Loading...
Backup Documents 12/15/2009 Item #16I rf1611~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE December 15, 2009 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: I) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of October 5, 2009. 2) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of August 13,2009. 3) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of August 20, 2009; August 25, 2009 special session; September 3, 2009 special session; September 3, 2009 regular session; September 17, 2009; 4) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of October 7,2009. 5) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of October 28, 2009. Minutes of September 23, 2009. 6) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of September 3, 2009. 7) Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force: Minutes of January 11,2005; March 2,2005; April 6, 2005; May 4,2005. 8) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of October 20, 2009. Minutes of September 15,2009. 9) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee: Agenda of May 7, 2009; October 15, 2009. Minutes of April 2, 2009; May 7, 2009. RECEIVED NOV 0 6 ~UTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BoaroolCounty~ORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta / It6er/T 2f9 A t Naples, Florida, October 5, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3 :00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby Randy Anderson (Absent) John Cowan Christian Davis Cormac Giblin Brian Goguen Christine Jones (Excused) Kenneth Kelly (Excused) Sally Masters (Excused) Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer - Alternate ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services Frank ("Buddy") Ramsey, Housing Manager Mise. ConIs' Margo Castorena, Grants Operation Manager 1"'\' I ~ Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor Date: 0'- V...J IIem #: Ie I C~'l; 161' 1 Ai October 5, 2009 1 1. CaU to Order - Chairman The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hruby at 3:00 PM. Chairman Hruby read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. 2. RoU CaU of Committee Members and Staff The roll was taken and a quorum was established. Commissioner James Coletta attended 3. Welcome to New Members - Chairman Chairman Hruby introduced and welcomed Mr. Davis and Mr. Warshauer to the Committee. 4. Approval of Minutes - August 31, 2009 Changes: · The status ofMr. Cowan's attendance was corrected from "Absent" to "Excused" · On Page 3, under Item "D. - Presentation of Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing Program," the presenter's name was corrected from Steve "Parker" to "Perkins. " John Cowan moved to approve the Minutes of the August 31,2009 meeting as amended. Second by Bradley Schiffer. Motion carried, 4-"Yes"/2-"Abstentions." (Mr. Davis and Mr. Warshauer abstained since they were not voting members at the time.) 5, Approval of Agenda - Chairman/AU Bradley Schiffer moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Cormac Giblin. Carried unanimously, 6-0. 6. Information Items A. Presentation - Purchasing Aspect ofNSP Homes: Gary Bigelow, Real Property · Four phases of the procedure were outlined: o Acquisition o Acceptance of Offer o Closing o Post-Closing: · Target areas: zip codes 34112, 34116, 34120 (highest foreclosure rates) · County has closed 21 properties which are being prepared for sale · 227 properties have been inspected - offers were made on 201 - 33 approved contracts to date · 45-day window between date the contract is approved/signed and the closing date · Collier County was the first in the United States to close a property (with Chase Bank) Questions were asked concerning the following topics: · "Pier diem, late/penalty fees" " - cannot be paid by Federal funds - often a deal breaker · "Competition" - private investors are very active in the market and willing to pay more than the County 2 1 6 I OC!ber~ ~)9 · "Document Standardization" - has been problematic - County has its own documents but industry Contracts are different - only Florida Board of Realtors Purchase and Sale Contract are uniform · "National Community Stabilization Trust" - established by Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and FannyMae - has set aside properties for municipalities - "First Look" - not listed on MLS · "Available Properties" - expecting release of foreclosed properties in November D. Update on NSP ProjectIDisposition of Property: Frank Ramsey · A suggestion was made for Staffto email copies of the monthly Project Summary Report to the Members · A request to expand the current target area was submitted to HUD for current NSP - a response has not been received · The application for NSP-2 Program included all County zip codes · Advertising on "YouTube" (short videos) as well as in local newspapers · 58 applications were submitted, 19 applicants have been qualified for loans · An Ordinance is being drafted concerning the procedure for the sale of the properties acquired under NSP - document will be vetted with mortgage industry before presentation to the Board of County Commissioners B. Subcommittee Update: Frank Ramsey · The Workshop, scheduled for September 22, 2009, was canceled due to conflict with State of Florida Affordable Housing Conference · One Subcommittee member was lost due to expiration of term (James Warnken) · October Subcommittee meeting: Staff will email suggested dates to members · November Subcommittee meeting: Tuesday, November 24,2009 in the afternoon C. Announcement of Subcommittee Workshop: Frank Ramsey · New date: Tuesday, November 24th from 9:00 to 12:00 Noon · The Workshop and Subcommittee meeting will be advertised as a "full" Committee meeting in order to prevent conflicts with the provisions of the Sunshine Law and allow all Committee members to attend E. Review of AHAC Ordinance Changes: Frank Ramsey The enabling Ordinance required all re-zoning applicants, with or without an affordable housing component, to make a presentation to the AHAC before seeking approval from the Board of County Commissioners. Direction was requested from the County Attorney's Office concerning the intent of the Ordinance. A proposed Ordinance change was brought before the BCC to narrow the focus to only those applicants whose projects contained affordable housing components. The BCC directed Staff to draft an Ordinance which would eliminate the requirement completely which was approved. Discussion ensued with concern expressed that the BCC's decision was short-sighted because market values will change again and there will be a need for Affordable Housing projects. 3 16 I ltoA 51009 >:1 7, Discussion of Upcoming Grant Cycle and Needs ofthe Community - Marcy Krumbine and Margo Castorena · Request for Proposal ("RFP") are being prepared for next cycle (2010 - 2011) · Staff has discussed the best use for anticipated Stimulus funds (CDBG and HOME money) · Overall picture is different today than in 2006 - strategies are under review · Objective: Poll community to ascertain perceived "gaps" in service or other needs for possible funding o "Listening" sessions have been scheduled - October 19 at Immokalee Library, and October 20 at Golden Gate Community Center (6:00 - 9:00 PM) o Senior Rental Housing is lacking - only Goodlette Arms is available o Advertised in Naples Daily News and lmmokalee Bulletin o Emails to non-profits to contact their constituents o Report on results of sessions will be presented to AHAC · Potential to assist additional non-profit agencies for projects to serve low and moderate-income families · Affordable Housing proj ects remain the # 1 priority but current inventory and foreclosures preclude developing new projects Next meetings: November 2, 2009 - Naples City Hall Conference Room, 2nd Floor December 7, 2009 - City Hall Council Chambers, 735 8th Street South There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:40 PM. The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on as presented , or as amended ,/ an d 4 Fiala . Halatl Henning Coyle Coletta ~ 16 J CJOclObA.,09 1 VI-1 APproRf I;nda . 1of7 J 'T' JQ.~ RECEIVED NOV 10 21m Board of Coonty COlMIIUlanenI MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 13,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1 :00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Murray Hendel Larry Magel Joseph A. Moreland Ted Forcht Victor Rios Jim Burke (Excused) Robert Raymond ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Misc. CoINs: Oate:Qj 15/ D 3' Ilemt: He 'Ii. i\A J-. C"'ries to: CAC October 8, 2009 Vf-1 Approval of Agenda 20f7 I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00PM 16 J 1 A 2 1 II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III, Roll Call Roll Call was taken with a quorum established. Robert Raymond was welcomed as a new member of the Committee. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Hendel moved to approve the agenda subject to the following: · Addition of Item X - Public Comments with remaining items renumbered accordingly. · Combining Item Vl!.3 - TDC Review of Beach Funding with Item VII.3 TDC Subcommittee Funding Recommendations Second by Mr. Rios, Carried unanimously 8-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. May 14, 2009 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes subject to the following changes: · Page 3 Paragraph 2 -line 2 - from "The Council..." to "The Committee... " · Page 5 - Paragraph I -line2 from "and it is non-binding..." to "and is a non-binding.. ." Second by Mr, Pires, Carried unanimously 8-0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report - FY 2008 - 2009" updated through "July 2009." The Committee requestedfuture reports indicate the percentage changes in collections by categories (single-family short-term rentals, hotel/motels. etc) and reportingjurisdictions between the currentjiscal year and the previousjiscal year. Gary McAlpin noted the data would become available starting with the next fiscal year. He noted most of the reduction in Tourist Taxes collected lies within the Hotel/Motel sector. CAC October 8, 2009 VI-1 Approval of Agenda 30f7 16/i1 'A2 2. Project Cost Report - Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the Report "FY 2009/2010 TDC Category "A" Beach Maintenance Projects" dated August 13, 2009. 3. TDC Review of Beach Funding - Murray Hendel Combined with item VII!.3 VIII. New Business 1. Best Value Offer Presentation - Purchasing Dept. Kelsey Ward, Collier County Contract Administration Manager provided an overview of the Best Value Offer (BVO) process for awarding certain County contracts for work. She highlighted the following: · It is applicable to fixed term contracts for firms within the disciplines of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Engineering, Mapping and Surveying. . It provides for the equitable distribution of contracts to pre-qualified firms · In the past contracts were awarded on a rotation basis to pre-qualified firms, etc. . The BVO provides all approved firms the opportunity to be awarded a contract and matches the proposed work to the "best-fit" consultant. . The contract is awarded based on responses to the County's request for work in a system where 5 criteria are evaluated (cost, etc.) · The criteria are worth a total of 20 points each; some criteria such as cost may be upgraded to 50 points if requested. . The evaluation is conducted by a Project Manager for projects from $50, 000 - $100,000 for those over $100,000, a selection Committee comprised of 3 individuals evaluates the submittals. Chairman Sorey noted the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has approved the process and the purpose of to day's item is for informational purposes. Any questions or recommendations for changes by Committee members is outside the scope of the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) and should be directed to the BCC. Under Committee discussion the following was noted: · The evaluation and scoring of the criteria is "subjective." . The pay rate for a potential firms employee not identified by County Purchasing documents (i.e. a specialized engineer or technician) is approved if it is deemed "reasonable." . To date, there has not been a large amount of Change Orders generated with the new BVO program. . The standard terms and conditions of the BVO require the firm to identify the particular employee to be responsible for any areas of expertise to safeguard the County from firms substituting an employee. · Sole source procurement is not within the scope of the BVO program. GAG October 8, 2009 VI-1 Approval of Agenda 40f7 1611 'A2 1 2. BVO Results for Physical & Biological Monitoring Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Update the CAC on the Results of the "Best Value Offer" for the Physical and Biological Monitoring Solicitation" dated August 13, 2009 for review by the Committee. The contract for Physical Monitoring was awarded to Coastal Planning and Engineering through the Best Value Offer (BVO) process. The Biological Monitoring will be completed under a separate contract (not by BVO) by a "temporary contracted County employee" supported by County Staff at the price of approximately $90,000. Last year the work cost the County $300,000. Gary McAlpin noted there will be no Biological Monitoring required for next year, the 4th year of a 5-year cycle. It was noted certain rates quoted for Engineers, Administrative Assistants, etc. in Coastal Planning and Engineering's proposal will be reduced as necessary. Sneaker Ken Humiston, Humiston and Moore Engineers submitted a memo "Members of the Collier County CAC,jor the meeting record, from Humiston and Moore Engineers - Re: BVO #08-5124, CAC August 13,2009 Agenda Item VII-2 New Business. " He expressed concern the Executive Summary (ES) represented Humiston and Moore's cost proposal as "considerably higher" than the other two firms involved in the BVO process. He read the memo into the record, which outlined the reasons the representation in the ES was incorrect. Marcia Cravens expressed concern over the entire BVO process noting the previous Agenda item outlined why it is advantageous to utilize the method and the Biological Monitoring Scope of this Agenda Item did not to utilize the process. In addition, she recommended an investigation in the Change Order process to determine if limitations for changes should be imposed. Some firms have a tendency to low bid projects and then increase the costs substantially by executing Change Orders. Chairman Sorey noted the Purchasing and Change Order issues are under the Scope of the Board of County Commissioners and any comments should be directed to them. Mr. Pires requested clarification on why line items 7 - Clam Pass Beach PhYSical Monitoring, Item II - Caxambas inlet/borrow area monitoring and Item ] 5 - Sea Grass Monitoring at Hideaway Beach on Page 3 of 6 of the ES are left blank with no costs associated. CAC October 8. 2009 VI-1 Approval of Agenda r6 I 1 A 2 Gary McAlpin noted the work was deemed not to be included in the scope of the request. Any Consultants participating in the process were notified of the change. Mr. Pires requested Staff provide him a copy of the addendum to the request, which outlined the elimination for the request of the services. Gary McAlpin noted the information would need to be supplied by the Purchasing Department. 3. TDC Subcommittee Funding Recommendation Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Review and Obtain CAC Support to Oppose TDC Subcommittee Recommendation on Beach Funding" dated August 13, 2009 for review by the Committee. He noted the Tourist Development Council (TDC) Subcommittee has recommended that the $.5M annually set aside for the Beach Emergency Fund as well as $.5M of the $2.0M annually set aside for the Beach re-nourishment Fund be re-directed to promotions and advertising within the Convention and Visitors Bureau for a period of two years. He met with the Subcommittee and informed them the funds are "emergency funds" that will require utilization at some point. He also informed them redirecting the funds from the Beach Re-nourishment would delay the work by two years, a critical time in the Re-nourishment Cycle when the beaches will need maintenance and also cause an increase in costs for the work. He requested the CAC oppose the redirection of those funds. Mr. Hendel, Chairman of the TDC Subcommittee provided an overview of the Subcommittees work noting some of the following: · The overall objective of the Subcommittee was to examine overall Tourist Development Funding and Activities in the region and to investigate the feasibility of increasing advertising for tourism to a year round basis, as opposed to an off-season basis. · It was testified when money is allocated to advertising, additional revenue is generated ($1 of advertising generates approximately $16 of revenue to area businesses.) · Individuals testified the beaches are in good condition at this time, and re-nourishment may be postponed for a short time frame. . Two recommendations suggested affect Beach Funds as outlined by Mr. McAlpin. . The remaining recommendations include, ceasing funding of the County Museum Operating budget, the interest from TDC funds be returned to the TDC budget, investigating means to increase collections in the area of single-family rentals, creating a visitor center coordinator, not to raise the Tourist Tax, etc. · The Subcommittee recognized beaches are important and are not recommending forgoing ongoing maintenance of the Beaches, rather utilizing Emergency funds on a temporary basis for marketing. CAC October 8, 2009 VI.1 Approval of Agenda 60f7 161.1 A2 Chairman Sorey expressed concern the CVB has consistently been unable to document the relationship between advertising expenditures and their return on investment. He acknowledged it is a difficult statistic to produce. Mr. Moreland moved to recommend to the Tourist Development Council and Board of County Commissioners that the $500,000 redirection offunds (as recommended by the Tourist Development Council Subcommittee) not be supported. Second by Mr. Pires. Several members expressed concern that not continuing maintaining the beaches may have a negative affect on the overall number of Tourists visiting the area. In addition, expending an extra $IM may be ill advised, as it will not have an impact on increasing business given the current economic climate. Mr. Hendel clarified the Subcommittee discussed the issue in detail. It is not the intent of the Subcommittee to create a negative impact on the condition of the beaches. The proposal does not reduce expenditures on existing beach operations and maintenance, rather temporarily utilizes funds currently committed to emergencies or future re-nourishment projects for advertising. Motion carried 6 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Hendel and Mr, Forcht voted "no," Gary McAlpin recommended similar resolutions be brought forth to their respective jurisdictions by members of the CAC from the City of Marco Island and the City of Naples. IX, Old Business 1. Hideaway Beach Erosion Control Structure Funding - Update Gary McAlpin noted the County allocated $1.6M for erosion control structures for Hideaway Beach. The bids indicate the work may be completed for approximately $IM. 2. Clam Bay Advisory Committee - Update Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Update the CAC on Progress of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee" dated August 13, 2009. He noted: · The Clam Bay Advisory Committee plans on submitting a draft report to the CAC in September and will be addressing the BCC in October to determine if the CBAC should continue or sunset. · The I O-year permit application for tidal flushing is in the "Request for Additional Information" stage. . The navigational signage marking issue is on going. · The Water Quality Study is underway. · The Pass is proposed to be marked with informational signs to reduce conflicts between boaters and swimmers with final language to be approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. CAC October 8. 2009 VI-1 Approval of Agenda 7} 6 I 1 A 2 Soeaker Marcia Cravens addressed the Committee providing a map of the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area noting preserving this area has been acknowledged since 1976 through zoning regulations developed at that time. Subsequent to this, numerous technical reports were completed to form the 1991 Coastal Management Plan. This led to Sea Grass, Manatee and Turtle Protection plans. She requested the Clam Bay Advisory Committee be renamed to the "Moorings Bay Advisory Committee," as the Water Quality in Moorings Bay is the overall problem for the Water Quality in the area. 3. Gordon River Funding Update Gary McAlpin noted there were 2 non-responsive bidders for the project and it is to be re-bid with the contract to be awarded in late September, 2009. X. Public Comments None XI. Announcements None XII. Committee Member Discussion Chairman Sorey requested members to direct their comments on items heard during the meeting to the full Committee. Private comments between individual Committee members may be deemed a Sunshine Law violation. XIII. Next Meeting Date September 10,2009 - Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 2:47 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee ~'~ (lohn Sorey, III Chair an These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended V 10-'0 -!)Cj' v August 20, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE l..-~J 1 A 31 ECEIV~LIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMIsBtalB ~ ~ ../J R Naples, Florida Hala~.-' 1- ... .fL.' NOV 1 3 2009 August 20, 2009 Hennlng-!....- - - Coyle ' BoanlofCounlyConlllllllllnen Coletta 1"el W I LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page I Misc. Corres: Date: , ~/I S L r.Jj Item# IloIC \)A3 C0pies to: Arsgo120i A 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat is absent. Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: rm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat had called and had other business he had to attend to today, so he won't be here, so it will be an excused absence. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move into the addenda to the agenda. We have some changes. Anybody that is in the audience that is here for West Coast Development Corporation of Naples, that was the CVS Pharmacy on the corner of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, that petition has been withdrawn. That means they're not going forward with it. That's different than a continuance, so it won't be coming back, we won't be hearing that today. That is Item 9.A. There are two other items that are now being continued: Item 9.B and 9.C. That is for FLO TV, Inc. One is a variance and one is a conditional use for cell towers in an Estates zoning district. Those two items are being asked to be continued for two weeks. J.D., was it two weeks solid or two weeks maybe? MR MOSS: Solid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So those are the only changes to today's agenda. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as Planning Commission absences, we have a meeting next week on the 25th, which 1,- what day of the week is that? Wednesday, I think-- Page 2 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Tuesday. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Tuesday. On our floodplain ordinance. You all either have gotten or will get shortly a large packet of corrected material on additional data that we had asked for on the floodplain ordinance. And I wish to compliment the county attorney's office for a job well done in the way they handled the floodplain mating of the original base floodplain ordinance suggested by the government and the amendments that were done by our staff. And it does help to see the changes and give us reason to ask questions as to why all the changes were made. So great job. Thank you, Jeff, it was excellent you gu1's got involved. . There was a lot of other data there, so it will take a while to go through it. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just so there's not any confusion and for Mr. Murray in particular, the date we're going to hear that is Tuesday, the 25th? CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Right, 8:30 in the morning in this room. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because here on our agenda it says July 27th, and so I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the approval of the minutes, right? Remember, we had a meeting on July 27th? COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the next meeting will be next Tuesday in this room at 8:30. Does anybody know if they cannot make it on that date? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At this point I'm not sure. I may not be able to make it. I'll let you August 20, 2009 161i 1 A3 1 know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney, you won't be here, right? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll still have a quorum, so we can plow forward. With that we'll-- our next regular meeting is on the --I think the 3rd of September, it's our regular Thursday meeting. Does everybody -- does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're fine for both. Item # 5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 27, 2009 - FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. We have the July 27th, 2009 flood damage prevention ordinance minutes. That was where we basically had an evening presentation as to what the ordinance was conceptually about. The facts and details we'll get into in our next week's meeting. Having read the minutes, does anybody have any corrections or changes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 3 August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. 16 ILIA 3 Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NO MEETINGS IN AUGUST CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's no BCC recaps; is that still right, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. They're on their summer break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They shouldn't take a summer break. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. I have one item to mention. If you all recall, we had a case for the Olde Florida Golf Club that came before us, which was off the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road. It was a little bit confusing because they did not supply a master plan, nor development standards. They wanted to go back from a golf course zoning to standard zoning in the rural fringe. We stipulated several stipulations; one of which was that without a master plan and development standards they needed to come back in when they decided what they wanted to do. Rather than take that stipulation and continue on to the BCC, they thought it would be better to try to provide us with what we were asking for, and they have come back with a master plan showing their development limitations. And on the plan they have placed all their development standards, more typical of what we see. So they're going to be coming back to us in a coup -- I don't know, week or a month, whenever they've reapplied to bring it back in and have our review so that the stipulations can be modified, if we so agree. So I thought I'd mention that to everybody, because it's a good move. It helps clear things up before it gets to the BCC, which is actually what our job ought to be, so -- and that is the last. And Cherie', I'm probably rattling too fast. You know what, it's Bob's fault, because he gave me coffee this morning. Bob Vigliotti. I'll slow down, sorry. Item #8A PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14192, MONTE CARLO CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have our consent agenda. The first item is Item 8.A, Petition BD-2009-AR-14l92, and it's the Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to -- Ashley's here, and I just want to ask a quick question to be sure. When I was reading through the resolution, it talks about the 20 docks. I just want to make sure that we don't need to codifY anything other than on the SDPI that you and I e-mailed about yesterday that we don't need to codifY the 14 existing docks. What I'm concerned about is that should something happen, if the docks catch on fire, I don't want Monte Carlo to have to go through a variance process on those docks, the 14 existing docks today. MS. CASERTA: For the record-- Page 4 August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think they should have to do that, and 10Q thL iat w~s ~ :3 intent. MS. CASERTA: No. For the record, Ashley Caserta. (Ms. Caserta was duly sworn.) MS. CASERTA: Ashley Caserta, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Those docks that are there existing were approved by a site development plan that's already in place, and so they're allowed to remain there. And they could be rebuilt. We wouldn't have tb include them in this extension. They were approved legally. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, because they were approved legally at the time they were initially approved, we don't have to include them in this variance? MS. CASERTA: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: My concern was normally if something gets destroyed it has to be brought up to current standards. And I just want to make sure that we don't put these people through hoops that are totally unnecessary should something unforeseen happen. MS. CASERTA: I do understand your question, and those docks were approved legally through site development plan process. Do you agree, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: If I recall the docks correctly, those were preexisting legally built docks under a separate SDP. They wouldn't fall under this particular SDP or this extension request. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it is. We're just going to do an SDPL and the 20 new docks are going to be added to the old plan, according to my conversation with Ashley. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the 14 docks that exist were destroyed, can they be rebuilt without a variance in the future? MR. BELLOWS: They're under this extension. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's -- MS. CASERTA: They're existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know where you're going. MR. YOV ANOVICH: May I? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think Commissioner Caron brings up a good point. Everybody was so focused on the new docks and took for granted that the 14 were legally built originally. I think they could be interpreted by someone, if we're not around, to be legal nonconforming docks, those 14. And then through a glitch, if something were to happen to them, somebody could interpret those to be legal nonconforming and put those 14 docks through a boat dock extension process when nobody really contemplated that. So I think that the proper fix would be to just go to the 34. I don't remember if we attached the actual site plan to the resolution or not that showed the 20. COMMISSIONER CARON: That was my next question was we got this resolution and there is nothing attached. And rm surprised at that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And I think the site plan we showed, showed both the existing and the new. So if you were to go to the 34 and recognize the site plan, I think that would make sure that in the future we don't have anybody who doesn't go back and look at the taped discussion about what happened to make sure we don't put people through a process that nobody contemplated they'd have to go through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess that leaves us in a -- where's staff -- we didn't have a complete package in regards to the site plan that the docks are being approved to attached to the resolution. Were you intending not to provide one or -- MS. CASERTA: Nothing changed on the site plan, aside from what was provided for the actual petition. So the only thing that changed was the resolution, so that's all that was provided for the consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, without a site plan -- is there a need to have a site plan attached to the resolution? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. If you look at the resolution itself, it doesn't reference any exhibits. Page 5 August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, talking to Ashley and the attorney's office, is they have not historically attached exhibits to boat dock resolutions. We can start doing that, ifthat's the wish of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it cause a problem with any legal reasons, Mr. Klatzkow? MR KLATZKOW: No, it's no problem either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 think a picture's worth a thousand words. It probably would -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a record on something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we attach the-- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, they haven't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- plan that we all reviewed and approved. MR. BELLOWS: -- been done in the past, but we can certainly do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why don't we make a notation on the resolution that references the fact there's 14 existing docks that are conforming. MR. BELLOWS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, does that get you where you need to be, 1 think? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I just, I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. MR. SCHMITT: 1 think in this case it makes sense to do it. Most boat dock extensions, when they categorize dock -- boat dock extensions, involve a single-family home, and so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR SCHMITT: -- it's -- one dock, it's not an issue. But in this case it is a multi-slip facility and it certainly would make sense to add the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. SCHMITT: -- and note. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe, when a person goes out, code or somebody goes out to look at the docks, what resource do they use? Do they go to a site development plan to look for a drawing or -- MR. SCHMITT: When you say someone, are you talking about a building inspector looking? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, code enforcement or somebody. MR. SCHMITT: If there was any type of complaint by code, code would go out, look at the site, then come back and have to pull the SDP and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then they would see the plan there? MR. SCHMITT: -- then normally consult with somebody in the zoning department to determine if there was any violation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They wouldn't go to the resolution, in other words? MR. SCHMITT: Well, the zoning staff would certainly pull the resolution and pull any documents to research whether there's anything to substantiate any type of violation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To my way of thinking it would just make sense with the resolution. MR. SCHMITT: On this case I think it would make total sense to do it, because of the character of the site and it's a multi-dock facility, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I think the resolution to this resolution is you're going to add language to indicate there's 14 existing docks that are conforming, and that you're going to add the site plan that we reviewed and approved at our planning commission meeting when it came up before us. MS. CASERTA: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that meet consensus with everybody here? Okay. Then 1 think if it's okay, I'd like to see us recommend approval of this from the consent viewpoint so they don't have to come back and wait for another process. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. Just one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? 161 1 A3 I Page 6 1 6 rjt 20, 7r, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couldn't we just add the language right now and then vote on that and get it over? That way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, if you want to -- I just articulated it. But if they want to -- Ray, where would you add the -- and what exact language would you be adding? MR. BELLOWS: On this one? CHAllUdANSTRAIN:Ye~. MR BELLOWS: We're going to reference there's going to be an Exhibit A now, which is the conceptual site plan, and probably the series of docks cross-sections. MR. KLA TZKOW: You know, if you want to just wait a little bit, we can just get it printed up upstairs and be down here. You can review the fmal things, if you could table this for a little bit and move on to the next item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be here all morning, so let's just do it that way. Ms. Caron, would you withdraw your motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Ye~, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fme. Ashley, if you guys could work on that, at the end of the day today we'll go ~ead and bring it up for -- and by the way, Mr. Secretary, I think we need to make acknowledgment Tom Eastman's here, so-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. Good morning. CHAllUdAN STRAIN: He just came in. MR. EASTMAN: Sorry for being late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He snuck in through the back door. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I didn't see you. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-12773, COLLIER RATTLESNAKE INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other consent item, if there is another consent item. Yep, I'm trying to get the page tumed here. Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-12773, Collier Rattlesnake, Inc. It's for the Good Turn Center MPUD on the east side of Collier Boulevard near Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, on this petition I had -- I'm going to change my vote on this. I think that -- I still have all the same concerns, if not more. I think I've come up with a better way to deal with it, and I don't think it's going to -- it's not going to make a bit of difference on this particular item, so I will cast my vote with the majority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But Mr. Klatzkow, I'm going to have to ask for -- I don't think we can change the vote of a prior meeting, but you could obviously vote positive on the consent agenda for the consent language. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, you can't change your vote from the prior meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's fme. MR. SCHMITT: We can note in the report to the board-- COMMISSIONER CARON: You can note to the board. MR. SCHMITT: -- that based on comments made when reviewing the consent agenda that the commissioner that voted in opposition has made comments to now support the project. MR KLATZKOW: Well, I guess what I'm saying, are you withdrawing the opposition? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, the vote stands. We just note it that in the consent agenda there were comments made in support of the project. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, frankly-- Page 7 COMMISSIONER CARON: No. MR. KLATZKOW: I think you can put it on summary now, because the objection's been pulled. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll let you guys figure that out. Wejustwanted to make sure how the vote process took here today. So are there any other changes? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You may recall, I was not present during this, so I will not be 16TsIo'rA 3 ~ voting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would be true of myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, both of you. Any other changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve consent agenda Item 9.B? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then two abstentions. So it would be 6-0 with two abstentions. Thank you. Item #9D PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-I 1100, HIGHLAND PROPERTIES OF LEE AND COLLIER LTD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to our advertised public hearings, the first one of which is Petition 9.D. PUDZ-2007-AR-11100, Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Ltd. for the -- it's a reserve on the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis on the southeast side. I can't even say the word. Anyway, that's where it is. 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: I would wish in the future you don't pick a tongue twister for the name of a project. But anyway -- we need a code against that. Any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I also spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich. Page 8 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a phone conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. Also received many letters from citizens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I spoke to both Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold. And everything that he and I -- they and I talked about will be brought up again here again today. And those people here that are in attendance for this item, we have a little slip out in the hallway, that if you could just fill it out and give it to one of the gentlemen over on that table over there, that will make sure you get time to speak. I ask when you do speak we try to limit it to five minutes. Some issues can't be handled that quickly, but we ask that you try to limit it to that, and not redundant to what someone else said, that would make it more efficient for everybody here. And with that, we'll ask for the presentation by the applicant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Wayne Arnold and Mark Minor from Grady Minor & Associates. Wayne, as you know, is the professional planner on the project and Mark Minor is the professional engineer on the project. The reason we had to pick the name Taormina is because there's very few names left under the county's list of overly used names. So we now have to go to things that are a little bit more difficult to pronounce. I thought it was Taormina, but I've been corrected by J.D., it's Taormina. Right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, even you can't say the project's name. I was afraid of just saying it wrong. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think there's any wrong way to say that. The project is -- l'll put an aerial up. The project is at the southeast quadrant of the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension and Davis Boulevard. It's an approximately -- it's an 82 and a half acre site. The request is for 528 residential units and 262,000 square feet of commercial. As you can see on the visualizer, you have the mixed use tract. That's the tract where the commercial would be located that's within the activity center. And then you have two residential tracts, the R-l tract and the R-2 tract, where obviously just residential or, you know, CCRC type uses or assisted living uses can go. The breakdown of the residential density would be on the R-I and R-2 tract. We would be capped at a total of 400 units and then the remaining 128 would be on the mixed use tract, if we do put residential on the mixed use tract. As you can see with this particular petition, staffhas a lot of conditions at the end. The reason that happened was is J.D. had to take over on this project from a previous planner who through tougher economic times is no longer with the county. So to keep everything on tract, J.D. didn't have the time to sit down with us before the staff report was completed to work through a lot of these issues and incorporate them into the PUD documents. But we basically have sat down with J.D. since the report's been done, and we should be able to go through those relatively quickly. I'm going to hit a couple of them as highlights, because I think that will alleviate a lot of concerns we had from the letter writers as well as from the planning commissioners when we met with them on the project. As you can see on the R-l tract, we have two -- okay, we have two residential projects adjacent to us. To the east is Naples Heritage and to the north is -- it's a Toll Brothers project. It's the old Cook Drive-In Theatre. What we have agreed to do is for the portion of the project that fronts these residential projects, from here to here and from here to here, we have agreed to cap -- oh, we've got it highlighted. We have agreed to cap the product type to two stories not to exceed 35 feet, which is consistent with the residential heights adjacent to us. It's actually theoretically they could go taller than what we're doing, but 161 [ August 20, 2009 A3 Page 9 August 20, 2009 obviously since they're already built, I don't think they're going to remove the single-family if? Jd 1 A :3 replace them with taller. So we've agreed to go to that. And it's a distance of 100 feet from our boundary. We will limit ourselves to two stories not to exceed 35 feet. And you can see that there's a road currently contemplated there. But should there be some different development plan, we wanted to make sure we equated the same distance requirement, should we reconfigure the height. So that's where the 100 foot comes from. A second concern came up regarding the mixed use nature of this tract. We have a variety of uses anywhere (sic) ranging from C-I mainly to C-4, with a couple of the less intense C-5 type uses. A question came up, is it truly appropriate to have in the same building residential on top of certain types of these uses. So we have agreed that if it's going to be mixed use in the same building, the uses have to be limited to the permitted and conditional uses within the C-I through C-3 commercial districts, okay, so -- if you're going to have a mixed use building. And we further agreed that if you're going to have anything above that C-4, C-5 type uses and you want to have a separate standalone residential building also within the activity center portion of the project, we have to do the required LDC buffer between residential and the commercial. So that would include -- I forget the width, but that's got a wall component as well as a landscape buffer. So there would be a -- it would be a wall and landscape buffer between those commercial uses and any residential we build on our property. So we hope that that will address a lot of the concerns raised by J.D. and - as well as the neighbors. We spent a lot of time negotiating with your transportation staff on the transportation conditions. Staff had asked us to basically provide an interconnection and construct Sunset Boulevard all the way down to Cope Lane. We have agreed to build the interconnection. And you've got the conditions in the Pun document. What was added to the Pun that we were not aware of until vel)' late was apparently the property owner -- who I would say is the catalyst behind requiring the construction of Sunset Boulevard -- and I believe he's located about right here. Do I have that right, Wayne? Right about here. He already has a driveway down Cope Lane, but he would prefer to have a roadway. He's willing to donate the right-of-way to the county across his property if the county will build him a wall along a local 30- foot wide road. We're not agreeable to taking on the cost of that wall. First of all, requiring us to build the road we think is above and beyond what interconnection truly is. We're supposed to provide the opportunity, we're not supposed to be required to build the interconnect. But we've agreed to do that. And we think frankly it's a dangerous precedent, and the county itself doesn't do it on a local road that's, you know, two lanes and a sidewalk, the county doesn't typically build walls in front of residential homes. So we cannot agree to that stipulation that requires us to build a wall in front of this gentleman's home as part of the project. Your staff report is obviously vel)' detailed and vel)' thorough. And your staff is recommending approval with the conditions -- Mr. Chairman, I think it may go a little quicker if we could find a way to kind of go through those conditions with staff and the Planning Commission, kind of in a one -- whatever list, check them off. And it may be quicker instead of -- I don't really have much more to present, because I think we'd be quicker to go -- to just going through the conditions before the public speaks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I want to ask the Planning Commission if they want to have any questions before we have a -- I think what we'll do is get J.D. on the other mic. and we'll go through the stipulations or recommendations first, as long as there's no objection from the Planning Commission. And then after that we'll ask our questions of the presentation. Does that work for evel)'body? Okay, J.D., would you mind using the other mic. and let's walk through your three pages of recommendations. That's a record breaker. I'm glad you did it, though, thank you. And your analysis was great. I like your comparisons, they provide a lot of information. It was vel)' helpful. MR. MOSS: Great, thank you. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. If you turn to Page 23 of the staff report, that's where the stipulations begin. And I'd like to start with Page 10 AIs6or~~ A 3 number four, if that's okay. One through three were actually offered by the transportation planning ~ department. So if you have any questions regarding those, I guess we should speak with John Podczerwinsky about them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, as soon as you fmish then John will come up. Because I want to get the acknowledgment from both staff and the applicant as to where everybody stands on these. Because that way it helps the public understand where we're heading and then they can object or n...I.. object, depending on what they hear as well. MR. MOSS: Right. It seems there's a conflict between what transportation's requ sting and what the applicant is proposing. MR YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. And I think that's only as to item number three. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And John, I notice John's here today but His Imminence was supposed to be here too and I don't see him in the audience. I'm just wondering ifhe decided to back out again for the hundredth time. That's okay, there's more important things out there for him to do, I know. MR. SCHMITT: He's out buying coffee for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have to give Nick -- when Nick's not here I've got to give him a bad time. It's the only chance I get. MR. SCHMITT: He's building some walls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on with number four then. MR MOSS: All right, regarding condition number four for group housing structures to have a minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet. This was included because the applicant didn't offer to give any. And normally 1,000 square feet is the minimum -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're okay with this one. MR. MOSS: -- required by the zoning district. So you're okay with that. I just didn't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's building size, not unit size. That's addressed later on, the minimum unit size. I just wanted to make that clear to everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Group housing structures shall have a minimum floor area of 1,000-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- square feet on the ground floor. Yet your unit size is -_ MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it's 700 square-- MR. MOSS: 700 is what the LDC requires. And that's another stipulation. MR YOV ANOVICH: That's number 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the theory here is that you'd have a standalone group housing structure that will have one unit in it with some hallways, so it's a total gross of I ,000 square feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think your LDC says the minimum structure size is supposed to be 1,000 square feet. As you can see, it was rather easy to agree to that since we don't think the situation of a one-unit building with a -- MR. MOSS: Yeah, it's just the ground floor. So if there are multiple floors, the ground floor needs to be 1,000 square feet, minimum. The units can be as small as 700 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no disagreement from applicant. Okay. Number five? MR. MOSS: Number five, they're proposing maximum heights that were higher than what's proposed by the LDC. So staff was going to limit group housing, duplexes and townhouses to 40 feet zoned height and an actual height of 45 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what we had proposed, since now we've agreed to the 35-foot adjacent to the residential on the remainder of that small piece ofR-l, and the R-2 go with 45 feet. On the R-I and the R-2 piece, right? On the remainder of that R-I piece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a variety of product. Page II August 20, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. 1 6 I 1 A 3 - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looking at everything from single-family, which is 35 feet, single-family attached and townhouse at 45 with 55 for actual. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we would go to zoned on the R-I piece of 45 feet. And then I think on the --let me get to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your R-I is what's up against other residential. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And that's why we agreed to the two stories not to exceed 35 feet for everything, all the different type of uses, adjacent to the residential. MR. MOSS: Within 100 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Within 100 feet. And then on the remainder of the R-l we would go to 45 feet, correct? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but right now in your standards table you're only asking for 45 feet for just two of your product, the CCRC or the single-family attached and townhouse. So now you're saying you want all the product to have a higher step because you finally realize you shouldn't have 35 feet against existing residential? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. Mr. Strain, if 1 might, I think what Rich is trying to suggest is that presently the town home and the assisted living type uses are permit at 45 feet anyway throughout the R-l. With our proposed restriction to two stories not to exceed 35 feet for that portion adjacent to the Cook PUD and Naples Heritage, that maybe it would just be as easy that the southern and western portion of that R-I tract that's not restricted to that height, just make the multi-family, the assisted living and town home product available to go to 45 feet, as opposed to limiting one to 35 feet and the other types allowed to go to 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it must be a slow day for me, I'm sorry. This says the maximum height of group housing, duplexes and townhouses shall be limited to 40 feet and an actual height of 45. I go to your product list and I can't fmd group housing on there. So why don't you tell me which items on your product list, Exhibit B, Page 10 of the PUD you're considering the group housing. Or are they not even on that one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's the ALF/CCRC independent living for age 55. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, let's talk about duplexes. Which one on that sheet are you talking about duplexes? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They are under the two-family and zero lot line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now that one was already at 35 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But here it's saying they're going to be now 40 feet? And you're saying you want -- I'm trying to understand how that note five relates to the development standards on Exhibit B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, to make it simple, the only change we would like to make is on the multi-family where it currently says 35 feet. For the portion that's not adjacent to residential, we'd like to bump that to the 45 feet. Everything else would stay the same. Okay? The 35 for two-family would stay the same, 35 for clubhouse would stay the same and 35 for single-family would stay the same for that portion of the R-I tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what you're saying is the multi-family only in R-l, which is currently 35 feet-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you want to go to what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Forty-five for that little sliver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you want to go to 45 feet from 35 feet for the concession of lowering it from -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, 1 mean, if you look at the area that we've reduced the height, I mean, it's a big area. Page 12 fl;st f~' r9 A 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but you only reduced it for single-family, attached and townhouse and AC -- and CCRC. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we've reduced a story as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 35 feet is 35 feet. From the outside of the building you won't know if it's two stories or three stories. So it's really not that big of a deaL MR. YOV ANOVICH: The neighbors' concems were the fact that we were gQing to have three-story product adjacent to them, so we've gone to two-story product adjacent to them, which will reduce the number of units that we can build within the PUD. So we're simply asking, where we're near the Domestic Animal Services and the Boys and Girls Club to have the opportunity to go to 45 feet in that area, to make up for the story we've agreed to give up along Naples Heritage and the Cook properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a staff viewpoint -- I mean, you'll certainly get questions from us on that. But from a staff viewpoint, J.D.? MR. MOSS: I'm satisfied with that. The reason I included that stipulation was because of the concern raised by the residents of Heritage -- Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. So since they've agreed to limit the heights within 100 feet from that boundary, I think that would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're suggesting going to 45 feet with the multi-family for the remainder of the R-l tract that is not adjacent to residential. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number six? Why don't we read those so the audience knows what item we're talking about. MR. MOSS: Very good. Number six states that the minimum distance between group housing structures shall be one-half the building's height. The LDC requires one-half the building height or 25 feet. And they've asked for just 25 feet. So I was concerned because of the heights that were permitted in the group housing structures. But again, since they've asked to limit the heights within 100 feet of the property boundary, I could live with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what if they put the group housing structure on the opposite side of the R-l? Not up against the residential but across the roadway. MR. MOSS: That's right, that would be acceptable, I think. I'm not too concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So closer setbacks there-- MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- staff feels would be acceptable? MR. MOSS: I think that would be okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would it normally be if it was -- if they built two buildings at 45 feet? Half the sum of the heights would be -- so they'd be 45 feet apart and they want a reduction down to 25 feet apart. MR. MOSS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand staff's position. I guess they'll hear ours before-- MR. MOSS: Okay, very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the day is over. MR. MOSS: Number seven, the first sentence-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any problem with staff's position on that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That they're getting rid of number six? Yeah, we're okay with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're getting rid of it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, what J.D. is saying, and I'm not saying we agree with him, but he's telling -- staff's position now is that if they've given up the height along the outside of the R-l tract, it's okay if they do it on the inside ofthe R-l tract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, J.D., let's move on. Page 13 1 eutst f' 2009A 3 \ MR. MOSS: Number seven, the fIrst sentence in footnote three in Exhibit B shall be revised to exclude multi-family and ALF or CCRC dwellings. And the second sentence shall be deleted. And the reason I included this was because it conflicted with number six above. So I guess it will depend on what the ultimate outcome is of number six, whether or not we need to keep this condition there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And this footnote I think is -- this has been a -- I would say is a pretty standard footnote that's been going through for just about every PUD that I know that I've worked on. So I didn't -- we really didn't see this as an issue for a residential PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not in agreement with staff's position? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on, J.D. MR. MOSS: Number eight, the minimum rear yard setbacks for group housing structures shall be 25 feet. I included this one because no external setbacks had been provided. And there was a concern because there was a possibility of a multi-family structure on tract R-2 that could have been -- it would have had setbacks of only six feet, and the ultimate height could have been 50 feet. So that was problematic. But after speaking with the applicants, they've agreed to maintain a 20-foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- MR. MOSS: LDC requires 25, but they're offering 20-foot setback instead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Exhibit B, and I -- this has all got to be codifIed in the PUD somehow. MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd like to know as we go through what changes to the exhibits it would take. So if we go to Exhibit B and we go under ALF/CCRC and you look at the rear setback-- MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're looking at 15 feet and they're suggesting -- they're going to agree t020? MR. MOSS: They've offered to do 20 now, after meeting with them a couple of days ago. ljust wanted to make you all aware that the LDC requirement is 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Are you -- now, what's staff's position? MR. MOSS: I'm okay with 20 feet. Number nine -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the applicant? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. MR. MOSS: Number nine states that the minimum side yard setbacks for the multi-family housing structures on the R-I and R-2 tracts shall be the greater of one-half the building's height or 15 feet. Again, they're asking for just six feet here. But after speaking with them, they've agreed to the stipulation, provided that it only applies to the southern boundary of the property, is that correct, which would be the R-2 tracts, since the R-l tracts are occupied by the preserve. MR. ARNOLD: And in might, Mr. Chairman, I think to clarifY that in the table, as we did under the maximum height, we might be able to break down R-I and R-2, because I think the concern was for the R-2 tract. So maybe if we just clarifIed that it's for the R-2 tract would be 20 feet. MR. MOSS: And if you look on the table under multi-family next to minimum side yards, you'll see it's six feet. That's the one that they're agreeing to change to 15 feet, which is that required by the LDC. But only for the R -- where it abuts the R-2 tract to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they do R-I -- if they do multi-family andR-I, the setback to the side yard -- MR. MOSS: Would still be six feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how -- so you got 35-foot buildings. Normally it's halfthe sum of the heights. You'd have 35 feet. And staff's okay with six feet? Page 14 August 20, 2009 MR. MOSS: No, I'm not okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: That's just what they proposed -- they proposed to modifY my stipulation. I wanted it for all side yard setbacks. They've just agreed to the stipulation, provided it only applies to that southern boundary adjoining the R-2 tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just build a giant solid wall? You guys are sticking to that? Between buildings, setbacks along the R-l, what would your-- MR. ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Strain, right now we have a separate line item for building separation that's shown as 20 feet in the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So where would this apply, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it would only apply to a single side yard where you had a building separation. Because honestly, some of these multi-families probably aren't going to have lot lines between them. So in my guess the building separation will be the prevailing development standard anyway. So only where we would have a building that could be adjacent to our property boundary is where I think we might end up with a true side yard. But why don't we just make it -- if we made it 10 for the R-l, then you would have the 20-foot separation. And then J.D.'s issue of separation for the R-2 tract from our southern boundary we can handle with the 15 or 20 feet, whatever he said that he wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Wayne, by this plan you could come in and subdivide this any way you want. You could come in and say that I want to do two different product; I want to do townhouse in the north R-l and I want to do multi-family in the south R-l. And the difference between the townhouse and the multi-family would be six feet. Is that what we're saying? MR. ARNOLD: Well, it could be. But I still think we have a building separation standard that will prevail, regardless of the building side yard setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we comment on these things now, or is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we might as well. I'm trying to figure out how to get -- this is going to be -- we're only on -- we've got 28 recommendations that are problematic. We're going to have 28 items we're going to have to hash out in some kind of stipulation. And I'm trying to sit here -- figure out how to keep track of it. So honestly, if you got comments, let's just move them as we go forward. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I thought we were running through to see who was happy with each other, then we'd go back and comment. Because I've had some comments all along, but __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense. If you get the commonality and then we can go back and challenge the others. Because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem I have is that we can have all the commonality between staff and the applicant, but I don't necessarily agree with either one of them. So I guess we're going to go back and start all these over again right from the beginning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that's the consensus, the way you all want to do it __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to know what we're doing, because I've been silent because I thought that's what we were doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, I don't mind. What I'd -- if the panel consensus seems to be we're just going to go through this list, tell us, though, on the table where it applies and we'll go back and start all over again and ask our questions right from the beginning. Because I've got them right from number one. MR. MOSS: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's move on then. We understand what you're trying to say with number eight. You're looking at a side yard setback for R-l of 15 and a half feet or half the building height, and R-2 you're going to leave at six feet but you still have 20 feet between structures. MR. MOSS: Right. That's what they're suggesting. And that's actually number nine. 161 J. A3 Page 15 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: All right. So number 10, footnote number two in Exhibit B shall be revised to state that as long as a minimum 12-foot separation between principal structures is maintained, then any other applicable setbacks are respected. And if you look on the table, you'll see it on Page II of21, footnote two. It's just some language that needs to be added to the end of the sentence. MR. ARNOLD: We're fme with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both parties are okay? Number II. MR. MOSS: Number II, the minimum front yard setbacks for multi-family housing structures on the R-l and R-2 tracts shall be 30 feet. That's what's required by the LDC. And they've asked for just 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet -- what do you guys have to say about it? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think in our meeting, ifmy notes were correct, we wanted to stick with our proposed 20 feet, because one, it's from our own internal road is where that would be applicable. And two, that, you know, based on our preserve area growing so greatly, we were left with a fairly narrow development envelope anyway. So the standard would really be one that affects our own internal project and it's not I don't think a standard that you typically would see a standard that's similar to that 20 foot. I don't think that's atypical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you disagree on that one? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 12. MR. MOSS: Number 12, the minimum front yard setbacks for duplexes and townhouses shall be 25 feet and 20 feet of having a side or rear-loaded garage. They've asked for those setbacks to be 20 feet and 15 feet respectively. The ones that rve provided are the ones that are actually required by the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you disagree on that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we do. And that's another one that's been a standard one. But remember, he's telling you if you were in a straight zoning district what the LDC would require. We're doing a PUD. And through the PUD process you're obviously creating your own development standards. So it's -- I don't want people to think that hey, you know, we're violating the LDC. In a PUD document you're actually developing your own standards and you look at the project overall. For instance, we're providing more open space than is required under the LDC. And in exchange for that we're talking about reduced setbacks. So -- and this again was a different -- this is a standard setback for side yard -- side loaded garages in most PUDs. And that's why we're objecting to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you would still have your 21 or 22 feet -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'd have our 23 feet from the sidewalk. We haven't asked for a deviation from that in the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would be that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're objec -- you don't agree with number 12 then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 13. MR. MOSS: Number 13, the minimum front yard setbacks for two-family structures shall be 30 feet and 25 feet, if having a side or rear-loaded garage. They've asked for 20 feet and 15 feet respectively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't agree with that? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 14. MR. MOSS: The second sentence in footnote number four in Exhibit B shall be revised to state that the minimum 25-foot front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet where the residence is served by a side or August 20, 2009 16 I 1 lA"3 , .. ',' ~ Page 16 August 20, 2009 rear-loaded garage. They've asked for 20 and 15 feet respectively. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Don't agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't agree with that one. Number IS. MR. MOSS: The minimum side and rear yard setbacks for accessory structures in the R-I and R-2 tracts shall be the same as those required by the LDC. If you look on Page 14 of the staff report, I've talked about some of the disparities between the accessory setbacks that they're proposing and what's required by the LDC. For instance, parking structures normally require a 35-foot setback, swimming pools a 20-foot setback and tennis courts a 20-foot setback. And they're requiring 10 feet for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys disagree? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 16. MR. MOSS: All mixed use buildings, that is those containing multi-family residential and commercial uses, shall have a maximum wned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60 feet. And I think they're requesting 60 and 70 feet respectively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Agree or disagree? MR. ARNOLD: That was the zoned and building height? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 16. MR. ARNOLD: We can agree to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can agree to that? COMMISSIONER MORRAY: What did he say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Agree. Number 17. MR. MOSS: Any multi-family building in tract R-2 shall have a maximum zoned height of 45 feet and actual height of 55 feet. The LDC -- or excuse me, they're proposing 50 feet and 60 feet respectively. And this was the concem raised by the side yard only being six feet along this boundary and having such a tall building there. COMMISSIONER CARON: They changed-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we changed that to 20 feet. MR. MOSS: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I believe you're okay-- MR. MOSS: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- with the heights we're asking for with the 20-foot setback. MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 17 from a staffs perspective doesn't need to be here then. MR. MOSS: Right, since they've agreed to change the side yard setback there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: Number 18, minimum lot widths for any purely multi-family residential buildings that may develop on the MU tracts shall be 75 feet. And the reason this was included was because on the table they just said that this was not applicable. So I just wanted to include what the conventional wning district would require. I don't think they have a problem with that. We've discussed this. I don't think that was problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, waiting for them to respond. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is this No. 18? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're okay. MR. MOSS: Number 19, minimum floor area of units in any purely multi-family residential buildings that may develop on the MU tracts shall be 700 square feet. And that of course applies to the units, not the building footprint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a problem with that? 161J A3 Page I 7 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just let me know so I don't have to keep asking you. Just speak up-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't want to intenupt-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- say you agree or disagree when he fmishes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- because he was reading. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 20. MR. MOSS: Number 20, Exhibit Z in table two of Exhibit B shall be revised to permit 262,000 square feet of gross leasable area. They had 264, which was a mistake, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fme. That was an error. MR. MOSS: Number 21, no outdoor music or other amplified sounds shall be permitted. Staff included this because of the Stevie Tomatoes issues. And also one of the uses that's permitted in their table in Exhibit A includes outdoor auctioneering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Agree or disagree? MR. ARNOLD: I think ours would be to propose a modification and allow outdoor -- I mean, keep in mind that a commercial component is in an activity center. We have commercial immediately to our west and to our east. I think Rich and I, when we met with John-David, suggested that maybe we impose a time limitation at which time any outdoor amplified sound would have to cease, and we suggested maybe II :00 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you disagree? MR. ARNOLD: I guess we disagree with as written, but suggest a modification. And J.D. may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're all going to have comments on modifications. So we're going to come back through, start at the top again and walk through and then you're going to hear nine comments on each one ofthese. So let's go to number 22. MR. MOSS: Number 22. No home improvement superstores, warehouse superstores or discount retail superstores shall be permitted. I've spoken with the applicants and they, when we met, agreed to this unless -- well, agreed to add unless the MU tract is purely commercial, then they would be permitted. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And thus we came up what I said earlier on was if it was above the C- 3 type uses, there could be no residential immediately above it. And if we were to have a standalone residential, we would have to have the required LDC buffer between those two uses. MR. MOSS: And staff would be okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying No. 22 is okay to delete it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the MU tract becomes all commercial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it needs -- MR. MOSS: It needs to be modified to state -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to modifY it. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time. MR. MOSS: -- as the way that Rich has suggested it today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we have to mark it that it needs to be modified. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 23? MR. MOSS: No construction contractors shall be permitted. MR. ARNOLD: We disagreed, only because those were intended to be for the office functions of those types of contractors. If you're, for instance, Kraft Construction, office building, it's their office function. And I think we would limit any ofthat construction category to office use only. No outdoor storage and that type of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have discussion. MR. yav ANOVICH: Staff was okay with that limitation, just so you know. MR. MOSS: All right, No. 24. These are -- well, No. 24 through 28, I believe -- No. 24 through 27 are stipulations that have been included by the environmental services department. So if you have any August 20, 2009 1611 A3 1'4. "'~ Page 18 questions about those or if -- I don't think the applicant has any objection to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just get that on the table fIrst. Because we're going to go back through the top and start all over with our questions. So let's go to No. 24,25,26 and 27. Do you object to any of those? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. MR. MOSS: And No. 28 was stipulated by the utilities department. I don't think you have an issue with that either. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe we'd expect compensation for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, I have an issue with it. We'll discuss it when we get to it. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any issues with numbers one, two or three? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe other than the fact that we do not want to construct a wall for the gentleman who included that in the condition of his donating the right-of-way to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be number three, I believe it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there is a disagreement because of the wall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: His Eminence has shown up. So since that's the last remaining staff issue, maybe he can ask us if the wall -- maybe he call tell us if the wall's a critical component of his approval of this or not. Nick, it's really good to see you again. You don't show up here enough, so when you do, I kind of have to give you a bad time. (Mr. Casalanguida was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I always enjoy the banter we do back and forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't show up here enough here. Your staff does a great job, but your presence is welcome once in a while. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thanks. John's been doing a real good job. And remember, mom's watching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Hi, Connie. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Tetrault was kind enough to donate the land, and he understands that it's not just for him, it's for the neighborhood as well too. His building is very close to that connection that will be there. The whole neighborhood's been fIghting to get better access onto the future Santa Barbara as well as now potentially to Davis. And the only consideration he asked for originally was to get paid for the property. We said we can't do that. He said, my home's close to this road. He goes, I'd like at least a little bit of privacy between my home and that road. So asking for an eight-foot is not necessarily a noise wall,just a privacy wall. I only think it's for about 350 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then pay for it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Rich, we helped you get here earlier, you and your client. We-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the mic. there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We worked with the applicant to get here as quickly as we could. They've asked us to, you know, review this project quickly. And if this was an issue, we would have talked about it even more, because that connection is critical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show us on this plan exactly where we're talking about? If this isn't the best plan, put one on that is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In this area over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your voice isn't coming too clear, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's right at the tip of my pen right there. And it slides down probably 161 ~ August 20, 2009 A3 Page 19 16 ArYO, 20~ 3 1;1 about two, 300 feet to where his driveway comes in right there. There's an aerial here? There you go. You can see the green here, it's their property site, and you can see the Tetrault home is right there. And so they're going to connect that to Sunset, which ends right in front of their property. So it's about two, 300 feet they provide a wall as part of that connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the applicant disagrees with it and your position is it's needed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's badly needed and it provides value to the neighborhood. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The road does? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He asked about the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd ask that you stay there. Because what I'd like to do now is go back and go into the questions that the Planning Commission may have on each specific item. And because you're already at the podium, I'd like to ask for numbers one, two and three to come up for questions from the Planning Commission first. Does anybody have any questions of transportation on numbers one, two, or three? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, on number three, let's go back to the wall then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The piece of property that's being donated to extend that road, where does it start and where does it end? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's the entire frontage of Mr. Tetrault's property. It starts right at the corner of the green there and it runs south to the S. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, right at that point where his starts on the north -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: There. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is all that property up to that point owned by the developer that's -- who's the applicant today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's owned -- all the green is owned by them, and then their ownership terminates right at the tip of my pen there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And they're putting up a 30-foot wide right-of-way, or how's this, is it an easement, right-of-way? What is it through their property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will be an easement through the private property connected to what the developer owns. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 30 feet on our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so the gentleman that lives next door wants a connection there. He's favoring it. And so he's providing an additional right-of-way to the county-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to extend that road further south. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the county, instead of buying it, he's asking that somebody put in a wall for him as a way for him to donate the property. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's donating the property for the benefit of him and his neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does the road go after it leaves his property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It continues south and then ties back into the east-west roads. And there are a couple east-west connections that go back to Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much is built? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All the way up to Mr. Tetrault's home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's up to Mr. Tetrault's home, it stops being built there, and then it would continue past his house by somebody else, which is this developer, all the way to its connection to, what is it, Santa Barbara? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would connect through here and also would connect potentially to Davis. This is the commercial area that the Tetraults and the other people in the neighborhood said they would use and they would be able to stay off the road and have better access to the commercial by that Page 20 August 20, 2009 connection. 1 6 I 1 A 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got Sunset Boulevard built all the way up to Mr. Tetrault's property, why is his property the only piece that isn't built? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't answer that. It's a private easement, it's private property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have an obligation to build 830 feet of Sunset to the south. So there's no way that a county sufficient road is built all the way to his property, because ifhe's only 300 feet wide, there's another 530 feet to the south that we're building. He's got basically a driveway to the south. But we're being required to build 830 feet of county road at our expense for the benefit of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's your 830 feet, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show me on this plan where the 830 feet you're talking about is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever direction. So it would be -- technology. We're paralyzed. It would be -- we end here, right, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here? MR ARNOLD: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we'd go down to Cope Lane, which is off the exhibit. We're not building that? What are we building, Wayne? North of that, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm glad I asked the question. Because if you guys don't know what you're building, we sure don't. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, just to add on interconnection, because it's becoming such a critical issue and you hear about it almost eve!)' petition that comes up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, bring that -- I don't know, your mic seems to be -- you seem to be far away from the mic or something. MR CASALANGUIDA: Is that any better? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. 1bis seems to come up all the time with projects that corne in. There's no way that transportation staff can recommend approval for projects if they don't start to simulate and connect into the neighborhoods. They pull trips off the road, they reduce trips that come up. It's smart growth recommended. And, you know, someone's willing to donate the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, okay. So essentially this gentleman that owns the property is donating land to the county. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't understand why the county just doesn't build a little wall for the guy. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We couldn't do that as part of the budget. What we feel is if this property is to be up-zoned and increase the impact this can provide to the county, the way they can mitigate some of that is by making a better connection to the neighborhood. The people can use their project and not have to go to the other roadway system. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Will other people be using it other than this gentleman and the direct neighborhood? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Certainly. Okay, well 1-- we build walls all the time. I know it's an expense, we don't have a lot of money, but it's providing better access, keeping them off major roadways __ MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- why don't we just do an eight-foot wall for the thing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe had the budget to do that, we would certainly do that. But we're not asking for up-zoning and greater impact to the neighborhood. Neither is Mr. Tetrault. Page 21 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's a give and take. CHAIRMAN STRAm: I'd like to go back to the question I still haven't got an answer for. Can someone show me the -- what you are building? I'm not going to let go of the question, so someone's going to answer it sooner or later. MR. ARNOLD: Let me answer the question. For the record, Wayne Arnold. I[ you look at the exhibit that's also in your packet, it was a specific exhibit that ties into one of the transportation conditions that we're discussing. We agreed that we would build from our internal road south to our southern property boundary this interconnection and a two-lane road within a 30-foot wide area that's shown on this exhibit. And there's a notation that suggests that it's about 830 feet. That 830 feet is from our internal road south to our southernmost boundary where it connects to our neighbor to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And I think what's come into play, the wall is something that was new to us when we saw the staff report. But keep in mind, this is going to be a local interconnection. This is not a six-lane road. You have Santa Barbara for that. This is a road that serves very few homes. It's an unimproved driveway, in essence, when you go north of Cope Lane. It traverses a couple of other larger tracts, about 20 acres in size, that are undeveloped. And so you don't have a roadway connection presently. I don't think the county necessarily has the budget to go and construct a road. They're getting the benefit of an 830-foot road from us. And as far as I know, there's no other improvement scheduled to make the balance of this road south for probably what's at least another, I'm guessing, close to a half a mile to Cope Lane a paved road. It will remain a dirt road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I got to understand now where the 830 feet is on your property. Nick, you said that people are required to do interconnections. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me what you think an interconnection is in regards to the GMP for this project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that property which is a residential neighborhood to the south and undeveloped land -- Wayne brought up a good point. That land hasn't developed yet. That's to the west that abuts Santa Barbara. And if you build a network, a grid, and you start putting all these connections in, everybody will have access to that, even the undeveloped parcels. So that GMP recommendation is whenever you have adjacent uses which is residential and now they want commercial uses, they can access those commercial uses by not going on that brand new facility we put on. They can stay internal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But an interconnection pursuant to the GMP, how do you get that interconnection to be required beyond the property of the applicants? Now -- and think about this, because you're saying -- I think you're trying to say that this applicant's obligated to provide this wall because that's the only way you get the donation of the land to the south. I[ that is your theory and if that's the way you want to apply it, I've not seen you apply it that way in multitudes of other projects that came in here. Now I'm not an advocate necessarily for this project, but I'm trying to say what's fair is fair. And if we're going to start this precedent with this project, then anybody coming in with an interconnection we'd better be looking at them to secure all the necessary elements so you can get your right-of-ways from their project's boundaries to wherever it is their next terminis of a road is. Because that's kind of what you're saying here today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, what's the difference of putting up a wall next to two incompatible uses? What this owner has said right now is I'll provide the property that you can do that connection. It takes trips off the roads, both mine and my neighbors. And all I want is a little bit of protection from that noise that's going to be generated from that connection. You do the same thing when you say it's a residential property and you want a wall put up at a certain height or a different connection. August 20, 2009 1611 A3 , , Page 22 August 10, 2809 161'1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have no problem with your argument, and I got no problem with this gentleman wanting a wall. I'm more concerned with who is the right person to say has to pay it. And while a developer is a great source of things to get done, once it gets off the property is it really something we should seek as an exaction from the developer? I'm not sure how you tie that nexus to his property. And that's where I'm frustrated on that one issue out of 28 we're going to be going through here today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. I As part of, you know, making your connection to any sort of street system, sometimes ydu make improvements off-site. And that happens quite a bit. It could be a turn lane, it could be a bridge, it could be a driveway that you have to connect to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're public improvements, though. This is a private improvement to a private property owner for a benefit of a single private property owner, nobody else. MR CASALANGUIDA: It's not one property owner, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The wall is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. But he's the only one that would abut that closely to the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. But if you instill a condition like this to benefit a single property owner over benefit of the public, I'm not sure you're getting where you need to be in regards to these kind of exactions. So that's my concern. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just laying it on the table. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could you tell me approximately, you know, those prefab walls, a foot, per foot, how much they are? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're $50. They're cedar crete; 50 bucks to 55 bucks a foot. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Fifty-five bucks -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Linear foot or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I've been paying for them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Linear foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, linear foot. Go ahead, Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Who -- does the county own Sunset Boulevard? Is it __ MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does not. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- the county's road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Parts of it are -- the right-of-ways are always ambiguous the way they're dedicated to the county but never accepted. Some of them are private easements, some of them are public easements. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So when the applicant constructs that portion of the road, who owns it -- well? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- as their property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be still owned by the Tetraults, because it would be an easement. MR KLATZKOW: Is it a public right-of-way? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The new section we're talking about, the dedication? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be dedicated to the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there connections all the way to the south dedicated to the public as COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: To the public and private, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They all have use for sidewalks and utilities and things like that, or are they just access easements? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Access easements. Page 23 A3 August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions on items one through three? MR MOSS: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. MOSS: If I may just add, the LDC does require some sort of public benefit for granting the flexibility that PUDs do offer. The applicant is supposed to provide something. And I know in this instance the connection may be that. But because the connection is going to cause a noise issue or a privacy issue with the adjacent owner, that's why the wall is being requested. So it's not -- the applicant is required to provide some sort of public benefit in exchange for the granting of the PUD zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What public benefit is being -- MR. MOSS: By the wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the wall. Public. MR. MOSS: Yes, and I understand your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's private. MR. MOSS: I just wanted to put that on the record. No, absolutely, Ijust wanted-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you -- MR. MOSS: -- to make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and if this county gets into a position where they've now acknowledged by putting such a wall in is a demand, that 30-foot wide right-of-ways create a noise hazard for adjoining properties, there's properties all over this county. The county has not done that before. And if you're going to make the private individual do that, I think that the county needs to start putting -- MR. MOSS: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- walls up along all their roadways. I'm just looking at this as impartially and fair as we can. And again, it's seems like we're doing an exaction way beyond our means here. MR. MOSS: I understand your point. Ijust wanted to make sure that it was clear that they are supposed to be providing some sort of public -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then -- MR. MOSS: -- benefit in exchange -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Wolfley. MR. MOSS: -- for the PUD zoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was vegetation -- has anybody considered vegetation here, as opposed to a wall? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've got a proposal, after talking to Mr. Casalanguida. For the 830 feet, that really is to service the public. Instead of building the sidewalk, we'll take the funds that were going towards the sidewalk and put it towards a wall for Mr. Tatio, is that his name? Tetrault. So we would still give vehicular access for the general public -- now, keep in mind, we are building the road. And basically from our multi-family project anything south of that we don't really need. All of that's for the benefit of the public. So we would do vehicular access or interconnection versus vehicular and pedestrian in that particular case, and then Mr. Casalanguida can use those proceeds towards the construction of the wall for Mr. Tetrault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I was wondering how much that land would be worth. What's the value of that land? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I couldn't tell you what the value of the property is-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. MR CASALANGUIDA: -- honestly. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, now that he brought that up, now I'm concerned about people walking that without a sidewalk. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He raises a good point. If he builds this sidewalk internally to his site, 161 1 A3 Page 24 August 20, 2009 'A3 that's fine. Once he goes off-site, there aren't any sidewalks in the neighborhood anywayLOol, ~le would stop at the property line where he was going to build that section all the way down. And in lieu of putting in for a couple more feet, he would put up that wall. It wouldn't be more of a difference, because there isn't a sidewalk on Sunset now. That could be a project that could corne later down the road. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, if someone could be assured of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? , COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that the greater public good is for a sidewalk there'as opposed to a private wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, you guys, I rnean you both seem to be in agreernent on this sidewalk issue. It doesn't solve rny concern, although I'm just one of nine. So we'll just continue on, because right now an exaction that is unwarranted by the code, I can't get there. And for you even to volunteer to do it sets a precedent in this county that I think is not a precedent we want to get into. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, you know, I don't want to belabor the point, we'll move on, but I've got to tell you, I don't think it's an exaction, I think it's rnitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, seriously, Commissioner. Because interconnection is vital to what we do. And if you look around this county, having projects integrated with the neighborhood so people don't have to go off network and on network to use that cornrnercial area is critical. And we don't have the money to keep building six-lane facilities, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I -- well, no sense of saying what I've already said. So we'll leave that issue, unless somebody else has a further comment on it. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go on to number four. Anybody have any questions on number four? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Ijust think it's unnecessary. No one's going to build -- you know, in our code the minimum size buildings has never been our problern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this a requirement of our code? MR. MOSS: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it wasn't here as a recommendation, would it still be a requirement of our code for this project? MR MOSS: Oh, interesting. Ray, do you think we would defer to the LOC in this instance if this stipulation were not included? For group housing structures. We're on number four, requiring them to have a rninimum square footage on the ground floor of 1,000 square feet. MR. BELLOWS: For group housing? MR. MOSS: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: It's not required in a PUD. It can be changed and altered. That's just for SOPs that come in under standard zoning we would provide those minirnums in the LOC. But as a PUD, it can be a different scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but where a PUD falls silent -- is silent, it falls to the LOC. The question is, is this PUD considered silent in regards to this issue, so does that mean the LOC would prevail? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. MOSS: The PUD actually says it's not applicable. And that was my concern. Not that there was -- it was left blank but that it just said not applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the PUD where it says that and find the correction and make the notation so that we don't have -- MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the issue come up again. Where is it in the PUO that you -- MR. MOSS: If you look under ALF/CCRC independent living in-- Page 25 August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit B? MR. MOSS: -- Exhibit B. Yes, I'm sorry. It's table one of Exhibit B. If you look down three cells to rninimum floor area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the N/A gets replaced with I,OOO? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does everybody understand that? Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray-- COMMISSIONER SCHLFFER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Brad, since you brought it up, is that okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fme. Ijust think our problem in this county is not tiny little buildings everywhere. MR. MOSS: It just concerned me that they were saying it didn't apply. I didn't know what-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine. MR. MOSS: -- they might have. I'd rather just have our bases covered than-- MR. ARNOLD: Can I inteJject there? And I think when we met with John-David, that was clear. He was talking about the actual building size, not unit size. And I think that's why we had put NI A. Because in all other scenarios there, you're looking at really a rninimum floor area for the actual structure, whether it be single-family -- in our case even a multi-family unit that's expressed as 750 square feet was intended to be the unit size, not a building size. So that's why we put NI A, because in a CCRC you end up with a scenario where your units could be quite small if they're rnore of a skilled nursing size. But the building itself would be obviously much larger than the unit size itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think in order to make sure it's clear under Exhibit B where it says minimum floor area, it should say rninimum floor area per unit. And then where we have added 1,000 under ACLF/CCRC, it should be asterisk number five, and number five should state that in this case it's per building. Does that -- MR. ARNOLD: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- clarifY everything? Okay, Item No.5 on the recommendation list. The maximum height of group housing, duplexes and townhouses shall be limited to 40 feet zoned and actual height of 45 feet. During the discussion the R-I is acknowledged that it's going to be at 35 feet along the 100-foot strip that adjoins existing residential. And then you're suggesting 45 feet for the others. And your argument -- or staff's in agreement with that, if I'm not mistaken, because they believe and you believe that the increase to the 45 feet for the balance of the R-I offsets the ability to go to two stories for the R-I along residential. Is that -- okay, does anybody have questions or concerns about that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, John, you use the word group housing. MR MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they don't use the word group housing. Could you change yours to match their -- MR. MOSS: No, I'm going to change their document to match the language that the LDC uses. We don't have definitions for sorne of the terms that they use, and so I wanted to rnake it consistent with our LDC. It causes so much confusion. But again, because this was such a rush job to get this to hearing, a lot of things slipped through the cracks. That's why we're having to go over all these stipulations. Normally these are things we would have worked out before the hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're going to achieve parody, no matter which-- MR. MOSS: There will be-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- way you go. 16' 1 A3 Page 26 1 6urt l' 2009 A 3 MR. MOSS: -- yes. Ultimately there will be consistency between the terms used in the stipulations and the rest of the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this day and age, why was this a rush job? Now you've -- that just brings up a whole nother question. I mean, we're in no hurry to get zoning in this county by any means that I can see. So now why was this a rush job? MR MOSS: Well, they -- I had actually requested that they continue this project because I didn't feel that I had had ample time to meet with them to go over these outstanding issues. But they were in a hurry to rnaintain their dates. I rnean, that's a question you'll have to ask Mr. Y ovanovich the explanation for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, I think the time that you're going to waste of ourselves and the public today is only going to come back to have to come back for another redo anyway. So we'll keep plugging through it. I wish it wasn't rushed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, an alternative would be -- we have obligations. We've been in this process for quite a while and we've been -- and it's not lD.'s fault, there have been changes in staffing that have continued to delay our getting through the process. And we have obligations to our clients to get through the process. Ifwe could do like we did with Fowler Free State where we go back, we work through this, get you a document that goes through all this and the Plarming Commission could agree -- if there are any subsequent changes at the next Plarming Commission meeting that we hold basically the consent agenda and the regular agenda. You let us take a time out at the end of the rneeting discussion, we'll go back, make all the changes and get a fmal document to you on that same agenda two weeks frorn now, we could keep our schedule to get to the Board of County Commissioners. If you would indulge us to do that, we can save you time and our time. But there were issues beyond our control, as well as beyond lD.'s control to keep us on schedule. And we appreciate anything you can do to keep us on that schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, this is going to be a painful morning to go through these three pages, 28 iterns, step at a time, when it shouldn't have been into this state to begin with. Especially now when we fmd out it's here because it was rushed. It shouldn't have been rushed. I don't see a need for rushing zoning in this county. In this economic world we have right now, there's so much zoning out there that can't go anyway, I don't understand the need to have pushed this frorn the begirming. But I for one, and I know the other Plarming Commission rnembers, I doubt if we're going to let this go until every T is crossed, every I is dotted. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not asking you to. What I'm asking is if an alternative could be give us the -- give us a week to sit down with J.D., revise the documents. Because we have reached agreement on quite a few of these. I don't know if you still have comments on those, but we can get to you a finalized document. If you would allow us, at the end of -- if there are further changes requested by the Plarming Commission at the next meeting, that would normally put us on a consent agenda. Ifwe could make those changes at that same meeting, that we could then get back to you to make sure we did it right, we could save you the effort. Now, it was -- rushed is not a fair categorization of this process, because we've been in it for quite a while. And there were supposed to be certain things done in a timely marmer that didn't happen. And I'm not going to put blame anywhere, people's work schedule didn't allow it to get done. So we don't believe that this is being rushed, because it's taken quite a while to get here. But if that proposal works for the Plarming Commission, we'd be willing to do it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have to get through some of this. I want to hear frorn the public today -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think you need to hear from the public today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. Page 27 f6'trr9 A 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we rnay have some general comments we want to make. I'm not sure today's the most productive without some further corrections on these documents before we review them, but -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does -- and I respect what you're attempting to do. I appreciate that. But does that -- can we actually do a consent with you coming back with a -- with determinations that could be completely outside of the original concept? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, that wouldn't be a consent. What he's suggesting is we fmish up as far as we can go today. Because there are so many things at issue here, they get together with staff, corne back with a better document, a whole redo of the presentation you're getting today -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like it's tabled? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it would just be continued. And then instead of having -- and at the continued meeting -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they would get our comments at the continued meeting, they would try to fix the language, ifthere is any language suggestions as a result of that meeting while we go on with the rest of our rneeting that day. And at the end of the day we then hear it for consent that day. Kind oflike we've done for some other projects at other times when they've been in this rushed state. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, but I hadn't heard the word continued, so I didn't know where we were going with that one. I thought I heard him say -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever the preference is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- he would be generous with us and allow us to corne back on the consent. That's why I asked -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, I wasn't asking to corne back on the consent, I was asking for a hearing the next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the Plarming Commission have any preferences in this regard, any thoughts from anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- rny only concern is we're really down to the minutia, which is usually at the end of all the hearing. So I'm kind of -- you know, I'm a little confused at the order. It would be more fun to hear the whole thing and then if we feel like going forward, let's go through this minutia. In other words, Richard made a presentation, we kind of stopped and immediately got into the resolution without hearing everything I'd like to hear. That's my opinion. MR YOV ANOVICH: Which is the -- yeah, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is the public. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The public. We'd love to hear from the public -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not -- I wasn't going to leave here today without hearing the public. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was absolutely going to happen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was discussing the order, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The order we normally go through is a presentation by the applicant, questions and a presentation by staff and questions. We amended that a bit today because staff had 28 recommendations, which is probably seven or eight times rnore what we usually see. So the suggestion was by the applicant, why don't we walk through those till we see where the areas of disagreement are to help us understand where we may want to have more questions. Is that not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I know what we're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I thought that was a pretty reasonable process, Brad. If there's a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying you asked the opinion of the process, that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the Planning Cornmission wish to continue in the marmer Page 28 ~uils~Jl'2009A ~ we've started, or do you want to just let staff and the applicant work some of this out anle go into general questions and then public? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there a good chance that you can work it out? MR. MOSS: Yes. For what it's worth, I think we're through the hard part. This is stuff that can be easily remedied. The rush that I had was putting the staff report together. I had to start it a week late. And normally there would be a negotiation process and a lot of these things would be hashed out. But because I didn't have the luxury of tirne, I had to stipulate all of them. So the hard part's really over. If we can just come to some sort of agreement on the remaining stipulations, the PUD document can be easily amended and we could come back on consent agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, you're not going to be able to come back on consent. MR. MOSS: Or come back in two weeks time, I should say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I'm very concerned about what's going to come out of the agreements between the two of you that may not necessarily be in agreernent with this board. So we're still going to have a lot of -- MR. MOSS: Right, no. And I want to have your input on this. A lot of these I just put out here to get your views shared so we could possibly incorporate thern into the PUD document. Some of the departures frorn the conventional zoning district are not that dramatic, and others were. But I just wanted to throw all of thern in. Since I didn't have tirne to negotiate them with the applicant, I wanted to make sure you were aware of what the departures were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Boy, I hate to say this, but although the county and the applicant may be in agreement, my concern now is with the public knowing what they're agreeing on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We aren't done yet. We're still going through it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the only thing is, I guess that we're going to leave some of the areas that the staff and Richard seem to agree on, they're going to get together and come back to us on another document at another time. So I think the best way to approach it is to continue through this list, unless anybody else has a better idea. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we left off on number five. And the way that's left is you got R-I at 35 feet along the residential boundaries and then 45 feet for the others is suggested. Does anybody have any concerns from this panel on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ijust-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- want to discuss one thing. And I guess, Ray, you're the only I'd like to talk to. Is that -- we're discussing height here. In some of their site plans they show essentially that all their buildings will have parking underneath it. We've had PUDs in the past, and then we see the thing being built and we realize that they've taken advantage of the clause in the LDC that the County Manager can allow you not to count a story or the height or measure the height if you put your parking under the building. So if we -- when they're discussing height here, are they discussing height and then you're going to have the ability to do that later, or is this the real height, the expected height? