Loading...
Backup Documents 10/11/2011 Item #16I161 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES October 11, 2011 1. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Collier County Citizens Corps: Minutes of 6/15/11 2) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 6/20/11 (Special Magistrate); 7/1/11 (Special Magistrate) 3) Collier Coup Planning Commission: Minutes of 7/7/11; 8/4/11; 8/18/11 4) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of 7/6/11 5) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of 6/10/11 6) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee: Agenda of 9/14/11 Minutes of 8/10/11 7) Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Advisory Committee: Minutes of 3/4/10; 4/28/10; 11/3/10; 12/2/10; 2/3/11 8) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board: Minutes of 6/8/11 9) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of 7/11/11 10) Library Advisory Board: Minutes of 5/18/11; 6/29/11 11) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 7/11/11 12) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Minutes of 6/13/11; 8/3/11; 8/9/11; 9/7/11 161 1 13) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory Committee: Agenda of 6/21/11 Minutes of 6/21/11 Voting Members Present: Misc. Corres: Date:_ `C3 \ \ \ \ ♦ \ Item *\LpX pies to: Collier County Citizen Corp Committee June 15, 2011 � 1 f6 t '1 A � REItEIWED AUG 19 2011 Board of County Commissioners Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Russ Rainey, C.E.R.T. Lt. Mike Jones, CC Sheriff's Office Jim von Rinteln, Amer Red Cross Steven Smith, R.S.V.P. Chris Nind, Salvation Army Dr. Joseph Neiween, MRC Reg Buxton, Chamber of Commerce Jerry Sanford, CC Fire Chief's Assoc. Voting Members Absent: Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol (Excused) Jim Elson, CC Veterans Council Expert Consultants Present: Judy Scribner, CCEM Fiala '► Hiller Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Henning Coyle Pledge Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Coletta _ V Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the minutes of April 20, 2011 meeting. Approved unanimously. Threat Update Per Lt. Jones. The threats would be zone specific with no threat signs at this time. If an area has a threat, then only that area would be notified. The system is set up by FEMA with us being South West #4. New Business Jim von Rinteln tendered his letter of Resignation to Chairman Rainey who then thanked Jim for his many dedicated years of service to The Citizen Corp and the Citizens of Collier County. Jim then introduced the new head of the Lee County and Collier County Red Cross, Ms. Heidi Ruster who was welcomed by all of the members. She pledged to continue to work with us as Jim had done in the past. Jerry Sanford spoke about the tornado that severely damaged large portions of Joplin Missouri and reached out to the Fire Chief to extend our help to their CERT program. Hurricane Update Rick Zyvoloski reports that it is all quiet now with the big storms beginning in August 1 U I r 161 with a very hot summer predicted. Wildfire Update Division of Forestry must call or invite your agency to fight a fire. Jim vonRinteln said the Red Cross spent about $2,000.00 to help fight the fire. They will submit the bill to Forestry. The Governor's Executive Order has declared a State of Emergency. The Government (US) has not granted Florida a State of Emergency. Coast Guard Auxiliary Walt Jaskiewicz reported that Boating Awareness Week was held in May. There was a holdup with the Auxiliary helping people with Walt setting up an ASC (Area Sector Coordinator) with orders coming out of St. Petersburg. If we need something in Collier County, Walt can get a quick response from St. Pete as the region has been set up in 7 sections. National Conference — A class to be set up so that the Auxiliary can participate and will be seeking funds to teach ICS training. NASBLA — Proper boat Operations and training for Fire Departments and Coast Guard with FEMA recognition. It is a 5 day, 40 hour course at $2,000.00 per student. The course was presented to FD, PD & Air Force Personnel at McDill Air Force Base in Tampa. The Auxiliary had a hard time getting young people involved with the Auxiliary and plan on setting up training for them. Jerry Sanford reported on the progress of the Freedom Memorial. Salvation Army. Chris Nind reported some counties have a 211 system up and running. A land line will be established soon with enough money raised to keep it running for 2 years. The system based in Miami does not contain any Collier County information at this time. Charlotte County is up and running. Training is needed to operate the 211 system. It would be very expensive to run in Collier County. Mary George is person in charge. MRC — Dr. Neiween reported that there are no infectious diseases now in Collier County. The mosquito season has begun with the risk of infection on the rise. Protect yourself and use repellant. The Health Department is concerned with heat related illnesses. Limit your activity during the day. Keep well hydrated. MRC will be hosting Sky Warn Training on July 15th with two sessions. Basic 10:00 a.m. to noon and advanced from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Red Cross — Ms. Heidi Ruster introduced herself to the group and said that 33 Red Cross people had been deployed to Mississippi and Alabama. Manatee and Charlotte County's are going to merge. Russ Rainey asked about training other Collier County employees in shelter management and more support from CERT members. People are asked to work with both the County and the Red Cross at shelters. The Red Cross is still the gold standard for training. There is still a background check for Red Cross volunteers. The A �' 161 1 � Red Cross will still manage some shelters after the storm passes through. If the volunteer has not had a background check, it will normally take a week. RSVP — Steve Smith reported that they can partner with the ARC and has a new MOU that will go before the Collier County Board of Commissioners on June 28`h. They are going to New Orleans to the RSVP Conference with a bus tour of the 9th ward. RSVP has had a 20% budget reduction and is struggling to survive with 600 members in their database. There are 300 in resident now. Jim vonRinteln's final thoughts — He expressed his thanks to all upon his leaving us and will keep in touch. CERT — Russ Rainey reported that he attended the North Naples CERT alumni meeting where Jim Farrell, WINK Weatherman, spoke about Hurricane preparation. He then invited Jim to speak at Fiddler's Creek CERT group on July 6th at 2:00 p.m. Marco Island is having another CERT class for City Employees. So far, three classes have been presented with 100 employees taking the training. Next Meeting/ Adjourned Next meting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the EOC. Meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jerry Sanford for approval. Approve by Russell Rainey, airman Da e A 1M 161 1 � A -1 Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Contact: 239 - 252 -8848 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102 www.collierizov.net Naples, FL 34112 -5746 www.twitter.com /CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov www.youtube.com /CollierGov June 6, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15TH 3:00 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, June 15'* at 3:00 p.m. in the 3`d floor Policy Room at the James V. Mudd Emergency Services Center, located at 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004 -05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 T'ainiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Judy Scribner at (239) 252 -3600. -End- 161 Agenda Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda June 15, 2011 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance reI Me 4:00 Next Meeting/Adjourn Chairman http://www.citizencop2s.gov/cc/CertRegWizard.do - Opening Remarks - Roll Call Sheriff's Office MRC Fire Chiefs CERT USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce CAP EMS EM Health Dept Medical Examiner City of Naples Everglades City Neighborhood Watch Physicians Regional NCH City of Marco Island 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update CCSO 3:30 New Business Chairman Hurricane Season Update EM Wildfire Update EM 3:35 Old Business Chairman Individual Reports Members 4:00 Next Meeting/Adjourn Chairman http://www.citizencop2s.gov/cc/CertRegWizard.do 161 A ii Collier County Emergency anagement Emergency Preparedness OnLine! Hurricanes,tornadoes, hazardous material spills,wildfires, weapons of mass destruction, flu pandemic, West Nile virus, Hoof& Mouth disease: all possible threats at one level or another to Collier County. Each individual, each family, each business must prepare to survive! ,F What will you do when a hurricane doesn't veer off and strike somewhere else? .: ,• 7011 How will you respond when a tornado drops • from the clouds in your neighborhood? Collier County Emergency Management 1! £ provides information on line to help you, your family and your business survive the next disaster. �,, Through this site,tools are provided to help you dog 1 / f ,t4 assess your risks and make educated decisions regarding your best courses of action. You can • Track a hurricane , • Prepare &protect your home from weather +t i,�: .. � :'«¢ threats &wildfires 6t b!.' OULF • Put together a 72-hour disaster kit MEXICO • Get help for people with special needs in an • emergency r ' • Check the latest weather • Find hotels that accept pets during an 3 • emergency evacuation. Register to receive emergency information via e-mail,pager, and cell phone, at no cost! • Check satellite &radar images ... and much, much more! Just point your browser to: http://www.collierem.org/ 24-hours a day, seven days a week. For Governmental& Private Non Profit Agencies, check out the"Governments& PNPs"page. Collier County has been very lucky since September 1960 when Hurricane Donna, a category-4 storm, made landfall. Although we experienced the category-3 Hurricane Wilma in 2005, the main effect from her was damage due to high winds. Because of her speed and trajectory, the resulting storm surge impact was that of a category-1 hurricane. If your plan is to stay and tough-out a tropical system, please remember: The First 72 Hours Are Up To You! Collier County Emergency Management 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway,Suite 445 Naples,FL 34113 (2 9) (2 252-3600 600 Email: emerg man@colliergov.net '51355V 031f19RI1NOD ]Hid] AO 10diNOD 3AisnlDX3 SVH A1NnOD 2131110D 30 NOIIVON(103 AlINnAVVOD 3Hl'LZ£HD SI d39VYnN NOUV81SID38 NOI1V11DIIOS DDJD'31ViS 3H1A9 NOIIVON3WWOD3d 801VAO8ddV'1N3W3S80GN3 AIdWI lON 530(1 NOUV2i1SID38 '31V1S 3H1 NIH11M ZSEL-SEb-008-L 3388 II019NIIIVD A8 S3DIAHIS 83Wf1SNOl 30 NOISIAIO 3H1 W02i3 03NIV190 39 AVW NOI1VWa03Nl IVDNVNI3 0NV NOUVUSID381VIDI330 3H130 AdOD V :auoyd :dlZ Us :Al!:) :ssaappy 6ulII!8 :aLueN :Aaploypae:) }o aan;eu6!S AL :alep uo!;ea!dx3 :aagwnN pae:) ssaadx3 ue:)!aauay aano:)s.0 paeDaalselN USIA :pae:) I!paa:) W a6aeyD 4!' £Olti£ ep!aol�'saldeN'00£# al!nS IglION I!eal!we!we100tZ punt l LZ - AjunoD aaIIIOD 10 uo!lepuno j Al!unwwOD ay; 01 s;uawAed 1:)ay:) ajew aseald $ aaglo l LO'OZ$ suoidurnqD L LO'Z$.rosuodSAj!unwwoD l LZ$ s- rojngyjuoD :aoj uo!}nq!aluo:) algil:)npap -xel Aw si pasoPu3 WON 31VNOG - - -- -------- - - - - -- - - -- 1i V Q) > _I_- V a N Ln Q Q O > V) m N > L C r = v O O V) V +, N O v a o� `� o E V) c o O o C i C5 Lo O C v 0 MEN U- (ON TM O 4 s m O Z3 a _0 m '� v E E u _I_- VI = _ r Q) E U C ems— U O ,.. cu i LL! ! o o O i OC U� M ®' v C � o Q v> O W 0 p a� 0 v 0 E v z� o 0 LL 0 E v v O L vi V a a Q' U 4J i 0 c C v i= `6 3 O i -Z i w v O E , Q N "O O V o > C O C e . — .— O a O O O N OC v C v) 0 N N -C v Q m + O o v v N C ry V O O n N C N 0 o) N V1 W O W > O W C Lu N, O Lu = J V J+ v Q! M i i O O 2 0 O L Q =3 O Q V V U C V V Ol C V 0— VORISSINSMEN F 0 CD -h O r1i a) U) p n E:: CD fo 1 nm :3 O0 L O�v m a �n o m a`< � a) o -° n o rD O rr D m o � (D -, r rD Z ,0 rD p n D n 0- O m m O m O F) "<,. V CL o ro N rp Q v 3 O O v C vii rD :3 rn Q v v _rt, O C n rD : o- Lo p n rD O �. O Q Q O x __ , O _ n p p� = D p Z5 O n =-D O- M n ° Q�* o m r rD v �*. 3 n FD' n r n O rp rD rD Q o Ln O ar -0 —o rD -n � C G1 O <• � D _= - F o _�Q� sZ r* c -.-o �p 0 0 0 o= �� l< o LP LE r-r: O C (1) (D E (D Q ' N a) L' L v v E rD v (D � N Lo 3 O rr rQD O o N Q rD L Q N N O O flr 3 C G 3 - n (D - T N W n W o O `° o r Z m p °J L� D °o- T 0 Q al W O W ;o F 0 CD -h O �h p _ CD M �n f I C/) O• rMIRL F) "<,. V CL V • i J G i� � J r L J L ,77 Mon rd r+ } * x G r rD S �. N A C O. � rD O r-r C � N O m x �* . O L x m .y f7 YQ YQ 3 m w N. 0 0. o 0- rD o• 3 N �• O Q N r O rD O c rD G � O rte^ m O o o O r+ C n 0- =r F. w N � m m — V O O O C n � rD rD 3 :E rD rD :3 cr r-r N rD O n r+ • O �`Ilii�l /I� wool I khoomm N ■�M ill ■ ■■ ■ill �� ■ i� � J r L J L ,77 Mon rd r+ } * x G r rD S �. N A C O. � rD O r-r C � N O m x �* . O L x m .y f7 YQ YQ 3 m w N. 0 0. o 0- rD o• 3 N �• O Q N r O rD O c rD G � O rte^ m O o o O r+ C n 0- =r F. w N � m m — V O O O C n � rD rD 3 :E rD rD :3 cr r-r N rD O n r+ • O Cli 4 r c IA +W Tti M p a Ill p_ C lu C t•,� LL 2 w W u w �r W Ift W n� •I W ry d a 8cl 1..� ' � g •4 ^ � 4, Fri ^ r - 2. ca 0 w m. 1.4 •r'-� y, M x m H 4 o. z r- -6 E 0 ` t, = C h'— Q - L— < en O b0 �-+ &+— Q3 L 0 f r E G rte�•y, cm V • .Y • 8 IOU Cli 4 r c IA +W Tti M p a Ill p_ C lu C t•,� LL 2 w W u w �r W Ift W n� •I m ry d a 8cl 1..� ' � g •4 ^ � 4, Fri ^ r - 2. ca 0 > 1.4 •r'-� y, M x m H 4 o. E 47 Q L— O b0 �-+ &+— Q3 L b. E G rte�•y, cm V • .Y • 8 IOU r hl QC qI R c W w�-t ' to CY �+ a 4 0. '1 •ar ®��, vti ,°r n v 0 1" P ,y w ti ++ b 1" ',a C q+ V rG a, i Ira •~ � if a4r lil! IA W L 0- ps .d W W p S n 4 r c IA +W Tti M p a Ill p_ C lu C t•,� LL 2 w W u w �r W Ift W n� •I m ry d a 8cl 1..� ' � g •4 ^ � 4, Fri ^ r - 2. 1.4 •r'-� y, — . x m H 4 o. et : y w� p � 0 �$ ai ICI O b0 ,� 9 W Ci H *i �I d. -E L G cm V • .Y • 8 IOU r hl QC qI R c W w�-t ' to CY �+ a 4 0. '1 •ar ®��, vti ,°r LS .� A u a1 Cr ti .i+ � O.•� 1" P ,y w ti ++ b 1" ',a C q+ V rG a, i Ira lil! IA W W p S n 4 r c IA +W Tti M p a Ill p_ C lu C t•,� LL 2 w W u w �r W Ift W n� •I m ry r� rl r ii 161 1 v T rti 4 L 1� t L 11 r% 4 I>r C■ m $ ' �0 0 � 00, I c �t {* 1518.8 W `i ad 0 E 9 F 7 u W W to rl v' Y r. e� w en LA 1 !4 !l 2 T W W 1 ii_ W w F W {.J V ) �p ® 10 1! u7 i'i C li w a. i r n 7,I ii 5 Qq Y. µ � 7 U, l'7 4. J Q m i!b i) J L r ri Ti ,t re 0- 0 0 ('D-) 0 0 00C r r r F] -f �y �� pay 11R1��1 I y "M I � r s i k u 13 W u� � C, l r 1 r u C n ; 4 N rti E i •i 4 L, A 0 III v n� •I •1• ad 0 E 9 F 7 u W W to rl v' Y r. e� w en LA 1 !4 !l 2 T W W 1 ii_ W w F W {.J V ) �p ® 10 1! u7 i'i C li w a. i r n 7,I ii 5 Qq Y. µ � 7 U, l'7 4. J Q m i!b i) J L r ri Ti ,t re 0- 0 0 ('D-) 0 0 00C r r r F] -f �y �� pay 11R1��1 I y "M I � r s i k u 13 W u� � C, l r 1 r u C n ; 4 N rti E i •i 4 L, A 0 AFTER THE STORM Health risks and how you can prevent them. INFORMATION FROM YOUR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH). Prevent illness from FOOD FOOD & DIRTY WATER Do not eat any food that may have come into contact with dirty water from floods or tidal surges. COMMERCIALLY PREPARED CANS OF FOOD Do not eat from cans that are bulging or opened. Cans that are not opened can be saved if you remove the labels and then disinfect them. Use 1/4 cup of bleach in one gallon of clean water, and let stand at least 30 minutes. Re -label the cans — include expiration date and type of food. Assume that home - canned foods are unsafe and throw them out. BABY FORMULA Infants should be fed only ready -to -feed baby formula, or prepare powdered or concentrated liquid formula with sterilized water (see BOILING and DISINFECTING water below). Use only sanitized bottles and nipples. Unused prepared formula must be refrigerated. (If you are breastfeeding, continue to breastfeed.) FROZEN & REFRIGERATED FOODS Refrigerators and freezers that have been without power since the storm, should be cleaned out. Those perishables are unsafe for eating. Prevent illness from WATER ALWAYS WASH YOUR HANDS Use soap and water that has been boiled or disinfected. Wash your hands before eating, after toilet use, after cleanup activities, and after handling things dirtied by floodwater or sewage. BOIL WATER NOTICE If your area is put on a "boil water notice" you must take precautions against dirty water especially if you have a private well. If you are not sure if your water is safe, DRINK COMMERCIALLY BOTTLED WATER. BOILING WATER Hold water to a rolling boil for one minute to remove bacteria. DISINFECTING WATER Add 8 drops of plain, unscented household bleach per gallon of water, mix, and let it stand for 30 minutes. If the water is cloudy after 30 minutes, repeat the procedure. INFECTION & FLOODWATER Floodwater may contain raw sewage. If you have exposed open cuts or sores to floodwater, keep them as clean as possible by washing with soap and clean water. Apply antibiotic ointment after washing. If a wound or sore develops redness, swelling or drainage, see a doctor. CHILDREN & FLOODWATER Children should not play in floodwater or with toys that have been in floodwater. Disinfect toys by using 1/4 cup of bleach in one gallon of clean water, let stand for at least 30 minutes, and let toys air dry. Prevent illness from HEAT EXHAUSTION WARNING SIGNS Heavy sweating, paleness, muscle cramps, tiredness, weakness, dizziness, headache, nausea or vomiting, or fainting. COOL OFF Drink cool, nonalcoholic beverages; take a cool shower, bath, or sponge bath; wear lightweight clothing; and, rest in an air - conditioned environment. HEAT EXHAUSTION MAY LEAD TO HEAT STROKE Severe symptoms include skin that is cool and moist, a pulse rate that is fast and weak, and breathing that is fast and shallow. Seek medical attention immediately if symptoms last longer than one hour, or you have heart problems or high blood pressure. Prevent illness from CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) CO IS AN INVISIBLE, ODORLESS, TASTELESS GAS & IS HIGHLY POISONOUS It can cause tiredness, weakness, chest pains for those with heart disease, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, headaches, confusion, impaired vision, loss of consciousness, and, in severe cases, death. DO NOT USE GAS - POWERED GENERATORS OR PRESSURE WASHERS INDOORS, NOT EVEN IN THE GARAGE. DO NOT BURN CHARCOAL OR GAS GRILLS INSIDE A HOUSE, GARAGE, VEHICLE, TENT OR FIREPLACE. IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE BEEN POISONED Open doors and windows, turn off gas appliances and go outside. Call 911 or the nearest Poison Information Center at 1- 800 - 222 -1222. Prevent damage & injury from FIRE USE BATTERY-POWERED LANTERNS & FLASHLIGHTS If you must use candles, put them in safe holders away from curtains, paper, wood, or other flammable items. Prevent illness from MOSQUITOES HEAVY RAINS & FLOODING LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN MOSQUITOES Public- health authorities are working to control the spread of any diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. DUSK & DAWN Avoid the outdoors during sunrise and sunset when mosquitoes are most active. DRESS Wear long- sleeved shirts, long pants and socks. DEET Use repellents containing DEET. Products that are 30% DEET are recommended for most situations. For more protection, apply repellent directly to your clothing. (Do not use DEET on children less than 2 months old. Keep infants indoors and use mosquito netting over carriers). Always read the manufacturer's directions before you use a repellent. DRAINAGE Check your home and neighborhood and dump standing water where mosquitoes can lay their eggs. ' FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL THE FLORIDA EMERGENCY INFORMATION LINE, 1 -800- 342 -3557 1 !61 A�r A--- 1r DESPUES DE LA TORMENTA Riesgos para la salud y como prevenirlos. INFORMACION DEL FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH). Prevencion de enfermedades a causa de los ALIMENTOS ALIMENTOS Y AGUA SUCIA No coma ningun alimento que pueda haber estado en contacto con agua sucia proveniente de inundaciones o subidas de la marea. ALIMENTOS ENLATADOS PREPARADOS COMERCIALMENTE No coma alimentos enlatados cuando las latas esten hinchadas o abiertas. Se pueden aprovechar las latas que no se han abierto si les quita las etiquetas y luego las desinfecta. Use 1/4 de taza de lejia en un galon de agua limpia y dejela reposar durante 30 minutos. Vuelva a etiquetar las latas. Incluya la fecha de vencimiento y el tipo de alimento. Considere que todos los alimentos enlatados caseros no son seguros y desechelos. FORMULA PARA BEBES A los bebes solo se les debe alimentar con formulas para bebes listas para ser utilizadas o preparar formulas liquidas concentradas o en polvo con aqua esterilizada (vea COMO HERVIR y DESINFECTAR el agua mas adelante). Use solo pomos y teteras desinfectadas. Las formulas preparadas no utilizadas deben refrigerarse. (Si le esta dando el pecho, continue haciendolo). ALIMENTOS CONGELADOS Y REFRIGERADOS Se deben vaciar y limpiar los refrigeradores y congeladores que han dejado de funcionar por falta de electricidad desde la tormenta. Los alimentos perecederos que contenian no son seguros para comer. Prevencion de enfermedades a causa del AGUA LAVESE SIEMPRE LAS MANOS Use jabon y agua previamente hervida o desinfectada. Lavese las manos antes de comer, despues de it al bano, despues de realizar actividades de limpieza y despues de manipular objetos que se hayan ensuciado con agua de inundacion o de alcantarillado. AVISO DE HERVIR EL AGUA Si su area ha recibido el "aviso de hervir el agua ", debe tomar todas las precauciones respecto del agua sucia, en especial si tiene un pozo propio. Si no esta seguro de que su agua sea segura, BEBA AGUA EMBOTELLADA COMERCIALMENTE. COMO HERVIR EL AGUA Deje que el agua hierva durante un minuto para eliminar las bacterias. COMO DESINFECTAR EL AGUA Agregue 8 gotas de lejia de use domestico comun sin perfume por cada galon de agua, mezclela y dejela reposar durante 30 minutos. Si el agua sigue turbia despues de 30 minutos, repita el procedimiento. LA INFECCION Y EL AGUA DE INUNDACION El agua de inundacion puede contener efluentes de alcantarillado sin tratar. Si expuso alguna cortadura o lastimadura abierta al agua de inundacion, mantengala to mas limpia posible lavandola con jabon y agua limpia. Apliquese una pomada antibiotica despues de lavarse. Si una herida o una lastimadura se enrojece, se hincha o supura, consulte a un medico. LOS NINOS Y EL AGUA DE INUNDAC16N Los ninos no deben jugar en el agua de inundacion ni con juguetes que hayan estado en contacto con esa agua. Desinfecte los juguetes con 1/4 de taza de lejia en un galon de agua limpia, dejelos reposar durante al menos 30 minutos y deje que los juguetes se sequen al aire. Prevencion de enfermedades a causa de AGOTAMIENTO POR CALOR SIGNOS DE ADVERTENCIA Sudoracion excesiva, palidez, calambres musculares, cansancio, debilidad, mareos, dolores de cabeza, nauseas o vomitos, o desmayos. REFRESQUESE Beba bebidas frescas sin alcohol. Dese un bano fresco en la ducha, en la banadera o con una esponja. Use ropa ligera y descanse en un ambiente con aire acondicionado. EL AGOTAMIENTO POR CALOR PUEDE CAUSAR UN GOLPE DE CALOR Los sintomas graves incluyen piel fr a y humeda, ritmo cardiaco rapido y debil, y respiracion acelerada y superficial. Busque atencion medica de inmediato si los sintomas perduran mas de una hora o si tiene problemas cardiacos o de presion arterial alta. Prevencion de enfermedades a causa del MONOXIDO DE CARBONO (CO) EL CO ES UN GAS INVISIBLE, INODORO E INSIPIDO, Y ALTAMENTE TOXICO Puede causar cansancio, debilidad, dolores de pecho para las personas con enfermedad cardiaca, falta de aliento, nauseas, vomitos, dolores de cabeza, confusion, problemas de vista, perdida del conocimiento y, en casos graves, la muerte. NO USE GENERADORES ACCIONADOS A GAS NI LAVADORAS A PRESTON EN LUGARES CERRADOS, NI SIQUIERA EN EL GARAJE. NO USE PARRILLAS A CARBON NI A GAS EN UNA CASA, GARAJE, VEHICULO, CARPA O CHIMENEA. SI PIENSA QUE SE HA INTOXICADO Abra las puertas y ventanas, apague los artefactos a gas y salga al aire libre. Llame al 911 o al Centro de Informacion en caso de Intoxicacion mas cercano al 1-800-222-1222. Prevencion de danos y lesiones a causa del FUEGO USE FAROLES O LINTERNAS A BATERIA Si es necesario que use velas, coloquelas en soportes seguros, alejadas de cortinas, papel, madera u otros objetos inflamables. Prevencion de enfermedades a causa de los MOSQUITOS LAS LLUVIAS INTENSAS Y LAS INUNDACIONES PUEDEN PROVOCAR LA PRESENCIA DE MAS MOSQUITOS Las autoridades de salud publica estan trabajando para controlar la diseminacion de cualquier enfermedad transmitida por los mosquitos. ATARDECER Y AMANECER Evite permanecer al afire libre durante el amanecer y el atardecer, cuando los mosquitos estan mas activos. VESTIMENTA Use camisas de manga larga, pantalones largos y medias. DEET Use repelentes que contengan DEET. Se recomiendan los productos con 30% de DEET para la mayor a de los casos. Para mayor proteccion, aplique repelente directamente sobre la ropa (no use DEET en ninos menores de 2 meses. Mantenga a los bebes en lugares cerrados y use mosquiteros en los cochecitos). Lea siempre las instrucciones del fabricante antes de usar un repelente. DRENAJE Controle las aguas estancadas de su hogar, de su vecindario o vertedero donde los mosquitos depositan sus huevos. PARA OBTENER MAS INFORMACION, LLAME A LA LINEA DE INFORMACION DE EMERGENCIA DE FLORIDA AL 1 -800- 342 -3557 161 ' Ir.,* THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF COLLIER COUNTY Collier 2 -1 -1 FAQ What is Collier2 -1 -1? Collier 2 -1 -1 is an Information and Referral Service available to all residents and visitors in Collier County by dialing 2 -1 -1 from a cell phone or landline. Phone operators, who also serve as trained crisis counselors, provide reliable, up -to -date information on Collier County programs and services, and help connect callers in need with community resources. Information will also be available through a Collier 2 -1 -1 website and a new app available free for all smart - phones. Collier is now the only county in Florida that does not have a county- specific Information and Referral Service. Why is the Community Foundation the best organization to launch a Collier 2 -1 -1? The Foundation is committed to serving as the Knowledge Center for Community Philanthropy, and already has established the web -based Guide to Collier Nonprofits, the Center for Non - Profit Excellence, and other relevant programs. Collier 2 -1 -1 will complement this effort, as it will provide extensive data on community needs and services. By compiling, reporting and blending these data into comprehensive analyses, the Foundation will offer a much - needed overview -- a report card -- of social services in our area. Importantly, this data will be "real- time," assuring maximum relevance. Who will benefit? In addition to providing a critical service to the citizens of Collier County, 2 -1 -1 data and reports will enable Collier County government, nonprofits and for - profit organizations to assess and modify their programs based on need. In addition, the information Will allow prospective donors to better understand community needs, and to more effectively invest their philanthropic dollar. How much will it cost? The cost to operate Collier 2 -1 -1 will be approximately $200,000 a year, and the Community Foundation has committed to identify and provide funding, with the help of many who already have pledged support, for three years to start up and stabilize the service. During that time, the Foundation also will seek additional funds to sustain the program. Ideally, a $5m endowment would be created to support this needed service in perpetuity. Who will operate Collier2 -1 -1? The Community Foundation will start -up and monitor a grant contract for service from Switchboard of Miami Inc., a nonprofit organization with 40 years of experience in operating a community Information and Referral (I &R) Service. How will an organization in Miami be able to serve Collier County? A Community Foundation full -time employee will ensure that all possible partners are participating, and that information is kept up -to -date. Operators will be trained to understand the Collier menu of services, and will refer to Collier- specific screens when responding to calls from Collier. How will you know if Collier2 -1 -1 is a success? Measurable outcomes include: Community is connected to services; nonprofit management and programs are improved; and donor information is more precise and timely. What organizations are eligible to be included in the referral listing? All nonprofit organizations, government programs and for - profit organizations that have a sliding fee scale are eligible. The Community Foundation will be helping to identify contacts locally. To qualify, an organization must complete a Collier 2 -1 -1 Form on -line and submit it to Switchboard of Miami. Who should we. contact for more information about Collier 2-1 -1 ? Mary George, Community Foundation Special Projects Director at 239 - 649 -5000 x213 or mgeorge @cfcollier.org. A 1� AMIKINk� 11711117-P "M 161 � Rick Scott Adam H. Putnam Governor Commissioner Situation Report #2 Wednesday, June 15, 2011, at 1230 hrs EDT 1 Bryan W. Koon State Coordinating Officer Weather: According to NOAA, 93% of Florida is considered to be in a drought, varying from abnormally dry to exceptional drought conditions across Southeast Florida. The statewide Keetch -Byram Drought Index (KBDI) average for Florida is 639 on a scale from 0 (very moist) to 800 (extremely dry) and six Florida counties have KBDI averages above 700. A weak sea breeze signal with scattered showers and thunderstorms is forecast mainly for North Florida and the interior and eastern areas of South Florida on Wednesday, but above normal temperatures and below normal rainfall amounts are also forecast to continue statewide. Thunderstorms this afternoon could produce frequent cloud -to- ground lightning strikes and gusty winds, which may ignite new fires and cause fire control problems. The National Significant Wildland Fire Potential Outlook for June continues to show an above normal chance for wildfires across the entire Peninsula and much of the Panhandle of Florida. Wildland Fire Activity: FIRE COUNTY ACRES % CONTAINED Honey Prairie (USFS — Baker + 180,988 80% Okefenokee NWR ) GA Impassable Bay Columbia 7,258 15% USFS Goethe Complex Levy 4,675 (DOF) • Badland 3,175 50% • Swamp 1,500 60% Prairie (DOF) Miami- 68,295 95% Dade Espanola DOF Flagler 4,306 40% Ma own Road DOF Volusia 1,200 0% Santa Fe DOF Alachua 1 5,500 25% Currently Active: • Number of Active Wildfires: 316 ( -17) • Number of Acres Burning: 113,174 ( +3,689) Year to Date State Activity: (January 1 — June 13.2011): • Number of Wildfires: 3,283 • Number of Acres Burnt: 188,148 Burn Bans (24): (*voluntary) • Counties: Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Citrus, Clay, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, Hendry, Lake, Levy *, Marion, Martin, Nassau, Okeechobee, Osceola, Palm Beach (East), Polk, Putnam, Seminole, St. John's, St. Lucie, Union and Volusia • South Florida Water Manaaement District: Campfire ban on all district lands • Osceola National Forest Campfire Ban Confirmed Fatalities /Injuries: • Flagler: (3) - 2 minor injuries; 1 minor illness Shelters: • Levy County: (1) - put on standby 6/8/2011 State Actions: • The State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) is at a Level 3 (Monitoring). • Governor's Executive Order 11 -128 declared a state of emergency for the State of Florida. • 14 Florida National Guard personnel mobilizing to Flagler County with 3 UH -60s Damaaes and Impacts: • Volusia County: Hunt camps: (38) Outbuildings: (10) Vehicles: (7) Evacuations • None at this time Road Closures: • State Road 121 (Levy County) Other State Resources: • Kentucky • Virginia Local States of Emeraencv: • Alachua County (ongoing) • Baker County (ongoing) • Clay County (ongoing) • Flagler County (expires 6/16/11) • Levy County (expires 6/21 /11 ) • Marion County (expires 6/21/11) • Putnam County (expires 6/21/11) • Seminole County (ongoing) • St. Lucie County (expires 6/20/11) County EOC Status: • Flagler County, Level 2 (Partial) 161 j A 21 June 20, 2011 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, June 20, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: p f�G�IIME� D BY: ....................... SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Admin. Secretary Comte: Misc. Corres. �. Date: 1O 1 e: Item 1 ,Z Copies to: A 2 161 June 20, 2011 NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:01 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. II. III. A. Hearing rules and regulations Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda subject to the deletion of Item III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 3, 2011 Deleted IV. MOTIONS None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations None B. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CEEX20110007731 OWNER: TARA SALTER OFFICER: OFFICER DANA ALGER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2008 -51, AS AMENDED, AND /OR SUBSECTION 767.11(1) , FLORIDA STATUTES. DANGEROUS DOG. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 44th ST SW, NAPLES Tara Salter, the Respondent was present. Her dog "Peaches" has been declared a "Dangerous Dog" by Domestic Animal Services and she is appealing the determination. Paul Morris, Collier County Animal Control Officer presented the case and testified to the following: • On April 18, 2011 he responded to a complaint of a dog on dog attack • On 44th St SW Naples, FL. • He spoke with Mr. Willis, who reported their dog had been injured in the attack perpetrated by "Peaches" a dog in the neighborhood owned by the Respondent. • He spoke to the owner, Ms. Salter who resides at 2100 44th St, Naples Florida. 61 1A 2 June 20, 2011 Tara Salter testified: • Her residence has a fenced in area, however, historically, the dog, Peaches was able to dig under the fence to escape, or the neighbor's child opened the gate and let the dog out. • An "invisible" fence was installed on the property. • The "invisible" fence was working on the day of the incident • The dog exited the property through the fence and attacked the neighbor's dog. • The dog is 6 years old, medium sized, and has not been professionally trained. • She did not witness the incident. (Andy Willis, the victim's owner testified: • He was walking his dog on a leash when Peaches exited the yard through the invisible fence and attacked his dog. • His dog weighs approximately 100 pounds and sustained substantial injuries which required veterinary treatment. • He, nor his dog did anything to provoke Peaches. • This is the 15th time Peaches has been involved in an altercation with Mr. Willis's and/or his dog. • During a previous incident, Peaches attacked Mr. Willis's dog, however Peaches collided with a tree and knocked itself unconscious. Mr. Morris added: • On June 4, 2011 there was a complaint involving an Florida Power and Light employee where a citation was issued. • There are past incidents that date back to 2009 where FPL employees were involved in altercations with Peaches. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Respondent's appeal of the County's decision to deem "Peaches" as "Dangerous Dog." Mr. Morris outlined the requirements for dogs deemed "Dangerous ": • $300.00 annual registration fee • No later than fourteen (14) calendar days of final effective date • If the dog is walked off property it must walked by a responsible adult • On a leash muzzled • When housed on the property, the dog must be housed so it cannot escape • If the dog is running at large, it will automatically be impounded • A $500.00 fine issued to the owner • As further outlined in the Animal Control Ordinance C. Emergency Cases None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: e� H r 161 June 20, 11 None VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. None B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. None IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 1, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 9:37AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING 4da arr pecia MMagistrate The Minutes were ap oved by the Special Magistrate on e 5 coo i as presented , or as amended v 1 ro s a bl � A July 1, 2011 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, July 1, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: BY........................ Misc. Comes: Date: I \ Item c'pj°5 $o: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Fiala Hiller Henning -7— - -"- Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary 1 161 1 N e July 1, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:02 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officers for a Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:17AM RECONVENED: 9:40 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes listed below as Agenda item numbers: Under item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to item V.A — Stipulations: • 23 - CASE NO: CESD20110000968 — ETHEL MATA • 12 - CASE NO: CESD20100017536 - PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES MASTER ASSOCIATION INC • 7 - CASE NO: PU4685- CEEX20110007162 - DEBORAH HAPSTAK • 4 - CASE NO: PU4966- CEEX20110006179 - ROBERT G. WESTLAKE AND LYNDSEY E. WILLIAMS • 5 - CASE NO: PU4971- CEEX20110007030 -ROBERT G. WESTLAKE AND LYNDSEY E. WILLIAMS Under Item V.B — Hearings - The following cases were withdrawn (listed below as Agenda numbers): • 1 - CASE NO: SO174879- CEEX20110006949 - RITA S. ATKINSON • 2 - CASE NO: PR042532- CEEX20110007460 - MARK E. SHAW • 6 - CASE NO: CE005354- CEEX20110007356 - DONALD J. PENCE • 13 - CASE NO: CENA20110002735 - HERMAN ARRENDONDO • 14 - CASE NO: CEPM20110004084 - JANET VIRGINIA STOKER • 19 - CASE NO: CEV20110004638 - JOSEPH HOMICH III • 24 - CASE NO: CESD20110002393 - CHARLES E. LEWIS AND CAROLYN MARIE MCALEAR LEWIS Under V.0 — Emergency Cases - The following items were added to the Agenda: • 1 - CASE NO: CEPM20110006479 - HULDA GEORGES • 2 — CASE NO: CEPM20110006480 - SHADI OF NAPLES, INC. Under VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines - The following case was withdrawn: • 10 - CASE NO: CEPM20110000743 - OWNER: HSBC BANK USA NA TR ACE SECURITIES CORPORATION 2 The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 3, 2011 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on June 3, 2011 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS: A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance None C. Motion for Extension of Time None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 1. CASE NO: CESD20110000968 OWNER: ETHEL MATA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE AND A SHED IN THE REAR ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 53500360006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 906 TAYLOR TERRACE, IMMOKALEE The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Maria Rodriguez who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Ethel Mata on June 29, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case by August 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County Building Permit or Demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and pass thru a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy by November 1, 2011 or a fine or $150.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to 3 A 4 July 1 2011 The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 3, 2011 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on June 3, 2011 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS: A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance None C. Motion for Extension of Time None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 1. CASE NO: CESD20110000968 OWNER: ETHEL MATA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE AND A SHED IN THE REAR ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 53500360006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 906 TAYLOR TERRACE, IMMOKALEE The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Maria Rodriguez who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Ethel Mata on June 29, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case by August 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County Building Permit or Demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and pass thru a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy by November 1, 2011 or a fine or $150.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to 3 16 1 1 A-2 July 1, 2011 confirm compliance within 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.12 2. CASE NO: CESD20100017536 OWNER: PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES MASTER ASSOCIATION INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. A POOL GATE WITH ELECTRIC, MODIFIED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY FENCE PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 66262000028 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8610 PEBBLEBROOKE DRIVE, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Supervisor Jeff Letourneau who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Beverly Kueter on June 30, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by August 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by: Obtaining a Collier County Fence Permit, all required inspections, and Certificate of Completion for the gate modification by September 1, 2011 or a fine or $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance within 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. 4 161 A Q �* 4 July 1, 2011 Total Amount Due: $112.29 3. CASE NO: PU4685- CEEX20110007162 OWNER: DEBORAH HAPSTAK OFFICER: OFFICER MIKE ANDRESKY VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 2001 -73, SEC. 1.4(N) UNLAWFULL CONNECTION TO THE COUNTY WATER SYSTEM. FOLIO NO: 54670003069 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 382 LEAWOOD CIRCLE, NAPLES Officer Mike Andresky represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Anthony Hapstak on June 30, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $55.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case by August 1, 2011. Repair costs to be included in the water bill, no civil penalty. Total Due: $55.00 C. Emergency Cases 1. CASE NO: CEPM20110006479 OWNER: HULDA GEORGES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. — PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE 2004 -58, SEC 12 FOLIO: 25580640004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 211 WEST MAIN STREET, IMMOKALEE FL 34142 Investigator Snow requested the hearing. Leo Rodgers, Immokalee Fire District Fire Marshall was also present. The Respondent, Hulda Georges was present and was represented by Michel Lafleur, her husband. Evidence: Composite A - 5 photos submitted by Mr. Snow. Investigator Snow/Mr. Rodgers testified: • On May 14, 2011 a report was filed regarding a building at 211 West Main Street, Immokalee, FL that was damaged by a vehicle that struck a highway sign and the sign was propelled into the building. 5 A July 1, 2011 • An inspection on May 16, 2011 by County Officials revealed the fagade of the building had been damaged and was in poor condition and a danger to the public. • On May 16, 2011 the structure was declared a "Dangerous Building" by County Officials. Mr. Lafleur testified: • He agrees the building is a "Dangerous Building" however the timelines imposed create a financial hardship. They are currently awaiting settlements from the insurance companies involved in the case. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of the case by September 1, 2011. 2. Obtain all Collier County building permits or demolition permits and remove all refuse associated with the demolition as necessary to a site suitable for disposal of said refuse with all inspections through a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy for said permit(s) by August 1, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 3. The business /restaurant is to remain closed until a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy is obtained. 4. In the event the business does open before the final Certificate of Occupancy is issued, a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the business is open until it is declared to be legally open. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance within 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Due: $112.29 2. CASE NO: CEPM20110006480 OWNER: SHADI OF NAPLES, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2004 -58 — PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, 2004 -58, SEC 12 FOLIO: 135480003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 521 SOUTH FIRST STREET, IMMOKALEE FL 34142 n E M Ju 6' Y A July 1 2011 Investigator Snow requested the hearing. Leo Rodgers, Immokalee Fire District Fire Marshall was also present. The Respondent was not present. Evidence: Composite A - photos taken 5/16/11 submitted by Mr. Snow. Investigator Snow/Mr. Rodgers testified: • Mr. Snow was requested to inspect the property on May 16, 2011 where a structure had been damaged by a fire. • Upon inspection by County Officials, the building was declared a "Dangerous Building" on May 16, 2011. • The fire occurred on March 22, 2011 and the cause of the fire is still under investigation, however the structure was released to the owner on March 25, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of the case by August 1, 2011. 2. Obtain all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits and remove all refuse associated with the demolition as necessary to a site suitable for disposal of said refuse with all inspections through a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy for said permits) by August 1, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 3. The business is to remain closed until a Certificate of Occupancy /Completion is obtained. 4. In the event the business does open before the final Certificate of Occupancy is issued, a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the business is open until it has been declared to be legally open. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance within 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Due: $112.38 B. Hearings 3. CASE NO: C002377- CEVFH2O110006501 7 Ins 16 ► 1 my 1, 011 OWNER: MARIA TERESA MARTINEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 4 (a) CHAPTER 142 -33(c) OPERATED A VEHICLE FOR HIRE ON THE PUBLIC STREETS IN THE COUNTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY VEHICLE FOR HIRE LICENSE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4055 23RD AVENUE SW, NAPLES Investigator Michelle Crowley represented the County. Maria Teresa Martinez, The Respondent was present. Gladis Rodriguz, translator for Ms. Martinez was also present. Evidence Entered: 2 photos taken by Investigator Crowley dated May 13, 2011 Investigator Crowley testified: • A citation was issued for operating a Vehicle for Hire without proper County licenses. Ms. Martinez testified: • She didn't know a Vehicle for Hire license is required to provide transportation to friends /relatives. Aurora Blanco, "the client" testified (via a translator Carlos Cruz): • She was quoted a price of $10.00 to be transported to Physicians Regional Hospital. • She does not personally know the Respondent and has not called her previously. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs and Administrative Fees in the amount of $55.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case by September 1, 2011. Z Pay a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 by September 1, 2011. 3. Said fine to be reduced by the amount of $650.00 if the Respondent obtains a valid Collier County Vehicle for Hire License (VFH) by September 1, 2011. Total Due: $1,055.00 (reduced to $405.00 if a valid VFH license is obtained) 11. CASE NO: DAS12515- CEEX20110007702 OWNER: TRICIA LECOMTE OFFICER: OFFICER ANITA MARTINDALE VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE C 1, SEC. 12 FAILURE TO NEUTER A DOG THAT HAS BEEN IMPOUNDED. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2660 18TH AVENUE SE, NAPLES V ►. u ' - .i X61 a 2'" July 1, kA Officer Zeitler presented the case. Tricia Lecomte was present. Thomas Lecomte was also present. The are appealing the citation. The Lecomte's testified: • Their Rotweiller "Cooper" was impounded when the County declared him a "Dangerous Dog ". • The declaration was subsequently overturned. • During the impoundment "Cooper" became ill and had to be released to the Lecomtes. • A condition for release of the dog was it to be neutured at a later date when he recovered from his illness. • In came to light after his release, there is a Section in the Ordinance exempting the neuturing requirement if a veterinarian provides certain findings in writing. • Their veternarian, Victor C. Brown, DVM, has indicated in a letter dated June 30, 2011 it is not necessary to neuter Cooper (Respondent Exhibit #1). • They had contacted the veternarian well before June 30, 2011 for a letter, but did not receive the letter until the 30th. • At this point, they do not want to neuter "Cooper." Officer Zeitler testified: • It is a requirement of the Ordinance, any animal impounded is to be spayed or neutered. • The animal was released due to "extenuating circumstances" and under the pretense he would be spayed or neutered. • Upon release the Lecomte paid the fee for the shelter to provide the service at a later date. • To date, the animal has not been neutured. • In addition, proof of rabies vaccination and an updated license needs to be obtained for Cooper. Special Magistrate Garretson noted Exhibit #l, (the letter) was issued after the deadline required in the Ordinance. Additionally, the wording is not in conformance with the requirements of the Ordinance. The Special Magistrate "TOOK THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT" and requested the Respondent to: L Submit a letter from a veterinarian in accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance including the date he was originally contacted regarding this matter. Z If necessary, obtain all necessary liceneses to bring the dog into conformance with licensing standards for unaltered dogs. Break: 12:10 pm 0 b 1 R' July 1, 2011 Reconvened.• 12: 33 pm Cases 98 and #9 were combined for hearing purposes. 8. CASE NO: DAS12112- CEEX20110007228 OWNER: MARIA RAMIREZ OFFICER: OFFICER KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 08 -51, SEC. 8 -1 B ALLOWING A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: ROADWAY /35TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES 9. CASE NO: DAS12113- CEEX20110007230 OWNER: MARIA RAMIREZ OFFICER: OFFICER KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 08 -51 SEC. 8 -1 G TO THREATEN A PERSON LAWFULLY USING ANY ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. VIOLATION ADDRESS: ROADWAY /35TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Officer Zeitler represented the County. Maria Ramirez, the Respondent was present who was appealing the citations. Ms. Ramirez testified: • The dogs are small and reside in a fenced in area on the property. Officer Zeitler testified: • He received a complaint from the Collier County Sheriff's Department and responded and ascertained an Affidavit from one of the boys stating the dogs chased him and he outran them. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs and Administrative Fees in the amount of $57.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case for each case by September 1, 2011 ($114.00 total). 2. Pay a fine in the amount of $100.00 for each citation ($200.00 total). Total Due: $314.00 10. CASE NO: DAS12141- CEEX20110007232 OWNER: MARIA RAMIREZ OFFICER: OFFICER ANDRA DOHERTY VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 2008 -51, SEC. 14- 33(A)(2) ALLOWING A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: EVERGLADES BLVD N. & 35TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES 10 July 1, 2011 Officer Zeitler represented the County. Maria Ramirez, the Respondent was present and appealing the citation. Ms. Ramirez testified: • On the day of the incident the dog (a Shihtzu) was involved in an altercation with a Pit Bull at the gate of their fence enclosure. • During the confrontation the Shihtzu escaped through the gate and fled the scene to escape the attack. • A passerby witnessed the attack a distance away from the residence, found the dog injured and transported it to the Humane Society. Officer Zeitler testified: • He received a report a person was at the Humane Society after hours with a dog they had found at large. • An Animal Control Officer was dispatched to the scene and assumed control of the dog. • The Officer determined who owned the dog and returned it to Ms. Ramirez. • A citation was issued in lieu of impoundment. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs and Administrative Fees in the amount of $57.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case by September 1, 2011. Z Pay a fine in the amount of $100.00 by September 1, 2011. Total Due: $157.00 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) A. Stipulations 4. CASE NO: PU4966- CEEX20110006179 OWNER: ROBERT G. WESTLAKE AND LYNDSEY E. WILLIAMS OFFICER: PUBLIC UTILITIES OFFICER MIKE ANDRESKY VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 2001 -73, SECTION 1.4 (G 2, 3, 4) A PREVIOUSLY LOCKED METER HAD THE LOCK BROKEN AND WATER TURNED BACK ON METER REMOVED FROM CURBSTOP BY D -9 VINNIE FROM WATER METERS. FOLIO NO: 54670004084 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 154 LEAWOOD CIRCLE, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Public Utilities Officer Mike Andresky who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Kimberly Guevara July 1, 2011. 11 v a + U July 1, 2011 A Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $255.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case by August 1, 2011. Total Due: $255.00 CASE NO: PU4971- CEEX20110007030 OWNER: ROBERT G. WESTLAKE AND LYNDSEY E. WILLIAMS OFFICER: OFFICER MIKE ANDRESKY VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 2001 -73, SECTION 1.4(n) THE LOCK ON CURBSTOP HAD BEEN REMOVED AND A 1 INCH PVC PIPE WAS CONNECTED TO CUSTOMER SIDE OF SERVICE. FOLIO NO: 54670004084 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 154 LEAWOOD CIRCLE, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Public Utilities Officer Mike Andresky who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Kimberly Guevara July 1, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $100.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case by August 1, 2011. Total Due: $100.00 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. CASE NO: CESD20100004761 OWNER: WILNER FRANCOIS AND SANDY ST. FLEUR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105. 1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B) (1)(a). PVC FENCE AROUND POOL, NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 36560840004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2700 44TH STREET SW, NAPLES Code Enforcement Supervisor Letourneau and Investigator Carmelo Gomez represented the County. 12 MS'is'tl July 1, 2011 Wilner Francois, the Respondent was present. Robinson Dera was also present for the Respondent. The violation has not been abated as of 7/1/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4671 - Page 2323 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 4/5/11 — 7/1/11 (88 days) Total Fine Amount: $8,800.00 Paid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $8,800.00 Mr. Dera testified the enclosure around the pool has been installed, however the required survey was issued in the wrong name and needs to be re- issued before issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Officer Gomez confirmed the fault is of the contractor who installed the enclosure, not the Respondent. Supervisor Letourneau requested the case be withdrawn. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's request to withdraw the case. 7. CASE NO:CEPM20100009970 OWNER: MOISE THEGENUS AND EMMELINE THEGENUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (19). VACANT CONDOMINIUM UNIT HAS EXCESSIVE MOLD THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR. FOLIO NO: 74029001841 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2013 ROOKERY BAY DRIVE APT 1204, NAPLES Investigator Seabasty represented the County. Moise and EmmelineThegenus the Respondent was present. The violation has been abated as of 6/3/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4672 - Page 1876 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 4/19/11 — 6/3/11 (46 days) Total Fine Amount: $11,500.00 Paid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $11,500.00 Mr. Thegenus testified the violation was abated as soon as feasibly possible. 13 16 1 jo A '2 July 1, 2011 The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings 15. CASE NO: CEV20110001428 OWNER: JONAS MCCLURE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130 -95. VEHICLE PARKED ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A VALID REGISTRATION PLATE AND /OR EXPIRED REGISTRATION PLATE. FOLIO NO: 65420680003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 562 EASTWOOD DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/17/11 Investigator John Connetta presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — photo taken 4/4/11 Exhibit B — photo taken 4/29/11 The violation remains as of 7/1/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of the case by August 1, 2011. 2. Obtain and affix a valid license plate to each vehicle not confined in a totally enclosed structure, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove the offending vehicles from a residentially zoned property by July S, 2011. If the violation is not abated by July S, 2011 a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains there after unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. Total Due: $112.38 16. CASE NO: CEPM20110003647 OWNER: FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN 14 V i do f [ see 0I 1! e July 1, 2011 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (15), (12)(1). GREEN POOL AND DAMAGED SCREEN. FOLIO NO: 36121840003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4973 21sT PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/16/11 Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A —1 photo Exhibit B — 1 photo The violation remains as of 7/1/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before August 1, 2011. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before July 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before July 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Make all necessary repairs of the pool cage structure on or before July 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 5. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 6. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. Total Amount Due: $112.56 17. CASE NO: CESD20100003049 OWNER: WALTER O. BADO VEGA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER 15 July 1, 2011 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. SHED CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY WITHOUT OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 40350400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1920 EVERGLADES BLVD N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/20/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — photo dated 10/26/10 Exhibit B — photo dated 6/30/11 The violation remains as of 6/30/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before August 1, 2011. 2. Obtain all Collier County Building or Demolition Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy to permit, or remove the structures on or before August 1, 2011, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.47 18. CASE NO: CEPM20110004770 OWNER: ROGER DALE MOONEYHAM AND ROME MOONEYHAM OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (15), (12)(i). POOL IS GREEN AND UNABLE TO SECURE THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE DOOR AND THE DOOR TO THE FENCE. FOLIO NO: 36110760000 Irel 16 July 1, 2011 I A 2� VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4998 23RD COURT SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/16/11 Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 2 photos The violation remains as of 6/30/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before August 1, 2011. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before July 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before July 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Make all necessary repairs of the pool cage structure on or before July 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 5. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 6. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. Total Amount Due: $112.56 20. CASE NO: CESD20100003657 OWNER: JOSHUA S. LAINHART AND MELANIE D. MEYER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.4.1. PERMIT NUMBER 2003052154 FOR SCREENED ADDITION EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 3, 2003. NO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 37869920006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2170 20TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES 17 61 1 A 2'4 July 1, 2611 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/20/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 6/30/11 The violation remains as of 6/30/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before August 1, 2011. 2. Obtain all Collier County Building or Demolition Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy to permit the screened addition or remove the addition on or before August 1, 2011, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.3 8 21. CASE NO: CEV20110007567 OWNER: CDRE TRADING LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 4.05.03. VEHICLE ON LAWN. FOLIO NO: 36560400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2864 44' STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/20/11 Investigator Gomez presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A —1 photo dated 3/29/11 Composite Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 4/18/11 Composite Exhibit C — 1 photo dated 6/8/11 Composite Exhibit D —1 photo dated 6/8/11 18 I v I -b A &/ 161 1 A 2 July 1, 2b 11 The violation remains as of 6/30/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before August 1, 2011. 2. Move any and all vehicles from the front and rear yard of the property and park them on a stabilized pervious or imperviously treated surface by July 5, 2011 or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains there after unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. Total Amount Due: $112.3 8 22. CASE NO: CEPM20110004681 OWNER: DANNY L. NAIRN AND MARIE E. NAIRN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED, IN NEED OF WATER TREATMENT. FOLIO NO: 62761960100 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 753 93' AVENUE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/17/11 Investigator Condamina presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A —1 photo dated 4/20/11 Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 5/17/11 The violation remains as of 6/30/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.64 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before August 1, 2011. 19 � A July 1, 2011 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before July 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or; 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before July 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 5. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. Total Amount Due: $112.64 25. CASE NO: CEPM20110004442 OWNER: SAINT HUBERT JEAN BAPTISTE AND FABIOLA ANTOINE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(i). BROKEN /MISSING WINDOW. FOLIO NO: 35989080006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4724 25TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/20/11 Investigator Gomez presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A —1 photo dated 4/4/11 The violation remains as of 6/30/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.29 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before August 1, 2011. 2. Obtain valid Collier County Building Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to restore the windows to a permitted condition on or before July 15, 2011, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate or, 20 V 1 i + n � b 1 I'l'' A July 1, 2011 3. Obtain a Collier County "Boarding Certificate" and "board" the windows on or before July 15, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. If the option outlined in condition #3 is chosen, obtain all required Collier County permits to restore the windows to a permitted condition on or before January 2, 2012, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 5. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.29 26. CASE NO: CESD20110004443 OWNER: SAINT HUBERT JEAN BAPTISTE AND FABIOLA ANTOINE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO HOUSE. FOLIO NO: 35989080006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4724 25TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/20/11 Investigator Gomez presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 2 photos dated 4/4/11 The violation remains as of 6/30/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.29 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before August], 2011. 2. Obtain all Collier County Building or Demolition Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy to permit, or remove the structure on or before August 1, 2011, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 21 I W 3 i 161 1 July 1, 2011 3. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.29 VI. NEW BUSINESS (Continued) A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. CASE NO: CEROW20090015230 OWNER: ALAN D. MONTGOMERY ESTATE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 110, ARTICLE II, SECTION 110 -31 (a). SEVERAL TREES THAT WERE PLANTED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH NO PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 36239560000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5133 20TH COURT SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/16/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 7/1/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4681 - Page 2188 Fine Amount: $200.00 day Duration: 6/4/11 — 7/1/11 (28 days) Total Fine Amount: $5,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $5,712.29 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $5,712.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to acrue. CASE NO: CEPM20100005779 OWNER: TERRY DILOZIR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI SECTION 22 -231 (15), CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE II, SECTION 22 -26 AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 4, SECTION 22 A A ■ V ¢ ►� fmw Jo A L July 1, 2011 424.2.17. 1. A PRIVATE DWELLING SWIMMING POOL WITH STAGNANT GREEN WATER WITHOUT A PROPER POOL BARRIER. FOLIO NO: 62093680006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5322 CATTS STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/17/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 4/29/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4621 - Page 2399 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 10/23/10 — 4/29/11 (189 days) Total Fine Amount: $47,250.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $2,225.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.73 Total to Date: $49,587.73 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $49,587.73. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 4. CASE NO: CEPM20100018515 OWNER: ELEANOR BUCHANAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI SECTION 22 -236 (2)(5) DANGEROUS BUILDING. ROOF CAVING AND IN A VERY POOR STATE WITH NUMEROUS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS, STRUCTURE IS OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS. FOLIO NO: 1134801501 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 238 OLD TRAIN LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/17/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Seabasty presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 4/21/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4671 - Page 2329 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 3/12/11 — 4/21/11 (41 days) Total Fine Amount: $10,250.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $3,847.00 23 2 161 �_ July 1, 2011 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $14,209.47 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $14,209.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 5. CASE NO: CESD20100004913 OWNER: SERGIO G. SALINAS AND PATRICIA SALINAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(1)(a) AND SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(1)(e)(i). POOL NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THREE UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES (TWO SHEDS AND ONE BBQ PIT). FOLIO NO: 35993680007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2756 47TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/16/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 7/1/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4681 - Page 2190 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 6/4/11 — 7/1/11 (28 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,800.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.73 Total to Date: $2,912.73 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $2,912.73. Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to accrue 6. CASE NO: CEPM20100009663 OWNER: NEAL SWEENEY AND MARY SWEENEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (15). UNMAINTAINED POOL WATER, DARK IN COLOR. FOLIO NO: 24791001983 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1319 BARNSTABLE COURT, NAPLES 24 161 1 A 2 July 1, 2011 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/10/11 The respondents were not present. The violation has been abated as of 3/25/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4654 - Page 2477 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 2/12/11 — 3/25/11 (42 days) Total Fine Amount: $10,500.00 Paid Abatement Costs: $624.00 Paid Operational Costs: $120.08 Total to Date: $10,500.00 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $10,500.00. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 8. CASE NO: CEPM20100018182 OWNER: MTAG CUST FOR PINE ASSET MGMT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION(S) 22 -231 (12)(g), 22- 231 (12)(i), 22 -231 (12)(f), 22 -243, 22 -231 (12)(b), 22 -242 (b), AND 22 -231 (12)(d). MULTIPLE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: MOLD THROUGHOUT EXTERIOR OF MOBILE HOME, PORCH AND STAIRS ROTTING, BROKEN WINDOWS, BOARDED DOORS ETC. FOLIO NO: 1132320000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 237 MCBETH WAY, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/7/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Seabasty presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 3/17/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4647 - Page 3266 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 1/29/11 — 3/17/11 (48 days) Total Fine Amount: $12,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $4,390.00 25 VII. 61 1 1 A 24 July 1, 2011 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.92 Total to Date: $16,502.82 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $16,502.82. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 9. CASE NO: CEPM20100019821 OWNER: IRENE CASTILLO AND BENITO ABRAHAM OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTION 22- 231(19). LARGE BEE HIVE ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62091480004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5229 MARTIN STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/17/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 3/16/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4647 - Page 3143 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 1/22/11 — 3/16/11 (54 days) Total Fine Amount: $13,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $250.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $13,862.38 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $13,862.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: CENA20110001199 OWNER: PATRICIA J. CRETELLA AND RICHARD T. LAW FOLIO NO: 36966860002 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request. 26 161 i A uly 1, 2011 VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE: August S, 2011 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F, "3rd Floor, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 2:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE nda Garre n, Special Magistrate The Minutes were appro d by the Special Magistrate on ptz 1\ , as presented , or as amended 27 16 1 A- 3. July 7, 2011 r �� . E- TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE Main H1110 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUG 10 X 01, Hnn Haonn inq Naples, Florida, July 7, 2011 Board of coUni:, Coyle C ®letta 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: I_IVIL1611 9:7*4 4,421W CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Melissa Ahern Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Karen Homiak Bob Murray Diane Ebert Barry Klein ABSENT: Paul Midney Tom Eastman Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton, County Attorney's Office Page 1 of 19 Misc. Corres: Date: -% 0 k'- --- \ \ Item C :ins ,o: A 11 3 Jul 6 y 7 , 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Here we go. Thank you, Ray. Good morning, everyone. Please, everybody, if you could have your seats. I'm going to ask you to sit down so we can stand back up for Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome to the Thursday meeting, July 7th, of the Collier County Planning Commission. With that, we'll ask for roll call by the secretary. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, Mr. Eastman is absent. Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. Does Ray or anybody have any changes or additions or modifications? If not -- MR. BELLOWS: I have no other changes other than just a general comment at the end about the tour of the landfill site. We can have that under, like, new business or something. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're going to have that this morning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Commissioner, I don't have any changes to the agenda, but I did want to bring up an issue. I was speaking with KD, who does our television, and we have a hum over here on the right -hand side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, would you stop? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Brad? COMMISSIONER CARON: And there's nothing that she can do about it -- and I don't know how far down it affects people -- but it's -- until we get some replacement equipment, that's going to be an issue for those of us down on this end of the dais. But, also, she wanted me to remind everybody to speak directly into their microphones. They're having some trouble in the Clerk's Office with the tapes from people not speaking clearly and directly into their mikes, so just as a reminder to everybody. , COMMISSIONER 'HOMIAK: That would be me. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that would be a lot of people. Thanks. CHARO&AN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is the 21 st of this month, and unlike today, it is a jam - packed meeting. Ray has this tendency to take everything and pile it on one day instead of spreading it out over time. So we have an extremely full day next time. Today, comparatively, will be relatively short, I would think. So -- and it's GMP amendments and regular hearing cases, too. And it's the adoption hearing, I believe, for most of those, isn't it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Page 2 of 19 161 July 7, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, anyway, anybody know if they're not going to be here on the 21 st? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, okay. Next item is approval of minute. We have two sets of approval, May 19th and June 2nd. Let's take May 19th first. Are there any changes to the May 19 minutes? If not is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 8 -0. June 2, 2011. Anybody -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak again. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second that with just one change on Page 31 of 35. It's just a correction of spelling. There's a comment made by Mr. Bellows at the top of the page, and it says "Commissioner Karen" as in K- A- R -E -N, and I think you meant C- A- R -O -N. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're looking at Terri as if -- maybe it was Cherie. We don't know. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know. I'm not looking at anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just teasing. Okay. With that change, is there -- you seconded. And those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, note that I abstained. I was absent, so I wouldn't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. Brad abstained because he was absent, which we're going to talk about in a minute, that unexcused absence. BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On June 28th the Board of County Commissioners approved Petition SV -PL -1995. That was a sign variance for Walmart. You also approved the rezone for the Emmanuel Lutheran Church on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ray. Page 3 of 19 161 1, A Juy7,2011 Chairman's report. The only item I'd like to, as a housekeeping matter, as mentioned, that we do have absences periodically, and we don't formally acknowledge whether they're excused or unexcused. So as far as -- I've been in this chair now for, what, four years. It was my intention all that time that unless an absence is pointed out as being unexcused, it would be considered excused. So anytime someone acknowledges they're not going to be here -- I don't think for the record it's good to say, well, I'm going to be out of town and my house is going to be available for anybody that wants to burglarize it. So I don't think you need to go to that extension. But if it looks like someone's not telling us and they just don't show up over a period of time and they don't come back and say they were sick, well, that may be an issue we can take into consideration at that time. But I would just assume then that all absences are excused unless otherwise stated. So that will keep it clean as we move forward. Because there is a provision in our code that if you have a series of unexcused absences, you go into the guillotine and all those good things they do. * * *So with that in mind, let's move onto the consent agenda item, and we have one. It's Gordon River Greenway Park, RZ- PL2009 -25. It's a consent item. It was rather short, to the point. Anybody have any questions, comments? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. On No. 4, 50 percent or greater of the parking stalls shall be grassed parking. I think it's too in- specific with "or greater." Having heard the testimony and recognizing that there's going to be buses parking and an awful lot of cars, which we didn't realize initially, I think that we need to have more than 50 percent. And the assumption is greater would represent that, but how much greater? So I'm not comfortable with that simple statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? We voted on this last time, so we can't change the vote. And do you know if the language is different? Any -- I believe the vote was as stated here. Do you see it any different? Did you remember the tape, or did you review the tape? MR. BELLOWS: Nancy has, and she's here. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And I did listen to the tape, and the condition is as stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this -- on consent agenda we're not in a position to be able to re -vote on something. We're simply acknowledging that the consent agenda is consistent with the vote that previously took place. So with that in mind, we'll have to just move on to the next issue. Mr. Murray, that's a point you should have brought up at the time of the vote at our last meeting when this originally came through for review. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And this is to Ray. Ray, do you think the term "grassed parking" is good enough? I mean, essentially in the code, will that mean that it's stabilized, you know, it's on top of -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it's clear. That's usually the standards that we would follow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on the consent item? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 just wanted to make a comment. I think that Mr. Murray brings up a good point, and I don't think any of us caught it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Obviously staff should have been on top of that immediately saying, well, how do you expect us to enforce "greater than"? So I don't think anybody caught it. Hopefully the commission can give us -- give you -all some guidance on that. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. We can work on that -- improving that language and present a more concise version to the BCC. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I also have a question on it. Page 4 of 19 Plan. rezone. If ■ 14 14 . 161 Ar ► A July 7, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The ST overlay. That was taken off last time. What is -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. The ST overlay permit is going to be processed along with the Site Development COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And if -- I'd like to just clarify. That can be done as a separate process apart from the COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything on the Gordon River Greenway consent? If not, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahern, made a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. ** *Okay. Next item up -- and it's one of two that Mr. Anderson has shown up for a rare occasion to present to us today. The first one is DOA- PL2010 -274. It's called the Heritage Bay DRI. It's one that was continued from a previous meeting. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I received an email from Bruce asking me if I had any concerns, and I emailed him back that he'd have to wait and see what happens today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did speak with him before on this one, because it was going to be shown earlier, and I did speak with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel & Andress law firm. I have with me today Mr. Chris Hasty from Pulte. And I'm here to talk about the Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact. The Heritage Bay DRI was approved by Collier County July 29, 2003. The development order has never been amended. The development order became effective September 12, 2003, that is, there's a 45 -day window after the development order is rendered to the Department of Community Affairs before it becomes effective. The expiration date for Heritage Bay is tied to the effective date. Heritage Bay is a mixed -use project containing residential and commercial uses. It's located at the intersection of Immokalee Road and County Road 951. The proposed change is to add a build -out date to the Page 5 of 19 16 1 A 3 July 7 2011 development order, and to extend the current build -out date and expiration date. The most recent build -out date was December 30, 2014, and the expiration date, the most recent one, was September 12, 2023. The notice of proposed change will extend the build -out date and expiration date by four years, 364 days. The DRI law states that an extension of a building date of five years or less is not a substantial deviation, which means that it does not require any rereview of the DRI itself. Since the time that this application was filed, the state legislature approved and the governor signed a bill which, among other things, extends the build -out date and expiration dates of any DRI that gives written notice to the city or county that approved it and that notice has to be given before the end of this calendar year on behalf of the developers of Heritage Bay and the quarry. I have provided that written notice. For housekeeping purposes, the amended development order would include this new four -year automatic extension authorized by the legislature. This new DRI law, as others have done where there were extensions authorized by the legislature due to economic conditions -- it provides that this four -year extension is not a substantial deviation and will not be considered in determining whether any subsequent extension is a substantial deviation. The Regional Planning Council approved this change at their April meeting, and the new build -out date would be December 30, 2023, and the new expiration date would be September 10, 2032. No other changes to the development order are proposed. And, hopefully, if you see fit we would request, since this is such a relatively simple change of date, that we not have to come back on the consent agenda so that we might keep our July Board of County Commissioners' hearing date. And with that, I'll be glad to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wanted to be clear. Bruce, when you prepared this, you weren't aware that the state was going to give you an additional four years; is that right? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So aren't you getting from the state what you wanted originally? And the question really becomes, aren't we, in fact, here today giving you eight years? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And would that not -- MR. ANDERSON: Actually nine, almost nine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the substantial change wouldn't kick in with that? MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if you canceled this, you would have gotten what you were originally trying to get with this from the state? MR. ANDERSON: We'd gotten four years instead of four years and 364 days. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. I just wanted to say that. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Bruce, as you know, I just want to run through the math on this just to get it right. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: If what you said to me -- said originally here was that the build -out -- your original build -out date before any extensions or anything was 2014? MR. ANDERSON: No, no. That was the most recent one with the extensions that were already authorized by the legislature. The original build -out date, which was buried in the several- hundred -page application for development approval, was actually 2007. And in 2007 the legislature authorized an automatic three -year extension for any DRI which was under construction at that time, and Heritage Bay was well under construction in 2007. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So they got -- at that time -- in 2007, they got an additional three years. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: And then in 2009 they got an additional two years? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Page 6 of 19 I 1 a _T Ay 7, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And this is coming off of 2007 as your build -out? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we're adding five years to that? MS. ASHTON: Bruce, I don't know if that date is correct. Did you check the ADA? Because the letter -- December 2nd letter that's in the package refers to December 2009. MR. ANDERSON: Which letter? MS. ASHTON: It's the December 2, 2008, to you from Kay and Sue, Susan Istenes. I'll bring it over. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. That's correct. That was -- MS. ASHTON: Did you find it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I was -- yeah. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. If there's a difference, then let's start again here. I really want to be able to walk through this so that everyone knows for the record, and then we'll figure out a way to -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay. The original build -out date was December 2009. In 2007 a three -year automatic extension was approved by the legislature that changed the build -out date to December 2012. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: In 2009 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. ANDERSON: -- the legislature authorized another two -year extension which would have brought the date to December 2014. This application -- well, let's go with the new automatic extension that was just authorized. That would bring the date to December 2018, and with the request that we have before you today, that date would be December 2023. COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct, okay. That is your build -out. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Now, let's run through the same thing for your expiration. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. The original expiration date was 15 years from the effective date of the development order. Calculating that it would have been sent to the Department of Community Affairs on the same day it was adopted, which is doubtful -- but being conservative, that would have been September 12, 2018. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. ANDERSON: In 2007 the legislature authorized the three -year extension, that would have brought it to September 12, 2021. In 2009 the legislature authorized a two -year extension, which brought the expiration date to 2023. In -- with the new legislation, that date would become September 12, 2027, and with the application we have before you today, the date would become September 10, 2032. COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct. Okay, good. Thank you. It's good to walk through that, because I will tell you that what this panel was given, you could not have figured that out on your own. And I know that for a fact, because when this originally came up the first time I called the County Attorney's Office, and even they weren't quite sure how to figure it all out. So they had to go back and do the math as well. I think it's important to do the math, and I think it's also important that we find a way in the ordinance to kind of spell this out so that, historically, if people have to back and look, you can figure out what's been happening. It's not simple, and -- but it should be clear. I mean, it is very simple once you know what's happening, but it needs to be clear so that people can go back and figure that out. And I leave that to the greater minds here to figure out how to do that. MR. ANDERSON: I did -- after each of the -- after the 2007 and the 2009 automatic extensions, I did go ahead and record a notice in the public record so that, you know, it would be official in that sense, and I don't have any objection at all to listing those specific dates. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we've put it in resolution form, and maybe just in that resolution form we can walk through the steps so that everybody knows where we're ending up and why we're ending up there. MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps in the "whereas" clauses. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Page 7 of 19 61 A 34' July 7, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, whereas, whatever -- the "whatever" clauses, you know. I just want it to be clear, and I want it to be easy for somebody who goes to look -- if the legislature then grants another four years, you know, five years from now, it should be pretty easy to walk back and look at what happened and do the addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Bruce, these are in your annual reports that Heritage Bay gives anyway, correct? Do you note this in the annual reports when extensions -- MR. ANDERSON: I believe they are. I don't actually prepare them, but I believe they are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the next question I have is for Nick. Nick, what do these dates really mean to the county? How -- are these -- you know, how important is this issue? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, for the county we look at it for transportation concurrency and zoning and vesting, but, really, they don't mean much in the sense of -- other than we monitor the development and we notify the builder /owner, as they approach these dates, that they're meeting their deadlines, you know, so they can respond accordingly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, conceptually, as they move them off, doesn't that take pressure off of transportation and stuff? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Actually, it's a lot more work for us to monitor that development as we, kind of, put them in our model for the Long Range Transportation Plan, but not necessarily for the county, but more for the MPO as we update these, because we expect them to be built out by a certain time. And the longer they delay, we have to recalibrate everything all the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But essentially we're spreading the demand further down the road, which does take some short -tern pressure off. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does, but then we have to track that vested status for a little bit longer, and then it means we've got to be, you know, cognizant of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other question is that if a developer ignored this situation and you went past the date, their -- all their approvals would sunset? They would just -- they would lose them all, or what would happen? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Their land entitlements don't sunset, but their approvals are -- you know, ability to go forward stop, and then we, you know, have to go through that NOPC process and the DRI. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? Bruce, how many units do you have in that project? I can't recall. MR. ANDERSON: I believe it's 3,250 dwelling units are authorized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you had originally thought you were going to have around four to four hundred and fifty sales a year, because you originally had a build -out of seven years. Now you're going to 20 years. Is the project going that bad? MR. ANDERSON: And excuse me. It was 3,450 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that just hurts you even more. As the -- I mean, you were going to sell all that out in your original plan in seven years. And, by the way, I'm not -- I don't have an objection to your time. I'm just now curious. If you could sell this out in seven years, what has happened besides -- I know our economy is not good, but I also heard a Realtor state that your project's being very successful, you're selling like hotcakes up there even in this economy. How do you need 20 years? Just -- what is your plan? How are you going to build -- what's your -- how many sales a year do you think you're going to get up there that you're not going to -- it's going to take you three times as long to build this project out? MR. ANDERSON: We don't know how long it's going to take for an economic recovery, particularly in Southwest Florida. And DRIB are a creature of the legislature, and they have seen fit to make provisions in the statutes to maximize the time frames that these larger projects have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I honestly don't have a problem with it. In fact, I don't know why we Page 8 of 19 16 A 3 , July 7, 2011 need the time frames anyway. You get zoning to build your project, you build it as fast as you can, you're not going to drag your feet because it's going to cost you too much money. So the whole idea of the time frame seems kind of silly right from the get -go. But I'm just curious, because I was on this board when Heritage Bay came through originally, and it was -- things were going to happen much more quickly, and I know why they haven't. But this is quite a long extension. And I was wondering from Nick's perspective, in his response to Brad -- you indicated that, you know, it's going to take you more time to monitor, but if he had a seven -year build -out in the beginning, you've already put all your transportation infrastructure in to meet the concurrency requirements he had told us originally that he would have hit. Is that not correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is and it isn't. With the larger DRIs, the board direction -- and I'm going back before my time -- but I recall it, working with Don Scott, was one - seventh a year until it was all put in, and then recognizing that that didn't make any sense, we went to what was more of an actual submittal, what were they actually putting in and calibrating the model to that effect. In essence, the concurrency system, when a project comes in, we evaluate that project fully loaded into the system -- when another project comes in, but our concurrency system has it in at what they put in every year, and we kind of keep an eye on it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- so is it useful then to know how the project's going to anticipate to build out over the years as it goes forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's useful to know. We kind of keep an eye on it. And every time we do the AUIR, that's part of our trip bank. That's in that model as that proportion of that project in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if the other elements of the GPM use the same planning philosophy looking at long -range build -outs? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do not know. Public utilities uses the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or sheriff or schools or anything like that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it Bruce. Anybody have any other questions? Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. Bruce, I did talk to you on this when it was going to come up first, and you said that because this DR] is Lennar, Lennar took -- they are pretty much built out, but they took approximately a thousand acres and sold it to Pulte, and that's the only thing left to be built is the Pulte project? MR. ANDERSON: No, also the commercial. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The commercial. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So, in other words, the activity center? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: And there may be a few -- you know, some units from Lennar that are either under construction or haven't been sold yet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how many sales they've had out of the 3,450? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still just curious as to the rate that this county's going to be expecting as time goes forward. It's significantly changed. Because there were a lot of high predictions years ago, and they're just not able to be met on any project in the county that I know of. And I'm kind of -- I'm trying to understand from a planning perspective how fast this county's going to need to adapt as the future goes forward, because it sure isn't the plan we used to have. And, you know, we don't want to build too fast too far ahead. It becomes a lot of carry costs we don't need, but then at the same time we want to be prepared for whatever is going to happen. So, Nick, as part of this, do you get a phasing plan to give you some idea as to what they think their Page 9 of 19 161 A 54 July 7, 2011 absorptions are going to be, or you just run it by rule of thumb? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. We -- in terms of this specific project or in general as projects come in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's just -- both. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For instance, the Hacienda Lakes DRI that's going to come up in front of you again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We think their phasing plan or build -out plan is pretty aggressive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they're going to be in the same boat this project's in, to be honest with you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think so, too. It affects their calculations, and that's one of the comments we've made. The longer you build out, the more analysis you do in terms of your impacts to infrastructure because it's cumulative. So when they propose an aggressive schedule, we'll question it, and then we'll look at that analysis. But, you know, it's hard to argue, you know, when they say historically, because they'll use a 15 -year period in Collier County of what developed and how things were assimilated. And -- you know, so it does become a little bit subjective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, from a county's liability viewpoint, if a developer tells us, like Heritage Bay, that they're going to have a need for so many units to hit the road within a time frame that they feel they can meet, like Hacienda Lakes, for example, that came before us, are you then -- by approving that are we obligating the county to meet their standards for concurrency and vesting that they have to have to get on the road system? MR. CASALANGUIDA: To a certain extent, you are. You're committing to that, so that's one of the concerns we have. Now, with Hacienda we did put in some safety language that said at one -third you will re- evaluate your build -out schedule, at two- thirds you will re- evaluate your build -out schedule and we'll compare your road impacts to what you actually built versus what's available on the road. So we've kind of learned a little bit of a lesson. I think we've crafted some language, and we're happy to share it going forward. But there is some language in there that talks about a re- evaluation period a third along the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, knowing that Heritage Bay is changing and knowing that the only record we have is a phasing record based on a seven -year build -out, even though they got extensions, I don't think they resubmitted a new phasing record to you. Would it be valuable then to ask them to submit something so that -- to match up with the time frame they've got now so you have something like that going forward to kind of gear where you may need to have your transportation corridors go or any other infrastructure, being the Sheriffs Office, fire, whoever else has got to keep up with the amount of housing that they're going to build at the pace they believe they're going to build it in since -- and as you said, we are somewhat in a position to have to meet their vesting needs based on our approvals that we've given them. And from what I understand, you still have to go by the original seven -year build -out because they've not submitted another phasing to show you how their build -out's changed, or have they? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, they have not submitted another phasing schedule. It would be helpful, and I'm sure the applicant would be happy to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just tag that along as a stipulation to help get this planning done properly here in Collier County -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as we go forward, and that would help with every project coming forward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. That would be helpful for us, and I don't think it would be much work for them to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, do you have any objection to that? MR. ANDERSON: No, that's fine, for informational and planning purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ANDERSON: I would -- I do want to point out, though, that Heritage Bay prepaid all of their road impact fees, all of their school impact fees, and I believe all of their park impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You prepaid them for the entire project? Page 10 of 19 1 n 1 Z n r A S 161 July 7, 2011 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the only difference there is you wouldn't have been allocated for the full capacity on the road system, but the road system would have had to have been built to the capacity that was necessary. Say, for example, you don't need, maybe, four lanes of capacity; you may have needed only two- and -a -half, but we still had to build the four lanes. So, again, we're getting a little -- even though you paid all your impact fees, that may still have not covered the road costs. I don't know. We still would have other costs from other projects. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We run into that five -year window analysis versus the Long Range Transportation Plan, because we -- you know, that Policy 5.1 of your Growth Management Plan looks and says, a five -year analysis shall be done, and make sure there's adequate capacity for there. With the DRI, obviously we'll look much farther. We look -- you know, so it's a little different than regular approvals. But we have accommodated Heritage Bay's traffic on those roads. Every one of those roads around there has been widened to its full six -lane capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And I remember their project coming through. It was well done in regards to how they up- fronted everything. That helped out a lot. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I was just going to say -- and, I mean, it's in here, all the road expansions and what it was to be and when its supposed to have happened, and everything has happened. So for this particular one, I get your greater point, but for Heritage Bay I think it's already -- you know, we've already taken care of absorbing whatever they'll bring on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have from a transportation viewpoint, but you've got many elements in the AUIR that are not just transportation, and those other ones are the ones I'm concerned as to how they're going to keep pace if we don't tell them some idea of what the pace might be. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think public utilities is even more conservatively aggressive, I would say. I think they book all the usage in their formulas. I can't speak for them, but I know, in talking to them in the past, they -- once you come in with a development order, they try and -- you know, they build that into their capacity full, not incrementally like we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. All right. But I think it's helpful. And as long as Bruce and the client don't mind, that would be a real good way to start setting a tone going forward so we have those additional updates. So -- okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Bruce. We'll hear from staff right now. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. And just, again, I would request, if possible, that we not have to come back to you on your consent agenda so that we might be able to keep the board -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully that stipulation will come through with the motion. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner in zoning. You have the staff report and the draft resolutions. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Kay? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: A little closer to the mike. MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. Okay. Now I'll start again. Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem with zoning. You have staff report in the backup information, including the draft resolution. Bruce has explained to you what the project is and responded to your questions. I won't belabor it by going over the staff report unless you have specific questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of the county staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. DESELEM: The only thing I would ask is that you clarify what it is you want your stipulation to say and put a timing element, tie it to something that they have to do, that phasing plan or whatever it is you decide, so that we can make sure that we can enforce it and understand it. Page 11 of 19 161 1 A Juy7,2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's not something I think we were going to ask to be made part of the record. It was going to be a tool to help with planning. MS. DESELEM: Oh, I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would have to ask Bruce to -- we'll definitely stipulate something. We can put a time frame in it but I don't think it was necessarily going to be a part of the application. Then you get into a lot of re- submittals and approvals, and I'm not sure we need to go there. I think it was more of a planning tool to help the long -range planning understand when these units are going to be coming online for the other elements of the AUIR. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. I checked with Heidi, because I wasn't sure -- and I don't have it in front of me, and she doesn't either. But it runs in my mind that the Florida Statutes, when they extend things, in their language they also extend all the phases an equal amount of time so that it would just, you know, be the same as what it is. You would just add those years to each phase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that would be really good for the county, because they're going from seven to 20 years. And if they want to divide the rest of their sales up over the remaining years, then that means we've only got to be prepared for two units a year, practically. So I think -- what I think would be in their best interest is to be realistic so that we're ready for them when they're ready and they have the need. So hopefully something good will come out of a planning exercise. But I understand your point. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. Like I said, I can't testify to fact, but that is my recollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Kay. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There are no speakers registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody for the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, before we go into a discussion, would you be able to submit a -- I don't want to call it a phasing plan, but a build -out, say, an absorption schedule of some type with your BCC -- by the time you get to your BCC date? MR. ANDERSON: I just want to make sure that it's not binding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it will be part of the record, but I would like to -- Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Most of them aren't -- I don't intend it to be binding either. I can't predict -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think anything's that binding now, because if I'm not mistaken, your type of profession is very smart. They always say, estimated, estimated, estimated. And the word "estimated" to an attorney means a century. But I think from a planning tool, we'd be a lot better off knowing that you've submitted something to planning that counters what's already on record and that they could say, okay, we've got another applicant -- another tool here that gives us an opportunity to look at this in a more realistic viewpoint. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, even with the disclaimer "subject to market conditions in any given year;" something that's an approximation is fine. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. You could note it's nonbinding, you know, somewhere in the text of the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that work, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Would this -- do you want it to go as part of the board pack or have it submitted with the monitoring report? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be smart to put it with the board package now -- only because -- the fact that we discussed it so much and it's going to be a stipulation, they may ask for it. So why don't you just -- it shouldn't be that hard to do. And if I know a company like Heritage Bay, any of the large developers, they have those already in their pocket anyway. So it would be nice to modify it so that it looks the best that you think you can live with and the county has something they can plan by, and I think that will be a help to everybody. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I do want to tell you, though, that my client does have some concern about putting their marketing strategy or plans as a public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You did that when you applied for the DRI, as did everybody else. I'm just wondering now why you're objecting. MR. ANDERSON: Because of the economy, and their competition is even greater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if I was putting something on record and it looked good, I think my Page 12 of 19 1 n 1 14 7 � 161 A ul y 7 2 11 0 competition would be hurt by that, and I'd have more people saying, there must be something good about that project that's selling in this kind of economy. So maybe you might be careful on how you do it so it could be a marketing tool, not a marketing, I'll say, negative. It may be a marketing positive. But is the board date okay? I don't think it's going to be anything elaborate. It's just going to be some years with numbers with all kinds of legal disclaimers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bruce -- Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if they don't really think and do something that is done through a thought process, then it's just throwing numbers out and what good is it for you, Nick, anyway? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I mean, it helps. Don't get me wrong, it helps. And, again, we understand, through the economy, it changes. But if you set a proposed phasing schedule, when we do our long -range modeling, we can at least give it to our models and say, put that in there, that's the approximate absorption rate, or also use it to compare it to other projects that come in and say, "Is this reasonable ?" And so it helps, but it's not necessary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe what you should do is everybody has to put in before the 21st, before the end of the year that they want their extension, right? Can't you, when they write those letters, respond to everybody requesting the same courtesy of a revised schedule so that -- for planning -- nonbinding for planning purposes only? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And we could, as long as it's a request and as a courtesy. I can't legally require it as part of the extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, of course not. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce is conferring. We'll wait for him to finish. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, when you say get it done before the commission meeting, do you mean to have it presented at the commission meeting or just as a time frame? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Attached as backup into the agenda backup, only because I think now that we've raised the issue, if it does get added as a stipulation, the board may say, well, yeah, what is your phasing? And if they come up with a new one already done, a nice, neat sheet, it just makes their job a little easier, which is what I think we're here supposed to be doing anyway. Bruce, is there anything changing? MR. ANDERSON: Ms. Deselem shared with me, or shared with my client, the happy news that if we don't -- we need to get this to her today or we will not be heard in July. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So our results have to be in written format today for that to get on -- well, you got -- that's okay, you've got the rest of the afternoon. Well, I would -- and, Bruce, if that -- if the time frame is too tight for this added absorption thing, just say within 30 days of board approval. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, I've got some leeway. If they give it to me in the next five days, I'll just -- I won't change the executive summary. I'll just change the attachment schedule as the proposed phasing schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. You can add it to Sire anyway. Yeah, okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. So as long -- it will be an attachment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you've got another five days; so now you've got till 2023 plus five days. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I never thought I would get more than I asked for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, this is the board to make you happy, you know. Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward DOA- PL2010 -274, Heritage Bay DUI (sic), with a recommendation of approval with the stipulation that -- at a time to Nick's convenience, that the revised schedule be put together and that this item does not have to come before the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Clarification, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And that we clarify the resolution language for the dates. Page 13 of 19 161 July 7, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Add the dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer added, the dates will be clarified in the resolution. Ms. Ebert, do you second that as well? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only other comment -- and it doesn't need to be part of the stipulation -- just the discussion for the phasing of the revised schedule was an "estimated" with all your disclosures, and that's all we're seeking. So I just wanted to make sure, Bruce, we're not trying to push you into something that is going to be locked into the record, because it normally isn't anyway, so -- MR. ANDERSON: Could you also add, in addition to "estimated," "nonbinding ?" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Nonbinding" made by the motion maker. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's appropriate. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're really pushing it, Bruce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by -- Ms. Ebert, do you have any problem with that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion maker and second. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stipulations are made. Discussion, any further? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you very much. And we will now move on to our next entertainment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's important here. Nick, is that something you can put together a little courtesy letter -- because you're going to get these letters -- and then respond with this thing that you would ask them to submit a nonbinding revision to your schedule for planning purposes only? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think that would maybe be fair and smart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. Next item up is a similar situation that may end up with a similar stipulation. So, Bruce, you can address that as we go into it. It's DOA- PL2011 -0354. It's a resolution amending Development Order 2001, the Ronto Livingston DRI. This is the Tuscany Reserve up off Livingston Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affinnative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same disclosure that I had on the last one, same email, talked to --just told Bruce we'd wait and see what comes out of today's meeting. Page 14 of 19 1 6 1 A 31 July 7, 2011 Okay, sir. It's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm still Bruce Anderson, and I'm here on behalf of Tuscany Reserve. With me today is Erica Rogan assistant general counsel for Kitson & Partners; John Asher, who's the director of land development for the Tuscany Reserve project; and the project planner, Wayne Arnold, from the Grady Minor engineering firm. The Ronto Livingston DRI was approved January 25, 2000, and it has never been amended. It is a residential golf course community. Development has is previously commenced. And the property is known as Tuscany Reserve PUD. Economic conditions were such that WCI Communities relieved itself of the property, and my client purchased the property in January of this year. Tuscany Reserve is located on Livingston Road by the Lee County line at the intersection of what will be Veterans Memorial Parkway or Boulevard. The original build -out date was January 2007. It was automatically extended to January 25, 2010, by legislative action. And then in 2010 it received an additional two -year extension from the legislature. When you add on the four years that was just approved by the legislature -- excuse me -- that brings us to January 24, 2016, and with the request today, the build -out date would be January 24, 2021. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just made Ms. Caron happy. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. And he's going to move right along and do the same thing for the expiration date. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for the segue. The original expiration date was January 25, 2015. It was extended in the first instance by the legislature to January 25, 2018. It received a two -year extension in 2010, making the date become January 25, 2020. With the new four -year automatic extension authorized by the legislature this year, that date would become January 24, 2024. And with the request today -- and there is a typo. With the request today, the new expiration date would be January 24, 2029. There was a typographical error in the submission, and it lists it as 2026. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you really want 2029? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am, please. Like the last petition you heard, the request is to extend the build -out and expiration dates by four years, 364 days. For the record, the DRI statute provides conclusively that such an extension of five years or less is not a substantial deviation. And, again, the DRI law states that the extension of the build -out date automatically also extends the expiration date by a like time period. The proposed text would incorporate all of the dates that I just gave you, and they would be included in the whereas findings clauses in the development order. Among the other changes to this development order is to remove the reference to the original approved Tuscany Reserve PUD which was repealed several years ago, I believe in 2005, and it renames the DRI to Tuscany Reserve rather than the sexy title that it has today of Ronto Livingston DRI. That will make it consistent with the PUD name, and the changes also list the successor /developer. And also the amendment proposes to change the DRI report filing requirement from "annual" to "biannual" as authorized by statute. That is just the DRI report. They would still have to file the annual PUD monitoring reports with Collier County. The Regional Planning Council unanimously approved these requested changes at their June meeting. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions on the part of the Planning Commission. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, one thing. All the state statutes for extension, you guys filed for a request to get those statutes extended -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- right, I mean, the extensions? Okay, for the record. Okay. The 29th date in the resolution, is that date to change both in Item 2 and 4 to the 29th? MS. ASHTON: Yes, it would. It would change the downzone date as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For downzoning, also. Okay. Page 15 of 19 1 A 3 61 1,i Jul 7, 2011 July Thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Does -- I don't know, Mr. Anderson, but does the Regional Planning Commission (sic) care that the dates that they approved were different than what we're going to end up here? I mean, the concept is probably what they were voting on more than the date? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't like to make those assumptions. But you don't have to go back to them? MR. ANDERSON: No, no. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, just some clarification. This DRI is authorized up to 1,380 units, but your PUD authorizes 799, right? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what that means is you have the potential latitude to increase the density but not have to modify the DRI? MR. ANDERSON: Correct. But we would have to amend the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Yeah, I agree. The PUD was -- it's odd that 799 was picked at the time, because that was one below the DRI threshold. I don't know why you'd pick that and then still do a DRI. But you probably weren't the attorney at the time; otherwise, it wouldn't have happened, huh? MR. ANDERSON: I was not the attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any objections to providing an estimated nonbinding schedule of absorption rates? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under the same time frame that you work out with Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there -- no other questions of the applicant? We'll move to staff. Thank you, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Again, good morning. And like Bruce, I'm still Kay Deselem. So you have the staff report. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to respond to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Nick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nick, east/west Livingston, is that ever going to be built? MR. CASALANGUIDA: From the portion from Livingston to the west to Old 41, I would say at some point in time, yes. The portion to the east, I significantly doubt it. I think it was pulled off our Long Range Transportation Plan this year. Crossing I -75 heading east, as soon as you cross 1 -75 there are only 50 feet before you start to get into existing homes. So off recollection, that was taken off LRTP this adoption. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This adoption it was taken off. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because it was in the long -range plan -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --for many years, and I understand the developers over there --just nobody watched it and they just built right -- did not allow the original hundred feet? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually the developers on the west side of 1 -75, these folks in the Strand made accommodations for it. At the time it was -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, they did. Page 16 of 19 1 r% 1 1 - 61 A July 7, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: At the time it was included in the long -range plan, there was already existing projects approved, but it was our hope and intent we could squeeze it in. Now we've looked at it feasibly and cost -wise. With the reductions in revenue forecast, it was one of those that feasibly didn't make sense or in the needs plan didn't make sense anymore. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Ray, public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody wish to speak on this particular item? Please come up to the podium and state your name, please, for the record. MR. BASSIN: Go morning, Commissioners. My name is Bob Bassin. I'm a resident of the Strand. I'm speaking only for myself. I have very little familiarity with proceedings of this nature. We have people in our development who are very familiar with legal matters, but they're not here. They're up north. My question is is there any way that hearings of this kind can take place in the season when more people are here instead of this time of year when people that could comment intelligently are not available? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if the county has that much latitude to schedule all of these meetings off season (sic), but I'm sure Ray or Nick can contribute to the comment. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. You're correct, there's nothing in the Land Development Code that would grant staff the ability to restrict public hearing dates to the season. And if something were in effect, you're right, there would be too many items to be held in the season because just about everybody would be then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our season load is -- during normal time is pretty heavy. I don't know if it varies that much from season to summer anymore. It used to, but I think the public notification process and electronic media have gotten so widespread that we still get comments from people even if it is during the summertime. MR. BASSIN: Well, there's nobody here from the Strand really that has any legal expertise, and it is the next development to Tuscany Reserve. So maybe you could bear in mind this situation and put the more important items with more -- potentially more impact into the winter and those of less impact into the summer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll certainly try our best, sir. MR. BASSIN: Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for the gentleman. Does there seem to be a problem? MR. BASSIN: Nope. I have no objection. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is no problem between the Strand and Tuscany Reserve? MR. BASSIN: Not that I know o£ COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Staffs very cognizant of that, so we do work with developers when we -- if it's a new project, a highly impacted project, we try and make it a point to schedule the NIMs or the hearings, you know, not in the middle of summer. So a project with an extension for a build -out date for an already- approved DRI, I think, you know, that we try to weigh and balance those two out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Yes, sir, you want to say finalize -- say something else? MR. BASSIN: No, we're fine. But thanks a lot. I appreciate it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other speakers, Ray? Page 17 of 19 A3 6 ! July y 7, 2011 MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, then, Bruce, I'm sure you don't have a need for rebuttal, so we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward DOA- PL2011 -0354 Rotando (sic) Livingston DRI, a/k/a Tuscany Reserve, with a recommendation of approval and note the changes of the dates in the resolution in No. 2 from January 4, 2006 to 2009, and in No. 4, from January 24, 2006 to 2009 -- I'm song -- 2029 in both cases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stipulation for the estimated nonbinding schedule of absorption rates? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also that they should provide the nonbinding revised schedule. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer made the motion, seconded by Barry. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Bruce, thank you. It's good to see you again. You're a stranger often -- more often than not. With that in mind, we'll move on to the balance of our agenda. There is no old business listed, but we do have a new business item, and that's a tour of the landfill site. Ray, you added this. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I've been asked by Dan Rodriguez and Judy Puig, who are coordinating this event, to just check with everybody here today to see if -- I think we have four people who have signed up, and if anybody else would like to attend the tour, please let me know, or Judy Puig. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Barry's one of them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a date? What was the date on that? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe they've scheduled a date yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there any public -- no public comment. So we'll motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved. Seconded by Melissa. All in favor? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 18 of 19 I h 1 1 L1 'IN 16 1 A ,� J,l 211 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you all. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Before we go, get out of here, there are some people who don't know about the landfill, like Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I didn't get -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there was an email sent out about a tour of the landfill. If you want to see a nice pile of trash, get together with Ray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Dan would love to show it off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for those of you -- thank you, Ray. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:02 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION �A Lk./L P Abk� MAR& STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on 0 "� - , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 19 of 19 161 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 4, 2011 1 • a ■/ 1 H August 4, 2011 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: BY: ....................... ALSO PRESENT: t/ Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Melissa Ahern Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Karen Homiak Bob Murray Diane Ebert Barry Klein Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 of 99 Misc. Corres: Date: I CA Item #: L—e� 3 Copies to: 161 1 A 3 i August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 4th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 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, sir -- ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. -- whoa. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. We have -- besides our consent agenda, which are items from your last meeting, we do have two hearings today. The first one is an advertised hearing on Pine Ridge Center West on the PUD, and the second one is a meeting on three items, a Growth Management Plan change, a DRI, and a PUD called Hacienda Lakes. That is a continued item from the 21 st of July. It's -- are there any changes or anything with the agenda from the Planning Commission? No. Ray? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is the 18th of this month. Anybody know they're not going to be here? And I know Mr. Murray won't be here, and I'm sad to say that Mr. Murray's -- this will be Mr. Murray's last meeting. He has had to resign. And, Bob, we'll miss you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have stood proudly for all the involvement that people should have in their government, and I give you absolute credit for that. You've done a great job, and we appreciate it very much. We're going to miss you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means when Bob has a comment today, we cannot disagree with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last day you get the bonus, see. Approval of minutes from July 7, 2011. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER'HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Page 2 of 99 y ■ i a a .r/ 10 1 1 A .S August 4, 2011 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. BCC report. Recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On July 26th the Board of County Commissioners heard the rezone for the Gordon River Greenway Park. That was approved 5 -0, but it was without any advisory board recommendations. I think one of the reasons was that they will be -- the ST permit coming back later with the Site Development Plan, and I think that's one reason they didn't have any additional -- or adopted the PUD zoning district without any conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I saw a part of that meeting. I was a little concerned that when we made those stipulations here, it was a consensus with the applicant, from my understanding, as their solution to the concerns raised by the public, which then became the basis for our vote, at least for mine. I'm a little dismayed as to how it changed between us and the BCC to a point where they -- I think -- I didn't see it all, but it seemed -- I seemed to understand they felt they were going to be -- might be too restricted by those stipulations and they wanted some flexibility but they'd come back with the ST application to show that flexibility. The only thing that bothers me, Ray, is I wish that was discussed at this meeting as an opportunity so that it would have weighed on my vote in that regard. We tried to do what we thought was the best protection we could given the codes that we had to deal and live with, and they, from what I can recall -- and I didn't re -watch the tape or re- review everything on it -- they bought in to our stipulations, and then have it go sideways between us and the BCC; that's really not as productive as it should be for us, and nor am I sure that our votes would have remained the same. But in the future it would be nice if -- I don't know how we could change something like that, but it would have been nice if the applicant, which happened to be the parks department, had been more forthcoming with us at the meeting than they -- as they were with the BCC. That did make this board look like we had done a lot of worthless debating on issues that I really wish they had cautioned us on. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are they going to bring the SDP back to us before it goes to the BCC? MR. BELLOWS: They're -- as part of the ST permit process, it works in conjunction with the Site Development Plan, and they will be presented as companion items -- not really companion. The SDP is part of that ST permit- review process because you're really analyzing impacts to the ST by what's shown on the SDP. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So they are not bringing it back here? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They are, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If it's an SDP, we're supposed to see it again. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless they found some way to twist the rules when -- and Im not sure -- but Nick's shaking his head no, so that will be a more interesting meeting now that we know the tactics that are being used. So I'm sure we'll have a good time with that. MR. BELLOWS: The board also approved the SRA amendment and the DRI amendment for the Ave Maria Page 3 of 99 A 3 '! August ust 4 1 g , 2 11 0 as well as the development order amendment for the Heritage Bay to extend the buildout and expiration date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Thank you, Ray. Chairman's report. I normally reserve disclosures till before the hearings. I'm going to just -- but I have a little bit of a -- more discussion on my disclosure for the Hacienda Lakes issue. I read the volumes of data, and I'm putting a requisition in to Nick's office for more sticky tabs, because I ran out of them. So I had to cut up sheets of paper, but regardless, I got through the hundreds of questions on that very complex issue that we have. When the applicant asked to have a meeting, we originally scheduled a typical one -hour meeting in the morning, and after I read this I called him back and I said, you know, if we have to go through every one of my questions in an hour, we can't do it, and it would probably be more productive for the public meeting if I told you all the things I have as concerns and you came there more prepared, because, you know, guilty by ambush is not a real good way to run a meeting. So I spent four - and -a -half hours on Monday night with the applicant and his team of conspirators -- I mean professionals, and it was a very productive meeting. We walked away with some items clarified, at least for my understanding. Certainly not in agreement on everything, and I know they're coming today prepared to clarify some of the concerns I have. I'm explaining this to all of you because I in no way did this to circumvent the process of this board, but I know that if I asked -- in four -and -a -half hours on a one -to -one, if I did that in a public meeting without any clarification ahead of time, we could be here for three days, and I don't -- I didn't want to do that to you -all, so I tried to get as much on the table ahead of time as possible. And today when we talk, hopefully, we can be -- I can be more concise in my questions. So that's kind of like a chairman's report, but it will be my disclosure for Hacienda Lakes when we get to it. And with that, we'll move into the consent - agenda items. ** *First one up is Yahl Mulching and Recycling, CU- PL2010 -166. That was from last month. Does anybody have any comments, questions, or concerns about the consent? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The memo that we got from the county says the Collier County Planning Commission heard the Gordon River Greenway Park rezone, and I think this was just a matter of using a form and not correcting. It says at the top that it's the Yahl Mulching. It's the conditions for Yahl Mulching, but in the text it says Gordon River Greenway Parks, so that needs to be changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any issues with the conditions of approval? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that change in mind, is there a motion to approve on the consent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *The next consent item up is a -- oh, no. It's CPSP- 2010 -2. It's the modification of the Bayshore /Gateway Page 4 of 99 1 f h J 1 I A 3 August 4, 2011 Triangle overlay. Any discussion? Any concerns with that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to recommend? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 9 -0. ** *Okay. The next item up is a dual item. It's the one for the Golden Gate Estates shopping center. It's CP- 2008 -1 and PUDZ- PL2009 -1017. I have one clarification; it will be needed on the PUD. But let's take the CP -2008. Did anybody have any issues? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Maybe I missed it, but on Page 2, No. 3, automotive dealers and gasoline service stations, 5541, "gasoline service stations," comma, "without repair" has been struck. I thought we agreed that we were going to have a gasoline station there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to be done with the convenience store where it's also -- that was the one we questioned that was duplicated under convenience stores, I believe. Wasn't that the way -- and Rich is nodding his head yes. Wayne, is that how you recall it? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. And, yes, the 5541 Category No. 3, gasoline service stations, was stricken. And if you look under the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I missed it. MR. ARNOLD: -- food stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4413, which is 5499 is the one. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, 5499, it says, "miscellaneous food stores," and normally they're convenience stores -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, No. 13. MR. ARNOLD: -- with fuel pumps -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's why I didn't pick it up. Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else with just -- let's just take the CP item first. Anybody else have any issue on that one? Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: I do. The one thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You aren't allowed. MR. ARNOLD: Well, it's an issue of clarification, and I think -- I may have mentioned this to you after the hearing, Mr. Strain. But it's -- staff advised that they preferred that we put some of the operational standards that we agreed to in the PUD into the GMP text document, which were the hours of operation, et cetera. We felt that it was more appropriate to keep those in the PUD and not have those in the Comp Plan document itself and would ask that you consider removal of those. Page 5 of 99 �. Q 3'1 161 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, looks like you walked up here for something. MS. MOSCA: Yes, thank you. For the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning staff. Staff included the hours of operation within the subdistrict text because we felt as though they were characteristics of the specific uses that are within the subdistrict itself, therefore being appropriate to include those in the subdistrict as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And that gives the assurances to the property owners surrounding the center that those hours of operation and so forth are maintained. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, did you want to say something? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, because we -- you know, this originally came up surrounding -- it has always been in the PUD document that we were going to have hours of operation. It's never been part of the Comprehensive Plan. And then we got into the discussion about the convenience store and making sure we limited our hours to what's out there today with what I thought to be the ability to come back, should the hours of our neighbor's convenience store change, to request those same changes. So to force us to go through an amendment to the Comp Plan, an amendment to the PUD to address hours of operation seems excessive when we're still going to have to come to the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners to change those hours of operation and ultimately get a supermajority vote of the BCC, which unless we're behaving ourselves as a shopping center, we will not be successful. But to put us through a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a PUD amendment for hours of operation when that was never part of what was transmitted in the first place, I think, is excessive. And I think when we went through the analysis we were supposed to take those things from the PUD, the changes we made in the PUD, and include the topics that were in the previous Comp Plan amendment. And in the previous Comp Plan amendment language there were never hours of operation. So I don't think it was the intent of the board, although we made changes to the hours of operation in the PUD, to now insert those into the Comp Plan, since they weren't part of the Comp Plan originally. Building size was, and we made changes to the building size. Uses were; we made changes to the uses. And I thought that was the intent of the Planning Commission when they -- when they said we're going to discuss them both at the same time and then make the changes based upon what was in the Comp Plan language originally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michele, you seem anxious to counter the counterpoint. MS. MOSCA: No, actually, I'm not. I'd just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not anxious or you're just not going to or you're going to? MS. MOSCA: No. I mean, staff, again, because we have that level of specificity in the plan, it just seems appropriate because they are, in fact, the characteristics of those uses, that we would provide those additional assurances, just as we did for the specific uses within the subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, if they -- if they had those hours of operation in the Comp Plan -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and, of course, the PUD, they're required to come forward in a public process for the Comp Plan and for the PUD, right? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could they accomplish both at the same time? MS. MOSCA: They could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the difference being if it's in a Comp Plan, what happens then? If we've got the same public review for the both, they got the same notification for both, other than the fees that are paid, is there another difference? MS. MOSCA: Not really; it just does become cost prohibitive because it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just wondering why we would want to drive the cost up if the accomplished goal is the same. And that's kind of where I'm coming from. If we can accomplish the goal of a public hearing -- MS. MOSCA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why put an applicant through two processes to get to that same hearing? MS. MOSCA: Well, I do agree with you, but it does make it more difficult by providing for that -- those Page 6 of 99 1 61 1 A 3 -14 August 4, 2011 hours within the subdistrict. And I thought that was the applicant's rationale for providing those hours of operation was to limit those. If the applicant is able to just come in with a PUD amendment, they don't have as many hurdles. And, you know, I'm really not trying to create hurdles for them as I am trying to protect the neighborhood. They were -- the neighborhood was told that they would have restricted hours of operation. Again, these are characteristics of those specific uses. If we just put in the Cl through C3 uses, I likely would not have suggested the hours of operation also be put within the subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's one other thing that -- first of all, the hours of operation -- as I said, we have done simultaneous submittals; Comp Plan, PUD. The PUD always had hours of operation. The Comp Plan never did have hours of operation. Now, the process -- it's two processes. But remember, we were only allowed to amend the Comp Plan once a year. So I've got to wait till April of whatever year that is to start the Comp Plan amendment process, so that usually is a two -year process versus doing an amendment to the PUD, which can be anywhere between 9 and 12 months. I don't see why we would need to go through a two -year process when we have to go through a public - hearing process where what we've always advertised as part of the Comp Plan never had hours of operation. It had uses, which the community wanted, and the PUD always had more detail, which included hours of operation. So I don't know how it got shifted into the Comp Plan document on the basis of operational characteristics when they were never part of it in the first place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you sure that with House Bill 7207 that we still are limited to a Comp Plan every -- once every so many years? MR. YOVANOVICH: The board can do it however many times they want to, but they have to elect to create more frequent processes. Right now they do them every April. And, frankly, as you know, staff has -- it's been tough for staff to even meet that schedule with the every April because of a lot of things that are going on. And it's never been part -- my point is, the hours of operation have never been part of the Comp Plan. It has always been part of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Rich, you're not doing, you're not saying that what's in here doesn't reflect what happened at the hearing -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and that's the only thing we can discuss now. So if at the hearing this debate occurred -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It did. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And was the outcome to take it out of the Comp Plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was the -- what the vote was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let me -- I mean, I remember what we said was that whatever was matched in the Comp Plan to the changes we are making in the PUD to go ahead and make in the Comp Plan. That's almost -- the best I can recall, almost verbatim what I said, because I remember saying it. Because the question was, how much of this do we put in the Comp Plan? And we thought, well, whatever is in the Comp Plan currently that has to be changed by the language we're suggesting to be changed, change in the Comp Plan. That's what I understood happened. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. We wanted parody with the PUD and the Comp Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. You wanted things that you were changing in the PUD that were also discussed in the Comp Plan to be changed to be consistent. If something wasn't discussed in the Comp Plan, you didn't intend to put it -- to take it from the PUD and insert it in the Comp Plan, was my understanding of the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I agree, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You feel that the argument that this is not what happened at the hearing is a good argument? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think what happened at the hearing was what I just said, was that the Comp Plan had a series of parameters and so did the PUD. They differed. We changed the discussion -- during the meeting Page 7 of 99 �bI 1 A 3"' . August 4, 2011 we discussed both simultaneously. Some of the issues we discussed pertain to one document, both documents, or just one or the other. And I remember at the end trying to -- because the question came up, well, do we -- what do we change in the Comp Plan. And my comment was, we ought to be changing in the Comp Plan those items that match to the issues we raised in the PUD. But I wasn't -- and as much as I would have liked to have discussed this more then, I don't think we were discussing expanding the Comp Plan language. Heidi? MS. ASHTON: There's no legal requirement that the hours of operation are included in the GMP, and our position has typically been that we -- less is better. The hours of operation are really a local issue, so I don't know that DCA's review of the hours of operation, you know, would be deemed inconsistent with their state comprehensive plan. So, you know, it's a policy decision for you -all. There's not a legal requirement that it be in the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And, Mark, one more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At a commission vote, how many votes would be required to change the hours in the Comp Plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard's got his four fingers up, but Heidi's -- Heidi would have to tell us that. MS. ASHTON: For adoption, because of the resolution that we have, it would be a four -fifths vote -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In the future -- MS. ASHTON: -- in the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if they came in to change the hours in the P- -- if it was just in the PUD and they came forward to change in the future -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I wanted the votes on both. That's what I'm looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be four. MS. ASHTON: Yeah, the votes are the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On both? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And we have an expedited process now, as you're aware, with the Growth Management Plan amendment, so it doesn't get the kind of very detailed in -depth review that it previously got. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the vote's the same, I'm comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I maybe disagree. I'm going to agree with Michele that it should be in the Comp Plan, and the reason for it is nowhere in the Estates has anything been established with 40 acres. This is a major activity center they're putting out there. And everyone that was the neighbors any everything agreed that, you know, when you close it off at midnight, that that's time to quit. So I'm going to go with Michele on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, okay. And I just want to reiterate, I have probably tried to be the hardest and most scrutinizing I could be on this shopping center, and if there was anything wrong, I would tend to try to shout as loud as I could that I think it is wrong. On the same text, we have to be fair, and I believe the intent during our discussion was that it wasn't going to be in the Comp Plan. Now, had this come up during the discussion and we'd debated it then, fine. But I don't think we did, and I don't know if it would be the right thing to do to try to add it during consent or to believe it should be added from the last discussion we had. So I'm not tending to go along with it being added to the Comp Plan. I would rather see it left as -- in the PUD. Anybody else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just going to agree with you. I recall some of the conversation that related to, in my view, the fairness issue. If E's or any other organization were going to change its time, they should not -- under the equal provisions they should not be put into a position where they'd have to be two years, three years, potentially, before they can meet that competition. Page 8 of 99 l a s r 1 1,, A 5 August 4, 2011 So I -- and irrespective of that in fact, I think that it's wrong to be in the GMP. It has never historically been the case. MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair, may we have some clarification, though. Are you just talking about the hours of operation, or you talking about the outdoor music, which is No. 2 under the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going back to what I believe we said at the Planning -- MS. ASHTON: Just hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Commission meeting. We're only -- the only one we're discussing here today is the hours of operation. MS. ASHTON: Okay. I just want to make sure, because the category you're looking at does have a No. 2 for outdoor music. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Just the hours of operation. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? We're only talking about the first one, CP- 2008 -1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval or denial? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa made the motion to approve. Brad, you seconded it? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second it, but with the stipulation we're removing Cl, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We're removing C 1, which is the hours of operation. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just maybe to make Diane more comfortable is that since it has the same vote, if it's going to require four people to vote for it, they're going to vote for both of them. So the point is, the scrutiny level is going to be the same -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the PUD as if it had a PUD and the growth management with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. Okay. With that, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *Next one is the same subject but different issue, PUDZ- PL2009 -1017. This is the PUD portion of the same shopping center. Does anybody have any issues with the consent - agenda summary? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. And, Ray, we had talked about the dumpster location being added as an exhibit and they would be limited to no closer distances from the external property lines than shown on that exhibit. How is that -- did that exhibit -- I may have missed it. Did it get added? That was one of our stipulations, and I'm just -- C -- MR. BELLOWS: It should be added as -- with Exhibit C, as part of Exhibit C. Page 9 of 99 a 3 61 August 4, 2011 MS. DESELEM: For the record, good morning, Kay Deselem. They didn't add that exhibit. They just did the strikethrough underline of the PUD document, but they incorporated the dumpster location exhibit into the master plan. So it is included on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then can we see a copy of the master plan? Why wouldn't it be included in our consent? If they changed the master plan, why wouldn't it be part of our consent review? MR. ARNOLD: It's -- for the record, Wayne Arnold. It is in my packet, Mr. Strain. It is the PUD master plan exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And maybe -- MR. ARNOLD: If you'll note -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did I miss it, guys? Do you all have a master -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We do not have it in ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't have it in ours, and that is a problem. MR. ARNOLD: It's right after our development table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it didn't make it to our plan. We have a wellfield easement or a wellfield design after our plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: There's a blank page that says "master plan." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven blank pages all where exhibits are supposed to go and revolving (sic) landscape buffers, deviation -- well, deviation is there, planting plans and landscape buffers, but I have nothing on here about dumpster locations. Go ahead. Kay, what's going on? MS. DESELEM: What appears to have happened -- we gave you the strikethrough underline version to show the changes, but you did not get the clean version of the master plan. If we may, we can submit it today for the record. It's on the visualizer so you have it, but that is the document that would go to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If this is the new master plan, there are several things that are supposed to be on it, including the addition of the wall that we wanted and things like that. And I see it there. Would you mind copying that, distributing that, let us review it during our break. When we come back from break, we will make a decision on this at that time. That will give us enough time to take a quick look at it. MS. DESELEM: Most definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we will postpone the vote on this particular consent item till after break. Is that okay with everyone? Okay. ** *Okay. And that takes us to our regular advertised public hearings. The first one is PUDA- PL2011 -703. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During the -- when I first came in this morning, I think I spoke to Jane for a few minutes -- she's the applicant's representative -- about the project. Basically it was scheduling, nothing else. So with that, that's the only disclosure I have. Bob and I may have talked about it as well for scheduling purposes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke briefly to Mr. Mulhere on my way in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I received emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and I think -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw an email last night, but honestly I didn't get time to read it because I had several hundred other pages to read, so okay. With that, Bob, it's all yours. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, my name is Bob Mulhere, here on behalf of Germain Properties. With me this morning, Jane Eichhorn, from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; and Dominik Amico, also from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; and John Garbo with Germain Properties of Naples. Up until late last night, or last -- late yesterday afternoon, I think we thought that this would be a relatively simple request. We still think it's a relatively simple request. Page 10 of 99 I V I i 4l 7 161 1 A A Au st 4, 2011 We are proposing to add a single use to the PUD. Let me start out by giving you a little description of the general area. Testing. The subject PUD is right here fronting on Pine Ridge Road. North is this way, south is that way, west that way. If you look at properties in the surrounding area, this is Kraft's -- Manhattan Kraft's building, and this is an office building owned by Gulf Coast Bank, and this is a retail bank facility here. This is the Nissan dealer, which I'm sure you're all familiar with. Across the street you have hotel, some -- a restaurant, Hooters, Harley. This is, obviously, close to the interchange of 1 -75, which is a little bit to the east. Let me point out one other thing. The subject property is actually this cleared piece here, which would be the site of the additional use, which would be new and used car dealership. We had a neighborhood information meeting. I think there was about 18 or 20 folks in attendance. Many of those in attendance lived in the residential area. I'm pointing my finger to it on the -- well, you can't really see it -- on the visualizer. Just in here. Once I think they understood that this -- there was a significant separation between this property and their property and that there was also a preserve within the PUD between them and this property and that we would not be having amplified announcements or noise of any kind, I believe that their concerns were addressed. I don't know if there's anybody here today, but certainly -- to speak on behalf of that association, but if they are here, I'm sure we'll hear from them. But I believe we addressed their concerns. We also had, at the neighborhood information meeting -- I don't know if it occurred during or just after -- we had a discussion with representatives from Kraft, and they expressed a concern about the possibility of having a used -car -only dealership on this site, and they had concerns about that. And we agreed to limiting this use to new and used cars only. Obviously, a new -car dealership does sell used cars. But we can understand the concern about used car only. So we were in agreement and we would put that on the record today that we would agree. And by putting that stipulation under the use, we would either prohibit expressly used car only or limit it to just new and used cars. There have been several discussions with the bank. There were a couple of representatives in attendance at the neighborhood information meeting, and they expressed -- and I also received a phone call pretty early on from Garrett Richter indicating that they had concerns. I shared those concerns with my client. At the neighborhood information meeting, there were a couple representatives from the bank. They, again, expressed some concerns. One of the concerns expressly represented was that the existing dealership created some problems by loading and offloading within the alleyway that connects Whippoorwill to Kraft Boulevard. And I think I can point that out for you. You can see this alleyway here, and it comes around here and goes out to Whippoorwill -- and also that they were parking vehicles within that alleyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you move that picture up a little bit. Oh, okay. I was hoping you -- you cut it off anyway. Okay, thank you. MR. MULHERE: Sorry. And we felt that that is really an operational issue, one that we can easily deal with by limiting, if -- the -- by designing the site such that the loading and offloading will occur internal to the site -- and we can certainly agree to any kind of stipulation that we would not park vehicles on Kraft. And obviously we're separated from the alleyway so that -- you know, we're not going to park our vehicles on the alleyway that we're separated from. But I think the concern is the vista from the bank office building across Kraft Boulevard to this site. So, again, we would not -- we would not park any vehicles along Kraft Boulevard. There's actually a set of deed restrictions that are fairly comprehensive -- and I know you don't generally consider those, but I did want to get that on the record -- that deal with landscaping, deal with protecting the view corridor down Kraft Boulevard from Pine Ridge Road to the Kraft building, that vista there, and so there's setbacks. All of the deed restrictions -- I reviewed them -- they exceed the county code requirements. We'd have to adhere to those. There was also a concern expressed about what the building would look like. It will be -- we haven't -- my client has not determined which dealership will go on this site. There was some discussion with a particular Page 11 of 99 A 3 161 1 o August 4, 2011 1 dealership, but that has not come to completion, but it will be a new -car dealership, and it will be a new building, obviously, and it will be designed very attractively and with landscaping. So, again, we don't see that there should be any concern as long as we agree to limiting it to new and used cars only. I really think that concludes my presentation. We thought it was a rela- -- oh, I do want to talk a little bit about some of the other uses that are allowed just by example. If you look at the PUD -- and I'm sure you've looked at this already -- the PUD allows building construction, general contractors, building material, hardware, and garden supply stores, limited to kitchen cabinets, doors, garage doors, windows, wood flooring, insulation material, fencing, specialty trade contractors of various kinds, miscellaneous repair for bicycles, cameras, lawn mowers, locksmiths, medical, dental, instrument repair, so forth. It also allows for a number of retail uses, auto supply stores, banks, clothing stores, restaurants, food stores, grocery stores, general merchandise stores, home furnishing stores, hotels and motels, paper, glass, wallpaper, hardware, lawn and garden supply stores. So the -- there was a reference in a letter from the bank that indicated that this was an office complex. It is not an office complex. These uses are all permitted on this piece of property. Actually, I don't think the letter was from the bank. I think the letter was actually from the law firm of -- Passidomo's law firm. So -- and I saw that John Passidomo was here, and I'm sure he could speak to that issue. But the uses are in no way restricted to Class A office space. Having said that, we can appreciate the concerns and we are more than willing to put conditions in place that would address those concerns, including, you know, an appropriate landscape buffer along Kraft where the bank building or the office building fronts Kraft directly along the pathway of the proposed site for the use -- for the new and used car lot. So, again, I think that concludes my presentation. I'm sure you have some questions; I'll be happy to try to answer them. And if I forgot anything, Jane's going to tell me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. Is this location at an activity center? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So those are approved through C5, correct? MR. MULHERE: Some of those uses are C5 uses, yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I just wanted to know if it was at a major activity center. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. -- Bob; Mr. Murray after Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Mulhere, the property to the west that's all wooded at this point, is that whole area preserve, or is that just undeveloped land? MR. MULHERE: No. That is undeveloped, and as I understand it there is -- there has been a submittal -- I'm not sure if they've submitted. They've had a preapp to rezone that to PUD. They may have submitted. They're asking for any number of uses. You are correct, though, you can tell by looking at the aerial that there are -- there's some ST- designated lands in this area here, and there's some wetlands in here. You know, I couldn't say whether they would mitigate to impact those or generally preserve them since they have a preserve requirement anyway through the county requirement. So I'm sure that some portion of that -- yeah. This is the ST area, just to -- you can see it outlined in green. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Big ST area. MR. MULHERE: So -- thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I don't know what their proposal is but, yes, that's also commercial, which -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The -- in the PUD you're also subject to architectural standards; isn't that correct? MR. MULHERE: Yes, we would be. COMMISSIONER CARON: There were several -- MR. MULHERE: Specific and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: --specific -- MR. MULHERE: And generally to the county's architectural requirements as well, which are not reiterated in the PUD but which we are subject to. And they're -- as I said, there's a set of deed restrictions in place. There's a Page 12 of 99 V a 46 .. 161 1 August 4, 2011 gentleman here who's registered to speak on behalf of Kraft or with the association. He may be able to shed some light on that, but there are some deed restrictions. And I know they had a concern as well about what the building would look like. And, obviously, we can certainly agree to it having a finished facade both on the frontage facing the bank as well as the Pine Ridge frontage. We would -- we would want to do that in any case. I mean, it's going to be an attractive building, and I think the county would require that, but just in case, we certainly agreed to it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, it has to be considered some sort of outparcel thing -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- so it would have to be all around, I would think. But then again, we've been through this more than once. The issue of people parking and causing problems on that alleyway, if I remember when we approved the Nissan dealership, we spent a lot of time trying to make sure that those big car vans were loaded and unloaded on site of the actual dealership and that they were not blocking Whippoorwill or the alley. I don't know -- and I didn't have time to ask staff to pull up that PUD, because I think we made some pretty strong stipulations in that PUD to make -- to ensure that this kind of thing did not happen. If it's happening, then get code enforcement out there, because we were very specific that we did not want these trailers interfering with other businesses around the area, because we've had problems in other areas with these vans parking in the street, on major roadways -- MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- parking in the middle of them. I mean, we fought this up at Wiggins Pass. MR. MULHERE: And we designed that site to allow internal only. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. So -- and I -- I'm pretty sure we did it on the Nissan dealership as well. And, you know, I'd -- whatever we can do to clear that up for people would be a good thing, because we do not want that happening, and we made it pretty clear, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, good morning. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've confused me a little bit when you indicated there're somewhat restrictive requirements already on the property with regard to botanicals, landscaping. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then you said you'd be open to more restrictive stipulation. I'm confused, because if the LDC is less than restrictive, that's already in the deed; what are you really asking for -- MR. MULHERE: Well, specifically -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: --or suggesting? MR. MULHERE: Well, specifically -- if it would provide some sense of comfort, what I was specifically referring to was a landscape buffer adjacent or along Kraft where -- you know, where that interface with the bank is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that I understood but then I didn't, obviously, appreciate what you meant by more restrictive -- MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for these deed restrictions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. While you're looking for those, I'll just have you entertain this thought as well. When we did another dealership up on Wiggins -- up there by Wiggins Pass -- MR. MUL14ERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- there was a concern raised, I think Ms. Caron did, and I think a very good concern for whether or not there would be parking on the roof with visibility. Let me just get that over with right now. Is it ever intended that vehicles shall be parked up on the roof? MR. MULHERE: Single -story building, it's limited, and no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just want to make sure. You're looking for comfort; I'm looking for comfort. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, also if you go to the east coast sometimes you might be considered an alleyway around the building where vehicles are -- they drive them up to a level of about the roofs. They're not on the roof, but they're -- Page 13 of 99 A 3 *41 61 August ust 4, 2011 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. There's no intention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No visibility of any vehicles of that sort? MR. MULHERE: No intention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the building might -- when it's completed, might look as though it were a business building; is that valid? MR. MULHERE: That's the intent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a lot of glass and or shine? MR. MULHERE: No. Of course, they don't -- you know, there are certain -- certain dealers have certain requirements or conditions, and they don't -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: From the -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- companies that I'm aware of, yes. MR. MULHERE: And the other thing that I neglected to mention that you made me think of -- I don't know how, but you did -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good that way. What can I say? MR. MULHERE: -- is that there will be no collision, and we're agreeing to no collision shop on the site. Now, there will be repairs, but those will all be internalized in the air conditioning part of the building, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And I assume there would be a car wash for the benefit of whomever, but that's all ancillaries to the operation of a new and used -car dealership. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My concern was for visibility. My concern was for what many people would consider to be something that looks a little schmaltzy and not really as nice as the area is. The buildings that are there, the Kraft Construction buildings, are really rather nice, and the bank building is nice. So I guess it's very important -- no, I don't guess; I know it's very important to protect that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So getting back to the deed restrictions. MR. MULHERE: I wanted to just share these with you. I won't read them all because that -- you know, but there's standards for design, for site design. These were prepared by Architectural Network. So there's standards for site design, there's standards for building design, including roofing requirements, facade design, building facades, storefronts, awnings, building styles not accepted, materials, standards for signage, standards for landscaping, building and utility plantings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Standards for landscaping. That's -- by that I assume that is after the building is constructed, those standards apply around the building? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, all -- on the site. There's landscaping. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But wouldn't lend themselves out to the property line where you -- MR. MULHERE: They would, they would, yes, they would. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I'm trying to get to the root of where you've indicated they're more restrictive than our LDC, but you'd be open to further stipulation? MR. MULHERE: Well, just -- the only reason we offered it up was a sense of comfort, you know, that we would pay particular attention to the landscape buffer along Kraft Road where the bank and the -- and this property interface, so that would be along this area right here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That I understood. Well, I -- absent a drawing, absent a representation of what it might look like, I'm going to have to relate to what the staff will end up doing if we approve it, and the stipulations that will be included will make certain that this is taken care of. I'm assuming the extra landscaping would be additional trees and such? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, hedges and trees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hedges and trees. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, one thing. Page 14 of 99 6I A 3 August 4, 2011 Bob, the PUD has a requirement for lighting 20 -foot height and stuff. There's no deviation from that. MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you'll probably be brighter than a normal parking lot but -- MR. MULHERE: There's no request to deviate from anything in the PUD other than to add this use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I had only one question until you started talking. MR. MULHERE: Oh, why does that happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I'm up to nine. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's not too bad. It's under -- it's not two figures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, so far. I want to make sure everybody's clear on what you said. You started out your presentation by addressing a concern from a residential neighborhood, and you assured them you would have no amplified music or noise of any kind. MR. MULHERE: That's right. The announcements will -- salesman so and so come to the office. None of that will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You're not going to do that? MR. MULHERE: No exterior amplified -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So clarification, no amplified noise of any kind is okay? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said that you were going to have new and used cars so that you avoid the only -- having only just used cars. MR. MUL14ERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Like a restaurant and a bar. What percentage of cars is -- means -- could you have, like, 99 used cars and 1 new one and say, I'm a new and used -car dealership? We get in the same issue with bars and restaurants. So what percentage are you going to have in a ratio between new and used? Because that needs to be in here in order for you to qualify as not being just used. MR. MULHERE: You know, that's a hard one for me to answer. I'd have to think about that a little bit. The intent, honestly, was just like every other new -car dealership that you see, they also take trade -ins. I mean, there's no way to do business without taking trade -ins, and then you either wholesale those trade -ins or you sell them, if they're a fairly high - quality product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But just like the restaurants and like we're experiencing in parts of the county right now, we say "no bars." In fact, in Golden Gate Estates we have an exclusive prohibition to bars, yet a restaurant opens up that serves a little bit of food, and all of a sudden they're a bar and they're legal because they serve so much food. So, now, how are we going to avoid that with the car situation here? MR. MULHERE: By -- I understand what you're looking for. You're looking for some sort of a statement that says the majority of sales shall be new cars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care about -- I want the product on site. I don't want -- I think the concern is not just sales, but the product that you retain on site, a bunch of broken -down used cars, or are you going to have new cars? MR. MULHERE: I understand. Maybe we can continue, and I'll try to -- I might need five minutes or something; we'll have a conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said that your design for loading and offloading will be internal to the site. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Go ahead. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that the design for loading and offloading will be internal to the site. Was that a commitment? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's a commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to have no vehicle parking along Kraft Road? MR. MULHERE: That's a commitment, yes. Page 15 of 99 161 t 1 A A st4 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- and I want to ask, I guess, Ray, they talked about facades, and they would have a full facade on the north and east fronts, but is the code more strict than that? I'm assuming the code is at least that or more; is that fair to say? MR. MULHERE: I don't think it's more. I don't think -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you check and make sure that if the facade is not limited to just the frontage of the street. Their offer to put it on the east towards the bank as well as the frontage is better then than the code, or the code may say, in a case like this all the way around, but what I'm concerned about is the future ST area to the east and to the south where the Kraft building is if the facade is not protected from that viewpoint either. So maybe we could look at that before this finishes. MR. MULHERE: I think the issue is -- I mean, I don't -- certainly we understand the need to treat this frontage with a full facade and, of course, here as well. Of course, this will be set back a little bit. There has to be a place where we can then access the repair, you know, shop, and so on and so forth, so obviously that's going to be in the back of the building, and that would be most likely -- the most likely place where you would load and offload cars as well. So, I mean, we'll have to treat that through a landscape buffer with our adjacent property owner. And I don't know that -- I don't know that this area right here would be -- if we look at the ST,, I don't think it actually -- it sort of comes up and then moves around like that. So there is an area where there's no ST immediately adjacent to us that I doubt would be a buffer, would be open for development on our neighbor's property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, considering that the ST you showed a little earlier includes the fire station that somehow got there, I'm sure that anybody can put a building anywhere they want in that ST before it's said and done. MR. MULHERE: Well, to be fair, that was put on the zoning codes in the mid'70s, so things have changed because of development and so on and so forth. So you come back in during your development and you do an environmental assessment. But clearly, looking at the aerial, there are some wetlands on that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're -- and while we're continuing on, before we finish this discussion, I'll get a reading from staff on the facade issue. Do you have any problem limiting your use to Tracts B and E? MR. MULHERE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You volunteered to add a landscape buffer. Where and what kind? MR. MULHERE: Sir, there would be a landscape buffer required along Kraft Road, and it's a private -- it's a private road, so -- and it wouldn't be a Type D, and we would need to put a Type D in there, but I'm thinking a 15- foot -wide landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your statement was, we'll add a landscape buffer. When you add something, that means you're doing more than what you already had to put there. MR. MULHERE: I meant more in terms of -- and I think -- hopefully I clarified it in response to Mr. Murray -- and more in terms of plantings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'd like to know what that is. MR. MULHERE: I think we're going to have to just take a minute to quantify that for you. I'll take a look at the code. I want to be able to give you a specific response in terms of what the plantings would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said you're going to have no collision shop on site, right? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Most dealerships have repair bays, and those bays, at least the ones that I have to take -- go to once in a while, open up front and back. And when you do that, the repairs going on, which are a lot of air guns and noise and tools and equipment and people starting early and working till whatever hours, the noise travels both front and -- both directions in that building. Have you got any solutions or suggestions as to where you'd think the best location for a repair shop is and how you'd protect the sound from that repair shop to the adjoining area? For example, that office building; the last thing that office building needs to look out at is a repair shop. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you -- I mean, because you've got -- you basically gave us a blank slate for the Page 16 of 99 I V 0 d. ' • Mir 161 1 A ) August 4, 2011 layout of the property. MR. MULHERE: So it will be within the building enclosed in air conditioning, so there will be, you know, obviously no desire to leave those garage doors open other than to bring vehicles in and exit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to air condition your bays -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for your repairs? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The entire -- the entire thing will be air conditioned. You can't even get employees today to work without doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of product are you putting here? Is it, like, Lamborghinis or something where the people can afford to pay for that kind of repair? MR. MULHERE: That's the design, would be air - conditioned service bays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when those big doors are open, you're air conditioning the out- -- wow. MR. MULHERE: That's why they get closed. BMW is that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I'd sure like to know where that is -- where you're thinking of putting it and then any restrictions you could suggest as -- in regards to the method you'd try to control the sound. If it's going to be that your bays will be closed when they're not -- when people aren't entering and exiting -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that will be fine. MR. MULHERE: And we would commit to that, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're -- outstanding we have three issues which we'll listen to the staff report, we'll listen to the public, and then I have three issues to address pending anything that might come up from the other input. The one is the percentage of new and used cars, the second is the addition to the landscape buffer, and third is the location of the finished facades. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just -- that's okay. I understand you're struggling over there. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Struggling. So kind. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One last item for me. Is this a franchise dealership? MR. MULHERE: I don't know the exact answer to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not a franchise? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is a franchise? MR. MULHERE: It will be, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. They have certain requirements. Okay. MR. MUL1 ERE: They do, they do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question is valid, though, about the ratio, certainly. MR. MUL14ERE: Yeah. We're going to -- while you're going on, we'll have a conversation about that and hopefully be able to respond to that, and also the landscape buffer, I have a response for that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Ray looks like he may have a response to the architectural. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Section 5.05.08, No. 2 talks about primary facades, and we have Carolina Valera here who's our urban design architectural review staff person. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Carolina. MS. VALERA: Good morning. Carolina Valera, principal planner with the comprehensive section. I understand the questions are, what are the primary facades? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We want to know -- MS. VALERA: And I'm sorry. I came to drop off something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what facades on -- what facades on the buildings that would go on this site. Now, they'll probably have one or two buildings, if not more, but at least they're going to have a dealership and they're going to have a repair shop. They could be combined into one building; they could be separate buildings. MS. VALERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are the facade requirements for each one of those buildings if they limit their Page 17 of 99 161 A 34 August 4, 2011 -- and they've agreed to limit their construction to the vacant parcel north -- or to the right of those office buildings in the front there, so -- MS. VALERA: Well, definitely any building fronting -- is that Pine Ridge? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. VALERA: That is a primary facade, regardless of the use, so they will have to meet all the requirements for primary facade, glazing and other design treatments for that facade, and also that road, that's south -- is that -- I'm sorry. I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kraft Road. MS. VALERA: -- if this is -- that cannot be facing north, right? That is what, east? MR. BELLOWS: Well, let me orient it. MS. VALERA: Yeah, thank you. So that east road along the property, that's -- also will have to meet the primary- facade requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VALERA: Of any buildings, you know, one or two or how many buildings that are fronting that road will have to meet primary- facade requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, is that a private drive, or is that a public- dedicated road? Because, Carolina, wouldn't it matter because that's -- MS. VALERA: It does not matter, no. MR. MULHERE: It's private. MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't matter for -- MS. VALERA: It doesn't matter if it's private or public; they'll have to meet primary facades. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. But it's not -- are you considering it a collector then? MS. VALERA: The collector road and arterial road says for non - retail type uses for churches and, you know, when the zoning doesn't require architectural review. That's when the arterial/collector road kick in. But for any project that has to have architectural review, it doesn't matter if it's a public or private street. Any facade fronting a road or a street will have to meet primary- facade requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then what about the backside distance from residential? Doesn't that bring -- MS. VALERA: Yeah. There's a -- 300 feet requirement. But, again, if the project is -- and I'm not sure. I'm sorry, I just came in to drop off something. Is this a nonresidential PUD; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, nonresidential. MS. VALERA: So any buildings, regardless of the distance to a residence, will have to meet architectural requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So are you saying all four facades? MS. VALERA: No, no, no. That four facades is just for shopping center. Is this a shopping center? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. VALERA: No. So no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. VALERA: So all you have is facades along Pine Ridge, the north road, and facades facing that east road will have to meet primary- facade requirements. Only those two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: May I ask Bob, do you have any kind of preliminary site plan -- MR. MULHERE: We don't. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: -- for the building? MR. MULHERE: We don't at this point. We're working with a particular dealership that I'd -- you know, that has not come to fruition, so we're kind of back to the drawing board on that, but -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I was out there. MR. MULHERE: I think we -- but we do understand that it needs to be a new -car dealership. Page 18 of 99 v a .L M b1 A August 4, 2011 The -- I just wanted to point out, perhaps for Mr. Schiffer, if it's okay, this is a conservation area within the PUD. So between this building and this building and this conservation area, the perspective is you're not -- you know, this is blocked -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree, I agree. MR. MULHERE: -- so -- it did -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: We're still waiting on an answer on the percentage. I think -- Mr. Germain was unable to be here, but Jane is talking to him on the phone, and I don't see her back here yet. On the landscape buffer, if I could put this exhibit on the visualizer, what we would propose is a Type B buffer width, which is 15 feet, which is consistent with the code, but with Type C plantings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ali, okay. MR. MULHERE: You can see there's a double hedge row in there and you have more trees. It's actually doubling everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Type B with Type C planting. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the reason I'm getting this clarification now, Bob, is I want to make sure that if there are any speakers -- and they understand what you're offering so that if that mitigates some of their concerns, at least we know it by the time they get up here. MR. MULHERE: And I do have an answer to -- the maximum amount of used cars on the site at any point in time would be no more than 35 percent. So 65 percent new, 35 percent used maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, okay. So maximum of used cars is 35 percent, new cars is -- new cars will be anything that you want to put in there -- MR. MULHERE: Right, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but you're never going to have more than 35 percent used cars? MR. MULHERE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions before we get to stain. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, it's all yours. MS. DESELEM: Good morning, again. I'm Kay Deselem, principal planner with zoning. And you have the staff report. It was revised last on 7/18/11. The staff report explains who the proper owners are, who the applicant and the agent are, explains a requested action, explains that it's an 8.87 -acre tract as described in the location provided by the applicant, and you have the purpose and description as also described in the staff report and by the applicant. The applicant has told you what is around it, so I won't go on to that again. There's a Growth Management Plan consistency finding, finding that it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan; that includes a transportation element review and a notation that there really isn't anything changed for the Coastal Construction Management Plan areas, so there was no review required. And staff has provided an analysis that includes the transportation review and zoning services review where we go into a discussion about what the new and used car sale and service category allows, specifically the uses that would be allowed. And my understanding is now the applicant has clarified that somewhat and limited it. And staff has provided an exhibit showing you where the tracts are to describe B and E as it is platted. And staff is recommending approval with the stipulation that the new and used car use be limited to only Tracts B and E. And we have findings of fact, both PUD and rezone, in support of our recommendation. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, the property -- the drawing you saw up there shows the whole west side of the property. Is that the property? Because in the packet some of the documents don't show that. It just shows the front two parcels, which I think are tract -- I can't read it. It's too small. MS. DESELEM: They are, in actuality, amending the entire PUD. But the part that Mr. Germain is more Page 19 of 99 6 1 "Lo, A 30 August 4, 2011 involved in, is the owner of, are the two tracts that are vacant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is -- MS. DESELEM: What the applicant showed on the site, right -- yeah, outlined in red, that is the entire tract of the PUD itself The part where it appears to be cleared, that's Tracts B and D? E? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they are the subject -- MS. DESELEM: E. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that is what we're looking at now, correct? MS. DESELEM: Well, we're amending the entire PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But he will only own the front two parcels? MS. DESELEM: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. MS. DESELEM: He only owns it, and that's why staff is recommending, since that's what the representation was at the NIM, that that was where they wanted the use to be, and they really didn't want to re- evaluate and, you know, do the entire site as a car dealership. Staff included that condition in the PUD recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I got it. Okay. I'm good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I just thought of something I probably should have checked before I got here today. Maybe you can answer it for me. The property owners are Kraft Office Center, Germain Real Estate Company, and Pine Ridge Investors in Naples. So the Kraft buildings in the back, which I assume are owned by Kraft, are also owners of the original PUD, too, I believe, aren't they? So they would have been -- when they sold property, they would have deed restricted it to protect themselves, I would have assumed, and, secondly, could the Germain property owner make these changes without the consent of the other property owners, since they're all in the same PUD? MS. DESELEM: There may well be deed restrictions that would govern it outside the scope of zoning, so I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But from a PUD perspective, you've got three property owners that own the PUD. MS. DESELEM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can any one of them go in and change the PUD since it's for all, or don't all have to consent to the change? MS. DESELEM: In this case I believe we have authorization from all three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. Okay, thank you. MS. DESELEM: Pd have to go back and double -check the documents, but I believe that's what's represented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob wants to talk so I can have another question. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I don't know that we have authorization from the bank property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the bank one of the property owners on that subject -- on that piece -- MR. MULHERE: Within the PUD, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You have two PUDs there, Bob. You have an east and a west. MR. MULHERE: Oh, that's correct. I'm sorry. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think you're -- I think they're on the east side, not the west side. MR. MULHERE: Kraft, it's Kraft. Yeah, thank you. And we did get authorization from Kraft. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was kind of thinking of that, but then after -- I just wanted to make sure we are talking about one PUD, although they're east and west halves. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Split right down the middle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: There are two distinct PUDs, Pine Ridge Center and Pine Ridge Center West. We're only addressing Pine Ridge Center West. It's kind of confusing because the Kraft building goes on both. MR. MULHERE: Split -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so does the road. Page 20 of 99 August 4, 2011 MS. DESELEM: So there were variances approved to allow that zero setback for that south portion. That same thing doesn't apply to the north part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Kay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll -- Ray, do we have any -- first of all, public speakers, we'll ask for the registered public speakers first. If anybody else wants to talk, we certainly will provide the time. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: We have two speakers. First speaker is Frank Delgado, to be followed by John Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Delgado, if you'll come up and use one of the microphones and state your name for the record. You were sworn in when you -- earlier? MR. DELGADO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DELGADO: Frank Delgado, Summit Management, speaking on behalf of Kraft Office Center, LLC, which is not Manhattan Kraft, just so you know. And the only couple of comments we had were actually addressed with regard to the percentage of new and used. That's quite suitable for what we were hoping to have so -- and they've been working with us on that, so I think that's great. And the only other comment we had is that we wanted to -- and it appears this is going this way anyways and they're cooperating -- is that the buildings have an exterior appearance that's in keeping with what's existing on site in the previously approved PUD uses. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. DELGADO: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John? MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South in the City of Naples. Our firm represents First National Bank of the Gulf Coast. As indicated in your staff report and as Mr. Mulhere has indicated in his introductory remarks, the bank's corporate headquarters and ancillary bank branch facilities face the site of the proposed car dealership and share an entry road into what currently constitutes an office park with it. We have asked for, on numerous occasions, a master plan for the property, what is contemplated. We've asked to -- in order to frame our sense of how we can reconcile what now is exclusively an upscale office park with the introduction of new C4 and C5 uses. We were just retained yesterday, and we apologize for any inconvenience that may have caused. We submitted a letter last evening, which we shared with the Planning Commission, in which we reiterated our request to see a master plan. And we appreciate the extraordinary effort the Planning Commission's gone through this morning to try to anticipate and address what we think could be irreconcilable incompatibilities between what is now only an upscale office park and new C4 and C5 uses. We know enough to know at this point that there are existing C4 and C5 uses in this planned unit development that are permitted. But the fact is, we respectfully submit, there's a time warp between what's there on the site, what the PUD says could be there, and what is proposed to be there with the amendment submitted to you for consideration this morning. We respectfully request -- and we do this with deep reservations. The bank officials at First National Bank have been champions of commerce in our community for decades. They rally around commerce and are fully supportive of it, but they respectfully submit that commerce needs to be reconciled with the integrity of the existing corporate park development and that a master plan be submitted so that we can actually respond in a meaningful way to the kind of protections that would have to be imposed in order to ensure there was, in fact, compatibility. There is -- there's one entrance road to this corporate park. We can imagine tractor trailers delivering automobiles to a car dealership trying to make its way through that entrance to this entry road and trying to do that with the existing office park. Page 21 of 99 16 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 You fully appreciate, I know, that we take no comfort from any deed restrictions. You have no enforcement ability with any deed restrictions. And with all due respect, any conversation that may have been proffered as to deed restrictions is meaningless. We appreciate the -- what was -- I thought was a torturous attempt to try to contemplate what could be protections, and there are protections that we take comfort in that were discussed this morning, but the fact is without a master plan in front of us, we're shadowboxing with a ghost. We can't contemplate everything that could happen when you introduce C5 uses into what is now an upscale office park. So, with deep reservations, we respectfully request that you recommend denial or, at the very least, recommend that the petitioners come back to you and to us and to the public with a master plan so that you can do, in a meaningful way, a reconciliation of what we think, so far, from what we know, could be irreconcilable in compatibilities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, John. And I have a question. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not necessarily against the use if a master plan was produced that at least showed you or your client how they're being protected in somewhat of the ways we even discussed this morning, but maybe there are others. Is that a reasonable conclusion to what you've just said? MR. PASSIDOMO: It goes beyond what I meant to say, Mr. Chairman. I think it's possible -- we think it's a healthy exercise for everybody to go through. At this point in time when we look at C5 uses and the uses that are near there now in this corporate park, we cannot reconcile those incompatibilities. We'd like to at least go through the exercise, and we've asked for that repeatedly, to see a master plan, so that we can come back to you and say, we think that it can be improved, we think it can be improved dramatically, but we just, frankly, don't think those incompatibilities are reconcilable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, what I really think would be counterproductive is to suggest to this applicant maybe that you look at a continuance then come back with a master plan after getting with you and your client only to have you say, well, we don't want the use anyway. That would be kind of a waste of everybody's time. So if you're digging your heels in and saying, this just isn't the use, we're not going to accept it no matter what, that's one way of looking at it. But if there's a glimmer of a compromise or a glimmer of a way this thing could come -- be good neighbors, you guys could be compatible, I'd sure think that's worthy of considering. And that's what I'm trying to understand. If you guys are just going to say out -and -out no, then tell us that now. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, we're not saying out -and -out no, but we're not saying out - and -out yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. PASSIDOMO: I'm saying, we need to go through this exercise, we have every confidence that it can be constructive, and we intend to participate in it in a meaningful way and with an eye toward finding an optimistic solution that can reconcile incompatibilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because, to be honest with you, you are in an interchange activity center one. That's one of the more intense uses. You have to anticipate any array of uses there. And I understand the PUD didn't include these, but with the right elements of compatibility, not all car dealerships in this kind of area would be detrimental. There are some that would be, but I think you might be able to find a compromise, and that's what I'm hoping to see, only because this is a use that that interchange activity center already allows. Now, it may not be in the current PUD, but they could have asked for it. And at the time, had they asked for it, I don't know why we would have said no to it. So it could have evolved differently. But as I think you started out saying, time is the factor, and -- MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I think that -- we have more of a micro rather than a macro analysis. We fully appreciate what could have happened there and what could happen in -- at the interchange. But the fact is, when you look at what is there now -- that's why we alluded earlier to a time warp. What is there now is an upscale corporate office park, and all the uses are an upscale corporate office park. The -- there are uses in the existing PUD that, quite frankly, aren't reconcilable with those existing uses, and we think that without protections, introducing new C5 uses into this situation could make a bad situation worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you, John. Anybody else have any questions of the -- otherwise, we'll go to -- any other public speakers? Page 22 of 99 • u g u3, 2011 MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is that the last registered pubic speaker? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody wish to speak to this issue? Bob? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I believe that the conditions that we've put in place address any concerns, reasonable concerns. Site planning is an issue that will go forward in concert with the dealership, which we haven't actually identified yet. We certainly, I'm sure, don't share -- don't mind sharing those site plans as we move forward, but there's no guarantee that working through the site plan and asking for a continuance when we don't even have a dealership in mind will address those concerns. I believe the conditions we've put in place have addressed those concerns. And, you know, there really is nothing to be gained for us to ask for a continuance when we don't even have, you know, an ultimate user. We are agreeing to a new and used car dealership, we're agreeing to conditions that minimize any reasonable concerns that anybody could have as it relates to development of the project. You can see the room's not full of people objecting. Kraft is not objecting, with the exception of us agreeing to a new and used car dealership. They have the same issues and same respect with their building as anybody else would have, and they don't have an objection. So with all due respect, we believe our proposal is a strong one. I was able to add some -- I was able to talk to Mr. Germain as recently as this morning and add some additional considerations to this proposal that would address their concerns. We've been working with them. We've been talking to them. I don't believe that this would change one thing. We're going to come back and say, well, we don't have an agreement. We respectfully ask for your recommendation for approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hate to engage you, which -- seemingly in hostile, but it's not my intent to be hostile. MR. MULHERE: I don't take it that way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I've been considering -- you know, you made, I think, an error by saying any noise. I'm sure you didn't mean any noise, per se, but limiting noise was a big factor, certainly a reasonable factor. MR. MULHERE: I thought I said any amplified, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it came down to any noise, and I don't know if you wrote down "any noise." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wrote down no amplified noise of any kind. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, fine. But I listened carefully. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, no. I apologize. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's all right. Because it's important for this reason. You mentioned that the place will be air conditioned, and that would be true during most of the year here. But come the wintertime, the bays may very well remain open because air conditioning may not be applicable, in which case, if the bays are open, the sounds will emanate and so forth. Now, there are various means of creating -- you could put a curtain up. They have these strip plastic curtains up and so forth, and that's a site -plan issue, and we don't get to see site -plan issues. MR. MULHERE: No, we -- I think -- look, we can agree to a condition that says that the bay doors will remain closed other than allowing entry and exit, temporarily, to allow vehicles to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I recognize that, and then it becomes a matter of people having to -- yeah, okay. What we're trying to do is establish good neighborhood -- good neighbors, rather, now. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's all right. We're trying to establish good neighbors now and make sure that that's a doable rather than the consequence that you have to have code enforcement visit you people. That wouldn't be something you'd want. MR. MULHERE: Can I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm struggling. When you say about -- you haven't got a franchise yet, I Page 23 of 99 A 3� 161 August 4 2011 g , would -- I'm not going to presume to have the knowledge -- the deep detailed knowledge, but I have some limited knowledge about franchises. All of the major organizations have very specific requirements -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and -- even in their buildings and the presentation and the show, the office, and so forth. I can't imagine you not being able to come up with some kind of a rendition of a master plan at least showing entry and exit of things of that nature, because we're looking at a blank slate here, and we appreciate that it will become a fact, that things will happen if we agree to this, but will they happen in the very best way? And I certainly agree with Mr. Passidomo that it would be better -- and certainly for us. I know I felt that way -- why don't we have a master plan? Ingress and egress. I have an assumption that the spaces where the representation of trees and bushes, there's two spaces where it looks as though it might be ingress and egress. Is that reasonable, my conclusion? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that is reasonable. In fact, obviously the main entry is going to be down Kraft, which is where our clients will come in as well as the bank's clients and Kraft's clients and everything else down here. This is -- there's landscaping, as you can see on both sides, and you see the break here and the break here. There's -- both of these properties have -- or at least one property has an existing easement that would allow traffic through the project, ultimately. The presumption is that when this is developed, this property over here, there will be access through this property to this property and out to, I guess, Livingston. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you expect a loop road, some kind of -- MR. MULHERE: Of some kind. I think the staff has required that as part of this PUD. Now, that will have to become -- come to fruition as part of the zoning of the other PUD. So, I mean, we generally know the ingress and egress, we generally know where the building's going to be, you know, within reason. We just don't have the details yet. We just don't have the details because we haven't been able to ascertain which dealership will go here. Again, we were working with one, but that hasn't come to fruition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I can appreciate that. I don't have a problem with the fact that you're looking for that. What I would love to have seen would have been at least a rectangle of sorts showing me general proximity to Pine Ridge Road as opposed to the building being set way back, et cetera, et cetera. It would have given us a better sense of what it is you're really trying to accomplish. I see you're saying that you're in -- kind of in a locked -in situation. MR. MULHERE: And we intend to be good neighbors. Mr. Germain operates his dealerships to be a good neighbor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He does. MR. MULHERE: We've been here before. If there's a problem, we want to know about it, we'll correct it. We don't want to have to, you know, go through a code - enforcement condition. We'd rather be proactive about it. I guess the other thing I would offer in response is that when you talk about being champions of commerce, certainly that family has been a champion of commerce in this community as well and wants to continue to be, and they know this business, and they know that site is a very good site, and it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, it's -- really would have loved to have seen something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, you've been in communication with the bank all along, correct? MR. MULHERE: I don't know the degree to which my client has been talking. I know he has been talking to him, so -- I can't give you specifics of day and time. I received a call from Garrett Richter several weeks ago. I immediately notified my client. I know they've been in discussions. I know they've been in meetings. I know there's been telephone calls. So, I mean, generally to answer your question, I think there has been discussion. There just hasn't been -- I think the resolution was -- or the issues were expressed as concerns over site planning and potentially just the whole idea of introducing this use into the -- into what is -- what they've called an office complex or an office park. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you think that's the issue they're concerned with? I mean, not the aesthetics of the building, not looking down on the rooftop, nothing? MR. MULHERE: Well, they may have some concerns about that. I think we've addressed those concerns with the conditions we've put in place. I think the other condition is one that we can't -- we can't address, and that's Page 24 of 99 161 A 34 '1 August 4, 2011 their desire that this use not be there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I believe it would be more attractive than a supermarket with refrigeration and everything else on roof. Okay. So there was nothing yesterday that you know that blew up that would cause them to retain counsel at the last minute? MR. MULHERE: No, I -- Mr. Richter, when he spoke to me, said we're going to aggressively pursue opposition and we'll retain counsel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Barry? Bob, don't walk away. I have questions, too, when Barry finishes. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Just an observation. Being there yesterday, the bank is already adjacent to a car dealership and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the other side. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: --which also has vehicular traffic access to go to Kraft Road, so --just wanted to point that out. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We had a very controversial shopping center come in here a while back, and for consent today, in fact. They provided a PUD with their Comp Plan change. They didn't have to provide the detail on the PUD that was there because we've accepted PUDs with just bubble plans. They went into excruciating detail to prove to the concerned public and neighbors, especially, that they were going to be the best neighbor they could, and here's how they're going to do it. It did solve a lot of concerns. It still hasn't solved everybody's concern, but it helped go a long way, to a point where they got approved. You've said to us you don't have a dealership in mind. You haven't got a -- someone anxious to build there immediately, basically, because you don't have a franchisee. You're going to design this for interior loading, all interior to the site. You're not going to have vehicle parking. You're going to increase the landscape buffer. You're going to have a certain mix. You're going to have finished facades. You're talking about no collision shop. You're going to have a repair shop with bays limited to open -- how they're going to open and close. There's a big difference in a dealership that sells Land Rovers or Porsches or some of those more exotic cars versus a Chevy dealership or a used -- a more used -car dealership, say, or a lower -end -- lower -priced car. I think it would help you get to a more bonified, let's say, acceptance if you were to at least show a site plan. It would show good faith, it will show a better attempt. We'd have the opposition taking a closer look at it. They may have suggestions on how to improve it that are worthwhile and a compromise, and at the same time they could dig their heels in and, say, we don't want any of this at all. I did not hear that today. I heard that they're willing to take a look at it. I think you ought to capitalize that. I think you ought to ask for a continuance to get there, especially when you don't have a client standing in the wings dying to get that property off and running immediately. I don't see where the loss is to go a little further. And I understand the cost of land planning, but I also know what -- how the firms do it. I've been working with firms for years doing the same thing, and I think they could accomplish it expeditiously and with a minimal cost compared to the gain that you might get out of it. MR. MULHERE: I think without even having a franchise, or an identified franchise, I think I agree that, as Mr. Murray said, we can at least get location and a few other issues addressed. Jane is trying to reach Mr. Germain. Perhaps we could revisit this after a period of time or, you know, maybe at a break from -- I have to get an answer from him. I have to get an answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We need to take a break for the court reporter, and the longer we can run your decision out, the longer it takes Richard before he gets to start, and he's anxious not to start. So -- I see him there pulling his hair out, so -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. This was going to be rather simple. MR. MULHERE: Let me get an answer -- and we'll try to get that right now for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And also, staff, before we break, please pass out the master plan that we were talking about earlier, and we'll take a break for 15 minutes. Well, actually, we'll be back here at 10:45 to resume Page 25 of 99 161 1 A 3� August 4, 2011 and finish up this one and go into Hacienda Lakes. So we'll break right now. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from break. And, Bob, you're in a world of trouble right now. MR. MULHERE: What'd I do now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri does not like you talking over people. She cannot type when you and somebody else is talking. MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you don't get rid of that habit here, you need to get rid of it at least at the BCC level. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to be reformed from this point on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri, thank you for reminding us to keep him in line. MR. MULHERE: And also I speak too fast as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're never alone in that. MR. MULHERE: My client has agreed to continue for two weeks. We'll get with representatives from the bank with a site plan. We'll be prepared to have that discussion, and hopefully we can resolve those issues and come back on the 18th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that would be very helpful to everybody involved, so -- MR. MULHERE: I don't know what your agenda looks like, but hopefully we wouldn't take much of your time if we can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Continuances, with the exception of those handled by Richard Yovanovich, are usually -- are first up when they come back, so we will -- MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll ask that you -- Ray, we'll ask that this be put first on the agenda when we come back on the 18th. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Request for a continuance. Is there a motion to accept? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will make that motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: PUDA- PL2011 -703, Pine Ridge Center West PUD, move for a continuance to the 18th of August. MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. Go ahead. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I want to make sure we have enough time to review whatever's submitted. So if the applicant can get us something within a reasonable time -- I don't want to be in a situation we're not providing you in the packet -- we may have to distribute that site plan to you in the last couple minutes or last couple days before meeting. I just want everybody to be aware. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only distribution that you would have to us at this point would probably be a site plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd have to review that, and we'd have one page to review. So I think that wouldn't take a full week for us to review it, although you've got some legal requirements to get it out in a certain time frame. I still would -- we will have as much flexibility as we can with the one -day submittal. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, very good. MR. MULHERE: Okay. We'll try to get it, you know, to where we're either in agreement or not as quickly as possible, and then get it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In order for the motion to have some flexibility -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll take away the date. Page 26 of 99 I U a H 11 A + August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if for some reason -- yeah. If for some reason that cannot get accomplished by the 18th, we'll provide the flexibility in the motion to move it to whatever date's most feasible. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We can make it indefinite. MR. MULHERE: I'd think if we could do it to a date certain, and then if that -- I mean, because there's advertising issues I'm concerned about. It's 30 days. You can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five weeks, I think. MR. MULHERE: Five weeks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, five weeks? MR. BELLOWS: Five weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You could theoretically go to September 1 st, and we have nothing scheduled on that day but possibly Richard, and if that's the case, you can go first again. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So we will try to get these issues resolved and get it to you in enough time, you know, a week's time so that you can review it. If we're unable to, we understand that, and we'll -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you want me to modify it to the 1st of September? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No later than the 1 st of September. And then we'll try for the 18th, but no later than the I st of September. MS. ASHTON: Actually, we'll need to continue it to a date certain, and then if they can't meet it, you can continue it again if we're still within the five weeks. MR. MULHERE: I'll be here on the 18th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we'll leave it as it stands. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We'll leave it as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Continue it to the 18th. It's been seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you. * * *We have one clean-up item from the consent agenda, and that is PUDZ- PL2009 -1017, and this is for the PUD for the Estates shopping center. We now have gotten a master plan as well as a whole pile of colored pictures for the landscape buffers. And the master plan does show the dumpster locations and the wall on it. Those are issues that needed to be done, and they have corrected the language on the sizing of the lot of the facility and other issues on here. Anybody have any questions or concerns now about that item on the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that in mind, is there a motion to approve that item for consent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. Page 27 of 99 bl A 3`4 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- oh, you oppose? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You oppose consent? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I oppose the PUD. The PUD, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. This isn't a vote on the PUD. This is a vote to acknowledge that the consent is consistent with the majority vote of the last meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent is never a revote on the action of the zoning. It's just to verify that staff had interpreted it correctly and put it in a format that reflects what we voted on as a majority at the last meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does that mean you're -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now it's 9 -0. Okay. Thank you. ***And with that, we will move into a lengthy item. First of all, all those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? We'll start with Melissa on the end. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Meetings with the petitioner and emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I met with Mr. Yovanovich; however, it was before we had received the PUD, and so we just discussed GMP and DRI issues at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Same as Donna. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a brief conversation with Mr. Yovanovich of no consequence regarding the matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I cannot recall anything recently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as I said during the chairman's report, I made up for the loss of you guys Page 28 of 99 161 r" I H 7 AMR August 4, 011 not having to be bothered by it by talking to the applicant and their team for hours. Now, for the record, we are discussing Item CP- 2006 -11, Item PUDZ-2006-AR- 10 146, and Item DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147. They're all actions related to Hacienda Lakes. This is a continued item from July 21. It was advertised prior to that meeting, and it will -- I'm -- we'll go as long as we can today, Richard. So it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. And for the record, that's the last time I'm going to listen to Ray when he tells me that an item before me is going to go quick, so would you mind going second instead of first. With me today are George Bauer, who's the property owner; David Torres, who's the applicant and property owner's representative; Ron Weaver with Stearn Weaver -- Stearns Weaver, who is our DRI counsel; Bob Mulhere of Mulhere & Associates, who is one of two land planners on the project; Dwight Nadeau with RWA is the other land planner on the project; Ken Passarella and Cheryl Rolph, I think is -- with Passarella & Associates, are environmental consultants; Emilio Robau with RWA is our professional engineer. And then Bill Oliver and Fabricio Ponce from Tindale - Oliver are our traffic consultants. They're available to answer questions if you have questions of them after my presentation. As the chairman has pointed out, we have three separate petitions in front of you. We have some Growth Management Plan amendments that you previously heard at the transmittal stage, and you unanimously recommended transmittal of those GMP amendments. We have a DRI development order, and we have a PUD rezone petition. I've put on the visualizer an aerial to show you where the property is located. As you can see, it's a rather large parcel of property that is basically located on the eastern side of Collier Boulevard in the general area of Rattlesnake Hammock. The project is 2,262 acres in size. Of that, 1,637 acres of that is designated rural fringe mixed -use district sending lands, and approximately 625 acres of the property is designated urban residential fringe. And I'll show you that better on the colorized PUD master plan as I go through it. The project itself would be eligible for -- and is eligible for density blending. The urban line is essentially right here. So the only portion of the project east of the urban line is this roughly 100 -acre parcel right there. Everything else is west of the urban line and is in the urban residential fringe subdistrict. The property is requesting 1,760 residential dwelling units, of which 704 are currently anticipated to be single - family, and 1,056 would be multifamily. That will be in the yellow portions of the master plan in front of you. There is a request for 327,500 square feet of retail and 70,000 square feet of professional office, including medical and general office, and that would -- will generally be in the areas labeled C or in the area labeled -- and I can't see that label -- R/MU, residential mixed -use, since it's within the appropriate distance from the hospital to allow medical offices to be there. We're also asking for the ability to have a 135 -room hotel that can be located either in the commercial district or in the business -park district and leading into the business -park district. The business -park district is labeled blue on this master plan, and it would allow up to 140,000 square feet of business park in addition to the hotel. We have provided for a public elementary school as part of the review process, and that's in a darker green color on the master plan, and we've also provided for an EMS station, which is also identified on the master plan. We're maintaining the swamp buggy use that's already allowed on the property, and that's in a pink color on your master plan, and we're also providing for the currently- existing Junior Deputies project, which is the lighter brown on the master plan. We have in both the DRI development order and the PUD provided for conversions of some of the uses, and I'll get into greater detail as we're going through the DRI development order when we start talking about the conversion formulas. We've -- the GMP amendments have gone to the state, and DCA came back with no objections to the GMP amendments. Both the RPC and DCA have seen our DRI documents and have offered no objections to our proposal. The DRI development order in your packet has been approved by RPC and RPC staff. Today we're in front of you -all for all three petitions, and hopefully we will be in front of the Board of County Commissioners in September, hopefully September 13th or 27th, for consideration all three amendments. I'm going to just briefly go over the Growth Management Plan amendments, you know, short-and- simple synopsis, since you've already heard them. We're requesting a .3 dwelling- unit - per -acre density increase so that we Page 29 of 99 16l 1 14 Agust 4 1 can use our qualifying TDRs within our own project. We're not using all the TDRs generated by the project, but we're just using the qualifying TDRs within the appropriate distance within our project. We're providing for the ability to impact more native preservation or native areas in the urban area in exchange for increasing our preservation in the rural area, and that was to accommodate a request we had through our working with the various local environmental groups to reduce our impact in the rural area and increase or try to limit our -- limit our impact in the rural area and focus our impacts in the urban area, so we needed to have that ability to increase our impacts to some of the native preservation in the urban area. The mixed -use activity center, we're adding 9.16 acres, and that's basically to recover the 9 acres that was conveyed on the adjacent hospital. And we're clarifying the access to the business park tract to make it clear that Lords Way, when it's appropriately constructed, can serve as access to the business park. So that's a general and quick synopsis of what we're proposing to do GMP -wise. We are -- the development -- I'm going to go next to the development order and walk you through that, and then the PUD. Hopefully I can go -- well, maybe -- we may want to do certain issues one at a time, if it makes sense, and we'll see what the Planning Commission feels. Due to the intensity of this project, the project is considered a development of regional impact. Accordingly, both the RPC and DCA reviewed the project and make recommendations. As I previously stated, they both reviewed it, and they've offered no objections to what we're proposing to you today. You have a very long and detailed development order. It goes into a lot of different conditions. And if you want to go into those conditions, we can, but I was going to highlight the ones that are generally conditions of concern, and namely traffic is usually the big -- the big issue when we're dealing with projects of this size. And what this document shows you is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you right side that, Ray? There you go. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, one of these days I'm going to figure that machine out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're directionally challenged. MR. YOVANOVICH: I am. I was telling Mr. Bauer that. I said, don't count on me for east and west or north and south. We -- the project really breaks itself down into a north segment and a south segment. And to throw you off, I'm going to work south to north. The south segment is this area right here. And that is actually broken down into three segments for purposes of improvements we need to make in order to get development within the south segment. The first segment is some interim bridge improvements at the Rattlesnake Hammock/951 intersection heading east, and also it provides for the construction of two lanes of Rattlesnake Hammock up to the FP &L easement. Once we complete those improvements, we would be allowed to develop up to 327,500 square feet of retail or Residential Pod A, or a combination of the two as long as our peak PM trips do not exceed 1,409 PM peak trips. So development is tied to that improvement based upon those standards. Segment No. 2 would be, build the bridge to its ultimate configuration and construct Rattlesnake Hammock from FP &L to the Swamp Buggy entrance, which is approximately right here. When we do that, we get 20,000 square feet of general office, 50,000 square feet of medical office, we would have the ability to do the 135 -room hotel within the activity center, and we would get the remainder of the retail or Pod A and construction, or both, whatever we didn't use in the first segment. And the final segment on the south side is from -- extending Rattlesnake Hammock further east from Swamp Buggy to Benfield Road, which is here, and Benfield Road is going to run at a north/south direction. And once we do that we get Residential Pod B for development. Now, when you go north -- yeah, when you head north, that's broken down into two segments. You have Residential Pod C -- and it's hard to tell, but there's a bridge that's going to connect Residential Pod C to Collier Boulevard. When we build that improvement, we would get to build Pod C up to 300 PM peak trips for Pod C, and the next segment is to build Lords Way from Collier Boulevard to the west side of the business park. And when we do that, we would get the business -park development and Pod D, okay. And then finally, we have to -- I guess it's the eastern portion of the project, if you will. When we build Page 30 of 99 ® 1 1 A 61 August 4, 2 11 1 Benfield from where we left off at Rattlesnake Hammock to the entrance of the Residential Pod E, we would get Residential Pod E for purposes of development. We spent a lot of time working with transportation staff and FDOT staff to come up with a proper development schedule tied to the necessary improvements, and those details are in both your DO document as well as your PUD document. There -- again, there are a couple other highlights in the development order that I wanted to point out, and that's the school site that we're conveying to the school district, as well as the EMS site we will be conveying to Collier County. Now, you recently received a memo from your staff that listed outstanding issues. Now, that's really related to the PUD. But one of the issues that isn't in that staff memo as an objection and isn't in your staff report to the DO as an objection is the conversion formula. So, technically, if you -- and I -- if you read the staff documents, it looks like conversion formulas are no longer an issue. I know better. You -all know better. But it looks like we need to go forward and address those issues nonetheless based upon recent communications from your staff. I would like to take you quickly -- I don't have too many page -by -page changes, and these really were issues that came up in our discussion with Commissioner Strain. And some of them are really changing "shoulds" to "shalls" and things like that, and then some are a little bit more detailed. If we go to Page 4 of 55 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which document are you on, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: The DO, I mean the development order. I'm going to do DO first, and then we'll deal with the PUD later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Page 4 of 5, Item No. 4, we need to strike the word "composite" before the Exhibit B reference. It's just an Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: rm not sure you're picking up on the speaker very well. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that better? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We would strike the word "composite" before the word "Exhibit B" in the second line of Item No. 4. Then we would go to Page 6, Item C. There is a reference to 50,000 square feet for when we need to build a bus shelter. In meeting with staff, that was changed to 75,000 square feet, and we're building an additional bus shelter for the business park. So we're going to have to add language into Exhibit C that says when we basically get COs for greater than 70,000 square feet of land uses within the business park, we'll provide another bus stop /shelter within the DRI. So we're going to have to add that language to the -- I had proposed language that's acceptable to staff. I can read it into the record, or I can show it to you on the visualizer, whichever is easier for the Planning Commission and Terri. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's put it on the visualizer for now. Let's see how lengthy it is. MS. ASHTON: And just keep in mind that I don't think I've reviewed any of this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now why does that not surprise me? MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, this language is taken verbatim from the PUD document that staff did review, and it needed to be incorporated into the PUD -- the DO as well to make them consistent. Is that okay? You all can see it; is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I can leave -- I'll leave a document that has all of these changes with the court reporter, and ultimately it will be -- if these changes are recommended by you -all, it will become part of the revisions that we'll need to make, and staff will have their opportunity to review them at that time as to whether they make sense to them. Jumping all the way to Page 40. In Items E, F, G, H, and I on that page -- and I'll wait till you -all are there -- there are a few references to the word "should" that should be changed to the word "shall" to make them mandatory. And all of these changes are being made to the 7/1/2011 version that you -all have in your packet. On -- on the following page, on Page 42, there's another -- there's another reference to a "should" that should Page 31 of 99 161 A 3 August 4, 2011 be "shall," and then under the school site, since we know the measurements of the school site, we've changed the "up to 20 acres" to 19.55, which is what's on the master plan and has been agreed to. And if the school board decides they don't need all of it, they can obviously tell us they don't need it all. So those are changes to clarify kind of where we are at this point in the process. This next one I can't remember if we discussed or not. It's on Page 43. It may have been something that we noticed as we were going through the document most recently. We wanted to clarify in Item G that we will attempt to keep the school's frontage to two lanes instead of "for attempted, "say for walking for -- actually "for safer walking." So deleted the word attempted. And I don't remember if that was discussed or not or something we caught on our own. Another clarification on Page 44, Item C, regarding density. We had stated that our density was 1,760 units, and Mr. Strain correctly pointed out that that 1,760 is composed of the single - family and multifamily residential development, which could change based upon conversion formulas for senior housing and other items -- and for senior housing and ultimately RVs as we talk about that issue later. Just a few more. Bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do you have -- MS. ASHTON: I would just like between -- you know, if it gets approved today, between now and the next meeting, to review it in total context, because I'm kind of uncomfortable with the number of changes that they're asking for here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, to be honest with you, Heidi, there's going to be a lot of changes before the day's over, so we'll have to see how it boils down by the end of the day. MS. ASHTON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. The next change is simply somehow we left the word "city" in there, and since we're in the county, we needed to clarify that typo. COMMISSIONER CARON: What page? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry, Page 47. The next -- the next change would be on Page 49. In Paragraph E there's a reference to the statutory requirement that we be given impact -fee credits for dedications and improvements we make to the extent that there are impact fees for those types of improvements, such as, like, roads. We have obligations to make some improvements and dedicate some right -of -way. This statute basically says, when you have a road impact fee, you're supposed to get credit for those improvements against those road impact fees. Since it's already addressed earlier in the document, we felt, after meeting with Commissioner Strain, that this was, in fact, redundant and didn't need to be in there, and that's why that's being taken out. You've already seen the conversion schedule on Page 49, and this is where I want to -- I guess we should focus on the conversion issue. We're asking for an opportunity to convert a few different uses to other uses. The ones that we're struggling with, why there's staff opposition, is why staff would oppose our changing single - family to multifamily or multifamily to single - family since the conversion formula is based on trips, and we can't exceed 1,760 units anyway; because what happens with the DRI, unlike a PUD, you actually go through the analysis and you identify exactly your unit mix. Most DRIB have a conversion formula between residential uses to allow you, if you determine you need more single - family, to take some of your multifamily and make them single - family and vice versa; if you think you need more multifamily instead of single - family, you would be able to do that, but you still can't go above the 1,760, and that's what that table says. Staffs not objecting, I don't believe, to the senior - housing conversion, but they are objecting to the transfer between standard residential housing, and we're requesting that that conversion formula continue on forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, before you go and you pass that piece of the conversion formula -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Go to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have submitted three three -ring binders and hundreds and hundreds of pages, and staff is going to present a report to us. While a lot of it is small and minor in nature, there are several big issues. And when you hit one of those, rather than go past it, I'd rather have staff come up and give their counterpoint to that piece of it -- Page 32 of 99 A 31 161 August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then go on to the business piece of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way we understand fresh in our mind why -- what you say and what staff says. So if Ray would leave Kay alone and let Kay come up here, we can move forward with that. I know you're coaching her, but she can do a good job, Ray. Kay, I don't know if you heard what I just said, but as we go forward, there are some bigger issues with this that have been contentious with staff, and I'd like to know, when Richard gets done explaining his side of it on those few issues, that you at this time address that side of it instead of waiting for your presentation. So right now we're on the conversion factors, the four of them, just relating to the residential issues. Could you explain to us your position on those four. MS. DESELEM: I'm not sure the -- would you enumerate what four? I was talking to him, so I missed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know there are various conversions. There are some for residential and some for commercial. MS. DESELEM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are four for residential. You should have -- with the amount of objections you've had, I'm surprised you wouldn't remember them. MS. DESELEM: Okay. I just want to make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Single- family to multifamily, multifamily to single- family, RV -- single- family to RV or multifamily to RV, and then senior housing. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any -- which ones are you objecting to, and what's your position on those? He just stated his. MS. DESELEM: Originally staff said we could do the care units. We would support that you could, you know, convert care units. Our contention is that RV uses are commercial uses, and there shouldn't be a conversion factor for residential. As far as the single- family to multifamily, the applicant and staff have looked at that, and I don't think that there will be a problem with that the way it's proposed. It has been done before. What we were really opposed to more than anything else was the conversions of the commercial uses, retail and office and RV to -- and, like, everything could be everything, and we still object to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're going to get to the commercial in a minute. But I'm trying to break this up into the most palatable pieces as I can -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- since it's so large. Okay. So basically you believe -- can live with the single- and multifamily and the senior housing from a residential perspective. It's the TTRV? MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What is the trigger that bothers you the most with that one? MS. DESELEM: With the RV? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. DESELEM: It's a commercial use; it's not a residential use, and you shouldn't convert commercial to residential. That should be counted as part of their commercial square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in our -- and I have to -- I didn't look at that aspect of it. So if I were to pull up the TTV section in our code, it would be -- in the preamble it would define it as a nonresidential use? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, I believe that's to be correct. We can double -check it, but I think in the nomenclature, the TTRV is a commercial use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there -- the conversion that they're using is based on what; a traffic analysis or traffic impact? MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other concerns that staff has beyond the traffic issues involving TTRV or single - family, the comparison between the two? Do you see any other uses they impact beyond traffic? Page 33 of 99 61 A 3 August 4, 2011 MS. DESELEM: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: We do have issues with compatibility and the fact that they've included the TTRV within the residential part of the PUD document. We believe that it should be separated from that and have its own part, just like the BP, the commercial, the residential. There should be something called RV. It should have its own principal uses, its accessory uses, and then incorporate whatever appropriate property- development regulations would fit into that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they had come in with a separate -- see, I know where they're planning to put the RV. It's over along the Benfield Road just northeast of the business park. If they were -- if they had come in with a master plan that showed that area as TTRV and they had a separate district shown in there, TTRV, and they increased their density to, let's say, 500 units more, from 1,760 to 2,100, 2,200, would that have -- where would you have stood on a scenario like that? I mean, you basically, then, would have gotten your development standards, you've gotten your commercial -use designation, supposedly the LDC or the standards would have addressed the compatibility. Is it the density, the increase, that concerns you or -- MS. DESELEM: It's the location of the use and the lack of detail and information about it. As it was originally proposed, it included camping cabins and tents and everything else with the large density. I think it was, like, 12 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: And it was to be adjacent to single - family homes, perhaps. And we didn't really have a good feeling as to how it was to be designed, what setbacks might be provided. It's just too much in the air. But we could have worked through that better if we had the separate area for the TTRV, and we could look at it time and get a better picture of it. Okay, this is exactly what you're going to have. You're not going to have this or you are going to have that, and what the setbacks would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You started out by saying it was the location. So the location on this master plan, if that was designated as TTRV with the right compatibility and design standards pursuant to that section of the code, is that location unacceptable to you? MS. DESELEM: Not necessarily. I remember talking with Corby. There were some issues about the access and -- but I think we pretty much worked through that issue as far as they were asking to have the Lords Way provide access and be determined to be a collector road or something to that effect. I'm not exactly certain. Corby might remember too. But, yeah, I think it's an appropriate location if it's properly buffered. We don't really have an objection to the use. It's the fact that the use is included in the residential portion. I mean, you can't homestead an RV, so it's just -- it's not a residential use. It's a commercial use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. They haven't created it as a separate RV district. They've put it under the R district as a permitted use, which is inconsistent with how your Land Development Code is structured for the TTRV, which is under zoning for commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know that issue is going to get into detail as we go into this. I want to focus on the conversion aspects of it right now, because that's the -- I want to get past the conversion because there are myriads of other issues, and I'm sure we're going to talk about them all, but the biggest ones are these -- there's three of them, and this happened to be one of the big ones. So from a conversion viewpoint, I think we understand your position on the TTRV conversion to single - family. And I -- so it's not a density. It's more, not because of the quantity of units that the conversion allocates, it's because you're converting from multifamily to what staff considers a commercial use. MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on that issue before we move on? Brad, and then Donna. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I had a question on conversion. And, Rich, is these factors based on trips; is that how you came up with them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. These are all based upon the ITE manual. And, frankly, we'd be fine if you Page 34 of 99 A 3161 August 4, 2011 want to change the document to say, "and" -- we can have 1,760 residential units and 290 RVs. We figured you needed to analyze it from a traffic standpoint and there needed to be a give and take. If we decided to do the 290 RVs, we would do less residential development, keeping it in line with the trips -- the max trips we can have, which is 3,328 PM peak -hour trips. So we were actually offering this up because we felt that we needed to show you how we were staying consistent with our traffic analysis. Because it's an "or," okay, that segment. And I know we're going to get into greater detail, but just generally what we had anticipated in that area of the project. We would either develop it as residential or we would develop it as an RV, an RV park. And within our R district, we have single - family and multifamily residential uses, and one of the allowed uses is an RV park. And in our development standards table, we tell you what our development standards are if we're going to have an RV park on that portion of the property. If I were to create this separate district that you're talking about, I would still include residential uses in there as an alternative. So I didn't see a reason to create another subdistrict when I've already done it. I've done it in the bigger R district. We identified the location. We have development standards. It's really a form- over - substance type of an argument, because we don't want to be locked into RVs on that property. We want to have it as an option. Most of the RV parks that you've approved recently -- and they're not all that recent -- but Naples Motorcoach, East Trail. That's a PUD. Pelican Isle, PUD; Silver Lakes, PUD; those are, all three RV parks that are in the general vicinity of this project, all done through the PUD process, not the straight zoning to TTRVC. And I will also tell you that the code talks about a density for RVs, and that's why we talked about it, and it talks about 12 units per acre. We've asked for what's consistent with the code, and we think the method that we've addressed it is okay. If there's a concern about our development standards, let's talk about the development standards and see how we address the development - standard issue, because it doesn't sound like the location is a problem. It doesn't really even sound like it's a conversion - formula problem, because they don't think I even need to convert my residential to go to that. It's really a development - standards issue. If it's a development - standards issue, let's talk about the development standards that are in the table, and if we need to change them to address compatibility issues, we're fine. We had proposed -- and you'll see it when we get into the PUD -- a specific Type C buffer. We thought that had resolved the compatibility issue, but apparently not. So we don't really see it as an inconsistent use. This is an R district, and an RV is allowed as one of the uses in that district as an option. MS. ASHTON: But not under the code. But if I could -- this is the problem that I have with it. You've got 1,760 residential units that then are broken up into, what, 400 single - family, and the rest are multifamily, and then you can convert it to RV, okay. So now you're going to have RV, and then when you can convert the single - family to multifamily or adult congregate living, I don't know how you expect staff to administer this, because you're going to end up with more than 1,760 units when you apply the conversion. So I can't tell you what we're going to come up with, and that's the problem I have. Not the uses. I think this could be designed in a way to accommodate all the uses they want to do, but -- and that's just the residential. That's my comment on the residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But to follow up with your point, if they then said, okay, we want 1,760 of a mixture of multi and single - family, we want no conversion but we want the ability to put 290 resi- -- I mean, Class A motor homes on this location in the site and we would adhere to the TTRV standard to do so, does that -- would that work simpler? See, because they could have come in and asked for 3,000 units on this property, and most likely, with the lower density ratio that they have, which is .78, you know, I mean, who knows? They could have walked away with it. So instead they've come in with a conversion with a lower number when they may have been better off, for clarification, stop fooling around with all this stuff and just give us the cap that you want and work down from there. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. And I had said before to them that you can create your district and you can say it's going to either have so many RV units or so many residential units. I proposed that a long time ago, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That is exactly what we did. We created a district that said we can have so many residential and not more than 290 RV units and not more than 450 senior - housing units. Now, when you do the conversion formula -- we've all done the math. Well, not everybody. But when you Page 35 of 99 A 3 August 4, 2011 divide 450 by 4, you lose roughly 112 single - family units. When you convert the single - family to RVs, you lose more single - family units. Now, David did the number. The number's, like, 2,300. If we did 290 RVs and we did 450 senior, we would have a total project density, if you'll let me use that term, including single - family and multifamily, of roughly 2,300 units. MS. ASHTON: Where we differ is he didn't create a separate district. The district is R. It just allows an RV use, and that's where the disconnect is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think the whole idea of throwing multiple conversions at this project probably was a mistake from the get -go. Straightforward, simple English is the best way -- I should say -- be careful if I say English anymore -- but simple languages for the best of us to understand it. You know, I mean just by telling us, here's my total density, of the density I want 290 of this, boom, it's done. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would have been a lot simpler, Rich, than trying to throw a bunch of conversions that we've got to go back and forth on trying to understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm all about simple. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. And, also, the LDC says that you follow the district that most closely resembles the district you're creating. So the district they're creating is residential. So that means the RV district is subject to all the rules of residential and not the TTRV, which the TTRV was designed to address certain public safety and health welfare issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a development - standards table. That's how you deal with development standards. Where there isn't a standard, that's when you default to the most similar district. That's how the code works. All PUDs are their own zoning district with their own development table. Once you get that development - standards table, that is the zoning on your property. If you forgot something -- and I don't know what that something may be -- you would default to the most similar district. We would still default, when dealing with the RVs, in my opinion, to the RV -- TTRV portion of the code, and for the residential uses we would default to the residential portions of the code. If -- I've got a very simple fix, which we can address later in detail in the PUD. We can do as Mr. Strain said, let's put the maximum number in of 2,300 and whatever it is. And then we could say, of that a maximum could be 17- -- we could work through those numbers and do it that way. We actually thought we were doing it the right way by taking away some of our single- family development in exchange for senior housing and in exchange for RVs. We were not -- we didn't -- everybody could do the math to figure out what that max number was. It was all based on trips, and it was certainly to try to put -- hold ourselves in check, not in order to get anything above that. If that's the simple fix, we could do it that way, or we could just go to 290 RV on top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Either way, you still cap it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at the -- so we can -- the simplicity of the transportation cap is still intact. Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Rich, isn't the reason you're doing this so you have flexibility in the marketplace constantly? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. I mean, who knows? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean, there may be some fun with numbers to do it, but I think it makes a lot of sense that they have that flexibility to adjust between different product. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, with the overall cap that we can never exceed what was analyzed on the transportation analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you have a ceiling. MR. YOVANOVICH: That ceiling is there regardless of what we build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- I'm concerned about two things. Number one, Kay started out by saying we're allowing now a conversion between residential and commercial because staff looks at the TTRV use as commercial. Page 36 of 99 I P% I 1 a 6 1 e )\ f� August 4 2011 Having -- I mean, I own one of these units, and I don't consider my unit commercial. I've never stayed in a commercial center. I've stayed in RV parks. So I'm not sure why it's looked at that way. But I want to make sure I understand the ramifications of that. If that's the concern, why, Kay? Why is it a concern that we're looking at a conversion from TT -- to create TTRV connected to residential in this DRI/PUD? MS. DESELEM: Again, for the record, Kay Deselem. One of the concerns that we have is that it can change the appearance and the intensity of the project. Just by converting things back and forth, as Heidi said, you don't know what you actually have. It's kind of a moving target; how do you know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But -- MS. DESELEM: So we wanted to clarify and have it separate what residential was and what commercial was, because otherwise it almost becomes self-amending. It's like anybody else has to come in and amend their document if they want to change something, but the way this would be set up, it seems to be almost self - amending, which is contrary to what we normally would do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the focus on this issue is on one very focused piece of land within this development. And they're offering up a set of standards and changes to it that would only be applicable to that piece of land and the conversion could only occur on that piece of land. Under that criteria, why is the conversion between a residential unit and a Class A travel unit problematic? MS. DESELEM: Okay. For example, I think he said that he could get up to 2,300 units total with the conversions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: I might misstate that but I think that's what he said -- and this has been advertised for 760 (sic). Everybody assumes there's just going to be seven hundred and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventeen. MS. DESELEM: -- 1,760 number of units. So already you've increased it. So the density and intensity of the project changes by the use of that conversion. MS. ASHTON: If you're going to try -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a whole different argument, which I didn't expect. Can you weigh in on that? MS. ASHTON: If you're going to try to derive the RV -park numbers from residential, I suppose you could do it if you distinguish this from the other RV parks. Like I've heard from you, I've heard that they're going to be single -- they're going to be separate lots. They're going to be owned. It's not going to be rental. It's high end. And they're different amenities. I mean, I suppose you could distinguish it from the standard, but I'd still call it a different district because of the way the LDC is written, or you indicate it's a deviation from the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there are parks -- like, there's a new one down in Everglades City. There's one -- Pelican Isles is one. They are basically Class A units. They don't have the tow - behinds. They don't have the modular mobile units. They're Class A units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- see, these are all compatibility issues that should have been raised a long, long time ago. They weren't. We can accommodate a request that they be Class A motorcoach. If they don't want tents and things like that, that's not an issue. We didn't intend for tents. We did -- we have development standards for lots that are in the table. There's nothing wrong with our having a park that allows for rental of those spaces for people who come down seasonally. I don't know, Mr. Strain, maybe you own multiple lots throughout the country when you travel, but I'm sure you pull in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish I did, but no, I don't. I pay 23 bucks or 46 bucks a night depending where I go. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I'm sure -- and you have a very -- you have a nice mobile -- motorcoach, and that's what we want, like has been approved in the general area. We're fine with it being Class A motorcoach. Those are development types of issues that we can address in the PUD to clarify it. But right now, the use that we want -- I circled where we want it on the map, and I'm just trying to understand -- if I understand what staffs recommendation is, they want me to create a separate district that's called RV district, and within that RV district I can have residential uses. Page 37 of 99 40 161 A 3 August 4, 2011 MS. ASHTON: No. You're not -- you can derive the units from -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Either /or. I can do an either /or. No, hang on -- hang with me. On that piece labeled RV, I can do either RVs or I could do residential, right? That's exactly what my document currently says. There's no reason for me to create a separate category that already does that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- I know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to deal with that when we get to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane's next, then Brad -- or then Donna, then Brad. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, there was so much material to go through. But in reading this from the Department of Transportation and the FDOT, it says "proposed." It says, "With the adoption of this amendment, the change in land use would allow up to 1,850 dwelling units, 188 additional units, using newly transferable TDRs from the 1,016 acres lying within one mile of the urban portion of the project. "It should be noted that Hacienda Lakes DRI residential component, as currently proposed, would be limited to 1,760 dwelling units." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what we're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- yeah. Now they're -- that's kind of where the -- part of the problem lies is that there is 1,760 units, but they've been defined as single - family and multifamily. Residential -- or RV is not considered a dwelling unit if it's got axles and wheels on it. You can't homestead it. The CCRC are more medically related units, so I'm not sure they're considered residential units. That's why there's conversions for those. And I don't know how all that fits with what was advertised that Kay now has brought up. So at some point after lunch when we come back, if the county's attorney could look at the advertisement -- advertising criteria in relationship to the numbers and the conversion results. I want to make sure we're standing on firm ground the way it was advertised, too. But Diane's point is what I had made to you Monday night, is that 1,760 is what you say throughout the document, but really with the conversions you've got more than that. And I understand how you got there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you want to explain any differently than I have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to Diane that issue, go right ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're absolutely correct. And the way we've handled all these other -- and as I understand it, senior housing is a nonissue. That's the one conversion formula staff has agreed to. So by definition they already knew by allowing that conversion formula in there I was going above 1,760, because it converts at 4 -1. So if I only converted one, I was going above 1,760 for overall project intensity. Every -- the intensity of this project does not increase through any of these conversions, because the intensity is tied to the trips. This project intensity does not change. Through all of our NIMs and through all of our public meetings, we have discussed the conversion formulas and the ability to have senior housing, RV parks, and take those from the 1,760 units. The public knows what's going on. And we've done this many times with senior housing, many times with senior housing. So the RV -- the RV issue -- if we need to put a number in there to talk about it -- if we decide to have the RV park, there's a theoretical number above 1,760, if you want to count the RVs as -- in the density number we can do that, same thing with the senior housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd be careful about trying to include that in the density number with the advertising issue, so we -- but let the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll let the county attorney have time for that over lunch and maybe get back to us. MS. ASHTON: You know, I always like to know when I'm -- when we're looking at a new policy, and this is a new policy if you're going to allow a conversion, you know, for -- for RVs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure we're there yet. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we currently have, apparently, a fairly common acceptance, that 4 -1 ratio for Page 38 of 99 A 3 August 4, 2011 CCRC -- MS. ASHTON: Yes. We've used that multiple times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- has been an acceptable standard. So what I suggest is that when you look at a ratio for mobile homes, you treat it in the same perspective. You look at the CCRC. If that triggers a misnomer in the way we've advertised in regards to the guarantees, because that conversion is in other projects and it could go higher, then you really need to see if we required other projects, then, to disclose the CCRC separately as a potential above the density, and the same, then, would apply to the TTRV use or the motor -home conversion. I just don't know if that's the case because I haven't gone back and looked at any of those. MS. ASHTON: I'll consult with the county attorney. I'm less concerned with the advertisement because this is a very large project, everyone knows it's a really large project, and things can get changed a little bit when they go before the various boards. And if things need to be amended in a future advertisement, such as when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, then we would make sure that it was properly -- that it reflected the units and so forth that were being proposed at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: And if I might add. The ALF conversion factor, as used in other PUDs that I worked on, never results in an increased number of dwelling units, because the tract is specified for a maximum number of single - family over the entire tract. And if they have the option of building ALF for every acre converted from residential to an ALF use, you subtract from that maximum number. So the advertising's always correct that you have that maximum number of dwelling units. And if -- you can come down if you add ALF. I've never seen one where you're converting from an ALF to add residential units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But go ahead. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, this was my point. Everything we've done in the past when we've used a conversion factor has respected whatever the total factor was. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. That was staffs concern. COMMISSIONER CARON: This one does not, and that's my problem with this. When you think about a conversion factor, you just think about a way to get senior housing on here or a way to get an RV park on here, but it shouldn't affect the bottom -line total. And in this one, apparently what they're saying to all of us is we're going to use this conversion factor, but we're just adding it on top of what we've already gotten, and that wasn't my initial impression, but that's apparently what they're saying here now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you want to go? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I had a couple points. One is, in the PUD you do have the statement, "But in no event shall the residential unit count exceed 1,760" -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the multifamily and the single - family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- units. Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: They will never go above that number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So that if you do add RVs, they can be above that number? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, but there'll be a corresponding reduction in the 1,760 equal to the traffic impact. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the senior - housing care units -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Same thing. MS. ASHTON: But I think that you're using the numbers of, whatever, it's four hundred and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Four fifty was our cap for single -- we were -- MS. ASHTON: Yeah. So you can still -- you know, it can still go over -- I don't know how you count 1,760, but your numbers you're looking at are the 400, and then the other number, and then how they can be converted back and forth. So when you look at the total units, you know, I don't know what the number will come out to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what that statement means is you will never be able to add up multifamily and single - family and get a number greater than that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll never be able to add up multifamily and single- family and get above 1,760. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Yet you could have converted down some of these other ones to be on top of that with RVs, which they're saying they want to be commercial anyway, so -- Page 39 of 99 A 3 U, August 4 2011 g , MS. ASHTON: But I'm not sure that that's what you're saying, Rich, because if you've got 400 -- say you decide the whole project's going to be multifamily -- I'm not saying you are, but just hypothetically -- you could convert -- the four could be converted into one -- one single - family is 1.6. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. What I'm saying is, if I wanted to convert the project to an entirely multifamily project, we can do that since it generates less trips than single - family. I would get rid of my 704 single- family units, and I would have 1,760 multifamily units. That would be my project if it was 100 percent multifamily. Now, if I wanted to build a project that was just like it is, 704 single - family, 10,056 (sic) multifamily, and I want to do 450 CCRC units, I would have to -- 450 divided by 4 is 112. 1 would have to take 112 multifamily units off the books to accommodate those 450 units. Now, mathematically it exceeds 1,760, but from a traffic standpoint it doesn't. But I don't get 1,760 single - family /multifamily and 450 senior and 290 RVs; I have to reduce my multifamily or single - family to get to use the 450 cap or the 290 cap, which is no different than we've done senior - housing -wise in many, many PUDs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Let me stay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you do go down to senior, you do stay there. You clearly say that, you know, you can convert at that ratio, you set a cap and you say that that could bring the -- you know, raise above 1,760. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're clear there. You're not so clear, I don't think, anywhere about the recreational vehicles. But, again, I do like using the conversion of residential units versus commercial, because one's residential units, the other one's square footage, and how would you ever incorporate square footage with residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: And you wouldn't. And I can tell you, I've not seen -- I'm not saying there's not one out there. But I've not seen an RV park that was required to be developed in an activity center, because that's where only commercial can go. Your Comprehensive Plan actually says, an RV park can go anywhere in the urban area provided it has access to the arterial. That's what it says. Now, where you decided to put it in your Land Development Code for convenience, whatever, but it doesn't have to go on commercial -- on property. It's not a, quote, commercial use like it's discussed as retail and office. So it doesn't make sense to give up retail square footage for an RV use. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Now, just to clarify, the maximum you could ever do is you could have the maximum RV units. If somehow you worked this conversion factor -- and I'm not even sure you could -- the maximum 450 senior care, and then the maximum, the 1,760 doors to residential or multifamily units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's the numbers. MS. ASHTON: You're ending up with both. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. If we max out -- if we max out the 290 RVs, we lose 106 units. If we max out the 450 CCRC units, we lose 112- and -a -half units. So we would be down to a hundred and fif- -- 1,542 residential units, but the total of everything in the place would increase to 2,282 units, okay. That's the math. And I rounded up on the halves. MS. ASHTON: But the way it's currently written, you could take some of the multifamily units, convert it to AC -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. MS. ASHTON: -- ARC, and then you could take the single - family and convert them back over to multifamily. So, I mean, that's where the real difficulty is if it's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The 1,542 never changes. The 1,542 never changes in that equation. It will always be 1,542 or less. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The factors equate out if you move it up or move it back. It ends up in the same spot. I mean, I came up with 2,229, but that's exactly -- we're real close. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Then if we -- I'll have to come up with some other language that does what you're saying, you're proposing, because what we have right here opens the door to a huge unknown in my opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's mathematically predicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you said something in your presentation that you could have 1,760 Page 40 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 multifamily; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you allow the single -- the conversion formula between residential uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you can -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right? And that's a less traffic impact than what we've told you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not what I saw this project as being. Because everywhere in the project it says you're going to have single - family and multifamily. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't picture the whole thing being one massive, giant apartment building complex. And I'm a little concerned when you said that. I didn't know that was possible. MR. YOVANOVICH: I said it in the -- well, we cap the maximum between. That's not an issue for us, Mr. Strain. It was actually in a hypothetical posed to me to how to -- to work the numbers. I wasn't representing that we were going to convert all the single - family to multifamily. We can include a cap that says you can't convert more than X single- family to multifamily or Y multifamily to single - family. That's not -- that's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, we're hardly along -- we're hardly -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this is hardest, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: The rest of them are going to be a little easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really, really wish you guys had thought this out better about how complicated it's been to make this project. I really, really did. It would have made today so much easier, and I'm worried about the future and how people going down the road are going to understand to follow this thing. Somehow we'll clear that all up. I just wish it was simpler to start it out. I have never seen anything quite like this. Bob, did you -- did anybody else have any comments on the TTRV issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just comment. Aren't you creating this complexity so that you have market - fluctuation ability? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that the only reason you're doing it is? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any other scheme you have? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that's it. And you know what? The only thing that's different in this than any other one you've seen so far that's a residential -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is we've introduced RVs. The CCRC is thing is nothing new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's unfair, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: The CCRC on the residential is nothing new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't spend four - and -a -half hours with you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We had a lot of other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on just this issue. There's a lot of issues here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But on the conversion formula, there's nothing unique about the CCRC conversion, and staff even accepted that one. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. And I believe that staff has agreed to the CCRC. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That one was agreed to. It was the single - family to multifamily that staff was objecting to. But I think I heard them say they're okay about that now. RVs is still a debate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MS. ASHTON: Again, Rich, it's not so much the mix of what you're proposing. It's the ability to administer what you're proposing, because I have no idea how four units from here are going there and two over there and 1.6 over there. I mean, I think it's extremely difficult to try to administer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's how it works. I don't think it is. I come in with a Site Development Plan or a plat for my RV park, and let's just say I do 290 units on it. I have to show you that what I have left on my PUD monitoring report is the necessary single- or multifamily units left to support that RV park. It's done all the time. We do PUD monitoring reports all the time where every time we go in with an SDP we Page 41 of 99 A 161 August 4, 2011 have to show you that we have the units left to build the project. I don't think it's that complicated to administer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, they'll have a matrix in the annual report that will be coming in essentially yearly or every two years. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it can be easy to keep score. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MS. ASHTON: Well -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a second. Heidi -- MS. ASHTON: Plus we'll verify, and I don't think we have the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, you're going to have to wait to be recognized. She's going to have trouble writing everybody. So let's just take turns. MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked for Mr. Murray to go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. With regard to changes in the future, let's assume that we settled all this now and we do have these conversions that are possible. In the future, if they were to change a number, a small number, for conversion, would that be considered to be within the PUD and it's just an adjustment, or is that a substantial or an insubstantial change? How would that work? MR. YOVANOVICH: I would have to -- if I exceeded a conversion formula -- for instance, we put a cap on there and it says I can't convert more than 25 percent of the single - family to multifamily. Making up a number. If I exceed that and I want to go to 26 percent, I would have to come amend the PUD, I would have to do an NOPC under the current rules, and that would probably be an insubstantial change as far as the DRI review goes, but I would still have to change the PUD document to exceed the numbers we may agree to today. So there would be a public - hearing process if -- if the market flexibility we gave ourselves was not enough, through this process we'd have to come back and ask for a change. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if I understand you correctly then, if your 290 TTRVC, those units, you planned -- let's say you planned to have that park, and over time you recognize that's not the best thing, but you only need 75 percent of that; 25 percent of those changes you can convert back? MR. YOVANOVICH: I wouldn't -- what I wouldn't do in this scenario -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to understand -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What would happen is I can go up to 290. I can go less. If I wanted to do a 200 -unit RV park, I can do that, and I would give up less of my single - family or multifamily units to do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those kinds of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They're easy math. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, they may seem so, but for this poor guy here, he wants to be sure he understands it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So as you're going ahead -- let's say for the sake of argument this were approved just as you're presenting it and we're going to go forward, plans, as we know, change over time, and even after you've initiated building you may change plans; are you saying that each one of those changes then would require a PUD review? MR. YOVANOVICH: If it's beyond the conversion formulas, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Beyond the conversion formula. MR. YOVANOVICH: If it's beyond the conversion formula. The reason we need the conversion formula is I can't tell you today that I absolutely know I want 1,760 multifamily residential and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with you. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- multifamily and single -. I'm saying to you, I might want some of those units to be senior housing. Let me convert some of those units to senior housing not to exceed 450, because that's what I think I need, and I will reduce an appropriate number of my single - family and multifamily units to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand -- Page 42 of 99 11 A a August 4, 11 MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the market flexibility I'm asking for for senior housing as well as RVs. And it's an either /or on that property. You know, I either would do RV on that property or I would do residential -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to accommodate -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand what you're attempting to achieve. What I'm really asking, probably staff as well as yourself, whether or not that represents a proper protection for the community in terms of what you choose to change in time over time. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why we've identified where on the master it has to be. We haven't -- originally we had it anywhere in the R district, and staff said, no, you can't -- it can't be everywhere. Pick a location. And we identified that specific location on the master plan, said, this is where we want it. And I don't think staff is saying that's a problem where we want it. I think we're talking about how do we get this and how do we count for it. Hindsight is 20/20. What I wish I had done now was come in with just a conversion formula for senior housing and said, throw in another 290 of RVs, and here's where I'll put them. I wish I had done that, and I don't think I'd be having any of this conversation. We made it more complicated by taking away some of our residential density to accommodate that, because I don't think there was an issue traffic -wise for those 290, density-wise for those 290. So, I mean, I really -- and compatibility with the community for the 290. It got complicated. Yes, I wish I'd have just simply now asked for an extra 290 RV units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the total number doesn't scare anybody. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate your narrative, but I still want to make absolutely clear, at least for me anyway. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you were approved and you have 290 designated at the location where you designated, but you assert, different than Kay has -- you've asserted that it's residential. One could understand that; it would be in the residential tract. Bear with me a second, Richard, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So let's say in the future -- and let's allow that you've built the 290 units and so forth, and then whatever time it is in the future, a decision is made to do away with that park and now reconvert it back to either multifamily or single - family; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, it can happen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that a change you would expect to come in for revision of the PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. I wouldn't need to because residential's already allowed on that property, and as long as -- as long as I built the number of units I gave up, whatever the conversion number was -- I think it was 106 -- I would be limited to 106 units in that area unless I had some leftover units from my development. But, no, I would not have to come back to convert the RV park back to a single - family or multifamily project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the county would know that only because you would have to come in for a permit -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to raise the current operation, whatever that would be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- in order to permit for single or multi? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But beyond that there would be no requirement. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, and we -- but in that you have your PUD monitoring report, and they would compare the PUD monitoring report to either the SDP or the plat that would come in to assure we're not exceeding our -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to get at -- I hope you appreciate now -- is that the assertions are made, and I think they're probably valid -- how will the county know what you're doing? And so I guess, you know, I made it rather a macro by saying the full 290, but you're saying also that if you committed to modifying a portion of that you would also have to do the same thing, wouldn't you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. There's always a land -use approval I'm going to need from Nick and his staff to change that use on that site. Page 43 of 99 L 1 I M J 6 August 4 , 2011 1 g COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then I would listen later to see whether or not staff objects to that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I think you did something which was smart a couple years back. You tied everything to trips. Because you get PUDs that come in and say, how many different uses can I have, and I'm only allowed to analyze X amount of trips. It was a good idea. In this case it's a good idea as well, too. Adding just more units on, I've analyzed a certain amount of traffic, and we said, that will work. Just adding 290 more RV units is not a good idea. The issue in talking to staff, I'm hearing is, you've got a tract on there that's called R/RV. And he's not saying either /or. He's saying, I'll come in there at some point in time, and I'll take up to a conversion factor. So let's say he comes in first and puts in residential. Now, this R/RV, the RV portion, is more commercial -type use. And I just talked to Rich. It's transient. It can be overnight use back and forth. So what happens if he plats a hundred lots, and then it could be R and then it comes in for RV later, which is more of a commercial use right next door? Now, there is buffering standards there, but there's no predictability in that tract of what it could be or what portion thereof could be. So I asked Richard, is it an either /or? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you said a conversion. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I go today and I say to you, Nick, on this piece of property, I want an RV park, it's an RV park. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But it's either 290 RV or zero, or is it a combination? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it will either -- no, the piece. The piece I come in with will either be an RV park or I won't do an RV park and that piece will be developed as residential. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It won't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It won't be a combination on -- within the same development. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. And I think that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be a separation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Nick's saying is, what if you decided to do a hundred -unit RV park; what happens to -- with the rest of the area in that R/RV area? MR. YOVANOVICH: That -- now, this is where the development standards are important, okay, because the area shrinks. The area on which I build the RV park becomes smaller because I'm doing lesser units. I've got a buffer between my park and any adjacent residential, regardless of how big the park is, and there would be residential that would be built in the area that we choose not to be RV. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that's the problem that's staffs running into, because it's a commercial use next to -- it's a residential but commercial use next to potentially residential. If the entire tract was R/RV -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, I get it. We'll either build on that entire piece RV, or we'll build on that entire piece R. So you don't have to worry about it shrinking or getting -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That solves the problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when -- Nick, you also have a good point is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've still got issues, but go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is that we could establish a residential neighborhood, and down the road he could come back in and put an RV park in the middle of an established -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: But he's saying it's either /or. And if that's in the PUD, that takes a lot of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That tip will either be an RV park or it will be a residential. MR. BELLOWS: So he's designating. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the way it is now, it can be in any R district. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It can only be in that location. That's the only location. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that something new you're adding or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we've had that for the last few reviews. Page 44 of 99 161 '1 A 3 August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know what, we aren't going to resolve this before lunch. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take lunch, and maybe we can get back to some kind of resolution, and we're going to have to go right back on this subject. And when we get back from lunch we're going to ask this panel how long you want to go, because we're going to -- we don't want to lose our sanity before we -- of course, some people may already think we have. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was going to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll take a lunch break until one o'clock, come back and start over then. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from lunch, and hopefully we'll be done here in a few minutes today. I doubt if that will really happen. But before we start, I want to thank a young lady that's ten years old and happens to be a really good cook. Her name is Karah Lewis, and maybe she got her cooking from -- pointers from her mom, but I'll tell you what, she's been an uplifting treat for this board periodically. So, Karah Lewis, thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, now we go from nice subjects to Richard. COMMISSIONER CARON: The sublime to ridiculous. MR. YOVANOVICH: How did I know that was coming? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on the TTRV or the conversion to motor homes and R and all that. Are there any final parting comments on that before we just roll on with the rest of this? And I'm sure it will keep cropping up in other avenues. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, yeah, if I could. I think -- have we agreed that the conversion from single - family to multifamily is not an issue? And, Commissioner Strain, to address your concern, we would cap the maximum number of single - family units that can convert to multifamily to be no more than 25 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. To be honest with you, with staff also working -- say they can work with that and the one with the senior housing as well, to me that's a big plus, and so I don't personally have a problem with it. I don't know if the rest of the board does. If any of you do have, speak out. The concern has always been -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to take them off, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the concern has always been, how this gets handled as we go down the road. And if staff feels it can be handled, then I feel confident we -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think there's already a provision in the PUD, but if there isn't, we can agree that every time we bring in an SDP or plat, we certify a tally of where we are -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- regarding the approval so it will be something that staff -- staff will have handy as they're reviewing to make sure that we're appropriately accounting for where we are under the PUD. So I hope that would -- we talked to Nick briefly about that, and I think that would -- that would be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you don't plat? MR. YOVANOVICH: Plat or SDP. Those are the only two that I know o£ If there's something else -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you don't plat? So you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, plat or SDP. Any -- I was using that by way of example. Any development approval we would need we would have the tally there for staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Regarding the RV, I thought we were -- we were pretty close because we agreed to limit it to just that tract, and it had to bean either /or. We would either do RV on that tractor we would do residential. And hopefully with that in mind, the conversion, based upon trips, can work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we've heard from all parties in regards to if they've all come to that conclusion. I don't mean just this panel but, I mean, we've still got a staff report to go through, and I'm going to need Page 45 of 99 i 4 A J '-' . 16, 1. August 4, 2011 some guidance from Heidi as to how she sees this language coming together. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I was hoping we were going to -- MS. ASHTON: My suggestion would be, we've gotten some input from the board, Rich has some proposed solutions. I'll work directly with Rich to address the concerns that I've raised and then implement the issues that he's discussed so we can come up with some language that we would be agreeable, but it'd have to be at the next -- at the next meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as the direction is to come up with a formula to allow for the conversion, we can work the language out. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I'm looking for is guidance on that. MS. ASHTON: So that I'm comfortable with what -- that what he said on the record today is what's reflected in the document. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the panel have any issues they want to express in regards to this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It probably will come up in other discussions because we have to go through some of the other documents, so let's just move on. The next level of conversion was your commercial conversion. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we would like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good resolution. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would like to simplify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just cross it all off. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we would like to do basically is convert -- have the ability to convert retail to office at a one -to -one ratio. We have 327,500 square feet of retail approved, we're asking for, and 70,000 square feet of office. That totals 397,500 square feet. That number will stay fixed. If we want to build less retail and more office, you could trade. So we can go down to 300,000 square feet of retail and then bump the office by the twenty -seven five. I hope that's -- and as everybody knows, the retail trip generation is higher than medical and general office. So from a transportation standpoint it shouldn't be difficult, from a mathematical standpoint it shouldn't be difficult, and actually from an implementation into various uses within a project it shouldn't be difficult. You're either office or you're retail. We should be -- it should be a fairly easy thing to monitor. And it wouldn't -- we wouldn't be going office to retail. We would just be going retail to office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's one - directional? MR. YOVANOVICH: Retail to office only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you can't decide that you're not going to do so much office and convert that to retail. It's just one - directional. MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be -- correct. And if we need to cap the amount of retail we can go to office, we can do that at 25 percent, just like we did for the residential. So you wouldn't end up with a 100 - percent office park when we have been talking about a retail and office development. Again, that gives us flexibility for what the market says. Now, I know that was something that has not been supported by staff. And should we talk about that one before I go to the next one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but Donna had a question or a comment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Well, now my only comment is we would not want it to go 100 percent office in that activity center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So 25 percent is a good figure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, do you want to comment on this aspect of the conversions? They're wiping out the conversion table and moving to one conversion, retail to office. Is that -- right? Page 46 of 99 61 1 A 3 August 4 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got one more after this one. Let's do one at a time. It's easier that way. MS. DESELEM: For the record, again, Kay Deselem. It sounds reasonable, but I really need a little bit more time to study and talk it over with staff so we can see what else might be involved, since this is the first time we've seen it. Because I just don't know for sure, but it sounds reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. So, Rich, what other one do you have up your sleeve? MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's the last one. We have the ability to build a 135 -room hotel, and that's 92,000 square feet, and it can go either on the commercial tract or it can go into the business -park tract. What we would like is if the market doesn't support doing a hotel, we would like to convert the hotel -- we would not -- it would be either you do the hotel or you don't. You can't do part hotel and part non - hotel. We would like to convert that hotel to 60,000 square feet of business park only, not retail; it would go in the business park. The business park is 35 acres. It has its open -- we're not trying to change any of the open -space standards, and we'll get into the uses later. Our thought is, if we're having a real successful business park to where we use all 140,000 square feet and there's not a need for a hotel, doesn't it -- that means, economically, we're probably doing a good thing. Why not do more of a good thing by having a successful business park that's providing job opportunities and the like? So we're saying, we would like the ability -- and, again, that number came from traffic trips. That's why it's not a one - for -one 92,000. It's reduced down to 60,000. If the market is really there for a bigger business park square- footage -wise, keeping in mind I could put a 140,000 - square -foot business park and a 92,000 - square -foot hotel on that same 35 acres -- that's 232,000 square feet -- I'm actually coming in less square footage at 200,000 square feet, and I'm doing more business park, which we think is kind of job creation, economic development, something that would be a good thing in this area. So that's our rationale. MS. ASHTON: Can I just ask a question for clarification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON: Are you saying that you would either build a 135 -room hotel -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Or 60,000 square feet of business park. MS. ASHTON: Okay. You can't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No combination. MS. ASHTON: So you're not going to break it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. MS. ASHTON: Okay. I just want to make sure -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an either /or. MS. ASHTON: -- I'm understanding when you're proposing. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's -- and it was confusing, because before we had a conversion that would allow us to give up some of the rooms. We would, again, go back to an either /or, make it real easy, hopefully, to monitor. It's an all -or- nothing, if you will, and take out some of the complication that was there by allowing us an option to do a combination of both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I know, it's going to be conceptual, it's going to be based on further review, and you've got to have time to look at it. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, that's it that's it. For the record, it does sound reasonable, yeah, and it seems like a much improved version than what we have, because the other one was so convoluted and hard to figure and maybe a little of this and a little of that, and this seems very straightforward and has merit, I think. MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to concur with that. Looking this over, I have no problems with it, but the original concept was problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wish we had the same conditions of our -- of comments thrown at us. We need time to review it, we've got to read it, we'll look at it. We'll get back to you. MS. DESELEM: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Kay, appreciate it. Does anybody have any questions on the two conversion issues that we just spoke about? Page 47 of 99 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one. And, Nick, the emphasis on traffic counts. And the number that I just saw used was 3,328. That number's created through the ITE manual and all the other stuff. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How could density change and still be within that number? Meaning, I'm trying to think of how to describe it. We have different variables and standards that make up all the computations, and sometimes things can change within them that allow more because the standard was lowered or changed. Is there any way the ITE trip- generation counts change that 3,328 would end up producing more than we're anticipating out of this project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do an update manual. You had an ITE 7th generation, then you had an 8th generation, but only when they get more information, they tweak the information a little bit, and it's based on, say, intensity per thousand square feet. They'll say, per thousand feet of commercial you get X amount of PM peak trips. Would the 9th generation say it might be a little bit different per square footage? It might, but it's always been fairly slight. They just -- they update a little bit. So I'm pretty comfortable using ITE 8th generation PM peak -hour trips, and that's what they've used here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if the next version came out and it said for X amount of trips you need, instead of a thousand square feet, you can fit two thousand square feet in there, that's -- theoretically we'd have to buy into that because of the trip generation that's being accepted as a static point in this application? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you stuck to the 8th generation ITE in terms of square footage to trips, that would lock it in, but I've never seen that drastic of a change. It's always been a minor -- they either add categories or they say more studies have been done and they adjust the PM peak. It's usually, I would say, de minimis. It hasn't been that dramatic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the possibility of them asking for in the future an alternative impact -fee study, or I think you call it an OMB study, to show that the impacts they have on the outside is not as great as they anticipated because of capture rates or other internal means? Could they then come back in and argue, okay, since we don't have the impact on the outside road system as approved by the alternative means allowed by the code, we, therefore, have the right to go ahead with this stuff because we're not meeting our caps. Can that -- is that a possibility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think if you tie it back to what the ITE, 8th generation -- you know, trip generation is referenced in this, that they'd have to come back and do a PUD amendment in order to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we weren't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm already capped. I'm already capped on my numbers. So even if the ITE manual says I have less impact -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, he said an the alternative study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think at your stages, Richard. You've got various stages -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- based upon road improvements and other things you're doing. I wanted to make sure that within those stages we still have some kind of solid control, and it looks like the ITE manual provides that to US. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's saying -- and without getting into a debate, he's saying if you came in and did an alternative study -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and based on your entire development, your internal capture was higher and your trips outside were less, would that allow you to generate more intensity. What I'm saying is no. Based on what you've submitted, we'll put together a table that allows those uses to ITE PM peak trips and say, that's it. So you're not doing an alternative study. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we can argue with it, but there's no point -- there's nothing to argue about, but I'll be glad to try to make that happen -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Page 48 of 99 3 4 IAugust 4, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one. And, Nick, the emphasis on traffic counts. And the number that I just saw used was 3,328. That number's created through the ITE manual and all the other stuff. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How could density change and still be within that number? Meaning, I'm trying to think of how to describe it. We have different variables and standards that make up all the computations, and sometimes things can change within them that allow more because the standard was lowered or changed. Is there any way the ITE trip- generation counts change that 3,328 would end up producing more than we're anticipating out of this project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do an update manual. You had an ITE 7th generation, then you had an 8th generation, but only when they get more information, they tweak the information a little bit, and it's based on, say, intensity per thousand square feet. They'll say, per thousand feet of commercial you get X amount of PM peak trips. Would the 9th generation say it might be a little bit different per square footage? It might, but it's always been fairly slight. They just -- they update a little bit. So I'm pretty comfortable using ITE 8th generation PM peak -hour trips, and that's what they've used here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if the next version came out and it said for X amount of trips you need, instead of a thousand square feet, you can fit two thousand square feet in there, that's -- theoretically we'd have to buy into that because of the trip generation that's being accepted as a static point in this application? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you stuck to the 8th generation ITE in terms of square footage to trips, that would lock it in, but I've never seen that drastic of a change. It's always been a minor -- they either add categories or they say more studies have been done and they adjust the PM peak. It's usually, I would say, de minimis. It hasn't been that dramatic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the possibility of them asking for in the future an alternative impact -fee study, or I think you call it an OMB study, to show that the impacts they have on the outside is not as great as they anticipated because of capture rates or other internal means? Could they then come back in and argue, okay, since we don't have the impact on the outside road system as approved by the alternative means allowed by the code, we, therefore, have the right to go ahead with this stuff because we're not meeting our caps. Can that -- is that a possibility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think if you tie it back to what the ITE, 8th generation -- you know, trip generation is referenced in this, that they'd have to come back and do a PUD amendment in order to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we weren't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm already capped. I'm already capped on my numbers. So even if the ITE manual says I have less impact -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, he said an the alternative study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think at your stages, Richard. You've got various stages -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- based upon road improvements and other things you're doing. I wanted to make sure that within those stages we still have some kind of solid control, and it looks like the ITE manual provides that to US. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's saying -- and without getting into a debate, he's saying if you came in and did an alternative study -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and based on your entire development, your internal capture was higher and your trips outside were less, would that allow you to generate more intensity. What I'm saying is no. Based on what you've submitted, we'll put together a table that allows those uses to ITE PM peak trips and say, that's it. So you're not doing an alternative study. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we can argue with it, but there's no point -- there's nothing to argue about, but I'll be glad to try to make that happen -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Page 48 of 99 9 A 3 161 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you'd like. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thanks for the offer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on then, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're vacating this easement; that's what we're doing? MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are we on, sir? MR. BELLOWS: Fifty -one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty -one, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Fifty -one of fifty -five. Apparently we had listed, in the list of easements that show the chain of access, an easement we're actually vacating, so that's what that is striking. That easement is actually going away. We're still providing the access but not through that easement. And I know you don't want to hear this, but I think that's all the changes we have to DO. I know there's a concept question I think Mr. Strain had regarding valuation of dedications, and I don't know if that's something you want to talk about at the DO stage or the PUD stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a big issue, and it's in the PUD, and we can bring it up anytime you want because I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's also in the DO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Either way you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I mean, we're in the -- we're talking about the PUD right now. If you want to bring it up now, then let's go forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're talking about the DO? I mean, before I leave the DO, is there anything else we need to talk about on the DO? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we are on the -- I'm sorry, you're right. We're on the DO. No, we can talk about that issue at this stage or at the PUD stage. Anywhere you want. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I guess, should we try to finish up the DO? Are there any questions related to the DO right now, or do you just want to go to the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm going to -- when you get all done with your presentation, I'm going to go through my three books page by page. MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't want to do it item by item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll get -- I'm already too confused with this. Try not to do it too much to me. Mr. Eastman, then Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, no. It was Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Rich, you may have done this, but this is in the development order. You changed the reference of up to a 20 -acre elementary school site on Page 42, but there's a similar reference -- and you may have gotten it -- but it's on Page 4 at the very bottom of the page, another up to 20 acres, and I just wondered if you wanted to make the change as well on page 4 to be internally consistent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. On Page 4, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good catch. Okay. MS. ASHTON: And then just when the next draft comes back, there area number of pages where the term "applicant" appeared. I'm not sure if it's on this draft right here that you just distributed, so if we could do a search and replace, and replace either "applicant" with either "developer" or "owner," whichever would be the appropriate one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll do that search to make sure. MS. ASHTON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you want to move to the PUD then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Okay. MS. ASHTON: Rich, are you working off the version that then the -- the one that appeared in the supplement, just so everybody's on same page? MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just going to say we've kind of -- we've gone through back and forth, and we Page 49 of 99 A 3 161 August 4, 2011 submitted to staff -- in response to the issues they raised in their staff report, we submitted a draft dated July 26, 2011. I believe that's the version you have in front of you, and that's the version I'm going to work off of because it shows a couple things. It shows how we addressed staff concerns, and then I'm going to talk about additional concerns that were raised mainly in the meeting with Mr. Strain and us. So I'm going to work off the 26th version, if that's what everybody's got in front of them, July 26th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for my benefit, would you mind, when you refer to a paragraph, use the numeric reference -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- only because I'm going to be working off the version that came in my booklet, which is 6/28/011. And staff keeps sending us stuff after I've spent a day reading and marking up a hundred or so tabs on a PUD version. I'm not going to re -read another one and mark up another one all over again. So I'm still stuck with that one. I'll do the best I can to follow along with what you've got. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Besides, that was after the hearing date anyway, right, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. It was after the hearing date that we got the revision. We should have had this before July 21 st. MR. YOVANOVICH: Remember you continued it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but the hearing date was originally scheduled by July 21 st. We would have -- we got our packets just before that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, we got the staff report and we met with staff on the 15th, and as a result of the meeting with -- the 15th, we generated a new PUD document to respond to their issues. And we got it to you as quickly as we could, in reacting as quickly as we could to the issues that were raised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Rich, just to make sure, those of us that --the one I printed has no footnotes and no page numbers or anything, so is that the one that on the -- like two pages in on the R/MU crossed out, medical, dental and hospital, is that the version? Like -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Where -- yeah, where you have No. 8 was crossed out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. All right, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, that's the version. Okay. Starting on Page 2, which would be Section I1, A7. We would revise Item No. 7 to have it only refer to senior housing for persons over 88 (sic) and delete care units group -- I'm sorry, senior housing for people over 55. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say 88, holy cow. That's a limited market. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to make sure Mr. Strain couldn't move in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm thinking my mom couldn't even go in that one. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will eliminate care units, group housing, group housing units as defined under the LDC, and then in the middle part of that paragraph we would get rid of foster care because we are limiting the uses to just senior housing for people over 55. So that's how that paragraph will get modified. We would delete churches, which is Item No. 8. On the same page, under B 1, at the end of Item No. 1, we would strike the words "and provide essential services." They didn't seem to be necessary as we reviewed this with Mr. Strain. Item No. 4 on that same page was how we tried to address staffs comment regarding where would the community horse stable be located. It would be located on this parcel here. It's the only parcel east of the Benfield Road. So obviously Benfield serves as a natural break, if you will, for the use of horses in the estate. So the community facility would be located in that area. Item No. 5 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron's -- Donna's got a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the language here would not allow it to creep over into the preserve, though, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It would be in the R. COMMISSIONER CARON: Residential lands, okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, in the residential lands, as accessory use to the residential. Page 50 of 99 161 A3 Au ust 4 2 g 11 0 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but -- and I think I mentioned this to you. See that blue on your master plan? All that R is separated from the horse trails that you would use in the preserves that apparently are currently used that way now by that lake. So what's the advantage of having horse stables over there when they still can't get to the preserve? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to have to -- I'm sure we'll have to figure out where the lake with actually end and have the ability for horses to find their way to the state forest to go on the trails and all that. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you buy to the north end of that site and your access is only from the end of the lake, you've got to have some kind of horse trail through the yards of everybody's home so they can ride their horses all the way down to the south area to get over to the preserve, and how practical is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're -- yes. We're going to have to deal with that when we design the community if it's going to be a horse - related community. I mean, yes, we're going to have to figure that out and people who live in a horse community, I'm sure, are going to expect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you could break that lake up and make it a little bit aesthetically pleasing and not make it a canal. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, this isn't to the -- the master plan is not supposed to be at that level at this point. You know, we're -- you know, we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is when you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- not at final design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is when you're proposing something that we've got to see how it practically fits, and that kind of was a -- like a roadblock. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Yes, we know we're going to have to actually -- when we get to the nitty -gritty details, we're going to have to find a way for the horses to get to the forest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, on there, just a scrivener, I think you should add "ed" after "allowed," and maybe -- MR. NADEAU: We did. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe -- MR. YOVANOVICH: "Allowed on residential lands lying east of'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, "may be allowed." It's a scrivener. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And swimming with horses is fun, so maybe that's how you start out. It is. I mean, I've swam with a horse. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not to insult you, but that's what Mr. Mulhere said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A couple of guys in this room know how to have fun, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Okay. On Item No. 5 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, before we leave No. 4, let's talk about the size. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's No. 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you -- okay. Well, my copy's No. 4. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's because you don't want to work from the version that we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you spent the time on -- well, you probably did, but the time I spent on this, I couldn't redo it twice. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, I understand. What we had changed is we broke 4 into two paragraphs, into 4 and 5. The way it reads, for your benefit, Mr. Strain, is "Private stables on single - family lots greater than," and we originally had 10,000 square feet -- we had changed it to 21,780, and we're willing to cry uncle again and go with staffs recommendation from their July 21, 2011, memo and go to 30,000 square feet. So we'll have minimum lots of 30,000 square feet if we want to be able to have a horse, one horse, on an individual lot. And I hope that is okay with staff since it was in the 7/21 staff report, but that's what they were recommending. Page 51 of 99 16 1 A A 3 August 4 2011 g , MS. ASHTON: You just need to consider that horses are herd animals and they like to be together, so if you're going to now be allowing one horse, plus on a half -acre lot, you know, you've got to accommodate for the pasture and you've got to accommodate for the, you know, manure -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And, by the way, it's just on the tract east. MS. ASHTON: -- so consider those as you're making your decision. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it would be limited to just the tract east of Benfield where we can have the community stable, not throughout the entire community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in that same sentence it has "horse density." That stays the same? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, one horse per lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, to take Heidi's point, I mean, the minimum lot is thirty thou? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't you keep the 21? Let's say I have a sixty thou lot. I could essentially get three horses. If it's a -- if horses like friends, let's give them more. COMMISSIONER AHERN: They have you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're okay with more than one horse. We were told, you can have one horse on a 30,000- square- foot -or -above lot. We're just responding to the limitations placed onus. If we can have one horse per 21,780 and we decide to do a full acre, we could have two, you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would probably be better. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we were told -- the comment we received was, limit yourself to one horse per lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, you know, is this the first time we ever dealt with horse density, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The Estates uses it. The Estates allows one -- that's where the 21,780 comes from is when you calculate the number of horses that are allowed on an estate lot, it equates to the 21,780 per horse. MS. ASHTON: But I think the Estates lot size is 1.25 acres, and then you get one horse per whatever. Staff can answer that better, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in this case -- but in this case you have a 30,000 -foot lot and you've got one horse. You buy an acre lot, you get two horses rather than be limited to one. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're fine with that; we're fine with that. It's if staffs okay with that and the Planning Commission's okay with that. MS. ASHTON: I think you'd have to change the 21,780 to one acre in the first sentence, and then the second sentence could stay the same, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, did you have something you want to add? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm just curious as to how the horses are going to get around in the residential development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we mentioned earlier. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to have to design it, Nick, for a horsing community when we get ready, and you'll be reviewing the site plan for it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, but what kind of standards should -- you know, are you going to have them driving -- walking down the middle of the road or provide them a horse trail easement between the lots that allowed horses? MR. YOVANOVICH: And we'll have to deal with that. It may be they can walk down the road. They do it in the Estates. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: They do it in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And, you know, you're going to have signage in the streets. I mean, people are going to know you're in a horsing community. MR. BELLOWS: That's 75 -foot setbacks. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not like -- it's not like you're going to come into Pine Ridge and let people walk up and down the street. COMMISSIONER CARON: What do you do in Pine Ridge? Page 52 of 99 I C I I H 7 161 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They walk up and down the street. COMMISSIONER AHERN: They walk -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What do you do? Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, you've got to take it easy on how much we speak out. Terri's still got to get our names in there, so let's -- one at a time is fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have horse trails if that -- if we need to put in there that we'll have horse trails or sidewalks. I'm not -- I mean, I'm serious. Horse walks. We'll have horse walks, horse trails, either in the near or the front to get horses around, I mean, off the pavement, if that's a concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are there any equestrian community designs? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we ought to look at inserting some of those minimal provisions to make sure that if you decide to go with the equestrian effort, you do so under some standards that are acceptable. And if that means horse trails, then fine, just write that in. But I think if you're going to go that route, especially in a large section with the barricades you're putting up to get to the preserve, we ought to write some standards in there that provide the access that Nick's asking about and some way that we can say, you've got to do this. You don't take the roads. You don't take the sidewalks. That might be the way to look at it. So I'd suggest that those be included in some manner. So do you have any problem with that, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys -- if you're going to be doing good design, you're going to use them anyway, so why don't you put some -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. That's fine. If we have to get that detailed in the PUD, we'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what a PUD's for. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, you could say -- why can't we just put something in here that the -- there will be appropriate horse trails that -- to accommodate that? And so are we going to get down at the next -- do you expect us to come back at the next meeting with the development standards? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if -- you can come back anytime you get -- you've got to give staff enough time to review it and for Heidi's office to review it, and then come back. If it's the next meeting or the first one in January, it's whatever you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: January? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I said January on purpose. Whenever you want to come back's okay, I'm sure, with this board, Richard. So we'll work as fast as we can to get it done for you, but it's a matter of having it reviewed by staff and the County Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, can't you just add six -- in the accessory use, add horse trails, like you do in preserves, and then that way you'll design a nice equestrian neighborhood, and it will have horse trails. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that works for us, if it works for staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think staff needs some time to think about it. I'm not sure that they realized this use would even be going this fast forward today. But the fact that it is, we need to make sure that it's done in a manner that works for the community. With that water body up against the preserve and some of the other restrictions to get around, it's just not -- it's not unreasonable for you to plan ahead as to how you're going to trail people around that area. MR. YOVANOVICH: I disagree, because the staff report said we could have this use if we had minimum 30,000 - square -foot lots. So I think staff said, here's how you fix it; go to 30,000 - square -foot lots. We had proposed going just to 21,780. We're now saying, okay, staff, you're right; we'll go to 30,000 - square -foot lots. They didn't say, and give us the details of how you're going to get the horses from the house to the state forest. I mean, if they had that concern, I think that would have been in the staff report. The staff report said, go to 30,000 square feet, the July 21 staff report, and we've done that. What we're saying is, we'll include a provision that there be appropriate horse trails within the horsing Page 53 of 99 «"" A 31 16 1 1 August 4, 2011 community, and then we can deal with that at the site level stage if that -- without having to worry about going back and forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we can come up with some development standards between now and then. I don't think it will be that, you know, difficult. So I think we'll put our heads together. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next page, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Make sure we got them all. Going to Page 3, which would be Roman Numeral I1I, the RM -- R/MU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: The second line, it had up to 70,000 gross feet. It's actually 50,000. And then we would like to add at the end of that first paragraph, after the words "Tract C," except as provided for in the land use conversions in Exhibit B." It was in the previous sentence, but it didn't make it to the following sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Heidi. MS. ASHTON: There was a reason I took that out, and I don't recall at this point in time. I think it was -- where did you want to put -- can you say again what you wanted to add? MR. YOVANOVICH: After the words "Tract C" -- MS. ASHTON: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- we would add "Except as provided for in the land use conversions in Exhibit B," which -- MS. ASHTON: Well, I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Because remember we -- MS. ASHTON: I think the reason is, you wanted to go over it, and I think that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and we still do. If -- MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. I don't have my notes, and I don't recall exactly what it was. But when I analyzed it, it was never going to be over 50,000 because of the intensity. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We -- now, we -- it can only be medical. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And now that we have the conversion formula, that would allow us to give retail up to come over to medical. We would like to be able to do -- I'm sorry -- yeah, retail to go to medical office. We would like to be able to put it on that tract where it's designed to go. MS. ASHTON: But retail is a higher intensity than office. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not putting retail there. We're taking -- if we convert some of our retail office space -- MS. ASHTON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- bring that number down, we want to be able to take some of that square footage and put it on the R/MU tract, so that's why the -- medical office. That's why we want to put it there. That's why I want the ability to go above the 50,000 if the -- if we use the conversion formula to create more medical. MS. ASHTON: But there's a problem with the conversion. I'm sorry, it's after lunch so I'm not as clear, but what you're trying to propose is not possible. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is. We just talked about the medical conversion. We just talked about being allowed to use retail and converting it to either general office or medical office, because both general office and medical office have less traffic impact than retail, and we capped ourselves at 25 percent. So theoretically we could take 10,000 square feet, by way of example, from the retail, create 10,000 more square feet of medical, and put it on this tract. So we're not capped at fifty; we can go to 60,000 square feet. MS. ASHTON: I'll have to work with Rich on the language, because I have concerns with the way he's proposing it. The prior versions of what I looked at, the conversions didn't work. In some instances they were trying to take an office use and get a retail value from it when it wasn't a permitted use. I mean, it was just confusing, so I'll need to take a look at it and figure out how we can accomplish, because I think what he's trying to do is he wants to take a use that's permitted in retail, but it's not permitted here, and move it over to this tract. So it would be over 50,000. Page 54 of 99 A z 161 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be over 50,000, but it still would be office, medical office. MS. ASHTON: Correct. It would be one of the permitted uses, but you're pulling it off of a retail use on another tract. So if that's what he's trying to do, I can work with him to accomplish the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, no. I was just going to mention to Heidi, it is a one -way conversion now, too. I mean, a little bit -- MS. ASHTON: Before it was a two -way. I just need to check -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Understand what you're saying, absolutely. MS. ASHTON: -- it because I kept saying no, no, no on -- I've reviewed at least 20 versions of this document, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, no question. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something else, procedurally, this PUD we're going to be going through it basically page by page, and we've been -- this is all part of Richard's presentation, but I think it might be beneficial, especially since I've got a lot of tabs on these pages, if we hit our issues on each page as they went through them so we don't have to go back through everything twice. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That -- I'm hoping that's what we can do, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that in mind, does the Planning Commission have any concerns on the first two pages that were already passed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, mine already were addressed so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, mine haven't all been, so let's go back to Page 2, and I'm on number Roman Numeral IIA8. You said strike "churches." We discussed it; I thought we were striking the whole thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought I said -- I meant to say strike all of 8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All of 8 is struck. Then we go down to B, accessory uses. And if we look at No. 3, in that one you refer to community residents and their guests. What is a community resident? MR. YOVANOVICH: Someone who lives in the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the community? The entire DRI or the PUD or the village that you're in or the horse stable section or the commercial section or the swamp buggy section or the JD section or the RV section; which is the community? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think all of the above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So under your residential permitted uses you put your accessory uses in, you've got a community center, and everybody in the place, including the commercial tenants, can go and use that community center in the residential section? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you want to exclude the commercial tenants from using an overall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I just want to make sure everybody understands. Because someone down the road's going to read it, Rich, and they're going to try to interpret it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wasn't think- -- look, the way I was thinking is we would have within our -- like every other project, you can have one big or two big community facilities where people come to, and then within each individual development you can have a smaller -scale community facility. This was to allow for both, and for people who are residents who live within the community can use them. We didn't -- we weren't looking at, you can only live in this section to use this community facility, and there may be instances where we do say you can only live within an individual neighborhood to use a facility. It was to cover both situations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a project up on the north end of town -- let's see; I think it's something like Olde Cypress -- that has an issue where they just got their PUD amended but they had a community center, and the concern was they will be brought in -- some outside property into their PUD because of the way it's worded, the outside people would have rights to their community facilities. And I just want to make sure we don't run into that again. Page 55 of 99 .1 ' 161- 1 August 4, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll make -- it's for the people who live within the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Live within the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Within the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be helpful. On No. 4, which could be your No. 5 -- I'm trying to convert for you -- you had a reference to a community stabling. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You still have that? Okay. What's community stabling? Is that like a retail operation that you're going to rent out -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- spaces and sell tack and who knows what else you might be doing there? MR. YOVANOVICH: For people who live within that residential area, it will be a community stable where we'll be providing all of those services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this word "community" in this case is exclusive, where in the prior one that we just talked about it isn't exclusive. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I imagine if you live in one of the other portions of the community and you want to have a horse, you could go rent a stall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are commercial? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We are -- we're accessory to the residents of this community. If I live in a different portion of the community and I want to have a horse and I don't want to buy on the east side of Benfield Road, I can buy -- I can have a horse and I can stable it at the community -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's going to be responsible for the community stabling? Is it going to be an HOA? Are you going to have a -- I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Do we have to decide that today? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand how you're going to -- if its a retail operation or not Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be -- it's no different than a country club that serves the community where some people are members and some people aren't. You have a restaurant and you have a golf course with that. That's not a retail operation open to the general public. It has some aspects that are retail, but it is accessory to the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to have a restaurant there, too? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MS. ASHTON: I'll work with Rich to clarify what the community in each of the sections means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's two references to community. They need to be clarified so that we're not mixing them up. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I do think it's an important point, because I'm not sure that what you want is for me to decide that I want to buy a horse but I'm going to stable it over in your PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want you -- you can't. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't want me there anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't come. You're not allowed. COMMISSIONER CARON: But anybody else? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. You have to live within the PUD boundaries, and you would be eligible to come stable your horse at the community stable. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So I think Mr. Strain's point is valid; this is not specific enough. That's all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We certainly can clarify that, but the intent was you've got to live within the PUD to be able to rent a stall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other sentence that's here is, horse racing, dressage, or horse jumping events open to the public are not prohibited. So if they're closed to the public they are allowed? They are prohibited, okay. Page 56 of 99 161 August 4, 20 1 I'm sorry. Are open -- are prohibited. So the reverse then is if they're closed to the public you can still have those events but they'd be for the community -- whatever the community happens to be? MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be for the residents of the PUD, for those who live within the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you going to buffer that operation from the homes and the rest of it? I mean, now you're talking -- because there is a place in Golden Gate Estates that's operating like that right in the middle of the Estates, and it's causing a lot of concerns by the neighbors there. MR. MULHERE: Traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, between traffic, deliveries of hay to this facility. The woman apparently claims she has 12 horses, and she's got lights on and all this other stuff going on and full events with loudspeakers. You predict -- that fits the description here. How do you differentiate that operation from a compatibility viewpoint to the homes in the area? I mean, do we have any standards that fall -- that address that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, at some point you have to trust that the developer is going to develop a community that people who ride horses are going to want to buy into, and if they're not going to want to buy into it, we will not be able to sell the lots. We're going to have those facilities on a plan for people to see as they're buying in the horse -- in that portion of the project. Have we gone down to the nitty -gritty detail today to define -- to design that? No. We think it makes perfect sense to have a horse -- especially being located next to the forest, to have a horse community as an option for development. And we will -- we will work those details out as we design that particular phase of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, let's go to Page 3 then. And you had left off on the top of the page when Heidi and you started talking about the conversion language. Did you have any more changes you wanted to make on that page? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Item No. 6, which I've put on the visualizer, would, again, change it just to senior housing for people over 55, and we've deleted Item No. 8, which is not on this page, but -- this has been cleaned up, but 8 went away, which is the medical, dental, and hospital equipment sales. So those were the changes to that particular page of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caron -- Miss -- Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Seven as well as, churches, right? That was coming off of here as well as medical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're leaving in -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You told me just the opposite. MR. YOVANOVICH: I got it backwards. It was the residential development, the -- purely residential, churches came out of, but for something that could be both. That could be medical use. We wanted to leave churches in subject to approval of the BZA, because that may take on a different -- in a purely residential context, we didn't think churches made sense, but in an aspect where it could be something that's not a residential development -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's specifically called out here as a medical use. That's the other use besides residential that's supposed to be on this parcel. That was the -- the whole point of that strip there was that it was supposed to be residential and medical use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll take it off. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- certain that churches -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- Rich, if you could do Pages 3 and 4, then we'll ask for any other board comments, then we'll go on to 5 and 6. MS. ASHTON: I have to say, I don't know if senior housing is, because we have certain development -- you know, we have definitions in the LDC, of which senior housing is not one of them. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is defined in our document in Exhibit B as senior housing for people over 55, which includes independent, ALF, and nursing homes. Exhibit B -- and CCRCs, and it has characteristics that you have to have in order to qualify for the definition of senior housing. MS. ASHTON: I'll have to take a look at that, but I just have to preface that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a feeling we're going to have to look at everything when we're done. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Page 57 of 99 A 3 i August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4, Rich, did you have anything on there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Again, at the top, under accessory uses, strike the words "and provide essential services." Oh, sorry. And then we deleted Item 1, which was aircraft -- aircraft and parks. We're not going to build planes here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you just took the fun out of today. COMMISSIONER CARON: Really. I wanted that one in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did, too. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the only thing I wanted. MS. ASHTON: And there is a sentence on the visualizer that's added on this draft that isn't in your book, but it was in the supplemental one that he submitted, which has not been approved by staff. It begins with, "Furthermore, any office, hotel density not used elsewhere in the PUD may be used within the BP if the other nonresidential tracts are built out as long as intended use is allowed within the BP tract." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm real confused with what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't get any of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think Terri got quite a bit. What -- let's start over again. What is this you're referring to? MS. ASHTON: If you look on your visualizer and you go to -- it's the third sentence under BP that starts with "furthermore," that's a new sentence that's not in your version on the 6/28 draft. That was something that staff and me -- and I took out of a previous draft. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did not add that sentence as part of the 7/26 revision, that "furthermore" paragraph, sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when did you add it? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was in previous drafts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: But they're showing it on the visualizer, so are you proposing that language? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm not touching that language; that language was in the 7/12 version of the PUD. MS. ASHTON: The version that's in the board package is 6/28, and that was not in there. The 7/12 was the version that they prepared to try to address the issues that staff raised. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that was the 7/26 version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the -- Rich, here's the 6/28 version, and it's the one I used, and that is not in here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Yes, we added that sentence at some point to, again, address conversion formulas. We'll have to modify it for the hotel dens- -- well, actually hotel density -- MS. ASHTON: Well, it was never approved by staff or me, just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I'm assuming we're going to be going through a substantial review of this to catch up you and me on drafting the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have to, yeah. I'm -- by the way, I mean, I know we've got Kay and Ray, and Nick doesn't do writing -- but Kay and Ray, are you guys making good notes of all this so that we can -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we're taking good notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm only making -- MR. BELLOWS: We also have the video we'll look at, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, okay. So that sentence is going to have to be reviewed separately by everyone. Let's move onto the rest of that one. Anything else on that page, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not that I know o£ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the Planning Commission, anything on Pages 3 and 4? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move to Pages 5 and 6. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is 5, and I don't -- I'm going to have to shift it up, but Items 11, we added the Page 58 of 99 A 6 1 August 4, 2011 words -- after 3699 we added "indoor only." In Item No. 17 under industrial and commercial machinery, we restricted those to SIC Codes 3524, 3546, and 3571 through 3579. So we eliminated some of the codes that were previously requested. Under 18 we also reduced the number of requested uses to Items 2833 and 2844. Moving up the page, whichever way we're going, we eliminated Items 26 and 27. Okay. That's that page. Going to the next page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- under wholesale non -trade goods, Item 34, we put in No. 5153 in place of 5159, and then B 1, SIC Code 7363 we said "not including labor pools," because that was a concern about certain temporary labor services. And you can see Item No. 5. We just limited it to the hotels, and we made it very clear that the hotel square footage is not counted towards the 140,000 - square -foot cap since they were analyzed separately from a traffic standpoint. So that's 5 and 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Pages -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The title of this is permitted secondary uses, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- none of these uses are subordinate to any other use. Do you think it would be clear if you named it, like, limited principal uses? Secondary kind of gave me the impression there had to be something else before you had this. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. They -- we basically took this from the way the terminology is in the Land Development Code. So if we want to change the terminology, that's fine. It's just -- we just --we took the terminology from the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- I mean, but what is permitted secondary? What is -- why does the word "secondary" -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Because we're capped at 30 percent of the project can be these uses. On the others, it could be 100 percent, but they've got to be no less than 70. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I just think, you know, they're still principal uses, they're just limited. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think the word "limited principal uses" avoids the -- because I thought these at first had to be subordinate to something else. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We're -- if that makes it clearer to people, then we're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't matter to me. I mean, if Brad likes it, that works for me. I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, because they're not secondary to anything, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Is this your last meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we can't follow you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's see what Bob thinks about it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No speak English. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just think these are allowable uses, but you're limiting them in some fashion as opposed to the other ones that have no limitation. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm easy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't matter to me either. But just, when I first read this, I thought that, you know, you couldn't have a daycare center unless it was subordinate to something else, and that's not what you really mean here. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is not -- 30 percent of our project can be developed with these uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that explains it, yeah. Page 59 of 99 161 A 3 August 4, 2011 MR. BELLOWS: That's consistent with the B -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's secondary, in a sense, you can -- maximum of 30 percent is all that's allowed. One item up on No. 31, you don't want to do 3731. That's building and repairing tankers, transport vessels, trawlers, lighthouse tenders, naval ships. I really don't think you're going to do that at that location. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be novel. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. I had that, but for some reason I thought we discussed it and decided to leave it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we discussed it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Not you, not you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you said you'd take it out. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: What number? MR. EASTMAN: Which one was that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3731, No. 31. MR. YOVANOVICH: Under Item 31. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on to 7 and 8, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is under Tract C. We eliminated 8, which is agricultural services. We modified No. 9 under the 799 category, which is usually the catchall category, to limit it to only billiard parlors, bingo parlors, marshal arts, and yoga instruction, bicycle and golf cart rentals under the 799 category. And then we eliminated Item No. 10, animal specialty services. Item No. 12 we had a wrong site for the auto and home - supply stores. It's actually SIC codes 5211 through 5261 and 5531. And then Item No. 14, we added the word "including," so it reads "including garage automobile parking structures," and then we added "no towing yards" under that category. And then under automotive repair we have -- MR. BELLOWS: 7533. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I know. I can't read my handwriting at this point. Sorry. Under automotive repair we have 7513 through 7533, and then 7536 through 7549 we eliminated 7534 as a use under that category. And then items -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Item 27, we got rid of "including communication towers," and then Item 28 we're modifying it to, again, be consistent with just senior housing for people over 55. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the Planning Commission on Pages 7 and 8? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, back over on Page 7, your caretaker's unit, I just want to make Ray and Kay or Nick aware of it. The caretaker's units, and they're referenced in multiple locations, are all counted as the residential density against the 1,760. So kind of keep that in mind when you -- however you need to note that. On No. 26, 7361, it was that day -labor number again that we took out previously; did you see a need to leave it there? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was permitted secondary -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We had actually left 7361 in, Mr. Strain. You're talking about on Item No. 1, going back to Page 6? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Permitted secondary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6, Item No. 1 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: 7361? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We went back and looked at that, and I believe it was -- it's establishments primarily engaged in providing employment services, except theatrical employment agencies and motion picture casting bureaus, establishments classified here may assist either employers or those seeking employment. Establishments primarily engaged in operating theoretical employment agencies are classified in the industry as 7922, Page 60 of 99 I V 1 H X61 A August 4, 2011 those operating motion picture casting bureaus are classified in the industry as 7819, and farm labor contractors are classified in agriculture industries 0761, and then it gives a specific list of chauffeur registries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Read the fourth one is all that I was concerned about. MR. YOVANOVICH: Labor contractors? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Employment agencies, except farm labor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So you want -- so if we say "except labor contractors "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be better for the project. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you need that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. And we were trying to get -- I think earlier we talked about the others. Okay. That was -- we must have missed that one when we were looking at the list. So we'll do that there as well as later on. Actually, we don't need it later on since we have it referred to under business services. Okay. Where are we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Pages 9 and 10. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, 9 and 10. Okay. Now, we probably should have done 9 in the continuation of 8, but these last two paragraphs deal with the senior housing, and they're not necessary based upon the revisions that we made. Eliminated -- MS. ASHTON: Well, let me ask you a question then, because if you eliminate those, the senior housing, is that limited by the square footage then under the commercial, or is it derived from residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. If we decide to put senior housing on the commercial tract, we subtract it from our square footage, retail square footage. MS. ASHTON: Okay. So it's not governed by the FAR like we typically do. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ray, Kay's leaving, so you're in trouble now. Okay. Bye, Kay. Have a good trip. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Eliminating churches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's only because it's picked up elsewhere under religious organizations, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. There's a couple in here that we had in a couple of times, so we must have really meant it. Dance studios, the SIC code is 7911. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 36, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Number 36, sorry. Okay. We looked at No. 50, kiosks. We thought the better way to handle it was to actually define, and what it is is "kiosks that are small, separate structures, often movable, and open on one or more sides used as a newsstand, vending stall, or other convenience would be allowed within the commercial area." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Small," not to exceed? I mean, small to you could be 5,000 square feet. So what do you want for "small" to be? And "often movable" means it doesn't have to be, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Two hundred square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that 10 by 20; yeah, that would work. MR. YOVANOVICH: On Item No. 57 I think we got rid of the -- is that an "or "? We made it a comma. And then Item No. 69 we excluded massage parlors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want escort services, steam baths, Turkish baths, and tattoo parlors? MR. YOVANOVICH: Wait a minute. No. How come I had on my notes excluding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read all those things to you Monday night. I don't know what a Turkish bath is, but it doesn't sound like a good place for it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know we eliminated tattoo parlors. I had the tattoo parlors gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's a horse bath. Page 61 of 99 61 V­3" August 4, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Escort services I don't think we're interested in either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you may be, but you're not going to admit it, but anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is a kid show. This is family hour. What were the other ones, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Escort service, massage parlors, steam bath, Turkish baths, and tattoo parlors. Those are what we talked about. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. They're all out of there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't get Tom chuckling too much, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. Okay, Item 7 goes away because it was covered above in 69. And then Item 72, political organizations, the actual number is 8651. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody from the Planning Commission have questions on Pages 9 or 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thanks. Eleven and twelve? MR. YOVANOVICH: We struck 90, and in the previous version we had moved the "excluding adult- oriented rentals and sales" to the right location. Under 82 previously we had it under recreational - vehicle dealers, and so we had it in the wrong location, so we moved it up to 82. COMMISSIONER CARON: So they now can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You imagine, the original request in this is was escort services, what we would end up with there. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said you were originally requesting -- you wanted adult- oriented rentals and sales with escort services. What a combination, Rich. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Turkish baths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Turkish baths, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's No. 75? What did you end up doing with that? We discussed it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did we get rid of it? I have it on mine to get rid of it, but it stayed on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had it on mine that you had gotten rid of it, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We're getting rid of that one. I thought we did, too. All righty. We're flying along. Now we're into Tract A, which is the swamp buggy tract. And under Items 2 and 3, we just got rid of the catchall groups. I don't believe they were in the previous adopted PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Anybody from the Planning Commission's got questions on 11 or 12? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, wouldn't these attractions sometimes want the RV site and everything near them? Will they be or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Our RV site? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. A lot of these kind of events you're allowed to do -- there is a lot of RVs around, a lot of people staying overnight. Is -- is this site -- I mean, you -- I always thought that little R piece near it would be a good place for the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you could see where the RV park would be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's in pretty close proximity to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Walking distance? MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to the swamp buggy. Yeah. I think so, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let's assume this sport evolves a little bit more. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's assume the sport evolves a little bit. Won't people be coming in RVs Page 62 of 99 1 n I u -� 1 61 A August 4, 20 1 and staying on -site and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think they probably can do that now. Are they doing that now? Yeah, it's in the PUD that they can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's open field. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What number? MR. YOVANOVICH: B6 on Page 13. It says, "picnicking and playground areas as well as areas for camping that may be utilized only three days prior to, during, and three days after each major event." COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That will work. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on Pages 13 and 14. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Nice segue to that page. Under Item No. B2 we struck everything after water- management structures because we have to get them permitted anyways, so that was superfluous language. And we didn't want any scholarly research on the archaeologic site, so we struck the word "scholarly." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't really -- couldn't figure out what you meant by that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then I don't think we had any changes to 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have changes on 13 or 14? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on to 15 then, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Fifteen, a question was raised, do we even need Item No. Roman Numeral X. I'll put it up here. We struck it. But first going back to Item No. 6 above it, again, that's another reference to water - management structures. We -- obviously it has to be in accordance with permits, so we struck that language. And then the question became, do we really need a separate development tract for right -of -way? I honestly don't remember how it got into the PUD, but we struck it. And if we need to leave it in, that's fine, but we really don't have a tract. We do identify all the right -of -ways on the master plan, but we don't typically identify what permitted uses are allowed in right -of -ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think -- Nick, the county never has required that that I can recall. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, I was just checking his IT trip generation, if you can just refresh me on what he's coming up to right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was looking at something different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have on Page 15 of the PUD, it's on -- they established a definition or a description of a tract for right -of -way, ROW, public right -of -way permitted uses. If it's an ROW, it's public. There's no need to have it spelled out in the PUD what can be done with it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never -- I don't recall seeing that kind of thing before -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I suggested that it be struck. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And nothing on 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray's got questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it a certain fact that they will -- the county will accept dedicated right -of -way there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, not all of those roads. A lot of those roads will stay private, and some of those will be public, Benfield, Lords Way, Rattlesnake. The rest will be privately owned, privately maintained. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you struck that for the reason that it was designated as public right -of -way? MR. YOVANOVICH: We struck it -- we typically don't have with -- a separate district within a PUD that identifies right -of -ways as -- and what you can do in it. We identify right -of -way on the master plan, but we don't Page 63 of 99 161 b1l A 3 August 4, 2011 have a district with allowed permitted uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't think so. 1811 ; � Y0V AK ► [O1 T / [el . I ;' M COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's struck then, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's gone, 10's gone. And that's it in Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything on Pages 15 and 16 from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just want to go over the signs, how many signs we're putting on this master plan and where they're going to -- do you just want to put up your master plan and show them? MR. NADEAU: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Dwight Nadeau, RWA. If I may refer to the visualizer, on the master plan we have little icons that are denoting boundary markers. They would be located along major public roadways. So when the traveling public is moving on Collier Boulevard, there would be a little boundary marker on each corner, Benfield Road in this corner, moving to the southern portion of the site. COMMISSIONER CARON: There's one by your public facility, too. Is that actually one of the seven you're counting? MR. NADEAU: The one by the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: PF. MR. NADEAU: Public facility also does have signage there, boundary marker. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we're up to four. MR. NADEAU: And on the south side we have the southern terminus of Benfield Road as well as the two corners of Collier Boulevard associated with commercial tract. And they're just monument signs. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Yeah, I just wanted to find out where they were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Exhibit B? Which --a lot of the first two pages, Rich, I think is all going to be rewritten. It's all your conversion standards, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. On the first page, though, we had added this sentence to address staffs comment regarding the 13 units being located on the R/MU tract. That was one of the staff comments, so that's on the first page. And then the -- Page No. 18 would be pretty much -- that's our first stab at rewriting it to implement, as we discussed earlier, the new conversion formulas subject to staff reviewing it. We're also clarifying -- that's where you'll find the definition of senior housing that's applicable throughout, and we just went -- we went through and made sure of that. We're using uniform terminology, got rid of the "care unit" phraseology and went purely to "senior housing." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, on that senior housing care unit intensity where you talk about an FAR of .60, you're capped at 92,000 square feet, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. That's the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're capped at four hundred and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Four hundred fifty units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four fifty units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So shouldn't we reference the FAR but also point that there's a cap not to exceed 450 units? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. MR. NADEAU: It's on the bottom. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it down on the bottom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. "In no instance shall be greater than 450." Good catch, Dwight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. ASHTON: Can you put the previous page back up. Page 64 of 99 v • � A August 4, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Excuse me? MS. ASHTON: Can you put the previous page back up. You went so fast I couldn't get it. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I expect you're going to have to look at all this, Heidi, in greater detail. This was our attempt to write what we had previously described as how we were going to address the retail to conversion to office as well as the conversion of the hotel to business park. And then also -- are we ready to go to the next page, 19, or are we still here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything on Pages 17 and 18? Yes, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I don't know --just because we're on the subject of residential, I'd be interested to know what staff thinks about the recommendation to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council with regard to affordable housing. I mean, we haven't dealt with that. I don't know where the proper point of getting to that is. MR. YOVANOVICH: They actually recommended that we not address affordable housing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: The planning council -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- did not believe that there was a need to provide affordable housing under today's economic conditions, so they did not go along with their staffs recommendation and actually forwarded a recommendation to not require us to provide any additional affordable housing. Because based on our analysis, there is more than enough affordable housing in the area to satisfy the demand for affordable housing created by our project. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So what they've said is different from what is included in our report that we got, which is their staff report that they developed? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And their staff report said that, but what was approved by the Regional Planning Council was not what staff recommended. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to Page 19 and 20. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's more correction of the senior housing terminology. The -- we eliminated the language relating to development standards for schools since that's already the law, and we added for recreational- vehicle park a 25 -foot Type C buffer to address staffs concern regarding the separation of an RV park from an adjacent residential development. It's probably not underlined on that version, but we did add that to the last bullet point under RVs. It's in the 7/26 version. And then under sign, development standards, the second bullet, we clarified signage for swamp buggy. That's Page 19. Page 20, for those of you who are on the 7/26 version, if you look under the multifamily dwellings column, under front -yard setback says, "20 feet or a half the building height, whichever is greater." That was to address staffs comment about our taller buildings. So that was to increase the setback for the taller buildings from our neighbors to whatever direction they may be to those taller buildings. Same thing for the rear yard in that category. And then if you go all the way down under maximum zoned height and maximum actual height for accessory uses, we reduced that to 35 feet and 35 feet respectively for accessory uses related to multi -- I'm sorry -- yeah, to multifamily. We also deleted Footnote iii because it's already in the code. Didn't we? MR. NADEAU: Yeah, we did. MR. YOVANOVICH: Triple 1. Okay. And going to the next page, we added a footnote to address -- we're adding a footnote to address the 23 -foot separation for parking from sidewalks as -- I mean, that would be at Footnote No. 5 for side - loaded garages and for regular front garages as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Footnote number what? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're adding a new Footnote No. 5 to address -- you know, we're required to make sure that any cars that we park in our driveway can't go over a sidewalk, and it's twenty -- we have to have a minimum clearance of 23 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on Pages 19 and 20? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't have a 5 on mine at all. Page 65 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't have a 5 on mine. It stopped at 4. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're adding it we're adding it. That's what we're talking about today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Now, we just put this in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And this is in response to a comment -- a question raised by Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's usually in the PUDs. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It's in code, but we always usually put it in the PUD as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The minimum distance from the PUD boundaries, it's 15 feet across the board? So you're telling me that you're going to have an 85 -foot building 15 feet from your boundary? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- Dwight, I think we probably need to put that "or half the building height" in there as well. Yeah, I think we need to add that same "half the building height" reference from the PUD boundary as well. Yeah. I'm sure that it will be half the -- well, maybe not. "Or half the building height, whichever is greater" needs to go under minimum distance from the boundary. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where is this going to be placed on the multifamily? Where is it going to be placed in the map area? Because that's important to know. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, anywhere in the yellow that there's an R we can have any of the various product types. And I know that was a comment from staff that they want to limit where we can have our, quote, "taller buildings," and honestly we don't think that's even necessary, and there's several good communities throughout Collier County where they have various product -type heights. Throughout Pelican Bay is one. Pelican Marsh is another where they have their mid -story product throughout the PUD, not necessarily does it have to be immediately adjacent to the commercial area where taller buildings may be allowed. So we think that we should have that flexibility to locate our mid -rise buildings wherever it lays out on the plan that makes sense in the future. I don't think -- if you go through Pelican Bay, you'll see two -story product right next to five -story product, and it looks -- it looks nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just want to go back to the distances from the boundary hereon all of these. I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- everything he has listed was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It would have to be the same throughout. It would be the same throughout, 15 feet or half the building height which is ever (sic) greater for all product types. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought that's what you intended. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. Well, it's certainly at the minimum what I intended. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. It's lesser an issue when you're talking about a single- family home, because they're only going to be, what, top, 35 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, but I mean, you've got 50 -foot buildings here, you've got 85 -foot buildings, so, you know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is there anywhere else on the 951 corridor where you have 85 -foot multifamily? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if they get that tall in Lely Resort; do you, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do not. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if they've gotten that approved or not. I know if you go towards Marco COMMISSIONER CARON: Nothing on the boundaries of -- that's for sure, on Lely. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know that. I know that. But what staff was actually pushing us to was putting Page 66 of 99 1�1 A 5 August 4, 2011 those taller buildings closer to 951. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Close to the commercial. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, towards the commercial, which is closer to 951. MR. BELLOWS: I think the staff concern was where you would have abutting residential ends to the PUD, that there would be these tall buildings that would be affecting properties outside the PUD; whereas, on 951 there's certain expectation of building heights because it's a commercial node. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And from a residential standpoint, when you're looking at -- we are -- you know, basically we're going to have -- if we're 75 feet tall, the setback's going to be 37- and -a -half feet from the boundary, plus the buffer. So we didn't think a 75- foot -tall zoned height, 85 feet actual height, certainly within the area, will raise -- pen is (sic) -- or anywhere along there, really, would be offensive to anybody. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- comment? You asked me a question before. The community -- I belong to the civic association. And for years and years and years, the concern we have had is not having tall buildings. We don't want canyonization. And I know that along rights -of -way 75 -foot is the current committed. But we worked with Treviso Bay people to make sure that their towers were pushed way back. And I would tell you we'd have a preference for moving any tall structure as far back as we can. So I'm just conveying the thoughts as I understand them from the community, and Pve been very involved for a long time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Murray, since you're probably -- and you're probably the closest to this, I think, where you would live. What distance would you like to see a residential building taller than 50 feet be located from 951? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think we'd have to go to a line of sight, and that's the only way I can relate to it. I'm not in a position to be able to tell you it should be 363 feet or any other number. There's a line -of -sight issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Rich, why don't you just eliminate it from Pod A? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one's A? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, C; I'm sorry, Pod C. Everything else is set back in from 951. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, that scares me, because that's what I just said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: How about eliminate it from Pod C, which is the -- this piece right here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's good that you point it out. Yeah, please, if you -- I don't know what the distance there is in depth, but it looks like it's a healthy chunk. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you're going to have frontage, landscaping, and line of sight is the biggest factor. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be helpful. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So we'll eliminate it from Pod C and we'll figure out how to fix that onto the master plan, because we don't have pods on the PUD master plan. But we'll be able to work that out. MR. TORRES: We'll move that area to a lesser height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Hammock Bay, I believe, is a residential tower that exceeds 80 feet, but it is set back quite a bit from 951. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't really want to site that one, because that's, like, 20 stories. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a biggie. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't think that was a visual comparison that I really wanted to make. COMMISSIONER CARON: You really didn't want to go there, okay, Tom. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just because I think there -- I think that is apples to oranges. Page 67 of 99 16 �. A 3 ugust 4, 2011 MR. EASTMAN: The question was posed, and that's something that answers that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you asked Tom -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't need you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the next school's going to be 85, 20 stories high. So any other questions? Let's go through Page 19 and 20. COMMISSIONER CARON: What happened to seven - and -a -half feet between single - family homes? MR. YOVANOVICH: We should have six. I thought six was the number. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, seven -and -a -half is what -- we've been doing that for -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I thought we were -- I thought we were -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- from Ken for a long time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ken Abernathy was six. MR. YOVANOVICH: He was a six. That was the six -foot rule. We always wanted five. COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought it was seven - and -a -half rule. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that was -- the six was the compromise. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The last time I burdened you with -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You did. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- six as opposed to the five, and you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I tried to go back to the old -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You acquiesced, and I appreciate that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, guys, one at a time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. Sorry, Terri. You're right, I did, after an appropriate amount of time, try to go back to the five, and Mr. Murray held my feet to the six. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be better with seven - and -a -half, but six was -- I found acceptable at the time. Perhaps we should have a stronger number. COMMISSIONER EBERT: If you would talk to Victor Hill from the forestry, he would say 30 feet between homes. So there is a big difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rich, on accessory structures you don't have a minimum distance from MPUD boundaries, do you? MR. YOVANOVICH: I lost my pages, sorry. Bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 20, Table I. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't see -- I don't see that category, so I think we're going to need to add that, minimum distance from PUD boundary. Yes. We don't have that, do we? We need to add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you refer to half building height, your definition just says BH is building height. Ms. Caron probably means actual, and you probably mean zoned. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, sure. I gave you the example of 75 at 37 and a half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I heard you, but I also was thinking how she might be thinking, and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I knew what he meant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is zoned okay? Why don't you just put zoned. COMMISSIONER CARON: I knew what he meant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down there where it says building height, why don't you add zoned so everybody that little -- wouldn't come up in the future. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's take a break till 2:45 and come back -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Forty-five you said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two forty-five. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can handle this meeting without Richard, but if he wants to come in and entertain us, he better do so. Page 68 of 99 I v t 161 n A 5 August 4, 2011 During the break I got a call. In a couple minutes the folks from the Pine Ridge Center west are coming back in. We're going to finish with them this afternoon, so we're going to take a little change in mode here, since this is not going to be done today. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're a funny, funny guy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we do have a change in tactic. I'd like to go back and try to -- and I know that there's more to do with the PUD, and it could easily take up the remaining time that this board's going to be here. I would like to get at least get one thing out of the way today, and that is the Growth Management Plan. So let's -- if you don't mind switching gears for that for just a moment -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to see if there's any questions. We can resolve that one and then go on with the other two, and that will at least get us a foot through the door. * * *So CP- 2006 -11 is the growth plan amendment involving Hacienda Lakes mostly involving the commercial change to the front of the property alongside the hospital where the -- I believe the 10 acres -- or whatever it is that got moved in the activity center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Nine point something, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I know you included your presentation as encompassing all of these, so I guess I'll just go straight into questions from the Planning Commission on that three -ring binder titled "CP- 2006 -11." Does anybody have any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, weren't we going to go a little further in the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are, but here's the problem. We're going to quit at five, and we may have to continue those things that aren't done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But since the CP -- the Growth Management Plan amendment -- and they -- there's going to have to be readvertising and all that good stuff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd rather minimize the amount of advertising and other costs and only continue the absolute items that are necessary. And this one, I think, with a few questions can be resolved, and we could vote on it and get it done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just coming up to the good part, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah. We haven't got -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I was kind of hoping there were no questions since it got transmitted unanimously the last go- round. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What, the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The Comp. Plan amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I only have 20,30 tabs. MR. YOVANOVICH: Boy, I'd hate to see how many you'd have if you didn't like it the first time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I want to make sure my questions are answered. I posed these questions. I went over them with you. I just want to make sure they're answered, that's all. So -- and they may all be. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: When we talked I had asked three questions on three different things that affected the DRI itself. One had to do with the Lords Way and the language there, and that's all been -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. In the PUD document, we have cross - sections that tell you what we'll do if we're going to build it to serve a business park. So that's in the PUD document itself. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then there were the FDOT comments. And are those -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I forget -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The comments themselves, you're fine with those -- adding that -- some sort of language? I mean, the language is going to change because we've just changed our bottom lines and square footages anyway. But is there any problem with the DOT language? MR. YOVANOVICH: We addressed the DOT language in the DO, development order. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. So I mean, I'm -- we're focused on the Growth Management Plan amendments Page 69 of 99 1 b! 1 A 3 `'August 4, 2011 right now, right? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, that's what this is under. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, right. Just the GMP amendment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So I think -- Commissioner Caron, I think your questions, these last two really are related to the PUD and the development order, not the proposed Growth Management Plan amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That staff report included all three. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Well, this specifically refers to the GMP. The FDOT Comment No. 1 was, "While the proposed amendments to the GMP could result in an increase of overall densities and intensities, the amendment does not include policy limiting the allowable amount of development to that specified in the DRI," so that -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I recall. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the GMP language. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But -- and it typically doesn't. What happens is you take care of that through the development order and the PUD stages of the project, and we did. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, I'll re -read the DO stuff, but I'm not sure that what we did in the DO today -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Look at Page 32 of Page 55 in the DO, and that will -- that's how we addressed FDOT's comments, and they were happy with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the final thing was that in the traffic report -- and I read you the sentence from the traffic report. It said that there were different uses. And did you check on that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, and I forgot what the question was, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER CARON: In the traffic -- in the traffic analysis, the first line in the second paragraph or whatever it was, said that there were different uses from what had been there before. I didn't notice any in my review, but I don't know. And you were going to check on that for me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just to make sure, because I'm going to ask the traffic -- this is the one that says, "The revised transportation analysis was prepared in response to review agency comments and due to some changes in the proposed land uses "? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And that actually is part of the DRI, but I'll ask -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, sorry. At this point I don't think it matters, just answer it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners Caron, what it was is the business park was not in our original submittal, so that's the reference to the changes in the land use. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions about the three -ring binder for the Growth Management Plan change in the activity center? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My questions are down to one, and it's more of Corby than you. So we've got to have staff report. If you don't have anything else, we'll get staff report on this issue then. MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, Corby Schmidt with the comprehensive planning section. I won't waste your time with a long review and report, but I'm available to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to get closer to the mike, Corby, if you could. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I might as well break in, if I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the risk of missing something earlier, on Page 7 of the staff report, your recommendations, you have two differences, I think, with petitioner to adopt with modification and not to adopt. Are those still your views consistent with what you currently believe? MR. SCHMIDT: They still are, yes. Those modifications are that double strikethrough -- I'm sorry -- double- underline portions of the Exhibit A, and those have been completed, and we support those changes. Those are those modifications. Page 70 of 99 161 ;. A August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And are you feeling strong on those views or they're -- I notice you say with modification. Has there been an effort to make a modification? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. They're made, reviewed, completed, and acceptable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you found that acceptable? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that one's struck, not a problem. And the acreage allowed for southeast quadrant of MUAC No. 7, that one has not been modified? MR. SCHMIDT: There's been no change to staffs review, opinion, or recommendation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a big chunk of acreage. Okay. Well, we'll have to ask Mr. Yovanovich what his views are on that now. COMMISSIONER AHERN: We already approved it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're talking GMP. That was my question. I'm going to be asking you that same question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While Corby's up there, did anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He could answer it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Richard, do you want to answer Bob's question now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute, Corby. MR. YOVANOVICH: Obviously, we don't agree with staffs recommendation that -- of the denial of adding the acreage. We had a long discussion about how the history of how that acreage got taken out in the first place, and there was a long discussion about the market is going to determine whether or not that acreage actually gets developed or not. And I thought, in front of the BCC, staff basically modified their position as saying it wasn't a big deal -- a big enough deal for staff to continue to argue over the nine acres for transmittal purposes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wasn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not a big deal, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. It wasn't a major deal for us. MR. YOVANOVICH: Nick, you're going to have to say that. I thought that's what, ultimately, in response to questions from the board -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct what? I didn't hear. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That it wasn't an issue for the nine acres. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It was not an issue? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was not an issue. It wasn't a major issue for us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Would you do me a favor, Rich, or somebody, show us on the visualizer where that acreage is so we can -- maybe you could put the horses there. I don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: The horses would start right around here. It's right here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a significant piece of change for you. You need that I'm assuming. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is -- it is, because we -- when Mr. Bauer sold the land to the hospital, about nine acres of it was in the activity center, and it was always with the understanding that since the hospital didn't need the activity- center designation, he would be allowed to take those nine acres and put it over here. So it is very important to us to have that nine acres back. And I thought that became a relatively insignificant issue for staff upon further reflection, and the board unanimously transmitted and so did you -all recommend -- you unanimously recommended transmittal of those additional nine acres, and so did the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember that very well. And the reason I raise the question is because it's still in here as still an issue that, quote- unquote, staff doesn't recommend it. So I think we should clear that matter up. I can understand that staff has a position that's based on GMP and the rest of those criteria. But you've indicated that that's not necessarily -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think it's inconsistent that the comp planning review folks have maintained their position throughout. And what was asked of us, if it was a significant modification; we said it was not. And Page 71 of 99 16 3 August 4, 2011 they said, if we could live with that, and we could as staff. But we still held our reservation with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Now, that's better for me because now I understand you are saying still not to adopt it, but if it were that's not earthshaking? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not earthshaking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. That was what I needed to understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I do have one. Under Part 5 of 6, the urban designation for business park, Subdistrict H -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we added language, except that a business park, in Section 14, may have access to an arterial road via the Lords Way. But isn't that access contingent upon certain improvements occurring on Lords Way? MR. SCHMIDT: They are not, not for the business park. The kinds of improvements that are being required of the Lords Way for some of the other uses are acceptable to allow for all those that might be associated with the business park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa. The business -- okay. Richard, do you want to shed some light on this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Very specifically, Mr. Strain and others, when we went through this process, you wanted to make sure that in the PUD document we included the type of cross - section we would have to serve the business park -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for Lords Way to serve the business park. We have done that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: The cross - section is in there. So the Lord -- I guess if you want to clarify it -- the answer to your question was, yes, the Lords Way can serve as the access provided. It is built to the county's standards for it to serve as appropriate, you know, access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I was getting at. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So, yes, you did say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to clarify, because it doesn't say that on H, and I was wondering if we should expand a little bit on H to let -- make it clear that it can't be left as it is. It wasn't to serve as an access to arterial road via Lords Way without any improvements. Those though improvements are as defined in the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or -- yeah, as -- to meet county standards is the quick and dirty way of saying it. That's the way it was, provided it meets county standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And, Corby, do you have any problem with embellishing the language so that it's clear in that regard? MS. ASHTON: I'd prefer to just leave it the way it is, because this does give them the ability. It says that they may use that access, but it doesn't -- I don't think it really binds the county, and those are issues that we'll be addressing during the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they -- the way it says now, "May have access to arterial road via the Lords Way." So what is the deciding factor, then, on whether they may have that access or not? There is none. They could have it just like it is today by that language the way it's written. That's the only concern I had. MS. ASHTON: And -- that's correct. And there's only, I think, one property that would fit the description here that could possibly use that access point. But what the applicant was trying to fix is that a business park could not have access unless it was on an arterial, and that's kind of what we were fixing. So my preference would be to address it in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the only reason for the exception here is because of the improvements they are going to make to Lords Way so that a business park accessing an arterial as a result of Lords Way would be substantially safer than it is today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, they could use it today the way this is written, and that's not what the Page 72 of 99 161 A 3 August 4, 2011 intention was. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we're in line. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And when you're talking about a business park, you're talking about some pretty intense uses. It needs to -- that road needs to be fixed before it can become the access for a business park. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioners, for -- it's in -- I understand you're talking about the GMP. It's in the PUD under Section 5. Right, so you want it in the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If -- the GMP is a stand -alone document. I'd hate to see someone else come along and says, hey, it says that in the GMP. We don't have to do any more. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to reinforce what was said, because I remember we were very clear about making it a predicate. So should it be included in the GMP? Yeah, sure, why not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I think the petitioner agrees, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby -- Corby don't have a problem with it, so let's just -- let's add that clarification to it -- MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- pursuant to -- okay. Then we'll be off and running. Okay. Anybody else have any questions of Corby or the applicant regarding the CP- 2006 -11? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This was the one we can get past. So with that, why don't we vote on it and get it over with, then we can throw the books back at David or whoever comes in and wants them and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would make a motion -- MS. ASHTON: Could Rich read back one more time the language that we're inserting at the end of the sentence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's going to come back on consent, but go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we just -- why don't we just say, "Provided it meets county construction standards." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine with me. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then you'll see that it does through the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think you need to get into the specifics of what they may be in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how much -- what's your stabilization thickness and how much -- what's the thickness of your asphalt? You don't want to do all that here? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're killing me here; you're killing me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is there a motion to -- MS. ASHTON: I'd prefer that it read something like "provided it meets county road right -of -way standards for a business park." MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's perfect. That will work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's going to come back on consent. I figure between now and then you guys could work it out and we'll see it. We're just saying it needs to be clarified, and how you do that is whatever right way you come up with. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? Mr. -- oh, Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll move that we proceed on that basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You recommending approval of CP- 2006 -11 with the clarification involving the Lords Way and with the -- as transmitted? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: You take credit for the -- you take credit for the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's your motion. Who wants to second it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second. Page 73 of 99 3 161 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob seconded it. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. So at least we are done with the GMP on this project today. I'll leave these books here for anyone -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, so far we're one for three, and if I was playing baseball, I'd be a millionaire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rich, we left off on Page 21, which is the notes -- it starts with the notes and goes into detail of your terrace setbacks, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I flew right by all that stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only question I had on -- well, that's Page 21 and 22. Anybody have any questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure what those pages are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it starts with Figure 1, terrace setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, your Note No. 2 up on the -- that I'm seeing here, it says, " Firewall protrusions into required yards are permitted up to 3 feet. I had that circled and said that's not an LDC issue. And you were -- I know we talked about it. I can't remember the outcome of our discussion. MR. YOVANOVICH: Apparently what happens is when -- your firewall can protrude out into your front yard and up -- is that right, Mr. Schiffer? -- up through the roof. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It can. It doesn't have to. MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't have to, but it can -- to separate structures that are in a line. And that -- and so if -- that protrusion towards the front can go 3 feet into the setback, is what we're trying to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a fire code or an LDC condition? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a method of how you could construct the residence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. A firewall is a pretty precious thing, because it does separate two units. It has to be designed so the one side could collapse without taking the other side down. It can go past the front of the building. That's actually the code minimum, but then there are alternate ways of closing paths. Because some of these units are so tight, you're never going to be able to fireproof, you know, the four feet to the side of the fire, because you have five- foot -wide courtyards. So I do see no problem in letting them count the firewall coming past the setback as not being part of the setback. We do in the code have supplemental things where, you know, columns and things like that can do that; not quite three feet but they can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'm getting at is, are we looking at a provision that's trying to get a deviation from the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then it has to be done differently. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be -- it would be the supplemental. And Ray can pull that section Page 74 of 99 v V �' H A August 4, 2011 up. But there are assessed -- things that are not measured in the setbacks. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're just making it clear, just like you have in other instances, maybe on a roof overhang or something -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that that can encroach into the setback. Same thing. That's not a deviation. That's just an exception to a setback rule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. If your roof overhangs are already addressed as an exception and if you want to go different than what's already being addressed, you'd have to do a deviation, I would think. Ray, do you know anything about this? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The LDC has provisions for roof overhangs into required yards. And if they are differing from it -- it's kind of like coming up with a different development standard. I wouldn't treat it as a deviation, but you would note it as a change from -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one thing, Ray, balconies have a different requirement, overhangs have a requirement, pilasters, you know, have a requirement. I think this is exceeding, essentially, the wall parts, which a pilaster or something would be. So he is asking for more dimension than I think that part of the code would give him. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The question is whether it should be treated as a deviation. I don't believe so, since it's a kind of a setback dimensional standard, and we don't treat those as deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then are they variances? MR. BELLOWS: It would be if they did it after the PUD was adopted and it was different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a bad thing, Brad, from your experience in the architectural world? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think they're going to need it. When we go to the next couple pages, they have some really tight units that are going to be very difficult for them to protect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if it doesn't hurt anything and it expedites the process -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm not really against that. So why don't we move on to pages -- the next two pages, which my pages are 23 and 24, but whatever you guys -- wherever you want to go from there. Richard -- or, Brad, if you have -- we're into those architectural standards, so why don't you talk about those to whatever extent you need to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Figure 7, I think, is my biggest concern. Those little side areas there, what is the dimension that courtyard's going to be? And I think if you really look at these units, hopefully you're not going to design it in that exact footprint, because these would be pretty miserable places to live. MR. NADEAU: Again, good afternoon, Dwight Nadeau for the record. We have 24 feet. This is just a typical that was taken from some of the designs that were done over in Lely's Ole', where you have paseos and courtyards to try and get vehicular use out of the front yards. So it's more of an alley served attached single - family use. This is providing for the opportunity to do a plat to allow for lot lines that run between units very similar to townhomes. So the paseo can vary, but we're just showing minimums in there. So it would be 20 -- 24 feet that would be permitted between those two areas between the units that provides the paseo or the walkway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my real question was, if you look at the typical unit, there's -- and you note it side, side, and there's a courtyard going back into the unit, how wide is that? Is that the 5 -foot setback? So these units have zero or five feet, so I assume that's probably five feet, right? MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So essentially the front yard, you come into an alley, you pull into five feet, which I assume would have a garage door there -- MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then you go into this unit. The windows of this unit are looking at a wall five feet away. The wall -- MR. NADEAU: No windows on that side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the wall on the property line can't have windows by code, so there's no windows in that notch? MR. NADEAU: There may be some light coming in. I don't have the actual architectural design for this. Page 75 of 99 b 1 -M 1 � August 4, 2011 This is just a footprint design. But typically they're not going to have a window that close to look at the face of another building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And unfortunately they could. And then you go back to what's marked as the rear. Is that the front door there? If I was to visit you and you lived in there, which door -- MR. NADEAU: That would be -- typically it would be the front door. What happens is, when you pull in your car off the alley into the garage, you just enter your unit through the door in your garage. The fire district also required us to put man doors on the back side of the alleys as well; however, the paseo is more of a social area, getting to and from a community amenity or something like that greeting your neighbors. It's just open space between the fronts of the units so you don't have cars in the front yards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the units -- and then off of that rear wall you're 24 feet to your neighbor. So you're going to be greeting your neighbor a lot. I mean, you're going to be -- MR. NADEAU: But these are minimum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- saying hi to them while you brush your teeth. MR. NADEAU: These are minimums, Commissioner. They certainly can be more than that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean -- and is the intent -- these units will be sprinklered buildings? MR. NADEAU: I can't respond to that. While we have had communications and meetings with fire- review staff at Growth Management Division, I cannot tell you whether these would be sprinkled. That would be up to the architect and NFPA standards. You probably could tell me better than I can tell you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'll tell you they're going to be sprinkled. MR. NADEAU: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the -- I mean, the problem I have is these are really kind of -- I mean, and maybe a designer could really make these look good. And I know that this is the footprint of the building and there could be notches and things that make these really nice places to live, so -- but it's really tight in there. I mean -- and the reason we're doing this -- because here we have this huge amount of land. Why are we cramming this kind of product on it? MR. NADEAU: It's just providing for some sort of neo traditional design, provide some open space, get the vehicles out of the front yards to the greatest extent possible, provide some community feel within these little development enclaves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dwight, those are nice things, I mean, but it's really tight units. Unfortunately, the neo tradition is kind of not good, you know, housing; they're from the past. The next page, Figure 8 -- and you said you've worked this length of this alley without a turnaround with the fire department. MR. NADEAU: Yes. Actually, they've mandated the 40 -foot clear area. They mandated, as I said earlier, the man doors. There's certain distances that the emergency vehicles need to be away from a door, and so these remedial measures are shown on here. And, again, these are minimums. It could be much wider. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they didn't request the turnaround at the end, okay. MR. NADEAU: And they didn't request the turnaround because we were limiting it to less than 150 for backing distances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. I mean, I measured it; it's longer than that. But if they're cool with it, that's their world. Again, these units are really -- I mean, are you going to do a lot of this kind of product or -- MR. NADEAU: We don't -- all this is is an option. All this is is to provide some guidance to a staff member that might be reviewing a plat that looks like this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think -- the only other comment. You may have an area where you show 40 -foot minimum. I think that arrow should go to the front of the house. MR. NADEAU: Actually, they wanted it -- not to contradict you, Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. NADEAU: -- but this is separation from the eaves, 40 -foot separation from the eaves, not from the face of the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the dimension below of 30, and then 5 and 5 -- MR. NADEAU: That's -- Page 76 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- are pointing to the exact same spot, so the -- MR. NADEAU: I have a 5 -foot minimum that goes from the front of the building out to beyond -- to where the access easement is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially the property line. MR. NADEAU: Effectively -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you have a 5 -foot front setback. Okay. God, I hope you don't do much of this. I mean, because it really isn't -- you know, this is not -- these are citizens that are going to be living in these things. I mean, unless there's something happening in the design that makes this wonderful. MR. NADEAU: There are similar situations in Ole' of Lely Resort; however, they didn't do any platting. I can tell you that this is unique, and I am -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. NADEAU: -- trying to break new ground here to plot these types of units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you might have some trouble. You know, there's some issues with the building code. I think you will fall under the building code. You won't be able to do this with the residential code, my prediction, because of the configuration. But anyway, that's a good thing because that will be the sprinkler requirement and -- MR. NADEAU: Very good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- those setbacks will become courtyards, not setbacks. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. MR. NADEAU: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: On all of these figures, there's a note that says "building massing," and for Figure 5 it says no more than eight units can be combined into one structure. What does that mean? MR. NADEAU: Well -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What's the length of that little strip mall of houses? MR. NADEAU: No more than eight units combined in one structure. Effectively what we're looking at is a townhome unit. So how many units could we fit? Eight. COMMISSIONER CARON: Eight is what you've said here. MR. NADEAU: I've seen townhome units as small as 23 feet and as wide as 32 feet, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, could I make a comment? MR. NADEAU: Could be 256 feet wide -- long. Could be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think a good thing about this is, we've done a lot of townhouses where we've never put a limit on them. So, I mean, I think this is at least going to stop it at eight units, which shouldn't be too big a run for -- MR. NADEAU: And these were recommendations of staff, the building mass. I mean, I didn't write that. COMMISSIONER CARON: So for Figure 6, would that be about the same length, 256 feet? MR. NADEAU: Yes. We can estimate that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what about for Figure 7? MR. NADEAU: No more than eight, so we may be in the same situation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And the same -- well, no 8 -- you're up to 16 units. MR. NADEAU: Yes, but that retains the eight -unit width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what about your multifamily? MR. NADEAU: No massing was required by staff on that one. It would be flat over flats, garden apartments, whatever the market could bear. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Dwight, do these units -- when they're built, do they come with a shoehorn? I notice that you indicated they come from -- you guys copycatted Paseo over in Lely Resort. MR. NADEAU: Well, the designs came from -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I gotcha. Page 77 of 99 161 �1 A 3 August 4, 2011 MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course, they also have an ice -cream parlor and a movie theater and fountains. What are the amenities that are the relatable to this? MR. NADEAU: Well, these are just typical type of units to be able to demonstrate setbacks, separations between units. The amenities would be coming out of the accessory uses that are permitted in the residential -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have none contemplated? MR. NADEAU: I haven't quantified them, but we have provided for individual recreation tracts in every -- all of the communities that we've anticipated within the DRI/PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you expect that these particular type units would be more for people who are seasonal? MR. NADEAU: They could be second homes. In fact, I've been told that probably none of those attached units that Commissioner Schiffer and I were discussing would ever be built because, as I've been told, pioneers get shot. But up in the Panhandle they're very well -- very well received. So in this community this may be an -- entirely a single - family subdivision property. All we're doing is providing for the opportunity to take a look at it should a developer wish to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could do the arithmetic, I suppose. But what would you say, in a unit such as the one on Figure 7, how many square feet is that going to end up being for living space? MR. NADEAU: Those units will vary anywhere between about 1,200 square feet to almost 1,800 square feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Point out for me, if you will, the ones for the 1,800 squares. MR. NADEAU: They would be the long ones, the larger ones. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at Figure 7. Should I look at another figure? MR. NADEAU: If you look at Figure 8, the long ones along the back of the courtyard, the vehicular -use area, they're longer than the interior units. Those are the ones that were larger. MR. TORRES: They're normally two stories as well. That's how you get up there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will just say it scares me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the --still on the figures. Anybody have any questions on the figures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. It says, "Detached single - family or townhouse units." So these can be fee - simple single - family? MR. NADEAU: They could be, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said they're about 1,200 square feet with maybe the smallest ones in the middle, and then up to 1,800 square feet, approximately? MR. NADEAU: They could be, yes. The ones that we've worked with, they were ranging between 12- and about 18 -. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on your 1,200 - square -foot single - family fee simple ones, what would be your starting prices? MR. NADEAU: Oh, my goodness. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take a guess. Would it be over half a million? MR. NADEAU: I would hope not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be over 200,000? MR. NADEAU: I don't believe that it would be. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you did -- I know what you -- I know you're trying to cover -- you know what I'm getting at. Your DRI says you did know. It says your single - family sale price would start at 350,000. Now -- MR. TORRES: He's got a small product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Then that's another -- then there's where I was going next. If these are single- family fee simple but you're going to count them as multi, how do we judge that in regard to this total of 760 in the mixture's supposed to have, and how do we do the conversion ratio that you're supposed to have between the multifamily and the single - family? Nick probably knows this, because he deals with it every day. Page 78 of 99 IV i L rig 161 1 A August 4, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: We consider those multifamily units. MR. NADEAU: Yes, by definition, any unit -- any building that has three or more units, it's multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a single- family fee simple is considered multi? MR. NADEAU: No, no, no. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the purposes of the sale, which is not what we deal with, they sell them as fee simple because they put that partition wall. But when they're built together, both for the Building Department side and for the planning side, they're considered multifamily units. That's a multifamily building, even though it's sold off as a fee - simple parcel. Heritage Bay came back and replatted multifamily buildings and put the zero lot line between them because they couldn't get mortgages from banks to purchase condo units, so they sold them off as platted single- family or single units, but they're considered multifamily from everybody's perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how does a DRI look at them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: How does the what? MR. YOVANOVICH: Multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the DRI look at them when you go to count? MR. YOVANOVICH: Multifamily. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Multifamily, sir. I would consider those multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what's a single - family attached? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A duplex. MR. NADEAU: It would be a single - family -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you have standards for -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's called -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You've got two- family duplex, but you also have single - family attached. MR. YOVANOVICH: When you're selling the individual units and the ground below it, two or less, that's the single- family attached. A duplex is when you're selling a half, correct? MR. NADEAU: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, now you got me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Anything more than three -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what's the difference between a duplex and a single - family attached? MR. YOVANOVICH: Semantics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how do we judge on your development standards which one to use, and how do you judge in your reporting period which ones the DRI goes by? MR. YOVANOVICH: Three or more -- as I understand it, three or more is multifamily. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Two or less; two, one, would be considered single. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think we put a line in there that we define it that way so, no, there is no ambiguity. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that how we're doing it mathematically? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Yeah, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The building code definitely defines it that way. There was an attorney general -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I think it was Charlie Crist when he was attorney general stated in the 90s that anything with three or more is a multifamily, has to honor the building code. It's not in the residential building code. They can call it whatever they want, but it is a multifamily building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does it run under an HOA or a condo association? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No different than if it were single - family, if it was an HOA or condo association. The way they do the docs are almost identical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To what? Is a four -plex, fee - simple single- family a condominium or an HOA? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand they've done them both ways, sir. The way staff would treat that Page 79 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4 2011 right now -- and if we need to put it in the document, I would agree with you -- anything above three family or more would be considered multifamily for the purpose of the document. I think we need to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is going to have a bearing on your cost per unit when we go to analyze your single - family versus multifamily in the spread that you have in your cost, because your single - family start at 350,000. So I'd be curious to see what you now consider single - family at that price because, I mean, all the single - family is really multifamily for everything else. Wow. That's hard to understand. I guess we'll just -- I mean, probably -- now that I've got that understood, now that you've made that point, I really need to re -read these documents again to see what it means. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What -- Commissioners, just for clarification, what's happened in the past year or two in the market, and you -- probably some of you are familiar with it -- banks stopped lending money to condo units, and they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Heritage Bay came in for that reason. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, but I don't think ramifications of that across the board may have all been thought out, at least by me. So I certainly want to review it under that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- aspect too, because when you re -read the documents and you realize that these are single - family but they're in a multifamily building, if that has bearing, it's something we need to know as we read. MR. BELLOWS: Townhouse. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think we need to put that language in the document when it comes back to you that defines it. MR. BELLOWS: The LDC also defines it as a townhouse, which is three or more dwellings in a building. So it might have fee - simple lots associated with a townhouse, but it's -- from a Building Department review, it's a multifamily structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so they can finance, because of the firewall -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which is in the building code too, townhouses with firewall. They can finance it as an individual building, individual unit. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A couple questions just for understanding purposes. I know what a 4 -foot walkway is, but what's a 4 -foot paseo walkway, or paseo, however you say that? MR. NADEAU: Semantics, Mr. Chairman. A paseo is just a fancy word for a walkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's a 4 -foot walkway walkway? MR. NADEAU: It's a 4 -foot walkway walkway. It may have some trellis and some garden feel to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the Figure 8 -- and Brad started talking about this, but I'm not sure his answer -- I understood the answer you gave him. You have in the middle of the page a dimension that says 40 -foot minimum. Do you see that? MR. NADEAU: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the top of the -- towards the top of the page it goes to the line that's five feet off the front of that top side unit. MR. NADEAU: It appears -- it does appear as though it's going from the right -of -way to the front of the building rather than the right -of -way to the right -of -way. The intent was to provide the 40 -foot clear area between the eaves. If the arrow needs to be moved to the front of the eave so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you put that on the overhead so we can talk from the same page? MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See the 30 -foot "AE," that goes from that line that's inside the word -- from that line to that line. MR. NADEAU: Yes. Page 80 of 99 I V # J» n 161 1 A August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the 40 -foot? It goes from the line on the top, but it goes to the front -- by the word "front" on the bottom, and that's where my -- that's where I don't understand the difference. See the 40 -foot where its measurements go from? MR. NADEAU: In my opinion -- is this on? In my opinion, Commissioner, that -- this arrow should not terminate here but should terminate here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you do that, then how's the 30 -foot work in the same area? Can't be both dimensions. MR. NADEAU: Oh, okay. This arrow should move to here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you just said you had to do the 40 -foot clear and those -- that's why the eaves -- you've only got 30 foot clear now. So what is it the fire department wants, 30 or 40? MR. NADEAU: Forty feet -- the fire department was looking for the 40 feet eave to eave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then you just acknowledged then you've only got 30 by this plan. MR. NADEAU: We will change the labeling on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 30 becomes 40, and the 40 becomes 50? MR. TORRES: We would have to. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But I mean, I don't want this wrong. If this is what you're telling us you want staff to understand your plats and stuff coming in by, it needs to be accurate. MR. NADEAU: Yes. This 40 -foot dimension will go from here to here, from eave to eave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 30 foot then becomes the 40 foot really; same thing then? MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so now the dimension that the 40 foot was going to be, which was front to front, is really going to be 50 feet? MR. NADEAU: That's accurate as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've just got to change these drawings. Okay. That's what I needed to understand. MR. MULHERE: That's a good catch. MR. NADEAU: Yeah, very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're done with the figures. Anybody else want to play with the figures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think there's a 5 -foot setback from the lot line on that unit, and I don't think you can cantilever the overhang of a building five feet into the setback. That would be 100 percent of the setback. So there's more going on in there than just what we talked about, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, so you guys are going to rework that. Please try to take as much as you can into consideration what we just talked about so it makes it a little clearer. Richard, we're on to Table 2, which is the commercial public facilities and care -unit development centers. Actually, care unit would be senior housing development standards. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And I think there was a change to -- under principal uses, minimum yards measured from tract boundary. I think we add a note "or as provided for below" in Roman Numeral 1I1, and -- I'm sorry, in Footnote * * *. I think that was an add related to comments from staff. And then we wanted to add to Footnote ** that the minimum 600 - square -foot requirement doesn't apply to kiosks, because we had talked earlier that that's going to be 200 square feet. We changed the reference to senior housing. So in the -- under minimum floor area, we need to change the reference from care unit to senior housing, and then we were supposed to strike the iii, because it's already in the code. So I think that highlights all the changes. Whoop, I take that back. We added -- and it doesn't show as underlined here because this is a more recent version, but the language under commercial and mixed -use building setbacks is in version -- July 26th, and that was in response to staffs comment about human scale. So we tried to define what human scale meant. And I can't remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you say that again? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Page 81 of 99 bI i1o, I A 3 August 4 2011 g , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's a good thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commercial -- the commercial and mixed -use building setbacks -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that language was in response to Comprehensive Planning's comment that buildings over a certain height needed to be sensitive to human scale, correct? MR. NADEAU: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we included this provision to address that comment. I believe staff is okay with that language. MS. ASHTON: Actually, let me just comment then. I haven't -- I don't understand this language, frankly. What does "buildings oriented on a private driveway" mean? MR. YOVANOVICH: If we have -- if we front our own internal private road. MS. ASHTON: So it's a road, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Road, driveway. MS. ASHTON: So they're facing the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Facing. The portion facing the private access. MS. ASHTON: Okay. So it's facing the private road. Okay, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think we have a picture that might help. I think we're groundbreaking here, because I don't know that anybody's had to deal with this before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure what it is we're dealing with yet, because I can't figure it out either. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, a picture's worth three or four words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At least. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, look, the wedding cake. MR. YOVANOVICH: When you get to the -- above the third level, we have to be a minimum of eight feet back, and then 16 feet back for the fifth floor, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're telling us that paragraph forces you to be right on top of the road with your big building; is that what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. This paragraph addresses staffs comment about human scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what happened to the parking lot with the islands of landscaping before you have to see a building and the buffer and all the other stuff? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's going to be behind -- it would be behind the building now. Now you're talking almost like a Fifth Avenue when you have the structure up close to the street and the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is out on 951, though, six lanes of road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this is for both the -- yeah. This was a staff comment that we're trying to address. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Corby maybe can help us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't need your jacket, Corby. We're -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: He loves you, Mark. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, I don't even think it's right, though, because the fourth and fifth floor can be eight foot back, above the fifth has to be 16, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but how does -- Corby, how does this make a better place? MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, Corby Schmidt with Comprehensive Planning section. A number of ways. The staff provided in a staff report to the project team a number of suggestions from which we expected them to develop a number of responses. What we did get, however, is this, and this one is partially their idea, partially ours. Not quite sure where the five feet came from, not quite sure where this drawing came from. But what we're asking for is when something is taller than three floors, beginning with the fourth floor I have some setback. Two floors of setback, minor setback, once more at the top. Scary if it looked like that, that's true. This looks like eight -feet setback to a five -foot story height. So the Page 82 of 99 0 dimension's not there. So be not confused by that. But what your human-scale requirements are in the mixed -use activity center should have presented you a set of offers to meet those requirements. This is the one, and this is one of the suggestions that staff had for them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Corby, you may or may not know this. Is the mirror image of this -- this building, if extended out, would have the same tiering effect on the other side, or are we looking at a building exactly as structured as this? MR. SCHMIDT: This would be on both sides of one of those internal drives or roadways in the commercial area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So without being facetious, it does come back to my recollection of a wedding -cake type of format, which I thought the BCC prohibited. Now, I may be stretching it and I may be wrong in this, but that's my awareness of it. MR. SCHMIDT: That may be, but that's what they came back to you with is this simplified approach. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if we were to put this -- MR. SCHMIDT: A number of offers -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- up to the mirror, we would have this extended out? We would have this, correct? ul: 1101MIi0A►6� COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? That's what I'm trying to ascertain if -- is that the entire building? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the entire building? MR. YOVANOVICH: The back end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, you need to be on record. MR. SCHMIDT: This is -- in the provision you have written now, it takes place on the fronts of the building that face the street. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, Rich or you, if you -- I mean, if you get on the fifth floor, a person's got about 400 square feet to live in, based on that, if that's the entire building. MR. SCHMIDT: I asked once already, ignore the scale of this poor drawing. The scale does not give you an idea of size or shape. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I appreciate that, and I can live with that part of it, but I'm trying to visualize what this building would look like. And if that's the way it ends up and there's, I presume, then an alleyway and then a building of like character adjacent with the same kind of effect, tiering effect coming down. I don't know. I understand, I think, where it is. But Mark asked a very pointed question. Whatever happened to -- I think it was Mark. Whatever happened to all the landscaping and all the other parts of it? If the back is what we see as the straight line down, and it's an alley -- it looks pretty barren. Somebody ought to help here. MR. MULHERE: Let me just try. For the record, Bob Mulhere. Okay. So this all started about -- it came about as an exercise of addressing this concept of having human-scale development in a mixed -use project. And that's language that's used, I believe, in the Comprehensive Plan. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. MULHERE: I don't know exactly where it came from, but it's there, and community character as well. Okay. So this type of scenario would occur in a kind of a high -- higher density mixed -use, kind of a main street concept -- Fifth Avenue was used as an example. MR. BELLOWS: Or Mercato. MR. MULHERE: Or Mercato. We're not necessarily trying to -- we wouldn't be necessarily trying to recreate Fifth Avenue, but any kind of mixed -use development that's in a commercial area, the residential units would likely occur on the -- maybe the third, fourth, or fifth floor. You might have retail on the first floor. You'd probably have office on the second floor. Page 83 of 99 1 �- August 4, 2011 0 dimension's not there. So be not confused by that. But what your human-scale requirements are in the mixed -use activity center should have presented you a set of offers to meet those requirements. This is the one, and this is one of the suggestions that staff had for them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Corby, you may or may not know this. Is the mirror image of this -- this building, if extended out, would have the same tiering effect on the other side, or are we looking at a building exactly as structured as this? MR. SCHMIDT: This would be on both sides of one of those internal drives or roadways in the commercial area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So without being facetious, it does come back to my recollection of a wedding -cake type of format, which I thought the BCC prohibited. Now, I may be stretching it and I may be wrong in this, but that's my awareness of it. MR. SCHMIDT: That may be, but that's what they came back to you with is this simplified approach. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if we were to put this -- MR. SCHMIDT: A number of offers -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- up to the mirror, we would have this extended out? We would have this, correct? ul: 1101MIi0A►6� COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? That's what I'm trying to ascertain if -- is that the entire building? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the entire building? MR. YOVANOVICH: The back end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, you need to be on record. MR. SCHMIDT: This is -- in the provision you have written now, it takes place on the fronts of the building that face the street. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, Rich or you, if you -- I mean, if you get on the fifth floor, a person's got about 400 square feet to live in, based on that, if that's the entire building. MR. SCHMIDT: I asked once already, ignore the scale of this poor drawing. The scale does not give you an idea of size or shape. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I appreciate that, and I can live with that part of it, but I'm trying to visualize what this building would look like. And if that's the way it ends up and there's, I presume, then an alleyway and then a building of like character adjacent with the same kind of effect, tiering effect coming down. I don't know. I understand, I think, where it is. But Mark asked a very pointed question. Whatever happened to -- I think it was Mark. Whatever happened to all the landscaping and all the other parts of it? If the back is what we see as the straight line down, and it's an alley -- it looks pretty barren. Somebody ought to help here. MR. MULHERE: Let me just try. For the record, Bob Mulhere. Okay. So this all started about -- it came about as an exercise of addressing this concept of having human-scale development in a mixed -use project. And that's language that's used, I believe, in the Comprehensive Plan. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. MULHERE: I don't know exactly where it came from, but it's there, and community character as well. Okay. So this type of scenario would occur in a kind of a high -- higher density mixed -use, kind of a main street concept -- Fifth Avenue was used as an example. MR. BELLOWS: Or Mercato. MR. MULHERE: Or Mercato. We're not necessarily trying to -- we wouldn't be necessarily trying to recreate Fifth Avenue, but any kind of mixed -use development that's in a commercial area, the residential units would likely occur on the -- maybe the third, fourth, or fifth floor. You might have retail on the first floor. You'd probably have office on the second floor. Page 83 of 99 16! k.. 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fairly standard stuff. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, so, because -- you know. So to answer your question, it wouldn't be mirrored in the back. It would be straight in the back. The wedding cake -- the setback -- try to use a different word than "wedding cake." This offset setback would occur on the street- facade side. And the -- so what else is human scale that isn't addressed here, since staff indicated, well, we really only addressed one thing. Well, everything else is human scale that you do. The sidewalks provide for walkability. The bike lanes provide for mobility in another way besides a vehicle. The alleys provide for vehicle access but not on the main street. Everything else you do, your streetscape, your furniture, all the things that you do add to enhancing human scale. Everything you do when you design a project like this enhances pedestrian human scale. I don't really think we need to address it at all. It's already addressed both in the Land Development Code and in this PUD and DRI. This was an exercise in futility, excuse me, to be quite honest. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your futility or mine? MR. MULHERE: Mine, ours, collectively. But, you know, to offset the building a little bit to have balconies, if you think --just think about Fifth Avenue, and I was just down there taking some pictures just the other day. A lot of the three -, four -, and five -story buildings are set back very similar to this so that you'd have some balconies, you would have some visual relief. I don't know how that relates to human scale, but it's very attractive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bob, I'm extremely familiar with everything you've just said. In the past when people have come before us with petitions, very often, certainly not always, but very often they've come with beautiful pictures as representations of it, might look like this. I'm just trying to figure out, you know -- I'm not trying to belabor this, believe me. This is a long day. MR. MULHERE: I understand. But so -- let me just suggest, this is only going to apply in a mixed -use scenario. It's going to be a limited scenario. You know, that's where that -- where we do mixed residential and commercial development, perhaps on the periphery of the activity center or slightly within the activity center where we're already required to do some residential in there anyway for those mixed -use activity centers. It's not going to occur if we do a traditional shopping center. You're not going to see this. It's going to have to be something that's less traditional than that. And to do that on a scale that's marketable, it's going to have to be pretty big. So, again, the whole concept will incorporate these pedestrian human -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there's an awful lot of prayer and trust in this whole thing. But I guess if I bought the fifth floor I could say I lived on the penthouse, correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And, you know, Bob, before you came on this, you were head of a committee that did mixed -use standards for our code. We've studied mixed -use projects before. Why aren't we bringing that knowledge into this thing? This is pathetic. Nobody in America would ever build that, a road, a curb, a five -foot sidewalk, and the face of a building. What -- there's nothing in our code that would even allow you to get near that. So why don't you go into our code, find our mixed -use standards, and incorporate that stuff? I mean, it's almost maddening to show us something like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. MULHERE: I don't think -- that's a minimum. There wasn't really any -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And on Bob's last day. He was the one that championed that code. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we were -- we had already said we have to meet code, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me say something, and Ray said it earlier, is that you're establishing the code in this PUD. What if somebody saw that drawing and thought they could do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: That drawing's not part of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I mean, that was a big mistake, showing that drawing. I'm borderline MR. YOVANOVICH: It was not intended to show you a pretty picture. It was intended to show you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't pretty, okay. Page 84 of 99 I v r W10 n ,/ 161 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know that. It was -- you know -- okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's what it did. It showed us that you guys have no idea what mixed -use development's all about. MR. YOVANOVICH: No -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the scary part. MR. YOVANOVICH: It shows us that when we asked staff to define for us what they wanted for human scale, that's what they wanted as an example. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what they wanted as an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's staffs fault that you were caught speechless here a few minutes ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We didn't know what it was. I asked, give me an example. It's not defined. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, 30 seconds. I think both the applicant and staff are at fault here. I sat down with Corby and I said, "define human scale," and he obviously had a challenge because it's not in the GMP. But I know what his intention was; it's exactly what Commissioner Schiffer was talking about. And the applicant said, we'll just refer to the code, and we'll build it to the code. Corby's intention was, try and show me something that shows what a good mixed -used development, human scale, which we can't define, comes forward -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes sense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and the applicant says, we don't know. We want to deal with it later. So I think both parties kind of butted heads on this item, and that's what you got. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you totally lost my trust that you guys are going to build a good job out there. Between those floor plans for the houses and that drawing -- a five -foot sidewalk from the curb to the building, and that's a mixed -use project, human scales. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's sad. That is really sad. MR. MULHERE: I don't think -- I certainly didn't say that. What I said, this has got to be a much bigger -- if you're going to do something like that, it's going to be a much bigger design, it's going to include the main - street concept. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can say all the words. The words are right. It's the pictures that are wrong. MR. MULHERE: But there's no -- there's no -- we're agreeing to meet the code, so there is no -- there is no -- we're not asking for any relief. We're not asking even to build that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you just told us verbally what you considered all the elements of human scale. You threw a whole bunch of stuff in. A picture reflecting that would have done wonders to offset the concerns that staff would have expressed here today about human scale. The picture that you've developed and shown us does everything just the opposite. So that's all I think we're trying to say. MR. YOVANOVICH: All we were asking for, Commissioner Strain, is when we have a project that is in a mixed -use project that we're ready to bring forward, let us define it based upon the code. We were -- we were asked to go design something today that we don't know if we're ever going to build. We will put all of the code requirements into a mixed -use development, but let us do it when we're ready to submit a site plan, not now at PUD stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand your comment, but you don't want to put your worst foot forward when you have to do something. If you were asked to do something and that's what you put forward, that's what we have to evaluate, and that's probably where the mistake was. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what I would have preferred is simply to have a reference in here that if we have a mixed -use product, we have to meet -- we need to meet code requirements for the mixed -use product, including human scale or whatever that is. I mean, right now we were kind of -- we were kind of backed into a corner to come up to a solution when we're not ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's -- I think we've -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can appreciate your position. The community character, smart- growth thing was never really approved. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Page 85 of 99 161 .. A-­ 3 A ugust 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It was agreed to as an accepted principle. It's a fine principle. We have Ave Maria. We have Immokalee. We have a number of examples that could be used. And I agree, you've done yourself a disservice irrespective of what your intent was. It would have been far better to appreciate -- this is a likeness, a rendition of something we'd like to do. I look at this and I see things that trouble me as to what the potential can be, and I worry that we're not going to do service to the community by having -- I mean, this is, what, 2,200 acres? There's a lot of building here. There's a lot of money involved. And you want people for permanency -- that's why I asked who these things would be built for. There are -- I mean, you -- I don't want to belabor it -- I'm frustrated. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we should strike this paragraph. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Please. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going to disagree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, did you want to -- Bob, Corby was waiting in line. Would you mind letting him -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. MR. SCHMIDT: Because this is what the applicants showed you and this is the provision they wrote into the PUD -- and it is problematic. It's focused on just one of the items that staff suggested to them. And even in your staff report you had examples of suggestions for a number of different things. What we could use, instead of this statement or even that drawing, is an entry that indicates at time of SDP they will do those things regarding human scale. It could be the streetlighting, it could be the sidewalks, the landscaping, the building styles. It could be all those things, and yes, it could be at that time. A general statement covering that would have been just as satisfactory, and more satisfactory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Corby, if it's in the code, they've got to do it. So why would we want a statement that says they've got to do what's in the code? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The smart-growth principles, many of them are not directly right now in the code, are they? MR. SCHMIDT: No. We've even -- we've even, in your staff report, suggested some of those you have approved in the past or were to approve in the past that the county has supported. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: And those are things we could look for. COMMISSIONER HURRAY: I think that would be one of the issues there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the corresponding problem then becomes, if we just put the language in there that isn't defined in the code, how do we know who defines it and what temperament they have at the day they look at it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait. MR. SCHMIDT: This was why the problem the reason why staff desired to see something in the PUD, some specificity, and why we've offered so many suggestions. But you don't have it, and this one isn't -- doesn't seem to be working for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad might like it. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. I don't like it. But, you know, one thing is, first of all, let's cross the "or provided below" and that whole sentence, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where you at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Table 2, which is where we started to get in trouble here. And in the code we do have standards, the architectural standards, all that stuff. There's perimeter planting, there's all that good stuff. So here's what I think. Let's cross that off. It leaves 25 feet. And after I saw that picture, I can't trust you guys closer than 25 foot to the road, so I think that's the best thing. Leave it at 25 feet. That gives you room -- you know, you can go down to Fifth Avenue, but Fifth Avenue isn't a five -foot sidewalk from the curb to the face of the building. And, you know, to say you're going to make it look like that is -- you know, we're not that stupid. Page 86 of 99 1 40 161 A � August 4, 2011 So let's just stay 25 feet. You'll make it look good with the architectural standards. MR. MULHERE: Didn't I say we weren't designing this to look like Fifth Avenue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I thought -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You told us Fifth Avenue looked good just like this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: It does look good. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, that was my position when I walked into the meeting. I said, we have to meet the code. You've got architectural standards. I asked -- I want to know -- at the end of the game when I submit something, how do I know I've satisfied you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the architectural standards, pedestrian concerns were a major part of those. MR. YOVANOVICH: I -- and that's what I -- that's measurable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, guys. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's measurable. When I saw the comment, you need to do something to meet human scale, I wasn't being flip. I said, just tell me what I've got to do to satisfy you. The code is clear. We can do that. We thought that that did address human-scale concepts, the architectural standards and all those things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't say that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it doesn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I thought you just said it did go a long way to it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That little picture you mean? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not our picture. No, no, the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, the code is fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: The code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stay with the code, 25 feet back. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what we -- that's what we advocated originally. Stay with the code, 25 feet back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. Good with me. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what we asked -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boys and girls, are we done with that issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not this picture, the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's get past Table 2, with the exception of the note on the bottom. Any independent living unit, parenthetical, care unit. You don't want to redefine -- you don't want to define care unit as an independent living unit, do you? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to have to do the global search -- I've got a ring in my ears. We're going to have to do a global search on that and make sure it refers to senior housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to Table 3. And I -- business park and school development standards, emphasize the word "school" for a certain member of the Planning Commission. Hi, Tom. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, I think the only revision we're proposing here is to -- on the version -- the 26th version we had reduced the height, maximum zoned height to 35 feet from 50 feet, which is consistent with the Land Development Code for the business park zoned height; 50 feet for the actual height. And we were striking Footnote, again, iii because it's already in the code, and we -- it increased the setback for the business park from 25 feet to 50 feet to be, again, consistent with the Land Development Code to address staffs comments regarding the business park. Now, we had already gone through the list of permitted uses and, I hope, struck the more intense ones that didn't make sense in this location. So we believe the combination of removing some of the uses and going to the code allowance for height and setbacks should satisfy staff s concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Rich, on the previous page, my Page 19 -- and I'm going back here. You have the school Page 87 of 99 161, lk--3 August 4, 2011 development standards, and the line says, "The development standards for public educational plants and facilities under the purview of the Collier County School Board shall be defined through the Collier County School Board review process." And then with this table for Table 3 you seem to add in additional requirements. And I'm wondering if you could amend this so that you could remove "school" from that and we could just rely on the agreement that the county and the school district have for building facility. MR. YOVANOVICH: From the development standards table? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We had already deleted the section -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. The school development standards on Page 19 has been deleted for specifically the reason you just mentioned, Tom. There's already an agreement there, so we don't need to reiterate it here. And my suggestion, I thought, had been to remove the school from the development standards table because you already have schools addressed with the school board review, and that's a separate ordinance. So what are we messing with it for? MR. YOVANOVICH: Fine. I misunderstood that, and we'll take that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, does that work for you? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. That would be very much appreciated. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on. My bad. This tract is for the private schools. Remember, the school board tract is a totally different tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We better define that then. Where -- MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the business park tract where we can either do a school or a business park. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I thought schools got taken out of the business park. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. The business park is an alternative. If we don't do a business park, we can do a school. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Private school? MR. YOVANOVICH: Private school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's called flexibility. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, but that's always been -- that's always been in there that if -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry to laugh, but it does strike -- I guess a surprise. It seemed a surprise. MR. YOVANOVICH: It shouldn't. It's been in the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I grant you. Maybe it's because we're wrapped up in the thing all day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry, wrong -- Tom, wrong site. Doesn't apply to you. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Then for clarification, this table relates specifically to private schools within the business tract if you choose that option. Can you, before each word that school's referenced, can you put in private school? MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that okay? MR. EASTMAN: Just so there's no -- years later I don't want a county staffer pointing to this and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I gotcha. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Then I have an issue I have to raise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have probably on the page following the Lords Way access improvements in the event that Tract BP is developed as a business park, and it goes on. MR. YOVANOVICH: Down here. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's all right. There it is, yeah. I think you're going to have to add "in the event the Tract BP is developed either as a business park or a private school." MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Otherwise that doesn't fly, if I'm not mistaken. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The last sentence, I think, handles it. Page 88 of 99 %J r ! oft a a r 61 ,1 A 5 August 4 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Shall be improved. Let's see. In the event -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It says, "In the event -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Can you read that again. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. It says, "In the event that BP is developed as an educational facility, the Lords Way shall be improved by the developer as generally depicted in LDC Appendix B3, a local street, typical roadway section." So there are two different development standards for the road. One higher -- thickness, I couldn't tell you. But more substantial if it's a business -park road versus an educational - facilities road. And that was supposed to address both scenarios. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I read it, and I see it, and I'm just thinking about -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If it could be clarified, we'll -- (Commissioner Midney is leaving the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's advantageous to the developer, but it's not advantageous in the long term to put a road that's -- there are bound to be other vehicles that should not transit that road that will transit that road. And if it's made to a lesser level, if you will, all the rest of the issues of soil, I think you -- if we agreed to it, I think you get out from under, but it's not a good thing to get out from under. So I don't know if anybody agrees with me, but that's my view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I'm sorry. I was checking something else when you were making your point. I should have paid more attention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't mind repeating myself, if I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Briefly. What my argument was here is if you're going to have two different quality -- for lack of a better term, qualities of road because you're going to have a school and they don't anticipate the same level and that traffic -- the amount of pavement push, as it were, they want to be able to build a road that would be cheaper, and I thought that that was a disadvantage to the public and a disadvantage, ultimately, to the project. You build it to what is likely to transit that road. There will be -- there are loop roads in there, isn't there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, Commissioner, if you want me to comment, I can. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would you like me to comment on those two designs? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like a little help, because my supposition is based on the idea that something will probably happen. You might know what is possible. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think Commissioner Caron wanted to say something. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah. I want to go back to two things. First of all, if you go back to No. 11, Tract S is the only place in this document that says schools. You go to the staff report on Page 2 of 26, underneath the land -use summary it says, "Note, since this document was prepared, the designator BP or S has been changed to just BP." So there -- I mean, I'm not making this stuff up. There hasn't been a school on the BP tract. MS. ASHTON: Actually, that's not true, and it's under the text -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh my. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Heidi, I got an -- I got something that we need to do, and that is let's take a break for ten minutes and come back at ten after four and try to get our thoughts together because we are going to leave here at five o'clock -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and wherever we are, that's where it ends up. And so between the -- in the next 50 minutes that are left, you better pick the best subjects you want pointed on before you come back in September, so MR. YOVANOVICH: Why can't we come back the 18th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, if we come back on the 18th, we'd like to have some of this stuff corrected by then so I haven't got to ask and reiterate all the staff report questions that I have that aren't really pertinent now because we're redoing the whole document practically. Lookit, I'll talk to you at break. Let's come back at ten after four and resume and finish up. Page 89 of 99 A 3 August 4, 2011 (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back on record for 50 minutes. So let's try to move forward and get whatever parts of it are most pertinent to get before we meet again. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. What we really would like to do is get in a position to where -- I think we've shown all the changes that we're proposing. I think we've gotten a lot of nods as to, I think we're on the right track, staff wants to look at our language to make sure. I think generally, unless I'm misreading the Planning Commission, they've -- you've generally agreed with the revisions as I've shown them subject to staff review. We will get staff a document between now and the 1 st. Hopefully we can come back on the 1 st with a document that at least staff can say they're happy with subject to your -- you -all's review, but I know there's some issues we've got to get through real quick to make sure we get appropriate direction. On the business park, the reason the S went away is because we used to have a BPS on there, and that got confused with the school district's S, so we were asked to drop the S from the BPS to show the alternative as either business park or school on the business park tract. The text of the business park still says "business park or school use on the property" under the -- under the Exhibit A description of uses. So that's where that confusion came from, and that's why there's no longer a BPS list of uses on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you leave that thought, what kind of school were you figuring on putting there if you were to use it for a school? MR. YOVANOVICH: It could be -- MR. TORRES: Group 82, which allows -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and, David, before you go too far, you started, though -- you didn't use all of Group 82. That's why I questioned it. You started with 8221, which eliminates any elementary or secondary schools, and you're going right into colleges, university, and professional schools. I'm just curious, is that what you intended when you left educational services in under principal uses of the BP tract? MR. TORRES: My recollection is we intended to have all of Group 82. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if that's still your intent and you're going to work some way of using that site for a school site in addition -- let's say in contrast to a BP site, I just think we need to kind of spell it out very clearly in the text of your document as to how and when that happens and what occurs and what doesn't occur when that happens, because I think all of us today were -- that was another thing that surprised us. MR. TORRES: I'm not seeing it here. But what I recall is that we had said that if it was going to be developed as an educational facility, it would use the standards of Tract S, and Tract S allows all of the group. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. It's -- MR. TORRES: Is it still there? MS. ASHTON: Yeah, it's still there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where is it exactly? MS. ASHTON: It's under -- it's under, you know, Section 1413P, and if you go to -- it's actually in that first paragraph. It's three lines up from the bottom. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I must have the wrong one. MS. ASHTON: -- or three. It's "This tract shall be permitted to be developed for either a business park or an educational facility. If the tract is developed as an educational facility, only those uses permitted in Section X1 below shall be allowed." And actually that change was requested, the labeling change from BP or S to just BP, it came from me because I was concerned, is it going to be a BP tract or is it going to be an S tract. And then you had another section that was labeled just S tract. So I thought it created confusion. So that's why we did it that way. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: Okay. But -- and, Heidi, where I'm coming from, if you look on Page -- my God. We've got so many versions. If you look on Page 4 of the version that was in our packet, it has educational services under A 10 as part of the BP tract, which I thought was where they were trying to go when they said they wanted to be able to use it for a school site. The only concern I had is that if they wanted to use it for something below college, that you needed to have 8211 in there and not start at 8221. That's all I was trying to say. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And you go -- if you -- go to Page 15 where you find Roman Numeral XI, under principal uses it says, this is what we can do if we do a school. Page 90 of 99 v n 0 0 . A August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what has that got to do with the BP tract? That's for Tract S, schools. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. It says, if we develop this as a school use only, we get the uses allowed in Section XI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now point me to where that's said. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am on Page 4. MR. YOVANOVICH: Second paragraph that starts with Tract B, even though it's not indented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Go about halfway down where it starts with the word "developed." That sentence says, "If the tract is developed as an educational facility only" -- "educational facility, only those uses in Section XI below shall be allowed. And then XI is what I just pointed you to, Mr. Strain, on Page 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying, if you do a business park, you can do a business park with all the educational service groups from college on up, but if you don't do a business park and you want them to be a school -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you go to Section XI, and then all the uses of schools are applied? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and that's clear as a bell. Richard, there's got to be a better way to write this thing. I mean -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is carte blanche. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on. MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't have any other changes to the rest of the tables. The master plan question came up about what about the preserve portion of the Junior Deputies site. It was kind of shadowed in but not actually marked, so we put a P over where the preserve is on the Junior Deputies site on the master plan. And to clarify, there was a little triangular piece that actually was an R. It kind of looked like it was No -man's Land, so that's the only change I believe we made to the -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that little R tract even developable? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a bigger version. COMMISSIONER EBERT: These are so tiny. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where was I? Here's the P tract I'm talking about right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We labeled that because it was kind of shaded but not really identified. And that is R -- that's potential R. Whether it's developable or not, I really don't know. More than likely not but, you know CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you make it P so you've got some park property? At least you qualify then and you can say you've got a park on site. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if I put it as P, it becomes preserve and it's not a park, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put PA for park. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then I've got to come up with development standards for the PA tract, so I'm kind of -- let's just -- if we -- please let me just leave that an R. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, yeah. You've worn us all down today. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've worn you down? Exhibit E was the deviations. We deleted deviation -- the first deviation pursuant to staffs request. I've already -- the commitments, I don't think we were making any changes to it; were we, Dwight? I've already taken you through all the traffic requirements. If you'd go to Page -- I will show you -- I mentioned this already as part of the DRI development order. But these last two paragraphs address the two bus stops, one in the commercial center and one in the business park. Those were added since your version of the Page 91 of 99 l .v 3 August 4, 2011 documents to address those comments. And I think at that point I've hit -- nope. We had one more that I call the "Nick provision," which is Section XA which we added, because Nick wanted to make sure he only had to deal with one entity for purposes of monitoring this entire PUD from beginning to end, and we've agreed to that, and that's going to become policy from this point forward, according to a mass email I received earlier this week, I think. So there's a provision here that there's one responsible entity for making sure that the PUD commitments are satisfied. And if we want to change who that entity is, we have to notify the county. So I think it's a good provision. It really helps with PUD monitoring. And with that, I think I've gotten through all of the PUD documents, all the DO documents. I do know, Commissioner Strain, when we met there was an issue regarding how do we value dedications -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- both right -of -way and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when you said we've gotten through. Again -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I've gotten through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you've gotten through. Let's just hope that out of today's meeting most of my questions have been answered, if they have been, and when I read everything I won't have the remaining ones. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I would like to do, if we were -- if we were on the right track for the Planning Commission -- I didn't hear a whole lot of negatives to the language that I presented -- we'll get the revised document to staff, hopefully massage it to a position that we're on the same page, get it to you -all as soon as possible for hopefully -- maybe finish this review up on the 1 st subject to anything that may come up based upon language that you've got to see and study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't make any guarantees, but we'll try to make it work on the 1 st. Now, Mr. Murray, you had something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'm not satisfied because I think the question I raised regarding the quality of roads, Nick was going to try to answer me, I think. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Your question was regarding Lords Way and the collector road and local road versus a business park industrial -type road. There are definitely two standards. When you look at what you had asked, if it's a school with school buses, would it meet that standard if they only went with that local road. The answer is yes. That's what we hold the school to, and they seem to be holding up okay historically. So the business park is meant for the really industrial heavy vehicles, fully loaded, you know, with the tonnage. The buses aren't putting that kind of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're answering my question in the reverse of my intent. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's my question, and I failed you. My question was to try to find out or to determine -- it was my opinion that the BP road, because it would be built to a better standard, was the only road that should be built regardless of whether there will be a school or as business park simply because I made the assumption, and I think it's realistic, that other vehicular traffic of another sort, heavier traffic than even school buses, are likely to access or ingress and egress through the Lords Way. And why build something to a standard that will break down and require maintenance greater than what should be forecast? That's the basis of my question. If it's excessive in what I am attempting, I want you to tell me that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think, without being disrespectful, it is excessive. The industrial park roads are really heavy duty. The local roads that are designed with a local collector, if it's not an industrial park, hold up very well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. That's good. That's what I needed to understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Nick, they come in to put a school there, private school. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Private school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After a little bit of time the private school goes belly up, they decide to take advantage of the additional uses on the site for flexibility in the market. Happens to be business park uses. They go in and switch -- the same building, they just put BP uses in the former big school uses. How does staff realize that that road is now not -- it's not the road that was supposed to be there pursuant to an obscure passage in the PUD that allows two different types of roads for the same parcel? Page 92 of 99 I n 0 J. n ..01 161 R 3 .1 August 4, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Unless staff read that PUD document on that conversion, they wouldn't. But if they do read it, then they'll have to upgrade that road to go to the business park use, because the PUD's pretty clear about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the transportation staff reads every PUD end to end every time they get a request for a new use on an existing facility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I could only wish they did, and I hope they do, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, therein lies the problem. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somehow we need to resolve that issue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. And I don't have a -- you know, other than making sure that we read every single one when they come through for the commitments. But if they went -- if they built the school first and then converted it to industrial park, we should be reading that and catching that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But how much of a significant difference is there in the cost to build A to B, you know, school to BP. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You mean roadwise? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I could tell you by the time we come back on the 1 st, if you want me to. I could give you that breakdown. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I won't be here, but I would think that it would be a good answer to have. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I can do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that, you know, this is, again, 2,200 -plus acres, and this is a very significant activity, and I think that you want to have it first class and, you know -- will that be a county - maintained road then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be -- if it goes through to Benfield, if it dead ends at the business park, then it becomes a county road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's to the county's advantage to have maintenance as minimal as possible? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me -- why don't I come back on the 1 st when they come back, and I'll give you the two cross - sections and the cost. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll be listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm also more concerned about -- regardless of the cost and the cross - sections, if we go with this flexibility, how do you cover it in the future -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the other factor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 10, 20 years down the road when things get changed over? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a good comment. I mean, if it's not -- if we can go through with the applicant and we're agreeable with Planning Commission and the applicant, we go to the bigger cross - section. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be my recommendation. MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not there yet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just talking, trying to figure out solutions. MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your request to keep the maximum flexibility on all levels is just where it's hard to fathom, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the -- we have to -- as part of the annual PUD monitoring report, we check off conditions that we've satisfied. If we're going to change the use, we're going to be telling you -- because we're going to be coming forward with building permits and all that stuff, and we're going to tell you that, hey, here's where my building park square footage is -- business park, sorry -- and we've got to upgrade the road. To force us to build to something we may not need to do because there's a theoretical chance the school's going to go broke and we're going to convert the use to satisfy other users beyond us, that should be a -- and we've worked this out. There are some costs in this where it's 100 percent on the developer's dime. Page 93 of 99 161 JAA -3 )l 4, 2011 And where we're building improvements that are serving beyond us, we have worked out impact -fee credits. Benfield Road is one of them -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- where we're going to upgrade the cross - section from what we would need, and the county pay the delta. We need to be talking in those kind of terms if you're going to ask us to build a cross - section above and beyond what we need. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If, in fact, you were to build to the S level, and subsequent to that the county, whether it or some other means is used to extend it to Benfield and it becomes a county road and you then decide to have the BP activity, the business park, and the road needs to be upgraded, since it's a county road, then what? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to upgrade it. We'll upgrade it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You'll -- you're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- the party that will upgrade it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to upgrade it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- even though it will be a county road? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. We're going to have to go get the right -of -way permit from the county and say, we need to -- in order to do the business park, we're going to have to upgrade the road and do what it takes, correct? Am I missing something? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what it says in the PUD. I mean, you know, Commissioner Caron's comment of, will staff catch that? I would hope so; that's our job. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All I'm trying to do is bring up the issues that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I appreciate that. We just don't want to get stuck spending a lot of money because of the fear that someone misses something, and it's just really a waste of money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where do you want to go next, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, our side has gotten through everything we wanted to present regarding the documents. I do know there still are a couple of issues. And I don't want to guess what the issues are for the Planning Commission that they would like to raise so that we can address them appropriately with staff prior to coming back on September 1 st. So I guess, Mr. Chairman, at the risk, I'll just leave it up to you to figure out how you can send the message to us what we need to change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As the members from the Planning Commission, does anybody have any general item they want to throw on the table now or even specific from the documents? I mean, I have got still a lot of questions, of which you're all aware of. But, you know, with all the changes that have got to be made -- and the staffs got to come back with a lot of items, and you have changed a lot things to the better -- a lot of my questions may be moot at this point. So I'm not sure it's time wise to go into them all. There are two issues, though, that I think are general enough that we may want to make sure are addressed. The first one being the valuation of your right -of -way, because we have a -- our Code of Laws, and I -- and Heidi's aware of the section -- 74.205 -- that addresses when right -of -way evaluation will be used -- will be done if it's going to be used for impact -fee credits. And according to that section, from my reading, it's prior to the entitlements. Obviously, the county would be in a peculiar situation if they approved zoning only to have the right -of -way increased in cost, because they did so, that they have to buy and give impact -fees credits for. And so I'd like to have reading on -- from your perspective, Heidi, as to where we stand on that. Because the document's not written in that way now. The document's written in a manner that gives up the easements and the right -of -way as it's needed down the road, which puts us in a different position. MS. ASHTON: Right. Yeah, this is a little bit different than the typical scenario where we know the exact size of the road right -of -way that we're going to need and that we can actually identify a legal description at the time when we approve the PUD. So there are a couple things that we can do to change the language in the PUD, and one would be that the Page 94 of 99 In .L M 161 1 A August 4, 2011 parties can agree on the value -- the per -acre value of the right -of -way that would be donated in the future, and we can actually put that per -acre valuation in the PUD, and the other thing is to identify an area that would be up to whatever that number would be, 200 feet or 100 feet or whatever it would be, that would be needed so that we can further narrow it and we can determine a value today rather than doing a value that's projected in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I -- and, Richard, the reason I'm -- and, Nick, some -- we need to get that resolved by the time you come back as to how the best way is to handle that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, we've spoken. We're going to get together and see if we can agree on a per -acre value and just put it in ahead of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And then I'd also suggest that you determine what the width of -- is the corridor that we'll need in various -- up to a certain number. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That might be a little harder, but I think if we get a per -acre value and say approximately as shown in the plan, at least we know if we grow or shrink, it will be in the per -acre number. It wouldn't change the overall value. It would change the overall dollar amount based on the final design. But I'd like to see if -- Heidi, if that's okay, we just get to at least a per -acre value. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. We'll work it out with Rich before the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I ask is if you're going to establish a per -acre value, you either establish it by the Code of Laws or, if you're not going to, explain why it doesn't apply -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because there's a process in the Code of Laws on how land is to be valuated, and I just want to make sure we're not -- you know, everything should be equal to everyone. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if it's in the law, we need to address it. And the second thing is is an analysis of this project's total cost to Collier County versus its assets. And I'm not saying you've got to do a blown -out fiscal- impact - analysis model. I'm just suggesting that we need to have something to know that you're neutral or positive to Collier County as a whole, and I think that wouldn't be a bad thing to do. You've got a series of impact fees and credits and costs to the county. I don't know -- I can rely on staff for this. If staff feels that the requirements are met to show that everything is fiscally as sound as it needs to be, that fine, but I want the record clear that we've at least looked at that issue to make sure that you're not costing this county any money, that you're a generator or neutral in some manner. Is that -- Richard, you're looking at me with this blank face. Not the first time you heard it. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm just -- as I -- we have done the analysis from the capital- facilities standpoint. I mean, I think we've already shown you that we're going to pay more in impacts, impact fees, than our proportional share on capital infrastructure. We have not done an analysis on the day -to -day what I'll call ad valorem tax dollars. We haven't done that. I don't think it's part of the required DRI or PUD process. I'm not saying that you're wrong in needing to know that, but I'm just saying we didn't do it because it's not part of the typical PUD process and, I don't believe, part of the DRI process to do a financial analysis to determine, are you impact neutral? I know you do it for the RLSA, and I know they have a model you can use, and I know you're not bound by that model, but I was not aware, and I'm still not aware, that it's a legal requirement that we do it. We'll prepare to do it if we need to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I don't want you to have to do anything that isn't required to do, okay. That's not where I'm going. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is that if there is a requirement because it's of a DRI level, which is regional significance, that between you and the County Attorney's Office, you work out whether something has to be done or not. If the county attorney comes back with an opinion it does not have to be done, I'm fine with that. You got probably one of the best people in -- that I know in the State of Florida, Ron Weaver, here who can certainly evaluate all of our statutes and everything else. And if Ron certainly has some contributory opinion on that to deal with the County Attorney's Office, I'd like to see that happen. Page 95 of 99 6 1 1 A 3, August 4, 2011 So -- and, Ron, I'm not asking you to do something today, but at any point with your knowledge you can work with Heidi in the County Attorney's Office to come up with why or why not that is not needed, that's fine. Now, I also got from you an analysis actually from David -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that a valuation of what your impacts were going to be generated versus grow costs and what you're contributing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Potential credits we could get. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- and this is kind of where my concern is. The numbers you used in there were inconsistent with the impact -fee study for trip- generation length and things like that. So I'm not -- and the value of the road per lane mile. Those were numbers I've not been familiar with in looking at the traffic impact -- or the impact -fee study. So I think you used a.70 for trip generation. You know that's not what you used in the study; it's 5.88. So some of those things don't fit; that's why I'm not sure that's a good enough thing to use without having staff look at it and verify the numbers are correct under whatever means you found them under. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying they're wrong, but they're wrong -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in relationship to what I understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and I would suggest, if that's what you're going to use as part of your position, which would be helpful for us to know that your impact fees are greater than the credits we're going to be giving you for the right -of -ways, that's a real big help. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure Nick verifies the numbers, that's all. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we've said that -- to Nick, and we'll say it to you, if for some reason between our road right -of -way dedication -- and I'll use roads for an example because that's, I think, the only one that we're actually doing improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You're doing -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're doing some dedication for other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Emergency Medical Services and schools, which, if I was Tom, I'd be asking you the same thing right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I know that, but our -- if our "in aggregate," if the improvements that we're making or giving, land or improvements, exceed the impact fees we will be paying for this project, it was not our intent to get a check back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that with David's preliminary work just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And it shouldn't be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- verify it, I think we're going to be there. MR. YOVANOVICH: It should be the case, but it was not our intent, and I know that was a concern, that at the end of the day you would owe us money. But I've seen Nick's math, and I'm pretty sure -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's not going to. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- there was no chance it was ever going to be where he was writing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that new house bill that passed puts a different onus on everybody. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that we don't get trapped into that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's my biggest concern, especially you -all referred to it in your PUD, so it's kind of like telling us, putting us on notice that, hey, pay attention to this, because we are, and I want to make sure we're square on that. That's all. Page 96 of 99 W e low ill „/ 161 1 A 5 August 4, 2011 Anybody else have any -- you guys don't act too peppy and enthusiastic here today. What's going on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wonder why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Huh? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wonder why. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The preservation -- Steve, can I ask you a question on this? There is quite a bit of this, the native vegetation, the special overlay, the wetland. Who's going to maintain this? MR. LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger, for the record, Land Development Services Department. Well, the owner's going to maintain it unless they go for different additional bonus credits, then they have to do a restoration and maintenance plan, and there's also credits. And they can also -- there is also credits where they can donate that land to a government entity. So eventually -- that was, I believe, the intent of the developer, to eventually donate the land to the state as part of the Picayune Strand State Forest. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's how we get enough TDRs through our own property to be able to achieve our own density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any closing comments, anything they want to say? Then we'll be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll be the last of the annoying comments. It just occurred tome, we had a gentleman in here, I think his name was Shuckman, who was concerned about lake depths and muck and dissolved oxygen deficiencies, et cetera, and he raised a question about having to ultimately scoop things out. And the presence of aeration, that would be helpful and prolong the life. Curiosity. How deep are these little ponds going to be? Just in time. MR. ROBAU: I missed most of the meeting. I was up in Fort Myers on another meeting. But I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Name? MR. ROBAU: Oh, excuse me. For the record, Emilio Robau, RWA, Inc., P.E. I was sworn in this morning, and I just came back, so I assume I'm still sworn in. We're asking for 20 foot, but we're really limited by the confinement layer, and so we're -- that's the limit. And some of these lakes, a good chunk of them are going to be aerated anyways, because we have to do it pursuant to Corps of Engineers' requirement and Harvey Harper methodology where dissolved oxygen goes below a certain level in the lakes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for that answer. That's going to become a more important issue as time goes by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I think the applicant needs to request a continuance for PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10146 and DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147. Is that what you'd like to do, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: To September 1st? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To September 1 st. MR. YOVANOVICH: First item up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Well, it's the only item. We're not going to schedule anything else that day. We already had a discussion that would probably be -- we need to finish this thing up, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is there -- do you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would help possibly get the consent done at the same time, but I can't guarantee it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. You read my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It depends on how well you write your document. If you write it less confusing, it's going to be a -- go a long ways -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to making the day simple. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciated everybody's patience, but I hope the document that we went page by page did simplify things and answer most questions, so hopefully we're on the right track, and that's our goal. Page 97 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4 2011 g , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The earlier you get it to us, the more we'd be able to probably have some discussion with you or -- and I urge you -all to contact members of this Planning Commission who have expressed concerns about specific items or expertise in certain areas; it would help you clarify for the meeting that you're on the right track. I'd hate to see us spend a whole'nother day spinning wheels on this thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will make those calls, and I will also make that request for a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Request for a continuance of both items, PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10146 and DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, second by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you very much. We will see you on September 1 st. Unfortunately, we'll probably see you sooner, Richard. With that, there's no old business. The only new business I have -- what's the matter? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The letter from one lady who had a lot of questions, but she wasn't here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We can't -- we're going to meet on September 1st, so she'll be renotified. Okay. The only other new business, 1, again want to, Mr. Murray, thank you for your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your dedication to this commission and the time you've put in. Thank you for the time and dedication to this commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry to hear you're leaving. We will -- you have any -- see us doing wrong, just give us a call. I'm sure we'll want to hear your input, so thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've never seen this commission do anything wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good to hear. Tell the board that, will you. Okay. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. -- Melissa. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Brad. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. Page 98 of 99 161 1 a 3 1 August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:44 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION v MAR�STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on 4t — I - tl , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.,BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 99 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 18, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 18, 2011 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 member present: V CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Melissa Ahern Donna Reed -Caron Diane Ebert �Y' .....................•• Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer ALSO PRESENT: Fiala I (/ Hiller ice' Henning Coyle COIC?tia Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney Jamie French, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Misc, Corres: Date: � dk \ \ �'. \ item #:kI zT \W�, Page 1 of 11 -'pies to: 161 �. 3 Air ust 18, 2U 11 g CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent or not here, I don't know which. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'll probably come in late. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ** *Addenda to the agenda. I guess now is as good a time as any to discuss Item 9.A. We're not going to be calling it because the petitioner's here to request a continuance. Mr. Mulhere? MR. MUL14ERE: Thank you, Mr. Strain. Yes, we were unable to get with the bank, which was the reason that we continued in the first place, and schedule a meeting. We do have one scheduled. It's tomorrow. And we did send them a rendering, a couple of -- and a conceptual site plan so they could have a chance to review that before we meet with him. So we're meeting tomorrow, I think it's at 10:30 or 11:00, and so we respectfully request that we be continued so we continue to work with them. We'd like to come back on September 1 st, which doesn't require readvertising yet at this point, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any concerns? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) MR. MULHERE: Thank you. 10-11, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0 (sic). Page 2 of 11 I V 1 /" 161 i August 18, 2011 Thank you, Bob. ** *Okay, Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is September 1 st. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we'll have a quorum. ** *Approval of minutes. We received the July 21st, 2011 minutes electronically. Anybody have any corrections, additions or changes to the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 8 -0 (sic). ** *Ray, any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: No report, since the Board of County Commissioners is on vacation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's been quiet. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Would that be eight or seven? I thought you said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, seven, you're right, the count of the commission vote. I forgot, Paul isn't here yet. ** *Okay, Chairman's report. Nothing new, so we'll just move right into the -- there's no consent agenda item, so we're right into the remaining advertised public hearings. Just so the record's clear, the first public hearing, which was PUDA- PL2011 -703, the Pine Ridge Center West PUD -- (At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the board room.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- was continued until September 1st. ** *The next item up is -- actually, these two are going to be heard -- we'll discuss them together; I'll read them for the record together. They happen to be adjoining PUDs. They're coming in for some joint interconnections. Two of the PUDs we'll be discussing are PDI- PL2011 -0462, Bucks Run PUD. And PDI- PL2011 -0794, the Mission Church PUD. 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: Discussion on the part of Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had an e-mail from Michael Fernandez's office requesting a meeting, but after reading the documents there really wasn't a need to have a meeting, so we didn't. Michael, it's all yours. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez, representing the Diocese of Venice. Page 3 of 11 b1 P1 A 3 August 18, 2011 As you can see, this is a relatively minor amendment. It's a -- just an amendment to the master plan. Both churches are now owned; both parcels are owned by the same entity. The Diocese purchased the property to the north. And what we're doing is just facilitating an interconnection between the two properties for vehicular use and for pedestrians. And we're doing it compliant for fire access as well. This will facilitate the movement between the properties. It's something that actually was desired by the county at the time these properties were originally permitted. So hopefully -- if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them, but it's pretty innocuous. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had just one, Michael. When I'm looking at the exhibit for the Mission -- yeah, Mission, are we losing lake area and preserve area? I mean, we've got to be losing preserve area, because that's where you're driving through here now. MR. FERNANDEZ: We are losing preserve area. However, the requirement for preserves is 15 percent, or 5.33 acres. Even after removal of the preserve area, we'll be in excess of the requirements. COMMISSIONER CARON: What will you have in the end? I can't read it. MR. FERNANDEZ: All we're committing to in the PUD is the 15 percent. We didn't modify that. The PUD required 5.33. We will still have 5.33 as a minimum. But on the SDP, our calculations indicate that we'll be above that requirement. So there's no loss in preserves relative to the zoning document itself. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And what about the lake area? MR. FERNANDEZ: The lake areas were conceptual. As it turned out, there aren't any lake areas on the property. Because of the rock elevation we weren't able to build lakes, and so those became water management marshes. Those were permitted by the South Florida Water Management District. We have excess capacity on the property. There's no changes to the water management that's proposed as a result of what we're doing. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Michael. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report? And I'm assuming your presentation was for both PUDs simultaneously? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe you could do the same thing, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of the Bucks Run PUD and Mission Church PUD PDIs this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. I notice Nick couldn't be here, he probably had another important engagement, windsurfing or something, but Jamie is. And the only thing I'd like to ask is that as staff goes through the changes to the admin. code and other documents that are amending the need for a, let's say, a drawn -out public hearing, that they look at issues like this to include in things that can be done administratively. This is an encouragement by our codes to have interconnections. There is no compatibility issues with their location to surrounding properties outside the properties in which are owned by the applicant. So I Page 4 of 11 161 1 A 3 August 18, 2011 really think that in the future we could save a lot of time and money if we just simply looked at that .-� administratively with those kinds of criteria. And if that applied, I don't -- I mean, I would hope that we could find a way to not bring these things into this kind of a hearing. So anyway, it's a suggestion. I know you're making a list out, and so maybe you could throw that into the mix. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we need to take them both separately. And with all the stipulations that we have, I'll read off the first one and then ask for a motion. Oh, Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Not on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll close the public hearing, entertain a motion on PDI- PL2011 -0462, the Bucks Run PUD. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa made a motion -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to approve, seconded by Commissioner Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: 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: The motion carries 7 -0 -- or 8 -0, Barry. Paul's here. Hi, Paul. The second motion would be on PDI- PL2011 -0794, the Mission Church PUD. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Melissa. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ebert. I'm assuming in all cases the motion is to recommend approval. With that in mind, 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. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. ^ Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 5 of 11 I n I : X 161 : ugust 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. n Cherie', I told you this -- we're going to be moving here today. So I'm not sure about the next one, though. We got some time on this one. * * *So the next item coming up is our last hearing for the day, it's a conditional use. It's CU- PL2011 -579, the Garden Street -- it's actually recycling -- or metal collection and transfer station off of Airport Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got the same disclosure I had on the last one with Michael's office by e -mail. COMMISSIONER AHERN: We received an e-mail I believe from a neighboring property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got something in our packet. I'm not sure if it came in e-mail. But yeah, I saw that. Okay, you're right. But that's in the packets as well, I think. Maybe it is. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I received it I think yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you? Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It was in the packet too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: At the bottom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michael, it's all yours again. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, again, Commissioners. It's Michael Fernandez, representing Naples Lumber. This is an existing property that has been developed. It was developed in about 2000. It's permitted throughout the South Florida Water Management District. It's compliant. We have gone and looked at the property. It's still consistent with the approvals that were given at n the time. Until fairly recently it was used as a truss plant for Naples Lumber. As you -- let me put the master plan on the viewer. As you take a look at this master plan, basically we're just overlaying an existing -- the existing survey of the property. There's two large buildings there that are largely open, basically covered areas. And most of the property is impervious. The public park is to the north, facing the roadway. And then there's a perimeter buffer. To the south of the property there's a Water Management District canal. That's part of the overall water management system for the industrial park. The improvements that are required to the property to facilitate a relocation of the existing facilities that this -- that the future user has on Shirley Street right now. It's a much smaller facility they'll be relocating here. And in anticipation of future growth, they figure we've got a down turn right now, it's a good time to come back and get ready for the future. This will allow them to increase their capacity for acceptance of metals and other recycling materials. This facility will be used as a transfer station. They do know there's a prohibition in our agreement of no shredding. And essentially all the work in terms of shredding and other change of materials, if you will, will be done in their facility, as it is now in Fort Myers. And there they have a large shredder and they process the materials and then ship them out for reuse. So essentially it's a transfer station. We don't believe that this is any more intensive of a use than other uses in the adjacent areas, and no more intensive than the uses that were on the property previously that did not require a conditional use. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to additional restrictions, including no outside storage that would be higher than the buffers or walls that are required around the perimeter south of and along the facade of the front building. So to the public, nothing will be in view, other than the structures themselves. Additionally, they've agreed to add a facade to the front elevation of the building to give it a more architectural appearance, if you will. Page 6 of 11 161 August 18, 2011 The parking will -- the public parking and use areas will remain north or forward of the building. So we believe that those additional restrictions provide for compatibility with adjacent neighbors. I mentioned that this is the relocation. The existing facility on Shirley Street has been operating under a conditional use since 1993. A search of the records and talking to staff and adjacent neighbor shows that it's been a good neighbor. There was one small blemish on the record relative to signage that was put out, a sandwich sign. It was removed immediately as soon as they were notified that that was in violation. There's an existing county facility immediately adjacent to their existing facility on Shirley Street that hasn't reported any issues as well. With that, I'll be happy to address any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michael, the only concern I have is storing maybe too close to the street. And I know you want to start being able to pile outside storage in line with the front facade, correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. But those areas will be shielded south of that facade and south of those entry gates. In other words, we're going to come back, you can see by the drawing that we've committed to providing the same height buffer. So if it's eight feet, we'll have eight feet of buffer and landscaping that will basically create an enclosure except for the driveway where of course there is no storage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But wouldn't I be able to look across the parking and see that stuff? I mean, you're going to put it on the -- what would be the eastern and western parking places that you no longer need; is that right? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, would it be a big problem to move it back a little further? Because it will be visible from the street. I know if you did a straight -on elevation maybe not, but people driving down the street will look across the parking and see it. MR. FERNANDEZ: We can probably agree to move it back to those first two islands. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That would be nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, just so we get this stipulation right that needs to be added, they're going to move what back to the first two islands? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There will be no outdoor storage northward of the first island in the parking lots on the east and west boundary. I mean, if you want to, too, you can move the barrier back there too. Well, that would mess up the island, don't do that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I think they're going to have security too, and I think that's part of it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you point to the location that he's referring to on this master plan? MR. FERNANDEZ: Here and here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll let staff figure out -- or probably stipulate that as an addition to the motion, but I'll let staff figure out how to word it so it correlates with the master plan, or maybe show it as a dotted line in addition to the master plan, so it's clear. MR. FERNANDEZ: If we could just stipulate that it will be located at the island. It's depicted to the east or west. I think that will define it at this time, and that way we don't have to make any changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I want to make sure that we understand is that through the SDP process I'm not sure these islands have been calculated out through the widths needed to get there, so MR. FERNANDEZ: They are. In fact, those are existing islands right now, and they're to remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Does anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My questions, I just got a couple of staff when we get to the staff report. Why don't we do that now then. Page 7 of 11 161 3 August 2011 Thank you, Michael. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Land Development Services. And we are recommending approval of this petition, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have anything of staff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, let's start with the master plan. The notation right at the bottom of the page where it says approximate location of northern outdoor storage screen. Screen shall be a hedge, wall or opaque fencing or a combination of these screens. What determines what scenario is used? MS. GUNDLACH: It means they could use one of the three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But is there a reason why they would have to use any one of the three over any other? Is there an opacity that has to be reached or something like that? MS. GUNDLACH: They would just have to have 100 percent opacity -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would have -- MR. GUNDLACH: -- in order to meet the outdoor -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's already -- MR. GUNDLACH: -- screening requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in our code? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, that would be per LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go and move that plan -- maybe Ray could do that for you -- so we can see the general condition notes up on the upper right -hand corner of the plan, and maybe bring those up a little closer. There you go. There's seven notes here. Is there a reason why one through six need to be on this plan? And the reason I'm asking the question is because they're either, from what I can understand, all subject to Land Development Code issues, Water Management District issues, and having them on this plan could only confuse the issue in the future. So why do we need them here? MS. GUNDLACH: You can remove them, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One through six. I think seven's fine, no on -site shredding of metal. Although the exhibit to the conditional use says that. But, I mean, I don't care if that one's on there. But one through six I think could be a contradictory point in the future in someone reading this. For example, number two, stormwater management permitted through that permit. Well, what if they have to change the perimeter and modify it to make it better or standards change? Well, they're locked into -- this locks the CU into that. And I'd just as soon provide the flexibility on both sides to make sure we're not locked into something that could get better in the future. So I would suggest we drop the one through six from this plan as general comments. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that's the only questions I had. And I did read the letter we've gotten from the one neighbor. Every one of his issues, from as best I can tell, would be better addressed at SDP level. And they're all addressed by current requirements within the code. So did you read it and have the same conclusion? MS. GUNDLACH: I had that same conclusion, but also they mentioned something about EPA. And please keep in mind that that is -- the Environmental Protection Agency is a federal agency, so they would be responsible for their regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, did you have something? n MR. FERNANDEZ: I did happen to speak to the gentleman. His property is actually not abutting Page 8 of 11 16 1 A 3 August 18, 2011 this, it's actually on the block to the north of us, so it doesn't abut. His concerns mainly stem from the fact that he is lower in elevation, and he's had flooding issues. And I did talk to the Water Management District. They did confirm that our property is downstream. So what we're doing won't affect him, and our proposal does not increase our impervious area. I explained that to him. And his was more concerns as opposed to an objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, even -- I mean, I know what you just said. But even downstream facilities, if they tend to create more pervious area -- or impervious area so that you have less percolation, you could end up backing up as it moves south. So, I mean, I understand South Florida's comment, but at the same time I think he does have a relevant concern. But I do believe that's handled in the SDP process, so thank you. Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? Sir, if you wish to speak, come on up and identify yourself on the microphone and tell us what's on your mind. You need to -- were you sworn in when we started the meeting? MR. SIMMONDS: No, I just arrived. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you'll have to raise your right hand, this lady will swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SIMMONDS: I came in in the middle of this, and I want to make sure we're talking about the Garden Street -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SIMMONDS: Okay, that was the last thing on the agenda, so I wanted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We move fast. MR. SIMMONDS: I've been property owner and businessman on -- at Metro Park since '92. And during that course of time I've seen and met and had a lot of people that also are property owners there and small business owners, and they're furniture makers and cabinetmakers and furniture designers. And they have and I have a very strong stand against this because of the amount of dust and congestion that this is going to add to the already busy road. We have the Waste Management's trucks, probably 40 or 50 trucks a day. We have trucks from the Peluso Movers. We have trucks from the Collier tire place that are continuously up and down there. And on that road there's -- there is industry, but there isn't any trash transfer or there isn't any refuse storage or junkyard or scrapyard. Now, there is some of that further up in the north end of this project. And of course a good place for this would be at the landfill. But getting back to my particular location. And the people that are around me have very strong concerns that there's going to be an unnecessary, or a very large influx of trucks, roll -off trucks that create dirt and mud and dust going up and down the road. And it's very, very evidenced by going to the transfer site or the CD operation that's in our same project up to the north. We live on a -- we're on a road that has no direct access from Airport Road, it has no direct access from Livingston Road, and it just seems like this is not the best location, if we're looking out for the community and for the people that are already there and that have been there for these years. And everybody here is faced with a struggle just to stay alive. But for the sake of the county is concerned, there shouldn't be a -- it's not any better for the county to have it on Enterprise or Exchange or Shirley Street than it would be to have it out at the landfill, because the revenues are still going to be there. So I think it's important that we think about the people that are already there. The truss plant, which closed down a couple of years ago due to the economic situation, produced a lot of truck traffic, and that was able to be dealt with. But this is going to be a lot, lot heavier. 11—IN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, couple comments. You had mentioned that this doesn't have direct access to Airport Road. Actually, it's midway in the Page 9 of 11 1�6 1 1 A 3 August 18, 2011 park between Livingston Road and Airport Road, so it has access to both. n MR. SIMMONDS: Yeah, but there's no traffic signal. And there's -- they can only turn one way to get out. And they can only really get in with no signal. So this is just going to increase the amount of congestion there at that turn point. And it's the same way on the other end, but only -- actually worse, because it has to go out on Industrial, is it, or Commercial and make a zigzag. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are various signals sporadically along Livingston going in and out of the park. MR. SIMMONDS: Right. But nothing on this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But nothing on that -- I understand that. MR. SIMMONDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other thing is the truss plant that operated there -- MR. SIMMONDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they built wood trusses, which means they had a lot of saws. And they're triple axle trucks. Ones that would deliver to my sites were substantial in length, forklifts and cranes to move stuff around. MR. SIMMONDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand why you think the sorting of the metal would be -- MR. SIMMONDS: Well, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- more intrusive than that was -- MR. SIMMONDS: Yeah, that truss plant had a delivery or a pickup once a day. This is going to be a continuous thing. This is going to be continuous from the time they're open till the time they're closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you load trusses you load one set on the truck at a time. If you're going out for five houses, 10 houses a day, one an hour, you're going to have more than one truck a day. You're loading out for every house you take a load out to. MR. SIMMONDS: Right, right. Well, one load takes up -- could be 10 houses, depending on the n size of the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, trucks don't load it like that. But Michael -- and I appreciate your time. Anybody have any questions of this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Michael, do you have any rebuttal you'd like to make a note of? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, just that based on the analysis that we've made, talking to the owner of the former truss plant and also looking at their facility off Shirley Street, there'll actually be less vehicles at this site or moving in and out of this site than the existing lumber yard -- or the truss plant. So we don't see that it's going to be an uptick in the amount of traffic that will be generated. MR. SIMMONDS: Well, there's zero trucks moving in and out now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with the stipulations and the additional stipulations with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Melissa. Okay, the motion was for recommendation of approval. The stipulations were involving the forward Page 10 of 11 A 3 1,6 August 18 2011 distance of where things can be stored as we discussed involving those islands and the removal of the general conditions one through six that are shown on the master plan. Is that consistent for the motion maker -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 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. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Okay, thank you, appreciate your time today. ** *Old business? Any brought forward? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *New business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from -- any other comments from the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll seek a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:30 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, hic., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 11 of 11 A 41 161 Ju Y 6 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY r /DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala MEETING Hiller _ 7 —'" rT_ }' ' Henning Coyle ✓ July 6, 2011 — Naples, Florida 3 C:) � 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: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Ray Allain James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney Misc. Corres: Reagan Henry George Hermanson Date: David Hurst item ��°� ��` Excused: Marco Espinar ^�iea to: Blair Foley Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Absent: Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Robert Salvaggio — Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Michael Ossorio, Supervisor — Contractor Licensing Paul Mattausch, Director — Water Department Jim Turner, Chief Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector 261 1 July 6, 2011 A 4 I. Call to Order: Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. II. Approval of Agenda: Clay Brooker moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by James Boughton. Carried unanimously, 8 - 0. (George Hermanson arrived at 3:07 PM.) IV. Public Speakers: (Will be heard when Item is discussed) Melissa Ahern - CBIA Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, introduced Magaly Bowman who will administer the September meeting. ( Dalas Disney arrived at 3:09 PM.) V. Growth Management Division - Staff Announcements/Updates: A. Public Utilities Division: Nathan Beals, Project Manager - Public Utilities • The Interim Administrator and new Operations Manager were introduced. III. Approval of Minutes - June 1, 2011 Meeting: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes for the June 1, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 10 - 0. VI. Growth Management Division - Staff Announcements/Updates: B. Fire Review: Robert Salvaggio for Ed Riley, Fire Code Official - Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Report for May was submitted. o Reviews conducted: 794 (higher than in April) • The move to the new building has been completed. Q. What was the impetus for the move to the new building? A. The Fire Code Office is also in charge of training and needed a new facility and room to grow. We would go to different Fire Districts and bring in speakers but were often booted out of the training rooms. Having a training facility was the main issue to build the new building. Mr. Salvaggio noted the Fire Code Office makes three trips a day to the County facility on Horseshoe Drive to retrieve plans to be reviewed. He stated there had been a delay in the time line due to the learning curve to adapt from their computer system to CityView but the reviewers have caught up. C. Transportation Planning Division: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation Engineering A Ak 1 I A 1Ju 4 q `t 161 6, 2011 The Board of County Commissioner resolved the dispute and awarded a contract for the Davis /Collier Project — construction to begin in September • grant application was submitted for bridge construction in the Estates o Awaiting decision • Design/Build project will begin in September on Golden Gate Blvd. for the bridges east of Wilson o Design is for 4 lanes but only 2 will be built due to funding issues D. Planning and Regulation: Jamie French, Director— Operations & Regulatory Management • CityView is now online in limited use — still testing and working through issues • Portal: anticipated to "go live" by September • Requests for residential remodeling permits are increasing • Temporary inspectors (contract) — to be utilized on an "as needed" basis • Bids went out to vendors • Inspectors will be supervised by Staff There was a discussion concerning the application process. Previously, paperwork was reviewed prior to allowing an individual in the Permit line. Permit cards: not all inspections listed are required for each job o Refunds will be issued for overpayments. VII. New Business: C. Performance Measure Report (requested by William Varian) Chairman Varian questioned why there was an additional line item on a permit application item (on "CD Plus ") for "performance measure report." Jamie French stated it was a management tool for tracking purposes to determine if a specific deadline has been met. It would be difficult to remove it from "CD Plus." Chairman Varian inquired about the ability to access a permit review and make minor corrections for residential applications, rather than wait for a letter to be issued. Mr. French noted, when staffing allows, a Plan Reviewer will be available at the front counter to review re- submittals and permit applications to approve and process as submitted. When Portal is online, the letter writing portion of the review process will be eliminated. VI. Old Business: A. Fire Line Requirement Review — Nathan Beals • Public Utilities has proposed changes to the Standards that will no longer require line -sized water meters on fire lines and only require Double Detector Check values on all fire lines unless there is a "high hazard" as defined by the AWWA (American Water Works Association), i.e., chemical additives that can cause physical harm to water users if ingested due to a backflow failure. • The language changes requested in DSAC's motion have been incorporated. • The proposed changes will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. 61 1 A 4" July 6, 2011 Mr. Beal stated while Florida does not have antifreeze problems, but foam additives could be a concern. The Fire Sprinkler Contractor will determine if a "high hazard" situation exists on a fire line which will require installation of an RPZ in place of a Double Detector. If there is no possibility of mixing, i.e., installing a foam fire protection system on a non - potable water line, an RPZ will netr�required. Paul Mattausch, Director — Water Department, stated "high hazards" include plating processes, hospitals, and medical facilities that dispose of chemicals where there is a potential for lines to be cross - connected to the potable water supply. It was suggested to identify specific uses when RPZs are necessary and also provide a better definition than the AWWA, i.e., "A cross - connection or potential cross - connection involving any substance that could, if introduced into a potable water system, cause death, illness, or disease or have a high probability of causing such effects." "Any substance" is vague and specific uses should be defined. Nathan Beals will add more examples, i., e., "such as" language, to the Standards. David Dunnavant stated the AWWA notes (in M -14) that RPZ backflow prevention assemblies are recommended "... where there is a high hazard, e.g., risk of chemical addition ..." He continued if there is a possibility of chemicals entering a water system, AWWA indicates reduced pressure is to be used. A question was asked if the Standards applied only to new construction or also to renovations and Nathan Beals concurred the Standards applied to both. He noted systems that were installed with RPZs and meters prior to the June 2010 administrative "stay" will remain in place and nothing has changed regarding the billing. The next Rate Study will review the current billing policy. David Dunnavant asked when the next Rate Study would be conducted. He noted meters were required for only a short period of time and are no longer required but customers who installed them will still pay the same rates. It was noted the requirement to install meters has been in place since 1997. It was suggested unless a meter is specifically warranted, it could be removed or disabled. Nathan Beals stated by -pass meters are also read and some have indicated excessive water use. Customers are charged pursuant the Billing Ordinance. He suggested Tom Wides could come to the next meeting to explain billing procedures. David Dunnavant stated there is still an outstanding issue of people being improperly charged and it should be corrected. Chairman Varian requested that Mr. Wides attend the next DSAC meeting. L h I A July 6, 2011 A question was asked if leak meters were U/L tested for fire and Nathan Beals responded affirmatively. It was noted the changes to the Standards could be problematic for renovation projects due to the difficulty of modify an existing installation. Nathan Beals stated if an existing fire system is upgraded by the addition of chemicals or any substance that could harm the public, the appropriate backflow prevention device must be installed. He concluded Double Detector Check valves do not protect against high hazards -- only RPZs protect against high hazards. Paul Mattausch cautioned if the use of the building changes — usage of the water service changes -- such that it changes to a high hazard potential for back flow, then the installation of an RPZ will be required. Dalas Disney pointed out his concern for a multi -user facility in which each unit is fed separately. Utilities requires the facility to have a Master Meter. Due to one unit, even though it meets zoning and building code requirements, the possibility of modification will be eliminated because the entire complex would have to be upgraded. Paul Mattausch stated one possibility would be to install a separate service in for that particular unit. Cases will be determined on a site by site basis. Nathan Beals requested a Motion of Support for the changes which he would present to the Board of County Commissions at their July meeting. If there is no support, the next meeting will be in September. Chairman Varian noted questions to be posed to Tom Wides during DSAC's August meeting will not affect the proposed changes since the subject concerns billing. Clay Brooker asked if Utilities had obtained the general consensus of the Industry concerning the changes. Public Speaker: Melissa Ahern, CBIA 0 Confirmed CBIA's support. David Dunnavant moved to accept and approve the changes to the Standards proposed by the Utilities Division along with the definition examples of high hazards discussed during the DSAC meeting, and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Additionally, Tom Wides is requested to appear before DSAC to address the fire meter billing issue. Second by Ray Allain. Dalas Disney stated he could support the changes only for new construction but not for renovation. His concern is that permits for renovation jobs will be unnecessarily rejected. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes " /2 — "No." Dalas Disney and James Boughton were opposed. VII. New Business: A. Permit Process for A/C Replacements in Multi- family Buildings — Jim Turner, Chief Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector Chairman Varian cited the example of an A/C contractor who obtained a permit for a scheduled change -out in a townhouse complex. The Contractor was not awarded the 16 1 1, A 4' July 6, 2011 job. Another Contractor performed the work but did not apply for a permit. He asked how that situation happened. Jim Turner stated, under CityView, there are two categories: one or two family, and commercial. It would automatically be considered as commercial and would be sent to Fire. We have talked to Fire. A "convenience" permit can be obtained for a single - unit installation if the A/C system is under 2,000 CFM for the unit, even within a townhouse complex. Bob Salvaggio stated in a building where there are multiple return air grills feeding into one large trunk line, then everything is combined into one system. In townhouses, everything is an individual system and there would not be an issue. Dalas Disney: Any A/C system installed in a commercial application that is greater that is 2,000 CFM or greater will require review by Fire Planning. Bob Salvaggio corrected: all commercial applications are automatically reviewed by Fire. Dalas Disney clarified: The 2,000 or under restriction applies to only residential A/C systems. Chairman Varian asked what was required for a Permit under Fire in addition to a full set of drawings and what was required for change -outs. Mr. Salvaggio stated the footprint of the building is necessary which indicates where the change -out will occur. A check sheet is available for completion by the Contractor and submission. An inspection may not be necessary if the correct information is provided. If the information is not provided, a Fire Inspector will be sent to the site and a fee will be charged. B. Licensing Timeline to obtain a Permit after issuance of a "Cease & Desist" — Michael Ossorio, Supervisor — Contractor Licensing Chairman Varian inquired about the process when an unlicensed contractor is caught working on a job site. Michael Ossorio stated: • Approximately 40 to 50 "Stop Work" Orders are issued each month between the City of Naples, Marco Island, and Collier County. • "C & D ": a Qualifier has come in and signs papers stating work was done without a permit o If it happens four times, the Qualifier must appear before the Licensing Board • Cases are not closed out until a Permit is issued • Code Enforcement Investigators and Contractor Licensing Officers work together -- they notify each other of potential violations • If a "Code" case is opened first, it is referred to Contractor Licensing when applicable • Licensing is 100% in CityView but also maintains "C -D Plus" He noted the State of Florida considers the hiring of an unlicensed contractor to be a Civil matter and did not recall an instance when an individual was prosecuted under Florida Statutes. Contractor Licensing has turned cases over to the State for prosecution of unlicensed activity. A fine of up to $5,000 can be levied if found 6 161 �J A 4 -4 July 6, 2011 guilty of a willful violation. He stated he noticed Owner /Builders who obtain Permits have become more careful about hiring licensed Contractors, especially since it is known that job sites will be monitored/checked by Investigators. Jamie French stated cases against homeowners for hiring unlicensed contractors are very difficult to prove. VIII. Committee Member Comments: • David Dunnavant requested a follow -up on the Health Department issue concerning septic systems presented at the June meeting. o Judy Puig stated the topic will be included on a future Agenda as soon as the State representative is available. Next Meeting Dates: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted below.) August 3, 2011 September 7, 2011 October 5, 2011 November 2, 2011 December 7, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:15 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE c William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on Qv 4 3 , 2011, "as submitted" L] OR "as amended" LX_ I A 51 June 10, 2011 MIN=S OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD Fiala 1 "/ Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta MEETING June 10, 2011 Naples, Florida 0II�I� BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida., moth the following Members present: ALSO PRESENT: Misc. Corres: Date: ` n1 INm t jsa �� C; pies to: Chair: .James Talano, M.D. Vice Chair: Chief Walter Kopka Rosemary LeBailly, RN (Excused) Chief Robert Metzger Jerry Pinto Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director Jeff Page, Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services — Staff Liaison Maria Hernandez, EMS Administrative Assistant Wayne'Matson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Dan Bowman, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief, Medical Services /Community Relations Orly Stolts, Chief, North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District 161 1 A 51 June 10, 2011 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chairman Talano called the meeting to order at 3:37 PM and a quorum was established. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Agenda and Minutes: A. Approval of Today's Agenda Vice Chairman Kopka moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by Chief Metzger. Carried unanimously, 3 -- 0 B. Approval of Minutes: March 25, 2011 Change: e On Page 7, (Chief Metzger's motion — P line), the correct page referenced in the motion was Page 12. Vice Chairman Kopka moved to approve the Minutes of the March 25, 2001 meeting as amended Second by ChiefMetzger. Carried unanimously, 3 -- 0. C. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2011 Vice Chairman Sopka moved to approve the lftnutes of the April 15, 2011 meeting as submitted Second by Chief Metzger. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. 3. Old Business: A. COPCN ( "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ") Ordinance Review and Recommendations to Board of County Commissioners ( "BCC ") (A copy of the 15-page Or dinance in draft format was distributed to the Members.) Chief Jeff Page noted the copy of the Ordinance contained the revisions that had been agreed to during the April 15 meeting. He met with Chief Stolts and Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera and noted the attorney for North Naples may have additional language to incorporate. (4 two page document containing a draft of Sections 7 and 8 of the Ordinance was distributed by Deputy ChiefAguilera to the Members.) Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera stated the two -page document contained the changes requested by the North Naples attorney. He noted one change on Page 2 of the document was the removal of language from Paragraph "G" (Certification) which became Paragraph "I" (Continuum of Care). The reason for the change was to clarify the language. Chief Page consulted with the County Attorney's Office regarding the changes and the creation of Paragraph "l." He stated while the language was similar, the County Attorney's Office preferred to retain the language contained in Paragraph "1" under Paragraph "G" because it referred to the issue of ride time. .`,► ifY7' 2 161 i A 5, June 10, 2011 Deputy Chief Aguilera stated the North Naples paramedics would not be riding for certification purposes. The paramedics ride when it is appropriate for patient care —to provide the appropriate level of service for critical patients. He stated North Naples is not being certified by Collier County Medical Director. He further stated North Naples is committed to provide continuity of patient care, not for certification. He continued creating Paragraph "I" had no impact on the intent of the document. Chairman Talano agreed that Continuum of Care was not a certification issue. Deputy Chief Aguilera concluded North Naples wanted to make clear that its commitment has remained the same. Chief Page stated his impression was the County Attorney's Office would not change its position. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated the premise behind the Certification paragraph was to be certified by the County Medical Director. North Naples' position is it is not their intent — their paramedics ride to provide continuity of patient care. Chief Page suggested changing the title of Paragraph "G" from Certification to Continuum of Care. Deputy Chief Aguilera cautioned if the title change were made, it would necessitate changing the remainder of the Ordinance. He stated the intent was there are Class -1 and Class -2 providers that have specific ride time requirements. For a Class -3 provider, there is a specific Continuum of Care provision made with the Board. He stated the class of providers has always been segregated. For a Class -3 provider, the issue is Continuum of Care and not certification. Chief Page suggested an alternative: Change Paragraph to "Certification/Continuum of Care." Chief Metzger stated the two -page document constitutes the proposal of the attorney for North Naples. He agreed the issue of Continuum of Care is specific to Class -3 providers only. Deputy Chief Aguilera noted Paragraph "G" clearly pertains to Class -I and Class -2 providers. Creating Paragraph "I" was a "cleaner" option than just changing the title and keeping the language "jumbled in" together. Chief Page stated the County Attorney's Office has a reservation concerning the change due to the removal of language from the ride time element. It is opposed to the removal. He further stated changing the title of Paragraph "G" from Cerfftcation to Certt; fication/Continuum of Cw-e satisfies both parties' issues. Dr. Robert Tober provided background information: )Alen he was the only Medical Director over the paramedics, part of his certification criteria included ride time. There are now two Medical Directors and the North Naples Medical Director does not require that. The only issue at stake is whether, and when, the paramedics mill ride on to the hospital with EMS. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated North Naples does have an internal credentialing process which requires riding in to the hospital. The changes are from an Ordinance perspective. Inside the department is different from the Ordinance. From an Ordinance perspective, the commitment of North Naples to the Board was to assure the continuity of patient care. North Naples has specifications concerning riding to the hospital. AL.1 7 A h 161 i A 5A" June 10, 2011 He concluded the North Naples' requirements are not linked to the Ordinance. Chief Page again suggested if the Continuum of Care is important, simply change the title of Paragraph "G." Deputy Chief Aguilera suggested writing the Continuum of Care as the Standard and keep the requirements for credentialing and certification as an internal document. Since the requirements for credentialing/certification could change with each new medical director, it became an internal document which would make it easier to revise. The Ordinance clarifies the intent of what will be done. The certification piece would become an internal, department - related policy. He continued, for example, if Golden Gate wanted to become a Class -3 provider and contract with Dr. Tober for credentialing, his internal credentialing procedure requires ride time — as does the North Naples Medical Director. Chief Page countered if a Medical Director is hired who does not require ride time, it will not be a requirement. Deputy Chief Aguilera restated that continuity of care would still be required, as specified in the Paragraph. He continued ride time is still required under continuity of care, but what is alleviated are specifics concerning the number of hours or shifts per month, etc. Chief Metzger asked if ride time was a component required by Florida Statutes. Chief Page stated a paramedic cannot just ride on an engine and become certified. Chief Metzger asked how much latitude would an individual Medical Director have relating to the amount of ride time a State - certified paramedic must invest in any given year. It was noted "zero to unlimited — there is a lot of latitude." Chief Metzger suggested since it is the responsibility of the Medical D'uector, why not let individual Medical Directors determine the amount. If it is not required by the State, he questioned whether the language was necessary in the Ordinance. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated North Naples' position is the continuity of care is important. If a medic starts AIS, it is important that he/she accompany the patient to the hospital. Chief Metzger stated he agreed with the concept of Continuum of Care. He noted there are systems that will pass patient care from one paramedic to another. He further stated Medical Directors have complete latitude via State Statutes and questioned why it should be made more restrictive on a local level. Chief Page noted the Board of County Commissioner — through the Ordinance —would control whether or not ride time will be required. If the parties agree that ride time is not necessary or appropriate, the requirement can be removed. Chief Metzger stated the Board could decide to allow the Medical Director to determine how much ride time, if any, was appropriate and the Ordinance would permit subsequent medical directors to make their own decision. Chief Page noted if the flexibility were available, a hire Chief could "doctor shop" to hire a Medical Director who would do whatever the Chief wanted. (Jerry Pinto arrived at 3:50 PM) Chief Metzger acknowledged the possibility, but stated the Medical Director should be 4 x_61 1 A 5 June 10, 2011 the "go -to guy" for a Fire Chief and consulted concerning how to provide the. best care for residents in the area. Dr. Tober remarked that not all Fire Chiefs share his opinion. Chief Metzger stated while keeping a restrictive provision in the Ordinance may not be problematic for the County's Medical Director, it would be better to remove the restriction from the Ordinance and compel the medical directors to assume that responsibility. Chief Page noted Mthout the requirement, there would be no safeguard for the public that there would ever be any ride time — it is a "safety net" to ensure there is a component for ride time. He suggested an option is to modify the amount of time specified. Chief Metzger asked what the basis was for the specific requirement in the Ordinance. Chief Page cited the example of the City of Memphis, which requires twelve hours on an engine and twelve hours in an ambulance for every paramedic fire fighter. The Ordinance requires a paramedic to ride less than one shift per month. Dr. Tober stated the requirement resulted from the EMS's experience with EMTs who had ridden for six months to one year before they continued onto paramedic training. He cited an example of a physician who is required to complete another 2 to 3 years of clinical rotation after graduating from medical school and completing one year of internship — the purpose was to obtain constant exposure to a variety of patients. He further stated EMS ride time was out to the bare minimum to maintain the integrity of the system. He noted the focus of ride time for North Naples is the issue of Continuum of Care because the North Naples Medical Director has a different opinion of what is necessary for the paramedics under him. He concluded in North Naples, bare minimum ride time is not a predicate for certification as it is for EMS. Deputy Chief Aguilera reiterated North Naples paramedics have a requirement. Dr. Tober noted the North Naples requirement is distinct from the EMS requirement. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated the EMS requirement is predicated on time on a truck while North Naples is predicated on the number of times the paramedic touches the patient while in the truck. He clarified the requirement for ride time in North Naples was "internal" and was a commitment made to the Board of County Commissioners. North Naples' focus is to ride to provide continuity of care for the patient. Chief Page reiterated his suggestion to re -insert the language that was previously stricken: "... or the individual Medical Director of the licensed agency" in Paragraph «G Vice Chairman Kopka supported the ride time component and stated having different medical directors could result in fiagmented service with different levels of care The purpose of the Ordinance is to establish a standard and ensure the same level of care regardless of where a person resides in the County. Chairman Talano noted when physicians are trained in their specific specialties the training is based on their experience and physician- patient contact. There are standard protocols — as minimum requirements — that every resident must fulfill. if not, the physician will not be able to carry out the duties of the particular residency or specialty. Chief Metzger stated a paramedic doing ride time receives no value from it unless he/she 161 June 10, 2011 is treating patients, and the needed patient contact time is accomplished through the Continuum of Care. Dr. Tober agreed if there was Continuum of Care. He cautioned if the nature of the initial contact was to "tag and release" to the EMS paramedic in a situation where ALS was not initiated, there would be very little ongoing patient care. (Chief Orly Stolts arrived at 4:05 PM) Chief Metzger referred to the last sentence in Paragraph "G ", asked if it was new language and requested clarification because it was open to interpretation. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated he would obtain clarification. Chief Page noted "Class -I" did not necessarily refer only to Collier County EMS -- another provider could come into the area. Chief Metzger agreed the sentence was confusing as to whether it applied to the entire paragraph or just the previous sentence. He again stated he would obtain clarification. Vice Chairman Kopka referred the Members to Page I of the document. Discussion ensued. Chief Page referred to Page 10 of the Ordinance draft ( #3 and #4). Regarding the subject of equipment, it was stated the purpose of the language was to coordinate the type of equipment utilized. It was mentioned Florida Statutes allows each Medical Director of each agency to develop his/her own equipment list. Chief Stolts noted North Naples upgraded its monitors recently even though it may be a year before Collier EMS decides to also upgrade. He agreed the same equipment should be used by each service. Chief Page stated that to leave options open will not lead to agreement. Deputy Chief Aguilera agreed that, in the future, opinions would come from the Office of the Medical Director. He stated the North Naples attorney expressed concern about what would happen if there were disagreements and that was the reason why the language was not more specific. Chief Page suggested it would be very helpful if North Naples' attorney attended the next Policy Advisory Board meeting. Chief Stolts stated he brought the agreed changes to their attorney for review and the document represented her concerns. He did not think the intent was changed. Chairman Talano stated that the Board members, having reviewed the handout, had objections to her clarifications. He asked Chief Stolts had the authority to make changes. It was noted the document provided to Board of County Commissioners was different .from what was provided to the Members. It was agreed that the members would only work from the document provided by Chief Page which contained the changes approved by the Policy Advisory Board at the April meeting. The following revisions to Section 7, Paragraph "3" were suggested: • Third Line: Remove the semi -colon following the word "protocol" ON Z61 1 A 51 June 10, 2011 s . Add the revised last sentence, i.e., "The Office of the Medical Director shall not be presumed to be the medical director for a Class -3 Operator for purposes of this Ordinance or Florida Statutes. " Chief Page mill meet with Deputy Chief Aguilera and Chief Stolts to review the revised Ordinance and incorporate suggested changes prior to the next Policy Advisory Board Meeting. It was again suggested that the attorney for North Naples attend the meeting. Under Section 8, Paragraph "F," the following revisions ),Pere suggested. e Retain the previously removed language and re- insert it at the end of the first sentence: "or the individual Medical Director of the licensed agency. " New Topic: (Local) Definition of ALS Dr. Tober stated he spoke with Deputy Chief Aguilera and as well as to Deputy Chief Mrayne Watson and Deputy Chief Dan Bowman concerning moving two skills to an Intermediate Paramedic category, i.e., starting a TKO VV, or a 3 -lead cardiac monitor. He continued starting either one of those skills would not automatically bind a North Naples paramedic to ride to the hospital. He cautioned the only exception would be if a patient's condition were so severe that the EMS paramedic requested assistance from the Fire Department paramedic to ride in. He continued the change might cut into ride time and patient contact. Chief Page suggested not implementing changes until completion of a trial period to establish the extent of North Naples' current ride time. Vice Chairman Kopka expressed concern about the change in policy and supported keeping the old policy in place stating "... if they start an N — they ride; if they give medication — they ride ... let's not change that." Chief Page stated his preference was for each paramedic to work ten shifts. He continued the issue of ride time should not be separated from the Continuum of Care paragraph. Chief Stolts reiterated if a paramedic hooked up three -leads to a monitor, and saw nothing that appeared to be a problem, the two ALS units in that zone would still be taken out of service. Dr. Tober noted it could be argued that if a three -lead monitor was hooked up and nothing was determined, why carry it any further. The other side of the argument was if starting an IV or the three -lead alone did not require a paramedic to ride to the hospital, how many times in a 3 -month period would North Naples paramedics ride in with a patient. He stated there is very little actual, ongoing Continuum of Care patient contact. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated the EMS issue was different from the Continuum of Care issue. North Naples position is that if the patient needs and ALS care is started, the paramedic will accompany the patient to the hospital. "That is Continuum of Care -- that is for the patient's benefit." He countered starting a three -lead monitor was simply an assessment tool and an administering an VV could be nothing more than prophylactic — they were just good patient care opportunities. "This has nothing to do with augmenting the level of care -- it is simply about ride time." He said the Board of County Commissioners ruled on the proposal to augment the level of care and North Naples committed to it. 161 1 A 5a June 10, 2011 Dr. Tober noted two issues were dying for the paramedic's attention, and one was to take a common sense approach - to not tie up more units than necessary to take what appears to be a patient to the hospital. Deputy Chief AgtiHera suggested the defmitions contained in the Ordinance should be examined and clarified He specifically asked to review the definitions and language. Chief Metzger noted the COPCN license is renewed annually. Data will be generated by North Naples ability to provide service and if there is a concern of either the North Naples Medical Director or the County's Medical Director, then the shortcomings in patient care will be addressed. There will be time to investigate. Chief Metzger made the following motion: "For North Naples to take the original Ordinance draft provided by Chief Page and insert any changes to that language which they propose to be considered and return it to the Policy Advisory Board for consideration as soon as possible." Second by Vice Chairman Koplin Chief Stolts suggested meeting with Chief Page to discuss the changes and he would contact the North Naples attorney. Chief Page suggested emailing the Board to review the changes prior to the neat meeting. It was noted to avoid any conflict with the Sunshine Law, suggested changes will be emailed to Maria Hernandez to distribute to the Board and all interested parties. Motion carried 4 - 0. 4. New Business: (None) 5. Staff Reports: (None) 6. Public Comment: (see above - Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera and Chief Orly, Stolts) 7. Board Member Comments: (None). 8. Next Meeting Date: August 19, 2011 at 3: 30 PM Note. There maybe another meeting scheduled prior to August depending upon when the changes to the Ordinance draft are completed 161 `1 A 5:1 June 10, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by order of the Chair at 4:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD w1 1 James Ta n ,113E ., Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on,(61 LJ , 2011, "as submitted" X], OR "as amended" (1 ` G9 7 f'1 1 � W h a61 � a"6 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 September 14, 2011 Agenda Fiala t/ Hennin. Ccyle I. Call to Order Cute II. Attendance 111. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — August 10, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report D B A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera , B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard V1. Landscape Architect Report- Windham Studio BY: ....................... VII. Old Business VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Next meeting is October 12, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc, Corre& Date: n\ \ Item #: X61 1 A 6", FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 August 10, 2011 Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by George Fogg. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Robert Jones (Excused), George Fogg, Dick Barry (Excused), Kevin McKyton, Kenneth Bloom County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Other: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, E. A. Carroll - Public, Ruth Prior - Public, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff Ill. Approval of Agenda Add. V. A. Recommendation to Award Bid All Subsequent Agenda Items were renumbered. Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - July 13, 2011 Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the minutes of July 13, 2011 as submitted. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Transportation Services A. Recommendation to Award Bid Darryl Richard reviewed ITB 11 -5737 Bid Tabulation: (See attached) o Bids were received from (4) Contractors - 3 -Rs Equipment was the lowest Bidder $881,255.50 Discussion took place on 3 -Rs Equipment Inc. credentials and work experience. Staff reported the following information on 3 -Rs Equipment Inc.: o The Company is a local Contractor • Excellent references were submitted • The Companies work experience included a joint Project on the Water Side Shops Inconsistencies between the Bids and the process to issue Contractor Change Orders were discussed. Staff clarified the following for Change Orders: 0 20% is the acceptable BCC standard for Change Orders o Adequate justification is required to issue a Change Order for unforeseen items After discussion it was determined that the Bid by 3 -Rs Equipment Inc. is comparable with Windham Studio original estimate of $843,592.00 without contingencies for the (F -58) Sidewalk Project. Individual Bid Line Items were reviewed by the Committee. It was concluded that Alternate No. 4 (6" thick walk) is not required. George Fogg moved to delete Alternate No. 4 from the Bid. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Review continued on Bid Line Items. George Fogg noted the Committee previously determined the cost to repair potential sidewalk damage was less than the Root Barrier installation cost. George Fogg moved to delete Alternate No. 8 from the Bid. Second by Kevin McKyton. Discussion continued on Alternate No. 8 Root Barrier. Scott Windham deemed installing a Root Barrier was a preventative measure and a long term benefit. After discussion the motion to delete Alternate No. 8 from the Bid was withdrawn. The revised Bid Estimate is $841,492.40 with the removal of Alternate No. 4 (3 -Rs Equipment Inc.) George Fogg moved to recommend to the BCC to approve the MSTU's Sidewalks, Lighting, and Planting (Bid) in the amount of $841,492.40 by 3 -Rs Equipmen4 Inc. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. B. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information: (See attached) o Total Available Budget $3,941,661.08 2 161 1 A 6 C. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard Darryl Richard presented (2) Quotes to the Committee: o CLM - $1,730.00 to install the Hedge Line requested by Turtle Lakes Discussion took place on the CLM Quote to install the Hedge. The Committee concluded installing landscaping for the Condominiums is outside the MSTU purpose and would set precedence. Kevin McKyton moved for the MSTU to abstain from installing the Hedge. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. o Aquagenix - $233.00 for Fountain Maintenance - Secure the Fountains to prevent them from tipping over (due to changes in the water level) VI. Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio Scott Windham reviewed the Status Report: (See attached) Forest Lakes (F -58) Sidewalk Proiect & (F -60) Cul de sac Improvements • Review of Utilities is ongoing • Revised Plans will be submitted to Staff prior to the September meeting Darryl Richard perceived the Project will be under construction in November 2011. Scott Windham suggested incorporating the Signage into Phase II Project as an Alternate. After discussion the Committee concurred with including the Signage in Phase II as an Alternate. Kenneth Bloom moved to install Signage (as an Alternate) during Phase ll. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried 3 -0. George Fogg stated the Emerald Greens Board requested a copy of the Sign Standards Specifications (and cost estimate.) Staff responded that the documents will be provided to the Emerald Greens Board. (Staff Action Item) Kenneth Bloom announced he will not be present at the September meeting. VII. Old Business - None VIII. New Business - None 3 16 11, , A IX. Public Comments E.A. Carroll inquired if the County is responsible to direct Naples Bath and Tennis to perform a cleanup of the fence area to remove litter. Staff replied that Code Enforcement will be advised. (Staff Action Item) Discussion took place on pedestrian safety and installing a chain link fence at the shortcut to the shopping center. Staff reiterated previous responses regarding the shortcut to the Shopping Center: • The County Attorney opinion was for the MSTU to avoid taking action • The Developer was unresponsive on addressing pedestrian circulation into the Shopping Center from the shortcut • Noted that the Sidewalk Project provides connectivity at Pine Ridge Road for pedestrians to safely transit to the shopping Center in lieu of the shortcut After discussion it was concluded without the assistance of the Shopping Center Developer that the MSTU has met their responsibility and installing a fence would potentially create a safety and liability issue for the MSTU. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Vice Chairman at 11:37 a.m. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee Geo a Fogg, Vice fi rman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended �4L� . Next meeting is September 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 A A W W W amitmnDOOD�v '"m Z O O Z Z z <tnmmolip «T��T�r U) O 0 CO) O c XOzz -4 nZ(nU) cD Z c - iv z< z z oA 0 m . ,+ A N. AW (WO N+ O w w V . A cN.) N C O �D m Y� U A W N+ O O W J N N A W N + 00 ao�TOr, r) ,00 mvO�Zm>'om �ZC�c» -I �ZZ V?i c� �mv.OZm�mz=mmgm,. pMaoc0 mDD��Cmm��� TOW>m��,m���cz ��mo��1<TgZ�O„�AZZmmcnD=D nml��om�DZz -n- zA -mom8omMm�T� TTTTCN, °= O v� Z� c- MM_pOG)DmnnmODm iD0z(nm mmOOmm mom < - < mm Qm 07maocN>mw n ;m c>zmc)z O <�ln��A� y iz�� D <Z m n.Z�n �21_O�T ��III f/)� -nT O r Z O (n m T Z W O O mG)mz zK cnzmO�m �0 p ;u m0<o,MiR98,mz m vmy0 G) zG) �� (ncmEDm NZ OL) -Dq>c ;o --1 D� Oz m O O n �r ��°'� A TZXV mCmj� m X a m ? mcrn W czimc� -4 fA 69 M 69 fA fo 69 69 fA 69 69 69 69 fA fA 69 69 fA fA 69 6469 69 H fA 69 fA 69 69 M fA fA fA fA N N N + A wO W _ N _ �A(pp A 0) N N O N (n W W N V Cn O COTi A N N O OVD V000 O OD (n O W O A W O 0 W cn W N O O O O co (D OD O O (n N 0 0 0 00000 N O O 00 ID O c0 O O O O W 90 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O f A O O 0 0 O O O O O N N O O O O O O O O N 0 0 O O a A 0 A O O O O A N O O O O O O O O N O O O O ((OO c0 O v0 O _O O O fA fA 69 EA fA (A 69 69 fA 69 69 fA (-e fA fA 69 fA 69 69 69 69 fA fA :140 fA 69 fA <-A fA M fA fA fA 69 w n) w w 3 O N Cn V A co (p Gn 3 V N W CO 0 0 0 N V Cn O V A o (n CD OD 00 W A O V IV O O W W c0 O O W (n O (n fA 69 69 fA fA fA fA 49 fA 69 fA fA fA fA fA 69 fA fA fA fA 69 fA fA 6+ fA fA fA fA fA 41%169 69 69 69 fA m x W N N V A (WO V — N O A W W W V 0 W N (A N 0 v V W N N A O 0 c0 m Cn t0 CD N N 0 O O O A ]4*11A w O O V AW N) N (0 O cn cW O V 0 t0 O O O A 69 [A EA fA 69 fA fA V3 69 EA 69 69 fA EA fA fA fA fA EA EA fA fA 69 69 b9 69 69 fA w fA 69 0 N N N W (n V _ y W (0 A W V N N 0 ((0 n N O W cn (n O O O O cn n N O W O V t0 O 0 0 (D O O O 0 V W O O O O cn A 0 O O 0 A V m O O O N V N W 8 0 0 000 O NO O O O W OAIO O A VO OD V cn O O V O O S o CO co O (D �..cn _< C�C C�C 0 n n 0 C) 0 m D D 7 7 7 7 0 (D CD y< G N 'O fD O) N N O O N (Oi) (On C O O �) C C CD CL m w w Q a a 'n m 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 m a m7 7 n m m m 3 3 3 3 m m 3 3 3 N »� n CD°- '.vvvvvv4Dg5z L 0y Co N n f� n �.� x' X'(<D (n N (n O c O n O i b lD 'O 4 d tU' d 40 7' C7 -a 3 7 3 T tD 3 N w m N CD Q nano ()w y m m'(o A oCO'(o m. DO= 0- o Dpi o (7�' d onw w CD O O o 7 c: 0 0 0. m i n n n n n (� o o O C 7 . N y (7 7 7 7 7 n y o N� n y 000000— O CD N CD 9 7 O N O d Cl 0 Cl w y 0 g 0 N O N N N N-0 CD N o CD n y 3 CD N O cD (n 7 (D .7. y 7 N CD N CD n O CD fD A A A A A A A? A A A (n (n A A N A A A CA N A cn m cn 0 0 A A Cn A A A A A A A A A A A A N O O N cn O Cn o (n O m m O O O O O cn cn O 0 (n (n Cn (n V) Cn W cn (n (n (n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o0 o0oo 0o O Doo 0000000A000000�o O m O o N V V N N CD N (D N N V N N O N W OD 0 Cp N N OD N N N N N N N m N N N N N N N A U1 N Cn N A O V (A N j A O V) N N» W (n OD T f7 W W N J (n rJ (n W CO Cn W O W 0 V V Co V (D V N V CO A O W O) N 0 W W O "` OD W W c0 V W (n W W O V) 0 Cn A Cp OD V co Cn + A N N O W N O 0 N O (n V V W O V A A V V N -D, (0 0 N (n V (O A 0 0 cn 6 0 0 0 0 0, 0 V OD A N N (n c0 V m W V �cnc)T OTC tn�DVfJm c�v�vvvvcn? cn� (7T cnmo ��gO xW 3c)W m ' f a m �c a w'm =00000m m � o c ° =3 j.0 CD a� T 0 o 0 CD N CD CD Cn D G G G G< CO @ O N N N x x 01 C) (D O C n nE,6I:RXr33�m o.�mmmmmcD°'o "Oo mm�(DC�o -' o DIm7 j d CD x O 0 N (n 7 N N. c!). c!). c!). cn. d d N N O ''I p j .p C N O fD CD N fD N rO o CD 0)) �•<.dr �0 (O IO CO (O O 7 O CD 7 N NO cr cn N ID 3 m C�� �� K o- CD V1 N O JOC fD (n a) O CD m _ (°oo (D <xv° mmCD CD m ?.o W G)amD1) �modo 03 (n m cn co (n n 2 2? Z � Q u' m o x A m 3 m 3 N Cn (D v TTT d p o CD w ��� m Ol O CD a CD n T 7 3 O 7 _. d 3 Q< CD O T > m w O W > cn OG N fD 7 O A � 7 D ° w d TIT T W N U CD N - 7 fD CA 69 69 fA 69 fA (A fA 69 Vi fA 6s (A fA fA fA fA 69 fA fA 69 to 69 69 69 fA 69 EA C9 69 69 69 fA Efl 69 69 fA fA Q) W (n W N W 9D cn N j co O A W N cn A V O V OD In N Pb. V OD N Cl) O O O 0) W V O CO N W N fD O N O O O V N O W O W O A co O N O O O A C.) V p O 000 O 0) W c0 Cil 00 O O O W O O 000 M 69 69 69 69 69 69 to 69 69 69 69 fA 69 fA fA 69 fA 69 69 69 69 to fA 69 69 69 fA 0) 69 69 fA fA 6969 fA 69 fA A J W tr -+ fA A � W Cn N O W V A A V N W V A W N N O A V (n O — Cl (0 A O A A 00 AN N V W N W V N V A W O O O O W m � O O N 6 N O W W P _ O 0 0 n n O 0 0 O 0A N O N W 00 O NO O O O O ri 0 0 0 000 O (J O O O O O (n O O W V (n 0 ' 1 6.1. T C', O CD M M 3 c Q Z �v m �m N O cn O C, + I c o a n j A b -1 X i n n -0 v ' -+ N 1 A W N cn T 00 O C O G m W���� m N �gU D f_n(n m m � cnS m N m v,< � �w ur @mpOi i O 7 w< w a g y m Q Z r- x n p T 8 <SN =_0 S CL Nggm Uj a 3 ;; i Q1 o a f O CL w c 3 O s O a v _o a rn 0 r N W m' c NN N. to K 40 CL O O too a N ° < m m N O y � a p CD H C. N � cn d N w a � � M m N CA C M m n O N O1 a w a� a m � 6 m a _ N D z v O� m H m m •. ow Z ° N V SI 1101 N C gl rgl�lg ro gl$I NIT r N row .fir¢ 16 j A b -1 n n -0 v ' -+ o cn Z m 2 m O .0 c� a M 0 m ur @mpOi 2 z O 7 w< w a g y m Q Z r- x n w q o O v 0 N D H !O S .i C CD Uj a 3 ;; i Q1 o a f O c 3 O s O a n M W to O a y a m m O y � a p CD � cn d N M m CA C M m n O a m N a m � 6 m a _ N D z v m H m m •. T V (n M l Z ° zm v O z n cw ti d s � m s � d Z m �, C7 Y y •• r C, z T = m� n m r c 0 Cl) c 3 CL o 3 R u r c 3 O N e -i m '1X'1 1ji p 6' STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: September 14, 2011 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Report 8 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree and Culdesac Improvement project: FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F -58 and F -60 CULDESAC PROJECT: • Scott Windham and Jim Carr attended a site meeting with staff on 8/31 to discuss relocation of the on street parking spaces from the Woodshire Villas pool area to the open space to the south of the facility as a small parking lot. Additionally, we discussed removing the other 4 on street parking spaces just north of the pool area and replacing them with 2, parallel parking spaces. County staff directed WSI to prepare a change order request to address the design and permitting of the parking lots. (See attached change order request and parking sketches) Because the pool area parking lot would be on golf course property this would trigger an SDPI (Site Development Insubstantial Change) or SIP (Site Improvement permit). We feel we could complete this process simultaneously with the bidding process if necessary. However, we provided Option 2 which would not require SDPI -SIP permit review because the parking would remain in the ROW. • Also as requested by the MSTU committee and county staff, the change order request includes additional services to revise the construction drawings to separate out the Phase II areas for bid, accommodate recently provided underground utilities locations along Forest Lakes Boulevard between the Quail Forest Blvd and Woodshire Lane. • WSI is continuing to review the utilities in relation to the south side sidewalk and tree layout for potential conflicts. All findings are being distributed to the design team for final plan revisions. Upon completion of the revisions, WSI will submit the plans to staff for final review. Our and staff's intent is to include the parking Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape .architecture, LC 26000363 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.windhams tudio.co m r) Rw A ! a - -! lots within the final Phase II construction project. Ne antidipate UM addition W the parking lot designs to push the schedule approximately 4 weeks. We recommend separating the parking lot construction as alternates within the Phase II bid package so that in the event that there are delays or complications with easements, the remaining portions of the project may proceed. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com www.windharnstudio.com 161 "i p bw September 7, 2011 REVISED 9/12/11 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Forest Lakes Sidewalk, PO 4500113538 Change Order Request 5, Revisions to separate the Phase II areas of the project for bid, accommodate underground utilities and move parking along Woodshire Lane Darryl: Pursuant to staff and committee request during the Forest Lakes MSTU Committee meeting on 8/10/11 and staff field meeting to review Woodshire parking areas on 8/31/11, below please find a scope increase proposal to revise the construction drawings to separate out the Phase II areas for bid, accommodate recently provided underground utilities locations along Forest Lakes Boulevard between the Quail Forest Blvd and Woodshire Lane and to move /design two on street parking areas along Woodshire Lane. Task 1000. Phase II Bid Prep, Sidewalk Relocation, Parking - Related Revisions (New Task) : Includes the following services: 1.) WSI- Revise construction drawings as follows: 1. Revise /reformat landscape construction drawings, bid tabs and opinions of cost to separate out the remaining project areas as Phase II for bidding. 2. Review and evaluate recently provided underground utilities relative to sidewalk alignment along Forest Lakes Boulevard between Quail Forest Blvd and Woodshire Lane. 3. Site analysis to review the Woodshire Lane on street parking areas for redesign. 4. Prepare two conceptual parking lot designs for the Woodshire Villas pool facility and one conceptual parallel parking area design along the east ROW. Includes two public meetings with Woodshire Villas (HOA) and Quail Run Golf Course representatives to discuss new parking layouts 5. Revise Sidewalk Layout and Dimension Plans, Planting Plans, and Irrigation Plans to reflect the new sidewalk and Woodshire Lane parking layouts. 2.) Abney- Revise construction drawings as follows: 1. Revise /reformat Irrigation Plans to separate out remaining project areas as Phase II and to reflect the new sidewalk alignment and Woodshire Lane parking layouts. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com �1 161 I A 6`" 3.) A1313-Revise construction drawings as follows: 1. Site analysis to verify existing trees, landscape, grades and utilities for consideration in new sidewalk civil related components. 2. Revise Civil Engineering Plans, Bid Tabs and Opinions of Cost to separate out the remaining project areas as Phase II and reflect the new sidewalk layout. 3. Woodshire Lane Parallel parking - one plan view showing removal of exist. improvements, new sidewalk connections, curb, parallel spaces, grading, cross section 4. Woodshire Villas Pool Area Parking Lot - one plan view showing removal of exist. improvements, new curb cut, sidewalk connections, grading & drainage, striping, cross section 5. HOA meetings - prepare for and attend two meetings at site or County 6. Drainage issue across from maintenance drive - look at elevations and a potential fix via re- grading or adding storm inlet, provide sketch 7. Surveying - assume up to 1/2 day plus office time to pick up additional topo in grass /curbs 8. Quantities and Bid Tab Sheet for the parallel parking and parking lot 4.) TRT- Revise construction drawings as follows: 1. Site analysis to verify existing trees, landscape, grades and utilities for consideration in new sidewalk light pole placement and FPL drop locations. 2. Revise Sidewalk Street Lighting Plans to separate out the remaining project areas as Phase II and reflect the new sidewalk and Woodshire Lane parking layouts. Task 1100. Woodshire Villas Parking - Related SDPI -SIP Services (New Task): Includes the following services: 1.) WSI- Provide SDPI -SIP services as follows: 1. Prepare Code minimum SDPI -SIP Landscape Plans including calculations and revisions as per county review comments 2. Attend pre -app mtg with County staff and two strategy, coordination meetings 3. Complete cc landscape inspection, prepare Certificate of Compliance and As Built Plans upon project completion. 2.) ABB- Provide SDPI -SIP services as follows: 1. Site Improvement Plan or Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change Permitting : 2. Request SIP /SDP -1 submittal from County and obtain confirmation email from Planner 3. Meeting with County Staff to discuss project and permitting 4. Request an Addressing Checklist from addressing dept. 5. Request and attend a submittal meeting with Collier County. 6. Prepare application, cover letter and documents, sign and seal plans and letter and make submittal 7. Permitting and coordination with County, respond if review comments. NOTE: MSTU shall provide permit review fees (estimated to be $500 to $1,500 or more depending on which permit is necessary). Sincerely, Scott D. Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @vindhainstudio.com www.XvIlldharnstudio.com 2 110, TO'01,1Nno:) vini 0 IdOA 03)lVd311d vandoId'A1Nno:) x3mo:) 8S-A 1:)3EQbd GNOB m 3 n..Lsw s3IVI ISTdOA )N d v r —e- C E L O C13 C7 C C co 0 Q� N 7 m w 7+00 ff 41 r LLI y Z� O 5 T o CO o 4-1 m 3 � N C Co _ � M N (6 N N 3: d N N oa�rL E r. N Gl N C v O N N O m N 0 .Q N O d C' C .,, .. r Q Q 7i; y N X Y N C Q N a Q1 G w�a.�lfl 7+00 ff 41 r LLI y Z� O 5 T o CO o 4-1 C� D� 'O ch ° 02 o� �m OR to m 161 1 A 6' -� N O�`N O d, C 00)-3 1 -O 7 w 7. O C O W Comn� w N = o Col. � ° a v e m a WOODSHIRE POOL PARKING AREA - 2nnaLjs M O I Ul F $ g# rt a � S (� O O . ► M O O X ID O \ C (c O Q O \ O Oi O C o Op. 161 1 A 6' -� N O�`N O d, C 00)-3 1 -O 7 w 7. O C O W Comn� w N = o Col. � ° a v e m a WOODSHIRE POOL PARKING AREA - 2nnaLjs M I I Ul F $ g# FOREST LAKES MSTU BOND PROJECT F -58 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR. COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. ts >sisYu �! r 1 i i/ 161 1 A 6� •a o•o uNno:) uamo: vw o3vvd3Nd VQIVOIJ •AINnO:) a3mO7 $S 3.1:)3fO'dd CIN08 n.Lsw S3?I`dl 1S3*dO3 i ii1 il4tun w�., O Z NOUdO - V3*dV 9NINW4 iOOd UIHSOOOPo -- - - ------ ~W- �NQ > C N O C U SO co o t O 0 a GS l0 C Y Cc a c Q0) Ems% a o w 0•« � o m O U 7 N dt C C Y Y � 3 � N Q ti c a3i C X � woo :- � Lt. __ 0 n LU a m w co o Q w mo 20 O �I C, O U J J rn C ..Y l6 a O 0 z r c c iR ' U 4 :- � Lt. __ 0 n LU a m w co o Q w mo 20 O �I Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 161 1 A� BY........................ HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4, 2010 MEETING The meeting of the Haldeman Creek Dredge MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Mr. Wilson at 4:00 p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Roy Wilson, Joe Patton, Tom Briscoe, Steve Main, and Vicki Tracy. MSTU Staff Present: David Jackson, MSTU Director, Jean Jourdan and Sue Trone Project Managers. 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to approve the agenda: Motion to approve: Ms. Tracy. Second: Main. Approved 5 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to approve the November 12, 2009 regular meeting minutes: Motion: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Mr. Patton. Approved 5 -0. 4. Projects Report: a. East Naples Bay Advisory Committee. Mr. Wilson informed the Committee that he had attended the City of Naples MSTU Committee meeting and that they were moving ahead with the project. That committee sent out a survey to land owners and they had an 80% favorable response. 5. Old Business: a. MSTU Committee Goals Workshop. Mr. Wilson advised the Committee that the planned January goal session had been cancelled and that they needed to set a new date and time. The Committee agreed to a workshop on April 1, 2010 from 4- 6PM. b. Channel Marker 13 Replacement - Discussion. Mr. Wilson stated that the way he reads the Ordinance, the MSTU is responsible for the replacement of Channel Marker 13. Mr. Jackson explained that he did not get quotes for this meeting because he wanted to see and hear the Committee discussion in January, but since the meeting was cancelled, he had not quotes. Mr. Patton said there was no rush. ojosfated that the non - replacement was benign neglect on the Committee's part. Ms. Tracy suggested the staff submit the ordinance to the County Attorney for a March 4, 2009 Minutes 161 1 A -7 A Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 legal opinion about the Committee's responsibility to replace the marker. The Committee agreed. 6. New Business: a. MSTU Committee Member Interviews. Mr. Jackson noted that three applicants for the MSTU Committee seats expiring in March 2010 were received. One applicant, Mr. Cochrane lived in Windstar and that he did not own a MSTU paying piece of property. Mr. Jackson advised that two applicants eligible were: Mr. Roy Wilson amd Mr. Larry (Joe) Patton both reapplying for the seats. Motion to recommend reappointment for Roy Wilson and Larry (Joe) Patton: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Ms. Tracy. Approved 5 -0. b. FY2011 Budget & Millage Recommendation to the BCC. Mr. Jackson handed out a set of charts and gave a presentation on FY2009 and FY2010 Revenues and Expenses. He stated that the Committee's decision to set 0.5 mils in FY2010 had a fiscal impact on their budget. The projected 10% decrease in MSTU property values will further impact MSTU revenues in FY2011. He explained that decreasing property values over the next two to five years and a low millage rate may not provide adequate revenues to complete projects or their goal of a future dredging. He stated that in the FY2011 County Budget Policy the MSTU had the option to recommend millage neutral or tax neutral for FY2011. After a roundtable discussion on the impacts to recommending either of the Budget Options, motion to recommend tax neutral to the BCC for FY2011: Ms. Tracy. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 3 -2; Mr. Briscoe and Mr. Patton dissenting. 7. Advisory Committee Communications. None. 8. Public Comments. None. 9. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 5 -0. The regular meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm. le, , � �1 Approved and forwarded by Roy Wilson, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. Misc. Correa: oft: sA \. \ \,% March 4, 2009 Minutes Cz-"fies to: Fiala ✓ - Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 1bl 1 A-7 go BY........................ HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 28, 2010 MEETING The meeting of the Haldeman Creek Dredge MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Mr. Wilson at 4:09 p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Roy Wilson, Joe Patton, Tom Briscoe, Steve Main, and Vicki Tracy. MSTU Staff Present: Sue Trone, Project Manager. 2. Adoption of March 4, 2010 Meeting Minutes: Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to approve the March 4, 2010 regular meeting minutes: Motion: Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Patton. Approved 5 -0. Adoption of April 1, 2010 Goals Workshop Minutes: Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to approve the summary of the April 1goals workshop: Motion: Mr. Main. Second: Ms. Tracy. Approved 5 -0. 3. Old Business: a. Approval of Goals. Mr. Wilson opened up the discussion of the goals workshop to the committee and Mr. Briscoe expressed hesitation to adopt the goals document in the second draft format because he did not have advance time to review the document. Mr. Wilson gave time for everyone in the group to silently review the document. Several in the group were uncomfortable with Objective 1.1, "Periodically take measurements of water depth to ensure that the results of the 2006 ( ?) dredging project be maintained." The group agreed to strike that objective. The group adopted the vision statement, mission statement, goals and objectives with Objective 1.1 stricken. Motion: Ms. Tracy. Second: Mr. Patton. 5 -0. b. Channel Marker 13 Replacement - Discussion. Mr. Wilson stated that the group had finally come to agreement that the MSTU was indeed responsible for maintaining channel markers. All agreed it was a good idea for staff to pursue opening a relationship with Collier County Coastal Zone Management to see if there might be some leverage there for assistance in maintaining the channel markers. To the extent that there is no agency support for maintaining channel markers, the group believed it a good idea for staff to solicit bids from marine contractors for general maintenance, to include replacing channel marker 13. In addition, Mr. Briscoe advacptes wrapping channel markers, Mr. Main encourages seeing if the County has insurance on the markers, Mr. Wilson would like to approach the City of Naples April 28, 2010 Minutes an 161 1 p -71 Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 about installing channel marker # 6 because it is not installed and it is located within the city, and Mr. Wilson would like to know who actually owns the speed signs. Motion: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Mr. Main. 5 -0. c. Approval of FY 2011 Budget: Staff presented the MSTU- Advisory Committee with a proposed budget with line items for review. A number of anticipated expenditures were discussed — namely the cost of educational outreach to property owners on the creek for keeping lawn waste out of the water. Expenditures were estimated based on the group's goals. The budget was agreed upon by the group. Motion: Ms. Tracy. Second: Mr. Main. 5 -0. 4. Public Comments. None. 5. Advisory Committee Communications. Ms. Tracy mentioned that a neighbor had a complaint about the MSTU but was unwilling to bring it forward to a meeting. Mr. Wilson approached the group about scheduling summer meetings. Mr. Wilson leaves the area from May- November, but could return for a meeting if necessary. The group considered that a quorum could be assembled in Mr. Wilson's absence if a vote had to be taken during that time, or, members could participate in a meeting by conference calling. The group decided to schedule the next meeting for Wednesday, November 3 at 4 p. m. Mr. Main proposed having the group join together sometime for a "mobile workshop" by boat, to explore shallower parts of Haldeman Creek by boat. A time could not be arranged during the meeting. The group agreed it would be a very good idea for everyone to go out together to review the waterway together. Mr. Wilson will try to arrange a pontoon boat. MSTU staff will make final arrangements. 6. Adiournment: Motion to adjourn: Mr. Patton. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 5 -0. The regular meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm. Approved an forwarded by Roy Wilson, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. Misc. Corres: Date: ` C1 % %\ % k Item \ LcT� \ W► 1 April 28, 2010 Minutes to: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Co►etta Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 161 1 p-7 nt��t�nmts� Hd BY:....................... HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 3, 2010 MEETING The meeting of the Haldeman Creek Dredge MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Mr. Wilson at 4:00 p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Roy Wilson, Joe Patton, Tom Briscoe, and Steve Main. Vicki Tracy was absent. MSTU Staff Present: Sue Trone and Jean Jourdan, MSTU Project Managers. 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to approve the agenda: Motion to approve: Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Patton. Approved 4 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to approve the April 28, 2010 regular meeting minutes: Motion: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 4 -0. 4. Proiects Report: a. Sheriff's Update. Cpl. Mike Nelson of the Sheriff's office visited and reported that the general trend of crimes in the area continues to decrease. Cpl. Nelson delivered a report on crime from August 1, 2010 through November 3, 2010 reflecting the continuation of this trend. Cpl. Nelson encouraged Committee members to contact him at 252 -9447 or michael.nelson acolliersheriff.org if they need assistance with law or speed enforcement issues on Haldeman Creek. b. CRA award of two shoreline grants. Ms. Trone advised the Committee that the CRA had recommended approval of grants for rip -rap for two residential properties adjacent to each other on Riverview Drive. Total project cost: $19,450.00, CRA maximum award: $9,725.00. c. Educational Flyer. Copies of "Canal Owner's Manual," a manual containing general information about owning shoreline property along a canal, was distributed to Committee members and members of the public. This manual is produced by the Environmental Resources Division of Cape Coral, Florida. MSTU staff recommend making a similar document and disseminate throughout the MSTU. Mike Bauer, Natural Resources Manager for the City of Naples, liked the manual and stated he might want to partner with the MSTU on the effort. d. May 20th Mobile Workshop and Follow Up. A brief review of the May 20th Mobile Workshop touched on continued interest in Code issues. November 3, 2010 Minutes Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 e. Attendance to East Naples Bay Advisory Board Meeting. Staff explained that it is working to build partnerships with relevant groups to leverage outside resources. Among these outside groups is the East Naples Bay Advisory Board. Dr. Mike Bauer, Natural Resources Manager for the City of Naples, works with this board and also attended the Nov. 3 MSTU Advisory Committee meeting, further building on the effort to strengthen partnership bonds. 5. Old Business: a. Replacement of Channel Marker #13. Staff noted that Channel Marker #13 was replaced through a partnership with the Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. Total cost of the replacement comes to $1,401.92. Motion to pay Coastal Zone Management by Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Briscoe. Approved 4 -0. b. Wrapping channel marker poles. According to Coastal Zone Management: The local seafloor is very rocky. Pilings are installed into shallow, rocky sediment and often pilings are lost because of turbulence in the surf or reckless boaters causing pilings to come loose from their point of installation. Wrapping pilings preserves the material from rotting — pilings do not tend to last long enough to rot. Additionally, Mr. Bauer, from the City of Naples, had a memo entitled "Pilings and the Environment" which summarized various techniques for preserving pilings and how those techniques effect the environment, including: (1) chemical treatment; (2) pile wrapping; (3) full encapsulation; (4) concrete; and (5) plastic. Staff presented comments from Coastal Zone Management and the memo of Mr. Bauer's to the MSTU Advisory Committee. The Committee tasked staff to seek recommendations from marine contractors on how pilings can be preserved and prices. Staff will return to the Committee in December with a summary of the results. 6. New Business: 7. Advisory Committee Communications. a. Speed Zone Signs. Mr. Wilson noted that there is inconsistency with speed zone signs —for example, coming in from the Bay a sign says "Idle Speed," but the map on the Ordinance says "Slow Speed." b. Vegetative Encroachment. The Committee wants to investigate what ordinance or code requires property owners to trim back vegetation from hanging over the canal.. November 3, 2010 Minutes 161 i . I A 7 44 Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 c. Map with Address Points. The Committee requests an aerial map with address points for property owners along the canal. 8. Public Comments. None. 9. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 5 -0. The regular meeting was adjourned at 5:40 pm. 1 4 fit! Approved and forwarded by Roy Wilson, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. Misc. Corres: Dade: �� ♦ \ �\ \ Item 91 Q0 A --i -fires to: November 3, 2010 Minutes Fiala V/ Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coietta _ 161 i A 7 40 Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2010 MEETING The meeting of the Haldeman Creek Dredge MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Mr. Wilson at 4:00 p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Roy Wilson, Joe Patton, Tom Briscoe, Steve Main and Vicki Tracy. MSTU Staff Present: Sue Trone, MSTU Project Manager and David Jackson, MSTU Executive Director. 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to approve the agenda: Motion to approve: Mr. Patton. Second: Mr. Briscoe. Approved 5 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to adopt the November 3, 2010 regular meeting minutes: Motion: Mr. Patton. Second: Mr. Briscoe. Approved 5 -0. 4. Projects Report: Maps. Staff reported that the maps requested by the Advisory Committee had been composed and printed. Budget. The MSTU budget went into effect on October 1. A summary of the budget was circulated to all members of the committee and discussed. As a follow up to discussion of staff's billable hours, some consideration was given to possibly suspending meetings and staff activity and withholding those funds to save for future dredges. Other consideration was given to storm drains, requiring residents to build seawalls, and requiring residents to trim vegetation. The group was reminded that budget planning for FY 2012 will begin in March, 2011. Tracy Term Limit. Vicki Tracy's term ends on March 29, 2011 and must be advertised 30 days prior to expiration to solicit interest in applications for the position. Those who respond to the ad and wish to apply for the position will be interviewed for the position at the February 3, 2011 HCMSTU Advisory Committee meeting by this committee. Committee members will recommend a candidate for the position to the Board of County Commissioners to be voted on at the February 22, 2011 meeting. December 2, 2010 Minutes t Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Fl 34112 5. Old Business: a. Wrapping channel marker poles. Staff contacted five marine contractors and three responded to requests to offer recommendations for preserving channel marker poles. Three contractors responded: Garland & Garland, Summerlin, and Marine Contracting (the last contractor offered no quote). Garland & Garland and Summerlin proposed two methods: use PVC and concrete or wrap in plastic. The use of PVC is costly and discouraged and plastic wrap is more affordable. Garland & Garland's estimate came to $2,250 and Summerlin's estimate came to $4,680. The group deliberated the options and made a motion to have staff approve using Garland & Garland to wrap the channel marker poles for up to $3,000. Motion: Tracy. Second: Main. Approved: 5- O.This motion was amended with the following condition: Before staff proceed with the project, Garland & Garland must provide staff with a thorough scope of services with complete specifications to be approved by a subcommittee of Mr. Tom Briscoe. Motion: Main. Second: Patton. Approved: 5- 0. 6. New Business: a. New Committee Officers. Terms for the Chair and Vice Chair are up for re- election. Ms. Tracy nominated Mr. Wilson for Chair. Mr. Wilson accepted. Second: Main. Approved: 5 -0. Mr. Briscoe nominated Ms. Tracy as Vice Chair. Ms. Tracy accepted. Second: Patton. Approved: 5 -0. b. 2011 Meeting Schedule. The group considered the 2011 meeting schedule and tentatively decided to continue to meet on the first Thursday each month at 4 PM at the CRA office, skipping January. The next meeting is scheduled for February 3, 2011 and a meeting must also be held on March 3, 2011 to interview candidates for the vacancy to be created by the term limit on Ms. Tracy's position on the Advisory Committee. Meetings will not be held in June, July, August, September, or October. 7. Advisory Committee Communications. Mr. Briscoe spoke at length about frustration about his sense that there is increasing silt in Haldeman Creek and that staff refuse to do anything about it. He stated that he has made countless efforts to enlist staff's attention on the following issues but has never received any relief: repair to channel markers, wrapping of channel markers, attention to storm drains, and enforcement of the litter ordinance. 8. Public Comments. None. December 2, 2010 Minutes r Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 161 1 A -7 9. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 5 -0. The regular meeting was adjourned at 5:40 pm. Approved and f rwarded by Roy Wilson, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. . ,j,,. ; —rres. Date: % C -A Item #:\\A-= �A—1 C.-'pies to: December 2, 2010 Minutes ,J Fiala .� Hiller Henning — Coyle ✓ Colette i61 1 A -I "Jo Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 3, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Haldeman Creek Dredge MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Mr. Wilson at 4:00 p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Roy Wilson, Joe Patton, Tom Briscoe, Steve Main. Vicki Tracy had an excused absence. MSTU Staff Present: Sue Trone, MSTU Project Manager. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Wilson asked for a motion to adopt the agenda: Motion to approve: Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Patton. Approved 4 -0. 3. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Wilson asked if there were any additions or corrections to the December 2, 2010 minutes. Mr. Wilson requested "forcing" to be changed to "requiring" in item 4, third paragraph; Mr. Main requested "March 3, 2011" be changed to "February 3, 2011" in item 4, fourth paragraph. Motion to approve as amended: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Mr. Patton. 4 -0. 4. Proiects Report: Door Hangers and Drain Markers. MSTU staff spent time in January following up on committee requests to talk to County staff about pollution and related items. In the process of these discussions, the Transportation and Engineering Department made available door hangers and drain markers free of charge for the MSTU to distribute throughout the community. Mr. Main and MSTU staff proposed that all members of the MSTU Advisory Committee along with their friends plan to launch a door - knocking campaign to visit the people who live along the canal and distribute the door hangers because the hangers have information that the group has long wished to disseminate to shoreline property owners. Mr. Main suggested this campaign occur during a Coastal Cleanup time. Perhaps it can be planned well so a dumpster will be placed strategically to encourage cleanup along the Creek. Interest in soliciting Boy Scouts was also discussed. Ordinance Report. Staff has not had progress in gaining favor in penning an ordinance requiring shoreline property owners to cut back vegetation or to stabilize their shoreline. At the behest of the Advisory Committee chairman staff approached the Environmental Services Department and requested data regarding water quality in Haldeman Creek. February 3, 2011 Minutes it Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 February 1, 2011 Meeting to Discuss Ordinance Feasibility. On February 1, 2011, Mr. Wilson and Ms. Trone met with Collier County Assistant Attorney Steve Williams, and Collier County Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section Manager, Jerry Kurtz to discuss the problem of vegetative overgrowth along Haldeman Creek. The first point of discussion was of what legal remedies exist — namely County ordinances —that might provide relief. An ordinance from the City of Naples was provided as a model for citing persons who throw vegetative waste into the Creek or trash; however, Mr. Williams felt this ordinance would be unenforceable because in most parts of the canal there is no property owner to cite and enforcement officers cannot cite violators unless the officers personally witness the violation. The group feels that there may be hope for requiring shoreline property owners to trim back vegetation in State statute and Committee members and staff are working together to identify the proper policies. 5. Old Business: a. Wrapping channel marker poles. The late proposal submitted by Blue Marlin Marine was reviewed. Mr. Patton said he was familiar with their work and that the company does very good marine work. Mr. Briscoe stated he wanted to have UV- resistant zip ties added to the specifications. The decision was made to withdraw support for the proposal by Garland & Garland and to support the proposal by Blue Marlin Marine. Blue Marlin Marine is expected to provide a proposal with specifications to include stainless steel nails, UV -rated zip ties, with wrap that is buried 12 inches into the mud and extending 12 inches above mean high tide, to be approved by Mr. Briscoe. Motion: Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Patton. Approved: 4 -0. 6. New Business: a. Gain BCC Support for New Ordinance. The Advisory Committee decided to approach the Board of County Commissioners to request their support for a new ordinance which shall require residents who live along the shoreline of Haldeman Creek to trim back trees and grasses. The group supports Mr. Wilson approaching Commissioner Coyle to discuss the issue and to propose the ordinance. Motion: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Mr. Main. Approved: 4 -0 b. Election of a New Committee Officer. Ms. Tracy's term expires on March 13, 2011. Two candidates applied for the position. Both candidates could not attend due to schedule conflict. Ballots were distributed for each member of the Advisory Committee to vote for his recommendation to fill the upcoming vacancy. All four members voted for Mr. James David King, 11. February 3, 2011 Minutes Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 c. FY 2012 Budget. Copies of itemized budgets were distributed for the group. No action was required. 7. Advisory Committee Communications. Mr. Main requested a copy of the HC MSTU roster with everyone's names and term limits. More discussion was had about the potential for capitalizing on the next Coastal Cleanup day as an opportunity to educate the Haldeman Creek community about how to protect the creek and how members of the Advisory Committee can use the day as a way to get to know the community so people learn about the MSTU. Ms. Trone distributed a summary of results on water quality tests taken in Haldeman Creek by the Environmental Services Department of Collier County. This memo was provided at the behest of the Advisory Committee Chairman. 8. Public Comments. None. 9. Adiournment: Motion to adjourn: Mr. Briscoe. Second: Mr. Patton. Meeting adjourned at 5:07. Approved and forwarded by Roy Wilson, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. Misc. Corres: Date. Item C Mies to: February 3, 2011 Minutes A 0 6! 1 8 40 June 8, 2011 BY: ....................... MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, June 8, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical/ Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation, Conference room #610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala 1 '� CHAIRMAN: Hiller Henning VICE CHAIRMAN: Coyle Coletta Craig Woodward William Dempsey (excused) Pam Brown (absent) Patricia Huff Sharon Kenny (absent) Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich' Taylor STAFF PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager- Zoning Services Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst Fred Reischl, Staff Liaison, Zoning Services ALSO PRESENT: Bob Carr, John Beriault and Edward Barberio of the Mist Correa: Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (AHC) Jenna Buzzacco Foerster, Naples Daily News item t:\ -iliac to: 161 "rA June 8, 2011 I. Roll Call/Attendance: Chairman Craig Woodward called the meeting to order at 9:17 A.M. Roll Call was taken and a quorum established. II. Addenda to the Agenda: 1. ADD: -Under Old Business —Item E. -Pam Brown Position on HAPB 2. MOVE: - Under Old Business — Item A. Bula'Mission to Item D and Item D. Chokoloskee Island Update to item A. 3. ADD: Under New Business — Item B. Discussion of language revision to the LDC regarding the triggering mechanism that requires an Archaeological Survey and Assessment III. Approval of Agenda: Betsy Perdichizzi moved to approve the Agenda, as amended to include the Addenda to the Agenda. Second by Patty Huff. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: March 23, 2011 (No formal minutes were taken at the April 20 and May 11, 2011 meetings, due to lack of a quorum. However, notes of the discussions at those meetings were taken for the record.) Rich Taylor moved to approve the minutes of March 23, 2011, as presented Second by Patty Huff. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. Fred Reischl arrived at 9:23am. V. Old Business: A. Chokoloskee Island Update (handouts) BACKGROUND, with explanation by Patty Huff The handouts consisted of copies of a series of letters from Florida Division of Historical Resources dated: • September, 2008 from the Director and State Historic Preservation Officer to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection • May 1, 2009 from the Director and State Historic Preservation Officer to the Fort Myers Regulatory Board Jacksonville U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) • July 29, 2009 from USACE to the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer • August 17, 2009 a reply to the USACE • January 21, 2011 from the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer to the Fort Myers Regulatory Board Jacksonville USACE All regarding the Applications from Florida Georgia Grove LLC for a. Blue Heron Basin Reconstruction b. Seawall Replacement And from Ted Smallwood Store, Inc for Smallwood Store Driveway Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams briefed the Board Members on the progress of Collier County's nine -count complaint in jgiaactivn -- 4: 1 11 1 1 R X 61 1A 8' June 8, 2011 with Ted Smallwood, Inc. in a lawsuit against Florida Georgia Grove LLC and their lenders. No response had been received to date. The Judge had not granted the injunction requesting correction to, and replacement of, the damaged Mamie Street road. He stated the 20 -day waiting period from the May 26 filing, servicing and mailing dates were not up yet. He will send copies of the complaint to the Board Members. Discussion followed on the permitting that took place, the requirements for ground disturbances in designated areas of probability and the need for cultural assessment of the property in question. Ray Bellows explained the demolition permit and other County permits issued and the current requirements that generate an archeological survey. Patty Huff supplied copies of a letter from Marsha Chance, an Archaeological and Preservation Consultant, hired by the Developer, which stated her observations and opinions on the historical and/or archaeological objects, shell mounds and black earth middens, etc. discovered in her search. The letter briefly referenced two articles "Certain Antiquities of the Florida West Coast" reprinted from The Journal of the Academy of;Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Volume XI, Philadelphia, 1900 and "The Anthropology of Florida ", the Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., published by The Florida State Historical Society, 1922. Both publications referenced the numerous artifacts and relics found and many references to Indian habitats. Conflicting statements regarding sacred wells were stated. Patty Huff strongly commented a full assessment was needed as many violations appeared to be occurring. At this time Bob Carr and John Beriault from AHC, were invited to speak. Bob Carr commented the State of Florida had specific requirements regarding archeological site surveys and assessments; a Reconnaissance Level and a Phase I Assessment, which he explained. In most Counties, ground disturbing activities must stop if an archaeological discovery site was uncovered. He noted all of Chokoloskee Island was an area of archeological significance. In this case, no stop order was issued; nor did the County request a Phase I Assessment. In his opinion, it was not consistent with State or County codes. According to an Archeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. Newsletter published in the fall of 1997, Collier County did issue a stop order and require an archaeological assessment on Chokoloskee Island; so there was an actual precedent set. He did state that Ms Chance did what she was asked to do, namely report on human remains findings. However, it was his opinion a Phase I Assessment was in order to set out guidelines to minimize the impact to the parcel concerned. Three different components to consider examining were the shell mounds, the black dirt (earth) middens and the wells —done in accordance with existing County codes and requirements. John Beriault gave a background on the wells' history. They were artesian wells dug by the Smallwoods and should be culturally identified on plans. 