did she? Kay came in last night on a latc Hight just
to be here today for this meeting, so she's going to have her hands lulL
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
Just for the record, Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Land Development Rcview.
And regarding this particular boat dock. Commissioncrs, staff is also recommending approvaL
And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them this morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of stall"
(No responsc.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy. thank you.
Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. with that wc'll -- I'm sure Rocky's got nothing elsc to close with, so with that
we'll close thc public hearing and entertain a motion.
Barry"
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I move to approvc.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Sceond.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Barry, seconded by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'd like to add that -- that clause in there with the canopy. Maybe a
simple way to do it is with canopy and after that note. as pcr the LDC.
Ray. would that cause any confusion that he's allowcd to do it'?
MR. BELLOWS: For the rccord. Ray Bellows.
I think it would be redundant, but it wouldn't hurt. Because the code would apply anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's thc samc language we had taken out of cvery PUD because it's
redundant: you've got to go by thc code, period. But I'm not objecting to it, I won't certainly vote against the motion
ror that reason, but it is getting back to the redundancy we've been fighting.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL the concern is the canopy isn't shown. The canopies are allowed
overhangs and stuff like that. This thing could theoretically be built to violate the LDC. So I guess since they've
asked lor no deviation rrom it --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- thcy've noted that they intend to put it on, it probably is okay as is')
MR. BELLOWS: It's my opinion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER Okay, then I'll drop that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're not going to add any reference to -- we'll just leave it like it is in
regards to the diagram in front of us.
Okay. all those in lavor ofthe motion, signify by saying ayc.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Pagc 8 of 48
, /
i'~
16l 1~1J
December 2, 2010
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Thank you. Rocky, it's good to see you again.
***Next item up is a conditional use application to allow a golf course driving range with an agricultural
zoning district at 6500 Airport Road North.
All those wishing to testify on behalr of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I had an e-mail with Ms. Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: E-mail.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Same here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had an e-mail --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa had an e-mail.
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and I e-mailed back denying the need for a meeting.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Same here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: We all did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody got an e-mail?
I did too. In ract, we excharlged a t1urry of e-mails, the results of which are going to be discussed today, and I
think have been added to the recommendations list anyway.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I was in a conversation, a telephone conversation also with the attorney.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. MacKie.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Pam, it's good to see you again.
MS. MAC'KIE: Thank you, good to see all you Commissioners. Thank you so much.
I'm really proud today to be representing the Pulling family in their application for a conditional use approval
for a golf driving range on a property that I'm sure you're familiar with, the Temple Citrus Grove there on Airport
Road. It's near the King Richard's Fun Family Park or whatever the name offhat is.
The property, the entire property is 29.6 acres. The application covers 14.9 acres within the grove. And this is
something the farnily is seeking as a diversification opportunity possibility or in these economic times to diversify
their opportunity to have a little income off' of that property.
This is -- will be located within the grove. It will usc the existing retail building, about 400 square feet fhere,
for the -- going in and signing up and getting your bucket or balls. And there will be -- 19 of the existing parking
spaces will be used for the driving range.
We've gotten a starf recommendation of approval. We've agreed to all of the conditions that they requested,
and we had some clarification questions from Commissioner Strain. And we have agreed to incorporate those into
our approval as well, which I presume the staff will represcnt to you.
So what we'd like to do is just be here and answer any questions you may have. We have a team here that I'm
sure there's someone who will be able to address any issues you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planning Commission questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is the fencing, the netting on this thing. It's agricultural. If it's
Page 9 of 48
16 I 1 X?
December 2, 20 I 0
a wall or a fcncc, there is no height limitations, so -- and the drawings didn't show a location or note any fencing, so I
assume there's none?
MS. MACKIE: Is there fencingO
I'll ask Karen Bishop to address that, she's very familiar with the site.
MS. BISHOP: Good moming. Karen Bishop with PMS.
We are going to have a 60-root fence. and that's proposed 60-foot at this point. We haven't finished doing all
our research yet.
That fencing will he insidc the power pole line, which is south of the roadway that goes in there. And on the
border on the south line. that will also be there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you put -- yeah. if you put a drawing on the overhcad. I know where you're
talking about, it would be casier to see it, though.
MS. BISHOP: All right. So you sce the existing aecess road right here. So the fence line will be inside of
that, which is about 115 reet south of this northcm property line. And the fence will be right on this particular line
right here, which is ahout 175 reet north of the ncxt property.
The rence, there will be no outside fence that I'm aware of here. We will just have a Type B bufrer on the
north side. And on the south side this is another ago use. so we don't really have to buffer that ago use from an ago use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's not shown on the drawings. Can you show that on the drawings, the
location of it, the start and stop of that"
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then it's going to be 60 feet high.
MS. BISHOP: Ycs, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's high. So will --
MS. BISHOP: We'vc donc a lot or research. I mean, that's the number we think at this point. Only because
this road right here will also be utilized. I mean. therc's still a hundred and -- the grove itselr extends back. It's a total
or about 150 acres, I believe. So this road is still going to be continually used for the agricultural use. So that will
protect any errant balls on cars. Plus all of this right here is here is where there's a nursery is corning in.
And it may not end up bcing 60 reet, but I didn't want to say it was going to be 50 feet if it's really going to be
60 feet. So if I say it's going to be 60 feet, it may be 50 feet. then I've covered what I believe it's going to be.
And these notes in general are -- you know. they're nol \/cry intrusive. I've been to a few places and seen
these nets. You know, they are ncts but they're not as -- it's not like looking at an opaque -- something opaque 60 feet
in the air.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, they do -- I mean, il'you drive down to Marco you see the nets
on the golr range. I mean, they're pretty --
MS. MAC'KIE: They're visible.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- COl11l11on 111 --
MS. BISHOP: They arc visible. I'm not suggesting that they're not. But they --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there are poles that are going to be pretty structured to hold them up
there.
MS. BISHOP: Well, but Irom all propcrty lllles we're over -- the one on the north is 115 feet. The one on the
south from the next property that's got -- I beheve this is Laguna Bay, we're 175 reet from them. So we're ofrthe
property lines a significant distance.
COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: And do you think that rcsidents or Huntington will see that thingO Will that
be --
MS. BISHOP: I'm sorry, the residents of who"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Huntin/,1on, which is the Huntington Condominiums.
MS. BISHOP: I believe that they may have -- some parts of their project may. But the great thing about that
project, I've been out thcre a few times. they have some of the best vegetation of the existing projects around us.
Their trecs, their oak trees are probably in the range of about 40 feet tall that are right in front of their buildings. They
have garages in front ortheir buildings. and thcn they have a ficus hedge that's right along tillS edge. As a matter or
fact, we havc a drawing we did.
So this is what it looks now without the fence. And then wc -- what we did was we went and took some
Page 10 of 48
,
,
16 I 1~;
December 2, 2010
pictures or a fence off of Daniels in Fort Myers and we put the fence line in here -- I mean, the netting line in.
So essentially this is what they're going to see now, and this is what they're going to see right here is where
the fence is going to -- or the netting --
MS. MACKIE: That's a photo shop.
MS. BISHOP: Right, we photo shopped in a net over that area.
But when I went out there and looked, most of their -- I didn't get on anyone's property, but I did take pictures
looking at what their vegetation looks like. And hold on, I've got a picture of that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But just before you leave the picture or the fence, I've seen golf driving
range fences. I like golf driving ranges. This one shows no renee between the poles, and there is a fence between the
poles.
MS. MACKIE: No, actually that's an actual photograph of a net --
MS. BISHOP: Right.
MS. MACKIE: -- in Ft. Myers that's in existence that we just laid on top of this photograph. It's not perfect,
but it was our attempt to try to give you some idea or for our own purposes too to analyze just what will the view be
like. And so that was our -- it's just photo shop. but it's not perfect.
MS. BISHOP: If you look right here, this is the type of trees that exist on the property there. And the
majority of this whole roadway, which like I said is quite lovely, has a significant amount of oak trees that are very,
very large. And not suggesting that there isn't some place along that area that they may see this net, but we believe
that the majority of their vegetation, because of its -- how close it is to the buildings are going to obscure that line of
sight.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are these two-story units in Huntington?
MS. BISHOP: There is one building that it looks like it's a two-story, but it's got two ofher buildings in front
or it. And let me show you which one that would he.
This one right here. The rest of these are (lIle-story and these are one-story garages in front of that. And then
the trees are all along the north side of this road right here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, and then -- and fhank you.
The other thing is the sound of the dri ving range. It's not quiet, especially with some or these aluminum
drivers. So what is going to be done, do you think. to help keep that random pinging noise from disturbing the
neighbors?
MS. MACKIE: The property -- the use will obviously have to comply with local ordinances and whatever
the requirements are for not violating any of the sound ordinances will be a requirement there, and that will be done.
It certainly -- you know, whenever change comes to a neighborhood, there will be change. People will hear
pings and people will see nets. And fortunately that doesn't take away somebody's property rights to develop their
property. We certainly will do everything we can to obviate those, but change happens. And this is one or those
times.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done.
MS. BISHOP: Excuse me, Mr. Schiffer. Also, just to rernind you that the ambient noise levels during the
day are much higher than they arc at night. We are only going to operate during daylight hours.
So there -- you will be hearing something, but there's already a significant amount of activity on this site that's
ago So we already have tractors out there running, we have trucks running. I mean, there's already a lot of activity.
And with the Airport Road noise, which is probably the biggest noise source in the area, I don't know that
they're going to hear them. It's not going to be as detrimental as it would be if this was out in the twilight zone and
nothing there but pinging.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they do have batting cages in that neighborhood, so -- all right, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, fhose are the questions I had.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
MS. MACKIE: If not, we just will stand by to see if you have other questions, and we appreciate your
consideration.
Page 11 of 48
161 1
December 2, 2010
.fl(?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hang on, I'm not quite done yet.
MS. MACKIE: Oh, darn. Look at me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I usually reserve my questions till the cnd.
The Type B landscapc buffer. nomlally therc -- and I know it says it's required in the conditions for approvaL
but generally they're shown on the site plan as well in a I o-root or whatever width is required of that buffer. I can't
recall offhand if it's 10 or 15 feet wide. Do you remember" Nancy would.
MS. BISHOP: I want to say it's 15. I know that it's 30 root -- trees are 30 li)ot on center with a hedge and it's
80 percent opaque within a certain time frame. But it's a six-toot -- ir I remember correctly, it's a six-toot maxi -- you
know, that's what it has to be.
The ficus hedges on the other side are around 12 to 15 feet. So I don't evcn know that you're going to see our
buffer for a while.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I undcrstand that. And I agree, now that you show the picture with the ficus. But
we usually see the butlers -- show thc buffers on the site plan and I didn't catch it on this, unless the scale is too small
and I couldn't see it.
MS. BISHOP: No, actually we didn't put it on there. And not that -- we didn't purposely leave it off either.
Originally what we had proposed in our neighborhood meetings was that we were going to leave the existing
exotics up there for a lot of reasons. One is because they're taller than the ficus. And that would -- we thought that
would -- we would be able to do that since we were limiting our development to 100 and some rcet south of this line.
The staff came back during the stall report and said that they would like us to remove that. So we have
agreed that we will put in that Type B bufrer.
And at the time of the SDP obviously that will be shown on the plans at that point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I'd like to ask you to put it on the site plan--
MS. BISHOP: Ycs, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --just like you're putting on the fence.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be helpful f'>r anybody pulling up the conditional use and
looking at the site plan.
The other question was of Reed. Did he show up" Oh. there he is, hiding.
MR. JARVI: I'm listening.
CI.lAIRMAN STRAIN: No, would you mind coming up.
MS. MACKIE: I guess he's shy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy. I'll tell you, Reed--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Really trying to get out of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it doesn't take far to walk from that seat to the podium.
MR. JAR VI: It's a lot or ent)rt f'1r me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Reed. in our e-mails about the discrepancy between the number of people on
the tees, I know it's not a big dcal, I just want f'1r the record. we've got two tables in our package, one showed 40. one
showed 39. Just to bc technically correct, 39 is the number: is that correct"
MR. JARVI: Thirty-nine is the number. that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. that's alii needed to hear you say. Thank you.
Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. is thcrc a stafTreport"
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the
Department orLand Development Review.
And stall is recommending approval of this driving range, but we do havc a rew additional conditions ror
approvaL There are three morc. I'll hand this out to you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was going to ask.
MS. GUNDLACH: And the additional commitments are conunitments number five. six and seven. And we
can tweak them a little bit now that we have an idea of what the height of the fence will be.
Number five says that the netting to catch errant golf balls shall be installed along the northern arld southern
Page 12 of 48
16 1 I-t0
December 2,2010
edges orthe driving range.
And the sixth commitment is regarding the operating hours between sunrise and sunset.
And also that there will be no -- the last commitment is that there will be no night lighting of the driving
range.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of stafP
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, one thing I just want to -- there may be some requirements down the
road. For example, the tees are far away from the building, so there may be some problems with codes on restroom
locations, stufl like that.
Irthat occurs, what happens to this conditional use? Because there's no buildings shown for that down in that
area.
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm going to h
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, here's what I don't want to have happen. This doesn't give them the
approval to waive those requirements. In other words, aftcr they leave here, they do have to meet those requirements.
If it does require a building, would they come back, or what would happen?
MS. GUNDLACH: Generally speaking, the first condition of approval says that they are allowed to make
rninor changes. However. I don't think that a restroom building would be considered a minor change.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if it's approved, it leaves here with no building allowed there. If
they have to -- ir there's a concern over restroom distance locations, they just can't use that tee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or they can supply the portables or something like that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's not fricndly.
MS. MACKIE: We are happy to confirm on the record that whatever the code requirements are. we will
comply.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you'll have -- yeah.
MS. MACKIE: Right, I think that's what you're asking. I mean, I think the questions you're asking though
are addressed by the LDC. And irthere is a distance requirement, we'll comply.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would actually come out of the building codes --
MS. MACKIE: And we will comply.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which answer to a dirferent master than us. Okay. I mean, fhat's good.
Nancy, what's your thought on the fence? You know, this is a thin strip of agricultural; residential to the
south, half of residential to the north. The office buildings I'm not too worried about.
Do you think that's compatible with a 60-foot high fence? Netting? I mean, the netting is visible. I mean, I
don't know what your experience is.
MS. GUNDLACH: I think it will be visible initially, but when the Type B burfer grows in -- that Type B
buffer is very, very close to the existing neighborhood and line of sight. If you can catch it closer to what you're
trying to protect which we will be doing with this particular site, I think in a couple or years it should not be visible.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But from a guy walking a dog on the road next to the property line. But
from the other people in the development driving around the roads, it could be.
MS. GUNDLACH: I don't know that for sure. My professional opinion, the closer you are to that buffer, the
better.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, because it blocks your line or sight. But the further you get away
from that buffer, and there's a whole residential cOl11l11unity on both sides further away, the worse it gets.
MS. GUNDLACH: I was thinking like a couple hundred feet away. But at that point they've already got
their existing trees in place that are quite tall.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done, fhank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of start'.'
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nancy, in your package you -- I'm glad you did change and add some things,
Page 13 of 48
, ,
161
1 ~?
December 2, 20 I 0
because Ms. Mac'Kie said that therc would not be approval without the nets and yet it was not in the conditional use.
The othcr thing is you have a letter or approval here trom someone, but I did not see the other letter of
rejection or somebody who didn't want it. We happened to get our packets on the 24th because the county was being
closed, and so this one that you just e-mailed to us ,-
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- is November 24th"
MS. (iUNDLACI I: It was dated November 24th. The onice was closed that day. I'm trying to think, when
was Thanksgiving"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thursday.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The 25th. But--
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, okay. I was in the ofT --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- their meeting was in January. and they did not send anything until --
MS. GUNDLACI I: Oh. No, their ,- and I have copies of all orthe paperwork. There were letters mailed
out, therc were announcements in the Naples Daily News, and I have evidence of that with me today, if you'd like for
me to put it on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you'rc saying this did not come to you until the day we received this
packet? From the January meeting')
MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, I picked up the e-mail Monday lnoming.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. And then I -- and that's when l think about when you received it, probably
Monday afternoon.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I received it that day.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of statT.'
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Nancy.
Ray, are therc public speakers"
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. Mary Strousc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Strouse. please come up and use either podium.
MR. BELLOWS: Were you sworn in?
MS. STROUSE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, she was.
I need ror you to statc your name for the record and we're good to go.
MS. STROUSE: I'm Mary Strouse. I live in the Huntington neighborhood in Walden Oaks.
And I'm here because some or my ncighbors are very concerned. They hve on Tannen. And their garages
face this development.
And despite the fact that they're only garages, these people spend a lot of timc sitting on their driveway
socializing. It's what they do. And they will see -, they're very concerned about the view. They're very concerned
about the impact this will have on resale values. which of course are dropping like rocks now anyway.
The view of nets and poles is a great concem to some or these people.
I'm very happy that you have addressed most of the concerns we had about daylight hours and noise.
Additional noise, we understand. And we also understand that therc could be worse things going in than a driving
range, but it is a great concern. The view is the primary concem.
And Walden Oaks and Huntington is not as heavily treed as I feel like it's been imphed. From my house I see
that existing n there's an existing pole or some sort there, and it is very visible. And it is very visible from every street
in that neighborhood. And to havc two more poles there, they will be visible.
And I don't know what a Typc B huffer is. hut I certainly hope it is significant. because it's going to need to
be significant to diminish the cl1"ct. I understand it won't be gone. but we necd to diminish the efl'ect. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am.
Ray, is there any other speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one other speaker that just signed up. George Vurrow (sic), I believe.
Pagc 14 of 48
. ,)
16 ~ 1 rv
December 2,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, were you sworn in when you originally came in?
MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes, sir, I was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you.
MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: My name is George Vukobratovich. Vuko is fine.
I represent the Willough Park Owners Association, the commercial project just to the north. We
wholeheartedly support the Pulling farnily's effort. They were -- we bought the original driving range and they were
great neighbors and were cooperative, arld I would imagine they would be in any issues that come up. So we support
it.
This discourse that we've already had answered most if not all of the other questions. And personally this
would be great from all the people who say, George, why did you take our driving range away. So another one can be
put back. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question, Mark"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir" We need you to spell your last name.
MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: V-U-K-O-B-R-A-T-O-V-I-C-H.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have one question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question, so there was a driving range where the office buildings
are?
MR. VUKOBRATOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. VUKOBRA TOVICH: And it worked out great, and they were great people to work with. And I
imagine they still will be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody -- thank you, sir.
Any other members of the public wishing to speak on this matter"
Yes, ma'am, come on up and use the microphone, I need to know if you were sworn in.
MS. STEVISON: Good morning. I'm Lacy Stevison from Laguna Bay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in originally?
MS. STEVISON: I was not sworn in. I arrived late.
(Speakcr was duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name"
MS. STEVISON: S-T-E-V-I-S-O-N.
THE COURT REPORTER: And who are you with"
MS. STEVISON: Laguna Bay Associates.
A lot of our concerns have been addressed with the meeting this morning. But one main thing is the
maintenance on our side, the south side of this property line.
And I have pictures. And it's been an ongoing battle ror us to try to maintain the property line. There's a lot of
exotic vegetation that's overgrowing, and it's very tough to try to maintain it. And so our main concern is just the
maintenance of this driving range and its impact on our property. We already have an extreme eyesore with the
vegetation that's there, and it seems it's proposed to leave it there and leave the existing vegetation as is. But we've
spent quite a lot of money just in this past year, close to $20.000 in maintenance and repairs of our fence line.
So my main concern is the upkeep and just the overall maintenance orthis project. Because we haven't seen
anything in years past in maintenance on our end from this property owner. And, you know, moving rorward we'd
definitely like to see something done with the exotic vegetation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's certainly a good question. We'll have to -- it will be something to
respond to.
Ms. -- thank you, you'll hear us talking about it here in a few rninutes --
MS. STEVISON: May I submit the pictures for your view?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MS. STEVISON: And some of my expenses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Iryou could put them on the overhead, Ray, since -- unless there's enough copies.
Save one for the overhead, at least rnine, and I can look at it on the overhead.
Page 15 of 48
lba
1 f(?
December 2, 20 I 0
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: These arc all the same"
MS. STEVISON: These are the invoices of work that I've had done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, they're all ditlerent. But let's give -- I think what you've got there is probably
one -- a bird's eye view ofthe whole -- the plants that are on the left on both these pictures are the plants you're
complaining about?
MS. STEVISON: That's right. And we had to have them removed continuously by our landscaping
company.
But, you know. in speaking orthc netting being an eyesorc. just the rcmoval of that and the netting would be
a great improvement ror us. Obviously walking your dog down the street -- we have apartment buildings directly to
the right of that photob'faph. You know, I as the property manager get complaints all the time. And there's all types of
wild animals and rodents and feral cats and ditlerent things that eomc out. and gives us a hard time trying to take care
of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've had occasion where exotics have been removed by adjoining
properties. and the residents would have come in here very upset that their views are destroyed, because now they're
looking at a vast open area or whatever is left there outside the -- once the exotics are gone a lot or people don't realize
that exotics are not landscape vegetation and they Just scc it as a but1er that to them is beneficial. Have you taken that
into consideration?
MS. STEVISON: We have. And our owners orthe community were in town on Monday. and that was part
of our discussion. Because we just spent. again, close to S20,000 on planting a but1er on our end that was more
appealing. So we have an existing buffer there.
But the damage to the gate that the exotics IS causing. it's completely tom up the gate, the fence that's there.
So there's actual large holes up under the fence. up from where the roots arc taking up the fence. And there's -- you
know, it's absolutely destroying the barrier there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the fence that's thcrc. was that put in place by you guys or by the property owner
to the north?
MS. STEVISON: By us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. thcrc might bc a disagreement on that.
That's another thing, it would be -- ifthc exotics come out, the fence will probably be entwined with the
exotics, so that will come out too.
MS. STEVISON: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which means ir you want a fence up there, you may be in a position to have an open
area without a rence. So those arc considerations that you ought to really consider carefully. A lot or people
sometimes don't like the outcome orthe removal. Even though it's -- I understand your -- I certainly understand your
dilernma. But we'll pursue it.
MS. STEVISON: Or evenjust to maintain the exotics on the fencc line. Just to cut it back a root or anything
that, you know, could help. Because right now it's completely overb'fowing the fence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let us explore it with the applicant, and we appreciate your calling it to
our attention.
Mr. Schiller?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, who owns the blue fabric on the fence?
MS. STEVISON: We do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You do. okay.
And one question is. and I guess it's to the applicant, is this -- this property isn't part or this application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Berore we go into the applicant. let me see irwe can finish with this young lady.
because we'll have to bring the applicant up hcre.
Any othcr questions of this young lady"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Miss, thank you. and we'll -- obviously stick around. we'll be pursuing it.
Ms. Mac'Kic, could you answcr Mr. Schiller's question"
MS. MACKIE: Yes. This -- respectfully. this property that she's referring to is an entirely separate parcel. It
is adjaccnt to the parcel that we seek your approval on today, but it's 175 feet away.
Page 16 of 48
'(
16~
1 tx'v
December 2, 2010
My client does own the fence: has not takcn any action with regard to the fact that they did trespass to install
whatever that blue fabric is on the fence owned by him.
They did have to recently spend a h'feat amount of money to bring fheir landscaping that had previously not
been in compliance with code. Now it appears that it is. We were out there yesterday, they planted a lot of are cas, it
looks very good and we're very happy with that.
They're adjacent to an ago use. This fence is on a separate parcel, not subject to today's review. We don't --
rrankly, it's just not relevant to today's review.
Also, we just note so that you know, my client says he's never gotten a phone call. We are good neighbors.
We'd love to talk to you. We've never had a phone call. We'd love to talk about it.
You are next to an agricultural operation, so there are going to be critters and there's going to be stuff. But we
would love to work with you. But never having heard from you even about the trespass onto our fence was a little
troubling.
So [ think this is a neighbor issue. We would love to work with our neighbor and we will work with the
neighbor, but I can't find a nexus frankly to -- my client owns a lot of property all over this county, and we can't
stretch this application to cover properties that aren't a subject to the application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Ms. Mac'Kie~)
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pam, I have one.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. I keep doing that, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do have something to consider. Your driving range is temporary. I mean,
you're not going to -- that land's too valuable to be a driving range forever, I would assume.
MS. MACKIE: We hope.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some point Mr. Pulling or somebody's going to want to come in and either sell
the property or change it to another use. At that time it will be important to know that you're being cooperative with
the neighbors all around you. Otherwise it makes it real hard to get a rezone.
So [would highly suggest that especially -- and I'm going to ask starfin a rninute the same question. If you've
got exotics that are going over your property line, the least that ought to be done is have those trimmed up on a regular
basis. And that would be something I believe would go a long way to being more cooperative with the southern
neighbors.
MS. MACKIE: Absolutely. It's something that we do need to work with on both sides. Because part of the
problem that we have on our side is that their landscaping has encroached over onto ours, and it's actually caused my
client -- it's a nursery there, and the shade that's resulted from their plants shading over onto our property has cost him
the ability to produce an income.
So it's a two-way street, but we're very happy to work with them and we have no problem with condition --
you know, or instruction to stafl'that we comply with the code and work together.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, is there any regulatory -- the gentleman will have to wait.
Is there any regulatory issues involving the exotics on the agricultural portion of this project?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll get our code enrorcement folks to coordinate and just kind of be the liaison,
just to make sure that everything's being followed accordingly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think there's becn an acknowledgment to cooperate on maintenance of
those areas that overhang. So maybe that could be relayed to code enforcement as well.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Will do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ms. MacKie, you know, you've been around here a long time, so I hope that
we could see all this work out.
MS. MACKIE: We want to be good neighbors.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir?
MR. CLEMINSON: I would like--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're standing there for a reason?
MR. CLEMlNSON: -- to speak on this issue.
Page 17 of 48
161
1 ~?
December 2, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go right ahead. And please -- were you sworn in originallyO
MR. CLEMINSON: Yes, I was. I raised my hand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CLEMINSON: My name is Ron Clcminson. I'm--
THE COURT REPORTER: Please spell your last namc')
MR. CLEMINSON: C-L-E-M-l-N-S-O-N.
I am the president of the master board ofWaldcn Oaks I Iomcowners Association.
We too are encircled by exotics, the Brazilian pepper that are the border for the south and the east. And wc
have been cutting those ourselves.
Mr. Pulling did step forward about five years ago and came in and did cut them.
I have written two letters in -- since that period, and I have not had a response regarding maintenance of the
Brazilian pepper on our side of the border.
The residents in Huntington have cxpressed a concern, and I have torwarded some e-mails relative to that.
And you dealt with those today. Primarily lighting was a major issue.
The other issue certainly was the height. The 60-foot height. I think I would like for you to consider more of
a compromise here, perhaps a 30 or 40-fl)ot fence. I think 60-foot is going to be visible. As soon as you drive south
on Tannen Lane, you're going to see a net. I think it does not -- it takes from our property.
I would like to continue to work with Mr. Pulling and have him addrcss the issues not only of the Brazilian
peppers and maintaining them on our side, as well as coming to a compromise on the height oftrus fence, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. to hclp us, could you show us on the map behind you on the wall what
community you represent" Just by pointing to it.
MS. CLEMENTS: Let me get my hearings here.
This is the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not --
MS. CLEMENTS: This is Walden Oaks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Cherie's trying to take your comments when you walk from the mic. All we
need you to do is point.
So you're in the project to the north.
If I'm not mistaken, you're required by this application to remove all the exotics within the property that's on
issue here today.
MS. MACKIE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the exotie issue will go away once they start working out there.
MR. CLEMINSON: So I thought I heard them speak to leaving the exotics.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's on another piece of property to the south. That's not part of to day's
application. Your property to the north is part of to day's application. lt abuts the part that is. And that property will
be cleared -- I mean, the exotics will be removed.
MR. CLEMINSON: We have, as you indicated, a 12-root ficus barrier there. That's going to make the fenee
even more visible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and there's also going to be a burrer added, which will be consisting or trees.
And usually they're like live oaks and they are 30 foot on center. They have a canopy spread that will fill in between
them, and it will be quitc high. But it will take a couplc years before that happens.
MR. CLEMINSON: I understand that. But I do feel. knowing the area, that a number of oaks that were
represented, I would agree with the resident lrOln Huntington, there's not that number thcrc. Yes, they're there, but it
takes some time.
When you say a rew years. two years or four ycars, are we looking at tllis burfer that he's going to plant will
take 10 years to grow?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I !,'lless, Pam, thc better responder to that will be Nancy.
And Nancy, could you tell us the size of the oaks that would go in" And by the way. I don't believe they're in
yet. Do you know if they are. Nancyo
MS. GUNDLACH: Are we talking about on the Pulling propcrty side?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: North side buffer. The Type B butler that's--
Page 18 of48
16'
It<?
December 2, 2010
MS. GUNDLACH: No. The Type B buffer that Polling driving range would be installing, that's not installed
yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when it gets installed, what will it be"
MS. GUNDLACH: When it's installed, the trees will be 10 to 12 feet tall and they will be spaced 25 feet on
center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they will grow possibly to what canopy do you --
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, it depends on the species that's selected. The live oak unfortunately is a little bit of
a slower species. Mahogany is a little quicker. So they may want to select a species that will grow a little faster so
that we can have our screen in place sooner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And maybe we'll ask them that particular question.
Ms. MacKie, do you know what you'd comrnit to ror a plant material along that buffer?
MS. MACKIE: Yeah, we were just discussing. There are some existing black olives out there, and that's
what we would put. And they are faster growing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? And I'm sorry, I'd rather -- staff needs to confirm things.
MS. GUNDLACH: Sometimes landscaping can get very complicated.
We have a 75 percent native requirement, but those could be used for 25 percent, certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then of the other 75 percent --
MS. GUNDLACH: Would have to be--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have 100 trees required, 25 could be black olives. You still need 75 trees
of another fairly fast-growing preferably --
MS. MACKIE: Alex is indicating it would have to be oaks. And they are slower growing, but it would have
to be oaks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And oaks are a staple around here for most everybody that's using them.
MS. MACKIE: And I guess I will throw this is. This is not out suggestion, but there is a way that this
application could perhaps leave those exotics in. And that's not our preference, but we could exclude the roadway
rrom our application and then --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather us --not see us do things that circumvent our codes.
MS. MACKIE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The exotics should be removed. The county over -- the ract that agriculture is
exempted from it is just a loophole right now and I'd rather not create another one.
MS. MACKIE: We feel that way very strongly too and we're happy about removing them. Ijust wanted to
offer you that option.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
MR. CLEMINSON: My other point dealing with the 40-foot compromise on the height of the fence, I would
hope you would please consider that. I realize there could be some golf balls, but as you can see on the map, there is a
distance there. I personally don't feel a 60-foot fence would be necessary. Would also serve to not be as visible, in
my judgment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, we'll take that up with the applicant.
MR. CLEMINSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it, sir. Thank you for your comments.
Ms. MacKie, I know that when you build a community and you have a golf course and villages planned
around it, in those villages you can provide deed restrictions or covenants that address the issue or errant golf balls
and how the people moving there have to accept that. There's a liability issue ror breaking windows, damaging
property and things like that.
The idea that your fence is going in is a real good thing in a sense. It will stop those balls from creating
liabilities for your client and damage for the other property owners who will have to deal with their insurance
companies and deductibles and who knows what else,
But having said all that, as the fence leaves the area ofthe tees and you move further into the distance from
the tees, golf balls will not be traveling as high or as far. Is there a step-down possibility for this fence? Because
Walden Oaks, or the -- I think the community that's been questioning this is quite a ways away from both tees, it's
Page 19 of 48
,
;
161 1
December 2, 20 I 0
f'?
more in the center of the landing area.
MS. MACKIE: Just thinking about this. perhaps thc best idea would be to say that whatever the industry
standard is for safety at the minimal height, you know, reco!,'11izing your point, that if it is possible for it to be lower at
a rarther distance under the industry safety standards, we would comply with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we stipulatcd that on consent. you'd come back with a fencc shown on
the site plan with indications that the height will be consistent with a minimum standards of the industry, and you will
bring documentation to show us what that is, we could tie that all together in a final document.
MS. MAC'KJE: I wonder why it would necessary to bring that back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not eoming hack. You have to eome baek anyway on consent.
MS. MACKIE: I see.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a requirement of the Planning Commission. So we could clear it up at that
time.
MS. BISHOP: Let mc see ir I -- showing it on the drawing I think is absolutely not a problem. Putting
together the minimum industry standards betore my SDP might be a httle bit more ditlicult.
So can I labcl on -- just put the label on there that we will comply with the minimum industry standards for
these heights and safety issues" And then when I submit --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe stipulate that. Ray. would stalTbc ablc to rollow that through at an SDP, or is
that a workable solution"
MR. BELLOWS: Staff would be reviewing the conditional use lor the conditions of approval to assure
they're adhered to. lftherc's a standard that says that they're going to adhere to a maximum -- or industry standard in
regards to fence height, I think we just need to be able to verify what that is at the time of SDP approval, just because
that's part of their application. That would he something starr would have to still verify.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. but would staflbe able to follow it up if we included language to that affcct
in the stipulation"
MR. BELLOWS: If there's no true industry standard. then that's another issue that--
CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Wcll. [think testimony here today was that there was.
MS. BISHOP: We've done a lot of research. and there are guidelines. I mean, the term industry standards. I
don't know that there's a -- you know. like an ASTM standard like you have f,,, so many other things. But there are
guidelines.
Wc are hiring a desil,'11er specifically who docs driving ranges and we'll be utilizing his expertise as well as
what you call the industry standards. Now--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Karen, I've seen you work vcry last on issues that pop up. We're not corning
back for consent for two weeks. You could have something put together in the consent presentation in two weeks that
confonns to the standards and then we can make a decision on that issue.
MS. BISHOP: I will certainly givc it a try. I don't know, I'm not as up on this as my client is who's done all
the research and who's talked to his designer. So I will see what I can put together for you in two weeks that you can
review that gives you the guidelines of what they're saying the standards are for heights versus distanees.
Because there's a road that's right next to this. And that's the one thing. And apparently none of you have
ever seen me hit a golf ball. so -- but that road. because it's utilized on a regular basis, we are really concerned about
sarety.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. BISHOP: And so that is rcally what our main concern is is making sure that none of those cars that go
back and forth, including the -- by the way, including the client who lives on this property to the east of here. His
vehicles will be going back and forth. So he's vcry concerned about that. As well as Tannen Road, which is another
vehicle type roadway.
So we're going to be looking ror not the minimum standards for us, as a matter of faet, they're probably the
maximum standards of safety.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And realizing tliat our conscnt agenda is not one that we can change our motion on,
it's only to acknowledge the motion is articulated right by stan: I'm not sure how to work that out here today.
MS. BISHOP: Well, and if] may, I'm concerned that if] go by minimum standards, then I will have a lot
more issues with my neighbors over any potential errant golf balL I mean, I promise not to be on this range but, you
Page 20 of 48
~.
161
1 ~7
December 2, 2010
know, that something may happen.
So we're really just trying to do the best we can for our neighbors. And although I appreciate the neighbors
concern about the visual end of this, I think that we want to keep our golf balls inside our property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I have a point. I mean, to build a driving range you need a field, you
need a tee and you need the fencing. And this application essentially was silent on the fencing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not even shown on the plans. It's brought up by everybody.
So the problem is for the convenience of how to design a good renee, I'm wondering -- you know, I think the
fence could be properly designed and I think we should know that.
MS. MACKIE: I think it sounds like in all likelihood when we bring this back -- and we will bring it back
and it will show the fence. But I'm willing to bet you that it's going to be a 60-foot fence. Because it sounds like, you
know, there are competing concerns, and that safety has to trump everything else.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree.
MS. MACKIE: And so we can cOl11l11it to bringing it back with the fence. We will give you some research
to support the fence height selection. But it's likely that it will need to be 60 feet ror safety.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But hcre's fhe problem. I mean, I think that would be sloppy design.
Because first of all, we don't know where it is. It certainly does need to be 60 feet at the tee. Somcwhere there's a
dimension where it should be 60 feet, somewhere there's a dimension where it should be less.
In other words, the most important part of this project is the least thought out part. And the most dangerous
part to the neighborhood to be compatible is the fence.
MS. MACKIE: I have to say, I don't -- it wouldn't be accurate to say it's the least thought out. It was one that
was not a code requirement, wasn't something that we saw as required by the application and therefore isn't shown on
the plans, but it has been well thought out by our client who's quietly sitting in the back of the room, but he's the
operator and is prepared to do what's safe and appropriate by standards for the development of a driving range.
We would be happy to show it on the plans so that the cOl11l11itment that we've made today as an additional
stipulation that there will be fencing in accordance with safety standards for driving ranges will be shown. And I think
that really is all that is required and is -- should be adequate to comply with the conditional use requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I -- I've been thinking about it, if we stipulate that the fencc will be -- they'll
show a fence on the site plan to the minimum standard height for public safety, then it would be under their burden
when they come in for an SDP to provc that what they've produeed is as minimum standard height.
MS. MACKIE: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would cover your issue and probably everybody else's to the point it can.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if it comes back 60 feet all the way across the line--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: lbey'd have to show --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I don't think that's been met. Because, you know, fhe distance, the angles,
all those things are going to determine the height of a fence.
MS. MACKIE: And that will be your stall's job, to be sure that it complies with the requirement that you're
adding today. And I'm sure they will be very strict and careful that it is adequately desib'lled and appropriately height
(sic).
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure we really want to leave it that loose. We've done that in the past.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not happy with that statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments to anybody at this--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, one other comment is if a little building's necessary, should we put
that in now" Because I don't want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't -- I don't think the project's been evaluated for any structures, and that
wouldn't take care of setbacks and heights, buffers and anything else, plumbing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we want to go there ofTthe cuff.
MS. BISHOP: No, actually our application specifically says we're utilizing existing facilities. Now, I've been
Page 21 of 48
,;
16' l.t\?
Deecmber 2, 20 I 0
on a bunch -- many, many driving ranges, and the distance for (SIC) the tees to the bathrooms are in some cases
greater. Because a lot orthe driving ranges, even at the country clubs, they switch the tees from one side to the other,
depending on what time of year--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay
MS. BISHOP: -- and -- so that's why we are proposing that you go to the bathroom, get your balls and then
go play. And then if you have to go. you go back. But--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not going to go therc.
Let's -- anybody clse have any questions or anybody at this timc"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is thcrc any lurther rebuttal by the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so.
Ray, do we have any other public speakers"
MR. BELLOWS: No other public spcakers
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that. we'll close the public hearing. And I can review what I'm going to
suggest as motions -- stipulations, or I can entertain a motion. What's the preference of this board?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll. I'll read what I'm suggesting as stipulations.
First onc is that they would show on the sitc plan the fence for the errant golf balls, and it will be to a
minimum standard height for public safcty, not to exceed 60 fect.
Number two. the buffers will be shown on the site plan, and the buflers would be 25 percent black olive, with
the remaining -- the native vegetation requirement.
And other than the seven stipulations provided by stan: that's all the notes that I got during the discussion.
Now, is there a motion by--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I have a question
CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Mr Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. thc issue of the standards distresses me about -- that's great. we should
have them to standards. Do we know what standards exist" And then if there are different standards, what -- it's too
open in my mind.
I know you madc your attempt to lry to close it there. but based on the petitioner's assertions, it sounds like
the matter is intended to rail on the stall to qualify. And I think it's the obligation of the petitioner to qualiry that
completely. And starf certainly would be in a position and had to -- have to verify that.
But I do not think it's the burden of staflto go through all of that. And I don't know. I do -- if it was well
thought out and not presented, because that was the one issue I had here, the matter of the net. Sarety has to trump it.
And I appreciate that, no qucstion about it.
But I'm just uncomfortable. I don't feel thal-- I don't feel comf(,rtable that the petitioner in this particular case
is vcry enthusiastic to seek the best, and they'll do the minimum. That's what I'm concerned about. The minimum's
adequate, providing the standard is real and there's no other challenges to that standard. or various standards.
Do we even know where to go ror that kind of standard?
MS. MACKIE: May 1"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahcad, Ms. Mac'Kie.
MS. MACKIE: I needed to clarify. When I said minimum standards, I meant the rninimum height that
meets the maximum safety standards. So please don't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I said.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No. I understood that. What I was trying to ascertain is ASTM, American --
MS. MACKIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. What I'm getting at is what standard is there for safety relative to golf
courses. If we know that, then we know the answers already. Ir we don't know that and we're coming back on
consent and it doesn't comport with what we think we want to do. this is not going to be approved.
MS. MACKIE: And respcctfully, we are not your first driving range in this county. I imagine -- I mean.
staff has -- whatever they have required of driving ranges in the past will be what they will require of us and we will
Pagc 22 of 48
16 I 1 ~3
December 2, 2010
comply.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, do you have any problems?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Why don't you direct staff, as part of this motion, that we corne back on the
consent with the language you've put in to review what we've approved in the past, what is apparent in the industry
standard, and work with the applicant to put that on the plans.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then I think that -- well, therefore, I would say I'm going to -- as far as
I'm concerned, the language ought to stay then suggesting that fhey adhere to the rninimum standards for public safety
not to exceed 60 feet. And it's between the applicant and stalfto make sure that gets done.
And I do believe staff is in charge of making sure public safety standards are adhered to in this county and
therefore you'll review it that way.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If we can look at it before the next meeting, it will be outlined and defined on the
plans.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, is there a motion"
Mr. Schiffer"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I mean, I'm going --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You breathed, so I figured that was you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'll wait for the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll make the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: l'llmake the motion that we approve this with the stipulations that we've
already discussed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second"
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Barry.
Now, is there further discussion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one thing. I mean, I'm going to vote in favor of this with a huge leap
of faith that that net is the rninimum. The scary thing is the words we have, the rninimum to meet the ma -- I mean,
you know, so we1ve given no guidance whatsoever.
It's really going to be -- and the 60 feet is really high. And so lor that neighborhood you've really got to make
sure that there's nothing excessive, it doesn't start too soon, it doesn't -- it doesn't height in the rniddle where it isn't
necessary, that somebody really does -- pays a lot or attention, because up until now there really hasn't been.
So I will be voting in favor of it, again with that huge leap of faith.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think it's really -- I mean, we're dumping a lot onto staff here now,
because this is going to become a really critical issue on two levels: First is the safety issue, public safety issue; and
secondly is the desire of the neighborhood not to be staring at 60-foot of netting and fencing if they don't have to, if 40
feet will do.
So Ijust -- you know, again I think I'm sort of with Brad, this is a real leap offaith here on our part. And you
know me, I'm usually the one that says, nah, not so much, come back arid show it to me first.
But if everybody is willing to do this, to take this lcap, then let's do it. But I'm sure going to want to be --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, our goal is to come back with something on the consent that we've looked
at. I don't think this is something that's new to the industry. We'll do fhis--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -, the next two weeks and we'll hopcfuIly lay it out in the plans.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the fact that the maximum can be 60 feet, irthat's what ends up being
the most safest, then that's what will be shown. And we've already aeknowledged that.
Any other discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the motion's been made for approval, subject to the stipulations.
All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
Page 23 of 48
16\
1
{0
December 2.2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ayc.
Anybody opposed"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion earries 9-0.
Thank you.
Now, the next two items involve the map changes to Ave Maria. We'll be hearing those simultaneously and
voting on them separately.
Nonnally we take a 15-minute break at 10:00. We'll take it now so that we'll come back here at live after
10:00 and we'll go right into the Ave Maria thing until it's -- until we go f(lr lunch.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we1eome back from break. If everybody will please take their seats.
Okay, we ,- I don't know how long we'll be on this issue, but we'll be on it as long as it takes. And we
nornlally break around a quarter to 12:00 lor lunch. and we'll be doing so about that time today and we break for
about an hour. So whoever's got schedules to meet. that's generally how we move lorward.
During break I was told something and asked oot to speak about it, but that means I have to. When Nick
comes in, everybody, he's done a good job in his brier tenure so hlr with Collier County. Today is his birthday. He is
44 years old. So ifhe -- he's not hcre. I don't know where he went, but he missed the opportunity.
***Okay, we're going to hear two ikms. And \\.'c're going to discuss them simultaneously but after the
discussion we'll votc on them individually. So I'll read them both ofTtogether to start out with.
The first one is I()r the Town of Ave Maria Development of Regional Impact, known as the DR!. And it's a
map change lor Petition DOA-PL-2010-1751.
The companion item to that item is the -- again I(lr the Town or Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area,
which you'll hear the acronym SRA. and that's f(lr Petition SRAA-PL-20 I 0-1988.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly swom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the pal1 ofthc Planning Commission.
Let me start with Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Nonc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brdd"
COMMISSIONER SCIfIFFER: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul"
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke with Mr. Passidomo yesterday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Paul indicated a shake of the head no.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sony, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay.
Barry"
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane')
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Only staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I had a brier conversation with AI Reynolds.
Page 24 of 48
...
16 l 1~?
December 2, 20 I 0
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For myself, most of my disclosures are from the last meeting that I didn't
make, and it was continued anyway. But prior to that meeting I was contacted by a lot of people. And it was about --
most of my discussions were all similar in their request. They're about the process that's going to be here, going on
here today. And I'll touch on that as I did with them in just a moment.
The general exception of the process discussions wcre the ones I had with the representatives' applicants--
representatives of the applicant in regards to issues that I f,)Und in their request.
So the people that I spoke to, I spoke to two commissioners: Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner
Henning. I spoke to the applicant's representatives. Georgc Varnadoe, Margaret Perry, Al Reynolds and Blake Gable.
I've also cornmunicated with a variety of citizens who have contacted me. And the best I can recall at this time is
Nicole Ryan, Tim Nance, Peter Gaddy, Mark Peters, Georgia Hilliard, Dwayne Billinj,'!on and Tony Pires. There
may have been others on this issue that have come up to me in casual conversation, but at tlIis point that is the most I
recall. And plus I've had nUl11erous conversations with starf as issues have popped up to seek clarification.
Now, with that I'd like to ask -- first of all, this is a technical board that focuses on the Land Development
Code and the Growth Management Plan. There's a lot orissues involving the area of Ave Maria. A lot or people are
upset over issues involving Jackson Labs. This is not a rezone for Jackson Labs, this is a map change for Ave Maria.
I'd like to ask that when you come up, please remcmber, this board is not one that can weigh in on the
financial issues involving Jackson Labs or any kind of ideological issues. We strictly are here to address the zoning
issues. And that will sure help us understand your concerns better if your concerns are presented to us in a zoning
matter.
So with that I'd like to ask the applicant to start their presentation, and we'll hear both simultaneously and go
rorward.
MS. PERRY: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Margaret Perry, planner for WilsonMiller Stantec, here
today representing Ave Maria Development.
With me today are Alan Reynolds and Jef'fPerry, also from WilsonMiller Stantec, John Passidomo from
Cheffy-Passidomo, and David Genson from Barron Collier Company.
The applications you are considering today both deal with the Town of Ave Maria SRA master plan. Our
goal is to memorialize the administrative approval of the division orTown Center 2 into Town Center 2-A and 2-B,
and the repositioning of Town Center 2-B from Camp Keis Road to Oil Well Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margaret, if you had an aerial you could put up so that everybody could follow a
little bit from your master plan, that would be helpful during your discussion.
MS. PERRY: No, I don't have an aerial, but I do have the SRA master plan. It may be kind of--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I meant. That's fine. Something to show us the uses on the project.
Great.
MS. PERRY: Thanks, Ray.
We also wish to relocate an access point on Oil Well Road further to the east. And that is depicted on the
SRA master plan that you have in your packet dated October 20th.
The Ave Maria -- just for recollection, the Ave Maria DR! and SRA were approved in 2005 and include up to
I 1,000 dwelling units and over 1.2 million square teet of nonresidential uses. At this time we are not requesting any
changes to fhe development standards or the uses.
Town centers are designed to provide a diversity of opportunities for businesses and residents. They include
retail, service, residential, employment opportunities and the likc. They're very mixed use in concept.
The applications on your agenda today are the first in a multi-staged process that has been established and
agreed to, consistent with current rej,'lllations after detailed discussions and review with county stafr, Regional
Planning Council staff and the Department or Cornmunity Aflairs.
All three agencies have concurred that there are no ncw regional impacts associated with the applications
before you today, because the land uses involved have already been approved and impacts addressed as a part of the
2005 approval orthe DR! and SRA.
Subsequent applications f'Jr futurc stages will be rcviewed by reviewing agencies and ultimately by you, fhe
Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
Page 25 of 48
"
16\
1
.k~
Deeember 2, 2010
You havc in your backup materials letters of no objcction ti-om Pacific Tomato, which is the property owner
south or Town Center 2-B.
I'd like to add to the record letters of no objeetion from Pulte Home Corporation and rrom Del Webb Naples
Cornmunity Association, the property owners to the north ofthe site across Anthem Parkway. And I will givc Ray a
copy of those of both of those letters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if there's copies for each member of the Planning Cornmission at some point,
and especially the court reporters.
MS. PERRY: There should be plenty there.
The SRA master plan that you have in your packet was originally prepared back in January of this year. It has
been tweaked somewhat through the revicw process. Since that time a more detailed plat for Town Centcr 2-B was
prepared and is currently being reviewed by county staff.
The confi~'llf'dtion ofthe Town Center 2-B has kind of morphed a bit, so in order to make it more -- but it's
still 50 acres, as indicated on the SRA master plan and as indicated on the plat.
III order to more match it up. I have an updated SRA master plan which more accurately depicts the
confih'llration of Town Center 2-8. I've given a copy of this to Kay, and I'm going to distribute it to you alL
While I'm doing that, I'm going to ask ,leflto come up and give you a brief traffic report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
And Ray, before Jeff starts to speak. why don't we get that distribution done so we all are working ofl the
same page.
Margaret. if I'm not mistaken. you've just lattened it and shortened it; is that right"
MS. PERRY: That's absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .lust so -- is this one you have. an eight-and-a,halfby II you carl leave on the
overhcad, since it's the one we'll hc working 011 of.'
MS. PERRY: Unfortunately I don't have it by eight-and-a-halfby 11, but I can put this one up and focus in
on the town center, if that would work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful, yeah. That way we all-- we can see what we're talking about
as this goes f()rward. Thank you.
Okay, .left: thank you
MR. PERRY: Good morning, Mr. Chainnan, Conunissioners. for the record, my name is Jeff'Perry with
WilsonMiller Stantec. I'm a transportation planner.
As Margaret has indicated. the map change is moving a portion of Town Center 2-B -- a portion of Town
Center 2 oow known as 2-B, Irom the adjacency to -- from Camp Keis Road on the east side of Ave Maria more to
the south. so it would be adjacent to Oil Well Road.
The application does not -- as Margaret has indicated, does not change the development entitlements, does
not increase any of the allowable square t()()tagc, nor change any ofthc uses. These are the types or things that we
look for when we do a traflic analysis and \vhcn we're dctennining whether or not there's any additional impact as a
result of an amendment or a change in the master plan. And I can tell you in this case, obviously there is no change in
the traffle impact or this particular -- liJr this particular amendment.
During the course orthe rcview. we were asked to review the issue of whether or not the relocation of the
commercial mixed use Town Center 2-B down to thc Oil Well Road area would have any impact on Oil Well Road,
whether or not the mere relocating of that acreage and the development of the parcel to the south would have any
negative or adverse impact on Oil Well Road. And I can tell you it does not. There's a trat1lc impact analysis that we
prepared in your agenda package.
I'll just briefly tell you that we built out the entirc 50-acre site with 165.000 square teet of office, 300,000
squarc reet of retaiL calculated the traffic that would be generated by that particular type or development, which
would be a fairly intense amount or development that could bc put on the 50 acres. We exarnined the Oil Well Road
traffic. the background traflic, what's out there today.
Historically in most cases it has either decreased in traffic volumes or in one instance a scgment actually
increascd by one percent. We actually grew that background traftic from 20 I () numbers up to two pcrcent per year
out for five years. We then took the additional traftic, assuming that this site were to be developed in its entirety in
the five-year period. We addcd that trat1lc to the background traftic. distributed it across the network to deternline
Pagc 26 of 48
16' 1 ~3
December 2, 2010
whether or not there was any adverse impact on Oil Well Road. And I can tell you again that there is no adverse
impact. We compared it against the capacities of the road.
As you probably know, Oil Well Road -- two portions of Oil Well Road are currently under construction,
being four-laned and six-laned. Therc's a segment in the middle that's remaining currently unfunded but proposed to
be also multi-laned. It remains as two lanes.
But even in that case there is adequate capacity on that road to handle the traffic from the development of this
tract, if it were to be developed in its entirety within the five-year period.
And with that, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would like to know how many miles difference is it from the Oil Well Road to
the Camp Keis Road? If you were -- where section two is, the town center was originally at.
MR. PERRY: Not including the access into the site, it's probably about three-and-a-halfrniles.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're moving three-and-a-halfrniles--
MR. PERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- closer--
MR. PERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- this way.
MR. PERRY: Yes.
One orthe things we looked at during sort of a review of the distribution of traffic was how traffic coming to
and from this particular site would be altered. And in fact, because the bulk of the traffic we would predict would be
corning along Oil Well Road anyway, and if the project wcre actually located -- if this development takes place up on
Camp Keis Road, then that tratlic is passing through the Camp Keis/Oil Well Road intersection.
By actually moving that site to Oil Well Road, that traffic no longer passes through there. And the rninor
movement down Camp Keis Road, which would always be there, that's the amount of traffic.
So there's a reduction or the amount of trattic that would actually be passing through the Oil Well/Camp Keis
intersection as a result of moving some of the conunercial down to Oi I Well Road.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiller"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And let me just kind of walk back to the beginning.
The reason you're moving this from this area: in other words, why aren't you building -- your intention up
there at -- where Town Center 2 was, is? Why are you moving this area down to Oil Well Road?
MS. PERRY: The rcason that we're --
(Sound interruption.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoever's got that cell phone, I'd like to ask you to just please put it on silent or
turn it off. Thank you.
Go ahead, sorry.
MS. PERRY: The reason is we find that this location would be a good place for a mixed use town center.
It's not -- you know, it's a good location to move it. And we have enough square rootage that it I1lakes sense not to put
it all in one place but to put it in different town centers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And, you know, we discussed this last time, I really agree with the
rnixed use. But why are you making this -- you know, why are you splitting 2 in half and then taking 2 and moving it
rather than just reducing the size or 2 and adding a new 1-4"
MS. PERRY: And the reason being, the list of uses that are included in the SRA master plan include all the
uses that we want on 2-8. They're not diflerent. The uses for Town Centers 2 and 3 are all the same. So we're not
asking for anything different that's not already allowed. So why come up with another colul11l1 and say Town Center
4 and repeat the same uses"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the same reason you didn't -- 2 and 3 are separate would be a good
reason for 4, but we don't necd to do that.
The concern I have is the mixed use. In the traffic analysis it doesn't look mixed at all, doesn't show on your
Page 27 of 48
lot
1
.f'\3
December 2, 20 I 0
residential. So if I were to ask you in thc future, a build-out, how many people live in Town Center 2, 2-B probably
won't have anybody living in there. will thcy"
MS. PERRY: You know, we don't know, to be honest with you. But the reason the traffic report was the
way it was, it's looking at worst case, what if What irit was all, you know. retail, business. Rand D, whatever. So
that's why the tratlic analysis. Who knows')
I mean, we intend for them to be mixed use, including residential. you know, live/work/play type of
development. but can we guarantee it? No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. and the intent of mixed use, like your introduction had, I mean, my
concern is we could lose that. If we pull this over here and just make it essentially a business park, then we pulled all
the business out of one area, put it in another area and claim we have one town that's split -- and how many miles
apart are these sites. do you think?
MS. PERRY: They're about three. three-and-a-half, I believe.
And I think that there is plenty of commercial square footagc, with approval of over 1.2 million, that you
could have of a town center of this size and also have a town ccnter orthe same size or larger in the existing Town
Center 2: 2-A would be now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
Okay, thank you, that's my question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron"
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. back to tratlic
You had detailed how the segments -- the various segments orOil Wcll. And I think you had broken them
down into three segments. and only one had any kind of increase on it. But can you show me the segments?
I think it's on your last page, but I just don't know. Which was the segment that had the increase is all I'm
asking. I think the last page of your tratlie --
MR. PERRY: The segment that actually demonstrated a growth was -- the segment that actually incrcased,
based on the county records, was between lmmokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard, which would be the western
piece that's currently under construction from two lanes to four lanes.
The other two segments, Everglades to DeSoto, which is actually the limits of what the county counts. what
we've shown is Everglades to what's called Oil Well Grade Road. it's that diagonal road that you see there. That
decreased by five percent. an annual negative growth rate offive percent.
And thc easternmost section between Oil Well (;rade Road and Camp Keis Road also decreased.
So the county's practice in analyzing trat1ic like this is when these kinds of anomalies occur is to take the last
data that would be available -- in this case we had 2010 data -- and then ramp it up by two percent per year. So we're
obviously in excess of what the previous trlUr. Jive. six years of historical data represent.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So that last segment is down by how much')
MR. PERRY: The last sqpnent was also down hy five percent.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
Seeondly, you have used PM peak hour. Is that actually the peak? Because we've changed how we do
things. and wc use the actual peak. whether that's AM, PM. or in some cases Sundays or middays, depending upon
what it is, so --
MR. PERRY: There are obviously two peak liours oCthe day: One in the morning and one in the evening.
And the counties and the state, everybody requircs the usc of tlie PM peak. It's not necessarily the same hour ror each
roadway. For instance, Ave Maria has an intluence on the peak hour traffic along Oil Well Road that's later in the
day. Later in the -- during the two-hour period between 4:00 and 6:00 is usually where your peak PM would appear.
So it is in fact calculated as the peak hour --
COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's not significantly greater in the AM, for example"
MR. PERRY: Gcnerally not. no, generally not --
COMMISSIONER CARON: But you didn't analyze it --
MR. PERRY: No, we did not, no. There may be 15-minute increments that would be different. But on
balance PM peak is the most important hour of the day. in large part because of the conunuter traffic, people leaving
work. A lot of people leave work a15:00 in the atternoon, whereas the early morning peaks are not influenced by a
lot of retail commercial: it's not open yet People are traveling to and from work at diflerent hours orthe morning. So
Page 28 of 48
'.1
16 l 1~'
December 2, 2010
the morning AM peaks typically are not really the ones the county is most concerned about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Margaret's probably the better one to answer the questions I'm going to
ask. Jen; I know you're the transportation guy.
Margaret, the former town center location was just Town Center 2. It was split by a road down the rniddle.
But if you add both those sections together, what was the total acreage of the former Town Center 2?
MS. PERRY: I can tell you the acreage orTown Centers 2 and 3. I don't know -- hang on. Maybe Mr.
Reynolds can help me, if you can bear with me. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'mjust wanting to -- trying to understand how much acreage is left. Because I
think you took far less than half of it.
MS. PERRY: That's right.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. For the record, Alan Reynolds, WilsonMiller Stantec, planner.
Approximately 158 acres in Town Center 2, 50 acres being relocated, leave approximately 108 acres at Town
Center 2-A
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And according to the SRA you had the most -- the most largest diversity of
uses were allowed in Town Centers 2 and 3. So if you had 108 acres left in Town Center 2 and you wanted to
maximize the square rootage in the remaining acreage that was there, you're still partially split by a road, what is your
footprint capacity that you could put there, do you know, square footage-wise of just a mixed -- of any kind of rnixed
use?
MS. PERRY: You know, it's going to -- the way that the desi!,'11 standards work in these town centers, it's
really set up for them to be developed in blocks with actual streets and road patterns --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. PERRY: -- so the intensity on a particular piece of property within a town center may have a floor area
ratio of in excess of one to one,and-a-half. I think overall what you'll find is that the -- that on a gross basis you're
going to see something between 4,000 and 9,000 square reet per acre on a gross basis. So if you have 100 acres, you
could be anywhere between 400,000 and 900,000 acres -- or square feet --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's what you could have left there. Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: Of course the ultimate determinant is that we are only approved for a maximum of 1.2
million square feet of retail and office at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The methodology or the concept that they would use to develop is a block
development. So a large regional mall development like Coast land or something, would you be able to do something
like that in that location"
MR. REYNOLDS: If you had 100 acres you could do what I would describe as a mid-size regional.
Coastland Center in its original form was 40 acres before it was redeveloped about I think 15 years or so ago. So right
now I think when they redeveloped it, it probably tripled in size. So you can do a small-scale regional on 40 to 50
acres.
If you look at the other end of the spectrum, it takes probably 200 acres to do something like you see up at --
up at Estero.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. That's fhe last question I had at this time.
Does anybody have any other questions')
Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do.
In doing the reading, Margaret, and going through fhis, I see that on Page 4 of 29 that you have 15 years left
of this development order and then it expires.
MS. PERRY: Well, we actually got a statutory three-year extension that was done by statute because of the
slowness in growth and that. So our build-out now is 2019. I think that the docUl11ent you have may say 2016. It's
actually been extendcd.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, I'm talking about the complete development order that was what, a 20-year
development order? So it says it expires in June of 2020.
And you're right, on Page 27, on the physical, this project is being built in two phases, two five-year phases.
Page 29 of 48
16\
Deccmber 2, 20 I 0
1 f'?
And you're just going to start your second five-year phase is -- in January, and you figured build-out was in 2016?
MS. PERRY: Yes. But again, by the statutory, you know, three-year extension, it didn't just expend the
build-out --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: From the Collier County Commission?
MS. PERRY: No, from the state, State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The state" Okay.
MS. PERRY: The phasing schedule has also been extended by three years. So now instead of 20 16 as the
build-out, it's 2019. Same with the phases.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you think you'll be built out by 2019"
MS. PERRY: I sure hope so.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: WelL being you're starting your seeond phase now. it just doesn't kind of gel at
this point.
But on your -- first of alL I was going to ask you what each town center -- like Mark asked, what is the
acreage on number 1. on number 2 and 3. And you did give me the acreage on 2.
Do you know what it is on I and 3'7
MS. PERRY: Unfortunately I don't know it otfthe top of my head. I know the total or I. 2 and 3 is 265
acres.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
MS. PERRY: So I could probably eyeball it and givc it -- if Alan says Town Center 2 right now is 158 acres,
looks like Town Center 3 is maybe a little bit bigger. lt appears to be anyway trom thc master plan. But just the total
of all town centers is 265.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And then on your transportation analysis -- and I'm going to stick with
you -- it says hcrc that -- and I'm new to this commission. but it says here that Town Center 2-B was already
pennitted. I thought that's what we were here to do today.
MS. PERRY: In the traffic analysis it says it was already pennitted'?
COMMISSIONER EBERT Uh-huh.
MS. PERRY: WelL maybe it --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It says it was pennitted on March 23rd, 2010.
MS. PERRY: Oh, I'm sorry. you're absolutely right. The stafradministratively approved the movement of a
portion of Town Center 2-A -- I'm sorry. 2-B to Oil Well Road. That was administratively done.
What the stafr did not do was approve the movement of the access point. That has to be done by an actual
SRA amendment, which is why we're here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bcf'Jrc we go on from that point, I'd like to interject. And Ray, you know the issue.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are here today f'>r an SRA as well. So we're not here just for the DO. The
SRA approval by staff was administrative in regards to the process they had to go through to get it here today, but
today is thc approval for the SRA map change.
MS. PERRY: You're absolutely right.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that's corrcct. When we started the process, we coordinated with the Regional
Plamling Council and determined that there were no regional impacts -- additional regional impacts.
Howevcr, after the review proccss. we eoordinated with the County Attorney's Of1ice and DCA and we
detennined that the process should require an SRA rcsolution to be part of this process. And that's why we're here
with both items today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just wanted to make sure we got that clarification for Diane's question. Thank you.
MS. PERRY: And just so you're clear, the DO is being amended because the SRA master plan was attached
as an exhibit to the DO. So it's one map but two processes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you file 800 pages for a legal document, it does present problems,
especially trying to download it and read it all.
MS. PERRY: It sure does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahcad, Diane, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, that's -- well, I do have another question, as long as you're up here.
Pagc 30 of 48
:'
16~
1 to
December 2, 20 I 0
I see that you're bringing the 50 acres, but this map that I got ti-om the paper on July 25th doesn't match what
you're doing here.
Are there homes in this area over here now where you're bringmg 2-B?
MS. PERRY: Are there homes existing now?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
MS. PERRY: No, ma'am. It's vaeant agricultural operation.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And this picture from way back. is this what you plan on putting here?
You're only -- it's like a -- to me it's like a puzzle. It's Where is Waldo. You're only bringing bits and pieces of the
puzzle, you're not bringing fhe whole picture. And I'm wondering why you're not bringing the whole picture at this
time.
MS. PERRY: I think the answer is because we don't have the whole picture. At the SRA master plan level,
it's conceptual. It's bubbly, if you will. And we say and list all the uses that could be in there. Could it be residential
mixed with office, retail, business" Yes, it could. We can't really predict, you know, the future. We don't have a
detailed plan, especially at this level, that we want to be bound to when it's a conceptual master plan.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you do have a complete picture? In other words, it will look like this at
some time is what you're hoping?
MS. PERRY: That's what we're hoping. And I'm sure that our client has had architects do multiple
renderings of what it could be. What it will be is going to be directed by market demand, what do they want.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. thank you. We'll neL>d Kay now.
And just so everyone knows, Kay got in on a real late t1ight last night, so thank you for getting up and getting
in early. Appreciate that.
MS. DESELEM: What's to get up? I never went to bed.
Good morning. For the rccord, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner in Zoning.
And you have before you the staff reports that were prepared for both petitions, the DOA petition and the
SRAA petition.
And I won't belabor the issues other than to say that we -- the starf reports on both show the requested action,
explain the geographic location, and attempted to depict what was being proposed to change on the various pages of
both staff reports, noting that thcy do tend to mirror onc another bccausc the change is the same for both, just two
different things that have to be changed.
On Page 4 of the SRA stafrreport is the Growth Management Plan analysis. Going over to Page 5 you have
the zoning review and the transportation review. And staffs recol11l11endation then rollows that.
Staff in their review did consider primarily the compatibility with adjacent land uses, with our focus being on
the things that are adjacent to this particular tract, where it's being moved to. And we did consider the criteria in LDC
Sections 4.08.07.E.l and 4.08.07.A.l. And obviously we did consider the GMP, finding that this particular petition's
request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Staff did recol11l11end approval.
Similarly, on the DOA you have the requested action, the geographic location and the explanation of what is
being proposed. This does go into morc detail about the DRI issues as far as the involvement of Department of
ConUllunity Affairs and the Regional Planning Council. And starfs revicw and the transportation review is also
included.
And staff is recornmending approval oftbe DRI development order amendment with the resolution that you
have, noting that we do have a new master plan that was subrnitted today.
And iryou have any questions, I'd be happy to address them,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of staff'
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, and you heard my conccrn. My concern is that we really wanted this
to be a mixed use, all of these new towns. And the concern about splitting up one town into two towns and dividing it
I still don't understand, but there is a bookkeeping, or somehow it's easicr to do that.
Is there any way we could lose the balance that a mixed use town would have" For example, the way the
Page 31 or 48
. ,
16\
1 ~?
December 2, 20 I 0
development program is now, could somebody grab a town center and build it all residential"
I don't think they could, because I think the intent is that it's supposed to be a mixed use development.
So the concem here is if they pull all the office area out orwhat would be 2-A and put it in 2-B and then add
it all up back into 2, is -- do you have that same concem or is this --
MS. DESELEM: Not really. Just understanding that this is a large, large project DRL And it's customary
that you have a large list or uses. And the applicant is then allowed to develop the project as they wish over time
using whatcver uses are pennitted.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All nght. But if they put all the otlice in 2-B and all the residential in 2-A,
did we -- is this a mixed use development then" I don't think it is, hecause that's the same as if you conventionally
zoned one land residential and one land commercial.
So my concern I guess is that in its division of how they're building it out we have no idea. When we ask
questions about it. they have no idea. At least they've not giving us. you know. what it is they intend to do there. So
how are we assured that this site is going to be a mixed use?
If it came in to your otTice totally office buildings, is there anything in the development that you would say,
whoa, you can't do that, this is a lnixed use, these towns"
MS. DESEI.EM: OfTthe top of my head I'm not aware or anything that would prohibit that. Like I said, as
long as it's consistent with the uses allowed in the Cirowth Management Plan and the allowances within the SRA
designations of the LDC.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the site has a gross amount of uses. And theorctically cach or
these new towns now could grab one ofthose uses and hundred percent it on each of their sites. Which would be the
same as conventional zoning, and why did we go through all this conversation about mixed use five years ago?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I worked on the original SRA for Ave Maria. The total SRA boundary is a mixed use development. The
town center is also encouraged to have a mix, but there are 110 minimums set of how much residential -- or there is no
ratio between residential and commercial within the town center itself so it technically could come in as all
commercial.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay All right, thanks
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of stall at this time'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay. on your stalfreport on Page 5, the--
MS. DESELEM: Excuse me, which staff report"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one Ii" the SRA I'm sorry.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: The fifth linc down, there's a sentence that starts, it says the petitioner. Under staff
reVIew.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Says, the petitioner has demonstrated that he has acquired or will acquire sufficient
stcwardship credits to implement the SRA.
That SRA's already been implemented and they did acqUIre them. so that's not -- no longer will acquire, they
have required; is that correct')
MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other thing I noticed, and I think it's been corrected, the traffic impact
statement letter that was supplied with thc SRA was different than that of the DRL The DRJ still retained the old
letter. We've reccived an email acknowledging, I want to make sure it's right f'lr the record, that the letter applies to
both the DO application and thc SRA application. You may have been gone.
MS. DESELEM: I was going to say. I can't respond to that because I didn't see it. Perhaps Ray can.
MR. CASALANGUlDA: It does, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in your analysis of the map change, the one that was originally in the
packet, would you have changed your analysis in any malll1er based on the one that was slightly modified and is in
front of us today'?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir.
Page 32 of 48
, .:
16l
1~
December 2, 201 0
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the only questions] have at this time. I may have some more later
as we go through public speakers.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Ray, we'll start calling the public speakers. I ask that please limit your
discussion to five rninutes and --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Heidi wants --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidio
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: At some point, whether you want me to do it now or a little bit later, I just wanted to
go over the criteria ror the DR! that you would be reviewing, as well as the criteria for the SRA, to make it clear.
We've got some new members, and I want to make sure everybody's clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The criteria meaning under what -- what we have to review byO What elements we
use --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the criteria --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be useful for thc public to hear before they speak, so why don't you do it
now then.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. As to the DRI, you're looking at compatibility with the Land Development
Code, the Growth Management Plan and impacts on the infrastructure.
As to the SRA, Kay mentioned the applicable sections, so you're looking at compatibility. And then you're
looking at Sections 4.08.07.E.l and 4.08.07.A.l. And I have copies here that I'd like to distribute that you can take a
look at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're existing code?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're all existing code, right?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. And I'm just going to pass it out because it wasn't part of the backup
materials. So you can take a look at that. And ir anyone has any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Heidi, berore I forget, in the proposed resolutions I had mentioned a suggestion
to a change on items four and six to you previously, involving the additional impacts and inserting the word overall.
Did you have any objection to thatO
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I agree, it's appropriate to the insert those words. Would you like me to read
how the sentence would read?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be better, yes. It's on Page 3 ofthe proposed resolution. And there
were two instances in which the impacts weren't defined as overall impacts, and I suggested adding that language. Go
ahead.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So on Page 3, nUl11ber rour would read: A comprehensive review of the
impact generated by the proposed changes to the previously approved development has been conducted by the
county's departments and has established that the changes result in no additional overall project impacts.
The insertion of the word overall.
Number six would read, no increase in overall development intensity is authorized by this development order.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Those would be the changes. And I have extra copics of the sections that I
distributed to the Planning Commission, if anyone would like them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that, we'll ask for public speakers. Ray, would you start reading
off the registered speakers.
MR. BELLOWS: Nancy Freeman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you can use either podium. The next person in line will be mentioned, just so
that you're ready to come up when your name's called.
Ray, could you read the second one"
MR. BELLOWS: And the second one is Mark Petersen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'Ihank you.
Page 33 or 48
161
1 <<'
Dcccmber 2, 20 I 0
MS. FREEMAN: Good morning. I'm Nancy Freeman, I'm a homeowner in Ave Maria. And I actually
object to the rezoning on two lronts. First and fixemost is a matter of raith, but I won't go into that, since we were
basically asked not to.
I moved to the area believing that this would remain to some extent a rural setting. And not only neighboring
but including in our complex a medical center which would also include perhaps industrial, commercial, housing that
we were not aware of.
As Mr. Schiffer pointed out, there's so many ractors unknown. And that's a lot scary. If they don't even
know what's planning -- what's going to be plmmed there.
And I believe that this rezoning is in ract laying the groundwork for possibly a facility and/or racilities that is
not compatible with our community of Ave Maria.
I also have two other letters from homeowners that I would like to submit. I won't read, but I would like to
submit them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. statfcan take them and make sure the distributions are provided to the court
reporters and to the Planning Commission when they're available
Thank you, ma'am
MR. BELLOWS: Mark Petersen, to be li,llowed by Fay Petersen.
MR. PETERSEN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Mark Petersen.
My wife and I are the longest living residents in the Del Webb community at Ave Maria. In fact, Del Webb
col11l11unity is encompassed right hcre --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. if -- you can go close to It. but you've got to use that remote mic. in order to --
for us to -- you've got to be on the mic. at all times. Thank you.
MR. PETERSEN: Thank you.
The Del Webb community is right here. And here's the proposed where they're moving the zoning of 50
acres from2-A to 2-8. Our home are (sic) also the closest home in entire Ave Maria to this, right here.
We're 100 percent in favor of this rezoning down here. And ror us, whatever use they want to do is in full
compliance with what we want in this community. We have no problem with it at all.
Andjust want to also mention, this is a BelleraWalk area. which will also be incorporated here. I think it's
important the developers. Pulte, which has all this area, is in favor or this rezoning. They're currently spending $34
million in building a new salcs center, new models. There's rour new homes going up now. And right across from
here is where our new 33,000 square feet amcnity center will be going up. So the Del Webb portion should be alive
and welL and they expect to sell several hundred homes, hopefully within this next year.
The rest of Ave Maria, when they mcntion going out John Pope Paul Boulevard where 2-A is and the
commercial area out there, there's nothing. Ave Maria. to survive with the other developments there, Emerson Park,
Hampton Village. we've got to get some type or business in there. Right now they don't have anything. They're trying
to entice business to come in.
As Mr. Schiffer said, whatever intention -- and other people are referring to Jackson Labs. Even ifit doesn't
become Jackson Labs. this is going to be an area. we're right near a six-lane new road going in that hopefully will be a
further enticement to bring business out there to hopefully have Ave Maria survive into the future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MS. PETERSEN: Good morning, COll1l11lSSlOners. My name is Fay Petersen.
And I won't -- I just want to go on record as saying that I fully support thc rczoning that's the issue today.
Obviously I have the same sentiments as my husband. I just want to go on rccord saying I 100 percent approve of it
and support it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Richard Dionne. to be lollowed hy Ann Hunt Brefka.
MR. DIONNE: Richard Dionne:
I apologize if we're going to be saying things that don't pertain cxactly to zoning, but I will be brief
This is hom our ncighbor who asked me to read this, and you already approved this, okay. This is trom
Frank and Karen Apang (phonetic): Dear Commissioners, as residents of Ave Maria at 4423 Kentucky Way, we
strongly oppose the resolution to revise the SRA master plan to divide a town center. We are against any rezoning
Page 34 of 48
{
161
1 P<~
December 2, 2010
that would accol11l11odate the Jackson Lab and the technological cluster.
We are morally opposed to some of the Jackson Lab research methods, specifically those that do not respect
life from conception to natural death. As taxpaying property owners, we oppose the use of taxpayers money to
support a project that the majority of Collier County voters do not want.
And from my wire and I, at 4422 Kentucky Way, we disab'fee with the rezoning proposal in Ave Maria. We
are opposed to any rezoning to thc Ave Maria master plan which would accornmodate Jackson Lab and the
technological cluster.
We are morally opposed to some of the Jackson Lab research methods, specifically those that do not respect
natural conception to natural death. As taxpayers we do not want to use taxpayers money to support a project that
most voters in Collier County do not want.
When we bought our home in Ave Maria a year-and-a-halfago, we saw the plan as part ofthe booklet from
Pulte, and we ab'feed to it. And we certainly did not expect it to change into what it's becorning. We agreed to live
there under those conditions, and we want it to stay that way. And we plead you to please do not approve this
rezoning. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. BELLOWS: Ann Hunt Brefka, to be followed by John Hallenbeck.
MS. BREFKA: Yes, I'm Ann Hunt Brefka, and I also live in Ave Maria.
I would like to point out that although the gentleman did speak from the area where he claims was going to be
the closest to the cOl11l11ercial area, I do believe it actually is being changed for the purpose or Jackson Lab, but that's
beside the point. It could happen that Jackson Lab would not go there.
I happen to come from a small town where the residential and the cOl11l11ercial happen to interject (sic), as it
will be with Del Webb and this cornmercial area. There was a small shop, and then they extended it.
And the neighbors who would have been proportionately between the closer Del Webb and the cornmercial
on Oil Well Road, because it is going to be a six-lane, it turned out to be a motorcycle repair shop. So the neighbors
who were within the rnile or so area were hearing all that rrrrrrr, rrrrrrr. It might sound fantastic, it couldn't happen,
but it does.
So I do think that you should be very careful. I do not think it would be necessary or it would even be
appropriate for the sake of Del Webb to have a cOl11l11ercial area there, cspecially since it's been so -- well, what's it
going to be, well, we don't know what it's going to bc, well, it could bc this -- I do think that all of a sudden people in
that area would find their properties devalued. This is what I would like you to consider at this time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker. please.
MR. BELLOWS: Joanne Hallenbeck, to be followed by Magdlyn Olander.
MS. HALLENBECK: Joanne Hallenbeck.
As a homeowner and resident of Ave Maria, I am one or those most impacted by Jackson Labs setting up
shop virtually next door to our entrance. And I have serious doubts about its purported benefits. And for that reason I
respectfully submit the following questions to our Board ofCornmissioners.
Why has the feasibility study on the success of a biomedical complex in Ave Maria not been undertaken?
One does not incur $130 million dcbt without some assurance of a return on their invcstment. Other bio-clusters in
Florida and elsewhere are not performing as tlley projected due to the economic downturn. And other clusters, such
as the one in Austin, Texas are having to lay ofrworkers.
Two: Why are the taxpayers of Collier County not being allowed to vote on the issue? Four of our five
County Commissioners have refused to allow our citizens to vote on the subject of taxpayer funding of Jackson Lab
for 130 million, yet the expansion of thc Naples zoo for three million was put to a vote.
Let us proceed with prudence. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MS. OLANDER: My name is Magdlyn Olander, and I live at 5472 Katia -- spelled K-A-T-I-A -- Court, and
that is in Ave Maria. It's the BelleraWalk portion of Del Webb.
I'm here today because I am against the rezoning of the situation.
I won't belabor the point, but I just want to tell you that I am retired and came to Ave Maria to enjoy the
Page 35 of 48
16l
1
p;
December 2,2010
beauty of Collier County and the cOl11l11unity of Ave Maria. My brother has lived in Naples for like 35, 40 years, and
I always loved coming to visit because it is so beautiful here.
I camc here because I believe in the sacredness of being able to practice my faith in a community of young,
with the university, and older people or wisdom, beeause we are a mixed community. This is a great combination, in
my estimation.
However. I am opposed to thc rezoning. Wc all want economic growth and jobs; however, not at the expense
or taxpayers in Collier County.
I mean. we read the newspaper and wc are not u wc are enlightened by some things that may be true, some
things that may not be true. None orus can prcdict the future. But from what we have seen from some of the
situations that have occurred, it just doesn't look Koshcr to me.
I would like to say that we need to -- excuse me. We need to have the right situation lor our citizens and local
cOl11l11unity that evolves at the proper time. and then we can have peace. Wc don't want our neighbors divided or
having any situations in therc that would cause us diviSIOn. And I'm afraid that's what is happening, a company we
want who will bring their own resources to stimulate their own growth and progress.
I cannot envision a Jackson Lab at Ave Maria's hont door. It would be comparable to putting mice mecca
mosque next to Ground Zcro sacredncss. Jackson Lab could alter its mice to use them as human minions, allowing
the killing of humans in the name of genetic research. I say no from the beginning, no rezoning, no arbitrator. no
mice mecca. I stand for growth and I stand lor life. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Mike Hallenbeck. to be followcd by Jim Kelly.
MR. HALLENBECK: Good morning, everybody. My name is Mike Hallenbeck, H-A-L-L-E-N-B-E-C-K.
This is a technical forum. so I had my speech all made up and evcrything, but everybody's covered it.
So I'd just like to go on record that I am against the rczoning. That's all I have. Plus my wire's here. So thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. sir.
MR. IlALLENBECK: Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate your brevity. Sometimes that's more impactful. Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Jim Kelly, to be followed by Elizabeth Bancom (sic).
MR. KELLY: Good morning. I just wanted to point out when I came into the building today I was struck by
the In God We Trust sign by the clcvator, In God We Trust Sii,'11 by the stairwell. In God We Trust on the seal of the
State of Florida right behind you.
And I understand this is a technical zoning matter, but I also understand this is the United States of America.
And it's not coincidence that that's on our great seals. both for the country and for the state.
So I'll just go ahead with my statement, my contribution as a public citizen.
When the loundcrs or our country established our current form of government, they did so with an
understanding that people will need both raith and reason to successfully operate in a rree and open socicty. They
also understand that a state endorsed religion would lead to tyranny. thc same type ortyrarmy from which they fled in
order to practice freely their religion. The journey's well written and we all know about it.
We find ourselves today in a similar situation here in Collier County. Except for the establishinent of Ave
Maria University, the Ave Maria Stewardship District wouldn't exist and the request ror rezoning would not be
necessary.
Our country's founder put in place safeguards to religion and society in the fllrm of amendments to the U.S.
Constitution and a mandate that all states fornl their own Republican fonn of government.
So we are here, assembled peacefully. exercising our rights spelled out in our constitutions both the Florida
and U.S. Today my desire is to call to mind both thc constitutions that we operate under. Certain rights are spelled
out and granted to us in those constitutioos. not by the state, but the constitutions acknowledge those rights are granted
by our Creator.
I believe that the liberty that this country has provided the citizens here and has racilitated around the world
would not exist without the elected representatives acknowledging that they have a final Arbiter that will judge their
Pagc 36 of 48
\' "
1 RceLer2~01O ~J
actions.
You have enormous responsibilities as freely elected representatives of our country. You may act with near
impunity and surfer only the fate or being voted out of office, or off the cornmission. Your decisions will live on and
impact our children, our grandchildren, as you know.
In today's culture it is an accepted practice to denigrate religion, especially the Christian religion, and secular
culture is trying to push religion from the public square.
Well, in my view there's no wall of separation written into either of the constitutions, and such a law would in
itself be unconstitutional. States and municipalities are arguing the point throughout the country as you know also.
Therefore, it is appropriate that citizens of Ave Maria bring relIgion into the debate on rezoning for our town.
Ave Maria is a Catholic university. The history of Catholic thought and Catholic emphasis on reason and seeking
truth had great influence on liberty and the advancement of modem society, vis-a-vis individual rights.
Therefore, I encourage you to recognize that today there is a very significant connection to what the debate is
all about. And the question that the founders had at the beginning of our country: namely. how much we must
acknowledge and thank -- excuse me, this is heartfelt, as you know -- how much should we acknowledge and thank
the Alrnighty God in founding our country. And mueh more so today -- excuse me -- how much should we use our
personal faith as a part or our decision-making when we come to the choices that we have to make as elected
representatives.
Today I pray that you use both faith and reason when you consider the truth as it is revealed to you during
these deliberations. Because you're not making these choices just for the citizens of Collier County, you're making
them for our posterity.
I'll leave you with my ravorite quote: Ir we ever forget that we're one nation under God, we'll certainly be
one nation gone under.
Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please?
MR. BELLOWS: Elizabeth Balcom, to be followed by Don Imbus.
MS. BALCOM: That's a hard act to follow.
I am Elizabeth Balcom and I'm a homeowner at 4436 Steinbeck Way, and I've come to express my
opposition to this zoning proposal.
And the presentation before our break really did focus on one of my main objectives. Because there's really
no specification in this proposal, nor what I've heard from those who have presented it, as to exactly for whom this
accol11l11odation is being made. We do know that there's some businesses that are in consideration, but I think if this
is going to truly be a multi-use facility, we ought to consider our own struggling businesses right now we have in the
cornmunity.
If in this multi-use piece of land on Oil Well Road we wind up with a McDonald's. a gas station, a giftshop, a
convenience store and some other things. could even be a strip club, it would impact on our COl11l11unity as a whole.
Because people would stop there and not come into Ave Maria proper where the real town center is and always has
been. And the giftshop, the dress shop, the restaurants. all of these things would wither on the vine, which the
cornmunity has already suflered terribly in the few years of its existence.
So I would like to encourage you to reject this proposal until we know specifics about the companies that
would be invited, the businesses they will bring with them.
I ah'fee wholeheartedly with the il11l11oral practices or Jackson Labs, as a devout Catholic. I know that the
Church stands against much of what they do. In fact, the Church has made a lIst ofnon-negotiables, and many of the
projects of Jackson Labs are on that list of non-negotiables.
But whether or not it's cral11l11ed down our throat, I ask you, please, to wait until we know who is really
interested in this land and for what purpose. I think today we have the cart before the horse.
I also agree that Collier County residents should not be responsible for funding this. In the entire nation no
one could fmd a private enterprise which has produced a service or goods, turned a profit on them, brings that money
in their pocket to this county and says let me start up something here for you. I will make a profit, I will generate
money, I can create jobs, I can encourage business.
Among other things, this one company that's been mentioned is a not-for-profit entity. In the word not you
Page 37 of 48
16\
1 N3
December 2, 2010
see the word no. Why do we want a company that docs not gcnerate a profit that they can share with thc cOl11111unity?
Why in the world would the community have to support one that already receives federal funding, already receives
state funding and now will want funding from the county too?
You may not realize that residents or A vc Maria pay homeowner's management fees, an assessment from the
development district, because we don't have the infrastructure maintenance that the rest of the county has. We have a
wonderful water plant, but because the community has not been built out we have pcrhaps the highest base rate for
water service anywhere, perhaps even in Florida. It starts at over $60 a month. So we are already facing up to $300
in absolute necessary fees and assessments and bills. Please do not saddle us with rurther taxes. Please. please. rcject
this proposal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please"
MR. BELLOWS: Don Imbus, to be followed by Thomas --
MR. IMBUS: Hi. My name is Don Imbus. I-M-B-U-S. I live in Ave Maria in the Del Webb community at
5856 Constitution Street.
You know. Ave Maria does need help. And I'm pcrsonally in favor of reasonable commercial development
in our conununity. It's going 10 be good for our businesses. fi"r thc mcrchants, it's going to be good lor the property
owners.
And I believe that this proposal. which is basically a simple shin of 50 acres from one end of town to the
other end or the town, putting it on a six-lanc road is a very makes sense move, and I would simply urge you to
seriously consider pennitting this map change. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Ncxt speaker, Ray"
MR. BELLOWS: Thomas DiFlorio. Thank you. To bc followed by Michael Mastandrea.
MR. DiFLORJO: Good morning. Thomas DiFlorio. It's D-I-F-L-O-R-I-O. I'm a resident in Ave Maria.
own my house there.
I fully support tills changc of zoning. I have complete confidence in the developcr. I believe this will be
beneficial to the town and actually the surrounding communitics. I mean, I would welcome a McDonald's right there
on Oil Well Road so I don't have to drive all the way into Naples or Immokalee. But, I mean, as you know, there's
really nothing there. I mean, I support the businesses in town, but I also like variety. I would like to go somewhere
else. And clothing stores, whatever goes oul there, I'm fully supportive. Thank you.
CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray"
MR. BELLOWS: Michael Mastandrea, to bc followed by J. H. .lemma.
MR. MASTANDREA: Good morning, Conunissioners. My namc is Michael Mastandrea.
M-A-S-T-A-N-D-R-E-A I'm a Collier County home owner, Del Webb, 5890 Plymouth Place.
We fully support -- my wirc and I fully support this rezoning. My daughter is a third year theoloh'Y student at
the urllversity.
We chose Ave Maria for many reasons. And I'd like to state that we have complete trust in the developer.
We're 100 percent satislled that the rezoning is the best interest of Collier County and Ave Maria.
I'd like to include that we do own two businesses in the town center. We do not see that as a threat to our
business. Actually, we believe that that would help us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. JEROMA: My name is Johilll. Jeroma. I live in Ave Maria in the Del Webb community where some
people have indicated they live as well. It used to be Del Wcbb of Ave Maria, now it's Del Webb of Naples.
There's a why. I inquired. To sell more property. Give people the perception that it has something to do
with Naples and not with Ave Maria. in spite ofthc fact that many people moved to Ave Maria because they were
Catholic and they perceived that it may bc a much nicer place than the rest of the world to raise thcir children.
Well, this is the third year I've been herc, and Ave Maria, yes, it's true, it needs help, but it needs help rrom
the onc triune God. And that's something. Because when you're Catholic. and you believe you're Catholic. you have
the truth, and that's what Christ came here for. He was -- He is the truth. And we don't get the truth.
Pagc 38 of 48
~c~b~r2'20! ~~
Ave Maria University first of all is not a Catholic university. They're not authorized to say that. Although if
you check the website, they are now the most Catholic university in Anlerica. They're a private institution in the
Catholic tradition. And they are very, very quick to promote what they perceive to be financially beneficial to their
objectives.
We -- or the university just got through honoring a politician who gave a $4 million donation who there was a
letter out there in the Ave Maria website that this politician wrote, and also it's out to the public in other areas as well.
I am pro lire, I've always been pro life, I was misquoted in this 1994 article.
Well, this I b'lless is the age of Google, and it doesn't take much, like a person like mysel( to just get on the
same internet that everybody else gets on, go to the New York Times and find many other articles where this person is
abortion, pro abortion. Yet the sign goes up. And the proposal was made to Mr. Monihan about the Jackson Labs'
opportunity from this nonprofit -- be careful of the word nonprofit. I once interviewed at an institution in Memphis,
Tennessee. It's a famous children's hospital. I've never seen so much waste of money as I saw over fhere.
Well, anyway, the seat. Take a look at this ranking of this university. 1375 board scores is a lie. And I teach
there. And it's a lie. And instead of rejecting the lie, they accept it. And now they want Jackson Labs for rezoning.
That's what we're here for, to rezone to make -- bring this place in. And some people are in favor of it and others
aren't. And the only reason not to be in favor or it is because it displeases God. The type of business that this -- that
has been conducted or been promoted by the founder is atrocious. And it's a travesty.
lbe tenn Ave Maria is very sacred. It means somcthing to the effect that I salute you most profoundly who
was born without sin.
But Ave Maria is also a prayer, and it's being prayed very badly in the Town or Ave Maria and it's being
prayed very badly in Naples and it's being prayed very badly in the rest of the world.
We all have to give an account of ourselves when we die. We all go before the same God. Every word,
every golf ball that was ever hit, every golr cart that was cver brought on the Ave Maria golf course after hours to--
all of that, every breath you breathe.
And I ask you folks, please, please look to God. Bccause it's not the profit in this world, it's not the money.
There's more -- it makes a ditTerence what we do in this life. You're sitting behind that table over there, or I'm sitting
-- standing over here, the people that are sitting over there, or people walking down the street. Everything matters.
And it all -- we all have to give an account. Please reject this proposal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray"
MR. BELLOWS: Judith Hushon, to be followed by Damon Dix.
MS. HUSHON: Good morning, Planning Commissioners. I'm Judith Hushon. H-U-S-H-O-N.
I chair the EAC. And as such, I did have a chance to become familiar with this project the first time it came
through for us. And it probably is the only time we as the EAC would hear it, unless there was something else strange
came Ill.
But when we approve DRl's, we sort of don't expect major changes. This is -- they're only moving a little bit,
but they are sort of I think changing a mix. So that's an issue that you all -- I'm hoping you all will look at.
My big -- one of my biggest concerns in Ave Maria has been the commercial development and the amount of
cOl11l11ercial development that has not been there.
I started my lire out in Reston, Virginia, and that is a planned community that was built on nothing. And the
first thing they -- the county required them to put in was a full town center. And every time they opened up a new
section, they had to put in a rull town center.
And each town center got to have then some different kinds of stores. They used to be things like the dress
store or the florist or something like that. But there were certain critical stores. The food store, the pharmacy, those
kinds of things had to be there. And this was a requirement in that county.
It led to a very successful development, because you weren't forced off~site. That -- as you know, the food
store only came recently to Ave Maria. And I think that's probably one of the reasons -- the lack of requirement from
this county that we have a certain eritical central element, even ir it has to be subsidized for a couple of years to the
success or that sort ofa new cOl11l11unity, is something we ought to be looking at.
I am concerned, we're talking about moving development from one place to the other. But my reason for the
concern is I want to be sure that that 2-B, that new 2-B is a mixed development and not all business/industrial. I want
Page 39 of 48
16 l lK'
December 2, 20 I 0
to be sure that that's going to serve that Del Webb community that's oflto the side. Because I want to be sure that
they have stores in there, convenient stores lor those people so that they're convenient. That's the whole idea of these
centers.
Yes. therc's a concept of working and living wherc you work and that sort of thing. That's all part of the
concept you buy into when you huy into these klnds of communities. Reston now has more jobs than people Ii ving
there, I rnight add, so it has succeeded in reaching that model.
I also feel that moving the entrance is a bit critical. And the reason I'm cOIlcenlcd about it is an
envirolll11ental end. Wnen we were asked to look at this community for the lirst time. one of the big things we looked
at were where are the entranccs, is tllis (sic) regard to panther habitat. where are the hot spots along the road, what is
requircd. We need to make sure that we're not interfcring with that.
Also, there's another new planned part orthe conununity. a whole big section that's now not going to have an
exit. Is that an issue? I'll leave that t'Jr you to look at. But it's the second Camp Keis Road exit that's being taken
away right now. I believe: isn't that correct"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's being relocated. yes.
MS. HUSHON: Being -- yeah. okay.
But with that second one up there they might be happier bcing ablc to get out on a main road sooner than
having to wind around through the community. I don't know.
But these kinds of conccll1s wc really do have to look at. i\nd my biggest concern is that one with the
maintaining the balance, or requiring that the balance be maintained in that new 2-B, the balance of cOl11l11ercial and
business.
If you bring in business. that's tine. It may be a good place for business. But we need to be sure that
commercial piece is there too. because the othcr is rar away. and it needs to be convenient. We're looklng at walk to,
golf cart to, bike to convenience.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Judith.
Next speaker, Ray"
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Dix, to be lollowed by the last speaker, Kim Narcisco.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Mr. Dix had to leave to go back to work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kim Narcisco. Is she here"
MS. NARClSCO: Hi. I'm Kim Narciseo. I live at 4435 Kentucky Way in Ave Maria.
I'm a native Floridian. I was born over in St. Pete, went to Orlando and then came back here to buy a house
right before Ave Maria opened to the public when they were selling homes.
Beeausc of the advertising that I had seen. my husband and I liked the sense of that klnd ofcol11l11unity. We
like the wholc way it was advertised about the town center being in the middle, focused around the oratory, that whole
European kind of look, which is onc thing which brought us down here. And that's, rrom what I understand, is where
the town center is now.
Wc have some small business owncrs in that town who we all try to patronize because they are struggling out
there. Becausc we've been there lor lour years and we don't even have a gas station in the middle of nowhere.
As a matter or fact, my husband had to call hccause an alligator was going across the school yard so we could
let the children know yesterday when they letl to be careful.
So] can certainly understand why the developers want industry in Ave Maria.
However. I am very much opposed to this rezoning, because I don't see any reason at this point to rezone. I
haven't seen any business talk about conling with their own money and giving to the community. I only hear a
business wanting to take from Collier County.
I have not becn able to find employment here comparable to what I had in Orlando, and it's been a real
struggle just to stay in this county beeause of employment and llnancially.
So whereas new business coming in is good. there's no one out there that has showed us anything.
Some of my lriends that are husincss owners 111 the town and they propose that it would be fine to move the
town center from where it 1S over to the rront of Ave Maria, and it's probably about three miles, I worry about their
businesses. Because with nothing growing in the four years I've been there. and nothing proposed for maybe 10
years, if they do throw a Great Clips in there, if they do throw a Starbuck's in there. what is going to make people
Page 40 of 48
J
16l If\?
December 2, 20 I 0
come down into the town where fheir businesses are? What's going to make them do that? It's not like there's going
to be a big madhouse rush out there, oh, yes, let's just build right away out here. Nothing's happened in four years.
There's not a gas station.
So if you say yes, rezone, and they get someone in there building the McDonald's, building the Great Clips,
building the store, what's going to happen to the existing business people? They're not going to come down in there.
It's a big name. Your mom and pop, instead of getting a $25 haircut, they're going to get a $9 haircut from Great
Clips.
But it's not even going to come to fruition ror 10 years, at least. At least 10 years. And we have -- if we say
-- we're putting the cart before the horse, like Elizabeth said. If we do this rezoning now, you're going to open
yourselrup and you're not going to have any control at all over what happens to your investment. And most of us out
there made an investment.
They're going to build new homes. What are our homes worth out there now? We've lost. And fhey're going
to come in and build newer homes, they're going to be able to sell them at a market that's competitive right now, and
we are just going to lose, lose, lose, as pioneers who came out there on this dream that we were sold, which now the
developers out there are changing completely. How many more times are we going to be snowed?
Okay, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am.
Ray, is that the last public speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, no other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did we miss anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like to ask the Planning Comrnission, we normally take a break for
an hour at II :45. I'd like to see if we could just skip lunch and finish this up, but I do need to give a break to the court
reporters first.
So ifthat's okay, why don't we take a IS-minute break and we'll just continue and work right through lunch
and be done. So we'll be back here at 11:40.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will take their seats, we can move on with our meeting.
We finished presentations by the applicant, we finished presentations by staff, we had our public speakers.
Customarily we allow the applicarlt time for any kind of final closing statements, comments or rebuttal that they
would like to make, and so I'm affording them that opportunity now.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, mcmbers ofthc Planning Commission. Alan Reynolds again
with WilsonMiller Stantec.
And I really don't have a rebuttal. I think that -- I believe that we heard a lot of comments from the audience,
some of which were pertinent to the matter before us and some of which obviously are beyond the scope of what
we're considering here today.
But I do just want to perhaps reinforce what Heidi Ashton counseled at the beginning, which is that this is a
unique area, the Rural Land Stewardship Area. It was set up to accomplish something that is different than has
occurred typically in the coastal area of the county.
We have a special process that we go through. And fhe context or the review of these matters is guided by
the Land Development Code and the comprehensive plan, and she provided a very specific criteria by which these
kinds of applications have to be reviewed.
So I just want to reinforce that, that unlike the coastal area of Collier County we have in fact a zoning overlay
that's already in place. We have a special designation process that we go through for stewardship receiving areas.
And so I think it's just important to make sure that we follow the criteria, iryou will, of what's before us and that the
actions should be held in that context.
But if there's any other questions that the Planning Commission has they would like us to address, we'd be
happy to go over those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions orthe applicant at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alan, I've got a couple. And I'll have staff, though -- I need staff's concurrence on
Page 41 of 48
16 t 1 ,t<,
December 2,2010
your responses after you get done.
I can't, without reading those 800 pages and putting them to memory that you b'llYS tiled tor your SRA, there
-- or ror your DO. Thcre's been a discussion or mixed uses in this propelty. And this is a mixed use SRA, mixed use
piece or property.
But I think the discussion was leaning towards mixed use commercial, which in Collier County is something
new we started working on a rew years back.
To whatever extent you have requirements for mixed use in the commercial areas in your SRA or DO, has
any of that changed by the move of this 50 plus or minus acres to Oil Well Road?
MR. REYNOLDS: No, there have been no changes to any rcquirements in the SRA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So to whatever extent you're required, you do a mixed use; no matter where it is in
your conunercial, this commercial rails under the same category.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's eorrect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jackson Labs has been a discussion. And it's known that this could be the
rorerunner to a location where Jackson Labs might be accommodated if that ever happens down the road.
Can Jackson Labs right now go into Ave Maria without this change in any of the other town center locations')
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. they ean. They can go into Town Center 2-A and they could go into Town Center 3
without any rurther changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last question I'll save f<" staff Thank you.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, first of all. do you ab'Tee with the first two responses that Alan gave me
regarding my fIrst two questions?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last one I have is do you know of any criteria in the Land Development
Code that allows this board to weigh in on not the use but the name or thc company that occupies a space that's
allowed within that use"
MS. DESELEM: Ir I understand your question correctly. no, we don't nonnally as part or zoning, either staff
or the applicant, in a project this large. even know what end users arc at this stage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is that typical that zoning is put in place before the end users are known?
MS. DESELEM: It's almost mandatory, because without the zoning to allow thc use. you can't have the fInal
use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thosc are Important questions, because I know the public has focused on
some of those -- some orthe public have rocused on those in their discussion. I wanted everybody to understand what
could occur ir we didn't do anything today and what our limitations are in regards to some or the issues brought up.
Okay. anybody else have any other questions"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (io ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's kind of talking to you. Mark, on the thing.
You know, even though we've learned today and reinf()reed today that they could build on any of these sites a
sole use, is moving this over there -- you know, and your question was does it change anything. No. it doesn't, except
for it locates it on a diflcrent road, and a road that's going to have much more traffic because of the entrance.
So -- and we're all focused on Jackson Lab. But what ifJackson Lab doesn't happen? Is this a good location
ror zoning" And what would happen out there') Will it be thc McDonald's that thcy rear" Will -- you know, moving
this thing [or Jackson Lab is one thought. Moving it without Jackson Lab. what would we be doing" Why -- would we
be here today" And I don't think we would.
My fear is to lose the mixed use. If they start sole using these properties the vision fails, and there's nothing
we can do to prevent that. according to Ray. And I think Ray's probably right. Because we never really prorated
where uses should be, we just carne up with a master tally.
But anyway, the point is nothing's changing except \ve'n: providing the ncw location that if Jackson doesn't
happen, it could go another way, it could be a big shopping center. And there's nothing in the SRA that would stop it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And from a logical planning perspectivc, putting commercialncar both
entrances is not illogical. Most or -- a lot of our communities have that already. I was surprised, looking back at this,
Page 42 of 48
16 I 1~;
December 2, 2010
that that hadn't been suggested in the first place,
So from that perspective in a zoning matter, it's something that's been done in this county numerous times, so
I'm used to seeing that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the tratlic corning down Oil Well is much dirferent than corning down
through the back, through Camp Keis.
And the concern would be, it really would hurt the down -- I mean, if that became a shopping center and
people would stop there on the way home, and that could really hurt the downtown, the core, the town center, which is
the thing that really should be supported the most.
So, you know, ir you see past Jackson Lab, is it a good move" That's my question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my qucstion to counter that would be is if we see past Jackson Labs, is it a
move we have a reason to turn down based on the code. That's the other -- I think that's going to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I wondcr ,-
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- eat at us for the rest of our discussion, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if Jackson Lab, we never heard of it and they came in, what would we be
wondering what was going on here" And I'm not so sure [ support a shopping center being built -- that would not be a
good place for a mixed use downtown.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last time a map change carne in, I believe it was Pelican Bay PUD/DRI, ifJ'm
not mistaken. There's been a couple. And they moved commercial from their main entrance on the north end to their
main entrance on the south end to accol11l11odate an expansion of the Waterside Shops.
That got to be a strcssful issue because of the size of the cOl11l11erciaI they were moving and the fact they had
some ghost density that wanted to be -- we wanted released, and there was a whole different set of parameters ror that.
But the concept of keeping the conunercial at the entranceway was basically the same. And that's what they
did, they just moved it where the entrance was more available for them at the time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I think this is different than that.
But, you know, as a business park with Jackson Lab, [kind of like it. As a shopping center, I don't like it.
And there's nothing in this decision today that can prevcnt it going either way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree.
Ms. Caron"
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I mean, to Brad's point, suddenly now we are creating a cOl11l11ercial
and industrial corridor on Oil Well which was not anticipated before. And because this project is in the RLSA,
suddenly sticking a 50-acre commercial property thcre, what does that do to the properties across the street? Are we
somehow -- we could be causing the premature eonversion or ago across the way, because suddenly we've created this
cOl11l11ercial corridor where it was not anticipated before. I don't know, I think it's something that we have to consider.
I think -- you know, I think there's been all too little consideration for exactly what this move does do, versus
whether or not Jackson Labs is going to be there.
I also had a discussion with Mr. Passidomo about the whole concept of the fact that this move doesn't create
the likelihood or any additional regional impacts.
Well, I've got to submit that no matter what, the sole purpose of this move is to create -- will create additional
regional impacts. Otherwise there's no rcason to move it; they could have all the uses up on Camp Keis and not worry
about a thing.
So obviously I think that this is incrementalism at its finest. We get an SRA and then we go in ror an
adrninistrative change here, and then we make a map change here, and then we make a use change there. And
suddenly out a ways we don't even know what we're creating at this point.
So personally to me, I think it should have gone through a substantial deviation process. But obviously DCA
is telling us it didn't have to. But I just see this as multiple regional impacts that we're not even discussing. And then
suddenly we'll wake up one day and we'll be going oh, my God, what have we wrought. And how many more roads
have to be six,laned in order to accommodate what we've just put forth today. So I have concerns.
CI-IAlRMAN STRAIN: In defense of the Planning Commission's limitations, there is a possibility that if
there's other approvals on a state-wide and local basis, Jackson Labs could become a reality. This would not be
sufficient for what they plan to do under that basis. They would be required then to do what you have just suggested,
subrnit for a substantial deviation or substantial change to their developmcnt of regional impact and their SRA.
Page 43 of 48
161 1 ~
December 2, 20 I 0
It's at that time that the regional impacts that are then known to be created by what they're doing would be
impacted and studied and analyzed and provided.
The impacts that they would do right now to put a facility there, whether you want to call it a Jackson Labs or
an Arthrex or whatever you'd want to put there are already accepted within the limitation of the original SRA. which
is what our limitations are. And they're not going bcyond those limitations.
I understand the future, but we can only accept what's been applied ror today. That's the knowledge we have
to deal with.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But we are creating a commercial corridor where there was none bel()re in this
SRA, in this DR!.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay It's not--
COMMISSIONER CARON: It wasn't there betore. So wc are creating it. And--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark"
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- whether that's a problem for you, obviously not.
CHAlRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm just --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Hut I think you C3111iot deny that in this shift we are creating a cOl11l11ercial
corridor that did not exist on thc original plan. And that has got to have somc ramifications. And I don't know that
those ramifications have been addressed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiller')
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, another thing I'd like to talk about is we looked at this thing up until
the hearing started with a diflerent site plan. And I'm not sure why we got a new site plan. The reason I don't like the
new site plan is it puts a lot more frontage on Oil Well. The other one kind of tuck cd the project around the lake.
So my fear of Jackson Lab not happening, tllis is not the bcst site plan for the neighborhood. So no one's ever
really discussed -- can we vote on the old site plan'? Do we have to pick this site? Since we looked at tllis thing for
months with the old one and we've had -- this one popped us in the hearing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, it's eonceptual. The width or that plan, there's no dimensions on it.
So unless you specify dimcnsions. whether you looked at thc old one or the new one from staffs perspective wouldn't
make a difrcrence.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now I'm really seared. Now you're saying you could run the whole thing
down to the entrance or Camp Keis with the commercial.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. not -- within reason, obviously. My point being is if -- the difrerence
between 500 or 600 feet. You know, dimension of the lake, it's not dimension, so it's a concept plan at that location.
If you wanted it dimensioncd I'm sure that could be done.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER Then why did they --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My understanding. that this was just a visual aid. I wasn't -- I haven't studied this
map in comparison to the one that's in the agenda. So unless the apphcant has, you know, an objection, my preference
is to use the October 21 st plan that is attached in your package.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to the applicant at this point.
MR. REYNOLDS: Applicant lias no obtectlon to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And. I mean. this thing is pretty precise. I mean, it shows the town core.
Everything else looks pretty good. Nick. I mean, there's a scale on it. I mean, if somebody did try to run it down. I'm
sure you would use this to prevent them. so --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Within reason, sir, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because there's a big ditlercnce between these two site plarls. One pushes
the development around behind the lake, which makes more sense for an otlice park. It doesn't make sensc ror a
shopping center. This is a better shopping center site.
. And again, my fear is not Jackson Lab, it's no Jackson Lab.
MR. C ASALANGUIDA: Again. ComnUssioner. it's not specified the exact dimension. We would scale it
and meet its approximate intent. lrthis Planning Commission said you wanted more specificity, that would be
something you could request.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we can go back to the old one.
Page 44 of 48
161 1
December 2, 20 I 0
~?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else -- Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I have concerns with this myself I still think it's like the Where is Waldo
puzzle. There is a huge difference on impact by moving just 50 acres here.
And I mean, I go back and I look. And I understand we're only here ror this small zoning, but when you look
at the big picture and the people from Ave Maria can't even tell you what is envisioned, that bothers me. And so I feel
uncOlnfortable with this, and I have to tell you, I cannot support that -- support this --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please. I've got to ask that you kind or refrain from the clapping at this point. We
have to finish up our discussion.
Anybody else want to have any COl11l11ent before we call for a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just. one more tiny COl11l11ent.
Is there a way we could phrase the motion such that if Jackson Lab or a biomedical center is built we can go
there, if it's not, then it reverts back to the old town center?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can -- anybody that makes the motion can phrase it any way they want.
Whether it's acceptable to the applicant or the rest of us, we'll have to weigh in on it. I mean, you can make any
motion you want when we call for a motion. Anybody can.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That made -- the starf all started wiggling when I said that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if you -- we're back to being name specific and I'm not sure that is
within our criteria to weigh in on.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's always our concern here --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, I don't recommend that you attach it to the end user.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we tried to do that one time with a Target and we were told we couldn't use the
name of the facility as a basis for our vote. So I think we've got to be careful with that, Brad. It does show a bias and
we're not -- at this level, we can't be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But again, my bias isn't Jackson Lab, my bias is a researeh park versus a
shopping center. I'm trying to prevent that from becoming a shopping center site as best I can. Is there a way that
motion could do that?
MR. CASALANGUlDA: The application before you -- again. you're going to have to talk to the applicant --
is to relocate approved uses to a different location. So that's only what's before us now. So you'd have to talk to the
applicant to see if they'd want to restrict those uses.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and to be honest, I don't really want to restrict them, because I like the
mixed use the best.
Okay, we'll go on with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any cornments"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, Ray, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion.
Does anybody on the Planning Commission wish to make a motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, somebody on the Plmming Commission needs to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make it.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They're separate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray offered. And then we're going to take each one separately, so it will be
a separate motion for the DO and a separate motion for the SRA.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, coming up.
With regard to DOA-PL201O- 175 I, the Town of Ave Maria DR!, I offer that it be approved as offered -- or
as described, rather.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there--
Page 45 of 48
1611f<?
December 2, 20 I 0
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And with staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded with stafJrecol11l11endation.
Now, discussion. Anybody have any discussions"
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just shouldn't we have voted it the other way around" In other words, then
Bob, he went to the DOA to match thc amendment to the town plan, whieh wc haven't donc thc amendment to the
town.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: DOA is the first one on thc agcnda, so I was going in order of the agenda.
Does it matter. Hcidi"
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As was L
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean. it can be donc simultaneously. But, you know, I mean, I'm not -- I mean, it
can't be done simultaneously because you have to have two votes, but I prefer to do the DRl first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're doing.
Okay, now, is there any eommcnts about the motion rromthe Planning Commission"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got one. And I will be supporting the motion on purcly grounds of zoning
issues that I believe are under the critcria of this board.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with many of the things said here today, but I don't believe my
hands are free in order to makc a decision outside the Land Dcvclopment Code and the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Hearing nobody else--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I as the motioo maker would echo that.
And while there are some impassioned pleas t,,, change about the future that is unknown. speculated as being
potential, perhaps will manifest, but the rcality is that we are constrained within reason in the law to relate to what is
given before us.
And the developer is rrec undcr a public hearing to seek ehanges that will racilitate and benefit the Town of
Ave Maria, and is no purpose that I can think or that they want that they ean destroy thc Town of the Ave Maria.
So that's why on those bases that's the reason lor my suggestion wc approve it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion"
(No responsc.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all those in lavor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK Ayc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ayc.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: ('m opposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please, hands ror those that oppose.
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries 7-2. Ms. Ebert and Ms. Caron objecting.
Okay, is there a motion f,,, the SRA)
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make --
Page 46 of 48
161
1 f(?
December 2, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, would you like to try that one?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- a motion. Sure.
Motion to approve SRAA-PL20 I 0- I 988 as received.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Mr. Murray.
I'm assuming that's subject to any conditions in the staff recommendations, which I'm not sure there are any,
but that's usually a caveat we includc.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as discussion, does anybody have a discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, this is my concern for the shopping center, so I think I'm going to be
voting against this one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will be supporting it for the same reason that I stated for the development
order.
Any others"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in ravor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Any or those opposed, please do so by raising the hands and saying nay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, are you against"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am against, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, Ms. Caron, and Ms. Ebert are against the motion.
The motion carries 6-3.
That ends fhe issues of Ave Maria ror today.
I honestly appreciate everybody's input. We'll look forward, see where it goes next.
***Okay, we have one itcm of old business -- no, there's no items or old business, they've been continued.
***We have one item of new business. Barry, you had mentioned you wanted to mention something?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Let me find it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: He doesn't remember it.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Give me a second here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Give the man a second.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, he had it at the beginning of the meeting. Now he's lost it.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Okay, Mr. Chairman"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Relative to the November 4th meeting, on Page I, fhe people on the Planning
Commission were appropriately identified as absent or present, except lor myself, I was present. I was here before
8:30 a.l11., which was -- I'll never live down my first venture here. And Commissioner Horniak also is memorialized
in Page 2 by asking me if! was here, and I was here. And it's in Page 2. So I would like the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it looks like you've got to change the rnin-- but we already voted on the
rninutes of November 4th. That's like the third thing up on the agenda. So that's when we're supposed to catch it is
when we ask for--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you told him to hold it.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: You told me to hold off.
Page 47 of 48
16 1 1 t<3
A December 2, 20 I 0
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you said you had something new. That wasn't -- so I thought it was--
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: It was new to IllC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I apologizc, Barry. When you said new, I thought you were going to talk about
something completely difrcrent. So -- okay. then I think you need to rctlect that change in the minutes.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I still love Cherie'.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sony
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, I think we'vc had an interesting enough day. I don't think there's
anything else to discuss.
Is there a motion to adjoum"
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make the motion we adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Ebert. scconded by Melissa
All in favor. signify by saying aye
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ayc.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye
CHAIRMAN STRA1N: Aye.
We are adjoumed. Thank you.
******************
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:55
p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
,\j wl2jL
MARK STRAIN, Chainnan
\
\
These minutes approved by the board on \- b -ll
as presented vclr as corrected ~___'
Transcript prepared on behalf of Grcgory Reporting Servicc, lnc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 48 of 48
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
CQI~ltl;l.
TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EAR MEETING OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
December 7, 2010
D~
" /
'11//
~>
i
''',
LJ
.Ii~1\i 1? 2011
,.\1.:<;", '.ji >n:;I~'.'
16 I 1 ~
December 7, 20 I 0 CCPClEAR
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning COl11l11ission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
/
b-& y~
v1 ,{t
,XyJ ~}f
, {,JV ~t.
)r ('
~ r
V' ~c
t"
~
ALSO PRESENT:
Mark Strain, Chairman
Melissa Ahem
Donna Reed-Caron (Absent)
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Barry Klein
Paul Midney
Bob Murray (Absent)
Brad Schiffer
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Page 1 of 50
Misc. Corres
Date:
Item':
Cc;JieS \0
16 f I-t\?
December 7, 20 I 0 CCPC/EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming, everyone. Welcome to the December 7th meeting of the Collier
County Planning Commission.
This meeting is to review the adoption documents tor the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, otherwise known
as the EAR.
If you'll all please rise jc)r Plcdge of Allegiancc.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, belore 1 ask the secretary to do roll call, let it be known that Mr. Murray and
Ms. Caron had called in. They've got issues today, they couldn't make it, so it will be excused absences.
With that, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman"
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahem"
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schitfcr?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney"
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain'.'
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Honnak is herc.
Ms. Ebert"
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMMISSIONER IlOMIAK And Mr. Klein"
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. *** Approval of the agcnda.
Mike, I don't see anything. It's your agcnda. I don't know if you want to change anything. You have any
changes to the agenda'?
MR. BOSI: No. tlus is just a tentative agenda that was suggested by statlat the discretion orthe Planning
Commission. We will go in whatcver direction the Planning Commission would seem appropriate for today, but none
as presented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so I'm clcar, as we go through the document today, do you want a separate
motion on each one orthe issues raised in the agenda, A through S, or do you want them as one collective motion"
MR. BOSI: One collective motion would sut1ice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What if we have individual concems about any particular piece of the
document, do we vote no on the whole document then, or just -- how do you want to handle that?
MR. BOSI: Well. if you havc a pohcy that IS being suggested. or an objective that is being suggested for a
modification and the majority -- the majority ufthe Planning Commission is not in favor of recommending that, we
would removc that policy or objective, but we would also provide text within the BCC adoption document that the
policy had been suggested but it was rell1o\/~d at the direction ot'the maJority of the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what irit isn't a majority ofthc planning -- tor example, I have some
Issues. I have one issue in transportation that [1m going to be pretty strong OIL
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I don't want that Issue -- as hII' as I'm concemed, I would vote no on it. How do I
single out my vote so that -- without having to vote no on the whole document? And it's not -- I wouldn't be in the
majority. I'd probably be in the minority.
MR. BOSI: In the section related to the new projects related to thc Everglades and 1-75 interchange, that
particular project or any example of any policies like that where we havc a dissent amongst the Planning Commission,
what we will do is we will try to eneapsulate what the dissent was and put that in the document to the Board or
County Comnussioners that a nUIIOlity voice on the Planning Commission felt that it was inappropriatc for the
numbers or reasons that are expounded upon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is strictly thc specificity. It's not supposed to be in this document and it ties our
Page 2 of 50
,-
16 1 1 ~7
December 7, 20 I 0 CCPC/EAR
hands in the future.
So anyway, now that I know how to proceed, it's -- at this point it's all yours, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair, fellow Plmming Commissioners. Good morning. My name is Mike Bosi,
with the Comprehensi ve Planning Department. I'll try to speak slow, deliberate and methodically for Cherie's benefit.
Today we are -- as the Chair had mentioned, we are here for the adoption hearing for the EAR or the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report, which is applied to the Growth Management Plan.
The Growth Management Plan in Collier County is a collection of elements that are made up of individual
goals, objectives to accomplish those goals and policies to further those objectives which accomplish those individual
goals.
Florida Statute 163.3191 requires that each local jurisdiction in thc state perfonn the EAR on a regular basis,
on a sevcn-year basis. Last year was performed in 2004 from Collicr County, so we're here back in the seven-year
window.
The adoption hearing for the Board ofCoUllty Commissioners is set for the 31st of January, 2011.
The EAR, as mentioned, evaluates the performance of the elements of the GMP, the successes, tries to
identify the successes, tries to identify the shortcomings and provides opportunities for the local plan to respond to
changes within federal, state and regional planning requircments and modifications, but also conditions on the ground
that we see that have been expressed through the numerous planning studies that have been performed, the numerous
dialogues that local government has had with the community, fhe issues that are raised on a regular basis with fhe
Planning Commission, the issues that are raised on a regular basis with the EAC and the Board or County
Commissioners and the other advisory hoards, trying to bring those issues to light and sec how and where appropriate
they would fit within the Growth Management Plan.
It's a two-part process. And this is really an important point at the beginning of our hearing today. And we're
at the tail end of the first part. And this tail end -- or the first part is whcn wc make the evaluation of the elements
within our Growth Management Plan of the goals, the objectives, the policies, and we raise our hands and say here's
this policy, that policy, this objective, here's the areas we think wc need to have modifications. We don't try to fmd
what the specific modification is, but we recognize that we can maybe do a little bit better, or the policy needs to be
strengthened or a policy needs to be added. Or, in particular, in one instancc where an entire new element needs to be
suggested, which was suggested by the Planning Commission, and rightfully so, at the August meetings for a mobility
public transit element.
Those are the type of opportunities, those are the type or issues that the EAR is designed to accomplish, to
find those potential holes, to find thosc potential weaknesses within our Growth Management Plan and address them
through modification.
But that 18 months -- once the Board of County Commissioners would adopt this EAR, transmit it to the
Department of Community Affairs, within the 60 days for them to evaluate whether we've met the mark and the
requirements of the statutes, we'll have 18 months from that time to process and adopt, to transmit and then adopt the
EAR-based amendment.
So what that means is all these policies and objectives in these areas we say we're going to modify our
Growth Management Plan for, we're going to havc 18 months to -- for staff to take the initial crack at the language
that was provided for within this asscssment. And then we'll come to a transmittal hearing with the EAC and then the
Planning Commission. The Planning Comrnission will review the proposcd languages. the proposed modifications.
make some evaluations, give us some further additional direction upon the language that we had proposed. We'll
transmit that to the Department of Community Affairs. It will come back again and we'll have an adoption hearing.
So that 18-month process will have -- the Platming Commission will have two additional opportunities to
confirm and assure that the language that we're being suggested tfom the policies that we are saying that wc need to
modify, that we'll have two additional opportunities -- not only the Planning Commission, but the general public as
well will have that opportunity to havc their voice hcard and put forth whatever issue that thcy see appropriate related
to thosc individual policies.
Just for the benefit of some ofthe newer Planning Commissions (sic) real quick, this process started in 2009,
back in August. We had a meeting with the Regional Planning Commission (sic) and the Department of Community
Affairs, gave a general overview of what fhey're looking for within the process.
And one of the things that we heard from the Department of Community Affairs representative was House
Page 3 of 50
16'
1~1
December 7.2010 CCPC/EAR
Bill 697. I think everybody has been prctty familiar and versed with 697. But what it mcans -- what that piece of
legislation said was we're going to try to do a better job of eOlmccting land use planning and energy efficiency and
greenhouse gas ernissions related to climate change and all those issues that are associated with thc utilization or
energy and the mobility of individuals within the county.
September we had an interloeal meeting with the various cities and adjoining regional governments and state
agencies over on Horseshoe Drive. And then from that period we established a letter of understanding from the major
issues with the Department ofConmlUnity Affairs. and that was Decembcr or2009.
In the early part or this year, January, Fcbruary and March. we held three public participation meetings where
we invited the general public to come and asked thcm Just to tell us what was it that they saw that was issues, what
was it that they saw within their daily lives, withm how they expenence and how they interact with tlie built
envirolll11ent, what is it that they see as problematic and wliat is it they see that they would like to see more of
From those issues we tried to identify the major concerns from the individual public, put that in the
document. and we put that in the document in the first chapter or tlus book to give the advisory boards and the Board
of County Commissioners an understanding of here was the sense or the issues that were raised by the general public.
From that assessment. lrom those three public meetings, we wcnt by on an individual basis, clement by
element. objective by objective. poliey by policy, and evaluated whether the policy, whether the objectives were
meeting their mark.
Starfmade their assessment and then wc had our individual workshops.
On August 11th of 2010, wc had a workshop with the I-:AC. llad some conunents, had some issues, had
some direction from thc EAC.
Then we came back on AUb'llst 25th. and 27th. a two-day meeting where wc spcnt at b'feat length with the
Planning Conunission going through each individual policy and obJcctive one by one to assess where the changes
needed to be.
From that meeting with the Planning Conunission, wc consolidated the EAR books, indicated the additional
areas, the additional direction that was provided by the Planning Conmussion, sent that book to the Department of
Community Affairs in the state reviewing agencies, the Department of Transportation, thc Water Management
District, the various state reviewing agencies that look at any Growth Management Plan amendments that Collier
County would propose.
vVe received our letter of nH1unents fromlhc Department of Community AtTairs and the other state agencies
in nud-October.
What I wanted to do before we get into the substantive issue of each element by element was kind of walk
through what that letter said from the Department orCommunity Arfairs so we can address it up rront and you will
also be able to iterate where some of these issues have been highlighted within the body or the document.
But overall, my assessment orthat letter -- and if you read that letter -- if you read the letter and what it says
on a macro level. it basically says that our Growth Management Plan, the assessment that we made in the direction
that was provided by the Planning Commission at the August workshops was a pretty qualitative evaluation or our
Growth Management Plan. And our Growth Management Plan is attending to the areas that the state wants us to
attend to.
If you look through the letter. they're looking It,r -- a majority of their comments arc they would like to see
more data analysis provided for the major issues. And what we have done within this book is, for instancc, on -- if
you look at the letter. which is at tlie very first part of your --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike. bclt"e you get into the specifics ofthe letter, I mean, if there's any proeedural
questions, I would like to get them out of the way now. if anybody has any. I have two.
You mcntioned that we will be going into a translnittal and adoption as a result of the EAR down the road,
maybe 18 months. It's prctty useful to havc a workshop belt"e you guys put the writing in stone in the fonn of a
transmittal. Once it's in transmittal, it's locked in in a sense that it's there, if we disagree with it, it's too late, itls
already there anyway.
Can we have a workshop prior to the transmittal" Can that somehow fit into the schedule?
MR. BOSI: We haven't put together the PMP, the projcct management plan, ror the specifics of the
amendmcnt cycle. Based upon the direction that's provided by the Planning Commission, we most certainly will have
u bcrore we schedule our transmittal hearings, a couple months before, wc will -- we'll incorporate with -- into the
Page 4 of 50
16 I 1~,
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
process a workshop specifically with the Planning Commission so we can get a comfort -- the Planning Commission
can get a comfort level with the draft language that's going to be proposed so you can have a stronger hand within that
shaping of that transrnittallanh'llage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be important.
And also, you had gotten a rather detailed letter at the workshop from Jim Flanigan, and he has reinserted it
more or less for discussion today.
But several of his points lead to the conclusion that -- I would think, that a workshop would be highly
beneficial before staff allocates and puts things in more finner writing. And I think that would help solve some of the
concerns he had exprcssed as well.
MR. BOSI: And I was -- towards the end of this -- my opening remarks I was going to make a comment
related to the work and the effort and the time that Mr. Flanigan had spent. And you're correct, and that will address
those points.
And one of the points that I wanted to make, and I will, I'll talk about that a little bit later towards the end of
my conclusions, but Mr. Flarligan did suggest a very good improvement to the initial part ofthe EAR. And this was
the first EAR that I was -- I handled. So there was some shortcomings in my perfonnance, and I look forward to
being able to improve upon that.
But one ofthe best suggestions that was within that letter was before we arrive upon those major issues with
the Board of County Commissioners and thc Department orCornmunity Affairs, we should have had that, we should
have had a public workshop. We should have had a little -- as Mark, your suggestion, we should very had a workshop
berore the start of the process.
And I look forward to incorporating, making some modifications towards how I'm going to leave that road
map for that next year. And I know it's six and a half years away, but it's a good suggestion. And I'm going to start
incorporating that within to the document and to the anticipation of how we're going to handle (sic). So yeah, we will
incorporate that workshop before the transmittal hearings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, my second procedural question, is the need for a transrnittal for the EAR an
option" Because we did a workshop. I don't -- did we do it -- we didn't -- there's been no transmittal.
MR. BOSI: There is no -- the EAR process does not contain a trarlsrnittal, an official transrnittal. It's -- there's
that courtesy review that I had mentioned, the letter that we were talking about that we received from DCA. That's
only a suggestion. You don't have to take advantage or it. Most local governments do because they would like to
make sure that they're on the right path rollowing the EAR steps. But the statutes do not require a transrnittal for the
EAR process, they only require an adoption hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we didn't want to make sure we're on the right path?
MR. BOSI: We did. We had the workshop.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just teasing. We had a workshop, but we didn't have the transrnittal.
MR. BOSI: No, we didn't have the transmittal because there's not a transmittal. We had the workshop. The
workshop -- instead of calling it a transmittal, we called it a workshop. And then we sent the document up to DCA.
The same procedure we would have had if it was officially that transmittal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only ditlerence is during a workshop we're not allowed to take official
action. On transmittal we could have.
MR. BOSI: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BOSJ: Yes, so that is the distinction. And it's based upon the statutes and how the process is dictated to
work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the only questions I had at this time. Thank you Mike.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thanks.
By the way, there's at least two members -- Melissa, were you here during the workshop in August?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Nods head affmnatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but Diane and Barry were not here. So this will probably be more
informative to you guys than anything else. It won't bring back good memories, because you weren't here.
Page 5 of 50
161
If\'?
December 7. 2010 CCPC/EAR
Okay, Mike.
MR. BOSI: And lor the DCA comments, just real quick, the first issue that they said is in the identification
orthe major issues were pertinent -- were important. the potential socioeconomic and environmental impact of the
issues. And thcy were looking f'>r the social impact of the intergovenunental coordination and urban development
pattern.
And thc first time -- I was taken back a little bit by that comment. Because it was the lirst timc that I was
ever asked to in the Florida planning enviromnent to really -- to expose or expand upon the social implications or our
Growth Management Plan policies. We think that we've tried to make thosc connections, specifically within the
urban development patten1S. speciticallv within the climate change writeup seetions to try to make those individual
cOlmections towards land use policy and what potential social cffccts that it can have within our built environment,
and how our community interacts with itsclf.
The second questions really -- thc second question talks about further data analysis: Further data analysis for
climate change, further data analysis t()f the urban development patterns, for the water resource protection,
intergovenunent coordination and the Rural Land Stcwardship Area.
The first rour, the intergovenunent coordination. the water resource protection, urban development pattern,
climatc change, each one of those sections. the scctions that you're providcd in your books, have been augmented to
address these points further beyond what was provIded during your workshop books.
The last issue, the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay, one of the things that they were asking lor is they
relt that we didn't articulate enough the work that was done by the five-year review committce.
And I agree, we didn't do it. We didn't do a well enough Job within the workshop addition. We've
augmented in what -- and the intention IS, volume one and volume two of the live-year review and then the dircctions
that were provided ultimately by the Plamling Conunission and the Board or County Commissioners will be
transmitted as part or this EAR with -- as part ofthc EAR as our assessment of the Rural Land Stewardship Area.
We as staff rclt that that 23-month process was an adequate review of the effectiveness of that document. And
we thought it was not -- there wouldn't be a benefit to take those steps over again. So we're going to utilize that
review and those assessments as our assessment of the Rural I "and Stewardship Overlay.
CHAJRMAN STRAIN: But Mike. in your assessment. the documents you send them, WIll you be sending
the CCPC's vcrsion of the rewrite orthat section" If you rccall. we did a detailed rewrite ofwherc we disagrecd in the
various paragraphs ti'orn the committee's perception. In fact, Brad f(lcuscd on one ofthe tables, and we had a lot of
sturrthat we actually suggested as a better way 10 go or a way I think we perceivcd it to go.
It was all draft. I know it never proeeedcd into any final approvals to the Board or County COl11l11issioners.
But will they be getting that document to show where we were at that time')
MR. BOSI: And I'll have to go back and review, but the Phase I and the Phase II report, and I think it's the
Phase II rcport that talks about it, and it has -- includes the minutes of each individual-- of the meetings and the
directions that werc provided.
And what was provided to the Board orCOWlly Conunissioners, and il'l remember corrcctly, what was
provided to the Board of County Commissioners was the direction that was provided by the Planning Commission
within those five meetings that you had bef')fc it was presented to the Board of County Conunissioners.
And remember, these -- those draft or proposed amendments are just that. Thosc aren't the amendments --
those -- the lan!,'llagc that's containcd and the specificity that's contained is not going to be what we're obligated to
adopt when we do go through the RLSA amendment process.
Another point that I do want to make out is we cull out that it's not Collier County govenunent's intention to
include the RLSA amendmcnts as part of the EAR-based amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know that. But see. if you send up one set of documents that portrays a
certain position without sending up all thc other processes that wcnt through, just as theirs is only part of the proccss,
then I think you might be showing an unfair portrayal or what occurred here.
The fact that it has not gone forward and gotten further approvals, it was very controversial. I mean, there's a
tripling of the acreage involved and a lot of other thll1gs that were -- and the panther primary and secondary zoncs. all
thosc issues that were deferred to the panther study that was going on and other issues that occurred, we've never
reconvened on those issucs smce then. But I think there was a good record that -- there was a lot of controversy. This
Phase I and Phase II is just not accepted hands-down and said okay, this is h'feat, go on. And I wouldn't want to leave
Page 6 of 50
DecembeJ ~O LPC/!R ~?
that impression with DCA is what I'm concerned about.
MR. BOSJ: And what I will do is I'll go back through that record and I will try to either identify it or compile
it from review of the tape the specific areas of issues of concerns that was raised by the Planning Commission during
those -- I think it was five individual meetings that you had regarding the RLSA potential amendment -- to give a
further understanding to the Department of COl11l11unity Afrairs that these amendments that had been identified by the
review col11l11ittee are not and have not been officially endorsed by Collier County government, that they are just that,
tentative proposed amendments to the RLSA overlay that still need to be vetted through staff, still need to be vetted
through the Planning Commission and still need final approval by thc Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just so it is portrayed fairly. Thank you.
MR. BOSJ: The third issue that was raised by the Department of COl11l11unity Affairs was population growth
and changes in land area. And that was a rather simple fix. And we just utilized the BEBR population numbers to
2025 and assured that those anticipated populations could be accommodated by all the individual public raeilities that
would be required to serve it.
Relevant changes in growth management laws, that individual section of your EAR book have been updated.
We had only gone through 2006. The Department of Community Atlairs and rightfully so said it needed to be
through comprehensively 2009. All the legislative changes, we went through that and we made sure that we've
attended to all those individual changes.