6 i I A 81' June 8, 2011 Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams commented on Marsha Chance's "Conclusions" paragraphs — noting the reference to her client and the citing of opinions and hearsay was not typical in a cultural assessment report; to which, Bob Carr concurred. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams left at 9:57 am. The HAPB members asked what they could do to institute a Phase One assessment. Ray Bellows responded it would be generated only if the developers apply to build as written in the County Codes. He noted that demolition had stopped at this time. Bob Carr stated it was clear that an archeological site had been disturbed. He suggested the HAPB go on record that the Report of Observations was not a Phase One Assessment; also, to look at revising the Code to conform to other Counties' Codes. The triggering words to generate that assessment should be "ground disturbing activity ", the same as other Florida Counties' Ordinances. The HAPB readily agreed. Patty Huff moved to recommend the acknowledgement of the Report of Observations by Marsha A. Chance, Preservation Consultant, to Dr. Ryan Wheeler, Florida State Archaeologist, as an opinion only, of her observations, and not a Phase One, Official Reconnaissance Level nor Cultural Assessment. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams returned at 10:10 am. Chairman Craig Woodward asked Bob Carr if Will Dempsey had contacted him about his Rock Creek findings, Bob Carr replied he had received an e -mail but had not yet discussed it. John Beriault commented there was a burial mound found in that area near the NE side of Shadowlawn and Estey. Mr. Dempsey and Mr. Carr will confer on the find. The AHC representatives left at 10:11 am. B. Interlocal agreement Draft Document Chairman Craig Woodward had contacted Kris Van Lengen, City Planner for Marco Island on their progress with creating the City's Ordinance. From there, Craig and Will Dempsey will work on the Interlocal Agreement language. The goal was to get an Agreement in place by the end of the year. C. Corl &crew Settlement Update Patty Huff noted in the updated copy of the Brochure, she had added the Corkscrew Settlement along with photos. A copy of the updated Brochure will be e- mailed to Mr. John Ban. She had also added a third cemetery in Chokoloskee, the Santini Cemetery. 4 4 r, s 1 u 161 k I A June 8, 2011 Chairman Craig Woodward mentioned a plaque once erected across from Monroe Station denoting the historic meeting of the Copelands and the Seminole Indians which took place there in the 1930's or 1940's. He suggested that item and Turner River could also be added to the Brochure Patty Huff asked that any other additions be e- mailed to Ray Bellows. Then she will add them in. D. Bula Mission Update Patty Huff reported on her contact with the Edgerin James Foundation and will be speaking with him next week. His Orlando Foundation works with a summer camp in Immokalee. Other contacts for support she had contacted were the New Hope Ministries who agreed to mention the project in their bulletin and the Triumph Church, which Annie Mae Perry was connected with. E. Pam Brown Attendance — Addenda Item Patty Huff requested the Board to take action regarding the lack of attendance at HAPB meetings over the months of her term. Following a brief discussion: Patty Huff moved to recommend that a letter be sent terminating Pam Brown's tenure on the HAPB and a new application for the Archeologist category be advertised. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams left at 10:26 am. VI. New Business: A. Webpage Improvements Chairman Craig Woodward pointed out the problem with the scanning in numerical order. Ray Bellows explained the Publisher Program was the problem. The IT employees will be working on it with Patty Huff. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams returned at 10 :29 am. B. Discussion of LDC Language Revision — Addenda item Chairman Craig Woodward stated the "ground disturbing activity" wording suggested by Bob Carr sounded very good. He asked if a special meeting was needed. Ray Bellows suggested contacting Bob Carr to ascertain which Counties had Ordinances with the proper wording that he knew of, looking at those and go from there. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams spoke to the matter, stating the language change itself would not be a problem with careful wording. VII. Public Comments Ray Bellows noted the owners of the Historically Designated Hart Cottage were having problems rehabilitating the property. They have obtained some professional assistance and provided with information on administrative variances. He will keep the Board informed on their progress. C 44 161�'IA84 June S, 2011 He also informed the HAPB that all Officially Designated Historical sites as well as those of Historic Significance were now listed on the website. Patty Huff asked if any a -mails had come to Mr. Bellows from any of the Tribes. If so, she would like them forwarded to her. VIII. Board Member Announcements: Chairman Craig Woodward spoke about a speaker series at the Marco Island Museum in the Rose Auditorium. Rob Davis of Florida Atlantic University, professor of movies, talked on movies made about the Everglades. Two of the old movies being shown at 7PM were: 1. Tonight - "Wind across the Everglades", inspired by Kappy "Bud" Kirk who (according to Elizabeth Perdichizzi) had given "technical assistance" (snake handling) to the cast. For its 50`h Anniversary, the movie had been shown in Miami. 2. Tomorrow night - "Distant Drums ", filmed in Naples with many familiar local sites shown. Rich Taylor stated Nick Penniman was out of town until the Fall and will be invited to HAPB at that time. Patty Huff reported on the Kid's Art activities in Everglades City. IX. Adjournment: There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:45 A.M. Ray Bellows will contact the HAPB members regarding their summer schedule plans for Board Meetings. Barring any notice to the contrary - The next scheduled meeting will be held Wednesday July 20, 2010 at 9:15 AM. COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRES VATION BOARD Utte-Chairman C These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 8- t'7- 11 as presented or as amended V 6 61 July 11, 2011 BY: ....................... MINUTES OF TIC MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, July 11, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on If A r94 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: Fiala Hiller _ Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Annisa Karim Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Jeremy Sterk Clarence Tears Lauren Gibson (2 Vacancies) ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Land Manager Misc. Corres: Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Date: y` \ \ \ Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man. Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services Div. Itsm t. i L.e=. \ W Ci _ 9 i0: 1 161 1 July 11, 2011 A91 I. Roll Call Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:03AM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator reported Tom Sobczak has resigned from the Committee. H. Approval of Agenda Ms. Karim moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Curt Carried unanimously 7 — 0 III. Approval of May 9, 2011 minutes Ms. Karim moved to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2011 meeting subject to the following change. • Page 3, paragraph 3, addition of bullet point #3 — "The Naples Rowing Club has expressed safety concerns over a bridge span (abutment span) of 66 feet and recommended it be 100 feet." Second by Mr. Sterk. Carried unanimously 7—a IV. Old Business A. Real Property Management Update Cindy Erb, Real Property Management reported: Unit 53 — Closed on CREW Land Trust parcel on June 1, 2011 — to date 10 parcels totaling 199.07 acres, 65 percent of the project area. Winchester Head — to date 53 parcels acquired for a total of 75.11 acres, 47 percent of the project area. B. BCI Area I — potential donation of funds for acquisition/ appraisal Alex Suleeki reported the property owner is no longer considering accepting the offer of an "anonymous donor" and the CREW Land and Water Trust to donate funds to be used for purchase of the property. C. Gordon River Greenway Project — Update Alex Sulecki provided the following documents: • "Gordon River Greenway Project Update " • "Construction Plans for Gordon River Greenway Park; June 2011 " prepared by Kimley- Hom and Assoc., Inc. • "Construction Plans for Gordon River Greenway Park, June 1011 " prepared by Kimley- Horn and Assoc., Inc. with comments provided by CLAAC member Jeffrey Curl, and with the addition of page L -604. Mr. Pires left the meeting at 9.42am The following was noted under Committee discussion: • Any materials proposed should be verified as "sustainable." i b'I qp­ A 9 � July 11, 2011 It may be advantageous to contact Collier County EMS for any recommendations/requirements of signs necessary to assist emergency responders at the scene. Speaker Ellie Krier, Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust addressed the Committee and recommended they contact Ed Carlson of the Corkscrew Sanctuary regarding the sustainability of IPE. Ted Soliday, Executive Director of the Naples Airport Authority continues to participate in Stakeholder meetings. The Trust would like to coordinate with the Parks and Recreation Department on a bench naming Program where donors honor individuals or organizations by placing benches at the site. The Committee outlined 4 main items to focus on at this point: 1. Identifying the most suitable material to be used the in construction of the boardwalk and bridge (petma -trae, IPE, etc.). 2. Identifying the most environmentally friendly and efficient means to stabilize the pre - treatments swales along the trail (mulch, mulch made from removed exotics or plantings etc.) 3. Finalizing the specifications for exterior lighting. 4. If feasible (due to Risk Management issues and environmental considerations), enhancing bat habitat by providing "slats for bats" under the bridge. Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation noted it may be premature to complete the tasks outlined in # 1,2 and 3 and recommended final decisions on these features be delayed until formal estimates and life cycle costs analysis have been obtained for the various options. The Committee agreed. Ms. Karim moved to recommend the project Incorporate "slats for bats" under the proposed bridge. Second by Ms. Gibson. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. D. Preserves — Update Staff presented the document "Conservation Collier Preserves Update - July 11, 2011. " The document outlined recent activities completed and slated for completion within the Preserves. V. New Business A. Shell Island Preserve — Donation to State? Alex Sulecki provided a memorandum to the Committee dated June 28, 2011, Subject: "Shell Island Preserve —Donation to State —Discussion Only" for review. She noted a member of the public had recommended the County donate the land to the State of Florida. The Committee determined to retain the land in the Conservation Collier Program given they had spent $5M on its acquisition, expended approximately $3,000 in maintenance and deeding the land to the State may close off public access. 4fk1 7 i n 16I' #' A July 11, 2011 B. Name Change — Limpkin Marsh Preserve Alex Sulecki presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to change the name of the Conservation Collier Limpkin Marsh Preserve to Little Pineland Preserve " dated July 11, 2011 for consideration. The Committee remanded the item to the Outreach Subcommittee for a recommendation to be submitted to the full Committee for consideration. C. Committee Applications — August meeting Alex Sulecki reported the advertisement deadline for new member applications ends on July 12, 2011 and the Committee must provide a recommendation within 41 days of the end of the deadline. Therefore, an August meeting will be held. D. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program None E. Coordinator Communications - general Staff reported Freedom Park, (among other awards), received a "2011 Florida Stormwater Association Excellence Awards for Stormwater Programs and Projects." 1. Major Issues Report - Lost Groves Mine Staff continues to monitor the Lost Groves Mine Land Use Application for any potential impacts on Preserves within the vicinity (primarily Caracara Preserve and Pepper Ranch). At this point, with information received, little to no impact is expected. FaceBook page — New! Alex Sulecki provided a copy of a memo to the Board of County Commissioners from Jeffery A. Klatzkow, County Attorney, dated July 2, 2009, Re: Facebook and Twiner Usage for information purposes. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney requested Committee members (due to possible Sunshine Law violations), refrain from posting comments or adding Conservation Collier as a "friend" on Facebook. Ms. Sulecld stated the item will be placed on a future Agenda and Staff will determine if members may use social media without violating the Sunshine Law. Mr. Curl noted the Outreach Committee may review the issue. Board Items Report Alex Sulecki reported the following actions by the Board of County Commissioners: May 24, 2011 • The Pepper Ranch Cattle Lease Agreement was continued. • A request for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection access easement on Pepper Ranch to monitor the area of the cattle vat was approved. • The release of the Pepper Ranch Panther Habitat Units escrow funds was approved. • The CREW land donation was approved. U "! 9.1 161 1 {CA July 11, 2011 June 14, 2011 • The Conservation Collier Work Plan was approved. • A Grant Application for Pepper Ranch exotic removal was approved. June 28, 2011 • The Baron Collier Investments appraisal request was removed from the Agenda. • A Caracara Preserve water use permit for the lessee's permission to drill a well on the Preserve was continued for County Attorney review. • The Conservation Collier Annual Report was approved. • The Pepper Ranch Final Management Plan was approved. • The Gordon River Greenway Final Management Plan was approved. • The Shell Island Final Management Plan was approved. VI. Sub- Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach — Tony Pires, Chair A meeting will be held where the ramifications of member utilizing Facebook in reference to "Conservation Collier" and Preserve signage will be discussed. B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Jeremy Sterk, Chair None C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Annisa Karim, Chair None VII. Chair Committee Member Comments Ms. Karim recommended the'Outreach Committee discuss the ramifications of Twitter as well as Facebook. VIII. Public General Comments None LX. Staff Comments Melissa Hennig reported a request has been ieceived for the relocation of Gopher Tortoises to the Caracara Preserve from a Bonita Springs site. The Committee re- affirmed the site was approved to house tortoises solely from Collier County sites. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:54 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee 161 1 ''A 9 July 11, 2011 Bill Poteet, Chairman These minutes appro ed by the Board/Committee on e 0.7 -0 as presented�''y or as amended . ( 16 1 1 A101 Naples, Florida, May18, 2011 10y: ...................... LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m. in the Marco Island Branch Library with the following members present: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE- CHAIR: Loretta Murray Carla Grieve .� Rochelle Lieb Fiala Connie Bettinger - Hennink Hiller Henning Coyle ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Coletta Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator Judith Kraycik, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for additions or corrections to the minutes of April 20, 2010. Two minor corrections were noted. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and the motion was carried unanimously that the minutes be approved as corrected. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Mrs. Reiss discussed the following issues: Possible Early Literacy Program for South Regional Library • Purpose is to create an early learning environment to have children ready to read when they start school. • Possibly partner with the Early Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida. • Create a program for parents, adult learners, educators and people with learning disabilities. • Will attend learning disabilities institute funded by the Department of Education and a group called LINCS which is an offshoot of the National Institute for Literacy. This is an invitation only Train the Trainer Institute which will certify her as a Learning Disabilities Trainer. • This effort is being made to strengthen the relationship between the Library and the educators of Collier County. The Director of Adult Community Education of Collier County has been helpful in promoting this partnership. • Hopefully the program will be offered in the fall. • Suggestion was made to contact pediatricians who may be able to assist in promoting this program. Mrs. Matthes commented that the Library has reached out to the educational community in the past and found that it is more successful if one staff member is dealing with one media specialist rather than arranging group meetings between the two groups. She also stated that she has asked the Children's Librarians to prepare a report on how many children from each school participated in our summer reading programs and how many books were read by the participants. Mt=C. Cow 161 1 A1044 REPORT OF OFFICERS — None COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Grieve reported that she had a meeting with representatives of the Naples Daily News regarding a column which would provide information to the public about the Library. They have requested that three columns or essays be provided to them to evaluate before moving forward. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Employee of the Month — May Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink nominated Sharon Keshock as employee of the month for May. Mrs. Grieve seconded the motion and all in favor. Mrs. Matthes stated that a suggestion was made at the Public Services Administrator's meeting with the division employees that the recipients of the Library Employee of the Month also be submitted to the County Employee of the Month program. Meeting room Policy Revision Mrs. Matthes stated she had to make one minor change to the policy. Mission Statement Mrs. Matthes distributed additional information and suggestions on Mission Statements. The Board discussed the difference between a vision statement and a mission statement because some of the suggestions were related more to a vision then a mission. Mrs. Matthes stated that the County's vision is to be the best community in America. She continued that she does not want the mission statement to deviate greatly from the County vision statement. Mrs. Lieb stated that she would like the mission statement to indicate that our libraries are community based that respond to the neighborhoods where they are located. The Board discussed whether all or most libraries are cognizant of their surroundings and respond accordingly therefore making it unnecessary to include in the mission statement. Mrs. Lieb stated that three elements are important to the mission. Those elements are provide, promote and support. Mrs. Grieve questioned whether it is more important what staff thinks the mission is or what non -staff members think the mission is. Mrs. Matthes responded that it should be a combination. Mrs. Matthes made revisions to the proposed Library Board's version of the mission statement and then read the new version to the Board which is: "To provide, promote and support Library information and services that enlighten the minds and enrich the lives of community residents and visitors of all ages." Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink made a motion to accept the revised mission statement. Mrs. Murray seconded the motion and all in favor. Budget Mrs. Matthes stated she is scheduled to meet this week with the County Manager to review her budget. She explained that revenue from property taxes had been expected to drop by 3% but it turned out that the decrease will actually be 5 %. This could result in additional cuts to the budget. However, State Legislature has passed a bill requiring members of the Florida Retirement System to contribute 3% of their gross salary K 161..1 A1O^" to their pension. This means the County will receive additional revenue for the months of July, August and September. What the effect of this will be is still not known. Mrs. Grieve asked if there is anything the Library Board can do to assist in the budget process. Mrs. Matthes responded that contacting their commissioners to remind them that the Library needs their support during the budget process may be helpful. Currently there are no major proposed cuts for the Library. Mrs. Grieve stated that it may be a good idea to remind the commissioners that the State recognized the value of libraries and approved funding for the next fiscal year. Vanderbilt Beach Branch Circulation Desk Mrs. Matthes reported that the Friends of the Library have contributed $5,000 and another $4,000 has been collected specifically for Vanderbilt and the remainder of the cost will be paid from State Aid for Libraries. There have been several upgrades and additions to the desk that were not figured into the original cost. Mrs. Matthes stated that nothing major has been done to this library since it initially opened. The desk will most likely be installed in late August or early September over a week -end. NEW BUSINESS South Regional — modifications • The branch manager has requested that the walkway in the back of the building be covered so patrons do not get wet coming from the parking lot. • A cover will be installed over the drive -up book drop. • Architect has designed these modifications to blend with the building design. • Raising the height of the stage at South Regional is being considered however due to ramp up to the stage, it can only be raised eleven inches. • These modifications will be paid from the remaining construction funds after which any remaining money will be returned to the County. Nooks • The Friends of the Library has offered to buy Nooks for the libraries. • Mrs. Matthes has prepared a proposal to the Friends to buy 18 Nooks. • Each regional library would receive six Nooks. • Each Nook would have titles preloaded from specific collections purchased from Barnes and Noble. For example, a mystery Nook, a poetry Nook, a children's Nook, a classic Nook. • Mrs. Matthes stated this is very economical because one download can be purchased and loaded on multiple Nooks. Members of the Board questioned the intent of this proposal. Mrs. Matthes stated the Friends thought it would be something new to offer patrons which would give them an opportunity to familiarize themselves with e- readers. It was asked how this would be handled regarding damage to, or loss of the equipment. Mrs. Matthes stated there would be a replacement fee. Also, she stated that hopefully volunteers would be utilized to assist patrons in the use of the Nooks. The Members expressed concern regarding availability of the Nooks (if each rental is for three weeks), use of staff time to maintain them and whether the investment used to purchase the Nooks could be better used in other areas. However, the Members did commend the Friends of the Library on their forward thinking. Books per capita 161 1 A10 Mrs. Lieb asked how much a book costs for the life of the book. Mrs. Matthes responded that the average cost is approximately $25 per book. This is used as a replacement cost for budget purposes. About four percent of the library collection should be replaced annually which amounts to approximately $800,000. In the current budget, $200,000 has been allotted for this purpose. The standard allotment in the growth management plan is 1.87 items per capita. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT • State Aid to Libraries has been increased. • Thanked the Members for e- mailing their representatives. • The State Legislature stated that the libraries are the only ones that thank them for their support. • Suggested the Members send a -mails to thank their representatives. • Attended Florida Library Association Conference in early May which she reported was very good. • Will offer other staff members the opportunity to experience working with the Florida Library Association. • New reporting program has been installed specific to library needs. Program is gathering a lot of data for reports but we are still learning how to use it. • Incident at Headquarters Library yesterday with patron viewing inappropriate material. He had been warned on previous visits that if he continued to do this, he would be trespassed from the building. The Sheriff's Department was called and the deputy who arrived asked him to leave the library premises which he refused to do. There was a confrontation and he was handcuffed and escorted to the police car. He will be banned from the library possibly forever. Library computers do have filters which monitor usage. • A member asked whether Facebook postings are monitored. Mrs. Matthes responded that they are. • Circulation figures are still going down. • Overdrive figures continue to increase. • Expect Kindle to be compatible with overdrive by the end of the year. • The Library is assisting the Senior Resource Center in creating a website which hopefully will be launched this fall. They are still trying to solicit donations for construction of the Center but it will not happen this summer as had been the goal. The 211 call center will be starting in July. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS • Mrs. Grieve reported on the following items: • In order to apply for grant money, an annual report has been prepared. Mrs. Grieve provided a copy of the report at the meeting for members to see. • The Board of the Friends of the Library does not meet during the summer. The next meeting will be in October. • The Red, White and Roulette will be held at the Naples Beach Club on November 5, 2011. • A brochure explaining how to become a member of Friends of the Library has been produced in Spanish. OTHER BUSINESS Due to the vacations of some of the Board Members, it was decided to move the annual meeting to June 29. 4 161 1 A1014 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Grieve moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger Hennink and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Approved by: c:' ' Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory Board 5 Naples, Florida, June 29, 2011 161 Ralh�w�10 � BY........................ LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date at the Headquarters Library at 11:20 a.m. in order to hold their Annual Meeting. The following members were present: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis ✓ Fiala VICE - CHAIR: Loretta Murray Hille r Carla Grieve Hiller _ Shelley Z. Lieb Henning _ Connie Bettinger - Hennink Coyle ✓ Coletta �— ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Judith Kraycik, Administrative Assistant NOMINATIONS AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS The main purpose of this meeting was to select new officers for the coming year. Mrs. Lewis opened the nominations. Mrs. Bettinger- Hennink made a motion to re -elect Mrs. Lewis as Chairman. Mrs. Lieb seconded the motion and all in favor. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink made a motion to re -elect Mrs. Murray as Vice - Chairman and herself as secretary. Mrs. Lieb seconded the motion and all in favor OTHER BUSINESS - None ADJOURNMENT Mrs. Lieb made a motion to adjourn seconded by Mrs. Murray. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 11/21 a.m. Approved by: Doris J. Lewis, Chair Library Advisory Board Misc. Cones: Ilea, r. C 906 ta: THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON JULY 11, 2011 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Caleb Morris, Captain Ron Gilbert, Chairman, Port of the Islands James Simmons, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member Tony Davis, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member The meeting came to order at 5:10PM and roll call was taken. APPROVAL OF JUNE 13, 2011 MEETING MINUTES: 161 lAl1" v �ON9%V Y........................ Two corrections were requested regarding the minutes on page two in lieu of tax to be placed in parentis and budget reduction from 4.8% to 6.8 %. The minutes were then approved and signed by the Chairman. (Vote - The corrections were typed in the next day and e- mailed to all board members reflecting the requested changes. OLD BUSINESS: 1 -75 UPDATE Chief McLaughlin - The Florida Department of Transportation has notified us of a tentative meeting and they are requesting plans for the Station on 1 -75 by the 20th. They are going to put as an option in their reconstruction of the south side rest area facility the building of the Fire Station in the budget for next year. That budget has about 8.6 million dollars so as an option they are going to look at what the building will cost and they will build it. He has a meeting on the 215t of August in Fort Myers with FDOT, the County Building Facilities Manager, and Dan Summers. He will have more information after that meeting. We have two letters in to the Toll Authority which is separate from FDOT Authority on the operational budget to supply the man power and vehicles. We have not yet received a reply so he doesn't know if they are going to feel if they built us a building that would be it. But that wasn't the intent or the bill the governor signed. At least FDOT has made some forward movement as to building the station. j Misc. Corres: Page 1 Fiala g Hiller - -- -� Henning Item Coyle ✓ Coletta V r. -��a, to: 161 1 A11'4 BUDGET Chief McLaughlin — We have a tentative budget ready for Board approval. He just received a COPY from Randy Greenwald in the budget office. The made more adjustments based on advalorem and District I changes. Out total budget for this upcoming year is going to be $1,782,200. Once the finals budget has been approved he will provide copies to the Advisory Board. Ron Gilbert — When you get to that stage can you have Linda e-mail it to us. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, you will probably get the final budget by the end of August it goes before the Board of County Commissioners for final approval on September 1, 2011. We should have a final budget that is going to go before the board by late August. It looks good we didn't have any carry forward in our reserves but they have given us $53,200 in our Reserves. They offset the loss in our budget with a transfer of $382,000 was made out of General Fund. We cut out some of our operating costs and our Capital Outlay costs we minimized that by about $20,000. We need some equipment but we are going to hold out until next year. He feels as time goes on things will get better. We expect to be flat next year in our devaluation so we should be in better shape next year. DISTRICT I Chief McLaughlin — He was asked by Mr. Summers to put off the proposal of the re- districting of District I. The County Manager is requesting we sit on it for a while due to the recent financial problems in East Naples Fire Control District they feel if we do a re- districting even though it would not affect the dollars that much it might be perceived that the County is strong arming the Independent Fire Districts. They felt since there is really no change at this time it doesn't really affect the County Departments that much. Mr. Summers and the County Manager want us to hold off on this until next year. The County Manager has approved the payment of the District I pay outs for this year but for the upcoming contract is only for 90 days it is no longer a three year contract this way they can change anything in 90 days. He was asked to bring this back to the Advisory Board for their approval. Chief McLaughlin is made a recommendation that the Ochopee Fire Control District holds off on the re- districting of District I until next year and just not pursue it at this time. The motion was made not to pursue the re- districting of District I until next year by Tony Davis and seconded by lames Simmons the motion was passed. Page 2 161 1 All WATER TENDER UPDATE Chief McLaughlin —The County has procured the contract with the Least Agreement Company and the truck has been ordered. As of last Friday all the papers have been signed and credit approvals have been completed. The whole process of purchasing the vehicle takes approximately three months from the time of approval to the actual purchase. We are still looking at a possible December 2011 delivery date. NEW BUSINESS: NEW APPLICANT CHARLES HAWKINS Ron Gilbert — I believe we had a -mails from everyone supporting this appointment. Chief McLaughlin — We held submitting the appointment until the meeting because Mr. Simmons felt the board would have too many Port of the Islands members if Mr. Hawkins were appointed. We have been trying for five months to obtain members for this board. Tod Johnson resigned and we still haven't heard back from Everglades City in regards to a new appointment. It really makes no difference to me. No one on Chokoloskee Island, Plantation Island, Copeland, and, Lee Cypress or anywhere else in the District seems to be interested in serving on the board. Tony Davis — Does the board member have to be a resident in the District what about a business owner? Chief McLaughlin — We brought that up once before I believe they have to be a property owner. Tony Davis — So a business owner would qualify? Chief McLaughlin — Only if he owned the property I believe it reads they have to be a taxpayer. Tony Davis — Bob Miller owns the Oyster House Restaurant and what used to be Glades Haven they are down here all the time there would be no problem in him making the meetings. If Sammy Hamilton has to appointed someone of course that would be up to him. Bob Miller would be someone to talk to about joining the board he is very involved with the community. Chief McLauglin — The appointee from Everglades City usually comes from the Everglades City Council but if there is someone in Everglades City that would also want to be on the board we would welcome their application for submittal as well. Page 3 161 1 Ali Tony Davis — So there is a possibility of having two from Everglades City one an appointee by the Mayor and someone else in the City that would want to be on the board. He is going to talk to Bob Miller to see if he is interested in apply to the Advisory Board. Chief McLaughlin — We have had two on the board before from the City of Everglades. But one of the five has to be appointed officially by the Mayor for Everglades City. Tony Davis — Do we have to clarify that they have to be a resident or owner because Bob Miller would qualify. Chief McLaughlin — He could go back and check but I believe they have to be a tax payer. They can't rent they have to own property and pay taxes. Tony Davis — That would include residences or businesses as long as they pay the taxes on the property. Chief McLaughlin =Jean Kungle had asked about that she was a business owner but she didn't own the property and pay taxes in the Ochopee Fire Control District. Tony Davis — Bob Miller is a business taxpayer he has several businesses here. Chief McLaughlin — If they are renting the building that houses their business then they are not paying property taxes in the District. Ron Gilbert — How does that affect Frank Hawkins? Chief McLaughlin — That would be up to you. Ron Gilbert — There is still a seat do you want to hold off on recommending Frank Hawkins. Chief McLaughlin — We are short two positions. Ron Gilbert — If we took Frank Hawkins then we would still have one position to fill and that's coming from the City of Everglades. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, one is always designated to be appointed by the Mayor of Everglades City and is usually a City Council Member. Tony Davis — How critical is it because he could talk to Bob Miller and maybe have answer from him before the next meeting so we can put him in. Hold off on a vote for Frank Hawkins until the next meeting to find out whether he is interested or anybody else that might come up. Page 4 16I. 1A111 Chief McLaughlin — We are having a quorum so we are alright. Ron Gilbert — This is the Board right now. Chief McLaughlin — Yes you are the Board right now until we get more people. Ron Gilbert — I don't have a problem with Frank Hawkins serving on the board and I don't have any problems with waiting until next month. James Simmons — He feels the more diversity on the board the better it is. Tony Davis — If it is not critical that we add another person let's wait and contact Bob Miller or other people just to see if that does not come up then the next meeting we can go ahead and recommend Frank Hawkins. Chief McLaughlin — He is sure that by the next meeting the Mayor will have appointed a replacement for Tod Johnson. It's only been three weeks since Todd Johnson resigned. Tony Davis — Asked if the Mayor had been reminded in reference to appointing a replacement. Chief McLaughlin — He called the City Clerk asking her to remind the Mayor of the appointment. Tony Davis — He works with the City and the Boat Tours so he could remind Mayor Hamilton as well. Ron Gilbert — So due to a consensus the recommendation for Frank Hawkins to be appointed to the Ochopee Advisory Board has been tabled until the next meeting. PORT OF THE ISLANDS LEASE RENEWAL Chief McLaughlin — We are going to go to a month by month lease renewal with LLC at the Hotel. The lease is sitting at the County Attorney's Office for review. It doesn't have to go to the board because it's only a renewal so the month to month lease will be signed after the County Attorney's Office reviews it. Tony Davis — Are you signing with Sun Stream or the Home Owners Board? Chief McLaughlin — We are signing with Sun Stream. Tony Davis — In case you don't know they have pulled out of the hotel until October or November they are locking the front doors at five o'clock there is no one at the front desk. The manager Dina has moved to Marco. Page 5 161 1 A11 Chief McLaughlin — We have gone round and round with Yolanda from the Home Owners Association. According to the County Attorneys and their attorneys the lease that we have is fully appropriate with LLC from what they own. There is no contingency for the Home Owners Association having to approve the lease. The original lease agreement was with LLC the Home Owners Association did not sign it. Tony Davis —They have shut down the hotel they are not a viable association. Chief McLaughlin —They are moving forward with building the 11th, 9th and 6th story buildings. The first building is going to be the 11 story. So there is some forward movement with LLC to develop those buildings. Tony Davis — At the last CID Meeting they had not purchased any additional ERCS from them and supposedly they would need that to build one or more of those buildings. They did not have the ERCs to go through all of those buildings. If they are moving forward with anything they need to make contact with the CID. Chief McLaughlin — We usually get that when it goes to plan review. They only thing we told them it cannot go to construction before the preconstruction meetings. We need a preconstruction plan review with them before they break ground. Ron Gilbert — Where are the current plans to put the 11 story building in front of the hotel or the Tiki Hut or the Marina? Tony Davis — No on the canal by US 41. Ron Gilbert — The corner of 41 by the canal. Chief McLaughlin — He showed them on the map where the buildings were going and that they had to move them due to problems with pilings in the water. Parking will be underneath for the first building the second and the third one the parking will be on the outside he doesn't know how they are going to do that. We went with month to month on the lease at Port of the Islands so that when funding is obtained for the station at Port of the Islands we will be able to move in after it is finished. He is hoping it will happen within the next year we have the directive from two commissioners they are trying to find out where we are going to get the money from to fund the station. RENEWAL OF MOU WITH BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE Chief McLaughlin — We have a cooperative Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Government with the Big Cypress National Preserve. This has been put off per the County Attorney's Office till next January because it doesn't have to be renewed until April of 2012. Page 6 161, iAll` The County Attorney's Office doesn't want to bring it before the Board of County Commissioners until January or February of 2012. He sent a letter back to Big Cypress National Preserve Supervisor stating that the agreement would be tabled until January 2012 as advised by the County Attorney's office they don't want to bring it to the Board too early. James Simmons — Is there any money involved? Chief McLaughlin — No it is just a mutual aid agreement that we will assist them with structural fires and they will assist us with brush fires. It is a legal agreement that we will help each other out. It is a five year agreement and because of this MOU we can be reimbursed for overtime or expenses due to a declared fire in the Preserve area like the Deep Fire. UP COMING AFG GRANT Chief McLaughlin — He just got another notice that the grant is going to open up real soon. We do have a meeting tomorrow at the City of Naples in regards to this grant. We apply for it every year it has been around for about ten years. He has been pretty successful in the past with it. It has changed a lot this year especially in how you have to apply for it and has become more complicated. We are going to ask for $140,000 this is a 95% to 5% Grant because of our Department size. We only pay five percent. We are going to replace our SCBA and $42,000 for portable radio upgrades. Our portable radios are 18 years old they have actually been fazed out you can't even get parts for them. They system is changing over to digital from analog the technology in radios has changed a lot since 1996. We would never be able to replace them via the budget. in the past you could only ask for one item but it has been changed you can ask for multiple projects. Ron Gilbert — He asked if anyone had a problem of moving the meetings to 4PM. Tony Davis made a motion to change the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board meeting to 413M it was seconded by James Simmons the motion was passed. MICCOSUKEE BIG CYPRESS BEND FIRE Chief McLaughlin — It has already been rebuilt. He received a report back by other Chief Officers from the other Departments that responded praised the performance of our Fire Personnel at the scene they did an outstanding job. PLEASURE ISLAND STRUCTURE FIRE Chief McLaughlin — Pleasure Island has 19 wood frame stilt homes that are 10 feet apart and no fire sprinklers. They transferred the personnel with the Fire Boat he called out the second alarm. Page 7 161 1 A11*` Chief McLaughlin — When he arrived the first building was totally consumed and the second one was partially involved and the third one was starting. He always felt that if we did get a fire on Pleasure Island that they would lose two or three building because the buildings are so close together. Three personnel were on Pleasure Island they had deployed three lines and fought the fire by themselves for 45 minutes and did an exceptional job of protecting the third structure in 82 degree heat at 4:30 in the morning full bunker gear only three of them. Usually after ten minutes the guys have rehab they did 45 minutes with no help. He is recommending a letter of commendation for the three Firefighters that were first on scene at the Structure Fires on Pleasure Island they did an outstanding job. He is also going to order merit pins for them as well just for the effort they put in to save the third structure. On the third structure the siding is completely melted the soffits are gone the windows are broken but there is no smoke or flame damage in the building there is just a little bit of water damage on the furniture near the edge. It was an unbelievable job to keep it from burning. The crew was trying to get into the second building he pulled them out because the fire was in the attic it was coming down. Five minutes after he pulled them out the roof collapsed on the back side. They made a valiant effort to get a hold of it. The Fire Lieutenant actually went around in the fire boat and fought fire by himself in the boat to protect the third structure on the back side. It was just an unbelievable effort by everybody with a handful of people. If this had been North Naples Fire District they would have had 35 Firefighters on the scene and it would look the same. The State Fire Marshall is investigating it. No one lives over there accept for the caretaker. The building that caught fire is owned by a couple in Illinois and the property is in foreclosure. The owners apparently have only been in the building four times in five years. They only know the fire started in the living room and the only thing in there is the instant on television. James Simmons — Are there fire hydrants over there? Chief McLaughlin — Yes, remember we had just replaced the FDC over there because it was wrong. We used the new FDC during the structure fires and it worked perfectly. The only thing that happened on the Island was one of the owners had a tiff with the Association when they were building and wanted to do his own thing so he never put pressure regulators on his house so as the Property Manager walked by and noticed water pouring out of the floor because the water heater was blown off the wall but it was the only house over there that didn't have water pressure regulators because he didn't listen to the Association and build like you are supposed to. You need pressure regulators when you tie a fire line into the domestic water system. The owner violated the Associations recommendation. James Simmons — How did you get your fire house over there? Chief McLaughlin — By boat, they loaded everything on the dock then loaded the boat and went over to the Islands then hooked it in. They should have never allowed them to build on Pleasure Islands without the homes having fire sprinklers installed. Page 8 16i Al i' Chief McLaughlin — If they had fire sprinklers all the homes would have been standing even the one that caught fire. Tony Davis — I remember when they were talking about that. Chief McLaughlin — He was thankful that it wasn't February or March with the wind blowing 20 miles an hour out of the Northwest because of that had happened there would have been six of them burned. The fire happened on a dead quite night with 100% humidity and we still had that kind of damage. He just had contact with the president of the Association of Pleasure Islands he had asked him before to set up a cart with some hoses and other equipment so they would not have to spend so much time loading equipment. It looks like they are going to have a special meeting with us now in regards to doing this. They are realizing perhaps it not such a bad idea to spend $1000 on some hose and a cart. This way we can go over there and just pull it out. Ron Gilbert — Are they wood frame buildings. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, all of them including the club house is made out of wood. We received a lot of praise from the other Departments as well. It did go to a second alarm so Marco Island Fire Department and East Naples Fire District responded. Tony Davis — He said someone sent him a picture of the Miccosukee gift shop. He asked the Chief if he would like a copy. Chief McLaughlin — He said yes he would. Tony Davis —This person happened to be driving by when it started up. Chief McLaughlin —The second house was owned by the man who started Dominos Pizza. The other house that was saved the owner is a physician who lives in the City of Naples he came out even though the property had damage he was thankful. The night of the Miccosukee Fire they had another one in Copeland. The fire started on the porch but it was put out before it got to the house. The meeting adjourned at 5:5013M. 4 "oAlza Ron Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 9 161 t'""Al2 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman re- elected 6113111 Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman elected 6113111 John P. Chandler absent Johan Domenie resigned 6/13/11 Geoffrey S. Gibson Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager JohnIaizzo Michael Levy absent Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent o � %W BY: Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Also Present Ronnie Bellone, Vice Chair, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Daniel W. Brundage, P.E., President, Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay Resident Ellin Goetz, Fellow American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects, Inc. James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Susan O'Brien, Candidate, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident REVISED AGENDA Fiala 2;' The agenda includes, but is not limited: Hiller Henning I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Roll Call Coyle — Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman COletta Agenda Approval Audience Participation Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Administrator's Report a. Presentation by Ellin Goetz of Schematic Roadway Intersection Plans b. South Berm Permit Status c. Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion i. Selection of Intersections for Construction in 2011 ii. Selection of Contractor d. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing i. Timing ii. Funding iii. Assessment Adjustment iv. Bicycle Lane Survey e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathway Widening i. Review Proposal ii. Discussion of Excluded Costs f. Monthly Financial Report g. Update on Health of Mangroves h. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach Chairman's Report •, • Misc. Corres: Date: \ dA \ \ \\. \ Item V \ 16I 11 Ail' Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 a. Clam Bay Update b. Review & Submittal Process for Future Pelican Bay Post Articles Discussion c. Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion d. Obtaining Public Input During Meetings e. PBSD Committee Structure Discussion f. Announcements 8. Community Issues 9. Committee Reports a. Strategic Planning Committee 10. Old Business 11. New Business a. Possible Regular Meeting Schedule Adjustment Discussion (J. laizzo) 12. Audience Comments 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence 14. Adjournment ROLL CALL A quorum of six members present and Messrs. Chandler, Domenie, Levy, Baron, and Hansen were absent. RESIGNATION Chairman Dallas announced that he received a letter of resignation from Mr. Domenie, effective today, June 13. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Mrs. Womble suggested the Board proceed with electing new officers, thereby amending the agenda. Mrs. Womble nominated Chairman Dallas for Chairman and Dr. Trecker seconded the nomination. The Board voted unanimously to re -elect Chairman Dallas as Chairman for one year. Mrs. Womble nominated Mr. Cravens for Vice Chairman and Chairman Dallas seconded the nomination. The Board voted unanimously to elect Mr. Cravens as Vice Chairman for one year. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas amended the agenda, moving item 7e Clam Bay Update to first under Chairman's Report. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion to approve the agenda as amended and the Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay resident stated that street lighting funds should not be collected in advance from current homeowners to save for future street lighting projects and suggested using "debt instruments" such as loans or bonds and assess residents at the time the work is to be done. Funds to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard should come from County gas taxes collected. The proposal to loan the County funds for this project is "double taxation" and a legal opinion should be obtained from the Clerk before proceeding. A bike path survey is unnecessary because the community voted against installing bike paths four years ago. According to the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association recent survey regarding Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Phase I crosswalk projects, residents are opposed to this expense. "This Board needs to exercise better fiscal responsibility." Mr. Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition urged the Board not to eliminate the "Stop for People" signs in the middle of the roadway at the North Tram station when approving bids for crosswalks. .,.m 161 ;1 Al2" Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 APPROVAL OF MAY 4.2011 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Mrs. Womble amended page 8456 striking "re" from "petition ". Vice Chairman Cravens amended Mrs. Cravens' title from "Vice President, Mangrove Action Group" to "Dorchester Resident ". Chairman Dallas amended page 8474 to reflect Mr. Chandler's June 9 comments regarding resurfacing meeting, striking, "...and was not in the County's five -year repaving plan." to read, "Pelican Bay Boulevard is rated 61 %. Mr. Casalanguida stated that the County did not presently have a five -year plan but that their staff would develop one by June 1 and provide it to the Services Division. Commissioner Hiller previously suggested that the Services Division draft an agreement to loan the County $1.2 million with a repayment schedule to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard earlier." =Boardvoted n Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Womble to approve the May 4, 2011 Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes as amended The nanimousl in favor, passing emotion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ELLIN GOETZ PRESENTATION OF SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS Ms. Ellin Goetz presented schematic roadway intersection plans along Pelican Bay Boulevard at three major intersections (Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Parkway, and Gulf Park Drive) and two secondary intersections (Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and Tierra Mar) that incorporate elements for pedestrian safety, driver visibility, color, and landscaping best management practices, including irrigation. She provided a list and photographs of recommended plant material for the medians. Mr. Dorrill said the quality of fill in the medians could affect whether plants will grow. Mr. Lukasz responded that in general, the fill is very sandy with little debris, and there may be lime rock at some of the tips of medians that could be replaced with soil. Mr. Dorrill said the next step is to get Board input for conceptual plans then have Ms. Goetz prepare plans with specifications. The crosswalks projects require landscaping of the medians and bull noses, so it would be ideal to have the conceptual plans with specifications approved by the end of summer, so the project can be complete by the end of December. Chairman Dallas asked the Board whether the Landscape Committee should meet to decide upon a recommendation to the Board. Vice Chairman Cravens agreed that the Landscape Committee should review the plans and bring their recommendations to the full Board. Mr. Dorrill said the Landscape Committee should meet and decide on what to recommend to the full Board before the end of the summer. In the meantime, staff would get detailed construction plans and cost estimates including the quantity and cost of recommended plants, so staff could purchase the plants in early fall. Recently released countywide assessed property values show that Pelican Bay leads Southwest Florida by devaluing less than 1 %. Countywide values decreased 5.7% and City of Naples decreased 1.7 %. SOUTH BERM PERMIT STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that staff placed a budget amendment for Board of County Commissioners' approval at their June 14 meeting that allocates $118,000 from Clam Bay Fund reserves to Clam Bay Fund Ecosystem Enhancements to fund the restoration of the South berm project. He and Mr. Tim Durham, Chief Environmentalist, 161 1 Al2 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Wilson Miller discussed permit requirements with the Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). USACE staff preference is that the Services Division obtains short-form Nationwide Permit 3" (NWP 3) for the berm and Swale maintenance work. This is a project already authorized by the Board, but the permitting process would delay the project by 45 -60 days. Staff will confirm USACE staff opinion requiring permit with a higher authority from the agency. CROSSWALKS BIDS REVIEW AND DISCUSSION SELECTION OF INTERSECTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN 2011 The Board discussed Chairman Dallas' three options of crosswalks for construction in 2011. Ms. Ronnie Bellone suggested the Board consider the intersection of Hammock Oak Parkway and Vanderbilt Beach Drive for safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gibson to select three intersections or construction of crosswalks in 2011 at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive, Pelican Bay Boulevard and Oakmont Parkway; and Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. The Board voted 4 -2 in favor, passing the motion. Mr. Iaizzo and Dr. Trecker o osed. SELECTION OF CONTRACTOR Mr. Dorrill reported that the Services Division received three bids to perform the crosswalk work and Bateman Contracting was the most responsive. Should the Board decide to recommend this firm to the Board of County Commissioners, the award of contract should be subject to meeting insurance requirements and verifying references. Mr. Brundage said his firm has not worked with Bateman Contracting directly, but according to his sources, Lee County has used their services and not had problems. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Womble to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the award of bid for crosswalks projects go to Bateman Construction, subject to verification of references and insurance requirements compliance to include workers compensation and associated liability insurance. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD RESURFACING TIMING Mr. Dorrill reported that based on the County's analysis of pavement conditions, Pelican Bay Boulevard is eligible for resurfacing in Fiscal Year 2015. The Road Maintenance department's annual budget is only $2.5 million, so it is possible that even when the road becomes eligible for resurfacing, the County will not have the funds for the project. FUNDING Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Chandler recently discussed with Commissioner Hiller and Mr. Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division, the possibility of the Services Division loaning the County funds to do this project earlier, via an interfund transfer that the County would pay back with interest at the time the road is forecasted for resurfacing in FY 2015. Commissioner Hiller appears to be interested in introducing this idea to the County Commission to find out if they are willing to consider it as a policy because this is a novel approach. Regarding Mr. Doyle's comments that this is "double taxation ", Mr. Dorrill said it is not. They are considering an interfund term loan that the County would repay to the Services Division with a reasonable rate of return. .E. 16I .1 Al2 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Dr. Trecker said in his opinion, based on continued devaluation and declining fiscal situation, the County would not accept this proposal. Chairman Dallas said it is still a subject worth discussing. He pointed out that the County is also responsible for maintaining the pathways, and are not, so at some point the Services Division will have to decide whether to take that responsibility, too. Mr. Dorrill said five years ago, Pelican Bay Boulevard was eligible for resurfacing and rather than milling and resurfacing the traditional way, the County used slurry overtop of the existing road. He acknowledged Mr. Gibson's concerns regarding the poor appearance and cosmetic issues brought about by this "microsurfacing experiment" and said this is Mr. Chandler's biggest contention. He added that the County however, believes that despite its appearance, the microsurfacing did provide structural improvements. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to explore with the Board of County Commissioners the possibility of the Services Division loaning the County funds to mill and resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard earlier than forecasted via interfund transfer that the County would repay with interest at the time the road is currently forecasted for resurfacing. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. BICYCLE LANE SURVEY Chairman Dallas said that when the road is milled and resurfaced, they would need to decide whether to install bicycle lanes, and suggested the Services Division perform a statistically valid scientific community survey. FOUR -WAY STOP AT RIDGEWOOD DRIVE AND PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Dorrill asked the Board to clarify with a motion, second and vote the Board's direction regarding the results of the warrants analysis of the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard. FLanalysis an Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson that staff discuss with the L 's n Right of Way Permitting department moving forward with a four -way stoe of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard, despite failing to meet the ts ria. The Board voted unanimous) in av or, assin the motion. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY WIDENING Mr. Dorrill reported that preliminary surveying has been done under an existing purchase order for civil engineering work by Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage for Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Phase I pathway widening along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard. He added that Mr. Chandler has suggested the surveying include a preliminary analysis of the number of trees affected and potentially removed, and for utility conflicts. Mr. Dorrill will provide the surveying report when complete. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill presented the preliminary and unaudited May financial report. Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to accept the monthly financial report into the record. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. MM 161 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 UPDATE ON HEALTH OF THE MANGROVES 1Al2" Mr. Dorrill reported that the health of the white mangroves continue to be monitored on a monthly basis from the rooftop of several high rises with photography. Mr. Hall is pursuing DNA analysis of the boring beetles to determine the species by the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) University of Florida (UFL) Extension. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Dorrill reported that the County's Coastal Zone Management department has not heard whether they will receive a grant award to remove exotics from Clam Pass Park and along the beach. The State's fiscal year begins July 1, so staff will soon know whether the County receives the grant. Removing exotics from Clam Pass Park and along the beach could become the Services Division's responsibility if the County does not receive the grant. In that case, staff would obtain cost estimates for exotic removal along Clam Pass Park and the beach for the Board to review. Vice Chairman Cravens reported there are significant numbers of Brazilian Peppers along the Clam Pass Park boardwalk and scores of Australian Pines along the beach. Mr. Dorrill plans to meet Vice Chairman Cravens and Mr. Lukasz on site next week to address. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT BOARD VACANCY AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT FCravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to make a recommendation to the Board o issioners to appoint Susan O'Brien to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to fill the ed by John Domenie's resignation. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the CLAM BAY UPDATE Chairman Dallas reported that Mr. McAlpin plans to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners on June 15, the Coastal Advisory Committee's Clam Bay markers "Option 1" to develop an agreement between the four key stakeholders that outlines responsibilities for installation, maintenance, changes and dispute resolution. Ms. Linda Roth said the language regarding installation and permitting responsibility needs clarification. Ms. Noreen Murray encouraged Pelican Bay residents to attend the Commission meeting to support canoe trail markers. Mr. James Hoppensteadt said the Foundation responded to the letter that Seagate's attorneys sent to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Attorney General that refutes Seagate's claims. REVIEW AND SUBMITTAL PROCESS FOR FUTURE PELICAN BAY POST ARTICLES Chairman Dallas recommended a review and submittal process for Pelican Bay Post articles to ensure a reasonable amount of review, accuracy, consistency with other documents, and reflects the general views of the Board and Ms. Resnick was assigned to review, edit, obtain feedback, and submit final product to the Post. The Board agreed that the procedure was reasonable. Ms. Ronnie Bellone observed that from the time between submittal to publication, the Services Division's news could be two months old. Chairman Dallas acknowledged that Mr. Domenie's article submitted to the Post was withdrawn because by the time of publication, the content was outdated. I 161 1Al2 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 DRAFT OF PELICAN BAY POST ARTICLE ON PBSD FY 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET Chairman Dallas said Ms. Resnick would incorporate comments received into the draft "PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget" Pelican Bay Post article, then reviewed and submitted to the Pelican Bay Post. OBTAINING PUBLIC INPUT DURING MEETINGS The Board discussed the current policy to obtain public input during meetings and agreed it was too liberal, and contributes to holding less productive meetings and deferring some items to subsequent meetings. The Board agreed to implement the policy suggested by Mr. Chandler that would (1) discontinue soliciting public comments at the beginning of the meeting; (2) solicit public comments prior to each agenda item discussion; (3) limit comments to one per person per item; (4) and limit comments to 3 minutes per person. Following public comments on an item, (5) the Board would proceed to discuss and take appropriate action without interruption; and (6) at the end of the meeting, solicit public comments on non - agenda items. The public was encouraged to email comments to the Board between the time that the agenda is post and the meeting commences. PBSD COMMITTEE STRUCTURE The Board discussed its committees and productivity. There was agreement that the Budget committee is efficient as is. Regarding whether to reconstitute the Clam Bay committee, Chairman Dallas asked the Board to provide input to Ms. Resnick for discussion at the next meeting. Dr. Trecker was appointed to the Landscape committee joining Vice Chairman Cravens (Chairman of the Landscape committee) and Mr. Gibson. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced that the Board of County Commissioners would discuss the Vanderbilt Beach restrooms configuration on June 14 at 2 p.m. and the Clam Bay markers on June 15 at 9 a.m. The Coastal Advisory Committee does not meet in July. The Pelican Bay Foundation meets June 24 at 8:30 a.m. The Strategic Planning Committee meets June 16 at 9 a.m. JULY 6 BOARD MEETING CANCELLED 'I Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to cancel the July 6 meeting with the option 'I to reconsider. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. COMMUNITY ISSUES None STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Mrs. Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) has met several times since the last Services Division Board meeting. Ms. Bellone was elected Committee Chairwoman and the committee has three new members: Frank Butler, Charles Bodo, and Paul Lorenzo replacing Jerry Moffatt and Noreen Murray who were both elected to the Foundation Board. Currently the SPC is discussing whether to eliminate the crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Crayton Road and reestablish at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Glenview; and making a recommendation to the Foundation Board to approve crosswalk projects on Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood, Myra Janco Daniels, Gulf Park, North Pointe, Hammock Oak, and Oakmont. Other projects under discussion are reconfiguration of the Commons, Community Center expansion, restrooms and lighting considerations at the North Tram station, and U.S. 41 berm. OLD BUSINESS None -10 16 i Al2 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 NEW BUSINESS POSSIBLE MEETING SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENT Mr. laizzo suggested Board meetings be regularly scheduled on the second Wednesday of the month instead of the first Wednesday, but there was no interest. SUNSHINE LAW AND ONE -WAY COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Trecker asked for guidance regarding the Sunshine Law and one -way communications. Mr. Dorrill responded that one -way communications are acceptable as long as they do not give an indication of how one would vote. Mr. Hoppensteadt added that Board members should send one -way communications to Ms. Resnick for distribution. Mr. Dorrill will seek to establish County e-mail accounts for all Board members' correspondence and the County's records retention policy. ADJOURN rice Chairman Cravens made a motion to adjourn and the Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Ik J. Dallas,_0144man 0 0 s 0 0 0 N 0 O 1 0 Minutes by Lisa Resnick \6/30/2011 1:53:22 PM v ._ PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 161 Al2 Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2011 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2011 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE NAPLES FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Roll Call BY: 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 4. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. FDOT Crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard and U.S. 41 c. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive d. Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard 1 v e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways Fiala f. Schematic Roadway Intersection Plans Hiller g. South Berm Permit Status Conning e�f — h. Monthly Financial Report Coletta ✓ i. County Email Accounts j. Update on Health of Mangroves k. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach 5. Chairman's Report a. Recommendation to BCC to Appoint Susan O'Brien to Board b. Discussion of Committees Under Consideration L Clam Bay Committee ii. Water Management Committee (T. Cravens) c. Stop for People Pedestrian Safety Sign Discussion d. Clam Bay Update e. Announcements 6. Community Issues Misc. Cones: 7. Committee Reports a. Strategic Planning Committee Date: , �,� 1 8. Old Business Item #. 1m=_� 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. 8/1/20118:51:59 AM 161 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 1 ^.121 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman re- elected 6113111 Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman elected 6113111 John P. Chandler absent Johan Domenie resigned 6113111 Geoffrey S. Gibson Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager JohnIaizzo Michael Levy absent Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Also Present Ronnie Bellone, Vice Chair, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Daniel W. Brundage, P.E., President, Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay Resident Ellin Goetz, Fellow American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects, Inc. James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Susan O'Brien, Candidate, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. REVISED AGENDA Roll Call Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman Agenda Approval Audience Participation Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Administrator's Report a. Presentation by Ellin Goetz of Schematic Roadway Intersection Plans b. South Berm Permit Status c. Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion i. Selection of Intersections for Construction in 2011 ii. Selection of Contractor d. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing i. Timing ii. Funding iii. Assessment Adjustment iv. Bicycle Lane Survey e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathway Widening i. Review Proposal ii. Discussion of Excluded Costs f. Monthly Financial Report g. Update on Health of Mangroves h. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pa: Chairman's Report 847 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 a. Clam Bay Update b. Review & Submittal Process for Future Pelican Bay Post Articles Discussion c. Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion d. Obtaining Public Input During Meetings e. PBSD Committee Structure Discussion f. Announcements 8. Community Issues 9. Committee Reports a. Strategic Planning Committee 10. Old Business 11. New Business a. Possible Regular Meeting Schedule Adjustment Discussion (J. laizzo) 12. Audience Comments 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence 14. Adjournment ROLL CALL A quorum of six members present and Messrs. Chandler, Domenie, Levy, Baron, and Hansen were absent. RESIGNATION Chairman Dallas announced that he received a letter of resignation from Mr. Domenie, effective today, June 13. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Mrs. Womble suggested the Board proceed with electing new officers, thereby amending the agenda. Mrs. Womble nominated Chairman Dallas for Chairman and Dr. Trecker seconded the nomination. The Board voted unanimously to re -elect Chairman Dallas as Chairman for one year. Mrs. Womble nominated Mr. Cravens for Vice Chairman and Chairman Dallas seconded the nomination. The Board voted unanimously to elect Mr. Cravens as Vice Chairman for one year. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas amended the agenda, moving item 7e Clam Bay Update to first under Chairman's Report. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion to approve the agenda as amended and the Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay resident stated that street lighting funds should not be advance from current homeowners to save for future street lighting projects and suggested using "debt i 4ents" su as loans or bonds and assess residents at the time the work is to be done. Funds to resurface Pe ' a ulevard should come from County gas taxes collected. The proposal to loan the County funds for taxation" and a legal opinion should be obtained from the Clerk before proceeding. A bi because the community voted against installing bike paths four years ago. Owners Association recent survey regarding Community Improvement Plan ( are opposed to this expense. "This Board needs to exercise better fiscal respon Mr. Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition urged the Board the middle of the roadway at the North Tram station when approving bids fort MM for People" signs in F Y F � I h 1 t A4 0% "40 161 1 Al2" Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 APPROVAL OF MAY 4, 2011 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Mrs. Womble amended page 8456 striking "re" from "petition ". Vice Chairman Cravens amended Mrs. Cravens' title from "Vice President, Mangrove Action Group" to "Dorchester Resident ". Chairman Dallas amended page 8474 to reflect Mr. Chandler's June 9 comments regarding resurfacing meeting, striking, "...and was not in the County's five year repaving plan." to read, "Pelican Bay Boulevard is rated 61 %. Mr. Casalanguida stated that the County did not presently have a five -year plan but that their staff would develop one by June 1 and provide it to the Services Division. Commissioner Hiller suggested that the Services Division draft an agreement to loan the County $1.2 million with a repayment schedule to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard earlier." Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Womble to approve the May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes as amended The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ELLIN GOETZ PRESENTATION OF SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS Ms. Ellin Goetz presented schematic roadway intersection plans along Pelican Bay Boulevard at three major intersections (Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Parkway, and Gulf Park Drive) and two secondary intersections (Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard and Tierra Mar) that incorporate elements for pedestrian safety, driver visibility, color, and landscaping best management practices, including irrigation. She provided a list and photographs of recommended plant material for the medians. Mr. Dorrill said the quality of fill in the medians could affect whether plants will grow. Mr. Lukasz responded that in general, the fill is very sandy with little debris, and there may be lime rock at some of the tips of medians that could be replaced with soil. Mr. Dorrill said the next step is to get Board input for conceptual plans then have Ms. Goetz prepare plans with specifications. The crosswalks projects require landscaping of the medians and bull noses, so it would be ideal to have the conceptual plans with specifications approved by the end of summer, so the project can be complete by the end of December. Chairman Dallas asked the Board whether the Landscape Committee should meet to decide recommendation to the Board. Vice Chairman Cravens agreed that the Landscape Committee should review the plans MW 11 Board cluding released than 1 %. mmissioners' approval at Clam Bay Fund Ecosystem ham, Chief Environmentalist, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Wilson Miller discussed permit requirements with the Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). USACE staff preference is that the Services Division obtains short-form Nationwide Permit 3" (NWP 3) for the berm and swale maintenance work. This is a project already authorized by the Board, but the permitting process would delay the project by 45 -60 days. Staff will confirm USACE staff opinion requiring permit with a higher authority from the agency. CROSSWALKS BIDS REVIEW AND DISCUSSION SELECTION OF INTERSECTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN 2011 The Board discussed Chairman Dallas' three options of crosswalks for construction in 2011. Ms. Ronnie Bellone suggested the Board consider the intersection of Hammock Oak Parkway and Vanderbilt Beach Drive for safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Cravens made 7motion, seconded by Mr. Gibson to select three intersections for construction of cross 2011 at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive, Pelican Bay Boulevard and O Parkway; and Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. The Board voted 4 -2 in asin the motion. Mr. Iaizzo and Dr. Trecker opposed. SELECTION OF CONTRACTOR Mr. Dorrill reported that the Services Division received three bids to perform the crosswalk work and Bateman Contracting was the most responsive. Should the Board decide to recommend this firm to the Board of County Commissioners, the award of contract should be subject to meeting insurance requirements and verifying references. Mr. Brundage said his firm has not worked with Bateman Contracting directly, but according to his sources, Lee County has used their services and not had problems. Mr. Cravens made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Womble to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the award of bid for crosswalks projects go to Bateman Construction, subject to verification of references and insurance requirements compliance to include workers compensation and associated liability insurance. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD RESURFACING TIMING Mr. Dorrill reported that based on the County's analysis of pavement conditions, Pelican Bay eligible for resurfacing in Fiscal Year 2015. The Road Maintenance department's annual budget is on it is possible that even when the road becomes eligible for resurfacing, the County will not have the FUNDING E:1 f:JIJ ect. funds to do the road is in int ing this idea to the el approach. Regarding considering an interfund term I � Al2' Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Dr. Trecker said in his opinion, based on continued devaluation and declining fiscal situation, the County would not accept this proposal. Chairman Dallas said it is still a subject worth discussing. He pointed out that the County is also responsible for maintaining the pathways, and are not, so at some point the Services Division will have to decide whether to take that responsibility, too. Mr. Dorrill said five years ago, Pelican Bay Boulevard was eligible for resurfacing and rather than milling and resurfacing the traditional way, the County used slurry overtop of the existing road. He acknowledged Mr. Gibson's concerns regarding the poor appearance and cosmetic issues brought about by this "microsurfacing experiment" and said this is Mr. Chandler's biggest contention. He added that the County however, believes that despite its appearance, the microsurfacing did provide structural improvements. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to explore with the Board of County Commissioners the possibility of the Services Division loaning the County funds to mill and resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard earlier than forecasted via interfund transfer that the County would repay with interest at the time the road is currently forecasted for resurfacing. The Board voted unanimously in favor, nassine the motion. BICYCLE LANE SURVEY Chairman Dallas said that when the road is milled and resurfaced, they would need to decide whether to install bicycle lanes, and suggested the Services Division perform a statistically valid scientific community survey. FOUR -WAY STOP AT RIDGEWOOD DRIVE AND PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Dorrill asked the Board to clarify with a motion, second and vote the Board's direction regarding the results of the warrants analysis of the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard. FLanalysis ade a motion, second by Mr. Gibson that staff discuss with the County's ay Permitting department moving forward with a four -way stop at the Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard, despite failing to meet the warrants d voted unanimously in favor. passing the motion. PELICAN BAY BO ULEVARD PATHWAY WIDENING Mr. Dorrill reported that preliminary surveying has been done under an existing purchase engineering work by Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage for Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Phase I pa along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard. He added that Mr. Chandler has suggested the s g include a preliminary analysis of the number of trees affected and potentially removed, and for utility con ill will provide the surveying report when complete. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill presented the preliminary and unaudited May financial report. Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to accept the anc ort into the record. The Board voted unanimously in favor, Passin-e the motion. 140"W W M. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 UPDATE ON HEALTH OF THE MANGROVES Mr. Dorrill reported that the health of the white mangroves continue to be monitored on a monthly basis from the rooftop of several high rises with photography. Mr. Hall is pursuing DNA analysis of the boring beetles to determine the species by the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) University of Florida (UFL) Extension. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Dorrill reported that the County's Coastal Zone Management department has not heard whether they will receive a grant award to remove exotics from Clam Pass Park and along the beach. The State's fiscal year begins July 1, so staff will soon know whether the County receives the grant. Removing exotics from Clam Pass Park and along the beach could become the Services Division's responsibility if the County does not receive the grant. In that case, staff would obtain cost estimates for exotic removal along Clam Pass Park and the beach for the Board to review. Vice Chairman Cravens reported there are significant numbers of Brazilian Peppers along the Clam Pass Park boardwalk and scores of Australian Pines along the beach. Mr. Dorrill plans to meet Vice Chairman Cravens and Mr. Lukasz on site next week to address. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT BOARD VACANCY AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT F n Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to make a recommendation to the Board o missioners to appoint Susan O'Brien to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to fill the ted by John Domenie's resignation. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the CLAM BAY UPDATE Chairman Dallas recommended a review and submittal process for Pelican Bay Post 1W ensure a time of publication, the content was outdated. mm Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 DRAFT OF PELICAN BAY POST ARTICLE ON PBSD FY 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET Chairman Dallas said Ms. Resnick would incorporate comments received into the draft "PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget" Pelican Bay Post article, then reviewed and submitted to the Pelican Bay Post. OBTAINING PUBLIC INPUT DURING MEETINGS The Board discussed the current policy to obtain public input during meetings and agreed it was too liberal, and contributes to holding less productive meetings and deferring some items to subsequent meetings. The Board agreed to implement the policy suggested by Mr. Chandler that would (1) discontinue soliciting public comments at the beginning of the meeting; (2) solicit public comments prior to each agenda item discussion; (3) limit comments to one per person per item; (4) and limit comments to 3 minutes per person. Following public comments on an item, (5) the Board would proceed to discuss and take appropriate action without interruption; and (6) at the end of the meeting, solicit public comments on non - agenda items. The public was encouraged to email comments to the Board between the time that the agenda is post and the meeting commences. PBSD COMMITTEE STRUCTURE The Board discussed its committees and productivity. There was agreement that the Budget committee is efficient as is. Regarding whether to reconstitute the Clam Bay committee, Chairman Dallas asked the Board to provide input to Ms. Resnick for discussion at the next meeting. Dr. Trecker was appointed to the Landscape committee joining Vice Chairman Cravens (Chairman of the Landscape committee) and Mr. Gibson. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced that the Board of County Commissioners would discuss the Vanderbilt Beach restrooms configuration on June 14 at 2 p.m. and the Clam Bay markers on June 15 at 9 a.m. The Coastal Advisory Committee does not meet in July. The Pelican Bay Foundation meets June 24 at 8:30 a.m. The Strategic Planning Committee meets June 16 at 9 a.m. JULY 6 BOARD MEETING CANCELLED 'I Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to cancel the July 6 meeting with the option 'I to reconsider. The Board voted unanimously in favor. nassine the motion. COMMUNITY ISSUES None STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Mrs. Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) has met several Services Division Board meeting. Ms. Bellone was elected Committee Chairwoman and the members: Frank Butler, Charles Bodo, and Paul Lorenzo replacing Jerry Moffatt and Nore elected to the Foundation Board. Currently the SPC is discussing whether to eliminate the cl Boulevard and Crayton Road and reestablish at Pelican Bay Boulevard and the Foundation Board to approve crosswalk projects on Pelican Bay Boulev Park, North Pointe, Hammock Oak, and Oakmont. Other projects under dis4 Community Center expansion, restrooms and lighting considerations OLD BUSINESS None ROR to Daniels, Gulf of the Commons, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 NEW BUSINESS POSSIBLE MEETING SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENT Mr. Iaizzo suggested Board meetings be regularly scheduled on the second Wednesday of the month instead of the first Wednesday, but there was no interest. SUNSHINE LAW AND ONE -WAY COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Trecker asked for guidance regarding the Sunshine Law and one -way communications. Mr. Dorrill responded that one -way communications are acceptable as long as they do not give an indication of how one would vote. Mr. Hoppensteadt added that Board members should send one -way communications to Ms. Resnick for distribution. Mr. Dorrill will seek to establish County e-mail accounts for all Board members' correspondence and the County's records retention policy. ADJOURN 11rice Chairman Cravens made a motion to adjourn and the Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick \6/30/2011 1:53:22 PM 7n1 I A7 "l 161 „, Al2' Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 29, 2011 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 1,666,847.54 Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 1,666,847.54 Total Assets $ 1,666,847.54 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable $ (2,653.30) Accrued Wages Payable - Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd (37,689.19) Total Liabilities $ (40,342.49) Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved (1,173,770.02) Excess Revenues (Expenditures) (452,735.03) Total Fund Balance (1,626,505.05) Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (1,666,847.54) Page 1 of 1 161 1A121 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 29, 2011 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: 134,300.00 111,900.00 108,732.24 3,167.76 Engineering Fees Carryforward $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 Special Assessment - Water Management Admin 728,400.00 702,906.00 702,259.98 8,500.00 (646.02) Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,938,600.00 1,870,749.00 1,869,029.64 18,800.00 (1,719.36) Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - - - Surplus Property Sales 1,000.00 - 5,250.00 800.00 5,250.00 Insurance Payment for Damages 35,300.00 33,800.00 4,132.50 Telephone 500.00 Interest 11,700.00 9,126.00 9,218.74 8,300.00 92.74 Total Operating Revenues 3,623,300.00 3,525,881.00 3,532,990.86 200.00 2,977.36 Operating Expenditures: Insurance - General 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 - Water Management Administration 900.00 900.00 900.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts Payroll Expense $ 41,200.00 $ 34,300.00 $ 33,779.67 $ 520.33 White Goods 8,800.00 - - $ - IT Direct Client Support (Capital) 200.00 200.00 100.00 $ 100.00 IT Office Automation 8,000.00 8,000.00 6,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 108,200.00 108,200.00 108,200.00 $ - Interdepartmental Payment 14,600.00 14,600.00 14,600.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 30,800.00 25,700.00 22,802.50 $ 2,897.50 Telephone 4,100.00 3,400.00 2,309.33 $ 1,090.67 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 400.00 257.34 $ 142.66 Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,600.00 11,300.00 10,474.77 $ 825.23 Insurance - General 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 $ - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 600.00 595.00 $ 5.00 Clerk's Recording Fees 4,000.00 - - $ - Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 44.55 $ 155.45 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,500.00 2,100.00 646.93 $ 1,453.07 Training and Education 1,100.00 900.00 80.00 $ 820.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating 245,700.00 211,200.00 201,190.09 10,009.91 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense 134,300.00 111,900.00 108,732.24 3,167.76 Engineering Fees 16,381.25 13,700.00 2,898.66 10,801.34 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 12,833.33 11,345.00 1,488.33 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 7,081.33 11,141.50 (4,060.17) Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 18,800.00 15,182.25 3,617.75 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 800.00 - 800.00 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 35,300.00 33,800.00 1,500.00 Telephone 500.00 400.00 360.40 39.60 Trash and Garbage 8,300.00 8,200.00 3,169.20 5,030.80 Motor Pool Rental Charge 200.00 200.00 - 200.00 Insurance - General 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 - Insurance - Auto 900.00 900.00 900.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,500.00 3,800.00 1,076.47 2,723.53 Fuel and Lubricants 3,200.00 2,700.00 2,037.55 662.45 Tree Triming 30,000.00 25,000.00 23,712.00 1,288.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 900.00 855.40 44.60 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 400.00 - 400.00 Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 61,200.00 60,856.01 343.99 Page 1 of 3 1 j Other Repairs and Maintenance Other Operating Supplies and Equipment Total Water Management Field Operating Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support and Capital Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Legal Advertising Office Supplies General Training and Education Total Right of Way Beautification Operating Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense White Goods Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) Pest Control Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Electricity Trash and Garbage Rent Equipment Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Licenses, Permits, Training Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Mulch Sprinkler Maintenance Painting Supplies Traffic Signs Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment General Improvements Total Water Management Field Operations Capital 161 1 A120 1,500.00 1,300.00 2,693.02 (1,393.02) 2,500.00 2,100.00 4,099.15 (1,999.15) 394,681.25 309,914.67 285,258.85 24,655.82 42,400.00 35,300.00 34,800.75 499.25 7,400.00 - - - 7,000.00 5,250.00 5,150.00 100.00 37,500.00 31,300.00 25,502.00 5,798.00 3,900.00 3,300.00 2,299.33 1,000.67 3,000.00 400.00 10.54 389.46 14,000.00 11,700.00 11,394.59 305.41 500.00 500.00 500.00 - 2,600.00 650.00 595.00 55.00 4,000.00 - - 2,000.00 200.00 44.55 155.45 3,000.00 2,500.00 638.63 1,861.37 1,500.00 1,300.00 50.00 1,250.00 128,800.00 92,400.00 80,985.39 11,414.61 827,700.00 689,800.00 596,936.79 92,863.21 3,300.00 - - - 136,900.00 103,200.00 101, 713.77 1,486.23 5,000.00 4,200.00 4,475.00 (275.00) 29,500.00 24,600.00 32,297.41 (7,697.41) 204,500.00 170,400.00 163,175.65 7,224.35 3,200.00 2,700.00 2,391.18 308.82 3,400.00 2,800.00 2,160.49 639.51 24,900.00 24,500.00 6,203.70 18,296.30 5,500.00 4,700.00 648.92 4,051.08 700.00 - - - 9,000.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 - 9,900.00 9,900.00 9,900.00 - 21,200.00 17,700.00 25,011.63 (7,311.63) 44,200.00 36,800.00 33,536.98 3,263.02 800.00 700.00 75.00 625.00 35,900.00 35,900.00 48,713.00 (12,813.00) 9,400.00 4,600.00 6,302.99 (1,702.99) 3,000.00 2,500.00 717.81 1,782.19 62,000.00 52,500.00 55,846.57 (3,346.57) 60,200.00 52,200.00 53,273.15 (1,073.15) 30,000.00 25,000.00 21,478.48 3,521.52 800.00 700.00 - 700.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 3,620.00 (1,120.00) 3,000.00 2,500.00 4,252.75 (1,752.75) 11,500.00 9,600.00 7,211.86 2,388.14 1,548, 500.00 2,289,000.00 1,188,943.13 100,05 6.87 2,317,681.25 1,902,514.67 1,756,377.46 146,137.21 1,000.00 800.00 - 800.00 13,200.00 11,000.00 11,000.00 14,200.00 11,800.00 - 11,800.00 Page 2 of 3 M a 1 V tai t 161,ti f Right of Way Beautification - Field Building Improvements 13,600.00 11,300.00 - 11,300.00 Autos and Trucks 28,000.00 28,000.00 23,597.00 4,403.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 17,000.00 - - - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital 58,600.00 39,300.00 23,597.00 15,703.00 Total Capital Expenditures 72,800.00 51,100.00 23,597.00 27,503.00 Total Expenditures 2,390,481.25 1,953,614.67 1,779,974.46 173,640.21 Operating Profit /(Loss) 1,232,818.75 1,572,266.33 1,753,016.40 180,750.07 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer to Fund 322 (259,200.00) (259,200.00) (259,200.00) - Tax Collector Fees (82,500.00) (66,000.00) (51,419.07) 14,580.93 Property Appraiser Fees (75,300.00) (60,240.00) (44,650.00) 15,590.00 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) (555,025.00) (555,025.00) (555,025.00) - Reserves for Equipment (124,875.00) (124,875.00) (124,875.00) Revenue Reserve (140,300.00) - -_ Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, net (1,237,200.00) (1,065,340.00) (1,035,169.07) 30,170.93 Net Profit /(Loss) (4,381.25) 506,926.33 717,847.33 210,921.00 Page 3 of 3 �i2i U c c Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet -July 29, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets $ 214,879.65 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (597.04) (2,052.00) $ 214,879.65 $ 214,879.65 $ (2,649.04) (208,670.25) (3,560.36) (212,230.61) $ (214,879.65) Page 1 of 1 ibl fAl2_` $ 214,879.65 $ 214,879.65 $ (2,649.04) (208,670.25) (3,560.36) (212,230.61) $ (214,879.65) Page 1 of 1 1611 �i21 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 29, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense White Goods Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast Total Street Lighting Field Operating $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $ 273,200.00 263,638.00 263,447.80 $ 40.87 $ 6,578.00 $ 1,200.00 798.00 1,138.62 $ 444,200.00 434,236.00 441,005.29 (190.20) 40.87 6,578.00 340.62 6,769.29 $ 41,200.00 $ 34,300.00 $ 33,779.67 $ 520.33 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 6,300.00 $ - 20,800.00 $ 17,300.00 22,814.50 $ (5,514.50) 4,100.00 $ 3,400.00 1,665.95 $ 1,734.05 2,000.00 $ 400.00 10.54 $ 389.46 13,600.00 $ 11,300.00 10,847.81 $ 452.19 400.00 $ 400.00 400.00 $ - 800.00 $ 700.00 - $ 700.00 1,000.00 $ 800.00 4.90 $ 795.10 90,200.00 74,900.00 75,823.37 (923.37) 62,900.00 52,400.00 50,908.81 1,491.19 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 700.00 - 700.00 500.00 400.00 360.40 39.60 44,200.00 36,800.00 29,193.38 7,606.62 800.00 800.00 800.00 - 900.00 900.00 900.00 - 1,100.00 900.00 305.38 594.62 400.00 300.00 524.18 (224.18) 200.00 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 400.00 - 400.00 7,300.00 6,100.00 12,571.26 (6,471.26) 12,400.00 8,300.00 7,052.67 1,247.33 141,600.00 108,200.00 102,616.08 5,583.92 Page 1 of 2 Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment General Improvements Total Capital Expenditures 161 1 Al2 231,800.00 183,100.00 178,439.45 4,660.55 1,000.00 500.00 - 500.00 13,200.00 6,600.00 - 6,600.00 244,036.00 262,565.84 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): 14,200.00 7,100.00 - 7,100.00 Total All Expenditures 246,000.00 190,200.00 178,439.45 Operating Profit /(Loss) 198,200.00 244,036.00 262,565.84 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer to Fund 322 (83,600.00) (83,600.00) (83,600.00) Tax Collector Fees (8,400.00) (6,720.00) (5,295.04) Property Appraiser Fees (5,500.00) (4,400.00) - Reserves (2 1/2/ months for Operations) (58,800.00) (58,800.00) (58,800.00) Reserves for Equipment (27,500.00) (27,500.00) (27,500.00) Revenue Reserve (14,400.00) - Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expi (198,200.00) (181,020.00) (175,195.04) Net Profit /(Loss) 11,760.55 18,529.84 1,424.96 4,400.00 5,824.96 63,016.00 87,370.80 24,354.80 Page 2 of 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 29, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 388,152.80 Interest Receivable - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 388,152.80 $ 388,152.80 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (522.50) $ (3,018.50) (3,541.00) (423,553.80) 38,942.00 (384,611.80) $ (388,152.80) Page 1 of 1 A L, 1 7 R 1 "l 161 ,1 Al2�' Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Fund 111 Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Other Equipment Repairs Minor Operating Other Operating Supplies Total Clam Bay Restoration Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem lit 1Al2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 29, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ - 35,000.00 33,775.00 33,743.94 $ (31.06) 35,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 $ - 1,300.00 1,100.00 2,015.02 $ 915.02 506,519.17 505,094.17 505,978.13 (220,674.80) 390.20 883.96 $ 102,943.75 $ 9,200.00 $ 4,956.25 $ 4,243.75 137,390.00 49,200.00 33,548.40 $ 15,651.60 485.42 400.00 842.50 $ (442.50) 41800.00 4,000.00 - $ 4,000.00 1,000.00 800.00 - $ 800.00 246,619.17 63,600.00 39,347.15 24,252.85 11,300.00 9,400.00 4,046.25 5,353.75 25,000.00 - - - 36,300.00 9,400.00 4,046.25 5,353.75 282,919.17 73,000.00 43,393.40 29,606.60 Operating Profit /(Loss) 2231600.00 432,094.17 462,584.73 30,490.56 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer to Fund 322 (65,000.00) (65,000.00) (65,000.00) - Tax Collector Fees (1,100.00) (715.00) (674.80) 40.20 Property Appraiser Fees (700.00) (350.00) - 350.00 Revenue Reserve (1,800.00) - - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) (155,000.00) (155,000.00) (155,000.00) - Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expc (223,600.00) (221,065.00) (220,674.80) 390.20 Net Profit /(Loss) $ (0.00) $ 211,029.17 $ 241,909.93 $ 30,100.36 Page 1 of 1 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 29, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets $ 2,433,622.34 Liabilities and Fund Balance Page 1 of 1 452.36 (1,960,586.75) (473,487.95) 161 l Al2 1 . 2,433,622.34 $ 2,433,622.34 452.36 (2,434,074.70) $ (2,433,622.34) Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: 161 1 Al2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 29, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Licenses and Permits Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 121,600.00 117,344.00 117,236.16 $ 7,700.00 5,100.00 11,164.89 $ (107.84) 6,064.89 2,073,287.30 2,066,431.30 2,072,388.35 5,957.05 $ 113,628.45 $ - $ 39,281.13 $ (39,281.13) 2,354,658.85 14,483.58 $ (14,483.58) 2,930.40 $ (2,930.40) - - 910.00 $ (910.00) 2,468,287.30 - 53,764.71 (53,764.71) Transfer from Fund 109 General $ 259,200.00 $ 259,200.00 $ 259,200.00 $ - Transfer from Fund 320 Clam Bay 65,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 $ - Transfer from Fund 778 Street Lighting 83,600.00 83,600.00 83,600.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees (3,800.00) (3,040.00) (2,344.45) $ 695.55 Property Appraiser Fees (2,500.00) (2,000.00) - $ 2,000.00 Reserve for Contingencies (100.00) (100.00) - $ 100.00 Revenue Reserve (6,400.00) - - $ - Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditure! 395,000.00 402,660.00 405,455.55 $ 2,795.55 Net Profit /(Loss) (0.00) 2,469,091.30 2,424,079.19 (45,012.11) Page 1 of 1 16 '1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection South District Office P.O. Box 2S49 Fort Myers. FL 33902 -2S49 Permittee/Authorized Entity: Collier County Board of County Commissioners c/o Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel oak Drive ul N Ub Naples, Florida, 34108, Collier C%4 S2 iE N u W ;n V 11J � Lt o Clam Bay Restoration and Long Term Management a Authorized Agent: Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 ., Al2" Environmental Resource Permit State -owned Submerged Lands Authorization - Granted t hariit• C ski (Imcllim Jeff Kottkamj, It (lcwei 11411 Mitm A Dim tit( IdatV U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Authorization - Separate Corps Authorization Required Permit No.: 11-0128463-005 Permit Issuance Date: December 17, 2010 Permit Construction Phase Expiration Date: December 17, 2015 CORRECTED LETTER b .1 r-I '-1 a N f� CJ c`! 11 C' CA CA 0 161 1 Al2' Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and State -owned Submerged Lands Authorization Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit No: 11 -0128463-005 AUTHORIZATIONS Clam Bay Restoration and Long Term Management Project Description The permittee is authorized to continue to perform maintenance activities in the Clam Bay system originally permitted by permit number 11 -0128463- 001 -JC. The project is to continue to improve the hydrodynamics of the Clam Bay ecosystem by conducting activities specified by the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP) approved in conjunction with the previous permit. Proposed activities include: • Manual cleaning on an as needed basis of the interior flushing channels to maintain design depths; • Maintenance of a created network of small flushing channels within the mangrove forest; and • Periodic mangrove trimming along the canoe trail, berm, and boardwalks to maintain canoe and kayak access, pedestrian access and storm water areas within Clam Bay, a Class 11 waters not approved for shellfish harvesting. Authorized activities are depicted on the attached exhibits. The project described above may be conducted only in accordance with the terms, conditions and attachments contained in this permit. The issuance of this permit does not infer, nor guarantee, nor imply that future permits or modifications will be granted by the Department. Please be advised that this permit does not constitute the issuance of a NPDES Stormwater Permit or acceptance of an NPDES Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. For additional information regarding this matter please contact the NPDES Stormwater Notices Center toll free at (866) 336 -6312 or Department personnel in Tallahassee at (850) 245 -7522. State -owned Submerged Lands Authorization The activity is located on submerged lands owned by the State of Florida. It therefore also requires authorization, from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution, and Sections 253.002 Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Chapter 258, F.S. Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11-0128463-005 Page 1 of 14 a 4 M '-I G c'd CA CA ti 161 1. Al2- As staff to the Board of Trustees, the Department has determined that the activity qualifies for a Letter of Consent, as long as the work performed is located within the boundaries as described herein and is consistent with the terms and conditions herein. Federal Authorization A copy of this permit has been sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). The USACE may require a separate permit. Failure to obtain any required federal permits prior to construction could subject you to enforcement action by that agency. Coastal Zone Management This permit also constitutes a finding of consistency with Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program, as required by Section 307 of the Coastal Management Act. Water Qualily Certification This permit constitutes certification of compliance with state water quality standards under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341. Other Authorizations You are advised that authorizations or permits for this project may be required by other federal, state or local entities including but not limited to local governments and homeowner's associations. This permit does not relieve you from the requirements to obtain all other required permits or authorizations. In addition, you are advised that your project may require additional authorizations or permits from the municipality /county in which the project is located. Please be sure to contact the local county building and environmental department to obtain these required authorizations. PROJECT LOCATION The activities authorized by this Permit and state -owned submerged lands authorization are located in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area, with on- site management offices located at 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605, Naples, Florida 34108 (folio 00239480006, Class II Waters not approved for shellfish harvesting, Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4, 5, 8 & 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. PERMIT STATE -OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS CONDITIONS The activities described herein must be conducted in accordance with: • The Specific Conditions The General Conditions • The General Consent Conditions • The limits, conditions and locations of work shown in the attached drawings • The term limits of this authorization Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 Page 2 of 14 s a r-, 0 ra n 161,1 Al2-1 You are advised to read and understand these conditions and drawings prior to commencing the authorized activities, and to ensure the work is conducted in conformance with all the terms, conditions, and drawings. if you are utilizing a contractor, the contractor also should read and understand these conditions and drawings prior to commencing the authorized activities. Failure to comply with these conditions, including any mitigation requirements, shall constitute grounds for revocation of the Permit and appropriate enforcement action by the Department. Operation of the facility is not authorized except when determined to be in conformance with all applicable rules and this permit /certification /authorization and state -owned submerged lands authorization, as specifically described above. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 1. At least 30 day prior to each construction event, the permittee shall identify a qualified biologist/ wetland scientist(s) familiar with the ecosystems of Florida, and submit their qualifications to the Department, to serve as the supervising scientist that oversees the biological components of this restoration project and will halt construction if he /she suspects that violations of the permit have occurred. 2. All required submittals such as certifications, monitoring reports, notifications, etc., shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South District Office, P.O. Box 2549, Fort Myers, FL 33902 -2549. All submittals shall include the project name and indicated permit number when referring to this project. Note: In the event of an emergency, the Permittee should contact the Department by calling (800)320 -0519. During normal business hours, the permittee should call (239)332 -6975. 3. Construction and operation of the project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: a. Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C. - Surface Waters: Minimum Criteria, General Criteria; and b. Rule 62- 302.530, F.A.C. - Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria - Class 11 Waters; 4. If at any time during construction of the permitted facility, unforeseen construction impacts to adjacent surface waters occur, or complications preventing compliance with the specifications of this permit arise, the Permittee shall immediately cease work and notify the Department's South District Office, SLERP Section, P.O. Box 2549, Fort Myers Florida 33902-2549,2,39-332-6975. The Permittee shall submit an alternate construction plan to the Department to allow construction to proceed without Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 Page 3 of 14 U d Q V C•I CJ V 161 1 Al2 additional impact or non - compliance. Work shall not continue until the Department has approved the modification in writing. Substantial changes from the permitted activities may require formal review and modification of this permit. 5. Turbidity barriers shall be installed and maintained at all locations where the possibility of transferring suspended solids into surface waters exists due to the authorized work, Turbidity barriers shall remain in place at all locations and be properly maintained until construction is completed and soils are stabilized and vegetation has been established. All practices shall be in accordance with the guidelines and specifications described in the State of Florida Erosion and Sedi►nent Control Designer and Reviewer Manual, FDOT, FDEP (2007),_available on the Department's website at httl2: // www.dep.state.fl.us/ water /noni2oint/ does /erosion/ erosion-insMtors- manual.pdf. Following the completion of construction, the Permittee shall be responsible for the removal of the turbidity barriers and shall correct any erosion or shoaling that has the potential to cause adverse impacts to wetlands or surface waters. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 6. All work is to be conducted by hand. Access to the flushing channels shall be accomplished by a small boat or on foot. Any blockage to the flushing channels shall be cleared by hand with material being broadcast out to the sides of the flushing channels. Any new channels to be dug shall be dug by hand and their location identified on a site plan of the area. At no time shall any blasting occur to create new flushing channels. 7. All mangrove trimming activities are to be supervised by the qualified biologist/ wetlands scientist(s) described in Specific Condition 1 of this permit. All trimming shall be done in accordance with Sections 403.9321403.9333, F.S. 8. All mangrove trimming shall be done on an as needed basis and shall be conducted by hand from the existing boardwalks or from a small boat only in areas that need to be trimmed in order to maintain access through the existing canoe trail or boardwalks. Mangrove trimming procedures must be followed pursuant to Sections 403.9327, F.S. No trimming of mangroves to create or enhance views within this ecosystem is permitted. No alteration, removal or defoliation is permitted. In the event that a tree has fallen and completely blocked the waterway, the tree and all limbs shall be removed to maintain navigational access. All trimmed debris shall be removed from the site and disposed of in uplands. 9. All exotic and invasive vegetation, including Brazilian pepper (Scldnus terebintldfolius), punk tree (Melaleuca quinquenemia), Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), vines, and other exotic and invasive vegetation listed on the latest Category 1 and Category 2 list of the Florida Exotic Pest Plan Council shall be removed from the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area. Maintenance shall be conducted in Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11-0128463-005 Page 4 of 14 0 a e r-, n cv G7 161 1 Al2-'l accordance with the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan amended on July 8, 1998 (CBRMP) to ensure that the area is maintained free from Category 1 and Category 2 exotic and invasive vegetation (as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council at the time of permit issuance). Maintenance in perpetuity shall also ensure that the area maintains the species and coverage of native, desirable vegetation specified in the permit. Coverage of exotic and invasive plant species shall not exceed 1 % of total cover between maintenance activities. 10. Within seven (7) days of completion of the authorized activities within each work area (including the mangrove trimming, interior channel excavations, and removal of nuisance exotic vegetation) throughout the Clam Bay ecosystem, the contracted crews shall return to each work area and remove the trimmed branches and trees (dead trees approved for removal) greater than 1 inch in diameter to appropriate upland locations. The crews shall also side cast spoil material in such a manner as to avoid creation of a berm or pile. The spoil shall be leveled and distributed such that there is no impediment to sheet flow and no created uplands as a result of the project. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MONITORING 11. Water Quality Monitoring: The permittee shall implement a long -term water quality monitoring program, to be conducted on a quarterly basis, track trends and patterns within the Clam Bay ecosystem. Monitoring stations established by the previous permit throughout Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay shall continue to be monitored and record the following parameters. All measurements and analyses for each parameter shall be made using approved methods providing a PQL (Practical Quantification Limit) below the water quality standard for the parameter as listed in Rule 62 -302, F.A.C.: Parameter (a) Dissolved Oxygen -mg /l (2 samples intervals through a 24 hour period) (b) TKN, NO2-N, NO.3-N, (c) Specific Conductivity (d) Chlorophyll (e) Phosphorus (f) Pheophytin (g) PH (h) Suspended solids taken diel per quarter samples 4 hour Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11 -012616..3 -005 Page 5 of 14 r O C} a M r-i 0 N N 161 1 Al2' Reporting All data shall be submitted with the documents containing the following information: (1) permit application number; (2) dates of sampling; and analysis; (3) a statement describing the methods used in collection, handling, storage and analysis of the samples; (4) a map indicating the sampling locations; (5) a statement by the individual responsible for implementation of the sampling program concerning the authenticity, precision, limits of detection and accuracy of the data; and (6) documentation that the laboratory performing the sampling and analyses has an approved quality assurance plan on file with DEP. Monitoring reports shall also include the following information for each sample that is taken: (a) time of day samples taken; (b) water temperature ( °C); (c) salinity (ppt); (d) depth of water body; (e) depth of sample; (f) antecedent weather conditions; (g) tidal stage and direction of flow; (h) wind direction and velocity; W sedimentation; (j) rainfall; (k) other influential flows, such as groundwater and storm water flows; (1) identification of the sample location which corresponds to the sample location number shown on the sampling location map; (m) the appropriate Rule 62 -302, F.A.C., standard for the parameter being measured; and (n) the detection limit for the parameter being measured. In addition to the above, all data shall be reported in a table (or tables) which clearly list(s) the results of parameters measured at each location, and the information described above. 12. Based on the data previously collected and on going water quality monitoring analyzed in conjunction with the permitted activities, should the data continue to show a correlation between elevated nutrient levels in the Clam Bay ecosystem and the golf course and development fertilization schedule, a remediation plan must be prepared to address this issue within 6 months of submittal of the second monitoring report. This Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11-0128463-W5 Page 6of14 O a a a 0 N 161 1 A121� plan should include detailed descriptions of the problem and the actions proposed to address the problem, maps, activities to be conducted and the methods used to conduct those activities. The intent of the plan is to reduce discharge of nutrients into the system and avoid the elevated nutrient levels, through modified management techniques, best management practices, etc. In the event that the continued monitoring reveals other water quality concerns, or impacts to the habitat and /or productivity of the preserve area, the Permittee shall submit a plan of remediation along with the required monitoring reports. 13. Biological Monitoring a. The permittee shall provide flight dated aerial photography of the Clam Bay ecosystem annually. The aerials shall be taken during July of each year and submitted to the Department annually for the duration of the permit. The aerials must be color, vertical aerial photographs, controlled and rectified at a scale appropriate for post- production digitalization and a scale sufficient to delineate differing habitat zones and dominant species within each zone. The flight line shall include all of the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area and the nearshore zone to at least 400 feet offshore (from the mean high water line); b. As concurrently as possible with taking the aerial photographs, ground- truthing activities shall be conducted in areas of special concern within the Clam Bay Ecosystem, including areas of widespread dead and dying mangroves, Inner, Upper and Outer Clam Bays, the areas receiving water discharges from the uplands, and areas contiguous with the main pass. The ground- truthing activities shall include the use of the latest accepted scientific methods to survey the types of habitats of concern within the Clam Bay ecosystem, including mangrove and seagrass dominated habitats. These surveys shall include a listing of species present, percent coverage species, size ranges and averages, and overall health/ biological trends for each fixed quadrat, transect, or plot studied. These surveys and any associated drawings/ mapping shall be conducted prior to conducting the maintenance activities once each year (in July) thereafter for the life of the permit. c. Annual biological monitoring reports (BMRs) shall be submitted beginning one year following permit issuance. The first annual BMR shall contain a summary of the result of the monitoring and restoration actions from the previous permit as well as the time -zero conditions of the Clam Bay ecosystem existing prior to commencement of the permitted activities and a progress report of the activities conducted since permit issuance. Thereafter, each BMR shall contain a progress report of the activities completed since the previous BMR and all data collected pursuant to a. and b. above. Each BMR shall include graphical representation and overlays of the collected data on computer generated drawings of the aerials, and ground -level color panoramic photos of each study area at fixed stations. The annual BMRs shall also contain an analysis of the collected data and make Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 Page 7 of 14 161 1 0 1 Al2 conclusions and recommendations concerning the impacts to permitted activities have had on the Clam Bay ecosystem based on the analysis of the data collected, including the biological monitoring data and the water quality data monitoring data as well as any tidal or hydrological information collected as part of the permitted activities. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MANATEE AND MARINE TURTLE CONDITIONS 14. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence of marine turtles, manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with or injury to marine turtles and manatees. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing marine turtles or manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. 15. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle Speed/ No Wake" at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four -foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible. 16. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which marine turtles or manatees cannot become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid marine turtle or manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede marine turtle or manatee movement. 17. All on -site project personnel are responsible for observing water- related activities for the presence of marine turtles or manatees. All in -water operations, including vessels, must be shutdown if a marine turtle(s) or manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the marine turtle(s) or manatee(s) has moved beyond the 50 -foot radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the marine turtle(s) or manatee(s) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving. 18. Any collision with or injury to a marine turtle or manatee shall be reported immediately to the FWC Hotline at 14888- 4t14-FWCC. Collision and /or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1 -904- 731 -3336) for north Florida or Vero Beach (1- 772 - 562 -3909) for south Florida. 19. Temporary signs concerning marine turtles and manatees shall be posted prior to a. and during all in -water project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project. Awareness signs that have already been approved for this use by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) must be Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 o Permit No: 11- 012846.3-005 Page 8 of 14 r_, a 0 tV CA rq 0 16 VA ki used (see MyFWC.com). One sign which reads Caution: Boaters must be posted. A second sign measuring at least 81/2" by 11" explaining the requirements for "Idle Speed/ No Wake" and the shut -down of in -water operations must be posted in a location prominently visible to all personnel engaged in water - related activities. GENERAL CONDITIONS: H12� 1. All activities authorized by this permit shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications and performance criteria as approved by this permit. Any deviation from the permitted activity and the conditions for undertaking that activity shall constitute a violation of this permit and a violation of Part IV of Chapter 373, (F.S.). 2. This permit or a copy thereof, complete with all conditions, attachments, exhibits, and modifications shall be kept at the work site of the permitted activity. The complete permit shall be available for review at the work site upon request by the Department staff. The permittee shall require the contractor to review the complete permit prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this permit. 