Point number five was how successful have we been in identifying alternative water supply projects. We've
augmentcd our water resource protection area to address that and address the I O-year water supply plan that was just
recently approved by the Planning Commission and the Board or County Commissioners.
On point six, there were eight points that were raised by the department. Point six was the valuation of any
past reductions in land density associated with the coastal high hazard area.
David Weeks had addressed that within a few paragraphs within the Future Land Use Element, describing
how the coastal high hazard density reduction has heen implemented and what effects it had had on property rights.
And then seven and eight really deal with transportation and transportation eoncurrency management. Those
issues have been addressed within the transportation element, but also within 2.5 of your EAR book, which basically
is an assessment of the different methodologies of concurrency management implemented by the various cities within
Collier County, Naples, City of Marco and Everglades City.
And Mike Green will be able to expand upon that a little bit, ir you'd like further explanation.
The other two state agencies that really made pertinent comments were the Water Management District and
the Department of Transportation.
The transportation element, iryou review the transportation element, you'll see that the areas of concern that
have been expressed by the Department of Transportation are the areas that staff and the Planning Commission have
already indicated that modifications are needed.
And on the Water Marlagement District, as we go through -- they had issues related to water quality, t100d
protection, natural systems, water supply and ecosystem restoration. Those areas are at or are being adequately
addressed from staffs perspective and have been attended to within particularly the coastal high -- or the CCME
element of the Growth Management Plan.
And the last lettcr that I rcally wantcd to talk about was the letter that Chainnan Strain had mentioned. It was
from Mr. Flanigan. It was submitted at the August workshops.
And what -- it's a I O-page letter and it's an assessment of the overall process of the EAR, where
improvements that could be made. And also talks about individual perspective ofthe various issues and where we
think that improvements can be.
If you would look through the letter and make evaluations of the issues that are raised, and some of the --
some of those issues are, you know, need for eflective and measure orjob growth element. And that's related to the
economic element or our Growth Management Plan.
Reevaluation of the population centers. Engaged in the community, politicizing growth management,
unilateral decision-making. A little bit of process, a little bit of policy. And that's what a lot of these issues that are
raised have been raised within the public section. It's just a furthering of voice of some of the I think macro concerns.
And some of these issues are related -- directly attributed to the Growth Management Plan, and some of these issues
are the practical application of how we interact with government and our citizcnry, but how we provide services and
Page 7 of 50
16 I 1 ~7
December 7, 20 I 0 CCPC/EAR
how we prab~natically deliver the type of services that govcnuncnt provide.
One of the issues that was raised by Mr. Flanigan, which I think has a room for debate was, you know, a
discolll1ect between transportation and b'Towth management. I think that Collier County tries to be as etlicient and
effective in tcnns of communicating with the general public, but there's always room for improvement. There's
always areas that we can improve upon.
But per the Growth Management Plan, I think that those interconnections between land use and
transportation. I think Collier County govcrnmcnt has tried to take a number of steps to make a tighter connection.
And one of the things that I mentioned within the workshop, and it's really -- it's the effort that wc're trying to
accomplish within the individual elements, and it's something that I know Chainnan Strain has always -- is looking
for, and it's relatcd to our modeling eff"rts. It's tying and strengthening tlie ties between the individual elements.
And one of the things that I've spoken to Mark about was, you know, incorporating, wouldn't it be nice if we
would have a land use modeling, transportation modeling. water management plan, bringing all the resources to be
able to kind of work in conccrt in a little better agreement.
And what we'rc trying to do within this em)rt within the EAR is making surc or trying to makc these
individual elcments of our Growth Management Plan a little bit more dependent upon each other and interactive with
each other.
And if you look through the various elemcnts. you see how they intertwine and how they interrelate. But
there's still opportunities and there's always opportunities for improvement within those. And I think that's one of the
major eftorts that we have tried to accomplish, and I know thc Plarming Commission has tried to stress is
strengthening those tics bctween those elements and how they relatc towards each other.
You know, other issues: Private water and sewer in the Estates, Jural standards versus standards, the master
mobility plan and some of thc concerns associated with those. those arc issues I think that are pertinent. I think those
are issues that we have addressed within the EAR. we've addrcssed during the workshop and we will continue to
address as we go through the transmittal process.
One of the things I had mentioncd. the next EAR round. At the beginning we'll probably have a little bit
different approach, a little bit more public meetings at the beginning. But one of the things, and some of these issues
we've talkcd about, you know, privatc water. rural standards versus urban standards. You know, there's that effort that
I was the projcct manager 00 was, you know. the Phase II of the Horizon Study where we spent 24 months talking
transportation. public utilities, parks and reo. In a general sense what the direction and what the purview ofthe public
was related to these issues.
We have spent, Collier County govemment.;] tremendous amount of time. effort and resources of trying to
identify not only the issues, but the individual desires of the community. And it's a di111eult task. It's a difficult task
because everyone has their own pcrspcctive upon what's appropriate.
And when you deal with planning, especially -- and I like tn joke with thc proressionals within the
engineering side of the shop. You kilOw, they'vc got constants, they have absolutes, they have knowns, they have
things that you can hang your hat on. Because two plus two always equals rour. But the distance between a
residential structure and a conunercial structure is -- there's not a specific, there's not an absolute on that. There's an
individual preterenee. Thcre's good thinking, there's appropriatcness within that evaluation, but a lot ortimes it comes
down to a personal level.
So what we've tried to do is to take those individual perspecttves and find how they best fit with the overall
goals that our Growth Management Plan is trying to accomplisli.
And another thing that wc have to always try to understand or remember and never forget is all or our plans
are intended to help improvc the sustainability or our community. And a lot of times what's sustainable is not always
the most enjoyable. And it means that sometimes there's things that have to be done that aren't always -- and it's like
the conversation I had with my daughter last night about doing homework. Sometimes, you know, the things that we
need to be done aren't always the most fun, and aren't ahvays, you know, embraced by everyone. But that has to
always be at least in the backdrop of our mind as we're going t'lIward. And I think that's what we've done within this
erfort within this EAR evaluation is we've tried to make our Growth Managcmcnt Plan and our policies that promote
a more sustainable built environment.
And I think we deflnitely -- we're making -- wc continue to make strides. But that Journey or that process
never really completes itself
Page 8 of 50
16' 1~?
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
And that really kind of concludes those individual perspectives that provide -- I will say that a rnisstep by
myself, I did not include this letter within the public -- the chapter one, the public conunents. It will be included
within the public cornments that go to the Board of County Commissioners and eventually is transmitted to the
Department ofCol11l11unity Affairs. Because we do want to recognize the hard work and the efrort and the good ideas
that are suggested by the letter submitted by Mr. Flanigan.
With that, that's really the overview that I had planned for the EAR today.
Any specific questions that the Plmming Conunission may have regarding the comments"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with your introduction cornments. Anybody have any questions
with his introduction comments?
Mr. Midney"
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, you talked about the letter from Mr. Eubanks from South Florida
Water Management District. And on Page 2 of his letter he talks about a project that I'm not farniliar with. He
mentions the Lake Traflord critical restoration project, which I'm assuming is the drcdging and the Picayune Strand
restoration project, which we all know what that is. But what is the Lake Trafford watershed management plan"
MR. BOSI: I would probably def -- I'm not farniliar with that. I would maybe defer to Mr. Mac Hatcher,
who is coordinating the basin studies.
MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher, Storm water and Environmental Planning.
The Lake Trafford Watershed Management Plan is a proposed Big Cypress Basin project, which is scheduled
ror a couple of years out. It has not been initiated yet.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What does it encompass"
MR. HATCHER: It will encompass a watershed management plan ror the Lake Trafford Basin.
We're, you know, doing broader watershed planning within the county. This will be a very detailed and basin
specific plan.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Now basin, that usually asswnes waters that drain into Lake Trafford. I'm
assuming that would also include the Camp Keais/Lake Trafford Strand system overlay which is part ofthc
Irnmokalee Master Plan; is that not true"
MR. HATCHER: That I don't believe has been decided yet. I mean, they have not even initiated this project
yet. So what thcy define -- the Camp Keais basin is downstream of Lake Traflord. The problems that were identified
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Excuse me, it t10ws into Lake Trafford.
MR. HATCHER: That's not widely accepted. Yeah. The south end of Lake Trafford is -- or Lake Trafford is
accepted to spill over the south end at an elevation of 19 feet.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right, I agree with that.
MR. HATCHER: And the Camp Keais area south orlmmokalee Road is less than 19 feet. So it takes
unusual stormwater conditions to cause water to t10w north into Lake Trafford.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, it flows west into Lake Trafford. The slough runs east to west -- or west
to east.
MR. HATCHER: Well, we're talking I guess semantics then. Because I think or Camp Keais Strand as the
wetlands that extend from Lake Trarford south.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm talking about the overlay.
MR. HATCHER: And you're talking about Corkscrew -- what overlay?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thc onc in the Immokalee Master Plan.
MR. HATCHER: The area of the Immokalee Master Plan would include a large area that drains into Lake
Trafford. The drainage break runs through the City or Immokalee, and the Immokalee Master Plan included areas
that drain into the State Road 29, Barron River Canal, as well as Lake Trafford. And that segment would probably
not be included in the Lake Trafford --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't want to get too deep into this. I was just -- Ijust saw this reference to
this watershed management plan that I hadn't heard of before and Ijust wanted a little clarification. Thank you.
MR. HATCHER: Well, it's a future project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any discussion concerning the introduction"
(No response.)
Page 9 of 50
16' 1~?
Decembcr 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I hate to go back and shake the tree again, but I want to follow up on somc
issues that Jim Flanigan brought up.
And the tlrst one that we talked about carlier this morning was the need for the workshop prior to transmittal,
and we actually go into the (iMP amendments. I notice Jim's here now. I Ie wasn't here to hear that discussion, but I
think that was concurred upon hy YOll and so we will probably move f')l'ward in that direction.
I believe that helps some or the procedural elements that Jim has brought out. And thcy're good elements to
point out.
Some of the other things that he mentioned: Need I'>r eflective and measurable job h'fOwth element. Putting
an elcment in is rathcr extensive, but putting pohcy in or using a poliey 10 defIne the Job growth or lack of job growth
from seven-year to seven-year period of the EAR may' not be an unreasonable nor a negative conunent, a negative
tooL It might be very positive to know what we've done b'fOwth-wise. Arc we kceping unemployment down or are
we causing more unemployment to occur, based on our economic infiJnnatiol1.
Is that somcthing that could be looked at lor an inclusion at some point down the road"
MR. BOSl: We could explore, during our cconomic -- it would be the economic element that would be the
appropriate policy. We could suggest developing a potential poliey to the department that we will coordinate with the
Economic Development Council to assist Collicr County within. you know. the monitoring on a regular basis. yearly,
or whatevcr the most pertincnt ease would bc. of employment lIgures and the changes within employment figures.
CHAIRMAN STRAJN: I just think maybe there's an appropriate party that we could communicate with.
whether it be the EDC or a state board or sOInc measurable unit that tells us what our cmployment rate is and helps us
see where 'A"c're going every EAR.
I'm not sure that would be a bad -- and .I im, I notice -- you ean come up and speak. And anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak on an item, just raise your hand or something, we'll call you. We're going to do this
rather informally. It's hard to fill out a request on things you don't even know we're going to he talking about, so--
MR. Fl.ANIGAN: Good morning. Jim Flanigan hcre.
The real thought behind that was to create a means where development actually creates the jobs for the
housing and the residential aspects within thc development. and having some kind of accountability to creating the
jobs for the people you're bringing into thc county. That's really what that proccss and thought came Irom.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Jim.
I'm going to hit on about four or Ilve oi'your topics here. so you may want to sit handy in case the
elariflcation is needed.
Reevaluation and/or reconsideration of planned eastern populations. I think especially irthe RLSA goes
forward in an expanded mode, our population statistics we currcntly are using are going to be probably out the door.
The population projections by some. one or which I did. would show an excess of population in the Eastern
Lands over what we have in the urban area. And I know we're not even prepared for that. and I would imagine the
comment that Jim's making eludes to the fact we need to be better prepared f'>r what we're doing out there.
MR. BOSI: And I would say that, you know, remember. we did the build-out study, East 01'951 study. we
had a staflasscssment in 2005, wc updated with thc ClCiM in 200LJ. We've had another iteration of what that
build-out number would be in 20 I 0 with the updates. So we've ran tlu'ee different population potential strategies
above what the BEBR numbers providc us.
So I think Collicr County government has been very actIve trying to get a better handle upon what the
population demands that our rq,'lllations will provide. and what that -- and all of the obligations that that provides.
And the master mobility plan, which was also mentioned within that lettcr, is another itcration of those -- that
land use modeling, those population projections.
So Mr. Flanigan is absolutely correct. we have to continue to try to evaluatc and get a better handle of those
population, those demands that -- and the regulatory allowances that are provided f'>r and what the populations will be
expresscd.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did your population statistics currently, your projections currently look at the RLSA
under the plan that's adopted and in erfect today" Did they also look at the one that's being proposed where it triples
the acreage for home sites:
MR. BOSI: That has not been incorporated. at least withm thc Collier interactive growth modeL Because it
hasn't __ there's still tentative -- that would be a discussion that we could have with the Board of County
PagelOof50
16'
1 ~?
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
Commissioners if we would try to incorporate those amendments. But that process would take -- that would take
some time and some consideration.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand this can't be done today, but wouldn't we want to know the quantity of
people moving in that area and the general impacts -- I understand you can't do specifics -- before something's
adopted so we know if we're heading down the wrong path? I mean, that's the support argument that we talked about,
that I believe this board as a majority had as a concern jump into some of the higher numbers they were talking about.
MR. BOSI: Well, one of the components of when we go through those RLSA amendments and the data
analysis that the county's going to have to perform, one of the additional actions that could be incorporated would be
run -- those what if scenarios that the Collier interactive growth model was proposed specifically for. If these
modifications aren't provided, what is the net erfect in ternlS of the population difference compared to what is being
provided -- what's being projected now by the growth model compared to what would be provided/projected by the
b'fowth model with those regulatory changes, with the increases that were suggested by the Chair.
That could be a component that we could ask the board, based upon the direction the Planning Commission
gave us within the EAR process, this is a step that we think we need to take during this amendment process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. any such backup material to make a decision a better decision I think would
be warranted. I can't imagine that not being supported.
Go ahead, Mr. Flanigan.
MR. FLANIGAN: Yeah, I do have a concern with the comprehensive approach and the populations there.
And we're getting into those decisions right now.
The 1-75 interchange is being focused on Everglades Boulevard as an interchange location, and that doesn't
take into account the projected populations at build-out. And if that is going to be the last interchange on 1-75 on
Alligator Alley, then somebody's got to take a look and project those populations and how that's going to access 1-75,
both in cost to the taxpayer and cost of development and to the populations and impacts of those eastern lands on
Golden Gate Estates, the rest of the county and practical q.'fess out of the eastern lands onto 1-75.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's one of the issues that we'll bc bringing up when we discuss the
transportation section.
One of the interesting issues are that we have -- wc actually have three locations where that interchange could
go. And it might be better to make sure we've picked the best location berore we lock one in. And I think that's a
concern I'll express when we get into transportation.
Two ofJim's comments were concerning eonnecting the disconnect between transportation and growth
management and then cautioning against the master mobility plan as a parable (sic) Growth Management Plan.
It's interesting, because for a long time I know we'vc discussed the multitude of plans out there. The plans are
great, they keep the experts employed with taxpayers' dollars, they keep employees and staff employed with
taxpayers' dollars, and every department does their own plan and they keep gencrating more work to have their plan
fine tuned.
But Ijust sitting here wrote down a few orthe plans we've got hanging around out there. We have an MPO,
Metropolitan Planning Organization, which has the LRPT, the long-range transportation plan. We have -- that's one
plan in the work. We have another plan called the mobility plan that we got a federal grant for that a whole bunch of
people are working on. That's another plan in thc works. We have the Growth Management Plan that your
department works on. We have the VanBuskirk plan, which I think is under your department as another sub-plan.
Under the GMP we have the rural land stewardship area, we have the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and we have the
Irnmokalee Area Master Plan, all sub-plans of the GMP. And then we have the panther studies going on for the
RLSA which are another fonnal plan, because they delineate what is primary and secondary. Mac's working on a
watershed plan. Mr. Wiley's working on a flood plan. Federal Government's working on a FEMA plan. South
Florida is working on their own plan with Big Cypress and various basin specific plans.
It just makes common sense to have one plan which incorporates all these ideas. And I'm not sure how much
coordination -- I know that everybody will claim they're well coordinated. But at times -- an example exactly is what
Jim's looking at right now, there's a big push for an interchange at 1-75 in the Estates. The Estates desperately needs
an eastern interchange, I heartily agree with that, it's got to get done. But we have three choices right off the bat on
where they could go. Where is the best place ror that interchange, and how much of the population of the RLSA will
use the easternmost interchange.
Page 11 of 50
161
1 f\?
December 7. 20 I 0 CCPC/EAR
If you have 450,000 people in the RLSA and you have towns like Big Cypress and Ave Maria and all the
other sturf going, is it wise to put the interchangc through platted areas that have 700 lots or more before you get to
the interchange, or is it wise to put it somewhere where ifs not so congested?
I don't know the answer to that right now, beeause I don't know what the best plan is. But it certainly
warrants looking at. And I think that's part of what Jim's trying to say in some of his issues, that before wejump into
anyone plan, let's make sure we're best coordinated with them all.
MR. BOSl: Understood. And take this tor however you want to rcccive it. but that is the intent of the master
mobility plan. The master mobility plan is -- the ovcrall projcct I,,, that takes the land use modeling rrom the CIGM.
incorporates it with the LR -- and that land use modcling has bcen ineorporated in the LRTP to try to populate -- to try
to anticipate what those populations are and identify the travel arcas.
And also the Rural Land Stewardship Area with those individual towns and villages that werc proposed,
potentially proposed by the property owners, that's been incorporated.
One of the components orthe master mobility plan is trying to bring the environmental layers within that GIS
to that process. It's got limitations, I agree. There's only so far that it can go. But it's a step in that direction. And I
think what we need to do as a general purpose county govenunent. as conununity -- or as growth management is vet
and provide a little bit more exposure orthc master mobility plan to the community and to the Planning COl11l11ission,
which I know we have coming up in the futun.:. SO )'OU get a much better understanding of all the resources and all
the data that's been incorporated within to this plan \() try to eoordinate, as you suggestcd, in a little bit better of an
effort.
And I think until you get to sec those spccilics, you're still gomg to have those rcservations. But that's the
intent, that was the original idea behind the master mobility plan was to try to bring a number of these modeling
efforts and bring them a little bit closer into ab'feemcnt.
Just a side note, the -- one of the reasons why I got into the profession or city planning, I read a book, it was
called "The Foundation". It's a series by a science liction writer, Isaac Asimov. And he -- in the future what he was
able to do was bring a modeling errort that incorporates all engineering. it incorporates land usc planning,
transportation planning. economic principles, and it tries 10 predict the overall course of human behavior so we can
make better decisions.
That's the end aspiration. We'yc got to start. And the master mobility plan is another step within this process
to try to bring a coordination, to try to bring a more robust modeling effort so we can make the most infonl1ed
decisions and we can try to get the best handle upon that probability. Because there is always a probability that that
future holds. It's the probability, but try to get the bcst ah'feement towards what that probability's going to be.
And I think when we provide a littlc bit more of the specifics orthe master mobility plan to the Plalllling
Commission, you'll see that that was at least the intent that gencral purpose county government was trying to go with
that effort.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all thesc plans are rcally an cflort to control human behavior.
Mike, I'm just kidding.
MR. BOSI: That's what --
CHAIRMAN STRA1N: I thought it was an interesting statement you made.
MR. BOSI: That's what planning is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't doubt it a bit
MR. BOSI: That's what plaoning is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wonder to whose favor.
Go ahead.
MR. FLANIGAN: If I might. on a master mobility plan, thc focus and the drive behind that is rcducing
vehicle miles traveled and reducing greenhouse gasses. And it's more of a transportation approach more than anything
else. My concem is it's another parallel plan and it's not taking into effect a comprehensive approach that incorporates
watershcd, conscrvationlands and a compre -- I'm looking lor a comprehensive planning approach with no single
aspect leading and driving decisions and planning altogether lIke transportation is at this point.
If you go into the transportation element. the rocus is now that the road system is going to drivc the
population. That's one or the coneems -- thc objectives. And I think that's turning it 180 dcgrees based on the FLUE
maps.
Page 12 of 50
I
161
1~?
December 7, 20 I 0 CCPC/EAR
And if you're looking at populations of this county to be close to a million by the time this is built out, and the
bell curve actually has most of that population going in the next 20 years, 25 years, then our -- you know, the
population from 2035 on to 2080 in build-out, all those decisions really need to be made now. Here's where the
population's going to come waving in at us. And our plan needs to be focused within that next 25 years.
I don't see those populations and those road systems on the LRTP for 2035. You look at the LRTP as it was
just recently issued, and there are no road systems beyond DeSoto. You've got Oil Well Road, you've got Irnmokalee
Road, and there are no collector roads or arterials within the RLSA.
And if we have a population coming to the RLSA, no matter whether it's 250,000 or 400,000, there has to be
some understanding of what's going to happen out there, even on a conceptual basis.
I understand that most ofthe roads going east and west are going to service those areas, like Vanderbilt Beach
Road, but there are some considerations that need to be taken into account on the impacts of the other cOl11l11unities
that that population's going to serve. We can't -- you know, frankly I'm concerned that we're going to have a bunch of
highways running through Golden Gate Estates. And as I've, you know, bcen a promoter of, the rural community of
Golden Gate Estates needs to be preserved. And transportation needs to kind of take its opportunities to go around
and circumvent the -- circumnavigate the Estates, rather than going through it. Ultimately that's the concerns I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And .I im, you know, there's one other point I want to make on your letter. But I
very much appreciate the detail that you went into. It's rarc that someonc that is not involved in the government side
as much as people on these boards are, for example, or starr understands the issues as well as you do and the letters
that you've provided.
So if anything else, as we go !()rward this will be used as a theme that we all will at least talk about.
I can't believe I left my -- I'm sorry. I had it on vihrate, but it didn't, so --
But anyway, I'm looking at your document as a theme that I'll keep with me as we move into the workshops
and elements in the future and just holding it up against those issues that we bring up.
There is one combined other element I'd like to talk about, issue I'd like to talk about that Jim brought up.
And it hits home, because when I was chairnlan of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Committee, which has almost
been 10 years, at that time it was a real concern in Golden Gate Estates that we maintain the ruralized character of the
Estates.
And there were two itel11S here that Jim pointed out and another one he just mentioned. One is maintain
private water and sewer in the Estates and the other is the create rural development standards. And then the third
would be the transportation system.
The Estates has been under attack in almost all that regard. And we worked for many years trying to
maintain a rural cornmunity out there. We certainly like some of the benefits. But running corridors through the
Estates and adding utilities at the huge cost to offset -- it just doesn't seem to have a rate of return that's even beneficial
to anybody.
And then the standards we find that are used in the urban area really don't all apply equally in the rural area.
Like fhe, what's that, Dover-KoW study we did. It was great for the urban area. He told all these great things we've
incorporated into the GMP, as though it should be applied across the board in Collier County. To be honest with you,
it doesn't work everywhere. Certainly doesn't work further out. I don't think ll11l11okalee's benefiting too much from
it, and the Estates certainly won't.
So I think we need to be careful on how much we apply in a broad brush. There are difrerent -- this
COl11l11unity now is different. And instead of being focused on just the urbanized area, as we move further out, the
standards need to be changed. And that seems to ring true through what Jim has commented on here as well. So it's a
good theme to consider as we move forward.
MR. BOSJ: And I agree and I understand. And there has been action by this general purpose county
government of just that.
You remember two years ago we modified the level of service for EMS in our response times and we
lowered the response times for the rural area of the county just because of the cost that would be incurred by trying to
have an eight-minute response when you have a low density envirol1l11ent.
So we have taken steps within our levels or service to recognize that what's appropriate within the urbanized
area is not always appropriate within the rural area.
And I think that what I'm hearing, not only within the letter from the voice of the community but also the
Page 13 of SO
"
16 \ 1~"
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
Planning Conunission, is we need to furthcr cxplore where those opportwlities or where those differences need to be
applied.
MR. FLANIGAN: And don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing, I'm looking to try and improve. And, you
know, when you take the Growth Managemcnt Plan and thcn you go into a practical application -- lct's take the septic
systems out in thc Estates. In 2004 the county stopped taking septic wastc and processing septic waste at the county
wastewater treatment plant. And there is no plan to bring that back on line. And that was somcthing that was based
on precedence. and there was -- it was supposed to be a temporary ceasing of that so that they could adjust the plant.
And at this point septic wastc gets shipped to Charlotlc County and Miami.
And frankly, I think if we're going to provide a county that's going to have a legitimate source or disposal site
for septic wastc, I think we need to incorporate that as pal1 orthe !'Ural standard and as part of the infrastructure within
the county, you know, to obligate our eounty to put a faeility there to allow its eontractors to havc a legal dumping site
within the county.
That's my -- these are the practical applications that the polieies and the -- you know, the goals don't really
show. And there's a couple of those kind of things that thc policies that are in place for the service area, but they're
not comprehensive on thc county. And that's another one I'm bringing through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jim, what I hope you would do is this EAR is basically a concept presentation of
just thoughts about policies. It really is more like a buhblc plan, iryou were to want to relay it something of another --
like planning or something.
When we get into the amendment process that interprets what's happening here today and what has occurred
in the public process, that's when tlie real nuts and bolts start to apply. That's where these very spc'Cific details need to
come in for discussion.
And before you eame in, we speeitieally asked Mike if we could have a workshop prior to staflhard-lining
their issues for transmittal. Because I tliink tliat would address a lot of the concerns where the public input may not
have been interpreted as it should have been or categOlized as it should have been. A workshop will give us a latitude
in a relaxed or infonnal way to analyze those and see what the public feels about where their comments were made.
And then by the time Mike puts it into amendment or transmittal. it's hardened in a rashion tliat had some more input
from the public as to how it should be done.
So I look forward to that. And I think your letter will bc something I'll keep handy and wc can work with as
we go forward.
MR. FLANIGAN: Very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. FLANIGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ifno one else has any questions. what I'd like to do then, Mike, if it's okay with
you is start moving through the multitude of tabs you havc here.
We have a section that -- of the document in tront of us that lays out the elements of the GMP tab by tab.
But prior to that wc have a series of tabs that are more or lcss backup information that's being supplied to
suppol1 the EAR assessment.
So what I'll do is I'll try to just move through thc tabs. We've seen them all before, they were here in our
workshop. This reflects supposedly our workshop comments.
And what I did mysclf was go through it, and areas that the workshop comments seem to not be taken -- had
questions on them, I tabbed those tor bringing up again today.
[don't know what you all did, but why don't we just start moving through it. And let's take the tirst three tabs
and go all the way through where it says chapter onc. public pm1ieipation. Basically it's baekground.
Does anybody have any infon11ation about the way that's being presented or questioned"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next three tabs take us through wherc -- the one that says existing anticipated
development. That is chapter two, population h'fOwth and annexation, and then existing anticipated development.
Are there any issues rrom the Planning Conunission Irm11 those areas"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I have one. And it really is under thc last tab Ijust mentioned, the existing
versus arlticipatcd development. And you've got a map there on Page 28. It's titled Undeveloped Land in Corkscrew
Page 14 of 50
161
1 ~?
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
Planning Community.
When you analyzed the undeveloped acres and the land use and the institutional and all that for that area, the
tab says anticipated. Where would I see the -- since that is the RLSA, how did you anticipate the population there?
MR. BOSI: We didn't try to anticipate where that population was going. What this section does, it tries -- it
identifies where the population is, what is the acreages or undeveloped land within each of the individual planning
c0111l11unities, and tries what -- what's the underlying zoning and what's the underlying future land use designation,
and can they -- would that land be able to acco111l11odate any future b'Towth in population.
And what we've done, by -- to give -- in the individual plalll1ing communities was try and give a little bit
more detailed description of where the population could potentially go. But we didn't try to model where the
population was going to go, we just wanted to show in totality with the culmination of all the planning c0111l11unities
that there was enough acreages based upon our development pattern and the consumption of land that our current
population has consumed, if we take our build-out number that's provided to us and we ran that out, or in this case we
ran it out to 2025, our planning horizon, we have more than enough acreages to accommodate that population that we
projected towards the horizon year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think one reason this one caught my eye is I was looking at these maps,
and when it said undeveloped acres and then the land use, in my rnind it was kind of what you just said, that the
potential there then was -- for this land was sitting there barren and it could be developed.
But I looked at the yellow on here and that looks like Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, and it's labeled
Undeveloped Institutional. It's as though you're saying that that could be developed. It can't, if that's the Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary. That's a preserve.
MR. BOSI: It's a preserve, it's institutional. It's got an institutional designation. It's not developed, it's
institutional. If you pull the first layer back, you understand that it's a conservation area that's not going to receive
development. But I guess the labeling, the strict GIS label rrom how it was allocated labels it as institutional. It
doesn't have square footage upon it, it's undeveloped. We know that it's not going to be developed. And the intent
wasn't from staff to say it's going to be developed, we just -- this is the classification of that land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we don't know how much developable acreage is in relationship to the
potential to accommodate future growth in this area, we just know how much the undeveloped acres are, but we don't
know if those undeveloped acres can be utilized for accommodating future h'Towth.
MR. BOSI: For anyone particular acre. I don't know if it's appropriate for a development to go there. This is
just a macro general assessment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just changes the value of the doeuments, from my understanding.
Okay, Jim?
MR. FLANIGAN: And that's kind of where I was going too, because if you have watershed and
conservation lands within each of these maps -- that's one of my questions. The translation is a translation of what is
today based on the .415 I think it was acres per capita and translated to the inventory, essentially. But what takes that
inventory down is the conservation lands and the lands that can't be developed.
In other words, there's lakes and rivers and watersheds here that can't be developed or have to be mitigated,
right? And does that come out orthe equation here to give us developable land? Is that deleted from that equation,
yes or no? No?
MR. BOSI: It's not deleted, it's a component. It won't ever receive development, but it adds to the equation.
It adds to our utilization as a county of how much open spaee compared to our population that we have.
This isn't a land use modeling plan. This section here is to identify our planning co111l11unities, what has been
developed within those individual planning c0111l11unities, and what's available ror development. In a very generic
sense.
But the generic assessment is we have enough acreages within our various planning C0111l11unities to accept
the population that we anticipate by 2025, not what is going to be at anyone location at all.
MR. FLANIGAN: Well, I guess I was looking for it the other way around. I was looking to see what land is
actually available and how does that project to the population when you come --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the issue. You've taken productive land -- and by the way,
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, the t10w ways, the SSA's, they're all productive land, they're just productive naturally:
they're not productive through a development process that creates a product we use in like a building.
Page 15 of 50
.'
16 \ 1 f\3
December 7,20 I 0 CCPClEAR
That may be the disconnect in trying to understand these maps. And I'm not sure how to cure that, but I think
that's a clarity that needs to be known. If you had an item on here that showed preservation lands or something of that
nature and then had another one that shows undeveloped institutional, I think that would make us realize that in this
entire area there may not be any really institutional. as the word seems to imply, to a lot of people who may be doing
the planning.
There's a lot or preservation. whieh is really good, but where's the room f'1r institutional" Wherc's the
conununity center in the Corkscrew planning community that would house some govenlmcnt facilities? It's not there
yet.
I think that's kind of what I think the disconnect IS. so -- at least that's whcre I've seen it.
MR. FLANIGAN: And on those maps. I would just make one suggestion going j(Jrward. You know, if the
south blocks are going to be a restoration area, then the northern part of that Fakapalm planning community might be
connected to the Corkscrew planning conununity to incorporate thc RLSA, and that would he a more erfective way of
looking at the planning conununity as a whole.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. those are suggestions that Mike I'm sure will take a look at. Thank you, Jim
That takes us through those tahs. If thcre's none others, we'll move on to the next.
Thc next -- before we get into thc GMP clements themselves. let's just go through the next two tabs, the
vacant __ now. this says vacant and dependable lands. I'm not sure that tab is propcrly labeled. I think you meant
vacant and developable land, right"
MR. BOSI: I belicve so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. okay.
And thcn the next tab would be statutory changes. If therc's any questions rrom the Planning Commission on
those')
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I do
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: llound a new term, a rural area of critical economic concern. Is that a new --
something new I never heard ofberore. Is that something that thc--
MR. BOSI: No, Immokalee is designated as a RACEC area, a rural area or critical economic concern. And
with that -- and it's administratcd by the ot1ice of OT AI), tourism and economic development. It implements a
program --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what is an agricultural enclave" I never heard of that bef(1re.
MR. BOS!: Agricultural enclaves arc suggested from the Department of Conununity Afrairs within your
Future Land Lise Map where you have areas of a^,'Yicultural that are surrounded by -- that are surrounded or bordered
by developed areas but wanted to be maintained by the indiVidual conununity as ab'Ticultural going forward.
So to alleviate thc development pressures that are incvitably going to come to it, they designated it as an
agricultural enclave: therefore it increases the threshold j,>r any ehange into that area, meaning you have to go through
the Growth Management Plan process to make that transaction -- it's sort of like -- it's almost a specific future land use
category within the future land use element, as we have industrial, as we have conuncrciaL as we have our urban
residential. as we have our -- it would be kind of a parallel to a conservation dcsib'l13tion, but rcally specifically geared
to promote agricultural activity. And those are the t.ype of land lIses associated with it.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: That's interesting, because agrieulture is so important to hrunokalee. Would
this have to be implemented by the whole county conunission or would it bc the population of Immokalee that
decided that. you know. we wanted to maintain our agricultural land"
MR. BOSI: It would be something that would be obviously started -- it could be started in the h11l11okalee
community. And I think it has been. And it would have to bc approved by the Board of County Conunissioncrs.
But think about the Rural Land Stewardship Area and that five-ycar review. In the Rural Land Stewardship
Area. and the task or that overlay is supposed to attend to. it's got two primary tenets -- well. three primary tenets:
property rights of course is -- has to be attended to.
Hut it's got to serve environmental protection and agricultural protection. Those two arc hard to be able to --
they don't always jit together. Thcy don't always fit together. And thcrc has to be a balance between the two. That
RLSA area in the potential amendment trying to promote -- give agriculture a little bit higher or a standard within
those protections is one of the intents of the RLSA arca.
Page 16 of 50
161
1 f\~
December 7, 20 I 0 CCPC/EAR
And if you look at those SSA's that have been created, most of them have at least allowed strip down to still
allow passive agricultural activity, grazing, those type of activities.
So that's the strategy I think that we've incorporated without designated speci fie areas of agricultural
enclaves. The SSA's almost act as a default area or agricultural enclave.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
And then one more question. Extremely low income persons is recognized as another income group whose
housing needs might need to be addressed by accessory dwelling units.
Is that something that Collier County has looked at at all?
MR. BOSI: To the extent -- I know that category has been examined within our housing element. And that
question, we can get to it now or I can bring Michele up or we could -- you know, during our discussion or the
housing element Michele can describe about the various categories that we've looked at and how we're suggesting to
move forward related to those various categories.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that's extremcly important. Because this is the marginalized group in
Irnmokalee that usually now is using -- they're not cligible for a lot of the government help and they're housed in
migrant camps which are usually the worst housing of alL And I'd like to see it addrcssed some way: I don't know
how.
MR. BOSI: Well, and I think you'll hear within Michele's COl11l11ents and her assessment was that was really
her area where she said this is that unprotected kind of classification or grouping that our housing element really has
to be geared to protect and attend to. So I fhink you'll hear that within the presentation.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, there are some -- and Paul's near one of the pages I had a question on.
It's on Page 12 and 13. ror example. This isjust an example, number 167 and 168. There are changes in Florida
statutes. In one of your columns says addressed where, how. And then amendment needed by element.
Those issues that show amendment needed by element, does that mean we're going to see an element
changed when we come in ror the amendment hearings that follow this EAR?
Look at number 168: Creates new section preventing local from requiring ror a permit or other approval
vegetation, maintenance and tree pruning or tril11l11ing within an established electric transrnission or distribution line
right-of-way.
Our response was: GMP is silent to procedures within transmission and distribution rights-of-way.
I mean, what are we -- do we intend to do anything then or --
MR. BOSJ: And we have to -- and that's one of the things that we've tried to identify with the Department of
COl11l11unity Affairs is how we -- how they expect us as a local government to comply with these requirements ofland
use planning around a electrical distribution station.
We don't havc a power-gcnerating substation within this county. They're all distribution lines. And the
distribution lines follow the land use pattern: the land use pattern doesn't follow the distribution lines. And the value
that that effort would provide the county is questionable at best in a sense that we have no power generated stations,
that the lines almost by default fall where our development patterns emergc.
So we have to have further discussion with the department of -- and the department was silent to that issue
within the review or our EAR. And we have to get clarification as to how much and what action we can do related to
the issue.
So it will be something that we will have to talk about during the amendment process. I just don't know if it
will result in an individual policy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my only question was, and number 168 is thc example I used. It doesn't talk
about power generation sites, it talks about distribution line right-of,way, which I would think may be the utihty
easements that run along our road lines. I don't -- I mean, Ijust didn't know if we had to change the GMP because the
statute is now law, or we canjust leave our COl11l11ent that says we're silent on it. It doesn't seem to adhere to the law,
if that's the case.
I don't necessarily agree with that one, because I don't know what it entails. But I didn't know what your
plans were, and that's what I was trying to find out. Because there's quite a rew. I've tabbed about six or seven
different points like that where your answer wasn't yes, we're going to adhere to the law, it's just kind of like, eh, we
didn't do that.
Page 17 of 50
161
1
~?
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
MR. BOSJ: Well, and we didn't do it. Our (iMP is silent to it, and we're not sure if the benefit -- we're not
sure if requesting the benefiting orthe action -- and we questioned whether the Department of Community Affairs
intends to mandate that we do address this within our Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand. And in f"et. to hc honcst with you, I question the benefit of most
of what our legislaturc does.
Anyway, on the last page of the thing, of the tab. it says 2.5 assessment of methodology or concurrency
management. Your analysis talks about the only municipality that perrOrn1S a separate transportation system
concurrency review is the City orNaples and Marco Island. We do Everglades City's"
MR. GREENE: Michael Greene, Transportation Plannlllg.
Honestly, it's been such a long time since therc's been any new development that required concurrency review
in Everglades City. I don't know if we do it or Everglades City does it themselves. The only thing that I do know for
sure is that Everglades City has separate maintenance responsihilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second line says alL And all is pretty encompassing. All other jurisdictions
within Collier County fall under the county's mcthodology.
So irthey don't. we ought to lind that out and II1clude their rererence in parab'Taph. And if they do, you're
good to go.
That moves us into the typical elements. It's close to break time. so we're going to run through all thc
clements when we get back rrom break. Why don't we come back at five arter 10:00 and resume the meeting, okay?
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everyone, ifyou'1l1akc your seats, we'll resume the meeting from our break.
And we left ofT moving into the actual tabs that addressed each element. I just ask that we hit those one at a
time and see irthere's any questions.
The first one is county-wide assessment, the CIE. Does anybody have any questions in the CIE writeup?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, if you've got anything, just Jump in.
MR. SCHMIDT: I would do that. but with the CIE, there's nothing to really add. The comments that came
back through the Department of Community Allairs from the Department of Transportation are certainly agreeable to
add detailed level or service standards explanations
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next tab is the cow1ty-wide assessment tor transportation. Does anybody
have any issues on the transportation section?
By the way, if members of the puhlic do. either wander up to one of mics or raise your hand and one way or
the other I'll make sure we try to see you and hear you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark. I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cio ahead, Mr. Sehiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold on. let me find it.
In -- one of the issues we had is you had a new 4.9 that looked a lot like 4.6. So I think what you've done is
what we discussed at the meeting. movcd cverything in the 4.6.
So docs that mean 4.9 in our prior book has been remo\'cd?
MR. BOSJ: Correct. There will be no new policy, it's just an expansion of the existing 4.6 policy.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFFR Okay. That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it.
Anybody else in transportation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike. I have Page 9. your Policy 6.5. You're reeommending that the -- you changed
this to now take out the former projects that were in 6.5 and include new projects. And the specificity ofthose
projects concerns me, especially as things could change.
The first one, 1-75 and Fvcrglades interchange. I don't think the studies have been done to show this is the
best location. There are at least three locations out in that area that could be considered. So if this ends up being thc
best location, we badly need an interchange, that's great. But I don't think we ought to put one in here and lock
ourselves into a commitment in the (iMP when there's other potentials. And the studies haven't been done for any of
them at this point. So I have a real concern about that.
Page I8of50
,
. .
16 I 1~?
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
The second one is the grade separation at Randall and Immokalee. I think all three of them -- the third one
would be the U.S. 41 and SR951 grade separation. And then the Randall/lmmokalee grade separation.
The Randall and Immokalee grade separation is based on Randall continuing out and cOlmecting up to Big
Cypress and Ave Maria.
What is interesting is we're now working on Oil Well Road, and if it's completed, all four or six lanes, we're
going to have a major rework, because the Big Cypress plan, if it were to be adopted, shows Oil Well dead-ending
and teeing into our future extension of Randall.
Now, that's great for Big Cypress for everybody to pull into their town and have to stop to get to Ave Maria,
but I'm not sure that may be not fought or contested by maybe Ave Maria.
So the whole idea of the RandaIVlnunokalee grade separated overpass is contingent upon a future drawn-out
segment of Randall Boulevard going -- and maybe straight-lining all the way out to Ave Maria, or at least in a
continuous rashion without having a T intersection and Oil Well being the T.
Those are issues that have got to be resolved over time. And I think it would be unfair to highlight any of
them in the GMP as a priority before we know if that priority is that realistic, just like the interchange.
So I'd strongly suggest we don't get into these speeifics and we leave language in that we always have in
regards to, you know, trying to do the best transportation corridor system we can based on the needs at the time.
So I'm concerned about Policy 6.5's change. Not that we're taking out what was already done and completed,
but that we want to add more. And I'm not surc how you want to respond to that, but that's the issue I have with the
transportation.
MR. BOSI: During the workshops that you had raised sirnilar issues, we had put that to the vote of the
Planning Commission, and the majority of the Planning Commission had suggested to leave it in. Is that still the--
and I think that it would be appropriate to call that question again. Because right now the recommendation that we
had had from that workshop was to leave that level of specificity, leave these future projects in.
One thing that I would remind the Planning Commission, this is just a proposed. Whatever the amendment
would be, the specificity of the lanh'llage, whether we say 1-75 in Everglades interchange or if we say the general area
of that area will be detennined and will be crafted during the workshop, the transmittal and the adoption hearings that
will be part of the EAR-based amendmcnts.
So with that understanding, the Planning Commission, would you still reconunend that this policy that
identifies these future projects be brought forward as part or the EAR-based amendment process but maybe add a
clarification that the level of specificity will be detennined during the EAR-based amendment process that we
provide?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we've strived for the 10 years or nine years, whatever it is I've been on this
board, to lessen the specificity in the GMP. Because it's always been staff's contention that this is not the document
you want the specificity in, that you want it in the supporting documents.
This doesn't even make sense. And especially with the array of questions that revolve around some of these
supposedly needed issues, if we can do it better, which I hope we can, why would we want to be stuck with something
that binds us and something that may not be the best. And it's too premature to know that right now.
Jim, did you want to comment before we --
MR. FLANIGAN: Well. I have -- yeah, I ah'fee with that as well. But I also say that a lot of the 1-75 eflort is
being driven under the auspices of an emergency egress system needed now.
And I was going to ask about having an additional element or additional policy in here to provide temporary
means of egress in advance of any full-blown transportation project as a matter of emergency management.
And, you know, I look at 1-75 and Everglades interchange as a project, but I also see that the water district
now has an egress onto 1-75 to service their construction project, and I'm coneerned that that egress is not capable or
carrying a population out of a wildfire situation or an evacuation situation out of the Estates when it could be done
with little money and great effort and only immediate direction.
So I'd look for a temporary egress aspect of these transportation elements relative to emergency management.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mike, to follow up on that, though. I believe -- a while back I went over to see
Nick and he wasn't in, because I was told he was at an inspection with Nonn to look at the completed temporary
emergency accesses that have been made, put on Everglades Boulevard to 1-75.
So I thought that had already been accomplished, or may have been. Mike, are you aware of that?
Page 1901'50
16 \ 1 ~
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
MR. GREENE: Again, Michael Grcene, Transportation Planning.
The on and off ramps that have been constructed at Everglades and 1,75 are projects specific for the Picayune
rehydration project. There are gated, and there has been documentation in place through the right-or-way permit that
the conditions state that it is only for project aeeess. not for emergency acccss. And that when the project is over, I
believe in a seven-year time period, they will be removed and that area will be restored to the way it was berore they
went in.
Now. everybody expects that irthere werc an evacuation dcmanded in the Golden Gate Estates area, that they
would be opened up and people would be allowed to use them. but that is not part of the conditions of the permit.
CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Golden Gate Area Master Plan I thought we had actually put language in
there seeking to havc that (sic) emergency exits put there, opened in a maimer that they're gated and they'd bc opcn ror
emergencics. So now that they're there. they can't be used for thaI"
MR. GREENE: I'm not saying that they can't be. I'm just saying that that's not part of the application or the
right-of~way permit that those were put in under.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't wc look at modifying that penllit to -- and Mike, if you look at the -- I
think it's the Golden -- when we get to it, maybe I've tabbed it. the Golden Gate Area Master Plan lanb'llage. we had
three priorities in our language that involved road systems. One of which was an emergency access on 1-75 to
Everglades Boulevard.
If that access that's in now IS considered to be used at all. why don't we ply to have that become the
emergency access to at least give us some relief if there's any immediate need before anything else gets pennitted?
MR. BOSI: Well, for the appropriateness or this hearing. what would bc suggested would be a policy that
would state that Collier County would work with the Department of Transportation to ensure that all temporary access
points on 1-75 will be made availablc for emergeney egress or ingress based upon a situation, something like that.
That would be -- for this, ror what we're doing today, that type of a policy would probably help us in that
negotiation, because it's not -- that pernlit's not Collier County government sought that penllit, that's South Florida
Water Management District through the Department of Transportation.
Now, if we have a policy within our GMP. our transportation clemcnt that specifically addresses that -- and I
think you may have already indicated that wc do have it within thc Golden Gate Area Master Plan. But if we
suggcsted an additional policy that talks about utilizing all temporary access ramps as temporary cvacuation routes or
something to that effect, you know, explore that possibility, that might be an additional policy that may be suggested
from the Planning Commission regarding the issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. surc would seem to be practical. especially if they're even partially built. Why
don't we just --
MR. GREENE: They are complete and operational.
Prior to their eonstruction, there was a gated dirt emergeney acccss at 1-75 and Everglades. When the fires
were down there and they were evacuating the area, somebody tried to take a motor home through it and got stuck.
and everybody else got backed up behind it and prevented the rest of the evacuation.
MR. FLANIGAN: And if--
CllAIRMAN STRAJN: I'm not going to comment on that.
MR. FLANIGAN: And if I may. that emergency eh'fess or temporary -- and I wouldn't call it a temporary
egress, I would call it an emergency' egress and have it as a policy.
But with that goes all the intcrlocal ab'feements hetwcen Florida Highway -- I mean FDOT, the Florida
Highway Patrol, the Sheri ITs Office, Emergcncy Management. Fire and Forestry and the Collier County Sheriffs
OffIce. I mean, it's not just the one policy that opens the door. it's a policy that would incorporate those aspects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. let mc read Policy 731 fhJlll the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And I'll just
read the last line. It says: Shall begin establishing one or more orthe following routes tor cmergency evacuation
purposes. A, an 1-75 interchange at Everglades Boulevard. B, improved emergency access from Everglades
Boulevard to 1-75. And then C, a bridge on 23rd.
But that is why that should have been -- I mean, it should have been already accomphshed based on this fact
that this policy has becn in place since '02.
And irthat's already thcre -- I notice Dan Summers IS here. Why don't wc get it open to the public fi",
emergencies. I mean, if there's -- and Dan. if you've got something. you can provide us with input, it would be great.
Page 20 of 50
161 1 .p
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
MR. SUMMERS: Good morning. For the record, Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency
Services and Emergency Management.
I can't speak to your specific policy, but let's talk operations just !,)r a minute, if I may.
Number one, we're aware on the north side of that h'favel access area, we know that that is one potential
access, as well as the new paved access that's on the -- basically we'll call it the south side access.
Two things that I think are important. And I don't plan to bc a transportation expert, but one or the major
drawbacks in that is the absence of a deceleration lane and the absence of an acceleration lane.
Having said that, that with having access to both of those and we do have an emergency situation, it's very
much within our operational planning over thcre to put law enforcement, lights and those type of things, if we have to
make that emergency egress in any direction thcre.
So let me just tell you that while I can't speak to the policy issues that you're working on right now,
operationally if we need it I'll use it. And I'll make those items occur working with fire, forestry and those type of
things.
If it is an emergency, we're not -- we are paying attention also to the gravel side. I will review that as we get
into spring fire season from tactical planning arrangements with the forestry folks. We'll review all of that.
But knowing that, we will do everything right to protect life and property. However, we're very sensitive to
federal highway guidance and the absence or acceleration and deceleration lanes therc. So we -- if we have to get into
manual traffic control to provide access or egress to that area, operationally we're very capable of doing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. thank you.
And I think, Mike, it would be -- if we -- I'll get the opinions on thc rcst orthe board here too, but let me try
to sununarize.
I think if the policy were to focus on the utilization of any temporary facilities that are available to become
emergency access points when needed by Collier County, and ror that cffort to be completed through whatever
agencies you need to move through, I think that would be a more effective way to approach this policy, rather than get
into specifics on all these items that we may not know if they're the best specific at this time.
So with that, I'd like to get everybody else to weigh in on it. Do you agree or disagree?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. Is the reason they eliminated it from the description so that
they don't have to build it to a higher starldard? I mean, I do know that if they needed to get people out of it, that they
could close a lane down and just t10w everybody in the decellane -- or the lane coming in would become the lane on
75.
But is that why it's written that way, so that they build a lesser intersection"
MR. GREENE: The interchange that's constructed is the bare minimum ror construction access. It's for very,
very low speeds and very low volume.
MR. BOSI: And remember, that -- those temporary, those aren't recognized in the least bit by -- those
specifics aren't recognized at all within this policy. This -- we're talking about an operational side. And the first
conversation we started to have about this was Policy 6.5 as it's proposed.
What I've heard from the Chair was potentially rcplace this 6.5 as is suggested and replace it with a policy
that says that we'll explore the utilization of all temporary ramps for emergency egress or ingress.
What staff is going to seek from the Planning Conunission, do we want to keep 6.5 as it's proposed today"
Well, I know we have the Chair who says that he would like to see it modiflcd. If it is the Planning Commission's
desire to leave this in, would you like another policy that says that Collier County government will explore all
possible means to utilize existing facilities for emergency egrcss related to those construction entrances"
And I think from a staff's -- we represent towards what the Plmming Commission as a majority and also
representing what the minority assent may be to thc board so we have a full description of this issue.
And I wasn't sure if we're talking about eliminating 6.5 with thc modification as we suggested, leaving 6.5
and adding an additional policy, or what thc desire of the Planning Conunission would be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with 6.5 then, as far as the Planning Commission goes. The
specificity here is a concern. So from my perspccti ve, that isn't needed.
Melissa 0
Page 21 of 50
16 I 1 ~7
December 7. 2010 CCPClEAR
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I have a question.
I think one of the issues, when we discussed the spccificity. was the opportunity for grant runding. Ifit's not
this specific and goes more gcneral to thc area, how does that apply to the grant"
MR. BOSl: I would have to defer to Mikc. Mike Grcenc is the individual who has brought millions of
dollars in tenns of !,'fants to this county, so he knows a little bit more of the specificity of that.
MR. GREENE: When we apply f'Jr grant tunding. we have to show that we're consistent with our Growth
Management Plan. our Capital Improvement Element specifically and also our long-range transportation plan.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So iryou revisc this to take out the pal1icular area at Everglades and just kind
of generalize, so it's clear that you'rc seeking an interchange at 1-75, just not establishing exactly where. will that still
help you"
MR. GREENE: I bclieve we could work on revised language that maintains nceded improvements in these
areas without saying specifically, examplc, 1-75 and Everglades. Becausc cven with thc interchange justification
report, it is still in the area of: and it's one of three locations that's still potential.
The reason 1-75 and Everglades itself has been shown on maps and used tor discussions is becausc we are
rcquired to be consistent with our long-range transportation plan, and t"r modeling crforts we have to use items that
are in place that we can model.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for what -- j(Jr the benefit of some. at the time Big Cypress was being
promoted they actually have maps showing that they wcre going to pm1icipatc and support and promote at probably a
great savings to taxpayers another locationjust east and away from Golden Gatc Estates that would not disrupt
hundreds or home sites in Golden Gate Estates.
So if that were viable in a reasonable time frame and it was at a huge savings to taxpayers and it didn't have
any negative impacts to the extent others might, why wouldn't we want to bc able to explore that too" And that's my
only concern.
So I think Mike, your suggestion is, is that wc keep a policy that says we will seek an interchange, an
easternmost intcrchange at 1-75, something to that efreet, and that we will try to encourage grade separated overpasses
in areas that warrant those, that may give you the samc cmphasis you need but not provide the specificity that takes
out a lot of other good opportunities we may have.
MR. BOS!: It would be at the discretIon or direction of thc Planning Commission to modify this suggestion
to say that we're going to identify thc general area of these improvements that are needed within the policy, and you'll
havc the opportunity to comment on thc language during thc amendment process.
But let the board know that we're going to keep this policy but that the spccifics of the language will not be as
project or as site specific as it's suggested here, but more in a generalized area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think the explanation. though, is that because we want to make sure
the best opportunity we avail ourselves is thc best opportunity. not Just one that hasn't bcen fully vetted out compared
to others that may be better.
MR. GREENE: Absolutely. And also the language I would suggest that we add is pending the outcome of
future planning studics.
CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jim, bet'Jre we -- do you havc anything else you want to say?
MR. F!:ANIGAN: No, that's kind of where I was going.
But I still want to locus on the egrcss, as an emergency Ch'fess and not a temporary solution. I think that's a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a separate dccision.
Anybody else" Brad"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
Mike, how come you're not trying to ineorporate the language into the policy yet? You're still carrying the
old policy in the book. Wouldn't it be a strike-through and underline at this point"
MR. BOS!: No, wc're not changing anything. We'rc just -- remember, we're raising our hand, this policy is
going to be changed. W c'rc not saying w hat it is or -- I guess in this book we're providing the existing policy to show
how it reads today.
Our analysis is tllis policy has bcen accomplished, wc're going to -- we're proposing to include thrce potential
new projects. And what we're going to say now is three potential new projects, we're going to identify the general
area ofwherc improvements would be idcntified. but not specifically.
Page 22 of 50
:
"
161
1 ~
"
December 7, 20 10 CCPC/EAR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is we did that at the workshop and had that exact -- this same
conversation. So,- but, I mean, the reason -- because we do have strike-through and underlined on other policies. I'm
just wondering why you haven't done it on this one yet.
MR. GREENE: At this phase in the process I could have just simply said that this policy is out of date and
needs to be revised and not shown any proposed replacements. That could have waited ror the next piece of this when
we actually get into tooling the language that will be adopted.
I thought it was more appropriate to bring some of these issues up early on so that we have more time to vet
through the public process.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you really have is what we had at the workshop. And then we're
here--
MR. BOSI: This is really the confirmation of -- the workshop said that this policy was going to be changed.
And we're saying yes, this policy is going to be changed. We're not trying to say this is how we're going to wordsmith
the policy to be changed. This is one of those areas where we gave more specificity towards where we're going to be
going with the direction of the policy changc. And maybe that has caused that little kind of a disconnect.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It caused deja vu, that's alL
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no matter what we want to call it, what's this board's continuing position on
this?
Melissa, are you inclined to keep the specificity or make it a little bit broader like Mike has suggested"
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I think if we can not be so speciJic but still have the availability to get the grant
funding, that was the part of the reason for having it in here, I think that would be fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm ror non-specific.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul"
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I expressed myself.
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with Melissa. As long as it stays in here somehow for additional
funding availability.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane"
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Non-specific.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think you've got direction, Mike.
The second item was the idca or adding a policy that would encourage staff to work with other agencies to
utilize any emergency accesses, any accesses for emergency purposes for Collier County as such emergency would be
declared.
Does anybody seem to have an objection to that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could somebody explain the difference between those two intersections? I
mean, if you're building essentially decellanes and accellancs, you're essentially building an intersection, if it's going
to be used for emergency.
Is there any difference between an emergency intersection and a final public use intersection?
MR. GREENE: Yes, there's actually significant cost differences and radiuses that have to be designed to.
With the true emergency only access, as Dan said, you don't necessarily design in acceleration and deceleration lanes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right
MR. GREENE: Your radiuses are much tighter, it's a slower speed, and they compensate for the lack of
design issues with operational issues.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I support that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Does that then become the responsibility or transportation to maintain?
Page 23 0[50
16 I 1 ~?
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
MR. GREENE: It depends on thc agreement that we reach. Currently the gravel emergency access that was
in place is contained within FHW A limited access right-of~way. and it is not part of the maintenance agreement that
Collier County has.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike. I think that's thc consensus of the board ror direction.
MR. BOSI: So we will add an additional policy to 6.5 ,- to group objective six related to -- as we discussed
about the utilization or all temporary racilities for emergency acccss.
And the specities of that will be provided to you during our next phase ofthe process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. with that wc'll move on to sOl11e ofthc other elements.
Sanitary ,- Jim')
MR. FLANIGAN: If I can come back to Policy 3.3?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Transportation"
MR. FLANIGAN: Yes, transportation.
It calls ror arterial and collector roads to be orno less cross-section than six lanes of traffic.
And my concern is when you get into a rural situation and you're looking at villages and towns that are
supposed to have rccapture and limited mobility between the villages and towns. you know, the selr-sustaining
conununity coneept, six lanes to me is an urban eross-section and an urban design. And is that appropriate in a rural
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Betore you go too tar, read down. See wherc it says Planning Conunission
conunent from the 25th? That comment no\\' will be incorporated into the amendments for some kind of new
language that will probably -- and that was done I think to address specifically the issue you just brought up.
MR. FLANIGAN: Okay. Very good then.
MR. GREENE: If I may add something to this item also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes
MR. GREENE: Thc language could be revised a little bit so that we identify a corridor width and not
necessarily specifically six lanes. Because as we move into the future, we don't know how we're going to be
traveling. and we do need to identify and acquire these corridors for mobility in generaL Could be bus, rapid transit,
could be light rail, could be pedestrian features.
So more the intent hcrc is to have enough width in right-of~way so that we can put in the facility that we do
need in the future. Even if we put in a four-lane divided rural section. usually it has swales and it will take up the
same width as an urban six-lane road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the way we worded it. it opens the door for you guys to come back
with an amendment that addresses the needs in the best way you reel that it can be, and we can debate it at that time as
far as specifics go.
MR. BOSI: I was going to suggest. this will provide a good opportunity during that workshop bclore you
even get to that transmittal as to, you know. the speeiiics of what you would like to see, and then we can find
agrcement with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item IS the samtary sewer. eountywlde assessment.
Does anybody have any issues on that"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let's Just do the water one at the same time. Sewer/water. Anybody have any
u Corby, you do"
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. Mr. Chainnan. Upon my return -- te" the record, Corby Schrnidt.
Just to note that starfhad previously overlooked a small detail in thc mapping for both the sanitary sewer and
the potablc water sub-elements.
Other provisions in the Growth Management Plan adjust the boundaries of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District, and as thosc boundaries are adjusted. so adjusted are the boundaries of the sewer and water districts. And
those have not kept paee with adjustments, recent adjustments to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.
And just a note that those maps -- at least the SS-l main map ror sanitary sewer. and the WT, I believe it is, I
ielf wastewater treatment for -- I'm sony, for potable water. those two maps at lcast, and perhaps the sub-mapping
Page 24 of 50
"
16\
1
~
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
would need amendment based on those border or boundary changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other conunents or questions from the sanitary sewer and
water?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's go to drainage, the issues in the drainage section.
Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I'm going to put something up on the visualizer.
In the drainage section, when you go to the levels of service attained by basins, and go to the urban
Irnmokalee basin, you'll see that we're at a level of service C, which is--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give us a policy number that we can turn to"
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sure. It's under objective two.
MR. BOSI: Policy 2.1.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, that's it. The second page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Exactly, Page 4.
And you see urban Immokalee basin is level of service C. That's despite the fact that Immokalee has very
little drainage infrastructure compared to all the other areas of the county that are flatter and have so many different
canals and drainage structure, infrastructures there.
And I'd just like to point out that a lot or it is because Immokalee is on a ridge and it sort of slides down into
this wetland area. But this is going to come up in the CCME.
What we have in Immokalee is a free infrastructure here or an area where the drainage naturally occurs. And
in objective two and five it talks about the county shall maintain adoptive drainage levels or service standards for
basins and subbasins. And the maintcnance of the drainage level of service identified will be implemented through
the watershed management planning process and the CCM E.
And in five also, objective five, it talks about protccting the functions of natural drainage features and natural
groundwater aquifer recharge areas.
This is going to get into the CCME where we talk about the natural resource value of this Lake Trafford
overlay.
And Ijust want to point out here that it also relates to the drainage element. Because Immokalee is relatively
well drained compared to othcr parts of the county because we have this natural feature here, and we want to maintain
as much protection as possible.
As you can see in the map, the overlay encompasses almost all the wetlands that are within the urban area. So
it's very compactly drawn. There's very little wetlands that are not part of this slough which, as I was speaking earlier,
kind of flows into Lake Trafford from east to west.
And there's going to be the watershed study that's going to be coming out that's also going to be talking about
protecting this area. But we'll get more into that when we get into the CCME. But I just wanted to point out that it
also relates to the drainage element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And are there any specifics on thc drainage element that you think have to be
addressed now different than what would bc on amendment at this time?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll move on to solid waste. Are there any issues with solid
waste?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Natural groundwater, which is NGW AR. Any issues on that one, the next
tab?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one after that is housing, which Michele I know has a discussion for us and
passed out some additional information.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Comrnissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Corby.
MS. MOSCA: Good morning. For the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning staff.
Page 25 of 50
16 ~ 1 ~?
Dcccmhcr 7, 20IO CCPC/EAR
As the Chainnan stated, I did pass out the allordable housmg invcntory. It was a board directed activity. The
BCC will hear that particular item on December 14th. So that infonnation is part or an inquiry ti-om the workshops.
I've provided that to you folks ror your review and ror your records.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looks interesting. Especially what you've come up with. Ir secms to rollow what
some orthe concerns have been for quite some time but not categorizcd. That will provide a lot of interesting
reading, thank you.
MS. MOSCA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa')
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thcrc's several items in here refcrring to City of Naples and that datcs need to
be established. How are we detennining what those dates are going to be"
MS. MOSCA: As part or the amendment process. stall' will work with the City of Naples to establish those
dates, and we'll bring those baek to you "s part of the amendment cycle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything clsc, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I think that's it
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. anybody else? Paul, did you have any housing issues you wanted to bring
up?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. I'm trymg to digcst this. I'm kind of having a hard time. I thought that
District 5 in Immokalee had most ofthc low income housing, hut it seems like we only have 18 percent, and that's
kind or surprising to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I noticed that too. But it also in a lot of ways shows that one of the concerns
that Commissioner Fiala liad seems to ring true. they'vc got a lot more -- a lot greater share or affordable housing than
some of the other areas do.
MS. MOSCA: And without going into great detail, because we haven't presented it to the board ror their
review and approval, you will llnd that because of the variables we looked at zero recurring debt. We also looked at a
$300 reoccurring debt. And based on that, there are so many different scenarios that you could come up with with the
inventory for the arfordable mortgage rates. And that was based on two and I'JUr persons only in the households.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would it be tliat lmmokalee -- because it seems likc we have so much of it,
which is not necessarily a bad thing:. But are we talking in Immokalee ahout only the very. very 1m\/ income'?
MS. MOSCA: Well. and again, going through this at a later date. it -- Immokalee docs have those three
categories: The very low 50 percent. the low, which is 80. and then 120 pcrcent for the moderate. So you do scc the
full spcctrum within Immokalee. I think based on the overall review amI the variables, we do see less of the 50
percent range throughout tlie county, including lmmokalcc, for aflordability f'Jr both two and four-person households.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be interesting reading. Thank you.
Anybody else'!
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The points that I had brought up before about --
MS. MOSCA: The extremely low"
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. What is that') What is thc county going to do about that. if anything?
MS. MOSCA: Unfortunately Mr. Ramsey's not available right now. but I know that during the 2004
Evaluation and Appraisal Report. we discussed the possibility of guest homes, both in the Estates and elsewhere, and
that was tUlllcd down by the Board of County Commissioners.
What the Board of County Conunissioners did approve was tlie density by right in Immokalee only, which
likely would reduce the cost of developing aft')fdable housing. So perhaps in the future. if that's thc direction orthe
hoard, perhaps we look at garage apartments or we take a look again at guesthouses.
We have to consider though the impacts, infrastructure and so j,)rth, and increased density within the county
to make sure that we can in fact support those additional units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie'.'
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. Good morning, Mr.'Chairman and members ofthe Planning
Commission. Marjorie Student-Stirling. I'm volunteer legal counsel for Habitat for Humanity of Collier County,
Incorporated.
And Just a couplc points 011 Poliey lA. And I've talked with starf a little bit about this and the proposed
change to rcmove the language seek to. We'd like the opportunity to work with staflon perhaps further refinements to
Page 26 of 50
16\
1 ~
December 7, 20ln CCPClEAR
this provision before it comes to you in the form of an EAR amendment.
But keeping in rnind that the EAR sets the tone for the following amendments and trying to be proactive, I
wanted to let you know we do have some concerns.
On its face it looks great. But we are concerned about when you go into an as applied mode, that this does
not create a situation that would severely limit or even keep affordable housing out of the county, given dcvelopment
patterns, historic development patterns and also the historic land costs associated with it.
And again, I've talked a little bit with Michele and we're willing between now and when you bring an
amendment back to work with staff on, you know. putting some further refinements to the amendment.
And one other procedural matter, we believe that the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee should have a
chance to look at the proposed EAR as it relates to the housing element, and also possibly the study that Michele
eluded to. Because in their ordinance as part of their functIOns, powers and duties, they do need to look at goals,
objectives and policies that relate to the housing element. And I believe the language of the ordinance is other
directives and so on.
And as to the study that Michele just eluded to, we have been made recently aware or it and have it and I
think we'd like to reserve any conunents on that to when it's heard by the Board of County Commissioners. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Margie.
And Michele and Mike, I'm assuming that any changes will be coming out through the amendment process
for further digestion and debate.
MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
Okay, anybody --
MS. ASTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make it clear what I believe Margie was saying, and that is
what they're opposing is the change that the Planning Commission recommended. They don't want the language shall
seek to distribute atlordable housing equitabfy removed and replaced with avoid the concentration of affordable
housing units only in specific areas of the jurisdiction. Because they're concerned if they come forward with
applications for Habitat in East Naples that they might get denied in the future.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And we'djust--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what you were--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We'd like an opportunity to work with staff on that Policy 1.4 because orthe
concerns about the historic development pattern and cost or land.
And so the effect of it, while on its face it looks wonderful, and we'd love to be throughout the county, but
where we ean crall something that doesn't totally f"reclose or severely limit us. And also give us an opportunity to go
into other parts ofthe county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Margie.
And as you know, an EAR is a prelude to an amendment process that has a lot of -- and we even included this
time a workshop. So I think there's going to be more than ample opportunity to debate every issue that's brought in to
the EAR process.
Okay, next item up is the recreation and open spacc element. Anybody have any issues with that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the one aftcr that is the CCME. Does anybody have any issues with the
CCME?
Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 30 and 32. On Page 32, that was the meeting that I missed, and
there's a note here on the bottom of the page, the Collier County Planning Conunission suggests that specific native
vegetation requirements for Lake Trarford/Camp Keais Strand system be clarified.
And has anything occurred on that, or any recommendations?
MS. MOSCA: I think the decision has been made to defer this particular item until the Immokalee Area
Master Plan comes through. Specifically I'm not aware of the exact language that's being proposed. Either Michael
perhaps or Carolina Valera may address that. Thank you.
MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Comprehensive section.
Yes, and we will bring it to you as part orthe adoption portion of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Staflhas
Page 27 of 50
161
1 f\?
December 7, 20 I 0 CCPC/EAR
looked into that. We have looked at your rccommendation or, you know, the sum of the comments in regards to
native preservation, 90 percent, versus 25 versus 40 percent, 60 percent. And we have come up with some language
and we will bring it to you as part of the adoption heanng orthe Inllnokalee Area Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In the meeting that I wasn't there, there was mention that you might bring it to
the CRA to discuss that. And I havc a lriend who goes to all those meetings and he said it hasn't come before them
yet.
MS. V ALERA: I wasn't aware that we werc going to take it to the CRA meetings, but n
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought it was going back to the stakeholders in some way.
MR. BOSI: The discussion has been with Penny in tenns of the proposed tanb'llage. Whether she has
disseminated that inrorma -- I'm not sure when she mtended to diseuss the issue with her CRA board. But the
tcntative way that we're going to address prcservation standards within there has been discussed with the CRA.
MS. VALERA: And they are -- wejust received thc draft of the rcvised languagc just yesterday night. So I
__ we'll have to double check I bJUess with Penny to see if she's going to hring the revised plan to the eRA committee.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the other thing was whether thc Camp Keais Strand should be
designated as a NRP A or not. And this relates to the drainage element. It also relates to Inllnokalec Master Plan and
to the CCME. It sccms hke it should be, bccause it is a major !low way and a high runctioning natural system. But I
don't know what point that would be addressed.
MS. VALERA: Again. as I said, we will bring some language to you as part of the adoption hearing. We
have had somc conversations. And we havc -, also to kecp in mind that this is within thc urban area. It is not part of
the RLSA, the rural fringe. It is part orthe urban area. Urban preservation is 25 percent.
or course that wouldn't make sensc lor I_ake Trafl"rd/Camp Kcais Overlay, because we want to retain as
much as we can. So we were thinking that maybe the preservation requirements of the neutral lands will make more
sense instead of -- whieh is 60 percent instead or the 25 percent, which is what the preservation requirements are for
thc urban arca.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, looking at the map that's still in front of us, the whole overlay is
wetlands. Forty percent seems very low. Would you say that you could develop 60 percent of that wetland area"
MS. VALERA: Those that do have somc development allowances. you know, uses within those lands that
are unique for the urban area and. you know, not hke the rural fringe. So the property rights. you know, you do have
allowed uses within some of the RT uses that -- the recreational tourist areas we chart diflerent from thc rural fringc.
And so as you're saying, you're correct. We also belicvc -- of coursc we haven't adopted tlus and we will
bring it to you, but 25 percent seems vcry low. We need to preserve as much as we can. So we're thinking more of a
60 percent, keeping in nund that all those uses that are allowed within that overlay.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well. two things come to mind. First of all. in tenns of how a NRPA is
defined. It's defined -- one of the main ways of defining it is it's a major t10w way. which this is.
And the other thing is that when you talk about setting up a watershed management plan, your priority has to
be on the areas that are most susceptible to development. And since this is an urban area, that should be addressed
just because it's going to be under such great development pressure.
And looking at the ract that Immokalee, only about 28 percent of the land is developed, there's a lot of vacant
land that's available. it's not really ncccssary to dcvelop this wetland arca. I think those should all be takcn into
account.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I r I'm not lllistakcn, the reeommcndation irom this board last time was to
suggest specific vegetation requirements tor that area.
MS. VALERA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the weight of those requirements, whether they're 25,60,80 and all the other
tenninology to go with it will be the debatable issues coming out when we produce the amendments --
MS. V ALERA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at whieh time then we can weigh 1Il on whether or not they're strong enough.
MS. VALERA: Ycs. And we have heard you and ycs, we have discussed and we will bring you that
languagc so we ean talk about them as part of the adoption hearing ofthe Immokalee Area Master Plan and, you
know, have public input in regards to those and Icngthy probably conversation about it.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thank you.
Page 28 of 50
161
1 K3
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to defend -- to protect Paul's position, the fact we have this note in here from the
Planning Commission and the other groups, it isn't going to go away.
MS. VALERA: Correct. No, it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's for sure coming back. And there's going to be a lot further refinement.
MS. VALERA: And we already have proposed lanb'llage which will be part of your packet of the adoption
hearings of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. We are not going to wait until the EAR-based adoption hearings, we
will do it before.
MR. BOS!: That's the clarification. These other ones you're going to have to wait until we -- until the
EAR-based process. This one we'll address within the Immokalee Area Master Plan, the specifics of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chuck, did you have something you wanted to add?
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. !r it plcases this honorable committee, my name is Chuck
Mohlke, and I appear here as a citizen with an interest in regard to the conservation and coastal management element,
particularly those listed under number 12 in your packet.
This concems particularly Objective 12.1 and other related matters that have to do with natural storm events,
notably but not exclusively hurricanes or tropical tornadoes, and the issues that lie around this central theme, some or
which are blatant issues that rrequently don't emerge in a discussion like this. And I'd like to, Mr. Chairman, if I may,
make three points.
First, it seems to me that it would be logical during the EAR process that the municipalities, all of them
hurricane vulnerable, have in regard to future plans for evacuation a transportation issue and the displacement of
persons whose housing may be damaged extensively during a major storm event. It would be I think desirable to in
future discussions at least give consideration to revisiting mcmorandums of understanding, interlocal agreements and
all manner or other issues that have to do in some instances with land use overlays and so on that can be at least
assessed as to whether or not there would be appropriately mentioned in any future plan revision issues which are
related to what we have leamed, particularly from Hurricane Wilma.
Second, there are in the urban area, particularly adjacent to the incorporated municipalities, enclaves that are
technically within the county but are treated ror the most part as if they were incorporated as a part of a municipality.
And all you'd have to do is look under the overview assessment that Mr. Bosi discussed with you.
And on the second page is a map of the urban area that identifies where these overlays are. And I'm not
going to be tedious or technical about this and go into great detail about what map two in that section refers to. But all
one has to do is to look at these overlay areas. If transporting yourselr and your private automobile into the area south
of Pine Ridge, north of Creech between U.S. 41 and Goodlette Road there's a heavy aggregation of rental housing,
much of it rather elderly, within a halfa rnile of the Gulrin some instances, that is especially vulnerable in these areas.
And although it was not directly impacted to the degrec that other areas were by Hurricane Wilma in the future, it will
be.
And to have something in these issues that are related to evacuation, displacement of individuals, the repair of
damaged commercial units and residences would I think at least be appropriate to be mentioned in the assessment so
that it can be properly incorporated into any future land use amendments.
Because number three, the changes in the digital Flood Insurance Rate Map, which were brought to the
attention of Collier County residents in the third week in August of this year, starting on the 16th and going through
the 20th of August, there will inevitably be serious impacts, both in the urban area and extensively in the area of the
Estates never thought to have been a subject ror concern based upon FEMA and other federal regulators, and now
increasingly state regulators and hopefully regulators in Collier County of how we're going to accommodate to the
requirements of that new mapping which is going to inevitably have very serious impacts on future land use,
particularly when the area is damaged.
And as a personal anecdote, in the past I've had occasion to be involved directly in some of these major
events, particularly a no-named storm in 1993. And if somebody doesn't believe that the impacts of these events
cannot be serious after the event, one should have tried to stand at the intersection of the bridge on Collier Avenue
that is the northern boundary of Everglades City and watched the receding waters and the impact that they have,
which has a great deal to do with FI:MA's concems here. If you stood just correctly, it would knock you down.
Now, I know you only have me saying this. but those are the concerns that are rarely incorporated in here.
And I would think that you would pay special attention to the fact that in municipal plans, one notably in Everglades
Page 29 of 50
16l
1
K?
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
City, it is a requirement by DCA, a requirement that the county's hurricane evacuation plan be incorporated directly
and specifically, not by rererence, but in detail in that small community's comprehensive plan. And if they go through
the EAR process. no doubt that will have to be addressed. based upon what's happened in recent weather events.
And I would just ask that some special attention be givcn to this because A Wilma, B. of the enclave areas
that are essentially unaddressed in issues like that by of the municipalities. And thirdly, the implications of the
DFIRM mapping and what that will have to do on futurc land uses and the ability to even utilize some lands that
realistically won't be ahle to ohtain tlood insurance v..rithout significant cost and may have some regulatory scheme
developed in the future once the DFIRM maps arc finnly in place and havc gone through the public hearing and
public cotrunent process.
Thank you, Mr. Chainnan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
And Mike. there's quite a rew good points. And in partieular, the idca of our hurricanc sheltcrs and their
adcquacy, especially with the FEMA maps, thc transportation. mobility planning, the growth in the RLSA and all thc
rest of it. A few years back, I can't remembcr how long ago now. but It'S been a while, when we assessed -- we talkcd
about hurricane shelters berore, I had called over to the school system to try to find out iftheir schools were truly
hurricane shelters, as defined by Florida statute. And that means certain wind loads and characteristics that I found
out __ I was told by the individual -- it's been so long I can't rememher who no\\' -- that they didn't build to those
standards. they're just schools.
Now. that may not be true. that may be changed or tlungs may have been different, but why don't we get an
assessment of each one of these facilities that you passed out on this risk shelter ehart you gave us today and sec if
Barron Collier is built to the right wind loads to really bc a hurricane sheltcr in the category that it's in. Why don't we
see if they've got the emergency facilities and products that are required to be a sheltcr in the definition or Florida
statute. Because if we're sending people to these facilities and they're not adequate. arc we doing them any good"
MR. BOSI: Well. I wouldn't argue that that would be an appropriate action. I guess would you suggest a
policy that would be implemented that on a regular basis all potential and desib~13ted hurricane shelters be cvaluated
for appropriateness in ternlS of strueture integrity"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wcll, no, here's what I'm coneemed about. We have some schools that have bcen
around a long time. The current standards ror wind loads are b'featly changed trom when thosc schools were built.
And my question to the individual I talked about years ago was did they build them to the new standards"
Well, no, we didn't, we built thcm to the standards at the time.
Okay. Well, that may not be a hurricane shelter then. And I'm concemed that we're going to direct people to
a school with a -- usually it's bigger b'Ymnasiums and stutTwherc thc standards that were used to build that facility are
not the standards we consider hurricane shclters today. Or if they're supposed to have emergency backup or if they're
supposed to have water supplies. I don't know what is entailed. but I suggest -- it would be nice to know that we -- if
we're saying that Barron Collier is a hurricane shelter, or Veterans ConU11Unity Park where they have another nag on
here there's supposed to be a shelter, ir that's a sheltcr that is built to the standards that shelter's supposed to be built to.
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman. I don't want to speak 1[)!' Dan Sunmlers. I spoke with his starfthe other day.
Dan's herc.
But the shelters are actually stonn dependent. And hc probably can address that more. So the typc or stonn
would be dependent upon which shelters were opcned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then maybe we can find out ti-om Dan how many hurricane shelters -- how
many of these buildings are really hurricane shelters. If there's -- I know there's a definition in Florida statute, because
developments are required in some aspccts to provide hurricane shelters. And I was involved at one point with a
development that had that requirement. lt was in thc CHHA. To do that kind of rcquirement would have been
horrendous. So I'm curious as to how these others qualiiy.
MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, Dad Summers lor -- Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services and
Emergency Management.
You and Mr. Mohlke bring somc very big questions. Can I Just give you a little bit of framework and
backb'fOund bet,)!'e I get into the specifics"
First or all. understand that we do have what I would refer to as a triage process, based on certain shelters that
we use bascd on -- that are somewhat storm dependent.
Pagc 30 of 50
, 'J
,,'
161
1 ~?
Decembcr 7, 2010 CCPClEAR
And while it is very important, and I'll come back to this, that we also talk about hurricane hardening and
resources and shelters and capability, all the things that you've mentioned, there's one very important factor here that
always is overlooked in these, and that is exactly -- that's behavior. That's evacuation compliance and behavior, and
how rar the public is really willing to go for certain level of shelters.
So there's -- while we have some science here associated with building code, we have some estimates
associated with evacuee behavior. And we certainly want to get thesc folks away rrom the coast line in the event that
we have storm surge vulnerability. And we know from lots of behavior analyses that we don't have folks traveling
very far in the evacuation process.
So understand that while we address bricks and mortar, we also have to understand some of the behavioral
science associated with good evacuation.
And to that point we have, as you have noticed in evcry hurricane evacuation or any consequence that I've
recol11l11ended to the board, I too have promoted a voluntary precautionary evacuation to bring eensus down well
before the rormal evacuation takes place. And that's been very successful for us in Southwest Florida.
But just a couple of points that -- first of all, you mentioned about the hardening orthe buildings, et cetera.
The State of Florida does manage a technical data report that they do on all thc shelter facilities. We don't have the
financial resources to go in and do enginecring and architectural assessments on the buildings. However, in the last --
since I've been here in 2003, there's been tremendous cooperation rrom Collier district schools to build as close to if
not including all of those standards in recent construction.
And the one that comes to mind that I can validate is Palmetto Ridge where we do have large sheltering
capacity and we use that as our special needs sheltcr, and thc State of Florida funded a large generator for that
building to accol11l11odate special needs populations at that location.
There are millions of dollars that I could spend in hardening and additional power supplies that I just don't
have. In a lot of cases I try to rent. Some of those cases I try to do small temporary backup power arrangements in
those.
But in terms of some ofthe full-fledged hardening, the financial resources are not there or any of the burdens
associated with that hardening we'vc just not been able to acquire.
So I have a good number of shelters that I feel very confident in in that one to three or one to four category
range.
You also have to understand, there's one other point here that Mr. MoWke brings up in terms of the DFIRM
and storm surge mapping. And storm surge and hurricanc category now have been disconnected by the National
Hurricane Center.
So you can have different storm surge predictions based on the trajectory of the stonn rather than basing the
storm surge on a particular category.
Now, we have the capability pre-landfall to evaluate that stonn surge, 48 hours in advance, 24 hours in
advance working with the Hunicane Center and try to make our sheltering arrangements accordingly.
And there's some new study data that the Regional Planning Council's working on. However, we have -- first
glance at that particular data, we find that woefully incomplete and a number of conflictions in some of those model
runs.
So I will tell you that one, we're on top of the shelter capability and the shelter limitations. We don't pretend
to have 35,000 shelter spaces, as recommend -- 30 to 40,000 in some ofthese cases that are recommended. However,
we have -- previous storm events have not put us over a shelter population much of about 8,000.
That not withstanding, we look closely at some of the development issues, and where we find an opportunity
for hurricane mitigation credits through a DRI, we do attempt to work on that. However, the market has been such
that we've not been able recently to do anything with hardening or hardened structures or new structures. Typically
our urgent need are things like supplies and other portable gcnerators. So just to give you the rramework of that, that
we're paying very close attention to that.
Also, although fortunately we've not had significant DR! review aetivity, if we go into formal assessments, as
Mr. Mohlke has recol11l11ended, I'm just not tooled up to have the statT or to review a rormal assessment between say a
DRI and other hurricane evacuation impacts. I don't have the tools or the resources or personnel to look at that, and
I'm not sure that many of my counterparts are doing that in the emergency management cOl11l11unity on a formal leveL
So Ijust want to tell you that we're very much engaged in all that. We look at that every day of the year as
Page 31 of 50
16 1 1 ~
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
part of our planning process. But thesc shelter facilities in tenns of a reassessment, we have some of that technical
data that it's probably no more than three years old arld we haven't had any construction of new schools in that period.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- have you seen this risk shelter diagram given to us today"
MR. SUMMERS: I did. And part or that -- Michele put that togcther at staff's request.
And I will tell you that one of the things. that -- those are our primary candidate shelters. We wanted you to
be aware or all ofthc potentials that we had.
And in all hazards environment, whether it's Ilood. tornado, wildfire or hurricane, each stonn. the
characteristics of that stonn, thc trajectory. thc anticipated stonn surge, we go through a decision-making process as to
which one of those we will use, whether it's all orthem or in somc cases we've fillcd them in certain orders.
Because Barron Collier, as an example. is nol typically' a shelter \.vc \vauld use if we anticipate an
overwhelming stann surge. That has some vulnerability. However. if we have an exiting stonn where welre not
anticipating water and it is Catcgory I or 2. that beeomes an eligible sheltcr. So while you sce a paten hst of shelters,
understand that as the characteristics of the storm or the hazard are reviewed by us, it is that process that we go about
pulling those shelters from that candidate hst.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have enough inlornlation so that if a Category 4 was coming through Collier
County, you would know which shelters could withstand that and provide ample comlort to the amount of population
that would be needcd to go to that shelter from this hst. f,,, example"
MR. SUMMERS: Our best estimate, yes. sir. I mean, nothing is a certain based on -- we are very
conservative in all of the posturing that we do with the shelter and the storm's trajectory.
Let me also mention one other thing to you, sir, and you brought up a good point about sheltering in
gYllll1asiums. While we look at the huilding as a whole for hurrieanc hardening, there are two other options that are
very much within our planning process I,,, sheltering.
While we might be pre-stonn or post-stonn, depending on the wind speed, the gynmasium may be okay to
use. However, good sense and wind load engmeering will tell you why I put that many pcople in one open space.
And very quickly. we might want to move individuals into interior hallways and classrooms. What we call taking a
tomadic posture ror three, f"ur, five hours during the stonn until the high intensity stonn winds move on. So we don't
put folks in open spaces or large wind load spaces during that critical period.
All of our stornlS to date have in most cases allowed us to do that based on storm ink)ffilation. but the backup
plan ror that is to bring them into a tornadic type posturc l')f a couple hours into your hallways and classrooms, and I
think that adds an additional level of salety in that process.
So we're not using the large spanned areas 10tally' throughout the sheltering process. Maybe pre and post, but
not during the peak part of landrall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in conJunetion with the hurricane issue, I remember reading in the prior
part of the CIR (sic), I think it was transportation, they're going to do an assessment of the standards that we maintain
on our hurricane evacuation routes too. So add that to the standards you're now looking at and categorizing sheltcrs.
We've got both the exits. categorize them by transportation and the shelters by how they rate.
MR. BOSI: And it's Policy 5.8 ofthc transportation. It was reeommended that on an annual basis we do that
and evaluate those links.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's even a Florida statute that requires no approvals ir you have a
hurricane evacuation route operating below the adopted level of service.
So by doing what you're doing, you're ereating the level of service, maintaining it and then if it fails, anything
that has access to that road may have a -- ir it's more than one percent, more than diminimous impact, you may have a
problem getting approved. So--
MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chainnan. that's a very good point. May I elaborate on that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. SUMMERS: -- just for a second and tell you that I really have -- I as a practitioner have some
challenges. And I will tell you what they arc. Number one is that not everyone leaves to evacuate at the exact same
moment. So I don't have a good behavior analysis rceommendation for the transportation planners as to when that
road segment meets capacity. And I've always told folks, number onc, that's why I do a precautionary voluntary
evacuation, is hopc that some of the folks will leave early and that will bring some of your trip count down.
Thc othcr component of that is that everyone makes -- we know from behavioral analysis everyone makes
Page 32 of 50
~'J
December lbo ~cPCll
that decision to leave at different times. So I have a hard time in that science.
I support that concept wholeheartedly, but we have to go back to other estimates and other tools and those
kind of things, again because ofthe challenges around an individual's behavior.
The other part or that is that there is some new study data that the Regional Planning Council released and
drafted to us about a week or so ago. And I will tell you that onc of the things that is very disheartening is that a lot of
the roads that were under construction in 2008 and where they were at capacity was the basis for the new study. Now
our roads are complete, 1-75 thrce-lanc north and southbound being completed. So we have not gone through yet and
analyzed nor accepted some of the transportation components out of that regional evacuation study yet. Again,
because I think it wound up being about 18 months old and there's a lot that has changed since then.
So understand that some of those products are out there, but they are still going through our review at this
point, and bring some caution to you as to saying that's the latest and !,'featest estimates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Dad.
Melissa, then Brad.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm wondering if the diffcrent colors shown on this chart denote a different risk
level or what that represents. Like each school had -- or each location has a -- or is color coded.
MR. SUMMERS: No, ma'am, I don't think that was intended. That was just intended to give you a -- that's a
good point. I think it was just intended to give you an approximate location.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question, Dan. when the -- you know, we have dirferent evacuation
zones, and you do things on streets too. If the shelter is in an evacuation zone, is it evacuated?
MR. SUMMERS: No, it's not. And it depends -- well, it depends exactly on what we anticipate with the
storm surge modeling at that particular point.
If the zone -- let's go back to the Airport Pulling Road, Barron Collier. I am not so good, nor is thc Hurricane
Center, to tell you that east or west of Airport Pulling is a defined line ror storm surge. So again, it would be
dependent, ifI'm expecting storm surge and Barron Collier is within 300 feet, unless I know there's significant
changes in finish floor elevation, most likely I would not use it. And I have not done that.
However, if we survive that and the building remains intact and I need it for a service center or a secondary
shelter post-event, then obviously I have the option of using that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody clsc"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, thank you very much. Appreciate your information.
We're on the CCME. Does anybody else have any other questions on the CCME?
(No response.)
MS. MOSCA: Me. Chairman, I have a few, if the other members are not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MS. MOSCA: On Objective 3.1, just a point or clarification. The Planning Commission recornmendation
from the workshop was to retain the text as written. I believe the intent was to retain the text as written except to
allow the reference to the establishing of the monitoring network. And that's on Page 16.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would concur with that. Does anybody else have any issue with it?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's going to modiry the monitoring aspects of that.
MS. MOSCA: Right.
And then I spoke with Nicole Ryan yesterday regarding Policy 6.3.3. And that's on Page 34 of your packet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the only issue I was going to bring up to you too, so --
MS. MOSCA: Okay. I just wanted to restate The Conservancy's position, that they would like the text to be
retained as written.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but she goes farther. And I want to get your input on this. At the August 27th
CCPC meeting, Michele Mosca indicated based upon inquiry as to why the policy would be deleted, that staff was no
longer recol11l11ending deletion, that the policy would remain.
Since that was said -- so you're not -- now you're reversing that. or did you not say that at the meeting?
Page 33 of SO
16 \ 1~?
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
MS. MOSCA: Well. my understanding from Gary McAlpin is that they were okay with retaining the text as
written. Initially coming from their group they had said to remove the policy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then why are you still rccommending it be deleted"
MS. MOSCA: It's just a historieal portion of the document. So what we can do is post CCPC, this particular
hearing, we can say starr is in agreement and we'll go ahead and retain that policy as written.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then when we come back lor the amendment cycle, we won't be seeing
this one being changed.
MS. MOSCA: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's consistent with what the Planning Commission's notes are from
written before and what you had said, so that works.
And next" Anything clse"
MS. MOSCA: I don't have anything elsc. thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that wraps up thc CCME. We'll move on to the intergovenmlental
coordination element, the ICE.
Does anybody have any issues in tlie ICE')
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 see Chuck moving up to the microphone, so --
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. Chuck Mohlke again with a comment on, if I may, the
interlocal ah'feements.
Sometimes in these comments we arc often too critical of a nllssing detail or an unobserved event in the past.
But tor those or us, and we're small in number, who were involved in the recent eftorts to incorporate a school
concurrency element into the comprehensive plan, I would suggest that it represents a very eomprehensive model of
the way in which intergovernmental units should cooperate with one another and thc development or that new
elemcnt to the plan. And the very detailed interlocal ab'feement that helps implemcnt the features or the plan is
deserving at some point in time maybe or recognition for a process that unf(llded in a very systematic. careful, planful
(sic) way and endcd up with a new feature of the plan that will complement nicely such things as the future Land Use
Element, the development of very detailed population cstimates so as to better accommodate ruture school
populations, will havc an impact ecrtainly on the transportation clement. paIlicularly when issues that are relatcd to
when a road will be built and how it will accommodate the need to p"lVlde I(lf future students at every grade level in
Collier County.
And I just thought perhaps it would be appropriatc to mcntion an cxample of how intergovernmental
coordination and cooperation worked well in recent years, and if we can use it and some orthe things that we've
leamcd from transportation planning in the past, maybe the consideration in the future of overlays where there are
issues regarding adjacencies to municipalities or adjacencies 10 federally and state regulated lands, that we can lean1
something from that very steady, careful and well orchestrated process that led to thc school concurrency element.
And thank you f(1r the opportunity to make thcse remarks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Chuck"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER Chuck" Back here, Brad.
Since we brought the school distriet in, do you think we should bring in thc tire districts too"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ooh. you want to step into that"
MR. MOHLKE: Well. I'd be glad to inJust -- in one limited way.
Because the independent distriet accountability act of 1989, amended in 1997, in no instance that I'm aware
or acknowledged the fact that independent distlicts that play an imponant role in the community need to be a part or
the comprehensive planning process, and they're not. About the only time that they get even mentioned in
implementing documents hke the Land Development Code is whcn issues of eollocation come up. How can these
new important essential services be accommodated in tenns of land usc. And how can they be acconunodatcd in
close coordination with other users of land that providc essential services: sheriff substations, lor example, the
constitutional offiecrs are only loosely related to the comprehensive planning process. Very loosely related.
And if there is a way that some enlightened legislator could champion the motion that 163 and all the
Page 34 or 50
. I
161
1
P0
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
adjacent occupants, particularly 189, 190, and those other statutes that affect the independent districts could call for
the kind of coordination that was so well illustrated by the adoption of new provisions to put school concurrency into
comprehensive Growth Management Plans, that would be a beginning.
Because right now we don't really have a mechanism except as we call upon people of goodwill to reach
across the table and shake hands and say let's work togcther. Other than that, we have a long and unhappy history of
lack of cooperation and coordination. And hopefully that will bc changed in the future.
But iryou can encourage putting independent districts, as the school district once was, totally absent from
mention in the comprehensive plan, except in some ways related to transportation, hurricane evacuation and other
matters, I think it would be a great contribution legislatively, at least in Southwest Florida.
Is that responsive"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's good. thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck.
It's interesting to see different perspectives. I remember the school board episode as being one ofthe worst
ones that I experienced. The browbeating, the intimidation, the demands that were put upon the county and the
county process that it had to deal with, I didn't see it as a good solution. I saw it as a very difficult process. I
remembered explicitly. And I remember meeting with Michele numerous times.
And I appreciate Chuck's perspective on it, but I sce it a little differently. So maybe the outcome was
beneficial. I'm not sure whose -- what side of the taxpayers won on that one yet, though.
So with that said, there's no other things on the intergovenunental issue, let's move on to the future land use.
Jim, is this an intergovernmental"
MR. FLANIGAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. FLANIGAN: Ijust want to bring up the point that the watershed management plan covers a whole
myriad of governmental agencies that need to be involved between Corps of Engineers and Water Management
District. And I don't know if there's any policy within these intergovemmental coordination elements that calls them
to come to the table and cooperate. So that's just the point I want to make.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mac, when you finish for example your watershed plan, are you going to have to submit it to the agencies for
sign-ofl and concurrence, or how does that work?
MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher, Stornlwater and Environmental Planning.
We're not required to submit to the agencics for sign-off We do have representatives rrom the Water
Management District, DEP, EPA, City of Naples, City of Marco participating in the process. We have planned
presentations to the Big Cypress Basin board, the City of Naples. So it's I guess cooperation amongst stafT primarily
at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you produce a watershed management plan. that will generally have impact
with certain regulations on a county ordinance basis. And we adopt it and we decide to go forward with whatever
impacts it may have regulatory-wise for our efTorts, would the South Florida Water Management District be obligated
to adhere to our concerns in regards to watershed management, or are they still going to go on thcir merry way and we
have a plan that's maybe not directly in aligmnent with theirs?
MR. HATCHER: From a pennitting standpoint, I believe they'd be obligated to go with our regulations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even where they conflict with ours?
MR. HATCHER: If our regulations were more stringent than theirs, they would be obligated to go with us.
We could not expect them to adopt a less stringent standard if we did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the coordination basically is whoever's interpretation is, is of the strictest
provIsIon.
MR. HATCHER: I believe that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's not much coordination.
MR. HATCHER: It's certainly not full coordination.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Now, it's a good cOl11l11ent, it's a good thought. Is there a way that coordination
can be improved through this element or the GMP"
MR. BOSI: I mean, we can suggest a policy towards where we establish a rormalmechanism of cooperation
Page 35 of 50
Decemb}7~J CCPllAR ~,
between Collier County and the Water Management District, if that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's already there, they actually review -- we actually give them the review
of water management plalU1ing right now, I think. Wc defer most of it to them anyway.
I'mjust wondering in the watershed management process, why aren't we seeking more coordination in
regards to this kind or an issue" It would be tClTible to have a -- go through all this effort after years and have this
plan established only to havc South Florida say well. we still like our interpretation better so we're going to go by
ours. And I wonder why we wouldn't have gonc there in the Erst plaee.
MR. BOSI: I guess I, not being part of the meetings ami discussions between Mac and the staff of South
Florida Water Management District, I'm not sure if that's not already going on as it exists today.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: I think lt's a good heads up. If you get this plan done, and it doesn't seem to be
supported, you've got problems.
MR. IIA TCHER: Y cah. I mean. wc've always intentioned to bring to the attention -- or bring to the attention
orthe commissioners any areas that might be contrary to statc or federal policies. It just seems a little presumptuous
of us to expect the state and federal agencies to --
CHAlRM AN STRAIN: Adhere to our standards.
MR. HATCHER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I didn't -- I would agree Wllh you. I was just curious as to how far that's been
thought out with them in regards to their signing oil on it except saying that this meets our minimum standards.
Instead we're going to meet our standards and if it doesn't meet theirs, they're still going to abide by theirs. That's
interesting.
MR. HATCHER: It's more up to us to mect their standards than them to meet ours.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, I think it's a point well made.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to the Future Land Use Element.
As far as lunch goes, everyone, I'm not sure how much longer we have. We could wrap it up in an hour, hour
and a half or we could take lunch and come back and wrap it up after lunch.
What do you guys -- what's the preference of the board') So I know when to give Chcrie' a break.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: lrwe're going to bc an hour and a halC I'd rather have lunch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. it could be. lJust don't know how long we're going to -- you know. wc've got
speakers and people are going to be addressing things. So it's hard to say how long we're going to take on each onc.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Let's take a break now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. well. we'll -- oh, you want -- Barry's looking for lunch or a break"
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Lunch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what we'll do is about 11:45 we'll break for an hour lor lunch and we'll
finish up after lunch. So let's just go on for another 15 minutes.
David? Oh. you're herc becausc of any issues with the FLUE. Or did you have an opening statement you
want to make?
MR. WEEKS: Actually. I<Jr thc record. I'm David Wecks of the Comprehensive PlaJming Section.
And I do have three items I would likc to discuss briefly. The lirst two are conunents from the FDOT
regarding reconunended changes to the density rating system and the Future Land Use Element.
One of the proposed changes is to eliminate the tramc congestion area boundary and the associated density
rcduction factor of one dwelling unit per acre and replace it with a coastal high hazard area density reduction factor or
one unit per acre.
The erfect is to take thc boundary and move it seaward, which mcans that that density reduction factor applies
to fewer properties Of, conversely, allows higher density on a bJfcater number of properties now.
And stall is in cvaluation and detennincd that approximately 480 acres would now be eligible fix a density'
increase by shifting the boundary as proposed. That translates into approximately 6,500 trips additional. And that's
based upon a rule of thumb orsix trips per day lor multi-family. 10 per day for single-family. and assurning a 50/50
split between dwelling unit types.
Now, that I would say is at or near the maximum impact. I purposely discounted properties that those zoned
Page 36 of 50
I
161
1
f\'?
December 7, 20 I 0 CCPC/EAR
agricultural and that's our typical up-zoning, occurs from agriculture. They're developed with substantial buildings,
developed with schools, wifh ehurches, other types of institutional development.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all 480 acres will first or all come forward for rezoning to
residential. Secondly I don't believe it's reasonable to assume that all of those properties that do come forward would
ask for a density increase that would result from this change. That is, if the property's eligible for three units per acre,
they may not pursue a density higher than that.
But that would be the maximum impact, approximately 6,500 trips, 806 dwelling units.
The second comment from FDOT had to do with the change to the residential infill density bonus.
And I want to stress first or all that the change that is being proposed does not increase the density in and of
itself. The residential infill density bonus is for three dwelling units pcr acre today, and with our proposed change it
will still be three units per acre. The change is to how the density is derived.
You rnight recall, many of you, that back in 2002 when we adopted the rural fringe, the Growth Management
Plan Amendments, wc modificd this density bonus provision to now require that the first of the three dwelling units in
that bonus be obtained through a TDR credit, transrer of development rights credit, from the rural fringe area. lt was
intended to help make that TDR program successlul, to force it to be used in the urbanized area.
Actually, thc -- about the only cffect that that has happened is that this density bonus is no longer used.
People avoid it. It's been used I believe once since 2002.
Staff proposes that that requirement be removed. Our rationale is that it is not fulfilling its objective of
helping the TDR prob'fam be successful. And because it existed previously ever since 1989 up to 2002, it was deemed
an appropriate density bonus then and we still think it is today without that TDR requirement.
It's difficult to quantify what the impact will be, because the actual density bonus does not change. But staff
would expect the bonus to be used more than it is with the TDR requirement.
The maximum impact, that is assuming 100 percent utilization ofthis density bonus, could result in about
2,800 dwelling units or about 2,300 trips. And if you go to what I think is closer to but probably still too high of a
reasonable figure, it would be 714 dwelling units at about 5.700 trips.
And just as with the traffic congestion area bonus, this is applicable throughout the coastal urban area, so it's
not necessarily conccntrated in one particular area. It goes rrom near the Lee County line all the way down to the
vicinity ofCollicr Boulevard and U.S. 41.
And my third -- unless there's comments or questions on those two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one.
If we change this density to make it easier for someone to utilize them, which this would do it, I think you're
even acknowledging they would be used more, what are we saying in regards to the requirement of compatibility? I
mean, we have an odd -- I shouldn't sayan odd way, we have a complex way of assessing compatibility. And it's
done sometimes by buffers, the heights of trees, the number oftrees, the -- whether there's a wall, the distance for the
parking lots and things like that. And we look at quantity, how much the density is on a parcel next to another parcel.
By clearing out this methodology to either reduce or increase your density and by eliminating the TDR
requirements and even going from a traffic reduction to a CHA and moving that line further west, are we causing any
obligations to award density if it is proven to be incompatible?
MR. WEEKS: I don't think it anyway. Because the density bonuses are not entitlements, they're
discretionary. And the rezoning critcria in the Land Development Code includes compatibility, includes
infrastructure impacts and so forth. So those same rezoning considerations that apply today will apply tomorrow if
this density bonus changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the density bonuses are still always optional.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, tharlk you.
MR. WEEKS: The third point I just wanted to touch on is pertaining to the planning horizon issue. And we
have a future land use map with a planning horizon of I thillk 2016. It's out of date. It needs to be moved out. We
have the RLSA program with a 2025 time horizon. We have transportation maps under the MPO that are out to 2030
and soon will be out to 2035. We have inconsistent time horizons; we've identified that as an issue here.
And we've also, in the most recent round or GMP amendments. we adopted a policy that says during this
EAR we will identifY this issue and rectifY it during the EAR-based amendments.
Page 37 of 50
16 \ 1 f'?
December 7. 20 10 CCPc/EAR
Ijust wanted to point out that we don't know yet what that planning horizon is going to be that we're going to
choose to make the dates align. It sounds simple. just pick a date and apply that date across the board. But the
impacts it has upon the various planning prob'fams that the county has may he signiticant. We need data and analysis
to support whatever platming horizon we choose. So if we pick 2025 or 2030. or whatever it may be. we have to
make surc we have different infrastructure components planned out that far, transportation, water, wastewater, et
cetera.
And one issue in particular has come up recently and was discussed in a ditTerenl context earlier and that was
the interchange future, possible interchange, in the vicinity ofl-75 and Everglades Boulevard.
Well, such an interchange is identified in the 2035 transportation maps under the MPO. but it is not identified
in the Growth Management Plan transportation maps. And that would nced to occur at some point in time before that
interchange at whatev'cr chosen location could go fOr\vard.
I just wanted to touch on the tact that there are -- it's going to be a task to come up with the date and the
supporting data and analysis, but it is something wc must do and we will do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And David, are you going to be here after we finish the FLUE" Do you
have other reasons to be in the room?
MR. WEEKS: I can stick around.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. no, no. we can try to linish the FLUE bell>re lunch iryou're intending to leave
for the rest orthe day. Or if you're going to be here anyway, wc'lljust try to -- we'll break at an earlier time and comc
back to you.
MR. WEEKS: I would prcfcr not to stick around.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll try to linish up the FLUE, if we can do so quickly.
Chuck, did you have something you want to add before we get into our questions?
MR. MOHLKE: I did. Mr. Chairman. thank you. Again, Chuck Mohlke.
Not cnough can be said about David Weeks' institutionalmcmory and his contribution of probably
approaching 30 years to improving our understanding of\and use issues --
MR. WEEKS: I'm not that old, Chuek.
MR. MOHLKE: -- in Collier County
Disclaimer noted.
Thcre is another clement. Mr. Chainnan, that you and I have talked about from time 10 time that bears
directly on Mr. Weeks' third point here. Not only do we have thcsc inconsistencies in terms of Future Land Use Maps
and the timing of them, but we havc one of those rare instanccs, we won't have it again until the years 2030 and '31, in
which there is a coincident in time, thc ccnsus, the EAR, the transportation development plan and a wide variety of
other regularly scheduled reviews of land uses and mapping and population concerns.
There is begilming to be an ability on the part of all the allected jurisdictions to hannonize their population
estimates with what we will soon find the census will tell us as to \vhether O[ not there are inconsistencies between our
earlier estimates and today.
But there is another element of this which is land use related that I'd just like to mention now and not expect
Me. Weeks to comment on except as he thinks is appropriate.
To be blunt about it, we have land use mapping issues which are grossly out or date. For example, the
planning community districts drawn in 1982 based upon the eensus of that time. and thought to be of h'feat importance
because of the way in which it han11<mized with the newly created Metropolitan Planning Organization or MPO.
You have throughout the early parts of the EAR documents that you have in front or you, particularly under
the first item assessments, that use ror purposes or historic rendering of what's happcncd sincc the last EAR in respect
to residential growth, commercial grov.,th and a variety orother things.
These boundaries have clmngcd significantly in tcnns of the way in which areas adjacent to the municipalities
have changed. And many or them represent issues in which important essential municipal services metastasize into
the unincorporated area and cover all the issues that are related to potential future land use.
But nowhere that I'm aware of, and I stand to be corrected, is there really a coherent form of coordination and
cooperation between municipalities and county govemment -- it could perhaps happen with the EAR process at the
municipalities this next year -- in which they could be treated as a unified entity and not as an accent of annexation
and a variety of other things.
Page 38 of 50
16 \ 1 f'\?
December 7,2010 CCPC/EAR
We're creating, in these enclaves that I spoke about before, pockets that are going to have to be addressed by
somebody sometime that are related to law enforcement, housing issues, hurricane evacuation, transportation, the list
could go on.
I would urge that somewhere, Mr. Chairman, there be addressed the issue or should we look at wholesale
major revisions in the community development districts and the planning process in terms of how we gather data, how
we report data and how those users or data come before you when they petition tins committee and the board ror map
amendments, future land uses and a wide variety of other things. Because we now have great disproportionality in the
way in which this information is handled and the way information gathcred rrom the Property Appraiser, other
constitutional officers and other agencies, some of them local, some of them not, and the way in which these differing
points of the view that are essentially population driven, but not always, they're not compatible. They need to be
made compatible. And Mr. Weeks knows a great deal about this.
Andjust as a closing comment, some of this will become apparent to the Board or County Commissioners
and others who have to change district boundary lines next year in tenns of the reapportionment and redistricting
process.
And brand new population information will be made widely available, which will differ profoundly, let me
assure you, profoundly, with the estimates which are now available based upon which we develop planning
instruments and accommodate to future needs.
And I would hope that this modest comment made here could be incorporated in some manner in the ruture
use of census inrormation and the coordination of these activities with our other units or local government. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
With the Planning Commission's pennission, I would like to finish up the fLUE before we break for lunch. Is
that okay"
And Cherie', would that work for you"
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hopefully we'll move rorward.
David, Chuck's comments. I think one of the most blatant issues that came up is this idea of affordable
housing and how by district by district it was evaluated, and it didn't seem to fit reality.
Now you guys have come back and done it by another methodology. Sometimes you can look at it area by
area. Like East Naples isn't one commission district, it's actually three. So your pl3lming communities that we have
also don't follow any other lines. We have commission districts, we have planning committee districts, we have
different levels of districts.
Is there an opportunity to realign planning districts to give us a better evaluation? Is something -- is what
Chuck said an idea that may work? And I'm not sure the EAR is the right answer for that, but I'd like to get your input
or response.
MR. WEEKS: A couple of things. One, staff has been resistent to changing the boundaries to the planning
communities previously because we like the ability to have historical data. If you leave the boundaries the sarne, then
as you gather data over time you always have a consistent apples to apples comparison. East Naples is East Naples,
North Naples is North Naples and so forth.
But I cannot disagree with Chuck that as the county has developed more and more and more, you do have to
scratch your head and say well, why do we have the central Naples plarlning community at that location? We may
I1nd that it might be appropriate to have fewer planning communities, or maybe the opposite, have more planning
communities.
We're to tie it in with the EAR. There is a place. ] don't have the Future Land Use Element with me, but it's
under objective four. There is a policy that refers to collecting and reporting data by certain geographies, by
communities and whatever tenninologies. And we've historically done that primarily by planning community, and
then we've also by population data, cornmercial inventory, industrial inventory and so rorth.
Planning communities, county-wide, unincorporated, the municipalities, that policy under objective four
would be the appropriate place, if you so desire, to add a comment that the county consider changing its plarunng
community boundaries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't take that far of a leap. I would suggest that we make sure the
Page 39 of 50
DecembeJ ~10 \CCPC/!.R ~
policy allows you to evaluate the effectiveness of the planning communities at every EAR opportunity. I mean, that
gives you every seven years you can go back and say okay. is this planning community the most effective the way it's
done now. And the effectiveness could hc weighed on historical content, it could be weighed on political boundaries
or whatever. Or even the census as it comes oul.
I think that would give you some t1exibility f{Jf right now. And if we notice that my goodness, we're really
remiss in the way we've not addressed thcse boundaries before. we can tighten that one up next time.
But I think right now we ought to just take the exploratory approach and say are we as effective, based on the
inrornlation we have. by leaving it the way it is. And I think if you wcre to write that ability to explore that into a
policy and consistent with thc -- concurrent with thc EAR process, I think that would be a good way to approach it, to
take a look at it. It wouldn't hurt to takc a look at it. I think it's a very good comment.
Does anybody have any objeetion to that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No
COMMISSIONER HORNIAK: No.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman. if] understand what you'rc suggesting is to add an EAR comment that we--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Evaluate the planning communities that we currently have to see if they're aligned in
the best fashion based on current information.
MR. WEEKS: I think that's good.
And as Chuck has pointed out, thIS is a good time, because we're going to have the release of census data.
starting with certain population data next year and then over the year or two after that additional data rrom the Census
Bureau. And that's the ideal time, if welre going to make changes, when we get [\ fresh set of census data.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you. Chuck, that was a good suggestion.
Okay. wc're back on the FLUE, David's linished his comments.
Anybody else have any comments on the FLUE')
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, and it's lor David and Mike both.
You're reducing the density in the coastal high hazard area by -- or you will by the suggested language. How
are you balancing out the affordabilityO And I don't mean just aftordable housing. When you lower density, you
increase per unit costs.
We're almost saying that we're going to make the coastal area ofColher County an exclusivity for people
who can aftord more.
Have you thought about how that discourages the demographics or the area based on economics or income"
MR. WEEKS: I have not specilically evaluated that, Mr. Chainnan. I was coming at this from a perspective
of the way this has been since 1989 when we adopted this plan. The coastal high hazard arca has allowed flJf higher
densities, but at the same time it's the area where wc want to discourage high densities from developing.
It's always been a balancing act. Because there is the legitimate coneenl of not putting population and
structures. property, in harm's way within the coastal high hazard area, but at the same time recognizing that we
historically have had quite a need ror atllJfdable housing.
And the way it's been dealt with initially. go back to thc '89 plan, there was actually a limitation on the
number of aflordablc units through the dcnsity bonus IlJf aftl"dable housing that could be developed within the
coastal high hazard area, and then over time that was amended to bc removed to simply open the door to an unlimited
number.
I'm suggesting that we eliminatc that opportunity for the bonus, Ihat wc impose a cap of tour units per acre
without the exception of atrordable housing. And coming at it from a -- shifting the balance to the safety coneen1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How often has someone taken advantage of putting an affl"dable housing III thc
coastal high hazard area?
MR. WEEKS: Very limited. It's limited.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason, it seems hke we're really going to really have -- you talk about
enclaves or isolated factors, we're going to create an enclave of exclusivity flJf those that can arrord the lower
densities along the most preferred area of the county, which is the coast, to those that can't, which will forcc
everybody who can't rurthcr inland.
I'm not sure irthat's setting the right tone in regards to how we look at equality of evcrybody's ability,
Page 40 of 50
,
/,
161
1 ~"
December 7, 2010 CCPClEAR
whether -- no matter what their income is, to benefit from an asset like our shoreline, or being close to the coast.
We don't have the adequate number of beach accesses now, we don't have an adequate number of parking,
boat slips, anything, unless you've got a lot of money. And I'm not sure that's the right thing we should be doing in
this county. I'm not sure this -- I'm not sure that this is going to not simply encourage that even more, which I see as a
bad thing. I'm sure the people living on the coast don't sce it that way, but --
MR. WEEKS: Ijust wanted to point out, I don't have quantifieation, as I was discussing earlier about other
matters, but the coastal high hazard area, it's significarltly built out. The opportunity for rezonings for affordable
housing densities or not is rather limited. Essentially it is west of U.S. 41, it does jog around some, but west of 41
from the Lee County line coming down to approximately Golden Gate Parkway. And then it jogs east over more or
less to Airport Road and then down to 41 east.
And if you look at the map and you look at the zoning of the land as well as what's actually developed --
because the zoning I think is equally as important as what is actually developed. Because irthe zoning is in place,
someone has to make the decision that that's what they believe is appropriate for their land.
My point is that thc opportunity for the rezoning to implement this atlordable housing density is limited.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would it hurt to leave it in then" If that rare occasion comes along that
another cross-section of the cOl11l11unity can benefit from a place closer to the beach, what's wrong with it? I mean,
people who have a lot or money got to evacuate just like people who don't. And if it's not going to have that much of
an impact on the overall density, what are we worried about? Why paint that picture that we want to have that more
exclusive area? I'm not sure that's a good thing to do.
MR. WEEKS: That's the good counterpoint.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On fhat point too, and I agree with you, is David, the building codes and all
the regulations are protecting the people in those areas. I mean, granted, they'll have to evacuate, but a structure built
properly should survive. So there's no danger there being in that area, other than the inconvenience of evacuating.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the position I'm taking is that fine, go to the reduction in the coastal high
hazard area under standard density, elirninale the traffic congcstion like you're suggesting, but don't elirninate the
ability for a density bonus in the CHHA. That lcavcs the diversity we might somehow happen. Even though it might
be very rare and lirnited, at least it's not completcly slamming the door.
And that's -- Brad seems -- Melissa.
Paul, are you against less expensive housing"
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Barry, Diane, Karen anybody?
COMMISSIONER HORNIAK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think the consensus -- that's the general consensus, so--
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask ror clarification? Because they're actually by -- I'm rcading
through on Page 13 of the Future Land Use Element. And it's the last paragraph -- second to the last paragraph on the
page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I have my note, how do we balance the income levels, so--
what was your point?
MR. WEEKS: My COl11l11ent is that I'm looking at the last line on that -- or starting on the next to last line,
after the scrnicolon. And revise the conversion of commercial bonus to prohibit its application within the coastal high
hazard area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: I may have been misspeaking carlier to talk about the affordable housing.
I'm looking for the language that refers -- but I think you're correct, Ijust want to make certain-- about what
exactly I propose, that it would place an absolute cap at four units per acre. Which means no bonuses, affordable
housing or otherwise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I thought you were intcnding. If! was wrong that -- that's fine. I'm
just suggesting, and it's something that you could pursue afterwards, but I think this board is saying generally the
Page 41 of 50
16l 1
~
December 7, 2010 CCPClEAR
reduction in the CHHA is okay, but don't climinate the atfordable housing density bonus.
MR. WEEKS: Could I break this into a couple of different areas then') Maybe leave the affordable housing
as the only bonus that would be applicable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. WEEKS: I believe thcre's only two bonuses light now applicable in (he coastal high hazard area. Most
of the others explicitly statc that they're not applicable there. Or as part of this amendment we're proposing that where
there's a rererence now to a bonus not applying in the traffic congestion area, that instead that change to say this bonus
would not be applied -- applicable to the coastal high hazard area. So I think the only two are alIordable housing and
conversion of conunercial bonus.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're rcmoving that by the last line orthat paragraph you refcrred to.
MR. WEEKS: Right. So what I'm asking thcn, would the Commission find it acceptable to remove thc
conversion of conunercial bonus but not remove the affordable housing density bonus.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what we acknowledged.
MR. WEEKS: Okay
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think any -- I mean, myself, I didn't have a question about your commercial.
The convcrsion of commercial bonus without requiring it to be aftordable, doesn't help anybody except make more
higher price units somebody can profit from in a very limited exclusive area.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think all I'm trying to suggest is If there's a possibility, and you're saying that it
could be even very rare, if indeed at all, if we don't have to be so exclusive and can provide some affordable housing,
we can do it.
I don't think it will evcr happen. but at least it's a ehance.
Okay, anybody else have any other questions on the FLUE belore we lct David fill1'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll break lor an hour for luneh. Let's come back at I :00 and we will then
resume by picking up the Golden Gate Arca Master Plan comments at that point.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Mike
Welcome back everyone trom our vcry, very cold luneh. Where we nonnally sit was not pleasant today.
So with that in mind. we'll move into where we lcfi otY which was thc Golden Gate Area Master Plan
portion. Let's just proceed like we always have.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Corby.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions about the Golden Gate Area Master Plan?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Corby. you have an introduction you want to start out with?
MR. SCHMIDT: Just quickly, Mr. Chainnan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. SCHMIDT: A number of entries from previous meetings or workshops where direction was taken or
recommendations were given have been changed based on latest recommendations or direction from you in that these
items be put off until the Golden Gate area restudy can look at them comprehensively. I believe thcre's more than 20
changes hke that in here that covers almost all of the items that had been discussed previously.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I believe the community -- and it's the preference of the community, at
least the membcrs that I spoke to, and Jim Flanigan was here, I don't know if he's coming back for this or not. We're
looking forward to the lime we can have that reassessment done as \\'C --
MR. EFlY: There he is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There he is.
We're talking about you, buddy.
One policy, though, I'd like to ask you about, and it's Policy 6.2.4. That policy is not currently in the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan. And I'm a little concemed about it. And I know this is one that is referred to as being
deferred until taken up by the comprehensive master plan. but let me cxplain to you my concern. And I guess it's
because of past actions that wc've experienced in Golden Gate Estates from the transportation end or trungs.
Page 42 of 50
16\
1 f\~
December 7, 20 I 0 CCPC/EAR
It says: The county shall apply the standards and criteria of the access management policy as adopted by
resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection ofthe arterial and collector systems' capacity and integrity.
All of the policies that we seem to have are homogenous, they want to apply across the county. And it's kind
of like the discussion we had earlier that we have urban areas and now we have extensive rural areas and the same
standards don't necessarily apply.
There's a concern that the same issue rises here. Transportation's idea of six-laning massive corridors just
about everywhere may not be the best application for roads going through Golden Gate Estates. In fact, our current
GMP talks about roads of rural character and will have tree-lined and canopies and things like that. Well, you can't do
that with a six-lane road.
So I'm concerned that Policy 6.2.4 will lead to wuntended consequences because of its generic application
when it -- to say it's adopted because of the urban area or ror corridors that are known. All of a sudden that same
application's trying to be applied to the rural characteristics of a community like Golden Gate Estates, and I'm very
concerned about that in that policy.
And with that being said, whatever you do for the amendmcnt writeup, I will be looking at that myself in that
regard.
That's the only thing I have to say on all the Golden Gate Area Master Plan because all of the substantive
items you've labeled to be discussed by the committee in the future whcn that's formed. So I think with that said,
we're probably in good shape.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's one thing, and it's 6.3. You're recol11l11ending removing these
two things. And before they go away, one thing that the Estates does have is the b'1id system, which is, some people
would argue, a very efficient way to let traffic t10w because it doesn't collect it.
Wouldn't this be a good place for us to note that they should complete the grid and essentially the bridges and
make the grid an actual b'1id?
Because in planning there's two ways you can do it: You can put together a tributary system or the old city
grid, which does allow people to wander and pick their path.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe that's already in one of these policies. We talk about bridge connections. I
don't remember which --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't see it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't the whole master plan here, it's only excerpts from it, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we do make note where -- and I think it's in 6.2 or somewhere that they
could increase the linkages with the local road system, which I guess were the bridges.
In other words, if you want to achieve that, the -- and that's the problem with the emergency access, all the
times are long because the people have to leave the grid or go around the grid, which is the worst case.
MR. SCHMIDT: Make sure that staff looks closely at 6.3 and its under policies. Because I believe in the
longer version -- a previous version that did leave out thosc to be unchanged. That language is amended. And perhaps
if additional cross-referencing or mention may assist with that idea, we'll look at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 6.2.2. 6.2.2 on Page 19 starts to rerer to it. And they did a special study in
Collier Cowlty for the east of95l bridge study. And that bridge study prioritized the bridge lengths and they
acknowledged where they needed to be to I think meet what you're just now saying, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, I'm saying the whole h'1id, not -- some of these things you
see it referenced, it IS in certain areas to increase the travel time, but --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would just like to add, you know, irthey can improve the grid system then
you have less need for these big wide roads that have to knock down neighborhoods.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think that's what was acknowledged by the cOl11l11unity, and that's why the
east of951 bridge study became what it was and then they prioritized the bridges as soon as the funding's available.
And they probably put in20 years worth of bridges because of the funding. So I think we're way ahead of the game
right now in trying what we needed to do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Correct. And that was adopted by the Board of County COl11l11issioners, but it was as funding
Page 43 of 50
.',(
DecembJ.l~01 CCP!AR ~
becomes available. And as we know, that situation still has been somewhat of a shifting proposition in tenns of when
those funds will become available.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know. at the same time. if Nick took all the money he's spending on
obtaining right-of~way he doesn't need, hc could put a lot of bridges in, but that's another side bar.
Jim, did you have something you vvant 10 add'?
MR. FLANIGAN: Yeah. I think you werc referring to the bridge study.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. FLANIGAN: And I think in tenns oftlnancing, I think the recent LRTP shows the bridges not going in
until 2021 or something on that order. So runding not being available has a lot of effect on what the Growth
Management Plan can functionally do.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think there--
CHAJRMAN STRAJN: Karcn"
COMMISSIONER 1I0RNIAK: -- wcre about eight or so bridges in the LRTI' and two are cost feasible, so
they would be --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I ean't hear you.
COMMISSIONER 1I0RNIAK: I'm sorry. There were probably about eight bridges I think in the LRTP,
and two of them were cost feasible. So the rest will have to wait. They'll be coming shortly, I guess.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark. lClme--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jim. can I ask you a question" This is Brad. No, it is hard, because you
don't know. It's the ceiling talking to you.
How many bridges do you think -- I mean, to complete thc grid, how many bridges would it take"
MR. FLANIGAN: Originally I think -- oh, I don't know about that. But there were 12 bridges in the bridge
study to get connectivity around the Estates.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And those are really the speed of travel distance, I think.
MR. FLANIGAN: That's actually to takc disconnects out orthe dead-ends. Because at some point you had
to go down 16th Street all the way to gct -- and you eouldn't get to Everglades or the boulevard and somewhere.
There were disconnects that locked dillerent areas from getting out. There was only one way in and one way out.
That's what thc bridge was --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But that doesn't complete the grid. Likc I'm -- because I think like
the best potential is if you did put all your tributary and stull on the perimeter and you completed the grid, you would
have the best transportation. Or at least somc planners would say that.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Probably less cxpenSIve than making huge new roads, right"
CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Probably.
MR. FLANIGAN: Well, the grid system really is a series of huge new roads. Every -- you know, we're
talking about six lanes on most of the new --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
MR. FLANIGAN: -- roads. Is that what you're talking about'!
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. no, he's talking about maintaining the two-lane roads we havc now but just
putting more bridges in so that thc tratJic ean Ilow without having to have the six-lane roads.
MR. FLANIGAN: Yeah. And that should have some eflect on the whole n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You would just lilterto the edge.
MR. FLANIGAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then Irmn there you pick up tributaries.
All right. thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the bridges already studied provide more oppor -- more -- can't be in
place by thc time the next EAR comes around: is that a fair statement')
MR. BOSI: That is a rair statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So by the tune the next EAR comes around. we can reassess it. And if we're
able to do more bridges than we think, we could update the grid at that point, add more to it until we get it all
completed to a point that's acceptable.
Page 44 of 50
161
1 .t<'?
December 7,2010 CCPC/EAR
MR. BOSI: Exactly. And remember, the primary consideration for where those locations of where the
bridges were, the first consultation was with the first responders in trying to see how -- where the most effective
places in terms of reaching those areas that are cut off or bisected by the canals.
And as a side note, and it relates to the point that was just raised, at $4 rnillion estimated per bridge, the
amount of system relief that is provided compared to, you know, seven and a half million dollars per new road mile is
considerable. And so it is a much more cost errective and logical strategy to provide increased mobility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as the manager or our comprehensivc planning, you disagree with Nick
Casalanguida that we don't -- so he doesn't need to put all those roads in and tear up Golden Gate Estates. I'm glad you
said that.
How's your neck?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Talk about putting words in somebody's mouth, right"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One quick thing
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mike, all ofthese bridges would be almost identical, because they're in
identical positions. So somehow I've got to believe that you could put together a really good competitive prefab, let
the sponsor put his name on the side of a bridge and clean it up. That would be the greatest place to live ir all that grid
was completed out there.
MR. BOSI: But that is an alternative revenue funding source that I'm sure that transportation will definitely
explore.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick's watching the show. He's calling to complain to me right now. I can see it.
Well, Nick, I'm not going to answcr you. Boy, oh boy.
Okay. Well, anyfhing else on Golden Gate Area Master Plan?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to the Inunokalee Area Master Plan, which really isn't the
Immokalee Area Master Plan, it's just a couple sheets telling us it's coming.
Anybody have any cornments, questions or issues on that -- on those statements in our packet?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When"
MR. BOSI: And I willie! Ms. Valera, who is the project manager for the Jmmokalee Area Master Plan,
respond.
MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section.
It's coming. We have scheduled the EAC hearing for January the 5th, so hopefully we will come to you
sometime in February.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And will it be going through the CRA first?
MS. VALERA: I will confirm with Penny and I will let you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have the econornic element next, which has been revised per our last
discussion.
Any issues on the economic element with anybody"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike"
MR. BOSI: There was that one policy we discussed at the very beginning, a potential policy where we
monitored the unemployment rate on an annual basis, and we'll explore the development of a policy to do just that so
we can have a better understanding whether -- and the specifics of it we can get into at the time, but I just wanted to
make sure that that was something that the Planning Commission thought was appropriate to add to an additional
policy within the economic element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly think knowing the standing of our unemployment base and the amount of
employment we've increased by statistical numbers, if those are available it would be helpful. We could monitor
them on a regular basis. Everybody else?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're looking -- your policy ObJective 3, it looks like it could fit somewhere
there, Mike.
Page 45 of 50
16 l 1 A1J
December 7. 2010 CCPC fEAR
I have one question. Policy 3.1. The tenninology in 3.1 is a little not as flexible as I think we've tried to
make the rest of it. The county will support efforts by the EDC to lormulate a five-year economic development plan.
In thc rest or it the rererences were more generic. So I'm wondering if we want to commit Collier County to
having to support something they haven't even seen yet.
MR. BOSI: You're rererring to Policy 3.1 ')
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. BOSI: Collier County will support efrorts to lonn an economic development plan to assist local org--
so the question is do we want to -- because it's kind or -- is the concern the economic development plan is too
specific"
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure wc're not binding our -- wcll, lirst of aiL is that the only agency
in Collier County that would f(lrmulate a live-year economic development plan I()r us"
MR. BOSI: To my knowlcdge. yes. Maybe the -- yes, as rar as I would know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By naming thcm in this poliey and saying that we will support a plan formulated by
them, does that require us to fund them to f(lrmulate that plan" And what control over the way the plan is formulated
do we have if they're not an agency of Collier County'!
So what it gets back to is morc of a generic rcferenec rather than an agency specific that we can't controL
MR. BOS!: As it exists today. the policy -- you know. as I read it, will support an effort to lonnulate an
economic development plan.
The language that was proposed was proposed by the EDC. And what I hear is maybe that's too spccific in
going __ in back to the reference to an economic development plan within a general sense is more appropriate for a
policy within the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Irwe will suppon the effort to produce an economic development plan for
Collier County. And I don't know if we need to name the entity. It may obligate us to an argument that hey, you
named us, therefore we have to be funded by it. I'm not saying we shouldn't fund them. I'm just saying we need to
make sure our options always remain open and we don't lock ourselves in.
MR. BOSI: Based upon that, then thc existing policy, Colher County will support efl(,ns to I()rmulate an
economic development plan to assist local organizations in fostering the expansion and diversification of the county's
economic base. That should serve to -- as appropriate \\lithout a need for modification?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sounds to me like it does. 1 didn't cvcn look at that page. Right. that does. Why
would we necd to change it?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody okay with that"
MR. BOS!: No change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No change. yeah.
And thc next item up is the public schools lacility element. I didn't know what PSFE stood for there for a
minute. Pubhc schools racilities element. Just a couple of pages.
Docs anybody have any comments on the policies and recommendations in that section of our quest here
before us today')
(No responsc.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thcn that ends the typical sections of our GMPP, and we get into the
specialty major issues of which there are what, live or six items mentioned.
And I know that DCA cOl11l11ented on some of these as well. Staff responded. So let's see if we have any
qucstions on tab by tab.
The water resource protection plan. Does anybody have any questions on the conmlents under that tab"
(No rcsponsc.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mike, can you tell us the value of having these ineluded in the EAR? Since
they aren't specific recommendations to policy issucs within the document, what wcight do they carry and where does
it lead us in regards to amendments?
MR. BOSI: These are the major issues that werc alo'feed upon. and the way that the EAR is intended to work.
These major issues received extra attention as we went through the individual clements. And the elements were
weighed against how we were measuring our success for water resource protection.
Page 46 of 50
December + 2~ 0 ~CPC/!R ,t(?
The individual-- the concurrency management issue, the affordable housing issue, climate change, we
weighed fhose issues and our assessment of those issues against our objectives and our policies to see where maybe
improvements needed to be made within our policies to further these major issues.
So really, they're the support documentation for a lot of the changes that are being suggested within chapter
two, which is the individual element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the assumption we should have made in reading these is that whatever
flags that were in here that needed to be highlighted, you've already addressed them in the language that we just went
over through the various elements.
MR. BOSI: Yes. We -- the areas that we said that needed changes, a lot of them were motivated by the issue
of water management, the issue of eoneurrency management, the issue of climate changc, the issue of affordable
housing and all the eight major issues that we've agreed upon.
So they really are support documentation ror the actions that are being taken within chapter two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now that we're looking at it under that prcmise, does anybody have any
questions under the water resource backup documentation"
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District documentation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one would be the rural lands documentation. Does anyone have any issues
with the rural lands documcntation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one is climate change and enerh'Y suffici -- efficiency. Anybody have any
issues there?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Again, it's all backup to what we already went through, so I'm not sure what
relevance it's going to carry it individually.
The affordable housing infonnation supply.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, the afrordable housing information that was distributed to us today, will that
also be used as backup to the affordable housing element that you -- I mean backup data you have"
MR. BOS!: That -- we expect the Board or County Conunissioners will direct us. We're going to ask them
to utilize the affordable housing market rate study that we are going to discuss on the 14th to provide supplemental
information to understand their availability of afrordable housing as it exists today as support documentation.
So the intention from starfis to ask the Board of County Commissioners for us to include the affordable
housing study as part of the backup information contained within this EAR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any issues on the housing?
Melissa"
COMMISSIONER AHERN: We discussed at the last evaluation reducing it from 1,000 to 850. Is that going
to be revised here as well?
MR. BOS!: Not with -- this is the support documentation that's going to provide the justification for that
reduction.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay.
MR. BOS!: And that housing study that was provided today really does provide a lot of data and analysis as
to why we think it's appropriate to go from that 1.000 to 850. because the bearing that the market is providing right
now within those thresholds for affordability.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
The concurrency management backup material. Does anybody have any issues with that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming that coincides with the AUIR"
MR. BOS!: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have the urban development patterns tab, second to the last one. Any
issues with that?
Page 47 of 50
16~
1 to
December 7,2010 CCPC/EAR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a qucstion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, the way you stretehed the map on Page I, is that to delineate the
spraw I concerns you have?
MR. BOSI: Subconsciously, maybe. But what I hcard in discussion this moming trom the Planning
Conunission was that growing recognition, or that recognition Irom the Planning Commission that within the
appropriate urbanized area, higher densities, because of the advantagcs and the issucs of social equity and because of
issues related to transportation problems when we have to provide or hus in our employees tfom far reaches of the
county, that there are appropriate areas within the urbanized area where higher densities do make sense. But no, it
wasnlt an overt attempt.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I hopc you realize that was a joke. That was a pretty serious answer.
MR. BOSI: Yeah, I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last item that we have in our baekup paekage is intergovernmental
coordination. And are there any questions on that section?