3. Activities approved by this permit shall be conducted in a manner which does not cause violations of state water quality standards. The permittee shall implement best management practices for erosion and pollution control to prevent violations of state water quality standards. Temporary erosion control shall be implemented prior to and during construction and permanent control measures shall be completed within seven (7) days of any construction activity. Turbidity barriers shall be installed and maintained at all locations where the possibility of transferring suspended solids into the receiving water -body exists due to the permitted work. Turbidity barriers shall remain in place at all locations until construction is completed and soils are stabilized and vegetation has been established. All practices shall be in accordance with the guidelines and specifications described in Chapter Six of the Florida Land Development Manual; A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (Department of Environmental Regulation, 1988), unless a project - specific erosion and sediment control plan is approved as part of the permit. Thereafter, the permittee shall be responsible for the removal of the barriers. The permittee shall correct any erosion or shoaling that causes adverse impacts to the water resources. 4. The permittee shall notify the Department of the anticipated construction start date within thirty (30) days of the date that this permit is issued. At least forty -eight (48) hours prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Department an "Environmental Resource Permit Construction Commencement" notice (Form No. 62-,343.900(3), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)) indicating the actual start date and expected completion date. Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11 -0128463-005 Page 9 of 14 H JI 0 a 0 N 0 161 1 Al2" 5. When the duration of construction will exceed one year, the permittee shall submit construction status reports to the Department on an annual basis utilizing an "Annual Status Report Form" (Form No. 62- 343.900(4), F.A.C.). Status Report Forms shall be submitted the following June of each year. 6. Within thirty (30) days after completion of construction of the permitted activity, the permittee shall submit a written statement of completion and certification by a registered professional engineer or other appropriate individual as authorized by law utilizing the supplied "Environmental Resource Permit As -Built Certification by a Registered Professional" (Form No. 62- 343.900(5), F.A.C.). The Statement of completion and certification shall be based on on -site observation of construction or review of as- built drawings for the purpose of determining if the work was completed in compliance with permitted plans and specifications. This submittal shall serve to notify the Department that the system is ready for inspection. Additionally, if deviations from the approved drawings are discovered during the certification process, the certification must be accompanied by a copy of the approved permit drawings with deviations note. Both the original and revised specifications must be clearly shown. The plans must be clearly labeled as "as- built" or "record" drawing. All surveyed dimensions and elevations shall be certified by a registered surveyor. 7. The operation phase of this permit shall not become effective; until the permittee has complied with the requirements of condition number six (6) above, has submitted a "Request for Transfer of Environmental Resource Permit Construction Phase to Operation Phase" (Form 62- 343.900(7), F.A.C.); the Department determines the system to be in compliance with the permitted plans and specifications; and the entity approved by the Department in accordance with Sections 9.0 and 10.0 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District — August 1995, accepts responsibility for operation and maintenance of the system. The permit shall not be transferred to such approved operation and maintenance entity until the operation phase of the permit becomes effective. Following inspection and approval of the permitted system by the Department, the permittee shall initiate transfer of permit to the approved responsible operation entity if different from the permittee. Until the permit is transferred pursuant to Rule 62-343.110(1) (d), F.A.C., the permittee shall be liable for compliance with the terms of the permit. 8. Each phase or independent portion of the permitted system must be completed in accordance with the permitted plans and permit conditions prior to the initiation of the permitted use of site infrastructure located within the area served by that portion or phase of the system. Each phase or independent portion of the system must be completed in accordance with the permitted plans and permit conditions prior to transfer of responsibility for operation and maintenance of the phase or portion of the system to a local government or other responsible entity. Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11 -0128463 -005 Page 10 of 14 0 N 161 1 Al2'1 9. For those systems that will be operated or maintained by an entity that will require an easement or deed restriction in order to enable that entity to operate or maintain the system in conformance with this permit, such easement or deed restriction must be recorded in the public records and submitted to the Department along with any other final operation and maintenance documents required by Sections 9.0 and 10.0 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District— August 1995, prior to lot or unit sales or prior to lot or unit sales or prior to the completion of the system, whichever occurs first. Other documents concerning the establishment and authority of the operation entity must be filed with the Secretary of State where appropriate. For those systems which are proposed to be maintained by the county or municipal entities, final operation and maintenance documents must be received by the Department when maintenance and operation of the system is accepted by the local government entity. Failure to submit the appropriate final documents will result in the permittee remaining liable for carrying out maintenance and operation of the permitted system and any other permit conditions. 10. Should any other regulatory agency require changes to the permitted system, the permittee shall notify the Department in writing of the changes prior to implementation so that a determination can be made whether a permit modification is required. 11. This permit does not eliminate the necessity to obtain any required federal, state, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any activity approved by this permit. This permit does not convey to the permittee or create in the permittee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the permittee, or convey any rights or privileges other than those specified in the permit and Chapter 40E4 or Chapter 40E40, F.A.C. 12. The permittee is hereby advised that Section 253.77, F.S. states that a person may not commence any excavation, construction, or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, the title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund without obtaining the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. Therefore, the permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary authorization from the Board of Trustees prior to commencing activity on sovereignty lands or other state owned lands. 13. The permittee is advised that the rules of the South Florida Water Management District require the permittee to obtain a water use permit from the South Florida Water management District prior to construction dewatering, unless the work qualifies for a general permit pursuant to Rule 40E- 20.302 (4), F.A.C., also known as the "No Notice' rule. Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 Page 11 of 14 a a N CA 16 1 'g Al2" 14. The permittee shall hold and save the Department harmless from any and all damages, claims or liabilities which may arise by reason of the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, abandonment or use of any system authorized by this permit. 15. Any delineation of the extent of a wetland or other surface water submitted as part of the permit application, including plans or other supporting documentation, shall not be considered binding unless a specific condition of this permit or a formal determination under Section 373 .421(2). F.S., provides otherwise. 16. The permittee shall notify the Department in writing within 30 days of any sale, conveyance, or other transfer of ownership or control of a permitted system or the real property on which the permitted system is located. All transfers of ownership or transfers of a permit are subject to the requirements of Rule 62- 343.130, F.A.C. The permittee transferring the permit shall remain liable for corrective actions that may be required as a result of any violations prior to the sale, conveyance or other transfer of the system. 17. Upon reasonable notice to the permittee, Department authorized staff with proper identification shall have permission to enter, inspect, sample and test the system to insure conformity with the plans and specifications approved by the permit. 18. If historical or archaeological artifacts are discovered at any time on the project site, the permittee shall immediately notify the appropriate Department office. The permittee shall immediately notify the Department in writing of and previously submitted information that is later discovered to be inaccurate. GENERAL CONSENT CONDITIONS Chapter 18- 21.00407 , F.A.C., General Conditions for Authorizations: 1. Authorizations are valid only for the specified activity or use. Any unauthorized deviation from the specified activity or use and the conditions for undertaking that activity or use shall constitute a violation. Violation of the authorization shall result in suspension or revocation of the grantee's use of the sovereignty submerged land unless cured to the satisfaction of the Board. 2. Authorizations convey no title to sovereignty submerged land or water column, nor do they constitute recognition or acknowledgment of any other person's title to such land or water. Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11-012840-005 Page 12 of 14 0 LO N 1 161 1 t , Al2" 3. Authorizations may be modified, suspended or revoked in accordance with their terms or the remedies provided in Sections 253.04 and 258.46, F.S., or Chapter 18- 14, F.A.C. 4. Structures or activities shall be constructed and used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources. 5. Construction, use, or operation of the structure or activity shall not adversely affect any species which is endangered, threatened or of special concern, as listed in Rules 68A-27.003,68A-27.004, and 68A- 27.005, F.A.C. 6. Structures or activities shall not unreasonably interfere with riparian rights. When a court of competent jurisdiction determines that riparian rights have been unlawfully affected, the structure or activity shall be modified in accordance with the court's decision. 7. Structures or activities shall not create a navigational hazard. 8. Structures shall be maintained in a functional condition and shall be repaired or removed if they become dilapidated to such an extent that they are no longer functional. This shall not be construed to prohibit the repair or replacement subject to the provisions of Rule 18- 21.005, F.A.C., within one year, of a structure damaged in a discrete event such as a storm, flood, accident, or fire. 9. Structures or activities shall be constructed, operated, and maintained solely for water dependent purposes, or for non -water dependent activities authorized under paragraph 18- 21.004(1)(g), F.A.C., or any other applicable law. NOTICE OF RIGHTS This Permit is hereby final unless a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is timely filed under Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.) as provided below. The procedures for petitioning for a hearing are set forth below. Mediation is not available. A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received by the clerk) in the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000. Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December l7, 2015 Permit No: 11-0128463-005 Page 13 of 14 In ry C•1 1 CA Q 161 1 Al2" Because the administrative hearing process is designed to re- determine final agency action on the application, the filing of a petition for an administrative hearing may result in a modification of the permit or even a denial of the application. If a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing or request for an extension of time to file a petition is timely filed, this permit automatically becomes only proposed agency action on the application, subject to the result of the administrative review process. Accordingly, the applicant is advised not to commence construction or other activities under this permit until the deadlines noted below for filing a petition for an administrative hearing, or request for an extension of time has expired. Under Rule 62- 110.106(4), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may also request an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing. The Department may, for good cause shown, grant the request for an extension of time. Requests for extension of time must be filed with the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000, before the applicable deadline. A timely request for extension of time shall toll the running of the time period for filing a petition until the request is acted upon. If a request is filed late, the Department may still grant it upon a motion by the requesting party showing that the failure to file a request for an extension of time before the deadline was the result of excusable neglect. In the event that a timely and sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is filed, other persons whose substantial interests will be affected by the outcome of the administrative process have the right to petition to intervene in the proceeding. Any intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-106.205, F.A.C. In accordance with Rule 62- 110.106(3) F.A.C., petitions for an administrative hearing by the applicant must be filed within 14 days of receipt of this written notice. Petitions filed by any persons other than the applicant, and other than those entitled to written notice under section 120.60(3) of the Florida Statutes must be filed within 14 days of publication of the notice or within 14 days of receipt of the written notice, whichever occurs first. Under section 120.60(3) of the Florida Statutes, however, any person who has asked the Department for notice of agency action may file a petition within 14 days of receipt of such notice, regardless of the date of publication. The petitioner shall mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition for an administrative hearing within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11 -0128463 -005 Page 14 of 14 L, JI0 (V i c> 161 11 Al2-1. that person's right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes. A petition that disputes the material facts on which the Department's action is based must contain the following information: (a) The name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known; (b) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; the name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner's representative, if any, which shall be the address for service purposes during the course of the proceeding; - • and an explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interests are or will be affected by the agency determination; (c) A statement of when and how the petitioner received notice of the agency decision; (d) A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; (e) A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; and (f) A statement of the specific rules or statutes that the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; (g) A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action. A petition that does not dispute the material facts on which the Department's action is based shall state that no such facts are in dispute and otherwise shall contain the same information as set forth above, as required by Rule 28- 106301, F.A.C. Under Sections 120.569(2)(c) and (d), F.S., a petition for administrative hearing must be dismissed by the agency if the petition does not substantially comply with the above requirements or is untimely filed. This action is final and effective on the d.ate filed with the Clerk of the Department unless a petition is filed in accordance with the above. Upon the timely filing of a petition this order will not be effective until further order of the Department. This permit constitutes an order of the Department. The applicant has the right to seek judicial review of the order under Section 120.68, F.S., by the filing of a notice of appeal under Rule 9.110 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure with the Clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 3,900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399 -3000; and by filing a copy of the notice of appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate district court of appeal. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date when the final order is Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 201.5 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 Page 15of14 r 4 f+ n N 161 1 Al2" filed with the Clerk of the Department. The applicant, or any party within the meaning of Section 373.114(1)(a), F.S., may also seek appellate review of this order before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission under Section 373.114(1), F.S. Requests for review before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission and served on the Department within 20 days from the date when the final order is filed with the Clerk of the Department. Executed in Lee County, Florida. JMI /ap Attachments: Project Drawings and Design Specs., 10 pages Commencement notice /62- 343.900(3) Annual status report /62- 343.900(4) As -built certification /62- 343.900(5) Transfer construction to operation phase/ 62- 343.9000 Copies furnished to: DEP, Office of General Counsel U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Log # 12534 FWC, Imperiled Species Management Section Collier County Property Appraiser Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. File STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -,�'7�--_. J Jon A Iglehart District Director South District Office CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that this permit and authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands, including all copies, were mailed before the close of business on �a, - •vu <- :) t, !3- C t 0 , to the above listed persons. FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date, under 120.520 of the Florida Statutes, with the designated Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Clerk Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2015 Permit No: 11 -012£3463 -005 Page 16 of 14 161 '.1 Al2"' Florida Department of ` "` "i" `flof Environmental Protection It'll Kolikallip South District OFticc It t lover nor P.O. Boa 2549 Fort Myers, FL 33902 -2549 Mimi t) "�" SCtCC "tafj" Permittee/Authorized Entity. Collier County Board of County Commissioners RECEIVED c/o Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive DEC 20 2W Naples, Florida, 34108, Collier PIMA my Clam Bay Restoration and Long Term Management Authorized Agent: Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 Environmental Resource Permit State -owned Submerged Lands Authorization - Granted U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Authorization - Separate Corps Authorization Required Permit No.: 11-0128463-005 Permit Issuance Date: December 17, 2010 Permit Construction Phase Expiration Date: December 17, 2015 a Q a M rl �-i r-1 O CV U 161 1, Al2" Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and State - owned Submerged Lands Authorization Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit No: 11-0128463-005 AUTHORIZATIONS Clam Bay Restoration and Long Term Management Project DescriRtion The permittee is authorized to continue to perform maintenance activities in the Clam Bay system originally permitted by permit number 11- 012$463- 001 -JC. The project is to continue to improve the hydrodynamics of the Clam Bay ecosystem by conducting activities specified by the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP) approved in conjunction with the previous permit. Proposed activities include: • Manual cleaning on an as needed basis of the interior flushing channels to maintain design depths; • Maintenance of a created network of small flushing channels within the mangrove forest; and • Periodic mangrove trimming along the canoe trail, berm, and boardwalks to maintain canoe and kayak access, pedestrian access and storm water areas within Clam Bay, a Class II waters not approved for shellfish harvesting. Authorized activities are depicted on the attached exhibits. The project described above may be conducted only in accordance with the terms, conditions and attachments contained in this permit. The issuance of this permit does not infer, nor guarantee, nor imply that future permits or modifications will be granted by the Department. Please be advised that this permit does not constitute the issuance of a NPDES Stormwater Permit or acceptance of an NPDES Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. For additional information regarding this matter please contact the NPDES Stormwater Notices Center toll free at (866) 336 -6312 or Department personnel in Tallahassee at (850) 245 -7522. State -owned Submerged Lands Authorization The activity is located on submerged lands owned by the State of Florida. It therefore also requires authorization, from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution, and Sections 253.002 Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Chapter 258, F.S. a M 11ermittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 tV ' Page 1 of 14 0 N 0 a L, JI0 N 0 161 1 .112a As staff to the Board of Trustees, the Department has determined that the activity qualifies for a Letter of Consent, as long as the work performed is located within the boundaries as described herein and is consistent with the terms and conditions herein. Federal Authorization A copy of this permit has been sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). The USACE may require a separate permit. Failure to obtain any required federal permits prior to construction could subject you to enforcement action by that agency. Coastal Zone Management This permit also constitutes a finding of consistency with Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program, as required by Section 307 of the Coastal Management Act. Water Quality Certification This permit constitutes certification of compliance with state water quality standards under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341. Other Authorizations You are advised that authorizations or permits for this project may be required by other federal, state or local entities including but not limited to local governments and homeowner's associations. This permit does not relieve you from the requirements to obtain all other required permits or authorizations. In addition, you are advised that your project may require additional authorizations or permits from the municipality/county in which the project is located. Please be sure to contact the local county building and environmental department to obtain these required authorizations. PROJECT LOCATION The activities authorized by this Permit and state -owned submerged lands authorization are located in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area, with on- site management offices located at 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605, Naples, Florida 34108 (folio 00239480006, Class II Waters not approved for shellfish harvesting, Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4, 5, 8 & 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. PERMIT STATE -OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS CONDITIONS The activities described herein must be conducted in accordance with: • The Specific Conditions • The General Conditions • The General Consent Conditions • The limits, conditions and locations of work shown in the attached drawings • The term limits of this authorization Permittee.: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 Page 2 of 14 161 1 Al2 You are advised to read and understand these conditions and drawings prior to commencing the authorized activities, and to ensure the work is conducted in conformance with all the terms, conditions, and drawings. If you are utilizing a contractor, the contractor also should read and understand these conditions and drawings prior to commencing the authorized activities. Failure to comply with these conditions, including any mitigation requirements, shall constitute grounds for revocation of the Permit and appropriate enforcement action by the Department. Operation of the facility is not authorized except when determined to be in conformance with all applicable rules and this permit /certification /authorization and state -owned submerged lands authorization, as specifically described above. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 1. At least 30 day prior to each construction event, the permittee shall identify a qualified biologist/ wetland scientist(s) familiar with the ecosystems of Florida, and submit their qualifications to the Department, to serve as the supervising scientist that oversees the biological components of this restoration project and will halt construction if he /she suspects that violations of the permit have occurred. 2. All required submittals such as certifications, monitoring reports, notifications, etc., shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South District Office, P.O. Box 2549, Fort Myers, FL 33902 -2549. All submittals shall include the project name and indicated permit number when referring to this project. Note: In the event of an emergency, the Permittee should contact the Department by calling (800)320 -0519. During normal business hours, the permittee should call (239)332 -6975. 3. Construction and operation of the project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: a. Rule 62:302.500, F.A.C. - Surface Waters: Minimum Criteria, General Criteria; and b. Rule 62- 302.530, F.A.C. - Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria - Class 1I Waters; 4. If at any time during construction of the permitted facility, unforeseen construction impacts to adjacent surface waters occur, or complications preventing compliance with the specifications of this permit arise, the Permittee shall immediately cease work and notify the Department's South District Office, SLERP Section, P.O. Box 2549, Fort Myers Florida 33902 -2549, 239 -332 -6975. The Permittee shall submit an alternate construction plan to the Department to allow construction to proceed without Permittee: Collier County DOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 o Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 w Page 3 of 14 G C4 CJ ko a N 1 CA 161 j„ Al2 additional impact or non - compliance. Work shall not continue until the Department has approved the modification in writing. Substantial changes from the permitted activities may require formal review and modification of this permit. 5. Turbidity barriers shall be installed and maintained at all locations where the possibility of transferring suspended solids into surface waters exists due to the authorized work. Turbidity barriers shall remain in place at all locations and be properly maintained until construction is completed and soils are stabilized and vegetation has been established. All practices shall be in accordance with the guidelines and specifications described in the State of Florida Erosion and Sedionent Control Designer and Revierwr Manual, FDOT, FDEP (2007), available on the Department's website at http: / /www.dep.state.fl.us/ water/ nonpoint/ does /erosion /erosion- inspectors- manual.pdf. Following the completion of construction, the Permittee shall be responsible for the removal of the turbidity barriers and shall correct any erosion or shoaling that has the potential to cause adverse impacts to wetlands or surface waters. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 6. All work is to be conducted by hand. Access to the flushing channels shall be accomplished by a small boat or on foot. Any blockage to the flushing channels shall be cleared by hand with material being broadcast out to the sides of the flushing channels. Any new channels to be dug shall be dug by hand and their location identified on a site plan of the area. At no time shall any blasting occur to create new flushing channels. 7. All mangrove trimming activities are to be supervised by the qualified biologist/ wetlands scientist(s) described in Specific Condition 1 of this permit. All trimming shall be done in accordance with Sections 403.9321403.9333, F.S. 8. All mangrove trimming shall be done on an as needed basis and shall be conducted by hand from the existing boardwalks or from a small boat only in areas that need to be trimmed in order to maintain access through the existing canoe trail or boardwalks. Mangrove trimming procedures must be followed pursuant to Sections 403.9327, F.S. No trimming of mangroves to create or enhance views within this ecosystem is permitted. No alteration, removal or defoliation is permitted. In the event that a tree has fallen and completely blocked the waterway, the tree and all limbs shall be removed to maintain navigational access. All trimmed debris shall be removed from the site and disposed of in uplands. 9. All exotic and invasive vegetation, including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), punk tree (Melaleuca quinquenen4a), Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), vines, and other exotic and invasive vegetation listed on the latest Category 1 and Category 2 list of the Florida Exotic Pest Plan Council shall be removed from the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area. Maintenance shall be conducted in Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11-012846.3-005 Page 4 of 14 N 4 0 N v 161 1 Al� accordance with the Clam. Bay Restoration and Management Plan amended on July 8, 1998 (CBRMP) to ensure that the area is maintained free from Category 1 and Category 2 exotic and invasive vegetation (as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council at the time of permit issuance). Maintenance in perpetuity shall also ensure that the area maintains the species and coverage of native, desirable vegetation specified in the permit. Coverage of exotic and invasive plant species shall not exceed 1 % of total cover between maintenance activities. 10. Within seven (7) days of completion of the authorized activities within each work area (including the mangrove trimming, interior channel excavations, and removal of nuisance exotic vegetation) throughout the Clam Bay ecosystem, the contracted crews shall return to each work area and remove the trimmed branches and trees (dead trees approved for removal) greater than 1 inch in diameter to appropriate upland locations. The crews shall also side cast spoil material in such a manner as to avoid creation of a berm or pile. The spoil shall be leveled and distributed such that there is no impediment to sheet flow and no created uplands as a result of the project. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MONITORING 11. Water Quality Monitoring: The permittee shall implement a long -term water quality monitoring program, to be conducted on a quarterly basis, track trends and patterns within the Clam Bay ecosystem. Monitoring stations established by the previous permit throughout Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay shall continue to be monitored and record the following parameters. All measurements and analyses for each parameter shall be made using approved methods providing a PQL (Practical Quantification Limit) below the water quality standard for the parameter as listed in Rule 62 -302, F.A.C.: Parameter (a) Dissolved Oxygen -mg/ I (2 samples intervals through a 24 hour period) (b) TKN, NO2-N, NO3 -N, (c) Specific Conductivity (d) Chlorophyll (e) Phosphorus (f) Pheophytin (g) PH (h) Suspended solids taken diel per quarter samples 4 hour Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11-0128463-W5 Page 5 of 14 a 0 LO v 161 1 Al2" 00 k Reporting All data shall be submitted with the documents containing the following information: (1) permit application number; (2) dates of sampling; and analysis, (3) a statement describing the methods used in collection, handling, storage and analysis of the samples; (4) a map indicating the sampling locations; (5) a statement by the individual responsible for implementation of the sampling program concerning the authenticity, precision, limits of detection and accuracy of the data; and (6) documentation that the laboratory performing the sampling and analyses has an approved quality assurance plan on file with DEP. Monitoring reports shall also include the following information for each sample that is taken: (a) time of day samples taken; (b) water temperature ( °C); (c) salinity (ppt); (d) depth of water body; (e) depth of sample; (f) antecedent weather conditions; (g) tidal stage and direction of flow; (h) wind direction and velocity; (i) sedimentation; (j) rainfall; (k) other influential flows, such as groundwater and storm water flows; (1) identification of the sample location which corresponds to the sample location number shown on the sampling location map; (m) the appropriate Rule 62 -302, F.A.C., standard for the parameter being measured; and (n) the detection limit for the parameter being measured. In addition to the above, all data shall be reported in a table (or tables) which clearly list(s) the results of parameters measured at each location, and the information described above. 12. Based on the data previously collected and on going water quality monitoring analyzed in conjunction with the permitted activities, should the data continue to show a correlation between elevated nutrient levels in the Clam Bay ecosystem and the golf course and development fertilization schedule, a remediation plan must be prepared to address this issue within 6 months of submittal of the second monitoring report. This Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No. 11 -012846..3 -005 Page 6 of 14 0 a M ,-1 CJ I N C 161 1 Al2 plan should include detailed descriptions of the problem and the actions proposed to address the problem, maps, activities to be conducted and the methods used to conduct those activities. The intent of the plan is to reduce discharge of nutrients into the system and avoid the elevated nutrient levels, through modified management techniques, best management practices, etc. In the event that the continued monitoring reveals other water quality concerns, or impacts to the habitat and /or productivity of the preserve area, the Permittee shall submit a plan of remediation along with the required monitoring reports. 13. Biological Monitoring a. The permittee shall provide flight dated aerial photography of the Clam Bay ecosystem annually. The aerials shall be taken during July of each year and submitted to the Department annually for the duration of the permit. The aerials must be color, vertical aerial photographs, controlled and rectified at a scale appropriate for post - production digitalization and a scale sufficient to delineate differing habitat zones and dominant species within each zone. The flight line shall include all of the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area and the nearshore zone to at least 400 feet offshore (from the mean high water line); b. As concurrently as possible with taking the aerial photographs, ground - truthing activities shall be conducted in areas of special concern within the Clam Bay Ecosystem, including areas of widespread dead and dying mangroves, Inner, Upper and Outer Clam Bays, the areas receiving water discharges from the uplands, and areas contiguous with the main pass. The ground- truthing activities shall include the use of the latest accepted scientific methods to survey the types of habitats of concern within the Clam Bay ecosystem, including mangrove and seagrass dominated habitats. These surveys shall include a listing of species present, percent coverage species, size ranges and averages, and overall health/ biological trends for each fixed quadrat, transect, or plot studied. These surveys and any associated drawings/ mapping shall be conducted prior to conducting the maintenance activities once each year (in July) thereafter for the life of the permit. c. Annual biological monitoring reports (BMRs) shall be submitted beginning one year following permit issuance. The first annual BMR shall contain a summary of the result of the monitoring and restoration actions from the previous permit as well as the time -zero conditions of the Clam Bay ecosystem existing prior to commencement of the permitted activities and a progress report of the activities conducted since permit issuance. Thereafter, each BMR shall contain a progress report of the activities completed since the previous BMR and all data collected pursuant to a. and b. above. Each BMR shall include graphical representation and overlays of the collected data on computer generated drawings of the aerials, and ground -level color panoramic photos of each study area at fixed stations. The annual BMRs shall also contain an analysis of the collected data and make Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 Page 7 of 14 M rl U 0 16l 1 A121. conclusions and recommendations concerning the impacts to permitted activities have had on the Clam Bay ecosystem based on the analysis of the data collected, including the biological monitoring data and the water quality data monitoring data as well as any tidal or hydrological information collected as part of the permitted activities. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MANATEE AND MARINE TURTLE CONDITIONS 14. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence of marine turtles, manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with or injury to marine turtles and manatees. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing marine turtles or manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. 15. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle Speed/ No Wake" at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four -foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible. 16. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which marine turtles or manatees cannot become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid marine turtle or manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede marine turtle or manatee movement. 17. All on -site project personnel are responsible for observing water - related activities for the presence of marine turtles or manatees. All in -water operations, including vessels, must be shutdown if a marine turtle(s) or manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the marine turtle(s) or manatee(s) has moved beyond the 50 -foot radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the marine turtle(s) or manatee(s) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving. 18. Any collision with or injury to a marine turtle or manatee shall be reported immediately to the FWC Hotline at 1-888- 404 -FWCC. Collision and /or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1- 904 - 731 -3336) for north Florida or Vero Beach (1- 772 - 562 -3909) for south Florida. 19. Temporary signs concerning marine turtles and manatees shall be posted prior to and during all in -water project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project. Awareness signs that have already been approved for this use by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) must be Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11- 012846' -005 Page R of 14 r- rJ Ci w M N 1 r CJ 161 f Al2 ti.mm used (see MyFWC.com). One sign which reads Caution: Boaters must be posted. A second sign measuring at least 81/2" by 11" explaining the requirements for "Idle Speed/ No Wake" and the shut -down of in -water operations must be posted in a location prominently visible to all personnel engaged in water - related activities. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. All activities authorized by this permit shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications and performance criteria as approved by this permit. Any deviation from the permitted activity and the conditions for undertaking that activity shall constitute a violation of this permit and a violation of Part IV of Chapter 373, (F.S.). 2. This permit or a copy thereof, complete with all conditions, attachments, exhibits, and modifications shall be kept at the work site of the permitted activity. The complete permit shall be available for review at the work site upon request by the Department staff. The permittee shall require the contractor to review the complete permit prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this permit. 3. Activities approved by this permit shall be conducted in a manner which does not cause violations of state water quality standards. The permittee shall implement best management practices for erosion and pollution control to prevent violations of state water quality standards. Temporary erosion control shall be implemented prior to and during construction and permanent control measures shall be completed within seven (7) days of any construction activity. Turbidity barriers shall be installed and maintained at all locations where the possibility of transferring suspended solids into the receiving water -body exists due to the permitted work. Turbidity barriers shall remain in place at all locations until construction is completed and soils are stabilized and vegetation has been established. All practices shall be in accordance with the guidelines and specifications described in Chapter Six of the Florida land Development Manual; A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (Department of Environmental Regulation, 1988), unless a project - specific erosion and sediment control plan is approved as part of the permit. Thereafter, the permittee shall be responsible for the removal of the barriers. The permittee shall correct any erosion or shoaling that causes adverse impacts to the water resources. 4. The permittee shall notify the Department of the anticipated construction start date within thirty (30) days of the date that this permit is issued. At least forty -eight (48) hours prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Department an "Environmental Resource Permit Construction Commencement" notice (Form No. 62- 343.900(3), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)) indicating the actual start date and expected completion date. Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11-0128463-005 Page 9 of 14 CU 0 r-, U N N O 161 1 A127- 5. When the duration of construction will exceed one year, the permittee shall submit construction status reports to the Department on an annual basis utilizing an "Annual Status Report Form" (Form No. 62- 343.900(4), F.A.C.). Status Report Forms shall be submitted the following June of each year. 6. Within thirty (30) days after completion of construction of the permitted activity, the permittee shall submit a written statement of completion and certification by a registered professional engineer or other appropriate individual as authorized by law utilizing the supplied "Environmental Resource Permit As -Built Certification by a Registered Professional" (Form No. 62-.343.900(5), F.A.C.). The Statement of completion and certification shall be based on on -site observation of construction or review of as- built drawings for the purpose of determining if the work was completed in compliance with permitted plans and specifications. This submittal shall serve to notify the Department that the system is ready for inspection. Additionally, if deviations from the approved drawings are discovered during the certification process, the certification must be accompanied by a copy of the approved permit drawings with deviations note. Both the original and revised specifications must be clearly shown. The plans must be clearly labeled as "as- built" or "record" drawing. All surveyed dimensions and elevations shall be certified by a registered surveyor. 7. The operation phase of this permit shall not become effective; until the permittee has complied with the requirements of condition number six (6) above, has submitted a "Request for Transfer of Environmental Resource Permit Construction Phase to Operation Phase" (Form 62- 343.900(7), F.A.C.); the Department determines the system to be in compliance with the permitted plans and specifications; and the entity approved by the Department in accordance with Sections 9.0 and 10.0 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District— August 1995, accepts responsibility for operation and maintenance of the system. The permit shall not be transferred to such approved operation and maintenance entity until the operation phase of the permit becomes effective. Following inspection and approval of the permitted system by the Department, the permittee shall initiate transfer of permit to the approved responsible operation entity if different from the permittee. Until the permit is transferred pursuant to Rule 62- 343.110(1) (d), F.A.C., the permittee shall be liable for compliance with the terms of the permit. 8. Each phase or independent portion of the permitted system must be completed in accordance with the permitted plans and permit conditions prior to the initiation of the permitted use of site infrastructure located within the area served by that portion or phase of the system. Each phase or independent portion of the system must be completed in accordance with the permitted plans and permit conditions prior to transfer of responsibility for operation and maintenance of the phase or portion of the system to a local government or other responsible entity. Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit F,.xpiration: December l7, 2010 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 Page 10 of 14 O, N O a 0 N v 161 1 . Al2 0 9. For those systems that will be operated or maintained by an entity that will require an easement or deed restriction in order to enable that entity to operate or maintain the system in conformance with this permit, such easement or deed restriction must be recorded in the public records and submitted to the Department along with any other final operation and maintenance documents required by Sections 9.0 and 10.0 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District— August 1995, prior to lot or unit sales or prior to lot or unit sales or prior to the completion of the system, whichever occurs first. Other documents concerning the establishment and authority of the operation entity must be filed with the Secretary of State where appropriate. For those systems which are proposed to be maintained by the county or municipal entities, final operation and maintenance documents must be received by the Department when maintenance and operation of the system is accepted by the local government entity. Failure to submit the appropriate final documents will result in the permittee remaining liable for carrying out maintenance and operation of the permitted system and any other permit conditions. 10. Should any other regulatory agency require changes to the permitted system, the permittee shall notify the Department in writing of the changes prior to implementation so that a determination can be made whether a permit modification is required. 11. This permit does not eliminate the necessity to obtain any required federal, state, local and special district authorizations prior to the start of any activity approved by this permit. This permit does not convey to the permittee or create in the permittee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the permittee, or convey any rights or privileges other than those specified in the permit and Chapter 40E4 or Chapter 40E40, F.A.C. 12. The permittee is hereby advised that Section 253.77, F.S. states that a person may not commence any excavation, construction, or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, the title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund without obtaining the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. Therefore, the permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary authorization from the Board of Trustees prior to commencing activity on sovereignty lands or other state owned lands. 13. The permittee is advised that the rules of the South Florida Water Management District require the permittee to obtain a water use permit from the South Florida Water management District prior to construction dewatering, unless the work qualifies for a general permit pursuant to Rule 40E- 20302(4), F.A.C., also known as the "No Notice' rule. Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11 -012846.3 -W5 Page l l of 14 n a M r-1 .-1 0 CJ 161 1 Al2� 14. The permittee shall hold and save the Department harmless from any and all damages, claims or liabilities which may arise by reason of the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, abandonment or use of any system authorized by this permit. 15. Any delineation of the extent of a wetland or other surface water submitted as part of the permit application, including plans or other supporting documentation, shall not be considered binding unless a specific condition of this permit or a formal determination under Section 373.421(2). F.S., provides otherwise. 16. The permittee shall notify the Department in writing within 30 days of any sale, conveyance, or other transfer of ownership or control of a permitted system or the real property on which the permitted system is located. All transfers of ownership or transfers of a permit are subject to the requirements of Rule 62-343.130, F.A.C. The permittee transferring the permit shall remain liable for corrective actions that may be required as a result of any violations prior to the sale, conveyance or other transfer of the system. 17. Upon reasonable notice to the permittee, Department authorized staff with proper identification shall have permission to enter, inspect, sample and test the system to insure conformity with the plans and specifications approved by the permit. 18. If historical or archaeological artifacts are discovered at any time on the project site, the permittee shall immediately notify the appropriate Department office. The permittee shall immediately notify the Department in writing of and previously submitted information that is later discovered to be inaccurate. GENERAL CONSENT CONDITIONS Chapter 18- 21.004(7), F.A.C., General Conditions for Authorizations: 1. Authorizations are valid only for the specified activity or use. Any unauthorized deviation from the specified activity or use and the conditions for undertaking that activity or use shall constitute a violation. Violation of the authorization shall result in suspension or revocation of the grantee's use of the sovereignty submerged land unless cured to the satisfaction of the Board. 2. Authorizations convey no title to sovereignty submerged land or water column, nor do they constitute recognition or acknowledgment of any other person's title to such land or water. Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11 -0128463 -005 Page 12 of 14 M d r- CA C1 L, C.4 C 161 1 Al2 ' 3. Authorizations may be modified, suspended or revoked in accordance with their terms or the remedies provided in Sections 253.04 and 258.46, F.S., or Chapter 18- 14, F.A.C. 4. Structures or activities shall be constructed and used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources. 5. Construction, use, or operation of the structure or activity shall not adversely affect any species which is endangered, threatened or of special concern, as listed in Rules 68A-27.003,68A-27.004, and 68A- 27.005, F.A.C. 6. Structures or activities shall not unreasonably interfere with riparian rights. When a court of competent jurisdiction determines that riparian rights have been unlawfully affected, the structure or activity shall be modified in accordance with the court's decision. 7. Structures or activities shall not create a navigational hazard. 8. Structures shall be maintained in a functional condition and shall be repaired or removed if they become dilapidated to such an extent that they are no longer functional. This shall not be construed to prohibit the repair or replacement subject to the provisions of Rule 18- 21.005, F.A.C., within one year, of a structure damaged in a discrete event such as a storm, flood, accident, or fire. 9. Structures or activities shall be constructed, operated, and maintained solely for water dependent purposes, or for non -water dependent activities authorized under paragraph 18- 21.004(1)(g), F.A.C., or any other applicable law. NOTICE OF RIGHTS This Permit is hereby final unless a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is timely filed under Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.) as provided below. The procedures for petitioning for a hearing are set forth below. Mediation is not available. A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received by the clerk) in the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3". Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No. 11-0128463-005 Page 13 of 14 a r 0 cv , JI �J 16! 1 Al2 Because the administrative hearing process is designed to re- determine final agency action on the application, the filing of a petition for an administrative hearing may result in a modification of the permit or even a denial of the application. If a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing or request for an extension of time to file a petition is timely filed, this permit automatically becomes only proposed agency action on the application, subject to the result of the administrative review process. Accordingly, the applicant is advised not to commence construction or other activities under this permit until the deadlines noted below for filing a petition for an administrative hearing, or request for an extension of time has expired. Under Rule 62- 110.106(4), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may also request an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing. The Department may, for good cause shown, grant the request for an extension of time. Requests for extension of time must be filed with the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000, before the applicable deadline. A timely request for extension of time shall toll the running of the time period for filing a petition until the request is acted upon. If a request is filed late, the Department may still grant it upon a motion by the requesting party showing that the failure to file a request for an extension of time before the deadline was the result of excusable neglect. In the event that a timely and sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is filed, other persons whose substantial interests will be affected by the outcome of the administrative process have the right to petition to intervene in the proceeding. Any intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28- 106.205, F.A.C. In accordance with Rule 62- 110106(3) F.A.C., petitions for an administrative hearing by the applicant must be filed within 14 days of receipt of this written notice. Petitions filed by any persons other than the applicant, and other than those entitled to written notice under section 120.60(3) of the Florida Statutes must be filed within 14 days of publication of the notice or within 14 days of receipt of the written notice, whichever occurs first. Under section 120.60(3) of the Florida Statutes, however, any person who has asked the Department for notice of agency action may file a petition within 14 days of receipt of such notice, regardless of the date of publication. The petitioner shall mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition for an administrative hearing within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11- 012846_.3 -005 Page 14 of 14 r� 0 a 0 N N c 161 1 • t Al2 that person's right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes. A petition that disputes the material facts on which the Department's action is based must contain the following information: (a) The name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known; (b) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; the name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner's representative, if any, which shall be the address for service purposes during the course of the proceeding; - - and an explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interests are or will be affected by the agency determination; (c) A statement of when and how the petitioner received notice of the agency decision; (d) A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; (e) A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; and (f) A statement of the specific rules or statutes that the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; (g) A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action. A petition that does not dispute the material facts on which the Department's action is based shall state that no such facts are in dispute and otherwise shall contain the same information as set forth above, as required by Rule 28- 106.301, F.A.C. Under Sections 120.569(2)(c) and (d), F.S., a petition for administrative hearing must be dismissed by the agency if the petition does not substantially comply with the above requirements or is untimely filed. This action is final and effective on the d.ate filed with the Clerk of the Department unless a petition is filed in accordance with the above. Upon the timely filing of a petition this order will not be effective until further order of the Department. This permit constitutes an order of the Department. The applicant has the right to seek judicial review of the order under Section 120.68, F.S., by the filing of a notice of appeal under Rule 9.110 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure with the Clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399 -3000; and by filing a copy of the notice of appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate district court of appeal. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date when the final order is Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11- 0128463 -005 Page 15of14 Q 0 r- 0 CJ rJ c 16f 1 A 121 filed with the Clerk of the Department. The applicant, or any party within the meaning of Section 373.114(1)(a), F.S., may also seek appellate review of this order before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission under Section 373.114(1), F.S. Requests for review before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission and served on the Department within 20 days from the date when the final order is filed with the Clerk of the Department. Executed in Lee County, Florida. )MI /ap Attachments: Project Drawings and Design Specs., 10 pages Commencement notice /62- 343.900(3) Annual status report /62- 343.900(4) As -built certification /62- 343.900(5) Transfer construction to operation phase/ 62- 343.900(7) Copies furnished to: DEP, Office of General Counsel U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Log 1i 12534 FWC, Imperiled Species Management Section Collier County Property Appraiser Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. File STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Jon .111ehart District Director South District Office CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. The undersigned hereby certifies that this permit and authorization to use sovereignty sub ierged lands, including all copies, were mailed before the close of business on 1 -T2A-3 )o . to the above listed persons. FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date, under 120.52(7) of the Florida Statutes, with the designated Department Clerk, eipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Clerk Date Permittee: Collier County BOCC -Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11- 0128461 -005 Page 16 of 14 Collier County Board of County Commissioners c/o Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive Naples, Florida, 34108 Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 COLLIER CO Property Appraiser Building "C" Government Complex 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 339624902 MAILING LIST I FFWCC Attention: Mary Ann Poole 620 South Meridian Street - MS 6A Tallahassee, FL 32399 -1600 fcmpmailQmyfwc.com DEPT OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Attention: Frederick P Gaske 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 - 0250 MAILING LIST II - Charlotte ALOE - Fort Myers (weekly mailbox) N en O r .-i a O N I N O 161 1 Al2! M :u MCIL 't.- cv, c- J LU O N1 0 in z w 0 z < > Z 2 o 0 z U 0 ra 0- z 0 z 0 cli 0 Ld 0 fn ui °o 0 CL 0U z :3 cr 0 z LU U CL M w 0 W 0 LL I- LL a 4 ui LLJ CLD z z) fA W (4 co c 0 40 C� w Z z LZ CJ. tu LJ M w uj a z m z 3: no 0 0 !, E; z > 0 A A A A A A v A -Za v v v v v v LL W A Clam 020010 pllmjrd,QMIO-CHANNELVAJMTEN e.a" 9CO WY LC:TT TIOZ-GZ-,'O 161 1 ��?' LiV W C:TT TTn-G,--,Io 161 1 p1 N tt 2 +� O Q m N N w ci W ui J J LL W W N p O = p � i_- + co coa) V ~� W 0 2 q �1� N Z Z � (L CL O W uu'i !II/ . t ° °�°�m, W d: z z O v°i -,$ *' S ; W OF z_ w m q O o u io¢ W F 5 u J K J i o .��J �UU Q �.+ -. W ~ w M WZ JW Z K +y pZZ '- > i Z �Md a V z U W W _ m > U ui 0 Co W L w 2: W y Q' r_.CCCCIV, C a �. a W m= r0S ~ 442 ow Z W p mw0 O m LL t7� Z 0 Z � Q U) > W W O X X 4� W w p T Z z 4o Q UJ h w � Z Z Z Q t4 Q _ m T fl U 7 1, �y r w U z ui w 10 M pp t7 V vi 5 v o � U ..avt w t rn y c ---.G7 > C c� 0�j c d � v Z.4 q --Z a� m W U _ m O U. OW " to p H to cc a� W ri P +4biL5 dam 9aN2010 P- .IUIng'2010_CH"NEL MAINTENANCE.dwg 8EO WY LE :TT TTOZ-9Z—LO LL O z?- o TSW O v, J J ll. y lJL R p o W + W It N� aD� mod' o .3:Xxxox t- =OOOzr- a aaO0w ai �¢amtr�i w O� m z z � z w m ~ O u�%vQ r J m U af S .. Z z Zd !Y Z ZZ W ZZPZ Q v Z V 0 d WKU SQ � 0. IL � m Y V ;G Y V V C W O Z w �- 0 �Lv w mIr 0 WwC 0(aLL Cam Z w� (n a CO R w Z !Ww a mS W U Z U d Z N uj = C) E �r N r , V CV r LLJ N EL a e N r Y� ' SSBdS Cl— 0.y12010 J ul Z a� w0 (a W 00 N Ix @W S wt ow 0 a a x W r Z J 20 Y < n lu W ~ � O r S2 < = U m W 0 o cr 0 � Z _O Q \{ d U) ui 9W J N Q r z .J W t— Z N + CA, •s V Y v .> q tC.± WV L% TT TTOZ -SZ7-LO w Z mS U F N uj K m 0' f u o f� t W tC.± WV L% TT TTOZ -SZ7-LO C t] Z �! O O J J LL LL W �oo-�pa S L O �TXXXpx �" �°d°dndmw w O N � U) U o z w m ~ O �J JmuvD� c� R G Z 22 0 Q ¢UUxLLh-J 00) zzZ CL 2 O C, p U A A A A A V V C V V V w j3 Z 0 >¢ r0x y�v w mho 0MUU. w ' — t a4 0 W Z (n O U) 0' X O W � a Wv Wv cz+ Z 2 Z d Q r[� U U W " M N e- io t i P'- -,4815 Clam "i2ol0 PsmtitllnpM10 _CNAMNEL_MAJKTENANCE.ewg 0 J W Z �v LL w0 mw O O_ rm N_ tz d' w QI x W ow O Q Q x W a w 2O X12" y ¢ i 50 u y W W y y y t N w W Z p h o Q PY < < 2 z = 2 0 O m F O > r a .j' c > 0 x U o S W Z H O W LV Z Z : J Q io Z �w W z N r Cfi ra r_ vs S L .c t7 7 o m OFO HY k£:TT TTOZ -SZ -L4 LLI W Z 0. Vf x W U 7 M LL 00 rw V1 � N ti, O2 r w �) OFO HY k£:TT TTOZ -SZ -L4 161 il, I., P VV z L ry O i to z 0 Z a w 0 (n 4 Z J J LL; LL F- M3 1H Q O J Q o o v r1�� V N 0 y N CC } S` i(XQ1 O *� 2 O tf d` "L� 0� O ,r. i Q a aan.vw N 0 2 Qj < < < w m ~ ° N EL z z FO 0) o m z w w W 0 K� W r= Q ` z W U 0 w W Z t isQQ z H Y Z apt < �QU_RJ !'�"r —4 Q V NUFdV p_}7Z7 W J "a yLL 3 Wl iy C W W W ZNQ� Q V) W 90W O O G 01 LUa o� z1^,CGCv 3 M wq a W O Q M = W z 0r us z (n aO LI Z W z 0 ; U Z O O w Z F p f a �i Q = O ` wv �O J LL Z N t X {�--� CL WQ W� o l7 OL re ry h C 'CCrG z w a Li �M MU LL 00 1- w .tea (n a N W W t ` O = lt+ PA9945 Clem BW2010 Per mlrq'2010_CNANNEL_ uANlTENANCEArq Ito Ind BC =iT p U > Z -0: p w O � Z J J LL LL W F m N O W ovnte n C t N C � W 11 41 a Q }yXXX02 � =(1O,,Oport- p a Q a m W W W w Z ow n zw Wm O n �JJinVU ZZZ��o� QZ,h-� W O r. iy VI— --DNZ rpaaa�mWWW= zOCCCC C z z x Gn W LL Ul za H d' W OQ O W Z O = Z H a3 161 p"1 z. V W Cl) ; O a 1 W S4 2 Z Z Y t H U x ~ N Wo a ° `v W W � � U P::9645 Cl.. 8ay,2010 Prr Mia g'2070 CNANNEL_MAVNTENANCE.dwq Zt .,9 WK BE :TT TTUZ- -yZ -L0 z. V ; V) o W @ N Z Z Y t H x ~ to z 0 m 0 J W ~ N a h O a� a o c WW O c � CD w 0 oy �W � W CO = F O W N J W Z z O a�Ufp� U V x Z W J Z J z e .i LL W N � Q ro CL O J0 IL z N V O e`t-• a CJV �l ev 0 CS �J w ►C* Y T P::9645 Cl.. 8ay,2010 Prr Mia g'2070 CNANNEL_MAVNTENANCE.dwq Zt .,9 WK BE :TT TTUZ- -yZ -L0 z. V ; - z z W W 0 O O-- W _ O S r Y t P::9645 Cl.. 8ay,2010 Prr Mia g'2070 CNANNEL_MAVNTENANCE.dwq Zt .,9 WK BE :TT TTUZ- -yZ -L0 g61 1 %12` o0 m= uj to 0 H c W IU 2 3: L ti Z N O J a? W pM N C ] F 4 N W p a•t � 000ZI-- aoap,aaaUw cn C LIU Z m i C zdZZ�Zt -OQ LLW�I* KWQQi lu C O d QUUZ�F -� zW O� Nt� 2 < = U W W WZf~RD�Q U) ; mW O U O {tt CL CL Ei/ Y O� - Oy 0E- � Q A � VI A d w W 0: w Oo m= OQ WH W Z O W Z = a °3 W Z Z ao pro Q w 0 Z d a f O 0 d Z - z� Z Wo i0 M ° Z U- Z rty = H zz 1 M M a } a N •' V W �� r_ t0 o3V �r c U,) C o k cz W 0�4 W t d fY Z H W�U CD O N > OW N o Ot lu W P AIMS Clam ft —l"Id P —ftt .12MG CHAWNFL MAYMNANCEd- EFn Wd f;£ :TT TTOZ7 -7 -LO -7.12 161 1 z W, 0 0 < LU L) z L) Z < Z 'o Li _Ld p Lu Z Z to J ui ZLLJ LLI LU zr) 2 uj (02 0 z U) LLJ im MW 0 0 2 > W w I-- z M U, 00 'o I.- < z L) W < > A A M D 00 (30 Ix F LLI L) /A\ z Z W w U) 0 z< 0 W cn to w t4 w 4 w L) LLJ w w 0 0 0 z z < z En x 0 u Con Lu Ft P lams Clam 8ay2010 P—lMOW2Q10 -CHMkEL_AMUTENAXCF &AV VVJ HI k5tiLL LL06—SC—LV 9WRIg267m CK Ax ! J ( /k( )) \( � ° ® °k 2 u /§kk k § §k! �Z0. � § /[Ek) d ■ z =E� 9WRIg267m w �r 0 cc r� ri ra C4 1 t in I e Dorm #62- 343.900(3) FAC Form Title Construction Commencement Notice Effective Date. O--tober 3 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT Construction Commencement Notice Project Phase: I hereby notify the Department of Environmental Protection that the construction of the surface water management system authorized by Environmental Resource Permit Number has commenced i is expected to commence on and will require a duration of approximately months weeks days to complete It is understood that should the construction terns extend beyond one year, I am obligated to submit the Annual Status Report for surface Water Management System Construction. PLLASL NOTE: If the actual construction commencement date is not known. Department staff should be so notified in writing to order to satisfy permit conditions. Permittee or Authorized Agent Phone 62- 343,900(3) OwLine DOVIAMA Fomuned 12ro1/97k#g Title and Company Address Date 1. 1 . 161 1 Al2' r- �r 0 w v ro ro e Form # Form Tick' AOMW Status Report Effective ate. October 3 1995 Environmental Resource Permit Annual Status Report Fbrhia Dwartutent of Eavironmentd Protectbn PERMIT NUMBER: COUNTY: PROJECT NAME: PHASE: The following activity has occurred at the above referenced poroject during the past year, between June 1, Permit ContlitiordActivity (Use Additional Sheets As Necessary) Benchmark Description (one per major control structure): Print Name Phone Permittee's or Aurthorized Agent's Signature Title and Company Date and May 30, Dole 0 Conviction This form shall be submitted to the above referenced Department Office during June of each year for activities whose duration of construction exceeds one year. 62- 343.900(4) On -Line Documcnt Formatted 11/01/97 kag CU 0 CD r� 0 u� r� i 0 Form 062.343.900(5), F.A.C. Form Title: As -built Ce66ution by a Re&cred professional Fffectivo Date: Oebber 3. 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT AS -BUILT CERTIFICATION BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL Permit Number. Project Name: i hereby certify that all components of this surike water management system have been built substantially in accordance with the approved plans and speciftcations and are ready for inspection. Any substantial deviations (noted below) from the approved plans and specifications will not prevent the system from functioning as designed when properly maintained and operated. These determinations are based upon on -site observation of the system conducted by me or by my designee under my direct supervision and/or my review of as -built plans certified by a registered professional or Land Surveyor licensed in the State of Florida. Name (please print) Signature of Professional Company Name Florida Registration Number Company Address Date City, State, Zip Code Telephone Number (Affix Seal) Substantial deviations from the approved plans and specifications: (Note: attach two copies of as -built plans when them are substantial deviations) Within 30 days of completion of the system, submit two copies of the form to: 62- 343.900(5) On -Line Domnent Formatted 12101197 keg 161 Al 2 Form 062.343.900(5), F.A.C. Form Title: As -built Ce66ution by a Re&cred professional Fffectivo Date: Oebber 3. 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT AS -BUILT CERTIFICATION BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL Permit Number. Project Name: i hereby certify that all components of this surike water management system have been built substantially in accordance with the approved plans and speciftcations and are ready for inspection. Any substantial deviations (noted below) from the approved plans and specifications will not prevent the system from functioning as designed when properly maintained and operated. These determinations are based upon on -site observation of the system conducted by me or by my designee under my direct supervision and/or my review of as -built plans certified by a registered professional or Land Surveyor licensed in the State of Florida. Name (please print) Signature of Professional Company Name Florida Registration Number Company Address Date City, State, Zip Code Telephone Number (Affix Seal) Substantial deviations from the approved plans and specifications: (Note: attach two copies of as -built plans when them are substantial deviations) Within 30 days of completion of the system, submit two copies of the form to: 62- 343.900(5) On -Line Domnent Formatted 12101197 keg �a m a CJ 161 1 Form R:62- 353.900(7)F.A.0 Form Tide: Request for Transfer to Operation Phase ESeetive Drag: September 25 1995 Request for Transfer of Environmental Resource Permit Construction Phase to Operation Phase (To be completed and submitted by the operating entity) Protection it is requested that Department Permit Number authorizing the construction and operation of a surface water management system for the below mention project be transferred from the construction phase pernuttee to the operation phase operating entity. Project: From: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: To: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: The surface water management facilities are hereby accepted for operation and maintenance in accordance with the engineers certification and as outlined in the restrictive covenants and articles of incorporation for the operating entity. Enclosed is a copy of the document transferring title of the operating entity for the common areas on which the surface water management system is located. Note that if the operating entity has not been previously approved, the applicant should contact the Department staff prior to filing for a permit transfer. The undersigned hereby agrees that all terms and conditions of the permit and subsequent modifications, if any, have been reviewed, are understood and are hereby accepted. Any proposed modifications shall be applied for and obtained prior to stn;h modification. Operating Entity: Tide: Name Telephone: Enclosure ❑ copy of recorded transfer of tide surface water management system ❑ Coy of plat(s) ❑ Copy of recorded restrictive covenants, articles of incorporation, and certificate of incorporation. 62- 343.400(7) On -Line Downent Formatted 12/01/27 keg Al2' 0 n N O DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1520 ROYAL PALM SQUARE BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 FORT MYERS, FL 33019 February 8, 2011 Jacksonville Regulatory Division SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) Collier County /Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive Naples, FL 34108 161 i Al2* RECEIVED FEB 14 2011 PELICAN BAY SERVICE$ &UN FEB 082011 Attention Collier County /Pelican Bay Services Division: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is pleased to enclose the Department of the Army permit, which should be available at the construction site. Work may begin immediately but the Corps must be notified of: a. The date of commencement of the work, b. The dates of work suspensions and resumptions of work, if suspended over a week, and c. The date of final completion. This information should be mailed to: ACOE Enforcement Section, Jacksonville Regulatory Division, 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310, Fort Myers, FL 33919. The Enforcement Section is also responsible for inspections to determine whether Permittees have strictly adhered to permit conditions. Enclosures/ Copy: agent IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO DEVIATE FROM THE APPROVED PLANS ENCLOSED. Sin erely, nald W. Kinard Chief, Regulatory Division N P 0 a CA N N I 0 I� I 161 i Al2-1 FEe 142011 P T TV ICES DIVIS01, Pezmittee: Collier County /Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive Naples, FL 34108 FE$ 082011 Permit No: SAJ- 1996- 02789(IP -LAE) Issuing Office: U.S. Army engineer District, Jacksonville NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: The project is to conduct periodic ecological maintenance activities over a 10 -year timeframe within the tidal Clam Bay estuary involving: a) manual clearing of existing hand -dug channel cuts (using round -point shovels /machetes); b) creation of additional hand -dug channel cuts; c) mangrove trimming and vegetation /debris removal, along 56,660 linear feet of the estuary system. Removed natural materials to be dispersed along the channel cuts, mulched for reuse, or disposed of at the Pelican Bay Services landscape disposal site or a licensed local disposal facility; no mechanized equipment use; clearing is contingent upon conditions of >50% flow reduction due to blockage /obstructions. The work area consists of a network of hand -dug channel cuts of 3 various widths (Type 1: 36 -inch wide along 28,480 linear feet; Type 2: 12 -inch wide along 19,720 linear feet; Type 3: 6 -12 -inch wide along 8,460 linear feet) that improve flushing and eliminate water ponding. The proposed work would continue ecological restoration work that has been conducted as part of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (1998) and has resulted in successful restoration of mangrove habitat. The volume of material to be removed is --20 cubic yards per year on an as- needed basis; the annual work has historically been conducted in May /June for a 1 -2 week duration. Site access is by foot from upland areas, or via small vessels; the work area is generally at or above the Mean High Water (MHW) line in waters that are characterized as having a maximum water depth of 18 inches. The applicant has agreed to comply with the Sea Turtle and 16I 1 1 Al2" PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco- restoration work PAGE 2 of 9 Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions and Standard Manatee Conditions for In -Water Work. The work described above is to be completed in accordance with the 9 pages of drawings (Attachment 1) and 2 other attachments (Attachments 2 -3) affixed at the end of this permit instrument. Project Location: The proposed work area is located within tidal Clam Bay, in Sections 32 -33, Township 48S, Range 25E and Sections 4 -5, 8 -9, 32 -33, Township 49S, Range 25E, Naples, Collier County, Florida. Directions to site: From I -75 near Naples, take exit 107 toward Naples /Golden Gate (CR 896 /Pine Ridge Road); continue west 3.9 miles (crossing U.S. 41) onto Seagate Drive; proceed straight 0.5 miles (ends at Clam Pass Park). The site extends north for 3 miles from the northern limit of the park. By boat: use the public boat ramp at Wiggins Pass /Cocohatchee Park. From I -75 near Naples, take exit 111 (Immokalee Road); continue west 3.6 miles to U.S. 41; turn right onto U.S. 41; continue 1.5 mile to left onto Wiggins Pass Road (ends at Vanderbilt Beach Road); boat ramp immediately southwest of intersection. LATITUDE & LONGITUDE (NAD83) Site Coordinates: Northern limit: Latitude 26.247024 N; Longitude 81.818878 W Southern limit: Latitude 26.214063 N; Longitude 81.814505 W Pezuit Conditions General Conditions: 1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends February 8, 2021. If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the U N N CJ 0 0 a U N 1(7 N 1 4 161 10. Al2' PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco- restoration work PAGE 3 of 9 Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a permit modification from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archaeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and State coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain a signature and mailing address of the new owner in the space provided and submit to this office to validate the transfer of the permit authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification or a waiver has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified as Special Conditions to this permit. A copy of the certification is.attached if it contains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions: 1. Reporting Address: All reports, documentation /correspondence required by the conditions of this permit shall be submitted to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division /Enforcement Section, 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310, Fort Myers, FL 33919. The Permittee shall reference permit number SAJ- 1996- 02789, on all submittals. 2. Commencement Notification: Within 10 days from the date of initiating the authorized work, the Permittee shall provide to the Corps a written notification of the date of commencement of work authorized by this permit. a a 0 N t!T n) 1 n 161 '1 a12" PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco- restoration work PAGE 4 of 9 3. Manatee Conditions: The Permittee shall comply with the Standard Manatee Conditions for in -Water Work (Attachment 2). 4. Sea Turtle and Sualltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions: The Permittee shall comply with the Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (Attachment 3). 5. Assurance of Navigation and Maintenance: The Permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structures or work herein authorized, or if in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the Permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. 6. Regulatory Agency Changes: Should any other regulatory agency require changes to the work authorized or obligated by this permit, the Permittee is advised that a modification to this permit instrument is required prior to initiation of those changes. It is the Permittee's responsibility to request a permit modification from the Fort Myers Regulatory Office. 7. Work Methodology: The work activities shall be limited to manual - clearing methods using hand - tools; no mechanized clearing; no blasting. 8. Self- Certification: At the expiration of the construction window of this permit, the Permittee shall complete and submit a "Self- Certification Statement of Compliance" form (Attachment 4). If the completed work deviates, in any manner, from the authorized work, the Permittee shall describe, on the Self - Certification Form, the deviations between the work authorized by the permit and the work as constructed. Please note that the description of any deviations on the Self- Certification Form does not constitute approval of any deviations by the Corps. Further Information: w 0 0 a U) 0 CJ u� CJ 1 O 161 1 PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco- restoration work PAGE 5 of 9 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: (x) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (x) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). ( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, State, or local authorizations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal projects. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. Al2 161 1 Al2� PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco- restoration work PAGE 6 of 9 e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination by this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Re- evaluation of Permit Decision: This office may re- evaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a re- evaluation include, but are not limited to: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (see 4 above). c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a re- evaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions: General Condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. r Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or re- evaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. N I(T N 0 161 1 Ii. PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco- restoration work PAGE 7 of 9 Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. (PERMITT i bill (PERMITTEE NAM NTE J-Ui4l t ZJ11 (DA E) This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. j auuw Ftb ::l 7,01 1 Rf CT ENGINEER) (DATE) ,talfred A. Pantano, Jr. Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander a 0 X a r n d n� LO N O 161 AA12m PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco- restoration work PAGE 8 of 9 When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms /conditions, have the transferee sign /date below: (TRANSFEREE- SIGNATURE) (NAME- PRINTED) (ADDRESS) (CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE) r- a r-, 0 ea u� n� 1 C (DATE) ibj �i AFL' -' PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco- restoration work PAGE 9 of 9 Attachments to Department of the Army Permit Number SA.7- 1996 - 02789 (XP-LAW) 1. PERMIT DRAWINGS: Location maps /construction drawings (Attachment 1; 9 pages) dated August 19, 2010. 2. Standard Manatee Conditions for In -Water Work (FWC 2009) (2 pages) 3. Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (NMFS 2006) (1 page) 4. Self - Certification Form (2 pages) 5. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: Specific Conditions of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ERP Permit No. 11- 0128463 -005 dated December 17, 2010 in accordance with General Condition number 5 on page 3 of this DA permit (7 pages). a 0 .-a Q r., Al2 . .. - ., . • :. 'MAWR , ---- 4 le ti ' ! . 1, heft _ * ___ 161 , 1 7-40 ...',....ii .fit-. ,' K.. .1.. I. \. S, i. 0. J d r 7S' o a. y` i ta r • ne vw:.n, ...., a yE�, ` w. a ..ri 1""�w <s . h< t. Z• ,..� �m xg ,_. _.,mot. .., . .r. 0 e o i P may" ..e F- t w 3 - m 0 I W )11 WU1 ■0C a 2$ - cc4 tea. Q a 0 G G .. c7(1) ' F.= 0 N ;r z a tutu a g .> o IL Ca 09 -J E.r. lft1 a W 1( L—.. 0 F- z M // ,,, rn IL 5 J Z NI d V ce rt O . r W IL t- ii� O v u�� �[ e�O 2 WW - 2W� !L- W O 4 GJ Q W o • zu. O CV s-f .� CA W 0 U. ttJ �z !:Ifl° � o zt7< V 'ps .• .: . 4 .: p~ W •. z v0 vCv3 =c,„ .., iii ,.. f • w ') __a U k.,.... ��i�.E; r. 4/83 L j�►�= r„ a R�}�� �� � 221 x.10 , W er F z GU SAJ-1996-02789(IP-LAE) �r +� W w Clam Bay Eco-restoration x \ }, i 2 o August 19,2010 m a Figure 1/9 A :.woarrau NW IlaffinpilvItuuntslnlascliKuty " ++ tb&h rinm0SHANNI wurteewuice.a+q TTO WY 00:11 TTOZ-SZ-LO 6 1 1 t A . 4 A Li_ - to CO N a i I* !.f tR , 1 1,- CO co k C: C! a i CL CL t N 0 t \" r- N C*) o ti 1 C_ C. C• p z - V ,.... 4 0 W r. ¢ ' .- MM s —.- 1( R t r ._._ to v,. ... , =.. . ^, 'AL' ...,, (141) 1-- ~ *t P'F 2 '#`444'4 i J t e� TT•t:R - .,:',„...f„, . ':.:',,*" ...7"'.':.. ( 2 1 ti,/ ,�,„ y d^., _., ( . .,,,,," it ,...MtM $.f t ill U le 6 4 'k { {- c ',as Ni ,t. ' fi R*c a � A /{ s 1 i is c` s t� --� ( # z ( : f4 c. d> J:, t`x v., ' ,c U1 p N tf. ...- 'ISM.. .� ;.t ! a�. fir, y# ! dt<f'?1 r"�. ° ¢ Q 2 3 e.r 'C" r,s. m,7µ'' i` q cd W !w ; isit'2 a. �ir i yet �C wT-.�f Q 1 �r ' Yi A'P. \ T4. , fil\itz, e> ' ' u i~. oa S Y . xtix I • ,, ;,..� .� < ,..?....p. ` `` ' SAJ-1996-02789{!P-LAE i 0 1 , " Clam Bay Eco-restoration / ,.1:, ;.�'#r,f,��,r" �, V ,y.. ;_. - August 19.2010 / :.'- { . e..-;,1424 ;t a :1;?r.. Figure 2?9 C:1DowoMnta and UnivaWNwMslnwa.bu,ry dowmfnbUCfuD6an_21 10 42 01 0 CNANNEL_YAUCTENANCE.Cry ZZT0 WY E3O:TT TTOZ—SZ—LO 1Al2 ,1 2 ,' z W pa rV b Q N LL 0 tii W w 0 Z o 0 eZq !!¢r� + V r uJ co� f0 to tl?. X X O = G....• f 2°cca ~ o qi >o w w z 3 a O.v kk Q 0 F Lfl to 0� ied W QZ K Z "' 7 O <00 Z Q r E.as}°' otuW ii $ II Z at2 omX 0 Oeo -��� 0 LU a. 411A ill I- ' 0 , ..W to- W d 'uS ,�3 W IL LU Ilk t, Z I2 W a 0 ,-- Q _ Illik\1 �� 5,� ¢ Pk .,.. r to ilk.W N - Q .r/M► l Z :� I.4 JW `— J.I- 1 . ltiy Z ,-N, :Ar"g .�`�'ro 41 of ' �� * M v Pt '� �, ;a'� s V - •.. y r'�Ir % ..r, ¢ 0 p- u a ma OQ 1 i I CA w nti w SAJ-1996-0276$(IP-SAE) Ciam Bay Eco-restoration 1 w August t9,2010 cwowmn+a.,es.mngiNt,o.MUnkuili rrr udubliosn Z+.amo CHAMEL wuw wuKe.a.T Figure 3/9 CTO WV 80:TT TTOZ-G;-LO , 1 6 1 1 .., A 1 21 , 11 g tt5 to 'It, z 0 .,_ - z u.10 th- el2g 0 i"7-'1E8 W 0 0 X XXCni i"' -,000Z0— 0 i g 1 1 ...' ISC.f.c.8 E5 1 .. 0 5 z Ul ca f. 0 1- 0 0 ^ 1 ° Z t- > .I,, , i T - 0 i'llitiC11-i L <Qu Z0X w a.0 ; P 6 I: (nu. s .4 z U 7, § 8 ui --4 w o co w o o c.3 0 - ' g g E n w o 0 I-- ih . ZO 0 0 0 0 A V UJ 0 Z 4:4)rt / \ 0 E III CO= 1....0= U3 a U 0 LLI Z E 2 co o 0 w111 Z _ 0 CLI LL. oc'0 — ....•••• V.) ....... .41', 0 4 -4 4 (r) A .Al k Q. A. ..,.. ,..4 i -- 5, LLI '4 .4.0 a. v. 4 .: ietle" .4. . 111 . z < z Z ,601‘. Z dr ,Aloyi 00PY, Z / joisse = ■ , ., 0 Aram.._, ---"qa Mg . .e• 0 OW.- ili ' • 4 " < CNI --......... UJ 41.11,11° 1.,, . CN III 7, \\ ;i to. aj § ...c, i N,,,re„ 4' IJJ 4„, . . ili to 4*!' CL • \ ...4 I-- i :1% ••,,p ›- I— 1— i --,44 Z .41. ... 111046- . tA *,,';', • , .'''-''. . s 4 .1* .A,. ..d•Fo. c,,,—= — 3 // ,‘',s a) . ...... !:04... 1.1k. j,,,,.....A .c., ...A .., ..g —...... "--- ....roniv. y ......nom" _,...... `13 41i091p, N..21..zv;k pp ""*•-..,....*.‘.i.r, .› ; P fr , ■L; — ..* ■■■•■■ f N4.41. .....„ ■^-4 .4 Z.4 tge, 1 I II :."..: 00 a t-5 SAJ-1996-02789(IP-LAE) `\ . co cc tU 1" Clam Bay Eco-resloration o x r- August 19.2010 IL/ Figure 419 Lt. , ...... C:IDoaimonts and Siottinettvincontzlnkuationy d000ntntAAAchbash_2111012010_CHAUWEL_MASTEMANCEdolog 6'3 WY .80:Ti Tin-G:7-LO 4 1 1 A 1 .„,1 ...., , ,...__....___.......___ SU 0 0 0 tii III ,..f w z 0 W 0 CI) i 1 Z 2 u.u. t rz cc F 1 i g zs,....,...a Lt i a• (II ;.14Pg §, 00 Ch -0 to i o 00 Pp C5tECL 0 W ul *W - r4 t * 01 1 0 Ft 05 F"0 0 I- I i • ...........-. 1- r. . zidwO ff$ 0.,..,N"41p1G0T22 OW 2 5 ; z 0 w0 o * co w ql<-4 W W ll.2 COt- E Ct 03 w goi.) .1i 0 0 a It:talC)L:t00 .... 1400000 0 oz col re 0 Ew 0 X co20 0 w Z 2 2 a) o 0 w w et 4 F...... a CD la. .4 ....14%e g 0,., 045 '''S,0. 0 L) :1* w z re III 0 vie. Z , .. :1* (/) _ t- . , Cl) .s, 1-0 4.,4 4( w A ::::> CL A 4 .4 4•:: LI ..44.,4 CG X 4 A 0 2 -_ 6 IN., 4 .41‘ CL d, li, •i:-.* ..... < , z f 1..imibl: , /( .t .......ms0 0 0 k cl 7--- ,,,444,,,,..1.4.. :, Luc.1 li --"---.• f., tli it _ IN" Ce 0- 44 v.* ii LLI I- N ..' t.1„..:; IN __ :1■*-..' '.-11:: 4 ...x. - . ....0 v ......:, ..44 .. Ii La ,.. 0,4... AP I '1, 04 --,r4 .-- ....., .,0<-... •-• ....04 . ,..... = e-•`■ *, 4..,,,j, X =%CI cr.....■ ' toit t. ...ay. ... 0, likk „..: \ -, . .00%41 )00411V -m 3 c) E 5:: az. 'Hi 41116b vil, -.000111111111 . ,..13. t 7,........ -c-o•Lt.) - 1 ........* .,.... f ..,,„ ... .., ,......, ,6.111. ....... .......: .44te4 -41r LI 0 I... , :.1074 te — g U"• ) co u. 00 co 0 tza o z SAJ-1996-02789(IP-LAE) W 111 0 Z Clam Bay 2w-restoration I- u) August 19,2010 Figure 519 C5Documwls and S00000.0vInosnLtirmuctf1my documont0J1sPvbilsh_21001010_CHAkNELIRAINTEWAJICE0011 GTO W 80:TT TTOZ-GZ-LO thl .1 161 1 I, V A 1 2 . .. I . 1 . w w p a t n N N o ose W TV;;;'-r..(137_,� W W II C 1 X X X p 2 0 ° a aaoz� t R 4 s • w a °0 O ca z w m i- r o U ~ J V W C to• to ) �Z ~ y . 0 z a � , < Q0* DE W W J z t W O D n in a Q a¢O w w i N a. m0 uj Z 0• V V V V Y rn a m a W S lag OW 0i Zr J a W Z Z w S Z - 4 O a o .y A + C7 :. o Z::::41 E 2 '4, _;,a Z x ...N J x ir. CC —I ..o U Z ti Z G y W ZN J N o /440. II k , 4 cn co A !` NS4*0 A"I ► 11 0P. a al i Vii. A j ,4 e 4 . " ,., 4 zi,i'''' tl"' 6s3:i-'," -ir- \_____ . lijAuti K A: j Alt Fs gZ N• S w m0 OW 1 • t!! co a U.1=ill SAJ-1996-027B9(IP-LAE) lu Clam Bay Eco-restoration August 19,2010 c:IOoc m.n. ,d SCUsleaMnostatantualastny a ro n. rsam+o cwuaseL_ruSITENANCE ss Figure 6/9 913 14? 80:TT TTOZ-5Z—LO i1e — , i 6 1 1 FI N N a p ui W W n o to 'Ail 4 .05 u Z O W la o Y =00 g000Zl* d 4 $ < < a i 2q 00 55 3 zw m .- t n to N r*�H Q O �Zrm(}U W N ry O Zr131Z F (7_O" w m° ` " II ai o < z0 � 04 C co xWQ aW W= G Lii = U) 2 as 1.1 ..', j Z IIIIn '� a +, C.)y. '; ' •i,1','. J sr .K 2 2 A ilik .\\______ .. , Iito boo 7 ___ 1TP w li W° OM/ QQ N N iat114 r---- :,...1, .......„. ,....) = ,.., .... .0., wi. .4* bilik7_____":// s,....,,, 06. .._ ..........4 Alm%i' it,,,, --.......0 isPilpik. Illkii:* -et N: 7-: /' t wry iv ,g +.a .r W ,.< w a a. 4. te4 g co i co w o 00 Fi in Fi H SA.t-1996-02789(IP-LAE) Clam Bay Eco-restoration c w August 19,2010 Xi Figure 7/9 ,,c:woOan+nn ana 9NIMpsnMnMSMkuLMnry 4xuen»nnucruarn_2+4004+0 cw.1040-w4+te.uMClla.q LT0 NV 80=TT TTOZ-5Z-LO 6 1 ' 41 1.1. 7 )1 1 2 11! ,...„, . . , I .3 i tu tg v 0 ca t5 4.i di w h - 0 > UJ 0 7) Z Z al 0 01 gX x x x0Q0t %4. .2 re""ge. fu4 IN Lii - cc e. Azi. t 4 0 0 E vs z 4) 0 1.0 0 us ta o -4 -4-4‘,0_,0 0 4•C 4- • 1 1 i g od a i:. , 0 <0 0 6 u. .) 9 n)u. 2 siz 1 Lu tu tit-- Ez 3 .0 CO ui i i W 0-a ;Z00000 0 M v)a to m 1 cc w a w o g W Z 0 ra 0 x CO Z ( L...ul 1 ..... 0 . .- i ..li • . 1 Fj!. fit C) k (...1 0 -.0 o 01N 1,-- v- ilk -......ske.; Ir.t .... Ki 0 tt 4' Ca- I, (...._. Ztj JP 1 Z r... ill ..._ .,11.de ...i cs =›. .16 rig., ,.■ -J ...1 Illi. 1 z 0 ...V U.) _.. (...) 1 kidia2\ ■IIIN.*A Will Z sd ..;,.,: 2 ....1 0 19.>41.___Aks- Lli Z 04 iik.010 la". Am.. --`0•11N4L, (...) ilm..... .. . .,,t .;',.4 44? CO CO ,„„,0.... Ne Cal 7 j 25 \ .......6, ...., 1... LL1 Iljv LL1 C> a 1'. 4 e ik1;. CL 411P —44 IX I :IV I-- I :list.44 CL, t Nte t tit, T. ..,,,, N '... • - :A-' ...4: ..,4 io. ..... .. 4 :1.* lilt _ N'tf • 4 r— 1 Vc'''' al' Z• Ilk 4 .go ilk. ...... 0 ,.. ...,, CGi 0 —I 'e7.-■ 111116. ../ AO. 4 ,,,,,i -- -7-1; < a - I .s,, A ov-• •----. .5 — Fir a m ......:71.. ,,. — :,.... . 41■• . ..I .4026,. -47tA, .0 9 co Lt- I-ILI in c E2 ii) co cc SAJ-1996-02789(IP-LAE) , 1:1 Ul 0 X Clam Bay Eco-restoration '- Cu- August 19.2010 Figure 8/9 ... LIDocumonta mid Uttinfis■vItmeniAlnIcucla.my clocumentaSMPubilsn_SID01241.10_CMANNE.L_VIAINTENASCaAwg 813 WY 80:TT ITN:-GU-LO se R e A A W q W A < N N Z W III G W ii S'.Z C.3 � �i Z H co I- ; _ DIa z 0 I a i- 7 � o u W U W o m ■ • 0n 2� «~ i O Z Qo WW 2 m 4 O 5 zOO ccm 2F W 11( 2 .` I illk,\-- i -4., ,,, y N CL < ,„:,0 co (I) f A �r w 11_ N �,.. iiiiid . %*<'' U �'.0 yi y% ", cS r n M • 60 " - it 44 ---:' '.'e/'. ...c,e 5 1114„... _.........v„.„,„..., ----r.A .A i it \----.1*/?k 11 n t SAJ-1996-02789(IP-LAE) 1 Clam Bay Eco-restoration A August 19,2010 ‘■ Figure 9/9 I c grorannwla and SetlMpswhxentrInkuaahmy down 27!012010 cHAWIFL_MAM7EMAIWE.dq 610 WV 80:TT ITN:-GZ-LO 161 1 1' A 1 2 STANDARD MANATEE CONDITIONS FOR IN-WATER WORK 2009 The permittee shall comply with the following conditions intended to protect manatees from direct project effects: a. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. b, All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at"Idle Speed/No Wake" at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible. c. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede manatee movement. d. All on-site project personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatee(s). All in-water operations, including vessels, must be shutdown if a manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has moved beyond the 50-foot radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the manatee(s) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving. e. Any collision with or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the FWC Hotline at 1- 888-404-FWCC. Collision and/or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1-904-731-3336)for north Florida or Vero Beach (1-772-562-3909)for south Florida. f. Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project. Awareness signs that have already been approved for this use by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) must be used (see MyFWC.com). One sign which reads Caution: Boaters must be posted. A second sign measuring at least 81/2" by 11"explaining the requirements for "Idle Speed/No Wake"and the shut down of in-water operations must be posted in a location prominently visible to all personnel engaged in water-related activities. C, CA dt °. SAJ-199602789(1P-LAE) Clam Bay Eco-restoratiun January 19.2011 { Attachment 2.Page 1/2 0 ry J cv 0 161 g 2"' Q � o � a o ty W • Q O M � `O U. CO � ■ a _ 0 00 00 Q W � r � Q SAJ- 1996.02789 (iP -LAE) Clam Bay Eco- restoration January 19, 201 Attachment 2. Page 212 TZO YM £iO :TT TTOZ -SZ -LO M� 1 R bbl 1 1�; �'W*' A121 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATKWAL MARRU FISBBRISS SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Aveme South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 SEA TURTLE AND SNL4LLT0O1rH SAWFISH CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS The pormince ill comply with the species eombuction eondidoas: a. The pernum shall man aU pe sorrel sasocisded with tie psojoct of the potential presence of these species and the need to avoid collisioot with an turtles cad smalhoodk sarBsh. All construction pasonnel are responsible for obsavmg w dw -mated achvities for the prerenx of thecae species. b. The pa mbee dmU advise all cooatieo m pataomnl that there an civil and cximmal penalties for ian niog, harassing, or lolling sea hurtles or a miltooth ssw+fiah, which an proteded under the Fnda red Species Act of 1973. c. Siltation', ia: shall be made of matoW in w-6ich a ssa twds or smalkooth sawfish comet become owed, be properly somized, amd be regularly moo*xvd to avoid protected species eaua xom Bmias may not block am turde or sosYtooth sawibh entry to a exit fiam desipasod critical habitat without prior areemak 6vm the Nadond Marine Fidwits Service's Protected Resowces Division, St. PaOasbarg, Florida. d. AU vesseb associated with the oamtnuction props shall %WW at `loo wakeRW RM& at all times while a floe coamtnr *m area and while in wader depths where the drag of the vessel provides less than a fear -foot clearance flnm the bottom. AU vessels will peefixontakUy follow deep-vwater routes (e g., manned chaoseb) wriaost"a' possible- e. If a an turtle or smalitoeth sawfish is aeon within 104 yw& of tine active daily coostruactiod gumum operation or vessel mov emsat, all appropriate p shall be implemented to emaure its protection. TLase pmwatiom dmU inciode cessation of opassr W of any nova ig equipment doom than 30 Scat of a sea tm* or saaaftoti sawfish. Opastion of any mechanical construction equipment shall cow immodiaody if a sea tutide or sm lbooth sawfish a seen within a 304 nudke of the equipment. Activities may sot resume mail the protected speciem has departed the project area of its own voUt M f. Any collision with asd/or btay to s sea turtle or saraUtooth sawfish shill be reported immediately to the Nadouai Marine Fid wies Services Praaected Resources Division (72'1 -424- 5312) and doe local authorized sea farce stra■duRla oweinaim S. Any special eonamcdon coed win nwaed of your specific pmject• outride them Smug 000ditions, if applicable, will be addressed in the primary ooeamtian. Revised: March 23, 2006 O:lfocros%m Thuds asd Smalitoath Sawfiab Comtrucfion Coaditim.doc 4 SAJ -1996 -02789 OP -LAE ) Clam Bay Eco- restoration January 19.2011 Attachment 3. Page 1l1 r� N O 0 i N c 161 1 Al2 MIX -C WIFICATION S OF CIONPLIANCa Permit Number: SAJ- 1996- 02789(IP -LAX) Permittee's Name & Address (please print or type): Telephone Number: Location of the Work: Date Work Started: Date Work Completed: Description of the Work (e.g. bank stabilization, residential or commercial filling, docks, dredging, etc.): Acreage or Square Feet of Impacts to Waters of the United States: Describe Mitigation completed (if applicable): Describe any Deviations from Permit (attach drawing(s) depicting the deviations): * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** I certify that all work, and mitigation (if applicable) was done in accordance with the limitations and conditions as described in the permit. Any deviations as described above are depicted on the attached drawing(s). SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) Clam Bay Eco- restoration January 19. 2011 Attachment d. Pale 1/1 Signature of Permittee Date 164 1 I A121- You are advised to read and understand these conditions and drawings prior to conuncncing the authorized activities, and to ensure the work u conducted m conf Arnance with all the terns, conditions, and drawings. If you are utilizing a contractor, the contractor also should read and understand these conditions and drawings prior to i ing the authorized activities, Failure to comply with these conditions, including any mitigation requirements, shall constitate grounds for revocation of the Permit and appropriate enfxcernett action by the Department. Operation of the fachty is not authorized eawept when detemunyed to be m conforms ice with all applicable rules and this pernnit /certification /authorization and state-owned submerged lands authorization, as specifically described above. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 1. At least 30 day prior to each construction event, the pera ttee shall identify a qualified biologist /wedand scientist(s) familiar with the ecosystems of Florida, and submit their qualifications to the Ueparbnent, to serve as the supervising scientist that oversees the biological components of this restoration project and will halt construction if he /she suspects that violations of the permit have occurred. 2. All required submittals sash as ca ificadons, monitoring reports, notifications, etc., shall be submitted to the Florida Department of E whonmental Protection, South District Office, P.O. Box 2549, Fart Myers, FL 33902-2549. All submittals shall include the project mane and indicated permit number when referring to this project. Note: In the event of an emergency, the Pe udttee should contact the Department by calling ( 800) 320. 0519. During normal business hours, the permittee should call (239)332 - 697'5. 3. Construction and operation of the project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: a. Rule 62.302500, F.A.C. - Surface Waters: Minimum Criteria General Criteria; and b. Rule 62-302530, F.A.C. - Table Surface Water Quality Criteria - Class II Waters; 4. If at any time during construction of the permitted facility, unforeseen construction impacts to adjacent surface waters occur, or connpiications preventing compliance with the specifications of this permit arias, the Permittee shall innznediately cease work and notify the Department's South District Office, SLBRP Section, P.O. Box 2549, Fort Myers Florida 33902 -2549, 23cJtM26M. The Permittee shall submit an alternate construction plan to the Depertzrient to allow construction to proceed without pamliow Collier County BOCC - Pe ioan Bony Smim Division Para* Expiration: December 17.2014 Permit No .- 114n2843.005 Page 3 of 14 SAJ- 1996 -02789 OP-LAE j Clam Bay Eco- restoration January 19, 2011 AttaChment 5, Page 117 10 N f7 a n 1-: a ux N 1 0 - X61 1 Al2 additional impact or no - compliance. Work shall not continue until the Department has approved the modifxation in writing. Substantial changes from the permitted activities may require f nmal review and r ificettion of this permit. 5. Turbidity barriers shall be installed and maintained at all locations where the possibility of transferring suq nded solids into surface waters exists due to the authorized work Turbidity barriers shall remain in place at all locations and be properly maintained until eon ruction is amnpleted and sods are stabilized and vegetation has been established. All practices shall be in accordance with the guidelines and spec3flcatiaru described in the Stdo of Fknik Emsion and Sedfnwnt Confrd Designer and P4memw Mwm4 FDOT, FDEP (/2007), available on the Department's website at mamml.gdf. Following the completion of corriru� the Peimittee shall be responss'ble for the removal of the turbidity barriers and shall correct any erosion or shoaling that has the potential to cause adverse impact® to wetlands or surfiwe waters. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CONSTRUCTION ACTpArmS 6. All work is to be conducted by hand. Access to the flushing channels shall be accomplished by a small boat or on foot. Any Dockage to the flushing channels shall be cleared by hand with material being broadcast out to the dries of the flushing channels. Any new channels to be dug shall be dug by hand and their location identified on a site plan of the area. At no time shall any blasting occur to create new flushing channels. 7. All mangrove tinning activities are to be supervised by the qualified biologist /wetlands scientist(s) docrilmd in Spedfic Condition 1 of this permit. All trimming shall be done in accordance with Sections 403.9321403.9333, F.S. &. All mangrove trimming shall be dome on an as needed basis and shall be conducted by hand from the existing boardwalks or from a small boat only in areas that need to be trimmed in order to maintain access through the making canoe trail or boardwalks. Mangrove trimming procedures must be followed pursuant to Sections 403.9327, FS. No trimming of mangroves to create or enhance views within this ecosystem is permitted. No alteration„ removal or defoliation is permitted. In the event that a tree has fallen and completely blocked the waterway, the tree and all limbs shall be removed to maintain navigational access. All trimmed debris shall be removed from the site and disposed of in up lands. 9. All exotic and invasive vegetation,, including Brazilian pepper (Schimis Mrrbindai#ws), punk tree (A&laJerarr Ig8rinquene m), Australian pine (Casuarina equia hjbha), vines, and other exotic and invasive vegetation Bated on the latest Category 1 and Category 2 list of the Florida Exotic Pest Plan Council shall be removed from the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area. Maintenance shall be conducted in P+ern t w- Coma wonky B= - P+ hon Day Sarnioes Dbimion Permtt Expiration: December 17, 20I0 Permit No:114n284 3005 Page 4 of 14 SAJ-1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) Clam Bay Eco- restoration January 19, 2011 Attachment 5. Page 2a accmW oe with the Clam Bay Reatoratm and Marageocwd Plan amended on July 6, 1996 (CBRMP) to ensure that the area is mak tained free from Category 1 and Category 2 exodc and invasive vegetatimn (as defined by the Florida Biotic Plat Plant Council at d w time of permit issuance). Maintenance in perpetuity shall also ensure that the area maintains the species and coverage of nativ4, desirable vegetation specified in the permit. Coverage of exotic and invasive plant species shaft not exceed 1% of total cover between utaintenance activities. 10. Within seven (9) days of completion of the authadud activities within each work area (including the maigrvve trimmmir% interior channel eaavadona, and removal of nuisance exotic vegetation) througiwut the Clan Bay ecosystem the cmhaacted crews Stull return to each work am and rmmove the trimmed branches and trees (dead trees approved for removal) greater than 1 inch in diaoneter to appropriate upland banns. The crews shall also Side calm spoil material m such a manner as to avoid creation of a bum or pile. The spoil shall be leveled and distributed such that there is no innpedi rtent to sheet flow and no created uplands as a result of the project. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MONITORING 11. Water Quality Monitoring The pernmittee atoll implement a long-term water quality monitoring program, to be conducted on a quarterly baste track arils. and patterns within the Clam Bay ecosystem. Monitoring stations established by the previous permit tlurou ghout Upper, metier and Outer Clam Bay shall conti m to be monitored and record the following parameters. All : �- - ab and analyses for each pan n► dw shall be made using approved methods providing a FQL (Practical Quantificatiotn Limit) below the water quality standard for the parameter as Bated in Rule 62 -302, F.A.C.: Parameter (a) Dissolved Oxygen rkg/l (2 samples h tervals through a 24 hour period) (b) TKN, NO2-N, NO9-N, (c) Specific Conductivity (d) Oyu (e) Phosphorus (f) Pheophytin (g) pH (h) Suspended solids taken dlel per quarter samples 4 hour Pennium county B00C - Pbitaa Bay Suvkes 0Mdm tit K%pir do= Dnm nbw 17, 2010 Permit No: IM28643 -M Page 5 of 14 SAJ- 1996 - 02769 (IP -LAE) Clam Bay Eco- restoration January 19, 2011 Attachment 5. Page 317 +. y N O rn v 0 N v, N , n 16I IA12�` M data shall be submitted with tits documents containing the following information: (1) permit application number, (2) dates of sampling; and analysis; (3) a statement describing the methods used in collection, handling, storage and analysis of the samples; (4) a map indicating the sampling locations; (5) a statement by the individual responsible for innplmnentation of the sampling program concerning the authenticity, precision, limits of detection and accuracy of the data; and (6) documentation that the laboratory performing the sampling and analyses has an approved quality assurance plan on file with DER Monitoring reports shall also include the following information for each sample that is taken: (a) time of day samples takest; (b) water tern peratare ('C); (c) salinity (ppt); (d) depth of water body, (e) depth of maple; (f) antecedent weather conditions; (g) tidal stage and direlctiion of flow; (h) wind direction and velocity; W NIP dimerntition; rainfall. (k) other influential flows„ such as groundwater and Storm water flows, Q) id+entif catiorn of the sample location which corresponds to the sample location number shown on the sampling location map; (m) the appropriate Rule 62-, F.A.C, standard for the parameter being nwasured; and (n) the detection limit for the parameter being measured. In additio=n to the above, all data shall be reported in a table (or tables) which clearly lists) the results of parawleters measured at each location, and the information described above. 12 Based on the data previously collected and on ,going water quality moni ormg analyzed in corqmcdon with the permitted activities, should dw data continue to show a correlation between elevated nutrient level in the Clam Bay ecosystem and the golf course and development fertilization schedule, a renuxUation plan must be prepared to address this issue within 6 months of subsmittai of the second monitoring report This Pmmiaw Collier C=q D= - PeHmn ikay Sw .*= Division Permit EVkxbo : Da maber 17, 2010 Permit No: 1140128465.005 Page 6 of 14 SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE ) Clam Bay Eco- restoration January 19, 2011 Attachment S. Page 4 +7 161 1 �.� A121 plan should include detailed descriptions of the problem and the actions proposed to address the problem, maps, activities to be conducted and the methods used to conduct those actiivitim. The intent of the plan is to reduce discharge of mitrWnts into the system and avoid the elevated nutrient Ilevels,, through modified manag+elnent tech*ues, beat management practices, etc. In the event that the contitmed monitoring reveals other water quality concerts, or impacts to the habitat and/or productivity of the preserve area,, the Pmanittee shall submit a plan of remedl**m along with the 13. Biological Monitoring a. The permittee shall provide eight dated aerial photography of the Clam Bay ecosystem annually. The aerials shall be taken during July of each year and submitted to the Department annually for the duration of the permit The aerials must be color, vertical aerial photographs, co*oW and rectified at a scale appropriate for past production digi#atlizatiosi and a scale sufficient to delineate differing habitat zones and dominant species within each zone. The flight line shall include all of the Clam Bay Natural Rreoiuce Probection Area and the nearatwre Zane to at least 4100 feet offshore (foam the mean high water line); b. As concurrently as possible with taking the aerial photogrraphs, ground truthing activities shall be conducted in arms of special concern within the Clam Bay Bcosystm n, including areas of widespread dead and dying mangroves, Inner, Upper and Outer Clam Bays, the areas receiving water discharges from the uplands, and areas contiguous with the main pass. The ground truftng activities shall include the use of the latest accepted scientific methods to survey the types of habitats of concern within the Clam Bay ecosystem;, including mangrove and seagram dominated habitats. These surveys shall include a listing of species present, percent coverage species, size ranges and averages, and overall health/biological trends for each fixed quadrat, transeck or plot studied These surveys and any associated drawings /mapping Shan be conducted prior to conducting the maintenam activities once each Year (in July) thereafter for the life of the permit c. Annuall biological monitoring reports (BMb) shall be submitted beginning one year following permit issuance. The first annual BMR shall contain a summary of the result of the monitoring and restoration actions fmm the previous permit as well as the time -zero conditions of the Clam Bay ecosystem adsting prior to rnummmeenkat of the permitted activities and a progress report of the activities conducted since permit issuance. Thereafter, each BMR shall contain a progress report of the activities completed sire the previous BUR and all data collected pursuant to a. and b. above. Each BUR shall include graphical represectiation and overlays of the collected data on computer generated drawings of the aerials, and ground level color panoramic photos of each study area at fixed stations. The annual BMRs shall also eont m an analysis of the collected data and make Perm iithw. Collier County Hoot - Pdi"a Hay service. Divium Pe n* Expiration: Daan*w 17 2M Pumit Na 114128463-005 P 7 of 14 SAJ•1996- {327$9 {�P•lAE) Clam Bay Eco•restoraaon January 19, 2011 Attachment 5. Pace 517 161 '1 Al2 conclusions and recammarrdatiora mwerni% the impacts to permitted activities have had on the Clam Bay ecosystem based on the analysis of the data collected, including the biological monitoring data and the water quality data monitoring permitted activities. � hydrolvgkal information collected as part of the SPECIFIC CONDTIIONS - MANATEE AND MARINE TURTLE CONDITIONS 14. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence of marine turtles, manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with or injury to marine turtles and manatees. The peanitlee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing marine turtles or manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Specks Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. 15. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle Speed /No Wake" at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four4bot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible. 16. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which marine turtles or manatees cannot become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid marine turtle or manatee entanglement or entrapment Barriers must not impede marine t=de or manatee movement. 17. All on-ate project personnel are resporatble for observing water - related activities for the presence of marine turtles or manatees. All in-water operations, including vessels, must be shutdown if a msx*x turtles) or manst,ee(s) coam within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the marine turtles) or manatees) has moved beyond the 50400t radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the marine turtles) or manatee(i) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving. 18. Any collision with or injury to a marine turtle or manatee shall be reported umnediately to the FWC Hotline at 1 04 -FWCC. Co1ision and /or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jklmotnville (1- 904-731 -M) for north Florida or Vero Beach (1- 772 -562 -909) fez south Florida. 19. Temporary signs concerning marine turtles and manatees shall be pasted prior to and during all in -water project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permuttee upon completion of the project. Awareness signs that have already been approved for this use by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) must be Permittee: CoWw County D CC - FrWkm Bay Sovk= Dhdsion Permit &piraW& December 17, 2010 Permit No: 11-0128463-M Page 8 of 14 SAJ- 1998-02789 (IP -t.AE) Clam Bay Eco- restoration January 19, 2011 Attachment 5, Page G!7 161 '1 used (see MyFWC.com). One sign which reams Cmchm: Mam must be posted. A second sign measuring at least 81/2" by 11" explaining the requirements for "Idle speed / No Waite" and the slut -down of in -water operations must be posted in a location prominently visible to all perlsonnel engaged in water - related activities. GENERAL CONDMON& 1. All activities authorized by this permit shall bee irnplerrrentexi as set forth in the plans, spccificatians and performance criteria as approved by this Pte• Any deviation from the permitted activity and the conditions for undertaking that activity shall constitute a violation of this permit and a violation of Part IV of Chapter 373, (F.S.). 2 This permit or a copy fivaeof, complete with all conditions, ate, exhibits, and modifscatiom shall be kept at the work site of the permitted activity. The complete permit shall be available for review at the work site upon request by the Deft staff. The permittee shall require the contractor to review the complete permit prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this permit. 3. Activities approved by this permit shall be conducted in a manner which does not cause violations of state water quality standards. The permittee shall implement best naragement practices for erosion and pollution control to prevent violations of state water quality standards. Temporary erosion control shall be impicemented prior to and during construction and permanent control measures shall be completed within seven (7) days of any construction activity. Turbidity barriers shall be installed and . maintained at all locations where the possibility of transferring suspended solids into the receiving waster -body exists due to the permitted work. Turbidity barriers shall remain in plane at all locations until construction is completed and soils are stabilized and vegetation has been established. All prectioes shall be in accordance with the guidelines and speclfic+ttums described in Chapter Sbc of the Florida Land Development Manual; A Guide to Sound Land and Wader Maralgenaent (Department of Environ mwital Regulation, 1988), unIm a project-specific erosion and sedh ent control plan is approved as part of the permit. Thereafter, the permittee shall be responsible for the removal of the barriers. The permittee shall correct any erosion or shoaling that causes adverse impacts to the water resources. 4. The permittee shall ratify the Department of the anticipated suction start date within thirty (30) days of the date that this permit is issued. At least forty-ei&U (48) hours prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this p=it, the perntittee shall submit to the Department an "EnvironmenW Resource Permit Construction Comaaramcanr notice (Foam No 62-M.900(3), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)) indicating the actual start date and expected completicm date. A121 Fermium Collier County WM - Fitton &ry Services Division Pamit &ftadm December 17, 2010 Permit No: 1140128663.005 sAJ- 1996.02789 (IP -LAE) Page 9 of 14 Clam Bay Eco- restoration January 19.2011 Attachment 5. Page 7.7 16 1 Al2' ATTACHMENT PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): December 13, 2010/February 7, 2011 rev. B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD: Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Naples, FL 34108 C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: SAJ -1996-02789 D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: tidal Clam Bay near Pelican Bay residential development, Naples, Collier County, Florida (USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: FL County /parish/borough: Collier City: Naples Site coordinates: (lat/long in degree decimal format): from Norther limit: Latitude 26.247024N; Longitude 81.818878W to Souther limit: Latitude 26.214063N; Longitude 81.814505W Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: tidalCla n Bay /Clam Pass to the Gulf of Mexico Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area: Non - wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and /or acres. Cowardin Class: Marine/estuarine Stream Flow: Perennial Wetlands: project area: 56,660 linear feet of estuarine wetlands Cowardin Class: estuarine sub -tidal Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10 waters: Tidal: the subject area is within the tidal Clam Bay /Clam Pass estuary system. Non - Tidal: E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ® Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 12/13/10 Field Determination. Date(s): ri v ca O a u, 0 16 '1 r Now A 211 1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site. Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in this instance and at this time. 2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre - construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non - reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331, and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33 C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information: 2 fn c 0 .a a N u} N t O 161 1 Al2' SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. ❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ❑ Corps navigable waters' study: ® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ❑ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: ❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: ❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:USFWS web -site December 2010. ❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s): ❑ FEMA/FIRM maps: ❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) ® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Collier County Property Appraiser web -site . or ® Other (Name & Date):Google Earth Pro. ❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:. ❑ Other information (please specify): IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Cori= and should not be relied upon for dater Jurisdictional determinations. S ature and d6te of Signature and date of Regulatory P ect Manager person requesting preliminary JD (REQUIRED) (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is impracticable) 3 861'1 Estimated site amount of Class of number Latitude Longitude Class�in aquatic aquatic resource in resource review area 1= north: 26.247024 81.818878 Estuarine sub - 56,660 linear section 10 = south 26.214063 81.814505 tidal; feet — tidal unconsolidated bottom 2 linear feet section 10 — non -tidal 3 15 square non - section feet 10— wetland 4 0.01 acre non-section 10 — non - wetland 161 1 Al2 N N m V Ln %D n O H 0 rn N C Q v N C 1�I1 V�1 INII N N IN/1 C V C U C U C U C V C U C U O - O - O - O `o a a a `O c p o a c o O> V u C u OJ N u L\f1 O 00 N V 3 m C N O 0 2 c > O C > O L\ E O C p N �ri •o N o m\ •N \> m m a1 _ E °' Q` a 3 c o u_ n °° @ o2f r a s ^ o f i v E m 3 O` n> X C C m O O V L va �t N ° o n O O x c L 3 > `_ 3 vo �n -O v \- O v a c N �' 7 7 - U Y .� L p c m tojo N d L L E Z V V E m ON � 3 =5 3 .6 a c a 0 ' ut E E O - O O E m E m p 2\ 'O '> E OJ •7 E v E u '5 -o m o 0 E v, u Y c °D o a F 00 m m E Q v v m 0 o ,� o 0 o v '^ m y\ m m o o 0010 L v `a c -c° ` w v o a r L a v o c to o a v c E N c °- w ;0 m 3 X o '= °- X r O on .5; >. o uo 00 Y U m• -v�o U aE dm° N U oy m° v E @J m m 0 m E a@ L O c i m o a y m a o u N N 3 3 D. O U -4 C u> _ v o u c a > + fa O N H U~ Ol N f� 0 m m Q > O w U N E Y of .O U ", w m u ' 3 v O L m a >, Z V C N m p > L a p am+ C n 01 N 0 7 m j +�+ N m N UO N E w V o 00 a o w ti c a m° m m 3 p o v y^ a o c> z m v v v mo v o o m a1 ] o N oo Y 0 C° E v v m ai N > m a E v N Y ;o_ 0 z N C �+ a m w o m a c° o a a° m m N CO E v° v a Ol v T 7 c o o m\ � v c 'O m o v o p Y i c p m m u v o m 'C O ip c O Q 05 m v om0 00 Q. c O m O Y c E 00 v v m' C p E c E " rn c o E a c m p C N v c c O E' Q v m a O o v a) N E \> a`1 w 3 t o u o v o vac m^ •�-+ E O. a c v m m y ^ aOJ+ j i > _n O 0 m c T O m > m 0�S ; -O a � E u x w E v o- n v z o c OV - c m 01 m N 0c0 m tlo c 'd •p vii E C o U C 2 0 A- u) Q m 9 Y O m C a O- E 'O O j m O u, m C o a ; m T a > v E Zr o S n 3 v m .°. o au- N u o " 'o >O °° m w - � a o o a m L aE m a m N Y? c U v O O w E V O O 3 m m c 7 u m 'n O m O >' 2- C m Y E y n 'C C L O `1 c 'O 1] L+ OD N N Q U o N 001 U W d N m l7 Z E c N :Y c >, 7 'N L !� ; ^ O m u m U "O i O` ` i O U 00 �n m \ 1_I N u1 O '(D C U U C o fT0 m 3 3 m of N 7 c m a p m 1J p p c ( o O a +m-� a o +T' c v v> m 01 o 3 m m O 'u v f_a u C U O a 7 -6 01 (`a c o0 a D Op a1 E L 00 N .E o M m p m a E o ° o_ u v a y m o m c > o m N m ,_ rl o 'a. c +. mo O '� �_ .E c a .a ° a° o >. c E" a m p Do o ai u v c_ c N >• ma v a E E o c n `-° u m Z c� .° 6 aci m a E O E _ U Ql '� c" i1 p Q o 00 -i •tL tic-O Y 'c w m b4 m c m E T d m E 'O O DD O O. L 01 'm0 m .6 N O U j v�'i �/ m o IV c U U_ u a o 'C N 3 o 3 C N C m '016 N Y a E -Q a Y •� `= �n c :L- o °- a O E E c E o c 3 0 T 3 o v c c w `m Z v L o o w «° v m w m H a O o 00 v m v 3 O v o E u N u O' g> m u '> v N° a y c m ° cu o a m °u� Oc0 'O o> c o V 5° >_ Y m 0 ✓ o L v u m e Oui 3 0 3 o a L O p_ _ m c Ol l0 \ of a h N 3 O ~ V �p m vui d L w o'er 3 3_ m w -o Y; E u, E T v cm o v c 0 E o tD m 3 y a v c E o `m ° 01 \ u 01 - o m m ; w y a o = x o v c a E o o N w 01 w a` 0 3 0 0 a m c V a° a v m o m a a s c O° u m d E� d4 02 L m 7 `t = Y N �o Y ` U vai vYmi `1 O N N m a m E N ` O 7 "d C E T U c m y H N c \ y `o m 04 .7 o w o >„ N O E 'O c E c a c m o N E E_o L Y C 2 3 �n m C m 3 Y o f O. N o L c c- `J m •u v m o o U m m T m Y ° m 0c0 E p c 0 3 o � m E x m 00 .N a^ `/ o 'c° c L p m a a= a :c :• m lJ >' •,� o ._ ,� 3 01 E -o c 'O 'm `o E m v Y a u o N a; a v o Y m o u' m9 o m y a' v o c v o o a m v o u w C 00 H N m N E Z O U Z C 'N N m V it O H N > II 'c 00 o N > > Ll m O u o m L Ol O O Y fm0 O. " 72 ; N m T o OJ a .6 N N- m "O v v 3 o° N m z g° `! 7 L d :° ._ m_ 1 E C C m v m v w g O Q p' .B u w o2i p m -o u o �' >m0 v J ° C E Svc' o 3 a V �0oa� a C p w omEo�,�> ao O o -o y L T m 0 m c v V O. v o v v u o v _ u E m Y ` u w m c O y •y01, O m N m m e; Y° y w C u v m u o o �' m v o m y o c L "0 3 c C c m c m o 0p m y 'O u 'O > V c 0 .Y Z -O 00 "d U c 0 U "O 'O 6 E .� 7 L w E V 0 m V 3 u01i c W c '6 a m Z C N w 'O 'O 3 'O O = v m° a o a o o o a' o m c u 0 O r :° o m o 0 o o u, o '� U ,-D OJ �. N O d\ 2 E V N m m a C 2 N 3 m N a d Q N m W m O H m w U w E J N E 7 f� v N d (7 yp "O N L U o w o T u m O a ! 1 m o 'O J J J K 0 J J Y Y J Z Y Y 0 a Z Z Z m - O m m m y 02i U O m c O T m O_ u c p m o C v U d o U a 0 u u y a m y X V O o c p N O E Vf > > vi o m a) O o N D u m c E E m °o 3 °- ° - N E oo 3 - N Y 01 m Z m m a m v -o ao O cL V 'm N o O ^ L K 6 a vale v K o 0 U o c 1 J i Ln I v d m o �+ N N o N N N A 0� o � � O O O O .N-I O O O NO O O N N m V Ln %D n O H 0 rn N C Q v N C 161 It August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board lu'lnesA 4d - Administrator's Report - Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard From: John Chandler To: ResnickUsa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: August 3 Agenda Date: Saturday, July 30, 20118:58:21 AM Lisa, The following is a one way communication. I have reviewed the August 3 agenda and the related documents that are posted online. My only comment is that in the Administrator's Report section there is no item "Repaving of Pelican Bay Blvd ". I hope that Mr. Dorrill will report on the status of the potential loan of funds from the PBSD to the County to enable the repaving to occur in 2012. John Chandler Page 1 of 1 61 12 Au usrt 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Divisiolard Regular Session 9 Y 9 5bi - Chairman's Report - Discussion of Committees Under Consideration - Clam Bay Committee From: John Chandler To: Resnirkl isa Subject: Clam Bay Committee Date: Thursday, June 23, 20112:14:58 PM Since the PBSD currently has no authority over Clam Bay, I see this committee's activity as quite limited. I think that a member of this committee should be present at all CAC meetings and at all PBF and BCC meetings where Clam Bay is on the agenda. The committee should then advise the PBSD Board whenever a major issue arises. John Chandler Page 1 of 3 16l I A 12 Augusrt 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi - Chairman's Report - Discussion of Committees Under Consideration - Clam Bay Committee PBSD Board of Directors (6/28/11) As requested by Chairman Dallas at the 6/13/11 PBSD board meeting, I offer the following input regarding PBSD committees. Clam Bay Committee In view of the limited responsibility the PBSD now has for the conservation area — maintaining hand -dug drainage channels throughout the mangroves and clearing areas around walkways and canoe trails (I believe those are the only unchallenged responsibilities) — the board may want to consider whether any committee is needed. If a committee is formed, it might interact with staff, contractors and other community stakeholders to provide oversight and make reports and policy recommendations to the board on the following: (1) Prescribed responsibilities — drainage channel maintenance and tree trimming. (2) Unassigned responsibilities, including the protection of PBSD and community interests in Clam Bay on matters concerning markers, dredging and general safety and ecology. (This is a morass. The board would have to spell out specifics.) Landscape Committee As suggested by Chairman Dallas, the duties of this committee might be expanded beyond its current environmental focus to include input and vetting of landscape design, materials, maintenance and cost. More detailed oversight would seem to be warranted, since this is our largest budget category. As with all committees, this group would provide reports and recommendations to the PBSD board for final decisions. Water Management As our second largest budget category, this area might warrant committee participation. As a board newcomer, I can't offer specifics. Dave Trecker Page 2 of 3 Au usrt 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Divisio oaake lar Sess 9 Y 5bi - Chairman's Report - Discussion of Committees Under Consideration - Clam Bay Committee ResnickLisa Subject: T. Cravens Comments RE: Clam Bay Committee - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Tom Cravens [mailto:nfn167991�a,naples.netl Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:31 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: FW: Clam Bay Committee Greetings Lisa, I am responding to Chairman Dallas's request regarding the Clam bay sub - committee: I would like to see the Clam bay sub - committee monitor and make recommendations to the PBSD relating to the Clam Bay Eco- restoration work being done under the recently issued 10 year permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and the F.D.E P. I would like to request that you include copies of both of these permits in the package of materials for the board members. I would also like to see the Clam bay sub - committee look at and make recommendations regarding anything that may come up which would have an impact on the Clam bay NRPA such as the current die off of White Mangroves. Tom Tom Cravens Naples Florida e -mail to: nfn I 6799gnaples.net Web site: http: / /www.tomcravens.com/ (239) 594 -8256 > - - - -- Original Message---- - > From: Keith Dallas f mailto:keithdallasgcomcast.net] > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:34 AM > To: ResnickLisa > Subject: Clam Bay Committee > Lisa, > Would you remind Board members that I would like them to send you > their thoughts on the scope of activities they would like to see > designated to The Clam Bay Committee, when reconstituted. We can then > circulate their ideas with the August Meeting agenda package and > discuss them at the meeting. > Thank you. > Keith Page 3 of 3 16 I g Al 24 Subject: Please Move Forward to Retain Hopping Green & Sams Date: Tuesday, August 02, 20113:23:05 PM From: ResnickLisa Sent: Thursday, July 28, 20114:46 PM To: TeachScott Cc: Neil Dorrill (neil @dmgfl.com); ResnickLisa Subject: Please Move Forward to Retain Hopping Green & Sams Scott, As we discussed, please move forward with the process to qualify the firm of Hopping, Green, & Sams as Collier County co- counsel by contacting Mr. Matthews and preparing an executive summary to present to the BCC for their consideration on September 13. It is my understanding that if the BCC approves the contract on September 13, the Pelican Bay Services Division could then retain co- counsel legal services from the firm via purchase order. Let me know if you need anything else from us and thank you for your help. Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- From: ResnickLisa Sent: Thursday, July 28, 20112:35 PM To: KlatzkowJeff Cc: Neil Dorrill (neil @dmgfl.com); ResnickLisa Subject: On Behalf of Neil Dorrill Dear Jeff, On behalf of Neil Dorrill, Administrator, Pelican Bay Services Division, I am contacting you. We are interested in utilizing the legal services of Frank E. Matthews of Hopping, Green & Sams for Army Corp. of Engineers' permitting issues related to the Pelican Bay Services Division's south berm restoration project. Is the attorney /firm (see contact info below) Collier County pre - qualified co- counsel? Frank E. Matthews, Esq. Hopping, Green & Sams 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tel. (850) 222 -7500 If not, what is the procedure for consideration? Please advise. Thanks, Lisa Lisa Resnick Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 Iresnick@colliergov.net http: / /pelicanbayservicesdivision.net http: / /www.colliergov.net/index.aspx ?page =2762 Hopping Green & Sams 161 1 A194 of 3 Frank E. Matthews 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, FL 32301 850.222.7500 Experience • Represents clients before local, state, and federal government officials, agencies and elected bodies, including the Florida Legislature, on a variety of issues including land use, environmental, administrative, and local government matters. • Provides counsel to major developments and serves as counsel and lobbyist for the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, CF Industries, Association of Florida Community Developers, and Florida Home Builders Association. • Involved in all facets of environmental issues, developments of regional impact, environmental permitting, mining, review and drafting of environmental legislation, including property rights, total maximum daily loads, brownfields, and land acquisition, and "due diligence" work for lenders, investors, and others acquiring interest in undeveloped land and completed projects. • Lead attorney in Administrative Procedures Act seminal case, St. Johns River Water Management District v. Consolidated- Tomoka Land Company. • Responsible for various environmental permitting associated with thousands of wetland acres with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • Board certified in Federal and State Administrative Law. Education • University of Miami, J.D., 1981 • University of Rochester, B.A., 1978 Bar and Court Admissions • Florida, 1981 • U.S. District Court, Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida • U.S. Court of Claims Professional Affiliations • American Bar Association • Florida Bar Association • Florida Chamber of Commerce, Board of Governors, 2000 -2oo6 • Florida Chamber of Commerce, Legislative Policy Council, 1999- Present • Florida Chamber of Commerce, Natural Resources and Growth Management Committee, 1999- Present • Association of Florida Community Developers, Associate Member, 1991-Present http: / /www.hgslaw.com /lawyers /frank -e- matthews.html 8/2/2011 Hopping Green & Sams Page 2 of 3 161 r A 12*" Community Involvement • Vineyards Property Owners Association; President, 1993-94 • Tallahassee Community College Foundation Board Member, 1999 -2005 Publications and Presentations • "APA Reform Refined ", March 1999, Florida Bar Administrative Law Section Newsletter • "Rules of the Wetlands Regulatory Game ", September 10, 1998, CLE International Florida Wetlands Conference • "Regulation of Protected Species (with Kathleen Blizzard) ", June 1998, Florida Bar Environmental Law in Real Estate Transactions • "Mark S. Dennison, Wetland Mitigation: Mitigation Banking and Other Strategies for Development and Compliance (Book Review) [with Kimberly Grippa] ", Spring 1998, Florida State University Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law • "Florida Water Policy: A Twenty -Five Year Mid - Course Correction (with Gabriel E. Nieto) ", Winter 1998, Florida State University Law Review • "ERPs, SLERPs, and NWPs: Wetland Permitting and Sovereign Land Authorization ", February 21,1997, Florida Bar • "Why Is The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission An Unconstitutional Body ? ", February 2,1993, Environmental Network • "Give DOAH Final Order Authority ", December 1, 1992, Florida Bar Administrative Law Section Newsletter • "Funding for Contamination Clean- Ups ", November 4,1992, Florida Specifier • "West Lake: The Creation of Fort Lauderdale's Central Park ", September 1991, American Society of Civil Engineers Urban Planning, Journal of Urban Planning and Development • "Environmental Mitigation ", Florida Environmental Permitting and Growth Management Handbook 1990 & 1992 • "Wekiva River: Riverine Protection Areas and Buffers - The Wave of the Future", 1989 International Symposium on Wetlands and River Corridor Management • "The Wekiva River Buffer Experience: Land Use in the Fourth Dimension ", September 1989, South Carolina Riverine Symposium • "Why Shouldn't Administrative Citizen Suit Petitioners Pay a Price ? ", February 1988, Florida Bar Journal • "Pro /Con: Intervention in Environmental Permitting - Should There be a Price ?" for Environmental and Land Use Law in the Florida Bar Journal, January 1990. • "Florida Water Policy: a Twenty -Five Year Mid - Course Correction" in the Florida State Law Review, Winter, 1998• • "Why Do Federal Agencies Rely on ARNI Designations in Environmental Permitting ?" for Environmental and Land Use Law in the Florida Bar Journal, December 2010. Awards and Recognition • Listed in Best Lawyers in America, for Environmental Law and Land Use & Zoning Law, 2001- 2011 Edition. • Listed as one of the "Florida Super Lawyers ", for Environmental Law, Energy and Natural Resources, and Administrative Law, in the annual publication of The Florida Super Lawyers, 2006 -2011 Edition. • Listed in Chambers USA, America's Leading Business Lawyers and "Leaders in their Field ", for Environmental Law, 2003 -2010 Editions. • Listed in the 2004 -2008 Edition of Florida Trend Magazine's "Legal Elite" for Environmental and Land Use Law. • Has achieved Martindale - Hubbell's highest rating for legal ability and ethical standards. • Who's Who Legal: Florida 2008, for Environmental Law. http: / /www.hgslaw.com /lawyers /frank -e- matthews.html 8/2/2011 Hopping Green & Sams 161 1 ag 3 Q13.A 2 -1 . Listed in 2007 -2010 Legal 500 for Real Estate /Land Use and Zoning. Frank E. Matthews Practices in: Climate Change, Due Diligence /Regulatory Compliance Counseling, Land Use and Growth Management, Legislative, Litigation, State -Owned Lands, Water Resources, Water Use / Consumptive Use Permitting, Wetland Regulation and Mitigation Banking. http: / /www.hgslaw.com /lawyers /frank -e- matthews.html 8/2/2011 August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Sees Division Board le ular Sepion 5c - Chairman's Report - Stop for People Pedestrian Safety Sign Discussion ResnickLisa From: John Chandler Bohnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 9:27 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: North Tram Station Crossing Lisa, Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. In regard to the request from the Stop for People coalition, it is my opinion that the in lane signs cause confusion among drivers and are less safe than the normal cautionary signs. As regards installing a pedestrian activated signal (a la MJD Blvd), I see no need for such a light on the east side of the boulevard. Pedestrians can see northbound vehicles coming from a quarter mile away. On the west side of the boulevard, the Board may want to look at the time that it takes for a vehicle going 40 mph to get from the curve north of the crosswalk to the crosswalk and consider whether that is sufficient time for a possibly gimpy senior to traverse the 24 feet to the median. If not, a light might be wise to help protect people returning from the beach restaurants after dark. John Chandler Page 1 of 3 J '%w b i 1 A1�. August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c - Chairman's Report - Stop for People Pedestrian Safety Sign Discussion ResnickLisa Subject: 8/3/11 5c - Chairman's Report "STOP FOR PEOPLE Pedestrian Safety Sign Discussion" From: Mike Levy fmailto :mikelevv(- @embaramail.coml Sent: Sunday, July 31, 20119:17 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fw: STOP FOR PEOPLE pedestrian safety sign discussion Hi Lisa, Received the below email today; other board members may also have received same. I do not think it a good idea for our board to discuss this matter now, inasmuch as the Foundation has undertaken redoing the North Tram cross walk as well as significant changes to the flow of vehicular traffic. If Chairman Dallas wants this matter added to our agenda at Wednesday's Board meeting, let me know and I will propose same. ►[I!M From: Keith Dallas j mailto :keithdallas(u?comcast.netl Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 12:53 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; Brendan P. Culligan Subject: Fwd: STOP FOR PEOPLE pedestrian safety sign discussion Lisa, Would you please put the attached item on our August 3rd agenda for discussion and distribute this to all Board members for their information. Thank you. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: "Brendan P. Culligan" <pebblepost(o)gmail.com> Date: July 31, 2011 11:52:29 AM EDT To: "20 Keith J. Dallas" <keithdallas(cD corn cast. net> Subject: STOP FOR PEOPLE pedestrian safety sign discussion To: Keith Dallas Last Year, the Pelican Bay Services Division [PBSD] installed what we call the STOP FOR PEOPLE sign in the mid - block crosswalk on Pelican Bay Boulevard at the north tram station. These signs have a broad base of popular support from the hundreds of pedestrians who use this crosswalk daily. We believe that this decision of the PBSD has saved Pelican Bay owners from being involved in a pedestrian — vehicle incident. Thank you. The primary mission of the STOP FOR PEOPLE coalition is to encourage the PBSD to keep the current in -lane STOP FOR PEOPLE sign in place after the new crosswalks are installed this summer. As an alternative, we propose that the PBSD board consider authorizing a pedestrian activated signal light similar to the one Page 2 of 3 61 1 A 12` August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Serls Division Board Regular Session 5c - Chairman's Report - Stop for People Pedestrian Safety Sign Discussion authorized by the PBSD at Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. This would provide the same level of safety as the STOP FOR PEOPLE signs and eliminate the need for four large yellow pedestrian symbol signs mandated for crosswalks that do not have a signal light. Earlier this year, The STOP FOR PEOPLE coalition of pedestrians representing owners in Carlton Place, Pebble Creek, CocoBay, and the Crescent requested the PBSD to withdraw it plans to remove the in -lane STOP FOR PEOPLE sign from the midblock cross walk to the north tram station. The PBSD advised the coalition that the PBSD delegated this decision to the Pelican Bay Foundation. The Pelican Foundation made it very clear in a close vote by their board that they propose to remove the county installed in -lane STOP FOR PEOPLE sign this summer. We believe that the foundation has exceeded its authority to fund the removal of STOP FOR PEOPLE signs installed and funded by Collier County tax dollars. We believe that the PBSD has a responsibility to debate this important safety issue and make the final determination on the fate of the in -lane STOP FOR PEOPLE sign. The PBSD needs to assert its final authority to make decisions that affect the safety of our residents crossing Pelican Bay Boulevard. We would ask you to email Lisa Resnick at office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net and direct her to add "CROSSWALK SAFETY SIGNAGE AT NORTH TRAM STATION" to the agenda for the August 4th directors meeting. We respectfully submit that as a board member, you have the right to add an agenda item to a PBSD board meeting even if you cannot attend the meeting in person. Thank you for considering our request. Brendan Culligan STOP FOR PEOPLE coalition 7687 Pebble Creek Circle Naples FL 34108 239 - 597 -7957 Page 3 of 3 161 1 ull ell! on ci s V In 0 C) c0 � ni z 0 IV .2 j7 0 Z IL 0 0 -0 00 2 uE Np 'fi G b 0 CM C4 C to O a U E F CL IL co 0 o co 0. 0 -0 E o E O cil 0 CL TOO bid K:CO TTOZ-ZO-80 F; 161 1 A1.2' Pelican Bay Services Division Board August 3, 2011 Regular Session 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes li August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular session 4. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks II On June 28, the Board of County Commissioners' approved the Award of Bid #11 -5704 to Bateman Contracting, LLP for $685,605 for construction of fourteen (14) community crosswalk locations. Currently, funds are available for only seven (7) crosswalk locations. As a result, Bateman Contracting, LLP's contract was modified to allow the contractor to provide a performance bond in the amount of $362,328 for construction of the initial seven (7) crosswalk locations. is August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular session 2 161 .r3 4. Administrator's Report Community Crosswalks (continued) 1 1 The initial seven (7) crosswalk locations selected for construction in 2011 are: #1 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Ridgewood Drive #4 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Glenview Place #6 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Gulf Park Drive #10 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Beachwalk Pathway #11 Pelican Bay Boulevard / North Tram Station #14 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Oakmont Parkway Added at the Foundation's request utilizing Foundation funds: #13 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Hammock Oak Drive August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4. Administrator's Report J Community Crosswalks (continued) On August 9, staff will make a recommendation { In Absentia that the Board of County Commissioners' F approve Bateman Contracting, LLP's contract modification. =` Following approval, a Notice to Proceed (NTP) will be Issued for construction of the initial seven (7) '%� crosswalk locations. Staff anticipates that substantial work on the initial seven (7) crosswalks is complete in November. 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session J 2 a � 4. Administrator's Report b. FDOT Crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard & U.S. 41 Work to begin in early September c. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive The application has been submitted to the County for modifying the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive to an All- Way Stop. Once County staff has completed and approved the application (which they have indicated they would) it will require the Board of County Commissioners' approval. August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5 4. Administrator's Report d. Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard e. West Side of Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways (from The Commons to North Tram Station) 60% draft plans are complete for the new 8 feet wide pathways along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard (from The Commons to North Tram Station). After staff and Ellin Goetz' review to resolve a few issues involving driveway interface and a couple of trees, plans will be ready to submit to County permitting. August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session J 7 J �R 4 4. Administrator's Report f. Schematic Roadway Intersection Landscape Nosing Plans Ellin Goetz is preparing the plans and they should be complete by the beginning of August. and she is available to present the plans to the Landscape Committee August 8th or 9th, 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Hoard Regular Session administrator's Report g. South Berm Permit Status August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session J M 11 U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide 3 Permit (NWP3) application being prepared by Wilson Miller for the South Berm restoration project. Upon submittal to USACE, staff expects it to take sixty (60) days until permit is issued. At the earliest, work would begin in f %� October/ November 2011. At the latest, work would begin in March /April 2012. August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session J M 11 4. Administrator's Report h. Monthly Financial Report L County E -mail Accounts j. Update on Health of Mangroves August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4. Administrator's Report J k. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach The County's Coastal Zone Management department was awarded a $60,000 Coastal Partnership Initiative grant from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Coastal Management Program and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to remove exotic vegetation in and around Clam Pass. August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 10 5 S. Chairman"s Report a. Recommendation to Board of County Commissioners' to Appoint Susan O'Brien to Board b. Discussion of Committees Under Consideration: It i. Clam Bay Committee 11. Water Management Committee to monitor stormwater & irrigation issues (T. Cravens) August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 11 S. Chairman's Report c. Stop for People Pedestrian Safety Sign Discussion Presentation by Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session J Z bll il I I 7 161 1 i Al2" S. Chairman's Report d. Clam Bay Update e. Announcements 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 15 Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Community Issues 7. Committee Reports Strategic Planning Committee 8. Old Business 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence Nk 12. Adjournment August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Hoard Regular Session 16 X61 1 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice John P. Chandler absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent JohnIaizzo Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager absent Michael Levy Dave Trecker absent Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association James Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. 0 QV IN Rn j� Marcia Cravens, Dorchester at Pelican Bay Resident 1J l9 Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay Resident Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation BY: , Gerald Moffatt, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors " " " " ""' Noreen Murray, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Susan O'Brien, Candidate, Pelican Bay Services Division Board AGENDA I. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 4. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. FDOT Crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard and U.S. 41 c. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive d. Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard Fiala i1i. ✓ e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways Hiller 4?_ .� i f. Schematic Roadway Intersection Plans Henning g. South Berm Permit Status C _r LL Coyle h. Monthly Financial Report Coyle i. County Email Accounts j. Update on Health of Mangroves k. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach 5. Chairman's Report a. Recommendation to BCC to Appoint Susan O'Brien to Board b. Discussion of Committees Under Consideration i. Clam Bay Committee ii. Water Management Committee (T. Cravens) c. Stop for People Pedestrian Safety Sign Discussion d. Clam Bay Update Misc. Corres: e. Announcements 6. Community Issues Date: % y1 \ k � \ 7. Committee Reports a. Strategic Planning Committee Item #: kL.c _= \ 14 k'2, 8. Old Business 8487 (spies to 161 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment ROLL CALL Six members were present and quorum established. Messrs. Chandler, Gibson, Hansen, and Dr. Trecker were absent. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the agenda as resented. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. APPROVAL OF JUNE 13, 2011 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Mrs. Womble amended page 8481 to read, "Commissioner Hiller previously suggested..." Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimous[ in favor, passing the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that the original award of bid for fourteen crosswalks was modified to allow the contractor to provide a performance bond for the initial seven crosswalks slated for construction. The County Manager will approve the modification in absentia on August 9 and then the issue Notice to Proceed will be issued shortly afterward. FDOT CROSSWALK AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND U.S. 41 Mr. Dorrill reported that crosswalk construction will begin soon at the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and U.S. 41. The Services Division provided funds to FDOT to upgrade materials using clay brick pavers. ALL -WAY STOP AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND RIDGEWOOD DRIVE Mr. James Carr reported that Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage submitted the application to the County's Transportation department to install an all -way stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive. The County is verifying ABB's traffic counts and the County supports the project. REPAVING PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD June 13, the Board directed staff by motion, second, and unanimous vote to explore with the Board of County Commissioners the possibility of the Services Division loaning the County funds to mill and resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard earlier than forecasted. Mr. Dorrill reported that he is waiting to hear from Mr. Nick Casalanguida, Director of Growth Management for an executive summary and agreement that includes terms for repayment for Board of County Commissioners' consideration and he will provide an update on September 7. EMM 211 161 1 A,12g Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. James Carr reported that Agnoli Barber and Brundage (ABB) reported that the proposed layout is complete for the pathways widening project along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons to the North tram station. ABB completed surveying the project area identifying existing trees, utilities, curb cuts, and driveways. Mr. Carr plans to walk the site with landscape architect Ms. Ellin Goetz next week to ensure ABB's finding that no trees are directly impacted. If possible, work would be complete before January. SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS Mr. Dorrill reported that Ms. Goetz has completed the landscaping plans and prepared to present them to Vice Chairman Cravens because other members of the Landscape Committee, Mr. Gibson and Dr. Trecker are out of town. Vice Chairman Cravens suggested that Mr. Lukasz could also present information about new technology and irrigation systems designed to reduce water consumption. Pending Ms. Goetz' availability, a special workshop to present landscaping plans was tentatively scheduled for the afternoon of August 9. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMIT STATUS Mr. Dorrill engaged the services of attorney and environmental permitting expert Mr. Frank Matthews, Hopping Green & Sams. Mr. Matthews recommended that the Services Division obtain a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide 3 (NWS 3) permit for the south berm restoration work. Mr. Dorrill authorized Wilson Miller to prepare and submit a permit application to USACE. He anticipates work to restore the berm starting in April, 2012 and would entail recovering and stockpiling additional fill across the west side of the berm, placing riprap at the toe, and replacing some asphalt atop. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that there are two months left in the fiscal year and the overall position is good. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the financial report into the record. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. COUNTY EMAIL ACCOUNTS For public records purposes, Mr. Dorrill reported that County email accounts were established for each Board member and to contact Ms. Resnick for assistance. UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES Mr. Hall reported that the boring beetles have not hatched, but they are growing. There does not appear to be an expansion of die -off from the ground. Photographing the die -off from strategic points atop several condominiums is ongoing and by month's end, they should have the basis to start comparisons. The aerial photograph of the entire system will take place this month. Monitoring of the system, plots, and seagrass continues. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Dorrill reported that the County received a $60,000 grant to remove exotics within Clam Pass Park first and any remaining funds would be used to remove exotics along the beach. Mr. Hall reported that that the County's original grant application identified exotic removal in the upland areas from Clam Pass Park and along the beach north to Vanderbilt Beach. The Services Division's Clam Bay 161 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 permits cover exotic removal only in the project area and wetlands to the mean high waterline. The beach is not in the project area, but in his opinion, the exotics should be removed. Mr. Dorrill plans to discuss the intended use of grant funds with Mr. Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and Mr. James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation. If Services Division funding is necessary to remove exotics in the uplands areas or beach then Mr. Dorrill would present a dollar - specific cost sharing proposal at the September 7 meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Gerald Moffatt, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board suggested that an effort be made to obtain community input regarding bicycle lanes on Pelican Bay Boulevard prior to resurfacing. He suggested landscaping committees from both the Foundation and Services Division should meet with Ms. Goetz on August 9. Chairman Dallas responded that the Services Division has preliminary plans to perform an unbiased survey for community input regarding bicycle lanes. Mr. Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay resident asked if there is an agreement between the Services Division and the Foundation for the Foundation to pay for the four crosswalks that it is financially responsible. Mr. Dorrill responded that he would contact the Clerk of Courts to determine how to process the Foundation's amount due and take action accordingly. Ms. Marcia Cravens, Dorchester at Pelican Bay resident asked for clarification of the public speaker policy. Chairman Dallas said as each agenda item is heard, a public speaker would have up to three minutes per item to address the Board. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT RECOMMENDATION TO BCC TO APPOINT SUSAN O'BRIEN TO BOARD Dice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mrs. Womble to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to appoint Ms. Susan O'Brien to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. The Board voted unanimousl in favor, passing the motion. Staff anticipates the Board of County Commissioners' to appoint Ms. O'Brien to the Board September 13. DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEES UNDER CONSIDERATION CLAM BAY COMMITTEE Ms. Marcia Cravens, Dorchester at Pelican Bay resident said she supports having both a Clam Bay committee and water management committee because the Services Division's permits have responsibilities that require action by this Board. Vice Chairman Cravens recommended that the Clam Bay Committee monitor requirements, responsibilities, and make recommendations to the Board on issues related to mangrove die -off and eco- restoration work authorized by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for five years, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for ten years. The Board discussed permits requirements, and responsibilities defined including water quality monitoring, biological monitoring, reporting, and channel maintenance. Consensus was that the Clam Bay committee should monitor issues west of the berm; and meet once per month. Chairman Dallas directed staff to solicit volunteers and the Board would continue the discussion at the September meeting. :me1 161 21P Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens pointed out that a third of the Services Division's budget is for water management and suggested forming a Water Management Committee to deal with water management issues that are east of the berm. Ms. Cravens supports a Water Management Committee because Clam Bay water management issues that are west of the berm are different and should be segregated from the water management issues east of the berm. Mr. Dorrill informed the Board that there is a Pelican Bay Master Surface Water Permit with amendments issued by South Florida Water Management District and staff would provide copies of the permit to the Board. STOP FOR PEOPLE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SIGN PRESENTATION Mr. Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition introduced several supporters and residents of Pebble Creek and gave a brief presentation about his concerns for pedestrian safety at the North Tram Station crossing on Pelican Bay Boulevard. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion that the Pelican Bay Services Division installs a pedestrian activated red light at the North Tram Station and Pelican Bay Boulevard crossing. He presented photographs of the Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard motion- activated red light and believes the light is a good permanent solution to install at all midblock crossings. The signs currently in the roadway cause confusion and should be removed. Mr. Iaizzo agreed with Vice Chairman Cravens and seconded the motion. The Board acknowledged that plans are already underway to improve safety at the North Tram crossing and considered whether making changes now are necessary, consistent, and the added expense. FLBoulevard an Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo recommending that the Pelican Bay ion install a pedestrian activated red light at the North Tram Station and Pelican Bay ossing. The Board vote was tied 3 -3 (B aron, Levy, Womble opposed; Dallas, Cravens, r ) and the motion did not ass. CLAM BAY UPDATE Chairman Dallas reported that the County submitted the Clam Bay Canoe Trail markers permit application to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). Mr. Dorrill reported that staff installed replacement Canoe Trail markers several weeks ago. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced the Services Division's Landscaping Workshop will be August 9 in the afternoon, Coastal Advisory Committee meets August 11, Foundation Board meets August 19, and this Board's next meeting is September 7. Vice Chairman Cravens added that the North Tram Station will be closed Thursday and Friday. COMMUNITY ISSUES None STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Mrs. Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) is discussing ways to utilize The Commons and Community Center spaces more efficiently. Ms. Noreen Murray added that the Foundation Board formed a Facilities Committee to vet what SPC proposes. 8491 q61 1 Al2 I Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 Mr. Moffatt added that proposals would not move forward without proper community vetting. Ms. Cravens said the three proposed tram routes does encroach the preserve area. Ms. Susan O'Brien and Ms. Murray confirmed that all proposed routes, although minimal do encroach the preserve area. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Cravens said it is not necessary to route the tram in a way that encroaches the wetlands. Mr. John Domenie suggested installing signs for motorists to share the road with bicyclists instead of bicycle lanes; and the Services Division should publish an article every month in the Pelican Bay Post recapping decisions made by this Board. Comments were duly noted however, Chairman Dallas explained that there are timing issues with Post deadlines. Mr. Culligan said drivers are responsible to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks and a red light provides reinforcement. LKce hairm an Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to adjourn at 3:13 p.m. The Board mous In favor, passing the motion. The next Board meeting is September 7. 8492 Minutes by Lisa Resnick \ 6/19/201111:29:08 AM TOO Wm 9T:Ti TTOZ-ET -60 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL ARK610r,m mtrrES .. LANDSCAPING PLANS PRESENTATION TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 Al2'4 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Special Landscaping Plans Presentation Workshop on Tuesday, August 9`" at 2:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John laizzo absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager Michael Levy Dave Trecker absent Mary Anne Womble absent John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Ellin Goetz, Fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects Frank Laney, Covenants Director, Pelican Bay Foundation Gerald Moffatt, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Mollie Moffatt, L'Ambiance Landscape Chairman Ms. Ellin Goetz, Fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz+Stropes Landscape Architects presented conceptual roadway landscaping plans based on previously presented schematic plans that describe the types and quantities of plant material as well as placement and will be used to calculate costs. Generally, recommended plant material is colorful, native, Florida Friendly, promotes safety and visibility, and where possible, incorporates landscaping best management practices, all the while preserving property values. Major entranceways and intersections include annuals for color, replacement of sod for low ground cover at the noses and corners to maintain line -of- sight, and as one moves away from the tips of the medians, the material is gradually higher amidst short, thick - trunked Sabal palms. Secondary and community intersections follow the same principles, but will include bougainvillea instead of annuals for color. Mr. Lukasz described pressure regulated irrigation that reduces water consumption that will be used to modify some existing irrigation heads. Mr. Dorrill requested that staff provide the manufacturer's demonstration video at the next meeting. Mr. Gerald Moffatt was concerned that the landscaping plans were not vetted to the community adequately and suggested publishing a feature article in the Pelican Bay Post. Mr. Dorrill directed staff to prepare a landscaping plans packet to distribute to individual condominium and homeowner associations within Pelican Bay by way of the President's Council There was no further discussion and the workshop was adjourned at 3:06 p.m. Fiala Hiller Henning -I Coyle Misc. Corn . Coletta _ teas, C an Minutes by Usa Resnick \ 9/26/20113:58:47 PM Date: Item m "-T-- - Wry2, 8493 TOO WV OS:OT TTOZ -ET -60 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit 1.61 Al2' nIB�L�IIQ9I�� Q BY:.... ................... NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. August 3, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. August 9, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop 4. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. Community Landscaping c. FDOT Crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard and U.S. 41 d. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive e. Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard f. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways g. South Berm Permit Status h. Monthly Financial Report i. Update on Health of Mangroves j. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach 5. Chairman's Report a. Discussion of Committees Under Consideration i. Clam Bay Committee ii. Landscape & Water Management Committee b. Clam Bay Markers Permit Update c. Announcements 6. Committee Reports Fiala 7. Old Business Hiller 8. New Business Henning 9. Audience Comments Coletta Coyle 10. Miscellaneous Correspondence 11. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU AREA PERSON WITH A DISABILI� W NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVI bMTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. % OW Date: \% Item #: X "7= y 1AV'1. 9/1/201112:50:42 PM 1 A121 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice John P. Chandler absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Iaizzo Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager absent Michael Levy Dave Trecker absent Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association James Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Marcia Cravens, Dorchester at Pelican Bay Resident Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay Resident Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Gerald Moffatt, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Noreen Murray, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Susan O'Brien, Candidate, Pelican Bay Services Division Board 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. AGENDA MM 16 11ti A121 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment ROLL CALL Six members were present and quorum established. Messrs. Chandler, Gibson, Hansen, and Dr. Trecker were absent. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the agenda as resented The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. APPROVAL OF JUNE 13.2011 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Mrs. Womble amended page 8481 to read, "Commissioner Hiller previously suggested..." E irman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the June 13, 2011 ay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes as amended The Board voted sl in favor, passing the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that the original award of bid for fourteen crosswalks was modified to allow the contractor to provide a performance bond for the initial seven crosswalks slated for construction. The County Manager will approve the modification in absentia on August 9 and then the issue Notice to Proceed will be issued shortly afterward. FDOT CROSSWALK AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND U.S. 41 Mr. Dorrill reported that crosswalk construction will begin soon at the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and U.S. 41. The Services Division provided funds to FDOT to upgrade materials using clay brick .,. 16 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. James Carr reported that Agnoli Barber and Brundage (ABB) reported that the proposed layout is complete for the pathways widening project along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons to the North tram. ABB completed surveying the project area identifying existing trees, utilities, curb cuts, and driveways. Mr. Carr plans to walk the site with landscape architect Ms. Ellin Goetz next week to ensure ABB's finding that no trees are directly impacted. If possible, work would be complete before January. SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS Mr. Dorrill reported that Ms. Goetz has completed the landscaping and prepared to present them to Vice Chairman Cravens because other members of the Landscape Committee, Mr. Gibson and Dr. Trecker are out of town. Vice Chairman Cravens suggested that Mr. Lukasz could also present information about new technology and irrigation systems designed to reduce water consumption. Pending Ms. Goetz' availability, a special workshop to present landscaping plans was tentatively scheduled for the afternoon of August 9. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMIT STATUS Mr. Dorrill engaged the services of attorney and environmental permitting expert Mr. Frank Matthews, Hopping Green & Sams. Mr. Matthews recommended that the Services Division obtain a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide 3 (NWS 3) permit for the south berm restoration work. Mr. Dorrill authorized Wilson Miller to prepare and submit a permit application to USACE. He anticipates work to restore the berm starting in April, 2012 and would entail recovering and stockpiling additional fill across the west side of the berm, placing riprap at the toe, and replacing some asphalt atop. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that there are two months left in the fiscal year and the overall position is good. liice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the financial report into therecord The Board voted unanimou sly in favor, passing the motion. COUNTY EMAIL ACCOUNTS For public records purposes, Mr. Dorrill reported that County email accounts were established for eac Board member and to contact Ms. Resnick for assistance. UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES Mr. Hall reported that the boring beetles have not hatched, but they are growing. There does ear to be an expansion of die -off from the ground. Photographing the die -off from strategic po' op condominiums is ongoing and by month's end, they should have the basis to start compariso aerial photograph of the entire system will take place this month. Monitoring of the system, plot�ggrass S. Mr. Dorrill reported that the County received a $60,000 grant to remove SaWis wit a Park first and any remaining funds would be used to remove exotics along the beach. Mr. Hall reported that that the County's original grant applicati oval in the upland areas from Clam Pass Park and along the beach north to Vanderbi ch. ervic s Division's Clam Bay permits cover exotic removal only in the project area and wetla hi erline. The beach is not in the project area, but in his opinion, the exotics should be remo 8489 16 IA12-1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 Mr. Dorrill plans to discuss the intended use of grant funds with Mr. Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and Mr. James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation. If Services Division funding is necessary to remove exotics in the uplands areas or beach then Mr. Dorrill would present a dollar- specific cost sharing proposal at the September 7 meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Gerald Moffatt, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board suggested that an effort be made to obtain community input regarding bicycle lanes on Pelican Bay Boulevard prior to resurfacing. He suggested landscaping committees from both the Foundation and Services Division should meet with Ms. Goetz on August 9. Chairman Dallas responded that the Services Division has preliminary plans to perform an unbiased survey for community input regarding bicycle lanes. Mr. Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks at Pelican Bay resident asked if there is an agreement between the Services Division and the Foundation for the Foundation to pay for the four crosswalks that it is financially responsible. Mr. Dorrill responded that he would contact the Clerk of Courts to determine how to process the Foundation's amount due and take action accordingly. Ms. Marcia Cravens, Dorchester at Pelican Bay resident asked for clarification of the public speaker policy. Chairman Dallas said as each agenda item is heard, a public speaker would have up to three minutes per item to address the Board. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT RECOMMENDATION TO BCC TO APPOINT SUSAN O'BRIEN TO BOARD EBoard rman Cravens made a motion, second by Mrs. Womble to make a recommendation to the County Commissione rs to appoint Ms. Susan O'Brien to the Pelican Bay Services Division e Board voted unanimousl in favor, passing the motion. Staff anticipates the Board of County Commissioners' to appoint Ms. O'Brien to the Board September 13. DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEES UNDER CONSIDERATION responsibilities, and make recommendations to the Board on issues related to mangrove die -off work authorized by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for fiqjM Corps of Engineers (USACE) for ten years. The Board discussed permits requirements, and responsibilities defined biological monitoring, reporting, and channel maintenance. Consensus wasj monitor issues west of the berm; and meet once per month. Chairman Da the Board would continue the discussion at the September meeting. :A•1 should volunteers and 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens pointed out that a third of the Services Division's budget is for water management and suggested forming a Water Management Committee to deal with water management issues that are east of the berm. Ms. Cravens supports a Water Management Committee because Clam Bay water management issues that are west of the berm are different and should be segregated from the water management issues east of the berm. Mr. Dorrill informed the Board that there is a Pelican Bay Master Surface Water Permit with amendments issued by South Florida Water Management District and staff would provide copies of the permit to the Board. STOP FOR PEOPLE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SIGN PRESENTATION Mr. Brendan Culligan, Stop for People Coalition introduced several supporters and residents of Pebble Creek and gave a brief presentation about his concerns for pedestrian safety at the North Tram Station crossing on Pelican Bay Boulevard. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion that the Pelican Bay Services Division installs a pedestrian activated red light at the North Tram Station and Pelican Bay Boulevard crossing. He presented photographs of the Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard motion- activated red light and believes the light is a good permanent solution to install at all midblock crossings. The signs currently in the roadway cause confusion and should be removed. Mr. Iaizzo agreed with Vice Chairman Cravens and seconded the motion. The Board acknowledged that plans are already underway to improve safety at the North Tram crossing and considered whether making changes now are necessary, consistent, and the added expense. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo recommending that the Pelican Bay Services Division install a pedestrian activated red light at the North Tram Station and Pelican Bay Boulevard crossing. The Board vote was tied 3 -3 (Baron, Levy, Womble in favor, Dallas, Cravens, Iaizzo opposed) and the motion did not pass. CLAM BAY UPDATE Chairman Dallas reported that the County submitted the Clam Bay Canoe Trail markers permit application the to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). Mr. Dorrill reported that staff installed replacement Canoe Trail markers several weeks ago. Chairman Dallas announced the Services Division's Landscaping Workshop will be A afternoon, Coastal Advisory Committee meets August 11, Foundation Board meets August 19, andIq meeting is September 7. Vice Chairman Cravens added that the North Tram Station will be close( Friday. COMMUNITY ISSUES None STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Mrs. Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee Commons and Community Center spaces more efficiently. Ms. Noreen Murray added that the Foundation proposes. 8491 ideas to utilize The to vet what SPC 161 1Al2" Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes August 3, 2011 Mr. Moffatt added that proposals would not move forward without proper community vetting. Ms. Cravens said the three proposed tram routes does encroach the preserve area. Ms. Susan O'Brien and Ms. Murray confirmed that all proposed routes, although minimal do encroach the preserve area. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Cravens said it is not necessary to route the tram in a way that encroaches the wetlands. Mr. John Domenie suggested installing signs for motorists to share the road with bicyclists instead of bicycle lanes; and the Services Division should publish an article every month in the Pelican Bay Post recapping decisions made by this Board. Mr. Culligan said drivers are responsible to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks and a red light provides reinforcement. ADJOURNMENT Lice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to adjourn at 3:13 p.m. The Board voted unanimous! 9== the motion. The next Board meeting is September 7. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick \ 8/19/201111:28:08 AM 8492 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL WORKSHOP MINUTES LANDSCAPING PLANS PRESENTATION TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Special Landscaping Plans Presentation Workshop on Tuesday, August 9"' at 2:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Iaizzo absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager Michael Levy Dave Trecker absent Mary Anne Womble absent John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Ellin Goetz, Fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects Frank Laney, Covenants Director, Pelican Bay Foundation Gerald Moffatt, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Mollie Moffatt, L'Ambiance Landscape Chairman Ms. Ellin Goetz, Fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects presented conceptual roadway landscaping plans based on previously presented schematic plans that describe the types and quantities of plant material as well as placement and will be used to calculate costs. Generally, recommended plant material is colorful, native, Florida Friendly, promotes safety and visibility, and where possible, incorporates landscaping best management practices, all while preserving property values. Major entranceways and intersections include annuals for color, replacement of sod for low ground cover at the noses and corners to maintain line -of- sight, and as one moves away from the tips of the medians, the material is gradually higher amidst short, thick - trunked Sabal palms. Secondary and community intersections follow the same principles, but will include bougainvillea instead of annuals for color. Mr. Lukasz described pressure regulated irrigation that reduces water consumption that will be used modify some existing irrigation heads. Mr. Dorrill requested that staff provide the manufacturer's video at the next meeting. Mr. Gerald Moffatt was concerned that the landscaping plans were not vetted to the and suggested publishing a feature article in the Pelican Bay Post. Mr. Dorrill directed staff to prepare a landscaping plans packet to distribute to homeowner associations within Pelican Bay by way of the President's Council. There was no further discussion and the workshop was adjourned at 3: Keith J. Dallas, Chairman •,. X61 1 Al2". PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL WORKSHOP MINUTES LANDSCAPING PLANS PRESENTATION TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Special Landscaping Plans Presentation Workshop on Tuesday, August 9"' at 2:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Iaizzo absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager Michael Levy Dave Trecker absent Mary Anne Womble absent John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Ellin Goetz, Fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects Frank Laney, Covenants Director, Pelican Bay Foundation Gerald Moffatt, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Mollie Moffatt, L'Ambiance Landscape Chairman Ms. Ellin Goetz, Fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects presented conceptual roadway landscaping plans based on previously presented schematic plans that describe the types and quantities of plant material as well as placement and will be used to calculate costs. Generally, recommended plant material is colorful, native, Florida Friendly, promotes safety and visibility, and where possible, incorporates landscaping best management practices, all while preserving property values. Major entranceways and intersections include annuals for color, replacement of sod for low ground cover at the noses and corners to maintain line -of- sight, and as one moves away from the tips of the medians, the material is gradually higher amidst short, thick - trunked Sabal palms. Secondary and community intersections follow the same principles, but will include bougainvillea instead of annuals for color. Mr. Lukasz described pressure regulated irrigation that reduces water consumption that will be used modify some existing irrigation heads. Mr. Dorrill requested that staff provide the manufacturer's video at the next meeting. Mr. Gerald Moffatt was concerned that the landscaping plans were not vetted to the and suggested publishing a feature article in the Pelican Bay Post. Mr. Dorrill directed staff to prepare a landscaping plans packet to distribute to homeowner associations within Pelican Bay by way of the President's Council. There was no further discussion and the workshop was adjourned at 3: Keith J. Dallas, Chairman •,. 16 1 1 A121 September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4b - Administrator's Report - Community Landscaping - Board Comments ResnickLisa Subject: Board Member Comments From: Mike Levy fmailto :mikeleyy@embargmail.comj Sent: Friday, August 26, 20115:15 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fw: [speakuppelicanbay] Fwd: Pelican Bay Landscaping Hi Lisa, I received the following which forwards a critique from Molly Moffat regarding the PBSD landscaping plans. I believe it should be distributed to all PBSD Board Members. Mike Levy From: John Chandler [mai Ito: ohnchandler21964amail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 20119:40 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Landscaping Lisa, Please distribute this email to my fellow Board members as a one way communication. I have used my personal Gmail account as I presently do not have access to the County's email system. In regard to Mollie Moffat's email of today to Jim Hoppensteadt, I have the following comments: - Mollie's use of the $2,250,000 Wilson Miller figure is both alarming and misleading. I suggest that our Chairman provide her with the best cost estimate that we have of the contemplated project, copy Jim H on the email and ask Mollie to advise everyone that she has contacted as to the current estimated cost. - Although I can easily envision brick crosswalks and have voted for installing them at all existing PBB stop signed intersections, I find it hard to look at a landscape diagram supplemented with photos of the selected plantings and fully envision what the overall visual effect will be. Thus, I think that it would be wise to revise the landscaping at just one intersection (PBB and GPD ?) this year and then see what the community reaction is. I believe that it will be very positive and that our residents will want us to proceed and "carry out the full program. However, if I'm wrong, we will have saved ourselves a lot of money. John Chandler ResnickLisa 9/1/20112:30 PM Page 1 of 3 16 1 12 September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular SilI11100A A 4b - Administrator's Report - Community Landscaping - Board Comments ResnickLisa Subject: M. Moffatt re: Pelican Bay Landscaping From: speakuppelicanbay2yahoogroups.com [mailto:speakuppelicanbUgyahoo rg_ou sa coml On Behalf Of Gerald Moffatt Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:01 PM To: speakuppelicanbav (&yahoogroups.com Subject: [speakuppelicanbay] Fwd: Pelican Bay Landscaping Dear All, As you can see, I have sent this plea to the Foundation but I need your help.. Again, summer brings many changes in Pelican Bay that most of the Homeowners know nothing about. Please contact: Jim Hoppensteadt - Jimh(a,pelicanbay.ora Neil Dorrill - neil2dmg_fl.com AND Keith Dallas - keithdallas@comcast.net It is critical that we put the brakes on this Landscape plan or Pelican Bay will be fundamentally transformed. Please voice your opinion quickly. Thank You. Mollie Moffatt, L'Ambiance Landscape Chairman (239) 513 -1971 ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: Gerald Moffatt <g.moffatt2comcast.net> Date: Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:59 PM Subject: Pelican Bay Landscaping To: Jim Hoppensteadt <Jimh2pelicanbay or > Cc: Gerald A Moffatt <g.moffatt2comcast.net> Jim -- Please publish the following in the next issue of the Pelican Bay Post or distribute it in the most effective way for reaching and educating the community. Thank you. Mollie Moffatt Dear Pelican Bay Residents: Over the summer while most residents are away, the Pelican Bay Services Division hired a landscape architect to develop plans for the medians and intersections along Pelican Bay Blvd. as part of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP developed by the Strategic Planning Committee with Wilson Miller, a Strategic Planning Consultant, estimated the related costs at in excess of $2,250,000.00, quite an expense. Last week (8/9/11) the plans were made available to the Community, all 6 of us at the meeting, with an estimated completion date of October, 2011, most likely before most residents return to Pelican Bay for the season. My belief is that it will fundamentally transform the appearance of Pelican Bay as we know it. In the CIP, the mandate was to: 1. Replace or trim areas that truly block sight lines, not remove a multitude of trees as shown in the plan. 2. Develop tree clusters with color in areas without canopy trees. The architect's plan has NO flowering trees as recommended in the CIP (Cassia, tabebuia, poinciana, etc.). ResnickLisa 9/1/20112:24 PM Page 2 of 3 6 September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Servicesision Board Regul I ar essio A Sn 4b - Administrator's Report - Community Landscaping - Board Comments 3. Coordinate landscape activities with HOA's is a MUST. This architect's plant palette matches NO plant material used in any neighborhood or building entrance on Pelican Bay Blvd. Fundamentally transforming the Blvd.! If we are to preserve, beautify and enhance Pelican Bay as Southwest Florida's premier community, we should not rush into a single design concept like this. The community, not a few individuals, should have a voice in such a transformation that affect the overall appearance of Pelican Bay. We need more than ONE option. The residents who arrive here during season from cold, dreary landscapes, look forward to the traditional flowering plants in our community. They will very unhappily be shocked with the removal of most (23) annual flowering beds as proposed. We should not experiment with an extreme and costly change in appearance without a mandate from the whole community. The CIP's purpose is improvement or enhancement. Does using Key West Thatch Palms versus elegant Foxtail palms enhance property values? Pelican Bay is a traditional community and does need to be an architect's exhibition of the newest fad in landscaping. The proposed design is more suited to informal island areas and beaches. It would be perfect for a Ft. Meyer's Beach roadway, not Pelican Bay Blvd. The use of the Key West Thatch Palms, saw palmettos, silver buttonwood, grass plants and wart fern are all choices for preserve areas viewed from afar, not highlighted on a boulevard through the heart of an upscale community as Pelican Bay. The Boulevard is not a preserve area! We already have multiple acres of preserve area within our community. Before we fundamentally transform Pelican Bay as we know it, should not those who live here be given every opportunity to choose from different designs, minimally two. Given the lack of exposure of the landscape plans to the community at large (Why do these things always get pushed through in the summer ?), let's not rush into this without actual redesigned pictures and most of all full community feedback. Why rush planting, especially during hurricane season? TO ALL INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN: It is ALL OF OUR community and we should have a choice in it's direction! Please slow down and completely vet this transformation. That way it will be done as the Whole Community mandates and there will be no repercussions of the past when so much was done in the Summer with the majority of residents away and unaware. The plantings can be done late next spring once a majority mandate is made. PLEASE SLOW DOWN and let the COMMUNITY decide the direction it wants to go. TO ALL FELLOW RESIDENTS: If you don't get involved now, you may not recognize Pelican Bay when you return for the season. Please call or email the Foundation and the Services Division to ask them to SLOW DOWN until the plans can be properly vetted this fall Sincerely, Mollie Moffatt, L'Ambiance, Landscape Chairman ResnickLisa 9/1/20112:24 PM Page 3 of 3 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - August 31, 2011 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets 1,510,686.90 16! 1 Al2' $ 1,510,686.90 $ 1,510,686.90 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 6,647.23 24,173.20 1,173,770.02 306,096.45 $ 30,820.43 1,479,866.47 $ 1,510,686.90 J 16 i St�� Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - August 31, 2011 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: 134,300.00 123,100.00 116,945.25 6,154.75 Engineering Fees Carryforward $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. - Special Assessment- Water Management Admin 728,400.00 702,906.00 702,259.98 8,500.00 646.02 Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,938,600.00 1,870,749.00 1,869,029.64 22,600.00 1,719.36 Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - - - Surplus Property Sales 1,000.00 - 5,250.00 900.00 (5,250.00) Insurance Payment for Damages 40,600.00 40,577.00 4,452.50 Telephone (4,452.50) Interest 11,700.00 10,530.00 11,438.24 8,300.00 (908.24) Total Operating Revenues 3,623,300.00 3,527,285.00 3,535,530.36 200.00 (8,245.36) Operating Expenditures: Insurance - General 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 - Water Management Administration 900.00 900.00 900.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts Payroll Expense $ 41,200.00 $ 37,800.00 $ 36,199.33 $ 1,600.67 White Goods 8,800.00 - - $ - IT Direct Client Support (Capital) 200.00 200.00 100.00 $ 100.00 IT Office Automation 8,000.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 $ - Indirect Cost Reimbursement 108,200.00 108,200.00 108,200.00 $ - Interdepartmental Payment 14,600.00 14,600.00 14,600.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 30,800.00 28,200.00 25,130.00 $ 3,070.00 Telephone 4,100.00 3,800.00 2,564.13 $ 1,235.87 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 500.00 257.34 $ 242.66 Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,600.00 12,500.00 11,360.55 $ 1,139.45 Insurance - General 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 $ - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 1,200.00 595.00 $ 605.00 Clerk's Recording Fees 4,000.00 - - $ - Advertising 2,000.00 1,300.00 677.25 $ 622.75 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,500.00 2,300.00 670.63 $ 1,629.37 Training and Education 1,100.00 1,000.00 142.50 $ 857.50 Total Water Management Admin Operating 245,700.00 220,900.00 209,796.73 11,103.27 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense 134,300.00 123,100.00 116,945.25 6,154.75 Engineering Fees 16,381.25 15,000.00 1,536.11 13,463.89 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 13,416.67 13,745.00 (328.33) Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 7,789.67 11,141.50 (3,351.83) Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 22,600.00 22,675.25 (75.25) Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 900.00 - 900.00 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 40,600.00 40,577.00 23.00 Telephone 500.00 500.00 396.44 103.56 Trash and Garbage 8,300.00 8,200.00 3,953.70 4,246.30 Motor Pool Rental Charge 200.00 200.00 - 200.00 Insurance - General 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 - Insurance - Auto 900.00 900.00 900.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,500.00 4,100.00 1,159.47 2,940.53 Fuel and Lubricants 3,200.00 2,900.00 2,223.20 676.80 Tree Triming 30,000.00 27,500.00 27,456.00 44.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 1,000.00 909.40 90.60 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 500.00 - Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 89,900.00 66,874.91 23,025.09 Page 1 of 3 1_6! 1 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,400.00 3,732.94 (2,332.94) Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 2,300.00 5,113.22 (2,813.22) Total Water Management Field Operating 394,681.25 365,206.33 322,239.39 42,966.94 Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense 42,400.00 38,900.00 37,293.67 1,606.33 White Goods 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Client Support and Capital 7,000.00 7,000.00 6,800.00 200.00 Other Contractural Services 37,500.00 34,400.00 28,757.50 5,642.50 Telephone 3,900.00 3,600.00 2,355.33 1,244.67 Postage 3,000.00 900.00 10.54 889.46 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 14,000.00 12,800.00 12,368.58 431.42 Insurance - General 500.00 500.00 500.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 1,300.00 595.00 705.00 Clerk's Recording 4,000.00 - - Legal Advertising 2,000.00 1,500.00 677.25 822.75 Office Supplies General 3,000.00 2,800.00 680.79 2,119.21 Training and Education 1,500.00 1,400.00 112.50 1,287.50 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,800.00 105,100.00 90,151.16 14,948.84 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense 827,700.00 758,700.00 640,145.16 118,554.84 White Goods 3,300.00 - - Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 136,900.00 125,500.00 108,119.07 17,380.93 Pest Control 5,000.00 4,600.00 4,475.00 125.00 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 27,000.00 33,832.41 (6,832.41) Temporary Labor 204,500.00 187,500.00 183,318.56 4,181.44 Telephone 3,200.00 2,900.00 2,811.14 88.86 Electricity 3,400.00 3,100.00 2,287.05 812.95 Trash and Garbage 24,900.00 24,700.00 7,342.27 17,357.73 Rent Equipment 5,500.00 5,300.00 987.32 4,312.68 Motor Pool Rental Charge 700.00 300.00 283.95 16.05 Insurance - General 9,000.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 - Insurance -Auto 9,900.00 9,900.00 9,900.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 21,200.00 19,400.00 29,618.67 (10,218.67) Fuel and Lubricants 44,200.00 40,500.00 35,448.71 5,051.29 Licenses, Permits, Training 800.00 700.00 - 700.00 Tree Triming 35,900.00 35,900.00 48,713.00 (12,813.00) Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 8,600.00 6,752.09 1,847.91 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 2,800.00 717.81 2,082.19 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 60,200.00 58,454.57 1,745.43 Mulch 60,200.00 61,998.00 53,273.15 8,724.85 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 27,500.00 30,481.33 (2,981.33) Painting Supplies 800.00 700.00 - 700.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 2,800.00 3,620.00 (820.00) Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 2,800.00 5,553.51 (2,753.51) Other Operating Supplies 11,500.00 10,500.00 8,304.36 2,195.64 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,548,500.00 1,432,898.00 1,283,439.13 149,458.87 Total Operating Expenditures 2,317,681.25 2,124,104.33 1,905,626.41 218,477.92 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 800.00 - 800.00 General Improvements 13,200.00 11,000.00 11,000.00 Total Water Management Field Operations Capital 14,200.00 11,800.00 - 11,800.00 Page 2 of 3 412-11 X61 1Al2 Right of Way Beautification - Field Building Improvements 13,600.00 11,300.00 - 11,300.00 Autos and Trucks 28,000.00 28,000.00 23,597.00 4,403.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 17,000.00 - - - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital 58,600.00 39,300.00 23,597.00 15,703.00 Total Capital Expenditures 72,800.00 51,100.00 23,597.00 27,503.00 Total Expenditures 2,390,481.25 2,175,204.33 1,929,223.41 245,980.92 Operating Profit /(Loss) 1,232,818.75 1,352,080.67 1,606,306.95 254,226.28 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 259,200.00 259,200.00 259,200.00 - Tax Collector Fees 82,500.00 74,250.00 51,419.07 22,830.93 Property Appraiser Fees 75,300.00 67,770.00 44,650.00 23,120.00 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) 555,025.00 555,025.00 555,025.00 - Reserves for Equipment 124,875.00 124,875.00 124,875.00 - Revenue Reserve 140,300.00 - - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures 1,237,200.00 1,081,120.00 1,035,169.07 45,950.93 Net Profit /(Loss) (4,381.25) 2,433,200.67 2,641,476.02 208,275.35 Page 3 of 3 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - August 31, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets 200,490.19 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 24.00 2,355.70 208,670.25 (10,559.76) $ 200,490.19 $ 200,490.19 $ 2,379.70 198,110.49 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 200,490.19 X61 1 A120" Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense $ Pelican Bay Services $ 37,800.00 $ 37,409.19 $ Municipal Services Taxing Unit Indirect Cost Reimbursement 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 Income Statement w/ Budget - August 31, 2011 $ - Other Contractural Services 20,800.00 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011 19,100.00 25,142.20 $ (6,042.20) (Unaudited) 4,100.00 $ 3,800.00 1,853.79 Annual YTD YTD Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ Budget Budget Actual $ Variance Operating Revenues: 13,600.00 $ 12,500.00 11,791.93 Carryforward $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $ - Curent Ad Valorem Tax 273,200.00 263,638.00 263,451.34 $ 186.66 Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax $ 40.87 $ (40.87) Insurance Claim Other Office and Operating Supplies 6,578.00 $ (6,578.00) Interest 1,200.00 1,098.00 1,418.07 $ (320.07) Total Operating Revenues 444,200.00 434,536.00 441,288.28 (6,752.28) Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,200.00 $ 37,800.00 $ 37,409.19 $ 390.81 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 6,300.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 20,800.00 $ 19,100.00 25,142.20 $ (6,042.20) Telephone 4,100.00 $ 3,800.00 1,853.79 $ 1,946.21 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 10.54 $ 1,489.46 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 13,600.00 $ 12,500.00 11,791.93 $ 708.07 Insurance - General 400.00 $ 400.00 400.00 $ - Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 700.00 - $ 700.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 900.00 4.90 $ 895.10 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 90,200.00 83,000.00 82,912.55 87.45 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense White Goods Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast Total Street Lighting Field Operating 62,900.00 57,700.00 56,696.12 1,003.88 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 700.00 - 700.00 500.00 500.00 396.44 103.56 44,200.00 40,500.00 32,140.31 8,359.69 800.00 800.00 800.00 - 900.00 900.00 900.00 - 1,100.00 1,000.00 330.38 669.62 400.00 400.00 630.74 (230.74) 200.00 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 500.00 - 500.00 7,300.00 6,700.00 12,571.26 (5,871.26) 12,400.00 9,100.00 8,606.20 493.80 141,600.00 119,000.00 113,071.45 5,928.55 Page 1 of 2 Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment General Improvements Total Capital Expenditures Total All Expenditures Operating Profit /(Loss) Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) Reserves for Equipment Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) 161 1 231,800.00 2021000.00 195,984.00 6,016.00 1,000.00 500.00 - 500.00 13,200.00 6,600.00 - 6,600.00 14,200.00 7,100.00 - 7,100.00 246,000.00 209,100.00 195,984.00 13,116.00 198,200.00 225,436.00 245,304.28 (19,868.28) 83,600.00 83,600.00 83,600.00 - 8,400.00 7,560.00 5,295.04 2,264.96 5,500.00 4,950.00 - 4,950.00 58,800.00 58,800.00 58,800.00 - 27,500.00 27,500.00 27,500.00 - 14,400.00 - - 198,200.00 182,410.00 175,195.04 7,214.96 - 43,026.00 70,109.24 (27,083.24) Page 2 of 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - August 31, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 354,405.38 354,405.38 $ 354,405.38 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 522.50 $ 6,813.50 7,336.00 423,553.80 (76,484.42) 347,069.38 $ 354,405.38 X61 1 Al2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - August 31, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Fund 111 Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Other Equipment Repairs Minor Operating Other Operating Supplies Total Clam Bay Restoration Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures Operating Profit /(Loss) Non - Operating Expenditures: �� 61 1 Variance Al2� $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ - 35,000.00 33,775.00 33,743.94 $ 31.06 35,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 $ - 1,300.00 1,200.00 2,452.54 $ (1,252.54) 506,519.17 505,194.17 506,415.65 (1,221.48) 102,943.75 $ 137,390.00 485.42 4,800.00 1,000.00 246,619.17 11,300.00 25,000.00 36,300.00 282,919.17 10,100.00 $ 13,628.75 $ (3,528.75) 105,500.00 62,639.40 $ 42,860.60 400.00 842.50 $ (442.50) 4,400.00 210.14 $ 4,189.86 900.00 - $ 900.00 121,300.00 77,320.79 155,000.00 43,979.21 10,400.00 4,046.25 6,353.75 10,400.00 131,700.00 4,046.25 81,367.04 v, »3.ij 50,332.96 223,600.00 373,494.17 425,048.61 (51,554.44) Transfer to Fund 322 65,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 - Tax Collector Fees 1,100.00 825.00 674.80 150.20 Property Appraiser Fees 700.00 525.00 - 525.00 Revenue Reserve 1,800.00 - - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 155,000.00 155,000.00 155,000.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures 223,600.00 221,350.00 220,674.80 675.20 Net Profit /(Loss) $ (0.00) $ 152,144.17 $ 204,373.81 $ (52,229.64) Page 1 of 1 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - August 31, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets $ 2,430,636.73 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 8,493.75 3,265.59 1, 960, 586.75 458,290.64 1F1 1 Al2' 2,430,636.73 $ 2,430,636.73 11,759.34 2,418,877.39 $ 2,430,636.73 Operating Revenues: Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - August 31, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Transfer from Fund 320 Clam Bay Transfer from Fund 778 Street Lighting Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Licenses and Permits Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures: Net Profit /(Loss) $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 16l 1 A $ 259,200.00 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - August 31, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Transfer from Fund 320 Clam Bay Transfer from Fund 778 Street Lighting Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Licenses and Permits Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures: Net Profit /(Loss) $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ - $ 259,200.00 $ 259,200.00 $ 259,200.00 $ - 65,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 $ - 83,600.00 83,600.00 83,600.00 $ - 121,600.00 117,344.00 117,236.16 $ 107.84 7,700.00 7,100.00 13,905.80 $ (6,805.80) 2,481,087.30 2,476,231.30 2,482,929.26 (6,697.96) $ 113,628.45 $ 104,159.41 $ 51,492.83 $ 52,666.58 2,354,658.85 $ 196,221.57 14,483.58 $ 181,737.99 - 7,616.40 $ (7,616.40) - 1910.00 $ (1,910.00) 2,468,287.30 300,380.98 75,502.81 224,878.17 3,800.00 3,420.00 2,344.45 $ 1,075.55 2,500.00 2,250.00 - $ 2,250.00 100.00 100.00 - $ 100.00 6,400.00 - - $ - 12,800.00 5,770.00 2,344.45 $ (0.00) 2,170,080.32 2,405,082.00 Page 1 of 1 3,425.55 (235,001.68) September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Reylar Sessiolr I 5ai - Chairman's Report - Discussion of Committees Under Consideration -Clam Bay Committee PROPOSED CLAM BAY COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES OBJECTIVES • Monitor terms and conditions specified by the Pelican Bay Services Division's active Clam Bay permits authorizing Clam Bay Restoration and Long Term Management/Clam Bay Eco- restoration work located in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) / tidal Clam Bay estuary • Monitor any conditions that would impact the Clam Bay NRPA • Make recommendations to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board I:T" Il \V/ A_9_Do 96 1 M FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) CONSOLIDATED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT AND STATE -OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS AUTHORIZATION PERMITTEE Collier County BOCC — Pelican Bay Services Division PERMIT NO. 11- 0128463 -005 ISSUE DATE December 17, 2010 EXPIRES December 17, 2015 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CLAM BAY RESTORATION AND LONG TERM MANAGEMENT The FDEP permit provides authorization to continue to perform maintenance activities over a five - year timeframe to improve the hydrodynamics of the Clam Bay ecosystem that were originally permitted by permit number 11- 0128463 - 001 -JC and specified by the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP). PERMITTED ACTIVITIES • Manual cleaning on an as needed basis of the interior flushing channels to maintain design depths • Maintenance of a created network of small flushing channels within the mangrove forest • Periodic mangrove trimming along canoe trail, berm, and boardwalks to maintain canoe and kayak access, pedestrian access, and access to storm water areas PROJECT LOCATION Submerged lands owned by the State of Florida in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) within Clam Bay, a Class II waters not approved for shellfish harvesting GENERAL CONDITIONS / GENERAL CONSENT CONDITIONS Permitted activities shall be conducted in accordance with specific and general conditions, consistent with Florida Statues, implemented as specified in the plans, specifications, and performance criteria authorized by the permit and only valid for the specified activity or use. Any deviation from permitted activities and conditions constitutes violation of permit and may result in suspension/revocation of sovereignty submerged land use. Page 1 of 3 t " A September 7 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Re lisideration 6ssi j[�.,; P Y 5ai - Chairman's Report - Discussion of Committees Under - Clam Bay Committee PROPOSED CLAM BAY COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PRE- CONSTRUCTION • Identify qualified biologist/wetland scientist (Tim Hall) familiar with the ecosystems of Florida to serve as the supervising scientist overseeing the biological components of the restoration project • Submit all required certifications, monitoring reports, and notifications to FDEP • The project operation shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards • If unforeseen impacts to adjacent waters occur, or complications preventing permit compliance, work shall cease and agency notified • Install and maintain turbidity barriers at all locations where it is possible to transfer suspended solids into surface water SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES • All work is to be conducted by hand • Access to flushing channels shall be accomplished by small boat or on foot • All mangrove trimming activities are to be supervised by identified qualified biologist • All mangrove trimming shall be done on an as needed basis to maintain access through existing canoe trail or boardwalks pursuant to Florida Statutes • Disperse all cleared natural materials along channel cuts, mulch for reuse, or dispose of in uplands • Remove all Florida Exotic Pest Plan Council Category 1 and Category 2 exotic and invasive vegetation from the Clam Bay NRPA and maintain in perpetuity in accordance with the 1998 CBRMP SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - WATER QUALITY MONITORING • In accordance with State of Florida standards, implement a long -term water quality monitoring and reporting program • If data shows a correlation between elevated nutrient levels and fertilization schedule, prepare a remediation plan SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - BIOLOGICAL MONITORING • Take annual aerial color photographs of the Clam Bay ecosystem • Conduct ground -truth activities to survey areas of concern including areas of widespread dead and dying mangroves, and areas in Inner, Upper and Outer Clam Bays receiving water discharge from uplands • Submit annual biological monitoring reports that analyze data and make recommendations concerning the impacts permitted activities have had on the Clam Bay system SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MANATEE AND MARINE TURTLE CONDITIONS • Advise all personnel associated with the project about the presence of marine turtles, manatees, speed zones and civil and criminal penalties for harming protected species • Operate vessels at "Idle Speed/No Wake" at all times • Monitor turbidity barriers to avoid entanglement/entrapment /impede movement of protected species • Report collision/injury of marine turtle or manatee immediately to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) • Prior to and during in water project activities, post temporary specified marine signage and remove when project is complete Page 2 of 3 September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessio1 1 1 A 12 5ai - Chairman's Report - Discussion of Committees Under Consideration - Clam Bay Committee PROPOSED CLAM BAY COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS (USACE) CLAM BAY ECO- RESTORATION WORK PERMITTEE Collier County / Pelican Bay Services Division PERMIT NO. SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) ISSUE DATE February 8, 2011 EXPIRES February 8, 2021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CLAM BAY ECO- RESTORATION WORK The permit provides authorization to conduct periodic ecological maintenance activities that would continue ecological restoration work that was conducted as part of the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan to improve flushing and eliminate water ponding and resulted in successful restoration of mangrove habitat. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES • Manual clearing of existing hand -dug channel cuts using round -point shovels /machetes • Creation of additional hand -dug channel cuts; • Mangrove trimming and vegetation /debris removal PROJECT LOCATION The work area consists of a network of hand -dug channel cuts of various widths within the tidal Clam Bay estuary from the south, where Clam Pass Park begins at Seagate Drive, one -half mile west of U.S. 41. The site extends north for three miles from the northern limit of Clam Pass Park to the boat ramp immediately southwest of the intersection at Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Site access is by foot from upland areas, or via small vessels, and work area is generally at or above the Mean High Water (MHW) line in waters characterized as having a maximum depth of 18 inches. LATITUDE & LONGITUDE SITE COORDINATES Northern Limit: Latitude 26.247024 N; Longitude 81.818878 W Southern Limit: Latitude 26.214063 N; Longitude 81.814505 W GENERAL CONDITIONS Activity authorized by the permit must be conducted in accordance with terms, conditions, applicable United States Code, Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and complete by February 8, 2021, or extension requested. Authorization is limited in scope and liability, and may be reevaluated at any time, resulting in suspension, modification or revocation of permit, requiring corrective measures. SPECIAL CONDITIONS • Submit required documentation/correspondence to the Reporting Address • Provide notification to Corps of date of commencement of authorized work • Comply with "Standard Manatee Conditions for In -Water Work" • Comply with "Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions" • Comply with "Assurance of Navigation and Maintenance" requirements • Comply with "Regulatory Agency Changes" permit modification requirements • "Work Methodology" limited to manual clearing methods using hand tools • Submit "Self- Certification Statement of Compliance" Page 3 of 3 September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A5aii - Chairman's Report - Discussion of Committees Under Consideration - Landscape & Wat 161 anagement Committee ResnickLisa From: Keith Dallas [keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 29, 20112:45 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Landscape & Water Management Committee Lisa, Please also distribute this email to the Board for discussion regarding my rationale for expanding the Landscape Committee to also include responsibilities for water management east of the berm. Specifically: I think fewer committees are better than more committees. We do not want to impose on Board members time unnecessarily. Also once a committee is formed, there can be a tendency to have meetings for meetings sake. By having fewer committees, I hope there will be more to discuss at individual meetings, and a better use of member's time. The responsibilities of our current Landscape Committee and a committee responsible for water quality east of the berm are overlapping and would be hard to separate. The real concern is the quality of water east of the berm, whether issues are arising because of landscaping methods or how we are managing the ponds etc. Having one committee responsible for all these water issues east of the berm makes sense to me. Please see these comments are passed on to the Board. We will discuss Sept 7th. ResnickLisa 8/29/20112:58 PM Page 1 of 3 September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b I I A ,. 2 5aii - Chairman's Report - Discussion of Committees Under Consideration - Lan ape 8 e Management ommittee PROPOSED LANDSCAPE & WATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES OBJECTIVES • Monitor conditions /methods used to manage water quality in areas of Pelican Bay east of the berm • Monitor and implement landscaping best management practices (BMP) within Pelican Bay • Raise awareness /provide educational outreach/develop ways to implement landscaping BMP communitywide • Make recommendations to Pelican Bay Services Division Board Page 2 of 3 September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 61- 1 A 5aii - Chairman's Report - Discussion of Committees Under Consideration - Landscape & I Management Committee ResnickLisa From: John Chandler Bohnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 7:33 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Landscape & Water Management Committee Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Lisa, Please include the following comments in the 9/7 meeting packet: I fully agree with Chairman Dallas' comments in his 8/29 email concerning the above topic. As regards the responsibilities of the Landscape & Water Management Committee, I suggest the addition of the following responsibilities: - Review existing landscaping to assure quality appearance - Discuss minor problems with PBSD staff - Periodically consider landscaping revisions John Chandler ResnickLisa 8/30/20118:13 AM Page 3 of 3 lbj � Al2' COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502 August 16, 2011 RE: Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan Status Over the course of the summer, several Pelican Bay Services Division projects from the Community Improvement Plan have been authorized to start in the next several months. You are receiving this update in your capacity as a key leader in your community. Please share this information with your residents as you see fit. The following projects are planned before the upcoming season: • Pedestrian Crosswalks — Construction of a series of seven cross walks at a cost of $362,628.00 will begin in September. The crosswalks will be constructed of clay brick pavers and include appropriate signage resulting in safer and aesthetically pleasing architectural features along our roadways. • Widened pathways — Phase one of the pathway- widening project is being bid for a start date in September. The initial project will construct a new 8' wide path along on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Foundation Commons to the North Tram station. • Roadway Landscaping Improvements — Working with Jack Leiber, the community's original landscape architect, the Naples firm Goetz and Stropes identified several key median intersections for improvements. Enclosed are copies of schematic plans and plant types selected for their cold and drought tolerance, or color enhancements. • Resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard — The Pelican Bay Services Division is exploring the early milling/repaving of Pelican Bay Boulevard for this fall. Our primary road is not currently scheduled for repaving by Collier County until 2015. The project approach would result in the road being repaved now with Division reserves and repaid to Pelican Bay over the next four years. The above projects are scheduled for completion in advance of the Christmas Holidays with the least interruption to our community. On behalf of your Board, I want to thank you for your support and patience as we begin these projects in order to keep Pelican Bay as Southwest Florida's Premier Master Planned Community. liz *i e r C o u ri t y 71� z r- 1) vo r) M > m r m r) 10 m -n r- 0 P- I rn CN rn Eo Z m m O m 0 rn vo Z 0 u 1Al2' -V M 0 m 3� m ZV' 00 D —I m N m n r m� r) O n -i N "0 z m n U) r C N C i� m M w C O z O O 0 I O O -v v m D x rn I Al 2 'V ou O D A -v O rn rn Z D r r rn rn z 0 D —� m N m r N n S —I ::, ;;v rn O Z m n SW O� SQrn Z m W r m D � 0 D W W ZO C'? 3 S r -mi D � Q Z A D m n S 3 m D -n W O D_ z r m D S m r m Z O S z O z n 20 O O T S O Z (r O �v Z C) m W O -n D D rn �v W C OW rn N M D D m n S m D W 0 C) D_ Z r m A r S O C m m 161 1 Al2' 0 O D D O C m m Z n O r- 0 D z 0 n D n n N Z I rn N O rn t� rn X D N D rn G T Z 0 D 2 O z 0 D T r) D CA D ti M m m z r D z 0 T n c CA O v O C . 161 1 Al2' -v cn O O D O D -v �v O m m z N 7v C N z n D rn D n rn Z n 0 rn N O rn n O D N m r C m w m �v r D x r r -G �v m m N m D N CA C r -C D N N C) 0 0 Z i m 161 1 Al2 0 0 D D i �v 0 rn rn Z G% C/? rn X C rn 0 r) M > m 1 --40 m r) (/) --I -n m ;v PrA D D D z O y \ z < < z 1 \ >��n -zl00 �A`V > Fn Gzj7070 A rn D D O z rn z n ODD ern-► z0rn DCZO z �rn0 0 Ffl D n DOD rn rnz� Oyu T1 a r a o El NN ©y 07 C U M OIaD70 • rn C) n - ID,��,0 0 CP C� rn rn O CP rn C z DD rnz7z/70 r- a� Ffl �0F� -i <C rn rn -u �� -F-R OrnFDO zz �zC=PO rn(j)z CJ�nDrn D= O0 rnOD� > 7u -n n Ffly Dn �� Cl�p�O nrn D� __u 70 1� C DrnDrn � D K ➢ rn rn-I Z Fn F C D z z� O a= a oo�f >J o e � £ b xnli ** 0,00 a1_N ClP NN ©y N _1 r- a� Po rn a 0 a1_N ClP NN ©y N Po rn � o SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS \1 O 1I - ,I II e I I. I I 1 �l m 160 • • rn z z 6 O � rn --I O �_O rn D S, rL � - F-90 0 < D �D =y C -rn�zcD =pz� -�rn�0 �0rn yX70 nNrn z y�� CP r Cn Duo Crn� C� OHO rn rn z rn N O Fn —z DAD ➢rn rM Ffl r ADD r rn AA Fn cn z rn _' z D O rn rnO o rn 0 � O< z y D z (- O o O D Z D N /� (D D Z C) N C � O Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 Ellin Goetz - FL #1152 E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com /bbromley@gsnapies.com El r -1 DCQ • </0 pprn I�DN�6 rn �0CACz D OD�zrn �!D_ u D z0� CD�0D X700 DC1) O<� 70 Dz O zz� nrn D rmz< zz O OU'O �y 7u� oOz rn u p <DU� n rn� Fn 7a ➢ KD -� r-n Fn Z rn Orn �p c-rn-I z D� z- y= Zrn rn K rn rn �rn Fn D Fn = rn O, • • • n C z r => => O p DZ rn rn«D�N �rnrnzz0 DG�c1�zp� Drn�D�� 70cnU'U' -0O rn DOrn p rnorn030� G� n D Fn D0rnDDz 0 rn � � 00 Fn Fn -n rn Z D I D n �z I rn rn z D N '� ,1 D < 1 z ' C) lI rn z I 1 I I ;I x -o Z N�Z Atg** F y ; U) O (� @ += 0 rn z Z � vo N r � F o ' SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS IJ I 1 i I I � 1 1 1 1 1 161 1►, Al2°" El rn • • Nrnz DO Z> /-701 - --IX -� 71) �O p4c0 rzo ,per rnm�o CnG�C D Gip Ln rn y r0 70 > Y -n pp� - �D Z rn� D D l OD FM DO C1�y / O� ��� CPrn n p D�Fn /100 -I z DD < C n rM —I -i rn ➢ -=a z 7 0 rnN N n rn D rn0 rn rnK y yz s D rn r- rn rn rn O O D D -a D N z Q 0 D z z � rn G> � O � C � Z 0 < rn rn -�77- C> � rn D — z z z � c rn D /70 z n a O Seal &Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 - FL #1152 Ellin Goerz E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com �Drno0 OU) 0z rnyrnzrn z� z DrnnD <C) Co�U)rnn 0r-nr =DO rn �N D= 0G� p� U� D n� �> C>rn D- C� c K D rn Fn rn C D z z p = °z 1- 1— ;ooF � S • • • K C pZCA ➢c) �<p➢�C�1� u T1 zO G� 0�_u >rnrz 0 p 1 =Drn 0za z rn p(Dj�p� Dnnrnrn - D '�' X O Fin C) rn Fn -T, Orn _OD z D�� Orn (D1� rn Z Z � Zz Z C) r (J) r-n rn Vin- �rnrnCa o rnrn'-0z O�CrnPrn7u > ➢OD n =-�zX� �ZC r- 00� rn r rn Z rn 70 OD -� DD= -u n�rn rn•• z =fin 70 z C D CrnZ 000 -n rn C< r-n O �cuz Drp c �n �rn < 0 (P X Z -I - rn�0 �zz �nrn n�� rn Drn D� r D D0 Z D C rn O -„ rn rn C � z rn � C 0 D U O � C 0 Q D D /7Q FT � z FT C z 161 1, Al2� .Y �1 r z 0 wj „ , r _ rn � a 1 SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS w - Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 r. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 - FL #1152 Goe Ellin tz E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com D�a Orn0rn =rn rn 0NO rnaz0zO�N 03 z0 FM �Drn O A =� >rn _<Ornrn- zDrn z CPC/ -v - o��zl�arnrn0 Oz0 0 —R �Ffl D00 r� Z =z�0 —IZ Z 0 0 0 70 Z � Fn N > U rn = D �FT z z rn 0 ODG� z� ➢ ,-a < O D � DCJ�_u D< O C) z z rn _ w G)n N I , I I I , I I I �I � I I I � � I � I 1 �1 �1 I 1 � I 1 . I I� I� i X61 1 Al2`4 r0 CCPC�CP�zzt� oD,� 0 -0--"/070 D rn � C>�n C< y I O CPrn/�rr< - �/70DrR1rn -, C� C <CO n irT - rnrn�� �rn rn <rn-C z m rnrnr �rnO C 7 0 0 -Tl D �Ln — D D3 rn 0 0030 z O� =�D�cr1� nzrn ➢�� C> � rn ,, Z� rn() CP�� D>� DDrn N�0 Drn� �0� �Or � = D z O ODD D Z 70 -u C O zrrnnC � -- rnICJ�0 > FM KN� D y C> D (J) G> OW U� N r-ti D� rnrnz ND rn � a rn0 (J) /- / C) Ca O I / TI ERRA MAR D�a Orn0rn =rn rn 0NO rnaz0zO�N 03 z0 FM �Drn O A =� >rn _<Ornrn- zDrn z CPC/ -v - o��zl�arnrn0 Oz0 0 —R �Ffl D00 r� Z =z�0 —IZ Z 0 0 0 70 Z � Fn N > U rn = D �FT z z rn 0 ODG� z� ➢ ,-a < O D � DCJ�_u D< O C) z z rn _ w G)n N I , I I I , I I I �I � I I I � � I � I 1 �1 �1 I 1 � I 1 . I I� I� i X61 1 Al2`4 g M e Z A p o n +� rn Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 2 3410 s a r. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 TYPICAL MEDIAN CUT THROUGH E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com bbromley @gsnaples.com Ellin Goetz - FL #1151 " z Cn � z n � rn g M e Z A p o n +� rn Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 2 3410 s a r. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 TYPICAL MEDIAN CUT THROUGH E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com bbromley @gsnaples.com Ellin Goetz - FL #1151 F p CPCl�p�rn u <y�� rn � -TI �0 �Cl�CAzz DDO�� ��czz C1> C D z X N FM — 0 > Ffl Dz rn �rn s r z �Drn oO O0 __z rnz�z70 c_ Fn < 0 CA rn C� 0 r Q (J)➢ pN � D nrn D70. Fn rnC> C rn rnrn C D z z� p = L rzzD =Op DDDzr <rn <- -, -- I—/0 «z z �pCJ� arnrnDDz0 D z pCDPrnrn➢Oz Z O Dp �'D� �z -v O p p y N --I -� 0>orn QzOz <OA urn_n Fn rnrnn DOD D n N z z rn rn Q (J) In 161 • • • run0 zzl5 c <Dy�Drn0 �I�DrrnrnD� � 70 rn p crnrnr0 0> � On =zc� O z_ �zc 7�7r G>r < Q rn01- Orn z Clay -rni Dz Ornz =zG� yG� -�-I Ornz NDCJ� � p rn O 70 lz, A124 _j CJ� CP z y o0 Crn p Kn O -zI O -n x z rn 0 nzz rn zN::�- NDrn �D� rnr.D 1No O n� u rn rn r rn rn M O O D D D N p D �z DC z➢ rn O r- 0 r z O z N O z C C r- 7� IN --I rn _I 0 z Seal B SignwN GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS E -mail egoetz@gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com V 1 Ellin Goen - FL 41152 z az o C r goaF Seal B SignwN GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS E -mail egoetz@gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com V 1 Ellin Goen - FL 41152 (D d Q N O F.. W N 161 1r A 12'1 m v1 A w N r O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O y r r r r r r r r r r r r r O 0 0 O O O O rl C C C v 7 w (D O O n c W 7 3 v 7 O 7 " °' W W w ^ rD n rD r o cm O 0 3 n n o 0 _0 ° < Duo 7 rD o n rD 3 ID w rD (D n W w O 7 Z Z Z N p Z r p - 7C r 7C r r r p w 7\C r 3 OFQ a. 03\ �von�oo� °c Don� 'O pn zZ���3� �3oao�N� 01 w N 00 Q N rD N N w 7 S 00 -O O. O 3 v 7 O O v w O n Q w H 7 N O a0 n ° g Ll Q O _" o S N O ° ° 3 _0- O N W- In. w ., OK lf1 Q °- O 7 °_ m Q \ N O ° p_ Q (D 7 Q < � °- Q a 04 n 7 Q v W Q Q° n N O (D w �. 7 w 7 O 7 O_ A 3 m e 00 3 w S 7 O N Q W W fD O fl Q 7 v ID O (D S S fD M n 7.0 M n w O S Q w C N w O Q O *0 M K 3 n 7 S v w ° O n S d j D CZC N h 3 O O. Q= `G w C N d d .°+ � 7 v 9' fl- Q 'O Vii d fD n Q o N °' < °' O < In rD W C fD S rD " v_ rD W rDD " " j AO N fiD V1 v O p O 7 (D (D 7 fD O w n S2o to n N° O N a° O 7 v 3o w Q o 3 .--. n; Q o O °_ Q Q ° a 7 CL n 7 a m a 7 n rD o 3. as 7. 'r o v o o o v 3 m o" o v < o n G " O S O Q j Q d f0 n W O N 7" p 0 O �. 0 d< w C N r(D w rD .°•� M. N N N O i • (D "O ,� (D O fD (D C fD N �, (D ^ Q 3 - " O' w M 0 ° "O '� ° v w N o o w Q Q Q 0 V1 -p s (D �• 00 x w= o 0 5 < 7 3 7 c w OQ o o v n n W s N m _ 0 o o w W 1 3 d ?r ° Q f7 n 3 p �• °c .. ID ° 0 3 �, O O °c ° 7 3 w 7 v fD - rD "° CC) 3 T w M w m 7 G 3 N fl' C Q 3 r"r O d ID DD E; C C 00 N N 0 7 N -{ x W(D rcr p < N n rD 3" ff O-n O �_ DO 'wp rD z fD C lD n �. '° O r ."•r D 3 N m 10 A c wi 0° N r m 0 7 m o C° (D 0 n o m o D oao 7 m v Q v Q a, 3 w \° 7 3 v s 0 w o w o< \ 3 r" ° s v o w o ° rD " D0D .ww- 3 u Q a °� a (D n D w v ° \ - O (D v 7 7o c "". w < 3 vW 6 lOD d m fD co �' �' a o Q o 0q S -0 V 7 (D rn 7 v N -° V im ('i (D S o pt7 ° C O= (D 7 7 - .< 7 c O w w -° H S " <- O d d <\ n n Q w O '-': 7 (D m " n o ^ CC d M G v(D 7 n (D (D c Q 7 7 .--. to A L) O �` r 7 o ID_ 3 3 3 Q O 3 a O Q -°O D 0 " O 3 Q O ? N y: G z x O N p Q A "o• 3 0 N �. 7 fD C 7 00 01 j .°. v n , 6-• n j N O W O (l Q fD S° ° w 0 3 wi 3 w Q o o 3 w 7 w 7 7 a n w oo •� " -\ w o z - �. o a\ -' N 0 o 0 3 `m' 3 O a rD H W w 00 3 " (l r_ n = Z o 7 (7 O H T C O 7 0 n D O O. Q o W n o D n 3 v 3 v p " _ �_ nni p O 1S N<° H < W v N O W N ° "° Q -° 3 w O w C 7 3• (D rD Q W N d N rD ' 7 fD 7 3 N n O C 7 K 00 ( 1 W N N O (D 7 Q r 7 .° d O" n n 7 n CD 7 v Q O f3D < ID C K A rD <. Cr 'O M ID O d O- C °" w a Q\ a< (D K 7 SD ° Q `D C Cl D a 7 w to 00 C ° °n N p i Q N a w n. W D V \ a " c d >> a o m w v a0 3 Q 7 S J Q (D 3 'G' w V N tl70 < 0 0 w Q n ° P- (D Cw w w rD 7 n n O C Q " (D fD O Q C N \ W W - ° F L S W fD p a. d "O �' (D (D -O 7 w S N (<D < ° (QD Q C 0 O n j 7 S@ 7 •' Q " ° 7 °: r " ("D '9 m l d O 7 W o 7. Q j = n 'o O fD v X =, Q R O DW, O- s< 3 t"-n 3 '0 -. 7 7 7 Q QO w C 0 0< (D 7 o D Q O '+ ° (D o c- 7 O H 00 3 W (D w O N r D° Q Q *: = 3° W 3 w 00 (D C (D O 7 W r) ° ° ° C _CC C N G < M K 3 rD r=+ w r DO O rD M 7 C Z W (p p N (D N 7 7 7 fD V� j 3 w � RD rD < < 3 a C 3 ° 7 7 N W 7 3 M N c< w a C -' 3 7 p 3 m n° _n 3° (D rD Q G O v O -' O .O n N <- x w O. o c j .r 7 0 ""0 7 00 = Q Q Nw 7 (D rD 2] ? C m j 2T M n rD ` (D w Q O rnr n yi m< DO 'O w Q m O w 3 n O O w (D Q O m" 3^ n w f a D � W O O F;' N 7 A (D 0 o o n yD 7 rD V w CL 7\ 7 w Q w r0 O M w C fN Q 'p `< w 00 W 3 ID N ."r H r7'1 7 f'1 °; n o W c m N 3 w O v O 0 °- W (D �- o <. m z' x 0 'O r+ ° rD n Q C 0 0 " Q a 3 7 C o in Q Q 7 3 D A m m S (i (D o w (o a O w n r N O_ o_ �_ n p -' �• " T _I n 3 `° '^ Q m N 7 Q N r"r °- o _Q N 7 3 '-' o 0 V ry � r A Q ID w o ° 7 m D n " -° n p w o Q� x Q w o n 3 N ° D oo m -' N 3" Q o v fD ;C o o m" p w _. o w G A 0 ci � C Q w S N F' p N w j < a m n r 0 3 < 0 n 0°0 F 7 rD V1 D w Vl 3 oa T r) w 7 ,c< n° 3 o °- n < w 3 n° ° N 3� rwr O w '"* 7 7 °_0a (l A (D °c o w S W w rn+ 3 rD Q w �= -,a7D °fl o nn 0 3_ -4 v�W j S. 3 �• 'O D° 00 Z-- 7 w (D w 00 A O , o Q Q V .•r l0 O m (') \ fD (n m (\ r t0 N 3 o (n .O v p o- a v7 n (D O d C w w c c C7 (D ID 7 3 w w °c A tl° 7 O w UJ c �_ Q o O_ S o d " y = Q ° D O 3 (D Q < a- 3 _(D 3 < Q w 2° < 7 0 7 w v = o as < V w 3_ 3 "• oo- (D ° Ol = coc G C /D -�° LT -O O °' o = N LL. Ow0 rD 3 (7p 7 N (D f7 00 M 3 (D Fro 3 l N ° - (D 3 w Cl 7 w fD N o O 7 00 w fD 7 C' w (D Q 7 N 0 W 7 w rD (D O' o \_ n 7 Q 7 c 7 - w C -o Z ^ a A x• tD rD Q Q < OU fD (D Z W Q l'i w (D O' Q l0 c n O C CL m -p n v1 \ o O1 m C D" n N d c (D 7 7 7 x O� Z 7 F `� p n W v °1 N l0 p �' V v rSD 7 _' Q N w Q (D fD (D v x- _ n^ O 3 0° :' .� 'O n O o a w° = 00 o it c_ Q 'p D 3 w- m rD v x Q w io o Q 0, 7 Q O 7 0 0 2 Q 0 2 _. w- ° A N w n rD A << H CD < N m ° 7 S O to N fD fD n " CL O 7 Q O ry 7 O - rnD 7 O - N 7 O _ N 7 0 __ ID O _ fD O __ (D y C U 9 �1 Today's Date: August 31, 2011 Project Status for Landscaping, Sidewalks and Crosswalks by: Keith Dallas, Chairman, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Many members of the community recently received an email criticizing landscaping work the PBSD will undertake as part of the crosswalk project. The email implied that the project was designed in secrecy while many in the community are away, may cost up to $2.25 million dollars and will "transform" the appearance of Pelican Bay. Here are the facts. The landscaping project is an outgrowth of the strategic planning process that has been going on in a very public way for more than three years. During the process it became apparent that our landscape is 30 years old and has deteriorated and/or deviated from the original plan for Pelican Bay. The PBSD intends to gradually upgrade the landscaping in a fiscally prudent manner with the following objectives: • Improve sight visibility for drivers and pedestrians because safety is of primary importance. • Reduce the use of water and fertilizer because Pelican Bay was designed to be and should continue to be an environmentally friendly community. • Improve the look of the medians throughout the community because Pelican Bay is a premier residential community. Initial landscaping work will be done in the median areas adjacent to the new crosswalks that are being installed. It is estimated that the cost of the initial landscape improvements will be $250,000. The purpose of the strategic plan is to ensure that all projects fit into a long -term plan and do not fall victim to the vagaries of individual personal preferences. Both the PBSD and the Foundation think that landscape design is best left to professionals and to that end hired one of the best known landscape architects in southwest Florida. 112 McCaughtryMary 61 rT Al 2 From: goetzland@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:42 AM To: LukaszKyle; McCaughtryMary Cc: jrll 135 @comcast.net Subject: Fwd: PBSD Roadway Plans for Review Attachments: PBSD _ Roadway_ 8- 19- 11- LP1_through_5_DRAFT.pdf; PBSD—Plant—Material—Lists- 8- 19- 11.xls Kyle here are the revised planting plans, with changes made after the review meeting I attended with you, Neil and the committee. The plans reflect some refinements and comments made by the committee and are summarized below: 1. We kept median and ROW plantings separate from any recommended plantings outside the ROW, for example, at Gulf Park and Ridgewood where we have suggestions for the corners on adjoining property. 2. We increased the variety of color, adding plants from our initial list such as Bird of Paradise for accent and Dwarf Crown of Thorns for some small beds. We also added some Dwarf Indian Hawthorne for low growing evergreen variety which was also on our initial list. 3. We varied the location of large accent bromeliads, which are all sun grown and tolerant of conditions along the boulevard. We selected species that are large and bold so they will provide color and visual variety along the boulevard for both motorists and pedestrians. Bromeliads are valuable plants as their true beauty is in their foliage, which remains colorful year, round, and when they do bloom they typically hold the bloom for weeks and months of color. 4. We have used Silver Buttonwood (Native) and Ligustrum trees for mid story variety, as they both hold their shape and foliage for the long term benefit of the roadways and do not require excessive maintenance. 5.We have used Florida Thatch and Key Thatch(silver) palms as Accent only, in small quantities, for their tropical foliage and texture and also because they grow slowly and require little maintenance. 6. We are generous with color in annual beds at major intersections, as well as with beds of Bougainvillea. The percentage of native shrubs and ground covers used on these typical planting plans is less than 10 %. The overwhelming majority of plants are traditionally used in the built landscape all over our region and are high quality materials. Thanks very much. ELLIN GOETZ GOETZ + STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 10TH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 34102 239.643.0077 WWW.GSNAPLES.COM - - - -- Original Message---- - From: William Bromley <bbromley (o- )- gsnaples.com> To: goetzland <goetzland(a)aol.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2011 8:42 am Subject: RE: PBSD Roadway Plans for Review Ellin: AkATCHLI LP-2 MATCHLIq LP-2 0 01 %0 \1 1 W 1 , 1 M. *10' , 4 1 v 0., PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS GOETZ+STROPES PELICAN BAY BLVD & RIDGEWOOD DRIVE INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. NAPLES, FLORIDA 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 f 239.643. o 077 g—pl-- ROADWAY PLANTING PLANS cm,.. PL#I 152 i--I "...@,n.pI.-.. /bb,..Iy@q—pt-1m I d¢ e L :owl If -F t IF M j t %0 \1 1 W 1 , 1 M. *10' , 4 1 v 0., PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS GOETZ+STROPES PELICAN BAY BLVD & RIDGEWOOD DRIVE INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. NAPLES, FLORIDA 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 f 239.643. o 077 g—pl-- ROADWAY PLANTING PLANS cm,.. PL#I 152 i--I "...@,n.pI.-.. /bb,..Iy@q—pt-1m I LP -4 e 7-- LP ,I � II I 14 Ii —'< MATGHLTNE j 1 I i t I I lot ib� y$_gS N �� 3a z §.Y3Q §_ '6 f s g _ 6 �- y 0 MATGHLTNE j 1 I i t I I tl 7 7 ^`1 Al2" i \i; LP LP \ \. PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 5'°185'"° "" GOETZ +STROPES $xR ® PELICAN BAY BLVD & MYRA J. DANIELS BLVD INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. NAPLES, FLORIDA r Y 0 785 TENfH STREET SOUTH, N4PLE5, FLORIDA 34102 `p x 1.239.643.00]] ww14- 11-111 ' ROADWAY PLANTING PLANS E -men .eoe :QOsnnplea.cem /bb—ley@q, —pl—.. N = EuF Ce.n -vla Ise lot ib� tl 7 7 ^`1 Al2" i \i; LP LP \ \. PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 5'°185'"° "" GOETZ +STROPES $xR ® PELICAN BAY BLVD & MYRA J. DANIELS BLVD INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. NAPLES, FLORIDA r Y 0 785 TENfH STREET SOUTH, N4PLE5, FLORIDA 34102 `p x 1.239.643.00]] ww14- 11-111 ' ROADWAY PLANTING PLANS E -men .eoe :QOsnnplea.cem /bb—ley@q, —pl—.. N = EuF Ce.n -vla Ise LP -3 LP -4 : ^ 16 14 21 g Swl 8 Sig�aNre ba PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS GOETZ +STROPES k R PELICAN BAY BLVD & CRAYTON ROAD INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. - E NAPLES, FLORIDA 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 s. 239.643.00]] www.gsnaPlevmm W 9 , SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS EuN� ry_FLp1152 E_lt .go- &-pl -.. /bb—ley@g,,pI. -. g 3 g o `z — w 6 R Li R S S S g Swl 8 Sig�aNre ba PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS GOETZ +STROPES k R PELICAN BAY BLVD & CRAYTON ROAD INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. - E NAPLES, FLORIDA 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 s. 239.643.00]] www.gsnaPlevmm W 9 , SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS EuN� ry_FLp1152 E_lt .go- &-pl -.. /bb—ley@g,,pI. -. LP -3 LP 4, y i ... ii \ i _ n li ` � Y !� O TiERRA NiAR i i I' LP -2 161 1 a i z'+ — —Y !I i I/ l 1. rn z � N Qn 1 D z rn a� PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ° " " ° ° °' "`° GOETZ +STROPES x & � PELICAN BAY BLVD & TIERRA MAR INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. / PIAPLES, FLORIDA IBS TEMH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 74102 4 t 279.643.0077 wwwga,wPkxmm TYPICAL MEDIAN CUT THROUGH Ellin !S2 E m1 g @g9 Pk<m / bbwky@g pIo .. o 8 2 g f a I' LP -2 161 1 a i z'+ — —Y !I i I/ l 1. rn z � N Qn 1 D z rn a� PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ° " " ° ° °' "`° GOETZ +STROPES x & � PELICAN BAY BLVD & TIERRA MAR INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. / PIAPLES, FLORIDA IBS TEMH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 74102 4 t 279.643.0077 wwwga,wPkxmm TYPICAL MEDIAN CUT THROUGH Ellin !S2 E m1 g @g9 Pk<m / bbwky@g pIo .. 161 Ti A121 I R R Soaldgignnlure PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS OETZ +STROPES T r—� PELICAN BAY BLVD & GULF PARK DRIVE INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. NAPLES, FLORIDA 4 185 TENTH STREET SOLRH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 .239.643.0077 wuwy:eapk -- SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS rs F-152 E -moll egeeh@guaplevcnm /bb, mley@g —pI—m E > ° s 's >n S- c5t 2 s @ 0 '{ 3 @ IL a z a € a qpp g D d d R O If ' '7 ° ° I R R Soaldgignnlure PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS OETZ +STROPES T r—� PELICAN BAY BLVD & GULF PARK DRIVE INTERSECTION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. NAPLES, FLORIDA 4 185 TENTH STREET SOLRH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 .239.643.0077 wuwy:eapk -- SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS rs F-152 E -moll egeeh@guaplevcnm /bb, mley@g —pI—m PBSD Roadway Improvement Project Landscape Budgetary Material Estimate 6 1. A 1 August 8, 2011 Pelican Bay Blvd & Gulf Park Drive - Material List PALMS AND TREES QTY Botanical Common Specifications 13 Conocarpus erectus sericeus Silver Buttonwood 8'-9' oa, 3'ct, multitrunk, full, container 13 Sabal palmetto Sabal Palm (4) 8' ct, (5) 12' ct, (4) 16' ct, fronds removed, booted ACCENT QTY Botanical ' Common Specifications 15 Aechmea blanchetiana 'Orange' Blanchetiana Orange 10" pot, Sun - grown, locate on site per L.A. 4 Aechmea rubens Bromeliad 'Rubens' 10" pot, Sun - grown, locate on site per L.A. 624 Annuals spp. Selected by Owner Seasonal Flower 12" oc, 4" pots, amend soil 172 Bougainvillea 'Silhouette' Bougainvillea 'Silhouette' 18" oa, full, contaiiner, 3' oc 9 Strelitzia reginae Orange Bird of Paradise 30" oa, full, container, 6' oc GRASSES /SHRUBS GROUNDCOVER QTY Botanical Common Specifications 78 Muhlenbergia capillaris Pink Muhly Grass 18" oa, full, 3'oc 10 Serenoa repens cinerea Silver Saw Palmetto 24" oa, full, container, 4' oc 1395 Trachelospermum asiaticum Asian Jasmine 6" oa, 12 " spr, 18" oc, full MATERIAL QTY Botanical Common Specifications 10800 Mulch (SF) All planting beds, 3" depth 15 Planting Soil (CY) 4" depth Use in all annual beds, composed of 1/3 screened peat, 1/3 composted pine bark, 1/3 coarse sand with pH adjusted to 6.5. A/R i Sabal Palm removal Selected Non Right -of -Way Area(s) 2 Myrica cerifera Wax Myrtle 8'-9' oa, multitrunk, full, container 11 Sabal palmetto Saba[ Palm (3) 8' oa, (4) 12' oa, (4) 16' oa, fronds removed 18 Serenoa repens cinerea Silver Saw Palmetto 24" oa, full, container, 4' oc 64 Bougainvillea 'Silhouette' Bougainvillea 'Silhouette' 18" oa, full, contaiiner, 3' oc 2600 Mulch (SF) All planting beds, 3" depth GOETZ +STROPES Landscape Architects X61 7.' A121 Neil Dorrill a From: VlietJohn [JohnVliet @colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:26 PM To: Neil Dorrill Cc: TeachScott; FederNorman; GossarclTravis; CasalanguidaNick; BurtchinMark; ChesneyBarbara Subject: RE: Pelican Bay advanced resurfacing Neil Mr. Scott Teach and I did meet yesterday and discussed the advanced resurfacing of Pelican Bay Blvd. He has advised that since this is more of a budget /finance issue that could go to the BCC via an Executive Summary. In order for he and I to accomplish getting that done we will need confirmation in writing from both Pelican Bay Services and the Foundation (HOA) agreeing to a specific pavement marking plan when the resurfacing is accomplished. This information is needed to assist us in estimating the cost of the project. We also discussed the upcoming Pelican Bay permit project for the multiple brick paver crosswalks you intend to install. If installed prior to the resurfacing project they will need to be covered during the resurfacing /construction project otherwise they will have emulsions tracked on them. We do not have a pay item in our contract to perform this task and it would be above and beyond the normal type of work we do when resurfacing a road so that would mean that Pelican Bay Services would be responsible for those additional costs. As you are aware we had planned to begin this project starting in Fiscal year 2014 and complete it during the following fiscal year provided our budget would allow. If Pelican Bay Services wish to have the resurfacing done sooner and wish to pay for the work prior to that we would start the payback in Fiscal year 2014. We would repay Pelican Bay services 25% of the total cost less the cost of covering brick pavers starting fiscal year 2014 and 25% each subsequent year until they have been fully reimbursed 100% excluding the added cost of covering/protecting the newly installed brick pavers. I realize you would like to have had something more on this to provide to your board members by this coming Tuesday however due to the backlog in the county Attorney's office and the upcoming holiday this will not be possible. I will need the pavement marking issue resolved and in writing from both parties before we can move forward on the E.S. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance or if you need any additional information at this time. From: CasalanguidaNick Sent: Thursday, August 25, 20113:02 PM To: Neil Dorrill (neil @dmgfl.com) Cc: VlietJohn; TeachScott Subject: Pelican Bay advanced resurfacing Neil, John Vliet will be getting in touch with you soon to review the business points, confirm timing and discuss striping and crosswalks. Attorney Scott Teach will begin to draft the agreement after you speak to John. Thank you, Nick Under Florida Law, a -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. X61 • I I A121 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502 September 9, 2011 Mr. David Weeks, AICP Growth Management Plan Manager/ Redistricting Project Manager Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL, 34104 RE: Establishing New District Boundaries Dear Mr. Weeks, The Board of the Pelican Bay Services Division has reviewed the five (5) proposed redistricting maps and the executive summary prepared by County staff. The Board commends County staff for the thorough work that has gone into developing these alternatives. The Board recommends that Commissioners select Map 1, which is simple and straight forward; reasonably maintains current boundaries but allows for population shifts; closely follows established roadways and County borders; and is the least political solution that can be easily explained to voters. We respectfully urge the Commissioners to select Map 1. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, hairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board C: Commissioner Coyle, Chairman Commissioner Coletta Commissioner Fiala Commissioner Henning Commissioner Hiller C o 1 f i e r C 0 s: n t y 0 pbs Ak, - 16! f2 Al2� Ne j ; te-r-r-A 1 =h�r4/�L r�sl � 3 vi MONT i —�c Lf I A 16 +.. I �Tl � U rr- o r� "—k 0 t� - A UQVU t!V�U Lmw U u Al2 A 1 �. I w, 1412 I +u IA 1 2 4 H, I �i a C- u JS avo H 1 br6 e"-D bp-^\t4- BO 161�'1A121 - I f Wes e- C��,� � �,�� -mss 161 ]f' Al2 _��_ 4j, r r ON IA.)a s 'S cl—(.(\ -e ID 5- ��I.c �� G dr �I, TI r, n-i- �eas h rrasSc� �� dp ' gY �� �w i • � S • f 160.�1Al2' • � r .t L ' vf. n 161 A 12'� w r a Lv if6ri Br o -,(N � I r4j- 21P G., r r 1.�� 16a 1 °' Al2� � � \« : r � �� 5� � � � .{ y� �� \.d � . ,� x :r < ®<4) . � 2 \� � : \� / � \ \ \: Tr e & r-f- u 1fi I 1� A121 r2� �o f4- JLL,P� 161, 1Al2� W, S�� 161 1F Al2' Olt i , 10 kr 914®R *Oiz I '00 AL 41F U AS 16i'1Qi2 16 1 1 S It r�T- C- r-- C- Y:h V3 p.v Al2' �IOC`cS —pr r- S cro�5 1G � �, p12 1/ :3 Say Hello to a New Way of Watering The MP Rotator is a multi- stream rotor the size of a spray nozzle. It simply attaches to any of the Hunter spray head bodies — transforming it into a highly efficient, low precipitation rate sprinkler. What's even better is that, after you adjust the arc and radius, every MP Rotator has a perfectly matched precipitation rate. So what does that mean? You can install any of the MP Rotators you see below, in any configuration or situation, with no concern of over or under watering. Further, you'll be able to have more MP Rotators on a zone. This is why it has become one of the most sought after products in irrigation history. MP1000 01 0 MP2000 MP3000 Strip & Corners 00400� The Ultimate Option There is an MP Rotator for nearly every application. You can space the MP Rotator from 8 feet all the way to 30 feet, and still have side strips and corners versions on the same zone! This is also why installers have found that the MP Rotator can save the day on existing irrigation systems in need of help. A zone that is "stretched" can now be brought to life. An irrigation system with low pressure wilt never look better. Chances are, the MP Rotator will find its way on to your next new installation. But why wait? Give it a try on your next service call. Save the Planet Have you heard that before? Well, think about it. The MP Rotator saves water over spray nozzles (it uses about 30% less) because of its efficient design. The MP Rotator is also being recognized by many cities and municipalities for its water saving capabilities, playing a big part in rebate programs across the country. All this is occurring while grass is staying green, plants are thriving, and landscapes have never looked better. It makes sense to use the MP Rotator because you not only get results but also know you've helped conserve our most precious resource. pop" keeps sprinkler I debris. lent ring enables you to dial in ct arc on all part circle versions. Fits perfectly on all the available Hunter spray bodies. 4 � When paired with the revolutionary MP Rotator, the Pro-Spray" PRS40 provides optimal performance at 40 PSI. Shown from left to right: Shrub, 6, 12, and 4" models. l� Pair with the Pro -Spray PRS40 for optimal pressure of 40PSI. Color -code system for arc and radius identification. Removable inlet filter keeps sprinkler free from internal debris. - H1111�1`I'® 0 s_:• 0 • F R444 R04a E44 M.S.T.U. AA ea,,, -Z, 2995 S. H D4�Vf Nom, Ft 34104 June 21, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance 16 � �'I 13 A III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - June 1, 2011 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report – Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report – Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Finance Update 1. Report on Request to the County Commissioners IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Ccletta —�`— Misc. Corres: Date: %CA1 , The next meeting is scheduled forAugust 3, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Item Naples, FL 34104 `T 1 161 111 A13 'iva:o '#sac.[ &aX M.S.T.U. Ak:" Caw� 299S S. H D,4g Nom, fL 34104 Summary of Minutes and Motions June 21, 2011 III. Approval of Agenda Move VIII. before VI. Sue Chapin moved to accept the Agenda for June 21, 2011 as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — June 1, 2011 Meeting Renato Fernandez moved to approved June 1, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried 4 -0. VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Urban Green Studio Staff recommended the concept plan be reviewed and approved by the County prior to submitting a permit application. Sue Chapin moved to approve the crushed shell concept as presented by Urban Green and have the appropriate County Departments review for approval prior to Urban Green going forward and that staff stated the Review will take approximately 2- weeks. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. 161. 7" p13' Urban Green Discussion Items 1. Plant tour feedback - • general impressions, preferences, rejects • Paige was taking quite a few photos, could we check & see if she could send or bring those? • See attached images of Golden Creeper (Ernodea littoralis) since it wasn't on one of our stops • Approval of plant palette so we can move ahead with 60% plans 2. Crushed shell feedback - • general impression & would they like to incorporate into the design in some manner? • review cost comparison w/ plantings & mulch • We'll bring a couple of tissue overlays to show options for how it could be integrated into existing 30% framework 3. Buccaneer Palms • Additional research into cold tolerance • Bob Petersen recommendation. Also see link below for article on Buccaneer palms. • http:// lee .ifas.ufl.edu /Hort/GardenPubsAZ /Buccaneer palm.pdf • 1 will also follow up with Chad Washburn 4. "Inspirations" board from early Conceptual exhibits, which we'll use to illustrate one of the shell options 5. Verify schedule for 100% Plan completion 70, RADIO ROAD EAST PLANT IMAGES Golden Creeper - South Collier Blvd, Marco island 6/15/11 RADIO ROAD EAST PLANT IMAGES Golden Creeper - Calusa Bay Entry 6/15/11 „� A 1 RADIO ROAD EAST PLANT IMAGES Golden Creeper - Calusa Bay Entry 6/15/11 RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU LANDSCAPE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLANT SELECTIONS & GROUPINGS ROYAL PALMS Asian jasmine Bromeliads as accents (Option: Aloe or other spiky plant as accents) Beach Dune sunflower at tips GUMBO LIMBO TREES Silver Saw palmetto Blue Palmetto (Sabal minor) Pink Muhly grass Florida Coontie Parson's Juniper Dwarf Yaupon Holly ACCENT PALMS Green Thrinax Silver Thrinax Silver Coccothrinax Dwarf Bougainvillea 161 i A13% MAY 4, 2011 ACCENT TREES "A" Silver Buttonwood trees (Option: Simpson's Stopper treeform) Florida Coontie Society Garlic Golden Creeper at tips ACCENT TREES "B" Pigeon Plum trees Spider Lily Golden Creeper Crinum Lily as accents BUCCANEER PALMS Spider Lily Golden Creeper Society Garlic A �. 3 161 . Please email me at sueflynnCoDonebox.com To confirm receipt of these RAA4 G/ Radio Road East Advisory Committee Minutes. M.S.TA Adv:," Cu s 2995 S. H*u,R« 1N.V Thank you, Sue Flynn N , Ft 34104 RRE MSTU Minutes ` June 21, 2011 BY: ....................... I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 1:00 PM II. Attendance Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson, Paige Simpson (Excused) County: Michelle Edwards Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Pam Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager, Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Katie Bigowski Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff e :Wing III. Approval of Agenda ✓' Move VIII before VI.� Sue Chapin moved to accept the Agenda for June 21, 2011 as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — June 1, 2011 Meeting Renato Fernandez moved to approved June 1, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report June 1St Budget Report was made available. B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard stated Dale Johnson did an excellent job on presenting the Radio Road East MSTU request to the BCC on June 14, 2011. Misr .ps: Old Business Date: � O W Finance Update Report on Request to the County Commissioners Item # U-r_ \ \ rA3 Darryl Richard noted the request was well received by the BCC. .. 1 161 1 A131 The BCC requested Staff work with Budget to find a financial solution. Michelle Arnold gave a process update as follows: • To setup a meeting with Scott Teach, Assistant County Attorney and the Supervisor of Elections office regarding the ballot question. • Review ballot question with Attorney's office. • The Election Board requires a 30 day period to process the referendum. • A Referendum is required for a bank or County loans. • After the election in January and if the MSTU Referendum passes; financing will be pursued by the Finance Dept. • The Referendum should be done before the Resolution. • BCC approval will be required during the entire process. Discussion was made on total time it would take for County or bank loans and Staff suggested the Committee use 3 to 6 months' time frame (after) the Referendum date. After the BCC approves the financial transaction the projected transfer of funds could happen fall of 2012. 2. Grant Update Pam Lulich reported if the Radio Road East MSTU is awarded MPO Grant funds, the funds would not be available until 2015. Sue Chapin expressed concern that the wrong MSTU (Radio Road MSTU) was named on the MPO Grant list instead of Radio Road East MSTU. She urged Staff to address the issue with the MPO. Staff will research the Grant fund amount for Radio Road East MSTU as it may not have been correct on the MPO list. Pam Lulich reiterated the Grant is a matching Grant and the MSTU would be required to have the funds first. It would be a benefit for a Committee Member to be proactive and attend MPO meetings. Staff volunteered will ask the County Attorney, Scott Teach and the Supervisor of Elections to their next regular Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee meeting B. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU None VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick provided an Urban Green Discussion Items list to review and discuss with the Committee. (See attached) 2 161 1 q13 Darryl Richard verified Urban Green's 100% Plan completion schedule remain October 1, 2011. He noted the final cost estimate will assist to determine ballot amount. Dale Johnson suggested possibly of holding a public meeting to draw interest to the project before financing is placed on the January ballot. Ms. Fendrick provided a Plant Selections & Groupings dated May 4, 2011 and asked the Committee for approval of plant palette to move ahead on 60% plan. (See attached) She reviewed plant selections for the following Groups: • Royal Palms • Gumbo Limbo Trees ■ Accent Palms • Accent Trees — Silver Buttonwood and Pigeon Plum • Buccaneer Palms The Committee approved all the selections with the following allowances: • Use Parson's Juniper sparingly • Add Bird -of- Paradise plants • Additional research into cold tolerance of Buccaneer Palms Staff suggested testing Buccaneer Palms in a "test" median located in Lely. Ms. Fendrick gave a presentation on incorporating crushed shells in the already approved Conceptual Design. She used tissue overlays to show options for how it could be integrated into the existing 30% framework. She provided 3- options: • Shell Option A — Royal Palms and Bromeliads • Shell Option B & C — Accent Palms and Gumbo Limbos It was noted crushed shells last 4 -5 years with mulch lasting 1 -2 years. She presented a tissue overlay on the complete project to show all the medians with the crushed shells. The shell design layout covers 30- 35% of the project. Pam Lulich was concerned about the height clearance and maintenance costs of the Silver Buttonwood trees. The Committee will consider alternates. The Committee liked the shell concept and discussion followed on whether the County will allow the use of crushed shells in medians. Staff recommended the concept plan be reviewed and approved prior to submitting the permit application. Sue Chapin moved to approve the crushed shell concept as presented by Urban Green and have the appropriate County Departments review for approval prior to Urban Green going forward and that staff stated the Review will take approximately 2- weeks. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. 3 16! A13� Staff will notify the Committee on the County review's response. Renato Fernandez left at 2:30 p.m. VII. New Business None VIII. Public Comments None There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 PM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Johnson, thairyoln These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on as presented '��• _ or amended The next meeting is August 3, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 4