(No rcsponse.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us through the entire adoption book for the EAR. Again, the EAR is a
concept document in which we will build amendments to the Growth Management Plan for rurther review in a very
detailed manner down the road, probably a year or more tfom now.
So with that in mind, Mike, I think the next item is a motion from this board; is that eorrect?
MR. BOSI: Correct, Chair. What staffis seeking is a motion Irom the Planning Commission for
recol11l11endation of approval as modified as today, as discussed within the individual policics, the additional policies
that we described to adopt. and then to transmit to the Department of Community At1airs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we ask a motion. just so there's no other comments. does anybody in the
audience wish to conunent before we propose a motion?
Margaret's been sitting baek thcrc all day and not said a word.
Okay, with that, is there a motion lrom this board"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, the motion -- cxcusc mc, we're making a motion to just -- because
all this really did today was add the eomments that evcrybody made, and ours being the last. We're not going to
forward it; arcn't you going to now go -- well. what is the process for you frOlI1 here"
MR. BOSI: We now -- the site modifications that we'rc dirccted from the Plmming Conunission today will
be incorporated into this book. and the book will bc presented as it is today with those modifications to the Board of
County Commissioners for adoption and then transmittal to the Department of COl11l11unity Affairs. And they'll make
an evaluation as to whether we have hit all the statutory requirements within this document.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the rcwording that you're going to propose will be done and then go to
the COll1lnission and we won't see it? \\/hat am I missing here'.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. okay. therc's some eonrusion. Thcrc's thrce steps -- lour steps that arc going
to go fhrough yet.
This EAR is a concept document about ideas that we don't feel -- or everybody, including the public may not
feel has been adequately addressed in thc current language. Those concepts now get recommended by us today to go
to the Board of County Conmlissioners.
They go to the board for adoption as official concepts. Meaning we've got to look at this, and we've got to
look at this when we come back to do the amendment process. which takes those concepts and puts it in really
hard-line language where we can sink our teeth into every word that they put into that parah'faph.
Now, that process WC1yC agreed will have a workshop, then a transmittal, and then an adoption. So this is still
purely wnceptuaL It just kind of sets thc stagc fi:Jr things that we want to talk about further. And we're not obligated
to accept any of them as time goes on. And in fact, when the specific language comes out, irit's in thc wrong
direction or we decide by then that it's inappropriate, it can be washed out of the system at that point.
Is that a fair statement, Mike"
MR. BOSI: It's a good representation orthc process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So tllis is basically a housekeeping matter required by the state beforc we can go to
the next stagc, which is more detailed.
Page 48 of 50
161
1 t'
December 7,2010 CCPC/EAR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially a motion that we -- and I'll try it, okay? That this be a motion
that we recornmend approval of the concepts -- that these concepts are representative of what the Planning
Commission wants for the EAR. Is that good enough, or do you --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For adoption, and then recommending ror transmittal as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, for adoption and transmittal as well.
MR. BOSI: Adoption and transmittal to thc Department ofConmlUnity Arrairs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Does that -- okay, so a motion has been made to recommend adoption of this
EAR in its fonTI as described, and transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs.
Is there a second"
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane.
Okay, is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
And that takes care ofthe EAR.
MR. BOSI: And excuse me, I'm sorry, Chair, before we end, I just wanted to extend my personal thanks to
all the efrort and ener6'Y that each one of the members -- I know this is outside of your normal course and a little bit
different of an animal and arena that you're used to operating within. But it's very important.
And the attention that was paid to this document and to fhe process is appreciated by staff and I know the rest
of the viewing public.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mike, from my perspective, you have been the best manager of that
department that I've worked with in the 30 years I've been in Collier County. So congratulations to you, you've made
the process less painful ror us.
Every item that we've asked for as far as cooperation goes you've gone to the extent to try to cooperate in
every manner whatsoever. So I'm very pleased working with you on this, and it's been a pleasure from my
perspective and I'm sure the rest ofthe board shares that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and let me add one thing. 1be brevity of your answers compared to
others is extremely appreciated.
MR. BOSI: Acknowledgcd. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the accuracy of the answers too might not be bad.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we've had a motion. we've vetted, we've passed it. Now we're at
the point we can adjourn. Is there a motion to adjoum?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER HORNIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry raised his hand.
All in fa vor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
Page 49 of 50
161 1 ..~
December 7, 2010 CCPC/EAR
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
We're out or here. Thank you, Mike.
*************
There being no further business for the good of the County. the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :28
p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
) cL
\; ~l !~~
MARK TRAIN, Chairman
V
These minutes approved by the board oll1-:J....~LL_ as presented .~ _. or as corrected_.
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,
Ine., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 50 of 50
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2011
Fiala 1/./
Hiller L
Henning =::r=-B "...-
Coyle ~
Coletta --.:./
16 I 1 A4
Koam 01' County comm~lpners
December 1, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
December I, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County
Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
William Varian
David Dunnavant
Ray Allain
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn
Dalas Disney
Marco Espinar (Excused)
Blair Foley (Excused)
Reagan Henry
George Hermanson
David Hurst (Excused)
Reed Jarvi
Robert Mulhere (Excused)
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Planning & Regulation
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst - Staff Liaison
James French, Director.- Operations & Regulatory Management
Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation Engineering
Tom Wides, Director - Operations Support, Public Utilities
Nathan Beals, Project Manager - Public Utilities
Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager & Economic I&~nt Ma ager
Date: 0 d-- . 1
Item#101 \ d-
161
1 kef
December 1, 2010
I. Call to Order:
Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM and read the
procedures to be observed during the meeting.
II. Approval of Al!enda:
Reed Jarvi moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by David Dunnavant.
Carried unanimously, 9 - O.
III. Approval of Minutes - November 5, 2010 Meeting:
Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutesfor the November 5,2010 meeting as
submitted. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 9 - O.
lV. Public Speakers:
(Will be heard when Item is discussed.)
V. Growth Manal!ement Division - Staff AnnouncementslUpdates:
A. Public Utilities Division Update: Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities
. Public Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee met on November 15th
o Next meetings: Monday, December 6th, 3:00 PM
Friday, January 7, 2011 at I :00 PM
. Discussion Group met in November, but will not meet in December
Reed Jarvi requested an update on the Subcommittee meeting.
David Dunnavant, Subcommittee Chairman:
. Coming to an understanding - may reach a more reasonable charge for fire
services
· Debate continues concerning any charge for fire services
. May be relegated to presenting a non-unanimous position to the Board of
County Commissioners who will decide the issue
Nathan Beals noted the BCC's directive was not to return until the Subcommittee had
reached a decision, which may take up to one year.
· Utilities is working with the Fire Code Office and Fire Districts to choose
sites to monitor pressure readings for at least one year
David Dunnavant stated the Subcommittee is pursuing more reasonable cost charges.
· Regarding the issue ofRPZs/meters - the one-year study will monitor
heightened pressure to determine if it can be maintained throughout the system
if Fire agrees
. Fire's concern - there are other providers of water, County-wide, for fire
systems and they will be affected by whatever decision is reached
Nathan Beals explained the current policy is to charge standard domestic connection
rates if the threshold is exceeded. Public Utilities has proposed to charge 1/12th of the
2
161
1,1(1
December 1, 2010
availability fee if a customer uses over 5,000 gallons (threshold) during a one-month
period.
(Laura Spurgeon DeJohn and
George Hermanson arrived at 3:09 PM)
B. Fire Review Update: Ed Riley - Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office
. The Monthly Activity Report for October 2010 was submitted.
. 742 reviews were conducted.
Mr. Riley stated the Fire Code Office is compiling an extensive list categorizing the
types of first review rejections. The issue will be addressed with the Industry when the
statistical analysis has been completed and identified the problems as well as the
specific contractors who have experienced review failures.
Dalas Disney requested Fire Code's assessment ofthe Subcommittee meetings.
Ed Riley:
. The County provided more information to the Subcommittee and the Members
have a better understanding of the County's issues
· Fire Code Office and Fire Districts have selected four locations to be monitored
throughout the County's water system
o North Naples (I), Golden Gate (2), East Naples (I)
o Possible 5th location: County Courthouse - hydrant will be monitored if
the County supplies water to the Courthouse
· Static pressures will be monitored for one year before a determination is made
concerning the request to raise the extrapolated formula for sprinkler systems
. Concern: Public Utilities is not the only provider of water within the
boundaries of the County
· Fire is working with the various water purveyors to perform similar testing
o Immokalee and Golden Gate water districts have agreed
o Waiting for responses from others as well as thc City of Naples for the
areas that extend into the Fire Districts
. Objective: To obtain a broader picture in order to standardize requirements
Q. Will this process take an entire year or can it be accomplished sooner?
A. The Fire Districts requested a one-year Study to allow for tracking of any trends.
Mr. Riley introduced a new topic:
· Members were forwarded a Fee Schedule for planning-related review times.
· The County made significant changes to accommodate "CityView"
o Acronyms and categories of review times were changed
. Fire reviewed the current Fee Schedule
o Three fees were reduced
o Six were eliminated
. Revised Fee Schedule will be sent to the Fire Districts for approval
· Effective date: January I, 20 II
3
161
lkt
December I, 2010
Q. What about the waiver process especially for insubstantial changes that may
having nothing to do with Fire?
A. There is no waiver process - everything must be documented in the computer
system, which takes time.
Q. Why is a project name change reviewed by Fire?
A. The Fire Districts are effective in their address books and log books. Names are
verified to eliminate duplication as does the County and the information is
distributed to the Districts in a timely manner in case there is an objection to a
name.
Q. If the County does the same thing, can't the County notifY you?
A. Fire has a different viewpoint when reviewing names. The County may not realize
there is a problem in a specific Fire District. The County will allow a similar name
as long as there is a difference from an existing name, but that can be confusing if
the name is too close.
Q. Regarding #14 - Land Development Code Amendment - does Fire receive $150
for each Code Amendment?
A. The fee is not to amend the Land Development Code. It is to review a permit
application that has requested an amendment for a specific project - a privately
sponsored amendment. We do not review the Land Development Code - only
when it is related to a specific plan or project.
Mr. Riley stated that, to date, Fire has not performed that type of review although
County Staff advised Fire that a review was required.
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, stated he would meet with Fire to
review the Fee Schedule before it is finalized.
Mr. Riley noted, in the past, Staff determined what did or did not affect Fire and
the result was not always correct. He stated a number of items went through and
were caught in the field later that should have been sent to Fire initially but were
not.
Commercial projects must be reviewed by Firc, as required by Statute. Fire
determined which reviews were not related to Fire and they have been eliminated.
Mr. Casalanguida stated he met with several engineers concerning the SDP
routing process and one of the issues was "why is everything routed to everyone?"
He will meet with Ed and Jamie to discuss the issue.
It was noted the Fee Schedule was presented to DSAC as a courtesy since DSAC
does not have jurisdiction to make a recommendation.
C. Transportatiou Planning Division Update: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director, Transportation
Engineering
· Oil Well Road Project has been under construction since February
o Stage II will begin in January 2011 - traffic will be switched to the south
o The eastern portion of the Project is on schedule
4
161
1 Iter
December 1, 2010
· A design project is ready for construction
o The County received an Intent to Permit
o Davis (from Radio Road to Collier) and Collier (from Davis to 1-75)
projects will be bid together
o The State will refund $20M in increments to the County in 2012
Mr. Ahmad noted Immokalee/Oil Well would be completed east to the schools (by
Orange Blossom). Concrete was poured for the bridge deck three weeks ago and
approximately half has been completed. The proposed lane switch will be west of the
bridge.
D. Planning and Regulation Update: James French, Director, Operations and
Regulatory Management
. For over-the-counter Permits, the customer can submit by PDF or by fax and
will be able to pay online.
· The minimal fee is collected to begin the process and the remainder will be paid
when the Permit is picked up.
· A kiosk will be set up by the Information Counter, type in the Permit Number,
pay the balance owed by credit card.
. The digital submission option will be completed by January 20I I.
. Met with the Engineering community to streamline the Land Development
process. A Kaizen event will be scheduled beginning in mid-January 2011.
. Fee Schedule Update: Working with Bill Lorenz, Jack McKenna, Claudine
Auclair, and Gary Harrison - have found some repetitive services with different
prices (in Land Development side and in Building Department side).
o A consultant was hired to review the Building Department fees
. Results will be presented to DSAC prior to presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners in February/March
Q. What is status of City View and when will it be implemented?
A. At a November 17th meeting the CEO/President of Harris admitted the problems
were their fault and he was committed to correcting the situation. Module 1II-
Building Department side - will be operational in February/March. Delivery ofthe
final product is scheduled for March 20 II.
Q. What is the status emailing review comments during the Building Permit review
process?
A. The intent is to take as much digital as possible by January. The comments wilI
be posted and updated daily on the website. A customer can input the permit
number to obtain the information.
Currently working with a new product, "Active Review." Options are being
reviewed. May open a portal through CityView. It may take six months to one
year before "Active Review" is operational. Portal is currently in testing for Land
Development.
The CityView project began seven years ago. It was stressed that access to review
comments is important to the Industry.
Mr. French agreed to notifY the Industry via email when CityView is active.
s
161
1 Act'
December 1, 2010
VI. Old Business:
A. Update: Road Impact Fee (clarification of Reed Jarvi's questions) and
Finalize Law Enforcement Impact Fees - Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and
Economic Development Manager
· Two questions from Reed Jarvi concerning technical calculations on Road Impact
Fees were included in the information packet.
Amy Patterson stated the County collects approximately 20% of the Impact Fees due
at the SDP level. (Previously 50% was collected.) The topic will be reviewed during the
next Study.
Nick Casalanguida explained interest income ("revenue") from Impact Fees was not
necessarily returned to Transportation. It often diverted into the General Fund.
Reed Jarvi questioned including the State's carrying costs in the County's carrying
costs, and asked if the figure could be addressed as a separate category in the future.
Mr. Casalanguida stated the County receives minimal support from the State because
there are so few State roads on the SIS. Most ofthe State funds are directed to the SIS
and the County had advanced funds for work on State roads (i.e., Davis project).
Law Enforcement: Ms. Patterson was requested to review the implication of removing
the land value from the Law Enforcement Impact Fee. The land value represents 5% of
the Inventory. She stated removing the entire amount of land would adjust the fee by
only approximately 8%. The 14 categories that were increased will still be increased
even if the land was removed. She noted more review was necessary.
She further stated there is an alternate proposal that will be presented to the Board
concerning how to adopt the Law Enforcement Fee.
Staffrecommendation: To phase-in the implementation for the first year at 60% of the
proposed Fee, which will result in a decrease in every category. In the second year, 80%
of the Fee will be implemented which will result in a small increase. In the third year,
there will be a full implementation.
A question was asked concerning the Fleet facility and the Special Ops building (one-
time facilities).
Amy Patterson noted the "driver" of the Fees for Law Enforcement was the cost of
equipment (i.e., cars, computers). The equipment was not revalued. It will be monitored
for the next Study.
There was a Cost/Credit Update of the Impact Fees in 2006 but the inventory was not re-
counted. In the current Study, it is the first time that all of the items were counted.
There was a lapse because the Board delayed the 2009 Study to 2010. The next Study
will be more representative.
Mario Valle moved to approve recommending adoption of the phased implementation
process to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Ray Allain. Carried
unanimously, 11 - O.
Ms. Patterson asked if she should include the language that the next Study should
6
161
11\'\:
December 1,2010
review the appropriateness of including the buildings as well as the land values in the
Inventory.
David Dunnavant stated the language applies to Government Building Impact Fees and
requested that it also be included under that category.
Consensus: Yes.
B. Update: Web Portal for Planning & Engineering Review - Jamie French
C. Update: Revision Comments - Jamie French
(The Topics were discussed during the Planning and Regulation Update)
D. Discussion of Impact Fees - Tom Wides. Director, Operations Support - Public
Utilities and Robert Ori, Consultant
· At last month's meeting, a presentation on the Impact Fee Study was reviewed.
. There were a total of five questions submitted by Committee members.
Question #1 concerned the debt service on new facilities built with Impact Fees.
· Growth-related debt service is approximately $11.2M (51 % of total outstanding
debt service)
Ray Allain stated he questioned the use of the Impact Fees. He noted there is an
excess of capacity (40%) in the system currently and approximately $15M (ofthe
$21 M for growth-related expenditures) is earmarked to maintain the excess capacity as
"ready for use."
. What will it cost to actually use the excess capacity?
. Since the system has excess capacity, why are there any expenditures in this
year? Why would it be necessary to build anything else?
Tom Wides clarified the $15M will be spent over a ten-year period and the intent is to
apply it to the Impact Fees.
. The Study did not include costs for distribution, collection, or infrastructure. It
addressed only the backbone of the facility and the main transmission lines.
· Most of the cost is related to two major projects which will be spread across all
capacity.
· Water System:
o $5.5M for Renewal, Replacement, Enhancement Projects (Capital
Costs - New Growth)
o "Other" - $ 100M
o The High TDS RO design, construction and supply project is to
preserve the well field to prevent it from becoming more saline in the
furure - 32%
. Wastewater System:
o $9.6M for Renewal, Replacement, Enhancement Projects (Capital
Costs - New Growth)
o "Other" - $187.6 M
o NCWRF Treatment process improvements - 79.2%
7
161
1M:
December 1, 201 0
The aquifer is becoming more saline and four wells are unusable. Introducing a new
RO process will allow treatment of the high TDS water and removal of the saline
portion from the aquifer. The project will cost approximately $8.5M.
Even if no new users came online in the next ten years, the reverse osmosis system will
still need to be implemented.
A lengthy discussion ensued concerning how the percentage was derived.
Reference was made to the handouts and charts distributed by Public Utilities. An
explanation of the calculations and incremental costs to the system was provided. It
was noted all replacement costs will not be recovered, only the increased per-unit costs
associated with new growth.
Public Utilities objective is to improve the overall system and maintain readiness for
future users. The new customers to the system will pay an incremental cost
differential. Future projects to be brought online were identified on Table #3.
Lengthy discussion continued concerning allocation of costs, excess and diminished
capacity, retirement of facilities, sustained usability, consumption of excess capacity,
and debt service.
Mario Valle suggested further explanation of growth-related line items on Tables 2
and 4 was needed. He further suggested continuing the discussion at the next meeting.
(Mario Valle and
James Boughton left at 5: J 5 PM).
VI. New Business:
A. Presentation: CBIA's progress regarding revising LDC - Mike Rosen, Collier
Building Industry Association - Developer's Council
(A copy of the report was distributed to the members.)
. Background: Leo Ochs requested that the CBIA form a committee to review
and suggest amendments to the LDC to remove any items that would hamper
growth and prosperity in Collier County.
· Nick Casalanguida stated consultants were hired to review Chapter 10 of the
LDC as quickly as possible.
· Some of the elements included in the report: architecture, transportation,
environmental, re-development, and zoning.
· The Landscape Architecture group had no changes to recommend.
· CBIA's proposed changes were outlined in the report.
. CBIA is moving forward with the County concerning the proposed changes as
well as the Chapter 10 issues.
It was noted there are practical issues to be addressed in Landscape Architecture
concerning expense, obscured visibility, and buffers for adjoining land uses. Other
8
161
December 1, 2010
areas suggested for streamlining are Architectural Standards and code compliance for
Re-development.
The Subcommittee felt the current LDC should be scrapped and started from scratch.
It was suggested to find an LOe from another municipality that could be adopted.
VIII. Committee Member Comments:
(None)
Next Meetinl! Dates:
January 5, 2011 - 3:00 PM
February 5, 2011 - 3:00 PM
March 2, 2011- 3:00 PM
April 6, 2011 - 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chairman at 5:25 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(~
William Varian, Chairman
The Minutes were
as presented
'/5"/11
proved by the Board/Committee on
_, or as amended .
9
1
~t
Ht:CEIVED
JAN 1 1 2011
Fiala :v v
Hiller I
Henning -~
Coyle _ _.",/
Coletta __~__~_
161 1 ~
December 6,2010
t3o~rCi oi CUli!1l)! COlTltntsshlIH-.::n~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, December 6,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee - Public UtilitieslRPZ Subcommittee, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in
Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management DivisionIPlanning &
Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members
present:
CHAIRMAN: David Dunnavant, DSAC
Melissa Ahem, CBIA
Dave Aldrich, CBIA (Absent)
Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire District (Absent)
Blair Foley, DSAC
Joey Hatfield, Imperial Fire Protection
Chris Mitchell, Waldrop Engineering
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office
(Non-Voting) STAFF: Paul Mattausch, Director, Water Department.
Nathan Beals, Associate Project Manager, Utilities
Joe Bellone, Manager - Utility Billing & Customer
Service, Public Utilities
Howard Brogdon, Water Department
Joe Thomas, Manager - Water Distribution, Water
Department
Tom Wides, Director - Operations Support, Utilities
Mile. Comla:
ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst - Staff LiaisoDlll:
111m t:
Copies to:
161
1 ~:t
December 6, 20]0
I. Call to Order:
Chairman David Dunnavant called the meeting to order at 3: 12 PM.
II. Aooroval of Al!enda:
Melissa Ahern moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Blair Foley.
Carried unanimously, 6 - O.
III. Aooroval of Minutes - November 16, 2010:
Joey Hatfield moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Ed Riley.
Carried unanimously, 6 - O.
IV. Public Soeakers:
(None)
V. New Business:
(None)
VI. Old Business:
A. RPZ Requirements on Fire Services
B. Line-Size Water Meter Requirement on Fire Services
Chairman Dunnavant stated Items "A" and "B" were "on hold." The Fire eode
Office, in association with the Fire Districts, has determined which meters and
locations will be monitored for pressure.
Ed Riley concurred.
Nathan Beals stated the equipment was not yet in place. Public Utilities is attempting
to obtain pressure monitors that can be connected to the system to monitor in real time.
Chairman Dunnavant asked if the one-year duration was necessary. He proposed
monitoring through season (4 - 5 months) to obtain readings, and then leave the
equipment in place to determine if there is a variance.
Ed Riley stated there is not enough data to determine if there are any trends in
direction and is why the Districts requested a one-year period. After six months the
data can be evaluated, but monitoring will continue for the full year period.
C. Billing on Fire Services
Tom Wides stated the "read ahead" provided the eommittee with samplings from
various Utilities, their Ordinances, the tariffs related to Fire Service, and one-page recap
summarizing the numbers. He pointed out one common pattern throughout the Utilities
which was to charge l/Ith of the monthly availability fee. Some utilities did not
charge at all, or were not clear about their charges.
Blair Foley:
. The blank areas have no charges for the particular sizes?
Tom Wides:
· Either they are not charging or do not have lines that size.
2
161
1 A~
December 6, 2010
Chairman Dunnavant noted the high rates charged by the Town of Jupiter (Palm
Beach eounty), Florida.
Tom Wides stated what was not apparent is that Jupiter and Broward County also
charge for usage. He noted the figures for eape Coral appeared to be random, i.e.,
"pulled out of a hat." He cited the range of the annual charge as an example, i.e., from
$50 to $600.
Nathan Beals noted some of the charges were annual. To provide a better illustration
for comparison the annual figures were divided by 12.
Tom Wides noted the usage charge for Broward eounty is $4.79 per thousand which
is larger than eollier's average water rates.
Joey Hatfield stated Florida requires NFP-25 testing on a quarterly basis. A standard
main drain test will use approximately 400 gallons. He asked if any of the examples
given were close in size. He noted OUC ("Orlando Utility Council") is a very large
utility.
Joe Bellone stated Sarasota and Lee Counties were a bit bigger than Collier with
approximately 70,000 accounts, while Collier County has approximately 55,000
accounts in its billing base.
Nathan Beals stated the spread sheet (hand-out) was focused on Florida while the
read-ahead provided information on other utilities, such as ealifornia. But we're
trying to compare with Florida utilities.
Chairman Dunnavant stated the 1/12th charges is in the Florida Administrative Code.
Joey Hatfield:
· Just a question on the rationale for the ramping up of the fees - if it's a Stand-by
Fee, what's the purpose of ramping up the cost for each additional size?
Tom Wides:
· It starts with - we're using the availability charge ... that's the basis. And the
spreading ofthe cost for the availability charge given the size of the meter is a
determination of volume. Once the availability charge is set, it is divided by
twelve. It's that simple.
· Joe may have some other input in terms of meter sizes.
Joe Thomas:
· The larger the line size, the larger the capacity to use more water. You have to
base the growth of your system and how to prepare your system for that growth
on the availability for water to those meters and line sizes.
Joey Hatfield:
. I have a little problem with that way of thinking. That's trying to apply
domestic water usage on 1I fire line. They're not the same animal.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· My understanding is that typically Fire Service availability is predicated on a
certain flow for a four-hour period, for example, to fight a fire. It is not as if
the system is designed. .. unlike domestic usage where you are designing to
accommodate "x" gallons per day from every connection to the system.
3
161
1 ~~
December 6, 2010
Chairman Dunnavant:
. It is highly unlikely that you will ever have more than one Fire Service
functioning at one time, at most, a couple across the eounty. You are not
designing your system to accommodate every Fire Service line that comes on
individually.
Joe Thomas:
. That's the same thing for every service across the eounty. I don't have every
one utilizing full bore of their services at the same time, but I still must be able
to provide that and maintain those services. And I have to respond when
someone has a leak on a fire line. It's not just for the build-up of the system.
It's also for daily maintenance and the staff required to respond to calls relative
to all those services.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. So we would call you if we have a leak. . .
Joe Thomas:
. I get called because one way or another, lots oftimes, we have to shut down
valves in order for them to repair... and we have to provide information on
who to contact to get it repaired.
Paul Mattausch:
· It's just like every other service. Beyond the water meter, we don't fix that
service but we have a length of service between the water main and the meter
just like we do on fire connections. We have a connection to that water main
that we're responsible for - we've got the pipe to the backflow device or the
meter, in some cases neither, but from the Fire Service to the property line.
That is what Joe is talking about. That maintenance of that part of the system.
Chairman Dunnavant.
. At one time we looked at eharleston, South earolina - there were disturbing
newspaper accounts concerning why someone chose not to provide Fire Service
to his hotel and it resulted in the deaths of firefighters.
. That was the impetus for Charleston - there is a press release from the
Charleston Water System dated July 24, 2007 - they eliminated connection fees
but they still maintained monthly charges.
Nathan Beals:
. I researched the history on it and found the press release on their website. A
40+ year old furniture store with many additions - there was only a fire hydrant
in front of the building - there was no requirement for.fire sprinklers at the
time.
. I don't think they chose not to install fire sprinklers because it was too
expensive, they didn't have them because it was not required at the time.
4
161
1f\lf
December 6, 2010
Chairman Dunnavant:
· Utilities has provided credible information on other municipalities and districts
that do charge for water service.
. Ed and Joey have brought up - there are valid discussions about the
appropriateness of charging for stand-by Fire Service and disincentivizing
people to actually create a dedicated Fire Service, even though it would
actually be more efficient on the system and in fighting a fire.
. The Florida Administrative eo de lays this out in a manner - that this I/lth
proposal is significantly more appropriate than what is occurring at the very
moment.
. At worst, if we get to there- as an Industry or as Fire Districts, if we really
have concerns about it - I don't know that we're at a point... that Utilities is
not going to walk away saying that they are going to eliminate pursuing this
charge for Fire Service.
. It's either the 1/12th and we give the Board of County eommissioners the
option and we say "here are the reasons we don't think it's beneficial"-
Utilities will throw in their opinion - the decision will be made by the BCC and
we'll go forward.
. I am in favor of doing better than we are right now which doesn't make much
sense to me and didn't have a lot of input a couple of years ago.
· Any thoughts on that? You have stated your concerns about stand-by costs as
not appropriate. I know the National Fire Sprinkler Association has their
statements on it.
Ed Riley:
. You have heard my position on it and it hasn't changed.
. I understand their argument to the point why they feel they need to do it, and I
presented mine.
. I do not believe it is warranted for a fire line based on the fact that the system is
designed for fire protection for everybody.
· eharging these individuals separately for it when they reduce the impact of a
fire on the system, in a fire situation, doesn't seem to be fair.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. I made the statement last month that if it came with a corresponding reduction
in usage fees for other users, it would be more understandable. (at Page 21 of
the November minutes)
. There is the thought from the non-utility members that the costs for Fire
Service are already in your system - that to charge dedicated fire lines a fee
should be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in other fees. That it is
already in the system without it.
. That this is just an add-on fee to the current system with capacity to handle Fire
Service.
. On November 15th you said, "Someone is getting a benefit and I am allocating
the cost to everywhere else." (at Page 21 - November minutes)
5
16'
1 ki
December 6, 2010
Tom Wides:
· When you say the cost is already in the system, the only way I can spread the
cost of the system is somebody has to pay for it. It's not like somebody else is
paying for it and we're charging Fire Service. That's just not - it's recapture of
total costs.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· But the question is whether the existing base user rates don't include the cost
for your system to cover Fire Service.
Tom Wides:
· I know the total cost to serve and I start spreading it out to people. So, ifI take
it off the Fire Service, I have no choice but to put it onto the user base. It's on
the Fire Service right now. That's where the cost is being recouped.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. And it has been since 2007 --- or 2008?
Tom Wides:
. At least since I've been here _n since 2000.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. I thought this was new. No?
Tom Wides:
. No.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Just the meters and the RPZs?
Tom Wides:
. Right.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Okay.
Tom Wides.
. This is not new.
. Now the basis to charge - I think it was three years ago that we changed the
basis.
Joe Bellone:
· Three years ago I think, the Ordinance or the Resolution changed. Prior to
passage of that ehange Resolution, a Fire Service line or a line dedicated - or
called a dedicated fire service line - if it had consumption three months in a
row, it was assumed to be domestic consumption and was charged the regular
charges. But it had to have three in a row.
6
161
1
kV
December 6,2010
Chairman Dunnavant:
· The proposed 1/121h charges - that is regardless of the amount used in that
system?
. Right now, you have a base threshold of 5,000 gallons in a month that triggers
the current cost charge. If there's a 10,000 gallon charge or a 2,000 - does
anything change?
· You still get - you are proposing a 1/12'h of the size service and a block rate for
domestic water - for the cost of the water?
Tom Wides:
. No.
. At this point in time, until we start to see we've got some movement forward
conceptually, the only thing I've got is a 1/12th base charge and, at some
reasonable point, if we find consumption exceeds a certain level, then we will
charge something per thousand - something - some rate per thousand -
whether it's the lowest block or whether it's multiple blocks.
. But, again, we're not trying to go after the Fire Service maintenance usage.
We're trying to go after the people that are using it for other use.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. I think the last missing piece of this puzzle is that "certain level" you're talking
about.
. Is it a certain level across all meter sizes? Is it a certain level based on the
meter size?
. Where are we heading with that?
Tom Wides:
. I'm open to discussion.
· I haven't discussed it with these guys (Utilities) - and we haven't discussed it
yet.
. Weare, literally, just at the point of trying to decide if there is any charge that
you would agree to. So, if we start here and move forward, I'm good with that
discussion.
. I'm not walking in here today knowing what that base is - what that trigger
point is.
Nathan Beals:
. When we're trying to determine the base - Joey mentioned earlier that a main
drain was 400 gallons per test - and that's how often? Quarterly?
Joey Harfield:
. Quarterly.
Nathan Beals:
· And then I think you've said in previous meetings that you can use up to
10,000 gallons to test a fire pump...
7
161
1~
December 6,2010
Joey Hatfield:
. Could be more - yes.
Nathan Beals:
. ... and that's annually?
Joey Hatfield:
. Annually.
Nathan Beals:
. So, I guess it would depend on if they have a fire pump or not, and depending
on what is needed.
. I don't know if we're going to be able to just do that based on the size.
. ean you have a fire pump hooked up to a two-inch to achieve what you
needed?
· And would that fire pump that's hooked up to a two-inch service stilI need
10,000 gallons to test or would that be 2,000 gallons?
Joey Hatfield:
. It would probably be some amount less - yes.
. There are instances where we do have them where we don't have enough water.
. In the County, there's very few of those and is typically in a location where
there is not a public supply. So having a smaller pump like that is - I won't say
it's unlikely but it's rare.
· But another scenario to consider, though, would be the shopping center that is
new - that is doing build-outs. If they're doing seven or eight build-outs down
that string of strip stores, you're going to be draining and filling up every day in
some cases.
· Should that guy be penalized because he's putting in a fire protection system to
reduce the demand on the over-all system?
Chairman Dunnavant:
. What's a typical range - if you drain your system every day - how many
gallons does the system hold?
Joey Hatfield:
. A lot of it is determined by the size of the system, the size of the pipes, the
hazard demand - it's probably four or five thousand gallons. That's just wild
guess.
. No -- it can't be that much because a typical dry system is about - is not
allowed to exceed 750 gallons. So it's probably at the maX - 1,000 gallons.
Joe Thomas:
· I would suggest then that a construction cost is a construction cost, and an
annual maintenance cost is an annual maintenance cost. I would think that
there would be some coordination between the Water Department and others in
8
161
1 ~
December 6, 2010
your field to come up with what is required by the NFP A - what is required by
them for annual testing to complete what you have to do, and what that would
be would be acceptable.
· I'm just throwing things out here - but I still think a construction cost would be
a construction cost. That's a little bit different.
Paul Mattasuch:
· It would seem to me that those people who are out there testing could fairly
readily document the estimated number of gallons that were used in the test.
· If we see usage above and beyond that - then, obviously, that usage is for
something other than testing and, therefore, we could work on billing for that
water used - not for testing.
Joey Hatfield:
· When you're doing a build-out, a portion of it is utilized - a portion of the
renovation is a test for the Fire Department. Depending on what you consider a
"test" - when we do a renovation, we relocate heads and whatever.
Paul Mattasuch:
. Joe (Thomas) just separated out that construction cost.
· I'm talking about after a building is constructed and it's there for five years-
you're doing a quarterly test - you can document to the Water Department how
much you've used to test - and if we see usage above and beyond that, then it's
being used for something other than testing and it would be billed for.
· I'm separating out - I'm going from where Joe (Thomas) left off.
· A construction cost is a construction cost and that's a separate usage. We can
work that out.
· But the testing - certainly would seem to me to be readily, easily documented
and if they use (for example) 5,000 gallons quarterly - you're going to
document that or the building owner is going to document that to us and if we
see that 10,000 gallons quarterly is going through and you've only used 5,000-
then that other water is being used for something else other than testing the fire
system.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· Whether it's office or retail, every time we modify a walI or move a head,
we're draining that system and refilling it daily. There will be on-going water
consumption that is not truly being used for fire, or for consumption, or
anything else.
Paul Mattausch:
· Again, if we know the difference - that you're doing that day for construction-
that's one thing.
· But if a building is not being renovated and there's water use - water
consumption somewhere other than the documented water use that we have for
fire protection and testing those systems, then there's water use for something
else.
9
161
1
~~
December 6,2010
Paul Mattausch:
· I understand that. If a building is being renovated, you are going to drain the
system down. As Joe (Thomas) said, construction is one thing. Ifwe know
about it and we document it - we've got Building Permits and everything else
that has to be in place - and we can know that the system is being drained for
construction.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· At some point - whether it's this meeting or some meeting in the near future - I
think we, as a Committee, need to make a motion on the 11l2th proposal. At
some point, that's got to go forward.
. Is anybody prepared to do that?
Blair Foley:
. No, but I'd like to ask a question on the other item first.
· It sounds like it may be just a public recordkeeping thing - is what they're
asking for - for Utilities - they're not objecting to any testing.
. Is there a mechanism in place or, for example, when the Fire District does their
testing and you contact Utilities in some fashion and document some sort of
correspondence that says, "We did 'x,' 'y,' and 'z' on this date," is that in place
now or is that an additional ..,
Joe Thomas:
. No, sir. No, sir. We do not receive anything on that now.
· We do receive - the Fire Departments do provide us with usage on days - if
something comes up like a fire - they give us that. But as far as the annual
testing or anything like that, we get zilch.
· But if we could - that's kind oflike - along the lines of what I was suggesting.
If there could be, for lack of a better term, a "meeting of the minds" - to say I
have these accounts and this is how much water it takes for this one for testing
and I test quarterly.
· So we would already know that every quarter, this account is going to see this
much usage - so that way, if it changes - to be somebody else taking care of
that fire system or whatever, that the number should not change. It should be
the same.
· If there is some type of coordination between the two entities - that gives us
some information and that helps a long way - it also helps us, too, because
some of our other issues that arise from that annual testing that sometimes we
don't get a record of - I would already know that.
. That coordination would go a long way.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. As opposed to trying to create some sort of system where you have individual
buildings reporting to you what their estimated usage is, it seems to me we do
need to try to determine what that estimated usage is for a certain line size.
· I can't quite see every building in this community reporting to you and you
tracking that.
10
161
1 ~i
December 6, 2010
Joe Thomas:
. No, I'm not talking about reporting - I'm talking about establishing a one-time
where you establish - okay, that this is what it's going to take - and every year
it should be the same, unless there's some kind of change that takes place.
Blair Foley:
. That was my point, really - there needs to be some sort of guideline as to how
it's done and how it's tracked.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. That goes back to my question about the 5,000 gallons before charges started.
. It seems to me that we need to establish a more appropriate amount especially
for larger line sizes.
Joe Thomas:
. I don't think - and I may be wrong here, but I think due to all the vagaries and
the differences between all the individual systems - which goes back to the
same reason why we couldn't give you a cost on everything because there are
so many different sizes - I mean you could go through and say two through
twelve inch, with a fire pump or without a fire pump - but I don't think that's
going to capture every different...
Chairman Dunnavant:
. I bet it captures 90+ percent...
Joe Thomas:
. ... every different scenario. And if it does and they're okay with that, then I'm
okay with it.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. That's going to capture, probably, 95+ percent.
Blair Foley:
. As a follow-up, Joe (Thomas) brings up a valid point that each building - each
system, regardless of line size, might be quite a bit different - we just don't
know until the data is collected. We're just throwing "what ifs" out here on the
table right now. I think if you had two eight-inch size systems, they could vary
wildly depending on the application.
Joey Hatfield:
. I think the variable would be the fire pumps when you're talking about main
drain testing. Depending on the type of building, as the building goes taller,
you have multiple control valves per floor. So the more control valves that you
have, the more flow testing you have to do.
. If you have a single wet system in a 20,000 square foot building, you have a
single riser and you're flowing right there through a 2-inch main drain, and it's
pretty cut and dry.
II
161
1 ~*
December 6, 2010
Joey Hatfield:
· As the building gets more complex - a high rise or something like that -- then
you start flowing in multiple locations. You will flow more water without
question.
Ed Riley:
. Also, if you go in a high rise, you have your standpipe requirements - 500 gpm
per standpipe. Multiple standpipes increase the volume. It's pretty
complicated.
· The other thing that goes with that - some of the larger buildings have hazard
classifications. On a higher hazard classification, you're flowing more water for
testing.
. There are a lot of variables that go into. . .
Tom Wides:
. I'm trying to keep with what we're actually trying to accomplish at least from
my perspective.
· There's really two things. One -- I want to try to measure as much of the water
loss as I possible can. Until we resolve the meter matter, we don't really get
there on that anyway.
. The second piece is - if you're having to flush whatever number per month (for
example) 5,000 - or 5,000 per quarter - I'm not going to try to go after 6,000 in
one quarter. I'm trying to find the guys who are out there just using it for
alternative use. And if that would help relax the parameters a little bit, I'm
okay with that.
· So whether it's 10 or 12, I don't care. Ifit's 10 or 50, I might start to care.
. If that helps you.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Your objective is to find the people who are stealing water.
· And if you have a use that happens every three months, you can pretty much
determine that's testing.
· But if you have a consistent usage, especially in anything kind of high range,
absent a Building Permit, you have a leak or somebody taking it.
· That, to me, is the trigger. And you have the ability to track that, I'm sure, on
monthly usage as opposed to sporadic.
Tom Wides:
. Not without a meter.
Joe Thomas:
. There you go.
Tom Wides:
. Not without a meter.
12
16 1 1 ~~
December 6, 2010
Blair Foley:
. I think what I'm hearing is - to summarize - it doesn't matter what the usage
is for testing. It doesn't matter ifits 1,000 - 5,000 -10,000 - but ifit's
quarterly and it's regularly used and you make that documentation, then any
other items that come up that are wildly different, those are the numbers you
want to capture. And those are the numbers that you want to be paid for - for
that usage.
. I don't think we need to get hung up a lot on how much that water is. I think
it's really a more generic statement as to "are we going to meter it and try to
capture that" knowing that Utilities will allow us to do the testing - no matter
what the water usage is.
Howard Brogdon:
. (off microphone) ... as long as you guys give us a fairly reasonable, accurate
description of how much that's going to be and we see that reflected after...
Chairman Dunnavant:
. We just talked about not being able to give that.
. You're not going to get a report from every building in this eounty on what
their estimated usage is - that's something you're going to have to actually
determine and analyze from - it would be billings or a meter reading.
Howard Brogdon:
. That goes back to what you were saying before - that maybe we could
collectively come up with some kind of mechanism where somebody can track
that information. Either an individual who is responsible for doing the
maintenance on those particular units and they keep that record, to where we
can go an audit and say for this building here - how much to do you have on
file for this particular one.
Joey Hatfield:
· We'd be absolutely opposed to that. If there's any monitoring of that - that
would be your deal.
. I'm sorry - we've got a lot that we're already monitoring and responsible for-
if you guys are going to be reading meters monthly, then you'll be able to start
to develop a history, I would think, on an account and see usage over a period
oftime.
. You won't be able to go out in the first month or first quarter and really know
what's really happening at that site but over twelve months or two years or
three years, then you have some history - some data to fall back on.
Howard Brogdon:
· You're absolutely right - if we meter them - that's our answer. And that's what
we were saying before -- we're going to meter these lines and then we wiIl have
that number.
u
161
1 ~
December 6, 2010
Joey Hatfield:
· I think the only thing that we can decide at this point in time is - what is an
appropriate stand-by fee.
· I don't believe that we can determine this other piece right now - there's too
many other things that are still hanging out there, such as Ed's (Riley) deal and
whether or not we're going to have fire line meters at all.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. You're right.
Nathan Beals:
· If we're talking about how much water is going to be used based on -- because,
right now when we talk about it, if you use more than 5,000 gallons, you're
charged the full availability and all usage.
· And we're talking about that if you have a fire pump, you're doing about
10,000 gallons once a year - 15,000 gallons once a year - depending on the
size of the building and what's needed - that's at our consumption rate, that's
$600 once a year.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. It's $300 in a year.
Nathan Beals:
. So it's $300 to $450 of consumption use, and we then do the 1/12th availability
whether or not you're using it. So we're discussing a one-time charge of maybe
$400.
. I understand every dollar counts but if we're going to set a range from - if we
decide that 2-inch and smaller, you have 2,000 gallons for free; 3 and 4-inch is
5,000; 6 and 8-inch is 10,000 and anything higher than 8-inch is 15,000 gallons
then we're just talking less than $100 or $200 here.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· This is an exercise -- if and when meters get in place -- because until then, all
you're looking at is the stand-by charge and you have no idea what's going
through there at that point.
Joey Hatfield:
· Me, personally, I'm kind ofleaning along the lines of this being a - if we had
only a stand-by fee - having that only, and then accepting that there is going to
be use on fire lines and not charging for that at all, and then if you found a
situation where there was usage - in whatever way that was done - that would
have some enforcement method to give that person an opportunity to correct
the problem or then to go ahead an issue some kind of a charge to them.
Tom Wides:
. Nathan reminded me that Tampa has something that might fit this.
14
161
1 t\tf
December 6, 20 I 0
Nathan Beals:
. Basically, if you are found to be misusing your fire connection - being used for
other than fire testing, fire fighting, etc. - then they - obviously, ifit's an
accident, you have the option to fix it.
· But then, if you can't fix it and you can't answer to it, then you are required to
put a meter on and it's considered a full, standard connection.
· It would then be turned into, basically, a combination fire/domestic and
considered to have full availability, full usage all the time, and the person
would be required to add a meter at that point. That would be the penalty if
you are found to be stealing water.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. So they have a detector on the line and says. "... if the detector system ...
indicates that water is being used from the fire protection system for uses other
thanfightingfires or if the system shows excessive leakage ..." - how is a
detector going to show excessive leakage?
Nathan Beals:
· That's what the detector system is for - is to detect leaks.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. What happens when we do our quarterly test?
Nathan Beals:
. It usually will bypass that and it won't register.
· But we would investigate before we would just say, "here you have to install a
meter."
· I don't think that they (Tampa) do this very often. I spoke to the Utility
Director there and they don't do this - maybe once or twice a year - requiring a
meter to be put on - if that often - because people have the option to fix it and
correct the issue or the misuse.
Blair Foley:
· Some of the discussions that we had during the regular DSAe Committee was
penalizing the individual who didn't do anything wrong. And this clearly is a
punitive punishment which may be acceptable.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. We really want to punish the people who did something wrong.
Blair Foley:
. eorrect - but not everybody, blindly. .
Chairman Dunnavant:
· That, to me, that's a fairly justifiable and reasonable approach. I don't know
what you have talked about in-house about that. I mean, we're not encouraging
anybody to steal water and we'd like to see them penalized severely.
15
161
1
~t
December 6, 2010
Tom Wides:
· We haven't in-house, so to speak, since our last meeting of any great nature
because we were scurrying around trying to come up with these answers and
working on Impact Fees.
. But, quite frankly, I'm sure I'm going to get feedback from the guys to my
right and the one to my left but, from my perspective, if we can agree on the
1/12th and wording similar to what Tampa has in here, I think we may be down
the right path.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Question to Joey (Hatfield): What kind of cost are we talking about in this
detector system?
. What is it? A Detector Check Valve? ("DDCA" - Double Detector Check
Assembly Valve)
Joey Hatfield:
. I don't understand what the question is.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· What is it that we're actually putting on the line that detects that water has been
used improperly?
Nathan Beals:
· On a lot of back flow preventers, if you don't have a line size meter, we require
a detector meter which records the low flow around the backflow preventer.
· RPZs and Double Checks both have available detector checks and the price
difference is negligible.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· Low flow, to me, has to be a source oflost water if you don't have that detector
meter in place in all locations.
Tom Wides:
· Your statement is correct. But the point is, we don't even capture... very
minimal.
Joe Thomas:
· What happens is with that smaller detector meter, once the flows ramp up and it
goes over 3 gallons per minute, it just starts bypassing the meter and goes
straight through the device.
. But, yes, as far as a lower flow, leak detector check -- that's what the term is-
that's what the smaller device is for - capturing the lower flows.
· Essentially that was the assumption was -- that was what was taking place.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. The last page in the packet is the evoQ4™ Electromagnetic Elster Meter.
. On the back page is the FM certification.
16
161
l~
December 6,2010
Ed Riley:
. That would be acceptable.
· FM approval is acceptable for Fire use - it doesn't have to be UL.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. It's a great meter.
. Has Badger or anybody else come up with anything comparable?
Nathan Beals:
. Most other meter companies, Badger included, have electromagnetic similar
meters - they just have not put them through the rigors of FM or UL approval.
· I know that either Badger or Master Meter - Master is planning to put it
through the FM process so that they can compete.
Melissa Ahem:
. How long does that take?
Ed Riley:
· The testing doesn't take a long time - but you've got to set it up in their cue.
. It can take six months to a year.
Nathan Beals:
· And they mentioned this to us about six months to a year ago. We can give
them a call to see where they are.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. I think any selection of electromagnetic meters makes the whole meter
discussion a lot easier to deal with - at least as far as impediment of flow.
. It's still a cost issue, obviously.
Joe Thomas:
. On of the pluses of it is the fact that it can be installed just below the "n"-
shaped device and still allow use of the device as opposed to an elongated set.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. As a land owner, all for it.
Ed Riley:
· The only thing is - to elevate the height of the Un" -style above the ground.. .
Joe Thomas:
. Not that much.
Ed Riley:
· . .. because this device can't be buried so it needs to be above ground.
!7
161
1 ~t
December 6,2010
Nathan Beals:
· We worked it out- it would put the top of the backflow about 4.5 to 5 feet off
the ground.
Ed Riley:
. And that doesn't bother us but what you get when you go that high is,
aesthetically, people then want to hide the heck out of it.
· If you don't have an FDC connection on it - that's fine. If you have an FDC
connection on it, then you can't hide it.
Joe Thomas:
. Well, it was meant to be an alternative to the ...
Joey Hatfield:
· There really aren't a lot of specs that are included with this that I can see as far
as pressure loss. I don't know if there is something included - are there more
cut sheets for this?
Nathan Beals:
. Yes, there are. They are available.
· The pressure loss is less than 4 gallons per minute because it does shrink down
to one diameter through the center of the meter itself.
Joey Hatfield:
. What about in "pounds"? Instead of gallons -- did you just...
Nathan Beals:
. I meant to say pounds. (4 pounds per minute)
Joey Hatfield:
· That's still pretty substantial compared with - the other ones are three or four
also - the ones that we have approved now.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. The in-lines?
Joe Thomas:
. I don't think it was meant to necessarily be something that was going to be
better than what we currently have as a full line size device. It was meant to be
an alternative for those considerations where you are looking at a smaller
footprint.
Ed Riley:
· One of the things is - initially when we were talking about the electromagnetic
type, it was thought it went to 2 pounds friction loss, so it would have been less
than the standard type. And this may be - depending on the size. The curve
isn't here so you can't really tell. But it may be, in fact, less.
18
161
1
~~
December 6,2010
Nathan Beals:
. It is a little bit less.
· The in-lines have the strainer and they have a lot more to them - and when you
get up to the higher flows, you lose more pressure.
. You'd have to get a larger in-line to maintain that 3 or 4 psi loss versus - I
think this is pretty much - the evoQ4 is 2 or 3 across the board.
Joey Hatfield:
. Do you have any costs on 4, 6, and 8?
Nathan Beals:
. I can get them. When I looked at them, they were cheaper than the Neptune
Protectus-3 by $1,000.
Joey Hatfield:
. That's still not great because that's a $14,000 deal.
Nathan Beals:
. Depending on the size - yes.
Joey Hatfield:
. That's doubling the cost of the assembly.
. Adding an in-line meter virtually doubles the cost of the backflow assembly
when it's all put together.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. The in-line - not the electromagnetic?
Joey Hatfield:
. Either one. They're close in price. So you're looking at a substantial amount-
more money than what we're doing right now.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Cost is a factor.
Nathan Beals:
. I think that - we've kind of gotten to a point where we're at a stand still.
. Do you want us to bring something back to the - I think we've got a January
meeting scheduled?
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Yes. January 7'h.
Nathan Beals:
. And we can bring back some proposed language to change the Billing
Ordinance, possibly with this I /lth and some version of the Tampa penalty -
so you can look at that and possibly send that up and move on with that.
19
161
1 ~~
December 6,2010
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Anybody? I think that is the next step.
. Ed (Riley), by all rights, has to object to any stand-by service costs.
Nathan Beals:
. Of course.
Ed Riley:
. We can talk about those.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Well, if we're going to see actual language to talk about, I think in concept-
unless somebody says it differently - that's where we are.
· The 1/12'h is much better than where it is currently. You've indicated that there
are plenty of jurisdictions similar to ours around the State that are doing similar
and it may be a bit rough to claim that we are being uniquely penalized by
having a charge - so ...
Joey Hatfield:
. In looking at the Lee eounty rate structure, that seems to me to make sense -
you don't jump another 40% from 6 to 8. They have a much smaller increase
from 4 to 6 to 8 and that seems to be a much more reasonable number than
$1,200 a year for the 8-inch.
Nathan Beals:
· I'd like to argue that we are being more reasonable than Jupiter, West Palm, or
the others that are extremely high compared to what we are proposing.
Joey Hatfield:
. We know that those are out of line, somebody was "asleep at the wheel" when
they allowed that to happen - that's outrageous from a fire sprinkler standpoint.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Jacksonville has metered and non-metered Fire Services?
Nathan Beals:
. I found that interesting as well that the metered was more expensive than the
un-metered - but that's how they broke it out on their rate structure.
Ed Riley:
. Do they - did JacksonviIle provide the meter? rfthey provided the cost of the
meter then it would make sense to charge more monthly if they're maintaining
the meter and will have to replace it instead of the owner.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Otherwise, it is completely counterintuitive to charge more for a metered
system.
20
161
1 ~~.
December 6, 2010
Nathan Beals:
. I can look into that - I'm not sure.
Melissa Ahern:
. My only thought on the l/12th going forward - and I'm assuming that if this
goes to the Board - whatever we decide on - that it will be advertised because
we are discussing these costs. The reality is, this is going to affect business
owners - not just Industry. So we're signing on to committing people for a
monthly cost somewhere down the road. My thought is that we really need to
get some input from the business side as well.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Business has to pay attention to what's occurring, too.
. There will be, I would think, a public notice on it. There will be opportunities
both at DSAe and the Bee to speak out.
. I don't know what to do - you're right. There will be businesses that currently
are not being charged that would now fall under a charge. Public awareness of
that is tantamount - it's critical.
· You're also going to have some people who don't realize it but their bills are
going to go down. And they are going to feel very pleased. Now, I think there
will be less of those but.. .
Tom Wides:
. I don't think they're going to squeal either.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Most buildings that can handle a six-inch line, at some point, they can deal with
a $700 charge over the course of a year. It's not pretty, but it can be done.
. Pending seeing actual language, does anybody have anything else for today?
. I'm sorry, Judy, when is the next meeting?
Judy Puig:
. January 7th.
Chairman Dunnavant:
J 7th. .
. anuary , It IS.
Judy Puig:
. And, just for the record, all these meetings are publicly noticed - the
Subcommittee meetings and the regular DSAC meetings are publicly noticed.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· I think the bigger concern now is the Ordinance itself - that if the Board moves
on it - we will be authorizing implementation of a fee to business owners who
currently don't have a charge.
. That will be exciting.
2]
161
1 ~~
December 6, 2010
Chris Mitchell:
. What's our objective for the January meeting?
. What are we trying to determine? Are we voting on something? Are we signing
a Resolution or something?
Chairman Dunnavant:
. It seems to me that we are down to two things: we are going to ask Nathan just
to double-check on Master Meters to see where they are in the FM process
. But, yes, I believe, it would be a vote on the proposed Ordinance language.
· Items VI (A) and (B) are just waylaid for the better part of one year - at least six
months until they get put in place and there's any - even preliminary data- to
review.
. Does anybody see it differently?
. There may not be a February meeting or a later January meeting, possibly
Chris Mitchell:
. And, then, just to recap: This told us nothing - this summary - it's all over the
board, and not everybody is adhering to the 1/12'h. Is that what we got out of
that?
Chairman Dunnavant:
· I think the representative is that there are more than three communities in the
State of Florida who are (I) doing stand-by fire line service charges, and (2)
some of them are lower, some are outrageously higher that the proposed I/12'h
of the service charge.
. It's at that point that we've got to get something - we can all always recommend
something lower than the 1/12th but we probably ought to have a basis for doing
so.
· I don't think Utilities is going to subscribe to whatever we propose on that. So
that would be taking two proposals to the Board.
. We have between now and January 7th_ just a great time of year - to figure that
out.
. Otherwise - any Member comments?
VII. Committee Member Comments:
Ed Riley:
· What I'm trying to figure here is - if we were to vote "no" to line-size meters, yet
some time of availability charge would be something we might support with a fine
or something such as Tampa has for somebody who was found to have used the
water illegally and was caught - and that process would go through
. How would we justify the monthly amount, given a format other than I/12th of the
availability charge?
. What I'm looking at is that, we have a percentage of water loss in the County that
unaccounted for and there's a cost associated with that water loss.
. If that could be somehow quantified in a guesstimate into fire lines and the costs
associated with that and then that stand-by fee is based on that number, I think that
22
161
1
~~
December 6, 2010
would be more palatable as opposed to just saying, "I've got an 8-inch line and I'm
going to pay $1,200 a year" just to have that line.
· Sprinkler systems - if you're not looking to charge for the actual, justifiable use for
those systems whether it would be the testing or during a fire condition, and you're
only trying to recap the monies that are being -- the water that's being used
illegally, it seems to me that these fees - the 1/12th of the stand-by fee would more
than cover the cost.
(Blair Foley left at 4: 15 PM)
. It seems to me - and I may be wrong - but it looks like it would more than cover
the cost if you were to purchase that water.
. A perfect example is the one Dave gave where the cost was well over what it
would have been to purchase the actual water used, as opposed to paying the stand-
by and the monthly fees and all the other.
. I don't know if there's a third avenue or way to try to figure out what a good stand-
by fee might be - if we have to go that route. That is, if we say, "don't do meters."
. Now I understand then that gets away from 100% of trying to find out where all the
water goes, but I submit to you that I don't ever think we'll get to 100% with all
the underground mains that are in there leaking and - we're not going to get there.
· From my perspective, when you put a line-size meter on the cost of the meters,
plus the monthly fees, based to recoup a marginal amount of money associated
with those lines, doesn't make sense.
· You know, when it's $10,000 to $14,000 for just the meter, and then another
$12,000 a year - or $2,000 a year - for usage, if you used all of it, would be $500
or $600 a year.
. To me- it just doesn't seem like you're- you're paying a lot more than you
actually use for those systems and that doesn't equate right to me. I think if you go
after those and when you find them, penalize them heavily like they're doing in
Tampa, I don't think we would be that opposed to that.
. Up front, I don't want to kill the use of a sprinkler system or have somebody say,
"Well, gee, because of these fines and fees, I want to take my sprinkler system
out," and believe me, you are going to have some who will try that - they'll want
to disconnect it and will say, "I can't afford that extra $1,200 a year - I have to
disconnect this." And they may be able to by doing flow tests and an analysis, you
can do that.
. After they remove their system, what have we done? We haven't done anybody
any favors. We've put ourselves backwards.
. I want to try to take the approach here - we want to try to help you guys get the
funding you need in trying to pay for that water - whatever it is - but let's try to
take a practical approach to what the impact really is to those who are using the
system.
Joey Hatfield:
. That was well said, Ed. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
. To further reinforce that point, an example would be a 12,000 square foot building
with a fire sprinkler system installed. That system could cost around $15,000.
23
161
1
f\~
December 6, 20 I 0
. For a I OO-foot fire line with a 4-inch Double Detector Check, you're probably
talking about $12,000. You have at least as much cost in the underground as you
do in the overhead.
· If you take that figure and double it, it starts to just not make sense in someone's
head and they are then going to start looking for ways to modify the building to not
put fire sprinklers in - and that's what we're all trying to avoid. At least, our
Industry is. We're trying to provide fire safe buildings that people won't die in.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· In looking back at Tampa, it's based on a fire flow connection and the annual
service fees are pretty reasonable.
· But you're right, then you go after a punitive application on anybody that is
violating the system.
Nathan Beals:
· You can also see that they're got application and connection fees that are $20,000
for the high end - the highest one - that we're not talking about. That's like an
Impact Fee, kind of.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. That's a lot of years of usage.
Joe Thomas:
· In a perfect world, we wouldn't be talking about this because everyone would only
use the water for what they are supposed to, and there would never be any cross-
connections, and everyone would have a fire sprinkler at home.
. Unfortunately, things don't always work that way. The only fear that I have about
just having the one, and moving to where there would never be any charge for any
usage on the fire line - there will be those who will take the approach that, "I'm
paying for the water, so it doesn't matter how much I use, because I paid my one-
time availability for the year - I should be able to use as much as I want."
· Of course, not all of the customers - you can have a very small percent, but they
can have an impact.
· Once again, the availability fees, as Tom discussed, aren't meant to take care of the
usage, the maintenance, the reading of meters, and all the different things that go
along with that. So, bear that in mind as welI.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. I think you have hit it on point, though.
· We have dealt with proposals on flood issues in this eounty that could cost
millions of dolIars to implement to save only tens of thousand of dolIars.
· At some point, we need to understand that what we're pushing as costs toward.
private industry truly make up for it - there may be a better way to pursue
recouping the lost water costs from fire systems.
. And Tampa, it seems to me, does have it right - if you can do a detector that
determines where somebody is actually using water, especially improperly, feel
free. Draft an Ordinance and bill them - penalize them - whatever you need.
24
161
1
~~
December 6,2010
Chairman Dunnavant:
. But to go blanket across-the-board to every user and think that it's not painful and
it doesn't inhibit - and there is the legitimate concern of Ed's that somebody says,
"If I don't pay this $1,300 a year, I'll just disconnect my system and rely on fire
hydrants. I haven't had a fire in 20 years and I have a fire station nearby."
. There is a safety issue that we are, almost, talking people out of - and there will be
not many, but some individuals who may take that tact.
Joe Thomas:
. Our intention is to always keep the public safe.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Understood. But your "safety" is providing safe water. But if it deters people from
signing up for a sprinkler system that, in the long run, could provide a level of
safety in a time of need - that's a problem - a problem.
· I think Ed interjected a thought that's going to resonate a little strongly - that even
with an Ordinance in front of us ... I don't know.. .we can't ---
. I was going to say, I didn't think Utilities had an inclination to come up with
another proposal, but we cannot determine - unless you provide some information
to us - what kind of amount we're trying to recover out of fire line loss.
· But you are - we've talked about the 10% loss and it's been reduced to about 5%,
and you keep trying to whittle it down - but in that 5% is a lot of things - it's old
lines, it's low flow meters, it's fire services, it's all the above. So, Fire can't be
that big.
Tom Wides:
. I hear you - I can't measure it. Give me a meter and I can measure it.
. It's, unfortunately, it's that simple for me.
· I heard what Ed said and the whole time, I'm sitting here saying, "How can I
measure something? How can I measure it?" Is it 100% of our 5% loss, or is it
one percent? I don't know.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Detector - your detector meter - you check it quarterly, you get enough of a
service charge to at least cover that cost, and you can determine who is using it.
Tom Wides:
. I think you heard from - go ahead, Joe.
Joe Thomas:
. And, once again, what flow rate do you flow when you utilize that water through
the system?
Joey Hatfield:
. You're going to see, out of a by-pass meter, very few instances where it actually
records. You really are.
25
16\
1 ~~
December 6, 2010
Ed Riley:
. But we're not looking to - at least it seemed to me that you weren't looking to
determine a charge for those people who are using the sprinkler systems in the
manner in which they were designed to be used and tested.
. So when we test those, there is going to be at least seven gallons a minute flowing.
That's the smallest head on the system. So you will flow at least seven gallons a
minute to make that test work.
. What we're looking at, at least what I thought was, you're not going to be charging
for that or it wasn't your intent to do that - it was to try to capture those people
who are using the water illegally.
. Now there are a couple of things, and I submit to you that I would agreed with you
in both cases, the bypass meter may not accurately depict those people stealing
water. One could be a sprinkler system - yard sprinklers - they are going to use
more than three gallons a minute and they turn the system off in anyone zone. So
I can understand the concern there. And if they're using a domestic line and they
have a hose being tied up, when they turn on that hose bib, you're going to get
more than three gallons a minute through the water hose. So you'll get the initial
turn on until it ramps up and then it's going to open and flow through.
· But what you will see is some usage going through that backflow or by-pass meter
every month by anybody who is using anything. If there is no leakage and they are
not doing any usage there, you should see zero or a very low usage through there.
. To see anything above that, it should be a trigger to investigate - there is too much
going through a by-pass meter. I don't know what that number might be - and that
probably isn't going to satisfy your need for information.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. But to do that - they will have to look at it on a monthly basis to understand - they
would have to contact somebody on whether maintenance was done during that
period or the system was drained.
Ed Riley:
· Right. There would be a lot of work on their part to try to do that and no monies to
pay for that.
· I understand the concern and the problem is the cost to provide the metering of it
for the loss that we're trying to catch and it doesn't seem to match.
. If there were a cheaper way to do that, then I don't think we'd be in opposition
especially if it didn't impact the system negatively hydraulically. I think those are
the keys. I don't know of an option.
Joe Thomas:
. And just like you said, we do read those meters monthly.
. But because of the fact that we only bill per thousand, and because the meters only
show the first three gallons per minute - they don't show three gallons a minute for
the duration of that test - when that flow goes over three gallons per minute, they
quit registering.
26
161
1 ~t
December 6, 2010
Ed Riley:
· Right. Every time something is turned on, it would go for a shorter period oftime
until that three gallons - when it exceeds it, it stops.
Joe Thomas:
· eorrect. So that's one of the reasons we were asking for the coordination and as
Mr. Hatfield said they're not willing to provide us any water loss for the use of the
civilian crew when they do a test.
. I'm sure that speaks for the rest of the Industry.
Joey Hatfield:
· I would assume - yes. That's a whole other level of overhead that we'd be
incurring.
Nathan Beals:
. I was just going to try to stop the over-talk. It was getting confusing.
Joey Hatfield:
· Just an "outside the box" thought - what about the idea of Utilities buying and
providing these in-line meters for any fire line that's installed?
Tom Wides:
. Utilities doesn't buy - the rate payers pay.
· So what you're saying is - spreading all that cost across all the rate payers.
. It's not a Utility buying - you're just moving the cost somewhere else.
Joey Hatfield:
· I'm just trying to distribute it over a larger piece rather than one user having to pay
that amount of money that would not be recaptured for a long, long time. Just a
thought.
Tom Wides:
· As a - I guess you are not a rate payer in eollier eounty, but he is. I don't think
he's going to want to pay for that. That's just my guess.
Chairman Dunnavant:
· As we indicated, the installation of that [fire sprinkler] system in the event of a fire
would actually impact the system less and they would recoup at that point, their
investment.
Tom Wides:
· We are going - we are in circles - I think we all know that. So, I've given you a
proposal - you seem to be somewhat okay with it - you're not satisfied with it -
I'm not sure where else we go with this.
. We do have something in the Ordinance now that tries to capture usage. If you use
more than 5,000 gallons in a month - you pay for it. Maybe 5,000 isn't the right
number. But that's also a very simple sentence and it goes after the usage side only.
27
161
1 ~f.
December 6,2010
Chairman Dunnavant:
. But it's on an in-line meter right now which is both cost and friction loss.
Joey Hatfield:
. I think coming back in January - I'd like to see some type of a study that give us
some idea of how we arrived at these numbers for the fire line usage or the
connection fee.
Nathan Beals:
. Can I interrupt and answer that now. The Florida Administrative Code says we can
charge 1/12'" of the availability charge. That's how we came up with those
numbers.
Chairman Dunnavant:
. They've got back up - they can provide how they came up, I'm sure, with the
availability charge on the meter sizes for domestic use. And it's from the Florida
Administrative eode suggesting a 1/l2th billing of that amount.
. But you have studies that came up with those availability charges.
Tom Wides:
. That's our Rate Study.
. Let me ask you this, Joey, once you get that - what are you going to do with it?
Are we going to go around like we've done here and that's what I fear.
. We're chewing a lot of time and I'm not sure we're using it in the best way we
could.
Joey Hatfield:
. I think we're all starting to get that feeling and I - from what I can tell right now,
the next step is to agree on a fire line usage fee or a fire line connection fee. And
we just have to feel good about the number.
. Is that where you are, Dave?
Chairman Dunnavant:
. Yes. I thought that, too. I wasn't sure what the meeting was going to bare today.
. It's time to adjourn.
Next Meetinl!:
Friday, January 7, 2011 - 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chairman at 4:30 PM.
28
161
December 6, 2010
/
/
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ~/
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMIT EE
/
v
-~ J
'" -',.,
../' , '..:...;:..-<- -
DaVl
The Minutes we7PproVed by the Board/eommittee on _~~
as presented , or as amended .
~,
29
1 Ai
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 2010
161~ I ~
Fiala
~\!ler- ~ .
Henrnng /'
Coyle
Coletta
(JrnHI' (II CountY r omrn1S5I011eP.'>.
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes - October 12, 2010
V. Transportation Operations Report
A Budget
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula
VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL
VIII. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates
A. Hunter & Coronado
IX. Old Business
A Safe Routes to School Project
B. Water Symposium
X. New Business
XI. Public Comments
XII. Adjournment
I
AS
1
l~
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 2010
FIala
'J.'I" ..---
~. , " '~"C.N
H
Coyle
Coletta
com~ipners
Board at CO\.lo\Y
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
MINUTES
I. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 4: II p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer. Barbara Segura, Michael McElroy
(Excused), Peggy Harris (Excused)
County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Michelle Arnold - ATM
Director, Pamela Lulich - Landscape Operations Manager
Others: Michael McGee - McGee & Associates. Mike Anderson - Hannula.
Richard Tindell- JRL Design, Sue Flynn - Juristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as Submitted. Second by
Barbara Segura. Motion carried 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes -- September 14,2010
Richard Sims moved to approve the September 14,20/0 as submitted. Second
by Barbara Segura. Motion carried 3-0.
V.
Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget
Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate Beautification
MSTU Fund 153 Report dated September 14, 20 I O. (See attached)
. Ad Valorem Tax - Estimated $278,000.00 Misc. Corres:
. Total Revenues - Received $ 206.87
Date:
Item#:
16 I'
1~
. Operating Expense Available - $163.075.21
. Total Budget Available - $1,680,475.21
B. Project Manager Report
Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate MSTU Project
Status Report dated October 12, 2010. (See attached)
o (G-32) Water Svmposium Collaboration - Median #21
Staff stated the Board of County Commissioners directed the Water
Symposium report on all MSTUs. Staff reported not receiving any
Water Symposium design plans. Thc Hunter & Coronado design
plans have been submitted to the Water Symposium.
o (G-33) Replaeement or Demolition of Old Signs for Golden Gate
Community
Staff recommended the Committee take action to demolish and
replace with an upgraded sign.
Staff reviewed estimated cost based on previous sign cost as follows:
,.. SignCraft (sign only) $4,650
,.. Hannula (site prep and grading, includes sod) $4,888.50
,.. Electrical refurbish or replace existing fixture - $1,200
Discussion was made on the replacing and/or demolishing entry
signs, permitting and the costs of replacement.
Richard Sims suggested removing both signs and only replacing the
one at Grcen near CR951. lie stressed it was an opportunity to cut
signage and installation costs in hal f.
Pat Spencer expressed concern that rcmoval of the sign by the golf
course could mean "forever." She suggested the removal of signage
on CR95l by golf course and changing the sign location to a median
sign on Golden Gate.
Barbara Segura stated she was in agreement with Pat Spencer.
It was noted the County is no longer permitting signs on medians
and replacing later would not be an option. If the sign was replaced
in a different location there would be additional engineering,
electrical and permitting costs.
A consensus was form to replace the North sign.
Staff suggestcd updating the costs from SignCraft and checking with
Right of Way on sign permitting possibilities.
Barbara Segura moved to direct Staff to request updated quote,
specifically to match the sign (on Golden Gate at Santa Barbara)
for the North sign for Advisory Committee approval. Second by
Richard Sims. Motion pa.~sed 3-0.
2
161
IJ6
o G-3l) Hunter & Coronado Design - Curbing, Landscape and
Irrigation
Staff reported a news release to advertise schedule for bidding is
being prepared.
Staff estimated project will begin in January 2011 and estimated
completion in April 2011.
It was noted both the curb and landscape contractors working on the
project may cause a delay in schedule. It is not always possible for
both contractors to work on the same project at the same time.
Staff will confirm hid due dates and send the schedule to the
Committee.
o (G-25) Golden Gate Master Plan - Revision
Some minor revisions have been recommended by Staff. Staff will
review revisions with McGee and Associates. The Golden Gate
Master Plan revisions will be available at the November meeting.
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula - Mike Anderson
None.
VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL
Pam Lulich and Richard Tindell distributed and reviewed spreadsheets and
charts for Golden Gate MSTU Irrigation Fiscal Year 201 0 Water Usage. (See
attached)
The Charts reflected Road Sections and Water Usage per month. Plus it
included the KGL Annual Volume. Another Chart broke down the month of
April per road section reflecting:
. Road Sections
. Square Footage
. Gallons Per Foot
. Evaporation per University of Florida
. Average Rain Fall for month of April
. Estimated Irrigation Needed
. Irrigation Provided with sprinkler system
. Difference between Estimated Irrigation Needed and Irrigation Provided
Richard Tindell stated if additional water used is less than one inch, the
University of Florida states it is not too wasteful. He gave suggestions on ways
to cut back on watering.
. Could water costs in half by using Bahia grass instead of St. Augustine.
. Allow 25% death rate on grass.
. Leafy plants survive better.
. Bushes do better than plants.
3
161
1/6
Mike McGee expressed concern on irrigation readings shown on chart. The
numbers show possible irrigation problems or readings could be inaccurate.
Richard Tindell distributed and revicwed the Landscape Architect's Ficld
Report. (See attached) He reported the following need to be removed:
. Pine tree on Golden Gate
. 2 Saba! palms on Collier Boulevard hit by lighting needs to be removed.
. A Holly was knocked down on Green Street
Richard Tindell distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate Pathway Project
Map and Proposed walkways and estimated costs.
Staff thanked Richard Tindell for working through the weekend on the Safe
Routes to School Project on the submission for Grant Funds. (See Attached)
It was noted that two schools would benefit by the sidewalk project.
VIII. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates
A. Hunter & Coronado -- Discussed previously VB.
IX. Old Business
A. Master Plan - Discussed in V B.
B. Safe Routes to School Project - Discussed in VII.
C. Water Symposium - None.
X. New Business - None.
XI. Public Comments - None.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:10 P.M.
Committee
These minutes approyed by the Committee/Board on
as presented ../ or amended
17---1'-/ ID
The next meeting is scheduled for November 9, 2010
4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center-
Naples, FL
4
161
116
October 12,2010
Prepared by:
Darryl Richard, Project Manger, eolIier eounty Department of Alternative
Transportation Modes
Golden Gate MSTU Project Status
(G-33): ACTIVE - Replacement or demolition of old Signs for Golden Gate
Community
09-14-10: Staff observations is that the signs are becoming a 'hazard to the public' due
to deterioration of the post which hold the signs and the signs 'look worn/discolored' and
are not a positive aesthetic improvement to Golden Gate Community. Recommendation
is to demolition and replace with upgraded material (similar to the new sign at GG Pkwy
and Santa Barbara)
10-12-10: Review of estimated cost - based on previous sign cost:
1) SignCraft: $4,653.00 (for sign)
2) Hannula: $4,888.50 (for site prep and grading; includes sod)
3) Electrical refurbishment: $1,200.00 (replace/refurbish existing fixture)
Total budget figure for sign 'similar' to West Entry sign is: $10,741.50 (estimated)
(G-32): ACTIVE - Water Symposium Collaboration - Median #21
09-14-10: Per BCC direction Water Symposium is to 'report to the Board of County
Commissioners' (pending)
(G-31): ACTIVE - Hunter & Coronado Design; Curbing, Landscape, and Irrigation
Project Name: (2009-003P) Golden Gate Beautification MSTU - Landscape, Irrigation,
Curbing Final Design. ( Coronado Parkway & Hunter Blvd.)
09-14-10: ROW Permit is issued project bidding/coordination with Purchasing Dept. for
bid.
10-12-10: New Fiscal year PO issued for Naples Daily News. News Release for bid
advertisement is being prepared w/ schedule for bidding.
(G-25) ACTIVE - Golden Gate Master Plan - revision; (PO 4500100242; Work Order:
TLO-MA-3614-07-04; Original Contract Time-Line: NTP 12/8/2006 to Final Completion
12/30/2007; Original PO Amount: $4,800)
05-11-10: Final Submittal under review by staff.
09-14-10: Staff request confirmation of Committee's recommendation regarding "Santa
Barbara"
10-12-10: Some minor revisions recommended by staff. Staff will coordinate with McGee
& Associates for review/revision.
(G-26) ONGOING- Maintenance Contract
08-10-10: Hannula Landscape is under contract.
(G-29) ONGOING- Maintenance Consulting Contract
08-10-10: JRL Design is under contract.
:0
...
'"
::;
z
o
>=
.. 0
2 C;
..~...
i= V) ~
:o~N
<(0::
wz.8
Q)~o
~ t)
.. 0
'"
z
w
o
....
o
'"
r~
:;i
il~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
, ~
~
, ~
< = M
~ ~i':;~ ;2
>- $:
Il'-n::.
I'''' "', J'
I I
I I $:
'! i ;:; '" tl ti tl Vi
o I ill W W W <II W C,
I~.~jls ~ '~~'~~~~~I
~ :i <( J5 <:( <( <::S
:& i~ &:- 2. ~]! 8. ~ 8- ~i
,S! ~ 2:-0 B ~ $ i3 B B ~!
I~ _ a c ~ . OJ) ~ ~ ~-I-
t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~] ~,~
(J)u...u...uJ-l....JiJ)....I.....I....J.....Iif-
00 ~ is NWO
00 '<t t_ N
- N . ;;; NW_
N ~ OW~
" N '00;:: 000
0.:1 :; . 0 000
0 0 000
w <5 w www
~ v ~vv
.1
EI
~I'I: e
<II .9 g
]!]1il tIl
1Il;'~ &
>1'= c l':'
. . -
1"'C..'oIOtIl
U~g~a:
!J..lLl..I..-l.>..
I~ -II~ H '~
~~;:: e i6
!p_ ~ N
oC( i I .....,...
ifft/hll)tfI"i09jtf1tf)\II\II\IIq,\II
g g g ro
~ ~ ~ .~
~E ~:; ~ ~
~ ~:e: OJ) W d! Qj
co2Q,>ww..c
c...J.!!lCl'i:l""
~g;;~~:!~a
i
~ ~ J 0
:j!l~
> 1 l '
Ul~
In I
8$~ ~
~t:'a; r;;
H
uU
u
;; ~
161
~
~ "!
~g i
, s.
, HI
i
. p
s t o ~
0
~.
~
~
~ i
t . ~
II
. w
gggNggggggg
ggg~o8gg8gci
O""O<D~Oa)tn'<l"og
~~'.'i~,..:", ~-g.o
000001'" 0 Q 0110 0.0.18
OOOOONOOOOOO
00 g N 0.110 6 g 08 0 0.2
g ~ 0 ~ S,r; ;2.... g to g g,!ll
"..,; f~ .....Ifi ~ ~ ~ ~ M t--.!..~
...~:. '
gg'"
U~
~~
~
00
\IIIh\ll\ll\ll\lltf)\II\IIIhIh\lltf)\IIlhtl)\II\II~\II~Ih\ll\ll\ll-
'\
~
f)! 0;)
1Il;8
- ~;N
1 ~ .t:'!-~
,..,"0> ' I
I~ ~ i : i
I WI~mmt*'mfF} fflwwm<A W"'W <All) <>n /I) tJ) W IO'l-w....WlA Ih "" <J') W<fl(fll... (fl", w... tJ)<fl''''
I 10 w ~
I ~I 'I 'I ci ~::i
I 11>,' ,~~ ~
1 ~I I' 1060
'E I i~ N N
g 1 I'
UI:w::wIUHfl VH:,,: tlHft._
is g 8 8 g 8 g 8
I ~.6' go 16 ' '600 6100 I
~. _.0. .0.0. 0001'0.
"0 "0 ~o <0 I.n..-~N.~.
; "0 ie ~ &j g ~ ~!lC :0
E 'iN N W ~ 'I'"
i<m,~ :-:::.-"-~
, WlF>tI)tJ)....!tI)<RVlmm...m
,
I! '
;gg~;;;;g;8 ;;;;~:;;;;;~;
NODNOOOOOOO 000001~M~OQOO'O
~ ~ 8 ;!; g S g g 8 g g g g g 8 g ~ ~ t1.1E ~ g glg~
<om<OOO~N NOO<O ('oj NOO~~OO~~~M~Q
('oj ~ N t!) ,.-- ,ry ~ ~ 1- ro ('oj iN ....
~ 1M ~ " I
...WWWtJ)tJ)tJ)tJ)WW<flWfflwmww-...::m...ww...
:g
N
~
~~
tJ)WllJ.
Wffl_
00
00
00
g8
~~
~~
~ w ~ ~ ~~ -. w w ~
~~tw~0zW ~ ~~~ ~ ~00 ~ ~ ~ ~
S~~i:3~~8:~~i5 1=,(.1) ;;~~(Jj ~:2 ~~~ ,,@ (/)~~ 8 [8
~~~ffib~~~OO 5~w~~00~ ffiw wffi~~~z~~ffi~ ~ ~~~
wa~~Og~~OC~~U~I~W~Q~~ ffi~ ~~o~~~W~~(/)~~ W(J)~
~oco-~~~~~~~. OI(/)~~~ ,,~ :2~O~OCwI~~~~~ zzQ
~S&~~~~~~~~~~b8~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~G~g~~~~~
>~x~~~~~~~~~~w~0jo~~z~ 5"~w~~ffio~w~g~~~~
oa~~wz(Jj(J)~r~(J)~www(J)OC~~~~I(/)~-(J)~OCIOC~~~(/)(/)wW(/)
~~r(Jjocwzzococ<Oz.~~ocow~u~~UOF~Z~W~WOCocCZZ"~Z
~~~~~~~~~~ffi~~~~az~g~$~5Zili~~~~ffi~~~~~~gg~
uo~~~oc~Fuoz~~ww~5o~w~w~3~~~~o~oo~u~~oom~
....N~~~W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~
w
"
z
"
z
o
LI
~~tD
ffiffi~
"'"'
ww"
a:::c:F
O_N
~~~
f6
~
i
~
1 6 I
Cl Cl g> f'u:. co VI -<
0 0 '<~; VI c'..,
ii ii ii. i!! .... ::10
O:l :l> ..-0
III III III .:; -.
" " " !: 5' .~
Cl Cl Cl 0 III "
.. .. .. " ..
~ ~ ~
III III III '"
""C ""C ""C 0
.. .. .. 0 "
~ ~ ~ 0 '" '" '" "
,.. ,.. [ '" " " 0
~ ~ " '" co ~ '" en
.. .. .. '" Co '" '" <.n Q) 0
< < <
II> '" II> ."
" ~ '" '" '" w
" c: '" ~ '" '" " co 0
.. '" , " ~ w co
:=. I'D g> i::> Co to W en en
" ~ "
/1) 0 c: " '" w '" " 0
II> '"
'" " !2- :..,
II> " '" '" '"
... .. en
::r 0 '" ~ -.J W co
:i" <.n ~ '" w en '"
'" -.J
/1) -.J '" en 0 i:n
en '" co '" 0
~ ~ .~
'" w 0 en
~ ~ '" w '" 0 " '" w " co
-.J W W '" '" '" 0 w '" -.J 0 '"
<.n :,.. to i:n <.n i::> co w :,.. -.J co
'" '" '" w " '" 0 '" 0 W -.J co '" '" 0
w " '"
~ '" w '" 0 ::: '" '" ~
'$; w '" '" '" 0 '" co -.J '"
co Q) '" 0 co :... i::> to "
'" '" w " '" '" :,.. w ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ " '" co '" 0
~ ... II>
0 .a
0 c
~ ~ ~ ~
.. .. '" ~ '"
'" '" '" ~ -'" co "
'" co '" ~ ~ -.J '" iil -.J W -.J " '"
/1) w '" w '" '"
g -.J '" '" '" w 0 i:n '" :,.. to Co
'" '" '" '" '" Q) '" 0
~ w '" co -.J ~ co w :,.. '" '" co w 0
'" ~ w
~ ~ '" w '"
0 '" '" 0 '" -.J W W '" '" '"
~ " Co " c., 0 <.n :,.. to i:n <.n i::>
~ '" w " '" 0 " '" '" '" w " '" 0
':",;2
-< 'm .",
~ s: '" W -.J
.. .. '" -.J 0 '" <!)
" " " " " " " " "at W -.J W " " w
to to to to to to "' .. "'0: :,.. i:n to c., "
'" '" '" '" '" N N '.+;' -.J -.J '" '" W '" 0
.,t.
.,"'! '"
... /1) -.J '" '" W
~~ '" ~ '" 0 ~ '" '"
'" '" '" '" '" N N to ~ 0 '" '" '" "
i::> i::> i::> 0 i::> i::> i::> "-,,: '" CO ~ CO
W W W W W W W \~ '" W '" '" '" '" "
',',p,
Z;;, '" '"
...
:gil!i- w '" 0
'" '" '"
'" '" '" '" N N '" C-_ c., '" '" 0 <.n
Co Co Co Co Co RI-;'''' i::> " <.n
'" '" Q,. .., CO -.J
<!) <!) CO <!) <!) <!) <!) '" 0 -.J 0 '" '"
-.J
'" t <!)
" '" pl
0 '" '" W " 0 w i:n '" " 0
~ i::> to <.n ~ i::> :,.. -.J to <.n ~ '"
'" " W '" 0 W '" 0 -.J 0 '" '"
~ ~
'" tn" "
b b , W -.J " '" '" '"
'" 0 ~ '" '" '" '" .Qt
'j Co i::> i:n '" Co w i:n :,.. ~ " 8:1, '"
'" " <!) '" <!) 0 '" '" '" '" '"
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~
" 8
1 ""\
I
~
!
~
~
l;;
~
l;;
l:
. Gl
, 0
l;; a:
..
f ::J
Gl
l;; ..
~
f 3:
!!l
l;; c
::;
~ ::!.
0 O.lj
~
l;; ..
o'
::J
, ~
l;; ~
....
c
{ lG
0:
:ll
I N
Cl
..
Cl
"Ii
!..!!.
. . . . . . . . .
a .. .. lr a <> ~ <>
~ ~ .. ..
.. ~ ~ ii1 ~ ~ ~ ~
" > ~ ij. 0 0 g
l: .. , ,
~ 0 , <> <> ~
. .. ~
~ 0
'< ~ ~ ~
c: .
~ ! ~ I
~ .l!
lr " :g
,.
ii1 ~ '1'
~ '.l "
S. ~ "-
0 0 !
.. lr
~ ,
~ i!-
s.
0
~ , I
h
... .. .. '" ... Cl Cl <>
51 ~ ~ c a 0 0 !l.
~ ~ , 0: 0:
!!. .. > ~ ... ..
". Q' 0 . .
;: i , . ,
0 il Cl Cl Cl
~ !!. . .
. Ii Ii
<" ... ~ 11
c: .
~ i ~ i
. E
'Ii . . .
< < <
'" .. ~
rs a: ..
'1'
2:~ ..
, ~ "
. o ..
.. ~1
~ a
~ ".
,.
.
~ ~ N t: ,. 0
00 ~ ~
~ N ,. 0 ~
N '" in ~ en 0 It
00 '" N N '" '" 0 '"
~
;. N N ~ W .. Z
~
.. N N " ~ 0 N ~
~ w ~ ~ '"
\< ~ iD '" ~ en " It
'" w 00 .. 0 '"
~
'" N N N li'
'" w
0 N ~ ~ w ~
en ~ 00 w '" w n
'" '" en " ~ '" It
~ '" '" ~ '" '" 0 ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ '" :0
0 ~ '" w ,. '" '"
.. w 00 ~ 0 '" !" ,
'" '"' .. " in '"' '11 Ii;
0 w ~ ~ N '" 0
,. N ~
~ '" '" w w .
~ '" ~ ~ N ~ 00 I'
'"' " in ,. w ;.. '"' ~
~ ,. 00 .. ~ N 0 00 "
'" ~ ~ ~ N ,. ;:
~ w ,. '" ~
w 00 '" W N '" '"
'" .. iD " ffi i!; ~
w .. 00 N ~ 0 "
g; c: ~ ~ w ~ >
~ N W N S"!!!
~ w W N 00 '"
en .. in '" en iii ~ ~
00 '" '" w ,. 0 '" "
~
;" N W ~ ~ l:
~
~ N ~ 0 '" :Jl w.
'" ~ w ,. ,. ;-J~
.. '" in " ~ N ~
~ ~ '" '" w 0 ~ "
~
'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ N ~ W
00 ~ 00 0 ~ 00 w 0
iD ~ 0 !" '" N 00 ,
'" '"' ~ in ~ ~ " ;.
'" W N '" '" '" ,. '" "
00 ~ N N
~ 0
N ~ gJ N Eo
" '" '" en 00
~ " .. '" ~ 00 ;.
'" 0 ~ 0 ~ '" '" en "
~ ~ >
'" ~ t ~
,. ~ '" '" ~~
'" '" ,. "
~ iD en " '" w ~
'" 0 ~ 0 '" w '" ~ "
~
~ ~ '" ~ '"
00 ~ ,.
w ~ ,. '" 8l 00 .
'" ~ '" '" '" '"' ...
ill .. ~ N '" 00 :g ;.
0 00 '" N ~ 00 "
~ >
,
,
.c ~
~
~ ~ ~ N '" '" <
~ '" '" '" ~ 00 ~ 0
.. .. '" N ~ Cj '" '" c
l!l ~ ~ "" N ~ ~ 3
;.. iD ~ j1; ;.. ~ ~
.. N W ~ W en .
1 A'S
Gl
o
a:
..
::J
Gl
..
..
..
s:
VI
-I
C
....
....
0;;'
..
..
o.
::J
...
;;;'
n
!!!.
<
..
..
....
N
o
..
o
:E
..
..
lD
....
c
'"
..
GO
lD
.
ie:
..
;:
o
~
~
<"
~
.
~
o
.
~
~
~
.
~
~
>
.
~
~
5
o
.
0;
o
~
n.
.
.
.
'"
o
0:
o
o
'"
..
o
~
.
~
.
<
~
il
~
5.
o
~
~
~
.
'"
o
0:
o
o
'"
..
o
..
~
<
~
0:
~
o
o
~
o
il
~
5
o
.
'"
o
0:
o
o
'"
..
o
;:
~
.
<
~
~
'l'
~
is:
~
~
>
0
0
~
<
0
..
3
0 z :i' " ~ ;: > if ~ .. ~ 0
0 0 . '1 ~ "
" < ~ 0 9" 7 < 7 ~ ., "9
ill ill ,:. ~ ~ ~ ,:. ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o
~rr r- rr-T rnrrr- "r-.Tr-rrl
8
o
A
8
Cl
o
a:
..
::J
Cl
III
..
..
~
II>
-l
c:
'"
o
III
Co
~
-<
:;
...
~.
..
O'
::J
=E
III
..
..
...
~
8
~
8
8
c:
'"
III
..
..
..,
-<
N
Q
...
Q
~
8
o
~
A
o
8
~
~
8
o
Golden Gate MSTU Irrigation Fiscal Year 2010
Annual Volume
(KGL)
Square Footage
Road Section
Golden Gate Parkway ( SBB- Bridge)
Golden Gate Parkway - Bridge to Sunshine
Golden Gate Parkway - Sunshine - 951
Tropicana
Sunshine
951A
951B
Total Monthly Usage
140000 1 .
120000 +"
I
100000 +
80000 i
60000 Y
I /-_.
40000 +- /
20000 4
1671.5
685.113
5970.11
2612.64
1523.13
1667.92
141.19
14',21Uil1
47089
91361
119127
61859
66866
89263
122761
.-
I ,,/-
o J.::"-.. --
Annual Volume (KGL)
Square Footage
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% .,/'
50% ~.
40%
30% ~.
20%
10%
0%
Annual Volume (KGL)
Square Footage
161
lk?
Acres
Gallons! Acre
1.08101
2.09735
2.73477
1.42008
1.53503
2.04919
2.8182
1,546,239.17
326,656.50
2,183,039.16
1,839,783.67
992,247.71
813,941.12
50,099.35
. Golden Gate Parkway ( SBB- Bridge)
. Golden Gate Parkway - Bridge to Sunshine
. Golden Gate Parkway - Sunshine - 951
. Tropicana
. Sunshine
.951 A
..9S1 B
.. 951 B
.951 A
. Sunshine
. Tropicana
. Goiden Gate Parkway - Sunshine - 951
. Golden Gate Parkway - Bridge to Sunshine
. Goiden Gate Parkway ( SBB- Bridge)
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
~..
Oct...
.,..,
""...
Feb-10
Jiln-lO
Golden Gate MSTU Irrigation Water Usage FY 2010
,.
. .L.-1~.J..l.Ll
~r-l0
May-10
)uo.-10
Apr-l0
)1,11-10
Aul-tO
Stp.l0
Anl'lU.lll
Volume
(KGl)
161
140
.GokIM G_ Pm-y I S88- Btidpl
aGoldlln lata ~rkway - 8ridp to SuMhine
aTroplalna
. Golden GmI Pilrkway . SUnshine - 951
.SUlUhlne
a951A
a9518
aTotal Mclnthlv U..,.
.
16'1
l~
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
MINUTES
I. The meeting was called to order at 4:16 P.M.
No quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Richard Sims (Absent), Pat Spencer, Barbara Segura (Absent),
Michael McElroy, Peggy Harris (Absent)
County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich-
Landscape Operations Manager
Others: Michael McGee .- McGee & Associates, Damon Himmel - Hannula,
Richard Tindell - JRL Design, Sue Flynn - Juristaff, Lisa Koehler - South
Florida Water Management, Michael Spencer - MSA Design Inc., Duke Vasey
- Collier Soil & Water Conservation District Tim Nance - Estates Civic
Association
X. Meeting was concluded at 4:20 P.M.
Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee
The next meeting is scheduled for December 14, 2010
4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center-
Naples, FL
I
~~[cmm:~l~W
By;........................
COI;H:!-r Cuunty (orrrnufllly Redevelupment Agency
-131" ---12'/
H;!lu /
Henning /
Coyle II
Coletta
16 I l-kte
IMMOKALEE eRA
i The Plcce 10 Call Home!
eRA Governinl! Board
EZONE MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
ChaiT
State Enterprise Zone Development Agency
December 15,2010 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM
Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee
750 South 5th Street
Immokalee, Florida 34142
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
James N. Coletta
Commissioner
Fred W. Coyle
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Commissioner
Georgia Hiller
State Enterorise Zone
Develooment Al!cncv
Board lEZDA)
Michael Facundo
Chainnan
Edward "Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
Chief Tom Davis
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Robert Halman
Ex-officio
Julio Estremera
Kitchell Snow
Floyd Crews
Ana Salazar
James Wall
Eva Dcyo
Carry Williams
Melissa Martinez
eRA StaIT
Penny Phillippi
Executive Director
239252.2310
Bradley Muckcl
Project Manager
239252.5549
Christie Betancourt
Administrative Assistant
239252.2313
Call to Order.
Roll Call and Announcement ofOuorum.
Adoption of Agenda.
Communications.
Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of Minutes.
i. Joint CRAAB/EZDA meeting - see eRAAB agenda
b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report, November (Enclosure 1)
Old Business.
New Business.
Citizen Comments.
Next Meeting. January 19, 2011 at 9:30 A.M.
Adiournment.
Misc. Correa:
Date: D ~
Item #fulL\
......:"j.c,.~.'~.~.
Co ie~ (ULif1~':i CorrrH..i~)lly ~eUeVei;)~Pler't ~\gerlCy'
~
y
--J'~
v
ml1ttnS1~W;~~
riala
j"j"
~-~l, ~t\.t"
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
IMMOKALEE eRA
i The Place 10 Cali Home!
eRA Governine Board
.91'l 0;,",...... ......~......_..
Community Redevelopment Al!encv Advisory Committee Al!enda
161
1
A1
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
Chair
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
James N, Coletta
Commissioner
Fred W. Coyle
Commissioner
Georgia Hiller
CRA Advisorv Board
Michael Facundo
Chairman
Edward ..Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
Robert Halman
Ex-officio
Julio Estremera
Kitchell Sno.....
Floyd Crews
Ana Salazar
James Wall
Eva Deyo
Carrie Williams
MclissaMartinez
CRA Staff
Penny Phillippi
Executive Director
239.252.2310
Bradley Muckel
Project Manager
239.252.5549
Christie Betancourt
Administrative Assistant
239.252.2313
December 15,2010 - 8:00 A.M. - I :00 P.M.
Southwest Florida Works (Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee)
750 South 5th Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142
A. Call to Order.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
c. Introductions
D. Announcements.
a. Civil Servant Award Recipient - Penny Phillippi
b. January 12,2010 BCC-CRA Workshop - 9:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M.
E. Adoption of Agenda.
F. Communications.
a. Public Notices
G. Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of Minutes.
i. Joint CRA Advisory BoardfEZDA Meeting November 18, 20 I 0 (Enclosure 1)
b. Fa,ade Grant Program Monthly Activity Report, October (Enclosure 2)
c. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices
i. RWA, Inc.
I. November Monthly Activity Report (Enclosure 3a)
2. November Invoice (Enclosure 3b)
II. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM)
I. November Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 4)
H. Old Business.
a. Stormwater Master Plan/DRI Grant - Update
b. Immokalee Christmas Decorations - Update
c. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights - Kitchell Snow
d. Marketing Update.
I. Presentations.
a. Immokalee Land Development Codes - RW A Consulting
b. Immokalee Transportation Plan - Tindalle Oliver, Inc.
J. New Business.
a. Recommend the CRA Executive Director's Annual Evaluation to the CRA Board
(Enclosure 5a-5e)
K. Citizen Comments.
L. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting January 19, 20 II at 8:30 A.M.
M. Adiournment.
* The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held January 19,20 II, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida
Works (Career and Service Center) located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. All meetings will be publicly
noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to
the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative
Assistant, at 239.252.2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act,
persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt at least 48
hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the CRA Advisory Board are also
members of other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Fire Commission, and
the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Board may come
before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Misc. COrres: I
it I
t ~f
:;;",'-'
i The Place to Coi: >-Iome !
l~i~I;~~l~~
16\
1 AiY
Cu:,l:l' COloflfy COrnllllYHty Rl-'Ceveluprnel'l A~;t'n(l'
IMMOKALEE eRA
By;........................_-
Il Jnc10sure ]
Fiala ~ ~
+tillev
Htnning /
coyle
Coletta v"
MINUTES - November 18, 2010
Combiued Meetinl! of the
Commuuitv Redevelopment Al!encv Advisory Committee and the
Enterprise Zoue Development Al!encv
A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Mike Facundo at 8:30 A.M.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
Advisorv eommittee/EZDA Members Present:
Michael Facundo, Floyd Crews, Ana Salazar, Julio Estremera, Ski Olesky, Jeffery
Randall, Robert Halman and Melissa Martinez.
Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused:
Eva Deyo, Kitchell Snow, Carrie Williams and James Wall.
Action: A quorum was announced as being present.
Others Present: Daniel Rosario, Steve Hart, Clare Ayala, Drew Lee, Pam Brown, Patrick
Vanesse and Chris Scott.
Staff: Penny Phillippi, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt.
C. Introductions. Everyone present introduced themselves.
D. Announcements.
Ms. Phillippi announced that she and Jeffery Randall are members of the Board of Directors
of the Immokalee Foundation and that the Foundation had been awarded a $2 million dollar
grant and 1,200 volunteers. They have agreed that the 9th Street Plaza will be one of the
projects they will work on under the grant.
Mr. Muckel announced that the Christmas decorations were reduced to lighted garland
around the poles and the Immokalee banners will not go up until January 15,2011.
Action: Mr. Crews made a motion that the CRA investigate the process for moving the
administration of the MSTU to the CRA and instructed stajJto proceed to make the move. Ms.
Salazar seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote.
E. Adoption of Agenda.
Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Estremera seconded the
motion and the Agenda was unanimously adopted
F. Communications.
Public Notices and the November issue of Florida Trend Magazine were passed around in
the Communications Folder.
G, eonsent Agenda.
a. Minutes
eRA Meeting and EZDA Meeting Minutes of October 20,2010, the Fayade Grant
Monthly Report for October, the RW A October Invoice and Monthly Report, and
the CDM October Invoice and Monthly Report.
Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda, Mr. Halman seconded
the motion and the Consent Agenda was unanimously adopted
H. Old Business.
1. New Business.
a. Immokalee Open Air Market
Ms. Phillippi presented the three price quotes received for the creation of an open
air market in Immokalee and requested that the Advisory Co.t!;\)rillSProve the
quote from Mabel Dunn. Although not the cheapest, the CRA Director surmised
Date:
ltem#:
,0
161
lk1
that the design proposed most closely matched the approved Public Realm and
Town Design. Further, the quote included the design, a feasibility study and a
funding search.
Action: Mr. Randall made a motion that staff move forward with the design jor the open
air market and hire Mabel Dunn and her associates to complete the work. Mr.
Halman seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote.
b. 2011 CRA Operational Workshop
R W A Consulting conducted the workshop to review 20 I 0 accomplishments and
gain planning input toward the development of the 2110 Operational Plan.
J. eitizen Comments.
K. Regular Meeting - December 15,2010 - 8:30 A.M.
L. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at I :00 P.M.
2
161
~1
Collier County Communily Redevelopmenl Agency
IMMOKAlEE eRA
i The Ploce to Coli Home!
eertifieation of Minutes Approval Form
.
, !t/
Approved by:
iir--1_~
~
Pre~f!J:C.? by:
// (/}, ..-
Penny PlJj.l1ippi, Executiv~ , '.'ector
ImmokalCc Community Rdevelopment Agency
Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman
Thesc Minutes for thc Novcmbcr 18, 2010, eRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting werc
approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on Decembcr 15, 2010 as presented.
* The next joint Advisory Board/EZDAllMPYC meeting will be held January 19, 2010 at
8:30A.M, at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5[h Street in Immokalee.
*. There is no scheduled lMPYC meeting at this time. FUllher meetings will be held at 5:30
P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be
appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings.
All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Bnilding F), posted at the Immokalce
Public Library and provided to the County Public 1nfonnation Department for disu'ibution. Please call Christie
Betancourt. Administrative Assistant, at 239-252~2313 for additional infom18tioll. In accordance with the American
with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie
Betancourt, Adminisu'ative Assistant, at least 48 hours before tbe meeting. The public should be advised that
members of the lmmokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the eRA AdvisOIY Board are also members
of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board, Immokalce Fire Commission, and the Collier COUllty Housing Authority; etc. In this regard,
matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board
and Committees fi'om time to time.
eRA Go\'ernitm Board
COJllll1issioner
foUl Henning
Comrnissiotll'f
DOllllariala
CommissiollCt
Jamcs N. Colella
COlllmissioner
Fred W. Coyle
Commissioner
Georgia Hiller
eRA Ad\'lsorv lJoal'd &
Slate Enlcl'Ilrhc Zone
A{!t'JlCV Board
Michael Fncllnoo
CJminTllUl
Ana Salazar
CarrieWilliallls
Edward "Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
EVil Deyo
Floyd Crews
Kitchell Snow
Melissa Martincz
JamcsWall
Julio Estccmera
1,1. Dlew Lee
D,miel Rosario
Robert Halmnn
(E:\Omcio)
CRAStalT
Penny Phillippi
ExeC11tive Director
Bradley Mucl.;el
Project Manager
Christie BCIUntOurt
Admin istrulive Assistnnt
Collier Counly Cornmunily Redevelopmenl Agency
IMMOKAlEE eRA
i The Place 10 Cali Home!
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
December 16,2010
Sam Tucker, Executive Aide, Bee
Christie Betancourt, Administrative
Inunokalce Cornnnmity Redevelopment
Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval
161
1 ~
Attached are the Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval fi'om December for
your conveyance.
Thank you.
Immok.lee Community Reqeveiopment Agency
310 AI.chu~ Sheet, Immok.1lee, FL 34142
239.252.2313'" 239.252.6725 (FAX)
RECEIVED
DEe 1 4 2010
t;iaia
-tiillu
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
)iJ /
-j ~/
V
./
161
l~/
November 8, 20] 0
Goarti pf ';;OUI',y comIl1i$S(Qners,
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 'rHE CONSER V ATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 8, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Co]] ier, having
condueted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR
SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet (Excused)
VICE CHAIRMAN: Michael Delate
Tony Pires
Jeffrey Curl
Jeremy Sterk
Thomas Sobczak
Annisa Karim
Clarence Tears (Excused)
Lauren Barber
ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management
Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man.
Misc. Corres'
'(
"D~li
11llmt: 10 I g
161
l~
November 8, 20] 0
1. RollCall
Mr. Delate called the meeting to order at 9:01AM. Roll call was taken and a quorum
was cstablished.
II. Approval of Agenda
Jfr. Curl moved to approve the Agendo subject to thefollowillg changes:
. Deletion of Item IV.A. 1 .c-- Jackson
· Addition of hem III.A Budget Update
Secolld by Mr. Pires. Carried unonimous(v 6-0.
Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator introduced Steve Williams,
Assistant County Attorney as the new A1torney Jar the Committee.
i'vfs. Barber arrived at 9:0-1 am.
111. Approval of October 11. 201 (J minntes
ilfr. Curlmoveil to approve the minutes of the October II, 2010 meeting subject to
the followiug chauge:
· Page 2, paragraph 4, line I - trom "." with the Pompazini application..." to
"... with the Happy #4 Family application. ..
Seco/ld by Ms. Karim. Carried unanimo/lsly 7-0.
A. Budget Update
Melissa Hennig provided an update on the budget noting:
. The Budget Office has notified Staff the projections for interest rates for
the revenue on fund balances have been revised downward from 1.5% to
,75% [orFYIl.
. The Budget Office also originally projected interest rates increasing
through 2020 to 3.67%.
. The Office is now rccommendmg estimating the interest rate at 1.5% from
FYl2 to FY2020.
. The revisions severely impact the Management fnnds projected for the
Program.
. A full presentation on the issue will be provided by Staff at a future
meeting. At this point Staff is recommenc!Jng not to acquire any properties
this Fiscal Year, (and possible the remainder of the Program) as
Management funds may not be available.
. In addition, Ad Valorem tax rates are expected to decline tbis year, tilrthcr
affecting the Programs tilnding,
Mr. Pires questioned whether the contracts provided for approval today under item
IV.A.! should be not be considered until a fonnal presentatlOn fTom the Budget Office
has OCCUlTcd.
Mr. Delate questioned if the Committee should continue the ranking process scheduled
for the December meeting.
2
161
l~
November 8. 20 I 0
Alex Suleeki recommended the process of ranking continue. If acquisitions cease for a
period of time, the rankmgs be reviewed at the time the acquisition process fe-starts,
Ms. Hennig noted it is Staffs intcnt to have fomlal budget estimates prior to the
December meeting.
}Jr. Pires moved to table cO/tsideratio/t of item lV.A.I a-d. umil the /text Regularly
s'('heduled COJlservatioJl Collier LaJld AcquisitioJl Committee meeting. Seco/td by ]~fs.
Karim. Carried una/timously 7-0.
IV. Old Business
A. Real Property Management Update -. A-list properties
1. Contracts
a. Navarro - 1.59 ae - Unit 53
b. Palacios - 4.07 ae - Unit 53
e. Jaeksou .., 1.59 ae . Unit 53
d. Jordana/Molina - 1.14 ae - WH
Cindy Erh, Real Property Management noted contracts on-going are being
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approvaL
B. Gordon River Greenway Project - Update
Alex SuJecki provided the site plan "Gordon River Greenway Park" prepared by
Kimley-Hom and Assoc., Inc. dated 9-09-10 and "Cross Section Comparison""
prepared by ./cffCurl dated November 8.2010 for information purposes. Thc
following was highlighted:
· The sitc plan is hcing revised based on comments from the Environmental
and Planning Dcpal1ment and scheduled to be re-submitted on November
20, 2010.
. A revised project scheduie timelinc will be provided to the Committee.
· A Neighborhood Ivfeeting is scheduled for sometime in early ./anuary, 2011
helbre the 1 (Jlh, during the evenmg at Freedom Park. CCLAAC invited to
attend.
· The cost estimate [or the 75(J foot ilsphalt pathway through the Gopher
Tortoise Preserve is $27,000.
. The cost estimate lor an '"at grade" boardwalk through the Gopher Tortoise
Preserve is approximately $375.000.
She rcquested the Committee's recommendation on whether the proposed
pathway through the Gopher Tortoise Preserve should be asphalt or a boardwalk.
The Committee noted a boardwalk is a much more aesthetically plcasing and less
environmentally obtrusive option, but is not feasible given the budget constraints
outlined in item tIJ.A
3
161
1~
November 8, 2()] 0
illr. ..S'terk moved to recommend the "ill gradc"pathway through the Gopher
Tortoise Preserve be eoustrueted of asphalt material. Secolid by ills. Barbel'.
Carried llualiimOIlS~1' 7-0.
Speaker
Ellie Krier, Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust addressed the
Committee noting the ranking process should continue because even if the
propcrties arc not acquired, their identification OIl u ranked list may facilitatc
Grant Funding (i.e. the CDC parcel proposed for acquisition adjacent to the
Programs Gordon River Greenway parcel.)
C. Preserve Ordinancc - lIpdate
Alex Sulecki noted the item was scheduled for review by the Board of County
Commissioners on November 9,2010 but has been postpoued.
D. Off-site Prescrves Acceptance Policy Resolution _ Update
Alex Snlecki noted the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolutiou
2010-213 on October 26. 2010. Copy provided to CCLAAC.
V. New Business
A. Cycle 8 Proposals Update - Scoring Charts
Alex Sulecki provided "Conservation Collier Properly Summary" dated
November 8,20] 0 for the tollowing parcels considered for acquisition by the
Committec:
]-75flopertie~ - (A1.M,LLC., Argay, Arias, Arias Ayra, Berman Trust, Blake,
Faust, Femandcz, Gascon, Mayr, Mohabir, Vclez,) -located north ofl-75 in the
vicinity of Everglades Blvd and DeSoto Blvd. ranging in area from] .59 to 7.05
acres.
Dr. Gorc parc~ls 72 parcels located north of 1-75 i11 the vicinity of Everglades
Blvd and DeSoto Blvd. total area = ] 97.66 aCres. The parcels will require
individual title searches at a cost of$375 each.
Baron C()lIier ,Investments -. located on the South side of Pepper Ranch _ Area I,
(235 acres) and Area 11, (7994 acres - within SSA Ii 1 3 having "opt out" clause in
2014 if no credits are used).
Speaker
Brad Boaz, Baron Collier Investments requested the appraisals for the parcels
include all potential uses Jtlr the properties (residential, potential Panther Habitat
Units, etc.)
CDC Land [11\ estments. Inc. -located on the south side of the Conservation
Collier Gordon River Greenway parcel - (7.51 acres).
Speaker
4
161
1 f\<
November 8, 2010
Patrick Utter', Collier Development Corporation noted a preliminary site plan
has been developed providing for 17 home sites with access to the bay. The site
plan has not been submitted to any City Department or Staff for review.
The Committee requested Staff cOl~/irm public parkillg is all allowed use 011 the
site.
0.a~~hoppes II, LLC located m Mcllvane !\1arsh - 13 -'-/- acres.
Speaker
8i11 Schrage, Gateway Shoppes II, LLC noted the propcrty has "legal access"
however "physical access" may be limited.
Paskanik ~..localed one parcel removed from Panther Walk Preserve 2.73 acres.
Worthington~Collier, LLC located 5 miles East ofjmmokalce aiong County
Road 846 3 parcels (parcel a 501 acres; pareei b - 114.4 acres: parcel c _ 47.4
acres). Parcels arc entirely withiu SSAs #3 and tl5. It was uoted the main benefit
of the acquisition is obtaining public access to the parcel.
Speaker
Ron Zul, Worthington-Collier, LLC noted the property has substantial value for
panther mitigation purposes. To obtain the value of any mitigation credits. habitat
restoration may need to be completed. He is unsure if the landowner can "opt out"
of the Stewardship Sending Areas #3, #5 (similar to the Bel statlts) cncltmbering
thc parcel within the Rural Lands Stewardship Arca Program. To his knowledge
they are in fhll compliance with any reqltired Management Plans.
The Committee requested Staff determllle:
1. The status ofSSA's for any lands proposed for acquisition (compliance with
management plans, opting out feasibilities, etc.).
2. Veri fication on the value and costs associated with the mitigation crcdits
(pHU's, etc.)
B. Review-Developml'lIt of the Active Acquisitioll List (AAL)
Alex Suleeki presented the following documents to assist in ranking the
properties proposed for acquisition: "Cvcle 8 Properties flanked Scores,
,Vovemher 2010;" CO/lser1'Grion Collier Ranking Procedure, iVo\'emher 2010,'"
"'A clive AcquisitIOn List Worksheet ... Review Novemher ]0/0" all dated
November 8. 2010.
She olttlined the procedLLres for ranking the properties at the December meeting.
It was noted:
. StaffwilJ re-cvalltate the "vulnerability scorc" lor tbe Collier Development
Corporation parcel based on Mr. Utter's comments on the parcels
suitability for rcsidential development.
5
VII.
VIII.
161
1,b(r
November 8, 20 I 0
. Any member witb a conflict of' interest should contact Staff in advance so
proper documentation may be tiled.
. Staff requested members to aJ1ieulate their reasoning when ranking a
propen y.
VI.
Outstanding Advisol'y Committee Member Program
Mr. Curl was recognized as an HOlIIsta/Jding CO/Nn1/ttee Member" by the Board of
County Commissioners on 10/26/10.
Coordinator Communications
Alex Sulecki noted:
. The Stames Cattle Lease is scheduled tDr review by the Board of County
Commissioners on November 9, 20J O.
· Pepper Raneh is open for public visitation on Saturday mOl1lings.
· Staff contactcd the Executive Director ofthc CREW Land Trust and it was
indicated the Trust is interested in conveying their parcels in Unit 53 to
Conservation Collier.
Sub-Committee Meeting Reports
A. Outreach - Tony Pires, Chair
Nonc
B. Lands Evaluation and Management - Michael Delate, Chair
The Subcommittee is schedlded to convene a meeting immediatcJy fDllowing this
meeting.
C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures - Annisa Karim. Chair
A meeting was hcld in September where the Preserve Ordinance was discussed.
IX. Chair Committee Member Comments
Miehael Delate requested clarification on the comments recently made by
Commissioncr Henning that the Program lllay be continued beyond 2013 to help pay
for Jackson l.abs.
Alex Sulecki noted the comment was probably in the context that the .25 millage on
the property tax rak currently assigned to Conservation Collier may be continued to
fi nance Jackson Labs.
X. Publie General COlllments
None
XI. Staff Comments
None
There being no further bnsiness for the good of the County, the meeting was
ad,journed by order of the chair at 10:41 A.M.
6
161
November 8. 20] 0
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee
,'If
vi,.,'!
v-r
/
i ./ i
\ {.-r"'"
(;:. /~/'/'X:>,^.",
, ~... '-
Michael Delate, Vice Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board/Committ~9on
as presented or as amended ;:v~/
') /
)
7
1*~
~ lI~lIRWmli\)
J!I1 JAM 1 1 2010 JY)
BY:"M~OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FI.'a 1) ,,/
Hiller --.J.f I/"'
Henning -.r ~ ./
Coyle
COli.ltll .= . V
16' l.p(tJ
December 13,201 0
Naples, Florida, December 13,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR
SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 5th Floor, Collier County
Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet
VICE CHAIRMAN: Michael Delate
Tony Pires
Jeffrey Curl
Jcremy Sterk
Thomas Sobczak
Annisa Karim
Clarence Tears (Excused)
Lauren Gibson
ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management
Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man.
Mark Isackson, Director of Corporate Finance
Therese Stanley, Sr. Budget Analyst
Bany Williams, Dir., Parks and Recreation DCijlst. Correa:
DIll:
ltemt:
ecpies to:
161
1~
December 13. 2010
Dwight Brock, Clerk of Courts
Crystal Kinzel, Dir., Finance and Accounting, Clerk of
Courts
Derek Johnssen, General Accounts Manager, Clerk of
Courts
Len Price. Administrator, Administrative Services Div.
I. Roll Call
Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9: 19AM. Roll call was taken and a
quorum was established.
II. Approval of Agenda
Mr, Delate moved to approve the Agenila, Second by Mr. Pires. Carried
unanimously 8-0.
1lI, Approval of November 8, 2010 minutes
Mr. Delate moved to approve the minutes subJect to the following changes:
. Page 4, paragraph 7, line 3 lrom "(... 2014 ifno credits not used)." to
"(...2014 ifno credits are used)."
. Page 6, paragraph 2, line 21rom "...12/26/10." to "...10/26!l 0."
Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 8-0.
IV. Old Business
A. Budget
Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmeutal Specialist, Program Manager
provided the Executive Summary "Budget Shortfall ProJections and Advisory
Sunset Provision" dated December .13, 2010 and the followiug documents:
. "Collier Count" Land Maintenance Fund (174) Projected Revenue and
Expenses FY 2011 -2020" dated Deeembcr 13,2010,
. "Collier County Land Maintenance Fund (174)- Projected Revenue and
Expenses FY 2021 -2025" dated Dcccmber 13, 2010.
. "Fiscal Year CarTY Forward Analysis - Fund 172- Consen'ation Collier"
dated Deeember 13,2010.
. Copy of newspaper article published November 28, 2010 titled "Time for
20/20 Revisions"
As outlined in the Executive Summary, Staff recommends the tollowing:
. Immediately suspend all acquisitions, including thosc Unit 53 and
Winchester Head parcels that arc under contract and waiting for Board
approval.
. Prepare a final recommended Active Acquisition List as a contingency plan
if thc economy or circumstances changc,
. Report to the Board in January 2011, present a tinal recommended
acquisition list and request direction regarding the sun setting of the
CCLAAC.
2
161
1 .f\i
December 13,2010
. CCLAAC and staff prepare a prioritization of public amenities at each
preserve for recommendation to the Board.
Melissa Hennig reviewed the rationale for the recommendations Including:
. When the budget projections were prepared in May of2010, taxablo values
forthe County were expected to decrease 7% for FY11 (over FYW) and
remain flat for FY 12 (over FY11).
. New projections indicate taxable values will decrease by 11.7% in FY 11,
7% in FYI2 and remain flat for FYl3.
. In May. it was estimated 56.3M would be available for land acquisitions
(51 .9M for the remaining parcels in Unit 53 and Winchester Head and
$4.4M for new acquisitions).
. Projections now indicate $4.7M will be available for acquisitions ($2.8M
will be available for new acquisition and $1.9M available for Winchester
Head and Unit 53 acquisitions).
. In May of201O. interest rates were estimated at I.5'Vo for FY11 and to
slowly increase to 3.67% by FY20.
. New projections indicate the interest rate will be .88% for FYll and slowly
increase to 3.00% by FY20.
. Preservation land needs to be managed to a certain lcvel of service to
support the species that inhabit them and provide the necessary public
benefits (access to the property, etc.)
. Given the current projections, interest income from the Management fund
may not be sufficient to provide the required level of service to the
Preserves.
. Staffis concerned with the expenditure ofrunds on additional acquisitions
until they are assured funds are available to propcrly manage the existing
preserves.
. To assist in determining how any available funds may be expended in the
future, Staff recommends prioritizing an acquisition list and the public
amenitics proposed for each Prescrve.
Mr. Pires posed the following questions to Staff:
Q. \'lhy is there a discrcpancy in the figure of$5.922M for FYll revenue shown
in the document "Fiscal Year Carry Forward Analvsis - Fund 172-
Conservation Collier'" dated December 13, 2010 versus the document
updating projections provided at today's meeting ('"December 2010
Projections'') showing $4.9M for FYl1 - 13'1
A. Staffwill review and provide a report to the Committee - Melissa Hennig
Q. How much revenue has the Program collected to date?
A. Staff will research and provide the information to the Committee - Mark
Isackson.
Q. What is the assumed inflation fate?
A. 3.0% - Mark Isacksoll
3
161
1 t\~
December 13,2010
Q. Was the interest rate projected coordinated with the Omce and Management
Budget?
A. Yes- Melissa Henllig
Q What is/will he the sO\lrce of the nmds for establisbing the Caracara Preserve
mitigation bank?
A. Collier COllservation fUlIds through I'ilrious sources, ultimately reimbursed
through sellillg of mitigation credits - Melissa Hellnig.
Q. Has there been any discussions to continue the Conservation Collier .25 tax
mill levy beyond FYI3 to fund the Jackson Labs project?
A. Not to his kl/ow/edge - l'Vlark Isackson
Chairman Poteet expressed coneen! over Staff's rationale for anticipating
decreases in taxable values over FY II and FY 12 as real estate sales data over the
past 4 8 months indicate the property values have "flattened out."
Dwight Brock, Collier County Clerk of Circnit Courts addressed the
Committee and submitted the document "Collier County Investment Portfolio as
afll/30/20/0" for informational purposes. He provided an overview on the
County's concept of investing County funds which provide the interest revenue in
question. He noted the purpose of taxation is not to invest money for the
contributors, rather raise the funds necessary to operate the govemmcnt.
Tberefore, the County has a very conservative approach for investing any
available funds and invests the funds based on the hest available situation at the
time. This aetivity provides for a conservative return on investment.
Mr. Delate noted the Committee should dctermme what measures should be
implemented to "close out" any existing multi parcel acquisition projects such as
Unit 53 and Winchester Head.
Mr. Pires citcd Section of the Ordinance governing the Committee which notcd
"at such times there are insufficient uncommittedfilllds in the acquisition trust
fund. to include another acquisition and all acquisition projects have been closed,
the acquisition committee shall report to the Board of County Commissioners that
its business has concluded."
He notcd all acquisition projects have not been closed and recommended the
discussion on Staff's recommendations be continued until the next meeting.
Mr. Sobczak agreed on the issue of completing multi parcel projects and
expressed concern the interest projections provided in May of 201 0 to the
Committee should have been revised sooner than December.
S Deakers
Ellie Krier, recommended the Committee postpone the item until their
organization can complete polling data on public opinion of the Program. This
would assist the Committee on developing recommendations.
4
161
1 ^~
December 13, 201 0
Andrew McElwaine, Conservaney of Southwest Florida reconU11ended
continuing with the cnrrent acquisition process for those propcrties in thc pipeline.
The Program has strong public support and agreed on delaying the decision on
any recommendations to the BCC until the Conservancy reviews the concept of
the puhtic polling recommended hy Ms. Krier
Mr. Pires expressed concern the lower interest rates were not available until this
time and the recommendations posed are premature given the parameters of the
Ordinance govcming Conservation Collier. He stated with any recommendations
posed should includc that the Bec consider a voter referendum in 2012 on
continuation of lhe Program.
Mr. Pires moved to table consideratioll of the recommendations to the next
meeting. Second by Mr. Delate.
The Committee requested Staffprovide:
. Data on the total amount of revenue collected by the Program to date.
. Clarification on the budget numbers in question in relation to Fiscal Year
Carry Fonvard Ana~}'sis - Fund 172 - Conservation Collier" dated
December 13, 20 I 0 and the updated projections provided today.
. If possible, updated budget projections lor future taxable valncs.
Carried unanimously 8-0.
B. Real Property Management Update
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management provided the following updates:
Unit 53 - to date 63 parcels totaling 178.57 acrcs have been acquired (305.69
acres total within the project).
Winehester Head - to date 47 parcels totaling 65.33 acres have been acquired
(158.67 acres total within thc projcct).
Discussion oecurrcd noting in fairness to existing landowners with signed
contracts, thc County should continue the process required to acquire the parcels.
Mr. Delate moved to recommend (to the Board of County Commissioners) the
County execute the contracts for the Jackson, Navarro, Palacios, and
Jordana/Molina parcels. Second by Mr. Sobczak. Carried unanimously 8-0.
The Committee determined the Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittee
should meet with representatives of the South Florida Water Managemcnt District
for possihlc paJtnerships, etc. in the Unit 53 project.
C. Gordon River Grccnway Project - Updatc
Jeff Curl rcportcd the design plans aJ'e at 30 percent completion stage. Thc ncxt
formal rcview of projcct wilt be at the 60 pcrccnt completion stagc.
5
161
1 {\~
December 13,2010
Barry WiIliams, Director, Parks and Recreation Department noted the next
Stakeholdcrs meeting is scheduled for January 14, 2011.
Ellie Krier Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust the "Annual
Celebration of the Gordon River Greenway" will be held on March 23, 2011.
D. Preserve Use Ordinance - Update
Alex Sulccki provided an update noting:
. Staffwill present an Executive Summary to the BCC on December 14,
20 I 0 and recommend the "Preserve Use Ordinance" be ineorporated into
the Parks and Recreation Ordinance.
. Stair's rationale for incorporating the "Preserve Use Ordinance" into the
Parks and Recreation Ordinance is it wi II be morc efficient than a stand
alone Ordinance.
. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has indicated if
there is an adopted County Ordinance, they may provide enforccment
measures, as neeessary.
. Staff will provide members a copy of the Executive Summary and related
backup materials to Committee members via e-mail.
V. New Busincss
A. Cycle 8 Updates, notice of any member conl1ict, review of process
Alex Sulecki provided an overview of the document "Questions and Answers on
Propertiesji-om 11-08-10 CCLAAC" dated December 13, 2010 which outlined
updates on the propelties nominated for acquisition. Lando\\11er representatives
provided updates as necessary.
Brad Boaz, Barron Collier Investments noted they have personnel available to
remove the exisling exotic vegetation on site at "cost." Said costs to be bome by
Collier County.
Ron Zul, 'Vorthington-Collier, LLC reported there has been no removal of the
existing exotic vegetation on site.
B. Cycle 8 Property Ranking
Alex Sulecki presented the document "Active Acquisition List Worksheet -
December 10. 2010" for assistance in ranking the properties for acquisition. She
provided an overview of the ranking procedure noting:
. A-List properties ." Sraffwill active/y pursue acquisition und will be ranked
in priority (I = High, :1 = ,Medium. 3 = Low)
. B-List properties - Of interest to the Program, but will not be active/v
pursued and automatically re-ranked /llld considered in the next C:vcle.
. C-List properties - Committee will not pursue, buy may be re-nominated
by owners for acquisition ill future Cye/es.
1-75/Gorepropertics- (ALM, LLC. Argay, Arias (2 parcels), Avra, Berman~
Blake, Faust, Fernandez. Gascon, Gore, Mayr, Mohabir, Velez)
6
161
1 ~~
Deccmbcr 13, 20 I 0
Discussion occurred with some members in the opinion the propelties should be
placed on the C-List as some of the owners arc no longer cooperating with the
proposed acquisition, there arc cxtcnsive amounts of exotic infestation on some
parcels and therc may he a better use of Staff time. Others felt they should be
placed on the BList given the location ofthe properties and this would provide an
easier route to re-considering them should it become necessary if future
conditions dietatc.
Mr. Delate moved to consider the 1-75 parcels together (ALM, LLC; Argay,
Arias (2 parcel); Ayra; Bcrman; Blake; Faust; Fernalldez; Gascon; Gore;
Mayr; Mohabir; alld Velez). Second by Ms. Karim. Motion carried 7 'yes"-I
"110." Mr. Sterk voted "no."
,Hr. Pires moved to place the 1-75 parcels (ALM, LLC; Argay, Arias; (2 parcels)
Ayra; Bermall; Blake; Faust; Fernandez; Gascon; Gore; Mayr; Mohabir; and
Velez) on the B-list. Second by Mr. Curl. Motioll carried 5 'yes" - 3 "no."
,Hr. Delate,11-1s. Karim and ,Hs. Gibson mted "110."
Barron Collier Investments. LTD . 2 pare.cls - Area I apd Area 11
Discussion occurred on the status of the mineral rights noting the landowner will
retain the rights however permission to utilize the existing "easement" serving the
parcels is only for existing uses including ranching, forestry and hunting. In order
to exercise Oil Gas and Mineral rights. the owner is pemlitted under state law to
access the property within environmental parameters and can develop a new road
to do sn The value of the mineral rights will be omitted from the appraised value
of the property. The landowner may also utilize the existing easement to access
area II for current uses. should they retain the property.
Mr. Pire.~ moved to place the Barron Collier III vestments, LTD parcel (235
acres known as Area 1) 011 the A list. Sec01ld by Mr. Curl. ,Hotioll carried 5
'yes" - 3 "110." ,Hr. Delate, Mr. Sobczak a1ld .lIJ.s. Karim voted "no."
Mr. Pires moved to place the Barroll Collier Investmellts, LTD pllrcel (799.4
llcres k1l0WII as Arellll) on the A list. Secolld by Mr. Curl. Motion carried 5
~:)'es" - 3 .'no." A-fr. Delate, 1\1r. Sobczak and .Ms. Karim voted "no."
CDC Land Investments. Inc.
Mr. Delate moved to place the CDC Land Investmellts, Inc. parcel 011 the A li~1.
Second by Mr. CurL Motion carried 6 'yes" - 2 "110." .~1s. Karim and Mr.
SObCZilk voted "uo. "
Gateway Shoppes II, LLC
Mr. I)elate moved to plllce the Gllteway Shoppes 11, LLC parcel on the C list.
Second by 1O,1r. CurL .lIJ.otioll carried 6 'yes" - 2 "110." Chairmllll Poteet and
iUs. Karim voted "no. "
7
16\
1 -1\%
December 13,2010
Paskanik
Mr. Pires moved to place the Paskanik parcel on tlte A list. Second by Mr.
Curl. Motion failed 2 "yes" - 6 "no." Chairman Poteet, Ms. Gibson, lWr.
Delate, Mr. Sterk, Ms. Karim alld Mr. Sobczak voted "no."
Mr. Delate moved to place the Paskanik parcel on the C list. Motion carrie,15
"yes" - 3 "110. "~fr. Pires, Ms. Gibson (lnd illr. Sob(:zak voted './10."
Worthington-Collier. LLC
Discussion occlUTed with some members opposed to acquiring the propelty as it is
already in a "proteeted" state, contains primarily pastures which would add to
management burdens for limited staff and located a long geographic distance
from the populated areas of the County. Other members felt it should remain on
the B list at this point in time.
Mr. Delate move to place the Worthington-Collier, LLC parcel on the C list.
Second by Ms. Karim. Motion carried 6 'yes" - 2 "no." Chairman Poteet and
illr. Pires ~'oted '~1I0. "
Approval of overall ranking by Committee
Mr. Pires moved to approve the ranking list for the properties identified above
as follows:
. A List - CDC Land Investments, Inc.; Barron Collier Investments,
LTD., Areas I and II.
. B List - ALM, LLC; Argay, Arias; (2 parcels) Ayra; Berman; Blake;
Faust; Fernandez; Gascon; Gore; Mayr; Mohabir; and Velez,
. C List - Paskanik, Gateway Shoppes 11, LLC alld Worthington-Collier
LEe
Second by iWs. Karim. Motioll Cilrried 7 ')'es" - J "no." l.tr. Sobczak voted
uno."
A.. List prioritization
Mr. Delate moved to prioritize tlte A -list properties asfollows:
. 1- CDC Land Investments, Inc.
. 2 - Barron Collier Investments, LTD., Area I
. 3 - Barron Collier Investments, LTD., Area II.
Second by Mr. Pires, Carried ullanimously 8-0.
VI. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program
None
VII. Coordinator Communications
8
161
1 ~~
December 13,2010
Alex Sulecki noted 3 member terms will be expiring in February (Mr. Poteet, Mr.
Pires and Mr. Cur!) and if they interested in continuing to serve on the Committee,
please file the necessary documents.
VIII. Sub-Committee Meeting Reports
A. Outreach - Tony Pires, Chair
None
B. Lands Evaluation and Management - Michael Delate, Chair
There was a meeting held on November 13, 20!O "here the Pepper Ranch Final
Management Plan and capital expenditures on preserves were discussed.
C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures -- Annisa Karim, Cbair
None
IX. Chair Committee Member Comments
None
X. publie General Comments
Dwight Brock, Collicr County Clerk of Circnit Courts addressed the Committee,
noting he had no input into the timing of the information provided to the Committee
on the projected interest rates under item IV.A. His purpose was to provide an update
on the status of hll1d investments within the County. If any member has any
questions on the information provided, please contact him.
XI. Staff Comments
None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the ehair at 11 :37 A.M.
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee
These minutes approved by thc Board/Committee on
as presented ~____ or as amended
, iC i I
9
f'lalg16~./ 1 ~
- /
Hiller ;J:}I
GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MST~nnlng ,/
ADVISORY COMMITTEE c~r~~a 15- '
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FI 34104
'-'\j'-"""\
.-.,,,,,,,",,:r-.. -'1.-;1
r' C \.J C.! [-
Jt\N U 0 2D11
December 16, 2010
~, ,,>.1
".:,;;)fnn"$;:iooer:-'
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: November 18, 2010
V. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera
VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM
VII. landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates
A. Maintenance Report
B. Reuse Mixing Chamber - Warren Street
C. Doral Bridge Project
D. Lighting Study - Pebble Beach
VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard
A. Project Manager's Report
B. Review of the To Do List
IX. Housekeeping Item
X. Committee Reports
XI. Old Business
XII. New Business
XIII. Public Comments
XIV. Adjournment
The next meeting is January 20, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance
2885 Horseshoe Drive South Misc. Correa:
Naples, FL 34104
c;
Item t:
C~nies t'J:
161
1~
~
GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FI34104
November 18,2010
Minutes
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M.
II. Attendance:
Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David
Larson, Jennifer Tanner
County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Pam Lulich-Landscape
Operations Manager, Gloria Herrera-Budget Analyst
Others: Mike McGee-McGee & Associates, Jim Fritchey-CLM, Darlene
Lafferty-J u ristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: IX. A. Pinehurst Estates Sign age
B. FPL Light Bulbs on Sf. Andrews
XII. A. December Meeting Date
Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: October 21,2010
Change: V., pg 2, second paragraph, first bullet should read: It will be
necessary to "draw" from Reserve monies ($400,000.00) for
Future Projects
VIII. B., pg 5, third bullet should read: Within (1) week of
contacting Commissioner Fiala the ADA Compliance issue is
being "addressed."
Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the September 16, 2010
minutes as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
V. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera
Darryl Richard reviewed the FY11 Budget Report:
o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $19,892.96
o Hurricane Disaster Fund monies will remain under Reserve for
Insurance Claim as the accounting system has a limited number
of category codes available for Budget Line Items
161
l~
David Larson moved to approve the Budget Report. Second by
Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM
Jim Fritchey reported the following:
o Installed Geraniums at the front Entrance
o Plant Replacements were installed (Doral and the Entrance of
St. Andrews and US41)
o ClM Maintenance Service will be conducted 11-19-10
o Plumbago required additional treatments for Chili thrips
VII. landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates
A. Maintenance Report
Mike McGee reviewed the following items from the landscape
Observation Report: (See attached)
Median 13 (Valle v Stream Circle)
o Turf area is primarily Bermuda grass and weeds
o Made the following recommendations
- Remove the sod and install Sunshine Mimosa
- Disconnect the water supply as the remaining Plants in
the Median are draught tolerant
Jim Fritchey will provide the ClM Report at the December meeting.
Mike McGee noted the Light cover repair on Doral is incomplete.
Darryl Richard perceived the Manufacturer may replace the Light
casing as the cover is difficult to locate.
Mike McGee reported disproportionate pruning was performed on a
Palm Tree located on Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. (in the Podocarpus
Hedge.) He noted a Sign (Doral next right) is located in the Hedge.
Darryl Richard will verify if Traffic Operations performed the Palm
Tree pruning as the Sign may have been concealed by Palm fronds.
B. Reuse Mixing Chamber - Warren Street
Mike McGee reviewed the following:
o Onsite meeting was conducted with the Contractor
o Utility locates are complete (performed by the County)
o The Tank location is staked
o Subsequently the Contractor will conduct a test dig to determine
if the appropriate depth can be attained (Tank installation)
Darryl Richard anticipated early completion on the Project based on
Hannula's prior Mixing Chamber experience.
2
161
1~
C. Doral Bridge Project
Darryl Richard reported:
o Bridge number was assigned
o FOOT State review is required
o Requested Mike McGee provide FOOT Indexes for Engineering
review (POF format)
o (County) Engineer inquired if a connection to the existing
sidewalks will be provided for Pedestrian circulation
- It was noted Sidewalks are not currently installed
Mike McGee stated there is sufficient room to move the proposed
Barriers to accommodate a separate Sidewalk however he perceived
Pedestrian traffic as negligible.
Tony Branco inquired if Pedestrian Pathways are required for Bridges
and perceived it may be advantageous to install the sidewalk
connection to avoid potential problems in the future.
Discussion ensued on moving the Barriers to accommodate Sidewalks.
Darryl Richard requested Mike McGee incorporate Plans to
accommodate Pedestrians on both sides of the Bridge. Additionally
the proposed Pedestrian Pathway connection will be reviewed with the
County Engineer.
D. Lighting Study - Pebble Beach
Mike McGee reported the following:
o Novus Solar manufactures a Solar Pole Fixture
- The Pole is only available at a 25 ft. level
- Conversely it is capable of producing LED's equal to the
wattage of a (150) Metal Halide
- Additionally the Fixture allows greater pole spacing distance
Jennifer Tanner questioned if Government monies were available to
install Solar Powered Lighting.
After discussion it was perceived that State and DOE (Department of
Energy) Grant monies may be applicable if the Project is 100% Green
Technology.
Robert Slebodnik confirmed the meeting sequence for the Lighting
Study Presentations by Mike McGee:
o The Power Point Presentation will be reviewed by the
Committee at the MSTU January meeting
- The Presentation will be revised to incorporate
Committee comments
o Presentation to the Civic Association Board (January 8th at 9:00
a.m.)
3
16'
1~
o Presentation at the Civic Association Annual meeting (February
22,2010)
Mike McGee inquired if the Solar Pole information should be
incorporated into the Presentations.
Atter discussion it was perceived by the Committee to present all
options that are currently available.
VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the
following Reports:
A. Project Managers Report (See attached)
Previously discussed under V.
B. Review of the To Do List
Item 1 - Subroaation Recovery
o Median 1
- Estimate for repairs was submitted by ClM
- Accident Report has not been located
Item 2 - Sidewalks on US41 at St. Andrews - ADA Comoliance
o ADA Compliance work is underway
Robert Slebodnik noted the area is flagged.
Item 4 - Electrical Liahtina Related
o lumec Quote ($1,100.00) was submitted to retrofit (4) Lights to
Cosmo Units at $275.00 per unit
Mike McGee stated the Quote is to replace the damaged shields and
noted the original Parts price was $700.00 per unit (Electrical
Contractor cost not included.)
Jennifer Tanner moved to allocate $1,500.00 to pay $275.00 (per
unit) to upgrade the Lights at Doral Entrance. Second by Robert
S/ebodnik. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IX. Housekeeping Item
A. Pinehurst Estates Signage
Robert Slebodnik noted the Signage has significantly deteriorated
and requires immediate attention. He suggested the following as a
temporary fix for the Sign:
o Power washing
o Painting
Recommended a local House Painting Company for the job
Volunteered to contact the House Painter to obtain a quote
4
16l
1M
B. FPL Light Bulbs on St. Andrews
Tony Branco reported (2-3) FPL Lights have been inoperative for
several months. Additionally he noted the Lights were tagged.
Darryl Richard will contact Kate Donofrio with FPL.
Tony Branco suggested the following to slow down traffic at St.
Andrews Intersections:
o Crosswalk Pavers
o Reflectors
Darryl Richard noted a Traffic Calming Program is available. He will
request a Traffic Count Report from Traffic Operations.
Jennifer Tanner stated she has copies of previous Traffic Counts.
Darryl Richard will provide Traffic Counts (previous and current) to the
Committee for review.
Tony Branco inquired on the Doral Sign repair.
Jennifer Tanner reported the Sign on Forest Hill and Augusta is
faded.
Darryl Richard noted the Sign refurbishment can be addressed as a
Maintenance Item to avoid delayed repair of the Signs. He will meet
with Tony Branco and Signcraft to address the repairs.
X. Committee Reports-None
XI. Old Business-None
XII. New Business
A. December Meeting Date
After discussion it was concluded the December meeting will be held
as scheduled on December 16, 2010.
XIII. Public Comments-None
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:20 P.M.
5
16\
Lely Golf Estates Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee
~~,fg~
Robert Sleb dnik, Chairman
These minutes approved by the committe~n
as presented or amended
; J- , ('J I ()
The next meeting is December 16, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance CC
Transportation Building
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
6
l~
16\
1 .
~
"Ht4ee & Ad4<<i4ta
Landscape Architecture
December 14, 2010
Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager
Lely Golf Estates Beautification, MS.T.U.
Collier County Altemative Transportation Modes
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Florida 34104
Subject: Professional Landscape Architectural Additional Services for Lely Golf Estates Beautification
MSTU, Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Project Feasibility Study. 2010-003P.
Dear Mr. Richard,
McGee & Associates is providing the following proposal of Additional Services for Task 2 in the amount
of $892.00 for presentation and attendance to the Public meetings, as requested in your 12/10/10 email.
The following proposal is being submitted area and accent lighting consulting services to be provided
under our current 08-5060 Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term contract: This Project will seek
to develop conceptual lighting concepts for Pebble Beach Blvd. (from St: Andrews Blvd. to Big Springs
Dr.).
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1:
Preliminary Liqhtinll AnalYsis:
A. Research the viable lighting options, technology and provide budget information,
sample cut sheets and relevant data to aid the evaluation process.
B. Prepare a letter report with design concepts and criteria for the roadway/accent
pedestrian lighting. Provide preliminary comparative data on the lighting systems to aid
the evaluation process.
C. Coordinate with Collier County staff to establish appropriate design parameters. We
will also coordinate and follow up .on staff review comments at this phase to resolve
issues, as applicable.
D. Current Collier County aerial photograph will be use as base map. No surveying or
mapping to be provided.
Task 2: Final Lillhtinll Analvsis & Concept:
A. Prepare a final letter report with design concepts and criteria for the roadway/accent
pedestrian lighting. Refine the comparative data on the lighting systems based on the
preliminary review by staff and the MSTU Committee.
B. Prepare layout concepts for the selected fixture on the section of roadway.
C. Coordinate with Collier County staff to establish appropriate design parameters. We
will also coordinate and follow up on staff review comments at this phase to resolve
issues, as applicable.
D. Current Collier County aerial photograph will be use as base map. No surveying or
mapping to be provided.
Chanqe Order #01
E. Preparation of Power Point presentation with attendance and presentation at one Public
and one Board meeting
Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist
5079 Tamiami Trail East I P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101
Phone (239) 417-11707' Fax (239) 417-0708
LC 098 . FL 1023A
(JJ
16 l
J
1 M~
Page 2, Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U.
Pebble Beach Blvd. lighting Feasibility Study
12/14/10.2010-003CO-#Ol
Reimbursable Exnenses:
Reimbursable expenses to be billed per contract 08-5060.
Scone of Services: Desi<ln New Pump Station with Mixin<l Chamber for Alternate Water Source
Task 1 Prelimina
li htin
Anal sis
UnillHrs
8
8
4
1
Rates
$128.00
$62.00
$55.00
Lump sum
Total:
Cost
~_$1.024.00
$496.00
$220.00
$1 000.00
$2,740.00
Princi ai/ Senior LA
AutoCAD Technician
Administrative
En ineer
Task 2 Final Li htln Anal sis & Conce t:
~~::r~:i:~~~;i~~t I~ .'. "T~~ t~.-.....~:: --~-E --~ :::a~~
CO-#01 Public Meetin -+ ___~_ _'" $128.00 $384.00
AutoCAD Tech'nician 4 $62.00 $248.00
CO-#01 Power Point 2 $62.00 $124.00
Presentation
Administrative 4 n~___ ---$55.00 $220.00 .-
.Engineer.....___1._ _l,ump~um $1.200.00
Revised Total: $3,072.00
Total amount of Fees.......... ...... ......... .......... ....... .... ............. ......... ......... .:::-... .$4,920.00 _..~._-
Revised Total amount of Fees.........................................................................$5,812.00
EXCLUDED SERVICES
The professional services to be provided are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All
other services are specifically excluded. including, but not limned to the following items:
Environmental Services
Structural Engineering Services
Final Design: Site or Street lighting Services
Site Development/Platting Pennitling Services
Intersection Analysis
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Hydro geological Services
Land Surveying Services
Field Traffic Counts
Puelic HeaFing .^.ttsn9ance
If you should have any questions or need further information please contact me any time. We look
forward to working with your Department while improving and maintaining our roadways.
Cordially. /.. .
./..;2 /<.,:;;/ f ./ ilr /7
/'~f" {/ i . ../~t . ~..,06t-
.< ~.~ Michael A. McGee. ~~.
President. McGeet Associates LCOOOO98
@
lbt
14Y\
~tJee &;4~
Landscape Architecture
December 13, 2010
Mr Darryl Richard, Project Manager
Collier County Transportation
Altemative Transportation Modes
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Subject:
Proposal for Additional Landscape Architectural Services for Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U.
Roadway Beautification Project
Project Name: Doral Circle Canal Bridge Renovation Improvements
(Conceptual and Final Design Services) 2010-008P
Dear Mr. Richard:
McGee & Associates is providing the following proposal of Additional Services for Task 3 in the amount of
$512.00 related to the incorporation of separate pedestrian facilities/sidewalks with 6" ht. FDOT Type F
curbing being added to the project area as requested per your 12/10/10 email.
McGee & Associates (M & A) agrees to provide the following "Scope of Services" related to the
conceptual design, final design and contract administration services for the proposed MSTU
Beautification project. The project area will be generally defined as the existing roadway bridge area
crossing the existing drainage canal between the platted right-of-way lines of Doral Circle. See attached
"Project Man Hour and Fee Support Calculations"; Sheet 1 for design service hours and costs.
Scope of Services
1.0 PlanninQ
Review existing roadway construction record drawings, existing utilities and contact utiiity
agencies, and existing site conditions; along with future proposed roadway improvements
and adjacent property improvements in order to develop a generally current set of cad
base maps for design purposes. Base map information will be derived from existing on-
site conditions, aerial photos, record drawings and current canal renovation construction
drawing formation provided by Collier County and/or utility agencies with utilities within
the project area. This proposal includes no surveying and base maps will not include
exact field location of any utilities or objects in the project area.
Research and review applicable Collier County and F.D.O. T. ordinances, codes.
standards, design indexes and or regulations related to hardscape, landscape, electrical
and irrigation installation within roadway rights-of-way areas. Streetscape design and
installation to generally comply with Collier County Construction in Public Right-of-way,
Ordinance 93-04 Construction Standards Handbook latest edition
Collier County is responsible for providing current as-built/record drawings and electronic
CAD files to McGee & Associates. If CAD files or information provided by the County is
found to not be current or per the on-site conditions then McGee and Associates will
submit an additional services proposal to provide services to acquire accurate in field
information to be included in the development of the base maps for the Landscape
Beautification project
Task 1,0 Planning Sub Total:
$ 435.00
Design " Environmental Management " Planning " Arborist
5079 Tamiami Trail East I P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101
Phone (239) 417-0707' Fax (239) 417-0708
LC 098' FL 1023A
~
Page 2. 12/13/2010
Darryl Richard, Project Mgr.
Lely M.S.T.U.
Doral Cr. Bridge Renovation Improvements
Proposal-2010-008P
16\
1
~~
2.0 Conceotual Plan
2.1 Prepare necessary hardscape, electrical and landscape conceptual plans for the Doral
Circle canal bridge renovation, to convey the design intent developed by M & A and to
receive approval by the MSTU Advisory Committee and Collier County.
2.2 Develop opinion of costs related to the approved final conceptual plans to determine if
project is within proposed budget.
Task 2.0 Planning Sub Total:
$ 881.00
3.0 Final Hardscaoe and Landscaoe Desion
Landscape Beautification plans to be prepared per F.D.O.T. "Design Standards" indexes and the
Plans Preparation Manual Volume I & II criteria and processes and in general compliance to the
Collier County Right-of-Way Ordinance 93-64 current edition.
3.1 Attend necessary public, staff andlor project on-site meetings for the project design
development and provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or
presentations for the project development.
3.2 Develop final design plans based upon the approved concept plans.
To minimally include items or services as follows:
a. Final design and layout of electric, lighting, hardscape, landscape &irrigation.
b. Materials Tabulation of Quantities schedule containing. plan quantities,
material types, sizes and specifications.
c. Decorative bridge barrier wall, paving and lighting installation details and notes
as identified.
3.3 Prepare County approved bidding and installation construction drawings for exhibits or
attachments to the final Contract Documents.
3.4 Prepare County approved bidding and installation written specifications for exhibits or
attachments to the final Contract Documents.
3.5 Develop opinion of costs related to the approved final construction drawings to determine
if project is within proposed budget.
Task 3.0 Final Landscape Design Sub Total:
Additional Services:
$1,498.00
$ 512.00
Design Modification #1Total: $2,010.00
4.0 Pennittino
4.1 Supply and submit required permit drawings to Collier County for submittals and permit
approvals.
4.2 Provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or presentations for the
project permitting.
Task 4.0 - County Pennitting Total:
$ 245.00
5.0 Contract Administration
5.1 Assist Collier County in developing contract documents for bidding and contract
purposes.
5.2 Assist in bidding process and provide review and recommendation of award of
construction contract
5.3 Provide on-site observations for services during construction to determine
compliance with plans a!1d specifications, as well as review and approve pay request
applications.
@
16~
1 t<~;
Page 3,12/13/2010
Darryl Richard, Project Mgr.
Lely M.S.T.U.
Doral Cr. Bridge Renovation Improvements
Proposal-2010-008P
Task 5.0 - Contract Administration Total:
$945.00
6.0 Reimbursables
Per Design services "Professional Landscape Architectural Services" Contract #08-5060.
Task 6.0 - Reimbursable Total:
$100.00
7.0 Estimated Design Services Schedule
7.1 M & A shall render its services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and
care. During the course of the Project, anticipated and unanticipated events may impact
any Project schedule. Days listed are wor1<ing days, excluding weekends, and official
holidays.
Task Descriotion 1.0 throuah 4.0
Design Start:
Concept complete
Final Design
Uoon Notice to Proceed
14 days
7 days following response to County
comments.
FEE SUMMARY
Task 1.0
Task 2.0
Task 3.0
Additional Services:
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
$ 435.00
$ 881.00
$ 1,498.00
$ 512.00
$ 2,010.00
$ 245.00
$ 945.00
$ 100.00
$ 4,616.00
Task
Task
Task
4.0
5.0
6.0
Design Modification #1Subtotal:
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
Subtotal:
Revised Total:
Note: Please see Project lIIan Hour & Fee Support Calculations Schedule for details.
cord~iall~. / ",,>/'='0 .',
j ~ ./ /.//~/'" r,.;'/
?/. ~1' C/ ~...;..?~
/J"- .' . /' ---. ,<-'/,'::. . '"
/~chael A. McGee/a., i.s.a.
.. President, McGee & Associates. LC 098
@
8 8 8 8 I 8 8 II 818s8 U 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 !
\\l Ii :il ~ ii ~i ~'IU Ii~ 8 8 ill ~ ~
~ n. Q ~ j
~ :;; M :;; :;; ~
.; .. .. M M M M
Z " W
~ W
1 ~ ..
..
'" 0 "
., ~ M
" ~
~
c
E u -
; .. .:
" . .
~
" E z ~ ~
.8 <
, ~
~ ~ .. ~
,.{!. a. ~ c n.
~ ',~ z QW ~
0 .. 2' ~
wo~ u ~
" ., m ~ .. ~
~m(/) " III ~ M M M M .. ~ M .. "''',.:~.'' M .. ~ M .. M M M .. M ..
....~ ~ .. m " "
8 8 8 8 I 8 8 II 8;ai'll 8 Ii 8 8 ; 8 8 8 8 8
~ ~ i!: ~ :il i!: ~ ai ~i..i ~ i!: ~ 8 I<: ~ oJ oJ
Q I i
,. ~ M :;; M :;; :;; M
8 .. ~
~ W
. ~ W ..
:i! ..
0 ~ ~ N ~ " ~ ~ .. "':.<.~-= ~ il J! ~ N M N ~ . ::l ~
.. ~ e N - It
W
to. ~
~ < ~
,," .. ..
UO ~ "
",q " 0
0 W '"
'" ;<; " 8 8 8 8 ~ 8 8 J 8S18 8 !I 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
z(',l~C
~*~8 ~ 0 0 ill 0 a ill illaS, ill a ill i 0 0 ~ f il
z ~ ~ ~ M M i M M ~
..Jt;in 8. ~ ~ III
=aw.. ~ M ..
U?,Wl/l ;; ~ .. ~
~~~~ ~ ..
< ~
Uo.OO::" Z
~ .. 0 0 ~ 0 - 0 - - _0"'0 ~ " 0 ~ - 0 0 ~ - ..
0
e W <
< ~ I
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ 8118 8 I_I 8 8 I 8 8 8 II 8
~ ~ ;;; ;;; ;;; II . N oJ II ;;; ::i II II N I ~
~ W N .. ~ .'- , ..
8 W ~ M M M ;; :;; M ;; ~ ~ ;;
z .. 31 .. -
e <
< u
g z
'" M ~ M M " N ~ M o..'''I!t ~ - ~.. ~ ., ., - ~ - ~ M l!
t; [;J < 0 0 0 0 0 0
< ~ I
(/) 8 8 8 8 I 8 88 ~tf~tl 8 II 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 II
z 0 0 a 0 0 alii 0 a a II a a a Ii Ii
~W ~ M M M M
0 ~
i= .W
.. ~ ..
~
<( I'! M
..J z <
:::l " g 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 " OO"~9 0 00 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 ..
;;
U W ~ .
e '"
..J --- --
<( II 88 8 8 1\
U .... S a IU Ii Ii Ii
Z ~ W
I- w g W
~ ., '" .. ..
"C W :;;
.... n. l3
0 . a; <
E " II W M ~ M M M M - M _.~... M M M M M ~
Q.. ~ --
~ Q. 0 i 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 " '0 <:t~,9 '0 .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 " ..
Q.. e w z u .
0 ..
:::l n :'l < I
f z ..
(/) 0 0 8 8 8 i 8 8 i 8888 8 88 8 8 = 8 8 8 8 8
< ;:: 0
W Q .. ~ il ill !~ N m nn ;\ H- i! il .. <\ N l i
" w :;; N N ::l
" .... e w M ;; :;; M
W > z !< w M:;; ;;11 :i
0 a; .. ..
w .. E
LL <-0 ~ W
Q ~ 0. :;) .. ~
C a::C(f)t- ~ '" [;J
oU:i" II !o .... - "-;::-.0
Z o!o :E U e % ~ ~ ~ ~ - . - 0 --N " ., !! :0 ~ ~ - . :l ~
<( -g Oltl:(fj z z u . 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
a:Jg......w ~ ~ ~ I
~ .. ;:::,>-..... .. . - - --- ------~~ -..- _.
< ....." .....,
:::l . uZ.... UW l5
0 " ri::HI'J ~~ ~ ~ -.
_ "~o w c . ~
:I: UOUu... 1: i I , ..
ZoO ;; I g
~~ffi5 -- , z ~ 0
0., } 0 t' r " .. " }: g
Z z " !I ~ . c
883~ ua; " ~ h w w ~ .' .'3
<( ::> . 1 " e o. ..... j' ,) f- ~ ~
0-' Z ~, < .. IIi! 7 t; ., ~
:2 0 . i 0 ~: w f, " f: z c. Jl
UW I 0 .. ~ l ~ ~ ~ n. t: ., f ~ " "
..-' ;:: ,. '" (." .. 2 ~ ,) w f
I- ui .... o. ~ ~ -.") , t ,. 0 5i- ,. 0 ~ ~
'" " .. " .. w , !l ~j) ~ u V . " .. m 8
U .. w iii' " '" ~ e i Co - '" .. " ;: . ~ <
" < , " z if I' c . u .. ~
W Z "::i U z ~ :; , :'l .. c . ~ .. .
..."u .. $ . '" , t, " , W
., W , .. 0 w , " :::;: " ,',' - te' , e ~ } GO n.
00., u ~ z
w;:::~ 0 z , .1' Z " Z ..
0 . 0 0 0 ill
,"'w " ~ u - " 0: ~ tot''''' . ~ u ~ N 0 ~ N ~ '" i~
"
~ OU" ::.! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; ;; :; . ~ ~ .. r ~ ~
Q.. 0:0'<= ~ ~ ~ ~ - N N ~ M .. . . - ~ ~ ~ -
"--'0 ... .. N ~ . ~ ~
16\
1
M
"
U
ro
o
o
6
CIY
16t
1 f\~
AG.TRONIX
SPECIAlJZING IN MOTOROLA IRRIGATION CONTROL SYSTEMS
1304 N. 15th STREET
IMMOKALEE, FL. 34142
239-657-5519
QUOTA TION/PROPOSAL
DATE QUOTE NO.
12/7/2010
1782
CUSTOMER NAME
Collier County DOATM/Transportation
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
3301 Tamiami Tr E, Bldg F 7th Fir.
Naples, FL 34112
TERMS REP SHIP VIA PROJECT
Net 30 SLC LEL Y MSTU PUMPING ...
ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY PRICE TOTAL
LELYMSTIJ PUMPING STATION - WARREN ST
F4864A IRRlnet-M AC 12 DO and 401, wi Radio Kit (Radio I 1,462.50 1,462.50
Ready)
FUE5522A CDM750 Radio 450-512MHz 1-25W I 888.00 888.00
FLN3707 CDM Install Kit I 120.00 120.00
967-0159 Power supply, switching, in:85-264V AC, out:12VDC, I 11 0.00 110.00
lZ.5A, 150W, power factor corr
FLN9588A 110/24v AC Transformer (Irrinet M) I 160.00 160.00
MLB-12-AC Surge Protector AC 4in/12out I 378.00 378.00
51020-WM Leviton Surge Protection I 189.00 189.00
7299-NW (8299-... GFI W/Switch and Cover Leviton (15Amp) I 39.00 39.00
1P701O (T-II) Single Gang Box I 4.15 4.15
70072 Yagi Antenna 450-470UHF 7.ldb (N Female) I 150.00 150.00
451969 LMR400 20' Antenna cable wi conn (LMR400) I 60.00 60.00
SB-24DSS SS Enclosure DD 24W X 36H 24D I 2,280.00 2,280.00
PED-24DSS SS Pedestals 24WX 12H X 20D I 585.00 585.00
TSI Technical Services (Assembly and Bum in) 4 75.00 300.00
TOTAL $6,725.65
QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS.
Sonya@ag-tronix.com
WWW.AG-TRONlX.COM
@
161
1~
Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: December 16, 2010
Lely MSTU Project Status
(L-49) ACTIVE Lighting Study (pebble Beach pilot study for lighting options)
12-16-10: Concept to be presented at the following meetings:
I) December 16,2010 MSTU Meeting.
2) Saturday, January S, 201] Lely Civic Association (9 am)
3) February 22, 2011 - Lely Civic Association "Annual Meeting" (6 pm - 7 pm)
(L-4S) ACTIVE Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge (Committee Request for 'lighting on
bridge')
12-16-10: Per Engineering staff review/request and committee direction on Nov. IS - McGee is
modifying plans to include 'type F Curb' for improved pedestrian safety.
(L-47) A CTI V E Installation of Mixing Chamber
12-16-10: Project is under construction. Staff anticipates delivery of both pump system and
concrete mixing chamber by Mid - February. Upon delivery of materials Hannula will install.
12-16-10: Ag Tronix proposal for AC Type M Controller for $6,725.65 to be reviewed by
Committee.
(L-34) - A( 'TlVI: - On (;oing - Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land
Maintenance;
7-27-09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of
"Cut to IS inches and maintain at 24 inches"; Staff will inspect the project on a 'weekly basis';
Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service
(ref: notification originally sent on 6-30-09 to CLM via email)
12-16-10: Ongoing Maintenance is by Commercial Land Maintenance
(L-45) ACTlV E (),l (Joing - McGee Annual LA Services - Landscape Architectural Services
12-16-10: McGee & Associates under ongoing contract.
@
161
l~
December 16, 2010
Lely MSTU "To Do List"
1. Subrogation Recovery:
a. Accident 859;Median #8 on St. Andrews
Status: cost ofrepairs $515.00; pending accident report/recovery.
b. Accident # 947; Found on 01-15-10 on Forest Hills Blvd.
Status: cost ofrepairs $607.00 ; pending accident report/recovery.
c. Accident # 1055; Found on 10-26-10 at median tip - St. Andrews at US 41
Status: cost of repairs $540.00; pending accident report/recovery.
2. PENDING: Sidewalks on US 41 at St. Andrews - ADA eompliance:
Status: Project has been brought to attention ofFDOT for funding to address
ADA deficiencies noted.
3. COMPLETED: eLM: have A & L Laboratories do analysis on Xanadu at
Augusta and Forest Hill. Existing plants have some yellowing.
Status: CLM has treated plant materials per A & L Lab
report/recommendation. Plants show improved health per the treatments.
4. COMPLETED: Electrical Lighting Related: Find out what type of 'lower'
wattage bulb is available for Doral eircle. Residents are complaining that 'the
lights are too bright'
Status: Lumec has provided updated quote with discount for Lely MSTU. Per Ron
Steedman: I have spoken with Lumec regarding this. In that you are considering
changing to Cosmo units for these fixtures, we would propose to supply the
conversions at $275.00 each (per head), which supplies the reflector at no charge.
These fixtures are out of warranty, cut in that Collier County is a valued customer, we
wanted to work with you to both eliminate the problem, and upgrade your system.
(RS)
5. 2 COMPLETED: FPL Lights on St. Andrews
Status: Kate Donifrio, FPL reports that contractor has been called to investigate/repair
the lights on St. Andrews. Ticket Numbers: 2815 & 2816. [Repairs reported
completed on November 19, 2010 by FPL staff.]
6. COMPLETED: Copy of Traffic eounts for St. Andrews
Status: Staff is confmning traffic counts - copy will be scanned and sent to
committee. [Sent: Fri 11/19/20104:19 PM]
7. PENDING: Painting Pinehurst Estates Signs
Status: SignCraft (Kara) has inspected the sign and wiIl include pricing for painting
with high quality paint (automotive quality) for long lasting finish.
8. PENDING: Sign Refurbishment: (1) Doral Circle, and (2) Augusta@ Forest
Hill
Status: SignCraft (Kara) has inspected the signs (1 & 2 noted above) and will include
pricing for refurbishement.
@)
161
1 ~q
9. PENDING: Planting Sunshine Mimosa at VaHey Stream
Status: CLM to provide quote. Quote for refurbishment project is pending from CLM.
10. Lighting Presentations by McGee & Associates
Status: Mike is going to present on the following days:
I) December 16, 2010 MSTU Meeting.
2) Saturday, January 8, 2011 Lely Civic Association (9 am)
3) February 22, 2011 - Lely Civic Association "Annual Meeting" (6 pm - 7 pm)
.
@
E
a
o
.;:::;
~o..
a....
~a
'ON
4"0
"'~
~a
gN
0> -
'Ci)~ c
@)~ OJ
NOJ E
",.0 .r;
C E .~
.g> Q) ..c
000 ~
~CD~m.2
C'C 0 L... Q) Q.)
- "'E~
~ >'0 c
Ctlctl mC)
~"'C"E a...-
cnco..c(f.)
ctl ......c: 0
I... :::I 0:= ..
ctl..c:.- :J :;:
:><:f-G::...Ju..
Cll
Qi
E
Cll
ll.
.c
.2
'3
..J
....
u
E.. CD
- .-
oc....'O
.... G) 0 U:::I
u.. U)Io- U U)
::;)
f-
00
:::;
>-
...J
W
...J
W
f-
a
::;)
a
in
2l
'C
a.
-o~
~ '"
'" Q)
.r;~
.5:? Q,)
G::I
~
r--
~
~
'"
in
~
a~
0-0
'C
a;'"
""''''
"'"E
.. OJ
cnE
=::J
.- c
Ia
ornE
o~-
cO c.!:
",u..'"
",_0..
~co"'O
",cc
.l!l",
Qj~..c:
~ C) ~
'13 ~ ~
~~~
a 0>::J
"'C"m ~
ll=-oOJ
cca:
c 5 ..
.Q> 10... c/)OJ
'" 0>_
>>>>'"
Q)7i)oo
...J-w
..em-
en 0 E
:.cU:J
~~.r;
.2mm
Q)~.~
G::Oo..
a
a
OJ
E
""
c
a
'"
E
-
Q;
0>
::J
o
>>
OJ
a.
o
I
OJ
1ii
'13
o
'"
~
.l!l'"
OJ OJ
-0;
~oo
",-0
~ '"
'" OJ
:><:...J
""'
a
en N C1:)("')
~><"'a
g-Q)-.:t1.O
z......"!~
_r--.~~
0......"'''1
~~ . .
en M aHD
L....q-(f')C"">
OWN'"
~ai >< =
.- M m Q)
OONu..O
::;)
f-
00
:::;
>>
:::;~
0..,
'" >>
N:!:::
.. >
-.::t;
00
~'"
a-
N c
OJ
<"'iE
~.r;
~ '"
I m:.c
I ..c I...
1l,i ~~
'" 0 ~
rn ctl OJ c
f:GOmo.2>
:2"'0- .00
I...~ ~..
~~~-g~
'8l(2: m 0 +.:
'i:: .. ro:2 CJ
OE~.i-i.!.
lO"C:..c
. .... 0 CD ::::J
ILLt-cnCl)
161
~
Q)
c
-
Q)
Q)
E
.~
>
Q)
.r;
-
c
Q)
.r;
;;:
E
a.
a
<;<
...
---
~
::J
.r;
f-
a
-
~
a
'C
a.
""
c
';J
Q)
Q)
E
-0
Qj
'"
Q)
~
~
::J
a
a.
::J
-
OJ
'"
C
'"
u
OJ
;;:
~
OJ
OJ
'"
o
-
OJ
OJ
-
.~
E
E
a
u
>
Qj
--'
OJ
..c
-
---
;;:
>
c
o
f-
'"
u
OJ
E
-
OJ
--'
..:
'"
..c
-
c
a
-><
u
'"
.0
::J
a
>
'"
u
~
1~~
c
a
a
'"
-
'"
..c
-
c
a
-><
u
'"
.0
-0
~
a
;;:
OJ
E
o
'"
-
OJ
""
o
-
OJ
a.
o
..c
I
""
c
..
.~
E
~
OJ
Co-
:i:
o
0::
>
.0
-0
OJ
;;:
OJ
.:;;
OJ
~
""
c
'Qj
.0
.!!!
.~
E
~
OJ
Co-
~
:i:
o
0::
C
""
'Vi
N
X
OJ
..c
-
I
Z.
0'
'"
<i:
r;or:("EIVED
., . ,..;
DEe 2 1 2010
Fiala 1 BJ
Hilier /'
Henning ~.
Coyle _:
Coletta
1 ~lV
Board of County Cornr0f6Slpners
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
HELD ON OCTOBER 18, 2010
In attendance were the following:
Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief
Caleb Morris, Captain
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman, Copeland
Tod Johnson, Everglades City, Advisory Board Member
Ronald Gilbert, Port ofthe Islands, Advisory Board Member
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Mitchell Roberts at 6:04PM then roll call of
attendees took place.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mitchell Roberts asked about the District Reports that they took home last month if they had
any questions regarding them. All the reports were reviewed and there were no questions
regarding them.
1-75 Station:
Chief McLaughlin - Last week on Thursday he had a workshop with the Board of County
Commissioners also Senator Richter was present, Representative Hudson was there it was very
brief and 1-75 issues were discussed. We are having another meeting this Wednesday. He did
have a meeting today with Representative Hudson, Commissioner Colletta, Debbie White and
Keith Arnold the lobbyist. He spent an hour with Representative Hudson hearing what he had
to say about it his thoughts and concerns. He wili be meeting again on Wednesday at 4:30 with
Senator Richter and this same group. The bottom line is FDOT is not going to do anything about
this they are against it. Unless there are some Federal monies from a federal highway to
allocate It's going to take a congressional action. David Rivero was at our original meeting hOe
supported it. He did say if he won the election he would support it and Senator Richter
supports it. So we have at least two people in congress to support it to seek some federal
funding. The problem isn't so much doing the infrastructures even the State doesn't mind
doing the brick and mortar it's the operation costs. Nobody wants to fund the operational
costs and that Is what he is worried about. It has been brought up about the pay for service
however, Representative Hudson is not for a toll increase but he doesn't know if the rest of
them are. There is the thought of user's fees the users pay it that is the issue a quarter on the
toll would fund it. The issue of the State Troopers was brought up as well which was discussed
at length.
Page 1
Mile. CoII8s:,
Data: 0 .
Item #: 112
lr
161
1 ~~
Chief McLaughlin - Representative Hudson said we should look at doing the station in
conjunction with the Park Service. He said Ramos from the Park Service mentioned a year ago
about redoing the 71 mile marker maybe we could look at a joint facility there with some
federal monies. We could have a helicopter pad with a fueling site and put a station there. It
could be a joint facility with their brush and park ranger personnel. Even if we get federal
money to build the facility we still need funding to operate it. After his meeting with Senator
Richter he will have a better idea as to where this is going. Everyone is aware of the problem
but no one seems to have an answer for it. It is about two years out before anything will
manifest but he made the statement that the day is going to come when we are going to run
out of money and then no one will be going to your road. He did some research and the area
north of 1-75 is part of the District one funding it goes up to the Hendry County Line. But the
Ochopee Fire Control District looks like it falls just short of the STR line of 1-75 if that fact is true
then It is not in our Fire District that would be a County problem. We are researching that just
to make sure and to find out how those District lines were originally created. We need to find
out how those STR lines break down it maybe half the road is in our District and the other half
isn't. If that fact is true then we are not obligated to respond if it is not in our District. If it is
District One money there are other Departments that are getting $200,000 that maybe we
should get some of those funds for supporting that area because there is nothing going on at
Picayune.
Mitchell Roberts - That gives a little more of a bargaining room.
Chief McLaughlin - We could take that District One money and use it for 1-75 responses if that
fact come up I would send a letter to Mr. Summers and Mr. Ochs to the commissioners
regarding this matter. They signed the agreement with the other Departments for the District
One funding but it's just for one year if 1-75 is not in our District and just on the edge of it this
may be an avenue of funding to support it. It would be District One and it would be running
through Big Cypress National Preserve as well.
Mitchell Roberts - It's worth looking at because sometimes the obvious is where the mistakes
are made.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mitchell Roberts - He mentioned the new lockers and that the other board members should
take a look at them.
Chief McLaughlin - We have purchased all new protective clothing this year which is good for
another six years for the paid personnel including our job bankers.
Page 2
161
l~o
Alan McLaughlin - That allowed us to put the old gear aside for the reserves so that gives us
gear for nine volunteers. So now we can take on more volunteers. We have a new Reverse
Osmosis System here for the whole Everglades City Fire Station. The new four inch well has
been put in the Ochopee Fire Station. The Facilities Maintenance Department is going to paint
the Buckner Ave side of Station 60 to match the rest of the building. There are a lot of small
projects going on the personnel built a room in the back and air conditioned it for the bunker
gear. There are also hoses In there as well. He also mentioned that new tarps are going to be
purchased for the engines. A new piece of GYM equipment was purchased and the old one
donated to the high school. Next year we are going to be $200,000 short in our carry forward
funds for payroll that equates to three maybe four personnel. We also have another issue in
regards to the Station at Port of the Islands the architects are finished so are the engineers we
are ready to permit and there 15 no money to renovate the station. We are still doing a $16,000
a year lease with Port of the Islands for our personnel. He spoke to one of the commissioners
in regards to doing a two year assessment to all the property owners In the District the first
year It would be $200 assessment the second year it would be a $100 assessment. We are
trying to find out the actually number of property owners. The first year assessment would do
two things the $200 would bring us a little over $600,000.
Mitchell Roberts - You mean $200 per lot, that would be more than $600,000.
Chief McLaughlin - We are showing 3,000 structures but he is checking into it to verify it
through the tax office. If there is more than that then we could reduce It because our target
number is $600,000. It might be $150 depending how many property owners we have. The
second year are target is $300,000. We are hoping the third year things will be picking up they
are going to build the ten story building at Port of the islands that would be a large amount of
money at 4 mills. The first year would be the monies to build at the Port and we can do that
between $330,000 and $350,000 the rest of the money would be to keep all the personnel on
board. The second year we don't need the money to fund the structure we need the money to
maintain the personnel by the third year things should come around where we won't need the
money. That is his proposal for now because nobody else has an answer this is the only one he
could come up with otherwise we are going to lose a third of our man power.
Mitchell Roberts - A third is $200,000 for salaries that is where you would take the biggest cut.
Chief McLaughlin -It would actually $274,000 to cut four people.
Ron Gilbert - You would have to propose this to every property owner in the District.
Chief McLaughlin - A proposal would be made to the Board of County Commissioners then it
would have to go to a vote.
Page 3
161
1 ~\{)
Chief McLaughlin - You as a board would have to approve the proposal before It was presented
to the Board of County Commissioners. This is not a millage raise this Is a onetime assessment
that covers two years reduced 50% the second year sunshine out the third year it goes away.
It could be a local bill or could go to a vote. It would maintain the department at the present
level buildings and personnel.
Mitchell Roberts - Two hundred dollars is a big sell you've got a lot of properties north of here
that because the tax rolls have dropped there are a lot of properties that homestead exemption
and don't pay any taxes.
Chief McLaughlin - We may be able to drop to $100 a property and then $50 a property we
don't have the actual numbers yet
Mitchell Roberts - He doesn't like the assessment coming in ahead of time for all the property
owners to pay $350,000 for the fire department which It will be a million dollar fire department
before It Is done with the reserves they took and the engineer plans to revamp the building.
When they build the condos the impact fees should offset the $350,000 it cost to remodel the
Fire Station at Port of the Islands. If you say employees you could unify the County if you say
the Fire Department at Port of the Islands the rest of the District won't care about that they
would not vote for it that would become divisive.
Chief McLaughlin - We are running into another problem out there we can only renew the
lease for another year we can't stay in the hotel. Now we're back to impacting salaries because
we have to put a trailer or a facility in.
Mitchell Roberts - If we leave the hotel how much will their insurance go up if you pull out of
there? He always thought that the hotel should have given us a room.
Chief McLaughlin - There has been on average $500 to $2000 savings for the residence now
there are only 879 structures. You would have to do a $500 assessment to everyone at the Port
just for the structure just to get it built. Port of The Islands is holding 44% of the whole District
funding because of that he can't see why they can't have a fire department. He feels denying
them a fire department wouldn't go well with the residence at Port of the Islands or the
Commissioners. He is looks at fire protection as a District wide basis as a system.
Mitchell Roberts - That's why we are still going to 1-75.
Chief McLaughlin - Exactly, unfortunately yes and that could change too but it is system wide if
I need a facility there that vehicle would have a system wide impact which at this point it would
be SO% of the tax payers.
Page 4
161
l~\O
Mitchell Roberts - lets say we get this voted in but it is always hard to get voters to tax
themselves it would be easier to get a millage adjustment.
Chief Mclaughlin -I wouldn't call it a tax it is a onetime assessment.
Mitchell Roberts - He can't get his community to agree to assess enough to keep 24 street
lights going so they are not going to vote for something like this. let say we hit target $600,000
and we hit target $300,000 hoping by then the budget will come back up because property
values have come up. What happens if they build that 10 story building?
Chief Mclaughlin - He just met with them they are going to build it. It will be a time share.
Mitchell Roberts - So if they build that and they pay the impact fees where does that money
go? Does that just become supplemental money to keep salaries floating for year three or
four?
Chief Mclaughlin - Impact fees can only be used for infrastructure.
Mitchell Roberts - Ok.
Chief Mclaughlin - We have another problem out there we have an engine that needs to be
replaced it is going to be 15 year old. The engine that went out there was not part of the
infrastructure it was an engine from here. So $350,000 of the impact fees will buy a new
engine. The one out there now will come back and become a reserve engine that is the two
year plan. Because the pumper will be at its life expectancy so while the building is being built
we still have an impact out there we've taken a piece of equipment to supply something out
there that wasn't there. I can buy that as an Impact and put a new vehicle out there because
he took one from here to do that. It is going to go back into the District one way or the other
whether it is in building or mobile resources it's going to be one ofthe two.
Mitchell Roberts - How much more can you raise the millage rate.
Chief Mclaughlin - We can't no one wants to touch the millage rate. There is a commissioner
out there that won't touch that we are at our maximum. The City of Pembroke Pines is paying
26 mils it's really bad over there.
Mitchell Roberts -If you think about It you have a $20,000 and you have a million dollar house
the $200 assessment would hit them the same but a millage rate is commensurate with the
amount of insurance they have a $20,000 house probably doesn't have insurance but the
million doilar house would that's why he would support a millage rate increase rather than the
assessment.
Page 5
161
1 f\\O
Chief McLaughlin - Commissioner Colletta felt that for the structural part we could look at an
assessment just for the Port which could work towards funding the building and still do a
District wide assessment to maintain the man power. There would be an assessment that
would put that facility out there and the other side would be the whole District would pay an
assessment of $50 for a year or two to cover personnel.
Mitchell Roberts - For the lack of better numbers Port of the Islands would pay $200 and the
rest of the County would pay $100.
Chief McLaughlin - When it comes to the numbers it may be $50.00 to make that kind of
money up.
Mitchell Roberts - The man power becomes the biggest thing because without it you would
have to close down that station. If you close down that station everyone that is saving that
$500 to $900 a year is now going to have to pay that back in insurance.
Chief McLaughlin - It becomes a bigger problem than that It's just not close the station. It
affects the whole District we won't be able to respond to 1-75. Because then when a unit
responds to 1-75 there wouldn't be any coverage here for the bUildings. Logistically it becomes
more of a nightmare instead of just closing a station. Once we drop that response down and
lose three personnel that would put three people on shift instead of four.
Mitchell Roberts - So you are at 12 now you would lose about four positions.
Chief McLaughlin - We would lose one person per shift.
Mitchell Roberts - So you would lose 1/3 of your personnel.
Chief McLaughlin - We can only operate with a minimum of three that puts us In a position now
especially after hours we are relying on people from East Naples to get here it's a problem.
We've lost 29.6% of our budget in the last three years not as bad as Corkscrew which is 73%.
Mitchell Roberts - State wide the Districts were living fat prior to this current drop where did all
the money go to?
Chief McLaughlin - Port of the Islands is at least ten year issue why it wasn't addressed earlier.
Mitchell Roberts - Looking back over the years here did the District here concentrate on
resources having trucks that were practically new running to 1-75 a lot to keep better vehicles
did that eat up a lot of our budget to keep up with that.
Chief McLaughlin - All the trucks here were beyond their service life.
Page 6
161
1 ~'o
Mitchell Roberts - That's what I thought too.
Captain Morris - We were responding In engines that had been condemned by County
maintenance.
Chief Mclaughlin - One of the reasons we purchased the 550 out here two years ago was to
save on fuel and maintenance fees. This also leaves an engine in the station for fire protection
instead of it going to 1-75.
Captain Morris - It also gives the off duty personnel the opportunity If something happens they
can pick the engine up at the station it's not on 1-75. Everyone listens off duty and comes in to
help.
Mitchell Roberts -The Port is charging us $16,000 a year?
Chief Mclaughlin - Yes.
Mitchell Roberts -Is that for one room.
Chief Mclaughlin - No, that's for two rooms. We are entering are lease agreement again for
the second year.
Mitchell Roberts - They were selling units for $35,000 eight years ago It would almost be
cheaper to buy a unit.
Chief Mclaughlin - Right now we are In there on a conditional use permit. We could not put a
permanent facility in there for two years and he doesn't want to spend money fighting the
union either.
Mitchell Roberts - Now is not the time for the District to come up with the $350,000 to put into
a fire station that in the height of everything we should have had the monies for.
Chief Mclaughlin - I've got $860,000 already tied up in the building to me another $350,000 to
finish the facility it's time to finish it otherwise our % of a million dollar investment it is going to
sit there empty doing nothing. So to me a special assessment whether it is to the Port or to the
District the facility can be finished this way it is done then we can get out of the hotel and the
station Is done.
Mitchell Roberts - If you wait too long then the paperwork could become out of date then you
would have to start all over.
Page 7
16l
1 ~\O
Ron Gilbert - You're an established taxing district and MSTU that I believe is not subject to
registered voters that is subject to property owners In the area. He thinks 30% of the property
owners at Port of the Islands are not registered to vote here.
Chief Mclaughlin -It would be like the sewer assessment or road assessment if we did this.
The onetime assessment would be District wide for the impact regarding salaries the other one
would be just at the Port for the station.
Mitchell Roberts - He is working on street lights in Copeland and the last meeting regarding this
Issue Commissioner Colletta said that the MSTU was based off of property values not a per set
amount. If you get $100,000 for a MSTU then the County cuts the budget $100,000 from
somewhere else.
Chief McLaughlin - The District Is a MSTU but this MSTU would have a sunset It would be a
onetime only assessment collect the funds and put it into a speciai fund for building. The other
one would be a District wide assessment for two years sun setting the third year I don't think
they will do that as a MSTU they will probably do that as a local bill.
Mitchell Roberts - This is the largest our fire department has been and we have less money
coming in for the next couple of years.
Chief McLaughlin - Well that's what we're looking at getting through the next two years
everyone thinks things will start changing by then. He doesn't really see an answer right now
other than going to general fund to borrow the money which we may have to do that any way
but we have to pay back that money. How can you pay it back when you're losing money
General Fund can only give us a loan? There aren't a lot of answers out there right now and
this is the time to look at it now.
Mitchell Roberts - Yes you have to look at it now and the thought of people having to pay more
money isn't pleasant but that's the way it has to be.
Chief McLaughlin - The bottom line will be you will lose the fire protection and go back and pay
the old insurance rates or $200 to keep it or not. It will affect the whole District not just Port of
the Islands It will affect the overall ISO rating.
Mitchell Roberts - In the mean time continue to pursue the numbers on properties then when
its time it becomes an assessment or a millage increase.
Chief McLaughlin - If there Is enough property owners paying out there the assessment could
be $50 which he didn't think may households would object to paying that. This is something
that is going on throughout the State.
Page 8
161
l~\o
Mitchell Roberts - Isn't the millage rate relatively easy to increase that it can be raised by
Board of County Commissioners approval.
Chief McLaughlin - We are at a max of 4 that is our cap to raise that above 4 it would be easier
to do an assessment because we were established with that cap when we were created.
Mitchell Roberts - A lot of things have changed since we were established that would make
that increase plausible.
Chief McLaughlin - We are talking since 1977.
Mitchell Roberts - Port of the Islands did not exist as it is today.
Chief McLaughlin - As the service increases the cost does as well and we are still the cheapest
actually in terms of salaries and benefits in the County compared to some of the independent
fire departments we do a lot for the money we have.
Ron Gilbert - Doesn't Everglades City have the highest millage rate in the County.
Chief Mclaughlin - You have the MSTU for the fire then the City has its own.
Ron Gilbert - You're talking about fire only not the total millage rate. The total millage rate is
the highest in Everglades City.
Chief McLaughlin -It's not. It's a combination of the City and Fire it's a five.
Ron Gilbert -Is Port of the Islands a four also?
Chief McLaughlin - Yes its County wide. You're paying what the County Is paying. City of
Naples is point six same thing but you are looking at 14 billion In accessed property values as
compared to nothing that come out of there so that's why you can drop it to point four and get
the revenue. The City of Everglades took a 29% reduction this year alone just in the City which
matches exactly what we dropped in the District. There millage is 5.
Captain Morris - They mirror the County it's the county millage and then theirs.
Chief McLaughlin - Lee said he Is paying nine mills between the City and the Fire millage
compared to what you are paying at the Port they are paying a lot more here. There are some
commercial properties that help to offset the taxes. He said there are 271 annual residents in
Everglades City and there is three times that at Port of the Islands.
Mitcheli Roberts - will we have the information by the next meeting.
Page 9
161
1 ~\D
Chief McLaughlin - He's going to try,
Mitchell Roberts - You need to do it as fast as you can because this process will probably take
three months to a year to make it happen.
Chief McLaughlin - We need to find out who's on the take rolls and who's paying. We have to
get the spread sheet from the Tax Collector's Office and that takes about two weeks.
Mitchell Roberts - You know what budget you're getting and the millage rate is that should give
you the amount of total taxable property In your District.
Chief McLaughlin - The problem is we have so many variable properties in this District we go
from high doilar values and then properties that are out in the middle of nowhere. The
properties In the District are diverse we have to get the tax rolls and find out how many tax
payers are In the District regardless of the value and then break it down from there.
Mitchell Roberts - You might want to look at when the Department was created you have three
employees what the millage and property value was at that time versus the employees you
have now to give that ratio of performance or protection.
Chief McLaughlin - Even back then the County supplemented the Fire Control District with from
$160,000 to $250,000 of Pilt money every year they needed that to operate and that has gone
away. If you look at those numbers of four mils at 44% of our budget for Port of the Islands and
take that away he is at $600,000 that's almost 50%.
Mitchell Roberts - How much would you have to raise the millage rate to get the percentage
that you want now.
Chief McLaughlin - That hasn't been figured out yet.
Mitchell Roberts - He is curious to know how much It would be to put it in perspective for us. Is
it like another quarter on the toll?
Chief McLaughlin - This year our adopted budget was $1,356,300 at 4 mils so it is $271,000 per
mil. If we could raise it a mil for three years then we could always roll the millage rate back.
Mitchell Roberts - How much was the budget cut to begin with 28%.
Chief McLaughlin - The budget was cut 29.6% since 2007.
Mitchell Roberts - That would gain back almost 43% for $600,000 that would put you at
$1,956,300.
Page 10
161
1 }.. \0
Chief McLaughlin - We have done some creative things to reduce our overtime. When he
arrived the overtime was $140,000 we dropped that down.
Mitchell Roberts - On the personal stand point of the union regarding salary packages is
everything Just frozen for the next couple of years.
Chief McLaughlin - We are currently In contract negotiations process right now. Eighty percent
of the contract is negotiated it was due October 1, 2010 has been signed off on. The union
knows there is no money so there are no salary increases. They really didn't ask for much
except for wording changes and operational they didn't affect payroll. The only thing we did
was we gave them out of class pay which they never had. If they have their paperwork and
they serve as an officer for over 48 hours they will get paid for it. It was figured it would cost
approximately $25.00 a shift.
Mitchell Roberts -It's like a shift differential for that day for being supervisor.
Chief McLaughlin - Yes, they will be held accountable for that position and we will pay them for
it.
Mitchell Roberts - If they are asking for money then we need to know where every dime Is
going.
Captain Morris - There are not merit or cost of living raises for the last three years.
Mitchell Roberts - You can say for the last three years there have been no raises and we have
watched our budget decrease. He mentioned that the school board mentioned a 3% to 5% cut
this year regarding their salaries but the cut was not made they didn't have to. Have they been
cutting salaries?
Chief McLaughlin - Some of the independent Departments are doing buyouts to save positions
retiring the higher salaries. Big Corkscrew Fire District laid off three firefighters and they are
looking at eleven more next year. North Naples and East Naples Fire Districts are also running
short of funds. East Naples Fire District pulled back a 15% raise because they had a 28%
reduction of funds. Everybody is alright now but they are going to have a problem next year.
The other Departments are doing buyouts and not filling those positions and getting creative
by reducing upper staffing.
Page 11
161
1 ~\O
Mitchell Roberts - To raise half your budget with one Impact that is a lot of money there needs
to be a pian B because with plan A the two hundred dollars a lot of people are still out of work
and property values have dropped. People stuck In mortgages they paid $335,000 for a
property that is now only worth $125,000. Then you have people like me taxes went up every
year the save our home exemption didn't drop that property value low enough so my taxes
went up 2.5% every year there were enough of us out there to keep the tax rolls adequate or
you would really be hurting for funds.
Chief McLaughlin - The $200 up front if you look at the reality of what people spend like
cigarettes or coke. In presenting it In a realistic form it may even be less than $200.
Mitchell Roberts - Taxes have really dropped this year from $3600 a year to a couple of
thousand.
Tod Johnson and Captain Morris both stated their property values dropped considerably.
Mitchell Roberts - We need to know that will work how much per property. I might want to
emulate that In my neighborhood for street lighting.
Chief McLaughlin - If the numbers are high enough we might be able to drop it to $75 or $50
and still meet our goal.
Mitchell Roberts said there are a lot of lots in the Fakahatchee that people are paying $18 a
year if you put a $200 assessment on those lots there will be a lot more of them going to
auction.
Mitchell Roberts - He would like to see something brought forward that will get us through the
next three to four years because in two years If we stili have a big budget and the Port of the
Islands Station is in place there will be those added expenses. He feels there is going to be
three or four more years ofthis.
Ron Gilbert - He feels it's getting better but he doesn't see us getting back to five years ago.
Chief McLaughlin - The old County Manager Jim Mudd predicted we were eight years away
from getting even close to the 2006 fund levels.
Mitchell Roberts - If you get that $600,000 the first year you will be back at that level or very
close to it then it will go away again.
Chief McLaughlin - That would actually fund a couple of things we have an aging tanker we
have to replace we could finance a $250,000 vehicle for ten years. The breathing apparatus
also has to be replaced that's $90,000 and is a onetime purchase.
Page 12
161
1 fW)
Chief McLaughlin - Everything else we've done is new we are in really good shape operationally
equipment wise we are very solid. Now It's just a matter of maintaining our personnel for the
next three years. We have a couple of ideas one is to see what we need to do to raise the
millage rate. If we go up to six mills that would be $700,000 to $800,000 that would be plenty
of money. If we go up to 5.5 mills would work as well.
Mitchell Roberts - But how do you sustain it for the next three years,
Chief McLaughlin - The millage would sustain It. They're telling us we are looking at another
high single digit hit next year that's where this is coming from if we are looking at 8% to 9%
there is no carry forward we're done.
Ron Gilbert - You are getting a lot of wear and tear on the equipment by responding to 1-75 a
one year old vehicle measuring it in years is not an effective way to do it without 1-75 a two
year old vehicle would equate to a one year old vehicle.
Chief McLaughlin - When he arrived the old rescue truck had 270,000 miles on it and was
falling apart. His proposal was based on an apparatus hour basis. We put 848 apparatus hours
in responding to 1-75 and almost 1700 man hours that was just the engine company. Do that
times FEMA rates for the cost of the engine, fuel and personnel In two years It would add up to
$330,000 so that is what we are providing to the State with nothing coming back and they don't
care until somebody doesn't go. This is a federal highway the state isn't going to do anything
with it.
Ron Gilbert - If you get some funding from the Feds for 1-75 responses and you continue to
respond in the manner you have how does that affect this operating budget for next year. Isn't
that a source of funds wouldn't that be plan B.
Mitchell Roberts - If nothing else half of the vehicle expenses would go away.
Chief McLaughlin - The problem with 1-75 Is this no matter what the supplemental cost to us
responding from here it doesn't solve the root issue. The root issue is every time this vehicle
leaves to go 20 miles to get on that road 50% of your fire protection that you are paying taxes
for is gone. 1-75 needs to be fully self sufficient self funding facility serving that road and not by
a population that is 25 miles away that's been our argument. Just giving us money to go out
there would fix part of our problem of the cost to service the road but not the root problem of
50% ofthe fire protection going to 1-75.
Mitchell Roberts - Whenever we do have a fire station out there the engines would have to be
assigned to that area.
Page 13
161
l~\o i
Chief McLaughlin - It would pay for itself. The proposal is for 1,2 million dollars which would
totally fund the station on 1-75. There are other agency also affected responding to 1-75 such as
EM5 and med flight the proposal encompasses those agencies as well. We are impacted the
most in regards to cost of 1-75 responses.
Mitchell Roberts - He was wondering If you could do a small claims suit Just to get the attention
against the taxing district of the 1-75 corridor.
Chief McLaughlin -It Is a State road.
Ron Gilbert - Is there some way you could bring an ultimatum to the Feds that we are not going
to do it anymore we can't afford to.
Chief Mclaughlin - Jim Mudd said that unfortunately he's no long with us and no one in the
current administration Is going to say that.
Mitchell Roberts - You would have no one to back you up.
Chief McLaughlin - Jim Mudd said if they don't want to fund it we're not going to go. He
believes he would have stuck to that to get some ones attention.
Ron Gilbert - You are expecting a relatively small taxed base District to support the federal
government and that's opposite as to how it usually works.
Chief McLaughlin - This has been an ongoing problem.
Mitchell Roberts - Feels unfortunately it might take a catastrophic incident to get a station on
1-75.
Chief Mclaughlin - He will dig up some numbers and see If there is another way they can look
at this also to see if there is some way of obtaining funding for another two years at least to
obtain the funding to maintain the current level of man power. It may come down to a special
assessment at the Port to finish the building right now his priority is to maintain the current
man power.
Page 14
161
A discussion began in reference to consolidation and how it would Improve the service of fire
protection in Collier County and save money. Chief McLaughlin also explained the workings of
this type of system.
Mitchell Roberts made a motion to adjourn it was seconded and passed the meeting ended.
~-~
~._~...~....
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
Page 15
l-k\O
.~~m1t~~'
~ ) () (\)\\1 M
'.
FiJ 6 ~L/ 11\\\ ~
Hiller /
Henning 1 t+ /
1/.."."", 8Mc. At.s.7 .~~ vV
A/l"'80IY eo".".III..
270!i Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL :-l4104
January 6, 2011
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: December 2,2010
V. Budget Report
VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM
VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur
VIII. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
IX. Old Business
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance - Bruce Forman
B. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin
XI. New Business
XII. Public Comment
XIII. Adjournment
The next meeting is February 3, 2011 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625111TH Ave.
Naples, Fl
Misc. Carres:/
Da1Il:
l ,
Copies to:
161
l~r
1/""""" 8Mc. At".7 Jt.
A""'80IY 00".".111..
270!i Horseshoe Drive SOUdl
Naples, FL 34104
December 2,2010
MINUTES
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:02 p.m.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Dick Lydon, Bud Martin, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman, Bill
Gonnering
County: Darryl Richard-MSTU Project Manager, Michelle Arnold-ATM
Director, Gloria Herrera-Budget Analyst
Others: Chris Tilman-Malcolm Pirnie, Jim Fritchey-CLM, Lew Schmidt-
Public, Darlene Lafferty-Juristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Dick Lydon moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by
Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - November 4,2010
Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of November 4, 2010 as
presented. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously
5-0.
V. Budget Report
Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information:
o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $96,545.24
o Improvements General Expenditures $43,400.00
Darryl Richard distributed the Adjusted Balance Sheet. (See attached)
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM-Jim Fritchey
Jim Fritchey reported:
o Mulch is complete
o Chili Thrips are under control
161
1 ~~\
VII. Utilities Report-Charles Arthur
Chris Tilman reviewed Phase I Easement Status Report: (See attached)
Location (4) Vanderbilt Bav Condominiums
o The Master Plan was emailed to the Board President to provide
additional information as requested
o FPL confirmed the Equipment can be Relocated into the ROW if
the Easement is denied
Location 5A & 9 Chaffee and Thompson
o Mr. Chafee agreed to sign the (2) Easement Documents
o Easement (3) Document is signed and Executed (by Mr.
Thompson)
Location 9A
o Mr. Forbis agreed to sign the Easement Document
Chris Tilman stated the O&E Status Column (Ownership and
Encumbrance Report) may not be required by FPL. Malcolm Pirnie will
confirm if the Report is needed.
Location 11 Marlo Costantini
o Mr. Costantini will grant an Easement if the Equipment is
relocated to the South end of his property
o The FPL preferred location for the Equipment is (11A)
Monaghan Property
Location 13 Villas of Vanderbilt Beach
o Full Easement will be granted if the location is shifted to the
Northern end of the Property Line
Location 15 Manatee Resort
o Will grant Full Easement to place equipment on the North end of
the Property
Location 16 Vanderbilt Beach LLC
o Status is pending
o Mr. Brown is in favor of granting the Easement and will review
the Documents with the Co-Owners of the Property
Location 17 Watermark Condo
o Revised Drawings were submitted to Beverly Rondeau as
requested
o Status is pending Board review and approval
Location 18 & 19 Vanderbilt Beach Motel
o Easement Document is Executed
2
161
1{\\\
Dick Lydon requested on the status of the Code Enforcement Electrical
issues on Mr. Bowein Property.
Staff will inquire with Code Enforcement on the deadline to correct the
Electrical issues at Mr. Bowein's residence.
Chris Tilman reviewed the Estimated Phase 1 Project Schedule and
noted should the Easements be somewhat delayed it would not impact the
Project schedule. (See attached)
VIII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard
Chris Tilman gave the following information: (See attached)
(V A-35) Water Line Relocation Project
o Comments were received by ROW Permitting
o The revised County Protocols to remove the concrete Asbestos
Pipe was received
- Utilities Department requested to incorporate the revision
into the Design Plans for the Utilities Relocation
o Verification is needed to confirm the Contractor(s) is Asbestos
Certified
o DEP Permit is not required
(VA-30) Comcast "Phase One" Coordination
o Estimate Contract Draft revisions will take 90 days to complete
o BCC approval is required
Discussion ensued on the County Attorney request for documentation on
Comcast Pole License(s).
Michele Arnold responded Staff will verify with the County Attorney if the
Comcast Pole License Document is necessary.
Darryl Richard reviewed the Teleconference with Comcast. (See
attached)
o The FPL written confirmation (damage repairs by FPL) has not
been received as requested by Comcast
o Comcast requested for Public Health and Safety the (Comcast)
overhead Utilities remain in service until the FPL underground
conversion is complete
Discussion developed on the installation sequence by Com cast and FPL.
After discussion it was concluded Charles Arthur will contact Comcast
Attorney (904-626-2167) and local Representative 239-253-7821 to
resolve the installation sequence conflict.
Darryl Richard reported the CLM Contract will be presented at the
January 2011 BCC meeting for approval.
3
161
1~\\
Staff requested approval to allocate monies for the Utility Line Relocation.
Bud Martin moved to approve the expenditures not to exceed
$100,000.00 for the Utility Relocation and authorize County (Staff) to
go with the lowest Bidder. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
IX. Old Business
Dick Lydon reported Pathways will provide the Pathways Plans to FPL.
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance-Bruce Forman-None
B. Tax Analysis-Bud Martin-None
XI. New Business
XII. Public Comment
Lew Schmidt announced the VBRA (Vanderbilt Beach Resident
Association) is meeting on December 3'd.
Dick Lydon suggested the VBRA include an update in the News Letter on
the Underground Line Burial as provided by the MSTU.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adjourned by the Chair at 3:27 p.m.
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Advisory Committee
/.'~ ,'i/.
!,/ /')",'i/
!Ad --"
V';T1. . . ._-~.,
Charles Arthur, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board/com)(i-ttee on
as presented or amended
1- (".) I
The next meeting is January 6,2011 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625111TH Ave.
Naples, FL.
4
::l
?-
m
:EM
1-'"
...J-
-0
alz
a::::l
~LL
z
~
!!
~
... ~
"' '"
""':cri
"''''
O>~
I.!i~-
0;'"
w~
;;;
000
0>00
";00
"'0'"
"'0'"
MV-
NOOO
MONN
~ocri~
l.000mN
"'"'...
r---^ M
'"
"'0
~O
arici
",<Xl
<Xl...
"":1.()
...
~Ef}ER-Ef}ER-EA-f:R-Ef}(/}EA-Ef}f:A-
'"
~
c
..
E
~
"''''
"'..
NO
..~
"'...
:t~-
00
"'-
"''''
"''''
--"'
"'
"'"'
o <Xl
r0ari
<Xl'"
",
Ef} Ef} th Ef}~
<Xl
"'
N
..
"'-
'"
00'"
00<Xl
tDci~
"'0'"
~O...-
",0"
...
"''''
'"
~ ...
'" "'
U;-..n
EA-EA-WEA-(/}WEA-(/}~Ef}WEf}Ef}Ef}WWEf}W~
-
-
...'"
"' '"
<Xl_
"''''
"''''
00
00
"''''
....
'"
'"
'"
"'UU
~"(!)
0--
o
'"
...
"'...'"
u:;~~
~~~
000
000
"'''''''
......
~
~~
<i,Z
'"
b
0.
E
~
Ill.... ....
~ ~ -g .~
- Q) elI:::Z:
l? (I)::!; .... Z.
~~"2~:g~
o CD :3 c -;::::
:rl iU e '5.~ ~
e:::$:c:lU)Wu.
""
~
~
o i'j
U~
..c. Iii ~
0= ::::J
3'OUl
:EU.:
-
-
<>
N
iii
~
..
::l
c::
..
..,
_'0
::J ~ ~
1Il1- en 0
Q) 1:::: IZ' ...J '';:;
E ~ ~ -I ~
~ 0 :::::J .521.52
zOOO ....
... _ 0 CD .t:
~~~~~
,-Q) ~ 00_
l>OUUu.
'"
i'j.5 e
g ~ ~
",-"
Q) III C> 0
1':.8 ~ 1:
lijlS 0 ai ~
..J ~ :g ~ 5.~
0..00:000:;)
u.i:i:u...E.E...,
ro
...
" ~
:is-a
.!!'sori
~~~
OCOO(O
a...... 0 'O;f"
ciarioi.O
0.....0.....
........0)<0-
("')-cDOcl
to<'olJ')f'-.
o~
e- e
"'00
"'..
cOr-.:
"'..
"''''
ri
00
'"
<'i
0>
'"
'"
..
~
~
"""
(A-Ef) Ef}Ef} UlEf}Ef}fhfh(/}lt;.
, I~
II
IE
... 0",
'" '" '"
"'"'~
'" '" <Xl
"'_0
005
000
"'''''''
.. ....
tDl.O'l:tC"')
~NCOO'l
",:;J;;;;:i;
ONO..-
0000
0000
LOI.OLOIO
'o::t" V v.....
"''''
(ON II
~C;;~
-~
~O+
gg~
~LOQ)
.. ~
::;
U
"
rn
Q;
'"
~
"-
"- '"
(J) .~
><i
'" "-
~~
Q "
"= (.)
UtE'
::1'0
c
o
'.,;
~
.,;
N
-
o <Xl
0":
6_
0'"
'" 00
.j
<Xl
-
000
000
cioci
"0'"
00
cr,j.....-
0000'
0000
0000
0000
U"lOOM
ciN'-'
00000
001'--01'-
00""':0"":
001'-0<0
U"lO(")NI.O
N ci
..
16\
1 ~\\
~
;;
" c
e::: .2
:g c ~
o "_ 0
.~ m ~
,," "
III .~Ii ~ .~ ~ -
8~:g'E~5ocj
.- Q) Ul'- Q) =
~CI)C::d)(I)-gQ)
~g8a:g5lQ
~~ii~;5:
~g~~g-gffi
()()a..a..():=l>
'0'0
" "
'" '"
o 0
UU
(ll (ll (ll (ll
-E E 'E.e
o:a::a:o:uuu
EEEE-=-=-=U)
"0 (5 -0"0 - - -..m
~~~ia~~~g-
:;;:;;:;;:;;"'''''''00
0000000
0000000
0000000
00001.001/')
1.0000(00
NOI.O-'.:fl'--M-
...'" '"
~
'L~n~
Ifli::!:: .
Ht~;
t~J!~
..:.tl!:ll
n:u
8 t',::
~ t t:1;:
::m!
~ .:;:
Q ,:
~It..
!-'-'-:I-~
..' ~ ..
~ ',."",
i ' ,.:
.... ." g
C'.f ','~.:': N
~
"
a.
.
"
..
~
i
o
o
01) '00
Ji
:; w
00
00
00
00
......
(,fN
......
"' "'
1.0-1.0-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LON
"''''
ajN
N'"
e"{
N
o
'w
o
"'
o
...
t:.
on
~'"
!~
Ci.ao:>
::s:gm
2cl'-
- ~-
~
w
~~~~~w~~~~~~~~~w~~wwwwww~~~wwwwww~~~~~w~~ww
J!l
~
"
E
~
'E
E
o
U~wwwwwwwwwww_ww~~wwwwwwm~www~w~ww~w~wwwwww~
o
o
'C..,g
" ..'"
-g DJM-
~ ~ 8-
< ~
o
o
6
o
o
.0
o
o
6
o
en
'"
-
0.
~
oeooeo
o'<tO"lt
olricilri
~~~'<t
M- cD 0 ai
(0<01.01'-
0_ _
e- e
o
o
6
<Xl
"'
,..:
'"
O~'"
0'"
omlri
0"''''
0"'"'
'<t-":N-
oq-rD8a;
.,fr'O<D
~~y:;
W
o
'"
..;
"'
'"
ri
0000
0000
0000
0000
1.0 0 It) N
I.O-ri
'"
'"
,..:
'"
"'
000
"'.....
";00
..00
........
uimGi
........
"'0'"
"'''''''
M<DO
"'''''''
"'"''''
MI.O-O'l-
- ~
0'"
0'"
6...
o
0",
0'"
..
"''''
..ro
o..r
<Xl<D
..'"
~...
'"
"'"'
<Xl "'
'" N
'" ..
'"
..;
...
'"
o
<'i
<Xl
...,
00
o
.00
"'0
"'"'
<Xl 0
"''''
N'"
.. '"
'"
N(,,")
"'''''''
'" ~-
-.tr'r...:
00....
"'~-
uia:ioO
N"'"'
-
001.00000
000)0000
cicir--:oooo
OCO~OOOI.O
I.O(OMOI.OO
Nr-:Oa:iON
'<tM ~o:>
000000
000000
000000
1.000000
l/')oq-I.000
ri.....- N- 0 to
'"
I.OMMOOOOOOO
0'l1t)1t)0000000
r'r'r'ooooooo"
O'l'<t'<tooooooo
I'-NNOOO'l~OOO
M- 00 NN~ 1'--u"irimO'l-
oq-COlX)MM NM
"'......
I.O-u"i
wwwwwwwwwwww.www~ww~wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww~
u; ~o ~ ~...J
~~bw~ozW ~ ~<...J
~~~~jgj~~~~~, ~~:5
:!::::!-WOb:E:>-OD 0:' a:::U)a:::Qt)
~~~~~i~~~i~~ti' ~~~~~~
ggo~~~u.u.~~~enl-'enb~Ou~~B ;:
<......o::Z a:::O::ooenO::'LU a.o--
>>_w~Www LUW;, LUen~~c( WwU
J: :!: en ::> u. u. u. u. u.l ..... u. W >- U () U a::: C) ~
~o~~~zenC/)>->-~en~I~-l~wweno::u.c(~
<(J:en wzzO::O::I.OZ(.<C >o::ow~~U
O::...J ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ 0:: a::: C)~; :C) C) 0:: (5 Z J: en en w
B ~ M: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ () () ~ ~f~ ~ ~ ~:3 b ~ ~ uj
_C'\lM"ltIl)U)t--C:OQ)~:::~
z '"
~~~ ~ ~ ~ 0:: ...J...J
VJ '" ,.... Ow ~ ~ z 8 C:::o. 8 ~
ffi~~~ zzz OOZLU z a.u~~
;,:~~::\ "'OU5::\:;;e>WCl>-z <~",<
wW"'>-w ~a:::~ LU~a.~~::> enenzU I
enC)enu ~oo::ujG~~z~ zzoo::
DWc:::Z ~~~~~ffiC)~~~~~~~~en
~ULU< enO::D~O::~~wOOw~~wLUW
,Z-lZ C/)<C~WO~>...J~u.~~u.>>
O::~~~J:~~-la:::J:~<o~C/)C/)wwC/)o::a:::I'\...
~::>-zU_a:::<W~wc:::o::_ZZC)C)ZWW,
......,^~-~U.W0J:O::IW^a..~<COD<~en
;; ZVJ a. <C ..J U. ~ W ~ W ..... a.. liE <C 0:: a::: ~ ::l 0:: W w.
:> _ en :::! :::: 0 () ...J 0 U. 00:: () ~ ~ ~ a:a ~ c::: 0::,'
~:~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~;~;;
16 l 1 ~\t
Collier County, Florida
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Adjusted Balance Sheet (Unaudited)
As of respective date
Unaudited Fiscal 2011 - Unaudited
As of
9/30/2010 10/13/2010 12/2/2010 1/6/2011
Pooled cash and investments $ 5,080,344.09 $ 5,078.094.93 $ 5,102,971.32 $ 5,751,571.24
Market valuation of investments (done annually) 2,615.91 2.615.91 2,615.91 2.615.91
Due from Tax Collector 8,458.21 8,458.21
Due from Property Appraiser 1,037.70 1.037.70
Due from other funds
Interest receivable 7,293.Q1 7,293.Q1 7.293,01 7,293.01
Total Assets $ 5,099,748.92 $ 5,097,499.76 $ 5,112,880.24 $ 5,761,480,16
Goods ReceipUlnvoice Receipt $ 5,653.08 $ 36.848,23 $ 32,922.10 $ 6,000.00
Accounts Payable 875.00
4,652,625.42
Revenues:
Ad Valorem Collections 947,406.78 96.545.24 806,740.14
Interest Revenue 45,701.08 1,508,30 1,780.77
Miscellaneous
Expenditures:
Other Contractural Services (52,470.00) (11,865.15) (16,025.15) (21,635.15)
Legal Fees (1,473.95)
Engineering (44,320.00) (36.880.00) (37,680.00)
Surveying Fees (14,982.05)
Abstract Fees (875.00)
Indirect Cost Reimbursement (10,000.00) (4.000,00) (4,000.00)
Water and sewer (46.810.77) (4,490.23) (6,957.67)
Sprinkler maintenance (846.07) (486.00) (516.91)
Landscaping (13,345.71) (1,174.51) (1,369.51)
Mulch (3,218.60) (3,364.90)
Other miscellaneous (fertilizer, electricity, etc,) (8,523.52) (717.19) (1,028.53)
Improvements. General (Capital) (315,614.76) (19,780.00) (43,400.40) (49,400.40)
Transfer to PA (6,412.89) (924.16) (1,961,86) (3,923.72)
Transfer to TC (10,619.12) (2,180.90) (16,384.80)
Transfer to Fund 111 (Unic, MSTD) (23,000.00)
Total Liabilities and Equity $ 5,099,748,92 $ 5,097,499.76 $ 5,112,880.24 $ 5,761,480.16
Collier County, Florida
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Source of monies from inception - CUMULATIVE
Ad valorem taxes $ 6,687,191,75 $ 6,687,191.75 $ 6,783,736.99 $ 7.493,931.89
Miscellaneous income (refund) 503.65 503.65 503.65 503.65
Interest earnings 581,659.97 581,659,97 583,168.27 583,440.74
Insurance recoveries 13,085.17 13,085.17 13,085.17 13,085.17
Good and services (1.915,896.45) (1.918,145.61) (1,991,322,76) (2,053,190.21)
Transfers out to other County funds (286,200.00) (286,200.00) (286.200.00) (286.200.00)
Cash balance as of respective date $ 5,080,344.09 $ 5,078,094.93 $ 5,102,971.32 $ 5,751,571.24
161
1 A~\
Report for: January 6, 2011 Meeting
Prepared by:
Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Proiect Status
(VA-35) - ACTIVE - Water Line Relocation Project - Project V-1
01-06-11: Bid docs are being revised per new guidelines for asbestos abatement. Bidding will
occur after Asbestos Abatement Coordination Meeting on Jan. 19, 2011.
(VA-34) - ACTIVE - Survey for Phase II & III (PO 4500118493)
01-06-11: RWA survey in progress. Malcoim Pirnie reviewing survey data.
(VA-32) -10021 Gulfshore Drive Underground conversion of residential meter.
01-06-11: Code Deficiencies at 10021 Gulfshore Drive have been addressed (per 12-13-10
confirmation by Building Inspection) by private property owner. FPL and Bentley
Electrical to perform inspection in order for Bentley Electrical to provide quote
under annual contract for conversion of meter to underground power.
(VA-30) - ACTIVE - Comcast "Phase One" Coordination
01-06-11: Final Preparation of Agreement Language is underway at Com cast Corporate office.
Staff has requested revised agreement by January 21, 2011.
(VA-27) - ACTIVE - Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA)
11-10-09 COMPLETED for Channel Drive (only): UFCA approved by BCC for 'Channel
Drive'
01-06-11 Overall Phase One UFCA is pending resolution of 'easements' required for
Phase One Project: As soon as easements are obtained FPL wili proceed with
Final Engineering Cost Estimate and production of Final Design Plans for project.
(VA-26) - ACTIVE -Malcolm Pirnie; (EASEMENT AQUISITION) Review preliminary design
provided by FPL
01-06-11 Ongoing review of easements and negotiation with property owners in progress.
(VA-19) - ACTIVE-ONGOING - On Call Services - Malcolm Pirnie Engineering
On-going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground
power line installation.
01-06-11 Ongoing On-Call Engineering Services by Malcolm Pirnie Engineering
(VA-18) - ACTIVE-ONGOING- - Maintenance Contract- Award to Commercial Land: Annual
Maintenance 'base contract' per Quote
01-06-11 Ongoing Maintenance Services by Commercial Land Maintenance
1
12-11-07
03-26-08
03-10-08
05-12-08
06-05-09
06-23-09
09-11-08
09-12-08
09-17-08
09-22-08
11-21-08
02-02-09
02-04-09
03-09-09
04-02-09
04-10-09
04-28-09
161
1}\:\\ ;
Brief summary of "Underground Utilities Conversion" project activity
Since December 11, 2007 Initial BCC Approval of Agreement
Bee Approval of ROW Agreement with FPL date Dec, 11,2007
TEAM TELECONFERNeE (FPL, COMCA5T, COUNTY, MSTU (C.ARTHUR), VBPOA (JACKIE
BAMMEL, RWA, MALCOLM PIRNIE)
PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS
Review of RWA Survey wi Malcolm Pirnie and C. Arthur
Confirmation of 4 residential units affected by "Channel Drive Pilot Project" with FPL
(Ryan Drum); Field Meeting to review project; Affected Properties are:
NANCE, HAROLD 283 CHANNEL
BASTANI, KEN K 261 CHANNEL
KOHLER, RUTH H 227 CHANNEL
REYNOLDS TR, HENRY E 213 CHANNEL
CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical begins work per PO 4500107832
Review of 1st RWA Survey Submittal Sept 11, 2008
Confirmation of FPL Red-Line Comments for survey Sep. 12, 2008
TEAM TELECONFERENCE (FPL, MALCOLM PIRNIE)
FPL "Pot Hole" digs recommended locations identified Sept 22, 2008
TEAM MEETING (C. ARTHUR, J. BAMMEL, MALCOLM PIRNIE)
FPL Approval of Survey Feb. 4, 2009
Staff request $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit Invoice Feb. 4, 2009
PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS
MSTU Committee makes motion to proceed with "Channel Drive Project"
Verification of easements for 'private property' April 10, 2009
Bce Approval of Modified Ordinance adding installation of powerline within
'easement' to private properties, This is to allow installation of power from ROW Line
to private property connection.
06-01-09
06-25-09
06-26-09
06-26-09
07-27-09
08-07-09
09-16-09
09-17 -09
09-22-09
09-21-09
09-23-09
09-24-09
161
1 ~\\
CHANNEL DRIVE: Ryan Drumm (FPL) request .pdf of ROW Agreement for review;
forwarded via email
FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans
Staff request (1) Cadd file of Phase One Submittal; (2) Review indicates drawings are not
sufficient for bidding purposes; (3) Full size prints 'to scale' requested'
TELECONFERNCE; CALL IN FROM FPL (John Lehr, FPL; Troy Todd, FPL; Ryan Drumm, FPL;
Darryl Richard, Collier County) Troy Todd (FPL) clarifies that "tariff charges" apply to
Channel Drive Project (ref: Tariff No.6 per PSC approved Tariff); $566.59 for the 4
properties on Channel Drive
CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical completed electrical from ROW to Home/Resident for
the following Channel Drive Address': 213,283,263 and 227
RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL - Channel Drive UFCA; and 'Draft' plans; Ryan confirms no
existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive
RYAN DRUMM 2"' SUBMITTAL - Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8-18-09); and 'Final'
Channel Drive plans (marked 'check set')
CHANNEL DRIVE RESIDENT COORDINATION: Kent Smith called on behalf of Mr. Nance to
report that he has received the mailing/letter regarding Channel Drive project and that
Mr. Nance chooses to 'not participate' at this time due to financial concerns. He
mentioned his wife was in the hospital and that he did not have the money to pay the
$650.00 for his "private conversion" to underground.
TELECONFERENCE (FPL, COUNTY LEGAL, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE, C. ARTHUR)
Recommendations: FPL to submit 'agreement' in word format (if possible); staff to
proceed with obtaining payment for 'private' underground conversion from property
owners Nance and Bastani on Channel Drive, FPL confirms that survey has been
accepted and 'Final Plans' are pending for Phase One Project.
Ryan Drumm provides FPL Cost Breakdown for Channel Drive; Staff intends to process
payment for an "FPL Invoice" upon BCC approval of UFCA (Underground Facilities
Conversion Agreement) for Channel Drive; UFCA is pending completion of 'legal review'
TOTAL CHANNEL DRIVE COST: $23,242.00
Message from Mr. Kent Smith (Legal Representative for Mr. Nance (Property Owner at
283 Channel Drive); Mr. Smith stated that the 'owner' has 'no desire' to underground
his private connection, and furthermore has 'no intention of spending any money on his
home' (at 283 Channel Drive) related to the power line underground conversion.
COMCAST COORDINATION; Channel Drive Plans forwarded to Comcast for quote of
underground conversion for Comcast overhead utilities
10-01-09
10-05-09
10-06-09
10-09-09
10-12-09
10-12-09
10-13-09
10-14-09
10-14-09
10-22-09
10-28-09
10-28-09
11-03-09
11-03-09
161
~~(
1
Phase One "Legal Description" forwarded to FPL for confirmation of FPL formal
acceptance of 'Legal Description' per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub-section
(d)'
FPL ACCEPTANCE OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION; John Lehr via email confirms FPL's official
acceptance of the legal description for the Phase One Project; Staff request
confirmation of "EXISTING FPL FACILITIES" per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2.
Sub-section (e)) documentation of all existing FPL underground facilities within the
ROW that will not be included under ROW agreement (for Exhibit C)
COMCAST COORINDINATION: Mark Cook informs County Staff that Comcast has re-
assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy
are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate.
"COMCAST CONFIRMS 100% of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no
'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipment/existing installation. Services are
identified as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade'. Installation of underground conduit for
Comcast is through Comcast contractor managed 'entirely by Comcast'.
Malcolm Pirnie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and
recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for
Phase One Project
County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 1500 Mahan Drive,
Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (letter dated 10-8-09 Gregory T. Stewart
RWA Proposal submitted for survey of Phase II, III, and IV
TELECONFERENCE (c. ARTHUR, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE)
FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary')
John Lehr notifies staff (via phone call evening of 10-14-09) that the 'one page'
agreement submitted on 8-7-09 has to be revised to a new 4 page agreement (delivery
pending from FPL)
John Hart Electrical received check for $650.00 for Bastani on Channel Drive 'Private Can
Conversion to underground.
Bastani Channel Drive private conversion project completed by Hart's Electrical
Revised UFCA Agreement received from FPL for BCC approval on Nov. 10, 2009
Confirmation of Comcast cost for Channel Drive Project is $4,000.00 per FPL plans.
Scott Teach and Michelle Arnold teleconference with Nabors Giblin & Nickerson results
of teleconference to be presented at 11-05-09 MSTU meeting.
11-05-09
11-10-09
11-10-09
12-08-09
12-15-09
01-04-10
01-04-10
01-19-10
02-09-10
02-09-10
02-09-10
161
1 ~ll
Discussion Nabors Giblin & Nickerson legal consult related to 'underground conversion'
and potential 'ordinance'; Committee makes motion to direct staff to pursue Ordinance
for the MSTU to pay for homeowner's conversion and Ordinance to 'require'
participation and mechanism to address non-participation.
BCC Approval of UFCA Agreement with FPL for Channel Drive 'pilot project'
Field Meeting to review Proposed "Easements" for Phase One Project; Ryan Drum FPL
was in attendance with Chris Tilman, Darryl Richard, Jeff Gower, and Charlie Arthur.
Inspection indicated that all of the easements proposed were not necessary, and that
'alternative' site planning would locate the electrical boxes within existing ROW. Follow-
up meeting with John Lehr scheduled for December 8,2009 (1 pm)
Meeting with FPL (John Lehr, Kate Donofrio, Ryan Drum) and Malcolm Pirnie (Chris
Tilman, Jeff Gower) and County Staff (Darryl Richard); Review of easements proposed;
approximately 50% of easements were determined to not be necessary; However, the
other 50% of easements require (1) detailed re-survey, (2) placement of stakes in field
identifying ROWand property lines, and (3) re-identification of utilities in the field (call
into Florida One Call system)
Staff will coordinate with Malcolm Pirnie and RWA for necessary project activity;
additional proposal from RWA is necessary for scope of work identified. Proposal from
Malcolm Pirnie for 'easement acquisition' is also recommended at this time in
anticipation of possible requirement for easements.
BCC Approval of Ordinance Modification to add 'private' connections to MSTU
Ordinance thus allowing MSTU to complete 100% of private meter connections as
required to obtain 25% GAF waiver from FPL.
Draft Letter to 37 residents requiring underground conversion for meter connection
under review
Channel Drive Project Under Construction
Letter sent to 35 residents in Phase One Project that have 'overhead' meter
connections; staff is monitoring confirmation of receipt of this mailing by Certified Mail
Channel Drive Project 90% completed; missing 2 transformer boxes pending from FPL;
Comcast is 100% installed on Channel Drive.
RWA Delivers 13 exhibits for locations for transformers and switch cabinets; These
exhibits will be used in review of proposed easements by FPL in Preliminary Design
Malcolm Pirnie provides Final Bid Documents for Electrical Conversion of 35 properties
in Phase One Project which have existing overhead meter connections. Staff preparing
bid for advertisement and release to 'all bidders' not restricted to annual contractors.
03-04-10
03-11-10
03-24-10
03-26-10
03-26-10
03-30-10
03-30-10
03-31-10
03-31-10
161
1 ~\\
MSTU Committee awards bid to ITran Partners, Inc. for underground conversion of 31
private residential units. It was determined that only 2 additional properties require
underground conversion. Since the 2 additional properties are 'Commercial Property'
and will require extensive review and investigation prior to conversion - these will be
handled through Collier County Annual Electrical Contractor.
Meeting with ITran Partners to review 31 properties to be undergrounded. Some
properties were noted as 'possible change order items'; namely saw cutting concrete
driveway and re-installation of concrete slab over newly installed conduit. Malcolm
Pirnie is assisting staff in review of each property and related 'issues' that may require
further review.
EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 989S Gulf Shore Dr.; Laplaya LLC;
Jeremy Arnold, PE; Barron Collier Enterprises
Summary: Mr. Anrold was very agreeable to granting easement
EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 10352 Gulf Shore Dr.; Mr. Epright;
Summary: Mr. Epright is not agreeable to all4 boxes being located on his property. He
would like for the County to pursue alternative of placement of"2 boxes North of his
property line - on the Condo Property" (10420 GULF SHORE DR; "Vanderbilt Bay
Condominiums); Staff will coordinate with Engineer Consultant in bringing an alternative
solution to the property owner; after preliminary review/approval by FPL as a viable
alternative
Meeting with ITran Partners to review further 'more in depth' some of the technical
issues related to each property conversion. Further coordination with FPL (Troy Todd) to
identify certain items which appear to be 'non-standard' installations and modifications
to FPL's meter connections is required.
All Tariff charges for the 31 properties have been approved for payment to FPL. Note
there is a $566.59 Tariff charge for each of the 31 properties. Material supply for
conduit will be by FPL for the residential units. With wire being 'pulled' by FPL. FPL will
notify County once material supply has been received and is in stock.
EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 9635 Gulf Shore Dr.; Casa Grande
Summary: Pam Pettit (Manager) and the Board President of Casa Grande. Appeared to
be in agreement with granting easement. Was in favor of project.
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONVERSION: Meeting with Bentley Electric to review project
details for conversion of 2 Commercial Properties
(1) 9140 GULF SHORE DR (Hotel/INN)
(2) 10540 Gulf Shore Dr (multi-unit condo)
Bentley Electric to provide quote under annual contract 09-5325 On Call Electrical
Services Contract
Malcolm Pirnie Provides layout alternatives (Options 1, 2, and 3) for Mr. Epright's
property. All 3 alternatives require an easement of some sort. FPL appears to be
04-01-10
04-06-10
04-21-10
04-21-10
04-28-10
04-30-10
04-30-10
05-03-10
16l
1 All
interested in Option #1 which places 2 boxes to the north parcel and 2 boxes on/near
Mr. Epright's property. (requires easement from both property owners)
Meeting with Lighthouse Hotel Owner Kevin Dugan regarding easement. Kevin is in
favor of project and is willing to provide easement
ITran Partners begin underground conversion of 31 Commercial Properties.
Meeting with Charles Chaffee; Mr. Chaffee is in favor of project and will provide
easement
Meeting with Mr. Epright; Mr. Epright is not in favor of project and is willing to offer
very limited easement (5 ft. along Northern Edge of property)
Meeting to review proposed Park & Recreation plans for 111th Ave. parking lot. It was
determined that no conflict exist between M5TU FPL Project and proposed changes by
Park & Recreation.
Final Draft for Agreements for (3) Three Easements submitted to Kevin Hendricks,
Director, Collier County Property Acquisitions
Easement Exhibits received from Malcolm Pirnie
Meeting with Collier County Utilities (Joe Thomas, P.E.) regarding the easement
proposal for Vanderbilt Towers (North of Ep,ight Property); P,oposed alternative
involves relocation and/or disconnection of existing water force main. Joe Thomas,
Collier County Utilities indicates his staff will have to review what is proposed and then
get back to Malcolm Pirnie/Staff. Note: a 7.5 foot off-set requirement is noted as being
'required fo, our project'; staff/consultant had previously been utilizing 5 ft. off-set per
FPL ,equirements for existing utilities. Malcolm Pirnie is to provide an exhibit for Joe
Thomas illustrating the locations for utility boxes and off-sets as reiates to utilities
(water main lines in particular)
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Follow-up meeting with Coilier County Utilities (Joe Thomas, P.E.) regarding relocation of water
main for required off-set for FPL utility boxes.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Notice to Proceed sent to RWA for Phase II & III Survey; p, O. #4S00118493; CONTRACT: RFP
#06-3944 Annual Fixed Term Surveying & Photogrammetric Services; 360 day contract period,
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Inspection of Residentiai Electrical Meters - Vande,bilt Beach MSTU
1) 10021 Gulfshore Dr; BOWEIN, LLOYD L; LURLINE 5 BOWEIN; 10021 GULF SHORE DR; NAPLES FL 34108; FOLIO
NO. 27530040005; FAILED INSPECTION: CODE DEFICIENCIES NOTED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR, PROPERTY
REFERED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR CODE RELATED DEFIECIENCIES.
2) 10091 Gulfshore; FORBiS, ROBERT C=& DEBRA J; 10091 GULF SHORE DR; NAPLES FL 34108; PHONE: 239-254-
8484; Mobile: (230) 641-8000; PROPERTY OWNER PAID ELECTRICIAN UNDER PRIVATE CONTRACT TO RESOLVE
CODE DEFIECIENCIES; STATUS: RESOLVED,
1&1
1 ~I\
Friday, August 27, 2010
Comcast Coordination Meeting; Review of basic requirements for agreement per Tariff 6.310
(Fla. PSC App,oved Tariff rega,ding underground conversion of powerlines)
September 23, 2010
Comcast Coordination Meeting; Update on progress toward 'draft agreement'
And discussion/clarification of details related to project.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Jeff Gower, P.E. provides bid documents for bidding Water Line Relocation Project - P,oject V-1.
Project Plans reviewed by staff. Totai Project cost is estimated at: $82,500.00
Friday, October 08, 2010
First Draft of Comcast Agreement with Vanderbilt Beach MSTU/Collier County received and
fo,warded to County Attorney's office for review.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
ROW Section confirms Water-line relocation project is being tracked unde, ROW Permit
Application #10-0520. ROW Permit is required prior to bidding project.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Jeff Gower, P.E. confirms that FPL has 'approved' 12 out of the 13 total easement proposals. Staff
and consultant are negotiating with prope'ty owners in obtaining owner approval of proposed
easements.
LIST OF PROPOSED EASEMENTS:
Easement No. Owner /Parcel No,
lA 3 Vanderbilt Shores
1 4 Vanderbilt Bay Condo Phase 2
2 SA Chaffee
3 SA Thompson
4 9 Chaffee 2
5 11 Mario Costantini
6 12 la Playa
7 13 Villas of Vanderbilt Beach
8 14 Casa Grande
9 15 Manatee Resort
10 16 Vanderbilt Beach llC
11 17 The Watermark Condo
12 18 & 19Vanderbilt Beach Motel
Easement Size
15'x40'
4' x 10'
5' x 10'
5' xS'
3' x 10'
3' x 10'
5' x 20'
2' x 10'
20' x 20'
l' x 10'
4' x 13'
4' x 13'
5' x20'
FPl Review
In Progress
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Thursday, October 13, 2010
Code Enforcement meeting with Property Owner at 10021 Gulfshore Drive (Bowein);
Code Case # Code case reference #CEPM20100017920
Summary:
161
1 Al\
Code Enforcement Staff (Susana Capasso, Supervisor, North Naples District) meeting
with Mr. Bowein. Mr. Bowein has coordinated with FPL and the electrical wire that was
resting across the roof has been addressed (inspection pending). He is working on the
closing the open permit for replacement of windows and will be working with Mark
Thomas, Building Inspector, Building Review & Permitting, on the electrical code
deficiencies noted.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Code Enforcement meeting with Property Owner at 10021 Gulfshore Drive (Bowein);
Code Case # Code case reference #CEPM20100017920
Summary: Resident had obtained services from an electrician (company name
undisclosed) and had met with Richard Long, Chief Building Inspector to review the
details related to the code deficiencies at 10021 Gulfshore Drive.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Comcast Teleconference-Coordination on Agreement
A: Who goes First: Com cast opened the discussion with statement that Comcast had no problem with
'going first' and completing their underground installation given that 2 conditions be met - as stated
beiow:
1) Comcast request written confirmation from FPL that once Comcast installs all of their utilities
underground - that in the case that the FPL contractor 'hits the line' - that the FPL contractor
will be responsible for repair of any damaged Comcast utilities. (attn: John Lehr - we could use a
letter or email for clarification on this item)
Note: Comcast will provide 'As Built' plans during and upon completion ofthe Comcast
underground project.
2) Given that Comcast will 'go first' and install all underground utilities necessary for conversion
(given condition #1 is met), Comcast request that they be allowed to keep the overhead utilities
"in service" until all FPL underground conversion is completed. Once FPL underground
conversion is completed Comcast will transfe, service to the newly installed underground
Comcast lines. The intention here is to ensure that there is no disruption of service (especially
regarding 911 emergency service to residents) ensuring smooth transition between the old
overhead lines to the new underground system. (aun: John Leh, - we could use a letter or email
for clarification on this item) [NOTE: RESPONSE FROM FPL (John Lehr) IS PENDING REGARDING
THIS REQUEST FROM COMCASTI
B: Review of Agreement (see attached original draft as received from Comcast)
1) 110% of contractor cost needs to be reduced down to 100% or actual project cost only. Staff
will not authorize 'overage' at onset of project. If unforeseen condition(s) should arise which
require modification of agreement amount - another addendum would be required with Bce
approval.
2) An amount of retainage must be determined. Staff is recommending 10% retainage for this
project. At onset of BCe approval of Agreement 90% of project cost will be paid out within 45
days of Bce approval and then upon project completion payment of 10% retainage will be made
within 45 days of project completion.
161
1 ~\,
3) Comcast is to provide a letter regarding the 'contractor selection' process related to Comcast
sub-contractor for the project. Details related to contractor experience and specific
qualifications should be included in this letter.
4) The agreement letter needs to be modified to include new BCC approved requirements for all
contractors associated with Collier County Projects to have verification that all employees can
lawfully work in the US. (additional details related to County Purchasing requirements (re: E-
ve,ify) fo, this item will be forwarded to Comcast under separate cover)
5) Staff is still in need of actual copies of the 'pole licenses' for Comcast utilization of the existing
poles on Gulfshore Drive. Copy of these licenses is necessary for County Legal to review the
proposed agreement.
Friday, December la, 2010
John Lehr, FPL Project Manager, confirms that FPL can coordinate with Comcast with a
simultaneous conversion of both utilizies. Thus allowing Comcast to remain 'on the
poles' until both the FPL electrical and the Comcast underground system are in place.
Then afterwards the 'take-down' would occur for Comcast lines and the poles would be
removed. (ref: December 10, 2010 email from John Lehr)
Monday, December 13, 2010
Collier County Code Enforcement and Building Inspection Department report that all
code deficiencies have been addressed by private property owner at 10021 Gulfshore
Drive. In follow-up staff has requested contractor Bentley Electrical to review the
project and provide quote under annual contract to convert this property to
underground power.
161
1 A1t
RichardDarryl
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lehr, John [John.Lehr@fpl.com]
Friday, December 10, 2010 9:13 AM
Tilman, Christopher
RichardDarryl: ArnoldMichelle
RE: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Chris,
Yes, this is consistent with discussions on Tuesday, Again, FPL wili finalize the new underground design once the County
provides the app,oval of the equipment locations, above & below g,ound. Any change requests after receiving the
app,oval to move forwa,d will require an additional design fee.
John C. Lehr, Jr.
Project Manager - Distribution
FPL
(0) 561.904.3431
From: Tilman, Christopher rmailto:CTilmancmPIRNIE.COMl
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:36 AM
To: Lehr, John
Cc: Darryl Richard (darrvirichardcmcollieraov.net); Michelle Arnold (MichelleArnoldcmcollieraov.net)
Subject: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
John,
Just to follow up on our phone call on Tuesday, we went over several important points for the Phase 1 project:
1) FPL will construct their underground power system first, and will not remove any of the aerial facilities until
Comcast has removed all of their lines from the poles. Until the Comcast conversion is done, FPL will have two
power systems (one underground, one aerial) in service.
2) FPL design and construction time for Phase 1 is not clear at this time.
3) FPL does not require Ownership and Encumbrance reports for the easements.
4) Revised easement locations at Manatee and Villas of Vanderbilt are ok. FPL wili need a CAD file of the final
easement locations.
Chris
Christopher C. Tilman, P.E.
Senior Consultant
Malcolrn Pimie, Int
4315 Metro Parkway, Suite 520, Fort Myers, FL 33916
P,239,332.1300 D,239.274,1722 F,239.332,1789
'Tl 'Tl 'Tl 'Tl
"U"U"U"U
r- r- r- r-
n:!!"U"U
g ~ a. ~
~ (; ~: ~
t: fD ::I ::I
g ~, III ~
0' ~ -<
" 0
o
.
<iii'
"
n
o
3
'0
:;:
6'
"
);;
'0
~
o
~
~ ~
""
~ ~
cc
~ ~
nn
l>l>
roo
~~
'0",
'0 ~
~ iii'
~ ~r ;? "If
,.'<
:;;-~' ~
~'?l3.
~ g
< :<>
iii' 2
~ rI
o'
"
161
~~~~~~~g~~&,
nnnn~~~~::E:;rg
!!!. ~ !!!. !!!. ;:tl ;:tl ;:tl ;;c "U UI ,,'
~ fD fD fb rtI t!: 3 d',
~ ~ ~ ~ g g g g ~, fD g
g g g 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a 3.
~ ~~ ~ g'~rg'g'~ f!i'
g'g'g'~rnn"tl':"~~,
'oOCO::!::!,
tx:I 0 ~::l ::':.-+ ~
R OJ r;- !:t ~ g, ~' g'
)> ~ t: Q. g ~-
"C ;;c ~ 0 [J: 0'
a~g'~3.::I
Vi' 0 O'Q
~ 0' g;
s. ~ N'
)> m ~
o.!l OJ: 0'
o - "
o '"
3 ~
m ns'
;? ~
o
c
~
to l-'o en.... w l.O l-'o.... W to.... N........ N O"l 0'
o~o~oo~~oO~""~~""N~
"
~
~
l>
'0
7
~
~
;;:
.
"f
~
~
~
c
~
~
~
'"
'"
~
l>
c
'l'
~
~
~
o
'9
~
~
o
it
~
~
z
o
<
'"
~
o
o
~
~
~
1 f><\\
"
.,
,2,
ID
"
...
ID
C.
"
::r-
III
~
ID
...
n
o
3
."
i
o'
"
VI
"
::r-
ID
C.
c
iD
<
III
::l
C.
I'D
...
2:
..
tll
I'D
III
n
:r
s:
III
....
c:
-;
0]
o
.
0-
"
~
i
a
~
0.
. .
0.."
-.."
~ 0
. <
0..
, C
~
~."
~a
~."
~ 0
o .
ro ~
< .
III ~. *
~ a. 3
. 0 .
3 !;l ~
~ (") ';.,
n ~ .
~~~
ol'tl"'C
g ~. ~
g' ~~.
~~~
'" 0
o
N
~
"
n
~
.
;;;:
.
n
~- n
c N ~
~~~
"'-if
g-tS
n -.J 9
-o.:..r (l>
n a; ~
~ lI'I I'D
N
~
~
W
o
~
N
o
o
5<
~
o
w
""
~
'"
~
~
~
~
.
S?
<'
.
'"
x
~
0.
,.
'8
a
<
.
0.
Ii'
3
."
..
it
Ii'
3
."
i
~
~
n III it! .... ... ID !!I. t'\l ...
!!!..:J '" ~~e: a e: ~
[~~"':;S;3~
Q(l>1ll~3/ll~I\l;
::ii 5. e: :E !t. a c ~ ;
a93g:l[;,,~!.~.
9 ~ m. g. m ~ ~ 3 ~
~~o._if,g-a:a~;;:~~
,ro<Cla",CIll~~~
ffi~~~.;i!!:%~
Vi" :1: 0- iii' ~ a ~ Q.g
o~;.~m~l1.~@;'
;>0;"" III :E: CIll C = III
[g.~1ll:~3:tg,
::r ftl 0 :E 0:': r+ t'\l
g. 3 1il :::: c:i" Q ~
III ~ ;+ - ~ O'Q g. 1'1
.!::::Cr ~a ~~
::: :'" p ~ z.
~
,.
<
.
o
0.
.
~~
~
. ~
N <
b'
o
0.
C
n
c ia
. c
N,s;t
w. "
'" . .
-;;@~
tB@.1'lI
6~"
l.O a iil
w 3 .
N~if
8 ~
3
6"
< ~
~N<:
o w ~
D:l~:J
~ tS Jr
"'~"
Q.8~
8 ~ ~
3 0
'1
N
~
~
W
~
~
N
8
o
~
~
o
,.
""
N
'"
C
"
~
~
~
.
S?
<'
.
'"
.
"
0-
"
~
"
x
~
0.
i
/.: ~
^ "
g ~
~ .u
0' ?
" '"
'" "
o ~
. c
, .
0.;.-::
a
'5
~
"
'm
m
~r"i
la.~
~
~
~g~~ Q'lf"Q m ~3~ ~~J:e:~
:f 1lI Co r+::;' rn '" C I'D III III" W l!l .0.
::r'" III III ~ t:l :" ; ~ rJ llii fa
~ 0'.2: III it :::J ~ _ ell: .... III .. = '" I"l
:J ~ C ..... < lit::;1. ... I'll ~ III III tD III
c.. \R'@Q!:!".~~" ...~gD..Q1;;i:'
,~ 0 n"'l.nc....UllGtD
~~I\l ~..."g ~.r1l~13 o:ii e3 a.
III m c.. 5:l CIll :E: 00 iil N. =. 8 0.. ~ !! 21_
g g. ~ 3 ill Ill.c ... ...
Dj' [1Q ~ .~ ~. ~ ~ fii ~ ~ a ~ :2 ~ a-
g'X'5'c-i !&....~=2 ~=~ ~3
?ffi~~g. ;;.l.t~:J3a'lDg:r!C
~alil'rD~g:.&liil':Em3ii'Ol:
(Di'tI c-~ ~g=.g ~II V1~!!:!
~~.!~~s.g~~ i'~~a;'
~3rDrD$;;~~~lf;~3~
~~~'~~~~'[ i~~i=
~""'~3c..' Co E.n .
';:.- i'tI ..J
C ~ g 8'
>:
w
~
o
0.
~
'"
,.
~
~
~
ffi
0.. ~ ::;:.
~ ~ i5. ~
a: < rD
lID a: 0-;::;'<
fro~$ir
& m gill rD
3' iil' ~;,
.... =i' III 1-''''
g m @ I-' 0
Ci: -, ~ ~"'?
n ~ ~ s:
o ::1 n ::1
3 ..... ~ ~
~
'"
'"
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
'"
~ ~
o 0
'" ~
'" 0
~ ~
~~~
......oq =:;;
~ ~ ~ g1
"'C 0 )> 0
..:-ro !5:ro
o ... ~
~' ffi <.-'
.-
-:0 -:0
a a
~ "'?
-;
;: ~
" .
d'~
" "
~
~
~
~
0.
i
!
Hi
ip
!-~
e ' i
,1 [If
Ii'
i
it
Ii'
3
!
.
~
~
m -:g ~ g: ~ e- ~ g.
~~~~g:~~~
~-t~~.C"m~O'~.
l-:g , 0.. ~. ..... 0l:I
r;~"'C~~~~
'f ~9!...g 0 ~. ~ !:;
g ~ s: i'tI III '< rD
I-' ~ (D s. :.r S ::E
.t::. g, :; ~ iiJ' 8 if
t"' at! e: ~ ~ 3 ~
:r 0' rD c.. "'C l::
(D .... 3 ii ro :<
Vi'ro (D ~ i'tI ~ (D
o -i3 ~ r'> e: m ~
~g5'~3$ll:_
g:~~3'~~?-
~ ~~[~2.
o >::
m cr III
:::; 3 Xl
~ ~ ~
~ m a
:E !ll ';,
g: s ~
~ g';;:
zr..o..
[.E i.
~~z.
~~ ~. ~
~ ~ ~
. 0. .
3 3
~ a
161
01, cg.o"
:SiD~e:
~ 0.. III ~ 0:
.... S; !C! l'!! ."
!l' e: a r:- 0..
1-''' tD I-' C
~m;'$i
~ 3 e: 0 ~
ii' m l:I'" ii c
0.. a ~ ~, ;;0.
< iii' :s <
~~~ ~m
-o~~3lG
a i !!, ~
, . 0. -.
.. . . "'-
~ ~ ~ ~
i' B' ~
!!:
c:
....
Cl.
..
...
III
Cl.
-
..
=
c
..
-<
,'"
N
CI
...
CI
1 ~\\
."
:r
..
..
III
...
m
..
..
III
3
III
=
...
'"
...
Ol
...
C
..
::a
III
....
o
~
<
Ol
=
Cl.
III
..
!r.
;:;:'
llO
III
Ol
n
:r
s:
~
c:
~
~
~
;:
~
0'
n
a
lit
;:
;::1:
N
w
n '"
go N
ru 0 J:;- s:
;:?,. ~ w ~ ~
5'2.~$O'
~;:;~~~
oot::J./>>:-.:-
g tfr ~ ~ ~
~ =' - I-' .
:'~ g. ~ CT\ 2.
~ -. 'T"
~ ~
o
o
N
~
~
w
o
~
N
o
o
o
00
~
~
~
o
G1
c
"
~
"
~
.
"
;e'
.
'"
"
ii
o
"
~
w.
x
~
q
>
"
"
o
i
~
1
a.
~
w
~
~
o
c-
o'
m
3 n
~~
~
";0
000
g ii; g
g,;:;+
o N n
, w'
E:\O(r
@ia-
3 ...... Vi'
~ 00
n 8
o 0
3
n
"- n
eN"
~ tl:l ~
"'-if
g-l:S
n '-J 9
~ :j 4:."
n m
~ t.n ro
..
~
n
"
"
;;r
.
N
~
~
W
o
~
N
o
o
o
N
~
'"
~
o
G1
c
"
~
"
~
.
"
;e'
.
w.
x
'"
f
o
l
f
i
a.
~
@~~ ill'
:;:':i!S-"tIX
o 0 !:; 0 @
33~mw
"'5l "'C Z ~ :r:,.
~ g ~ ~ ~
~Vi~~c
o 0 ~ ~
8 2-
3
z
i? " ~ ~
> 'I
" 0
" w 1- '2.
~ ~ .
. Ii
:!.
" i' :J: I II ~
"
" 0 i
~ , 0: I
~ il'
~ ~ .. ~
~
il'
~g[~!!~:::ll!f~:::
~, ;:'!Umg;:?,.coa:iiiit=
~.1fa~*~'&aa.l!Q""'iT_
III 2. -< Co III ro n ..
::E ... ro "':;;l a. g, 0..:J ~
~o~o<t>S:lilm~D.
ro~b~~~aai'Ol-
~~'j:::;-'''305'~::l-g,.
'< ro -..J ~ ro ~.g' @ ~ l5'
.g ~ r;n ~ ;:?,. ~ a ::::J .... :r
~m3-g;:g.-gii~:J
o.~~.o~~-'::101D~
~~[~~ffi~.a~.:'"
~ ::E s: ~.g ::E ;- ID f: i
roe::~=:ii.=~S'go
8.g:o'~~sm:so:a
!;; 'Q I-' 3. a III ~ g S'
c: 0 .g c.: -<::T !II:I
~ ~ Vi' ~ . S'
N
~
~
W
o
00
00
o
o
o
w
~
o
o
~
o
G1
c
"
~
"
~
.
"
~.
'"
"
"
0-
"
~
w.
x
'"
~
"
o
<
:l.
f
a.
if
::l:l ro n r- n m 0 c.. ,...," ~
O.c::~g~fll"':!Ea.t::~'UJ'
c: I'll ~ -:. 'E- rD3;:J I-' 00 ('\
3 v.. ....... P!..... 'C III III
III ~ fD g III ~ iil :I if
3. .... VI m ~ if::E ] !: Q.,
g~r~~:;;liii'ffiiilltg
"C . ::E;.:l:' 0. :i" ..... c.. n
aZ-'3mii:'0'~1ll~
"C~~o:.g<:::::P.~~
11) ::r II> I'D Q ro n 3 III
gmiii'o'i:~OS.,:r~!!
... :i" I'tl !'D lt~ ~ ~ .... E
~ fir ~ ...... c.. al :::; -g ~1Il
ru~3~g~.g>3,*iii
-0 !!! ~ .... !" 3' ~ lU lU ;:;-
"0... n {: .... O'!l I'll =0: :I
al@ o~g.:Eg;gm
VI:E iif N III ;::+ III 0 III
g;::+ :E:;: :T 3 IE ~
tJ'"::T........= Ill:s.
III !- ~ ~ ~.
3'
" "
o ,
c 0
~"
".
'~
~ 8 {: ii ffi
, , 0 3 ;;;.
[t ~ fr I'P 0
I'P C::E I'D '"
~ ~ ::: g. :E
~ I'D 0" O'!l ;::+
c. 3 ::;J :;- 0 ::T
g.g: r""l::T::l:T
ro ..,. ::T~"" \-' I'D
lU @lU ::T~-o
c.. ::I :::!l III .... a
~' Irr ~ (ii'S-g
~ roo.;;' ~ I'P ::t:
~ ;:::;:E <: c..
a If ~ g: ~' al
~ ~ ll> :T g-::t:
~ III :g r;;' Gl ~
~ a g; ;... ;;
~~~I'D-e::
~ '~.... m.
;1.
~
~ 8' 911
. ~ " B'
n",_
!:; -0 m OQ
III a ~ I'll
:T ~ ~ g
~ g. ~ ~
\-' '" -::J
-e ~ rn ~
~ ~ g: ~
~ ~ ~ ~
ro ::J ~ 3
C.c..1ll fD
Q 9 3 ..,.
::f: ~ g: ;;,
Q' ~ ..,. g.
c..lJ: go Q
g~, Gl :ii
lU = .... 0
'" 0"
. ' 0.
,"
m~m~
I'll 2' I'll W
a .!" a Q
tD n I'll ;;
~ 2 ~ @
""' ~~. ~.
~ ~ ~ ~
I'll !!:!. := ~
3 ~ "
~ III ~ l!.
lt6.~a
III ;; ~ '!:!.
r;: 2' ~ ~
i 3 Z. So
a g l!!
" .
~ "
~ ~
..i!,
161
w
~
,.
-i
'"
o
3
~
"
o
"
"
.
3
m ~
Olo.
Oo:;!
~ ~
::~
NO
~?
~
;0
N
~
~
W
o
..
00
o
o
o
~
~
o
w
m
~
G1
c
"
~
"
~
.
"
;e"
.
'"
x
'"
>
1
a.
~
g-!;'~J;:,
!1:r.......I:Io
~, ... \C Q
9;r~-
,... I'll iii
~ ~ ~ g
~ ~. a. s-
;P'\-, to tD
~~~~
ON~
~ ~ a
c ~ III
~~. ~. !
, ~... nr 3
~ m ~ .
-:c: lG 0 !;:
3 -lei
III g. ~
;: ,
c:
'tI
Q.
Ql
PO
ID
Q.
-
Ql
:s
c
Ql
-<
,III
N
o
...
o
1'~\"
."
::r
Ql
'"
ID
...
'"
Ql
'"
ID
3
ID
:s
PO
~
Ql
PO
C
'"
"
ID
'tI
o
::l-
<
Ql
:s
Q.
ID
.,
!!:
;:;
CD
ID
Ql
n
::r
s:
III
-t
c:
~
~
W
~
[
",'I,
. <
~ .
~ 0
~
~
"-
"'
;:/ z
3 .
~ ~ ] g:
Cl["N.g5
g ~ tg ~ ~
rtI "C - 0 x'
~'rots~~o
~ @ !=O J>~;:I
lU lU.... V> s:
a. Q. ~ ~ lU
"'0 n .... :;: iil
rn ~ ~ ~
0.: Ill"'"
. '"
~ t!;
N
~
..
'"
~
..
'"
o
o
o
N
~
~
N
..
"
o
'"
~
~
g
.
!=?
<'
.
'"
.
o
"
0-
3
~
~
x.
~
'"
,.
"
"
a
~
Q.
-p
Li
;-;;
o . -
;~::
~ ~ !<
~ - "
~,;,g,
-2:<
< a.-
. 0
"
;;
~
~
~m::r
'0 0 ~
~a.~
z
o
!'
:s: 7- 1il rtI .... "0 3' 5' 3 :0 0
"O~~i~3!!'iil~3ro~g
c..... ::E ..... .- ro 0' < 0- ;:I 5'
~gtlla~iiT~Q!;lIfl~IIl;:l
;:I 0 ~3 :tiQ~:::ta~~ll1
~~~o~""::Jc..Q!:lg.3:g
::E ~ :$ 2, ~..~ g. ~ .!;g ~ 0<
l!: 0 tv ro ([) rtI .... VI ;:j. II> ~- III
~a-Q~~~~t!;3'l:lUC.
;:I =:::ro......::r8'::goa~
~. ~ ~~ iii' D:l !::..~ g. ;:I ;+ _. "T1
~::::J~~@~=roR:....3~
ro~~roC.VI~~~!~~
~~mi~i2.:::r~a~~
};;'(I> ;:;-;"'3 ......~rnro:3
VI~~g.t"'~.g.go-~-~
:::r.- ...........~~. I'tl ~ ~ g' ::E
ro :ii's~ ~g.o~:E Q.lU;::;:
3........... Z OIl::l W lU a..:::r
tt: 0 ~ 8' 3. m
~~~a'il~~.~
~rtlttag..~=lG~
OIl 3 ... -: ...' ~ a. 0
G'l [U 0 3 ~ J::. n: ! 1:"
~ rn!;- !!. It \AI < C ::e
~ c.. ;i ~ lU ~ jj;" -a- ~
~.<"'O([):;3~li3...
Q Ii:.g -. III g 0
~.!g'~.~~ii~
~gg:~3gg.g
.... 0' ;!! ~ ~ !- ~ ::I :r
~~...a:~;3g::
rtI ~ -g g !!. .. m- c.. ~
~.g.~.~~i.i3'; ~
~ g ~!& tll It ... 3 It
!!!. :I I'D
~- !: ~
m
13
~
.
"
..
<
.
N
ll' ~
o N
o ~
o:W
@ID~
0' '" .
~ 6 ~
g ~ ~
~ ~ 6
~. ~ a:
" N
o N
3 g;
o
N
~
..
'"
o
'"
8
o
o
~
~
'"
~
~
"
~
~
~
g
.
!=?
<'
.
~
~
;:t'
~
'"
X
N
"
i
t
f
1
l;'
3
!
.
-<
~
!'
g. I; 3 lS ~." ill ,... l!! !!l ~
~ ;t lU 3 :;l lU < ~ I:: iiJ ..'
9-< ro~!:!..~ m'NltI3.~:a
o Q, Co g. c.. 3 :E "C ltI ,...
:;l n 3' rp lU ;... r1I :J ltI ..,
II> r1I :t> 0tI 3 :;J .t::: 1: .. ;:t ltI
~~;b'~.&:N::!,ltI3S,
~ =~~ [~g:~ ~,lX~,
~ib-'l:l~iIl~[",:c~
~ .a :;J '< ~-+ 3 ill
lU c: lU :;' Co ~ 3 S' !" .t:,
~~~0tI0""~"''''A
O';:r:E 1r Cl {l ~ g.~ s
:: 0tI g.::E ~ ~ c.::l ~ =
'ib',<or\logJD~1l
~ ll!" 5.. B i% VI :J'" ltI ..
::I 0" ,... c.. fO Co 0' ::. a 0
~~.gg'~~::;'~lii
8':tr:~br-'f1iC.~
o r;'1 "i::> lU tfj'
~ ~ ~
~
..
~
s;:
;:
o
o
.
'"
~
.
o
~
'" '"
~ - ~ ~
::I N:;l Cil
@~("'Jro
0"_ ~;;::
~ ~~' 0
o po..) , :;J
~ N ::? m
o 0\ 0 :;J
=. 8li: 0tI
~ ;+~'
8 if ~
3
N
~
~
W
o
o
'"
o
o
o
~
~
o
o
..
~
"
c
'"
~
~
g
.
!=?
<'
.
0;'
.
~
0-
3
~
'"
x
~
"
I
"
il
] g'
~ ~,
. .
. .
~ f
3 -.
. ~
~~
o ~
~?
,
.
5'
~
il
00
~
~~l
l~~
!'
!'
g,g~~~~~~
("'J::+::I ~ r\I c.:;:J
g IT: lU Co ~i =H ~
~_.O'~~,~;r-::I
;~:;:Jg.~s~~
-a'~.ag:~~@~,
.g ~ -g :;l v: ::I III =
l"> ~ ~ g &: ~ If
~ ~ 8':T' :J" ~ ~
::;; iil :E : ~ ~ 3.g
ffig~0"3~~m
~~:E~~ii1~1il
~, o:;J lU :S. ro 3
~S5..~~~E.g:
~~og~~~
I'D ,... N ~3 ~
~ ~
',l .
SS'ia'
0" ::r ii' 3
:T 3 c. ...
::I r1I 0"
~ ~ :I'" li'
:T~ :J :r
a. r1I Ii' Ai
.., "":r~
ii1 ~;;; c:
:S. 00 .. <
ltI 0"" S'
~ g a lJQ
~ g'l i
OllVl c. 3
~ ~ m ~
rD"":::rltl
~ 3 ~ ~
lU lU:J --
;;'i ~.l'9::;
0.
161
..~
'';;1
ii .
g ~
~ -.
o -
" .
" 0.
. .
s, III
~ .
. 3
~ .
N'
-~
.....
" .
.. ~
@ g
fi
~.
3
~
-
OJ
'"
I:
OJ
-<
.!"
N
Q
...
Q
1 ~\\
"0
:r
OJ
II>
'"
...
m
OJ
II>
'"
3
'"
'"
..
~
OJ
..
I:
II>
:>:J
'"
'tl
o
::I
<
OJ
'"
a.
'"
...
!ir.
;:;
c:>
'"
OJ
"
:r
s:
<II
-t
C
.:g :;;~ iil
o III III <
iti 5 iD' ~'
~g.~m
~ g ~ III
3 b 5, ~
lU ~"3 ;:;.
5. m g: g
:E ~.... ~
== a::l 0'
O'....s::?
~;r~;t
lU"C lU III
... ... '" <
~.g ~ ~
!?rill III s::
F:' ~ ~ c::
[ ~ g
~
w
161
1 ~I\
c: ... <
... :T ll>
C. ll> :l
ll> In C.
'" 00 ... '" '"
'" ... ...
C. m 2:
-
ll> ll> ;:;
In
:l '" al
l: 3 '"
ll> ll>
~ ~ ~ -< '" n
w :l :T
~ .. ,.. ...
\II 3:
, ~
N \II
0 ll> -I
...
... l: c:
if 0 In
" .- :>:l
0 ~ '"
~ . 0 ...
m '-' .
m c 0
" . ~ ~
0 "
~ ~ 5'
0 m
"
~ "
'i' ;; ~
m m
(I N (I- N < N "
~ o N W ~ '" 0'
'" ~ ~~ ~ c
os . . os ~'" "
n n 3 m- ~
" ~ 3 " ~ 00 o ~ ~
0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ N @~
0' ." m 0' ." m .,. 0
@ '" g @ w " m 3 ~ c
m . m .. ~ m '"
. ~ :e. ~ ~ n 0 0
'" ~ ~ ~ 0 '" .'
8 n 3
0
3 3
N N N
~ ~ ~
t; ~ ..
w '"
~ 0 0
w m m
N 00 ..
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
~ ~ ~
'" '" '"
~ m 00
m ~ ~
m '" ~
" " "
c c c
'" '" '"
~ ~ ~
" " "
0 Q Q
. m m
"' "' "'
<' <' <'
m m m
0;'
. ~
0
. ~
0'
" "
~
~ N ~
'" '"
x x x'
~ N ~
'" '" '"
~ t f
..
0 I
l
l:
a: ~
~ ~
~ t "
.. ~ ~
I 0'
, "
1\'2
af6
"
~
0
.- t 5'
~ :'i
i3 0
'" ~
~~ ffi
n i il~
~
I ~- a. i3'
- "
~ l ~
!'
~
!'
~~~5-~;!J~
~!!l.~~,O'~@
3a~g~U:I~.
"" 3 :E Q,:g ;; ~
g. E ~ III ~ ~ III
lU c- b~, ~ 1t ~
5.. ~ x-"C I-' 0.. 3
OJ '"" ..... 3 I-' III III
o co 0 g: .......~, ~
III 3' Ill-.... ::: (ij 0-
o..g.e:~o..o..g
~~~O~'[g"
3 I-' ~ 5" l.:: n III
[~;;lU~""o:r~
::: 3 ::I :r ,
o!!l.~~ o~
gills ~
iji" c-
-<
~~f~~i~li.S
~'SQll~~lj;3i~
o..oa~l\la:g~c:rrs-
g::s III < 0... =;+ 0< 0..
~I:Ql>;'~lo..lfaY
o';~S'l1ltD~aQl3
::I ::J III 0.. iil Q Ql a. ~
~1Il::JiiI~=303m
!!l. ~.; ;::t 1Ii l S' aY III III
n III lU III 0.. '" I"l 3 3 3
:ro< ~ "'" III Ql::r D'" III
0" ... AI ~ e: I"l ~ ct III a
"" ~ 0: ::r III F "'"... ;;l 0..
3~g20i!l&~~a
~~~~~g~~~i[
iil~O'=li:la..~gAl~
~,~,.,-~. .~
~ iil' ."
~ 11
tS z -0 ~
ri' ~.g ~
i'tI ::J t'D n
~ m ~ iii'
= c.~ 0'
3 1lI III ::I
m35:3;
~ ~ Q ~
OJ::j" '" s::
....C>Q lU rn
~ ~ ~ [
~~5.~
~!" ~ ]
::I b == ~
~ 'N'-o III
~~g.3
~2:~
-<~
~
III c...... III o:I....-o!::....
~,~t3~ ~S~ ~~
- 1lI l,n 3 Q. 0 AI e !!!.
~5.{!;g:;"'m5'[[
o a. 0 ;;: ~ Xl ~ III
iI~itioI.03~e:~
... III g n m i'tI m III 3
"'..... S::3~33~
o g ~ 3 AI AI III III E
~~~~~:ga;;=
<"l -0 g. 0' ~"O g- S' '2.
g"O ~ C < Q ; ~
o::ii1~g<~.....g..o
..,.,:-o~~o-Q-~
g VI '" C. lU < ." ~ C
~ ~ !!:!, lU :J Q "". ~,
_ O'Q a. 't:I a. III r- .... I:!!I.
a. ~ VI"C "T'I lU III ~ ~
;:;:m~"O~g'l<N-
a. ::r < lU iii'
o ;E ~ [!!.. 5. ~
;:trD:J ro
m 0
3 0'
m 0
~ .
J1: ~
. ~
~
~
~
n
"-
.-
~
"
ii'
"
~
~
o
c
'"
o
~iji'
e- ~ C hl :!! ""
~;~~;~l
/D.a q. a l:I.
a ; !!- AI cr l/I oS rr
AI l!I. ~., ~ e oil!!
::J /D 3 ~ iil .. '6' :s,
a. 0.. t!l ~ :$ 9- 3 ;.
::T AI ID 3 /D'llI tD ...
~ lQ. 0: ~ :e [~ g.
=~iz,g.t::.~5'~
ftl~g:~~:;~~
:$. ::s 1lI C I1l AI C ~
~~a..-g~:~;l
;:+';!!!!!.~i~[~
I: III ii' =: III a III "I:l
~~~~fi'g.rG~
iil ;. 3 AI .... n n 3 /D
;::PfD~~~gg/Dl:I.
.. ~ ~
~
~
~
00
"
~
'"
:i
o
~
;: ~
o ~
[;
o
.
n
"
o'
"
o
@
< 0
. "
g.t;:l~B~
tTl.O~$~
~ ~ Ctl IJl rtI
c- 0 -;' \0 :s::
:il i-o m ~ g
~t~.t~
~ 0
~ ~
n
o
3
~
'"
~
~
o
o
i';
o
o
~
'"
~
~
~
'"
c
'"
~
"
~
o
"
;e'
o
--<
~ @ VI
~ ~ ~~.
_3......_ I-' 0 fi
_;73~
.... ~ :3
o_~
. S"
'"
X
N
"
,.
II
~
...
?;
'0
a
~
?;
I
!;'
3
1i!.
~
""
m
i!'
~ ~ ~ 2"
~ ffi ~ a.
c.1t5:~
::+a.::TlU
8':E III "0
0"'0
::r (!I ~ 0<
ro 3 ::l t\l
j;;' ~ 0 ;-
o Co......
n o.g
[ g ~ ~
o' ::r :J tII
:;I 3' 0.."0
3 (Il 0.. ~
ro 0 :E f!)
3 "00
tT III "" 0
O. 8 ~
I:: a. ~
0: "
~
m ~ '" ~ ro I::;
rtl ..... ~ ~ ~. j::J
3~fro'~~"g
~ rtI :E ~.... rp
.. . S" .... "Cl
g. I-' fJ'Q :::: j::J ~.
:3 ~ ~ l;J:;: ~
3 1.0 ~ '" ~ m
~ i:l 0 "8 <ll III
r:;r 0 3 7> 3 III
. ~ ru ro fl) 3
Q 8' ;. ~ ; ~
:r '-::l::r-a Co
::J . OQ .... U 0
~ ~ <ii' ;: a &l
::r in ~. <:; Q
0' ~~ .g i [ .,.,
~ ft) :::;,...., g: ~
~ ~ ~ g- a.
Cl. = II> ell
sltno..
~
~
~
~
--<
"
o
"
~
o
3
~
~
,-,
o
o
~
o
00
o
<
o
::!.._CD
@ ~ ~
n $::!..
'0 ~ <
3 ~ 00
~ ..... g
~ tJ ~
ifl:;::~
n
o
3
N
~
,.
00
~
o
o
N
'"
w
00
o
'"
c
'"
~
"
o
;;;
"
;e'
o
~
'"
x
~
"'
t
ill
!iF
17j
~L
t
I
..
~
i!'
ffigS
.. e ~
~ ~1II ;E
a ~;;
tD a s.
~. ffi ~.
[~ ~
g!D~
~ ~ ,.
. ~ n
"-.
:l I>> =
lD ~ It
".. ~
n n .
d'S-g.
::: g" ~
~ ~
..
~
-<3Qg~~gii3""lXIl'lIloOflIIgcr'"
~ffi N~C ro'~ ~.~~ ~~~ a 3'i:'
>3':E6'!&:E-<~0'~S!i;3g~t:
~aqrtl rtI . 3~~e.!ld':.lil
lU g~.rtl ~c..i9~~~ ~Al ;r~:e We.
"tJ miilOrtl:Ea.lO:=a..g.;"'Qe
~3V"lr::S.;6:e5' :ea.U:li'I"'-"=I
o~::r:etll OQQ==rtle~mo
~ z~-::rl!.~.~'" =." ~l1i:l ~a.:!.
Vi 0"'" Q a. g. 0 ~ 0' ~ iii'" i' ~:f :fa:!!.
~_.ifi<:eO!;J:I~c."~~'" ....<~iil
35'5: 8 ~ ~ "Tl'E,rtlg.e:~:::I,;-
::r 2" ~ O'tl. ~ !!!_ :: ;s! S- l!I c.... l!I :to:
l\.I,y ,y'~ "'!!!~.n~il''''''
-o.,o_':::I,<Ola-o""N'" r'l
-g s- l': rR: lit :::0 g' lS c........ at a :E r:
:::10;6"0' g1ll3::::::IOOtlllrQtIl:::i
:TC.C.:::IbC.a.rtIt;J~Q~oc..,;-~
ftl~!:...~"';;:jm-o;:\.o -a:f.'~
?~rtIQN~~C.rtI~'[Ea'c~
~c;-g,~~~g~g. e:~c.:i
g, ::J ~ rtI Q 8' if ro . o:J
ro c. G:"
~
o
<
.
,
~
~
"
'"
00
o
.
n
"
r
:=;
"
~ :=
0' ~
e;N~
~ ~ pi'
n.-Ci"\
c ~ 0
~""
te>l.fro
:TO;;]
S~:;
3 m ~
~ ~
;., 0%
~ !l:
"
<
o
5'
~
.li
~
;-
~
a
~
~
".
..
<:
"'i
~
.
trJ
i!'
i!'
g."8~~o~:;'IiTS15G1
R.~~g~~~[~5'~
~:~ g.~m g..t~ fa>
'-+0 ~NlSI'D~o
~t:::;~_Vl w=:;:
~ N oS! a: ~ ~ -0 OJ :::I
~m5~;:\..g$,~
~[ig~~~~
;:;'~a~~o~~
I'D s < OJ ;- :;: ==....
~c.' :T ~ ~ .... ~ ;;;- go
~ 0 Vi' J:::. iil I'D n
3 0 Q :E .!"" lS 5. S
mgg'6~~8.t:.
".!2':::I.~~ ~
y.."" -. rtI Q III ....
o-t =t; ...... c. 3 :l g ~
o ~ ,:;"
16 r
~
m
~
~
,.
'"
o
w
m
o
o
o
o
'"
,.
m
'"
'"
c
'"
~
"
o
;;:
"
;e'
o
'"
x
~
"'
s, ~
;;" ro'
. ~
o 0
~ .
~ ~
o 3
"-0
~'"
c.-
Vi' :T
n 0
c .
~ ~
~ 3
;;" I't>
"~
~ ~
"0
o
....l?9-g.!CAr'2:J"'....
J:::.<I'D;CL<u~~
~ii~~ig.~~
g::E ~ :e ~;j at l: 2
c ~..'" .... 'CI :J if' i:5..;;'
~~a~~g.;;:g.~
.!C ::r.. Ii:: ~ ~ g ~ c.
c. l': ~ l!I -. :r .. 2E g
ffil~<~ri:;tIl..
31iT~-.:Ee:"'~~
~,~~[g:tIll;;:E
~.:::I~Q...~!!!.g.~
.... 0 ....... :! ~ ::iI S!: l!I :r
::r., .... I'D ..c ~..I'D tIl lr
o l:DCl.t:Dl1?::::I
OJ i ~ ~ 3j'" l>>::l -...c
< '< OJ C Q, 'CI
m~~~32E;!
~ c. 8' ~ at ~ 3i
5''''?
1 k\\
c
...
Q.
Ol
...
lD
Q.
-
Ol
"
c:
Ol
-<
.lJI
N
o
...
o
....
::r
Ol
..
lD
...
m
Ol
..
lD
3
lD
"
...
~
Ol
...
c:
..
::a
lD
...
o
::+
<
Ol
"
Q.
lD
~
5!:
::;
tlO
lD
Ol
n
::r
s:
lJI
-l
C