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can include the inclusive, but I think this was all-- all this happened before you had the term actual height actually added to the table. So the actual height is going to be governing the situation you just talked about. You have situations where you have standard zoning districts that the term actual height doesn't enter into the review of the building height. So I think the actual height takes care of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we can be assured when we're discussing height here that that little phrase in the LDC, and I don't rernember the exact location, but you know what I'rn talking about, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. For the record, Ray Bellows. Page 29 August 20, 2009 16/\1 We're going to revise the table to show the actual that will include any underground parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so the Planning Commission knows, I'm not going to be taking notes for stipulations today, because I expect that at the end of the meeting today it's going to be continued. And then we'll do our stipulations after we see the final version, rather than try to list 30 or 40 or 50 stipulations today. With that, we'll go on to number six, minimum dis -- that one's been dropped, if! understand, J.D.? MR MOSS: Vb-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So six is out. And that's been taken care of by what kind of correction? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was taken care of by the minimum distance of20 feet on the R-2 tract on our southern boundary. Because that's really where the issue arises. Because what you see is on our -- the remainder of our southern boundary is basically our preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let me read number six. The minimum distance between group housing structures shall be one-half the building's height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry, wrong one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, in the table on Exhibit B, group housing structures are 15 feet or one-half the building height under minimurn side yard. So J.D., what was your intent of you writing this as far as where did you see the problem? MR. MOSS: Because what they were asking for was just 25 feet, and I was concerned about actual greater height. But we've discussed this in our meeting and we've agreed that 25 feet as the minimum standard would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying in this particular-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was looking at the wrong one when I made my comment, obviously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR YOV ANOVICH: We agree with J.D. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me on the table in Exhibit B, where is it you're referring to? Because this says minimum distance between group housing structures. So isn't that side yard as well? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, under the side yard they already have 15 feet or one-halfthe building height. MR. MOSS: But on their document in the exhibit underneath group housing, or what they have ALF/CCRC, they were proposing just 20 feet. So there was a conflict between those two. MR. ARNOLD: The distance between structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the distance between structures, if it's -- is a minimum of20 or 25 feet. But ifthey got -- no matter what the side yard, if it's two group housing units, the side yard prevails as well, 15 feet or half the building height. So really it's going to be 25 feet or half the building height. MR. MOSS: Right. I was concerned not only about the distance between buildings on the site but from the external property boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. But if you put 25 feet in there as the minimum distance between structures, then wouldn't that also be the minimum side yard? MR. MOSS: Not frorn the external property boundary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, but a side yard doesn't have to be from the external boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That is one side yard, maybe. And so in other words -- and there really is a confusion. The distance between buildings is on a lot. One ownership, two buildings. Setbacks are totally different. Setbacks are from the property line to the building. So you don't always get what you want. Page 30 A3 August 20, 2009 A3 Ithink you're going to fmd that one-half the building height to be a large setback onl490J 11 building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's saying that's 25. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, I don't think these things always end up getting developed. Richard, do you really subdivide this thing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I rnean, the PUD process shouldn't be a subdivision process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I mean, I think Mr. Schiffer's right. He's talking about it will be more than likely developed as one parcel, and we're talking about 25 feet between the structures on that one parcel. If we did subdivide it, then you would have the side yard frorn each of those lines that are created, and it would be more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR YOV ANOVICH: Because now you'd be talking about the side setback is measured by one-half -- 15 feet or one-half the building height, so you'd even have greater building separation in that case __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so with the-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: - than the 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- distance between structures changed to 25 feet, number six goes away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, let's take a 15-minute break to 10: 15 and we'll start on number seven when we get back. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody could please take their seats. Okay, we've had our break in the entertainment. We're going to come back and get back at it again. I have to ask everybody, including myself, to let's -- I've got to slow the tempo of the discussion down. Our court reporter's hands are already worn out. And she's a good lady, so I'm going to try to accommodate and talk a little slower here today. So with that in mind, we left off on number seven. And again, we're going to go through for discussion -- we're going to go through the whole thing. This entire action's going to come back to us in two weeks for fmal review, and we're going to hear the public today. And hopefully with all the input the developrnent team will come back with a little more, let's say, put together plan than what we've got here today. There's no -- the applicant does not agree with number seven. And it says, the first sentence in footnote number three in Exhibit B shall be revised to exclude multi-family in ALF or CCRC dwellings. The second sentence shall be deleted. Well, let's find out what the reason for disagreement is or where we're at with this thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wayne, where are you? MR. ARNOLD: What's the question? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Number three. Why are we disagreeing with it? MR. MOSS: Number seven. It was tied to number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so number seven goes away with the corrections we made on the table -- MR MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for number six. Okay. Number eight, the minimum rear -- that one's in agreement. Rear yard setbacks for group housing structures shall be 20 feet; is that right? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? I'm sorry, I should have asked you earlier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John-David, the one concern I have is that when we have buffers and we have like setbacks, take a rear setback, is the buffer allowed to be within that setback? MR. MOSS: Yes. Page 3 I August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So on sorne of these single families, what wol QpeL tol A 3 it'1 be somebody's backyard is actually part of the buffer system? MR. MOSS: Vb-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if I'm out there with my barbecue, I'm actually doing something wrong, correct? I rnean -- so in other words we don't add on. So in other words if I've got a house 25 feet off the back of that property line, I've got a lO-foot yard, 10-footlittle patio, a lO-foot -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- so in that 15-foot buffer, what is allowed to happen? MR MOSS: I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you mean what's allowed to happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say you have a 25 --let's say you have a 25-foot backyard and you have 15 feet of that to be a buffer. MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you've got a I O-foot yard that isn't a buffer. If you wanted to put a swing set in that 15-foot area that is a buffer for your kids or you wanted to put a tool shed for your lawrunower, would you be allowed to do that? MR MOSS: I don't think that would be permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you utilize that IS foot? Does anybody know what is permitted in that 15 foot? MR. MOSS: Would you put a fence to separate the buffer from the yard? MR. ARNOLD: Probably not. For the record, Wayne Arnold. The landscape buffer is recorded as an easernent landscape buffer easement. It is also allowed by code up to 50 percent of the buffer to be utilized for water management and other open space. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let rne -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In some of these, the rear yard is 15 feet. So that rneans if I reach rny hand out the back window I'm in the buffer. So maybe we should be doing something about that? I mean, if you had a back door to a house, you're stepping out, the stoop, the steps are in the buffer, which they're not allowed to be, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, if you look at the map you've got on here where your R-I is against the other residential properties which are up against the lake, your rear setback on all your properties is 15 feet. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The buffer in that area, I can't read it on this plan, but I think it's 10 or 15 feet, is it not? MR. ARNOLD: It's a 10-foot Type A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have a five-foot backyard. MR. ARNOLD: Potentially. You would have a five-foot wide usable area, if that's the scenario that would develop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually it says a 10-foot wide Type A buffer or ]5 wide Type B buffer to be determined at time of plat or SDP. MR ARNOLD: And that notation is on there because that tract also allowed multi-family or the group housing uses that J.D. referred to. So if you have single-family to single-family at the Cook PUD, for instance, it's a 10-foot wide buffer, it becornes a IS-foot wide buffer if you have one of the alternate uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All of your uses have a IS-foot setback, as Mr. Schiffer pointed out. So in all cases he's correct in this -- and his concern is that your backyard is all buffer. Virtually unusable, except for the limitations in the Land Developrnent Code, which at .some point I'd sure like to get an input from staff, whether it be this meeting or next, what a buffer could be used for if it's also considered a backyard. Because I think it doesn't -- if it can't be used for much, I'm wondering if you're really giving these people any backyard in the units that they're buying. And if that's what your intention is, how -- I rnean, that's fine. I'm just kind of curious as to what it means for practical purposes. That's a good catch, Mr. Schiffer. Page 32 August 20, 2009 iA3 MR MOSS: I mean, we could just include external property boundary setbacks. Thl QveL'bln any included in this PUD document. And a lot of times you see that they're just simple standards frorn each property boundary. But they haven't done that, they've just done these setback yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that some of the projects that have come into us have had -- I have one here sornewhere, for example, I think it's -- one of the other ones, Serreno (sic) or one of the other ones we've seen recently -- MR. MOSS: Yeah, Siena Lakes was that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, they had a setback from the property line. Go ahead. MR ARNOLD: And I think we probably could do that. I think maybe if it's frorn the PUD boundary, rnaybe we would establish it. Then if it makes you more cornfortable if that 25 feet is from the PUD boundary. Because there could be some internal yards where the 15 feet may work, Mr. Strain. But I think the issue seerns to be the distance behind a structure where it's our external property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think so. I think we're going to have to look at a perimeter property boundary. MR. ARNOLD: And we could do that. I mean, we have in other projects established a PUD boundary setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know you have. That's where Brad's probably getting at, so - okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this one is still open. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number eight is still open. They're going to establish property boundaries. Number nine, rninimum side yard setbacks for multi-family housing structures. That one you agreed to would be half the building height or 15 feet. That's for the multi-family. Number 10, you agreed to that one, 12-foot separation between the principal structures as maintained. Number II, you disagree. The minimum front yard setbacks for multi-family housing structures on the R-I, R-2 tracts shall be 30 feet. And by the way, has anybody else got any questions up through number II? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, J.D., this 30 feet, though, is the front yard requirement of a standard zoning district. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally in the PUDs we do 23 feet and 15, if it's a side entry garage. MR. MOSS: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's been acceptable to every PUD that's come through here. I don't know why this one would be any different. So I'rn not sure number II is not -- it's not typical of your PUD language. MR MOSS: Right. And I just put that in to make you all aware, this wasn't a radical departure from what's normally permitted. But I just wanted to make you all aware that there was a discrepancy here. Again, had this process worked out like it normally does, we would have discussed these things with the applicant. But I didn't have the luxury of doing that in this instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And No. 12 and 13 are the same kind of thing; is that correct? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the Plarming Commission have questions up to No. 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 14, side yard -- front yard setback may reduce -- this really is the same -- if we go 23 feet for front entry and 15 feet for side entry, do we need No. 14? MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And No. 15, minimum side yard and rear yard for accessory structures in R-l and R-2 tracts should be the same as those required by the LDC. Well, we usually allow -- PUDs are actually made to have deviations from the zoning districts. That's why we use them. So at whatever point you guys settle on your communications on that, we'll review it Page 33 next time when you come back with some setbacks that you're proposing, okay? MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixteen apparently is an agreement. Mixed use buildings shall have a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60. Now, I'd like to know where that applies. What tract would you be putting that in? MR. ARNOLD: That I believe is what's in the activity center labeled the MU tract on the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that would only go in that MU section on -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The set -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, do you know the difference in elevation between the average elevation around Santa Barbara and Davis and the site? MR. ARNOLD: I don't. Let me check just a second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason I asked, since we are incorporating actual height, actual height is measured from that, it's not rneasured the same as zoned height. And I guess Ray, could you try to get that in all these applications? Because, for example, somebody could have a property that goes down. And what seerns like a small actual height could be a tall building. MR ARNOLD: Mr. Schiffer, I think what I recall from our Free State project that's across Santa Barbara to the west, the finished elevation is going to be very close to the elevation of Santa Barbara Boulevard. So I think the distance measurement isn't like you're going to get a freeboard of a few feet, it's going to be close to the same elevation. MR. BELLOWS: Is it going to include understory parking in your actual height? MR ARNOLD: We can add that inclusion, if it's necessary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, it would have to, because actual height's measured -- MR. BELLOWS: Ijust want to rnake sure it's clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- frorn the average crown of the road, so that's why we -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- invented it. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., the correction that No. 16 would effect on the table -- the table's on Page 12. The PUD document's labeled page -- table two. Can you point out so we're very specific as to what elements under maximum height, and I assume it's the first column under cornmercial mixed use, residential, principal uses that's being suggested for change? MR. MOSS: That's right. If you look under commercial mixed use residential, go down to the third to the last cell. They've got zoned height at 60 feet for buildings, including residential, and then 50 feet for commercial only. And if you look at the actual heights below that, 70 feet for buildings, including residential. So a proper mixed use building and then 60 feet for purely commercial buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And your changes would affect those nurnbers. MR MOSS: Right. They would bejust dropped by 10 feet, each of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're looking at 50 and 40 and 60 and 50; 60 and 50 being actual, 50 and 40 being zoned? MR. MOSS: Well, for No. 16, just 50. Sixty should change from -- to 50 for buildings, including residential. And then the actual height should drop to 60 feet from 70 feet for buildings, including residential. That's just what 16 applies to. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it only applied to the rnixed use buildings themselves that would have both residential and commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what -- but then commercial buildings would stay at 50? MR. MOSS: Right. And an actual height of 60. August 20, 2009 1611 A3 1 Page 34 August 20, rool 16 \ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you got no difference between the two sets of buildings. Your residential, if it's above commercial or your commercial solid are all the same height, is that -- MR MOSS: Right, uh-huh. Everything will just be 60 feet-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so then these tables-- MR MOSS: -- zoned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- got to change again. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a zoned height of 50, which is your actual usable height. MR. MOSS: Vb-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then 60 feet -- and I'm saying this for benefit of the public -- 60 feet is the roof elernents and the artistic stuff that goes on top to make the buildings look -- try to hide their ugly appearance. I'm being facetious. Let's go back to No. 17 -- or 18 then. Minimal lot widths for any purely rnulti-family residential building that may develop on the MU tract shall be 75 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're doing it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 18's in agreement. Sorry. Nineteen, 700 square feet is in agreement. And 20, the revision to the gross square footage of 262 is in agreement. Any questions from the Plarming Commission on that group? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, we use the word leasable area. What are we really meaning by that? I rnean, first of all, does that mean they couldn't do condo ownership, or are we trying to defme an area other than the SDP requirement of exterior wall, we're actually within the building itself? What does leasable area rnean? MR. MOSS: Wayne, I don't know if there was a reason you added leasable in there. I was just reusing the language that you all had included on your exhibit. So I would be fme to just changing it to just square feet of area. MR. ARNOLD: That's fine. MR MOSS: But is there a reason -- okay. MR. ARNOLD: No, I agree, that's fme. It is confusing. I know we had this question sornewhere else. It's just when you have commercial space, it's based on leasable area, typically, but just as well to eliminate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we do have different areas, the building code. Even within the LDC we have the area that the parking requires, and then the SDP requires the exterior of the building. So is your intent to be the interior of the building? Which don't run away real quick. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think it matters in this case, Mr. Schiffer. I think we're fine with just changing it to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There might be a proforma somewhere that just frowned, but __ MR. ARNOLD: No, I think it's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, No. 21, no outdoor music or other amplified sound shall be permitted. You're in disagreernent with that. Any comments from the Planning Cornrnission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can only tell you from my perspective that's a good thing, not a bad thing. So I know you disagree with that. MR. ARNOLD: We disagreed and suggested an II :00 cessation time for any outdoor-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Would that be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Would that be like a -- you'd have to obtain a permit for that? Page 35 A; tg6t 2(' 2X9 A 3 ....1 ," , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if it's in the zoning document, I don't even know if they can get a permit for it. They'd need a variance, wouldn't they? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I mean per event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's in the zoning document that there's no outdoor music or other amplified sounds that are being permitted, how do you get a permit for something that's not accepted by zoning? MR BELLOWS: You wouldn't be able to. You'd have to amend the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But I mean if it were in, would it just be allowed any time, or would you have to obtain a permit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You couldn't. If it's in the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, but if it's not-- if it's in the PUD that you can have it. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, there's a -- you're talking about the noise permit for outdoor entertainment? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they would have to go through that process. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, I'm just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there wasn't an exclusion, that's what you rnean. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. MR. ARNOLD: And keep in mind too, I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. ARNOLD: -- we are in an activity center for this portion. And if you are going to have rnixed uses, I think that you have other projects in Collier County that are developed where having maybe a form of outdoor entertainment can be a very good thing for the community itself. And to preclude any outdoor amplified sound seems awfully restricted for an area that could greatly benefit from having even something that is a temporary event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, is the intent of this the residential and mixed use? I mean, you're not differentiating where that occurs. I rnean, so are we trying to keep some kid frorn -- MR. ARNOLD: I think I understood that to be the mixed use tract, the prohibition. But I think -- keep in mind, we're at Davis and Santa Barbara, two six-lane roads. We're adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club on one side that's comrnercial and we have commercial shopping center that's being developed to our west. And we might have internal residences on this tract as well. But as I think you all didn't see it, but there was an alcohol waiver permit that went for Mercato up in North Naples, and there are deed restrictions typically in those units when located within a mixed use community that discloses that they're subject to an active street scene, possibly outdoor activities and things like that. But of course there are limitations on the hours of operation, because you don't want to be a nuisance to the neighbors that may be there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Wayne, we -- in our new noise ordinance we did make places like Mercato subject to the noise ordinance, which doesn't go along with what you just said. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: How about if we limit the -- any establishment having outdoor entertainment to the units facing Santa Barbara or Davis but no outdoor entertainment for any buildings facing residential tracts? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think let's finish the comments from the Planning Comrnission, then you guys are going to come back to us anyway. Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm going to add to that little piece. Not too, too long ago Stock Development came in and sought to have mixed use. And they -- if I'm not mistaken, we gave them permission to have outdoor entertainment up to a certain hour at night. And I don't think that we forced thern to have it internal to any set of structures. Page 36 And that's right on a lake and that sound will carry right through all of the area. We did limit the amount of decibels to the ordinance that we have for sound, but we did grant that. So I think that's something to contemplate in this whole matter. To preclude entirely I don't know is the ideal either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I was just going to ask Mr. Arnold about what had happened, because I don't recall at Mercato. Which again is a mixed use situation with residents over commercial. MR ARNOLD: That PUD document I don't believe had any limitation on outdoor activities. But their own horneowner association documents do have disclosures in them that allow the buyers to understand that they may be subject to outdoor noise and things like that. Then internally they establish hours of operation and things like that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But there are hours of operation, right? And what are those? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think they're established for that in the PUD. Because I think that -- the restaurants I believe primarily are closing at II :00 p.rn. on weekend nights. But I also believe the Blue Martini that opened is open till 2:00 a.m. in that case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? MR. ARNOLD: But I don't believe they have outdoor music until 2:00 a.m., no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Donna, there's one thing, is that everything within Mercato is within an association that they could address these problems. This concern is with neighbors in adjoining properties that don't have that association to do that with. So what do you think would happen -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, they don't have that right at Pelican Marsh either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you think would happen behind the Boys Club and Girls August 20, 2009 161 1 A3 Club? MR. ARNOLD: That property is zoned cornmercial. I don't know what's intended. I don't know if that's their preserve. It's vegetated presently. I don't if that functions as water management and preserve area for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the mixed use area here is pretty isolated frorn the existing residences. So I don't -- you know, if we're worried about the residences in the project, Wayne's solution through the association would be the way to -- MR. ARNOLD: I mean, there certainly -- I know Rich represents the folks that own the Bayfront Center in Naples, and I know that they have a different process in the City of Naples, but there are disclosures I know there as well for homeowners to understand that there may be activities that are going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you guys know there's a concern over the issue, you're going to be coming back to us. Why don't you work something out with staff and then we'll review it when it comes back. That will-- because we could talk a lot about it, but until you guys sit down with it, it's probably not going to get any further. Number 22, there's a modification that unless the MU becomes all commercial, then that would __ then you could have those larger stores. Any comments, questions on that? MR ARNOLD: We had drafted some language, and I know Rich mentioned this in his presentation, I think I gave a copy of that draft to J.D. But it essentially says that you can't put residential above any commercial building that contains uses that exceed a C-3 type use. And then if we had a C-4 or C-5 type use separate from a residential building, we'd have to build a 15-foot wide type -- I think it's C landscape buffer, which includes a wall. It may be Type B. Either B or C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think during the discussion with J.D. on No. 22, these superstores, the warehouses, the Horne Depots, the Lowe's, the Wal-Marts, if one went in there, you couldn't put it in there unless the entire MU tract became all commercial. That's what I think you all had just talked about a little while-- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that's exactly what he's written. And I think in our development Page 37 f6trr9 A 3 scenario you could -- you have a tract that's about 18 acres in size. One of those uses, all the water management function, except for some water attenuation, is occurring on the other tract. So you don't need 15 percent of the site to be used for that. So we can add a little bit higher intensity commercial. But you rnight be able to put a Costco, for instance, on 10 acres, in which case you would have eight acres left that would it be inappropriate to think that there might be a standalone office building that could have residential or a standalone residential building, for instance, on the remainder tract. And we're trying to offer a scenario where there would be adequate buffering, should that occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it will be interesting to see what you come back with then. MR MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. 23, no construction contractors. You talked about intending offices only. If you -- your example I think was the Kraft building. I had to go there for a meeting not too long ago. And if I rernember, in the back they've got more than offices. MR ARNOLD: They do. In that particular scenario that PUD contemplated that they would have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that's not a good example. MR. ARNOLD: Well, from -- it's their corporate headquarters building is what I intended to say. Antaramian had an office building there. I mean, there are other specialty contractors. The Galleria collection CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're trying to do, just word it properly when it comes back. No. 24, 25, 26 and 27 are all environmental issues that you all agree to. My understanding of that properly? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And No. 28 is a well site. I don't know why you're being asked for a well site. How does that meet the intent of any provision in the code that requires a well site? MR MOSS: Public utilities, in their review for this petition, asked that this be included as a condition of approval. They didn't give me any further explanation, Ijust did as they requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they paying for it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't say that. MR. MOSS: It doesn't say that they are, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, this is another one of those moves that I think is patently illegal and I'm not going to be in support of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I had thought that there kind of had been an agreement reached that if they're going to require a dedication of land that there would be a PUD provision that says they would pay for it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought, too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That didn't seem to make it into the stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back on the principle. Whether we like a project or not, it all has to be treated fairly. And if every department starts to decide they can make exactions of the applicants without limitation as these are, we're getting nowhere. And I think that's as unfair as your heights were to start with on this project, so-- MR. MOSS: I'll get some clarification from my next staff report and then actually ask someone from that department to come, if they want to defend their position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and they've done that before. But I still, l'rn going to ask them where in the code there's a requirement to do that and how is that -- where's the rational nexus between their exactions and the application. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm just reading what 28 actually says in the second sentence. And what it's saying is they want a rneeting because the 30 by 30-foot well site easement doesn't satisfY the LDC. So obviously there's something more to it than just an extraction like we have seen in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If there's an easement for a well site, it has to be a certain size. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Page 38 ll0utstlO, 2009 ~. . o A, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm more concerned about how the easement got there in the fIrst place. So that's where my point is on that. Anyway, I think where we left off then, we finished the discussion of the recommendations, if the rest of the Plarming Commission is satisfied. And we left off with the applicant's presentation. I believe you were wrapping it up with the exception of this interaction between the recommendation. So now it's staff's presentation. If you have any more to say, J.D., now is the time to say it. MR. MOSS: No, sir. Really, I'd just like to put on the record that with the conditions of approval recommended by staff, that this project would be consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and let's -- can we talk about the deviation they're requesting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We're into now the general issues on the whole project, so why don't we, just like we normally do, go through our general concerns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The deviation, you want to -- I calculate out there's around a 2,700-foot length to the cul-de-sac. And you want to put traffic calming I guess to quiet it down. But the reason I think the cul-de-sac requirement's there is for emergency vehicles. And traffic calming is a nightmare for emergency vehicles. So why can't you add another turnaround midway in there somewhere? A lot of other communities, you design -- you know, you have at least on this, the ERP submittal, you show a pretty -- I'm trying not to use the word boring -- you know, site plan where you TUn everything Fort Dix style down that road. MR ARNOLD: I think that's fair. If you recall, I think it was Buttonwood, Mr. Schiffer, that you raised the same issue. We had a similar issue with not an ability to interconnect to the south, and we also have had a preserve. And I think we agreed that we would provide a rnid -- ernergency __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Turnaround. MR. ARNOLD: -- type turnaround somewhere. And I can go back, and rnaybe that language would be appropriate here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: But we can certainly look at that and I think accornmodate an ability to make sure an emergency vehicle can turn without going to the end of the cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER SCHJFFER: So you're going to locate that approximating in the mid-point; in other words, not at the other end. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think midpoint would probably work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the overall-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just say-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- project? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then Wayne, no traffic calming devices? I mean, the fact that your design is like a drag strip might be a problern. But no -- because traffic calming devices are not __ I'm surprised the fire department would -- actually in emergency EMS would want to let you do that, but __ MR. ARNOLD: We were happy. I don't know that it's an issue for staff. But if you want to eliminate the necessity of putting in the traffic calming in favor of the turnaround, I mean, we would be amenable to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the condition that emer -- EMS and fire signs off on your calming design, whatever it is. Page 39 16gr1200~ 3 ,~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any general questions of the applicant or staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, I need some explanations on a couple of things. On Page 21 of the staff report, in the neighborhood information meeting discussion the property owners expressed concerns. And the last bullet says one of their concerns was a type of commercial uses proposed. It says, residents were told that C-I through C-4 uses were proposed and would be of the kind to attract surrounding residents as well as those that that have opposed MPUD. Yet we fmd you're asking for up to C-5 uses. What happened between the neighborhood informational meeting and today's meet -- or your application, I guess? Why the discrepancy? MR. ARNOLD: One, I didn't write the language that appears on your Page 21. But secondly, I think Rich and I recall that we talked about general commercial uses. The list of uses were also available. And I think when you look at that list of uses, there are very few C-5 type uses. I mean, when you look at those uses, some of those clearly are C-4. Some might be a C-5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But did you say or someone at that meeting representing the applicant say that they were going to be proposed to be C-I through C-4? MR. ARNOLD: I don't recall saying that specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., do you know where this information came from? MR. MOSS: I do know where it came frorn. I wasn't the plarmer on the project at that time. That was Willie Brown who wrote those notes from the fIrst NIM meeting. I was only at the second NIM meeting. And I would like to say that the C-5 uses that they are proposing are -- we've restricted them now. They're the Super Target, those sorts of things, and also those constmction SIC codes that are in the PUD document, which they've agreed to turn into just offices for those construction contractors rather than sites for your typical construction uses. So they are mitigated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're going to be getting into the uses in a minute or two then. On the disclosure of interest information, you have the name and address of the limited partnership, but you don't provide us with the owners of the limited partnership, so it would be hard for this board to see if there's any conflicts. Do you have that document that you could pass out showing who owns this project? MR. ARNOLD: I do. It is in my packet so I don't know what happened in terms of yours. But I did have a list identifYing the owners of Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Limited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't get it. Maybe the rest of you did. Mine didn't have it, so -- MR. ARNOLD: I'll put it up on the visualizer, if you'd like, but I have copies-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just leave -- well, that or just so the court reporter's got one, that's all. MR. ARNOLD: You can see Ray has placed that on the visualizer. There are four owners, three being members of the Hubschrnan family; the other is Teryl Beyrent. They all own a 25 percent interest in the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Under your PUD, Exhibit A, the permitted uses, under the rnixed use tracts uses you have a lot of amusement and recreation services. A couple of them I got questions on. I did not bring my SIC Code. I can bring it next time. But under 7999, ifI'rn not mistaken that's a catchall for everything frorn firing ranges to rollercoaster rides. And I'm not really think (sic) it's a good idea to leave it open like it is in here. If you have specific uses on 7999 that you would like, just like we have on other requests we've asked you to list those and not group them. Why don't we go back to doing that here. Are you __ the idea of a bowling alley on your property, that's a pretty big attractor, it's a little bit noisy. Is that something you're -- a must have for you guys? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. I think that we're certainly willing to look at that entire list. And you're right, it is a catchall under the amusement groups. And there are a lot of things there that obviously don't make sense, like a fishing pier, for instance. So, I mean, I would like to take a look at that list and have an opportunity to discuss that with our client, presuming that we're coming back for another regular look at these revisions -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think you'd want today's vote based on what we've heard today, so I'd think you'd want to come back. So it's -- we're going to be your request (sic), so I would hope Page 40 August 20, 2009 you'd do that before we're over with. 1 6 I 1 A 3 Under automotive repair services and parking, you have car washes as an accessory use to convenient stores. Car washes are pretty heavily regulated because they are -- usually they produce a lot of noise. I'm not too comfortable with that, but if you've got some argument that this is a better place than others for them, then fme. If you insist on leaving it in, just be prepared to discuss it next time. MR ARNOLD: Well, I would suggest that we are in an activity center, and to limit it only to the accessory that you'd fmd like on many of those convenient stores that have a single bay car wash. I don't know that they are going to be offensive to our neighbors. And there are other restrictions in the LDC that govern car washes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your number five you have building construction. I'rn assuming that's the one in which you intend to be office use only? MR ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, under nurnber nine you have construction groups. Are you assuming the same thing there? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under number six you have building materials, hardware and garden supply. Now, you're looking at lumberyards and things like that, but then that would apply to like a Lowe's or Home Depot is what you're thinking of, not a Raymond Lumber or a Naples Lumber Supply? I rnean, are you looking at a lumber yard or are you looking at a lumberyard as part of a commercial operation in regards like a Horne Depot or something? MR ARNOLD: I think ours is more in the context of a Lowe'slHome Depot would be what we've complicated. And I think that's where there's also confusion on whether or not that type of use is a C-4 or C-5 use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ARNOLD: Because you find them there as one being constricted in a C-4 zone category and there's another that's located in a C-5. So I don't really know. But those are not typically lumberyards where you look at a home improvement superstore, for instance -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you were to take that group 5211 and strike out the first part of it so that you leave home improvements, superstores that sell lumber or other building rnaterials included and not leave it so that you could have a self-standing lumberyard, I think that might help that category. MR. ARNOLD: I think that's fair and easy to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 30 and No. 40. Number 40 is videotape rental. I'm sure that includes DVOs and like your standard -- I don't know what the names of those groups are that do videos, and that's fine, but No. 30 says rnotion picture and video tape distribution. What's the difference? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure I know the difference. But I know they are two separate categories. I can read you what 7822, which is motion picture and video tape distribution is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Let's see what that says. I need Mr. Y ovanovich's glasses. No, I'm fine, just kidding. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I can read it. It's not for sale to the general public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's wholesale motion picture and video tape distribution? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: It says establishments primarily engaged in distribution, rental or sale of theatrical and non-theatrical motion picture films or in the distribution of video tapes and discs, except to general public. Establishments engaged in both are classified under 7812. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's someone -- they're not making movies there, are they? MR. ARNOLD: No. You know, I think probably we could just elirninatethat, ifthafs an issue, and just stick with number four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It rnight help clarifY. I'm worried about what kind of movies could be made, but that's fine. MR. ARNOLD: And I think it's probably appropriate -- it's not in here, but I know Ms. Homiak's Page 41 August 20, 2009 A 3 rnade this comment on others, I mean, to restrict this so that we have no adult oriented rentals or sa!s. 6 f 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to corne up if it didn't -- okay, good. Then the last question I have is on your Exhibit F, your list of developer commitments. Transportation. One of the items that we recently addressed in the Siena, I think it was, project is we limited the traffic count to those that were portrayed in the TIS. So it was capped at peak hour and sorne other standard that John knows or Nick knows. And I'd like to follow suit from that document and put that language in here as well. And I think it was the Siena Lakes one that we just fmished with. MR. ARNOLD: Youjust had it on Good Turn this morning on your consent as well. That was an addition that was made. It referred to additional trips and also peak hour new trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And what that does is it ties you to what's in the TIS that you provided to this board today as part of this package. So that as Nick has told us in the past, the TIS's should be done for the most intense use, but yet they never are. So this locks you into whatever use you used in that TIS in regards to capping the trip load. So I'm sure staffwill get with you if you don't know the language. And I think you just acknowledged you did, so that's taken care of. That's the extent of questions I had. Does anybody else have any? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, in our packet there was a site plan that's called the ERP subrnittal over -- it's a drainage plan. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In it, it shows that the intention on the mixed use is to build three three-story parking garages and then have three other buildings that are retail or at least one one-story retail and the rest -- is that what you're intending to do? MR. ARNOLD: Not necessarily, Mr. Schiffer. I think this -- for the ERP submittal, we put forth the rnost intense development scenario for water quality purposes that you can. So we showed it as a highly intense mixed use development that could have parking garages and things like that nature. It may not develop that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it did, what would be the setbacks for those parking garage? Would they be considered accessory structures or principal structures? MR. ARNOLD: Let me look at rny development table. I think it's probably going to just be one of the commercial or mixed use buildings. It would have a minimum setback from Santa Barbara of 25 feet, according to the development table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, so we -- this drawing does exist. So we do live with the potential of quite a few hundred feet of parking garage along Santa Barbara. MR. ARNOLD: Is the concern height or use? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the concern is just the look, you know. But anyway, that's your potential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the parking garages have to meet the architectural criteria? MR. MOSS: Yes, they would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that at least helps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we know now Mr. Schiffer doesn't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean parking garages is a pretty limited protection, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions or any issues in our package for the applicant or for the staff before we go to public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR BELLOWS: Yes. We have about five. The first speaker-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you'll just come up-- MR. BELLOWS: -- Richard Rogan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to one of the most convenient podiums to you, we'll -- as your name's Page 42 August 20, 2009 called. 161 1 A3 Go ahead, Ray. THE COURT REPORTER: None of them have been sworn in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: None of thern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody wishing to speak, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. I thought we -- I didn't know they did earlier. Thank you, Bob. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. ROGAN: I seem to have lost something here. If you'll give me a minute. Well, let me introduce myself while I'm fumbling around here. My name's Richard Rogan. Can you hear that? Better? I'm the president of the Cypress Point Homeowners Association. And let me -- I hauled this thing all the way from home, we better use it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, he'll need that walk-around mic. MR. ROGAN: Is that on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. ROGAN: Cypress Point is the 101 single-family homes that TUn down this side of Naples Heritage, and therefore are the homes opposite the comrnon property line between Naples Heritage and Taormina. Just to set that into some perspective. I'm going to leave that up because I want to use it a little later as well. I'm also on the board of trustees for Naples Heritage for the master association, and so I'm basically here representing both. I'd like to start with a couple of pictures. I guess we'll have to do them one at a time. What that represents is that's the view of the site from our side, all right, from the Cypress Point side and looking across the lake. If you just flip to the other one, they're both just different views. I thought it would be useful to start by positioning what it is that we're looking at and what it is that we're interested in trying to preserve in some form or another. We recognize that the development is -- you know, development of any kind of going to have its impact, and it will for the most part all be negative. But we're asking you to help us protect as much as we can. That particular area is significantly inhabited by a variety of wildlife. We've got bald eagles and osprey on the one side; we've got bears, deer and panther on the other side of that extreme. So it's a very active area from a wildlife standpoint, and we just wanted to set that in perspective, along with the visual. In an attempt to try to protect at least the visual part, we're asking for a significant vegetation buffer. And what I've heard here this morning makes rne even more concerned than when I arrived and didn't know what I was about to ask for. And I'd like to -- you know, rather than deal with type A's, type B's, 15 feet and setbacks, all of which was very interesting this rnorning but well beyond rny ability to keep up, again, another couple of pictures that I'd like to use. And this represents -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Before we change those pictures? Ray, before we change those pictures, may I ask, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that that strip of waterway that you're looking at? MR. ROGAN: Yes. What you saw are -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that that strip right along there? MR ROGAN: That's right. What you saw is -- the fIrst picture is a picture from -- the fIrst picture is shot frorn this end, all right, back at the property. The property's here, Firano, the Toll Brothers developrnent is here. We'll talk about that as well. One picture's shot from this direction and another picture is shot from that direction. But basically the property under consideration is right there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, so the waterway is in fact on your property. MR. ROGAN: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. MR. ROGAN: Yes, it is. In fact, there's waterway, utility easernent and then the property. ! Page 43 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MR. ROGAN: There's also a service road that runs down this area here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MR ROGAN: There are -- there's, you know, a number of examples of the kind of buffer that we would like to see put up there. And here's a picture of the buffer at Madison Park, which is on Davis Boulevard, just immediately across from the entrance to Naples Heritage. Frankly they've done an extraordinary job of in our view putting in the proper kind of buffer. So, you know, first set of pictures, what are we starting with, second set of pictures, what is it that we could live with. And that's what we think is an example. As to what the vegetation is, what we're more interested in is height and density. Density becomes a significant issue along that lake from a security standpoint, particularly as -- again, I listened this morning and one of my fellow residents points out, obviously there's the prospect for children to be living there. We're going to have sorne liability exposure associated with children coming through and into the lake. So it's a visual, it's a preserve and it's a security issue that we think needs to be seriously contemplated when we talk about the buffer. Also of significant importance to us is that the buffer be built before construction. I've got two more pictures. As I mentioned earlier, we have that Toll Brothers Firano developrnent there. At the time that that was constructed, we have -- we were granted or got a commitment from Toll Brothers to establish a buffer. We didn't, as I understand it, didn't ask that it be required that it be built ahead of tirne and so we now are well past our second year with no buffer, looking at what virtually is a construction wasteland in fact. With the passage of time and the growth of vegetation, the pictures actually portray it to be better looking than it is. And certainly once construction begins again we're going to have the dust, the noise and no buffer. So having been burned once by accepting the notion of a restoration of a buffer, we now have ample rnotivation to say no, we really want the buffer in before construction begins. Otherwise we may be confronted with the sarne thing that we have with Toll Brothers and Firano. The -- I was -- I've saved you -- or the early discussion about two-story versus three-story has saved you an awful lot of hearing from us on that three-story issue, and we certainly appreciate that getting settled in advance. Ijust want to be sure, however, that I understand it. And I heard you say a number oftimes 35-foot total height. And as a layman and a pedestrian, I assume that's 35 feet from the ground to the highest point in the building. That's what we're talking about at this stage? I see a shaking of heads. I guess I'm interested in clarity. Our interpretation is that there won't be anything higher on that building than 35 feet if it's two stories. If that's not the case, I guess we're not really excited about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., I think if you could just address that question, that's a good question, we'd certainly appreciate the answer. MR. MOSS: Yes, that is actually something that we'll have to clarifY with the developer. The new commitment that they've offered today does say two stories and 35 feet, but they didn't specifY whether that would be zoned height or actual height, so I'm assuming -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I rnight suggest that we rnatch it up to Naples Heritage so that they got no different than what Naples Heritage has. And that way I think it would be fair. If you can do whatever you do, they can do to that extent too. MR. ROGAN: That's true. Which is the reason why I wanted to put this map up. We have four-story structures at Naples Heritage, but there's a significant difference, and I'd like to illustrate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was speaking, by the way, in relationsbip to the product actually built in Naples Heritage against the property. Yes, I know you've got higher standards, but that's not what's built against the property. You've got a much lower product against the product (sic). MR. ROGAN: Yeah-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so what I was looking at is the product standards they use in that strip August 20, 2009 161 1 A3 Page 44 Igr; 2f' 2r of single-family residential in Naples Heritage is the same height restrictions they ought to be looking at for that row along the project that we're talking about, at least that's my thought. And that might be a good starting point before you come back to us next time. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that gets you-- MR. ROGAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where you're trying to go. MR ROGAN: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's one question on height. When they say the zoned height, that would actually go to the middle of the roof. It's the average height of the roof that gives you that. So essentially the peak of the roof could go above that. MR. ROGAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actual height is essentially from the center of the road to the top of everything. There's nothing above actual height. MR. ROGAN: Okay. I guess the major concern was this discussion about underground parking and whether 35 feet is really 45 feet. We certainly want to guard against that. Thank you very much for that clarification. I wasn't -- there was a lot of discussion during the 35-foot talking about within 100 feet of something. And I guess if there was a diagram that would clarifY that, or I notice that aerial that you have I think is probably the appropriate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was within ] 00 feet of their property line. So if you go to their property line up against your lake and you go about J 00 feet back, which is almost to that road, they couldn't have anything over that two-story limitation in that I OO-foot area. MR. ROGAN: So starting from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's that darker area. That darker area generally would be the restricted area. MR. ROGAN: Your property line in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir, you have to put everything on record. I'm sorry. Richard, just want you -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. Yes, sir, the answer to your question is in that shaded area we're capped at 35 feet-- MR. ROGAN: All right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- zoned height. MR. ROGAN: Okay, okay. This is -- the 100 feet is not from that. You don't start-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that's it. MR. ROGAN: -- at 100 and-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It starts at our property line and goes basically to that road will be capped at two stories not to exceed 35 feet zoned height. MR. ROGAN: Okay. And then on the other side of the cul-de-sac, the street, the other R-I __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, you need to sit down. Sir, you're going to have to direct your questions to us. Because all the interaction between you and the applicant should occur at your neighborhood informational meeting. And this is just -- this is more or less interaction between you and us, so let's try to keep it that way. MR. ROGAN: Okay. Then the other clarification then I'm asking about having to do with the 35 feet would have to do with the construction to the other side -- to the opposite side, if! can point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, that won't do us any good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We can't see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's talking about the other strip ofR-J that's on the opposite side of the road. Page 45 A3 August 20, 2009 1611 A3 MR. ROGAN: I assume that's going to be -- still be 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ROGAN: Okay, Ijust wanted-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the proposal currently. MR. ROGAN: Understand, understand. I guess the only other fmal comment that is of some concern has to do with, you know, if we step back and understand, as I'm sure you all do, that the ultimate development of Santa Barbara will result in the entire strip or the entire piece of property that runs adjacent to Naples Heritage all the way down on the west side. Ultimately it's going to be developed. I mean, it's just a matter of time. Our concern specifically with respect to this project is you had a discussion earlier about precedent. What it is that gets decided here having to do with this project clearly will become a building block for other projects that we'll be dealing with as they unfold over time down our western border. So we want to be very clear and very sensitive to the whole issue of compatibility and the value of our homes. In an earlier information meeting that was held, there was reference made that there we will be no so-called affordable housing in this developrnent. I'm not sure I know what the defmition of affordable housing is in a technical sense, but it's pretty clear that under current market conditions and certainly for the foreseeable future there's all kinds of homes available in the Naples area at all kinds of price points, so it would be hard to understand whether or not we have any shortages with respect to so-called affordable housing, or for that matter any need, given our current marketing condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been none suggested for this project, sir. MR. ROGAN: Great. Great. That's wonderful. I'm done. I appreciate you giving rne rnore than my allotted tirne. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've got two questions; Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Rogan, thank you for your comrnents. I need a little bit more clarity frorn you. You opened up your remarks with the fact that you have even panthers and bears and so forth -- MR. ROGAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and there's an area that is apparently where the wildlife live. Relative to your property line and that lake, would you tell rne where those critters live? Or are they actually living on the other property? MR. ROGAN: They're actually -- they're on both, to answer your question. They're on the other property, but they're also, you know, sightings all through our property of all of those, the panthers, the bear, the deer. They -- while I won't tell you that on any given day you can drive into Naples Heritage and find one, it's not infrequent that we see them. Including my own wife having her fIrst panther sighting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You also spoke of security. MR. ROGAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your concern with children, possibility of the lake and so forth. MR. ROGAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you never went further to indicate whether you had a desire to have a fence of some sort put there. Now, that would also impact on the easy flow, the easy movement back and forth of those anirnals. Please, tell me what you meant by the security issue and what you thought should be done. MR. ROGAN: Well, if we could -- I don't know if the pictures are clear enough, but if you look at the -- MR. BELLOWS: You want this? MR. ROGAN: No, what I'd like to put up are the Madison Park pictures, the second set. Yes. Yeah. That buffer, although only vegetation and no fence through the middle of it, is very, very thick. The prospect that you could pass through that with any relative ease is pretty slim. Now, I realize young children are creative and persistent and what have you, but what we're after is Page 46 August 20, 2009 -- frankly, the notion ofa lO-foot buffer as described in one of the documents I read doesn't fllb Jyth!g other than trees that are 25 or 35 feet apart, that doesn't feel like a buffer to me. That doesn't feelfike it presents not only the visual buffering but the easy flow of buffering as well. I rnean, should we ask for a fence or should a fence be put there? I don't know. But what I do know is it's got to be more than a bunch of trees that are 25 or 35 feet apart. And that doesn't feel like a buffer to me at all, for either purpose. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you would like a vegetative shield, basically. MR ROGAN: Yes. A dense, tall vegetative shield. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know whether it's even plausible to get trees that size to be able to place them and all the other vegetation at the height that is shown there. I'm not sure that's even plausible. But we'll certainly take that into consideration. MR. ROGAN: That would be great. Just one more comment. On the pictures of Madison Park -- and again, I'm sure there are other examples, but it's very handy for us, we pass it, we see it every day. But those pictures include two-story buildings on the other side of that buffer. And while they're visible, they're not all that visible. So whatever it is that Centex did there, they did an awesome job of accomplishing what it is that we think ought to be done on the other side of the lake. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Rogan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, just as I guess inappropriately Mr. Yovanovich stood up, he did clarifY that it's 35 zoned feet. So I don't know whether Madison Park, those two stories or 35 zoned feet with an actual height of -- well, 35 zoned feet means halfway. MR. ROGAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust want you to make sure that you realize that. MR. ROGAN: Yeah. Yeah, I don't know what they are either. All I'rn here to point out to you is it's an example of sornething that really works. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, Ijust want you to know that what they're proposing is 35 zoned feet, which is about 40 feet. MR. ROGAN: Yeah, which is -- we're looking for 35. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're going to match -- staff's going to review your PUD against this one. And what's fair for you should be fair for them. And that's how they'll approach it when they come back next time, at least as a starting point. MR. ROGAN: Okay. All right, thank you again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Hold on one second, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At the narrowest point between the lake and the property line, how much land is there? You said there is a utility easement. MR. ROGAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we're looking at pictures, that utility easement's cleared, it doesn't have vegetation on it, correct? MR. ROGAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So how much land is from your narrowest point of your lake to the property line? MR. ROGAN: I can't tell you specifically, but it is not a lot. In fact, again, just one more general comment about that map. The only side of Naples Heritage where our construction is not completely surrounded by a great deal of buffer is right along this property line. All right? If you look -- if you were to go through Naples Heritage and you'd look at our -- find our four-story condo buildings, they're in the core of the development and substantially surrounded by our own internal buffer. The only place that's not the case is down that line. Page 47 A3 August 20, 2009 And as you appropriately asked, if you look at that very narrow spot at the begirming of the lake, there ain't much. 16 I 1 A 3 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ROGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, our next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Phil Plessinger. MR. PLESSINGER: It's almost good afternoon, but good rnorning. I was the president of Naples Heritage rnaster board when we came to a meeting here about the Firano property that Toll Brothers has built. And we were concerned then with the same problems we have now, as was rnentioned. But once they -- they said there'd be no problem. Yet when property gets to be built and the people who could make decisions leave, it seems like those things just disappear. They don't worry about doing what they said they would do. And I think that's the whole problem that everybody's here today is to make sure that as Mr. Rogan said, that the buffer be built before any construction happens so that we do know that that's going to take place. If those -- the buffer that he spoke about across the street was nothing more in the beginning other than some srnall pines that were put there, plus they put a whole big mess of areca palrns. And anybody who knows how fast those grow know that it's very thick and they really do make an intense buffer. There's nobody going to walk through that buffer right there, I don't think, because they'd get scratched to pieces. They'd be stupid. But those are the kind of things that I think could be done there. They grow very quickly. Madison Park isn't very old, and yet probably for almost a year you've not been able to mostly see any of those hornes that are there. You can see a little bit of the roof side as you go by in a car. So I think that's -- everything else I was going to talk about, Dick did talk about. But I thank you for your time and the intensity of communication between the developers and attorneys and your board. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR BELLOWS: Phil (sic) Lombardi. MR. LOMBARDI: Hi, my name's Pete Lombardi. I also live in Naples Heritage. In fact, the southwest corner of this property that they're developing, I live across the street frorn it, so I know the area well. In addition to that, I'm currently the chairman of the Naples Heritage Cornmunity Development District. I'm on the board of supervisors, been on it for about 10 years now, so I know the property real well that we're talking about. One comment I would like to make is that there currently exists a chain link fence that would separate our property from the proposed development. The chain link fence runs -- it will start right where the Toll Brothers property ends and goes for about a halfrnile. That fence is owned by whoever the property owner is on the other side. Now, part of that fence, about a six-foot chain link fence, and some of it needs to be repaired, but most of it is in pretty good shape. And that would help prevent traffic back and forth between their property and our property. Tbe major concern that I have is that currently there's nobody living on the other side, it's wooded area. And even where the Toll Brothers property is, they haven't developed much. And most of the people who live in there, single-family homes. Our concern is with the high density of this property, proposed property. You're going to have a lot of renters in there, you're going to have a lot of children in that area. We're worried that those children will be able to come across onto our property. You saw the lakes there, they're about 20 to 30 feet deep. They're very deep lakes. Young children can go in that lake, play around, and we would have a liability if they drowned in our lakes, because we couldn't control their corning over. Even over a six-foot fence, they could corne over that fence. So that's a major concern on our part. Page 48 lA6TOf09 A 3 The other thing, Mr. Rogan recommended this vegetation growth. That would be good. It would be a deterrent to some degree. The chain link fence would be a deterrent, and I recommend that stay and that be maintained long term. When the proposal was made when we had the initial meeting with the developers in March, I think, of this year, they had said that that section of property that would be developed close to our property would be single-family homes. Now we're not so sure. Now you're looking at two-story, three-story, maybe single-family owned or owned individually or maybe rented, we don't know that. So I think, you know, they have a very high population density request (or their proposal. Very high. You're looking at what, 700 units or 500, 600 units in 89 acres. We have 800 uni'ts in 550 acres in our community. So a lot of density, a lot more people. And in my opinion, a lot more young people will be corning in that development. Naples Heritage has no young people. None. Not one, okay? So consequently we're going to have a problem that because they're moving in there that we don't have now. And we're concerned about the liability. Mr. Rogan mentioned something about the wildlife. The reason the wildlife comes around is it goes around that fence I was telling you about, goes onto the Toll Brothers property and comes into our property. Or it goes down the other end towards Rattlesnake Hammock Road and comes in that way. The fence does prohibit deer and bear and panthers from coming in where we are, but they can come around and get in. So that's about all I have. And we would appreciate any consideration you give us; one, in maintaining that chain link fence, and number two, some vegetation growth that would screen from my property looking over to that property. Currently it's woods now. On the other side right where that fence is, by the way, there's a utility easement, electric poles going on down. On their side of the property there's a road. It's not a paved road, but it's a dirt road that apparently people have used to drive in and out the property, and also the utility company has used to maintain their lines. So it's quite wide open. But right now we have some vegetation on our side, on the other side of the lake. But once they -- if they were to clear that property on the other side ofthat fence, it would be wide open and we would be looking directly at their property, which we wouldn't like to do. But then again, we recognize progress is inevitable. So if you can mitigate some of our concerns, we'd appreciate it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, thank you for your comments. The fence has been spoken about, and I'm not sure yet, do we know who owns that fence? MR. LOMBARDI: Yes. It's owned by the people on the other side. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The property owners, the petitioner here? MR. LOMBARDI: Correct. Yeah, we had the same situation when we were dealing with Toll Brothers, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So I would agree, that it would be their responsibility to rnaintain a fence, if they have it. But do you believe that it's their responsibility to provide security for your property? MR LOMBARDI: Responsibility is one thing, but good neighbor is something else. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're asking as a good neighbor. MR. LOMBARDI: That's exactly right. I mean, who wants to look at a big building? You know, right now our backyard, you saw how serene that view is. We have the nice lake, we have a few trees on the other side. Once you see a two or three-story building go up, that's not very attractive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I wasn't talking about aesthetics, I was asking directly about security. You have a concern about children possibly coming over. And we all share the concern about a child being injured or possibly dying. So that's not the basis of my question. My asking of you is do you believe it is your responsibility or their responsibility? Because they may build property that may have children in it, is it their responsibility to provide security for your property? Page 49 August 20, 2009 MR. LOMBARDI: Exactly right. 1 6 I 1 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what you believe. All right, thank you. MR LOMBARDI: That's because we have no problem now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I think you rnay have created a problern for yourself on record here today, because you admitted that you might have a potential liability with people being harmed by the lake on your property. You -- MR. LOMBARDI: Yeah, but the lake exists now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- believe -- right, it does. But if you want to protect your liability if you own that lake, you may want to put a perimeter wall or fence up of your own to keep people out from being harmed by the potential of being drowned in your lake. MR. LOMBARDI: We have 19-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've basically said that here today. MR. LOMBARDI: We have 19 lakes on our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And sir, I work with the CDD myself. They have -- they put walls and security in for themselves, they assess the unit owners within their project for their own security. That's what a CDD is for. As chairman, if you could do that. And as chairman you might want to consider that, now that you've acknowledged you have a liability with those lakes. For your own protection of your people. MR LOMBARDI: Yeah, but that fence is still up there, and we do not want that fence taken down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, thank you for your time today. MR. LOMBARDI: Right-o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: William Ball. MR. BALL: My name is William Ball and I'm a resident on Naples Heritage Drive. And I want to thank the Collier County Planning Commission for allowing us to speak today and hearing our concerns. I wanted to address the issue of sound, of rnusic in the evening. And presently in our backyard we can hear music coming from over Davis Boulevard. And very frankly, it's not our type of rnusic. It's not chamber music, I would say that. And when you go over to this establishment, the age group is much younger than I am. And I really am concerned that we can already hear those sounds every night, that it will be additional music in concert with each other. So I would ask for consideration about that. You brought it up, but it's a good point, that I think in other areas, I think the representatives here mentioned Mercato. Mercato's a whole different area than what we have in Naples Heritage as far as single-family residential homes. I have a close friend that owns one of the restaurants up there. I'm up there a lot. I know that they have rnusic up there. But it's a different -- little bit different type that I see when I'm up there, versus what we have in our neighborhood. Also, I wanted to thank the Chair for mentioning rushing this project. I don't see the need to rush this project through until every single answer is given, until every single argument is settled. We've got available housing all over the place in Naples. The subdivision or communities like Madison Park across the street and the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard, you know, it looks like a desert. And I, you know, rnentioned my own comments. The point I think, I have spent a lot of time out in Arizona, and it's getting to look rnore like Arizona than it is Naples. And I think that's not a very good precedent to set around the Naples community. I think the rest of my comments have already been covered by the Plarming Commission, and I appreciate that very much. You represent us very well. And that's the end of rny comrnents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. Ray, do we have anymore speakers? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Bob Leeks. MR. LEEKS: My name is Bob Leeks. I'm a resident of Naples Heritage. My horne is a single-farnily home, and it goes right smack in the rniddle of this proposed community. And right -- it goes right down to the lake, okay? Page 50 A3 16u1ust t' 2009 A 3 I wanted to address two issues today. One issue has been settled, and that's the height from three stories to two stories. And I, with my fellow neighbors and mends, I'd like to say thank you for that consideration in going that route. The other issue I want to address, we've talked about it, but I'd like to ernphasize it a little more, if I may, and that's the privacy buffer. As we all know, when we leave our front entrance, we go out into Davis Boulevard. And many communities have been built along the side up and down Davis Boulevard, as we all know. In every case you will notice a large privacy buffer and the visibility from inside or frorn outside to the existing road, Davis Boulevard, is just very nebulous, you can hardly see any homes in there. And this includes, as we have said, Madison Park. And I may emphasize, if I rnay, that the Madison Park privacy buffer was placed in or put in early on in that construction. And the other communities which you can see as you go up and down Davis Boulevard that have a privacy buffer, I'll cite a few of them: Falling Waters, Moon Lake, Foxfire, Glen Eagle's Country Club. That's just only to name a few. And the privacy buffer as we talked has elevated hills, tall, thick brush, trees, many plantings which are indeed as high and landscaped on a regular basis. And the height of the privacy buffer is of keen importance to us as well. You know, as I mentioned, the homes are hidden in almost all cases as you go up and down Davis Boulevard. And the distance of the privacy buffer is, from our lake, again is a major importance. We all know how fast vegetation grows. Locating this buffer at a distance away from our property line and existing fence, believe me, is of prime importance. And regarding the privacy buffer, last but not least, as we did talk about is the timing of the privacy buffer. We all know what we're going through right now with our current econornic recession. And this indeed has affected, as we all know, as we received our proposed taxes for '10, we've seen our property values starting to not appreciate but going in the wrong direction. I have been in Naples Heritage for 12 years, and I may say that rny mends and neighbors who have talked here today have also been in Naples Heritage for as long as I have or a long period of time. We have seen Naples Heritage develop into a beautiful community, which today it certainly is. We are fortunate, all of us here, not only us from Naples Heritage, but all of us here, we're very fortunate to be living -- to be currently living in Naples. And when issues develop like this working with intelligent and responsible people and understanding people is certainly beneficial for us all. And let me just fmalize by saying thank you for (sic) behalf ofrny mends and neighbors for letting us - or giving us our voice today. We certainly appreciate that. And we certainly hope that we can work together in the future to continue to resolve some of these issues. And again, thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, is that the last public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: That was the last. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, there's not a necessity for rebuttal, I don't believe. But I think we're going to have -- do we have any fmal comments before we provide a continuance for this to come back to us? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Would it be helpful, though, if we were to put on the record some responses that I think will make thern more comfortable at this time, or would you rather __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have -- certainly, you can go right ahead, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, there were sorne concerns that they raised regarding what was the height. Was it going to be -- is it 35 feet zoned or actual. We could agree to make it 35 feet zoned and actual from grade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I hope that for that -- obviously for the portion that we're talking about where we brought it down to two stories. So I hope that will address a concern that they raised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's actually better than what they have, so that's-- MR YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I would-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got their documents. Page 51 August t' 6091 lA 3 MR YOV ANOVICH: We're aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Also, we are willing to install the buffer. The timing of the installation of the buffer would be concurrent with the horizontal development, because we actually have to get back there with that segment of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like the clearing of the property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. When we got back to that section of the property, we would install it before we went vertical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Vertical. Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I hope that will address the tirning of the buffer concern and the height of the building concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the last factor you need to work out is the density of the buffer. And you can do that with J.D. by the time you come back to us. If you had sorne portrayals or elevations of those, it might help with the public that will be here at that time. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to remind you, you may want to be taking a look at that fence where Mr. Rogan indicated that there was some -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're trying to figure out who owns it. We'll need to look at our survey. The survey would tell us whether it's on our property or not. And I want to make sure we're clear on the type of buffer. The buffers they're talking about are buffers that are on Davis Boulevard, which are buffers to major streets. I don't think you'll fmd the same type of buffer when you see -- and if you look at their own project, you can see that they provided very rninimal buffer for themselves to whatever could be next door. So they obviously treated their roadway buffer differently. So when we look at Madison Park, we're going to not be looking at what's on Davis, we're going to be looking at what's, you know, adjacent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Richard, if you were -- you have a required buffer by the LDC. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to come back with some enhancements on that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that might be a good idea. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was also a question raised about a dirt road back there, some persons accessing the property, followed by the statement, and also to main (sic) the utility lines. Is there an easernent back there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll again look at our survey and find out what's on their property. I don't know what's on their property as far as survey goes and requirements. Mr. Strain, I agree with you, we will enhance the buffer. But I didn't want them to compare a Davis Boulevard buffer to what you would typically fmd. So when we come in with an enhanced buffer, I didn't want thern to think it would result in the buffer you would fmd on Davis. I just didn't want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But also -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- the wrong expectations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Knowing that their project is a CDD, that gives them a community-wide ability to make improvements to their desired community. That's why CDDs were formed in the first place. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the whole purpose of Statute 190. So if they have a real concern about the buffers there or the security which they expressed already, they have the absolute ability to do something on their own side as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I'm fairly certain if you were to have a project to come through today, that lake situation probably doesn't happen -- Page 52 I ~ A3 Jl ~UgUst~0,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, we're not in public debate. I'rn going to ask you -- MR LOMBARDI: I know, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you're going to have to sit down. MR LOMBARDI: -- I've got to clear something up, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is not a public debate. We're having a discussion with the-- MR. LOMBARDI: I'm not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- applicant. Please sit-- MR LOMBARDI: -- debating, Ijust want to clear something up. That area where the lake is, between the lake and the fence that I'm talking about, is preserve area. And we carmot go and put anything in that preserve area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. LOMBARDI: So that's why we can't do anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. MR. LOMBARDI: -- in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Richard, did you want to have anything else you want to fmish saying? MR YOVANOVICH: No. We're happy to do an enhanced buffer there and Ijust didn't want to think it would result in the Madison Park buffer. And we'll come back with an enhanced buffer adjacent to that. I wanted to talk about the timing issues. And other than that __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on this project of the applicant or staff before we let this go till they corne back? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I think I just want to make a comment. I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you did a terrific job of getting us through a real bog. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Interesting. Richard or Wayne, are one of you requesting a continuance on this item till the next rneeting? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we'd like to be continued to the next Plarming Commission meeting, at which tirne we could hold the -- reopen this public hearing and then hopefully have the consent the same day so we can keep on our BCC agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D. and Ray, the next meeting -- they're asking for a continuance. They need to be first on the agenda after the consent agenda, which we typically have. And then they'll be reheard at the end of the meeting to discuss the consent item so that they can get it accomplished on one agenda. Okay, is there any -- is there a motion to accept the continuance? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So rnoved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. That ends the discussion on the -- whatever the name of the thing is on Davis and Santa Barbara. Page 53 August 20, 2t9 Our next discussion - and I want to talk to the Plarming Commission about timing. !i2 w~ could ~ 3 ,~ probably get through this one in a reasonable amount of tirne. It's the Naples Italian-American Club. Is there anybody in the room from the public going to be commenting on this? If you could, just raise your hand. Okay, thank you. So we have one public speaker. We'll have presentation and staff. Does the Plarming Commission wish to move forward with this or take a lunch break or how do you -- what do you think? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Take a lunch break. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I can't be back after lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why don't we just take a short break. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's fme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', does that work with you? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to take a 15-rninute break, and we'll come back and we'll move through the last item on today's agenda, which is the Italian-American Club. So let's come back at 11:55. (Recess.) (Cornrnissioner Vigliotti is not present.) Item #8A PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14192. MONTE CARLO CLUB CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody could take their seats, we'll try to get on with the meeting. And before we go into the next regular hearing, we need to fly back in time to the consent agenda. We've got everybody here. Okay. The Monte Carlo Club on the consent agenda, BD-2009-AR-14I92, had an item to be added to the resolution. And the staff has added it and presented it back to us. It reads now close to the second to the last sentence, be it further resolved that the existing 14 boat docks are legal conforming structures. I believe that clarifies the concern the Plarming Commission had. Is there anybody else have any questions on that issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve that item on the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, Ashley, for getting that done -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Murray abstained in that. And Mr. Page 54 August 20, 2009 Vigliotti's gone. And Mr. -- did you vote on that, or did you abstain on that, Mr. Wolfley? Mlt6Jo. 1 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I was here. Was that the second consent agenda? I'm sorry, no, I was not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the fIrst consent agenda item. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The fIrst one I was there. That's where I thought we were, yeah. The boat dock. Yeah, I'm good with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the motion carries 6-0. And one abstention, Mr. Murray. A, Itern #9E PETITION: PUDZ-2009-AR-14141, THE NAPLES-ITALIAN AMERICAN CLUB, INC. f CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now the next item on the agenda is Petition PUDZ-2009-AR-14141, the Naples Italian-American Club on Airport Pulling Road. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Plarming Commission. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I did speak with Mr. Yovanovich as well, and I spoke to Mr. LeCatta during the break, and we were all just handed a letter from the Carlisle in favor of the project. Did the court reporter get one? MR. DUANE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I also spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good rnorning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Bob Duane is here to answer any questions you may have that I can't answer, and so is Ray LeCatta, the president of the Italian-American Club to answer any questions you may have regarding operations of the club. I'm not going to go into a long presentation, because it wasn't too long ago that we came forward with a comprehensive plan amendment for this particular piece of property. And essentially this is the PUD to implernent exactly what we said we wanted to do with the comprehensive plan amendment. Briefly it's a five-acre site at the corner of Orange Blossorn and Airport Road. There are two development tracts: There's a Tract A, which is where the Italian-Arnerican Club will relocate from its current location on the property, and a Tract B that will be developed as an office and bank development totaling 34,000 square feet. And of that 34,000 square feet, 4,000 square feet can be for basically a bank branch. You know, bank offices can be within the other 30,000 but really the branch activity is limited to that 4,000 square feet. We've shown the access where it's supposed to be on Orange Blossom. We've eliminated one of the access points on Orange Blossom and eliminated -- and we don't have any access directly onto Airport. We show the interconnections to our property to the south, the vehicular interconnections. Those are the two arrows. And we have pedestrian interconnection to the west, which is the Carlisle. The Carlisle has reviewed our application and you see has issued a letter of support of our request. We have addressed transportation concerns and have agreed to the stipulations required by the transportation department. And let me just go into the parking deviation real quickly, and hopefully offer a clarification. Page 55 August 20, 2009 1611 For the Tract A clubhouse activities, and that would be, you know, the daily activities as well as dirmers, dances for the club members, we will satisfY our parking obligations through the 100 spaces essentially that we have on our property. And we would further cap the number of people who could attend those events to 300 people. So that would be equivalent to the one per three seats that you find in the code. The deviation was intended to when we do an open event to the general public, the special events as defined in the PUD, that's when we would spill over to rneet our parking requirernents onto the Tract B property. So it's only for the special events that we would need to use the Tract B parking to meet the one per 100 square feet of building, which is the 200 number that you see in the staff report. So hopefully that clarifies it, that for club events not open to the general public we would satisfY our parking requirements on Tract A, we would cap the occupancy to the 300 people, and then when we go to a special event that's open to the general public, we would then have to provide verification that we have the right to use the Tract B parking for those special events. And it could be we could have an agreernent across the street at the -- and we have those now at times with the government services on weekends when, you know, the office building's not open we've entered into agreernents to use that parking for special events as well. So when we have a special event, we'll have to provide verification that we have the required number of parking spaces to address those special events. Your staff's recommending approval. Again, it's a brief overview, but you've seen a lot of this before. And we're available to answer any specific questions you may have regarding this particular petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mr. Yovanovich, you and I had discussion yesterday concerning the flag pole. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, yes. The flag pole, your concern was we wanted to make sure it's the flag pole communication tower that's been currently approved for the site. I didn't get an opportunity to fmd the conditional use number that went with that. And we would be willing to basically -- or intended to keep the flag pole communication tower that we currently have. We're not trying to get anything bigger than what we currently have. So between now and the consent agenda, we'll limit it to the communication tower approved by C whatever number -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The current tower. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Without expansion of the tower. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. We also talked about because we are doing the shared parking situation and there was discussion about the businesses on Tract B having to close at 5:00 p.rn. to accommodate the special events-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that we're having, that at least one of the many uses that you had there really weren't appropriate. And my rnost contentious thing I think is the funeral home, which, you know, couldn't really operate without nights and weekends. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we don't have an objection to getting rid of the funeral home. But Commissioner Caron, I want to -- and we did have a conversation, I called my client after we talked. And that's why there was actually some confusion on my part still about the parking deviation. And that's why for special __ it's only for special events that we're going to go onto Tract B for parking. We didn't want to include in the PUD hours of limitations on Tract B, because we may have a buyer who comes to us and says, you know what, I don't want to share parking. And we may make the business decision at that point to not have Page 56 A3 A3 16Jt ~1,2009 special events on Tract A. So that's why we don't have an hours oflimitation on Tract B, because we don't want that limitation to create problems for the potential value of the property. So if we can't show appropriate parking for a special event, we won't be able to have thern. COMMISSIONER CARON: So then let rne get this straight. For the 40 special events-- MR YOV ANOVICH: Forty days. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, 40 days-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Total days, right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- of special events. MR YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then you're going to -- for each of those you have to seek a separate permit? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's really not a permit process that I'm aware of. Maybe there is, Ray. But what we wanted to do was make it clear that we can have up to 40 days worth of special events as a matter of right, the number. In order to be able to implement those 40 days, we would notifY your staff that we're going to have the -- I don't know, the carnival on, you know, whatever day, October I through October 5th, and here is our parking sign-off from our neighbor or from whoever else we need to satisfY the required parking. We would notifY your staff about that. I don't know if there's a permitting process for that. If there is, we would go through that permitting process. MR BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There is a-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, how are you going to handle this now? MR. BELLOWS: There is a ternporary use permit process issued by the county. There's an application form filled out and a fee paid. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And in getting that ternporary use permit, they would analyze whether there's enough parking? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. And they would determine if there's need to have sheriff's office at the intersections and things like that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, great. Let's get to the 40 event days, whether they're a week at a time or a day at a time. The code allows 28. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: What is your reasoning for 40? I mean, what-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the board -- that's without having to go to the board to get more. So we're trying to upfront say we believe we may get to 40 because this is a good site, we've done events in the past. As more and more development occurs around us there's less and less sites to do these things. So we're asking for the permission upfront to go from the 28 to the 40. Because we could already ask the board to do it, we may as well do it as part of the PUD. And again go through the temporary use process -- permit process when those individual events occur. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Has there been any discussion with -- I mean, we just gottoday the letter from the Carlisle saying that they support your project. Has there been any discussion with thern about either enhanced buffers or a fence? I mean, we are essentially talking about a commercial use up against a residential use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we -- you know, we obviously have been neighbors of the Carlisle for a lot of years and have had a good relationship with thern. I mean, we work with them now with their parking issues. They are actually using part of our site. So l'rn assuming they've seen our application, they're comfortable. They've written a letter of support of it. I wasn't in on any of the detailed discussions, but they are supporting the project. A fence will be required? J.D. has informed me that a fence is required anyway along that boundary, so that issue's been taken care of. Page 57 1 rrr 2100~ 3 1 COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, all right, I'm sorry. Thank you, J.D. I didn't see it here, so I wasn't sure that it was. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The LDC already requires a fence -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's great. MR YOV ANOVICH: - between that use and the Carlisle. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you, J.D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me understand what you're agreeing to do then. First of all, you're going to cap the number of members on-site at anyone time -- I'm talking about Tract A -- at anyone time to 300 except for special events. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you're going to have special events, and the special events will use the shared park -- will only occur -- let me read this to you. Special events only if shared parking arrangement, provided that you need an excess of 100 spaces. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means if your tract can hold it and it's going to take less than 100 cars -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're good to go. But if you want rnore than 100 cars, you have to show that you've got the parking, and you'll do that through the temporary use permit process. MR YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to eliminate the funeral home -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue. The interconnects shown here, can you label them as interconnects? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The tract line, can you take that off this plan? MR YOV ANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why we would need to commit to that. You're not going to have a tract line in the middle of -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the tract anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have any problem taking the tract line off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The hours of operation. As long as there's no objection from the neighbors next door, I guess II :00 works. I know we've gone less with others, but that's fine. Under transportation requirements, do you have any problem with the capping language that we've now started to use in other projects that caps them to the uses in the TIS? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We -- correct, the -- yes, we have no objection to what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on Exhibit F, item five is I believe redundant to the requirements already in the code. And I think J.D. would probably suggest we drop that anyway when we get to his presentation. I don't know if you got any objection to that. I don't think transportation does, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, which? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five. Number five's already a requirement of our code, from what I understand, so -- Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, one thing you said, that the Carlisle's using it now. Does that Page 58 explain all those cars there? Are they parking there during the day? MR YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would that continue? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know what we'll consider doing in the future regarding that parking. Probably not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And -- all right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, just one question of Mr. LeCatta, is that it, if you could come up. (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name, please? MR LeCAITA: L-E-C-A-T-T-A. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I just had one question. In your conversation -- obviously you've had many conversations with the people at the Carlisle. MR. LeCAITA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: In those conversations was it discussed that special events and activities would be until II :00 at night? MR. LeCA IT A: Yes, we have had discussions, because we've had events in the past where they've gone to that hour. And considering the level of hearing involved, they said they haven't had a problem with us in the past. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure that you had discussed the actual time. Mr. Murray, are you living there? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, but I couldn't resist what his face said. Rich. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR LeCA IT A: And one more comment. Giving up the funeral home might be an inconvenience to us, considering the average age of our membership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You must all live in Naples Heritage. MR YOV ANOVICH: We have no lakes on our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, J.D., you want to follow this act? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There's no way you're going to beat it. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Staff is recommending approval of this petition, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the PUD document. The only clarification I wanted to make was regarding Mr. Y ovanovich's commitment to go through the temporary use permit. Commissioner Caron, you asked Ray, and I think Ray wasn't aware of the fact that this proposal would allow them to automatically be granted 40 days of temporary uses. And they wouldn't have to go through a permit process, and so the parking situation wouldn't be addressed each tirne. COMMISSIONER CARON: It just gives them the 40 days, it doesn't give them the permits. So they're going to have to do that. And if that's not clear, let's make it clear. Because they need the temporary __ MR MOSS: That can be made clear -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- use permit. MR. MOSS: -- in the PUD document that they can -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think Mr. Y ovanovich-- MR. MOSS: -- granted the 40 days, but they need to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- was saying that they would do that. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse rne, one at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are both talking at the same time. One of you __ MR. MOSS: I'm sorry. 1611 August 20, 2009 A3 Page 59 ATsBO'F01. ~-; CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- needs to wait to the other. I don't care which one. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that Mr. Y ovanovich was saying that they would seek the temporary use permits for all of the special events, so -- MR. MOSS: Very good. Just as long as that's clear and we can incorporate that language into the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR BELLOWS: I thought Richard said that for special events that had exceeded a parking requirement of 100 spaces. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's right. And it was because we don't have the ability today to tell you exactly where those 100 spaces -- anything over the 100 would come from. We would have to show you that we have the required parking. And we talked about this, as you don't really -- the only process you really have is the ternporary use process to make you comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So any time you have a special event in conjunction with the operation of your membership facility, which is Tract A, and combined they need more than 100 spaces, you would then come in for a special event permit. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that under-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that language needs to be clarified by J.D. when we come back for consent. Are there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, this may be my naivety, or Ray can answer, but I thought that PUDs had to be 10 acres. This being a five-acre. MR. MOSS: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Is this in an activity center? MR. MOSS: No, it's not an activity center. It's in-fill. MR. BELLOWS: The land development -- for the record, Ray Bellows. The Land Developrnent Code allows for PUDs outside of activity centers to be less than 10-acre minimum if they meet the in-fill criteria. I assume John-David has verified that and that's why we're here today. MR. MOSS: And it was included in the subdistrict language that was created for this parcel, that it be a PUD when it came in. I don't know if Corby needs to elaborate on that? Corby? No. If you have any questions, though, about the MP consistency, you can ask Corby. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. That's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of either staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One gentleman's here. MR. BELLOWS: Tyler Day, to be followed by John Garbo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like John Garbo's left. So Mr. Day's the only one. MR. DAY: Unfortunately John is not here because he had a luncheon engagement. We're going to be talking about the same thing anyway, basically. My name is Tyler Day. I'm the former president of the board at Villages of Monterey. I'm also a vice president of the Orange Blossom Pine Ridge Community Alliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you bring that mic. a little closer to you? Thanks. MR. DAY: I'm sorry. I'm a vice president of the Orange Blossom Pine Ridge Community Alliance, and out here speaking Page 60 August 20, 2009 161 1 A j for that group of what we have seen of the Italian-Arnerican Club designs. I don't know the details specifically. It looks very attractive and would be a nice addition on Orange Blossom. Our concern, however, is something that is in our missions statement, and that is the safety of Orange Blossom, specifically traffic safety. And we have one concern with regards to the design that can be modified and that concern can well go away. And I would like to address it as the one entrance and exit off Tract A that goes onto Orange Blossom. This -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use that walk-around mic., or point to the one right there in the overhead. That might be -- that one right there. That way you can -- try to use -- you're going to have to use the carry-around rnic. to do that, though, sir. We're going to have to hear you on record. Thank you. MR. DAY: Okay, are you able to see where I'm pointing now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR DAY: Okay. Basically what we have is we no longer have two entrances to the Italian-American Club. You have the one entrance and exit here. Our concern is the fact that right across from it on the other side you have the entrance and exit to the library. And basically what you have -- and this is the opinion of many people within our association, which by the way represents roughly 6,000 people living along Orange Blossom and eight different communities -- and that is that you have basically without this being a right turn in, right turn out, you have an accident waiting to happen with regards to the traffic that's coming out of the library and the traffic, heavier traffic now, because there's only one entrance that will be going in and out of the Italian-American Club. So we would like to have it considered. And we have talked to the transportation department, and they understand our concern, while not having made any commitment, obviously yet. But we feel that the traffic that's coming from the west to the east turning in and traffic corning out, going from here to the end of the road, to Airport, should be addressed as a right in/right out traffic. This could mean a possible extension of the median in the center or a methodology of crossing from the library into here without having a left turn out across the traffic and going right into the traffic that could be corning out of the library. We see this -- and all of us were going to speak on this; unfortunately I'm the only one that's here-- are deeply concerned with the traffic situation, especially in view of the -- what we would anticipate as a heavier traffic for the Italian-American Club and this one entrance. So all we're asking is that this be a right in/right out turn at this entrance here, and I think this will resolve many of the concerns within these communities with regards to this very nice building that's going to be put there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, the place across the street is the county facility with the library and everything in it? MR. DAY: Yes, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they've got a full turning movement, both right in/right out, left in/left out. Because I use that one all the tirne. So why would this one be any different than that one? MR. DAY: Well, what you're doing here is you're -- people would be crossing the Orange Blossom Road and may well have an opportunity to run into the traffic that's coming out of the other side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you'd have to make the other side right in/right out as well, because otherwise you've got a opening in the median. So you want to make the library right in/right out? MR. DAY: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wouldn't help your people, because they'd have to go out on Airport and fmd some way to make a U-turn and come back in and get to the library that way. MR. DAY: Well, these people, they would -- who came out of the library, they'd go down about 100 feet and make a U -ee and go back the other way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you get into the library if you want to go frorn your cornmunity to the library? You couldn't make a left back in, so you'd have -- because you'd be virtually having a solid median across there. So you'd force everybody out on Airport Road to make a U-turn to come back in and use our Ii -- I'rn not sure there's a good solution to what you're suggesting that would make it any safer than what Page 61 August 20, 2009 is here. 161,1 A3 MR. DAY: Well, we'd just like to have it looked at and addressed to see perhaps if there is one. Because we can see really potential accidents happening, and I don't -- I'rn not a traffic engineer, but I am representing a number of people who brought this point up and are concerned about that. And we would like to express it to the Plarming Commission, Mark, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not trying to disagree, I'm just trying to understand your philosophy. Because if you do that for this opening, I'rn not sure it solves anything as long as -- because of the other one in regards to the amount of turning movements you'd create by blocking that exit out. MR. DAY: Yeah. Well, I mean, you have a lot of precedent around town. For instance, on Goodlette-Frank where Pine Ridge is, you've got a right infright out at Carica Road, North Carica Road there, and that seerns to work very well. But there's a rnedian in between that helps prevent accidents for people trying to cross the road and running into traffic. And I see this -- we see this as a concern that when it's a safety concern -- part of our mission is not only the environmental beauty of Orange Blossom but the safety as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got a couple more questions from the Plarming Commissioners, then we'll ask transportation to address your issue as well. Mr. Wolfley? MR. DAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just shaking my head that I think that would be more of a -- you know, having to go -- if you're corning frorn Airport, you'd have to go and make a U-turn. I think that's a lot rnore dangerous than just turning in. And Ijust -- I'd like to hear from transportation on this. MR. DAY: Yeah, all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Then Mr. Schiffer. And then we'll have transportation come up. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I defmitely would like transportation staff to address this. I understand your concerns, Mr. Day, because you have a very busy situation across the street at the library, and you're going to have a very busy situation here with the Italian-American Club-- MR. DAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and the future bank and medical offices. And the problem becornes the stacking of these -- all of these cars that are trying to get across. MR. DAY: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: It becomes a real issue of safety, and that's a concern. MR. DAY: We agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I think we should hear from transportation. I'm not sure there's a good solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know that intersection well. I live in that area. I think the problem is that the Orange Blossorn, the library, has a double entrance and exit. In other words, there's one lane, a divider, and then the way out is on another divider. So I think you're right, if you're coming out of this thing, which lines up with the entrance portion, and you've got to make that turn to the west catching up with people coming out of the library on their own separate drive, that could be a dangerous situation. MR. DAY : Yeah. And mainly it's that this is the traffic that would have to cross the rnedian right into the face of the traffic that's coming out of the library that is going to go west. But in the past and other places a right in/right out turn has been able to be much more safety efficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, John, can you come up and address this from transportation? Thank you, sir. MR. DAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate all your input. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, let me say -- Ray, while he's doing that, could you show the aerial and blow up the aligrunent ofthose driveways. Page 62 August 20, 2009 11 A3 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation PlalQTryi~g to say it all at once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you forgot your name. I was wait a minute. MR PODCZERWINSKY: It is a long last name. It's hard to pronounce. All right, did we have a specific question on the location of the driveway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes. The location lines up apparently to the library across the street. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman's suggesting that they're concerned about it being open a full access intersection. And really, they're looking at considering it to be a right Wright out. And I think you've heard us express an analysis that is possibly needed. And I'rn wondering what it would mean for the library's exit if this was limited to right Wright out and that median was shut. Then wouldn't you at the same time then force the library into right ins/right out? And then what does all that entail? How rnuch problem could it -- if there is a problem or is it a better design or what? MR. PODCZER WINSKY: That is correct, it would require the library to have a right Wright out and potentially a directional left in. To close all left-out movernents onto Orange Blossom you'd be closing off both driveways, both the north and the south, from rnaking that left-out turn, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR PODCZERWINSKY: And that would have an impact on the library. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So to get into the library then, if you did that and you were trying to live in, say, Monterey and you came out and took a right on Orange Blossom, you'd have to go somewhere else to get in? MR PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, you'd have to go through the intersection right now of Orange Blossom and Airport and make a U-turn at that intersection. If it's going to be allowed in the future. We haven't made it that far in our study yet to make sure whether or not that U-turn would be allowed. It may not be. There rnay not be sufficient roorn when the eventual median is installed there to allow a full U-turn at that intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those folks coming into the library to get back onto Airport, they'd have to go down somewhere else further down Orange Blossom, make a U-turn and come back? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. They'd have to make a U-turn through the median there somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's just what we've got to consider. Mr. Schiffer, then -- MR PODCZERWINSKY: And one of the issues-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- we have right now is that the intersection there is in trouble. That's one of the conditions that we have on this PUD is that they contribute -- when they corne in with their office, to contribute prop share towards the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to bring the mic. a little closer to you. MR PODCZERWINSKY: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, do me a favor and turn around and see how this driveway lines up with the entrance portion of the library but not the exit portion. So don't you think this would be safer if they closed the exit portion of that and just rnade it -- you know, line these -- I mean, everybody knows how to handle looking at cars approaching them. The danger of this thing is as the people pull out of this they're going to have that second drive, which is going to have cars coming at them from both directions. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I understand where you're corning from. Page 63 August 20, 2009 We'll have to take a little better look at it when it comes in for the fmal SDP. And !e€t} do !at, we'll have the traffic engineers take a second look at the traffic that's corning out ofthe library. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And I want to get measurements on the difference there and the offset between the driveways to see how they line up precisely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think that's the danger. And the library has another -- you know, people could go further west and then create the exact same maneuver here. They don't have to do it right at this access drive. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, fIrst I would think that you would need -- we would want you to do that by consent, not when it comes in for SDP. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that analysis needs to happen now. Secondly, looking at the library property, and I have no idea, they have a right in and right out onto Airport? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And then they have the two on Orange Blossom. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: You've rnade -- is there a reason there couldn't just be one entrance and exit on Orange Blossom? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If the library were to come in for -- you're asking about the library accesses, correct? COMMISSIONER CARON: Vb-huh. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. If they were to come in we'd take a second look at the accesses for the library and reevaluate how their spacing is, how their driveway spacing frorn the intersection is, as we do with every other site in the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but yeah, I really think we need to see an analysis by consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. John, I don't know, I -- from your response I got the sense maybe you're being too gentle. I think what we're suggesting, that Commissioner Caron is suggesting or others are suggesting, that we don't wait for the library to come in to -- we need pro-activity. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Understood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if it's an unsafe situation and there are no means to change it other than creating other additional unsafe situations, it would strike me that the library has -- the county has an obligation to cure a potentially unsafe situation. So you're not going to rely upon the library coming in to you and asking for a change; am I right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No. With reference to the number of driveways, we would only be dependent upon the library coming in. With respect to this specific median opening, we can take care of that during the SDP process for the Italian-American Club. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm still not clear in my rnind when you answer me that way. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The focal point here is if you have -- and I think Brad Schiffer brought it up wonderfully -- you have two opposing driveways. People can see and they can measure and qualifY. Doesn't guarantee you wouldn't have accidents, but at least it limits it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But with that other driveway a little further down, that's a danger point. Page 64 A"'" , August 20, 2009 16 i 1 So I just want to be clear in my mind that what you're telling us is that now you're cognizant of that and now you're going to evaluate that -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to determine whether that should be closed. Do you have the authority to close it if you determine it? MR PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we do. Collier County keeps control over the median openings. We have full authority over whether or not they'll stay open. Those are at our discretion based on safety and turning movements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you move that aerial further to the west so we can see down __ that would be to the left of the document, for Richard's sake. See that other driveway coming out of the library property? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a full turning movement? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'd have to see a little better picture of it and I don't recall right offhand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where the driveway is in question that we've been talking about, the one on the Tract A property, where it lines up there, what if those two properties, the library property and the Tract A property, had left-in only? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't believe we'd have a objection to that. And if it's a safer situation, we will definitely consider that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the concern is a left out and crossing traffic corning and a left out from the library. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you converted both to left-ins, the library people who wanted to make a left out could go to the north and go out on Airport that way, and the people here could go out on Airport by going to their southerly exit on their property. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that might just solve everybody's problern and be the least complex way to do it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It would. And we would also have to verifY that further to the east that the U-turn is possible -- I'm sorry, further to the west-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: West. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- that the U-turn is possible. That it's safe-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, if it's too narrow of a road and they can't make a U-turn, you're back in -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. And that's about the only reason I'm leaving anything in question, because I'd have to check the adjacent U-turns to make sure that they're safe movements as well before we commit to closing left turns at the library. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- but John, this is -- it's a problem. And you know that with all the mitigation that's happening up here at the intersection, we're not solving anything, we're just trying to rnake it a little bit better. We're always going to have a problem here, based on everything that's being developed around here. This is a mess. So I think we need to make it as safe for the people on Orange Blossom as possible. And I really want to see you take a look at that before consent here __ MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, that's our intent-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in two weeks. MR. PODCZER WINSKY: -- is to rnake it as safe as possible. One of the issues at hand here is that during the PUD -- and this is for everybody's edification. During the PUD the entrances are typically considered conceptual. We like to take a much closer operational Page 65 A:; August 20, 2009 look at them at SDP before they're constructed. And the reason for that is we get a lot better loltQe lmJ A 3 construction that they're going to create as opposed to the potential construction that they could place on that site. Right now we're looking at the maximum number of trips that they could put on this site. At SDP -- at each phase of the SDP we'll be looking at what they're actually constructing during that phase. If the square footage comes down, if the number of members cornes down, if the total office space at the end of the building changes we rnay end up looking at a smaller irnpact than what's shown in this traffic study. This is the maximum they could produce. And again, along those lines, we keep the right in the LDC to rnodifY those median openings at any time for safety purposes to turn them into a left only or whatever is safest at the time that those applications come in and generate the traffic. COMMISSIONER CARON : We don't often see the government modifYing themselves, we normally see them exempting themselves, so I would feel a lot rnore comfortable if this -- some analysis was done on this ahead oftime so that we would -- the people in the neighborhood would know. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In the traffic study we do have the number ofleft turns in and right turns out, right turns in. I mean, we've got all of that. We just don't have the library background traffic included in that turning movement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. John, this left turn -- if they don't do left turns out and the library's locked into right turns and they have to make -- so people have to go down and make a U-turn, when can you have to that anal -- that safety factor, that analysis figured out? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You could ask for it probably prior to the consent hearing. After this rneeting but prior to the consent hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It definitely is a concern. I wish it was brought up before today's meeting so we could have had it analyzed by now. I don't know if your department looks at those things that far ahead of tirne, but it would have been nice to have discovered it before today. I saw the two gentlemen both had their hands up. So maybe we can get sorne relief. Would each of you come up one at a time and let us know what your question is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I quickly, Mr. Strain, since Mr. LeCatta is with me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- remember this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or are you with him? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm with him. If you'll remernber, we had this very same conversation during the compo plan process. And the compo plan language required that the Orange Blossorn and the intersection improvements would go through a public design process to address these concerns. These weren't really -- we don't design roads as part of the PUD process. But you wanted to rnake sure, and I can read the exact language if you need it, is that there would be an advertised public hearing process for the design of the irnprovements to Orange Blossom Drive. And the county has started that process. They've already had the first advertised public hearing for the preliminary design of the improvements to Orange Blossom. So those were intended to take separate tracts. We weren't supposed to be designing the median openings as the PUD process. So this process is already in place where a preliminary design has been done, they had a public meeting, they received public comments. The next step will be to go to further design, final design of the road improvements. The PUD requires that we go through the public bidding process for the road improvements. So the residents will have then another opportunity, if they're still not happy with the design, to bring those issues up during the award of the contract to implement the construction design. So I don't know why we're getting into such a level of detail right now on the access to this particular project when it very clearly says they were going to be treated as the normal design of road irnprovernent process for county roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, we respond to the public, the public has raised a question, and we will do our best to answer it. That's all I can tell you. Page 66 August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that gentleman whose hand is up probably can answer the question. You've just indicated that there was a public process that we probably lost sight of, okay. And then naturally that question then should be posed to this gentleman, was it advertised. And if it was, was his 6,000 member association -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: They were there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- aware of it and did they attend and pose the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR DAY: Thank you, Dick. I think Dick will verifY that we were there -- am I on -- and that it's a further concern now than it was before, because we didn't know exactly where Tract A or Tract B of the Italian-American Club is going to be. Now that it's going to be facing Orange Blossom, we know that will attract more traffic for them. And also the fact that there's not two entrances and exits, but now just one. And once again, it is right across from the exit and entrance for the library. It furtherraises our concern with regards to the safety of this area, this access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are two entrances and there are two exits on this property. One is on Airport Road, I believe. MR. DAY: No, I'm talking about on Orange Blossom. Those people are going, say, frorn west to 161 1 A3 east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think the fact that there's only one on Orange Blossom and now there's one on Airport is advantageous, not detrimental. Mr. Murray, did you have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up with you, sir. MR. DAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have to understand, I absolutely respect what you've brought up here, and you can hear from my questions. But you said that these issues were posed and you weren't even as aware as you are now of what the potential is. What were the responses that you got to your questions? And __ MR. DAY: Well, the responses, sir, were exactly, in all due respect to Dick, that we would handle it at another time and that as we get further on with the Plarming Cornmission and with the other meetings that were plarmed that we would address this. Our concern is, as it is yours, that this major concern regarding the potential for accidents is not swept under the rug and it is addressed and it is -- and I'm sure it wouldn't be because all-- you're professionals and you're really very good at what you do. All we want to do is express the concern that we see accidents in our corridor that are going to happen possibly to our people or other people, and we think this is avoidable with the proper transportation plarming. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: IfIjust may finish with my conversation with you. MR. DAY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I so much respect that you're bringing it up and I'm certain that everyone here respects what (sic) you're bringing it up. But there is in fact a process, and that's what the gentleman from transportation was indicating to you. And I suppose -- I'm not trying to answer anybody's staternents to you, but I think the fact is you are entitled to work closely with them. You now know who it is you can talk to -- MR. DAY: Yeah. We've-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and you find out-- MR. DAY: -- already talked with the transportation department. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you've been working with them, then you have -- it seems to me you have -- you're right along the way. And we've taken your message, so your message is with us. Thank you, sir. Page 67 August 20, 2009 MR. DAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: You had a meeting with the community? MR PODCZERWINSKY: Ifwe did, I was not involved in it. This is -- this would have been on a capital project schedule, not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR PODCZERWINSKY: I can verifY that yes, we have. If you give me a rnoment-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Obviously you have. I mean, everybody has said that transportation staff has had a meeting. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: My question is, according to the language in the GMP are you required to have more than one rneeting? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That I couldn't answer for you. I'm not sure. Do you guys have any opinion on that? MR. SCHMITT: Normally on something like this there's several meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys will have to use the mid. MR SCHMITT: Normally on something like this, it's the capital project for the intersection, transportation has several public meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, a quick question. If in the SDP process you realize that this is only going to be a right in and right out, do you have the ability to move it further to the east? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, looking at the way the turn lanes are, would that put it into more of a dangerous situation? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I would have to take a look at the westbound left turn to make sure that it's sufficient length to accommodate the traffic coming into the library. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think if you do determine right Wright out, you really should get it away from the library intersection to avoid the confusion. The another thing, those of us that live out in that area, coming out of here and having to go north or south isn't all that inconvenient, because Carica is blocked off, like you said. So essentially if you did go west you'd be going up to Vanderbilt or down to Pine Ridge or the middle of the pines to get around anyway. So the right Wright out is not going to be a big problem here, I don't think. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. -- anymore questions of transportation? I think, Mr. LeCatta, you had a real quick comment. We let the other gentleman speak, so you might as well, sir. MR LeCA TT A: Since the accident potential was brought up, I feel that anything -- any kind of a solution that involves U-turns provides a greater potential for accidents. And I bring your attention to the intersection of V anderbilt Beach Road and U.S. 41. With the construction of the Mercato, they closed that median, so the left-hand turn into the rear of the establishments on the, let's see, southeast corner, banks, restaurants, was closed. You have to now go to the intersection in the turn lane and make a U-turn in order to go into those establishments. And what happens is -- and I do this because one of my banks is there. And when you do this, the people going north on U.S. 41 that are in the turn lane that can rnake a right-hand turn with or without a light, I'm not aware of those people rnaking U-turns. And I know when I do this I have to have my hand on rny horn, because I have a green light to make a U-turn and they're just coming and they're just not aware of the fact. So U-turns are really very dangerous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. 1611 A3 Page 68 lA6urof09 A3 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it is a complicated issue, and that's why we want to make sure it's getting analyzed and analyzed fully from everybody's perspective. MR. DAY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Obviously U-turns can be an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any more public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any fmal questions from the Plarming Commission? Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion before motion. I have a series of stipulations, and then we got the traffic issue to discuss. But I'll read off the stipulations, if the Plarming Commission has no objection. One is that they'd cap the number of members on site at only one time at 300 except for special events. They'll remove the tract line that's on the rnaster plan. They'll note that the interconnects -- or interconnects to the south. They'll eliminate the funeral home as a use. They'll have special events only if -- and the special events will use the shared parking arrangement, only if they're in excess of 100 spaces needed that exist on Tract A. They'll drop the number five from Exhibit F. And they'll cap their trips to those that are mentioned in the TIS, as we have asked the other recent projects that come through to do. And now as far as the traffic issue goes, any discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The flag pole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'rn sorry, what is the issue with the flag pole? COMMISSIONER CARON: There isn't an issue, it's just to make sure that it is lirnited to what it is today -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The height. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in terms of height and nurnbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Limited to the height and quantity of flag poles today. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this goes to Ray. Ray, again this one uses the term leasable area. You know, I'm not sure what that term means. We studied areas. I know what the areas that the LDC, the Bill Lorenz rnemo of last August doesn't, you know, consider leasable areas. So how do you look at these PUDs when they use that term? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Some of the compo plan changes creating subdistricts refer to leasable space. I'm not sure if that's the case in this situation. But it should be floor area, that's what the LDC basically uses as a measure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you interpret the word leasable space? MR. BELLOWS: No, they are different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are? MR. BELLOWS: And we had that problem actually on the Mercato one where they were talking about leasable floor area, and we actually had to go back and correct that subsequently with another amendment to reference floor area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you converted leasable -- I mean, is the equation exactly the same? In other words, you'd remove the word leasable. Page 69 MR. BELLOWS: They can be different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can. And the reason leasable is different is that you wouldn't want somebody who uses thicker walls shouldn't have a bigger bear (phonetic) than somebody who uses thinner walls, I guess. MR BELLOWS: A floor area would account storage areas, where leasable would not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So what do we do here? What does this rnean? MR. MOSS: The applicant has stated that they would be okay with just limiting it to gross floor area rather than leasable area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'll make that change then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to change leasable to floor area instead ofleasable. Any other suggestions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know we talked at length about the traffic issue. I think it's been certainly put into the floodlight. And I know that transportation has got to finish an analysis. I'm not sure that rushing an analysis for another two weeks from will do the analysis justice for either side. I'rn content in letter transportation continue with the rnethodology they always have and making sure the analysis is done right and in reaction to the neighborhood. And they've committed to do that. So I think that issue is settled that way, as far as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they're already in process, frorn what we understand with public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we've got eight stipulations we've rnade here on the record. Does staff have those? Are they clear? Okay, are there any other comments from the Plarming Cornmission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: rn would make the motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- or second it, whatever the pleasure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're the frrstto speak so it's yours, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would offer that we recommend to the Collier County Planning Commission that PUDZ-2009-AR-14141, known as the Italian-American Club commercial plarmed unit development be forwarded to the BOCC with a recommendation for approval with the with the afore read stipulations by the Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And of course the staff recomrnendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Is there a discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The question was asked about the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not your discussion but we'll let you discuss. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, the gross lease. Ijust -- before you vote, Ijust wanted you to know what the subdistrict said regarding the gross leasable area issue. It does specifically talk about the district, which encornpasses two parcels, not just ours, it's 74,000 square feet of gross leasable area is the terminology used in the district. So we would like consistency, which would be 34,000 square feet of gross leasable area. I just bring that up. That's what the district said, because there was a question about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I wasn't against it. I was just asking what it rneant. Ray, if you need away to determine it, there is an association called BOLMA, Building Owners and something. You could just use their rnethodology to derive leasable, which is what they do. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, no, I don't think there's a problem deriving it. Ijust want it to be consistent 16urt l' 2009 A 3 Page 70 August 20, 2009 with the compo plan. If the compo plan represents leasable, I don't have a problem, but if it didn't,l bJ 1 prefer just to go with the LOC. COMMISSIONER CARON: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does what? COMMISSIONER CARON: Say gross leasable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the compo plan. So it looks like we stay with the compo plan. Okay, so we'll strike that one stipulation that number eight in which we would to changed it to the floor area instead of the gross -- is that okay with yours? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I amend my motion to reflect that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second agrees with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker and the second accept the amend. So now we're down to seven stipulations. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. And I think that's the last item on our a general Dan today unless there's any old business, which I have none. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn -- Mr. Schmitt, did you have -- is there a motion for adjourrunent? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? Mr. Murray. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you. ***** Page 71 A3 Aurtf2009A 7 , 16, ;) There being no further business for the good of the County, the rneeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:51 p.m. COLi~p~MlSSION MARK , Chairman These minutes approved by the board on I cv15"- () 'is , presented V' or as corrected_. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 72 v RECE\VEO NOV \ 3 2009 llOIII'lof(lolllllY~ TRANSCRIPT OF THE FLOOD ORDINANCE MEETING OF THE Fiala COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONHalas Naples, Florida Henning August 25, 2009 Coyle Coletta 16' 1 August 25, 2009 A3 , -t"cY/W , LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Plarming Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, rnet on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Absent) David J. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Tom Eastman, Real Property Director, School District Misc. Corres: Date: Item#: Page I C~p;es to: August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 25th melRfle 1 A 3 Collier C0unty Plarming Commission. This is a continuation of a meeting involving the review of the flood damage prevention ordinance. ' . If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the sake of expediency, let the record show that Mr. Schiffer, Ms. Caron, myself, Mr. Murray and Ms. Homiak are here, so we have a quorum. The first item of business is to let everybody know, this meeting starts promptly at 8:30. I'd appreciate it if staff would be here on time. With that, Mr. Wiley, this is a continuation of where we left off before. And I believe last time we had gotten through your presentation, and you were assembling data which you provided to us -- some of which you provided to us. For those members of the Plarming Comrnission, I think we received our packets last Wednesday or Thursday, I'm not sure which day everybody got theirs. But we've had five days in which to review this information since the time we received it. Personally I've not been able to go through all of it. I don't see us finishing this review today. I think there's still a lot of issues that we're going to have to have answered at sorne future meeting. But I also want to know from this committee how long you all feel you want to go today. Is there any particular break point that you think is appropriate? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to say, I'm sorry but I must be someplace else by 3:00, so I have to leave by 2:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, do you have any -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 2:30 sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Fine. I mean, we need to maintain quorum, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. So no matter what, we'll have a regular lunch break today, but we'll finish the meeting by 2:30 in today's meeting. Now, Jennifer, I want to thank you for your very well done job in the package you provided to us. And for those mernbers, this is the blue packet we got. If I'm not mistaken, that was assembled by the county attorney's office. And there's a lot of information in here. And unfortunately I have not gotten through all of it. But thank you, it was ajob well done. We certainly appreciated it. It did help to understand some of the changes and where the numbers are. MS. BELPEDIO: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the same time, I want to tell the members, there's -- in the packet provided by the county attorney's office or an e-mail, I can't remember which, there's a reference to a FEMA site or a location. I went there and I was able to obtain a book frorn FEMA. And this is it. It's just one of many, but this is the coordinator's manual. It really is an eye opener. Because what it does, it takes every category of these floodplain management issues and breaks them down into how they're defined, how many points, how the points are tabulated, how they're provided, how they're given. And it's an important document to read. I don't know how far we're going to go today, but if the rest of you had access to this document, if you were so inclined, it would be -- I think it would be well worth reading. You have to order them from FEMA and they take, I don't know, a couple of weeks or more to get here. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Isn't that what was sent an e-mail downloaded, the manual? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because I downloaded it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I went to that download and I actually got the hard copy from FBMA, because it said you could order thern, so that's what I did. So if you've got it, that's great. Page 2 August 25, 2009 16 j 1 A3 And with that, I don't know which way is the best way to proceed. We started working through the document last time, but since then we've had a replacement document, which is the fIrst one in the book provided by the county attorney's office. And that one provides a comparison between the model rule provided by the feds and the rnles that were written that we're supposed to be reviewing. And that is the -- prior to the fITSt tab in the booklet. I've read that, made my notes in that document. I don't know what the rest of you have done. Does anybody have a preference? Because I would imagine we'd start with that document then, if that's okay with everybody else. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep, that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we get into the document, Mr. Wiley, do you want to go through any preliminaries before we start working our way through the document? MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley, with your county's engineering and environmental services department. Up on the screen is basically towards the end of the Power Point presentation that we were in on our last rneeting. And this is a recap of the higher regulatory standards. These are the additional criteria that we are recommending placernent into the county's flood damage prevention ordinance. The bulk of what you're starting with with the initial document is a comparison document prepared by the county attorney's office, as you've said, relating to the rnodel ordinance put together by the state and approved by FEMA, and then indicating where we have made additions, deletions, things of that nature to it. We can look at it frorn a very detailed point-by-point basis, or do you want to start with the basic principles of the higher regulatory standards and even address which of those you wish to consider or not even consider before we start going through the details page by page? And that's -- I'm asking your direction so I know which way to proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think-- MR. WILEY: If you looked at the overall scheme, or do you want to start looking to details and throwing part of it out once you get through the details. So I don't want us to waste our time today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't want to waste our time either, Robert. And I'm very frustrated with having to review all this information and not having had the time to review all of it. And r know that staff got it to us at the best time that they could, but five days just isn't enough for me to have read it all. And I usually can read everything that's provided to me within the time frames. On this one I just couldn't get through it. One of the things that I did not see in there that is a critical component is everywhere that there's a change that has an impact fiscally, either on the government or on the private sector, I did not see cost associated with that fiscal impact. And I'm wondering -- I understand what you're asking us to do now. Did you have a more cost __ detailed cost analysis, or do you have a detailed cost analysis that we could have? MR. WILEY: That is part of our presentation, going through it today. There's a spreadsheet that I'll be able to put on the screen for you, and it begins to show you the impacts of the CRS program and the cost from it. Now, understand that this is the CRS program, this is not a capital improvement schedule program listing. This is the impact strictly from the CRS side of it. And we can go through that whenever you want to do that, if you want to start with that, to give you a perspective of what we are facing in the county. You did ask for the draft unreleased, whatever you want to call it, information that our consultant has prepared and has subrnitted to FEMA's national service provider, which is Michael Baker, Jr. Corporation, for the development of the new flood insurance rate maps. At our last meeting that got to be a big issue as to what are going to be the changes so as to how rnuch ofthe county this ordinance would have an impact upon. We can also start with that discussion. Ijust wanted to figure out which is our better path to go as far as the commission's concerned to address the issues that we all want to be covering today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, fIrst of all, as far as the additional map that you sent out that we requested last tirne, r believe we all got it. And it basically shows what I thought it would, and that is the entire county now is going to be an A or a V zone, with the exception that sorne small pockets that are still Page 3 August 25, 2009 going to remain X, according to the colorations on the map. Is that a fair statement? MR. WILEY: When you take all the different types of zones that start with the letter A, that is 1611 A3 correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it even looks like Immokalee would be for the most part an A or a V zone with some little pockets of yellow, which are the X zone. MR WILEY: Immokalee has a lot of AH zones proposed for it. In sorne of the deeper sloughs, particularly along the southern side of Inunokalee, there are some AE zones. And then outliers of that, which are outside of the areas studied by our consultant, those would remain the approximate A zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the special flood hazard areas, the SFHAs, I think the acronym is, applies to all A and V zones. So even though Immokalee is AH, it would fall under those categories? MR WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the reason that's so important, that brings in a pile of ramifications. Right now Inunokalee is going through a new master plan for their community. I don't know how many civic leaders out there are aware of this potential change for their community, but I think that it would have an impact on their community, as well as the utility structure for that community, since these are going to require floodproofing for all facilities, including critical facilities. Those are the kind of concerns that I could not find in this document in reviewing what I had reviewed so far today, the cost to all those points across the board, not to just the coastal community, which is expected and understood to be a V zone, but all the A zones that will now be throughout all of Collier County basically. And that's a concern that I don't know if everybody's aware of. I know that I've talked to three department heads in this county in the last 48 hours and they aren't aware of the impacts. I told them I wasn't sure what the impacts are, but I wanted to find out if they had precise knowledge of the cost if the impacts were to apply. And while they were aware of this going through the systern, they did not acknowledge to me that they've had a time to formulate any formal costs. Although some of them have said they've tried to indicate that there's millions of dollars in cost here. But they haven't had a chance to provide that to you or I guess us at this point in any more formal format saying basically these rules will have this kind of impact on public facilities. That's really important stuff, Robert. That to me drives a lot of the elements that are on the screen in front of us here. And that part I haven't found yet. And Ijust -- do you have information on government costs, costs to staff, a department that would have to be formed to keep up with these rules and regulations and monitor all the data that this has to collect and keep on file? MR. WILEY: Most of what you're seeing in front of you from a level of staff, that's the people who are already here. And we're already doing a lot of this stuff, we are just not getting credit for it. Through the building department they're keeping track of a lot of this stuff already. Through me, I'm having to report stuff to -- ISO is the insurance services office. That's the entity that oversees the CRS program. So we're doing a lot of the information reporting already. This would add to the workload. It's another item that you put on your checklist of things to provide for them. So from that standpoint it's not looked upon as being huge in its impact to existing staff. There are some situations that you're concerned about on the fiscal impact to the various governmental departments, particularly as they go to construction. We have had discussions on that. I do not have detailed information on it. Because right now it's anybody's guess, since we don't even know what they would be proposing in the future. From the critical facilities side for the utilities department, they're not elevating so much as they're fIoodproofing to keep the water out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My ignorance. Isn't this really all around the idea of insurance? MR. WILEY: This comes around through us thinking of it as the flood insurance program. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 4 August 25, 2009 MR WILEY: It is tied to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if it's around insurance, we buy insurance to protect us against loss. Unless we know what the potential loss is, how can this correlate properly? We're all going to do-- we're all going to lift buildings and we're going to do all these things with the purpose of saving money, but the costs may never, or may, be recoverable. And so fiscal analysis it would peem is essential, at least in general terms, to the government's projected capital and retrofit, remanufactdre, reconstruction, whichever way you want to relate it. Arn I wrong here? MR WILEY: Well, let me give you a different perspective, because I do not view it in that perspective at all. I view it from the perspective of making the community more resistant to flood damage. Whether we have a single penny of savings or not, I'm viewing it from the standpoint of factor of safety for our community against flooding. That is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, statistically speaking. Now, if you do your program in such a marmer that at the same time you are rnaking your community more resistant to flood damage, you gain a benefit of a savings on insurance, then that is to the good. Let me give you an example, speaking of insurance. You have an insurance policy. You have 17-year-old son. You go to add him to your policy. Your cost is exorbitant. But if you can show that he is a good student, and if he has had driver education training, they provide you discounts. You have to have the insurance anyway; he carmot drive. But by doing things in accordance with what they will offer you discounts, you reap the benefit of it while still maintaining the safe driver and maintaining your insurance coverage. If you look at the flood insurance program in that perspective from the side of what CRS is for, the cornmunity rating system, you're going to have to have the flood insurance anyway. If you want to gain the benefit of reduced benefits, reduced premium costs, while gaining the benefits of a safer community because you're going beyond the bare minimum requirements, then you participate willingly in the CRS program. And you implernent activities they have identified that across the nation have a track record of making the community rnore resistent to flood damage. And that's what this is about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you used --1 thought it was interesting your choice of analogies. And I understand your choices are limited in that regard. But it just occurs to me, out in the AH zone for Immokalee area we have -- if I understand this thing correctly, we're going to urge people to floodproof, spend lots and lots of dollars to prepare against floods that statistically may be relevant but may never occur. And they're not required to have insurance now for their mortgages, but now because we're going to introduce this, they're going to be required to have insurance. How does this make sense to the general public? MR. WILEY: The CRS program, this ordinance, this does not introduce the requirement for flood insurance at all. That's coming through FEMA. We-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's tied together. MR. WILEY: You can look at it from the standpoint it is tied together. The CRS program is a voluntary program the county participates in to make the impact less onerous in the long run from a standpoint you're making the community safer. The flood risk is identified. That has nothing to do with the CRS program. The flood risk is identified through the modeling, through the mapping that FEMA does to produce the flood insurance rate maps. The CRS program simply says if you go beyond the bare minimum, you are making yourself safer against the identified risk. And by so doing, they do offer a return back through the process of reduced premiums, a discount on your premium to everyone who has to have the flood insurance anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, right now if someone has a home that they're building in any zone and they want to -- in let's say an X or A zone and they -- or a V or an A zone. If they want to reduce their insurance cost, at their option they can raise their foundation as rnuch as they want to the point where there's a saving; is that a fair statement? MR WILEY: That is correct, yes, sir. 161 1 A3 Page 5 August 25, 2009 K . . dth b .. . h .. h I h tal 16 1'1 11 A 3 eep m mm at y ralsmg It, t ere are sItuatIons were peop eave a to maxImum a owab e building height which starts at the FEMA elevation. So they voluntarily reduce their allowable building height if they choose to elevate their building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the -- you're only talking a freeboard of -- a maximum freeboard credit of, what is it, three or four feet anyway? I'm not sure that -- MR WILEY: The maximum that they will let you go up to is I think four feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I'm not sure that four feet is going to put anybody beyond a threshold in most of your typical zoning districts, because most homes never get to that height anyway. I mean, I know projects after projects where the 35-foot height for example is never reached. Not even close to it, even with the nicest homes. So let's assume they all can go to this three or four feet without jeopardizing their ability to build. They can then voluntarily pay the money they want to pay to get that much higher. They can voluntarily reap the benefits from their insurance policy. But what you're asking us to do is institute a policy that is govemment mandated. So we take the voluntary part out that the citizens' rights would dictate, that they have a right to rnake their decision, and say no, you're not making your decision, we're making it for you, and this is what you're going to do. And the benefit -- I'm sure the homeowner gets the same benefit as if he did it himself. But then there's a broader benefit to the public at large. But for that additional cost we're seeing a benefit -- I think it was from six to seven we're looking at $23. And those are the kind of factors I'm wondering where the weight is. You didn't have numbers last time on the foundation costs, for example, of a typical home. And I wasn't sure when you asked or made those phone calls to contractors how much thought they really put into it. Because a typical home is not a rectangle or a square, it's usually cut up pretty much, which means the foundation would follow that cut-up pattern. And then depending on how they utilize the area within those stem walls, either by fill or by open cavity with joists, we have rules applied to each one, but all those are additional costs as well. And so last time we didn't have costs, at least anything other than a short phone call that you rnay have rnade to a variety of contractors, some of which responded and some didn't, by what you had told us last time. Are you any further along with an analysis that is more analytical or -- I shouldn't say scientific, but more factually applied than just a brief phone call with a contractor? MR. WILEY: Well, it was the result of 44 phone calls, of which 10 people provided information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did they-- MR. WILEY: The others would not provide information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any -- first of all, was it done in an -- like an analysis, a stern wall and the shape of the stem wall, the size of the house, the square footage, all those factors that factor into the cost of such changes in construction? Or was it just well, a stem wall generally cost us so much "X" more per house? MR. WILEY: When I was talking to them, it was identifYing a certain size house, whatever type of construction you use, whether it's stem wall, whether it's a raised foundation, joists, Polycor, whatever, you tell me what it would cost to do that. And that's -- I was giving thern their choice to provide information. And I was very disappointed only 10 chose to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as questions, how do you want to -- what's this panel-- first of all, Robert, did you -- I had asked for this document, which is the recent community rating system verification report. And you had given it to me and asked rne if we should distribute it to the rest of the Planning Commission and I -- MR WILEY: Then you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- said yes. MR. WILEY: -- said no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. WILEY: Then you said no, I asked the wrong question, so 1-- ; 1 Page 6 August 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, that was not this -- this was the thing I asked abo! a~o~ a lek A 3 or two ago. I asked you for the report, and you sent me the report. And then you said, should we distribute this to the Plarming Commission and I said yes, and you said fme and then you -- I believe you distributed it. MR. WILEY: No, I did not. I was going to bring it today, but then yesterday I got the e-rnail from you, oh, I asked the wrong question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was about -- no, that was -- MR. WILEY: Oh, well, I read it wrong. Then I thought oh, you don't want it, so I didn't bring them today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Robert, what I -- I'rn sorry then. MR. WILEY: I can get them to you shortly. I do have an original. I can shoot the copies and get them to you during our meeting here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw your answer to rny question. I thought I had asked the wrong question, because I had heard that during your discussion with the floodplain committee, and through I guess a grant or money using Dan Summers' office you had -- there was another more recent verification report that was in draft format being sent to FEMA for review that changed the potential numbers on here. I had this one, which is what I intended to use today because it's got a lot of good information. And that's why I wanted the rest of the Plarming Commission to have it. But I also wanted to understand, when I found out there was possibly a more recent one that was applied for, it would sure help rne understand what was applied for, because I found a lot of application missing in this one. I found elements in activities that I think we could have rnuch more easily applied for and possibly gotten rather than going the harder route of freeboard and more costly elements. So I was hoping that the more recent application would have taken and gone in and possibly applied for some of those additional activities. So that's what I was trying to seek is what your rnost recent one was, even though it wasn't approved. MR. WILEY: Okay. What you're talking with the consultant we hired through Dewberry, we hired a consulting firm to give a crosswalk review of the floodplain management plan. Totally separate issue from this. It was they were going through to see that we follow the 10 steps as required to complete the plan and submit it. So then that was their crosswalk scoring just for the floodplain management plan, it was not these kind of issues here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And by the way, for the plarming commission members, when I asked for this, I asked for it after our packet was distributed when I was getting into rnore of this reading. So that's why Robert was going to bring it today. And I guess -- MR. WILEY: And I can get it for you, it will just take a few minutes to run the copies. Because I brought the original. I thought well, ifhe asks for it, I'll make 'em here, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wanted all of them to have it because -- and the reason this is important, this tells us how we've gotten to the 1,565 points we currently have. And if you go to each activity in here, then you go to this book, which is the coordinator's manual, and you turn to the corresponding activity, it tells you how the credit points are laid out for each one of these. Let's say 310, elevation certificates. There's items 311, A, B, C, D, E and F. Each one of those generates points for this community. Under 310 we currently have 56 points allocated to us, but there's a potential of 162. The average community in the United States gets credited with 69. So we're below the average, and there may be very good reasons for that. We rnay not be able to do some of these. But my intention and hope was that we could walk through every one of these and understand in our rninds why we can't get these credit points through sorne other methods, rather than going into these costly methods that impose such drastic costs on both the public and the government. And that's kind of why I wanted you guys to have this. And if you were to go into the PDF or the version of the manual that you have and you were to pull out the first page of each section, that's the rnost critical. It tells you what points are available and how to get them in a very concise format. Then back in the document it tells you actually how those are more worked out on a point-by-point explanation, if you want the detail. And rny intention today was sirnply to find out why we did not get more points from every single Page 7 August 25, 2009 one of these categories and an explanation for each one, and if there was an opportunity t1i6uJthell A 3 points we need to still get to where we're going to go, or maybe even less than that now. I think my number-- yeah, 311 -- no, 435 to go. If we have -- if we can pick up the points, maybe we don't need some of these rnore horrendous and costly applications. So that was part of it. I didn't know we weren't going to have this. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to ask, Robert, did the cornmittee go through those categories to try to maxirnize what we're getting now? MR. WILEY: We gave a presentation to the committee going over the entire CRS program and the categories under which you can apply. We talked about issues that are within them. And when we got into the higher regulatory criteria, which is what you're going to see in the ordinance here, that's where we focused on making the community more resistant to flood damage, and that's why we concentrated on these for the ordinance. There are a lot of other credit points you can earn by various programs. Of course it takes more and more staff the rnore you spread out your programs to fulfill it. And as we explained to the committee and also to the commission here the last time, there are just some categories that we're never going to score points in, because they're not at all practical for the way our floodplain is laid out in Collier County; it's over flat, low-lying coastal community. So there are programs that give you high scoring points. They tend to be focused rnore upon removing properties from the designated special flood hazard area. And frankly, the county just doesn't go in and buy people out because they happen to live in a zone that starts with the letter A or V. We just don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's your activity 520, of which we've got no credit, because it is removal of buildings and buying out. MR. WILEY: We've only tried that one time and that failed when the owner, after negotiating the price and getting all the applications ready to go, they refused to sign it. Go figure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree-- MR. WILEY: They sold the house two weeks later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you, Robert, some of those won't apply to us. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's the process, though. And that one I wasn't even prepared to ask any questions on, other than to make a statement. MR WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's understandable why 520 wasn't one of the ones that we -- but there are others that I was puzzled on. Because my reading of them and my reading of the explanations by FEMA, I don't know why we just wouldn't have done some of them. And they're not on this list. And so that's why I was hoping this other list that I alluded to may have had that information. Mr. Schiffer, you were next. I'rn sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna's question was essentially rnine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would request that maybe you pick one that you thought and let's have the opportunity to hear what -- a discourse on that. MR. WILEY: Well, if! may interrupt here for just a moment, if you'll give Bill Lorenz a few minutes, he's rnaking the copies for you right now so you can all have the document in front of you. That's what I handed him. So he's out trying to get thern as quickly as he can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- question. Bob, this is while we're waiting. We got a draft, the 7/27 draft, which is I guess after our meeting. MR WILEY: Yes, sir. '" Page 8 16/Arst~, 'j COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only thing I think you did in there is move the acronyms ahead of the defmitions and then highlight the definitions; is that right? Did you change any other wording in that? And the reason I'rn asking is that on the 3/23, which is what's in the attorney's booklet, that's where I did all my work. So is there any wording changes or is it just what I said prior? MR. WILEY: It's just what you said. We rnoved the acronym section to the front. We bolded the defmed terms. You asked me to remove all references to floodway from it. Since that term is embedded throughout the model ordinance and defmitions fromfEMA, I have asked FEMA their take on do we TUn a problem of them having concerns if we take the tercl out, or should we just leave it in? Since we don't have designated floodways, it becomes a moot point, but it doesn't technically change their defmitions and their program wording, so I have not heard back from them on that yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think the only other thing I notice is you changed the standard code to Florida code. MR. WILEY: That was a request also as we went through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there anything else in there? And the reason I'm asking is because most of my notes are in the old version and I don't want to miss those changes. And the review that Mark was mentioning, we're going to go through that section, is the 3/23 verSIOn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You just brought up an interesting point then. We probably need to -- we're not allowed to communicate prior to these meetings on the way the meetings are to move forward. And not __ at our last meeting I wasn't aware of everything that we have in front of us today so I couldn't suggest at the last meeting how we proceed. I went under the assumption that the way I would have proceeded and the way I did was reviewed the County Attorney's -- what's titled the comparison document. And that's what I was prepared to speak from today on a point-by-point basis. Is that what everybody is prepared for here today? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I did, I did get the new one and I did sit with both ofthem side by side. But all my notes were in the 3/23 and we never went through it in full. So I'rn sticking to __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- 3/23. Bob's saying what's in the latest version is minor revisions. I mean, we can have it open in front of us as we go now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the problem is the comparison document for the county attorney's office has nothing to do with either the 7/27 or the 3/23. It compares one of them to the state rules. What happens is you're not comparing them to the old language, you're comparing them to the state's standard language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're using the 3/23 version in that cornparison. MR. WILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look at the footnote -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if that's -- can you work with that document, you and Bob? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. That's what I think -- that's why I was asking the question, because the new version isn't necessary. The 3/23 is what the county attorney also used. MR. WILEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So all of us have really red-lined in the 3/23. So just to be careful: Bob, the only changes were you moved the acronyms up, you bolded definitions and you changed standard code to Florida code. MR. WILEY: There were, if I remernber -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you said you eliminated the word floodway. MR. WILEY: No, you all had asked me to eliminate the word-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but I'm not-- MR. WILEY: -- floodway. I have not done so yet. Well, there are no defined floodways in Collier Page 9 August 25, 2009 161 1 A3 County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, let me just, just for the clerical part. So you have not done that yet, so that's -- MR. WILEY: I have not. The word floodway is still throughout the document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is there any other changes in the 7/27 that you can think of? MR. WILEY: None that I remember. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. MR. WILEY: Those-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're fme. MR. WILEY: That's as far as we got. We were into the definitions and so I didn't really go changing defmitions yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess with all that discussion on the table, does this panel have a preference on how you want to proceed then? Because at this point we can start going through the comparison document page by page. Mr. Wiley's suggestion, do we have any general feelings about these standards before we get into a detailed review. I mean, the one that's the most concerning on here is the freeboard for its cost to the general public and the fact it's basically all the county, after this map gets changed. But without data, I'm not sure if we -- I rnean, I'm already believing that's too rnuch of a cost to be forced upon people when they have a right already to make by freedom of choice to do so if they want to. And I also, in reviewing the document, I was believing there might be other areas we can make up those missing points. So I don't know how much you want to go into -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to make sure, Bob, understand what freeboard would change. Obviously we know what it does to a building, okay, it raises everything a foot. The VB -- it raises the requirement for the VB a foot, correct? Everything. What does it do to road building? MR. WILEY: Nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does it do to site development? Subdivisions, you know, coming up to a grade, does it affect that grade at all? MR. WILEY: No, because those are all based upon a different criteria. They are not using FEMA elevations as they are using a design storm event through the Water Management District. Now, where situations could occur, that the FEMA elevation takes precedent, and I'm not aware of any right now as I'm thinking about it, could it potentially have an impact? I won't say it could not. Depends upon how you evaluate it. But from the standpoint of the freeboard, that deals with the building permits that the county issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then in the document here we reference sometimes that requirernent is the base flood height plus one foot. And then you've added plus freeboard. MR. WILEY: That is with the dry floodproofmg. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. If we had a freeboard of one foot, could we get rid of that, you know, plus one foot? MR. WILEY: No, sir. Let me explain to you again how -- in dry floodproofing that is the option of the builder to take a nonresidential structure and not elevate it to the base flood elevation but to build the floor elevation below base flood. Then to offset that for the risk to flood damage, they designed the building for dry floodproofing, meaning you design the building to keep water out up to the base flood elevation, whatever depth that is. FEMA's program says if you are going to dry floodproof through the CRS program, you're required to dry floodproof to the basement elevation plus one foot. That's your minimum acceptable criteria for dry floodproofing. The freeboard simply adds the one foot to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But there are other references where, for example, meter enclosures in this -- the general standards. It says that they have to be one foot above the base flood. Page 10 August 25, 2009 The question really is, if we made a one-foot freeboard, would that mean that -~o~!w, I other A 3 words, do these people have to add one foot plus freeboard? MR WILEY: Yes, sir, they would. If you add freeboard, freeboard for the building permit purpose effectively raises your base flood elevation by that freeboard amount. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you sure it does that? So what you're saying is that it really changes all our base flood elevations by one foot, or do we add one foot to the base flood elevation? MR WILEY: What I said was effectively you are raising your base flood elevation by one foot for the building permit, for all parameters of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the way this -- MR WILEY: Technically speaking, you have the same base flood elevation plus a foot of freeboard. But you then have to meet that. So again, FEMA says effectively it's the same as for the building permit purpose raising your BFE by that one foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WILEY: Now, that's different though than how they rate you for your insurance. Your insurance is rated based upon the accepted base flood elevation. Which is how you get your discount. If you are one foot higher, then you have a reduced premium because you have decreased your susceptibility to flooding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But this phrase occurs a lot in here. It says, shall be located no lower than one foot above the base flood elevation. That occurs in multiple places. So if we had a freeboard of one foot, wouldn't that then comply automatically? In other words, in that case I wouldn't be two feet above it, would I? MR. WILEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, there's a base flood requirement plus one foot. With our -- MR. WILEY: That takes care of the freeboard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- freeboard we'd autornatically be taking care of that. MR. WILEY: That's correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get into this process, there's members of the public here. You could be sitting here waiting for days. So before we do that, I thought if you'd like to speak on any particular matter before we start, you're more than welcome to now. Just come up to one of the mics. And we ask that you limit your discussion to five rninutes, identifY yourself for the record and we'll go forward. Sir? MR SCHMIDT: I'rn Lou Schmidt. I live in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I was appointed to this committee by our county manager. And rny interest in the committee was because I live in an area that is subject to flooding. Storm flooding in particular. I built the house in that area 10 years ago, and I wish I had built it in a different way. But I didn't have any guidelines that would have wamed me that I should have built it in a different way. That's why I think it's important for us to go through these guidelines and make decisions for people like rnyself that just didn't know any better and didn't know I should have built my house, the foundation of my house another foot or two higher. I built that house 10 years ago, I'm two feet above the elevation requirement, I do get a discount on my flood insurance, but there is still the exposure of the lower level, which is not habitable, is going to flood, and it's going to -- it's not covered by insurance, and it's an awful lot of aggravation and grief to clean it up. And in fact I rnight have to leave rny house if! were to develop mold in that lower area. That's my concern. I don't think people know that. There's more to it than just dollars and cents. There's an awful lot of personal grief and inconvenience. And that's what I think this will do for us is help us avoid not just dollars and cents but grief and aggravation. I don't know how you put a number on baving to move out of your house and have it decontaminated. And how long would you be out of your home? And where does your family go? That's not insurable. And that's why I think what you're doing is very important. I'rn just impressed that you're going to go through this point by point. Page II August 25, 2009 A '3 f',1 I have to give Robert credit. He had a lot of patience with us. Our committee, RObi Qs Jeen! operation for over a year. I couldn't fmd -- how many years? Gosh, time flies. We've been doing this for four years. Did I read all of the items and all the information he gave me? No. It'sjust too voluminous. You're right, I've got three or four folders that thick back at horne. But we did look at them critically point -- as you're going to do, point, point, point. And if you can get it done in a few hours, I'll be amazed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're not even -- a few hours? Forget it. A few days, yeah. But a few hours, no. MR. SCHMIDT: Maybe not even days. But I thank you for doing that, I thank you for the opportunity to tell you what my concerns are as a resident and why I became involved. And I do think it's very important, and I emphasize once again, there's more to it than dollars and cents. You would have saved me a lot of money if I had had those guidelines 10 years ago when I built my house. My house is 10 feet above the required -- well, two feet above the minimum height right now, so I'm okay. But the homes around me -- I did an informal unscientific survey of the Vanderbilt Beach area. A quarter of those homes were built in the Fifties and Sixties, maybe into the Seventies. They now flood. We've had storms three times that have caused some of them to flood. You go to the next stage, those will probably flood. Because as we build bigger houses, there's less and less area for the water to run off. And the street just can't hold all that water. It's now getting into just not up to my doorway, it's a possibility of getting inside my lower level. And I thank you. I'd be glad to answer any questions I can. But Robert is our expert. We have been guided by him through all our efforts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. And thank you, Robert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple of questions of! guess Robert. Did anybody do an analysis as to the impacts of these changes to our either building code or the Land Development Code? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that something that we can review before our next meeting on this matter? MR. WILEY: Well, it's real simple. There is no change to the building code other than putting in the requirernent for a compaction test in the foundation protection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about Land Development Code? MR. WILEY: No, I have not done for Land Development Code. Some of these criteria would be put into the LDC through that process, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- the gentleman that just spoke lives along the coastal area in, I'm assuming, probably a V zone. If not, maybe a high A zone. MR. WILEY: He's in an AE, coastal AE zone, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I completely disagree with his applications to the inland part of the county, places like I live. The last thing --I've been there 30 years, my home's never had a problem. I don't have the heights required by FEMA. I'm pre-FEMA. And there's never -- there isn't a need, fIrst of all, for my home or my land to go into the SFHA category. So I'm not concerned about those people along the coast being protected. I think they need the protection. I think that we have different applications for rules along the coast than we do inland. What I'm -- the problem I'rn having is this seems to be a one size fits all, and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they want to spread the protection to those of us that while the federal government thinks it knows more than the local people and that they believe we may need sornething, we really don't. And I would still prefer that those of us that decide to get away from the coast because it's intuitively Page 12 16TsT' 2009 A 3 obvious that there's going to be problems living along the ocean front, and most of us don't have the rnoney to live there, leave us alone inland. We don't need these additional rules and regulations. Is there a way to separate this out? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what-- MR. WILEY: You defme your area of service that this ordinance is going to cover. If you do not wish to have freeboard cover, anybody outside of the coastal surge zone, you state that in your ordinance. What that does then, you declare which portion, what percentage of your special flood hazard area it is applicable to and that becomes your pro rata factor. So if the coastal special flood hazard area is 20 percent of the entire SFHA, you would have the opportunity to get 20 points for freeboard of one foot in that particular area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then if the people along the coast, as I think some may, think that they should even be higher, we could impose a four-foot freeboard limit along the coast if we wanted to, and then they all would be protected against that possibility to the maximum allowed by the code, whether they wanted to do it or not. MR. WILEY: But again, this is where it becomes -- our ordinance, our program, all we do within the CRS is explain to them how we have it set up, and then they use their rnultiplicity of factors, as you saw going through, to come up with the scoring number for what they consider to be the effectively regulated portion of the special flood hazard area for that particular criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we had 100 percent of the county at one-foot freeboard and that represented 100 percent of the homes, 50 percent of the homes, let's say, are in the surge zone, the higher intensity zone, and 50 percent are not. So we took the one-foot freeboard out of the 50 percent that were in the non-surge zones and then increase the freeboard to two feet in the surge zone areas, wouldn't that offset the loss of the points from one and balance them all towards the other? MR. WILEY: If you can show you have a 50 percent, yes. If you show you're 40 percent, you're less, you know. But you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Bob, isn't the thing that prevents one size fits all the variable with the FIRM map? In other words, different parts of the county have different elevations. Freeboard is in response to those elevations. So it isn't a one size fits all. MR. WILEY: It can be looked at as a one size fits all for uniformity purposes as currently proposed in the ordinance as a starting block to provide one foot of freeboard. You can tweak it. But everywhere throughout the county that there is a zone that is starting with the letter A, either from coastal surge which would have AE, and then we have interior from rainfall induced flooding, we are going to over about a year frorn now have zones that some are AE, meaning depths greater than three feet. Some are -- the big one that's coming to us is a Zone AH, meaning flood depths of less than three feet. But you still have that approximate A zone further out to the east, which does not have a BFE associated with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the base flood elevation in some areas may be established by a SLOSH value, in some areas by a flood value and some areas -- MR. WILEY: No, none of them are established by SLOSH. They're all established through the rnodeling that is taking place right now. It is a combination of the coastal modeling which uses FEMA's model setup for that. And they have -- you've got the surge model, you've got the wave setup, the wave run-up, all kinds off actors that are put into it. Then for the interior portions we are using a proprietary rnodel from our consultant, and it's the S2DMM model. It's a two-dimensional sheet flow model that -- we are providing the code to FEMA, so it becomes a public model at that point. And there is an area of interface between the two. It has two totally separate types of rnodel runs. But you do have an interface where you then do the joint probability analysis to corne up with your one-percent armual chance event, so that you don't end up with a 100 year on top of a 100 year, which is greater than that. You blend the two together. Page 13 1 t;Tt12009 A 3 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in some case it's the surge that determines it, in some cases it's the rainfall flooding, correct? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. And what you'll see when the -- now, the current maps are all strictly surge based. The map that is coming, the draft preliminary not to be released, not yet released thing that we gave to you folks, that one is the combination between the rainfall and the coastal surge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You know, Mark, I think what would be important is, you know, there is objectives in section four -- is to see how these things that Bob wants to do affects those objectives. And one of the objectives is not insurance rates. So I'd be interested to see how you feel that foundation protection is going to help in any of the eight objectives that we have. You know, if you could run through it like that, I'd be interested. Because the goal of this thing is to meet those objectives. So, I mean, if raising freeboard does do that, I think it does, then let's hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but then where do you stop? If raising freeboard one foot helps protect human life health and to elirninate the minimize property darnage (sic), which by the way is the bureaucratic fallback for any code, why don't we just limit -- go to four feet then, because then you're doing even rnore to protect human life health and to eliminate even more property damage. So where do you stop? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the intent of raising something a foot is to lessen the chance that a flood affects it, you know. So if we feel a foot's good enough. Four feet, you know, doesn't make any sense. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I get in on the colloquy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One of the issues that I would ask Robert too is if we have one foot of freeboard or one foot above the above. Above, above. If we went to three or four or five or seven, does that impact on the insurance? Does that give greater discounts the rnore feet that you have? That one question I need before we have this continued here. MR. WILEY: Up to a point it does. But it is not a straight line equation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a decreasing value. MR. WILEY: You gain your benefit within the first two feet. Greater than that, you're diminishing your percentage. Above four feet there is no further reduction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. What goes through my rnind on all of this, if you believe in the global warming issues that are so potentially consequential in the relatively near future, we're talking about people who live on the coast now who may think they're secure actually being inundated by this stuff. I'm not of the opinion that I want to start from the premise that it's an absolute and therefore we must. I have no empirical evidence, and I hope you do, that shows we've had typhus, cholera or any other diseases directly related to flooding. We have some property darnage. I don't know how much ofloss oflife we have. The statements that we have here is it's an absolute and therefore we must do all of these things. And I agree with Mark, there are places here that may never get flooded and we're going to compel thern -- and there are some econornic consequences, and so I have a little problem with just taking the position that we must. So Brad, that's my thought on that one. Not an argument, but, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't mind, Brad, if you feel the best way to proceed is to go to section four with those bullets first and then start the process with the document. I'm -- there's no right or wrong way to do this today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To me section four is why we're here. So let's hear why Bob wants to raise these elernents to protect these elements. Does that make sense to you, Bob, or -- MR. WILEY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I guess the thing is like foundation protection, how would that meet any of those objections? Page 14 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: Foundation protection is just what it says it's for. And the option l'~oilg fl ~ere, and there are multiple options in foundation protection when you read the CSR manual, but the option we're going for is for structures that are placed on fill. That's not a pile foundation, that's fill pad and your __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, as we go into each of these, can you tell us what Jictivity code you're talking about when you say foundation protection? What activity are you falling under? MR. WILEY: Within the CRS document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Community rating systern. MR. WILEY: Okay. Let me give you your copies then, because Bill handed them to me. So you-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: Robert, do you have one more, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good point. Let the record show Tom Eastman is here. And he's going to tell us how willing the schools are to raise their costs up substantially to support all this, since they have budgets that are phenomenal. Did I give you a good intro there, Tom? MR. EASTMAN: That's part of our concern. MR. WILEY: Are you stacking the deck against me, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sir, I'll tell you what, I have -- I'rn very concerned about the cost to the public on this, both from a government viewpoint and a private viewpoint. So that will be my driving force during our multiple days of discussion, I can assure you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will this be included in the current AUIR? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's another -- and Robert, as we go through today, at some point I have some suggestions on added information that I think would be helpful, if the committee agrees with me. But I'll wait till after we get to a point where I can bring some of these up. So now we left off on Mr. Schiffer's question on foundation protection, and the only thing I needed to know is which activity is that going to fall under on our CRS point system. MR. WILEY: It's all under 430, because it's a higher regulatory standard. And if you are in the CRS manual, it's going to be 430, and it is sub-point B underneath there, foundation protection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, question on that. Have you -- MR. WILEY: Do you need me to walk you through -- or you have the book, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have the book. MR. WILEY: You don't need me to get rnine out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, have you reviewed the building code requirements for pad foundations to see if this is covered already, or do you know exactly where the building code puts a foundation protection? MR. WILEY: Yes. Hang on a second. I've got a copy of the applicable portion of the building code here. Under Chapter 18, Section 1802, foundation and soils investigations is where the Florida Building Code goes through the requirements for your foundation. What's interesting is the older code specified a cornpaction test. The new code does not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the new code specifies compaction requirernent, so-- MR. WILEY: Whatever is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there are multiple -- MR. WILEY: -- by the engineer or the architect. It doesn't say there is a standard compaction test. It's whatever they're willing to design for. They put it in their report what they want to design to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. But the test you reference, the old proctor test, is one of many. And in the test itself it doesn't have a percentage of compaction, where the building code establishes the 95 percent. And, I mean, there's no problem that you regulate it to one type of one ASTM test, there's multiple ones. But anyway, that's not the real question here. So in the building code, if we built it pure building code right now, we would be building something Page 15 A3 lesser than the requirement you've put in here for a foundation. MR. WILEY: You have the potential to do so. I'm not saying that if you are the architect and you propose that sufficient compaction is simply dumping it off the truck and not even stepping on it, you know, you may not stay in business very long. But technically whatever you would agree to in that report you submit is what is deerned acceptable. So it really falls back to the credibility of the designer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't agree -- MR. WILEY: FEMA wants to see a minimum standard. And that's what this is for, just bringing back in the particular test. Now, you notice what it says, we have the test that's in here. Within the code it says you're meeting a certain testing within that. That's why we just simply identifY what the test is. And that will meet their requirement then. And it gets us back to what we're already doing, but it just simply puts it on paper to identifY what we're going to be doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I do have a disagreement. The building code is clear as to what requirements of compaction have to be there. Obviously you have to have a -- you know, the fill is outlined. It tells you the 95 percent, it has to be designed to meet the loads. You don't just throw it in and say there it is and sign a form. So I'm not -- in other words, maybe we have that already is my point, and it's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, when you read this book, you go through it and I've found numerous instances where I believe, based on my experience as a licensed contractor in this state and have been in the business here for 30 or 40 years, that we already meet some of these as well. And that's why this whole process has become rnore of a puzzle to rne, but it is also why we need -- we're going to have to go through just like you're providing the example now, item by item to get to the bottom of it. MR. WILEY: And I agree, we are meeting a lot of it. And it's a matter of documentation as we go through it year by year. That's one of the programs that we're working on from staff level, just simply to begin to have better docurnentation of what we're already doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get to more input on your response to Brad on the fIrst bullet, we have two rnore questions that have come up so far. Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not qualified to take on the issue that Brad is taking on, but I'm certainly interested in your response the way you said it, that, you know, they could just leave the dirt there and step on it and walk away. Brad indicates that there are standards. You also indicate a specific test or a format, a means, a standard, and there are others that have been stated exist. Can you help to -- can you help to be more certain for us in these matters? I'm not qualified to make the judgments that Brad is qualified to make, but I have the desire to understand them and to support them where they're appropriate. So that little issue between you and he, I don't know if it's been resolved, quite frankly. He says that there are standards. You say that a person could dump dirt. Now, it's certainly -- if we're talking about an ordinance that compels people to perform and you allow at the first instance that something like that could even exist, I'm disheartened, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So Mr. Murray isn't going to get any response to his -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'rn not sure he knows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if there was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know that -- I made a statement, I guess not a question. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- I want to understand this also. Is the reason, for example, the compaction standards are being put into this particular ordinance just a way of tracking them for the insurance program the counties were involved in? August 25, 2009 1611 A3 d Page 16 August 25, 2009 MR WILEY: Forjustthat reason? I'm trying to understand what-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's already in the building code, and so we just need to restate it here so that we can get credit for it. MR. WILEY: We are supplernenting the current Florida Building Code by specifYing a particular minimum compaction testing procedure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. WILEY: Which is not stated in the Florida Building Code. By so doing -- and it's the compaction testing that's being done all over the place. When I took it by DSAC, they did not have any disagreement with it. They said they're fme with 16111 A3 that. What we are doing here is putting it in the ordinance so that we state it so it is documented as a legally binding requirement now for a particular level of testing and for how far outside of the building footprint the foundation of it that you do that compaction testing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, go to Page 27 of your thing. At least the 3/23 draft. That No. 14.A is where you state that. Because I think rnaybe what you should do in your parenthesis there is note that it's tested by that. Because you're giving the impression that it's properly designed and compacted fill. And then you give it the ASTM. I think you should note in that parenthesis that it's tested by the ASTM, because that's solely -- isn't that what you're doing? MR. WILEY: That's right. That's what I'm asking you guys. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WILEY: That's the kind of input I want in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The three feet. Now, I think the building code has more than three feet, but I haven't researched it. I mean, that's -- I can rernember, you know, these mound foundations have to go at least five feet before the break of the slope. So -- but the point of the matter is let's move on. That one's probably a freebie in the building code anyway. The sad thing is, and maybe we should look at it next year, Mark, is we'd be rnissing even more points by what is required by the building code, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'rn not -- I mean, unfortunately I don't want to move on till I've exhausted my discussion on this as well, and I have sorne questions specific to this one if we're going to take it in this manner. So let's back up. You're asking for an FDN of20. Why aren't you going for 35? MR. WILEY: We're looking to really address the bulk of the problem which is construction on fill. If you go with the 35 score, you're requiring every single foundation to have a PE sign and seal it. Right now we do not require that. We're not asking to get in that situation to require a separate PE certification for the design of the foundation. We could, but we didn't feel that there was sufficient justification for doing that route. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the building department -- how many plans are submitted by the building department that aren't designed by a professional engineer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Residential. MR. WILEY: Well, we're talking about a separate soils foundation certification report. That's beyond what we're doing right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says underFDN 35, ifall new buildings must be constructed on foundations that are approved by a licensed professional engineer. That would just be a sign and seal the page that does the foundation details on a set plans, right? You don't need a separate report that you just mentioned. I don't see where it says that, at least. MR. WILEY: It would take a sign and sealed set of plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILEY: And part of the plans, when you're doing a foundation, you do have a report that goes with it. Whether they submit or not, there is one that the engineer prepares. He has to do the geologist __ Page 17 August 25, 2009 geo-tech, rather -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. WILEY: You know, they're doing their foundation work out there to come up with it for design foundation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not for a house on fill. I mean, basically they would design the -- they would have a foundation plan and sign, seal and that's it. Are you familiar with any? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My answer to that would be single-family residential, duplex, townhouse with less than three units or less, you could build without a licensed professional doing the plans. So -- MR WILEY: Not if we go for the 35 points you couldn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the only addition is you would require those buildings to have the -- MR. WILEY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- engineer? MR. WILEY: You know, from the staff's standpoint, we do not feel we wanted to go requiring everybody to have that separate PE signature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but instead you're-- MR. WILEY: We could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- requiring everybody to do the following three items: All new buildings must be, one, constructed on a properly designed and compacted fill, ASTMD 698 or equivalent; B, that extends at least five feet beyond the building walls before dropping below the base flood elevation; and C, the fill as an appropriate protection from erosion and scour. Now, those are all elements that are already being done in Collier County. So the 20 points you're asking for here we could have already obtained under the current regulations. MR. WILEY: Once we identifY the compaction testing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, we've got a -- you're requesting three feet, so we should make it -- MR. WILEY: When he just read it I thought, oh, that's another one. Through the iterations, we've gone from five feet to three feet. I've missed one here. That's what I've got to rnake consistency for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think building code is five feet, like I said. MR. WILEY: Well, I thought it was too. But then in the discussions we ended up with three. So I've got a rnixture here. And I do need -- that's a good point, for consistency. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, boy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So under activity 430, you're going to go for 431.B, the foundation protection. What is involved in getting 431.C, cumulative substantial improvements, CSI, which is worth 110 points for counting irnprovements cumulatively? MR WILEY: Under cumulative substantial improvernents, that's where you set up a rolling calendar. In this particular situation we're going for a five-year rolling calendar. And you add up the value of all the building permits that are not mandated by a safety code requirement. Those don't count in your summation of value. But over five years you add up the building permits to a structure. And when that hits the 50 percent threshold, or in our particular situation if we choose to lower the threshold to 49 percent, it will be 49 percent of the value of the structure. At that point you require the owner to rnitigate the structure -- typically that's by elevation, is one rneans of doing it -- before they can get that next building permit approved. That has some really good aspects of it. It has some really scary aspects of it from a situation that if someone has a valuable structure that they come real close to that half the value of it through improvements, remodeling and then they have a fire or they have a hurricane and they incur damage, it may at that point require them to mitigate the entire structure to bring it in compliance with the base flood elevation before they can get the building permit approved to repair the damage. 1611 A3 , 1 Page 18 tUbS\r5'fOA 3 And that's onerous. It is only for those which are below the base flood elevation. It is a way to bring structures into compliance with the identified level of flood risk. So you don't go into these things lighthearted with the attitude of we want to do it to get reductions in our flood insurance. What I'm saying, that's why I'rn saying, we do not do it for that reason. In fact, FEMA says don't go for the points just to get reductions. No, we're going for things, houses that are already below base flood or susceptible to flooding. It is a rnethod by which we can stop what the building department has identified as a pattern. Forty percent this year, 40 percent next year, maybe skip a year, then another 40 percent. Within a five-year window they have more than rebuilt the value of the house and it is still at the same level of risk. Which means it puts FEMA in a very uncomfortable position of having a higher potential payout while the structure was improved in value. So that's why they do offer this as an option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I just -- on that question, the economic side of that relative to anybody's flood insurance, I'm not familiar, are there provisions within the flood package that would allow for the added cost of raising a structure if they're compelled? There's no provision, is there, to do that? The economic impact on them would be all cash as it were; am I correct? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. MR WILEY: You cannot say it would be that for every situation. The case in point is there are situations, older homes below the BFE, they can apply for grants. Now, there is a percentage of funding they have put up. Typically they have to front the front 25 percent. But there are grants through FEMA, through the mitigation programs to pay a considerable portion of the cost to mitigate the houses that are below the BFE. In particular, if they have experienced flooding, your flood insurance policy itself has a rider attached to it called increased cost of compliance, the ICC rider. And that will pay you up to $30,000 once flooding has occurred. Well, obviously we don't want flooding to occur. But should it occur, your ICC coverage, if you have cumulative substantial improvements as a program within your flood damage ordinance, it allows that rider to kick in and help pay for the cost to elevate your house. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mark. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if the house gets damaged in your Section 21, the repetitive loss, that drops that automatically, correct? MR. WlLEY: Repetitive loss is a situation where you have repeated flooding. And then severe repetitive loss you have even rnore. And the language in our ordinance is following the direction that FEMA wants to go is to get rid of the houses that repeatedly flood and produce a huge drain on the flood insurance program. Most of the houses in the flood insurance program don't flood. But then most of the people who have any kind of insurance policies never collect on it either. That's how they work. It's a matter of risk. The program's goal is to eliminate the repetitive loss structure, so therefore the threshold limit, as proposed in the ordinance, is dropped down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got that. But in other words, the point is that the cumulative loss is applied to structures that have never been flooded. Once a structure gets caught by a flood, people start to focus that it isn't a problem, then the cumulative loss drops back anyway. So what -- you know, what we're gaining by the other one is just people that have not had flooding, we're limiting what they could rebuild on their properties, correct? MR. WILEY: What you are doing is relating to them that they're already identified as being at greater risk because they are below the identified base flood elevation. It is a way to control the amount of money that is put into that house outside of making it rnore resistent to flood damage. In other words, focus -- FEMA wants us to focus fIrst on getting the houses elevated to a proper elevation before we begin to focus on the aesthetic aspects. Page 19 16 ArgUr5, 20~ 3 __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And isn't your desire to go to 49 percent instead of 50; is that right? MR. WILEY: That is correct. For the cumulative value -- excuse me, for the threshold value, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I kind of agree the bookkeeping on the difference between that one percent doesn't make that such a hardship, but -- MR. WILEY: Right. It's sort of a moot point. What's one percent, 50 versus 49. But it was alrnost like a free point sitting there for you to reach out and pick up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Okay. MR. WILEY: That was one we went strictly for the point, and we readily admit that upfront. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we just go through more of these, how it affects the objective? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not even finished with C yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Foundation? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've still got a whole page of -- if you really want to -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, no, we'll-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to understand foundation protection, you need to review all of Section 430, which is items A through P. We're still on C. We skipped A, we did B, which is the foundation protection itself; C is the CSI, which is cumulative substantial improvements. But under that there's another six subsections. And each one of those subsections provide for additional points that I don't know why we haven't obtained or requested some of them. Robert's providing explanations. And until we go through every one ofthem, I certainly don't know. But if -- and I'm not here to take up all of this committee's time in any kind of process. I would have been able to do more of this had I had more time to read this before today. But since it all came in almost at the same time, I just couldn't do it all until 1-- so I'm asking it here today. Otherwise, I could get together privately with Robert. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- because Mark, isn't the obvious question -- I mean, didn't the committee, Robert, take the rnanual and go shopping as to what you could obtain, I mean, from us to do that now? I mean, you've supposedly done that and these are the recommendations that come from that; is that right? MR WILEY: That is basically right. We the staff took the shopping list, went through, identified what we felt was a reasonable thing to put in the ordinance for the value you got frorn the overall benefit, knowing how flat and how quickly we can flood or not flood. We then took that to the committee, discussed it thoroughly with them many times. And they came to the point that sometimes they agreed, sometimes they didn't. The ordinance you have before you is the ones with which they agreed, other than cumulative substantial improvements. And they asked us to not include that. So it's not technically in the ordinance. It was in the cover memo that I gave to you from staff's perspective through our building department. They still want us to have that put in. So the ordinance is the recomrnendation of the committee having vetted these things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Mark, I guess what you're actually doing is you're going back and questioning way back into the committee why they didn't choose some of the other options as opposed to just dealing with the ones that they wanted to bring forward today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm not. MR. WILEY: I don't see it as that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, just a second. No, l'rn not. I don't accept anything provided to me by an analysis of staff. If staff wants to provide an analysis, that's fine. But I'm here to review it as a member of the public and form my own interpretation. As Robert just said, he reviewed it, they went through it and they presented it to the committee. As a committee mernber stood here today and said, they didn't get this book, they didn't read it. Page 20 August 25, 2009 161 1 A3 As I've talked to two other cornmittee members on the phone, they said the same thing to me, they don't have this book, okay. They relied on staff to present stuff to them and analyze it for them. And that's fine, because that's 99 percent of what happens in this county. I will not do it that way, and I'rn not going to start doing it here. But I don't mean interpret -- MR. SCHMIDT: Sir, I have to correct you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, come on up and correct rne. MR SCHMIDT: I have to correct a misimpression. I did not want to imply that we relied on staff and that we did not have the information. I told you of the books I have in my closet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have this book, sir? MR. SCHMIDT: I don't know which one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Coordinator's rnanual. MR. SCHMIDT: Is that the one -- I don't have that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have this book. So did you read the book then? MR. SCHMIDT: I told you I didn't read thern all. But is that the book that -- why don't we have that one? MR. WILEY: What you have out of that one, Mr. Schmidt, is sections that we gave to you as we went over the different criteria. You do not have the entire book. You do have Section 430 out of the book. MR. SCHMIDT: And so we did -- we didn't just operate in the blind and we didn't take staff's recommendation in the blind. And that's why there was discussion and disagreernent with staff's recommendation for increasing -- or decreasing from 50 percent to 49 percent cumulative value. We did debate that. I was on the losing end of that debate. I felt we should go to 49 and there was a member of the committee was here last time you heard it was in favor of retaining the 50. The vote was 50. But we did do our work. Not as thoroughly as you are doing; I admire you for that. But we didn't just rely upon what they told us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I was careful with the way I chose my words, because I didn't want to insinuate you didn't do your work. That's not what I was trying to say. You did what you did in a marmer that you did it in. I do mine in a different way. I will research it, I will ask the questions rnyself and I will take nothing given to me by staff without doing my own understanding of it completely. You guys approached it in your marmer, that's fine. I'm not critical of that. But I am going to proceed with the way that I do things, unless this committee doesn't want to hear it, then I'll do it a different way. MR. SCHMIDT: I adrnire you for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll turn to the committee again. I -- my intention is to go through these to understand them completely. I can do this on a one-to-one with Robert __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I want this committee's input. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, this committee will benefit frorn this type of investigation and analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, under section 431.C where we left off, yes, we have the CSI issue and which is curnulative over 10 and five-year increments worth of a series of points. But we also have three other categories. Again, one of those is cumulative, but the last two are not. Number three, C-3, it's worth 20 points. It says CSI is a total of the following points, not to exceed the maximum credit; 20 if the community adopts regulatory language that qualifies properties for increased cost of compliance insurance coverage for repetitive losses. Now, the way I read that it seems to me that if someone has a repetitive loss, they have to pay more for insurance. And if we institute that as a process, we rnight get 20 points. Is that how that works? MR. WILEY: No, sir, it is not. Page 21 16Tst r 200A 3. ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then can you explain it to us, please. MR. WILEY: Okay. Repetitive loss does not increase your insurance costs. Repetitive loss is a cost factor to FEMA, but your flood insurance rate does not work like flood insurance, you've had an accident so therefore we burnp you up. Your rate is established by Congress through the Flood Insurance Manual that they update about once a year, and those rates are what you have your prernium based against. And by the way, you can get this right off ofFEMA's web page. But if you thought the first document will put you to sleep, this one is quicker than that. But it is their insurance manual. This is the manual that the insurance agents use to rate your house. Repetitive loss is simply a repeated claim that you're putting against it. So what they're wanting you to do is to word in your ordinance so that you put restrictions against the repetitive loss definition property so that it is forced, if you want to look at it that way, to bring about mitigation at a quicker level than a house that's never had a flood claim or only had one flood claim within that 10-year window so that you're able to correct and mitigate so the house quits being a repetitive loss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let me go back to the language that's here. Twenty points if the community adopts regulatory language that qualifies properties for increased cost of compliance insurance coverage for repetitive loss. I haven't understood from your definition what you meant how that responds to that. If the community adopts regulatory language. Number one, so we've got to look at sorne language that qualifies properties that have increased cost of compliance insurance coverage for repetitive losses. So we need some regulatory language that qualifies a property for the increased cost of cornpliance of insurance for repetitive losses. Why couldn't -- what's the downside of creating such regulatory language? MR. WILEY: The downside is whether or not -- in repetitive loss property, the way you define it within a definition section of our ordinance, is the language that they say qualifies it then to be allowed to file a claim under increased cost of compliance. Increased cost of compliance is a rider that's attached to your flood insurance policy. Used to be it was an extra, now it's a default. It's already in there, all of thern. Supposed to be in everybody's. Hopefully the agent put it in. But that's up to the agent. The definitions and the way you defme repetitive loss per the direction that they give you in the CRS establishes the parameter under which it falls into qualifYing for ICC coverage to come in and help pay upfront up to $30,000 of the cost to mitigate that house. If you don't want to defme it in that particular way, you don't have to. But then when they flood, the ICC doesn't kick in as quickly. It will kick in under certain situations but not as quickly. And it's a way of bringing that coverage more readily into play for the claim. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To me that sounded like that if you have a loss your insurance is going to cost more. Isn't that what it's saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if it does, then that's a good way to start -- there's nothing wrong with that. If sorneone has a loss because maybe they could have done a better job, rnaybe they shouldn't be where they're at. But they realize that instead of the accumulative losses pushing them out of their house, they may cost some more in insurance until they correct the problem or whatever, what's wrong with that language? And that's what I'm trying to understand and I'm not getting an answer from you that relates to the language that I'm reading in the FEMA book. And maybe that's -- if you've got it in front of you, Robert, it's on Page 430-8, C.2 -- C.3 is the number I'm focusing on. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- based on your answers, I'm trying to understand how they relate to that sentence, and I can't. Now, rnaybe l'rn not hearing you clearly or rnaybe you're talking in a background you have rnore knowledge in of course than I and I can't interpret what you're saying as to how it applies there, but could you Page 22 August 25, 2009 sirnplifY your explanation somehow? Because I think Brad read it or listened to it the same l~dJ ' 1 A 3 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically if you pay more to cover yourself because you've had repetitive losses and we have regulations that say it will cost you rnore if you have repetitive losses, then so be it and we get 20 points. Well, at the same time it's kind of like a penalty for you having repetitive losses. Until you learn your lesson, it's going to cost you more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I could see the community downside would be let's say, you know, in these blocks in Golden Gate where we're building pad foundations we finally hit tipping point with the one too many pads and it floods everybody else. That would put the everybody elses into an expensive insurance program, I believe, more expensive than if we didn't have that clause in there. So to me that's the only downside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the other side is, though, too, they don't necessarily have to apply for the coverage. I rnean, you can fix your car yourself if you don't want your car insurance to go up because you don't want to report a claim. Same thing could happen for a house. If you have a problem, you can fIx it yourself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think people -- you know, if a block ofhornes all of a sudden had a foot in their residence, they would want the insurance help. But wouldn't that be the answer, Bob, that if there was a situation that caused a lot of people to have flooding, that would mean their insurance rates would go up, not necessarily the pad builders that rnay have even caused that foundation -- that problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it sounds like it's -- sounds like the local regulatory process can rnake that occur. I would just like to add, many, many years ago on Long Island you would have nor'easters, occasional hurricane. People had homes right on the beach on stilts, and along come a nor'easter and knock the horne 90 percent down. FEMA would come in, pay them, they'd build a horne, same thing again. And finally it made the papers that this was absurd and they said no rnore. And I believe that's that 40, 40 and 40 thing going into effect. What I haven't heard is whether or not it ever ends here. I know that that was what they said that was going to happen there, and that if you wanted to rebuild your home you would not have flood insurance and that's life. I understand what the carrot and stick premise is all about, but that language to my way of thinking clearly means that local regulatory process allows for this. You indicated that you hoped the insurance agent added the ICC. I thought that's what you said anyway. And that scared rne, because we're talking about American Society of Testing Material standards and we don't have somebody operating under the standard of the insurance clauses. I don't see we have two things rneeting, okay. They wouldn't meet anyway, but I think you understand my point. So rny sharing that with you is that that may be what ultimately happened on Long -- and it maybe worked in the Mississippi Delta area, in the valley and the whole business. The question is can we do something here. That's the question posed. Can we add regulatory requirement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Robert, before you answer, some of these you may not have cornplete background answers on today. If that's the case, I would much prefer that you held off responding until our next rneeting and we'll circle those that we have to get responses to and you can research and see why C.3 mayor may not be good for the community and give us a balanced report. Because that's -- I'm not trying to institute something that's bad for the community. I'm trying to find a way that we can Imd things that are better but at the same time not cost us like some of these bullets do. So I don't mind if you can't answer it today because you need to research it more. There's going to be hundreds and hundreds of pages of issues here, and I don't expect anyone person to have in their rnind every answer to every one of these, but I would just like an answer is all, so we can make a good decision. Does that work better for you? Page 23 MR. WILEY: That's fme. In this particular case, we do have -- we are going for C.3. It's within our ordinance as you are looking at it to address that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so C.3 is the first bullet point, the one you're going for? MR. WILEY: No, we're going for C.I, 2, and 3. That's how you corne up with a total of the 70 points, the 25, 25 and 20 that we're seeking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the bullets in front of us, which one are we now -- which one is 16/ 1 August 25, 2009 A3 ~1 C.3? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob? MR. WILEY: Well, it's on the bullet in front of you down at the very right where you see the orange line, total possible points. Right above it, cumulative substantial improvements, up to 70 points. That 70 points is as a result ofC.I.B, C.2.B and C.3, 25, 25 and 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we already acknowledged that I.B and 2.B probably weren't good for Collier County because of the cumulative effect that you obviously described that someone can inadvertently have a fire after repaired (sic) their house a couple oftimes and they couldn't rebuild their home. So I don't -- I'm not saying we buy into these. I'm trying to ask you which are good and bad for the community. And I'rn certainly (sic) this board will make a recommendation. And I thought we already went past I.B and 2.B and 2.A and IA MR WILEY: I was saying that, sir, so you understand how I came up with my 70 points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: That's all I was showing you, that we were already looking at C.3 as part of the criteria for which we're seeking credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now then, why-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? Just a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at, I'll tell you what, it's 10:00. Let's take a IS-minute break, because I'rn really confused now. So let's come back here at 10: 15. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when we do come back, Bob, could you put these things -- because you and Mark are having a nice conversation, the rest of us are like paying attention -- COMMISSIONER CARON: This says nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So put that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10: 15 we'll come back. MR. WILEY: Put it on the viewer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Put it on the overhead, yeah. MR. WILEY: Okay. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcorne back from the break. We're going to rnove on to the -- we're still on activity 430, Item C, which is the CSI cumulative substantial improvement rules. And the next question I had, Robert, I'll assurne that C.3 we can get a better explanation of after you have time to research our questions. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's look at CA. CA reads, if the regulations require that any addition to a building be protected from damage from the base flood. Now, is that one of them we were considering or not considering? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, we want to consider that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So CA is one of the 70 points that you originally were looking at. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C.I.B and C.2.B were also part of that. And that gets to your 70. C.3 you really hadn't -- we need to get a more defmitive answer from you, one on which you'll get back to us on. MR. WILEY: Right. Page 24 Afu62r~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. C.I.B and C.2.B are the cumulative impacts. So down the road as we get moving on this we need to remember that, because that is one that we'll probably have to recommend or not recommend going forward. I know the committee recommended against those, if I'm not mistaken. MR WILEY: The committee recommended against it, that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: And again, their concern was it could put a huge financial burden upon somebody when they weren't expecting it. At the point of basically disaster hit their house and then suddenly have to __ huge expense to the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, we probably tend to agree with that. MR. WILEY: And we've -- I've made that clear to everybody, that is the possibility that could A3 happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's a potential out of this one to retain 20 points and maybe 20 more, depending on your answer to C.3 when we get back together again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, a question on that. If somebody gets hit with a disaster on their house, forthatto be a concern would only be ifless than 50 percent of the house was damaged. If the house was damaged greater than 50 percent, it would have to be brought up anyway, right? MR. WILEY: That is correct. The issue here is the summation over a five-year window, though. You can add up dollars a lot quicker than -- the current rule is an armual 50 percent rule. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But these are people building onto a nonconforming house not damaged. MR. WILEY: I wouldn't say nonconforming, but it is -- the base flood elevation is above the lowest floor. Nonconforming may have different rneanings in plarming and zoning issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what we're talking about today, it's nonconforming. MR. WILEY: Yeah, right. It does not match up with the base flood elevation, correct. Those are the only ones it would apply to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So your explanation if something happened to the house, they couldn't build it back without a lot of expense that exists now anyway. MR. WILEY: It does exist on an armual basis, that is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Robert, if we can go back to your bullet points, because we're done with this page. And we got -- I want to look at something -- I think the next item, which is 431.D, lower substantial improvernent threshold pertains to one of your bullet points. I wanted to check the value. Yes, 10 points. So you're looking at the regulatory standard number five under D.IO, if the regulatory threshold is 45 percent to 49 percent; is that right? MR. WILEY: I think that's correct. Let me get over here to my book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: He has to put on his other hat now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, members of the committee, if we can go through these and if we fmd ones that aren't objectionable and we want to make a consensus on it now so when we come to vote it's easier, I mean, that's part of the process, if you all are fine there. At least we haven't (sic) go back and revisit it multiple times then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Either way. MR. WILEY: So that's where you come up with it, right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you relied on number five. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. And again, the reason for that was it looked like it was a free set of points versus making a substantial irnpact upon what the threshold value would be for one percent. We didn't figure you'd get two appraisals to agree even one percent anyway. Page 25 August 25, 2009 A3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does 49.5 fit in? 16 I 1 MR. WILEY: 49.5 would be considered as 50. Anything above 49 (verbal sound) point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: DSAC was not favored -- did not favor this one? MR. WILEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they have a reason? MR. WILEY: Their reasoning was that there are other portions of building code requirements that is based upon a 50 percent value. Now, let me -- careful here. I use the term building code requirements. I don't normally refer thern to the Land Development Code building code, but they say there are other code requirements that are involved in the building process that they're going against a 50 percent value for other types of criteria, so they just wanted to keep 50 percent so everyone knows 50, and not have 49 for sorne, 50 for others. That was really their reasoning for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, are they confusing that with the damage, the 50 percent damage, Bob? I can show you parts of the code that's 25 percent in, you know, one year and stuff. MR. WILEY: I do not remember the specific points. They just said for consistency they wanted to keep it 50, because that matched up with other things that were involved in the reviews, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ijust think the accuracy of the bookkeeping between 49 and 50, it looks like a freebie to me too, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one is item 43 I.E. And it's -- did you ask any points on this? I see your other paper back here, protection of critical facilities. MR. WILEY : Yes, sir, we are. If you'll look -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many points are you seeking under this category? MR. WILEY: Up to 50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty? MR. WILEY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how did you -- so you went to E.2. There's a walk-around behind you, Robert, hanging on the -- if that helps. MR. WILEY: Okay, so I can have a mic when I'm over here. Under E.2, what we were looking at was the issue comes in do you want to protect -- first of all, we did not support the concept of keeping all critical facilities out of the floodplain. So we're looking at what level of protection. And in this particular situation here for critical facilities, which we identified what they were, we wanted to protect them from the 500-year flood, but without requiring them to also have to provide that same level of flood protection for the access to it. So therefore we went to the 50 point value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us -- I mean, I think I know what they are, but could you tell us what critical facilities are? MR. WILEY: You can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a definition, I believe, in one of-- MR. WILEY: Right. If you look at your definition under critical facilities, and there's a big listing of thern. Fire stations; sheriff's office or law enforcement agency facilities, excluding the gun range; medical emergency service stations, EMS stations; government agency vehicle and equipment storage facilities; the Collier County EOC, emergency operation center; emergency evacuation standards; water treatment plants, pump station and wells; wastewater treatment plants and purnp stations; electric power substations; telephone communications centers, switching stations and towers; hospitals. And then the committee specifically added in through discussions from our emergency management department representative the extremely hazardous substances facilities. Those are the SARA Title III facilities. And that is to match up with the documentation that's already in our county's hazard mitigation plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess my -- go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess my question -- well, there's quite a few questions. But let's focus on Page 26 the last bullet to start with. I asked you for the SARA section Title III, and I got it, it's on disk. I think we all got it. I reviewed that. Everything is on that list. I mean, common elements we fmd in our garages are on that list. Most everything in Home Depot is on that list. How are those treated based on this bullet? It says, extremely hazardous substances facilities. Is a retail store that sells paint, toluene, benzene and the other components that painters may want to use become a substances facility and thus become a critical facility? I MR. WILEY: I carmot answer that. As I said, this was added at the request of other committee members. We had Ray Smith, who is the director for pollution control. And you had Rick Zyvoloski, who is with the emergency management. I really wish Ray could have been here. He was plarming on being here. This was one of the issues he wanted to have information for you. He knows what the SARA Title III facilities are. I don't. He knows which ones meet certain threshold limitations that put them in this. I don't know that, sir. So I'm sort of in the dark. I just stuck it in because the committee said yes, we want it. So that's __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's going to be an important answer. Because if everybody that has a can of benzene or toluene or gasoline or whatever they've got in their garage that happens to fall under SARA Title IV or III -- Title III -- MR. WILEY: I'm sure that's not what it means, but I carmot tell you what is the threshold limit when you are a producer, when you're a manufacturer. I don't know that stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm worried about the way it's referred to. It says substances facilities. And I don't know if a facilities is just something that stores it for sale, that has a bulk, that is a retail shop that happened to have -- I mean, that list you gave us is huge. MR. WILEY: I know. That's why I had to put it on a disk. There's 109 pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, of chemicals. And they're each one line at a time. So those chemicals are going to be everywhere in this county. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, then-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, in this version of the code you're requiring critical facilities to be protected via elevation; is that correct? In other words, as referenced here it says it has to be protected. But somewhere in here I read where critical facilities can only be protected by elevation. In other words __ MR. WILEY: There are some of them that you would want to use for elevation and there are some that you could rnanage to floodproof. But -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is -- MR. WILEY: -- let me give you an example there would be something along the lines of a water treatment plant. There's portions of it that you would not have to elevate because it -- you can simply mount your motors up high and put the drive down to it so, you know, you can floodproof in that kind of situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're hopefully keeping water in, so you're not worried about outside water. MR. WILEY: Well, this is supposed to be a sealed system. If it's not sealed, the water's squirting anyway, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A different problem. And then it's also saying the loss of access. So how far does that go? Does that mean all roads leading to it from Bangor, Maine, or what does that mean? MR. WILEY: The basic premise behind that is you would -- if you went for the point score to also provide access, you're providing that access to the 500-year level all the way throughout till you get outside of the special flood hazard area. Well, for Collier County, as you know where we are right now with coastal flooding unidentified (phonetic), you can do that. When we come up with the new terms in Immokalee, you still have special flood hazard area, so you really can never get out of it. So that's why it is not at all practical for us to try to say elevate the road that goes to a critical facility to above the 500-year flood elevation. That is not a practical thing to do, so we did not pursue that angle. August 25, 2009 16 J 1 A3 Page 27 16gurro09 A 3 ~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But aren't we looking for something that will protect the loss of access in this number two? And while you're doing that, Bob, what is -- is there any rnap that shows our 500 year, or are we all in the 500 year? MR. WILEY: When you look on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map -- now you won't be able to see it on that small slide we gave you, because we put all of the X zone just as a single block of yellow on there because of the scale factor. But when you really zoom down into it, your X zones are divided between what is from the I OO-year elevation up to the 500 and then from 500 on up. So you have shaded and unshaded X zones. We just lumped them all together in the GIS for that particular graphic there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is part of Collier County out of the 500 year. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Srnall part of it. MR. WILEY: On the current Flood Insurance Rate Map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But on the new-- MR. WILEY: On the new one there are still areas that are exceeding even the 500-year elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're very minor, Robert. Those little spots of yellow that show up in rnost of Immokalee is in yellow. MR. WILEY: They are very minor, sir. And rnost of them are fill pads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so what happens is everything becomes -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we have islands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's this map that they-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's the yellow. So the yellow on the draft version is essentially everything above 500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So what happens is the yellow is the only thing that doesn't need flood insurance; the rest of the county now comes under these new rules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then back to my question. The loss of the road access, there's nothing in Collier that wouldn't lose the road access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Soon there won't be anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how does that get us the 50 points? I think Brad's question is real relevant. MR. WILEY: Right. And the point score comes in on providing the access to the facility. Are you able to say it's totally above it or are you able still to travel across it. So we're going to show them how we can still access the facilities. The facilities would be designed to be above and protected to the 500-year or above in this case, and we'll request a point value. They may not agree with the scores. We are going to go for it and see if we achieve it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just afraid that this would require us raising the height of roads and stuff. MR. WILEY: That's what we are not going for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, can you show us -- I mean, at the next meeting can you bring -- you said you're going to show them how we can get the access to meet this criteria. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you bring that to the next meeting and show us how you intend to show them? MR. WILEY: Yeah, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So E.2 will be another one we'll get into at the next rneeting. In regards to -- and Brad, did you finish? I didn't mean to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In regards to some of this stuff on here, and it's all for critical facilities, are protected from damage and loss of access of the 500-year flood or the flood of record, Page 28 whichever is higher. What is our highest flood of record? Is it greater than or less than the 500-year flood? MR. WILEY: Less. So we're going to the 500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we can say that absolute. There's no doubt that will be what you just said? I mean, I don't want us to have a surprise down the road and find out that FEMA has a flood of record all of a sudden that is higher than the 500-year and now we have a bigger problem. f MR. WILEY: I'rn not aware of one, let's say it that way. In all the years that I'-Je been here, I'm not aware of there being a flood documented greater than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What has Jim DeLony's department told you would be the cost to his department to meet the criteria ofE.2? MR. WILEY: Well, that's an interesting question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked it, Bob. MR. WILEY: I know. We had a meeting, it was involving utilities division and transportation division representatives. I was in the meeting, as well as County Manager. And so it was a very heated discussion at the start of it about all these enormous costs they would incur, they would incur this, dah, dab, dab, they were going through all this big list and it's going to just -- they can't afford it. And the County Manager looked at him and he said, we do not want your facilities to ever flood. You will support this. That was it, end of conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad we don't listen to the County Manager. So now, what is the cost ofE.2 from Jim DeLony's department if that were to go into effect? MR. WILEY: I do not know that, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it's critical for us to know that. So can I have you contact utilities, specifically Mr. DeLony, and ask him who in his department should be assigned to respond to that question. MR. WILEY: I can ask for it. I don't know what kind of answer I will get back, but I can ask for it, August 25, 2009 161 1 A3 yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they would want to respond. MR. WILEY: Well, I'm sure they want to respond, but can they effectively give rne a realistic answer? Keeping in mind that every water plant stuff, there's going to be unique situations to them. They may come up with some ideas, but I don't know. See, when we originally went in to it, their discussion was that they were going to have to physically elevate every single plant immediately. And we says (sic) no, that's not what it says at all. But as you build plants, you will build thern so they are able to be protected to that five-year (sic) elevation. Which in a lot of the situations for water treatment plants involves floodproofmg techniques, not necessarily elevation. At that point they began to see where the County Manager was coming from, that it's a matter of how you arrange your equiprnent within existing buildings, providing some floodproofing for the outside, and your cost becornes very minirnal. So as I say, I can go back to them, see if they can look at it. But their original discussion was assuming they had to just simply elevate everything, and that was not where we were going with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think as a member of this board myself, I need to see the costs. I need an estimate of costs. Because when the AUIR cornes along and they have new facilities coming up down the road, they better know how much they're going to cost within fair reason. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And for retrofitting, that would not be fees associated with it, that would be ad valorem, wouldn't it? MR. WILEY: Well, utilities division is self-funded, they're an enterprise fund. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. WILEY: So it would come through their funding mechanism they currently have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they would be charging customers for -- oh, boy. Page 29 fugsT'f09 A 3 MR. WILEY: Well, now, in the situation for which you're describing for a retrofit, that is the prime example to where you apply to FEMA. And they give you 75 cents on the dollar to do just that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would give that to governments as well as private enterprises? MR WILEY : Well, let's say it this way, they prefer to give it to the government. In fact, a private entity carmot apply for a grant. If you homeowner wanted to go for a grant, you have to be a sub-applicant to your local govemment who applies for you. And they require the local government to be the overseeing entity. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's interesting; I didn't know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now do we set - our elevations are set by -- is it the 100-year storm, Bard, our codes? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. It's the FIRM rnaps are -- MR. WILEY: There are different elevations that you use. In your typical design for south Florida they use a 25-year, that's for your roads. For your house elevation, it is a zero discharge I OO-year rainfall event. Or the FEMA, whichever is higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the FEMA is generally close to the 100 year? MR. WILEY: Depending upon where you are, the closer you are to the coast, FEMA will exceed the 100-year from the rainfall event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, going to a 500-year most likely then would be higher? MR. WILEY: The 500-year by default is one foot higher than a 100-year. And we do not have those values for Collier County until the new FIRMs that are in developrnent right now will be implernented. At that point we would have established 500-year elevations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, under E.2 and under the defmition of critical facilities in the proposed ordinance, we're not just talking about utilities, we're talking about everything the sheriff's office does, the EOC, fIre stations, water treatment plants, pump stations and wells, wastewater treatment plants, electric power stations, which now is FP&L and Lee County Co-op or whoever, telephone communication centers, switching stations and towers and hospitals. I am very concerned about the cost of these facilities in regards to this increase, this 500-year level. We need more information on this. MR. WILEY: Well, what I did with it was I called up and asked the entities that would be involved with it. FP &L said that they fully supported it. At the time when it was the Sprint office I talked to, they fully supported it. They said yes, we agree to that. I talked to the sheriff's office. They're the ones that said put everything that they had. And so I asked thern even about the gun range, and oh, no, no, no, leave that out. They wanted everything -- they don't want anything to ever have a chance of flooding. What people are looking at is by default people build to code, and they know that. So these agencies said yes, we want that. I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR WILEY: -- simply put it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Mr. Murray. Ms. Caron fIrst. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, I was just going to ask, I mean, which one of these would you like to see flooded and not worry about, your fIre stations or your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait, wait. I don't want to see any flooded, Donna. My point here is what's the cost to do this, that's all. I just want to know what the cost was. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to the sheriff's office, I think you'll find that, and maybe you know, they don't own any buildings. By statute they're not allowed to own any buildings. So I don't know, that would come under the county's funds to take care of that, all of their facilities. That would be ad valorem or grants, correct? MR. WILEY: The portion funded by the local governrnent would be probably ad valorem, since Page 30 August 25, 2009 that's the way you get your funding for that from general taxes. And then the grant would be to supplement it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert. MR. WILEY: And those to be on retrofits, not new construption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, one way that might help 4th this and might help all of us understand it, myself in particular, is if Bob Dunn were to take a stab at what this would entail going to the 500-year elevation. Bob's got building department experience, he knows how the codes work in regards to building. What do you think, Brad? I mean, he might be a good source to say well, yeah, from all the buildings we do in Collier County, this would cause all these to be -- this change to him. That might help us, and at least it might help me understand the impact of this. Because that's -- and I'rn not saying we don't need it. I'm more concerned on how we get there. And if it's irnpractical to get there, it's like everything else, I mean, there's a lot of things I wish we could do that are better but we may not be able to do. So that's the point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, just based on your definition of between 100 and 500, if we had a firm plus one foot freeboard, wouldn't that essentially put everything above that 500-year at that time? MR. WILEY: Well, frorn that standpoint you could think of it yes, it would. But keep in mind that the freeboard issue is separate from -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand that. MR. WILEY: So that if you have the one-foot default from the 100-yearto the 500-year, while that looks like that your freeboard took care of it, really you didn't do that. If you irnplernented a freeboard, you still to the 500. Then you still have the freeboard on top of that. The freeboard is a one-foot difference related to everything that you build against, so-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me follow up. Because in reading this, I don't get that impression. We have a base flood elevation -- MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, which is on your I OO-year event. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that's the number. That's fixed. That's on maps. That's all over the 161 1 A3 place. We add to that freeboard in certain locations. What you're saying is that you're adding freeboard to everything. When I don't __ MR. WILEY: Well, that is-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- think that's the case. MR. WILEY: -- the basic prernise upon which the ordinance is based, which was the way we started our conversation, and across-the-board freeboard. Now, we followed up with the conversation that said we can selectively pick and choose, should we so desire. But the current ordinance is across-the-board uniform freeboard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't think if we add one-foot freeboard that adds one foot to every tirne we mention an elevation here. And the reason I don't think so is when I asked you about where in the code it required the base flood elevation plus one foot, that if we had a freeboard of one foot, that would have been met by the freeboard. So, you know, you do have places in the code where you say base flood elevation plus one foot, plus freeboard. But freeboard is applied only where it's referenced in this ordinance, not everywhere. So in other words, if you have a 500-year elevation in that section and we have a freeboard requirement, that doesn't mean you add one foot to that 500-year elevation. MR. WILEY: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how do you come to that? MR. WILEY: Because by our definition of freeboard, we have said it applies to the base flood Page 3 I August 25, 2009 16 j 1 A3 elevation that's for the lowest floor elevation. Now, the reference you were speaking of dealt with floodproofmg which has its base flood plus one foot, and then we added freeboard to it. You were also talking about the installation of a meter and stuff. This talks about base flood plus one foot. Different situation there. But when you're establishing the lowest floor elevation or you're floodproofmg, be careful how you look at it. Because if you put a uniform across-the-board freeboard, that applies to that floor elevation upon which a structure's based, no matter which design storm event you go against. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I rnean, I don't agree that it changes all our numbers by one foot. I agree it's -- where we reference the need for freeboard it applies only there. But move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Frorn what I understand, the way you're saying it, and I may be missing something, it's too subtle for me, but it sounds like it could be more easily expressed, but not accurate, necessarily, is that we're plarming for the 500-year storm plus a foot equal to freeboard. You say 100-year storm plus a foot plus freeboard, but you want it uniform. Arn I right so far? MR. WILEY: We're mixing terms again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm trying to hang onto here. And I realize we're talking flood prevention now, or flood whatever it is you said it was. And that's what I thought I was talking about. MR. WILEY: Okay, for the typical situation of a non-critical facility, we're talking about to the I OO-year flood elevation plus freeboard, if we choose to have a freeboard condition in the ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's for Joe Average. MR. WILEY: That's for Joe Average. For a critical facility-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like the Home Depot. MR. WILEY: Right. For a critical facility, we're saying not the 100-year but you start now at the 500 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Five-hundred year. MR. WILEY: -- and then if you have a freeboard, you would add the freeboard to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I fmally got the difference. MR. WILEY: Now, by fault, what we're saying is the 500-year FEMA, without a study defines it as one foot above. So this one foot keeps getting confusing around in there, but that's just the way that their program is set up to work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, excuse my continued ignorance, but what are we compelling Joe Average to do by having it across the board? Aren't we compelling hirn to go to the 500-year standard? MR. WILEY: Effectively you are, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I've been hearing, and that distresses me. MR. WILEY: Because you are putting the one foot of freeboard as a factor of safety above-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we just say that then, if that's what we really want to do? Why do we insert something that becomes a tripping hazard to the understanding process, only to find out that in reality if this were passed as you've written it, that it would be cornpulsory anyway. MR WILEY: The reason you don't say it is -- you're going to design to the 500-year elevation, is because your flood insurance rate map, the flood map that FEMA gives you, is defmed by the I OO-year event. So the elevations are always based upon that that you have to build to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So maybe we shouldn't be looking to compel everybody to comply effectively with the 500-year and the freeboard. MR. WILEY: That's the direction Mr. Strain was also-- COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Well, no, it's the same direction I'm going in too, I assure you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on E.2 you're going to get back to us from input on some of these cost factors that rnay have impacted some of the other departments. And I think utilities is important. Capital facilities is also irnportant because they do the sheriff's station. Page 32 fbt Y' r9 A3 If you don't have -- if you believe the electric and telephone companies are happy with it, that's fme. I work with a lot of their planers, I'll probably give them a call myself, and it would be nice to -- we'll just __ so I'll save you the trouble there. But any other facilities here that you could contact would be helpful. Dan Summers probably doesn't got (sic) to worry about it because his new facility has got to be state-of-the-art for $60 million. MR. WILEY: He's good for a Category 5 hurricane. 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. So I'm sure he's going to be happy with it. Fire stations -- fIre departments I'm a little concerned about. MR. WILEY: I did not call them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only reason is if we go to the 500, we're getting up in height. Sometimes the lots that they have to work on can't take the height. MR. WILEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that may limit their ability to be spread out in the county in the way they like to be spread out. And that also then affects ISO ratings because they can't get close enough to the constituents there that are protect for (sic), so there's a lot involved in that one. And I think some impact would be helpful from them as well. As we move along at a snail's pace, Item 431.F, protection of floodplain storage capacity. Ifrm not mistaken, that was one of the ones you're trying to utilize; is that right? MR. WILEY : We will utilize it after the flood insurance rate map is put into effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that mean, Robert? MR. WILEY: Okay. Well, let's go back up here. Thanks, Brad. We're looking -- that is down at the bottom of the screen where it says next year protection of floodplain storage capacity. Basically that is only applicable in the CRS program when you have a defined riverine type of flooding, not a coastal surge program. Our current flood insurance rate maps are all based strictly upon coastal surge. Until we get the new maps developed, which will be about a year from now when they'll go into effect -- when they may go into effect; I may not state the schedule quite that affmnatively -- they will have areas that are rainfall induced riverine type flooding. At that point we could then have within our ordinance a reason to propose protection of floodplain storage capacity. And basically what that says is when you are in a floodplain, if you're going to place fill, you will have to corne up with an equivalent displacement volume somewhere within close proximity and at about the same elevation as where you placed the fill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you got a 4,000 square foot or a 3,000 square foot home and you've got five foot around it, so maybe you're using 4,000 square feet, and you got -- what about a driveway coming in? MR. WILEY: We have stated in here that for a single lane driveway, and should you have a septic system for all the septic and drain field, those volumes would be excluded. It would strictly be the pad for the structure itself that would be having to be considered for displacement volume. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the outside slope of the pad? MR. WILEY: That's fill. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you would just go to another portion of your site and do what to make the site rneet this criteria? MR WILEY: Between the surface and the wet season water table you would excavate down to create a replacernent volume for the area that you filled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What time of year would you take that -- MR. WILEY: Wet-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- water volume? MR. WILEY: -- season water table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So out where I live I have a foot; rnaybe 18 inches, but let's say a foot. I have -- my house is srnall, but let's say it was 4,000 square feet. And I have a bam that's, say, 1,000 square Page 33 August 25, 2009 feet. So I've got 5,000 square feet. So now I've got to go out in my backyard somewhere, take the trees down, of course, that the environmental department won't want rne to take down, take all the fill out down to what depth in order to compensate for this issue? MR. WILEY: Well, what you would look at is the volume that the fill displaced from the surface up to the elevation for that 100-year event. Now, let's just assume it's a foot of depth. That way it rnakes the numbers easy. So you now have 5,000 cubic feet. So you have to replace that with 5,000 cubic feet of storage between the surface and the wet season water table. The storage volume in your existing soil is assumed to be equivalent. You're already having it there. What that would do is it would basically direct a lot of the construction techniques to somewhat change to not having a big fill pad to going more to a stem wall type construction. The really zero example would be using an elevated foundation where you had the flood vents so that during those peak storm events water could actually flow under and then back out of the house through the automatic vent. And at that point you would have a zero irnpact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I could dwell on this one for a while, but this is not going to come up to us until possibly next year. It's not being recommended with this round, is it? MR. WILEY: It is not recomrnended with this round because it has no applicability right now, that's 161 1 A3 f~ correct. Just so you'll understand, within the LDC we already have that requirement for portions of the county as part of our interim watershed management regulations. So this follows up with what we are somewhat already doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We would not be advocating stem wall or vented foundations be initiated in new construction here in the western Collier or in the flood zone? MR. WILEY: We would not say we're adverse to it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We wouldn't advocate it. MR. WILEY: But that really it boils down to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're going to wait the year until we get -- year or more until we get that other part of it, which is the velocity issues of water out there in the East to take that on; am I correct? MR WILEY: Well, just so you understand, the riverine flooding comes all the way up to where your coastal surge ends. Round numbers, that's somewhere not too far from u.S. 41, Goodlette-Frank Road area. So on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess maybe it's out of the scope of this, but I remember Stan Chrzanowski coming before us and talking about the desirability, especially in the Golden Gate Estates, because of the flooding now because of neighbors, the large size of homes, advocating stem wall invented -- maybe just stem wall at the tirne. But this doesn't apply here, we're going to wait until we have that other piece in place before we even relate to that. MR. WILEY: We could put it in the ordinance right now. We could not apply for credit points until we have an effective map which has a riverine based flood zone designation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't it be useful to have it in there in anticipation of-- MR. WILEY: Yes, it would. I'm not adverse to putting it in. But I'm trying to go with what I know has a regulatory irnpact. And I figure I'm getting beat up enough with what I've already proposed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not going to beat you up. MR. WILEY: Frorn other -- not you, sir, from other people who have reviewed this because they did not like what Stan put through either. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay, but I willjustfmish up by telling you that if it's a good practice and it's intelligent to avoid flooding for neighbors' homes out there, right now irrespective of 500 and 100-year storms, it seems like something that if you're going to have it eventually, it might be useful to have it in there today. Page 34 1 6Tst 1,2009 A 3 Maybe you want to expand on why those persons -- maybe it's not applicable. But certainly I think __ one person thinks that's not a bad idea to put something in there about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? MR WILEY: It is a very good feature to have even right now; would be an excellent thing. And it primarily dealt with the cost factor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Bob, isn't it in here? I mean, I'm actually trying to fmd it real quick. But I remember reading, because I rernember the way it was worded, it was establish an area rather than -- you know, it seerned an odd code word, establish. But isn't it in here now that we have to do that in a riverine situation? Like I said, I've been flipping here and I can't -- MR. WILEY: In the current ordinance? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right now it's not in here? MR. WILEY: I don't think it's in there. But I've modified this so much, it may actually still-- I would have to go look and see. Let me follow up on that one just to confirm it. But I know that we can't apply for the credit points, I know that, until we get the new map. But let me look on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've still got to walk through the language in the ordinance, but we're working on the bullet stuff right now. The next item is 431.G. It's natural and beneficial functions regulations. There's a series of scorings in there. Some of them obviously wouldn't work, some I don't know why they wouldn't. Maybe Robert, if you have them handy we could walk through them. I understand I.A, it would be difficult to apply in this county. I.B may not be, though. Especially since I don't know if our sanitary landfill already might meet the requirements and we don't accept any more. And most of the stuff's on the next page. MR. WILEY: Okay, we can go through thern here. This just shows you where it starts so everyone can see in the CRS manual. But then when you flip it across, the points -- it says regulations -- just like you said, because we don't have a very limited floodplain, it's rnassive in the area. When we looked at the criteria we're going through here, some of the stuff we're already doing, we're not saying it's specific to floodplain issues. So it just really depends on how far you want us to go with some of -- but some stuff is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we're doing I.B, for example, it says one or two specific activities. One of them, sanitary landfill. Are we permitting any sanitary landfills in the floodplains? Because if we aren't and we already meet that criteria, why wouldn't we just apply for it? MR. WILEY: That's where our landfall currently is, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is currently, but are we -- we're not going to prohibit -- we're not going to permit another one, are we? We don't have any other ones on the book in the floodplain. MR. WILEY: Not that I know of. However, should there be an expansion? I don't want to get us in a situation that we box ourself in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the landfill, by the way, come under the expansion if it's already in a floodplain and it's going to be in an A zone in the future? We always -- the landfills just came in for an expansion the other day that they haven't applied for building permits on, but they're trying to come through the PUD process. Plus they constantly regurgitate the cells out there. They create more space for newer cells. So how does that -- does that fall under the 49 or 50 -- yeah, regurgitate's a good word for it -_ 49 or 50 percent rule? Does the landfill come under that rule, or will it? MR. WILEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how is it and why is it exempted? Page 35 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: Currently it's in a Zone X. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know that, but it's going to be in a Zone A. MR. WILEY: It's going to have a Zone AH, I think it is, around all the properties around it, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's zoned A and it's an SFHA, how do we avoid the 49 percent rebuild rule on the landfill? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good question. MR. WILEY: Well, the 49 percent rebuild rule deals with mitigating and bringing it up in elevation. That's not a structure. So you either have it in the landfill or you -- I mean, you either have a landfill or you don't. You don't raise the bottom of a landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how do we compensate for the storage that those cells take up then under the compensation one that we just fmished talking about? MR. WILEY: Should we expand it, then they would have to go some -- if we went with the compensating storage, the volurne that they were going to displace, they would have to go to an adjacent property or -- owner of the property or us -- and account for that volumetric storage. So it can have -- don't take these things lightly. These things have some potentially big irnpacts upon the way we think. But think of what it does. As it begins to focus, the real issue of addressing accounting for how we place fill in our county so that we do not change the impacts of flooding frorn this property onto an adjoining property. So you do not raise the base flood elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we don't really have a lot of choice in placing the fill for our landfill. MR. WILEY: That is correct. So at that point you would basically bite the bullet and come up with the compensating storage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which involves a cost to the taxpayers, depending on how that is accomplished. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's going to be where the questions will be focused on that one. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did find it. We actually have it. It's under Section 17, 14.D. You have it in there today doing exactly that. COMMISSIONER CARON: What page, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 28 of 48 in the 3/23. Line 16. MR. WILEY: Okay, so I do have it in there then, it looks like. Okay, good. I didn't know if it was still in or not. I know -- I'm glad it's in there then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the item that we were previously talking about we didn't dwelling on because it wasn't going to be applied for a year from now -- MR. WILEY: It looks like-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is already in the ordinance that -- where it wasn't supposed to be. MR. WILEY: It looks like it still is in there then, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason that it wasn't going to be applied for in a year from now is because it couldn't be applied for now because we didn't have the establishment of those floodplains. So now that it's there, what does this all mean? MR. WILEY: Since there is no FEMA established floodplain in an area for which this would apply, it becomes an issue that you do not address until your FEMA map changes. Now, where you do still address it, that's what I said, the issue is within the development approval and not the single-family house approval. But it's in the developrnent approval through the Land Development Code as far as the interim watershed regulations. You already have that requirement in there for new developments that are addressing that issue, and it identifies which areas they have to address it in. This comes into play for the single-family, but only at the point that we have a FEMA desiguated 161 1 A3 Page 36 riverine floodplain, which we don't have them yet, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But with the new map that we now got from you, the whole county is there and we will have it in the future. MR. WILEY: You'll have it there in a little over a year from now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it is a real concern. And as you just said, it needs not to be taken A,ust 25, 2. 009 10 I ~ A3 lightly. So with that language in there, we automatically have now created a problem for the landfill. So when Mr. DeLony looks at the utilities, would you ask him to look at the l~ll impacts of this particular clause as well? Because ifhe has to compensate for that, I'm sure Dan Rodriguez would like to know where he's going to get all this additional land that seems to be a problem out in the area where he's working, so __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we'll discuss later when we go page-by-page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, we're going to go page-by-page through that document. We're still trying to get through the bullets that we got started with in the beginning. And I'm not sure how long that's going to take. But I rnean again, I will also defer to this board, if you all want to sidetrack and get back into something else. Otherwise, I'll just keep plugging ahead. We're on that natural and beneficial functions regulations. COMMISSIONER CARON: Slow down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Poor Cherie'. You're going to kill me when this day's over. COMMISSIONER CARON: Poor Cherie' and for yourself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: l.A is impractical. I.B rnay be practical for new applications, but rnaybe not, if we have to apply it to existing applications. Under 2, where regulations require new floodplain developments to avoid or minimize disruption to shorelines, stream charmels and their banks. Does any of that apply to Collier County? MR. WILEY: You do run into that. But we do not prohibit it. As a part of the regulatory review through the various agencies that are involved, generally those are wetland areas, so they do have regulations, but it does not prohibit certain things. We are not proposing to come in and put an across-the-board prohibition on it. We feel like it's being addressed through the regulatory agencies. With that being said, we're very limited on whether we can ask for credits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where in this county -- the shorelines I'm assuming are only meant to be the shorelines along the Gulf of Mexico? MR. WILEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's -- where else is shorelines? What else would be considered shorelines then? MR. WILEY: Any lake -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any lake. Manmade-- MR. WILEY: -- that's a water body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or otherwise? MR. WILEY: That's a water body. Once it's built it's a water body, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all water management facilities in this county then. Then that makes sense as to why that applies that way. Number 3, either -- that's 15 for habitat conservation plan or similar plan that has been credited under 511.8 or 3.8, which is regulations that protect aquatic or riparian habitat from new developrnent. We've got a lot of regulations to protect habitat in this county. Do we qualifY for either of those, or have we used that qualification? MR. WILEY: I have not looked at this one for that issue yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well there's-- Page 37 Af651201 A3 MR. WILEY: That stuff -- that's stuff for us to look at from staff level. We have not done so with this one yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I -- when the guy from the committee was here a little while ago, didn't they walk through these? Or did you just present the ones you were looking at and they didn't see the rest of them? MR. WILEY: We presented the ones we were looking at in our discussions. We gave them the entire Section 430. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they questioned -- okay. Well, I guess this is why this process has to go forward. And I wish he was here so he could understand the differences. Because I didn't want him to think I wasn't -- I was criticizing his job, it's just that there rnay be more that we need to look at. So if you could look at, oh, it would be G, three, A and B. The next one would be H, and it would be enclosure lirnits. 300 points prohibiting fIrst floor enclosures. Did you already address this in your bullet points on the fIrst page, the one that's not on the screen right now? Because I remember reading a lot of language in the document that we're going to go through that prohibits building enclosures on the first floor. COMMISSIONER CARON: No air conditioning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, all kinds of stuff. So did we capital on that in using H.I ? MR. WILEY: Under H.I it says you get 300 points if you prohibit building enclosures, including breakaway walls below the base flood elevation. Now, remember, this is going to affect you prirnarily. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We need to see it on the -- MR. WILEY: Okay, hang on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thanks. MR. WILEY: When you are along the coast line in a VB zone, you elevate the structure. But it allows you to have up to 300 square feet of enclosed area for your access, such as an enclosed stairway and stuff. If you put this in, they cannot have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this eliminates everything: Lobbies for elevators -- you can't even bring an elevator down to that floor? MR. WILEY: You could bring the elevator to the floor, but it would be an elevator that would have to be -- currently it's even right now designed for the FEMA requirements, because you have the elevator opening below the BFE. So it has certain criteria for it. But what it would prohibit you from doing is what a lot of people are already doing is you've got the elevated structure, so they build the breakaway wall to basically enclose it so you don't know that it's built up. It looks like it's living -- but it's not supposed to be living space. However, we know that some people then turn them into living space without getting the proper permits for that. Which is illegal, but it happens. If you put this regulation in, you would never be able to have anybody even put up the stuff for breakaway wall. It would be wide up underneath the houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that makes sense. Item 2.A is pretty self-explanatory in reading it. But item 2.B, if we don't allow item 2.B, why wouldn't we want the owner of the building to sign a non-conversion agreement? I rnean, we don't allow that conversion now, do we? MR WILEY: Permit-wise, no. Does it happen? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know it happens. But then of course the world comes unglued because somebody violated with -- did something without a permit and everything breaks loose. But they weren't supposed to. So why wouldn't 2-B be something we'd want to consider, or have we considered it; it is in your nurnbers somewhere? MR. WILEY: It is not in my number. I didn't figure it was enforceable. If we aren't enforcing it now, Page 38 August 25, 2009 how would we enforce it just because sornebody signs a paper? 1 6 I, 1 A 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say enforcing, it just says they get -- they signed the non-conversion agreement, which could be issued with their building permit where applicable. And that the -- and in that non-conversion agreement that they signed, they also signed their right to inspect the enclosed area. Boom, it's done. It doesn't say we'vt got to send people out and inspect it daily, does it? MR WILEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Explain to me why we -- if it's already in our code and they're already not supposed to do it and we just sirnply tell them when they apply for a building permit they agree that they won't do it and that they agree to let us inspect it to make sure they didn't do it if we want to, how __ what is wrong with doing that? I'rn just curious, how does that not fit into the plan? MR. WILEY: I am not disagreeing that there's -- there's nothing wrong with doing it. Frorn the practical side I don't think we will be able to prove to FEMA every year that we are enforcing it. And if I carmot prove to FEMA we are enforcing it, we get nailed. I have to go through and certifY every year that we are enforcing every criteria for which we apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. MR. WILEY: Okay. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're rnissing sornething in our communication here, Robert. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I think we are missing something. One of -- you know, some of us are missing something here, because it doesn't say anything about enforcement here. It just says we have the right to inspect. It doesn't say you're required to inspect, it doesn't say how often you're required. It says nothing about requiring you to -- you have to get them to sign off on it. Sign a letter that they're in agreement not to do this, and giving us the right to inspect. It doesn't say we have to inspect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, doesn't the building official have that right anyway if it's -- he has suspicion that it isn't proper? On the plans to build that building, all these notations are made such that -- so if the building official saw a window air conditioner unit in it, he would certainly be able to inspect that. Anyway, I mean __ MR. WILEY: We can, through our building officials and the code enforcement, go and inspect. We can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, this isn't telling you to do it, this is just saying that when you do knock on the door, you have a copy of this form where the original owner or this owner gave them the right to do that, which I think they have anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. Welcome. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. On entering private property, there are certain procedures we would have to -- there's a due process. I would have to receive some kind of a court judgment. I can go to the front door -- code enforcement official can go to the front door and knock on the front door, but I have no right to enter that property. If! have any type of -- I would have to get a court order. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you have health, safety and welfare issues. MR. SCHMITT: I would have to proceed through some court order to go on and inspect property, unless -- MR. KLATZKOW: But Joe, it's like every other code case, you get an administrative warrant. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I'd have to get an administrative warrant to enter the property. MR. KLA TZKOW: But you do that for every other code inspection we have. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. To enforce this -- and what Robert's saying, yeah, I could put it in the ordinance, but I would probably have to demonstrate that I have sorne method of enforcing this, either through auditing property transfers, making sure that these documents are signed and filed. Part of the file __ and recorded in the clerk's office or some other mechanism to ensure that we're complying with this Page 39 August 25, 2009 requirement. I could put it in the ordinance. It's a matter of demonstrating that we're enforcing it, and FEMA would check that as part of their audit. But to answer your question about entering property, the building official can't summarily just go up and enter a property. There has to be a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have an agreernent that says you can, you can, right? MR. SCHMITT: If they sign an agreement, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all says to do. Mr. Murray? MR. SCHMITT: But that agreement is signed when? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they get a building permit. MR. SCHMITT: When they purchase the property and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they get a building permit. When they come in for a building permit. That's what this is saying. If regulations -- so we establish a regulation that says if you're going to build a building in one of these zones, you're going to agree not to convert the area below flood elevation. And you also are going to agree to let us come on the property and inspect it when we so choose for that reason. What is so hard about that? MR. SCHMITT: That they sign that and they sign a waiver and it's legally defensible, yes, I can inspect it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: I'll give you an example. Barefoot Lely Beach. They built above floodplain. They get their building permit. Those buildings are approved and CO'd. But we know after CO people have gone in and put improvements into the basements -- their alleged basement, their fIrst floor. Yeah, they were designed to be frangible walls, breakaway walls. And the fIrst habitable floor is supposed to be at that -- out there was what, 14, 18 feet, whatever it is. But I don't go knocking on the door and say now I want to come in and see your basement to see if you put anything in your basement. If this were in effect and they signed it, I would have that authority to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but see, if -- I think what the intent here is, if you create a regulation that creates this additional non-conversion agreement that obviously then becomes an issue and these people know that you have the right to -- a lot less people may do that conversion. That's the whole purpose of this code in the first place is to discourage people from doing these things. And if that's all this does for 50 points, it might be a good one to look at. Mr. Murray, I'm sorry you have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's all right-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'rn talking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is-- MR. SCHMITT: I have no argurnent. We report every year -- or every other year we have to report any variances that we approved. And I can't think -- Robert, what's the last variance, back in the Eighties? I think we have a few variances where they were approved in Collier County. But we have to report all those. We have to report any type of a permit that we approved, any type of construction below the BFE. So this may be -- certainly be a viable process, but we'll look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'rn glad that you worked your way through that, because what Mr. Wiley was saying is that FEMA holds us to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to, by he would have to certifY that there was an active inspection process that precluded any violation, which is in itself I think beyond the pale. We have code enforcement. Code enforcement will come in with a case that can be seven years ago they did something and they only found it now. We can't stop the realities oflife. I definitely think this is something that is worthwhile going after. And it's pretty obvious. And if this is a FEMA guideline, you know, we're talking about a contract between the two parties, the govemment and the owner. And I assume its heirs, successors and assigns. So I don't see where the problem is, quite frankly. 161 1 A3 Page 40 August 25, 2009 MR. WILEY: I'll be glad to add that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, on these things, remember you said earlier that we could get partial? For example, if half the county rnet a requirement, you could possibly get half of the bonus points? Is that true? MR. WILEY: When you look at your score sheet, you look to see the area covered by it, right. So that is one of the breakdowns for breaking out the percentage of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what I'rn thinking of is, you know, there's a lot of parts of the county that would never, once you elevate them, really have roorn to build underneath it. So why wouldn't we grab some of these? Like let's say I had to build, you know, a stem wall house four feet in the air. I'm not going to go down there and furnish it. So the 300 up there, if you had a regulation or -- you know what I rnean? You could start putting some regulations on areas you know it's never going to apply, just to prorate some points. So in other words 161 j 1 A3 MR. WILEY: I'll be glad to add it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at that -- I mean, obviously there's some error. I mean, I don't think people with four-foot elevations want it open underneath, but you could grab sorne of these. Where if you're enclosing it with stem wall and stuff, that there's no height that you could even develop it anyway. We may be able to snag a percentage. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I have another thing. After having reread this again for the ninth time, you made a staternent, Robert, that they could not have this enclosure down there for an elevator or for stairs. And yet when you read this it says promising not to improve, fmish or otherwise convert. If it were in -- if that enclosure were in the building plans in the first instance and was approved because it was appropriate for an access, why would you then say that they couldn't have that? MR. WILEY: Because we were looking at the fIrst part of this regulation, not this particular part. This is the last item on the list, which is your B. And the initial discussion started up at the top of the list. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but have you changed your mind about that now? MR. WILEY : Well, if it's approved with the building where you can have the breakaway walls, then that's what you can have. This one says then you will not go inside and remodel it and basically -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's fme. MR. WILEY: -- turn it into living space. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if the person signs the agreement, that doesn't preclude then the construction of access ways. MR. WILEY: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. WILEY: That's part-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you had indicated that's what you thought. MR. WILEY: Well, again, that's where we were talking about from the very fIrst one where it says no enclosures. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, Joe did bring up a point, that you knock on my door and show me that thing, but it was the prior owner's signature, I'rn not the owner of -- you know, I may be able to chase you away. So there rnight be something that has to happen in a closing that rnoves this forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, interesting you should bring that up. Look at the next page, Robert, after this one. If the community also requires that the non-conversion agreernent be filed with a deed and other property records, it would receive credit under activity 340 hazard Page 41 iU6sT'f09 A 3' disclosure, section 341.B of the disclosure requirernents. So you got a chance to pick up even more points by simply recording it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But don't we have hazard disclosure already? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there we get in -- I was going to tell you, there are 17 of these sections, 17 activities. We're halfway through one of the 17 activities. And out of the 17, 16 or 15 probably apply to us. One doesn't because it's out of our realm. The time frame in the process as you can see is going to be a little intense. But as far as the hazard one that Mr. Schiffer's asking about, that one was a little different. There's a -- I'rn trying to fmd it. Hazards, Robert, changed. Oh, it's 340. We have -- if you look at the -- there's a total of81 points for hazard disclosure under activity 340. But we've not requested any of them, according to the sheets that were just given to us. And I think that's another issue that I think we're going to be walking through like we are this one, Brad. Because there are -- but they are I think in the new application, the ones you're -- yeah. MR. WILEY: That's in the proposed ordinance. Here we're proposing to go for that; whereas, in the old score features we have not done it in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how rnany points are you trying to get out of hazard disclosure? MR. WILEY: Weare going for 71. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And a total of81. So we're not too far off. Because -- I forgot what the average is, but it's somewhere in here. Okay. Up on the top is that answer to I think either Bob or Brad, one of you guys just brought up that question about how a subsequent owner picks it up. Well, there's how. And if you do that, you even get more credits on another section of this particular CSR -- CRS. But the next -- go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse rne. So we can essentially pick up more than the 71 points by disclosing different things? MR. WILEY: I wasn't ready for that question. I've got to go back and look see how I came up with my 71 points. When we break for lunch I'll try to look at that and answer you when we get back. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one is I, other higher standards. Now, this is up to -- this is a catchall. It's up to 100 points. And they give examples. Could you move down to the examples of three bullets? And it says they're not limited to these examples. Now, some ofthern may not be practical, but I'rn wondering if we could come up with -- has any-- did anybody atternpt to come up with examples here that we might qualifY under? MR. WILEY: The one that we are trying to qualifY under is the periodic inspection and practice installation of your dry floodproofmg components. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how many points is that? MR WILEY: Well, I don't know until I apply. When Iran it by FEMA, they were real excited about it, but they did not tell rne how many points they would give us. So we'll apply and we'll ask for a lot of points and see what they come back with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not on your bullet list. MR WILEY: It is under other higher standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, on the bullet list, the colored one that's on the other screen. And we can't -- I know you can't keep them both up here. MR. WILEY: Other higher standards. It is your one, two, three, four, five, sixth bullet down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You got up to 10 points. And this says 100. Up to arnaximum of 100. MR. WILEY: Well, I'm guessing low on this one saying up to 10 points, because if you propose to not allow floodproofing and require everyone to elevate, that's only good for 10 points. Well, I don't know how many I can expect to get beyond that ifI'm simply saying we approve floodproofing. But you demonstrate to us that the materials are still there and you know how to put them up, they may not give one or two, they may give 10, they may give more. I do not know until we apply for it. But this is where we went out and we made up to address an issue that we see is out there. People Page 42 August 25, 2009 1 ~ j II who are approved for floodproofing but then through the years, the things tend to disappear ~'t at that polht they're not in compliance with what their building was approved for construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could put that page back on then. Let's -- I hate to keep shuffling here. We need multiple screens. MR. WILEY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's another million dollar improvement to this podium we could have. See like the third bullet requiring all new multi-family and commercial buildings to provide access to dry land. Well, when you step out of a building, they don't get you stepping out into a swamp, so we do that already. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering, what does this mean? How rnuch dry land do they need? Is there a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Build a mound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, aren't we doing that by the fact we have a perimeter and all the properties are filled and we have walkways and everything else? MR. WILEY: Yeah, you would want to think that, wouldn't you? But where's the water when you have your one percent armual chance for flood event? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I couldn't-- MR. WILEY: Where is your water when you are in the midst of your I OO-year flood? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're at the walkway at the level of your building, you're still dry. It's when you go down the walkway to a perimeter that you're not. But, I rnean, since -- MR. WILEY: What they're getting at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I've been involved in building subdivisions, I've never built one where we didn't fill the whole dam subdivision. MR. WILEY: Let rne give you the example that they use for this, and it was a very tragic situation. There was a nursing home that was built. Access was not provided to it in a cornmunity. During the flood, the building caught on fire, and the firemen simply stood and watched the people die. They could not get to it. This is the kind of situation that they're wanting you to say you've got access at all times to get to it during the flood event. Well, we don't necessarily have that ability, because our streets and things are not up to that elevation. So I'm not saying that we couldn't apply and get some credits, but I don't think we would have a good chance of proving that we have access during that one percent annual chance flood event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, these are just examples. And Ijust wanted to rnake sure we've explored any other possibilities. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the one you've actually come up with then is this one -- MR. WILEY: That's an example that they used to explain why they want to offer you points for other regulations that go beyond just the building itself but considering the location within the entire community for access. That's just one example they're giving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the next one, if you move down to Page J, this would be one of Brad's favorites. Land developrnent criteria. And this is unique. Here we look at urban sprawl as lowering density and we try to prohibit it. This code does just the opposite, it encourages lower density and creates a huge amount of points if you lower density. In this county very few developrnents build out to the density that's provided to them. In fact, we're always bragging, developers come in here and say well, I could have built, like this last one, 722 on the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis, and instead they're building 525. So how many points can we get for that? MR WILEY: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: The reason is because you would allow them to build out. They may choose to not, Page 43 A3 1 a I 1 ~~st 25, 2J09 but your regulations do not prohibit the densities within the floodplain that would let us get the credits for this because -- and this is really set up more for a community with strictly a riverine system where you have just small portions of the community that are within the special flood hazard area, and so you put special regulations such as massive green space requirements, things like that, so it's really low density; whereas the rest of your community outside the special flood hazard can build that atypical density. Well, with our floodplain being so broad and encornpassing, basically the bulk of the developed portions of the county, we would have to have that across the board. And I don't think that is coming. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can make the argument we're applying. We're achieving that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, and especially right now with what's going on in the RLSA, we have purposely made land development regulations out there to leave swaths of flowways open that the environmental community has desired. And everybody's agreed to these things. Our regulations are going to read that way. Now, the RLSA is 200,000 acres. Collier County is I don't rernember right now, but let's say -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So many square miles. Too many acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say it's 25 percent of the total acres in Collier County. Would we with that portion of our land developrnent regulations get 25 percent of the 700 credits? Or couldn't we at least attempt to apply for them? I mean, we just did the RLSA, we know it pretty well. The regulations in there are very strict about using those flowways. It would seem to me to be a huge advantage in Item J here. And even if we got 10 percent, which I know those -- that land out there is greater than 10 percent of Collier County, 10 percent is 70 points. MR. WILEY: And once that gets to be within our floodplain, we may have a valid argument for that. That won't happen till the new maps come in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a lot of points, Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we look at this? Because if we can do points like that for stuff that we're already accepting and avoid points for the freeboard that's going to be so costly to this comrnunity, and this takes another year, it's going to take a year to get through this committee alone, so we're going to be there already. MR. WILEY: This particular one would not require any change in our ordinance, as I understand it. It's just a rnatter of us documenting it. We have nothing with which to document, what I'rn saying right now, to apply for those points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got the RLSA program. MR. WILEY: As they come into play where that is area within your special flood hazard area, we can begin to claim credit because we have lands to which that then applies. Right now all it applies to basically is our ability to show open space, and that's in your state parks, county preserves, things like -- and we are getting credit for that in another portion of the CRS program. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you're getting credit for it in another portion for all of our state lands; is that what you're saying? MR. WILEY: What I said was within the open space credits that you can get in the CRS program, we do get to add up the acreages for all these various preserves, open space as defmed, meeting FEMA's criteria. Weare already getting point credits for those. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. But back to the RLSA. It currently is in place with those flowways already approved. That wasn't anything new that we approved this last time around. MR. WILEY: That's correct. But that's in Zone D and Zone x. It's not within the special flood hazard area. COMMISSIONER CARON: But as soon as the new maps are out-- MR. WILEY: That's what I said, then we can apply for the credits under this particular activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why don't we figure that out now -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Page 44 August 25, 2009 161.1 A3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we know how much of a hassle we don't need to go through with all these other things that are getting so controversial and so upsetting to people. Why don't we look at that, at least come up with an idea what we might apply for. COMMISSIONER CARON: We rnay be able to move from a six to a five. MR. WILEY: We hope to, rna'am. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or a two. MR. WILEY: No, we'll not rnake it to a two, but I hope to get us to a class five within two years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- couple questions. How many points of this do we have right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of that one, none. MR. WILEY: On this one, none. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None? Okay. What is low density-- MR. WILEY: Let me back up a rninute. I say none, but I need to go verifY that when I look at my official report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it sounded like you were using it. What is low density, according to this section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 430.LD. We've got to find -- this is the parts I haven't had time to read everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because, Bob, we have -- you know, in our residential PUDs we have 60 percent open space, we do an awful lot of things. We have a pretty low density. That's how we're generating our urban sprawl, so we should get some reward for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 430.LD. Credit is provided for managing development ofland so that new projects avoid floodplains or minimize the amount of construction in floodplains. Credit is provided for two approaches: Regulations that require or encourage appropriate development in zoning that restricts the use or density of floodplain development. Background: Appropriate development criteria in low density zoning, like open space preservation, reduces the potential for flood damage by reducing the amount of development in a floodplain. They can also enhance natural and beneficial values and maintain floodplain storage capacity. Which is the exactly what we're doing with the flowways in the RLSA. And I'll tell you, if we take the acreage we're dealing with out there and apply it to the county, there might be a huge chunk of points right there in that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And other projects, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On a micro scale we do this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 150,000 acres? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If we had a watershed plan or watershed master plan, would that give us more points? And adding this definition that was taken out of here for regular flowways and working more towards that end with a low density in certain areas? Rather than the freeboarding and the raising everybody's house for -- MR. WILEY: It doesn't affect you on your definition offloodway. That is a special definition within FEMA as to riverine situations -- COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: In water-- MR. WILEY: -- how much you can encroach upon it before you raise it the one foot. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's also water courses. MR. WILEY: Right. I said riverine. It can be -- that's what -- you know, a flowing area. Lee County has fIoodways, Collier County does not on its maps. So if we had the watershed managernent plans that we're starting to developrnent, does that provide a benefit to us in this program? It provides some continuity. Does it give us credible points? That I can't say yet. I don't know what we will have in our plan that could qualifY for this. Page 45 August 25, 2009 161 1 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But wouldn't that do -- MR. WILEY: At this point I can't answer that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wouldn't that take care of some of this? I rnean, it would lower density in certain areas where there were sloughs or flowways or -- MR. WILEY: It has that potential. Plus we haven't even started writing the document yet, so I don't want to take credit where it may not end up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think there's a lot of potential in that 700 credits to look at, Robert. I think that's the gist of what you're getting from this panel. MR. WILEY: There are a bunch of potentials out here that do not deal with physically regulating to by itself produce an individual structures (sic), increased resistance offIood damage, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in order for us to keep our arms around this thing, we need a cornplete picture. And I think that's what we're slowly building up to here. And it's going to take a while. But all this stuff can help factor into the recommendation that we make to the BCC when this is all said and done. And so far I certainly like what we've learned here today, so it's been a good start. With that in rnind, though, I'd like to take an early lunch so we can get in and out down there and then we can finish up for two hours when we come back from lunch. So we'll take a lunch from now until 12:30. We'll resume at 12:30 and be done by 2:30 so Cherie' can hopefully survive the day with us. Thank you all, we'll come back at 12:30. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcorne back from our lunch hour. This is a resumption of the meeting in the floodplain management for the Collier County Plarming Commission. We left off discussing section 430 of the bullet point criteria. And I think we left off on J, which is the land development criteria. Finished that, and we're moving to item K. And K, for everybody's benefit, is called special hazards regulations. And this one's interesting, it says credit points vary. I was going to ask you, Robert, what does that mean? Does that mean there's -- we get 'ern if we do something special or they -- or who determines it? How's that done? MR. WILEY: This is one of those areas where if you think you have something that you're doing that deserves some kind of special review, you apply. And ifthey agree with you, they will rnake up what they consider is a point value for it. It's sort of a wild card type situation. There's nothing that in particular I can think of that would go in there. But as we go through we may come up with something we want to submit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the ice jam one won't work for us. MR. WILEY: If it does, we are in trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I -- that one's open for whatever we can dream up. So we'll move on to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Item L -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let rne just -- Bob, do you deal with actual rising of the sea level? I rnean, is that something that could be one of these things? MR. WILEY: I do not as an individual person. My understanding, it is an issue of concern for some of the plarming people to take into consideration, but I personally don't deal with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that wouldn't be something we could establish, grab some of these points as to what to do if there is such a thing? MR. WILEY: I won't say it is not something we could do, but I'm not coming up with an idea off the top of my head right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, I've read in the document we haven't got to yet that -- or in fact, in this document somewhere too -- that if the state has already imposed something, or South Florida Water Management District has that involves some of the CRS points, we can cash in and utilize that availability by meeting their criteria as well. Like the dams, the statewide dam approval, that's the last activity I think we have on our sheet. Activity 630, state dam safety. We don't have it, but because the state has it all Florida Page 46 A3 August 25, 2009 communities get a credit for it. I just thought of something under K, special hazards, regulations. We have an elevation requirement in the county and we have a special elevation requirement along the coast, in a sense that we just learned in the Moraya Bay approval when the project came through originally, and I think it was more on a discussion of the outhouse that we're building out there, that there was a certain elevation that they had to meet to be FEMA. But there was a grander elevation, one that was higher, and that's how Moraya Bay got by with pushing a building up a little it. They had to go under the special criteria by the state for being within a certain distance or past the control line. Why wouldn't we, by utilizing that as a domineering point in our development, which we'd have to do, we've got to abide by the state regulation that supercedes Collier County's, why wouldn't we apply for that as an additional credit for all those along the coast on some percentage basis? t MR. WILEY: We could. But since it is related to flooding, that is not a different kind ofa hazard. It may not really apply here, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it may not apply to 1(, but we had other ones like I, other higher standards that we just talked about has 100 points. And it says come up -- basically you come up with sornething you think is a higher standard. Why don't we approach it that way? Since we got to do it anyway, nobody's harmed by it. MR. WILEY: That's exactly right. That's issues that from the plarming side as we put forth together, which is why we're supposed to be having somebody who's a plarmer person, not me the engineer person, review this too, to bring those points of view into it. That's why we do that as sort of a team focus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: And has that happened? Has the plarmer-- MR. WILEY: We had a plarmer. His name was Michael DeRuntz. But he was involved in the reduction enforce. COMMISSIONER CARON: So nobody's around to take over. MR. WILEY: No one is able to do that right at this tirne. We hope that situation changes, but we'll have to wait to see on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which means that we probably have to take up that slack here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think by the suggestions that we're making, Robert, if you were looking for ideas from plarmers and we've just given you one -- MR. WILEY: I am looking for ideas, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I suggest you look in that direction. And it may not fit under I or K, but look at L. Look at the next one coming up. State mandated regulatory standards, 45 points. No, those aren't -- those are different issues, but maybe -- do we have any -- if you slide your sheet 161 1 A3 up. Did you analyze any of the iterns L.I or L.2? Or has the -- is it state already rnandating any of those; do we know? MR. WILEY: I am not aware of the state mandating any of these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you look into it? Did you question the state insurance agency and ask them? I mean, how did -- did you research it or you're just not aware of it? MR. WILEY: What I did was talk to our ISO agent about it. She has one of the three regions in Florida, and she did not know of anything that the state was mandating for this. But I can go through the state insurance office and fmd out if that -- if you can tell rne who I should ask. I really don't know the insurance people that well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I was assuming you'd tell me. But I guess I could look this up and try to find out. I don't -- I mean, all I'd have to do is turn to statutes and then Florida Administrative Code and run a word check on floodplain or insurance agents and see what it cornes up with and see if anything relates to anything here. I mean, that's how I'd start. And if there's an agency involved, I'd call the agency. But, I rnean, there's more credits available on that possibly unless we can prove otherwise. Item M. This one Brad likes. I can't blame him. It's building code. Maximum credits -- yes, rna'am. Page 47 1 eutst fo200'A 31 COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go on to building codes and whatnot, and just to back up for a minute under the land developrnent section, I mean, right off the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J COMMISSIONER CARON: -- bat I'rn looking at this sheet that Bill Lorenz copied for us, and it gives things that you can get credit points for. Are we already taking the 10 points if we allow cluster developments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got to have these backup -- did you look at these backup sheets? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I'm looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one? Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's why I'm asking. Because it doesn't look like we've taken any of these credits. And Ijust started at the bottom and started working my way up. We obviously -- we require open space, we don't just recommend it. So we get at least 10 points for that. We allow cluster developrnent. Multiple site plans doesn't get us anything. I don't know what they mean by density trades, but that would be an interesting one to investigate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, it doesn't look -- to answer her question, have we looked at some of these? Have we taken these? If not, what is your intention? MR. WILEY: I don't know what we have taken, because I leave that to the plarmers. I really have no knowledge of that. I rnean, I can pursue it through thern, if they have an interest in doing so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. WILEY: Because I don't get involved-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're handling the floodplain ordinance; are you not? MR. WILEY: I am. And what I reviewed before you today is taking our ordinance, bringing it up to the minimum standard from the model ordinance, and then bringing in certain higher regulatory criteria that I've evaluated from an engineering perspective to make our community more resistent to flood damage. That's a different issue than the LDC credits here for land development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anything in this book that didn't pertain to your knowledge as an engineer working for your department in the county you didn't consider? MR. WILEY: Basically. In the plarming area I did not consider it. I did go through the book to see what I know about. But in the planning, that's outside rny purview, so I did not touch that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, do you have a moment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While he's coming forward. Bob, who fills this out, Jim Turner? MR. WILEY: This is a form -- the one you're looking at was actually filled out by the ISO people. Now, what -- they had changed their procedure recently, is they now are requiring the local community to fill it out. You give that to your ISO agent and you discuss it going over together. And that's done during your -- any time you're proposing to increase your request for credits or every five years when you have your five-year site visit by ISO coming down and looking at all of your files. So the ones that will be coming up in the future, I will have to go through and Jim Turner and everybody's involved in a different aspects (sic) of the program, we'll go through and we'll fill out this particular form and submit it back to ISO then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, if-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a form in front of us that was in this packet that Robert's got. And it's -- and Donna Caron pointed it out. On Section 430.LD, it's the Land Development Code criteria. There's a lot of references to Land Development Code activities that we could get credit for automatically for having them in our Land Development Code. And as Donna pointed out, two of them are no-brainers, requirements for open space and zoning that allows cluster developments. The mere fact that you did that, we could get 10 and 10, 20 points. But Robert hasn't applied for it because no one from planning has Page 48 August 25, 2009 told him whether or not we're doing that. Is there someone in your department that could look at this document for the aspects of the LDC that pertain to the plarmers and get information to him so we have the potential for points here that rnight offset some of the other more contentions points? MR. SCHMITT: To answer your question briefly, yes. Mike DeRuntz was my floodplain rnanager. Mike sort of was -- of course he's no longer with us, but he was rny certified floodplain rnanager, principal plarmer in compo plarming and he sat on this committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why he wouldn't have suggested this to be utilized? MR. SCHMITT: I don't. I don't know why. I mean, this is sornething that Mike should have identified as a requirernent. And I didn't go through and validate, but this is somewhere -- yes, it seems to be a no-brainer. My problem here is resourcing Robert with the plarming staff to do this. And because much ofthis is a III function, general fund function, and so you understand, my principal plarmer, as you well understand, they're a fee for service, they're fully consumed in servicing product that comes in the front door and servicing those type of requirements. I really don't have a plarmer that's available to say, Robert, here, 100 percent of the time. You serve on this committee. The zoning staff -- by statute, the zoning member is supposed to serve on the committee. It's just a matter of resourcing it where I have the problem. And again, Mike was the resident expert. And when I had to begin to cut staff, that's where I cut staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a section in this CSR manual, it's titled Section 430, and it's 431.J. That's the only one that's pressing right now. If you could have a plarmer look at that just like we've looked at it, I can't imagine any experienced plarmer not knowing the answers rather quickly. And if they believe that we meet the criteria, and Robert's got it on the screen, the E and F on the bottom, there's 20 rnore points and we're done. So that isn't someone that's got to sit in a meeting and attend it day after day after day after day, year after year. Just simply look at this and let him know. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? I mean, that would be helpful. Then we got 20 more points. And by the time we finish all 17 sections, we rnight be a Class I community. MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to work with Robert to defme what supporting documentation we need to do this, but we'll work it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I read the manual, and when you need the supporting documentation, it actually says provide them with a reference on line in the section that they need to look at and they'll actually go look at it and verifY it's there and then give you the credits. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's -- see, he just volunteered to help us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I don't -- hey, I will jump in and help if -- this is a great way to save a ton of money. MR. SCHMITT: No, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd do it right away. MR. SCHMITT: I need to look at it. Again, I just don't understand, some of these things are nothing more than validating. They're in the LDC. Like I said, I didn't go through this personally. But Mike is a certified floodplain manager and so is, by the way, Catherine. Catherine's a certified floodplain manager as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as we don't rnake this more cornplicated. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because Joe, I think you could probably take a look at this list and tell us whether it's is in OUf LDC or not. MR. SCHMITT: It is, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I think we can -- MR. SCHMITT: I will look at it. Ijust need to figure out what documentation we have to provide so when they come down and audit we can identifY out the points and actually they come down and audit. 161 1 A3 Page 49 1 bgUr 2fo09 A 3 I'll tell you what they did last time. It was -- and in fact, Mack had to go through a shapefile. They wanted to validate the total acreage of preserve in Collier County, and we already told thern. But then they -- in order to validate it, Mack had to produce a shapefile to basically show all the preserves, existing preserves, both within developments, whether it's mandated preserve or state or Federal preserve lands or whatever. And we had to go through and actually provide a file for that. Robert, what, you said a book 10 inches thick, two books we had to send back when the last time they came down in followup in answering questions that they asked us to validate in certain requirements as part of this ISO process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? MR. SCHMITT: So we could put it down. I've just got to make sure we can justifY it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question, and it's really for Bob. In the past have we applied for that credit? MR. SCHMITT: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, obviously you start each year by looking at last year. So even in good times we never -- MR. WILEY: We have not applied -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we had staff around, we never -- MR. WILEY: -- for this in the past. What you're seeing is the old application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, the '99 application had a bunch of credit points. Some of them seemed really good, no-brainers. And the 2003 application took some of those out and never reapplied for them and we don't now utilize them. And we'll get into that when we get into other documents. But that's a whole nother ball game that we need to talk about. So -- and I've got two sets. So anyway, I think we left off -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry, I didn't mean to take us back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that was a good -- that was an excellent suggestion. I'm glad you did. I made a note of it. Now we'll hopefully -- let's move back to -- we're on M, building codes. And Brad, this is a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- pretty interesting one. I'm hoping you'll have something to comrnent on this. It's on Page 430.16. There you go. No, that's -- yeah, that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did look at that. We -- number one we should discuss. Number two, we meet all of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We meet all of number two? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many points have we already gotten? I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's 100 points. The second thing is the one up above, and I looked at this during the break, is we have to have like lessons to discuss these codes. Bob, could you -- Bob, can you put the next page on to explain the BCEGS? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far, since you already -- and I absolutely trust your judgment, Brad, because I know you deal with these every day. So Mol, A, B and C for a total of 100 credits, you believe we already meet all that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We do. The International Building Code is the base code for the Florida Building Code. And that I know. I sit on the International Building Code committees. We don't use -- or Florida hasn't adopt NFPA 5000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have or-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have not. No state has, actually. B, the international residential code is the base code for the Florida Residential Code. Another ICC code. The International Plumbing Code, the International Mechanical Code, Fuel Gas Code. I don't know anything about the Private Sewer Disposal Code, but those are all our codes, too. They're the base code for Page SO August 25, 2009 the Florida code series. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, have we utilized that 100 points? MR. WILEY : We have taken partial credit, as I understand it, because we have not adopted the entire mc. And that's where Brad says well, we have. I do need to get a clarification. I'm just getting it from our building department. They said no, we haven't, so we have not applied for the full value. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only thing I think we haven't is we ~aven't adopted the International Fire Code, which isn't even one of the reference codes, because we've adopted the NFP A product. So we have certainly an equivalent. MR. WILEY: What I can do with that particular issue is bring it up with our building director and also then talk to our ISO agent to make sure we're talking apples and apples here on what we have adopted. But if we've adopted it, we definitely want to apply for it. But I've been told that we do not have full adoption, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Feel free to bring me into a conference call, we'll discuss that. Number one we can't get any credit for because aren't we a Class 8 now, and doesn't that mean that seven, eight, nine, 10's can't get that credit? MR. WILEY: You mean our CRS class? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's on the number one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number one, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See where it references the last sentence of number one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure what that means. MR. WILEY: Ijust have to look into this. I know what our building rating is, what class, but that doesn't seem to be the same number you're talking about here. Our CRS class, I know we're a Class 7 there. But that's a different issue they're dealing with here, so I'l1 have to look into that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you pull that page down just a little bit? Down, not up. In other words, if you look at that it says, the community must adopt and enforce a building code to qualify for Class 7 anyway. Well, we have a building code. That's -- never mind. Now, we haven't applied for any of the building code credits? MR WILEY: No, what I said is we have not applied for the full I 00 points because we have not adopted -- in the previous situation when we applied before, we were not the full adoption of the codes that you say we now are. So I'll have to get with Bob Dunn and confmn what we can apply for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much did -- can you tell us which ones we applied for? You gave us a documentation but I can't find it on here. MR. WILEY: No, sir, I don't know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you don't know if we -- MR. WILEY: No, in talking to Jim Turner, he has said we don't qualify for the full value. That's-- I'm just going from his statement to me, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. But do you know how much of the value we qualify for and how we qualify for it? Here's the reason. Under Section 430, higherregulatory standards, we only qualified for 125 points out ofa total of2,740. The average community uses 166. So I'm wondering, ofM.2 did we submit qualifications for 2.A, B and C? Do we know if we did or not? I mean, I know someone told you we probably do qualify for them, but are those part of the 125 points in the sheet that you gave us? If not, then how do we get to the 125 points? MR. WILEY: I can't answer that right off the top of my head unless I look for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, next discussion then maybe we would be more prepared for that then. But I think one, two, three, four, five -- we've got about seven or eight categories that have potential credits increases, just in the discussion we've had on one category today. The next one that we have is section N, and it's called staffing, with a maximum credit points of 50. And we may not qualify for the best because it requires inspection criteria for our inspectors. But I guess Joe may know that. 161,1 A3 Page 5 I August 25, 2009 Do you know if we do any of numbers one, two or three? 1 6 I 1 A 3 MR. WILEY: What we have is currently we qualify for 10 points. Jim Turner and I are both certified floodplain managers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so was Michael DeRuntz. MR WILEY: But Michael's not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But then Catherine Fabacher I think we were just told is. MR. WILEY: That's what I'm just learning today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it looks like we got more points. MR. WILEY: We may be able to pick up an additional five points, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe when you get a chance and can talk with someone else over there, see if there's anybody else that might fit that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, don't we get number two? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to ask that next question. That's right, Brad. MR. WILEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's either two or three or is it one or two or three? MR. WILEY: No, we do not qualify for number two from the staffing perspective that we do not have a CFM looking at every development project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't that be easy to do? Just you or Jim review it, or Catherine, right? MR. WILEY: That's a matter of organization of the review staff. I review very little, and Jim reviews his portion of the building permit that comes through. He does not review everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does -- first of all, you'd only have to review the ones that are in the floodplain, but because that's going to be the eutire county that kind of puts the whole burden of the whole county on it. MR. WILEY: It will at some time, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only thing you'd have to review, though, is elevations? MR. WILEY: You are having to review basically for complying with the elevation, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So someone would have to tell you with each plan it would have to be -- it has to be acknowledged on the plan that it meets minimum flood code. MR. WILEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can a building in Collier County be permitted that doesn't meet minimum flood code? MR. WILEY: Nonresidential building it can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With floodproofmg. MR. WILEY: You'd floodproof it, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe's coming up-- MR. WILEY: But again, that's still meeting a code. But, I mean, it's not elevated, right. MR. SCHMITT: The only way you can -- a building permit is through a variance. If you want to build below floodplain, you have to apply for a variance. The last variance we had was probably in the mid -- early Nineties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So someone doing a staff review for this requirement would basically have to see if they are at FEMA elevation or above. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, when -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And since they couldn't get a permit unless they were at FEMA elevation or above, it would never be presented to them unless it already was there. So wouldn't we then be acknowledging through our reviews that we've met the floodplain criteria and we would qualify for a staffmg at 25? MR. SCHMITT: All plans that come through review have to have -- are noted with the BFE criteria CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- and are approved based on the base flood elevation and they're certified. They Page 52 August 25, 2009 A3 come in signed and sealed by a registered design professional. And they meet the stand1.6 I 1 When you read this, this specifically says reviewed by a CFM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Jim Turner picks it up, looks at it and moves it on. He acknowledges in his review that it's got the FEMA regulation on it. MR. SCHMITT: Jim is a licensed plan reviewer in the building department. He doesn't review any engineering plans, he's in the building department. Certainly yes, I could -- if] structured it -- Steve Seal is my guy who basically reviews plans, Steve and Stan. MR. WILEY: Mainly Steve. MR. SCHMITT: Mainly Steve. And reviewing -- Steve is not a certified floodplain manager, but I guess if we got him certified we could meet this criteria. Or everything goes through Robert. Robert, if he's certified that if we stated that everything went through Robert in some form or fashion or at least supervisory capacity, we would qualify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would like to see something happen just in the course of your normal events over there without creating a whole element to have to deal with so that you got to a point where we're slowing things down. MR. SCHMITT: Well, there's no question. Every plan that meets the requirement, they have to meet the requirement. It's part of the design process. And it's -- and through permitting through the South Florida Water Management District. I mean, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 25 -- Bob, what did it take to become a CFM? Is that something that -- you could establish a continuing ed. program over there right now, you would hit number one, too. What does it take? MR. WILEY: Basically you go to a training course. It lasts about four days. And you take the test. And you past test. And then after you pass the test, you have your continuing education you have to keep up with every year, at least 16 credit hours within a two-year period, no more than 12 in anyone year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's pretty involved. The number two, what would -- if you were to review a plan, what would you be doing as a certified floodplain manager? What would you be looking for? MR. WILEY: You're going to look at the actual application that comes in. You're going to compare it to its site location with what is the base flood elevation. You're going to compare it. If it meets it the other criteria that you happen to have in a regulation, if you have erosion, foundation protection, whatever, the criteria we would have today, you'd look for that, make sure it all-- and if it does, then you sign off as part of your review that you have reviewed it specifically for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it sounds like you really could add that. I know we have a reviews and it takes a lot oftime, but -- MR. WILEY: It's not that it's good enough to be done, it's just a matter of it is not being done right now by a CFM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this kind of all goes back, and I listened to the interaction between everybody. You know, there's -- in business they have these people that do things called creative accounting. This is creative FEMA. And if FEMA's got rules that just need to be creatively attacked to gain the points we need, we ought to be thinking along those lines. And it might be as simple as just something we're already doing, but finding a way to anoint it as it goes through the system. And I think that's all we're suggesting in something like this, Robert. It's got potential. MR. WILEY: I think it has great potential. It's a matter of implementing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 0, the next one, manufactured home parks. I think we're doing something with that, aren't we, in your bullet points? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we're taking the max. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, we are addressing the issue of manufactured home parks. We're trying to go up to 50 points. Basically the simple response is we're trying to make everybody on an even playing field who has a Page 53 mobile home, manufactured home, within a special flood hazard area. The default that is within our current ordinance says that you have to be at least 36 inches off the ground. But we have places where the base flood elevation is higher than that, but yet they're allowed to build so __ at the 36 inches, even to come in and replace it. Because it's an existing park and you can replace a unit and put it right back on that 36-inch elevation. What our ordinance proposes is to say everybody meets the base flood elevation. I understand within the ordinance it also says plus any freeboard. So if you had a freeboard, it would include that also. And not just the floor elevation, but we're describing the things that hang underneath the mobile home, the AC, things of that nature that are susceptible to flood damage also. We're saying that must also meet that elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so this is one we're already -- the language that we're going to review already would put us in compliance. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, it would put us into compliance, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move on to P, coastal A zones, maximum credit 650 points. A coastal A zone is exactly what? Because we have a variety of A zones, but they're saying coastal August 25, 2009 161 1 A3 "~ A zone. MR. WILEY: Coastal A zone is that area between the VE zone, which has a wave height of three feet or greater down to some point. Do you want to make it a wave height of one foot, do you want to make it a wave height of a foot and a half? But you establish what you want to call your coastal A zone. And essentially what you do is by establishing a coastal A zone, you then mandate VE type construction within the coastal A zone. Right now we go from VE straight to AE. It's just a line. But the coastal A zone would then encroach within the coastal AE to a certain wave height reduction. And that's what you're also extending your VE type construction into it. We did not propose to pursue this when we felt that we would have no support. It's a very good idea to prevent damage, but we felt there would be no support from the community for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain the difference between the construction tecltniques in a VE versus an A? As in this transition area. MR. WILEY: The VE zone requires you to elevate your structure so that the velocity water, which is a V, velocity, can pass beneath the structure. The elevation for your compliance with your flood elevation is the bottom of the lowest horizontal supporting member. So you've got your piers, posts, whatever you have it sitting on, and then you have your support beams underneath it. It's the bottom of that beam of the lowest beam that supports that house, that has to meet your base flood elevation. In an AE construction zone it's able to be built on fill. So what you would be doing in a coastal A zone is requiring the elevation requirements further inland into your AE zone that distance to which you would specify. And the thought process there is that within the VE zone you have a wave height of three feet or greater. But when you have a wave height of two feet, that still packs a pretty substantial punch hitting up against the side of a house that could -- and remember, your AE zone elevations are based upon a still water elevation, not crest -- not the top of the wave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman that was here earlier today, let's use his example. He said he moved into a home and he wished that he had -- the regulations would have required that the home he moved into been even more floodproofed. How does that fit into this segment? Or does it? MR. WILEY: In his particular location it may not even fit in, because of his location being au the lagoon area. We quickly go from VE zone to AE zone, just right about -- the condo lines right off the beach up in the Vanderbilt area. At the point that you get to where you would be going from your coastal A zone into an AE zone, he's already there. So he would still be in an AE zone. So this one would have no particular impact to him. However, houses to the west of him could. It just depends at what wave height you chose to set your coastal A zone as the limiting factor. Page 54 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how would you calculate this, if we were to look at establishing this? What we're saying is we know where the V zone ends. That wouldn't change. Where the V zone ends and AE starts. And then now what you're going to have to do is raise the construction to obviously clear all the structural components or the horizontal structural components. But how far do you think that would go? And how would you judge it? Because remember you meutioned something like two-foot waves. How would you determine where that zone would end and then what would start there, another AE, or the rest of the AE? MR. WILEY: The way you define that is again based upon the wave height that you want to regulate against. And you pick that up off of your coastal model. As your model is dram along transects projecting inland from the waterfront and projecting, your model shows you what your wave height is as the water physically moves inland. And you can set the limitations in the model to identify where is the three-foot wave height. Then that separates you between the VE and current AE zone. If you want a coast A zone, you would then set a second parameter that says okay, I need to know where my wave height is. And let's just pick a number, let's say one and a half feet, just split the middle there. Your model would show you where that is. You then connect the dots along your transects, the same as you do along your transects for your VE zone, that's how you'd identify what would be the inland extent of that coastal A zone. It's a modeling exercise done as a part of your flood insurance study. And that then gets put onto your flood insurance rate map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So here's what we're doing now. You know, you mentioned the force of a two-foot wave. Essentially we've taken that house after we get out of the V zone, we've dropped that down to the floor level being the AE floor level. So you've really exposed that house. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't this feathering make a lot of sense? I mean, I don't think we can do it this year, but I think it would be good to look and see what those are, because that would be a really major way to protect some homes. Because believe me, the homes on the other side of a line in the V zone are the ones that are probably the most vulnerable. MR. WILEY: It's a very good concept. That's why it is given a lot of point value. But you do have to keep in mind the perspective that it gives within a community. You're moving your elevated structures further inland, and that's not generally thought of as a desirable thing by people who are slab on grade right now. Having seen all the discourse of conversation when we got our current flood insurance rate map and how it moved the VE zone inland and there was lots of negative discussion about how that's going to impact if I want to modify my house, now I've got to build it to VE zone standard. Well, that's what you'll be doing with a coastal A zone, you're moving that standard. From a safety standpoint, it is a very good thing to do. But getting the support of the community is a very tough issue also. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then just to follow up. What you would do is you would take that AE elevation and add to that a wave height parameter, and then raise the structure above that. MR. WILEY: No, no. What you would do is off of your coastal model it would identify for you the point at which you had reached that defming wave height that you wanted to set as the boundary between your coastal A zone and your AE zone. And that is how you would draw the line. At that point everything from that line seaward to your VE, follows a VE construction, is just able to be lower because your wave height is less than the full VE would be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Robert, you indicated that sometimes it's tough getting the support of the community. A review of the draft ordinance though is pretty strong about thou shalt, thou shalt, thou shalt and thou shalt not, you know. And so I'd like you to expand on that question that you have raised then 161 August 25, 2009 A3 a Page 55 August 25, 2009 about the support of the community. The community is what? They're not here today. We represent the community. So what do you 1611 A3 mean? MR. WILEY: Well, just that. As we go through this commission here, the support that you would give says we want this in our ordinance or we do not. Going to the Board of County Commissioners, do you want this in the ordinance or do you not? We did not feel that the coastal A zone was an issue that we could get support to the board and through the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, health, safety and welfare. You know, we have a construction line and we have a -- you know, we recognize that there is a potential loss of life. There's certainly great damage potential. I'm surprised. I don't know about anybody else, but I certainly support -- and I recognize there's a cost and I recognize the implications of my statements, but so insofar as safety, health and welfare, it would seem to me that we would want to do everything in our power to reduce the potential. So if support is what you're looking for, you've got one person. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The concern, though, we have to have is especially in the coastal area where there's a lot of small lots with large homes, and we've had repeated concerns over mega-homes being built. Part of the problem is they're always a little higher than the house next door and the house next door is dwarfed by them. This would make those houses next door like ants. They would be miniscule because this would push the homes next to them even up higher. So I think the resistance from the coastal community would be pretty strong. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I wanted to find out, what community he was really referring to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anybody along the coast that would be impacted by this where their homes alongside existing homes would have to go that much higher. If they already complaining about mega-homes, which I don't blame them, they'd end up being really concemed over these much taller homes being next to them, most likely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's an excellent point, Mark. We already have that issue going on. How do we ever -- I don't know, mitigate is the wrong word. But you can't use eliminate either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Balance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Balance is a good word. How do we do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're doing it. I think we're looking at altematives that we're going to suggest. We've -- as soon as Brad fmishes I'm going to list all the ones we've come up with on 431. If there are alternatives that are less intense that harm people's pocketbooks less but still provide benefit, that's the way we go. That's the balance. That's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what I think we need to be looking for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe can reach that, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not so sure this would make a bad community. I think the problem we're having with the mega-home next to essentially a slab on grade which had no consideration for flooding when it was built. So that's a really old legacy. In this case, if you built this you really would be -- the homes would be stepping down at a much more gradual, versus a home built with an AE on one side of a home built with a V would be a pretty drastic step. Don't you agree, Bob, it would be a way to blend the height? MR. WILEY: It would, keeping in mind that would look better if you had a totally new community. Where you don't have a totally new community, you're going to extend that elevated structure line further back. It will be safer, I agree with that. It's just a perspective. And in particular it involves that someone hits the threshold. Because your coastal A zone, remember, requires you to be elevated structure, and that's to the lowest horizontal member. Page 56 August 25, 2009 So if you have a house that's built slab on grade, as soon as they apply for your bUil!g~eJit, ~ automatically they have the wrong kind of house. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look at -- MR. WILEY: And you have that issue that it can be fairly well opposed by people affected by it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look, like we up in our neighborhood, we have condos, which is really a low, you know, bulkheaded community where the land does actually rise. So I think in that case you would -- first of all, you'd get rid of these huge mega-homes sitting on fill. Because fill wouldn't be allowed because you'd have to build it to the V zone, right? So you'd have houses that are slightly elevated, but slightly elevated guaranteed not to be on fill. Which has to be good for scouring and stuff like that to protect your neighbors. So anyway, obviously let's not touch it today. But I think the interesting thing to look at would be what that line would look like if we did do that, and then see what that meant to neighborhoods and things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Sclnnitt -- or Mr. Murray, then Mr. Sclnnitt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, just one brief comment. We were speaking of balance, and balance is fine. Those on slab in those particular instances, they would be subject to the 40, 40 and 40 rule, wouldn't they? MR WILEY: Um-hum. You've got your 50 percent rule, but then you've also -- yeah, you've got your-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so a potential calamity exists anyway. What I'm thinking is that maybe biting a bullet here is where I'm really going. But I realize balance is essential. You know, it's a process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: The -- when we first were notified of the maps that are now in place now where we first contested the FEMA flood maps, the requirements for building -- when the VE zone moved, that was the biggest and most emotionally significant impact from the standpoint of the City of Naples, changing the community character requiring VE construction versus AE construction. So when we looked at this we said we're not even going down this road. Even though there may be some practicality, it does change significantly. And especially in the city. Now, there are other areas of the county that it impacts as well, but essentially, as Brad, you said, this would require VE construction, where AE would now be allowed. And it does change the character of the building. All the buildings have to be on stilts and that type of construction, versus fill. And that's a simple term. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think an important thing, Joe, it's still not -- the V zones are very high, because they're really looking for structural damage -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- due to the wave action. The A zone, the AE sitting next to it, is a lower dimension -- elevation. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And all we're doing is slightly raising it whatever the structure is. Let's say two feet is a lot of room to get structure. And we're eliminating the fill underneath it at that zone, which-- MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I think makes a lot of sense. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it may make sense, but it was probably the most significant issue when we dealt with the coastal community, the character of construction and the change in the character of construction. Because that was the biggest issue, even though the city is its own CRS. But it was the most __ it's going to be -- it was the most significant issue. And that's why the city joined with the county when we first appealed or we proposed -- we appealed but then we withdrew our appeal -- to create the new maps. But the intent of the city was to try and move that VE line back more towards the coast rather than inland, what happened in this most recent series of maps. So it was that issue. And we said we're not going to fight that issue. Page 57 A3 August 25, 2009 1611 A3 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The thing I don't agree with you, though, this isn't -- moving the VE zone is a disaster, because that's essentially a story above grade. This is different than that. This is what to do with that zone right next to the V zone, which drops you down rather low and you're on fill structures and stuff. And this brings you up a little -- slight little bit. But anyway, I think number one we'd have to do, to look at this carefully, and let's not do it this year, would be to actually look at what some of these maps might look like. And maybe you and I can do that as a we-have-nothing-to-do project and see if in fact this really intrudes into neighborhoods like people would fear. It may not. MR. WILEY: I don't think we'll ever get to the we-have-nothing-to-do project. At least my schedule isn't quite as cleared as yours may be so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the private sector is getting nothing to do real quick, so I might be down and take care of it. I'll take it home and play with it. MR. WILEY: You are planning for us then. We'll let all of you guys showup and you can help me and I'll-- I mean, I'm there till 8:00, 9:00, 10:00 at night anyway, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. WILEY: -- you get my e-mails. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to say, any suggestion offollowing something like this would take a lot more analysis than we can do right now, and it really would have to go to another year. MR. WILEY: What we would need to do is actually bring -- before we would propose this is bring before you what the map would physically look like. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good idea. MR. WILEY: We have the ability to do that as we go forward because it's our consultant that has done the modeling. But we have not wanted to touch that one yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Robert, just to sum -- for summation, we've just gone through one of 17 sections of activities. In the one activity section we went through, we've recommended you look further at the following areas: C.3, E.2, G.3, A and B, H -- MR. WILEY: Can you slow down? I'm trying to write these to make sure I've got them too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. I'll start out again. C.3, E.2, G.3.A and B, H.2.B. Section J, in regards to the LDC. Section I in regards to the additional height requirements from the state for the CCSL area. And Section M for the building code points. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, when we come back at some point it would be nice, just as an example, because I'm not sure we'll get through a whole other section today, but if you could look at those for just that section, let us know what additional points this exercise today got us or didn't get us out of this review, I think that would be very helpful to know if we're on a course that's going to be productive or not. So that would be the beginning. And I think where we left off on the other overhead you have, the colored one showing your bullet points, Brad wanted to work through the bullet points and let's see which ones we haven't addressed and move to that section next. We've done foundation protection. Well, freeboard is actually part of this one. It's actually 431.A. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we didn't discuss that because we jumped to the foundation protection and went from B on, which is B. So we really didn't go into A. And I don't think we're evaluating it as far as what it involves, more or less just as did we apply for it. And it looks -- and we certainly did. Brad, is there something you wanted to move into on freeboard right now, or you want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no. I mean, essentially what I wanted to do is just see which of these and how they effect the objectives of the ordinance. I mean, it would be good to look at freeboard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we put 431.A up there then, Robert. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'd like the conversation to be not so much about insurance rates. The insurance rate is minimal; it's dropping down the construction costs, certainly it would never pay off. But just to see if it's something that's really important for the objectives of the ordinance. Page 58 1 bT 25,;2009 A 3 MR. WILEY: Okay, this shows you the how -- the CRS manual for Section 43J.A dealing with freeboard. What we are proposing in the ordinance is to go for a one-foot freeboard, which qualifies you for 100 points. You get 100 points for every foot up to a limit. But we're not approaching that limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're looking at a credit of 100 points for number one. But that would be affected by any changes between what zone it would be applied to; for example, the V versus the A zones, as we talked about earlier. MR. WILEY: Well, it would apply across the board anywhere you are within a special flood hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in the beginning of the meeting today, there are obviously some people who think that they would rather the government regulate this issue than individuals given the ability to regulate it. So if we -- and it seems Mr. -- the gentleman that was here was concerned because he bought along the coast, closer to the coast. And I can assure you, in where I am we don't have the same problems that they have along the coast. So can this freeboard application be applied differently to different areas of the county? And I thought you said yes to that. And if it does then how much of the credit points do you get? MR. WILEY: You would be able to get your credit points reduced by the percentage area covered. So if you said, for instance, that we're going to limit it to areas seaward of]-75,just pick a road, then what they would look at is the amount of your special flood hazard area that is seaward of 1-75. And obviously the remainder of that is landward of]-75. And whatever percentage that came up to be, that would be your percent times 100. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's kind of where I was going. Brad, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my question is, Bob, and this is to me the hitting the nail on the head, is how important is that one foot to meeting the objectives in section four? I mean, one of them is to minimize prolonged business interruptions. Yes, if everybody's floor happened to turn out to be one foot above the floor, that would keep the thing open. But is that an important thing for the objectives that are stated there? MR. WILEY: The -- to me the issue of freeboard is probably one ofthe most important issues to put in the ordinance, from the standpoint it is a factor of safety. Your base flood elevation is not a factor of safety. It is identifying where flood levels are expected to be in a one-percent annual chance storm event, meaning you have statistically one percent chance of that happening every year. It can happen several times a year. It can happen that your flooding is greater than that. What I have personally seen is as we have gone through several large rain events that approached the 1 OO-year -- the terminology of the IOO-year storm event and the one-percent annual chance storm event are basically speaking of the same storm. We sort of not want to regulate by the 100-year event because people think well, let's see, it happens three years ago so we've got 97 years before it's going to happen again. And that's what people tend to think. So FEMA wants everybody to starting calling it the one-percent annual chance event. But I've seen it rain and water will get up -- your yard is designed to flood. At the 25-year storm event, which is a four-percent chance event, your road in front of your house is designed to be under water. I've seen water right up against the stoops of houses, and then along comes somebody driving down the street. And that house was dry until then. Suddenly it was flooded. Flooding is very expensive to correct. Now, they designed it to that one-percent annual chance event, and it was fine until something happened. There is no factor of safety. And I've seen it more than once. And I have not been the county two or 300 years. I know sometimes it seems that way for me. But it can rain very rapidly, and I do not want to see homes and businesses flooded. That's why I feel very strongly about the freeboard issue. It reduces your flooding impact, it keeps your businesses and your homes safer from unanticipated consequences such as people driving, such as systems plugging up and not flowing properly. Page 59 fbT'r9 A3 So there's a lot of reasons that I support it that are listed here within these eight criteria, these objectives. It basically addresses something to do in most all of those eight from that standpoint. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, one thing, and this is kind of sad, speaking for design professionals, but we tend to design everything to the minimum in the code. What percentage of the applications do you think are actually establishing the floor level, let's say within two or three inches of the base level? I mean, I think -- I don't know how we could do this, but if we went through applications downtown, most of the people are setting it pretty much at that base level. I've seen that on applications that come through us here. MR. WILEY: I cannot speak for what actually goes into the building permit application. The ones I have reviewed in the past have been at the SOP or the plat. I will tell you, sometimes they take it to two decimals trying to get it to that specificity, making sure they don't put a tenth of a foot more fill than they minimally have to. Now, I can understand why that is from the standpoint that the engineer is designing, and he's supposed to be designing it at the protective interest of his client. And so should there be an excess amount of fill put in, that client could look back to the engineer and say, you cost me extra that I didn't really have to have. And I do know that that has occurred within the county and that there was a lawsuit filed over that very situation. People build their -- they design their projects to the exact minimum, as the general rule. I won't say that's everybody, but that's the general rule that you see coming in. And, I mean, they really take it tight. There is uo factor of safety at that point. And that's what I'm trying to get us to incorporate in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you feel-- MR. WILEY: But that's the engineer in me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in these objectives it obviously is going to prolong the business operations, it's going to protect property. I don't think it's an effect on human life. I don't think -- people can wade. It's going to -- I'm not sure it affects two. MR. WILEY: Let me interdirect (sic) you here. Effect human life does come into play in Collier County in a way you would not expect it. Have you ever been in a major flood event? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I've been in a real -- MR. WILEY: That's not a cork ball floating, that is a colony of fire ants. They are everywhere on the water surface. And if you step out in flood water, you are covered with ants. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the floor of my house is perfectly level with the flood, which is the fear here, what are you saying, that the ants are going to come into the house? MR. WILEY: No, if you -- at the point that you have water sweep into your house for some reason and at that point you decide it's time to leave, you're getting out into them as soon as you leave the house. As soon as you step down, you're in them. And that's just personal experience, having found out the hard way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I went camping once and picked a high piece of ground and it rained and I discovered that phenomena myself. MR. WILEY: Well, I was in Tropical Storm Jerry out measuring high water elevations, and I got covered multiple times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, enough. MR. WILEY: You'd go to put the nail at the high water line and you were covered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. MR. WILEY: So that's my fear of -- I wanted -- there is a safety issue here for health purposes from that standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not going to belabor a point, but for every item you think is safe for your argument, I could argue equally it's unsafe. So I do not agree with you on this issue. MR. WILEY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You will not convince me otherwise. And so that's just for the record. Mr. Klatzkow? Page 60 August 25, 2009 161 1 MR. KLATZKOW: If you increase it by one foot, Robert, it's from a one percent chance per year of flood, what do you go down to? MR. WILEY: By default you go to the .2 percent chance, which is 500-year flood event. So then __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's two percent. MR WILEY: -- it becomes a matter of acceptable -- didn't I say .2 percent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .2 percent, yeah. MR. WILEY: Yeah. So it's a matter of acceptable risk at that point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Bob, isn't -- the base flood is the one percent. So if we essentially added a foot to it, we'd be taking it to the 500-year storm level, which would __ MR. WILEY: Which is the .2 percent annual change event. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's raising it to get to .2. I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not .2, because that would be .002. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we fmish with these CSR points and all the other changes that come into play, kind of like this one, I'm assuming then we either have to go into the building code or Land Development Code to change our regulations to coincide with this particular ordinance. Is that what the next step is? MR. WILEY: We would go into the Land Development Code, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so if you're inconsistent with the Land Development Code, what does that mean you are? Are you a nonconforming structure then? MR WILEY: Well, we talked about that earlier from the -- the definition of nonconforming can be used for zoning purposes, so I don't like to use that terminology. But you are noncompliant with your FEMA elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if it goes into the Land Development Code, which is the zoning code, would it be then nonconforming with the Land Development Code, which means it would be a non __ noncompliant with Land Development Code, which means it would be a nonconforming structure. Which means virtually every existing home in Collier County, most every home, would be nonconforming structures. And I'm just wondering what the impact to the realtors are going to be when they try to sell nonconforming structures throughout this county. I'm not sure that all that aggravation is worth what you're attempting to do here. I don't know anybody that's going to live or die over one more foot of water in their home. They may have more damages. And if we have compliance criteria where if they keep doing it over and over again, they don't protect their unit, they pay more for insurance or they have some other regulatory standard, that probably slaps them on the wrist as hard as a -- to the same impact that the freeboard would do, but not for the same cost. And that's the balancing I'm trying to fmd here. And I don't see it with this particular element. And I know you're sold on it, but -- MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I just wanted to get that on -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just follow through. If somebody got a floor elevation thing, it wouldn't note that they were below the freeboard, it would just note their elevation based on the base flood elevation, correct? MR WILEY: If you have an existing structure, you're grandfathered with that elevation until you reach substantial improvements or substantial damage. Okay. So when a building permit comes in and the application is within a special flood hazard area, they get the elevation __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't go down the building permit. What I'm concemed about is the person that Mark described. In an existing home, when he sells it at the closing, there's an elevation certificate. It's just going to show its relationship to the base flood elevation, it's not going to have a little asterisk, by the way, this doesn't meet the tTeeboard requirements? MR. WILEY: That's correct. Page 61 A3 fUbsT'r9 A"3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does it meet the Land Development Code? The answer would be no. And that's the conformity part that I'm concerned about. Okay, Robert, I think we're through section 430. If you want to put that colored overhead back on, I'd appreciate it and we'll see what we've missed from that one so far. First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. Haven't we -- so all of the standards that we're discussing are in this one section 430? One activity? MR. WILEY: Except for your public disclosure, your flood hazard disclosure. And that stretches across -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in section 340, right? MR WILEY: I think that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go to that section next. What happens to the sections that aren't on any of these bullets? Does that mean you didn't find way ways to bring points from any of those and that therefore we're not suggesting those? MR. WILEY: I'm not suggesting put them it into our ordinance at this time, that's what that means. There are a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did that -- so from the committee's perspective, let's start with -- well, let's start with 3 10. When you went to the committee, did you start with 31 O.A and explain to them what 3 10.A meant, how we could or could not qualify for it, and then they decide not to do anything in 3 I 0 and jump to 340? Or how did you approach the committee in selecting which segments of these activities out of 17 __ we've picked basically one and one item from another. And the other -- I'm just curious how we got there. MR. WILEY: From the committee's standpoint, we asked them to review the ordinance as we prepared it, using these points for higher regulatory criteria. Because those are ordinance related. The many, many of other issues are programmatic related. So as a part of the committee's review we are also looking from program standpoints. And they have put forth within the floodplain management plan some action items that address certain ones of these. Do they address most of them? No, we're not even close. We're trying to take this a little at a time to build a program over a series of years. But within the ordinance those are regulatory, which is why it is in the ordinance at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to hazard disclosure and that's Section 340. We didn't have any in our current report, the one dated 2003. Why hadn't we done this before? MR. WILEY: Because we do not require it of anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. But -- well, I could have told you that. You want to tell me why we didn't require it of anybody? MR. WILEY: It's never been put forth as any kind of a regulation within our flood damage prevention ordinance. Because that was back in 1986, and it's not been updated. So we went through, we looked at this one saying that is a concept that most people tend to agree with its value, so we proposed putting it regulatorily as a requirement this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how did you make the changes between the verification community rating report that we did in '98 and the one that was done in 2003 if it couldn't have been done without a change in the ordinance and you just said the ordinance hadn't been changed since prior to that original date? Because you've got two verification reports in front of us today. Both of them are different. They come to different conclusions and different categories. And I'm just wondering how you got there; how you could have changed them without changing the ordinance then, if that's what you just said. MR. WILEY: Okay. The verification reports that you have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILEY: -- are based upon the documentation that in years past staff submitted to ISO. ISO took the documentation that it was given and put together the verification report. So that's why they changed, depending upon what they were sent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but how do you decide what documentation to send them? Because what I thought you just told us, the reason that the hazard disclosure wasn't utilized before is we didn't choose to send it to them because it wasn't part of the ordinauce and we had to update the ordinance. Page 62 August 25, 2009 But yet we did change those activities that we sent to the CRS verification report at Jo iJen; 1 times. And I'm just wondering if we could change them before without going through the process we're sitting here doing today, what is it that we're going through this -- how did we do it in the past? How did we change them in the past if we hadn't already changed the ordinance at least once? Because I thought you said the ordinance hasn't been changed since it was originally done, or back in the Nineties. MR. WILEY: Well, the ordinance was approved in 1986. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, '86. MR. WILEY: That's the most recent modification to it, other than a couple little minor changes that dealt with some definitions and accepting the current flood insurance rate map. Some things that you submit are not ordinance requirements within the CRS program. They're programmatic. What I was saying is we have not had it in our ordinance that requires eveJfy time a property goes up for sale and you meet that person that you must disclose to them this property is within the special flood hazard area. Now, whether or not people volunteer to do that or not, we have no way of knowing. But the program says if you want the CRS credit, you will regulate that it is a requirement. We have never done that to this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to 340, disclosure. The first one is the -- it's up on the board. And Robert, you're getting 7 I of 8 I points, so that means you're taking the bulk of A and B, I would assume, and C -- you're taking A, B, C and D. You're taking various amounts from each of these, or can you explain to us how much you're taking out of each one? MR. WILEY: It's a combination throughout the criteria, when you're looking at A we are trying to get the 46 points that are there. Out of A. I . Real estate agents notify those interested in purchasing properties located in the SFHA about the flood hazard and the flood insurance purchase requirement. Now -- and it goes on to say what the notice must clearly state. Within the documentation that I presented to you before, we actually showed a sample generic type form right out of the CRS manual. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Robert, how do you certify to FEMA that that's in compliance, if you enact that? MR. WILEY: I show them a copy of our ordinance. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: And that's sufficient for them? MR. WILEY: That's sufficient to show that we have established the regulation, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I relate that back to that earlier issue that we had. MR. WILEY: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which I think is essentially the same question. MR. WILEY: Now, what we would be doing also, just as a matter offollowup, is to try them out. You're a real estate agent. You don't know me. So I come to your office, I want to talk to you about such and such a property, I'm in a face-to-face meeting with you. Let me just see how you react, do you give me a disclosure form or not. We're trying not to be subtle it but that's the practical side. Talk to people, did you get the form? Realtors, are you doing this. You know, you're trying to find out are they actually doing it. Would we ever be able to certify that absolutely everybody did it? No. And that's not the level to which we will be asked to do, but we have to have some way to verify that -- so -- but we will show the ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was making a comparison I think fairly obvious to the earliest conversation we had. But as long as you brought that up, education is a good thing, too. NABOR is a good organization and giving them the opportunity to help their agents do a better job would be useful. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, under Category 330, that's called the outreach projects. The total available is 380 points. The average community gets 90. We've only applied for 37. So when we get into that one, we'll probably fmd out more issues relative to what you just said. Page 63 A3 16Ugrt2009 A 3 Why don't we go on to B, Robert. MR. WILEY: Under B, when you look at the way it's worded for other disclosure requirements, you can earn up to -- I've got to change the paper. I'll have to show you. 7 in a minute, because I can't get on the screen. But within -- under Item B for other disclosure requirements, you can earn up to a maximum of 15 points from selecting through here. Now, each of these criteria have different ones you can do. We're proposing to do enough within our ordinance to pick up 15 points under B. Then what we propose to do is going down underneath your next one, which would be C -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you leave B, which of the three -- there's nine total. There's six on the page you're showing us, there's three others not shown. Of the nine, which ones are you suggesting that we obtain the five points from? MR. WILEY: Requiring all sellers to disclose. That's -- I sort of have them numbered differently than you all have them on your screen shot there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well-- MR. WILEY: But I think it's the first one, requiring all sellers to disclose in order to cover those cases where a real estate agent is not involved. Requiring all real estate agents and sellers to advise potential purchasers whether to the best of their knowledge and belief their property has ever been flooded. Requiring landlords to advise potential renters about the flood hazard. Requiring fmal recorded subdivision plats to display the flood hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. WILEY: And requiring individual lot surveys to show the flood hazard area. Those were the five points that we were putting in to go towards the 15, understanding that that can potentially give us more, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you can only get -- it says maximum 15. MR. WILEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you pick five, you're still going to get 15. MR. WILEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So some of these are less harmful than the others. For example, number two. I'm concerned about what it means when you ask someone to the best of their knowledge and belief the property has ever been flooded. And what really impact does that have? A realtor is going to claim he has no knowledge and belief, but yet if there was a front page story in the newspaper two years ago and he's a subscriber to the paper, someone could accuse him of knowing it and he just failed to disclose it. Are we really -- do we really need those kind of discrepancies to enter into pictures in regards to how people buy and sell properties? So maybe number two is one we don't even get to, we just do the other three or four. MR. WILEY: That is a potential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you review this with any of the people directly involved, like any of the realtors? MR. WILEY: I have been working with NABOR and with the Marco Island Board of Realtors. I hope I have that name correct. I think that's the name of the organization. They had an attorney who has worked, looking at the drafts. They also had another lady working with them, Ellie. So we have been communicating back and forth. Now, what I need to tell you is that we had everything all in agreement and they were supportive until we said you know the realtor is going to have to look at this stuff, not just simply accept it from the owner. They need to look at it and make a good faith effort to verify the information is correct. At that point we sort of separated. They did not want to take any responsibility for the information on the form. So then I have spoken to their attorney who was working with them. I sent him the documentation right out of this CRS manual so he could see why I said the program needed to have that requirement in there. He contacted me, he says he understood, that he would get back with me so they could help draft language to be in compliance. And then I have heard nothing from him until two days ago -- I think it was two days ago -- when I got an e-mail, he wanted to know what's happening. And I said we're going forward. Page 64 But I explained that I'm telling everybody, I don't know if] have your agreement or not. I never did get a response back from him. I think they're going to be in agreement with this, because they understand how simple it is to verify. You simply go to the county's web page and you look up and you can see the flood zone for any piece of property in the county. Takes you less than a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which of the items in this category, maybe we haven't got to them yet, put that responsibility on the real estate agent? Disclosure is one thing. What you're talking about goes beyond disclosure, I think. I mean, disclosure is basically you're telling them that there's a flood issue. But now you're asking the realtor to divulge certain information that they have to research. Which one of these requires that? MR. WILEY: It really deals with the fIrst two points where the realtor is involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First two of B? MR. WILEY: Yeah. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we have disclosure required in A. B.I and B.2, if we were to drop those, you still would have B.3, 4 and 5 and you still got your 15 points. MR. WILEY: Excuse me, it's a part of the number one there. Again, that's where I'm looking off a system that's numbered versus one that's lettered here. Where we're talking about disclosure by the real estate agent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILEY: -- the disagreement that we had was whether or not we would simply say the realtor was responsible to simply provide a copy of the form as filled out by the owner of the property and just straight provide that to everybody who he meets face-to-face. And my concern was okay, what if Joltn Doe homeowner doesn't have a clue what's supposed to go on the line, they fill out anything they want to. Is the realtor supposed to be totally free from any responsibility to check to see does this look right. And so I changed the language back around from what the attorney had given me. So it says they will do a reasonable effort to verify the information's correct. So it does put some responsibility upon a realtor who has been given a piece of paper to make sure it's filled out correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just going to move on a second. Some of these I don't think are a good idea. Like requiring the subdivision plats to display it, because you change it. So what would you do? We're on the cusp of a change right now. All the old subdivisions, anything recorded would show erroneous data. So don't pick any of those. MR. WILEY: Well, we're already doing that. It's already shown on the plats. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What are you showing? The FIRM? MR. WILEY: The flood zone line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So then when we change these all the plats we have on file don't show the correct -- MR. WILEY: They would not show the correct one, that is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, well, we can -- MR. WILEY: But at least it shows it initially going in that that was an issue at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But don't you think -- I mean, this could be -- maybe we should stop doing that then for the reasons we're going to learn. MR. WILEY: It helps people understand where they're buying so they know if they're going to need flood insurance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look at a plat that's changed. I mean, what if get -- I buy something, I look at the plat, it says I'm in a type X and this map has become -- you know, it has been promulgated. Then I'm making a mistake, aren't I? MR. WILEY: If you, at the point that you see within the plat that there is a flood zone line and that plat is a few years old, it should trigger your thought -- again, the word is should -- should trigger your thought to well, has that line been moved? But there appears to be a line within the area. Let me verify where it is. But we are recording that line already on plat, so that is simply a documentation method for us to August 25, 2009 161i1. A3 Page 65 August 25, 2009 1611 A3 .~ show what we're already doing on that point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I think the computer gives us nowadays a better way to do it, a flexible way, too. But anyway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the first two items, and specifically in the second where it says, to the best of their knowledge and belief, what's the force oflaw there? All right, we get credits, okay. But what is the ultimate purpose? What is it that we really achieve there? Let's say I came to Florida, I fell in love with a lovely house, I bought it, I'm here three years. I haven't got a clue whether it ever flooded there before. You said go to the flood maps. I don't know, it will tell you you're in a flood zone. It will never tell you whether it ever flooded there before. So I'm going to sell my property now, and I say to the best of my belief, and you could go to the flood map and see that it's in the flood zone, but that's not the question it's posing. So what is it all that we're really achieving by that? MR. WILEY: I can tell you from personal experience that when you get a phone call as county staff in August from somebody who bought a property in February, they've never seen a cypress tree before in their life. They don't have a clue that cypress lives in standing water. And then you get the phone call and you're holding the phone out from your head because they're yelling and screaming, saying that they're flooded, they're flooded, they're flooded. And you go out and you explain that over and over and over again to people moving into the area, this is designed to have water. This declaration would tell them you're going to have water standing on your property during certain times of the year. That's what that will be doing for them. That is just one example. The other example is from the standpoint of a realtor. And this really gets to effect more the old veterans around here than the person who just moved in and has started working in a realty office. For someone who has been around for years. And if they were to for instance be listing and selling, whether they list it __ you know, but they're involved in this sales transaction of a piece of property that we know has a history of flooding, such as within the gateway triangle area, just pick a particular point, that we know goes under water quite often. We want them to tell that person, you can expect that -- yeah, I've seen flooding through here. I personally have seen it. Now, are we wanting them to lie about it and say oh, no, it never floods. No, we're trying to get the best information out to the buyers so they can know what to expect by this declaration. I am not asking them to certify that they know it flooded on such and such a day. But have you ever seen flooding? And just say yes or no. If they say no, okay, now the question comes up that was asked, what if someone goes back and they pull up a newspaper article and here's a picture of the realtor standing there and his sign was on it from a previous time. Obviously he does know it. If he has signed a piece of paper which says no, it has never flooded, well, that's his liability insurance and subjection to a lawsuit at that point. He has declared something false. I'll let him resolve that one through the court system, should it go that way. But I don't want people buying property known to have flooding issues without being informed of it. Now, from FEMA's perspective, what they want the people to know upfront, is there going to be the potential requirement for the mandatory purchase of flood insurance. So this disclosure goes beyond that bare minimum. And in the CRS, remember, they ask you to consider things that go beyond the minimum. That's why we have it in here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was a discussion ever held that you might obtain the same result just by requiring that part of the package be a flood zone map for the area that the parcel geographically sits in? MR. WILEY: That's a perfect way to disclose it, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, because the rest of it is questionable as to what it gains. You know, words are fine, but they do nothing. I mean, there's more escape clauses in that. It's all well and good to think that, but if you want to get to the bite on that thing it would seem to me you'd require a document that shows hey, Joe, even the dumbest person, look at that, that's a flood zone. Hey, that's my house. I think that tells a story. Page 66 16 j, A3 .. ~ug/,st 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see where any of this, though, is going to help you with this lady that you have to hold the phone away from your head for because she sees standing water in her house, because it doesn't require a realtor to divulge that information. What it requires, and I'll read what it says: Credit for disclosure of a flood hazard is entirely based upon the real estate agent's informing people whether a property is in an SFHA, regardless of whether they asked. A law or policy to disclose hazard information only after an inquiry is made does not earn credit. All they got to do is tell these people there in a SFHA. That's it. And if they do that on a __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Routine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- property purchase agreement or form, it's done. So I'm not sure it gets to the problem that you think it's getting to by the lady that's calling you up and complaining about standing water on her property. I don't think anybody's saying that they should know that or disclose that. I mean, a lot of this is buyer's got to have some smarts to know if they buy in a swamp it's going to be wet. MR. WILEY: I thought so too, but apparently it doesn't work that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, doesn't a realtor have to or an owner have to disclose that anyway? If my house was flood and I tried to sell it, it's a known defect. I mean, I have to disclose that. I mean, there's laws someplace else requiring me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the best of your knowledge and belief. You know that amnesia you had? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I might disclose it as a feature, you can fish in your kitchen twice a year, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to pick up 15 points from three of the items under B. You're looking at all five. I'm not sure we need to go to all five. Maybe if you would consider which ones are the most -- least problematic, that would be a better way to approach. MR. WILEY: Well, obviously the one that is the most problematic from the realtor's standpoint is to the best of your knowledge and belief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree. Why put anybody in that position. It's too ambiguous. And Brad, is that plat -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that bothers me. Because, you know, I look at a plat, I see a flood zone. I mean, plats don't tell you what numbers to trust, what numbers not to. So that's something that's dangerous, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number three can be taken care of simply on the renters agreement. Number one is again a seller's agreement, which is a standard form someone would have to buy to sell their home anyway, whether they do it through a realtor or on their own. Number five is just something that's added to the survey where it simply says on the bottom with all the other small print they just throw in there that it's in a flood hazard area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that's good, because that's a current document. A surveyor I think would be an excellent person to expose that. But what about number four? Should we -- the county's doing that now. I guess we should-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if we leave in numbers 1, 3 and 4, we still get the 15 points and we've taken out two of them that could be problematic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll go with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, we leave out -- take out two and four. One, three and five. Take out two and four. I think that would simplify some of the stuff expressed here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, I think what you should do is hopefully come up with some wording that you would put on a plat that sends people to the right direction to get that information, since it is changeable information. I'm sure in the beginning you never thought the FIRM lines were going to change, but they're flexible, correct? Page 67 16urt l' 200~ 3 ~ MR. WILEY: Well, I'll agree with the last half of your statement, they are flexible. I won't agree that I never thought they would ever change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the point is that if I'm showing a FIRM line as per this date, could that not confuse somebody if it's no longer the line? MR. WILEY: Yes, it could. As I said, since we're already doing that, that's why I left it in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, when you go to a subdivision for information, you really trust that information. So I guess Joe will-- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we currently have on the website, you can type in your address and-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- get your flood map. When we go to the new flood maps we'll also provide a feature that will tell you the existing versus the future. But that will be available for anybody to just to type in their address and they'll tell them if they're in a floodplain or not. You can go on -- like I said, you can go on the website today and do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern, Joe, is if] go to the subdivision plans and get a copy of that and it shows a line on it that's a flood zone, which is the number four here, and that line is no longer the valid line, it's probably what's it telling us, it's not a good idea to put that information on the subdivision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's take as an example the triangle, which we know has flooded, flooded, flooded. Mitigation was not too long ago completed, or I think completed anyway, it certainly looks like it. And it looks like they -- I haven't seen any flooding. You know, maybe it will. But in the new map now, the fact that it had flooded is recorded. MR. SCHMITT: The new map is based off of elevations. Almost every structure in the triangle is -- it's in a bowl. That's basically physically or geologically or geography-wise, it's a bowl. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But so is the mitigation. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. You only can dig so many holes and fill up the hole with water till it overflows. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I'm trying to qualify in my mind, and certainly as it applies here, is that if we make a statement that we reveal that this place has been flooded but now it's 20 years later and it has not seen a flood and it's seen 25-year storms and all the other kind of stuff, what does that do for us? What's the other side of that in the law? Is there any relief associated with that when mitigation is effective? MR. SCHMITT: I don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, it can't be all negative, can it? MR. WILEY: It's not intended to be negative at all. It's intended to reveal what is the situation where it has flooded in the past and you know about it. But corrective actions have been taken. That's what you would state. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's all recorded to that flood map? MR. WILEY: You can state whatever you want to. I mean, you can type up a multi-page document if you feel free to do so. But we're just saying if you know you've seen flooding there, we want you to state what you saw. And that's all that was intended to be. If -- corrective actions, you know that's taken place, fine, so state that as subsequent to flooding, you haven't seen flooding since. You can clarify this however you wish so that you're making it real clear that you're telling the person what they're buying. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All of this to get a few credits that we can't certify anybody. Never mind. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, let's move on to C -- have you utilized C's 10 points? MR. WILEY: And yes, sir, we are proposing to utilize these 10 points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have you -- and as far as the realtors go, when you spoke with them did they understand what this means? Did you guys get into discussions on how the brochure -- who -- what Page 68 it entails? MR. WILEY: Yes, we did. We showed them the example right out of the CRS manual. It's pretty straightforward. Just a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just out of curi -- who provides the realtors with the brochure? MR. WILEY: What we would do is put a copy of it in Word forrnat on the web page __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can print it. MR. WILEY: -- and they can take it and tweak it to fit their parameters, however they wish to tweak it. Just as long as they provide the minimum basic information right off of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Item 0, disclosure of other hazards. What have we done with that, anything? MR. WILEY: Nothing. That deals with things such as mudslides, ice jams, tsunamis, things like that that we don't really have big issues with, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it also talks about -- well, let me read it. If the notification to perspective buyers credited in Section 34 I .A includes disclosure of other flood related hazards, such as coastal A zone -- which we've decided not to do, I think -- erosion, subsidence or wetlands. This credit is available only if the community also receives credit for the DFH. So we already are doing the DFH. So if there's wetlands on properties, we wouldn't -- wouldn't they be notified already? MR. WILEY: I did not want to place a realtor or a seller in a responsible position to declare whether it has jurisdictional wetland or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what 1-- MR. WILEY: So Ijust felt like that's beyond what the typical person would know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that gets us back to your bullet points. We've gone through the activities that involve the bullet points presented. Now, there's 17, and we've gone through two. There's another 15, one of which certainly doesn't apply to this part of the country, so that's gone away. But the rest of them might have some application like we learned about today. I think today's exercise is beneficial, because we may fmd, and as Robert has acknowledged, even he wasn't aware of some of the potential points that we've now suggested that he look into. And that means the committee wasn't aware of it. We might be able to find through this exercise an ample number of points to take out some of the more controversial items that are in this ordinance and deal with them at a future date, if we want to. But it's going to be a lengthy exercise. I'm going to leave it up to this board. I have no problem doing it, I have no problem scheduling the time in getting it done and it will just have to work out I'm not sure that the BCC is better served if we don't do that, but the opportunity to have a better program with less controversial things that we have shown here might be well done. What do you think? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we started, let's finish it. But to get the coordinators, Bob, the disc we have, the CD, is that what's on the disc? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. WILEY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WILEY: No, sir. You can actually go to FEMA's website. You can -- after you traverse through the website, you can find this CRS page. It has a whole series of tabs where you can bring up all of these points. The particular book he has there, you basically order it. It's better to do that and they'll ship it to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you send us both those sites? One is to order the book and one is to review it on line. MR. WILEY: Okay. August 25, 2009 16' 1 A3 Page 69 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It works on-line. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You got it already in an e-mail-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he says we don't. MR. WILEY: You should have had it -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You do, though. MR. WILEY: -- from what the county attorney gave you already. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, the website? MR. WILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. MR. WILEY: You should have had it, but I can send it again if you -- COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: I downloaded the whole thing. MR. WILEY: -- need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's important that if you guys can get this -- I'd suggest you just order it. From the time we were notified of the website, that's how I got it. I went there pursuant to notification from the county attorney's office. And I filled out the form on-line, and then I got it last Wednesday. So I can't tell you how many days transpired, but it's probably two or three weeks. And I would suggest if we -- for us to have this, we can go through these activities. And if we go through them with everybody having a briefing ahead of time from their own review, it might expedite the process a not. Plus there's a lot of positive questions I think will come out of this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that mean you wish to extend our next meeting until several 16ATs15, 20~ 3 weeks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we need to extend it to a point in time where you guys may have the document. Robert can get back to us on the activity example we already set today, which was 430 section. I'd just sure like to see after you do further research with staff what we can come up with on those alternatives under Section 430. And then it would also give us more time to digest the balance of the information. How does the rest of the panel feel about that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's do it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that in mind, I need to ask the county attomey's office, this has been a continued meeting to begin with. We're going to need to continue it at least for four weeks. Is that a problem advertising-wise, or do we have a -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that in mind, did staff -- Robert, did you pick up some dates? And I guess we probably are looking toward the end of September or -- October is pretty much of a mess. So what did you come up with available dates for this room or someplace to meet? MR. WILEY: Well, I went next door and asked them and I haven't seen them deliver the schedule yet. But they were supposed to print out a schedule of available rooms. If you'll give a moment, I'll walk around the comer and see if they have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's just take a break for four minutes and 2: 15 we'll kick back in. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back. And what we found out is it's a little more complicated to get dates for room availability that quickly. So what I suggested we do is that when we go to continue, we'll continue this meeting until September 3rd after our regular meeting, at which time during -- we'll discuss a continuance to a fmner date. We won't discuss the issues on September, really, it will just continue to then so we can keep the continuity of the continuance. Then we'll recontinue it at that date to another date. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Continue the continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we'Il-- yeah, we'll continue the continuance. Now, with that in mind, I'd like to talk about two things before we break. One is when we schedule Page 70 IbSj25'r09 A 3 these new meetings, I don't think it matters if we're here or over in CDES. This is more comfortable, but I'm concemed about setup for video and all that. And that's the only thing I'd like to suggest we not do that for. So let's fIrst look at trying to use this room when it's empty so we don't have to have the cost of resetting up over at CDES for this issue. And the second thing is, we've got two AUIR dates in September, and we've got two GMP dates in October, which makes October a real difficult month, because the GMP dates will take a ton of reading and we'll need most of the month for that. But the two AUlR dates in September, I'm not sure we're going to need both days. There's a possibility we could use one of those days if -- the AUlR should not be too complicated this year. And if we can get through it in one day, that would leave a potential for the second day. We can't do anything, we have no money unless they raise taxes again. So with that, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: What are the AUIR dates in September? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, I'll tell you in a minute. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have my calendar, so-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's the 21st and 23rd, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 21st and 23rd. Yes, they're both at CDES. So I'm not -- hopefully the AUIR is less complicated this year than in the past. MR. KLATZKOW: Nick is filling potholes these days and I think that's about the end of transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only other time consuming one was EMS, because they -- we just had so many issues there. But hopefully they'll have a better report this year. So with that in mind, do we have anything else we want to discuss at today's meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue this to after our regular meeting on September 3rd? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. That passed 5-0. We are adjourned and we are continued until September 3rd after our regular meeting. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:22 p.m. COL These minutes approved by the board on I() -I') - D~ as presented 0r as corrected_. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 71 September 3, 2009 I 16' 1 RECEIVJe&sCRIPT OF THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT NOY I 2009 MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Fiala BoonlofCotJnty~ Naples, Florida Halas September 3, 2009 Henning Coyle Coletta ~ A3 '1 . -reI cp ~ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, rnet on this date at 2: 15 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Cornplex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Ko Iflat (Absent) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Absent) David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES, Adrninistrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Page I Misc. CoIr8s: Date: Item #: C,pies to: : 1 6 rseTmbeA'309 ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, welcome everyone to the September 3rd Meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. . . , -,' This is a continuation of the Floodplain Management Meeting that we hfI4started on Monday, August 24th,;20Q9.It was continued to this date to pick other dates in which we din actually meet. We didn't intend to meet and discuss it today, but at the time on MqndaYf August. 24th, We had no other dates. But as a result of all the discussion that we had on Monday, August 24th, it appears there's going to be a change. Mr. Schmitt, I'll ask you to explain things to us. MR. SCHMITT: Basically I'm withdrawing the item frorn your agenda. I've asked -- or directed Robert to send it back to the floodplain committee to review all the options as defmed in the floodplain manager's coordination manual, and for them to review and come back with a recommendation. So stated in simple terms, we either just close the meeting or I just continue indefinitely. Either one is the same thing. It's -- but you will not see the ordinance for quite a while. The intent here is also we're going to be facing an issue related but different, and that is the fielding of the flood insurance rate maps, which is going to be another significant event in Collier County. That will take place in the January, February time frame. And until those maps are fielded and the impact of those rnaps in relation to our community rating system and some of the proposals that come frorn the floodplain committee, I think it's just best that we kind of go back and send the entire package back to the committee review; again what's in the coordinator's manual and then come back with a proposal to look at how do we want to -- what is their recommendation to you in regards to pursuing a change in classification, whether we look for some of the other alternatives rather than what I would call structural alternatives. There are other alternatives that you've all discussed and certainly are worth exploring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before -- I know Mr. Murray wants to speak, but before he does, I want to kind of make a clarification. I know you said that the flood rate maps don't necessarily work are the same discussion as the CRS rating system. Well, the problern is the CRS rating system dictates rules in certain flood categories, and if the maps change the county's categories, those rules have a much broader irnpact than coastal areas where you might have expected FEMA to have a stronger representation. And when -- you're now saying that farm fields have FEMA concerns. That was the link I believe everybody needs to be aware of. And that when we pass those rules, we're not passing them now just for the high expected areas along the county where people move expecting to have flood problems, but we're passing them for everybody, including Immokalee, which is clear on that map will have a significant impact from FEMA's new rules. So that's the purpose for linking them together, Joe, and -- MR. SCHMITT: Understand. The ordinance -- if you take some of the structural measures in the ordinance, it does have an irnpact, because you're -- those are all based on what is called base flood elevation. Many areas that in Golden Gate that were labeled as a D zone, which is undetermined, there are going to be AH zones, X zones, AH zones scattered throughout the county. And of course then they'll be defined base flood elevations for those. And yes, those -- any ordinance that requires freeboard or other type of what I can structural alternatives would then irnpact those areas of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? cOMM1Sm~NER MURRAY: Joe, just to be helpful to Mr. Wiley, I know you said that the statute requires that there be a plarmer on that committee. And unfortunately you lost a good plarmer in Mike ,"fk:: Page 2 DeRuntz, who was a certified manager in that area too. Just as a thought, are you going to be able, given your staff limitations, going to be able to provide Mr. Wiley that kind of assistance? Because apparently he wasn't getting that. Not for anybody's fault but he just wasn't getting it. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's a matter -- to answer your question probably in a limited scope, it's a matter of funding. 1bis is general fund dollars III that pays for this. As with certainly the committee members, there's -- it's about a 50/50 between staff and volunteers, appointed volunteers. We pretty much take that out of hide. But I still have to be able to fund someone out of general fund dollars to sit on that. If I take a planner out of zoning department, they're funded primarily out of fees collected for rezoning or other activities. Yes, I could put a planner from the zoning department on, but then that's taking away frorn what they are paid to do and that is to review petitions and review plats and plans. I'll probably be looking at someone in Comprehensive Planning, their general fund, but they also have a lot on their plate as well, a whole list of things. So yes, to answer your question, I'll look at it. But it's again, a rnatter of the limited resources I have, how I -- where I place those resources, and the effectiveness of expending general fund dollars, whether that's -- it's something I want to look at putting on this or just simply delay it. But right now we're going to take it back to the committee, we'll look at where the committee wants to go with this. But I do expect once we get issued the final version ofthe digital flood insurance maps, that's going to become a -- certainly become an issue. And dealing with those and this whole flood ordinance may be secondary until we get through that process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, that's the reason I was really asking the question is that you said it was the statute required it. And inasmuch as the statute required it, for us to be able to review it effectively and approve it as we should, we should have the elements that comprise the statute agreed to. And what my conclusion would be then, based on your very severe lirnitations, we probably won't see this for a lot longer than you first indicated. It will be a while. MR. SCHMITT: It will be, yes. It's at least six months away, if not longer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The public should know that, because I think right now the public is concerned. MR. SCHMITT: But again, that depends on where the committee wants to go with it. There are public appointed constituents who are part of that committee and certainly they're going to have an influence as to where this thing goes as well. So we're taking it back to the committee and for all intent and purposes we're starting at ground zero. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Zero. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to recommend to the board that we adjourn that meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- Ijust want to say one thing fust. One thing we never did do, was really go, page-by-page through the actual draft ordinance. The first meeting we had a presentation; we did a little bit of it. The second meeting we actually went into the handbook and discussed credits we were missing. And I guess so now it's going to go back to the committee to go through the handbook and thoroughly vet all the potential stuff. But there was a lot of comments that I had just on the -- you know, that we never really got to. And I guess if it goes through the committee and comes back with that same format, we're -- other than bringing September 3, 2009 1611 A3 Page 3 September 3, 2009 in more additional points, I just wonder if we should -- MR. SCHMITT: I would encourage if any members of the Planning Commission have comments, you could contact either rne or contact Robert with your comments and we'll be glad to sit down and talk to you. But I can't tell you right now whether what you saw is going to come back again in that same format or same recommendations. I think the floodplain committee may look at this as a different approach. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, maybe if you could let us know the schedule, maybe one meeting I would go and just discuss sorne of the issues I had with the report that they had that weren't -- had nothing to do with the manual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to adjourn the floodplain management meeting? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. We're out of here. Thank you all. 1611;iA3 ,.4 K .':" ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:23 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~.. . ~p. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on J ()- I S-..... b) as presented V or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 4 v RECEIVED NOV 13_ Fiala j)F~" Hala~ , vL Henning -r Coyle Coletta Jc4 €P LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida September 3, 2009 16 rrberAj9 , Board 01 County Clft.... _IV aM, of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Govemment Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat (Excused) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Absent) David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES, Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, School District Misc. Corres: Page I Date: Item #: Copies to: 1 6serier 3~j _ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Septem~r 3,rdp1e~ting of the Collier County Plarming Commission. . If you'll !ill please rise -- not to be sworn in by the court reporter but for the pledgepfallegianc~ (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ' Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY And our secretary is not here today, so let's start with roll call. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show that Mr. Vigliotti is not here and Mr. Kolflat is not here. They -- I know Mr. Kolflat has reasons not to be here today, his is excused. And I'm sure Mr. Vigliotti has, but we'll verify that when we see him next time. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA And with that, we'll move on to the addenda to the agenda. We are going to be hearing one project that was continued to today's meeting. It's Item 9.A. It's the Taormina Reserve, the Highlands Property of Lee and Collier, Limited. We had agreed last time that if the applicant can successfully take our comments and put them into a format that we can review on consent, we'd do the consent on that one at the end of today's meeting. So what I would like to do is take 9.A after the regular hearing, review it on consent under old business, so it would be lOA under old business. Is that okay with the rest of the plarming commission members? That's an assumption we get through it to a point where it goes to consent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than that, I don't know of any changes to the agenda. Page 2 September 3, 2009 Item #4 161 1 A3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning commission absences. There's been a little mix-up in the information we've been given in our schedule for September regarding the AUIR, and I guess from our discussions last time. It keeps bouncing back and forth. The 23rd is defmitely one of the days. Every agenda has had that. But some agendas have shown the 24th, others have shown the 21st. I believe the 21st is the correct time; is that right? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. It's always been the 21st. I'm not sure why it was different on the calendar you were given. But it's been the 2 I st since the day it was scheduled. Originally it was the 2 I st and 22nd, but we put a day in between. So it would be the 21 st and 23rd. I do think you will fmish this AUIR in one day, though, as we discussed previously. And we'll talk about the 23rd, because you were -- and that's last on the agenda as a possible date for the continuation of the floodplain ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it's noted there that it's 8:00 in the morning. I have no personal objection to that, but that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use yourmic, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me. I noted that it's listed as 8:00 in the morning. And while I have no personal objection to that, that's different than what we normally do. Is that what we want to do? MR. SCHMITT: The room is advertised as 8:00 being taken, but I believe the advertised is actually 8:30. I will confmn that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, that meeting in particular is over at CDES, it is not going to be in this room. So that's where we have bigger tables. It's a dual committee meeting with us and the productivity committee. Also changes to the schedule: The schedule that was originally in our packet only showed two regular meetings in October. The one that was passed out this morning is a little more detailed, it shows a meeting for GMP amendments on the 19th and 20th and a carryover on the 29th. So for those of you setting your schedules for the remainder of this month and October, that's kind of where we're at. If anybody knows they're not going to be able to make any of those meetings, just let us know if you can't as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the -- in September I show the 29th and 30th as overruns for the AUIR. Is that -- I don't know where I got that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't have it. I doubt it if based on the fact we better not be spending any money, I can't see how we could run it over that long anyway. So -- and Tom, I know that you don't have a lot of discussion because we don't bring a lot of issues up that affect the school system in regards to some of the issues, but I know that on the GMP hearings the 19th and 20th in particular of October a lot of that stuff would certainly -- I hope you can attend those two meetings. MR. EASTMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. SCHMITT: And Tom needs to be at the AUIR. This will be the first AUIR where we actually address the public schools facilities element. So that will be a presentation by the school board staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, that was one I was hoping he wouldn't attend. MR. SCHMITT: I suspect you may have -- that may be the area where you have a lot of questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'd Jiketo see us get control of the school board. That would be real Page 3 interesting. Nobody else can do that. MR SCHMITT: Tom says no comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's enough for the schedules. Let's go on to our approval of minutes. And the minutes that are in front of us is August 6th, 2009. Does anybody have any changes or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to recommend approval or to have it for approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. September 3, 2009 1611 A3 Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NO MEETINGS IN AUGUST CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The recaps. There was no meeting in August so there won't be any of those. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Chairman's Report. During discussions I've had with staff on today's agenda, one thing I found is that the County Attorney's Office had not been getting a timely review of some of our consent agenda items, and so there will be recommended changes. Is Heidi going to be here today, Jeff? Oh, there she is. I've never seen you sitting there before, Heidi, you're usually in the back or up here. Okay, when we get to the consent agenda, Heidi does have some changes that need to be made. And I think the Taormina Reserve, there may be some changes or comments at least in how that was processed. I would ask that staff please make sure that from now on the County Attorney's Office can sign off on all these documents before they even get to us. Because if they haven't, just keep them pulled from our agenda until they do. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, will do. And I'll continue to meet with Heidi to work out any issues to improve the process. Item #8A - Discussed and continued to later in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091. SIENA LAKES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other than that, we'll move into the consent agenda items, and there Page 4 September 3, 2009 are two of those. And I'll need Heidi's input for these. The first one is Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-1409I. It's the LCS Westminster Naples, LLC. And that's also known as the Siena Lakes CCRC/PUD. A lot of acronyms there. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Good morning, council members. For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. The ordinance that I approved is a little bit different than the ordinance in your package. I'm just going to note what the changes are so you have them for the record. The first is on the ordinance on Page I. Exhibit G has changed to Exhibit F, because we dropped off Exhibit G, which is the conditions of approval. On your Exhibit C.5, which is the site amenities, on the one that I approved -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go page by page. Because we've got to make our changes before we vote so we know exactly what you're talking about, Heidi, so -- MS. ASHTON-ClCKO: Okay. So on Page 1 in Section I, the second line from the bottom, it says in accordance with Exhibits A through G. And that's changed to A through F. And the reason is that we dropped the conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: On your Exhibit C.5, which is the site amenities -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that look like? COMMISSIONER CARON: This. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it's a picture. I'm looking for a listing. So okay, you're referring to the exhibit master plan. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, there's just a notation at the very bottom that will indicate that this is graphics for illustrative purposes only. Because the owner had testified at the hearing that this was conceptual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, there's C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, and all these are the graphics, and the last one is the one you're referring to. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the language you wanted to add? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Graphics for illustrative purposes only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'djust like to note for the record that your Exhibit 0 is a new Exhibit D. It's different than what was presented to you at the last hearing. However, graphics and the owner have confmned that that is the correct legal for the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean the first one was in error? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know the answer to that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if we have two different legals, was the first one consistent or incon-- or what does that -- how much different was the first one than this one? MR. BELLOWS: Well, this is the first I'm hearing of this, and the planner assigned to this isn't here today, but I will check into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's put this off for approval till later. That's a critical question. Because if the legal was wrong, that may mean the advertisement that started the whole thing could have been wrong to begin with. I'd rather make sure we're on firm ground with the right legal that was advertised correctly, and then that is then consistent with the one that's being approved. So Mr. Y ovanovich I believe is the attorney that represents them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Terry Cole has just confirmed that the legal description attached to this document is the same legal description that was in your staff report when this item was heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how come it's -- we have Ms. Ashton telling us it's different? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, it may have been in the ordinance that she got had a different version. I don't know if she reviewed the one in the staff report. But I'm looking at the one that was in the staff report, and it appears to be the same one that we have here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know which one you advertised? 161 1 A3 Page 5 September 3, 2009 MR. BELLOWS: That's what we'll have to check. 1 t... I 1 A 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because somewhere, if there's another adver -- another letal'tescription that's not consistent, then we may have a problem, and I'd like to fmd that out before we make a motion on a legal description that's not well founded. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think it's pretty critical that our legal department get the correct legal description, or else how are they going to review for us? We can't -- you know, they can only do so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. That's why I want to make sure this is right before we proceed with an approval. So Ray, while -- between here and the time we go to Item 10, we'll have to defer this to another approval period on Item 10. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we're having someone call back to the main office and verify the advertising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR BELLOWS: Since our location maps are derived from the fIrst legal that we got and that appeared to be correct, I assume the advertising is correct, but we're going to verify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, any time the county legal's office has a question, it needs to be fully vetted and verified. So it won't hurt to have this happen a little later. Mr. Y ovanovich is going to be here all day anyway. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, I do have the package that went to the CCPC, so I'll meet with Mr. Cole and show him the two legals. May I for the record just make the last change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. What is that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, the last one is on Exhibit E of your list of requested deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's item two. Your copy reads a deviation from the LDC Section 6.06.06.A.2 (sic) to require a -- and we've inserted the six-foot. And then it goes on to read as you have written in your package, sidewalk on only one side of -- and then the rest is the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, a little advertising in the back there for a minute. Okay, so we would insert the word six-foot in front of sidewalk. Just for the record, when you read that section, it's 6.06.02.A.2. You had read 6.06.06.A.2. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Ijust want to make sure it's right. Okay, and that's all the changes you have to the fIrst consent item? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't go away, because we have a second consent item. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know, I'm getting another file. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're going to postpone the vote on that consent item until -- it will be Item 10.B on today's agenda. That will give staff enough time to verify that the Exhibit 0 in this proposed consent matches the legal advertisement in the newspaper, Ray, okay? We're matching Exhibit 0 up to the legal advertisement. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2009-AR-14l41, THE NAPLES ITALIAN -AMERICAN CLUB. INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, let me read the next one so we know which one we're going Page 6 into. September 3, 200}\ 3 161 1 Petition PUDZ-2009-AR- I 4141, the Naples Italian-American Club at 7035 Airport Pulling Road. It's another consent item from the previous meeting. And Heidi, do we have any issues there? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There are just a few changes from the ordinance that I approved. In the first whereas clause, I just corrected Mr. Y ovanovich's fmn name, because it's been changed. The new name is Coleman, Y ovanovich and Koester. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And your copy did not have a reference to Exhibit G, which is conditions of approval, which were added in this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And where in this-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That would be shown under Section I, the very last line in accordance with Exhibit A through G. And then that would also be shown on the second page where we identify the list of exhibits. There would be an exhibit sheet, conditions of approval, that's under my signature line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Then Ijust wanted to note that one of your items in your CCPC motion was that the project is limited to the height and number of flagpoles that exist today. So I was looking for that exact language. The language that reflects that is on Exhibit B, paragraph G, and it states only one tower shall be permitted on the Tract B, which shall be limited to the height of the existing tower. The owner indicated that it's not a flagpole, it's a tower, and so we're asking that that just correction be made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that matches the intent. Yeah, the flagpole is really a communications tower. Is that in agreement with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, does it have to keep the flagpole shape, or can it be any kind of a tower? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The intent was to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. My recollection ofthe intent was that it was to be nothing different from what it is today, should it ever have to be replaced. And I remember Commissioner Caron stating that, and I agree with that. That was my-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So pulling the word flagpole out means they could take it down and put any kind of communication tower. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the language that the owner and Mr. Moss agreed to is only one tower shall be permitted. I think that's consistent with one flagpole. And then shall be limited to the height of the existing tower. The language is quite different, but l'lllet Mr. Y ovanovich comment on that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Should we just add the phrase it shall be limited to the type and to the height COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR YOV ANOVICH: -- of the existing tower? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only one tower limited to the height and type of that existing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I mean, I think that was the intent of the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, one at a time. Okay, only one tower limited to the height and type as that existing shall be permitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're comfortable that type means flagpole? In other words, if they come out and say it's a decorative tower but this time we want to try a tree, which I've seen, not good Page 7 16e1temtr 3, A~ !1 looking, would that work, or would type lock it in to be the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess the County Attorney's Office would have to tell us that. If we've referenced the type, meaning our intent being the flagpole, does that stay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we say flagpole type? MR. SCHMITT: Or just use the language which would be disguised as a flagpole, because that's what it is. Essentially it's a communication tower disguised as a flagpole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, limited to the height and flagpole type. Only one tower-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or you could put existing tower/flagpole. I mean, if some people think it's a flagpole, but it's a tower. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're getting real complicated here for a flagpole. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I'll defer to your-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only one tower limited to the height and flagpole type as currently exists shall be permitted on Tract B. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good with that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That eliminates the idea of that big tree they have up at Animal Kingdom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, the word type means -- I'm not sure what that means. Again, it could be interpreted as a means of decorative tower. Why don't you just use the word flagpole? Flagpole type I thought worked well. What's the down side of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- well, okay, I'm not against anything, I'm trying to get through this. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what he's suggesting is using the term flagpole type. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have the word flagpole in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, in there, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Never mind. I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does everybody have the language? Does the court reporter -- I'm sure she has multiple references to this now. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I read it one more time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want me to read it or you want to read it? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Whatever you prefer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read it. Only one tower limited to the height and flagpole type as currently exists shall be permitted on Tract B, which shall be limited to the height of the existing tower. Well, that's redundant. So after Tract B we would have a period. And I'll read it one more time. Only one tower limited to the height and flagpole type as currently exists shall be permitted on Tract B. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Works for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, are there any other corrections? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just one, which is if you go to your master plan on Exhibit C, and I'm referring to the two arrows that are on your south side, you'll note that one of them says shared access and vehicular connection. The other one does not. And I've requested that the master plan be revised to indicate that the other one is also a vehicular connection point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That certainly was the intent. So -- okay. Are there anything else? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there anything from the Planning Commission? Page 8 September 3, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there have been several changes recommended. Is there a motion to recommend approval on the consent agenda for the Petition PUDZ-2009-AR- I 414 I? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. And I assume all those are with the changes that have been recommended by the County Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Okay, with that, we will move into our advertised public hearings. And by the way, for the reporting office upstairs, thank you very much for the coffee this morning. It's keeping me going. I'm sure that Cherie's not appreciative of my quick discussion here, but I'll try to slow down. 161 !1 A3 Item #9A PETITION: PUDZ-2007 -AR-lll 00, TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD The first advertised public hearing is Petition PUDZ-2007 -AR-I11 00, Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Limited, for the Taormina Reserve. This is a continued item from our August 20th meeting. The developer went back and made some changes. We have a new staff report and some changes in front of us, and it will be that document we'll probably be working from mostly today. Richard -- oh, before we go into it, anybody wishing to speak on this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Everybody that may want to speak on this item, please rise and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes, I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich on this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have spoken to Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold. We went over things that we'll be re-discussing here today. So with that, Richard, it's yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. Wayne Arnold is here as well to answer any questions you may have. And I think that's it, because I think we got through a majority of the presentation last time. You have in front of you the revised PUD document that we met with your staff on to go over their concerns, and the documents have been revised to address the staff concerns and comments. Since then we've obviously had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Strain and Ms. Caron regarding further comments regarding those documents. And if the Chairman will indulge, it may go quicker if I go ahead and address those comments. And Page 9 September 3, 2009 we've made those changes to the documents already and we'd be prepared to do those. ~t 6r. !r ploses A 3 of the public discussing those, I'll go through the changes that we're prepared to make, and if there are additions, we'll obviously discuss and make those changes as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, for the record, though, when I met with you, I made it clear that the changes -- or the concerns I had were mine -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and they're subject to the whole Planning Commission. MR YOV ANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's why I'm going to go one-by-one. So if there -- and if your colleagues agree with you, Mr. Strain, we've made those changes. If not, we can always go back, again with the goal of making the consent agenda for later this morning, I hope. And I'll just -- if that's okay, we'll go that way through the process. Or if you prefer a different process, let me know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that works. MR YOV ANOVICH: That would start with basically Exhibit A, Page 2. Under SIC -- under the first A-I, under the groups, SIC Code 7941, that is professional sports clubs and promoters, we would agree __ a comment came up about stadiums and ballparks. And we would prohibit stadiums and ballparks within that code. Then going to the next Page 3 under item six, we need to add a note to Group No. 521 I, which is the home improvement superstores where it says no unroofed or enclosed outdoor storage permitted. We would clarify that to say that this prohibition does not apply to landscaping and nursery. I don't think there's an issue with the outdoor nursery and landscape aspects of these types of uses. And in fact, if you look at 5261, it specifically allows retail nursery. So we wanted to address that inconsistency, if you will, about nurseries being allowed to be outdoors. And I believe that was all the changes to Exhibit A, the type of uses that we were -- we discussed and are prepared to make. Mr. Chairman, would it make sense at this point to see ifthere are any other comments regarding Exhibit A before I move to Exhibit B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Okay, any other questions from the Planning Commission on Exhibit A? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, let's go back to the fIrst page and you can help me with something here. On the second paragraph we talk about for each acre developed for group housing uses. And it goes on to explain what they are. The maximum number of conventional, conventional dwelling units authorizing the PUD shall be reduced by seven units per acre. Under the conventional, we don't have a limitation on the number of units per acre to begin with? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. When you're talking about-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no, the comprehensive plan basically provides -- in the urban area the base density is four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: When you get to activity centers, that number can go up to 16. And if you're in a -- oh, crap, whatever word that is -- you can go another three. If you're within a certain distance -- a density band. Within a density band you can go up to three. So that's where the number seven comes from, because this area is in the density band. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, then you've answered my question in that regard now, and I'm satisfied, thank you. On this schedule, I don't quibble a lot about certain things, but I thought it was interesting. On Page 4 __ you can leave it in there, I suppose. But under 60 II, that's under 10, depository federal reserve bank, I Page 1 0 i September 3, 2009 just wondered, I mean, I don't really have an issue with it because I have no expectatiolaellg to A 3 put a federal reserve bank in there. But I will go to Item 12 and talk about the eating and drinking places. And we have it here for I I :00. But when we go to your recommendations that are in here from staff we talk about 500 feet. And we need to get into that a little bit more. Because I know in some of the others we've done, we've talked about 2,500 feet from a residential. And I recognize that we're also talking interior here, that was another effort we had to try to minimize the noise. But 11:00, did we agree to II:OO? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe there was any -- we had thrown that out there as a discussion item, and we've included it in the document because we had committed to that. I don't think there was resolution from the planning commission as to even if any was acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you put your site plan up on this so we can see where the 500-foot circumference would come into effect and what area that leaves in which you could have this outside entertainment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In particular because of 58 12 and 13, I am -- you know, I recognize we try to strike a balance, and that's important here, but sound does travel and it is a significant issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put this right side up, it might be easier to read. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have control. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ray's busy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just exercised control, Richard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess my point here is that 11:00 seems a little late to me for amplified music and televisions, because I can imagine them being outside, I can imagine the sound being a problem. I think we ought to modify this at least a little bit and start talking about if there's going to be any music and TV, it ought to be inside after a certain hour rather than 11:00. I think 11:00 is quite late. I don't know if any of my fellow commissioners agree with that, but that's a thought I had. So let's see if there's anything else. Yeah, you don't have an expectation for funeral services and crematories as well? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if I have an expectation of those services there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't. Not considering-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess you could at some point, but I -- is that a problem, that use in an activity center? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You know, I'm a pretty liberal person in that regard. I don't quibble a lot about it. But it seemed an odd juxtaposition for assisted living and so forth and funeral services. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's an all-in-one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was the extent of my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Communications groups. And I cannot remember, unfortunately, and ljust noticed it and I marked it but never went back and looked. Does that include any towers or restriction on dishes, receiving and broadcasting? Says towers and dishes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 4812, 13,22,32,33 and 34. We'll check, but I don't think we envisioned communication towers. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it says broadcasting in there, and generally the broadcasting needs something to broadcast it out of. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll check on that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It could just be on-site then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on Exhibit A only? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 2 of20, in number four under the automotive, 7521, that is for garages, parking lots, parking structures and tow-in parking lots? And it's for a fee base hourly, daily, monthly contract or fee basis. Does that mean it can be a towing company? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's 7521? Page II September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. 16 I 1 A 3 _ MR. YOVANOVICH: We're looking under the -- Wayne's got the SIC Code book, so -- 21. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's a place where you're going to store cars for a fee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're checking on the communications towers and you're checking on the towing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The towing lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Towing lot. MR YOV ANOVICH: If towing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just say you don't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If towing lot's a prohibition, we don't want that. We'll prohibit towing lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 7521, excluding any tow-in lots. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. That's fine. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. And on Page 6 of20 under 21, again it's at 5735, that's retail sales of videos and discs. Could it include no adult oriented. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What number is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: 5735. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page? MR. YOV ANOVICH: On Page 6 of20. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 6 of20. Under 21. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under 2 I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else from anybody on the Planning Commission on Exhibit A. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry. On Page 8 of20. 5999. I mean, I don't know if it's a-- under that listing there's gravestones, monuments and tombstones and sales barns. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that's an issue, we can delete that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, sales barns, I don't even know what they are. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't either, so -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think they're standalone things that -- MR YOV ANOVICH: So take out sales barns and the tombstone-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No gravestones or sales barns. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just take out the category. It's not anything-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, that's true. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess crematories are going to go then. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, they're taking out the whole thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, art dealers are allowed under 5299, hearing aid stores are 5299, architectural supplies -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's 5999. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, is that 5999? I'm sorry, 5999. We were talking about the right number, I said it incorrectly. So I mean, we would agree to eliminate the two uses you just discussed from that category. Ifthere are others in that -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Gravestones, monuments, tombstones and sales barns. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. We'll -- excluding those. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the communications towers, Wayne, did you fmish researching that, or Richard? Why don't we say no communications towers. Do you have a problem with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I mean, you're talking about standalone communication towers, Mr. Wolfley, is that the concern? Page 12 September 3, 2009 J " A3 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, that and you could also have a dish farm 1 ~. .L COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or on the ground. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, or on the ground, but-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is a dish on the roof an issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have to be -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If you're broadcasting, those are pretty large dishes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't they have to be blocked from view, any rooftop elements like that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That answers my question. MR YOV ANOVICH: Well, we - I think the LD -- I'm not sure but I think the LDC addresses that. Ray and Wayne, I would defer to those two to know for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so I guess what we're saying is no communications towers-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for number one, and no dishes, no communication dishes unless blocked from view. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm just saying that there could be a tower, it just -- it can't be, you know, a certain height. I mean, if it doesn't exceed the height of the building, I wouldn't be worried, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, what I'm saying is that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't want there to be a radio broadcast tower on -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That is a true statement. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- this site, because you don't want the RF reigning down on the homes that they're going to have on this -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, we've got that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- part of the site. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- already. But I guess it was just a visual thing for me. But yes, let's just keep it at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, do you have any problem with taking out communications towers? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that's the issue. Anybody else on Exhibit A before we -- before I ask a question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What a naughty laugh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I told you I was concerned earlier when we met about the exchange on a per acre for seven units. You could do a 10-acre -- this is on Page I. You could do a 10-acre CCRC, give up seven units but pack it with 300 units if you wanted to. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just saying if you wanted to. And in my discussion with Ray at one point on this matter, it was suggested that we could be looking at FAR -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it would be regulated to the .45 FAR. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's actually .6 in this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, where? It's written in the PUD at .6? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe under the group housing development standards. That would be Exhibit B. And it may also be in -- we didn't? Well, if we didn't, then we are at the .45. I thought we were at .6 only because we have been doing that. We'll check-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't think I saw it in here. If you guys can point it out, then we want to make sure that the second paragraph doesn't conflict with whatever point you find it at. Page 13 September 3, 2009 A 2 " 1611 J But lacking that, it would be .45. And that needs to be put in here then to make sure tliat we're consistent with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on Exhibit A before we go into Exhibit B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Exhibit B? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exhibit B, table one, footnote number six. To make it consistent with what we've been saying all along, and the master plan is on the visualizer, the shaded area is where we agreed to limit ourselves to two stories not to exceed 35 feet, and that was both zoned and actual height of35 feet. We propose changing that footnote to read, for the areas shaded on Exhibit C master plan, the maximum zoned and actual height shall be, and this is what we would add, two stories not to exceed 35 feet above finished grade. That's consistent with what we talked about, limiting it to two stories so there could not be a three-story building within 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but we've got to add these. The asterisk six under maximum actual height over on the table itself on the left-hand side, left-hand colunm. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be there, as well as the zoned height, and then that revision to number six as I just read in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And before [forget, we never did finish Mr. Murray's discussion. He brought up an argument about the noise issue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He talked about it, we never finished it. So I want to run back to that real quick. And I need you to put your aerial on here. If you have an aerial with the overlay of your site plan, [ think that might be the best way to approach it. Well, right side up, too. There you go. Okay, there was a restriction on noise from the -- not after] I :00 and 500 feet. If you look at where the R- I is and where it goes all the way to the left of that front row, that comer, 500 feet from that comer would put the limitation up into that long MU building with the two short ones in front of it along Santa Barbara. That means the southern two MU buildings could not have any outdoor entertainment with the 500-foot restriction, from what I can best judge by the scale. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. It's one inch equals 200 feet, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, one inch equals -- on this one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, then I can't read scale. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is probably not to scale. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's about halfway up, according to -- I guess the photocopy shrunk it down, obviously. But that's what the scale reads. I'm not saying it's to scale, I'm-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, I think you're right, it's about halfway up. So that means, Mr. Murray, they could not have any outside entertainment that they're referenced in here in the south half of that commercial project, which means they'd be basically limited up against the Boys and Girls Club for the nearest neighbor. And then Firano, which is the other residential tract, would be separated from them by that open space of trees which, if it's one inch equals 500 feet, that's probably about 500 feet as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just gives you the reference you were asking about earlier. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand that. If] may, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Given that that's the upper half of that long building is what we're relating to, do we know how far from the -- let's say the lowest point, the middle of that long building, which we'll arbitrarily call the point of -- the distance where we can allow it. Diagonally down to the R- I going through the woods there, what would you understand the distance to the fIrst house in the R-]? Is that 2,500 feet, 1,000 feet? Page ]4 f6mr r009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if this is approximately 500 feet, you know, that would get you to about -- that would be 500 feet going straight. And then, you know, whatever the minimum setback requirement is. It would be -- it's going to be over 500 feet. Clearly it's not over 2,500 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. I don't -- you have to understand that I'm looking for equality and making certain that we're consistent with what we approach too. I understand this is a mixed use, and people who buy there should be aware that that may be the case, so I'm not quibbling about that. But the amplified music and I I :00 is the key factor for me. I think it should be earlier than that. I don't say a great deal earlier, but that would be my view and so that's my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any comment to that, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to change the time? MR YOVANOVICH: Well, if it's the consensus of the Planning Commission that 11 :00 is too late, is there a suggestion that Mr. Murray would like to make? I mean, I don't know if it's the same consensus. I mean-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there isn't any consensus, that's why I spoke what I -- you know, what I attempted to get across so we could have this conversation. I would see 10:00 as being reasonable. And if they wish to have any amplified music inside, you know, as long as the doors are closed and it's fme, they're performing-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: So outdoor amplified music or TVs need to cease at 10:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think that's fair, reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, just so I -- I like your idea ofkeeping things consistent. Do you remember what we did on Lely? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, there we allowed -- we allowed that to I I :00. In fact, I'm not even sure we had a time restriction on it, now that I think about it. And we allowed it to be that it can cross that lake. So there's going to be a lot of people who are going to be upset if or when that ever gets built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm just trying to understand, do you remember what time limit there was on that at all? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I recall I I :00. That's why I thought this was consistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I can't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't here for Lely. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, this is Lely? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lely. That was about two years ago. We had a commercial-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, we've had several since then about noise, and I think it's been about 11 :00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so all the other ones, generally I I :OO? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem 10:00 or 11:00. Let's wait and see what the audience has to say when they come up, and maybe that will weigh in on __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good idea, yeah. That's the purpose of the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll hold that one and see what kind of public comment we have on it. And let's move on to finish Exhibit B. Two suggested changes on the asterisk six. Anybody else have any questions on Exhibit B? (No response.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's table one. Table two, an issue or a question was raised regarding the multi-family setbacks from the extemal setbacks. So if you'll focus on the second column, starting under minimum yards external where there are references to three NAs. Those actually should be the same as the commercial, so those should be 25 feet Page 15 A3 September 3, 2009 ""4 from future Santa Barbara, 25 feet from Davis, and 25 feet from the eastern project bou~oJthe 1 A 3 ~;,' multi-family buildings as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just to make sure. Did we on table one also add footnote six to the maximum actual height? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We did that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Anybody else on Exhibit B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Rich, do you want to move to the next one. MR YOV ANOVICH: Exhibit-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, before we go on I-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- want to talk about -- go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I apologize, but I missed the change that Mr. Y ovanovichjust made. And since there's no consent, I just ask that you read that in again on Exhibit B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's going to be a consent this afternoon or when we finish. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know, but I'll be proofreading it to make sure that they've complied. So I apologize, someone -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No problem. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- was asking me a question so I didn't hear. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under multi-family, under the minimum yards external, working our way down, it would be 25 feet from future Santa Barbara extension, then 25 feet from Davis Boulevard, and 25 feet from the eastern project boundary. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to talk about the southern boundary between the mixed use and the R-2. What are the setbacks there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is actually within the project, so that's not an external boundary. The external boundary is further south between the R-2 and the vacant zoned ago COMMISSIONER CARON: So what is the separation? What is the internal yard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Twenty feet. That would be considered a front under the internal boundary -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- criteria we talked about, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just confirming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe you can talk about it again. If you have an MU and Santa Barbara is the main road and you have an R-2 and Santa Barbara's the main road, why would a front apply between the two sides ofthe MU and the R-2? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's a corner. We have situations throughout the county where you front two roads and it's considered a front. COMMISSIONER CARON: And my question to you was, is that considered a road or is that just an internal street to the PUD? Is it actually a front? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can stipulate to that. We intended it to be, and so if we need to make it clear, the answer is that was our understanding, but if there's any question about ambiguity, we'll make whatever revision will make the Planning Commission comfortable that that will be considered a front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how -- I want to know how you think you're going to do that. If you're just going to say that's a front because you're going to agree it's a front, then that's just another way of Page 16 September 3, 2009 reinterpreting your setbacks. It can only be a front if that's considered a road. Does that ml ~u,l! 1 A ~: dedicating that section of land to the county and is the county willing to accept it, and are you putting it to county standards? MR YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually, you don't have to be a road -- to be considered a road, it doesn't have to be a county road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're saying that-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be our private road. And if there's a concern, Mr. Strain, we're happy to eliminate that concern by putting a note wherever you deem appropriate that that shall be considered a road for purposes of that, or we can just simply put, across the southern boundary of the MU tract there will be a 20-foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather you did that, then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Either way-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I don't want this conflict about whether it's a road or not is going to come up here when we get further into your document anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not looking to have conflict in the future. That was our understanding, so it's easy for us to make that note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your internal boundary setback to your southernmost point of the commercial or MU tract will be 20 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are going to have fun writing this up today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess we would -- Mr. Strain, so when it comes back, would we just make that a note in that table? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest you make it a -- just asterisk the internal and put it down below as another note, yes, like you did in the other table. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we plan on doing, I just want to make sure we're all going to be looking in the same place for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the Exhibit B table? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm sorry, I'm on C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go on to C, Richard. And Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHlFFER: Richard, you know the property line or that end of the western, the R-I, the shading? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I assume that aligns up with some logical point, right? Should we note that, or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It lines up with the -- I know that, but if you look on -- this shading lines up with the residential project to the north on the aerial that you're __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we just put something there, either a dimension or that note that it's -- other than that, Ray, what would you do, just scale it and __ MR BELLOWS: I think that would be the best way to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The best way. How do -- where do you scale it from, the north-south line of the MU tract? MR. BELLOWS: Well, if possible, maybe we could even put a dimension in there. I think that would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm suggesting. But where do -- I think the measurement might be from that north-south, that eastern tract line of the MU tract going east. How far east would you go before that shaded area kicks in? Because that MU tract eastern boundary line is not going to change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or a note that states that -- a little arrow pointing that it's the western edge of such and such a PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, why don't we say that -- I think it's referred to as the Cook PUD. So Page 17 why don't we make it coincide with the boundary of the Cook PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if you're done with that, Mr. Schiffer, I have one other note that we would want to make on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead, you can make your note fIrst. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, the enhanced buffer that we agreed to for Naples Heritage would also be an enhanced buffer along the Cook boundary as well. So we would make that note to the PUD master plan, have it go all the way around in the shaded area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So the enhanced PUD buffer not only faces the Naples Heritage, it also faces the Cook PUD, which is the Firano -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was something that hadn't been -- that wasn't spelled out. And there's text in here that needs to be changed to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- reflect it as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's the landscaping exhibit. I think it's F, maybe, but we'll get to that, Mr. Strain, and we would make a change there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of your change that you're just suggesting, to get that implemented, you would need to strike the first reference where it says 10-foot wide Type A buffer or. Basically you're going to have a I5-foot wide enhanced Type B buffer for the PUD for both those scenarios. And they will be continuous in the shaded area. And that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- gives the Firano the same buffer that Naples Heritage has. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, Ijust wanted to ask -- or I'm making an assumption that to the Cook PUD to the north of there, that that treed area is preserve. Do we know that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is that -- you mean to the west? COMMISSIONER CARON: To the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: North of your R-J. COMMISSIONER CARON: To the north of your R-J. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between Cook and your MU. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we talking about this? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that is not within the Cook PUD. I think that's actually part ofthe Boys and Girls Club project. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe that's a preserve, but I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But we don't know whether that's actually a preserve. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, again, I think it is, but I don't want to be held responsible if I'm wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, that sort of makes a difference in terms of buffering. Why would you want it to stop here when perhaps it should go the entire length? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's zoned commercial property. That's within -- I believe in the activity center and zoned commercial. It's zoned C-3. So ifthere's going to be a buffer requirement, I think the C-3 parcel should have to bear the burden of that. 16/ 1 September 3, 2009 A3 .1 Page I 8 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't -- the C-3 would be the more intense use, so they'd end up having A 3 to put a buffer to buffer the R- I that you would put in. 16 I 1 COMMISSIONER CARON: And a wall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on the master plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, there's just one notation. You have a note two. All acreage are approximate and subject to modification at the time of SOP or plat approval. And I would suggest that you add, however, they should be no less than the minimums required. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Brad may have lost site of it, but he was the guy that brought up the midpoint turnaround. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in there. It's in a different portion of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't see it. Okay. You tell me it's there, it's there. It's not in your master plan and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's I believe in the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't see it in-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- commitment section. Am I correct, Wayne? He's talking about creating turnarounds for the fIre department or emergency EMS. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exhibit E. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, maybe I missed the dam thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right, Exhibit E under the deviations. It says streets with land (phonetic) area less 600 feet shall have traffic calming devices installed at an -- wait a minute, there's another place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Too fast? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's trying to take -- THE COURT REPORTER: Ijust didn't understand what you said. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was -- actually, it's not deviation one, it's B.9 on Page 18. And it reads, the developer or successors and assigns shall provide a stabilized emergency turnaround meeting local fire prevention code criteria approximately midway along the cul-de-sac of the primary internal roadway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't see it. I read it but I didn't see it. It happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't think Exhibit 0 has gotten any legal description, so we'll move -- Exhibit E is the deviation. Does anybody have any issues with the deviation? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only comment, would it be wise to add a sentence to reference them to B.9, send them over to that? Because the reason we're giving you the deviation is because you're going to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, can you explain? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, just a sentence in there that references U.2 Exhibit F, I guess it would be I.B.9. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be fine. We would just basically say also see Exhibit F. I guess that's I.E. I'm sorry, I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: B.9. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- B.9. That would be fine. And there's a reference on the master plan to that deviation, so there would be mul -- that would be a cross reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Exhibit E? Page 19 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move to Exhibit F. MR. YOV ANOVICH: F. When we get to -- our change would be to C, the landscape buffer provision. The first sentence would say, an enhanced 15-foot wide, and then we would insert the words Type B landscape buffer, shall be provided along the eastern property boundary adjacent to Naples Heritage PUD for a distance of approximately 500 feet south from the terminus of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stop. Adjacent to the Cook PUD and the Naples Heritage PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to add that later on, but that's okay, we can do it there and adjacent to the Cook PUD boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to add that at the end of the sentence, Mr. Strain, to complete the thought on where the 550 will be measured for Naples Heritage. And then we would just simply say, and along the northern boundary for a distance consistent with the Cook PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I don't care, as long as you get it in there. I wanted to make sure you didn't skip it. Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then if you go further down, Mr. Chairman, I believe you pointed out that the LDC requires that for a Type B buffer that these shrubs are supposed to be four foot on centers, not five foot. So we would make that change from five-foot centers to four-foot centers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On 8.6 on Page 18 of20, developer shall construct a six-foot high privacy wall constructed of materials. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I had that question. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which materials? And where is it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe we meant-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know what we meant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we were -- you know, precast. We weren't going to commit to a block 161 1 September 3, 2009 A3 ~.. f,t wall-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MR YOV ANOVICH: -- but we were talking about, you know, solid. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Concrete fence. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Solid precast. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There are some issues with this one in that we don't know that there's an easement to place this wall on the property owners property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is easement -- there's questions with numbers one, five, six and seven. But I thought we were still on the landscape one. So I don't know, did we move back to number six or are you still -- have you finished with your landscape issues? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, I have finished the revisions that we were going to suggest to this exhibit. I know there are questions regarding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before we get into Heidi's questions and mine on those other issues, let's just discuss the issue Mr. Wolfley brought up and get that one resolved before we go on to the next. There's a material issue on the walls. What kind of material would the wall be made of? Let's forget about whether it can be done or not, because that's going to be the next challenge. So let's just talk about if it could be done, what kind of material would it be? MR. YOVANOVICH: Wayne? Solid precast materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I seem to recall eight feet. I don't know where that came from, Page 20 September 3, 2009 but I thought it was an eight-foot fence. 1 6 I J A 3 MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I think it's always been six. I could be wrong, but I thought it was six with the -- the neighbor was requiring in exchange for an easement. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: He requested eight. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did he? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And it was for a distance of -- yeah, remember, we were talking distances there, lineal distances on the thing? And maybe that should be listed there. It's just sort of nebulous. Well, I guess there's an address, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I think your staff was suggesting six feet. And if you'll recall, we were objecting altogether. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then they added that. But they'll give us a credit against some other requirements, so it became a non cost issue for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, that was it, those two things, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, going back to the landscape under C, you read, and it's in the third line, you read 500 feet and it says here 550. Ijust want to be sure-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 550. And I think it was mid sentence when I was reading, so it's 550. You're correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we use the word precast, could we add the word concrete to that, just so somebody doesn't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- have a cast plastics fence. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to transportation, B. I. Under J.i it says, completion of Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to CR95 I. It's already complete. I drive it every day. I drove it to get here. So what do you mean by that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? I believe it's supposed to go to four lanes. I think it's two lanes in that section right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you mean the completion offour-Ianing of Davis Boulevard; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask transportation department, what is the worst case scenario as to when that will be completed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Until the 12th of never. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning, for the record. I checked yesterday with our management staff, and 20 I 0 is when that piece of roadway, piece of Davis is being let for bids. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let me repeat my question. What is the worst case scenario as to when that will be completed? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't know the construction schedule, but I'm going to say 2012 for completion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's if you get your bid out in 2010, if the funding stays there, and if we don't have another debacle like Vanderbilt Beach Road that went from two years to five years or whatever it took to complete that little piece of road. So that means these people could move in -- could start the development on this property next week or whenever they got the PUD approval and their SOP approval. They could go in and build their buildings. Page 2 I serteT 2f9 A3 So say within a year they got buildings sitting there and that they just couldn't use those buildings until the CO for that road -- they couldn't get the CO till that road was substantially complete -- and that would be another correction on this -- and that substantial completion is unknown. And the practical application here is that if that were to occur, they would approach the Board of County Commissioners to show how unfair this is and how they've had all these millions of dollars sitting there in completed structures and now they can't get the CO and how unreasonable that is. So I certainly think tying any project to a CO -- any CO of a project to a road completion is very problematic for this county. We should tie building permits, not CO's. And I don't know of any other way around that at this point. And I'm certainly not in favor of tying CO's to roads, because we have no control over when roads get done, nor when they start. So - and Richard, I know you're probably not going to agree with that. But there's another problem. Because if you take that certificate of occupancy and the completion-- and the unknown completion date of Davis Boulevard and you apply it to number five, your commitment to install Sunset Boulevard shall remain valid for five years. Well, knowing the -- from the date ofPUD approval, which is, say, this year. So there's a good chance that the four-Ianing of Collier Boulevard will not be complete within that five-year time frame, and then the county loses the benefit of the construction for the remainder of that connection. Now -- which brings into another issue which is concerning the right-of-way and what transportation is doing with this privacy wall. You're taking public money and you're applying it to the benefit of a single private property owner for a wall along a 30-foot or 50-foot roadway that we don't require anywhere in Collier County. I don't know of any of those -- in fact, I have a roadway like that in front of my house, and if you give this man one I want one for my house. And I think every person in this county's entitled to one. I don't care that he's going to give you an easement. That's fine. What you have to do to work out what he -- how he gets that -- how you get that easement is not a matter of a developer paying the money which should go to the public benefit. And that's not what I see happening here. It's going to a private benefit. Can you shed some light on why this is being done this way? MR. PODCZER WINSKY: Yeah. The -- initially the public benefit that's perceived by us is that it helps keep some of the local trips off of the arterial roadway network -- Santa Barbara extension that will be in place, Davis Boulevard -- by providing that interconnection. For us the only way so far that we've -- that based on the communication that we received from the landowner who's dedicating the remaining little key piece there, his condition that he has stated so far is that he would like a wall in exchange for providing this last remaining 30 feet for this roadway easement connection. So far we have been agreeable to that. There's -- like I said, we have viewed it as a public benefit because this connection helps take trips off of the overburdened hurricane route that's there at Davis Boulevard, the Santa Barbara extension. That's kind of where we've been viewing this from. If the board's perception of this is different, we are certainly amenable to removing the requirement for the wall and simply working with what we have left. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If] may, the County Attorney's Office recommends deletion ofthis Section 6, based on what we've heard today. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Section 5 or Section 6? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry. You were talking about the six-foot privacy wall. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. That one, which is number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Without that six-foot privacy wall, let's take that off the table, not-- we all got to discuss it, but right now let's assume that's not on the table. Then we have another problem. Because we have several policies in our GMP that seek interconnections. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. Page 22 j[p~brr3~009 J\ ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're referring to interconnections between local streets. The interconnection of local streets between developments, safe interconnection of such local streets. If you move this map up a little bit, this aerial, the primary street that I believe transportation has more right-of-way already acquired, if not all, is the one that's not shown on here. You see that white line to the right where you've got that street coming up? That's Shadow or -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Sandy Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sandy Lane. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sandy Lane is almost -- is that already under easements? Does the county already have easements for that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, I did check the deeds last night. Both Sandy Lane and the majority of Sunset Boulevard already have 30-foot easements that have been lessed out from the properties along the roadway center lines, basically. Each property that adjoins each road there, both Sandy and Sunset, has a -- and I've got the deeds here. They all have a less the 30 feet along that roadway alignment for the purposes of right-of-way or for the purposes of a roadway. A lot of them are spelled out a little bit differently in their deeds, but that's how they're shown. Sandy Lane in its entirety all the way up to the property line is within that lessed out 30-foot easement each side of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's a much cleaner one than the Sunset Boulevard one you're dealing with. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, correct. The only-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason you didn't do Sandy Lane is because the developer put a preserve between the cul-de-sac of his residential and the end of Sandy Lane, which is two or 300 feet. The preserve that's on this property is significantly larger than the minimum preserve required. I think it's -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We actually have an additional reason that we chose to follow the Sunset Boulevard alignment. And I did confirm this yesterday. Cope Lane, if you go a little bit further south, there is an easement for Cope Lane that is owned by the county that would connect to the future Santa Barbara extension. Apparently strategic planning has shown that we wanted to basically reserve the right for a signal at Cope Lane. And if those four parcels that front Santa Barbara extension and are bounded by Cope Lane and are bounded by Sunset -- you know, it's kind of hard to describe unless I've got a map in front of you -- those parcels would gain access from Cope Lane and Sunset. We're trying to minimize access to the limited access roadway that we're constructing with Santa Barbara extension today. And I can point this out on a map, if you'd like. Will that help? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, we have some concerns in the County Attorney's Office as to number five. If there's to be a requirement at all, I think the requirement can only be as to the portion that the owner owns. And this commitment seems to extend off of this property. I've not reviewed the deeds for Sunset. Based on what I heard -- I can't say his last name; Joltn P. I'll slaughter your last name, I'm sorry. What I've heard him say, I have concerns that the easements that you might be requiring him to construct are private easements and not public easements. So our recommendation, if you do decide to go with this type of commitment, is to limit it to be built on his property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I wanted -- most of the developments, in fact, if you go to look at the consent agenda and the master plan that we just talked about on the Italian-American Club, we showed two connections to the south on that five-acre, maybe it was 10-acre -- it was a very small parcel. This is a parcel much, much bigger and we're only showing one connection to the south. But in this Page 23 r61" 3f09 A 3 case we're making them make commitments off-site in regards to those interconnections. That's inconsistent with the way we've done things I think in the past. Now, I don't mind getting as much as we can when things are done, but I think it has to be equitable m every case. In this case dropping that eastern connection to Sandy, Shadow, whatever the word, whatever the name of that street is, I don't understand why we're going along with that. I mean, I understand it's a preserve. But it's more preserve than required, it's in the urban area, and you can mitigate those things. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I take you through what our attempts were with the Water Management District, if you wouldn't mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll take you through -- we've been going through with the Water Management District permitting as well, okay. And our fIrst attempt to get a site plan approved was this. So we had a loop road close to the boundary. We then attempted to get that approved, which would have made it very simple to interconnect our road to Sandy Lane, if I got the right name. The Water Management District said no, that's good wetlands, you're going to preserve those good wetlands and this is what we're going to give you a permit to do. So we attempted through the process to accommodate staff's request, or at least make it easier for staff to implement the request of interconnection through the permitting process. The permitting agencies have said no, they will not issue a permit for that to occur, so we are where we are because of the permitting requirements. It was a substantial change to what we had originally hoped and intended to do on the property. And yes, it's more preserve than is required under the county, but it's what's required by the Water Management District, so we're kind of stuck with it. And it's not unusual that, you know, the preserve requirements ofthe other permitting agencies exceed the minimums required by the county. So, I mean, we'll show an interconnection to our neighbors on Sunset, and we had committed to building that portion of Sunset on our property. And then the wall issue came up and kind of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, I don't doubt that the South Florida would have done certain things in response to the way they had things presented to them. But I also don't see a value in a wetlands that has a lake dug on it, both sides of it, the one at Naples Heritage, as well as the one on your property. It's bounded on the south by developed properties that certainly look filled, and roads on this point. And while that may be a wetland, to get a road connected to that cul-de-sac over to the other road, I don't see why that's a hard task to do. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand what you've just said, and I've got done a lot of permitting through South Florida. I just don't agree with you that that's impossible to do. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, then let the county do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going back to what our GMP says. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The GMP requires for interconnections. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it doesn't require interconnections, it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it prefers-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- says where feasible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- interconnections. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right where it's feasible. And we don't think that's feasible in that area. But if the county wants to go through the permitting nightmare and mitigate for that interconnection, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll agree to disagree on that one, Richard. Now, back to Joltn. If the number five is eliminated and number six is eliminated, both our concerns with the County Attorney's Office, as well as others, maybe, what does that do to your department's review of this project? Page 24 September 3, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If you'll give me a moment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Removing number five in its entirety sort of eliminates any predefmed method of interconnection that we would be able to obtain at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way the County Attorney said is remove the requirement for them to build stuff off their site. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct.j CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would still be required to retain that portion of the paragraph that required them to do the things on their site. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Up to their property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which is consistent with the way we've made everybody else do 161 1 A3 things. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. At this point the direction that I have is that we'd like to continue to keep the developer responsible to construct the remainder of the roadway where we have ownership or rights that are public at this point. Specifically across the frontage of Mr. Tetrault's property, or where we have or are obtaining those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As to the portion that's off-site, you need to give them some kind of impact fee credit or something if you are to require that he design and construct that portion of the roadway. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. That's understandable, and I think we'd be agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but we're here today trying to resolve this. And I'm not sure I see an agreement between you and the applicant working all these details out to the satisfaction of the legal department and ones that in my particular concern eliminate the taxpayers funding a private fence for a private party. Ms. Caron, did -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm sorry, number six, I don't think we have an objection to removing that at this point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think Joltn may be reading number five incorrectly. We're required to build that portion of the, I'll call it Sunset extension only on our property, okay? And we're supposed to do 200 feet of it first. And then if the county gets the right-of-way, we'll extend to the remainder further south only on our property. We're never going off-site to build Sunset. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Y ovanovich, can you confirm for the record that the 200 feet, the initial 200 feet is on the developer's property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The entirety of the 830 feet, is my understanding, is on our property. So the first 200 of that 830 we will build. The remainder, the 630, we build only when the county gets the necessary off-site right-of-way. We're not -- this commitment in our mind never required us to go off-site to build the road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Perhaps it would be helpful if we look at a site plan, because that wasn't -_ MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have the cross-section-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- what was presented to me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- as part of the PUD. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me take a look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ms. Caron I -- did you have a question, Donna? Then Mr. Murray-- then Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think if you look at Exhibit F.l, that's where it's going to show you where that first 200 feet is. And essentially they're constructing that 200 feet, so they have an entrance into their R-2 piece of property. Anything below that that goes down to the edge of their preserve there, that's another whatever it is, 600 and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. Page 25 COMMISSIONER CARON: -- what did somebody say, 680 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, where you see -- well, somebody just took the pen away, but-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Will get built if the county ever gets the rest of the access; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. That 830 includes the shaded area all the way down to the pen, okay? And all of that's on our property. We only build the shaded area to access our R-2 tract initially. If the county gets the necessary right-of-way I guess to make the interconnection happen, we'll build it to our border, our boundary. That's what that commitment's for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think too -- but I think where Ms. Ashton was -- the reference in the last two sentences is a bit confusing. This requirement for the construction of the remainder of the connection to Sunset Boulevard. Basically you wouldn't be connecting to Sunset Boulevard, because it doesn't exist. You're just saying the remainder of the construction shall remain valid for five years. Because if the -- Sunset Boulevard doesn't exist, does it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We've actually found a little -- I found a little bit different story than that when I checked out the deeds on these properties. The 30-foot easements that I was talking about, or the 30-foot lessed-out portions exist all the way up into the Taormina PUD. There are one or two parcels that show that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it already exists all the way up into that Taormina PUD, then why are you putting this private fence up? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Again, the one problem is that we're missing one key piece, one key 30-foot easement portion of this. Where it should be 60 feet wide, we're missing 30 feet of it, and that would be the frontage of Mr. Tetrault's property. That's the one core piece that we're missing. As far as the 830 feet, if it does not cover beyond the property line, then that's what we've agreed to and then we'll -- it will cease there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton, did you have anymore? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, there are some issues I think that are unresolved here, and we need to be clear on the ownership of the area that's being required to be built. And if it's owned by the developer, then we need to have an arrangement for the conveyances of easements, if this is going to be part of a public road. If you're going to require him to build this road, based on my understanding of the nature of this road, we are going to be required to give him impact fee credits. And we also need to address the maintenance of the roadway, if it's going to be public or private. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. For the portions ofthe roadway that are outside this developer's project where he would be constructing, if it's his requirement to construct that extension, then yeah, I believe that would be subject to impact fee credits. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But he just told us that this is all part of his project, so I think-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The part that's off-site. For the part that's on-site -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would suggest that when we take a lunch break-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know how long this is going to go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a break in about JO minutes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- that perhaps we meet and try to work out some language to see if we can propose something that everyone would be able to live with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let me throw this out, because I don't want to go work it out and then there be issues here. We have some recent experience with this for Siena Lakes. We constructed a, quote, public access drive for the Lakeside residents. The public could use it, but it still was essentially a private road, and it was a private drive. And I would -- that's what we envisioned was going to happen is the public would be able to come across this drive. But I think what Joltn was saying is it was our development's responsibility as far as the road goes, September 3, 2009 1611A3 Page 26 fP6mr rf009 A 3 so it would be a private/public partnership, if you will. And that's why I don't believe the impact fee issue came up on the portion ofthe road on our property. Correct? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let me understand this. Sunset Boulevard, all the way up to your property, will be a public road. But when it gets to your property, it's a private road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it will be with public access. We would maintain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what agreements -- for example, this then plays into that earlier question we had about the road between the R-2 and the MU tracts, now making that MU building a comer lot. So if it's a public road -- well, it's not a public road, you're saying it's going to remain a private road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are all kinds of examples where the developer access roads, they look like roads, are basically drives that the public uses and the developer's responsible for maintaining. This is not a new concept. And it goes on all the time through the approval of SOPs -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And DCAs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and plats and all that other good stuff that happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a reason that this wasn't done in a DCA? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why would -- there's two parties. I mean, it's just us. It's a PUD commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a lot of different pieces to it that could have been worked out before they got to this meeting. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- to my way of thinking, now the more we see this, this 30-foot section that we're talking about is really not appropriate to this activity here as being a part of it. What -- given impact fees and the fair market value of the easement, if granted to you, those dollars combined, would they not be the amount that would equal the cost of constructing a fence? Or would the cost of constructing the fence be greater than the fair market value plus the impact fee? MR PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, I don't have a good answer for you on the cost of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, but I think that that's got to be -- seems to me that this is a county activity seeking to achieve something. I don't object to that, but I think it's inappropriate to the way it's being put. It seems to me that if we have an issue with the gentleman and he wants something, a quid pro quo type of thing and he's entitled to certain things legally, let's find out what the value of that is, and maybe there's such a differential that that's why it becomes one of these let's try to get it in this way. I understand what you're trying to get, but I think it does really present a problem for us. And I have a question about the legality of private roads. Now, I recognize the laws in different states are different, but I'll use as an example, I think it's typically understood up in Radio City up in New York, once a year they close the access. People cannot walk across any part of that property. That is done to preserve their right to have it as private. Are the laws in Florida such that you can have a private road that is public? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You can have a public access roadway that is privately maintained. And that is -- that's the direction -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's different, privately maintained. But it does become a public road, right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Access. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, public, public access. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here's our concern. We can call it a public road. We just want it to be 30 feet wide. The way -- with the lanes we talked about, with the one sidewalk. And we don't want this thing to grow Page 27 seprml;rl,2r A 3 to 60 feet. We're okay with 30 feet, building a public road, with a lane in and a lane out with one sidewalk. We just don't want all of a sudden the utility companies to say, you know what, since it's now a, quote, public road you've got to put utilities in here. So now it's now 40 feet wide and it continues to grow. If we can just make it clear it's 30 feet wide under that cross-section, we'll dedicate it to the public and we'll be done with it. Is that acceptable? That's our -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Rich, are you stating that it would be a public road but it would not include public utilities is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- what your proposal is? So that would be what would have to be stated in the easement document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the way to do it. MR YOV ANOVICH: That's fme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll wait till they're through talking. And John, this question's for you. Essentially, Joltn, now you have a 60-foot wide access easement that actually runs up into this property, correct? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only piece you're missing-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe for the most part, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, you're missing a gap to the neighbor to the south, okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would they not then be redefining that access easement? I mean, the drawings we show, the one that was on the screen, it stops when it hits the project. But wouldn't that have to continue through their project anyway and connect to their -- at least their main road here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, with all due respect to Joltn, he has not done a complete title search on the property. He's not submitted a legal description for this right-of-way to any title company to review to find out who owns what and if there are any easements on there. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If]-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: So, you know, this whole discussion is irrelevant. We've agreed that on our property we will provide a 30-foot wide road, we'll craft the limitations during the break. We're taking care of our property. I don't care what's off our property. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't matter. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- if] may, based on the deed that was attached, I can't confmn whether there is or isn't a private or public easement. So my preference would be to stick with Mr. Y ovanovich's property. I'm hearing him say they'll donate to the county a 30-foot easement. Any public utilities has to be within the 30 feet, if any. And that they'll -- I think he said they'd build the fIrst 200 feet to their entrance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joltn, then, the question kind of is, is there an existing -- on their property, forget off the other properties, is there an existing 60-foot easement on their property? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Within their property, no. I believe it's 30 feet. But again, Rich is correct, I have not done a title search on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then Rich, the next question's kind offor you. The drawing that's up there, that black arrow kind of hides the detail. What would the intent be then, that you would bring a road down, swerve it, and then on the center line of that easement you would construct the road? Or would you do it solely on your property side? In other words, the detail of -- you can see the black Jines going to the black arrow, which is kind of -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be on our property. That is our property, it would be on our property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, that drawing will essentially have a 30-foot road MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Page 28 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that will come down within a 30-foot easemen16 I 1 A 3 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you will fill the eastern side of the center line of Sunset Boulevard with asphalt for your part of that easement. Doesn't make tense. If they have a -- MR PODCZERWINSKY: Unless the other 30 feet is available off-site, then we would add that into the design requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then they would center it on Sunset. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And Ijust have one-- MR PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- question, if] may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And the maintenance of the roadway would be the developer or the county? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The portion that is within the developer's property currently would be the developer's responsibility to maintain. We can't require them to maintain it off-site. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just -- but it will be 30 feet of paving. That doesn't -- I mean, wouldn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 24 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there be a road within it? Yeah, that's what I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be 24 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're not going to pave the whole 30 feet, you're going to have a 24-foot road within that 30-foot easement. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right, 24 feet with the six-foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joltn, the question is, what are you really going to gain by this access? This does run down to that Cope Road (sic), right? And then what is really going to happen with that? That's going to essentially become the back road of future commercial development? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point we don't want to preclude it from becoming a back-- essentially a reverse frontage road for the four parcels that front Santa Barbara. We also want to give this -- you know, give the neighborhood the opportunity to use this for another access point, an interconnecting access point up to the commercial area so that we can connect a commercial area within this PUD to additional residential areas to the south. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That will keep roads off of the primary network, off of the primary Davis and Santa Barbara extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So your intent is to filter these areas that are essentially the center of the screen. These people are going to be filtered up their roads and come through the back way to get to their commercial. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: They'll have the ability to, yes. They will still have access. No changes to their access to Santa Barbara extension, it's just they'll have another route that they'll be able to take to reach the commercial areas within this PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, during our break you need to consider your department's position in consistency with the GMP with the elimination of number six and the changes we discussed. My intention when I started on this line of questioning was simply not to see taxpayers money spent on private property improvements that were unwarranted. How we get there for that property owner in acquiring his property is not something I think this developer should be involved with, because it also sets the developer up for an inverse condemnation claim that later on tolls this project indefmitely from any claim of sun-setting. I don't want us to be in that position either. And that factors into the Collier Boulevard extension and all that. Page 29 rbrrf009 A 3 So with all that in mind, I'd like to take a break, I'd like you to talk to Heidi Ashton to make sure everybody's on the same page and we're not avoiding setting us up for problems down the road if we don't complete the extension of Davis Boulevard and all the other issues we just talked about regarding this -- what's to be done on the developer's side. And with that, let's take a break to 10: I 5 and come back and resume. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break. We left off where the transportation department was going to get with the legal department to resolve any further questions and let us know if they still find the project consistent, should we remove paragraph six, if that ends up being the consensus of this board. And looks like you all are still talking. Okay, I feel like the county commissioners now. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're being ignored. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Now, we're eliminating -- proposing to eliminate number six out of the developer -- out of this agreement. But -- so the county's going to have to do something off of this agreement with that landowner; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. It's up to the county. I have no idea. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But you're saying it has nothing -- or she's saying it has nothing to do with this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the County Attorney's Office said. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: With this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what J started questioning too. So that's kind of where we're at. But I'm not sure what that impacts if it doesn't happen. And that's what we're trying to find out from the two that are talking right now. So Richard, let's move on -- well, they're fmished. John, I think the question was consistency with the GMP if we remove number six. They're still providing the interconnection, they're still providing the road system on their property. Are they still consistent with the paragraphs in the GMP? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, I believe they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Heidi, is there any lingering issues then? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your discussion with Joltn and the changes to five and six. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We haven't completed the language, but let me read to you what we have so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We're just going to tweak it a little bit. But it currently reads, the developer, its successors or ex -- sorry, let me try again. The developer, its successors or its assigns shall provide for the potential interconnection to Sunset Boulevard. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of design, permitting -- and permitting of approximately 830 feet of limited access roadway. Then it will go to, at or before time offrrst SOP developer shall convey to Collier County a 30-foot public access easement. This is the part we have to tweak, whether it says over the east side of developer's property, as conceptually depicted on F.I. Because I need to clarify that it's along -- I don't know if it's 830 feet. I don't know the distance. That's the part that needs to be clarified. Then, which may include public utilities if it does not conflict with the paved roadway and sidewalk. Developer shall design and construct the first 200 feet -- I didn't put a time limit on that, because since it's going to be accessed to his site, I would expect that would be early on -- and developer shall maintain the 30-foot easement until Collier County accepts maintenance responsibility. The first 200 feet he'd be maintaining, that's his access point, it won't be until we accept maintenance responsibility. And then the remaining portion that's, you know, grassy would be his responsibility until the Page 30 September 3, 2009 county constructs the roadway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Heidi? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for you. In the fIrst portion you said design and permit but not construct. Then you added design, permit, construct -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The fIrst 200 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- 200 feet. That leaves 631 feet as for construction not defmed. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we want-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's part of the 30 feet that's conveyed to the county. So it will be up to either the county or a private party to construct that portion of the road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But as I understood it as presented, that 831 feet was all part of the developer's property. If that's the case, wouldn't it be the developer's responsibility to construct that road? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, maybe Mr. Y ovanovich can clarify what they're willing to construct. The easement they've agreed to donate at no cost to the county. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here's what we agree to do: The 830 feet of this roadway that's on our property, all 830 feet is on our property, we had agreed to design and permit all 830 feet. We had agreed to construct the fIrst 200 feet of that as part of our -- and we would do that as part of our first SOP for the R-2 tract, because it's related to the R-2 development. We do the designer permitting as part of that first SOP. We would construct the fIrst 200 feet to provide access to our development on R-2. We know we have to do that. The balance, 630 feet to the end of our property, we would build if the county got the necessary easements for there to actually be interconnection. And they have to get those within five years of the PUD being approved. Ifthey don't get the easements then, we don't have to build that 630 feet. It doesn't mean that the county can't come back over that 30-foot easement and build it later, but our obligation to build it goes away. Now, when we -- and we may get an SOP later than five years, okay, but ifthe county has already acquired the right-of-way at that point within that five-year time frame, we're still obligated to build it and we'll build it as part of the R T SOP. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So Rich-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- it seems reasonable that we should have that in the language. MR YOV ANOVICH: And that's what-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Rich, you're saying that the 630 feet would not be on your client's property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is on our property. I've been saying that all along. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So then what is the interconnection that you're -- what are the easements that you're waiting on? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's off-site. It's when you guys get your off-site easements so you can-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you talking about between the arterial road and your client's property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: See where they're pointing to Sunset? Right there. You guys. Off our site. You see the pretty, green trees? That's our site. South of that is off our site. You don't have all the easements you need, in my opinion, to connect the road we're going to build to our border all the way to Cope Lane. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Paragraph six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you -- wait till everybody else gets done speaking. What did you -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think it should be tied to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paragraph six is off the table. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's gone. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right. But that's the property that you're talking about. That's off-site. And it's described right here on Exhibit F. I. I don't know what the issue is. 161 1 A3 Page 3 I sePtTo 31201 A 3 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought the exhibit was pretty clear. And [thought -- you know, we can tweak the wording, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to put in 200 feet of this roadway to get your own -- MR YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right-of-way -- your own buildings anyway. MR YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the county fmds a way to acquire the right-of-ways for Sunset Boulevard to be connected to Cope Lane to the south, or wherever, then you're going to build the rest of that roadway if it happens within five years. MR YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All that's on their property. MR PODCZERWINSKY: Within your property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All that's within the property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, within our property, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we got 800 and some odd feet I think it totals out to then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 830. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All on your property -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that you'll agree to build in two phases. And that's kind of where it's at. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything off property you're not -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- committing to -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, he's saying he'll only build the additional 630 feet if the county gets the easements for the rest of the roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it happens in five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it happens in five years. Which is the point I want to ask: Why did you peg it at five years? MR. YOV ANOVICH: At some time we wanted to know whether we had a financial obligation to do this. Because, you know, it's got to cut off at some point. So we picked -- and staff was fine. They said we'll either get it or we won't, the easements off our site within five years. And then your financial obligations go away. If they get them later, we'll take on the responsibility of building that 630. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it then means that after five years, assuming the negatives occur, that the presumption would be that the county would come in and do 631 feet of roadway on your property . MR. YOV ANOVICH: Within their easement that we're giving to the county, pursuant to the revised language. We're giving a 30-foot easement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that part of -- I mean, have we a budget for that, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? I don't know. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last thing -- okay, basically what we're going to do is see a rewrite of number five. Number six would be dropped. Number seven, Joltn, why is that in here? That's proportionate payment and that's already I thought in the GMP. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it is already in the GMP. What we wanted to do with number seven was to spell out that all of the individual SOPs and/or plats that occur within this PUD are subject to Policy 5.8 as of the time of zoning. Page 32 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How's that differ from what's in the GMP? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Because if it's done individually and it's not part of the PUD, there's a potential that each of these sites could come in SOP or plat later down the road and not be subject to contribution towards Policy 5.8, which is contribution towards improvements to a hurricane e~uation route. Davis Boulevard is the specific example in this instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I know this will be a sore subject because we already mentioned it once and it was, but let's go back to B. I. We're tying the -- on B.1 we're proposing to tie the COs to the completion of Davis Boulevard. And the way that should read is, and for both i and ii, substantial completion. And then of the four-Ianing of Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to CR951. Is that a true statement, Joltn? Is that what we're looking at is a four-Ianing condition for Davis instead of a six-lane? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I haven't seen the current design plans that are being let. Unfortunately I don't have the answer for that one yet. There's portions of it that I know are going to be six near to the intersection. I don't know if the entire segment is going to be four or six though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then how do we reference -- substantial completion of what of Davis Boulevard, if we don't know what it's going to be. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We could say the next substantial completion of widening above the two-lane condition. It's currently in a two-lane condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they could fix the shoulders of the road and qualify for that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If you wouldn't mind, I could send an e-mail and fmd out what the final condition of that roadway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's -- I think we need to say what completion is. Because right now the road's complete. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But if we were to say at least four-Ianing for the width -- the length of our September 3, 2009 161,1 A3 project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but then they get four lanes done and they still got two more to go and the whole place is under construction. I don't want you coming in saying we deserve this now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I would like to suggest is the county, whatever their plans are, give them a minute to go call and tell you what their plans are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll do that before consent, so that needs to be done. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if -- while we're on that topic, Mr. Strain, if] can suggest, I understand you have an issue with the building permits. And what I would like to propose is that we -- we can't get a building permit until whatever they define the project to be is under construction, and we can't get our COs until those improvements are substantially completed. So you don't have the situation -- at least we're taking some risk. We know that the road's under construction, and I think that's a fair compromise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a compromise we've used on other projects __ MR. YOV ANOVICH: Other projects, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's the change that happened after we discovered the problems when we tied COs to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. And Ms. Ashton, if we were to issue a building permit yet and they got their buildings all done and their final inspections, say within a year, but for some unknown reason, if Davis Boulevard got delayed in its substantial completion for, say, three years, can we force them to sit there with vacant empty buildings fully inspected and safe and say you can't have a building permit until that road's done? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think there's a good chance you'll have litigation at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's again what we're trying to avoid. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, with all due respect, it's a condition of the PUD. What happened was is the board was asked to waive that condition, and they agreed to it. Whatever the situation was. I don't believe they had to, but they did it. It was -- Page 33 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Sclnnitt, you had something? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY : Yeah, you were mentioning building permit. Are you referring to a CO, fmal CO then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I was referring -- we talked about both. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both building permit -- he's suggesting they issue -- they get building permits issued when the construction starts on whatever condition Davis is expanding to, and a CO only when that's completed. And my question to Ms. Ashton was how do we -- what do we do if we get delayed on the substantial completion date of Davis and they demand their COs because they're sitting there with a fully safe and warranted building. And that is a concern. We'll move on. John, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, we left off, we're going into Exhibit G. Exhibit G. Do you have any changes or questions there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the Planning Commission have any issues on Exhibit September 3, 2009 161 1 1\3 j G? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Exhibit H. Does anybody have anything on Exhibit H? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On number I, five to six feet, I would Jiketo see just six feet. Get rid of the five and the TW -- or TO. Just six-foot wide sidewalk. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And when this comes back, we'll likely move that into the text of the commitments, rather than on a condition of approval, based on what Mr. Y ovanovich has agreed to today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think -- anybody have a problem with it just being straight six-foot? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on Exhibit H? (No response.) CHAJRMAN STRAIN: I have two. Number eight -- oh, never mind, I got number eight resolved. Number 10. What is this about? It says a coordination meeting between a developer and utilities to discuss a location and size of a well site easement. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had objected to that. We're not amenable to giving them a free well site easement. And I think that was the utilities department's attempt to force that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think it belongs in here unless it's a -- unless there's a mechanism in our Land Development Code that requires it, and I don't know that. It's another one of those exactions that we've spoken out about every single time. So unless there's an objection from any other member of the panel, I think we ought to strike that one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My statement to myself is which proves what, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't see anyone here from utilities to speak to the issue. There never are, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of all the language changes and questions in this packet. Before we go any further, I'd like to see if there's any members of the public that want to speak on this matter. Ray, do we have any? MR BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker that registered. His name is Glen Faulkner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, glad you mentioned that. In disclosure, I did talk with Glen on the Page 34 fgmtr roo~ 3 phone, that's why he was here today. But he's -- I told him ifhe didn't dave any issues, he didn't have to speak ifhe didn't want to, but he ought to register ahead of time in case he did. So he represents Firano development. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, the Firano development, I know we keep referring it to the Cook PUD. Did they go through a name change to call themselves Firano, or how did that happen? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The legal-- many PUDs have a legal PUD name, which in this case probably was Cook PUD. But when they come in and go through a marketing or whatever -- it's similar -- I'll give you a -- MR. BELLOWS: Plat. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Or plat or plan, they'll choose a, as I refer to it, a Gucci name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust wanted to make sure the name was okay. MR. SCHMITT: Wentworth Estates is a great example. Wentworth Estates PUD is actually Treviso Bay. It's marketed as Treviso Bay, but it's legally Wentworth Estates PUD. And there's others in the county like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've got -- we've had -- there's no public testimony remaining, we've gone through all the issues. Richard -- or staff. Does staff have any -- and staff, I know J.D. did this, and Kay, you're trying to fill in for J.D. Do you have anything you want to add to our discussion? MS. DESELEM: I think -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a gentleman -- MR. BELLOWS: We have a speaker who didn't register. MR. LEEKS: I'm from Naples Heritage -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you'll have to be sworn in and then you can speak, if you'd like, sir. Please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. Sir, if you could raise your right hand. MR. LEEKS: Sure. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you could come up and state your name for the record and we'll be glad to hear you. MR. SCHMITT: Either one is fme, either microphone. MR. LEEKS: L-E-E-K-S. Robert E. I'm from Naples Heritage. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. MR. LEEKS: Thank you. I'm from Naples Heritage, and we were here for the last meeting. There were a number of my other colleagues that were here at the last meeting, and unfortunately they're out of town. However, I just wanted to mention that that doesn't eliminate our concern, and wanted to be heard about this whole project. The main concern that we have is the privacy buffer. Also, the length of the privacy buffer from where our property ends. And from what I heard today was 15 foot where there's going to be some landscaping, which are going to be erected after 15 feet; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, it's a I 5-foot landscape buffer. It's going to be enhanced. It's going to have I believe a four-foot chain link fence in it. The buffer will be a little bit stronger than what's normally required by the PUD, from what I'm reading in this PUD. MR. LEEKS: The main concern that my colleagues and I have is the length, the 15-foot length. We'd like to propose a 60-foot back (sic). Because the noise level that Mr. Murray talked about before, I'm right in the middle of this, right in the middle ofthis lake. And the noise level that we hear as we speak from the Boys Club, which is down at -- as we all know, the start of Davis, we hear this in the evening. And so we talked about 10:00 or II :00, I thought. And I just wanted to mention that the noise level when what (sic) we hear from parties, et cetera, et cetera, is considerable. And if] could ask the County Commissioners (sic) for consideration on lowering the time level, it would be appreciated. Page 35 tP6mr Y009~ :3 \ Again, our major concern is the privacy buffer. And I want to compliment the developer for addressing this concern, okay. And what we saw was a nice buffer which we think in time, once it is planted, will expand. And that's good. The major concern is the length from the I5-foot -- what we'd like to propose if we may, okay, is back it up to 60- foot. And that's basically aliI have. And I want to thank you for hearing me out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir? I'm here. MR. LEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi. You thought about the time. Do you have any recommendation for time when you'd like the music, amplified music, to be stopped? MR. LEEKS: I thought a reasonable time level would be 9:00. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. LEEKS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne or Richard, whoever wants to answer the question, I've got a couple follow-ups. The gentleman's issue in regards to your 15-foot buffer -- and you have a 15-foot setback, if I'm not mistaken, by reading your single-family or multi-family rear yard. Was your intention to include the buffer in that 15 feet? And I don't even know from staffs perspective it can be. Or was your intention to have a 15-foot buffer plus a I 5-foot setback? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I believe it was the buffer can be part of the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to have -- actually your PUD boundary setback would dominate on this one, so it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would be 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would be 25 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're looking at a IO-foot on top ofthe 15. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd be 25 feet back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But 15 feet of that will be buffer. MR YOV ANOVICH: Enhanced buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Enhanced buffer with a chain link fence. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And remember, we brought the height down to the 35 feet, which is consistent with what our neighbors at Naples Heritage have basically done, or can do, versus what they theoretically could do. We went with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Are you ail-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm finished. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- set with your questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I want to talk about the MU tract and the R-2 tract. In my discussion with you the other day, Mr. Y ovanovich, and when we were talking about various uses that could go on that MU tract, we talked about the fact that you could put a Lowe's on 10 acres of that 17 -acre MU tract, and then the other seven acres could be multi-family. Page 36 September 3, 2009 . 1611 A3 MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be an option that we would -- yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And the other thing that would separate those two uses would be a I 5-foot buffer and a four-foot fence? Is that what I heard-- MR YOV ANOVICH: I thought it was -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- somebody say? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- a type -- it was a Type B -- 15-foot wide Type B buffer with a wall. And let's look for sure, but I wanted to say six feet, but I could be wrong on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on the landscape enhanced buffer for Type B that we've been talking about, it says a minimum four-foot high chain link fence shall be installed with-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But there's a different commitment in the PUD when we addressed that very situation for the MU tract. And I just need to fmd it. Because we had added the -- maybe it's in the commitments. Oh, here we go. It's under Exhibit H. Number four. We would be required to do the LDC required buffer, I5-foot wide -- 15-foot wide Type B buffer, and the LDC requires a fence or wall for what's required between residential and commercial. COMMISSIONER CARON: How does this work? And actually, it's probably more of a question for staff. But we're supposed to have transitional zoning here, and this certainly flies in the face of any kind of transitional zoning, because you're going to put residen -- you have the potential of putting residences right up against -- you know, 15 feet away from a C-4 or 5 use. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there are many types of alternatives to deal with compatibility and buffering impacts of dissimilar uses. Sometimes staff, depending on site conditions, would require a larger setback. If a larger setback -- or restrictions of some of those uses, commercial uses would __ COMMISSIONER CARON: Have you done that in this PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Well, in this PUD I believe it's a combination of buffers. And-- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's just 15 feet. MR. BELLOWS: Are you talking about the MU tract? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Versus the ago to the south? MR. YOV ANOVICH: NO. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, just the MU tract is all we're talking about now. MR. BELLOWS: Buffers between uses in that-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: In that tract, yes. MR. BELLOWS: No, then there's no code requirement for any kind of buffering within that tract, other than the typical landscape buffering around buildings. But there's no -- a mixed use is just that, you have residential mixed with commercial. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But in mixed use, in what will be the mixed use part of it, if they actually do that, we've limited it to C-I through C- 3 uses, all right, so we've limited __ MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that's one way of-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- what could be there. If they decide to use part of this property for either a C-4 or a C-5 use, we have not done that. They can then put a Lowe's or whatever, some big box store here on part of this and they can also build residences. And the only thing that will separate those are a chain link fence and 15 feet of buffering. And that to me doesn't seem like good planning. MR. BELLOWS: Where a PUD is silent, the LDC would come into play. And the LDC has buffer requirements between a solely commercial parcel versus a residential tract. And that would come into play, and there would be a wall required at that time. Wall landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: What would the buffer requirement be? MR. SCHMITT: Wall between commercial and residential. MR. BELLOWS: There's a wall between commercial and residential, and I don't know offhand. I'll have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have it here. The chart says that it would be a Type B between Page 37 September 3, 2009 A 3 ~il commercial C- 3 -- C- I through C-5. And a multi-family RMF-6 or RMF -16, it would 1 ~B.l COMMISSIONER CARON: A IS-foot Type B-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is what they're saying in number four. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So that's all we require. MR. BELLOWS: That's all the LDC requires. For the PUD, and that's an error. If it comes up, that could be a recommendation by this board. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- yeah, I would hope that the board would want to increase any buffering between the possibility of those types of uses. My other question is that on this MU tract, the MU tract can become independent living. So it essentially becomes residential. And the R-2 is obviously residential and the R- I is residential. So now we've taken a quadrant of an activity center and made it totally residential. Is that the intent of the Growth Management Plan for activity centers? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you asking-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll ask anybody who will give me an answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're trying to ask staff. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I wasn't sure who that was going to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Anybody who will give me an answer. MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure. I'd have to look at the GMP. Could you state that question one more time? I just couldn't quite understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: Uses on this MU tract, if you look at their development standards table-- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it can be all residential. It doesn't have to be mixed use, it can be all residential, according to multi-family residential principal uses. And/or it could become independent living. So suddenly this mixed use tract that everybody thinks is going to have some commercial in it and be an attractor for the region, the neighborhood, because it's in an activity center now is no longer that, it's just a residential-- it becomes a residential PUD. And I'm wondering if that's the intent of the Growth Management Plan for activity centers. MR BELLOWS: Well, for the record, Ray Bellows. There are PUDs within activity centers that are entirely residential. The original concept of an activity center is to be a mixed use activity center, where there would be commercial and residential projects mixed together. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR BELLOWS: Historically, though, the PUDs within activity centers have almost been entirely commercial. There's been very few projects that are mixed use. And the county's been trying to tweak the GMP over the years to better encourage residential and mixed use projects. And we have started to see some mixed use projects like Mercato and this one, and I believe Davis Reserve was another one and so on. COMMISSIONER CARON: But why don't -- we should be limiting that MU tract to actually being MU is my whole point. If what we're looking for is a mixed use situation in these activity centers, then we shouldn't allow it to become all residential. And according to this, it can become all residential. MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't prohibit it. That's the problem. Staff cannot say the code says you shall have, it's just that is an -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But we could make a stipulation. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the idea of an MU/PUD means it's a mixed use PUD. It would not be mixed use if it had no commercial in it, would it not? MR. BELLOWS: The thing is, it's approved for mixed uses. It doesn't say it has to be developed as Page 38 mixed uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what I'm trying to get at is if we intended this to be a mixed use PUD and by the M being in front of the letters PUD, I think that's what everybody assumed. Is there a minimum criteria that can be for commercial? Is there a minimum amount of commercial in the acreage that they should use as commercial that would be within this activity center? MR. BELLOWS: This came up on a few other projects in the past. And the answer was there is no minimum other than the minimum floor area for a particular building. So it could be as small as a few thousand square foot structure, and that would qualify as mixed use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you've got 17 acres of mixed use you're asking for. How much of that would you commit to being commercial? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In an activity center, if they came forward they couldn't actually-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just trying to figure out why this PUD is getting treated differently than other PUDs that have gone through the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just as you have told us many times, that we reserve the right to learn from our mistakes. So -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we are. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't know that it is a mistake to allow -- if the market decides that-- remember, we're only allowed 128 units on that piece of property, okay? So there's that cap there. If the market decides that that multi-family use is a better use on that property than the other retail uses that we could potentially put there, why would that be a mistake? Because the camp. plan allows for that. The camp. plan doesn't say that an activity center has to be retail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the question was asked. I'm asking you to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm saying-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're saying you're not going to commit to any commercial __ MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know a number, Mr. Strain. This is the first time it's come up. I can't tell you that I -- I don't know if it's one acre. I don't know. I don't know the answer, so I can't give you a commitment if] don't know. I need some time to think about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? We kind of need to focus on the impacts of this PUD. And I don't know ifthere's a reason -- a rationale for demanding more commercial in a community that's got more commercial than it needs already. But it certainly warrants the question. And I think if you want to -- if you're concerned about the way this committee votes, you may want to address the issue. But that's why-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I haven't heard what the committee -- I don't know if it's an issue __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what one members concern is, and I think you need to address every concern that you hear. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And what I'm trying to figure out, if it is a one-member concern or if it's the entire commission's concern that there has to be a certain minimum of commercial in an activity center. I'mjust asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm going to try to get -- Ray, I -- Mr. Y ovanovich indicated that there's no requirement in the GMP that there need to be retail. I think, though, there is a requirement, is there not, for it to be commercial __ MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- in an activity center? Isn't the purpose of the activity center for commercial? MR. BELLOWS: The purpose of the activity center is to allow mixed uses. It's encouraged to have commercial. And commercial cannot be located outside of activity centers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: So by -- because commercial's not located outside of activity centers, what we've been finding historically is all the PUDs that come in within activity centers are entirely commercial. So our Page 39 fPlmT Y009 A 3 September 3, 2009 staff concern was with this project not was that it would become all commercial but that th! EUI! eli!inate A '3 the residential. So that's why the PUD had a requirement for residential units in the mixed use. MR. SCHMITT: Under -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know-- MR. SCHMITT: On Page 4 of your original staff report, and it's Growth Management Plan consistency, it clearly states the intent of mixed use activity center. It's in italicized. It basically states that the mixed use activity centers are intended to be mixed use in character. The actual mix of the various land uses, which may include the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses, at a density consistent with the Land Development Code shall be determined during the rezoning process, based on consideration of factors listed below. Then it lists all the factors. So there is no minimum, per se. You can establish a minimum. We've done that before. There is a maximum in regards to number of residential units. And there is a maximum, but clearly stated maximum. And in this case there is. But no, there is not a minimum per se that you have to have so many residential uuits. ~ i:'.{~ COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'm-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Commissioner Caron-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commissioner Caron -- I hadn't finished. Commissioner Caron had brought up a very good point, I thought. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we have -- when we describe the activity center, we also talk about density bands and, you know, we go out from there to a more quiet place. So clearly, whether it's properly stated or not, the intent I've always understood is that a mixed use was intended for commercial with the hope that we could also put some people in there and rent places and so forth, residential. And so let me just say that when we looked at earlier, much earlier, when we looked at all of the items that were included in the SIC codes, there were so many of them. I mean, the program seemed to be really geared up to both residential and heavy potential commercial uses. And I think it's a fair question for us to ask. And if it's not clear in the GMP or the LDC, then we will do that. I'm in favor of what Commissioner Caron has indicated. I think we need to have some kind of a commitment. Otherwise we're going to be a pig in a poke approval here. I know you've given us all the pigs, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wait a minute. Can I say something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you want to read all of the GMP under mixed use activity centers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let's just continue on with this discussion first. Ms. Caron -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is. And it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron has been trying to say something. Let her slip something in here. It was her question to begin with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: The point is that I would like it to actually be a mixed use activity center. I don't want it to end up being all or the other. But according to the way your PUD is written, it can be all commercial -- no, it can't be all commercial but it can be all residential on that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be all commercial on that mixed use track. There's no requirement to put any residential units -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- on that mixed -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- use tract. Page 40 , September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: -- says here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can't talk at once. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- commercial/mixed use residential. So that-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are all options on the mixed use tract. If we wanted to build -- if we don't want to put any residential on that mixed use tract, we are not required to put residential on that mixed use tract, okay? Let's just make sure we understand the document. Whether you want to change that or not, I just want you to understand, there was never an intent that there was a requirement that on that piece there would have to be residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay-- MR YOVANOVICH: Likewise, there was -- and if I may, let mejustfmish, if you don't mind. The mixed use activity center language in the comprehensive plan specifically recognizes for residential only development in the activity center you can get a density of up to 16 units per acre. So it specifically recognizes in a mixed use activity center language in the Growth Management Plan that it can be a residential project. So to say that it's not -- that it was really intended to be mixed use, it may have been, but there's also the option that it could be purely residential in an activity center. And it was discussed. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's directing himself to me, if you wouldn't mind. I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would tell you-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- while you're absolutely correct from what you're reading, in the years now, it's almost six years I've been doing this, this is what I've learned, that the intent of the activity center was such and such. But I want to get off of that. If this master plan -- and this is the master plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This master plan depicts residential. And if you have no intention of going with residential, I'm concerned about that. It doesn't -- we're being asked to look at what we think we're approving. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't say there was no intent. It's an option. I can't tell you today that I'm going to do five units on that piece of property, 128 units on that piece of property, or zero. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I can't-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, that's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't like arguing with you, but I've got to tell you, I can't figure out what to do about it then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, thank you for your patience. You had wanted to talk? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This just seems -- I think 10 years ago we did a little development here, it came up, I don't know, called Pebblebrook, and it was four phases of residential, two of which turned into commercial exclusively. This seems to be the exact opposite argument that we had then. I don't know if anyone here was here then when we did Pebblebrook. What was it called, the Riclnnond or Richview or whatever __ MR. YOV ANOVICH: Richland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richland PUD. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But it was exactly the opposite, if you recall. Everyone was complaining about it being commercial, those two tracts -- two phases going to commercial. And look at what fme mess that got us into. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- if it's the consensus that there has to be a minimum amount of commercial, does the Planning Commission have an idea of what that is, so I can -- we can talk amongst 161 } A3 .- Page 41 ourselves as to -- can we agree to that, or not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, I don't know about a consensus. I do know the question now has been raised and re-discussed by at least two members. If either one of them have an idea, maybe three, that you would want to offer to make sure you've got as many people to vote on this as you can possibly could get, to me it doesn't matter. So -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Market driven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Ms. Caron or Mr. Murray. Ms. Caron, do you have a recommendation for -- Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would just like to say that if our land use laws don't require either one or the other, I don't see why we should force it. Let the -- you know, what the market demands decide. 161 1 September 3, 2009 A3 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There you go. How about that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's very -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here's my concern then in that regard. We have R-I. And those R-I, we have all of our concerns about setbacks and grass and trees and all the rest of it. And if we go to -- if they decided to go all mixed use commercial, what does that do? Well, then the Land Development Code comes in. And would that be an adequate buffer for the people who are residential next door? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the only discussion we're having is on the MU tract. The RU-1 and RU-2 are not part of that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't think so. I thought it was the entire project that we were talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just table two, which is only for the MU section of the project. That's where Ms. Caron's question -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then my apologies for extending it into that part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm personally not worried. That land's too valuable to have 128 units fit on it, so I'm not worried about that. Buffering within the thing, I mean, Donna, theoretically they could put houses on top of the Lowe's, so that would be mixed use, maybe. So I'm not worried about that. I do think we have to keep an eye on it. We have had mixed use projects, we've given them benefits, and then they've come in here and they've had hardly any commercial, and we've kind of given them trouble when they get here. So Ray, that's your department to keep an eye on that. Anyway, that's my feeling. I do have one more thing on table two when we're through with this part of the conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not trying to set any minimums for anybody. What I'm trying to get to is that I think if we're going to be a mixed use situation, that's what we should be. What we have here are a laundry list of possibilities because again, this particular development is not really going to get developed any time soon. This is not an imminent project. So I would just like it not to be able to go all commercial or all residential, that it indeed is a mixed use product. My other issue for the board, not for the petitioners, is that ifthere are going to be C-4 and C-5 uses, I mean, if they take over and they do 17 acres of a Lowe's, fine by me, and the other seven acres ends up being housing, I think there just should be more of a transitional buffer than 15 feet between such intense use. And so -- you know, but that will be for a motion-making time. As far as the -- you know, this other issue, Ijust wanted to ask the question. You know, we do these things all the time and nobody ever asks the question. You know, if we all think we're approving a mixed use project, we're not necessarily. It could be an all commercial project, it could be an all residential project or it could be a mixture of both. And Ijust want to bring that out. Page 42 September 3, 2009 16/1 A3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what you just said is what I thought I would be making amotion on today, is that it is going to be either a mixed use project or either an all residential project or either an all commercial project. And the limitations of each one of those are spelled out in this document that we're looking at. And the reason I thought it was that is because if you don't ask for mixed use, then you've got to do all commercial and you've got to do all residential. So the best way to approach it is come in with a request to do all of them . And if that's the option that the market dictates, then that's what they have the ability to put here. It is an activity center. There's no detriment to any of those in the activity center. So we -- I don't have a problem with that approach to it from my perspective. So with that, Mr. Schiffer, you had another issue on table two? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did. And it's the distance between buildings. It's stated as a minimum of 20 feet or the required separation compliant with local fIre codes. Well, fIrst of all, the fire codes aren't really what establish building separation. But separation in the codes could have zero with a firewall. So I think if we could just make it a minimum of20 feet. And if the designer's smart, he'd make it 20 feet, one inch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with that, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So minimum distance between structures on table two would be 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Otherwise there could be another great wall of Orange Blossom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I hope we've covered everything. Is there anything -- Richard, do you want to -- there's been little discussion, but do you want to have anything to rebut that you want to get into before we close? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm just interested to see the direction so we can get the language right on the rewrite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a whole pile of notes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the risk of saying something I probably shouldn't, this will not be an all commercial project. Because remember, we have the R tracts. I think what you were focusing on is maybe the MU tract could be all commercial. But people were using the word project, and I want to make sure we were talking the same language. That's all I wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that correction was made. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody understands that now. Okay, with that, we will close the public hearing and have a discussion on a motion. If you want, I can read to you the issues that I think we've resolved, and I can then tell you the couple of issues we probably haven't resolved, if that works for everybody. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit A, we were going to add an inclusion in the second paragraph to limit the FAR ofCCR or group facilities to .45. We're going to amend 794 I, excepting out stadiums and ballparks. 5211 would not apply to landscaping and nurseries. 7521 would exclude tow-in lots. 5735 would include no adult orientated material. 5999 would be no gravestones, monuments, tombstones or sales barns, whatever those are. There would be no commercial towers on the property. In Exhibit B -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You mean communication towers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, yeah, communication towers. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we had the question, was that standalone communication towers, or was Page 43 September 3, 2009 that you couldn't broadcast from that site? I wasn't sure if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it would be a standalone tower. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It was a tower. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a que -- if you're passing it, so I'm assuming you're happy with I I :00 at night? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm sorry. That's a good point. I think your suggestion I think was 10:00 at night is a better suggestion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that matches up with some of the other things that we've done, so-- On table one in Exhibit B, we're going to change asterisk six as we discussed by saying a maximum of two stories not to exceed 35 feet, and we're going to add the asterisk to the actual height designation on the table itself. And the second thing on Exhibit B with table two, we would -- external multi-family setbacks, there was a change there. And the minimum distance between buildings would be 20 feet. The external multi-family setbacks would be the same as those shown for the commercial parcel. The third thing would be the internal setbacks would be 20 feet to the tract lines on the south of the MU tract. We're going to do that with an asterisk or a reference in the footnote. Exhibit C, that's the master plan. I can't read by own writing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Shouldn't we have them correct the master plan to reflect the turnaround, the midpoint turnaround? CHAIRMAN STRAfN: I'm sorry, Mr. Murray, why don't you say that for the record so I know what it is you're -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. On Exhibit C, should we have them correct the master plan to reflect the midpoint turnaround or wherever that's going to be located? They've indicated it in writing, but it's not on the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a design feature that they'd have to do at the time of 16' 1 A3 SDP-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so it's not required on here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think so. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to try to help you out with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I figured it out. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. All right, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My hand scratching here. It says -- we had a notation, number two, we got to add to that, it would be no less than the minimum acres. The second thing, we want to change the buffer language to be consistent with the PUD. The third thing, the alignment points at where the shading starts and stops. A reference to the Cook PUD's western boundary needed to be added. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that need to be on the master plan or in the text that we talked about it, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAfN: It needs to be somewhere so we know where that shading stops. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had it in the text. Ijust wanted to -- that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's in the text -- I can't recall, but if it is there, I think that's sufficient. In Exhibit E, references LB.9. I'm not even sure what it was, but we had an issue on LB.9. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, we had to refer to I.B.9 in that request for deviation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Actually, I think that was F.1.B.9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F.l.B.9. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Exhibit F and then -- Page 44 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right, F. I .B.9. On Exhibit F, I'm going to leave the fIrst comment about the Davis Boulevard and all that for discussion later. Let me get the simple ones fIrst. Under -- we're going to drop paragraph B.6. The County Attorney's Office is going to work with the applicant to rewrite B.s. And Item C under the landscaping, we're going to add the words Type B buffer in the fIrst sentence. We're going to add Firano as a reference to where the additional buffer will have to go. And we're going to modify the five-foot centers to four-foot centers on the end. Exhibit H -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You passed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- the four-Ianing issue. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, he said he-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I didn't. I'm going to bring it up here in a minute. There's two outstanding discussions that are going to take longer, and I was getting through the simple stuff fIrst. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ExhibitH, we're going to drop number 10. Now-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On number one also, five -- the six-foot sidewalk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the whole -- yeah, number one's going to be dropped, because it's going to be moved to another section. And then it's going to be a six-foot sidewalk at that point when it is moved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, there are also changes to C. I which Mr. Y ovanovich read. MR. YOVANOVICH: C.I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C. I. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the enhanced Type B buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are all-- I mentioned those, yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did it more generally, because I think we discussed it. And that will come out in the corrections -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that they're making. So that leaves two items that I did not mention, because I think they will take a little more discussion. The fIrst one -- well, let's just talk about this matter of the MU tract. I don't know what you all want to do to resolve the MU tract, whether we should have a minimum amount of commercial acreage or just leave it up to the marketplace or leave it as it's written. And you need a consensus so we know what to give direction on a consent agenda item, if we can resolve it. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not -- I wasn't looking to assign a minimum to these people, Ijust wanted a commitment that it would indeed be mixed use. That was all. So __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That was all I was talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is that a commitment? Because -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know how to meet it, because I don't know -- someone may say if I put in a -- I don't want to use Starbucks, but some kind of coffee shop and that's all I put in there, is that a commitment to mixed use? I don't know. I don't want to get into an enforcement issue of what was meant by that and I don't want to just do something to skate by either. I want to do what you expect us to do with that commitment, if there is that required commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think part of the problem is, is do we care whether -- I mean, I know the presentation of the whole PUD has been on the premise of it being a mixed use as far as discussion goes. 16 I 1 A3 ( Page 45 September 3, 2009 161 1 A3 " But does it really matter in an activity center if we use mixed use or if we use activity -- if we use commercial or if we use residential? That's a market driven issue. But if we have a direction on that, that seems to be what the majority wants, we need to put it on the table right now. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't really have a dog in the fight, but I will tell you that one of the reasons that they've created the activity center, I'm told, is -- or activity centers -- was to stop strip malls, okay, just to stop that propagation. It would seem that if it's an activity center and you have the Boys and Girls Club next to you, at least some portion of it -- and I don't necessarily want to assign a minimum, but some portion of it should be commercial, that it just makes sense. It's on a frontage of an important road, there's potential for capture and all the rest of it. If the rules say that it can be this or it can be that or it can be that, I'll be fme with it. I would hope you would put some commercial there. I thought Commissioner Caron's question was a very valid one. I've come to be made clear now that it can be the other, so I'll respect the law. But I would hope that you would put some commercial there. That's the best I could do in this conversation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, you're only allowed 124 units on that site. The value of that site I can guarantee you will not be all residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the consensus then is just to leave it as it is? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on to the next one, that would probably take a little discussion, and that is how we want to look at the substantial completion of Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to 95 J . There were two issues here. And that is, what is it we're completing? We don't know what the road entails. Is it four-lane, six-lane, 20 lanes? And then at the same time do we want to tie it to certificate of occupancy or to building permit? And if it's building permit, the applicant has suggested construction, but the County Attorney's Office has advised us that may be difficult if they complete the construction, get all the required safety inspections, health, safety and welfare to prevent them from getting a CO if that road gets delayed. Do we want to put ourselves in that kind of a position. Those are the two issues. John, I believe you have a response to at least one of them? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm sorry, ask that last part of the question again. My apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the fIrst part. What is Davis Boulevard going to be? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Davis Boulevard. When I checked with our management team, the response back was it's to be designed as a six-Ianer. It -- I'm sorry, it is designed as a six-lane roadway. But the first quarter mile at the east end is constrained by development, meaning it will be less than six lanes for a portion of it. It should be substantially complete roughly 20 months from issuance of notice to proceed, or roughly 24 to 36 months from today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it goes back to the completion of Davis Boulevard in a six-lane configuration except for the last quarter mile, which will be -- may not be a six-lane configuration. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is there a -- I guess that's the only way we describe it. Because we need to have something to indicate what the completion is, what we're waiting to be completed. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We could say county acceptance of the completed roadway for Davis Boulevard between Radio -- substantial completion. And that's county acceptance. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm used to the terminology substantial completion, that's why. When it's up and running. Page 46 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Substantial completion of Davis Boulevard in its six-Ian16Jatilas A 3 designed by the DOT to a point where it tapers down at the intersection on the east end. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the best way to say it? I'm just -- someone's got to write this up for consent, and that's what (sic) I'm trying to get it as clean as possible. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is there a project number? Maybe it would be easier to just refer to it as the existing project number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if there is or not. I don't know. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, using the project number would be just fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you get the project number to the person who's doing all this notation -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before the end of the meeting? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of that. The second -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Joltn, in the inspection of a road, is there different milestones in the road inspection system? In other words, in buildings we have different phases. Is there that in road construction? MR PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would be the one that would be about nine months away from the completion of the road? Is there-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't have a good answer for you on that one. My apologies. I can ask the question and find out what the schedule is specifically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you were headed to where the next part of this question's going be, is how do we tie the project's development? Do we tie it to the building per -- that a building permit cannot be issued until the substantial completion of this Davis Boulevard connection, or do we tie a certificate of occupancy to the substantial completion? And I think we were told by tying a CO to it we run into trouble legally. MR. KLATZKOW: If you do it by building permit, you're fine. MR. SCHMITT: I'd prefer building permit. MR. KLATZKOW: If you do it any other way and there's a problem in constructing the road, well, you've got houses ready to go, what are you supposed to do with them? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm worried about. MR. KLA TZKOW: Building permit's fme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd have to agree with you, so it would be that the -- no building permit shall be issued until the following milestones have been met. And then we get into the substantial completion of the sections of roadway that we're talking about. Anybody have any concems or issues with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I do want to ask a question of Joltn. This is going to be funded by FOOT? MR PODCZERWINSKY: The majority of it, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is it in our five-year capital? Is it in their five-year capital? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's in FDOT's five-year capital plan, but I don't believe it's in ours at this point. It may have been incorporated in this -- in the '09. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is it funded in theirs, or just as -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- a place-marker? Page 47 t6ier 12009 A 3 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it is funded in theirs. We have a contractual obligation from FOOT that they are providing funding for this project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: How come we get a different concurrency management system than every other project in Collier County? If a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We reserve the right to get smarter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If a project is under -- if it's funded and in the plan, it meets concurrency. And you can get building permits and you can move forward. But you're saying to us, if the proj -- you're not even going to let us move forward with a building permit, even though the road is under construction, which is even more restrictive than the concurrency management system that's in place today. I don't understand why it is that on this particular project we have to have a different concurrency management system. MR. KLATZKOW: We've had the state pull funding on Davis Boulevard before. Davis Boulevard has been a bone of contention in this county. This is not a project that we're controlling with our-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we were willing to say no building permits until the road was under construction. You've got -- you will have the money at that point for the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Richard, if you get your building permit and nine months or 12 months later you get all your final inspections and your buildings are safe, they meet fire code, they meet county codes, everything's ready to go and we say no, you can't have a CO because this road's been delayed, we've -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Didn't I accept that risk in this PUD document? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Where did you accept that risk? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If we revised it the way I suggested-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that we get no building permits until the road construction starts and no COs until it's substantially complete, and I'm done before you're substantially complete, what's my argument under the PUD document that you've got to give it to me early? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have -- if that can stick, that's fine. But I don't know if it can stick, and that's what I'm worried about. I'm worried about you coming in and saying to the commissioners, look how unfair this is. Through no fault of my applicants, this road got delayed three years because of funding or because of hurricanes or because of this or preserves or permitting, and all of a sudden I'm held up when I've got a standing building there and it's 100 percent safe, that's what I'm worried about you saying. And I'm worried about the politics saying, well, you're right, you know what, we need people working, we need those buildings occupied, we need families in those and we need businesses operating, so we're going to give you the COso That's what's going to happening. That's what I'm worried about. And if someone wants to let that happen, it may not need to be this board or us as individuals that lets that happen. That's what I'm worried about, Richard. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could I-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: When roads are started, do they drop? Because you were saying if the road starts then he can be issued a building permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They can still be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I can say is look at Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, but it never really started. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it started. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean on that section you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It took twice the amount of years to complete. They ran into all kinds of troubles and we have been suffering under that road for years because it started and so many projects were allowed to go forward along that road on the anticipation it would be completed. Page 48 tegelber i 2009 A 3 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't remember which project talked the commission into giving them a CO early. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember either, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't say it wasn't, I'm just -- I don't remember. I can't give you a name right here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think it was Island Walk or something like that. It was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- the one that's on Vanderbilt, or whatever. But that was sections of V anderbilt that went on. This is very specific to that part of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's up to whatever this board wants to do. We just need to make a recommendation. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joltn, once again, do you think there is some sort of construction milestone that's approximately nine months out that you could tag his building permits to? Something that you know you're past the point of no return. I mean, maybe everything but the friction surface or something or -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right, the bid letting should be in just a few months. And we're already past the point of no return once we let the bids. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But is there anything in the process that would essentially-- you know, the concern is we don't want to bring the units on-line while the road isn't done. So is there some point milestone in the road building mechanism that we could tag that to? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The way that we're told to do it now, as defined by the Department of Community Affairs, is as soon as we're under contract to build the capacity is available. That's part of our concurrency management system that we're bound to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you say that again? As soon as -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: As soon as the roadway construction project is let for a contract, you know, as soon as it's contracted with the actual construction agency that's going to build it, we are to count the capacity in our concurrency management system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As though it were done. MR. PODCZER WINSKY: Yes, as though it were done. So that is our point of no return. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about -- now, is that for the complete contracting of the road, every piece of it, or just the sidewalks? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's the contracting for the segment of that portion of the roadway. So for this segment it's Radio to 95 I. Whether that includes the sidewalks as an addition to that, I don't think __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying then, currency rules would obligate us to allow a building permit to be issued when the entire segment of this road is contracted. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. When you say the entire segment, I refer to between Radio and 95 I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Well, no, between -- no, Radio. You mean Davis and 951, don't you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can't be radio. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, he meant that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Radio is east of that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. From -- Davis Boulevard, from Radio to 95]. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Davis Boulevard from Radio to-- MR. BELLOWS: The intersection with Davis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happens from Santa Barbara to Radio? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Santa Barbara to Radio is currently programmed I think for 2012 construction, and it is not currently failing at this moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's its level of service for that piece? Page 49 iP6mr Y009 A 3 I MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't have the AUIR with me, but I know it was -- the level of service I think was 0 or E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got a six-lane configuration coming into Radio and a six-lane configuration -- or is it four lanes right now on Davis coming into Santa Barbara? Both of those two from end to end bottlenecking down on a two-lane segment that isn't even going to start till2012? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then it may not -- and that's if it's funded and if it's contracted and if it's designed and then if it's ever built, which is longer than the section that's going to go from Radio to 951. That being shorter is going to take almost two years in itself. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The segment from 95 I to Radio -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- is the segment that's currently failing. And that's the priority segment for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But there's -- the segment from Radio to Santa Barbara isn't much better. It's still the same two-lane road that people get on between Radio and 951. MR. PODCZER WINSKY: Correct. And that's part of the reason that these folks are part of their Policy 5.8 contribution to that segment of roadway, which covers the expansion of a hurricane evacuation route. That's part of what Policy 5.8 covers. Also, they still have to meet concurrency at the time of SDP or plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But concurrency's letting them -- would they meet the concurrency requirements for that segment that's not even being touched, that two-lane segment that exists today? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If there's capacity available on it, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait a minute, l'm-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please. I understood you saying what the state says. Now you're saying something even more restrictive. In other words, the state may say the moment you let that segment it's considered concurrent. Are you telling us that the county though can supersede the state's and say according to our concurrency it doesn't fit because? That's what I thought you just related. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Our concurrency follows the date that this goes to contract, you know, that it is let for bid and the bids are accepted and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's moot. And we have a heck of a bottleneck is what we're talking about. Okay. All right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's just it, the contract is set up for 2012. So the bit letting is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- set for 2012. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what you're saying is we basically got to accept the building permit applications at the time of contracting for this road segment that the DOT's planning to put in between Radio Road and 951. MR. KLA TZKOW: You don't have to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then what is John telling me? MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't -- [ mean, they're not vested at this point in time. They're coming to you for a rezoning. Now, if you want to say make a condition of this rezoning that they don't get their building permits until the time that road's put in, that's within your prerogative, all right? Now, you don't have to do that, that's also within your prerogative, but you're not forced to say okay, well, there's nothing we can do about it. And, you know, not for nothing, I understand the developer wants this stuff, but you've got people that are going to be living in those homes. And having lived off of Collier Boulevard and suffered through that and suffered through VBR, all right, it's not a bad idea putting these homes in after the road's put in, because it took six years for Vanderbilt Beach Road, and it was a nightmare. Page 50 September 3, 2009 161 1 A3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do believe that you have to have a rationalization to say why your current concurrency management system should not be applied to this particular project. And I'm just asking for an explanation as to why the county's concurrency management system should not be applied to tI1j particular project. That's all I've asked. ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on this? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've got to get to a point of resolution so we can vote. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust want to qualify something then. The concurrency that Mr. Y ovanovich is relating to and the question he just posed is based on what may -- to me certainly is new that on the occasion of letting it, letting the contract that concurrency is met, have we not been making our prior decisions based on the concurrency in a different form? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, it's not that concurrency is met with the contract is let for that roadway, it's that capacity is available. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay, the build-out capacity is available at that point. That's when they're able to take advantage of the concurrency allowances. Does that help describe it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I -- it's words. It's semantical in my mind. But that's -- we have -- all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, or I guess maybe -- what policy do you believe in our transportation element or even the FLUE dictates to us that we have to provide an approval for projects that are within the concurrency system; do you know? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right offhand I don't know the reference. I believe it would be Policy 5.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and the reason -- I notice Richard laughed at that, but let me read 5.1 to you. It says, the county commission will review all rezone requests, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the FLUE affecting the overall county-wide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impacts on the overall system and shall not approve any such request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service within the five-year planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. And it says we shall not approve. It doesn't say we have to approve. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I want to make clear. Because I think a lot of what I've always assumed and maybe others is that if it meets this concurrency five-year table, we have to approve it. It doesn't say that. It tells us when we don't have to approve it. It doesn't say when we do. And I'm just thinking that's a different application here than what we may have thought about in the past. So with that in mind, we need to make this determination on this project what our recommendations are. Is there a motion and -- or do we want to have further discussion? But we need to get past this. And by the way, ladies and gentlemen who are waiting for the other projects, I don't see us getting to those before lunch. When this is done and voted on, whatever time that is, we are going to take lunch and we'll finish up this afternoon. So if all of you are wlliting for the other two, I'm just giving you a heads up, we're going to take lunch frrst. Okay, Mr. Schiffer, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, alls -- I mean, I think the only milestone that we really know Page 5 1 September 3, 2009 is the completion of the road, or substantial completion of the road. So unless, Joltn, you could come up with some other guaranteed milestone or a percentage of the cost drawn already or something that would make us comfortable that this road is going to be done in about nine months, let's say that's the length of time to build the fIrst unit out. I think we're going to be stuck going with the CO at the completion of the road. Unless you can give us something. Maybe it's 80 percent of the money is drawn and it's about nine months from there or something that gives us a better handle. MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: At my level of staff, I'm not authorized to make that kind of decision. At this point I've been told 24 to 36 months for the completion of the contract is the latest terms that we'd be looking at. So that's the most comfort I can offer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-four to 36? MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: From today's date. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bit of a window. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm told it should take about 20 months to complete the project after it's let for bid, and I'm told that it's supposed to be let within about four months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there are milestone points in the contract, right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just don't know what those are standing here today. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I'm going to suggest something that you may like or dislike, I don't know, but this is not -- this may uot be heading in a positive direction for an outcome that you would like. We're not here to necessarily please you, but we're here to get the best job. If you would like to continue this, to come back after maybe you can peg a milestone in a construction process that is determinable that we can then fIx this issue on if it's a deal breaker for you, you might want the option to continue this meeting until such time you can do that. It's up to you. Otherwise, we'll just continue with the vote. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would --you know, well, I guess the answer is this: You'll have to do what the Planning Commission thinks is the proper condition. What I would hope the condition would be is that the project is fully funded and the contract is let. And we understand that if the road's not done, we don't get CO's. We'll stop on the building permits, no building permits till the project's fully funded and under construction, and we'll take the risk on the CO's. And you know what, Mr. Strain? If my client goes to the Board of County Commissioners and pleads their case and they say you know what, okay, we want to do that, that's their policy right to do that. But my guess is we're going to have to show them a really good reason as to why they should do that when we knew going in and we agreed to the condition up front that no Co's until substantial completion of the road. And we were willing to wait until the road started its construction. So I think that's a fair and reasonable milestone, two milestones: One fully funding and road under construction, and the second -- before we get a building permit; and the second one, no CO's until it's done. And we will make that -- we're going to make that business decision as to when do we reasonably think the road's going to get done before we start construction. We're going to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, if there's no further discussion, we need to have a motion on this before we go to lunch. Anybody on this commission? We've read all the stipulations. I think there's been a lot of note-takers in here today making notes on what we're talking about. We've had a final discussion on the last two more intense issues, and we have the applicant's final position that they'll take. It's really up to us to make a recommendation. Does anybody on this panel wish to make a recommendation? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll move that we vote to pass along with a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners PUDZ-2007-AR-l I 100 subject to the discussion that we've had so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that discussion didn't resolve the issue of the building permit 1611 A3 ~'l4 Page 52 and the timing of that versus the road on Davis. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My motion would be that we accept what the petitioner has offered with regard to what he would be willing to accept. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I read the language then as I understand for that section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go right ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It would say no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until after the following milestones have been met: Full funding and letting of contract of construction for Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to CR95 I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the way it would read is no building permit would be issued __ MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- until the construction has been -- the construction contracts have been let for the Davis Boulevard section of Radio Road to CR95 I. I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that no certificate of occupancy would be issued until substantial completion of that same segment of road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what everybody understood? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's my motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's Mr. Midney's motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded the motion. Is there a discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think the only thing that I want to add to the discussion is that I think we probably got some good advice from the County Attorney. And secondly, we've been bit before on some of these things, and it makes me nervous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only comment is I would support the changes to the project that we've discussed today. I cannot support the transportation recommendation. After reading Policy 5.1, I pretty much believe we're not obligated to approve anything under concurrency. We're just obligated to what we can't do. So with that I would be voting against the motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, to discuss that, essentially we're saying you can't put people on that road. People aren't living in those houses till that road's done. So doesn't that mitigate the concern? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, you're saying because ofthe CO? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. In other words-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't believe that process is one that is going to hold up in the long run. After what I've seen happen to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, I don't think __ I think anybody coming with a bleeding heart argument to a political body to get around that would succeed. So __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You think they will succeed-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to get around it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And it won't be the same -- may not even be the same people that are here today when this finally gets done who knows how many years down the road. But it becomes too September 3, 2009 1611 A3 Page 53 Steber'r9 A 3 political. And I don't know if we want to throw it into that realm, and that's my concern. So __ for transportation, I believe it doesn't meet transportation element Policy 5.1 under that condition and that's why I'll be voting no. So with that, any further discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I -- I understand where you're going, and you're probably correct. But I'm also concerned with the departure from what we have heretofore -- to my understanding, what we heretofore have been doing. And I agree, especially because it's Davis Boulevard and it's FOOT and there's all kinds of questions and next year there'll be less money and so forth. But I think for the consistency purposes, I think there are enough protections. And if the political body __ if the political body wants to go ahead and make a decision, they may be doing it in the best interest of the community as far as I would know. So I'm going to vote for the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion to recommend approval with the stipulations made by the motion maker and the second, signify by raising your hand and saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three -- five in favor. All those opposed, same sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed. The motion carries 5-2. This will be back on today's consent agenda, Item I O.A after we hear the other two cases when we come back from lunch. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a break for lunch and -- Richard? Item #8A - Continued from earlier in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091. SIENA LAKES MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Siena Lakes consent agenda item regarding the legal description, is that CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be 10.B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought it was stated on consent it was tabled to discuss the ad. I mean, it's on the consent which is already on -- is there any way you could take that before lunch? Because, I mean, it was a quick confmnation was it legally advertised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't mind. Does the rest of-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't mind. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd hate for them to have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is -- them? Who's them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: My clients are out there just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I didn't-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- sitting away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- see anybody in the hall. I didn't see anybody in-- Page 54 MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're in the hall-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the audience, sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- just sitting there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what's the synopsis of the legal description that was advertised versus the legal description in the staff report we've just -- in the consent agenda? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, staff e-mailed me the legal ad that was used in the -- for the newspaper and it contained the map showing the property correctly. We never include the entire legal description in a legal newspaper ad anyways, so in my opinion I think we have a duly advertised petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we have a consent item Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, LCS Westminster, Naples, LLC, known as Siena Lakes, CCRC/CPUD. We've had discussion earlier by Ms. Ashton about corrections needed to the document. Assuming that those are included in the motion-maker's motion, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as amended? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent item as amended. Mr. Murray made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent motion carries 7-0. With that in mind, we'll take a break, we'll come back here at 12:40 and resume. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our lunch break. Let us hope that the following two things are not as problematic as the first one. So I think the first thing, is Richard involved in the next two? Maybe not. Okay, we're good to go. I hope he didn't hear that. ter;;er a 2009 A 3 Item #9B PETITION: CU-2009-AR- 1423 I, PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES. INC. The next item is Petition CU2009-AR-1423 I. It's the Peace Lutheran Church in Naples, Inc. It's on Immokalee Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 55 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning commissionl 6 I 1 A 3 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a brief discussion with Mr. Anderson. And anything that he and I discussed will be re-discussed today. So with that in mind, let's move forward. Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members ofthe Commission. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Firm. I'm here on behalf of the Peace Luthern Church of Naples. I'd like to introduce Mr. Fred Grundeman who is a chairman of the building committee for the church. Also with me is Margaret Perry, the project planner from WilsonM iller. Also from WilsonMiller are Jeff Perry, the transportation planner, Tom Trettis, the senior ecologist, and Raymond Piacente, the engineer for the project. This is agriculturally zoned property in the rural fringe on the south side of Immokalee Road. It's surrounded on three sides by the Calusa Pines Golf Course. And it's across the street from Heritage Bay. The church is requesting conditional use approval for a church, a child care center and a private school. This property will likely be developed in phases. The plans are for a 15,500 square foot sanctuary with seating for 600, and a 3 I ,850 square foot multipurpose structure that would include child care, church administrative offices and the private school. The church currently meets at the Oak Ridge Middle School. You may be aware in the Land Development Code that there is a provision regarding how height is measured. And it excludes from height measurements things like cupolas and spires on churches. Now, I know you all like to know about actual height as well. We are requesting an actual height of 50 feet to include either a spire or a cupola or whatever we might -- the church might choose to adorn the sanctuary with. We are in agreement with two of the three staff stipulations for approval. Stipulation number two, which refers to planned intersection improvements, needs some clarification. I'm going to ask Jeff Perry to come up and speak on that. I think he and Mr. Podczerwinsky have discussed that matter. And I or any members of the team will be available to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. PERRY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Jeff Perry. I'm a transportation planner with WilsonMiller. We are asking for some clarification on the stipulation number two, which is on Page 9 of lOaf the staff report. The -- it reads, the applicant will be required to contribute proportionate share cost for planned intersection and signalization improvements at County Road 951 and Immokalee Road/County Road 846 at the time of development order application. Our concern is that the wording of it is a little vague in terms of what those planned improvements are and at what stages in the development order process or which development orders we would be talking about. I had opportunity to speak with John this morning, Joltn Podczerwinsky, this morning about some of the language, and I think we can come to some agreement as to what the terms of that are. Our concern of course is that there's an ongoing obligation sort of here that does not limit it to any particular development orders, doesn't really limit it to any particular improvements, it just simply says planned improvements. I understand from speaking with Joltn that there are in fact a specific set of improvements that are either under-designed or have been designed for that intersection, and that given certain amounts of development at our SDP process, when we would do an intersection analysis, there may be some impacts that our projects might have on that intersection that we would be required to pay a proportionate share for. It's generally handled at site development plan process. We have no -- take no issue with that. But just the sort of vague reference to some planned improvements in the future at some development order stage we just need a little bit more clarification on. And I think we can probably get there. It's just a matter of Page 56 S'itejPbeI 3, 2009 ~O I . clearly defining what those plarmed improvements are and what development order stage we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to get there now, though, so do you have any recommended language? MR. PERRY: Well, Joltn had put together some -- the start of the some language as we talked this morning conceming the at-grade improvements, at-grade intersection improvements. I think if there's a project number, as was talked about earlier, if there's a specific project that the county has designed, we'd be able to sort of reference that particular project. And the development order is basically his concern, I believe, he'll correct me if I'm wrong. But the issue is either the school or the child care site development plan, because the church would really have no impact on the p.m. peak hour traffic at that intersection. It's really only the school, if the school and/or child care center is developed on the site. That's the site development plan he was talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would be at the time of the site development plan for the proposed school -- MR. PERRY: School. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or the child care center. MR. PERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's one of the changes. And the other change is the reference to the actual intersection improvement job. MR. PERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joltn, could you come up and tell us if you have any objection to that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good afternoon. John Podczerwinsky, Collier County Transportation. No, we do not have an objection to that, to whatJeffhas just stated. And I am currently in the process of obtaining the project number for this, for the intersection of95] and Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you have that project number by the time that comes back on consent? So if we approve this subject to that, that works out. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I hope to. It's under -- currently it's under conceptual design, so there may not be a project number assigned to it yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there will be before consent? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm saying that, if we tie it a -- it better be that way. Otherwise, we have to come back and rehear this to get it changed. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I will specifically request that we establish a project number for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then does that finish with your concerns, Jeff? MR. PERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know if there's any objection from the Plarming Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay, I guess we'll hear staff next, unless there's any questions of the applicant at this time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Melissa, one thing I heard is they want to change the height that they previously suggested as the actual to be 45 feet and 50 feet. MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. Mr. Anderson reflected their request accurately. There isn't anything else in addition to report except for we're going with staff's recommendations on Page 9 of the staff report. The attached resolution has an old conditions of approval which will be revised. And now fmding out about the transportation commitment number two, that's going to be revised too. So we're sticking with what staff's recommending, other than what stipulation number two with the language that transportation and the applicant has come up with. And I'll make sure we get the project number for the consent agenda item. Page 57 A3 September 3, 2009 1611 A3 If there's any questions I'd like to address for you, I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, are there three or four conditions? MS. ZONE: There's three. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Because on our conditions of approval sheet -- MS. ZONE: Correct. And the old number three has been struck through. And that was a last minute change that went through that the applicants -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. ZONE: -- and transportation were able to work out. So we're making sure that what we're asking for is on Page 9 of the staff report. Other than the revisions to condition number two, which the applicants worked out with transportation to tie it to the school or the day care for, I believe it was at grade improvements for -- in whichever particular project number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Melissa, it's about the height. In the zoning they have the actual height is 35 feet, right? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which means a roof could go beyond that, and cathedral roofs and churches should be able to go beyond that. But why would we set the steeple to be at 50 feet? MS. ZONE: Well, the applicants picked the 50-foot height. And I believe the reason why they did that was because at the moment there is no site design for it so they weren't sure about the height of it. So they're picking the maximum of being 50-foot for the actual height to give them some design flexibility. So it came from the applicants offering this up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it may be coming from New England where steeples are a dominant part of our town. The __ but essentially then that could be the ridge of the roof would normally under 35-foot height could go higher than 50 feet. So in other words, the steeple's going to be lower than the roof, unless they do a low roof designed church. MS. ZONE: You know, that -- during site development plan, I'm not sure if Bruce Anderson and Margaret want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we get some clarification-- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The zoned height in the agricultural district is 35 feet. And that's measured to the hip of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's measured to the midpoint. MR. BELLOWS: -- ridge of the roof -- or midpoint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if we're -- MR. BELLOWS: And the actual height is referring to anything that the LDC exempts from the height defmition, such as towers or in this case a steeple. And the Board of County Commissioners has requested it -- the actual height of towers and things like this, and that's why we have this actual height category added. So we just want to know how tall that steeple's going to be. They pick the height that they wanted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. My concern is just -- I mean, we didn't pressure them to keep it low. Because again, the roof, because you said midpoint, that if a roof had a nice glulam or something, cathedral roof, the midpoint of that, if it was at 35 feet, the roof would go much higher than that, and thus this would place in essence the steeple of the cross. We've had this before with the Congregational Church, we gave them 75 feet on Immokalee. Nobody had a problem with that. MR. BELLOWS: Fifty feet actual height should work for them. I can't imagine it would not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in the name of steeples, I'm protesting, but go ahead. Page 58 September 3, 2009 MS. ZONE: Staff understands. It was something that the applicants had offered up16 i_A 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I read here that it says the minimum front and rear yard setback was 50 feet? I thought it was 75. MS. ZONE: In the agricultural? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Certainly from a major arterial. I thought it was 75. MR. BELLOWS: No, that's Estates. MS. ZONE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I knew it was Estates. I MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the Estates is 75. But the front setack in the ag., I'll look it up, but I don't believe it's -- I know it's not -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I meant -- I thought right there along Immokalee Road or something. But that's all right, nothing encroaches even close, but I picked that up. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of staff'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple. In some prior PUDs, especially that have had multiple uses, we've -- when they've done a TIS we've capped them at the peak hour. And I forgot what the other element is called, but it's whatever those caps are in the TIS. And I mentioned that to the applicant when I talked to him on the phone; they didn't seem to have an objection at that time. And so I'd like to make sure that that same language is inserted into here as recommendation two. MS. ZONE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The height we took care of. And the last thing is where in this document would we put the height? Because I can't find it, even as it was proposed prior to today's meeting. I see it's in the text of the staff report, but don't we want it listed in the conditional use or on the site plan? MS. ZONE: Right, we can put it as a condition of approval, and should the applicants revise the site plan, conceptual site plan, to put in the legend that -- what the actual height will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the site plan there's a note number two. MS. ZONE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Far right-hand comer. Says, because ofthe appropriate nature of these numbers -- and they're referring to the building sizes -- the total building square footage may increase up to 10 percent without the need for a conditional use amendment. I understand that, but I'd like to make sure that it's -- there's some reference at the end that says however, will not exceed the parameters of the TIS. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust don't want them to use that to get larger buildings and end up exceeding the TIS impacts. MS. ZONE: We can -- Ijust heard from Margaret Perry, the agent for the applicant, and she said they will remove number two entirely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that makes it simpler. Okay, good. That's all I had. Anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll-- public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any rebuttal by the applicant? There's not a lot to rebut here, Bruce. But, you know, I'm your cohort there. Richard always takes advantage of rebuttal, whether it's needed or not, so I figured I'd let you have the same opportunity. Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve CU-2009-AR-14231, Peace Lutheran Church of Page 59 September 3, 2009 Naples, Inc., with the stipulations that we've just discussed, that the height will be 50 feet to the inclleQe I 1 A:3 spires, or whatever else the -- the actual height will be 50 feet. There's a cap on the trips to what is currently shown on the TIS. And that footnote number two on the master plan is taken out. And that the height is noted on the master plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did say that we're going to -- the language for number two to rework was okay? MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those iffavor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Boy, that was a refreshing short meeting. Item #9C PETITION: PE-PL-09-260. MARCO SHORES PUD Now, the next item up for today is Petition PE-PL-09-260, the Collier County Airport Authority for the Marco Shores PUD. It's a parking exemption on a one-acre tract. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I've spoken to Mr. Arnold, and I've spoken to staff and the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Arnold called me, we had a very brief discussion, and that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I had a -- I know I had a discussion with Wayne, and I think he's the only person I had a discussion with, so -- and whatever that entailed, we'll have the same notes that I got here, which turned out to be none, so we didn't talk about anything. MR. ARNOLD: I'm scratching my head wondering if we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. And Theresa Cook, the executive director of the Collier County Airport Authority, is present as well to help answer any questions that you may have. This is a parking exemption and it is for -- it's necessitated by some improvements that are being Page 60 September 3,2009 prepared for the Marco Island Executive Airport. The county has been trying to obtain approval for a runway expansion and a taxiway expansion so that they don't have to utilize the present runway as a taxiway as well. So it's a safety enhancement project that they're working on. And the county had an opportunity some time ago to acquire from WCI Communities a tract ofland that's known as Tract Q in the plat of record. On the aerial that's on your visualizer, you can see the about one-acre piece of property that we're proposing to obtain the parking exemption for. And that will then relocate the parking that you can see that's on the airport property immediately to the east of this parcel. Your staff report's I think fairly straightforward and has brought out the facts of the case. But this is located -- this is. The parking exemption property is located at the Marco Shores PUD. i The property that is the airport property is zoned P, public use, to the east. But the county has acquired not only the one-acre shown there but the entirety now of Tract Q which goes over to what is designated as a park site. So the application proposes to construct a parking lot, and it is for the sole use of the Airport Authority. There are approximately 74 spaces on the existing parking lot at the airport. We're proposing 71 in this configuration. Staffhad several conditions that they have requested. Most relate to the operation of this, solely for the airport's function. And that is certainly its intent. It's not intended to be a gated or secured parking lot, but it is going to be for the use of patrons and employees at the airport. I think we're fine with the recommendation and the conditions that staff has placed on their recommendation of approval. No neighborhood information meeting is required of a parking exemption, but we do provide notice to property owners in the surrounding community, as well as the homeowners association. I think we yielded a handful of calls from interested people, but nobody that I would categorize as an objection. And [ don't believe staff has any letters of objection. I can talk a little bit more specifically about the need for the parking exemption. I know it is a little bit peculiar that you're seeing a parking exemption on PUD zoned property. But your land development code does make provisions for having these parking exemptions on property as long as they're not designated commercial, or zoned commercial, which this one is not. So that's the distinction. I know that it's a little bit irregular, but I do think that the county has not determined what it's going to do with the balance of property that's located to the west of this tract. But at that point it may very well necessitate a PUD amendment to the Marco Shores PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. You said that you would not have it fenced; the parking lot would not be fenced. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe I meant to say gated. Because I do believe we're proposing a fence on a portion of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I was going to say. And -- because that would be one of the issues. You've made it clear you wanted to have it for patrons and for employees but nobody else. And I just wondered how you're going to be able to enforce that if you didn't have some kind of control. Do you have an expectation of a problem or maybe many years in the future? MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't think we anticipate a problem. Right now there's a non-gated access to the airport. You can drive back there freely. I don't think it's our intent to gate this in any way. And this was a staff condition to make sure that it was known that this is really for airport use so that it wouldn't become a place of congregation or something. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I wondered where it came from. Because I've been them, I'm familiar with it, and I realize that your probability of getting a whole lot of cars on there is not very likely. MR. ARNOLD: Right. It's at the end of the road, that's for sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a simple thing, Wayne. I assume you're showing the shaded 161 1 A3 Page 6 I area as a sidewalk, is that right, not a covered sidewalk? MR. ARNOLD: It is a sidewalk. And whether or not it's covered or not, I think I've seen two alternative designs. One had cover over a portion of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. My question was is will there be taxiway between the Civil Air Patrol and the existing terminal, or will people come around the other way? MR. ARNOLD: I think right now the Civil Air Patrol building, it's oriented to the east. So that aircraft goes directly out toward runway to the east, if you look at that exhibit. I don't believe there's any need for the Civil Air Patrol. It wouldn't be a vehicle or a plane crossing that sidewalk. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nor any other plane? MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm just going to bring up the issue that I brought up with both staff and the County Attorney's Office, and that's the issue of making changes to PUDs and PUD master plans without corresponding PUD amendments, which is what we would normally be doing; we would have a corresponding PUD amendment going along with this. Staff seems to be, or -- and I'll do it from the County Attorney's side. They seem to be of the opinion that because there weren't specific development criteria in the PUD ordinance, that going this route with the parking exemption was okay. And that because master plans, these PUD master plans are conceptual, it was okay to take this route. My concern -- and again, it's not with the parking. This is fme, I think they've got a great project. I'm concerned about process here. I think we enter a slippery slope if we don't make people follow the rules. We have these rules in place for a reason. I guess the deal is to try to hang your hat on the fact that it's not a commercial piece of property in that PUD and so you can do the parking exemption. One of the other criteria is that it be shared parking, and we're making this exclusive, so we're just going to ignore that one. We'll hang our hat on one and we'll ignore another one and try to get this through because it's easier, quicker, cheaper, whatever the criteria was to have it go this route to begin with. Because it's my understanding, from what everybody has said, the initial reaction when staff got this and the County Attorney's Office got this was that a PUD amendment was required. They didn't like that idea so somebody came up with another scheme here to do this parking exemption. My concern -- and staff and the County Attorney's Office are more than happy to elaborate on this. My concern is that it's a very slippery slope. It has little or nothing to do with this particular one except for precedence that maybe coming down to us down the road. If our PUD master plans are sort of up for grabs, then I'm not sure which commitments are actually valid and which ones are not valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, what was the property zone -- what is the property zoned? I know it's PUD, but what was the use of that Tract Q? MR. ARNOLD: Well, let me show it in two ways. I have a copy of the master plan, which an exerpt of that is on Page 2 of 8 of your staff report that shows the Marco Shores PUD master plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's labeled as park and temporary utility site. MR. ARNOLD: It's labeled park and temporary utility site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it had been used as a park, could they have put a parking lot on there for the park? MR. ARNOLD: I would presume so. I mean, most of our county parks would have parking, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in the end the use is not really any different than what could have been there, it's just who's using it. MR. ARNOLD: That may be part of the question. Let me show you one other thing, if] might, and it's part of the plat record. And what I highlighted on there is Tract P. But if Ray can scroll out. Tract Q is the parcel that's owned by the county, and you'll see that it's a 3 .6-acre tract ofland that was platted as a utility site. September 3, 2009 A 3 161 1 Page 62 September 3, 2009 A 161 [ So I know that one of the initial comments that was made was potentially are we sure we're not shortchanging the PUD out of park sites. But those true park sites have been dedicated on the plat, as you can see by the one I highlighted. And there are five point something acres of those, which met the minimum PUD criteria. And then this particular site was dedicated as utility and park. And if I might, we did -- when we initially started this project, we had our pre-application meeting and we weren't quite certain how to proceed. Because there are possibly three options. One could have been a temporary use permit during construction to allow us to relocate at least temporarily and for up to two years parking on this parcel, under your Land Development Code. Another could have been an insubstantial change to the PUD, which mayor may not have -- that one was never fully explored. But that process, which is how the current PUD master plan came into play to begin with, was a PUD master plan amendment that reconfigured the residential tracts. I~ didn't affect the language in the PUD, it was simply reorienting some of the development tracts. And those come to only the Planning Commission. And then of course the other option could have been I guess a full PUD amendment, perhaps. But as we looked further, we decided that the parking exemption could be applicable. It goes through the public hearing process, and not only does it come to this body, but it then also has to be endorsed by the County Commission. So a little bit higher level of public scrutiny than you would have just under an insubstantial PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any exemptions in the parking exemptions that would exempt you from using this site -- using the PUD as an exemption location? MR. ARNOLD: No, not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ijust was curious as a follow-up. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a staff report? MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. And you have the staff report, it's part of the record. Since we've had a long day, I won't belabor it by going into each and every point. I'll just say that staff is recommending that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and we do have the findings to support a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. Are there any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Ijust want to follow up here. If something is labeled on the master plan whatever it's labeled, as in this case it's labeled a park, and there is acreage applied to that park and to that site, and there are many ways that you could get to make these changes, but what is it -- I mean, where's the next step? What else can you take out ofPUD master plans by simply going through -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think I understand your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go there, Wayne just showed us a document that said was labeled a utility site. Ms. Caron says it's a park. Is it a park or a utility site? Can we get __ MS. DESELEM: For the record, he was showing you a plat. On the plat it appears to be recorded as a utility site. On the master plan for the PUD it is shown as a park with temporary use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was the plat approved after the PUD? MS. DESELEM: I don't know the exact day-- MR. BELLOWS: Typically they are approved -- MS. DESELEM: -- but that's customary. MR. BELLOWS: -- after the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: In order for them to use the utility site temporarily, would they have Page 63 September 3, 2009 had to get it platted? The answer is yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. MR. SCHMITT: Wait a minute. You mean to build the existing plant there now? There is an existing utility plant there. And yes, they would plat it, identify it as a utility site and come in for a site plan for that utility. The utility's been there several years. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. And so that doesn't change what's on the master plan, which labeled it as a park and -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for some reason a temporary utility site. I don't know whether the utilities are just there for -- MR. SCHMITT: A long history -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure what's there. MR. SCHMITT: A long history on that utility. Originally the intent was it was only going to serve that development until eventually it was tied in with the county, but that never happened. That utility now services that development, as well as portions of Isles of Capris. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's not a temporary utility site? MR. SCHMITT: Not now. It's an active utility site, yes. It's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So again, I think, you know, it probably should have been changed to the time too for still to be labeled. I mean, and that's one of those insubstantial changes that you could have easily made. But anyway, that-- MR. BELLOWS: MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to -- yeah, her original question -- MR. BELLOWS: -- to make a clarification as to the purpose and intent of a PUD master plan. It is a conceptual plan of development. And the PUD spells out required uses, things that are required to be done. And it also includes uses that are up to the property owner if they want to build them or not. Since this PUD lists the park but it doesn't require the park and doesn't require the park to be of a certain size, this parking exemption does not remove that PUD shown park site. Just as ifthis was standard zoning, parking exemption doesn't remove the standard zoning. If some time in the future, say five years from now that parking goes away, the standard zoning district in most cases would be residential. Can be developed as a residential use. In this case it's a tract within a PUD that is for park use. And if that parking ever goes away, it still can be used for park use. The zoning doesn't change with the parking exemption. Therefore no PUD amendment is technically required. But in the long-term, if this is going to be a permanent use, and it appears to be that it is, it still doesn't belie the fact that there is no PUD requirement for the park. There is no time requirement for the park to be built. It may never be built. MR. SCHMITT: And the parking is an acceptable use. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And that was the reason staff did not force this as a PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Gotcha. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public speakers, Ray? Ray, public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry, I was talking to my boss. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Forget the boss. MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. 161 1 A3 Page 64 September 3, 2009 16 j J. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just kind of let us know if there's any public speakers. Okay, no public speakers. And there's no rebuttal needed by Mr. Arnold, I hope? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you w~t to rebut what? MR ARNOLD: What was the question? MR. BELLOWS: He was talking to Kay. MR. ARNOLD: No, no rebuttal necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no rebuttal? MR ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. I always want to provide the opportunity. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I would like to make the motion that PE-PL-2009-260, Marco Island Executive Airport, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, based on staff recommendations as found on Page 7 of 8. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. "'Okay, we need to move it back and see where we're at with this Highland Properties, Taormina Reserve, lItem 9 .A.A. And this would be for the consent consideration of this item. Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Hi. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. We have been working through those revisions and we have a strike-through and underlined document that we can present to you. I know that Heidi Ashton from the County Attorney's Office has that document. I don't know if she's making final edits to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need it in final form and we need copies. MR. YOV ANOVICH: She's proofmg it right this second, if you can give her a couple minutes __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you get on record, Richard, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to answer me, you've got to get on record, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ijust assumed you could hear me. She's proofing it right now, which I think she's probably about done. And then we can make you the copies once she blesses it. So if you can just give us a couple minutes we __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- can get the copies handed out to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll give you better than that. Why don't we come back here at 1:30. That Page 65 A3 September 3, 2009 A 3 will give you about 14 minutes. Do you think you can work with that? Because you're goin10 ~} to ~ake at least 10 or 12, 13 copies for the people in the room. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I :30 we'll resume. Take a break until then. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, looks like Mr. Y ovanovich, who's apparently got control of the schedules today, has raised his fingers, said two more minutes. So there's not much more we can do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that the two-minute warning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, here she comes. Are you the two minutes? No. MS. DESELEM: We don't have copies yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, we're still waiting for copies, so let's just go back onto recess for another few minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or Mr. Chair, could we do I 5.A while we're waiting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 15.A, tecltnically I believe we've got to adjourn this meeting before we can open another one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was going to wait do that at the end of this meeting, so -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thanks, Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I can tell you -- are we on or off, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: On. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On, okay. The AUIR, I got a correction from Mr. Sclnnitt, he did say it does start at 8:30. So when we meet on the 21st of September, it will be at 8:30. And with that, let's shut down till we get our copies. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, after that short two-minute break that Mr. Y ovanovich requested that started almost 45 minutes ago, let's walk through the changes. We don't have copies in front of us so we're going to try to move forward by using a copy on the overhead that I believe the cameras and everybody can see on the main screens. Let's start with Exhibit A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, the first change relates to the floor area ratio for group housing, should we do group housing. And we put in there that it not exceed a floor area ratio of .45. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll track along and I'll let the planning commissioners know if it matches up the notes I made, and then if they have any to add to it, just say something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The next change was to SIC Code 7941 where we excluded stadiums and/or athletics fields. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then further down on that page, for 7521, automobile parking, we excluded any towing lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under building materials and hardware, 521 I, we clarified that the prohibition does not apply to landscape and nursery uses related to home improvement stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under communications, we clarified that there'll be no standalone communication towers, and any satellite dishes must be shielded from view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under the hours of operations for eating and drinking places for televisions and amplified music, we changed the hours from 11:00 to 10:00 p.m. in both 5812 and 5813. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under the home fumishing uses, the recorded and prerecorded tape stores, Page 66 we added no adult oriented sales or rentals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As Kay passes these out, we'll just continue on like we have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're on now Page 8 of23. Under the category 5999, miscellaneous retail stores, we excluded gravestones, monuments, tombstones and sales barns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Exhibit B. Table one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exhibit B, table one. Under maximum actual height, we put the reference to footnote number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then on footnote number six we made the change to reference -- put the maximum zoned and actual height shall be two stories not to exceed 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR YOV ANOVICH: Table number two in B, there were a few-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron has a comment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you move on, was the -- were we going to add the FAR on the table as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: We can. We thought we took care of it by the reference in the -- at the beginning of Exhibit A. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I was just getting a nod from -- and I know we did say that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where do you want it? COMMISSIONER CARON: I know. We also said we would add it to the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't remember that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I didn't hear that either. Where do you want it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, does it need to be on the table or is it covered in the language? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It is covered in the language, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where would you put it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Where would you put it? MR. BELLOWS: I would put an FAR section under development standards, and then under group housing put .45. But if you're happy with it in the language, it works. It's just an added-- CHAlRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the language works. Because if it doesn't, the LDC is there anyway. So one way or another, if someone doesn't see it here, they're going to fall back on the LDC if they missed the language. Both are the same. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's leave that rather than confuse it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 2? MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we should be on Page 12. Table two, under the multi-family category, under the minimum yards external, we added the 25 feet for each of those roads. We struck the references to the -- we just basically made it 20 feet under the minimum distance of structures. And we added the asterisks for building setbacks along the southern boundaries shall be treated as a front yard with 20-foot limitations for principal uses. I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But where it says southern boundary, do you mean southem boundary of the MU tract? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. This tract applies only to -- this table only applies to the MU tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's -- I had the same issue, and then I realized what the table was applying September 3, 2009 161/1 AS to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Exhibit C? Page 67 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Master plan. I have the handwritten version. We have made the changes. If you'll look at the 15-foot wide enhanced buffer. Those were -- we previously made those. We didn't have the ability to get into the master plan here, so we did the handwritten change that you requested that we'll do, which was under note two. However, they may be no less than any minimum required in this PUD was is the note I think you wanted added, Mr. Strain, to that -- CHAfRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- note two. But we'd already -- and we also made the change, no longer is there a reference to a 10-foot or a I5-foot wide buffer. It's just a 15-foot wide enhanced buffer with a reference to the exhibit you're supposed to see for what's supposed to be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the exhibit adds to the clarification. Good, okay. The alignment of the shaded area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had taken -- it's still there. You can't see it on this copy, but there is a shaded area that references -- you want me to put where we previously showed you where it was? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You did show me, that's right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as long as it's in there, that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it's also covered later on in a note. We'll show you where we made that September 3, 2009 1611 A3 change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit E? MR. YOV ANOVlCH: Exhibit E. We added the reference to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the mic. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. We added the reference to see also Exhibit F.I.B.9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Exhibit F? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it's 9. It's B.9. Because something that changed here in Exhibit F. What we did under the transportation conditions, we added a new number one that says, no building permits shall be issued until the Davis Boulevard improvements set forth in Project 60073 are under construction. And then number -- the former number one became number two, no -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, question, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's just say -- and I may be naive here, but let's say a hurricane came through, really damaged the state, they cut the Davis Boulevard project, and then years down the road it came back again. Would it have the same project number? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know. Should we add or-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably not. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or any other -- yeah, that's the current project number. And I think we wanted to make sure we tied it to what Joltn was discussing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or as superseded. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Project number 66073 (or as superseded.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And then number two was the previous number one, that basically says no COs will be issued until substantial completion of Davis Boulevard improvements set forth in Project 60073. And I guess we'll put the same, or as superseded, from Radio Road to County Road 95 I . And then Page 68 September 3, 2009 substantial completion of Santa Barbara extension to the project entrance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then there's renumbering that results from number one -- let me see. Number six was the more substantial rewrite. And you may want to take a second to read that one. That is the rewrite that deals with the connection to Sunset. I can read it if you want me to or __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we all have a copy. Leave it on the screen and let us read it, Richard, save a lot of breath. Number B (sic), developer's going to construct a (sic) 630 feet of public access if the county obtains the necessary access rights? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, it is supposed to say within six years of the PUD approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six or five? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the five is -- it goes away. It goes away in five years if the county doesn't get the easement rights. But the commitment to construct -- it will give him one year after the county gets all the easement rights to construct. So that's why it was within six years ofPUD approval. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't think there was a time frame. And that's why we wrote it the way we did, was that when we go to develop the R-2 tract, that's when we'll build that connection. I don't think the Planning Commission during the deliberations put a time frame in there. I mean, if they want one, we would. But our thought was why would we build the road if we don't have development there? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the language that I gave him said six years, so it does need to have __ it needs to be tied to something, whether it's the development ofR-2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And right now it's tied to the development of the R-2 tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm a little bit confused. Let's go to the top paragraph where it says, the roadway shall be designed as a two-lane roadway with two ] 0 to 12-foot wide travel lanes with a six-foot sidewalk on one side of the roadway. This requirement for construction of the additional 630 feet to Sunset shall be valid for five years. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It is okay. He changed the language I gave him, and I didn't see that it was later discussed and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ijust reordered her sentences, so that's what I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we're all on the same page then. Good. Under B, though, Richard, the 630 feet under B occurs if the county obtains the necessary access rights south of developer's property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, within five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then the second sentence it says it occurs -- should be concurrent with the R-2 tract. Which is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, I thought about adding if -- I didn't want to write if the first sentence is met this sentence applies, but we could put if the county acquires the access rights in a time __ timely acquires the access rights, then we'll build it concurrent with the R-2 tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? So you're not going to build it with the R-2 tract unless the county acquires the access rights, but on this you're going to do it with the R-2 tract, even if the county does not-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, it's -- the precondition is that they have to acquire the right-of-way within five years. If you need that qualifier at the beginning of that second sentence, we can add that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This doesn't say that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can add that then. If the county requires the access within the five-year period, then we'll build it concurrent with the R-2 tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you could hold off building the R-2 tract for 20 years. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means the county never gets that connection then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But what would they connect to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the county has acquired the access rights south of the property and they build their road, their road connects to nothing until you decide to build the R-2 tract. 16111 A, Page 69 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why would the county go to all that trouble to build the rest of it south of it? You're controlling the timing of that road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're already claiming it's already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not building it yet. MR YOV ANOVICH: They're claiming that the improvements are there. r don't think they plan on building a road south. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Until you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm missing something on this, Richard. I'm sorry, I can't-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we're going to end up with a gap here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because you're going to build the 200, but then if the county gets the road to the south and develops that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll put the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You're saying after the five years are up, you don't even have to connect to what they've done into your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let Ms. Caron get her -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know, but I mean, I don't think the county's going to build a road to nowhere. They may have the rights. And then whenever they build -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what they're trying to resolve. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand, but I don't see what the issue is. I don't get it. The county's not going to build anything there. I mean, help me to understand it, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're trying to do. Ms. Caron asked the question of Richard in regard -- MR. YOV ANOVlCH: My understanding is if the -- within five years of the PUD getting approved the county gets whatever access rights it needs to get to Cope Lane. We have an obligation to build the 830 feet to our property. We already have to do 200, but the additional 630. We are not going to build that until we're ready to develop the Tract R-2. So they'll have to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand what you're saying now. Because you may not be developing R-2 yet, so-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why would you continue the road? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why would I build a road if it's not serving me or anybody else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that kind of holds up the county's process. If the county wants to go forward with Sunset -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But they're only building Sunset to -- they're saying Sunset needs to be built to get people who live on Sunset into my project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joltn, you got something to help, I hope. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. If you look back at A, since that will be a public access easement, if the county decides to move forward with Sunset prior to their construction of Tract R-2, then we would be working within a public access easement that they've dedicated to us. We'd be taking on the responsibility ahead of them. rfwe for some reason put that in our capital plan to move ahead before their R-2 tract does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but see, they wouldn't put the SOP in forR-2 until they're ready to sf6by 3, r09 A 3 l build it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's still held up by Item B. Which if your R-2 tract isn't built but your commercial is, the people south of that road theoretically, if the county had all the right-of-way they may want to get to the commercial, which was the intent. They're certainly not going to R-2, they're going to the commercial. So I think we ought to be tying this to the commercial construction in regards to the completion of that accessway to the county's connection point, not to R-2. Because the commercial construction's the Page 70 September 3, 2009 purpose for the road, not R-2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fme. If you want to switch it to the MU, the first -- we'll build it -- if they have the right-of-way within the first five years, we'll build it in connection with the MU tract. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or whichever is fIrst. MR YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm not building it if they don't get the access. Remember? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but -- if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The -- that other old ugly head comes up about if you don't build MU you don't build commercial. Everything was -- the predicate was commercial, right? So if you choose not to build commercial, then what? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Moot. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think I'd still have an obligation to build it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's a suggestion. Where it says, the remaining 630 feet ofthe public access to Sunset Boulevard shall be constructed by the developer concurrent with the development of the MU or R -2 tract. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That covers it, no matter which one you build. Because the intent is to get to the MU tract. But if the R-2 tract's developed, the road should be in anyway just for access to it. So either one then would trigger the completion of the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't there a problem, though, you wouldn't have the 200 feet at the other end built? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wayne just brought that up. We probably need to -- we probably need to reference that 200 feet as part of the MU tract as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree, that's a good point. So the 200 feet up on top where it says in the sentence that's not been marked up, second line down, limited access roadway of which 200 feet shall be built concurrent with the development of the M-2 or R-2 tract -- I mean MU or R-2 tract. And that covers those -- that makes those whole. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Much better. MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for clarity? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. KLA TZKOW: On the assumption, just devil's advocate, that this development doesn't go forward for a number of years and transportation's okay if you're acquiring the right-of-way and they're not going to build anything? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seems not okay to me, but they said yes, so-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent of this is to link to development. If the development's not there, the link's useless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the development may be there some day. But if it's not there within the first five years, it gets a free ride. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. No, no. If they get the right-of-way within the first five years, I'm still obligated to build it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but what if they don't get the right-of-way? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then I don't have to build it, they have to build it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm just saying. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I thought you were saying that I get a free ride if] wait past five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You do. If they wait -- if the county waits past five years. You wait out five years, they wait out five years, then you start up at five years and one month, they somehow acquire it later on, you don't have to build a thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But if they acquire it now and I wait six years, I still got to build. 161 1 A3 Page 7I IS6eret 2009A 3 i CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that puts the decision on the county then. Anything else on that one then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We deleted paragraph six, as we were supposed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then you go to the next page, which is under landscaping, and we added the enhanced Type B buffer in the first sentence. And then we also added that the buffer would be adjacent to the CCook PUD boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think we have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Four-foot center. Sorry, got it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, did I miss -- I missed the -- yeah, you're right, I missed the four-foot centers. We made that change as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you struck number lOon Exhibit H? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We struck both number one because we moved it into the description of the road we were building, and we deleted number 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we caught it all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so too, based on my notes. Does anybody else have any problems? Are we there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a couple minor changes we recommended during this discussion. So that means the consent discussion is complete. The consent agenda, this is what we're talking about, not the main agenda. So the vote now is just to acknowledge that the corrections were consistent with the majority vote of the Planning Commission. So is there a motion for that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Moved to the last page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, we said that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, Ijust want to verify something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hold on for a second for Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I saw it in here, and I'm pretty sure I did, but that issue of the time was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was changed till 10:00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I know that. We don't have to put that in the conditions of approval, Exhibit H, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it was the uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, so that's fme. Because under Exhibit H it's no outdoor music or amplified sound shall be heard within 500 feet. Now, I was thinking distance and time, but that's okay because it's already in the other. I was trying to make it bulletproof. That's fme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions or comments before we ask for the vote on consent agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion regarding this consent item? It's Item PUDZ-2008-AR-I4091 under consent. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To? THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, there was already a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you already -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What, voted? Page 72 THE COURT REPORTER: He made the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is the motion for consent. It's a different __ COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you made a motion for consent. I'm sorry, I didn't even hear you. Mr. Midney made the motion, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Mr. Wolfley, is that still correct? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome, Richard. The motion is 7-0. Thank you, Mr. Murray. That was our old business. The new business we already discussed concerning the AUlR start time and CDES. Looking for a motion to adjourn so we can open our next meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. We're adjourned. fPl,mr Y009 A 3 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2: 15 p.m. ING Page 73 These minutes approved by the board on corrected / as presented or as September 3, 2009 161 1 Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 74 A3 .:.' ECEIVED NOV 1 3 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETlNG OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNlNG COMMISSION Naples, Florida September 17, 2009 fPl,mt 12oo9A 3/ Fiala ~~ Halas . " Henning I. L Coyle I Coletta ~ ~/ U> :J~ ,..!J of County Cot\IlI\~ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolf1at Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES, Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, School District Misc. COITeS: Date: Page 1 Item #: C"ri9S to: , September 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Septem\,l5Winglt. . the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) A3 " 1 Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay, roll call, please, by our secretary. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Comrnissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAlN: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bob Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay, addenda to today's agenda. We have two items on the agenda that are not going to be heard today. They're being continued I believe until the first meeting in October; is that correct, Ray, the FLO TV? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay. So it's Petition CU-2008-AR-14085, and petition --a companion item V A-PL2009-37. Those have been for advertising, I think, reasons or something like that. They're being continued until the first meeting in October, which 1 believe is what, the 1st, something like that. Item #4 PLANNlNG COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. We have our first meeting in October. Does anybody know that they're not going to be here or be here for that one? - (No response.) Page 2 September 17,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Everybody is assumed to be here. Then we have --I'm going to try to look at our calendar right now. Next week we have the AUIR. We should have all received our packages. That meeting is going to be held -- the first one is on the 2] st at 8:30 in the morning at CDES, the conference room over off Horseshoe Road. And the second meeting, the continuation of that, will be on the Wednesday of next week, September 23rd at 8:30 again at the CDES offices. In October, something that's coming up, and I want to ask staff when we'll be getting our packets on it, we have some GMP amendments coming up, one on the 19th and 20th of October. From what I understand, there's at least 10, and half a dozen or more of them are going to be rather controversial. So how soon do you believe we're going to be getting our packages from compo planning so we can start working on those? Those are a little more intense than standard Planning Commission meetings. MR. SCHMITT: Good morning, Commissioner Strain. For the record, Joe Schmitt. We're looking at getting those packets to you on or about the 1st of October. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: It will be at least two weeks prior. Your meeting is on the 19th and 20th. I believe we have a holdover date. I'm looking at my calendar, the 29th. And I have this room available for all three days. The 19th and 20th is on your calendar. And I believe you may even show the 29th as a holdover, I don't know. But that -- and you're correct, there's 10 petitions, nine of which are private petitions. One is our petition, it's just nothing more than synchronizing dates in the GMP. Six of those nine involve petitions in the Golden Gate Estates. Some may be controversial, some may not. But we intend to get those packets to you. Just to let you know, some of the problems with the packets have been the evolving or shall I say changing petitions. Petitions that were once so many acres and now they want to add and take away. So there's been applicants who have been changing their petitions as it's been going on through the various reviews. We fmally just put a stop to that and said finalize them and get them done. And so you're going to get your pack -- we'll do our thing, put them into the staff reports, and we're looking at giving you the books. And as you well know, those are usually a couple of binders or so thick of compo plan amendments with all the backup. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: And so when applicants change their plans and it causes your department to have to take a second look at it in another angle because the plans change, I guess it's your department's fault then it takes so long; is that right? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay. Ijust wanted to make sure I understood that. MR. SCHMITT: And it's also our fault that we don't get the adequate data and analysis or the commercial studies or other supporting documentation. So I accept full responsibility. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: As usual. Thank you, Mr. Schmitt, appreciate it. Approval of minutes. There are none today. BCC recaps. Ray? 161 1 A3 Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 15.2009 MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rewne for the Italian-American Club. That was approved on the summary agenda. And then the PUD rezone for the Siena Lakes ACLF and its companion, PUD rezones for Orange Blossom Gardens and Oak Grove, the petitioner asked for a continuance at that meeting so the board did not hear it and it's going to be rescheduled. Page 3 September 17, 2009 1611 A'3 Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. The Chairman's Report. I have a nice thing to congratulate everyone today. Ms. Homiak, Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Midney, congratulations on your reappointment. It's very nice. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am very pleased the board saw to keep us all together. I think that the longer we are together, the better we're able to have a history in which to move forward with on a lot of these changes and plans that come forward. That's unique in Collier County, so I'm glad you're all here. It works out real well. Consent agenda items. One thing that was mentioned earlier is there -- we only have one on today's consent. The airport consent agenda item is not before us today. Ray, do you know if that's just been delayed or coming up next time? MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We heard the airport last week as well for consent -- or last meeting. Remember the Marco Shores Airport? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not on consent today. It was pointed out to me that that was missing. Is that (sic) a reason? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. There were no changes made so there was no reason to bring it back. You approved it as it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were no stips? Okay, that's-- MS. DESELEM: Nothing changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that explains it. Thank you. Appreciate it. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2009-AR-1423I , PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES, INe. With that we'll move into the consent agenda item that is on our agenda today. It's Petition CU-2009-AR-1423I. Does anybody have any concerns, changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Ifnot, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Mr. Schiffer made a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it. Oh, Mr. John Podczerwinsky has got a change? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, one minor change that we needed to clear up from the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: John Podczerwinsky from Transportation Department for the record. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We had a clarification on stipulation number two. That was the one that regarded the county's work program. We had to add in a project number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 4 September 17,2009 MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: Project number is 60095. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker and the second accept that change? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Mr. Vigliotti nods his head yes. Okay, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. Item #9A PETITION: CU-2008-AR-] 3786, UNITY FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. 161 \1 Aj The first item up today is Petition CU-2008-AR-13786 under our regular advertised public hearings. This is the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., at 1620 39th Street Southwest in Golden Gate Estates. 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: Are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, if the applicant wants to proceed with their presentation. MS. GREEN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, my name is Gina Green. I'm a professional licensed engineer in the State of Florida, representing our client, Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church. We are here today --I'm going to put an aerial up on the overhead. We are here today to request a conditional use for an expansion to an existing church that was constructed back in the early Nineties. It's been operating all those years. And they have found a need to provide an accessory use building to facilitate their youth programs, to give the children a place to have their Sunday School classes, recreational facilities. This new building will include a gymnasium to play basketball and have youth fellowship in, along with classrooms and new offices for the church. Presently all these things are being done in the existing building, it's just that they've found that they're busting at the seams now as far as trying to perform Sunday School duties, along with the church functions as far as the worship times on Sunday mornings and on Wednesdays. They originally wanted to propose the building in the non-vegetated areas of the site, but with the __ after meeting with our pre-application meetings with county, the future Green Boulevard extension will be Page 5 September 17, 2009 impacting this project along the north line and so it was determined that the only other Placela~eJ coul A 3 do this would be behind the existing church in an existing conservation easement. We met with county staff, along with South Florida Water Management District, and they deemed that this wetland, being where it's at and how it's impacted on all sides by development, that the function of that wetland is no longer functioning. And everyone was in agreement that there wasn't a problem with impacting this as long as we met all other criteria for South Florida and Collier County to develop. So we decided to proceed forward with our conditional use and, you know, place the building behind, which is directly due east of the existing church. There will be some additional parking to facilitate this new use. It is -- like I said, it is an accessory use. They will not be providing for a school there as far as a regular everyday function. It will just be accessory to their Sunday and Wednesday worship times. The site presently is on well and septic. They will continue to use their well and septic until such time as if the central facilities do come available, they will explore that option to be able to connect onto a central system. And we do have (sic) presently already been reviewed by South Florida Water Management District, we do have a permit in hand. They have granted us that approval to impact the small amount of wetlands that is left on the site with minimal mitigation. Really there's nothing more. You know, it's -- the site also will only provide, like I said, for the accessory uses and any other special functions, you know, such as what other churches in our community have. Special functions, maybe each year they have a festival of some sort. But there's none of those things actually planned at this time. But at some time in the future they may explore those options of providing a festival or other special occasions at the church. We also have here for any of your questions, we have Mike Ramsey, who's the environmentalist on the project, and Pastor Williams, who is the pastor of the church available to answer any questions. I thank you for your time and I'll be happy to answer any questions for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is really about the use of the building. So you're going to use the offices, they'll be used throughout the week, correct? There'll be offices in here? MS. GREEN: Right. And the offices will actually just be a relocation of the existing offices that are in -- you know, and give them a little more space in the church as far as for their office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the rest of it will be essentially classrooms that will be used twice a week? MS. GREEN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The gymnasium will be used. MS. GREEN: During those times. You know, right now -- right now I will tell you as far as what they do with their youth. They have a basketball hoop out in their asphalt parking lot. They have, you know, a volleyball area. You know, right now the children have to go outside for -- they have a small recreational facility in the back of the existing church, but right now if they want to do any other kind of activities they have to go outside. You know, during the summertime it's very hot, it's rainy. This will actually give them a safe, secure place for their children to be able to have fellowship, be inside a building rather than out in the heat during the summertime, and be able to provide them activities all year long. Along with security and safety. They'll now be housed within a building rather than out in the open. You know, today with all the security issues, those are issues that we need to address. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, anyone? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There were a couple of concems from some neighbors, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Wayne. Were those satisfied to their-- Page 6 September 17, 20~9. . 16 I ,", MS. GREEN: Yes. The church, from what I've been told, and maybe Pastor Williams can better explain it, but from what I've been told, they did meet with them. And their concerns are: Right now they have screening that is actually exotic vegetation, that once we move forward with the construction on this site -- by Collier County code we are required to remove all exotics off of the site. But their house is actually over 200 feet away from the rear of our building, and the rear of this building has been designed, because it's a large gymnasium type structure, there are no windows on that rear building side, so they have no problems with somebody being able to view to the back. And the church has already told them that, you know, once exotic vegetation has been removed, we are required by code to plant a Type B landscape buffer back there, and we will to the full extent of the code replace any sections that are minimized by the exotic removal to the county code. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Green, you didn't handle the original petition in 1991. Nino Spagna did. And it was handled in-house by Ron Nino. And at the time the Golden Gate Master Plan wasn't in place, it was being basically 1 guess processed at the same time you guys were being processed. In the minutes from the 1991 meeting, let me read the following paragraph. And I would like to know how your applicant handled this from that time. Commissioner Haas questioned: If this petition is approved, what will happen upon implementation of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan? Ron Nino responded that even with approval of the PU this date, proposed language of the master plan stipulates a development order cannot be issued for inconsistent properties. He said, the petitioner is aware of that condition and will attempt to address the problem with the board at a later date. Do you know what they were going to address and what they did address at a later date, or even if anything was addressed? MS. GREEN: No, I do not know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was wondering if the Pastor might know what was -- if there -- what was the issue at that time. PASTOR WILLIAMS: At that time I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to identify yourself. PASTOR WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Leon Williams, Pastor of Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, for the record. At that time I wasn't the pastor. I became the pastor in May of'93. And the previous pastor is now deceased. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's kind oflike the county, all the history's lost in the county in a lot of ways, too. So I appreciate that. Because the record's not clear on what the issue was, and I'm not sure what the issue was, so I thought we'd try to fmd out. Thank you, sir. PASTOR WILLIAMS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: John Padawonski (sic), Padowinski (sic). John Pod. Ijust have to keep trying until I get him right. Watch three people walk up. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record John Podczerwinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Podczerwinsky. You sure you got that right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm pretty sure. MR. KLA TZKOW: Easy for him to say. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, on the master plan, and the reason why the wetland area is being invaded with this new building is because they can't put it on the north side of the site because of a road reservation. I'm not sure what legally that is, but it's for the extension of Green Boulevard, from what you told me yesterday; is that correct? A. Page 7 Septer617tI A 3 MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's only half of it. It's going to be 82 feet on one side and 80 feet on the other for a total of 162 feet wide. MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to be taking out their parking lot that's there in that area, you prohibited them from putting a building in, but yet you don't own the property. And I think you told me yesterday that the extension of Green Boulevard is approved; is that true? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The extension of Green Boulevard is approved in our 2030 LRTP, the long-range transportation plan. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay. But what does that mean by approved in that plan? Does that mean the Board of County Commissioners has approved it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it does. It means that they've approved it. There will be a road on roughly that alignment at some time in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Ray, would you put that fIrst number one exhibit -- no, that's number two, number one. I can see it from here. I've got them written on the back, I'm sorry. If you focus down on that on the left side in the little aerial, first of all you'll see the extension. And by the way, sometimes your department's direction is off. This is upside -- your arrow -- no, no, not for Ray's purposes. Your arrow, directional arrow that's up in the upper right-hand corner of this is backwards. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if you look at this plan, the extension of Green where it comes across, that is now supposedly something that's going to happen, takes out their parking lot. This plan puts the parking lot to the south, which takes the buffer that's been in the vegetated area that's being provided today to offset tlle vegetated area that was there with the conservation easement and cuts it in half. And I'm just wondering, what's -- has the applicant thought of this or -- this is -- how did this plan come about? MS. GREEN: I can answer that. The plan that you're looking at in the site map that's underneath that, that was the original proposed plan prior to the meeting that I had provided transportation, and they over-Iayed the Green Boulevard proposed extension over top, which then led us to our new site plan that realigned the building to a different location because of the impact to the building. We were trying to keep our development within the improved areas and not have to impact the conservation area at that time, but once we found out with Green Boulevard extension going through and that that corridor was wanting to be reserved, we then went a different direction, and that's when we met with county staff regarding the environmental functionality of that wetland, met with South Florida to see what our alternatives were on the site. And what you see today in the package that we're getting the conditional use on was a combination of those meetings and to meet something that could facilitate Green Boulevard extension and provide the church the place to put the building. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay. But on this plan here, the one we're looking at that's on the overhead right now, is that what you intend to do in the future? MS. GREEN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we can be assured and the residents to the south can be assured that that vegetated buffer that remains in that preserve area that everybody's saying you're going to replace the current one with will not be impacted, even though you're going to lose all those parking spaces in the future. MS. GREEN: Yes. We have discussed that situation, and we -- the loss of the spaces that are to the north with Green Boulevard, we still fall in with the criteria to apply for an administrative parking reduction at the time that this road ever does go through. It could be 15,20 years. So they have -- we have already done the numbers to see if in the future it qualifies for any kind of reductions due to hardship to be able to come back at a later date. You know, at this time the land has not been formally reserved. It's only as a reservation. It has not been purchased. And we have been told by transportation that they will not pursue purchasing it till at such time they are actually ready to build the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which according to John is 15 years from now? Page 8 Septib617j 20r MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: Sometime by 2030. It's not within the five-year CIE, but it is within the 2030 time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before you leave, would you put the other -- more I'm focusing on where the arrow is on that, Ray. So that's the alignment that you're looking at. Which means Green Boulevard is going to be widened to 162 feet all the way from where Green is on 1-75, which is this side of the canal in Golden Gate Estates. So it's down the western side of Green. Then when it crosses 951 you're going to go past this property out into the Estates somewhere. Is that a fair statement? MR PODCZERWlNSKY: Roughly that's correct, yes. The only conceptual design that we have done at this time would be roughly around the intersection of Green and 951 and 39. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you with the county when Nick came through with this transportation corridor plan where he said that all these future corridors would come through on master plans and the public would have plenty oftime to comment and we'd have all this input, and they actually came before this board twice to have that plan of his so that he could have the ability to layout the whole county and then come forward with public meetings? Because this is the example that I was using at the time. I said, how can you go through, restrict people's property rights, like you have this church's, on road corridors that you're not buying land for? Basically you could put a corridor anywhere on the map in Collier County and restrict someone's land rights now whether you've got a plan now or 100 years in the future by the way it was being presented. And then Nick sold us this package that we were going to have this thoroughfare corridor study done and that would lay everything out so everybody would know, and somehow he felt that was legal and I guess everybody approved it and it got through. Where was that package in relationship to this Green Boulevard extension? I don't get it. Because I don't remember us seeing this. And he told us we would hear these kind of things. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: To my understanding, the original ordinance that had been proposed I think was declined -- it was rejected by the BCC. And as I understand, it's currently in revision. So __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the meantime we are restricting people's property rights, forcing these people to move their building into a green area, an open space area because you want to use their property sometime in the future maybe, but now you're telling me it's approved so it looks like it's going to happen. MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: Not correct. We are simply reserving by placing a line on the map, reserving the future right-of-way-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then these people can build there? MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: -- and that is reserved before purchase. They can build there, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why are we not building there? Why are we taking out wetlands? MS. GREEN: Okay, the reason that we are not building there is, is because if we choose to go ahead and put our building there, at the time that they do purchase they will not give compensating monies, they will only purchase the land. They will not provide any additional monies for the fact that it goes through the building and that we would have to tear down the building. So therefore it leaves us in a position to where we have to seek alternate means because we would then not get monies back for a building that they spent money to build and so therefore we would rather go a different direction and not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we are restricting property rights. MS. GREEN: Well, they gave us the choice and we chose to do an alternate; an alternate in order to facilitate us being able to put in a building and move forward. And because of the green area that's there, it is cut off from anything, it's very isolated, it's not functioning anymore, it's just getting more and more deteriorated every year because it does not get the water it should because of all the development around it, you know, that is why we went the option of going this route. One, to keep them from losing their parking and having to relocate it and, you know, take away vegetation from another place that actually serves a better function than what the green space that's there now. Page 9 A3 ser6er('f09 A 3 Because the buffer to the south provides buffering to that residence to the south, and in order to put the building on the north side where it would be in a future -- possible future right-of-way along -- we would have to put that loop to the south that you saw to recapture the parking. And that would diminish the buffer on the south down to the minimum IS-foot minimum that is what the county requires. So we thought it was more important to keep that buffer to the people to the south that's a building -- you know, that's already there than worry about the FP&L easement and it has another 30-foot buffer behind it to the residents behind. They already have a 30-foot natural area that's not -- it's kind of a no man's land on the piece of property because the FP&L right-of-way bisected it from the rest of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : You spoke of an administrative relief later on for a reduction in parking. How much of a reduction is anticipated based upon this plan and your accepting an alternative? MS. GREEN: Hold on. I don't have that number off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, can you give me an estimate? About, 20 cars, 30 cars? MS. GREEN: Put it this way: It's not as much of a reduction as what the code allows a church to have for reduction. So it's in between what is the -- what they would like to see and what the bare minimum is. It's not the bare minimum, but it's less than what is the code as far as straight parking calculations. COMMISSIONERMURRA Y: I guess the root of my question is, is can the church function effectively if it ends up where it can accommodate parking? I'm just wondering whether that's -- MS. GREEN: Well, presently, I happen to live just not very far from this. I've lived here in this county for 30 years. I've basically grown up here. I live up off of Weber, and I go past this church many times on Sunday and go have breakfast down at Nana Vetta's or places like that, and I look. I'm the type, because I've been doing this for so long, I look at parking lots, 1 look at where people are congregating, and I -- and because this is my client, I look at their parking lot on Sundays when I go past. They presently now are not utilizing all of their spaces on a Sunday morning. They do have empty spaces. And I think, you know, largely their congregation I think -- I think some of them probably car pool, you know, and all. Because most of the vehicles that I usually do see are SUVs, minivans, things like that. So I think this is the type of congregation that has a tendency to car pool and minimize the number of cars. But I have never seen that parking lot every space totally filled presently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave that thought, Mr. Murray, if you don't mind me interjecting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John mentioned something to me yesterday that contradicts a little bit from what I think I'm hearing now. He said in fact your parking lot is so utilized that you're parking along the right-of-ways along 39th and that's becoming a problem for his department because he doesn't know how to stop you from doing that. MS. GREEN: I presently have never seen that on a Sunday morning when I've gone past. So I've never witnessed that sort of action going on in front of this church. You know, I've seen -- you know, and I look up and down that right-of-way every time because there's always trucks for sale and things, people park out there, they -- you know, people that live in that area park along that roadway and put things up for sale. So I'm always, you know, scanning down through there just observing, and I have never witnessed that. I'm not going to say that John hasn't, but I have never personally witnessed them parking out there across the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just for the record, John, you did tell me that yesterday, did you not? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, yes, I have personally witnessed it. I cannot verify whether or not that was a special event or regular Sunday parking, no, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I'm sorry to interrupt you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's right. Actually, 1 came in on yours. MS. GREEN: Maybe I ought to let Pastor Williams maybe address it and see what he can -- you know, since he's there on Sundays and knows his congregation, you know, maybe this would be a good question for him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Page 10 September 17, 2009 PASTOR WILLIAMS: Do I need to identify for the record? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're okay now. PASTOR WILLIAMS: All right, thank you. We normally do not have parking along the 39th Street. Only I think a couple of occasions -- I don't know if you all remember this, a professional football player by the name ofEdgerrin James, his fiance died. She was a member of our church. We funeralized (sic) her, not at the church but at First Baptist, Orange Blossom. Afterwards we had what we would call a re-pass where we served food for the people. On that occasion it was crowded. And it was only because 1 guess of the popularity of him and all that surrounded that. That was one occasion. There may have been another funeral that we've had on a Saturday that perhaps crowded to some degree 39th Street. But never ifany on a Sunday or a Wednesday. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Okay. PASTOR WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One other question, sir. Because I'm going to be suggesting another change to transportation in a minute. The congregation that uses your church, you have a capacity maximum I think of300 or 275, something like that. PASTOR WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not planning to expand that congregation with the creation of this new building, are you? PASTOR WILLIAMS: No, we're not. A matter off act, we have two worship services, meaning this: That if, you know, the 11 :00 a.m. worship service is 275 max, we have an 8:00 a.m. worship service, which means we can accommodate more people but at different times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. PASTOR WILLIAMS: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not of the Pastor but of John. Just a quick one, it's a seemingly small matter. But I noted in the peak trips and so forth you speak about a single trip representing 0.04 percent. Is that four percent or is it really -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: 0.04 percent. That would be the impact on County Road 951. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So decimally it would be .0004. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just as long as we have that right. Thank you. That's absolutely nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, your number three recommendation, it says the church shall not expand Sunday worship services into the multipurpose building. And then it goes on from there. I had mentioned to you I would like to suggest that we change it. And then through Heidi's help, she mentioned as well some addition. Should read, if everybody's in agreement, the church shall not expand worship services' trip generation into the multipurpose building. So we would drop the word Sunday and insert the words trip generation after the word services. That coincides with what the Pastor just said he was intending to do anyway. MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: That was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a problem for your department? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we're going to go to staff. I just -- are there any public speakers on this 1611 A3 one? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I had some questions about the conservation easement. But if the public in the area has been settled with that matter, then there's no need to get into that. Page II September 17, 2009 If there's no other questions of the applicant, we'll ask staff for staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Zoning and Land Development Review Department. And this church petition is consistent with our Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval of this petition. And I do have one revision to the conditions for approval that I'd like to share with you this morning, and that is an additional condition number five. And it will state that the conservation easement referenced in Exhibit B of Resolution No. 91-135 is no longer required. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What kind of a minimal environmental mitigation was required by South Florida Water Management? MS. GUNDLACH: I have environmental staff here to assist us with that. Would you like to hear from staff or from Gina? MS. GREEN: Actually, I did the -- it's in the staff report from South Florida. I did actually -- I brought a copy of the South Florida, and I did check that this morning, because I figured that was going to be a question. They are being required to buy 0.08 credits from the Big Cypress mitigation bank. So that's what South Florida is requiring them to do. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we have no public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And since there's no public speakers, I'm assuming there's no rebuttal requested by the applicant. If not, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I move with a recommendation of approval CU-2008-AR-13786, with the staff recommendations number three as revised and the additional number five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion and seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. And I'm assuming that the -- and maybe you said this, Brad, all the rest of the recommendations were consistent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one comment to make. And I'm going to support the motion because I don't believe the church has done anything wrong. I am strongly against, though, what the church was made to do. I don't believe transportation acted fairly. I do not believe that Green Boulevard was properly vetted in the public process, especially in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm extremely disappointed that this is still going forward without more public involvement. Green Boulevard, to my knowledge and the knowledge of others in the Estates who I spoke to, was not an issue that was going to happen without further public scrutiny and study. It was supposed to be basically a dead issue. I'm very disappointed to hear that it's going forward to a point where we're restricting people's property rights on a possibility of a road through a reservation that I'm not even sure is a legal document or a legal requirement to begin with. So enough said on that. I know this isn't the forum for that. It's just very disheartening to leam this 1611 A3 Page 12 September 17, 2009 today. 1611 A3 With that in mind, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 9-0. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't get a conditional use form in mine. Is there-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Neither did I. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe we mentioned at one of the previous planning commission meetings that we were going to eliminate the conditional use, findings of fact -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea. MR. BELLOWS: -- that you sign up at the front desk. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It will be a consent? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We're now reflecting those in staff report themselves. So if you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The only problem is you have a conditional use form in one of the others. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, yeah, the one might have been in the pipeline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a good point. So we're not going to use those forms anymore, which I'm kind of glad we're not, because they didn't allow a lot of room for explanation or changes, but we are going to go over the issues during the consent discussion. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. And also the staff report outlines all of those fmdings anyway. So if you -- during the hearing today, if you still have an issue you want to add to the fmdings that are in the staff report or seek a further clarification, we can do that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, yeah, the only problem would be is if we went against the staff report. But we'll deal with it when we try it. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. It's similar to the way we do the rezone and PUD findings in the staff reports that you receive. Item #9D PETITION: PUDA-PL-09-1 10, WINDING CYPRESS PUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll move on to the second item today. It's Petition PUDA-PL-09-1 10, DiVostaHomes, LP for the Winding Cypress PUD on 951 near the U.S. 41 East intersection. All those wishing to testit'y on behalf of this item, please rise to be swom in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 13 Srebr7tOA 3 \ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with Margaret Perry and Chris Hasty (phonetic) on this issue. We went over some of the particulars on the setbacks. Any of those discussions wilI be re-discussed today anyway. So with that in mind, Ms. Perry, it's all yours. MS. PERRY: Thank you very much. Good morning, Commissioners, I'm Margaret Perry from WilsonMiller, planner for this project, representing DiY osta Homes. With me today is Felipe Gonzalez from Pulte Homes. Chris Hasty unfortunately is out of town today. DiV osta Homes is requesting a minor amendment to the Winding Cypress PUD. This amendment does not increase density or change any of the development parameters for the project. Winding Cypress was originally approved in 1999 and was subsequently amended in 2002. It contains -- Winding Cypress in its entirety contains 1,928 acres and is approved for 2,300 dwelling units. Tract A of Winding Cypress, which is Verona Walk, contains 760 dwelling units. The 2002 amendment was approved for specific side yard setbacks for zero lot line and patio homes which were zero feet and 10 feet on one side or three-foot, one inch and six-foot 11 inches on the other side. This was because there was a definitive product type plan for the entire project. As we all know, market conditions have changed and DiV osta Homes has had to relook some of their product types and layouts. They desire a more flexible side yard setback for this product type while still maintaining the 10-foot separation between structures. Our original request was to provide these revised setbacks for the entirety of Tract A. At the neighborhood information meeting, residents of V erona Walk attended and expressed some concerns about these applying to existing homes. Since that time we've revisited and provided an exhibit to the county which reflected that these revised setbacks would only apply to undeveloped lots. That exhibit is attached to the resolution -- I'm sorry, the draft ordinance that's included in your agenda packet. We would appreciate the support of the Planning Commission in this PUD amendment, this minor PUD amendment, and Felipe and I are here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Wolfley, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One issue that I had was moving the air conditioning from the front to the side. Granted, there's still going to be the 10 feet, whether it's, you know, evenly split five feet and five feet or three and seven. But putting that air conditioning on the side, and there was some -- apparently in the NIM there were some people that had issues with that. I would too. What can you tell me about that? MS. PERRY: Yes, I can tell you that the movement of the air conditioning units from the front yard, which is existing now in the units, to the side, anyone who buys a unit within Verona Walk for these new units are well aware of that. And we feel that the distance between structures of 10 feet, that isn't changing, be it the air conditioner in the front or the side. So we don't think that -- we think that we've addressed the concems of the residents that attended the NIM. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Now, on this, the diagrams up there shows lot A and lot B. Did this whole shifting happen because of an existing situation where the pad was put in wrong? MS. PERRY: No, this is kind oflike a result of it. They knew that they -- they, DiVostaHomes, knew that they were going to be introducing different models from what's existing. So no, it isn't a result of the situation. Although there were units constructed on DeMille Street wherein when the units were moved to the side there was a problem with the setbacks. And they did obtain six administrative variances for slabs that were poured where the air conditioning unit was located on the side. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The reason I bring this up is not in this neighborhood but somewhere else I visited, I happened to been driving through a private community and noticed where roofs Page 14 September 17, 2009 161 1 overlapped. One roof was draining onto the neighbor's roof and then down. And that's what concerned me here, A, about the air conditioner, I still don't agree with. That's going to cause some issues. But moving the setbacks like this is what brought to mind the overlapping roof from neighbors. Thank you. MS. PERRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Ms. Perry, on your table -- standards table, if the separation of the structures is going to be 10 feet, why is it not stated under distance between principal structures for patio and zero lot lines? It says NI A. Why wouldn't you put 10 feet in there? MS. PERRY: I believe, ma'am, it says for zero and patio lot lines for side yard setbacks, principal, it refers to footnote number five. And footnote number five -- COMMISSIONER CARON: For side yards, I understand that. But if the goal is to make sure that the structures are 10 feet apart, why wouldn't it be stated under distance between principal structures as 10 feet? MS. PERRY: We could add that. We have no problem with adding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the air conditioning units on the side, it's not the end of the world I guess but sometimes they can be annoying if the bearings start to go and so forth. But there can be something more annoying, more frustrating, potentially. What about generators, fuel driven generators, would they be put on the side as well? MS. PERRY: I would assume -- since our PUD does not address generators anywhere, I would say we'd have to do whatever the LDC says. And I'm not totally familiar with generators. I believe the generators per the LDC have to be located in the rear of the property. But again, I'll defer to Ray what the LDC currently says about generators. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's an interesting question. Maybe Ray does have an answer, I don't know. I might put you on the spot there, not intending to. MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to do some research on that. I don't recall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And while it may not ever come to pass, I think the people in Verona Walk, or Winding Cypress as it's known there, they may at some future time choose to do that. Now, we had some people come in and talk about generators here and the noise and so forth, and I know the city had an issue. And generally they were in the front and then they wanted them on the side. And propane refills are much more easily facilitated from the front, et cetera. Now, all I'm trying to establish is that there's a noise factor. So let me go back to the air conditioner. The air conditioner unit which has to be I guess elevated in order to breathe, so it can't really be protected for noise in any way by putting a well around it of any sort. MS. PERRY: Well, the air conditioners are -- do have a buffer around them, of course, a vegetative buffer, which is pretty common. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Yeah, you can't answer, really. Okay, that I guess is problematic and I can't really get an answer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. While we're looking at your table, we've since learned that the IS-foot front setback, especially to a garage door is a problem. Would you be able to add the 20-foot -- 23-foot requirement that we now have in the code? And essentially you'd be under your front yard. I guess you could add it to footnote one and four. The concem is that you could have a garage door 15 feet from the sidewalk. MS. PERRY: And there's not room to park a car before a sidewalk or something you're thinking? That's what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there isn't, correct. MS. PERRY: Right. I'm going to refer to Felipe on that, because that's more of a developer -- I want him to commit. Page 15 A3 September 17, 2009 MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Felipe Gonzalez with Pulte Homes, for the recor~ 6 1 1 A 3 MS. PERRY: He's asking for the front yard, if we can do 23 feet instead of 15 feet. MR. GONZALEZ: Weare currently building the homes more than 15 feet from the road. And we keep the minimum distance of 20 feet is preferred. And that's how we get these homes built. Yes, we can probably go ahead and do that. MS. PERRY: 23? MR. GONZALEZ: Twenty. I would agree with 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go there, I'd like to ask the County Attorney a question to that point. In the staff report, because this issue was considered a minor -- I think a minor amendment to the PUD, it says, it should be noted that for a minor amendment to a PUD ordinance, staff only reviews the proposed change and not the entire PUD document for consistency and compatibility with the GMP in the Land Development Code. Are we able then to go into other areas that were not, say, advertised or discussed at the NIM such as this when this is specifically pointed out as a singular item as a minor amendment? If we can, fine, I just need to make sure we're on good ground. MR. KLA TZKOW: No, the focus really here is on the application before you, which is a very limited application. We're not here to reopen up the PUD. And as you know, my biggest concem here is the advertising issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what 1 wanted to clarify. Brad, that's -- MR. GONZALEZ: To give you some relief, we -- I mean, I don't want to change any -- like they said, we're not addressing the PUD setbacks. But we do set our homes farther than 15 feet. And I don't think there's any instances out there that I'm aware of that we've done less than, or that we have done 15 feet. So it's also in our best interest to make those driveways at least 20 feet, and that's what we've been doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, nothing I can do anyway, nothing I can do. But I do think that's a good idea. I don't think it would look good if your cars were sticking on the sidewalk when people drove by. Just one small question. Up at the top you added the word as, which does make the sentence read better. But the intent of that is not to introduce other architectural elements, is it? MS. PERRY: No. No, it isn't. It was just for clarification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. You spoke about changing market conditions made you want to introduce a different type of product. Could you explain that in a more layman's type of terms? MS. PERRY: Absolutely. Again, I'm going to refer to Felipe, because he's more aware of what the models are being offered at Verona Walk. MR. GONZALEZ: This models have been in this community since it opened probably over five years ago. So through market research, focus groups with people in different parts of the state, we are constantly coming up with ways to improve these models and make it more likeable for, you know, the new homeowners. At this point we are thinking of introducing different models that are better liked for the homeowners today for the market today. So that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to introduce new models or come up with the products that are going to be selling better and are going to let us turn this community over to homeowners faster. So pretty much that's what it is, we're coming up with different products that are more suitable to the market today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you be more specific? MR. GONZALEZ: We -- yes, sir. We are bringing in four new models to Verona Walk. There's two single-family villas and two single-family product in the forecast. Page 16 ser6erf~'r09 A 3 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And how are they different? MR. GONZALEZ: They vary. It's different floor plan. There may be a little wider than current product or may be a little -- not as deep. But it's different footprints. MS. PERRY: Square footage. MR. GONZALEZ: Square footage? Yes, pretty much the same square footage. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Pretty much the same square footage, just different dimensions? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Anybody else have any question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ijust have a comment. Most of the time we don't even know where air conditioners are going to go when they do PUDs. That kind of scrutiny is left usually to site plans. Had you come in today and not asked -- just asked for the change without saying what you were probably doing it for, I'm not sure we'd have that many questions about the specificity of an air conditioner. But it's interesting that you're coming in for that reason. And it's just something that's beyond what we normally locate on sites. Anyway, with that said, we'll ask for staff report. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. You do have the staff report; it's been submitted to you for review and approval. In the staff report are fmdings, both PUD fmdings and rezone findings that support staff's recommendation that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and that we are recommending approval of it. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got about 100, Kay. Just kidding. Anybody have any questions of Kay? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, is there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. And I do have some additional information on Mr. Murray's question about generators, if you want CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. BELLOWS: -- me to read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. BELLOWS: Section 4.02.01.D.13 of the LDC provides that permanent emergency generators may be placed within the rear yard of any property supporting a permitted single-family residence, subject to a I O-foot rear yard setback and within the side yard, subject to a maximum encroachment into the setback of 36 inches. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be a total encroachment? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, 36 inches. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would be a block on one side. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll close -- did you have -- oh, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Ms. Caron. Were there any stipulations? Yes, Ms. Caron-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Just, yeah. Page 17 sePIb6l2Y A 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- had one change, to make sure the 10 feet that they're saying they're going to maintain is added to the table between principal structures. Kay? MS. DESELEM: If) may, we haven't advertised any other changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, this is what they said they were going to do. They're going to maintain 10 feet between the structures, but they didn't put it on the table, so she's suggesting it be added to the table instead ofNI A. MS. DESELEM: Another issue that comes up is this is for all of Winding Cypress, a good portion of which is already developed. We don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is Tract A. MS. DESELEM: -- want to create any non-conformities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you turn to the ordinance -- MS. DESELEM: Yeah, I know what you're talking about, I just want to make sure, because we have not advertised that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a change, though is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not a change. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's not a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, just to relieve you, the distance between buildings would be buildings on the same lot. That's different than a setback issue. So I'm not sure that's necessary. In other words, in a detached single home you wouldn't be building two detached single homes on the same lot so therefore you'd never -- the NI A kind of makes sense that -- again, the distance between buildings would be buildings on the same lot. Setbacks are buildings on different lots, which is the issue here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't think we should change it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, if it's clear enough and everybody's comfortable that they're going to maintain 10 feet, which I'm sure that's written down somewhere. Kay, do you have any other reference that was going to lock them into the minimum of -- oh, asterisk number five does. So it's right there on number five. So that will cover it. Is that okay with you, Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Both motion makers and the motion is as stated. No stipulations. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. Item #10 OLD BUSINESS With that, we have come to the end of today's meeting -- or actually the old business. I don't think Page 18 there is any. Ray, you have some? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I have a clarification. I received an e-mail from Mr. John-David Moss concerning FLO TV and the hearing date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: He's saying that we're going to re-advertise that and not continue it to October the 1 st, but it's going to be re-advertised for October 15th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So if anybody was paying attention earlier, 9.B and C involving the FLO TV, Petitions CU-2008-AR-14085 and V APL-2009-37 are not being continued today. They will be re-advertised and heard we expect around the middle of October. MR. BELLOWS: October 15th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: October 15th at this point. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Oh, Ray, October 15th, though, was the date we had nothing planned, and we're trying to leave that clear because we had two meetings of the GMP the following week. So now you're telling me we're going to come in just for FLO TV? MR. BELLOWS: That's the only way we could advertise it and get it on -- meeting all the advertising requirements. So it has to be the minimum of the 15th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, that's just an expense -- MR. BELLOWS: And they're companion items. There's a variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, do we have to accept that as a date? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let me ask a question first. Have we already advertised it, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to check. My understanding from J.D. is that we couldn't make the advertising. MR. KLATZKOW: I know what the issue was. It came out of my office. My question is -- because the Chairman makes a good point here, all right -- can we do this a different day? And my answer may depend upon whether or not we've already advertised it. MR. BELLOWS: Let me see if I can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'll go on with the -- I'll do some fluff here for you. One of the things I'm trying to accomplish is we need to save money at the county and these meetings are expensive. MR. KLATZKOW: There's no point you guys coming all the way in here for one item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm trying to get across, is if we can -- if we have a legal way to defer this to another meeting, we need to do so. MR. KLA TZKOW: Let me be just real clear about this. I mean, we control the agenda, not the developers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just making sure. MR. KLA TZKOW: Mr. Chairman, yes, it's within your prerogative to control the agenda, you know, of your board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is -- then why don't wejust leave it this way. If that's the only thing scheduled for October 15th, we're not going to hear that on October 15th. Is that comfortable with everybody? So you guys can figure out the advertising later. MR. BELLOWS: It appears that we'll have a third item on the agenda. That's -- which item was September 17,2009 161 } A3 that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Third item? We're only talking about one now. Oh, these are companion items, okay. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. The board directed on Tuesday that one petition that was going to be heard by them also be heard by the Planning Commission. It's the Bluebill restroom facility. And that has-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Bluebill restroom facility. Page 19 MS. DESELEM: Yes, Bluebill restroom facility. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you're going to need half a day for that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. So okay, well, there goes the idea of saving money. Oh, well, I was trying to get the clerk some extra funds to do things with. With that in mind, we can't do anything about that so we'll leave it as is, the 15th of-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can't do the fluffy then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- October. No, there goes fluffy. New business. I don't believe we have any. Does anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, public comment. They're all gone. So with that, we'll ask for a motion to adjoum. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Seconded by Mr. Kolflat. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We were hereby adjourned, 9-0. Thank you. S~r6br 71009 A3 ****** Page 20 I Septete6 YOl There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:28 a.m. A3 COLLIERCOUNTYPLANNlNG COMMISSION STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on 0-' s::- i) 1 as presented corrected ~. or as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 21 ./ Fiala J1F~ R.ECEIVED ~:~~ng 1 I lct06ber 7,' 21009 I - Coyle I i A 4 NOV 1 2 2009 Coletta TC/j W BoardofCoun\y~ES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 7, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at I :00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Joe Schmitt, Adrninistrator, CDES Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES - Staff Liaison Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, Director, Transportation/Planning Gary Mullee, CDES Operations Support Manag<M'i.c CGrre : Ed Riley, Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office Arny Patterson, Irnpact Fee Manager CHAIRMAN: Vice Chair: ALSO PRESENT: William Varian Thomas Masters (Excused) James Boughton (Excused) Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney David Dunnavant Marco Espinar (Excused) Blair Foley George Hermanson Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Reid Schermer (Absent) Mario Valle (Excused) Date: l~ IS ",.j 10 .Let October 7, 2009 16 , 11 A4 I. CalI to Order The meeting was called to order at I: I 2 PM by Chairman William Varian and a quorurn was established. Chairman Varian read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting. Chairman Varian requested a Moment of Silence in rnemory of Comrnittee Member Charles Abbott who passed away on October 2,2009. It was suggested to recornmend a commendation, i.e., the "Advisory Committee Mernber Recognition," to honor Charley's service to the Cornmittee. Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, was asked to obtain additional information. II. Approval of Agenda Chairman Varian stated Item V, "LDC Amendrnents," will be heard until 3:00 PM. David Dunnavant moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 8-0. III. Approval of Minutes - September 16, 2009 Meeting Correction: · Page 4, under "C," Willow Road was changed to Oil Well Road Clay Brooker moved to approve the Minutes of the September 16,2009 Meeting as amended. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 2-0. Catherine Fabacher noted the information packet distributed to the Mernbers contained the Minutes of the LDR Subcornmittee Meeting, also held on September 16, 2009. IV. Public Speakers: (to be heard foIlowing Item presentation) V. LDC A. LDC Amendment 2009 Cycle 1 Section 2. 03.07 L - Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay District Private Petition presented by Patrick White, Esq., Porter, White et ai, on behalf of Vanderbilt Beach Resident's Association Purvose: Applicant seeks to establish procedures requiring all developrnent and re-developrnent within the VBRTO to provide SPD/SIP notification to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Also proposes the rernoval of permitted encroachrnent into required yards for VBRTO. Previous Action: The LDR Subcornrnittee approved the Amendrnent subject to rernoval of the notification requirernents and rernoval of the proposed setbacks for accessory structures. The Arnendrnent, as revised, was forwarded to DSAC for review and approval. . 2 EAC requested revisions: · (Page 8) "5. d. - Site Improvement:" the EAC re-inserted text removed by DSAC as follows: (I) By mail to all property owners within 500 feet of the lands comprising the boundary of such application and... at line 5, following the word "provided" (2) To all required property owners ... at line 10, following the word "notice" October 7,2009 16/ 1 A4 · (Page 8) "6. - Dimensional Standards:" the EAC re-inserted text removed by DSAC: (Specifically including ramps for parking facilities) at line 2, following the word "'accessory" · (Page 9) "6. f. - Distance between Structures:" the EAC re-inserted text rernoved by DSAC: (Specifically excluding accessory buildings used for essential services such as utilities) at lines 3 and 4, following the word "buildings" Discussion ensued regarding the EAC's intentions, "Burt-Harris" issues, unintended consequences, possible environmental issues with regard to set-backs, and height versus zoned height. (Dalas Disney arrived at 2:00 PM) Provosed Chanf!es: · (Page 8) "5. d. - Site Improvement" - rernove the text re-inserted by the EAC ( see above) · (Page 9) "6. f. - Distance between Structures" (Line 5): o (Line 5) insert the phraseJor accessory buildings, following the word "feet" o (Line 5) change the word "or" to "and' o (Line 5) change "actual" to "zoned" heights (for consistency) o (Line 6) rernove the phrase, whichever is greater · (Page 10) "13. Vested Rights"- o Rernove the language following the word "approval" (at line 3) through the word "thereafter" on line 10 (To clarify: "... or plat approval are subject to the...") George Hermanson moved to revise the Amendment as outlined above and return the revised document to DSAC at its next meeting. Second by Bob Mulhere. Public Sneaker: Kathy Robbins, Secretary - Vanderbilt Beach Resident's Association, stated the Association preferred to receive advance notice of projects under developrnent in the Vanderbilt Beach area and supported the suggested revisions to the Amendrnent. Motion carried, 8 - "Yes"/] - "No." David Dunnavant was opposed. 3 Section 3. 06.06 - Regulated WeII Fields Presented by Ray Srnith, Director, Pollution Control Prevention Department October 7, 2009 16 I 1 A4 Purvose: "C" - Replace existing Illustration "c" with proposed update of Collier County Utilities Golden Gate Well Field Illustration "E" - Replace existing Illustration "E" with proposed update of Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City Well Field Illustration "F" - Replace existing Illustration "F" with proposed update of Orange Tree Well Field Illustration "H" - Add Ave Maria Utility Cornpany Well Field "H" - Insert a new Ava Maria Utility Cornpany Well Field Illustration which will be referred to as 3.06.06 H Previous Action: The Well Fields Protection Zones were adopted within the Growth Managernent Plan - Future Land Use Elernent ("Well Head Protection Areas") A definition of"W-I" was requested: travel time of a particle of water from its source to the well head Proposed ChanlZes: · Orange Tree Well Field illustration is to be labeled Clay Brooker moved to recommend approval of the Amendments as outlined above andforward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissionersfor review. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 9-0. Section 3.05.07 H.I.b - Preservation Standards (2004 EAR-based Amendments) Section 3.05.07 H.I.d - Preservation Standards (2004 EAR-based Amendments) Section 3.05.07 H.I.e - Preservation Standards (2004 EAR-based Amendments) Section 3.05.07 H.I.!! - Preservation Standards (2004 EAR-based Amendments) Presented by Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist Previous Action: · The LDR Subcornrnittee unanirnously approved Arnendments (b), (d) and (e) as presented. · Re: Amendrnent (g), the Subcornmittee recommended approval pending a change on page 47 in Subparagraph "viii." at line 7: insert "levels" following the word "water" and delete the phrase "monitoring for hydrology" (Note: Staff incorporated the change.) Proposed ChanlZes: · To H.I.b (Page 25) "b. - Minimum dimensions" - (Line 8) change the word "is JJ to "are" Discussion ensued concerning the size of the "structural buffer" (see page 45). 4 oct:tK yo} A 4 Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approval ofthefour EAR-based Amendments as outlined above and forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 9-0. Section 10.02.07 - Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy Presented by Arny Patterson and Nick Casalanguida Purvose: Change the portion of Transportation Impact Fees to be paid upon approval of final local Developrnent Order frorn 50% to 20%, and the balance due shall be paid in 20% increments per year thereafter. Reason: To comply with Ordinance Amendrnent 2009-09 adopted by the BCC on March 10,2009. Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approval of the Amendment andforward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 9-0. Section 10.02.13 - Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Procedures Purvose: To clarify responsibility for subrnittal ofPUD Monitoring Reports and correct sun-setting text - extensions run frorn original sunset date vs. original approval date Reason: The County Attorney's office has deterrnined the responsibility for submittal of the Annual Monitoring Report is held by the owner ofthe undeveloped or developing lands. In the case of a fully-developed PUD, the responsibility is held by the owners (governing associations) ofthe common lands. ProJ}osed Chanzes: · Page 94, third line (from the top) - capitalize Board of County Commissioners George Hermanson moved to recommend approval of the Amendment andforward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 9-0. Section 10.03.05 - Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Purvose: To add public notice and advertising requirements for Conditional Use Extensions ("CUE") Discussion ensued. Consensus: additional information is required. The Arnendrnent will be returned to the LDR Subcornrnittee for further review. BREAK: 2:55 PM RECONVENED: 3:05 PM 5 October 7, 2009 16 I 1 A4 Chairman Varian stated Judy Puig obtained the "Advisory Committee Outstanding Mernber Nornination" form regarding recognizing Charley Abbott's service. Consensus: Chairman Varian will cornplete the form and subrnit it to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. VI. Staff AnnouncementslUpdates A. Public Utilities Division Update - Phil Gramatges . No report B. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley · 536 reviews were conducted (refer to submitted Monthly Report) · A copy of a Merno, dated September 20,2009, concerning (Chapter 43) entitled "Existing Building Rehabilitation Code Compliance Guidelines" was distributed to the Mernbers. C. Transportation Division Update - Nick CasaIanguida · Mining Impact Fees Study will be presented to the BCC on October 27,2009 · Projected construction date for the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge is Novernber, 2009 D. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt . 5-day work week has returned . Fiscal Year 2009-2010 has begun VII. Old Business A. Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Study Update - Amy Patterson · Study will be presented to the BCC on October 27,2009 In response to questions asked during the Septernber rneeting regarding how preserve areas were considered in the Fee Impact Study, Amy Patterson stated preserve areas were rernoved frorn the inventory, i.e., if a preserve area was not accessible to the public, it was not valued. For example, only 25 of Freedom Park's 50 acres were counted in the Study. Facilities Inventory: · Fun-N-Sun Lagoon has $54M of debt service and was not counted as part of the Impact Fee calculation Ms. Patterson stated the population figure was compiled in 2008 by the Cornprehensive Planning Department. Discussion ensued concerning the disparity in land cost projections for regional parks versus community parks. All values were checked against data from the Property Appraiser's office. The difference is because regional parks are passive while cornrnunity parks are intensively used. In response to a question concerning why beaches were not included, Ms. Patterson stated any land that was either State or Federally owned could not be included. 6 October 7, 2009 161 1 She further stated Staff's position was to accept the Study as prepared, but the Productivity Cornrnittee has recornrnended an additional decrease of 12% for community parks and 18% for regional parks. A4 Robert Mulhere movedfor DSAC to: . support the Productivity Committee's recommendation for further reductions for community and regional parks, . suggest to the Board of County Commissions to direct the Consultant(s) to further review the anomalies associated with the differential land costs and improvement costs for regional and community parks, · recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to consider reducing the Level of Service in recognition of the State and/or Federally owned recreational facilities which cannot be counted in the inventory, · recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to consider an adjustment related to the excessive costs for specific anomalies, i.e., Sun-N-Fun Lagoon and the parking garage. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 9-0. VIII. New Business A. CDES Fee Schedule - Gary MuIlee and Phil Gonot, PMG Associates · A copy of the Contractor Licensing Fee Schedule Study was distributed to the Mernbers o Fees were approximately 10% less than originally proposed o Fee Schedule was approved by the Contractor Licensing Board on on September 16, 2009 · A copy of the Building Permit Fee Analysis was distributed to the Mernbers o Fees were split into two components: Review Fees and Inspection Fees · Performance standards and tirne-lines were discussed with the Subcornrnittee (5 day turn-around tirne for new residential construction and IS day turn- round tirne for new commercial construction) · Review fees (50%) will be refunded iftirne-lines are not rnet by the County (Blair Foley left at 4:00 PM) · Additional docurnents were distributed to the Mernbers: a draft of the Executive Summary and a comparison of fee schedule (current vs. proposed) Discussion ensued concerning the fee cornparison summary, suggested cap of reserves for Fund 113, possible hiring of additional inspectors, debt service, fleet vehicles, multiple inspection rates, and records storage fees. Joe Schmitt stated the Building Departrnent must rnaintain all records related to the issuance of Building Perrnits pursuant to Florida Statutes. More information is being obtained, including an opinion frorn the County Attorney. A question was asked concerning the ratio of correction letters to permits. 7 octO! bOf9 1 A~ Gary Mullee stated he will research the issue and return with information after the new performance standards become effective. Concern was expressed by a member regarding the lack of advance notice to review the documents presented, and back-up data was requested. Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approval of the Contractor Licensing Fee Schedule, the Building Permit Fee Analysis, and subsequent Staff recommendations for fee adjustments, subject to one additional Building Subcommittee Meeting, and any mutually agreeable recommendations from said Subcommittee Meeting. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 8-0 IX. Committee Member Comments Chairman Varian noted Reid Schermer has been absent for more than two consecutive DSAC rneetings. Previously, the Cornmittee sent a registered letter to a Mernber's horne address explaining his/her position was in jeopardy and requesting a response concerning continued rnembership. Judy Puig was asked to send a notification letter to Mr. Schermer. Chairman Varian also noted the passing of Charley Abbott created a vacancy on the Comrnittee. The procedure is to send a letter informing the Board of County Commissioners of the vacancy and requesting initiation of the appointment process. Robert Mulhere moved to recommend that Chairman Varian send a letter to the Board of County Commissioners informing the BCC of the vacancy and requesting implementation of the appointment process. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 8-0. Next Meetinl!:s: LDR Subcommittee - October 21, 2009 at 2:00 PM Full DSAC Committee - November 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM December 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 5: 15 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADV ORY COMMITTEE ~- William Varian, Chairman 8 The Minutes were approved by the Board/Cornrnittee on as presented , or as arnended v-:-- 9 1,1/ ~/O ~ I /I October 7,2009 161 1 A4 'jaIl .f)p~ . :'i:~~ng -r;/ ~ IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICAT~~j€t> ~e~~:SORY COMMITTEE 16 I 1 A 5 October 28, 2009 .-, l'~; 1 , d. ''',n(' ,: '\ ,;'!.m..; AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - September 23, 2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - CLM VII. Landscape Architects Report A. Maintenance Report- JRL Design VIII. Community Redevelopment Agency IX. Code Enforcement Report - Weldon Walker X. Old Business A. Main Street Pedestrian Zoning-Hwy29 and Loop Rd.- Darryl Richard XI. New Busine.s A. Meeting schedule-November and December 2009 XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is TBD Immokalee Community Park 321 First Street South, Immokalee, FL Mise. CoIIes: Date:l2:} IS 109 Item #: l i.o I C 1)4 t) C~r}!PS fr;' 1611 A5 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE /' September 23, 2009 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:31 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: William Deyo, Cherryle Thomas, Lucy Ortiz (Excused), Andrea Halman, Carrie Williams County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Tessie Sillery-Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst Others: Richard Tindell-JRL, Jim Fritchey-Commercial Land Maintenance, Penny Phillippe-CRA, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan III. Approval of Agenda Add: Quote for Sign Repair William Deyo moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: August 26, 2009 Andrea Halman moved to approve the August 26, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto Budget was distributed and the following items were reviewed. (See attached) · Revenue Structure is over $98,163.11 · Available Operating Expense $23,207.27 · A September 30, 2009 Budget Report to confirm Fiscal year end standing will be provided to the Committee Caroline Soto confirmed the Purchase Orders for drain grates and trash receptacle lids will be closed and reissued if items are not received by end of September 2009. B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following (See attachments) o (IMM-161 Edaerrin James SiQn - Suggested utilizing a Signage Company for the design process 1 1611A5 - Proposed the MSTU pay for landscaping or lighting if needed Cherryle Thomas ascertained the Signage should be decorative and consistent with the CRA decor. After much discussion it was concluded: . JRL will provide CRA with quote for Sign Design Concept . A Vendor list will be provided to the CRA to solicit (2) additional quotes . Sign will read Welcome to Immokalee home of Edgerrin James - Proof will be submitted to Edgerrin James for approval to add "Super Bowl NFL Winner" to the sign o (IMM-15) Landscape Maintenance Consultina >> Contract expires 3-12-10 >> Purchasing Department will attend a meeting after January 2010 to discuss options - Selection process based on BVO (Best Value Offer) - Rotational basis o Paver Refurbishment-CLM quote $3,045.29 was noted (see attached) o Unsightly white Bollards on Hwy 29 (See attached email) - Gary Amig-FDOT will collaborate with the MSTU to revise the area - Cost sharing with the MSTU may be necessary as State improvement funds are limited - Committee requested Gary Amig attend the October meeting o Southern Signal status email was reviewed (See attached) Follow up was requested as some Banner anns are missing. Cherryle Thomas requested Christmas Banners be installed one week prior to Thanksgiving and taken down January 5, 2010. C. Quote for Sign Repair Sign vandalism was reported and the quote to repair the sign is $2980.00. Carrie Williams moved to replace the sign, not to exceed $3,000.00. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. The motion was amended to read: "repair" the sign VI. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM Jim Fritchey reported: . Ongoing maintenance . Palm Trimming and installation of Pavers and Banners will be complete prior to October meeting VII. Landscape Architects Report A. Maintenance Report - JRL (See attached) Richard Tindell noted the Immokalee area looked good. Cherryle Thomas stated an Immokalee resident reported a flat tire due to the rough pattern in the road. It was noted a police report was filed. Darryl Richard will follow up with FOOT. 2 VIII. 'Community Redevelopment Agency A. Update on RWAlLDI-Penny Phillippe reviewed the following: >> Master Plan was resubmitted after insufficiencies were addressed )) Interim Land Development Code going to Public hearing and expect approval by December 2009 >> LDI work is complete >> Succeeding Master Plan approval a complete set of Land Development Codes will be reviewed by the County >> BCC approved Stonn Water Master Plan >> Announced a new storm water project at W. Eustes Street >> Stonn Water Master Plan includes two large retention ponds to address water issues in Immokalee 16' 1 A5 IX. Code Enforcement Report - Weldon Walker-None X. Old Business A. Main Street Pedestrian Zoning - HWY29 and Loop Rd. - Darryl Richard reported status Pending Loop Road Project results XI. New Business Grant Application ranking was distributed and reviewed. (See attached) Discussions ensued concerning the process, MPO and serving Board Members. Carrie Williams requested a list of TAC, PAC, CAC, and MPO Board Members. XII. Public Comment - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:39 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee W t t( 'o~ O-<-yO JA/d~ ~) Cherryle Thomas, Chairm n for These minutes approved by the Committee on I 0 ' () & - 0 ~, as presented .x or amended The next regularly scheduled meeting is October 28, 2009 4:30 p.m. Immokalee Community Park 321 First Street South. Immokalee. Fl 3 ~",. ~ ._-~, Ci: 1611 A5 ;~-" ,:'>- :$:;;.._:,.;~ , 1?~ ' ;,l IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE j;~t.':r {2 ~ September 23, 2009 SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS III. Approval of Agenda Add: Quote for Sign Repair William Deyo moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: August 26,2009 Andrea Halman moved to approve the August 26, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. V. Transportation Services Report B. Quote for Sign Repair Sign vandalism was reported and the quote to repair the sign is $2980.00. Carrie Williams moved to replace the sign, not to exceed $3,000.00. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. The motion was amended to read: "repair" the sign VII. Landscape Architects Report A. Maintenance Report - JRL Cherryle Thomas stated an Immokalee resident reported a flat tire due to the rough pattern in the road. It was noted a police report was filed. Darryl Richard will follow up with FDOT. 161 1 A5 Report Date: September 23, 2009 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (IMM-19) - ACTIVE- I't Street Irrigation: Refurbishment Project 9-23-09: Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. 1st (IMM-18) - ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Irrigation: Refurbishment Project 9-23-09: JRL submittal of concept 'draft' design complete; Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. 1st (IMM-17) - ACTIVE- "Edgerrin James Sign" ;Request for Sign indicating "Welcome to Immokalee home of Edgerrin James" for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 9-23-09: CRA to install 'sign' and MSTU is to provide for landscaping or amenities around sign (could include lighting) (IMM-16) - ACTIVE- "Miles ahead" Sign; Request for Sign indicating "Miles ahead" to Immokalee for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 9-23-09: Confirmation pending from Traffic Operations on exact sign locations (IMM-15) -- ACTIVE-ONGOING -LA Maintenance Consulting; Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 9-23-09: Change order in process to add additional monies to contract; Current Contract expiration date for maintenance consulting: March 12, 20 I 0 (IMM-14) - ACTIVE- -McGee & Associates - TREE SCAPE PLANTINGS (ROW SIDES) 9-23-09: FDOT Approval required at the time Committee selects to move forward with street tree plantings. (IMM-ll) - ACTIVE-ONGOING -- Roadway Maintenance: BID #06-4008 u expires: March 10,2010 "Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. IM.S.T.D. Roadway Grounds Maintenance"; Commercial Land Maintenance Contract 9-23-09: Draft bid documents have been prepared; pending final edit for bidding. (IMM-3) COMPLETED -- Immokalee MSTU expanding their boundaries; Immokalee MSTU: Boundary Expansion Proposal 9-23-09: July 28, 2009 BCC approved expansion of boundaries I ::::l Ol I- 0 1Il :;: ::EN w:2 We "'z ~::::l 0"- ::E ~ ..; N ~ G> ..c E G> Q. G> 1Il ~ :E_ !liB .- 0 ~.... .. ~Ngg~~~;:: ~~~~~~~~ a5-.:ilrici ~ eO ~ ~g m g~g~ig~ ~~~~I~~ ~~~~~gg q ~ I~L~ Mom ~ 0 ~ ,...: ci 0) ~ ~ ~ M~ '" o 0 GO 00 ci ci <<5 00_ ~~.:! 16' 1 A5 ~ ~ ;t g 2! g t;; ~~~~ggi ~~ai~~1 ~.,: ~w~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~wwwwwww. . ! liE n:S .. ; 0. M W ::; N <ci l,(j .., on M N g':f ~ M~;: di ~:3 .., -'" ,...: .....- N _ - '" WtflWtfiWfhWtflfhfhWfhtflW . c ~ 5 'E E o CJ g :! o N o N :;I~ o ~ ~g; ~ 0 M 0 N _ ~-;{ ~ .., N '" ~ 0; " ~ '" '" N 00 ,..: 0) oj 1<: ~ ~ MMM N ~ ~ :: ( i g :g g (; ~ g g g g a; o (0 N N ..jNM ci M N ~ ~ <ci r: ;; N ,,; ~t;~~gg~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ I/SI"i'MMMNuiaS ..... .... ..... N N "'!.C'!. ~ - . . .,: .tfltfltflWWtflWtfltfltflWW_~tflWWWWWtfltflW ~ 0 N 0 M ci o N ~ "! N_ ~ ~ o '" '" ,,; Ng~~~ g ~ .n g g 0'> (J) ~ cQ <D MN~~.~ = iii !I!":. . WWWWtfltflWtfltflWWWtfltfl~WWtfltflWWtflWfhWtfltfl__WtflWWW_WW__ " ~1; "'", li-g -i"' 0" o o o ~ M ii 0" o o o ~ ,,; ~ 0" o o o o o " o o o o on 0; i~ ON 0'" ci a::i o N N ~ gf~ q. ON ~ ~~I ~ ~'l ~I~ o N 0 0 o co 0 0 ci N ci Lt':i o 0 0 N o NON ci<J:i..jN .., on o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 ci ci ci 0 0000 '<t 0 <0 I() .0 N N o o o o o ,,; ~ g g g g g g g g ~ ~ ,...: ci ci ci 8 ci ci 8 ci ~ - ~ggg~~g~ggg ~~~~~Nr':cio)~~fI tflWtfltfltflWWWtfltfltfltfltflW~tflWWWtfltfltflWWWtfltflWWtflWWtfltflWtflWW~ '" z a: w w ~ (J) >- <( ~ J: ~ ~ ~ .... w .... X zoct)Ow <l ~W~W~O:: ~~~~~~8~ ~~g~g;~~ ~;i~::i:o::m'-(I) a>~w:r:::i:t;;~ <(o<(....O::.-t;~z .- ~ w w w ~u:lggt>.-Gj {)au.u.U:~~o:: ....NM...."fQ....CO - =- ll: o .... a: frl ..J ~ W ~ <( r/) ...J ~ ::i: ~ 8 w ::> 8: ~ ~ ~ ~ <( .- <..? w ~ :E ::i: 0 0 > o 0 ~ ~ w a: a: ~ ~ a:: u. u. c:::: 0: ~ 0:: a: 0 0 f3 ~~l.I..u.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I() ~~~~~ ~ ~ () () Z W D o CJ CJ D <( >- "' (J) Z o ;:: ::> lD ir ~ o it ~jf g .. ~ (J) D Z W W ~ 2 Cf)!;t 0: w 6: w a: w g? w ~ (J) (J) f2 ;i ~ ~ ::> Cf) w 0 a.. 0: a: blDci ..J~z'- 5Jww 0 f3~~~w~~~~~~~~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ 0 a.. 00 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g oc oc ~ 0 <..? () <..? ~ CI) ~ ~ a.. Z m 0 ~~~ffi~~~~~~ffiffi~6~ a a 0 ~ ~ J r z w ~ I r w a:: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .- ~ g ~ g ~ b b ~ ~ 5 0~~~:2:!~~~~~~N~~~~~~~:;;:;; _ (J) o ll: ~ ~ (J) (J) z z ~ ~ ~ .... N .., .., .., ll: o .... ll: '-' W W (J) ~ ~ <5 "- '-' "- '-' <( ~ (J) (J) z z ~ ~ ~ ~ tu tu '" '" D D ::> ::> "' "' .... ::> o w >- (J) ,-,0 z ~ w CJ ~ t; ~ ~ Z 0 t;; 0 0: Z '-' "- o ll: a: '-' 0 0 ll: u. u. W W W ~ 6: 6: Z w w ~ ffl ffl .... ll: ll: ~ ~ ~ ~ ., .., .., ~I ffi;i! ~I~I l!l1~1 ~ N co .... c zg ::JQ U.N - . ::JM I-N en ... :E1: w E w.! ...Ie. ~~ o :E :E ;.6 1 AS 0 ~ N ~ Ol 0 0 ~ 0 0 "<t C') Ol 0 0 co CD Ol 0 cr; 0 N C') ~ co 0 0 0 0 0 C') Ol 0 0 0 ~ It) Ol 0 L() 0 ..t , cO "<t ll:i , , 0 6 0 M CD to , N 6 , ..t , n; CD C') CD "<t ~ co co 0> co ~ 0 co 0 0> CD 0> .... 0> CD ~ co ~ co ~ ~ 0 :::l:2 ~ .... ~ "<t co "!. 0 N It) N It) It) It) ~ ~ "<t It) ~ .... N cD ..f - N 1:) l'll 0 ~ co C') 0> N ~ N N .... ~ N <(ll.. CD co ~ N N ~ ~ <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h ffl <h ffl ... Cl Ol Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ N 0> 0 N 0> It) 0 0 0 0 co 0> CD Ol '" E c: , , ll:i , , , , , , to , , , 6 , , "<t ~ It) 0 C') 0 .... 0 0 <( c: "<t CD It) .... N ~ co "<t C') It) co C') Ol 0 It) co Ol N ~ Ol CD .... CD CD .... l'll C') C') N It) "<t ll"i Q E ~ ~ N ~ > GI U. c::: ffl <h ffl <h <h ffl <h ffl <h <h <h <h ffl <h ffl <h <h <h <h ffl ffl <h ffl <I. ffl ffl c: :> .Q 0 - ro '" '" ~ '" '" 0 > '" Ol ~ Ol Ol E .~ - 0 E 0 0 0 '" c: 0 .~ .~ .~ .~ e c: - l'll .~ GI :::l U Ol Ol c: > GI Ol ro ll.. c::: 0 0 ~ ~ (/) (/) 0 (/) (/) III .~ g - .J:: ll.. :;::; GI :::l '" ~ ~ 0 '" '" ro rn '" ~ P- o ~ - '" Ol c: ro ~ ~ Ol - c: GI :::l :::l c: !.2 .J:: :::l :::l '" ~ Ul .J:: 1: Ol I- Ol 0 - - c: N ll.. - - "E 0 c: 0 E :g :2 ~ - E .~ 0 0 0 ~ (/) '" - 0 0 ll.. ro I- 0 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol c: GI ...J ...J - ~ .J:: Ol - ~ U "0 c: 0 c:: ~ - E 0 u '" ~ ~ .~ '" g '" :E , Ol 0 .~ :E ~ GI- ~ a; :0 ~ (/) '" ~ - Ol .J:: Ol Ol .J:: Ol Ol e.- Ol Ol 0 0 Ol ro (/) ~ 0 E '" c: c: ~ "0 ~ .~ c: g 0 ~ LL Ol ~ .!!2 0 '" Ol .2: .2 c: .~ <( <( .!g .~ (/) ....: <( <( t: :::l ~ 'a; 'a; Ol - 0 a; Ol ro , 0 c:: ...J I- - - 0 (/) ro Ol Ol -" ~ ~ ~ "0 rn e ~ ~ g? '" c: c: 0 c::: ~ al 0 Ol Ol ll.. Ol Ol C') -" ~ 0 0 .~ > i5 (/) 0 g 0 'C: ll.. "0 "2 '" ~ U U o/S - (/) Ol ii: ~ ro ro (/) ro ro ro <( Ol ~ :::l '" 0 c: 0 0 .!: - c: 0 0 is Ol - ~ '" '" ~ .g '" '" c: '" Ol Ol (/) ~ 0 Ol ro .J:: ~ Ol 2 '" Ol 0 Ol c: "0 "0 :;::; ~ ~ "0 "0 :;::; 0 ~ - - .0 ~ - ~ '" :::l .J:: .J:: Ol '" '" ro > .0 ~ :::l c: c: 0 '" c: c: ro W "3 ~ '" :2 :2 > c: ro .J:: ro ro - Ol 0 ro ro 0 Ol Ol Ol ro ro Ol ~ ~ U ll.. ll.. ...J al (/) (') c::: I- U c: ...J ...J ...J ll.. c::: (/) 0 ...J ...J ...J ...J 0 ::::i =It ~ CD It) 0 0 0 '1J , .... , , co co .... iii 0 ~ 0 0 , ~ , It) 0 0 It) , , .... .... ~ "<t "<t GI co CD CD CD .... 0 ~ ~ C') 0> 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ .... , CD CD ~ ~ ~ <( ~ ~ 'E C') It) It) It) C') <( C') C') "<t - , , z z z z z z z z z , , z z z , ::i: , , z , z z z z 0 I- co co co It) , <( <( .... LL 0 0 0 0 0 ::i: ::i: 0 .ll: , ...J ... ::i: , , 0 I- 0 0 ~ I- ...J ...J <( l- I- .... 0 N "<t co 0 0 0 0 It) C') 0 N N ~ C') C') "<t .... 0> ~ CD co .... It) ~ C') N 0 .... It) CD It) 0> "<t CD ~ It) It) "<t C') "<t CD CD ~ "<t "<t It) .... 0> ~ C') It) 0 C') "<t C') ~ CD 0 0 co N CD N N 0> 0> 0 0 =It co co 0> CD CD .... 0 co .... U U It) N C') 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 ll.. It) 0 0 0 0> 0> 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 t5 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (') (') ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ll.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 is 0 0 0 It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) It) "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t "<t g +-' +-' +-' +-' 0 :;::; GI .~ .~ .~ c: '" ~ u ~ E ro ro ro 'a; -" Ol - '" '" '" 0 ::i: ::i: ::i: ::i: ~ c: ro .ri Ol Ol Ol ...J l'll ~ c: '" E ~ - - - ~ o/S Z g U "0 "0 "0 "0 ro ~ ro ro l'll 0 c: c: c: c: Ol al '(ji Ol '0 .0 '0 Ol rn ... 'C: ro ro ro ro ro '" 0: c: -" 0 0 0 z c: a; GI 'C: - ...J ...J ...J ...J '" is Ol Ol '" '" '" ~ .2 ro '1J Ol 0 rn rn ro rn ~ c: u; (') - '" '" '" '" Ol ~ Ol Ol 0 c: c: c: <( <( <( c: Ol 0 .2 .2 'a; (/) :> c: i= i= GI c: W '0 '0 '0 .~ c: '" Ol U Ol .2 ro 'g ~ ~ ~ ro rn 0 '" '" (/) o/S o/S o/S 0 c: - - > iii Ol Ol Ol Ol 0 Ol c: ~ '" (/) :::l :::l E E E E '" (/) -" t5 c: Ol Ol ro Ol Ol Ol '" Ol :::l ro ro W E 0 Ol ~ 0 0 u u '" 0 Ol Ol Ol Ol .J:: ~ ~ '" '" - E E E E ~ E ~ :::l W W c: c: (') (') (') 9 :; - 0 :::l :::l E c: :::l ...J ...J I~ c: - Ol 0 0 0 0 Ol 0 E '6 '" c::: 0: U U ro 0 0 0 ro 0 :::l 0 ro ro <i: al U U U U LL LL c: c: --, --, ...J ...J ...J ~ ::i: ~ ::i: z (/) (/) :> ~ ~ 01 ..... II'i .... '" ai .., ~ ..... ... o ..... u;; 01 ..... ..... '" ... ..... .., + 01 N '" CIl c: - ...J ~ o I- 161 1 A5 From: Sent: To: Subject: Daniela Coleman [dgcoleman@tampabay.rr.com] Wednesday, September 23, 20091:08 PM RichardDarryl Immokalee & Sunshine Update Darryl, Per your conversation with James this morning, below is the status for the above mentioned locations: Immokalee: . There are two (2) lights out in the median near the new cross walk recently installed; . There are three (3) tall lights out on Main Street; . The banner anns and lower rings have been installed; . The light fixture(s) was sent with the wrong mounting brackets. We set up a tentative meeting with Lumec for next Tuesday or Wednesday to correct. Once we have a set time and date, we will let you know should you need to attend. . Replacement pole for the knock down arrived yesterday but was sent without breakaways. These should arrive next week. Sunshine: . Replacement pole for knock down also arrived yesterday but without the breakaways. They should also be here next week. We will keep you posted on any new developments as soon as we can. Thanks, Daniela G Coleman Southern Signal & Lighting, Inc. PO Box 5142 Hudson, FL 34674 Ph: 727-819-2061 Fx: 727-857-4097 1 II Commercial Land Maintenance Full SelVIce Landscape Management 1611 A5 ESTIMA T.,. El002670 3980 Exchange Avenue. Naples, FL 34104 Office: (239) 643.6205 . Fax: (239) 643.5012 E-mail: Info@commlandmalnt.net CUSTOMER NO. BILL TO: Collier County Dept of Transportation 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Fl. 33962 Acct: MSTU Inmokalee IMMOKALEE CITY - THE FOLLOWING IS PER THE REQU 51 OF DARRYL RICHARD 08-24-09 VIA E-MAIL - TO REPAIR SEVEN TREE CUT OU1S 16 Supervisor labor to remove and dispose of one foxtail palm including rootball, remOVe existing brick PlWers from one cul- uI (others in storage a1lmmokalee Road & ijfklge facility) instal limerock and sand base, compact arid re-sllI pavers. 59.42 950.72 32 Regular labor 10 assist. 48.61 1,555.52 1 Hourly Rate for Bobcat 873 inclUding operator. 189.05 189.05 1 County Dumping Fees for materials removed from sile. 100.00 100.00 1 Reimbursement for (4) yards of limerock materials purchase (cost + 50%) 180.00 180.00 1 Reimbursement for (1.5) yards of sand materials purchased (cost + 50%) 70.00 70.00 (420 pavers provided by county) TOTAL $3,045.29 THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE 1.5% WILL BE ADDED MONTHLY TO ALL INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL PAID 16' 1 A5 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Amig, Gary P [Gary.Amig@dot.state.f1,us] Tuesday, September 22, 2009 5:10 PM RichardDanyl Nandam, L. K.; Kautz, Michael A FW: Questions about white bollards on Hwy 29 in Immokalee DSC00002.JPG; DSC00005.JPG; P6030003.JPG; P8140001.JPG; P8140004.JPG High Darryl: Your E-Mail was forwarded to me today for handling. As we discussed over the phone, I would like to work with you on developing a plan to revise the areas where we recently installed the Qwick Kurb. As I mentioned, the Qwick Kurb installation was done to address a serious pedestrian safety issue as well as prohibit traffic from making prohibited turning movements at many of the directional median openings in the area. Due to the urgency of the issue we needed to react quickly. Although not the most aesthetically pleasing, Qwick Kurb provides positive control oftraffic movements and clearly delineates the travel path. Qwick Kurb is normally intended to be used as a low cost temporary quick fix to be followed by a concrete project at such time funding is available. If you will send me the plans you have for the irrigation modifications we can develop some design concepts to address the concerns and meet in the field to discuss the details. As I mentioned, funding the improvements may be an issue. I will need to get a good cost estimate for the improvements and then determine what funding may be available. Thanks!! !! GARY P. AMIG ACCESS MANAGEMENT / SAFETT PRoGRAM MANAGER DEPA~ENTOFTRANSPORTAnON DISTftICT ON&: TRAFFIC OP'ERA'nONS 801 NOftTH BROADWAY AVENUE PO Box 1249 BARTOW FL33831-1 249 "HONE (8153) 1119-2666 FAX(863)~IS E.MA.IL GARY.AMIG@lDDT.STATE.FLUS "SIT UP, BUCKLE UP, HANG UP AND DRIVE" From: RicharclDarryl [mailto:DarrylRlcharcl@colliergov.netj Sent: Tuesday, September 22,200911:57 AM To: Nandam, L K. SUbject: Questions about white boIlards on Hwy 29 in Immokalee Importance: High <<DSC00002.JPG>> <<DSCOO005.JPG>> <<P6030003.JPG>> <<P814oo01.JPG>> <<P8140004.JPG>> Mr. Nandam, Hello, my name is Darryl Richard, I am a Project Manager who works for the Immokalee MSTU, we do beautification projects on Hwy 29 (landscape, irrigation, hardscape (pavers, seating)) 1 161 1 A5 I was just in a meeting with Bob Tipton and he suggested I contact you concerning a particular request: I was just reviewing some of the 'aesthetics' of our project area - between 9th Street and 1st Street, and noted the 'white bollards' that were recently installed along with the cross-walks. We appreciate FOOT's efforts to make the roadway safer for pedestrians. However, we'd like to review the 'materials' used In the application and see if there is a more 'aestheticaliy pleasing' /permanent solution in lieu ofthe 'white bollards' Our Committee made comments at their last meeting about how 'horrible' the white 'sticks' look in the roadway, I'd like to work with you in addressing this concern. Questions: Does FOOT have plans to replace the white bollards with a more permanent installation (hopefully one that is aesthetically pleasing too?) What is the more permanent installation (some of the workers installing the white bollards indicated that there is a 'more expensive permanent solution)? How soon could we expect some additional project activity (either to replace the white bollards or other projects)? (note: we meet with the Immokalee MSTU tomorrow afternoon - any information you may be able to provide prior to that meeting would be greatly appreciated) Call me at 239-253-9083 if you'd like to discuss this request over the phone.. Thank you, Darryl Richard, RLA, MSTU Project Manager Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 telephone: 239-252-5775 Fax: 239-252-6219 Cell: 239-253-9083 darryl richard (!ilcoll iefl1:Ov. net 2 16' 1 t\5 ~ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 4055'" A VENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES. FLORIDA 239-261-4007 OtIDau@J~@tID[F)@ tID[f@[}uolt@@lt~~ lIo@O@J [f@[F)@[flt COPY TO: 1:8:1 OWNER D ARCHITECT D ENGINEER D CONSULTANT I:8:I_MSTU Committee__ PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - POI 4500105395 CONTRACTOR: CLM REPORT NUMBER: JRL COMM No: 13 9003 Date: 8/26/09 & 9/16/09 Time: 1 :30 - 3 pm Weather: Scattered Clouds Temp Range: 91 Estimate % Complete: N/A Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: Commercial Maintenance, D. Richards (Aug) & Richard Tindell (both) WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor present. clean up & hedge trimming 9/16 OBSERV ATIONS: Routine maintenance work has been performed REVIEWS: REPORT: Pre MSTU meeting inspection w D. Richards was routine. Questions were raised about status of turf area north of 9'h Street. Project Manager to verify who is responsible for this area. Routine maintenance work has been performed and service personnel were observed. Grass has been recently mowed with only 3 low points at the north triangle omitted due to standing water. Monument sign at north end has been defaced (previously reported by Project Manager - repairs appear to be underway). All in all, the work appears on Main south of 9th and along 151 west of Main, to be in conformance to agreemenl and schedule except for 3 or 4 small patches of weeds in the medians. There are no photos attached. ACTION REQUIRED: Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asia, registered landscape architect LA767 161 1 A5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Board Action Item SA Approval of Local Transportation Enhancement Priorities Objective: Receive MPO Board approval of a prioritized list of additional local Transportation Enhancement Projects to be added to the bottom of the previously adopted list from March 2009. Considerations: Recently, Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) informed the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of changes in the funding for the Transportation Enhancement Program. In prior years the MPO was limited to $400,000 in Transportation Enhancement Program funding from the State each fiscal year. FOOT informed the Collier MPO that the Transportation Enhancement Program will no longer be capped at $400,000 for the County. In addition, the Transportation Enhancement Program will include funding for both local projects and regional projects. In March 2009, the MPO Board approved a list Transportation Enhancement Program projects for FY 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. The seven (7) projects' costs totaled $2,026,303 and were prioritized as follows: 1. Linear Park Trail, from San Marco road to Andalusia Terrace - City of Marco Island ($209,257.25: Construction) 2. GuIfview Middle School Sidewalk - City of Naples (($383,988: Construction) 3. Lake Park Elementary School Sidewalk - City of Naples ($218,287: Construction) 4. Gordon River Greenway Park - Collier County ($400,000: Construction) 5. Seagate Elementary School Sidewalk - City of Naples ($200,891: Construction) 6. Riverside Filter Marsh - City of Naples ($200,000: Construction) 7. US 41 Lighting and Landscaping - City of Naples ($413,880: Construction) Because additional fimding is now possibly available for the Transportation Enhancement Program for Fiscal Years 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013114, and 2014/15, the MPO was asked to solicit local projects and compile one priority list for all four (4) fiscal years so that there would be enough projects on the priority list to ensure that all available funding could be utilized. Staff issued a second call for enhancement projects on Friday, June 24, 2009. The deadline for project submission was Aug. 3, 2009. Since the MPO Board has previously prioritized the above seven (7) projects, it is staff's reconnnendation that these original seven (7) projects remain as a first tier of project priorities and that any additional projects be added as a second tier. Local Transportation Enhancement Program project fimding could be up to $600,000 per year available in fiscal year 2011/12 through fiscal year 2014/15. totaling as much as $2.4 million for the four (4) fiscal years. Projects that are eligIble to receive this Transportation Enhancement fimding include: . Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles; . Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists; . Acquisition of scenic easements, and scenic or historic sites; 161 1 AS . Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities); . Landscaping and other scenic beautification; . Historic preservation; . Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildinlls, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals); . Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails); . Control and removal of outdoor advertising; . Archeological planning and research; . Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway nmoff or reduce vehicle- caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity; and . Establishment of transportation museums. Ten applications for Transportation Enhancement Funds were submitted to Staff by the August 3"' deadline. The applicants were given the opportunity to give oral presentations to the PAC, T AC and CAC, and members of the public provided inputs to the three advisory connnittees as well. In addition to the change in transportation enhancement funding for local projects, money will also be available for regional priorities in the amount of $1.2 million for Fiscal Year 2014/15 and each subsequent year. Regional transportation enhancement project priorities will be addressed at a subsequent MPO Board meeting. Committee Recommendations: The PAC, T AC and CAC considered the applications and prioritized the projects based on criteria provided in Attaclunent C. The following list reflects the composite ranking of the three advisory committees and is the MPO Staff's recommended ranking for the second tier of project priorities: 8. Gulfshore Boulevard North Sidewalk - City of Naples ($227,270: construction) 9. Golden Gate Beautification MSTU for Coronado Pkwy. and Hunter Blvd. - Collier County ($600,000: construction) 10. Linear Park Trail Phase II, from AndaIusia Terrace to Winterberry Drive - City of Marco Island ($824,650.40: construction) II. Mooring Line Drive Sidewalk - City of Naples ($281,750: construction) 12. Bus Stop Bench Improvement Program - Collier County ($110,635: construction) 13. Second Street South Sidewalk - City of Naples ($143,762: construction) 14. hnmokaIee Beautification MSTU for Hwy 29 - Collier County ($760,000: construction) 15. Third Street Sidewalk - City of Naples ($294,930: construction) 16. Radio Road MSTU - Collier County ($480,000: construction) 17. Radio Road East MSTU - Collier County ($600,000: construction) Staff Recommendations: For the MPO Board to approve the ranking of the second tier of Loca1 Transportation Enhancement projects as indicated in the Committee Recommendations section above. 161 1 AS Attachments: A. Project applications (in the numerical order listed above) B. Transportation Enhancement Projects Ranking Sheet C. Transportation Enhancement Criteria D. FOOT Procedurl}-Topic No. 525-030-300-j Prepared I Approved by: Phillip R. Tindall, MPO Director Date: Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 16 I 1 Ah ' R~C~'VED NOY 0 5 2009 Boonf OfCoonty~.... 1/ I :1(1)1 d> f ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPT. 3, 2009 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Kirk Colvin, Chairman Jirn Gault, Advisory Board Member Joe Langkawel, Advisory Board Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:45 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chiefs Report. B. August 2009 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. I. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve August 2009 Minutes by Jim Gault. a. Motion seconded by Joe Langkawel. b. Motion carried unanirnously. c. Minutes signed offby Chairman Colvin. C. Copies of completed letters distributed (Board direction from Aug. meeting). I. Letter to Chief Dyer regarding rnerger proposal with East Naples. 2. Letter to Steering Committee regarding Senate Bill I 000. D. Boat Dock Project. I. Funds have been allocated to this project. 2. Funds are available beginning October I, 2009. 3. Q. Grady Minor will be hired for permitting phase. 4. Second phase will be the engineering phase. 5. Third phase will be the project bidding phase. Misc. COlrt8: Date:t 5 0 Item#: llolel ;:iesto: 161 1 A6 III. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Second ICFD Station at Marco Airport. I. Marco Airport has purchased 2.75 acres from WCI. 2. Chief met with Theresa Cook, Marco Airport Director at AUIR mtg. a. Theresa Cook agreeable to future discussions of a fIre station. b. SuffIcient room exists for a fIre station on this land purchased. 3. Sept. 9 meeting with Ms. Cook, Mr. Summers, & Mr. Page for discussion. a. Chief to discuss building a substation on Mainsail Drive. b. Substation would be a "joint station" with EMS. 4. Effects frorn FAA rule changes on o I/O I/201O. a. Planes with 6 passenger capacities require quicker responses. I. Response times must be within 4 minutes. 2. Chief to research the specifIc requirements. b. New station and any additional trucks may qualify for FAA grants. 5. New station could enable ICFD to obtain a future ISO rating of2. B. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be held on Oct. 1,2009. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the rneeting by Jim Gault at 7:10 p.m. I. Motion seconded by Joe Langkawel. 2. Motion carried unanirnously. ;7 v/~ Approved:,' _- ./ 10,hq fJaJ1 Date: Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta ~fo/tt~ VI JCJ~P , THE LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE MEETING Collier County Housing Authority 1800 Farm Worker Way Immokalee, FL 34142 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 MINUTES Members Present Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Vince Mele Jon Fury Others Present Ski Olesky Joel Bleth Mr. Volt Maria Bernal Michael Lepparelli Minutes Approval October 20,2004 Minutes Old Business None New Business 1611,A7 v, RECEIVED NOY I 0 2009 Board of County CommIoaIone.a Joel Bleth and Michael Lepparelli, from Solar Bee, provided the Task Force with a presentation ontheir pond circulators. Maria Bernal provided an overview on attendance and possible new members to the Task Force. The Task Force was provided an update on Lake Trafford. Commencement/Park Dedication - the date of May 21, 2005 was selected for their event. Other Business The committee reviewed the Task Force ordinance with the guidance of Maria Bernal. **** Misc. Carrf . Date !"t,; 'r Mis". - :' \I~mr ( Page 2 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 A 7 There being no further business for the good of the County, Je ~etinl j was adjourned by order of the chair. These rninutes approved by the Board/Cornrnittee on (o-:{ - 0 q as presented v' or as amended Fial~ Halas Henning Coyle Coletta THE LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE MEETING Collier County Housing Authority 1800 Farm Worker Way Immokalee, FL 34142 Wednesday, March 2, 2005 MINUTES Members Present Pam Brown Rocky Scofield Jon Fury Gene Hearn Nicole Ryan Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Fred Thomas Others Present Maria Bernal- Collier County Tourism Vince Mele - Department of Environmental Protection Tyree Hall Jessica Morales - South Florida Water Management District The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tears at 10:35 a.m. 1. Roll Call 1 REbJ,v~l NOY 1 0 2lD} r v _Ill of County CommIl.lonenI Sign-in sheet provided (see attached) quorum was established. Mr. Olesky was excused. 2. Approval of January 11, 2005 Minutes 3. Old Business Mr. Tears presented Mr. Scofield, Gene Hearn and Pam Brown with 5 year service pins 4. New Business . Lake Trafford Update 1. Shaw onsite 2. Relocated (27) gopher tortoises 3. Contract building containment facilities (3) 4. Dredge will be onsite in May Misc. Corres: Dalit: 1IIIIllJ: Cqlles to: 16' 1 A7 Page 2 Wednesday, March 2, 2005 5. Fish and Wildlife is interested in providing more than this year's 1 M for removal of littoral zone organic muck. Jon Fury gave update: . Fish samples that were being taken by Florida Fish & Wildlife identified no bass and a lot of non-sport species. . After dredging is completed Fish & Wildlife will replant vegetation and restock Bass if needed. Mr. Tears also informed the Task Force that Solar Bee was suppose to come back with test project proposal. To date no proposal has been received. * May 21 Groundbreaking/Park Dedication 1. All beverages will be donated for this event and free to attendees except for beer and wine. A donation of two dollars will be accepted for beer and wine in an effort to curtail consumption. 2. Mr. Tears informed Task Force letters were sent to various vendors requesting donations for the upcoming event. 3. Mr. Olesky distributed these letters to the various vendors 4. Nicole Ryan will be designing the draft invitation 5. Task Force also discussed the possibility of having a silent auction 6. Discussed various permits that will be needed for the May 21st event. John Veit will check on this issue and get back to the task force 5. Public Comments 6. Announcements 7. Committee Member Discussion . The Task Force discussed invitations for the barbecue and agreed that they would send a "save date" notice. . They also agreed that everyone would send Maria Bernal an e-mail with their list of invitees. Maria would then forward the list to Jessica Morales from South Florida Water Management District so that she can compile the invitation distribution list. Page 3 161 1 Wednesday, March 2, 2005 8. Next Meeting Date/Location . April 6, 2005 - 11 :00 a.m. - Lake Trafford Marina **** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 12:10 p.m. on! TUi' CIar ce S. Tears, Jr., Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on p, pr J as presented 1/ or as amended ~ 1 ;)j}O S A7 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle -r-r:-1) Coletta YO-I '""'- THE LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE MEETING Lake Trafford Immokalee, FL 34142 Wednesday, April 6, 2005 MINUTES Members Present Pam Brown Jon Fury Ski Olesky Nicole Ryan Rocky Scofield Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Fred Thomas Others Present Jonell Modys, Public Relations Manager, Tourism Department Maria Bernal, Tourism Department Eric Staats, Naples Daily News Jessica Morales, SFWMD 1. Roll Call, 12:00 p.m. 2. March 2, 2005 Minutes were approved 1611 Al v/ RECE\VED NOV 1 0 2009 Board of eounl'/ c()IIlI11IIslon<'. 3. Old Business - Lake Trafford Update - Before meeting started tour of Lake Trafford was given by SFWMD contractor(SHAW Environmental) . 720 days to complete disposal facility and lake dredging . 2 years to monitor overall contract (COM) . 4 years to complete entire project - estimated date to complete August 18, 2008 * May 21 Commencement/Park Dedication . The following list of speakers and point of contacts were suggested Misc. Corres: o Mario Diaz-Balart - Fred Thomas o Jim Mudd - Clarence Tears Date: Ilemt: Copies to: 161 1 A7 o Mike Davis - Fred Thomas . Speciallnvitees o Clyde Butcher o Governor - Floyd/SFWMD . Clarence Tears - Master of Ceremony . Duties were assigned as follows: o Jessica from SFWMD will get program ready and press release o Clarence will send Maria Bernal last year's invitation list and she will forward to everyone for additions/corrections/deletions - corrections to be submitted by April 14 to Maria Bernal o Nicole Ryan will talk to Parks and Recreation about tents, chairs and coordinate with them invitations being printed o Ski Olesky will talk to Immokalee H.S. to provide color guard ,staff support and pies o Fred Thomas will speak to Lake Trafford Elementry about inviting children to sing o Pam Brown will contact Beta Club about helping to serve and ROTC for Color Guard assistance and traffic control o Clarence Tears will check with Parks and Recreation about permits o Ski following up with donations 4. New Business - None 2 16 5. Public Comments 6. Announcements 7. Committee Member Discussion 8. Next Meeting Date/Location April 20, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. - Housing Authority **** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 12:45 p.m. These rninutes approved by the Board/Cornmittee on rr, -;2 - 0 9 as presented V or as amended ." i A7 . , 3 Fiala Halas Henning coyle r::oletta o~JJf.-. THE LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE MEETING Lake Trafford Immokalee, FL 34142 Wednesday, May 4, 2005 MINUTES Members Present Pam Brown Clarence S. Tears, Jr. (conferenced in) Others Present Barbara Kerby John Veit, Parks and Recreation Vince Mele, Department of Environmental Protection Cheryl Calcagino - Allstate Resource Manager Jim and Sally Wilson - Lake Trafford Residents Annie Poplar, parks and recreation 1. Roll Call, 11 :24 2. Old Business * May 21 Commencement/Park Dedication discussion. RECENEO NOV ,0 2009 """,,,""","en Board 01 Counl'/ C / 161,1 A7 . Barb to follow Annie back to park to view dedication set-up . Ordering a 30x40 tent package with 12 tables and 80 chairs, a 20x40 tent package with 10 tables and 48 chairs and an additional 20x40 tent. From Fiesta tents . Parks and recreation will provide additional chairs. . plan on providing Food for 250 guests preferably 260 guests . Meat being provided. (I have no clue what that meant in the original). . Lake Trafford Elementary School providing pies. . Immokalee High ROTC will do the flag ceremony Mise. Corres: 011I: 11Im #: Copies fT 16/ 1 A7 . National Anthem by Ledarian Townsend . Lake Trafford Elementary will perform, Ski/Pam to follow-up . Sharon told Clarence she has entertainment for 4 hours . Pam concerned regarding invitations being sent too late. Clarence assured e-mail and save the date went weeks ago . Fred working on parking . Ricky Pires - Florida Gulf Coast University will try and provide students to help at the event. * Lake Trafford Restoration . Discussion regarding the dredging. Should begin removal of 2-3 feet of muck in June.. Wilson's concern about dumpsite and mosquitoes. 3. New Business - None 4. Public Comments . Jim and Sally Wilson want to talk to Clarence, will make an appointment. . Cheryl Calcagino - Allstate Resource Manager left a lake management information kit for Clarence. 5. Announcements - none 6. Committee Member Discussion - none 7. Next Meeting Date/Location May 18, 2005 at 11 :00 a.m. - Housing Authority ****** 2 16/1 A7 I There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 12:01 p.m. Lake Trafford Task Fore CI These minutes approved by the Board/Cornrnittee on {, - ;;l. -0 9 as presented V or as amended 3 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 October 20, 2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: September 15,2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report A. McGee & Assoc. B. Windham Studios VIII. Old Business IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment The next meeting is November 20, 20093:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Corre : Date: ( Item.: l Copies to: 16/1JA8 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 16/~ v AS September 15, 2009 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:30 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger, Helen Carella, John Weber County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Tessie SilIery-Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich-Landscape Operations Manager Others: Mike McGee-McGee & Associates, James Stephens-Hannula Landscaping, Scott Windham-Windham Studios, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan, Marlene Sherman-Public III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change: VIl B. Windham Studios moved to V. A. John Weber moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 25, 2009 Change: Pg. 2, V.B., first Bullet, should read: Betty Schudel volunteered to "contact" the Homeowner Helen Carella moved to approve the August 25, 2009 minutes as amended. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. A. Windham Studios Scott Windham reviewed the Status Report and Phase 3 Budget Reports. He gave the following additional information: (See attached) . ABB: Curbing Design >> Today 90% of Curb Construction Plans will be provided to Staff for review >> Median backfill is reflected in the Budget estimate . Abnev and Associates: Irrigation Design >> Change to Consumptive Use Permit for existing Irrigation Main line >> Budget cost estimates shifted to an Alternate Irrigation Materials list - due usable valves/elements of the existing Main Line Irrigation System . WSI: Planting Design >> Planting Plans will be submitted in conjunction with Irrigation Plans 1 . Radio Rd. Phase 3 Opinion of Probable Cost (90% Plans)16 I t1' A 8 (See attachments) >> Plant Materials cost increase-$6,000 >> Irrigation Materials cost reduction-$63,000.00 >> Alternate Irrigation Materials List estimate-$55,015.00 >> Curbing, Pavers, fill and grade increase-excess of $200,000.00 - Original cost estimate $485,000.00 . Radio Rd. Phase 3 Curbing Construction Plans-A.l!noli. Barber & Brunda.l!e 90% En.l!ineer 's Opinion of Probable Cost (See attached) >> Increase in Curbing cost was due Fill and Excavation quantities were not included in original Budget breakdown >> New Line Items included on report: - Item 7 Excavation 7555 cu. yd estimate-$75,550.00 - Item 10 Soil estimate 7555 cu. yd.-$II3,325.00 o Item 10 is required as excavated material may consist of lime rock After much discussion it was determined the following is necessary: . Percolation testing in the medians . Core samples taken . Testing will be conducted as Alternate Bid Dale Lewis recommended completing curbing, landscape, and irrigation in one third increments (3 stages.) Dale Lewis moved to divide the remaining Project into thirds (1/3, 1/3, & 1/3) so one third of the Project isfinished completely. Second by John Weber. Discussions developed on available monies for the Project. It was perceived monies will be available to complete the Project in two 'l2 mile increments ($500,000.00 per increment.) Additionally o Hannula Landscaping will submit an estimate to take core samples and percolation testing per Labor Contract rates o Core samples will be sent for tested The motion was amended to read: 50% of the Project as Bid Alternate. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Dale Lewis moved to allocate $1,000.00 for core samples. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Darryl Richard will notify Dale Lewis of any soil problems resulting from core samples. 2 16 I'" i I E, ~ AS Betty Schudel moved to approve if additional funding is needed the (MSTU Committee) authorizes the Chairman, Project Manager, Scott Windham, and Hannula Landscaping to make that decision without consulting with the MSTU Committee. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report-Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) o Anticipated Ad Valorem Tax $305,500.00 >> Received Ad Valorem Tax $293,927.10 o Available Operating Expense $40,436.76 o Fund 158 Report (See attached) o FYlO Millage Rate (Fund 158) (see attached) Discussions ensued concerning the original .50 Millage rate. Dale Lewis expressed frustration of a $144,000.00 loss due to millage rate adjustments. He noted the Radio Rd. MSTU goal is to complete Projects and subsequently roll the millage rate back to maintain Radio Rd. Darryl Richard will request Mark Isackson attend the October 20, 2009 meeting. B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard gave additional information: (See attached) . (R-21) Devonshire Sprav Irrigation Refurbishment >> Progress was delayed due extensive hand digging required to prevent damage to existing Homeowner Landscaping VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT-Hannula Jim Stephens reported maintenance delays due to heavy rains. He noted heavy weeding and Bougainvillea trimming will be performed tomorrow. Dale Lewis requested consistency in Bougainvillea trimming. VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECH REPORT A. McGee & Associates - Mike McGee reported: ~ Zanadu replacements are required It was questioned if the MSTU relinquishes maintenance responsibility to the County at Project completion. Staff replied it depends on the Roadway classification. It was clarified Devonshire to Tina Lane is maintained by Fund. II I. VIII. OLD BUSINESS Betty Schudel spoke with Mrs. Inayan, 22 Lancashire concerning maintenance of the Ficus Hedge by the MSTU. After much discussion it was concluded the Ficus Hedge requires cutback and will be maintained at an 8 ft. height. Betty Schudel will convey the information to the Homeowner. IX. NEW BUSINESS 3 16/ J A8 Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the Executive Summary of the Grant Application ranking. (See attached) John Weber expressed concern of individuals giving presentations, were awarded Grants, and served on the (MPO) Committee. He perceived it as a conflict of interest. Dale Lewis noted other Committees did not attend and received a higher ranking than the Radio Rd. MSTU. X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS-None XI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Marlene Sherman, Countryside resident thanked the Committee and noted they are moving in a great direction. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee [r;v&1~ Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on JO ,~o .09 as presented or amended ;OS The next meeting is October 20, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 161,1 A8 ~ECE'VED NOV 0 5 2009 BoercI of Coonty CommlSSlonera SUMMARY OF MINUTES & MOTIONS September 15, 2009 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta : -;rc.iI"1>: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change: VII B. Windham Studios moved to V, A. John Weber moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 25, 2009 Change: Pg. 2, v'B., first Bullet, should read: Betty Schudel volunteered to "contact" the Homeowner Helen Carella moved to approve the August 25, 2009 minutes as amended. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. A. Windham Studios Scott Windham reviewed Radio Rd. Phase 3 Curbing Construction Plans. He noted an increase in curbing cost was due Fill and Excavation quantities not included in original Budget breakdown. Dale Lewis recommended completing curbing, landscape, and irrigation in one third increments (3 stages.) Dale Lewis moved to divide the remaining Project into thirds (1/3, 1/3, & 1/3) so one third of the Project isfinished completely. Second by John Weber. After much discussion it was perceived monies will be available to complete the Project in two Y, mile increments ($500,000.00 per increment.) The motion was amended to read: 50% of the Project as Bid Alternate. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Dale Lewis moved to allocate $1,000.00 for core samples. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Betty Schudel moved to approve if additional funding is 'lG.ed~ tht! (MSTU Committee) authorizes the Chairman, Project Manager, s~~W7A'dham, and Hannula Landscaping to make that decision withoubifJP.sulting with the MSTU Committee. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Item II: CopieIlD: 16/1 A8 September 15, 2009 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Proiect Renort (R-23) - Painting the median bull-nose with numbers 8-25-09: Trutwin quote for $850.00 approved by Committee 9-15-09: Work is not complete; Billy at Trutwin confirms work will be done week ofSep!. 21_251h (R-22) - DEVONSHIRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; 7-21-09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install new shrubs - now that new drip line has been installed: Total Project cost estimated per contract 09-5111R rates: $8,700.00; 8-25-09: Drip Irrigation is installed; Staff and Consultant to review new proposed plantings 8-25-09: Committee agrees with recommendation from Consultant (McGee) to hold off on planting shrubs for areas where we have known issues with tree roots. (This condition applies to many ofthe areas with shrubs dying back) (R-21) - DEVONSHIRE (Belville to Santa Barbara) Spray Irrigation REFURBISHMENT; 7-21-09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install irrigation and shrubs (Clusia); Total project cost estimated based 09-511IR: $16,964.80 8-25-09: Adjusted home-owner's irrigation; McGee to inspect/approve locations for new irrigation; Irrigation parts in stock. 9-15-09: Project is 60% completed; many adjustments necessary due to homeowner's landscaping within the easement area has caused some delay in project activity. (R-18) - RADIO ROAD Phase 3 Project (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Wiudham Studios (PO 4500105824) 8-25-09: 60% Submittal plans under review. 9-15-09: 90% Submittal plans under review. (R-15) - RADIO ROAD PHASE II-B & Phase I-A (I1-B is from Kings Way/Briarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I-A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) 8-25-09: BCC approval on September 15,2009 for award to Hannula Landscape 9-15-09: BCC approval of Bid for Hannula Landscape. (R-19) - New Maintenance Consulting Contract - McGee to Jnne 30, 2009; PO 4500104739 8-25-09: Ongoing Maintenance Consulting Services from McGee & Associates; LA Services Contract to be reviewed in the Fall for BVO or rotation per 'agreement letter' with Radio Road MSTU. (R-14) - MAINTENCE CONTRACT - BID# 09-511IR -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTDIMSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" 8-25-09: Hannula for maintenance - Ongoing. 1 ~ ~ o z o~ z~ e~C" 1Zla.~ ~p "".. OO~ 000 a: a: a: ~~g ........is 00.. ooa: . 0 000 o :;; g g ~ ~ 0 g I- <0 ::! LO 000 c 1iio8 0-8 8~~~~~ ~ <0 :! g ,... ~ 4Il- ~ """ "",]5 , .. ~~~~~ .li _ _ _ _ .. C . 0: ~ li; o o w .... !1l .. o a: .. .. o z i~ 0>; . ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 8. c jj c .. E ~ & . m .2 ~ ::l. ~ tt j ..: N M . .; z E l! og g~ 0" N 00 ! . E . = .. '" o ~ ~ o " .. . ~ o o ~ o M ~ o o o ~ ~ . M o ~ ~ " .. ~ ~ .; o ~ N N o .. ~ ~ "' ~ " .li o ~ o ,; ~ ~ ~ '" "' ~ ~ j ~ (J) ~ ~ a <D ~u:-!iCi lii~l 2 ~ d: ~ 'S ~ ';; la ~ g jl ~ "' " i 0 :::i ~ ~ .e '6 1! 1) ~ ill 5 ] "is. ~ g ~!i~f~~ ~f~~1)~ 52aj<08' ! € ~ I '" ~~i~~4 ~ ti .a l3 : r; ,;;,Z~!:UB g :s lD ;;: ~ ;g i~~l~m ,n . ~H ~~!i~l ~;~:~.; 8B.oo~~2i .- al - :3 <II (/) - '~i~~i8.~ ~::Eli:cril~i= N M .; z E l! ~ ~~ to~ 00 :1 j ~ c . g] :1 , "' '" " ~ IS a ~ u ~ ! ~ o ~ .~ $ ~ '" o "2: g ~ m 00 .IJ ~ Ii m ~ .. ~ @> ~ .. ~ ,: ro t . o ~ ~ ~ ;" 1> ~ ~.. ~ g it ~ ,. w 5 . 0 ~ 0 ,; . c . . . ~ ~ g . r '" ~~ ~ ~ ~~ .; z E l! o .. ~ o :! o E . = Ii c i :; o :0 , .. ,,~ . z on ~ E ~8 8. 'ii ~ ~ . .~ ~ o ~ "- ~ ~ "z ~5 .~ i ..m .. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ " .. . ~ g g g g g ci 0 c:i c:i ci g re $ ~ re N (0 (\/ ..,. ............,."'" 8 g g >: g >: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ................"'" .. ~ .. ~ ~ .1l ~ &l .1l 5 .li ~ ~ :: ~ '" ~ o .p 3 I .. .. ~ I ~ 0 6~~<iI~ ~ g a: ~ . '" . li if ~ li is: " . M E a: ~ !r ~ ~ ~)f 0:. i E =s it ~ .0 (Q ::E ~ ~ 'e ~i~i~ III ;Q <::> icI N N ..... ..... ..... ..... . . . ';; t E ~ ::ii .s '; ~ ~ -au:3' o . E ~ ~ }) ~ ~ ~ 'is.::::J l!! .. ~ ~ ';; . ~ .. -. c j ~ <II <lI <b E CI! -5 ~;t~~~ jfP~:; l: l:.!it e>15 ";;j ~ E '" m .&: ~ ~ '8 ] ~ & ::::J B. ~ ~j:3'~1- :::; ::; :J ~ f:? ~ N M ~ III ~ m ! ~ ~"'" <~w ::J::i (I') ell '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ill z " " '" g li ~ ~ :5 ~ g S! d ~ d ;g N 0 0 or-..,.... <0 .,.... <').,.... on ~.... &'I- >: >: >: >: 51 ~ g g . .,.... N N ""&'1-&'1- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0;; g;) ~ 1i . ~ ~ a g> Hi "8 0 ~ p: "8 b ~.~! Meii~ ~~!~ ~~ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ,g ~ ~ iI Ii~ ~ 2 E ~ . ~ jj" .ll" ~ E 0- C ~ ~ 1a ~ C o a.. 'Ii! nI a: & E a.. u~~ to;; .g 15 0 II: (,)::2: u.. ~ 0 : ~ 8 '& H "'.. LU a.. :::!: 0 a: (I') ~ ~ <0 r-. co '" .. ~ :5 ~ ~ ~q on~on 000 00>: o LO d r--: <Ci N 000 . . . www ~ ~ gJ !! ~ ~ ~ . g . 'ill 'ill 'ill ~ 0 0 M ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ u: '" ~ ~ ;; ~ 3c;.~ .- ~ ~ ;i: :i i:i) . . .. ~ . id ~ ~ E Q . . ; ii ~;< ~ -~ ~ ~~j ~~~ :Ii .!!! ~c - " [z .~ c g p~ :r::~&l 16la 00 000 ~~~ ~ :: ~ o o 0 ~~~~~ N 0 CD ~ on ~ ~ 'It :: ~ 00 000 ~ ~ >: ~ ~ ~ g ~ cO cO r--: on on <Ci r--: on &'1-&'1-......&'1-.... J3li'lJlmJ3~JlJl ~ 'It e_!-':l! '" M N .,.... ~~N~~~g :. .. , ~ . . ~ ~ 1a 3 ~ H! j k ~ ,'" ~ ~~~ II ~~E ~~ gg~ee~ 'i!ii'i1a"i-a:E OlOlOlCl>CI>~ M M M ~ .,.... _ . l! "~ '& ~ ~ ~ <5 ~ ~ ~ ,. al ~ ~ ~ J: ! '~~'5oo-g&~ ~i~H~~.~ 'iE~(,)(,)*(I') ~~~~~&.:~ " ~ .. ~~~i ~~ J m~~ i~'~-g~C)IIl~ ~~a:i~~~i .m~~~~t~lIl~ ~~~~~g'!2 "iij '" 0 0 0 ~ 8.. g g -a. -a. -a. a )( 'i: d: ~ 1il1il1il Ii: g ~ gill N M a.. u.. z a.. ijl m m (] ;:: ~ AS 00 "' '" o m ~ .; ~ o ~ ;; . = ;i c . ~ ~ .. ~ ~ .. ~ :. ~ )( ~ : g g 'i'ii 00 M _ ~ ~ .; III ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ g :.!3_g~f:l_~~~Stt(j ~ ~ _ ~ m _ _ 00 ~ <=! 0 000 ~:7:. g ~ ~ ~ ~ o g ~ g ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 00 ci 0 88 ~ ,; ~~ o o ,; o ~ ~ ~ .....,...,...,......,....,...,...,. .. . c .. ~ ~ 00 o 00 o g g ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ 8 ~ .. ~ 6l :5 g g o ci I() ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <: <: c:i c:i o ~ ~ M ~ ~ 0<: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ro _ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ - ..,.foOl..........,...,......,.... ";;; <II <<I O>WW . . w w . w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ &l &l &l . w ~ ~ o 0 o 0 CI) <D It) ~1O~.H~~~ . _ It) It) M _ It) N _ N N N ~ ~ o o ~ .. ~ o 0 000 ci ci <::! ~ M ~ :6 ~ ~ ~ <: ,; o ~. o:g ~ ~. E " .oi MiX ~~~ > M~ ., ! ~ 0 II 0>* Cl ell g.2_ _ li ~ M IJl .. ..,.~ Z . , wU> ~ ~ ~ o o '" ~ ~ g g g ci Lti It'i ~ M M ~ ~ ~ ~ <: ~ ~ ~ . w ~ ~ i ~ '. ~ U> ~ ~8 "" ,~ ] ~ B . " · I I ~ I ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ 'B J: ~ r> ~ - = ;;;:;..:;:;.. a. -c;I , ~" ~ ," ~S ~ ~ 8 ~ . ,l ~ ~ ! os ~,~ i ~. i'~ W i ~ 1 i I i ~ I ~ ~ .~ = 1 ,,~ 8 1 i 8.'1 ~,~ 1 "I' j~ j~~. , ll~.;!=> ~ } g~ .g~ .g~ .~~~ ~ n i~ ,~ q~ ~j n q ~]~ $ ~ n n f i~ ~ 0 i ~: ~! ~ q I ~ II Ii ~ ~~I ,11~ !~ l~ !11 . I ",o,-~a 02j=lt'~ liQ[o-..~.~:8 ~1 t~ ~ t~j ~]~ ~~!~ ~i~ i ! ~. 8 ~., , . ] U ];" ~". ~ ~ 0" 1!. 1 E" ~ ~ I I ] ~ t I! I . ~ ~ ~ i i ~ I ' .!~ ,gl: ~_ ~~.&~ !!l.s> '1:1':lIs Il~:a t. .. !. ~. ~ ] ] ~ 0 ~. ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; . "S ~ ~ A ~] . ~ ~ · ~. ,- ] ,~ ~ 8;; 1 j ,dog,~ ~ 'i{~ p~ ni q e~~ , i 1 ~ ~ I~ ~ !! ~ ! ~ "~I ,\ J.~ J'~ ~ b I 0 ~ s ~ .c.~--1\,.l> li'S~." jI: iI: Olli-.... g :a 0 .,., \;J - N a" '3 l:l .sa" Jl ",!.! ll:: >l a a ~1~:{ I li:i~8i ;I.! 'Ii: ![ ~!;I; I 0i~o", &: ~"=o"" - 5l0bll -g-o to- lIiilCl;= ~~H~ ! ,~"n..-[~ $~~ ~8 ~~]r! ~ !'l:la::!E~ _ a:!~aa~'i ~ S ~ ~ l:l~ rs"",," of 5 .. , 8 ,... , ,8 ,. 'lj 'il ... i U ,- ~. . ~ .. ~,' " lil~i ~ i!~~J~~j~..~ I;~ ;~ ill ~ I II!!. I ~.~~~1111~~ ~I~ I~ 11,11 I j'18~i ~ ]]llllti~!' .;1 ;1 ff~11 I o 8"C'" 8 _..'B--....":a.eSolfi'OlO ~(l lSlSoeR, t i ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ! ~ ~ j ~ 50 8 i ~ i;o ~ ~ i i'. ~~~~~ .s .s.s.5!.E.a~"'"."~'\1l]~~ji JIg 8.8.8G~ ~ d~b'l~. HH~8~h~. ~n''! ;tH~" 1 ~u,."-~ A ';3;';'~~"~'!"~"~j J~ "il",~ SU=E ......"''''irlI=:i.~l5:.s:aeit .. NN 1tI",.... ..<;~~ ,I "!...a$."~..",, ~ ~:~Sl 3 . ! ! ~. ~ !! ~ ! ! ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I ! . ~ ~ ~ ~ I I - ~] I 111~~ IJiiiiiI8~1!1]li~ i" :;I~I I ~ .~ ., f i :~ ~ 8 8 e 8 8 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ -! ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~.~ -' ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ liP H i ~ . .~ 11! , ~ 1 ~ ," ~. ~ ,~ ': ~ ~ ~ I ~ 'I - ~]g..5!:!l 1~~""~"~& ~B:"~l;lJ....&Jj-&.-. ~i! i ~ I · I . . J 1 1 1 1 . ~ . H , I .. ~.. ~ . I ~ I I I .. id ~~BP~b].fniHd8~: ~8 -I"~ "i ~ :g ~ 8 ,;f 8 8 8 8' 8 ~ l ~ ~ ~ .~ e l ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I t ~ ~ ~1 o'~~,Ji'JiJiJi~ ~.,I~S~~"~~"~""~~~~' O~!Eo.au""'~ -i-o.s ,~~ 'a' "'-I!~ 1~11;lnEIIIII]~i]I]~.ill~II~,liil~!I! ~ " O"ONN"~~". !~I-"'-~'~~<~su' . I I I I I 9 ~ i i i i i ] I j . . ~ I -, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ i I I ~ ~ ] S 0 ~ ~ N < < < < < ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 5 .~ _ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ = = ~ ~ a u ~ ~ '" ~ '" .;. .,.... C\I M ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o z ~ . w . . . www ~ ~ ~ M . ~ ~ M M ~ ~ a> 0,.... (\J .... l;\l N N ." ~ s: "@ ~ :5 g <.) ~ u) i ~~::l.,; l-;e lijr;: ~~~ j 'l;;~g~ o fX ! I: :' ~ .Il :5 ~ K: Ji .. - ~ 5~~a . w ~ ~ :; u ,; ~ ~ c ~ 8 H =.!!! -=. E " 3 . - lS ~! :;::> diU) ~o ~ . , 'ii ow ~ ~ o z , . = ~ 161~t Ab ~ s ~ :t . c .. ~ !I . j o .. 16/i 1 A8 000 o 0 000 g ~ g ~ 8 ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ .0 8~ ~ g~ v ~ ~ ~~ ~ . E . = ,. 8 0 0 . 8 8 8 0 8 o 0 8 ci ci ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ci 0 ~ .; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. .. ~ ~ . . . :0 ~ ,ll ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ w ~ w w ., o ~ ~ o ~ ~ v v e v I I t f I ~ ~ I . ~ . ~ 1. i ~ a , J i . tli!ij! ~,!li 11-." . l . .i' ~ ! i } ] n~ i ~~ ~ l i ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 I f :q ~t~ ~ '.~ 8 ~~!== ...~~ "'''2 I · I I ~] I j Ii.! ,. I I . . l ." I UpJ ~p nh~ ~ I ! ] ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ i ~ ill Hi I " ~ I II.' ~ .~ .. I' i! . ., 'i' .' ~I.'.! !~...,] , .i~, !..1-L"'" I ~1~ !>llll~~i~,Jl] ~ 'i t . I IiI = ~ M I I ,g]jl,!i"ld,il; ~.. ii~hlH~1 ~ddH'H-o.ql ~!'e't'l-d;'~1! pJOluHH~ t jr ."i.~ ,.,! jj" i 1i ~ .-ii_ o~lif"!~.1 ; i ~ I ~ ! ! I J I j ! I j ~ Hnnn liHhl !qHHjqh'gl! d~i'~] hHd. ~~Ul~HUdfr~f ~ d~~~~-i~l:l~:i~!j~ z~l..'.i'i~~."~. ffi ~i'd"idi~' ..~~ H11. 1-=" 0 C'CX' ,s E:'~ ~.. ,~..i' ".i,,~]I] !!:?" (\/ .., .... . . ~ ~ ~ ~ AgnoJi, Barber & Brundage, Inc 90% Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost September 15, 2009 16J11 Af RAPIO ROAD MSTU PROJECT PHASE 3 CURBING CONSTRUCTION PLANS Item No. Description Unit """'''' Unit ToW Co. Co., 1 MOBU.IZATION LS 1 $37500.00 $37,500.00 2 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS 1 $10000.00 $10,000.00 3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 13.6 AC) LS 1 $20000.00 520,000.00 4 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 1362 $10.00 SI3,62oJ)() 5 REMOVE EXISTING BRICK PAVERS SY 185 $5.0(1 $925.00 6 EXCAVATION CY 4,943 $10.00 $49,430.00 7 EXCAVATION FOR SELECT SOu. CY 7555 $10.00 $75,550.00 8 EMBANKMENT - MAINLINE CY S88 $15.00 $8820.00 9 EMBANKMENT - MEDIAN TOPSOU. CY 4759 5]7.00 $80,903.00 10 EMBANKMENT - SELECT SOu. CY 7555 $]5.00 5113325.00 " LlMEROCKBA!:.1<' 6" TIlICKlPRIMED) LBR]oo IT INnER FCURB' SY 2614 $II.DO $28,754.00 12 ABC 9" TIlICK SY 4 $55.00 $220.00 13 ADJUST EXISTING MEDIAN INLETS TO MANHOLES EA 3 $3000.00 $9000.00 14 ADJUST EXISTING IRRIGATION VALVES TO GRADE EA SO $300.00 $15,000.00 " CONCRETE CURB & GUITER TYPE F LF 9410 $10.00 $94100.00 16 CONCRETE SInEW ,1.1(: 6" TIllCK SY 23 $35.00 $805.00 17 BRICK PAVERS lThfCLUDES 10% WASTE) SY 498 550.00 $24900.00 18 SODDING CLUDESWATER FERTILIZER&MOVlING\ SY 13100 $2.00 526200.00 19 SIGNING AND MARKING LS 1 $2000.00 $2000.00 15% CONTIGENCY $92000.00 PROJECT TOTAL - WITHOUT LEFT 11JRN $703,052.00 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $2500.00 $2500.00 2 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS 1 $1500.00 51500.00 3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $1500.00 $1.500.00 4 EXCAVATION CY 500 510.00 $5000.00 5 EXCAVATION FOR SELECT SOu. CY -363 $10.00 -$3630.00 6 EMBANKMENT - MAINLINE CY " $15.DO $225.00 7 EMBANKMENT - MEDIAN TOPSOU. CY .300 517.00 -55100.00 8 EMBANKMENT - SELECT SOu. CY -363 $]5.00 -$5445.00 9 CONCRETE CURB & GtmER TYPE F L' 138 $10.00 $],380.00 10 BRICK PAVERS lThfCLUDES 10% WASTE) SY .133 $50.00 -$6650.00 " SODDING ffiAHIA\lNCLUDES WATER FERTILIZER&MOWING\ SY -266 $2,00 -5532.00 12 TYPE "8" STABIUZATION SY 5" $5.00 $2950.00 13 LIMEROCKBASE 6" TIlICKlPRlMED\ LBR 1ooITrNOER FCURB\ Sy 38 $11.00 $418.00 14 LIMEROCXBASE 10. TIlICKfPRlMED)LBR lOOlTrNOER NEW PAvp:MI<'NTI SY 480 $]8.00 $8640.00 " SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE CC"21f2"' SY 480 $]4.00 56720.00 16 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE FRICTION COURSE n;c 9.5"bUBBER"I"' SY 480 57.00 $3360.00 17 SIGNING AND MARKING LS 1 $2500.00 52500.00 IS.". CONTlGENCY $5000.00 TOTAL-LEFfTURNONLY $10.336.00 PROJECT TOTAL. WIm LEFI' TURN 5713,388.00 16 11 JA 8 STATUS REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee Company: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ASS James Abney, Abney and Associates From: Scott Windham Date: September 15, 2009 . RE: 90% Status Report on Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and Planting Design Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and Planting design: ABB: Curbing Design . ASS has incorporated the latest staff review comments and coordinated with Windham Studio to complete 90% curb construction plans . Final paver locations and irrigation sleeves are now coordinated and shown. . Median backfill detail and construction details are completed, and itemized quantities have been updated. . 90% plans should be reviewed by Staff to incorporate any final comments into 100% construction plans and final quantities for bid packages. . Anticipate final 100% curbing plans will be submitted by the end of September. Abney and Associates: Irrigation Design . A complete elements design layout has been done in order finalize the accounting of the number of system elements like: additional sleeves; main line specialty valves; zone control valves, hydrants and other elements are necessary to provide complete construction for a suitable irrigation system. Finalizing the design enabled the Irrigation Design Consultant to review and evaluate which existing system elements Ishould remain, if they are functional; and which system elements need to be added/incorporate into the system so that it can provide irrigation applications suitable for the newly proposed landscape. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florids 34135 Phone: (239) 390-1936 Fax: (239) 390--1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 1611 'A8 . The design layout done enabled the irrigation consultant to evaluate the estimated areas to irrigate and compare with the estimated potential water consumption calculations done earlier. The results of the evaluation are positive. The existing well and pump station can continue to be used, the only chore that lies ahead is to modify the existing Consumptive Use Permit. . Based on the studies done so far it appears as if the project should be able to experience the construction of a new irrigation system without having to experience the costs associated with the installation of a new water source, a new main line, new sleeving, new electric service connections. Several of the existing system main line specialty valves/elements remain in an apparently satisfactory condition, they are considered as salvageable, but it is possible to experience some costs associated with the refurbishment of some of the elements mentioned. More than likely the refurbishment cost could be lower than the cost of having to provide completely new elements. . Anticipate final 1 00% Irrigation Plans to be submitted by the end of September. WSI: Planting Design . Windham Studio has completed the 90% Planting Plans and submitted them to Collier ATM staff for review and comment. . Following Committee and staff input, WSI anticipates 100% Planting Plans to be submitted by the end of September. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thank you, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000-1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Archi1ecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390-1936 Fax: (239) 390-1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com W'WW.windhamsturuo.cOlTI 161 1 A~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Board Action Item SA Approval of Local Transportation Enhancement Priorities Objective: Receive MPO Board approval of a prioritized list of additional local Transportation Enhancement Projects to be added to the bottom of the previously adopted list from March 2009. Considerations: Recently, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) informed the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of changes in the funding for the Transportation Enhancement Program. In prior years the MPO was limited to $400,000 in Transportation Enhancement Program funding from the State each fiscal year. FDOT informed the Collier MPO that the Transportation Enhancement Program will no longer be capped at $400,000 for the County. In addition, the Transportation Enhancement Program will include funding for both local projects and regional projects. In March 2009, the MPO Board approved a list Transportation Enhancement Program projects for FY 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. The seven (7) projects' costs totaled $2,026,303 and were prioritized as follows: I. Linear Park Trail, from San Marco road to Andalusia Terrace - City of Marco Island ($209,257.25: Construction) 2. Gulfview Middle School Sidewalk - City of Naples (($383,988: Construction) 3. Lake Park Elementary School Sidewalk - City of Naples ($218,287: Construction) 4. Gordon River Greenway Park - Collier County ($400,000: Construction) 5. Seagate Elementary School Sidewalk - City of Naples ($200,891: Construction) 6. Riverside Filter Marsh - City of Naples ($200,000: Construction) 7. US 41 Lighting and Landscaping - City of Naples ($413,880: Construction) Because additional funding is now possibly available for the Transportation Enhancement Program for Fiscal Years 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, and 2014/15, the MPO was asked to solicit local projects and compile one priority list for all four (4) fiscal years so that there would be enough projects on the priority list to ensure that all available funding could be utilized. Staff issued a second call for enhancement projects on Friday, June 24, 2009. The deadline for project submission was Aug. 3, 2009. Since the MPO Board has previously prioritized the above seven (7) projects, it is staff s recommendation that these original seven (7) projects remain as a first tier of project priorities and that any additional projects be added as a second tier. Local Transportation Enhancement Program project funding could be up to $600,000 per year available in fiscal year 2011/12 through fiscal year 2014/15, totaling as much as $2.4 million for the four (4) fiscal years. Projects that are eligible to receive this Transportation Enhancement funding include: . Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles; . Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists; . Acquisition of scenic easements, and scenic or historic sites; 16111 AE . Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities); . Landscaping and other scenic beautification; . Historic preservation; . Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals); . Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails); . Control and removal of outdoor advertising; . Archeological planning and research; . Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle- caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity; and . Establishment of transportation museums. Ten applications for Transportation Enhancement Funds were submitted to Staff by the August 3'" deadline. The applicants were given the opportunity to give oral presentations to the PAC, T AC and CAC, and members of the public provided inputs to the three advisory committees as well. In addition to the change in transportation enhancement funding for local projects, money will also be available for regional priorities in the amount of $1.2 million for Fiscal Year 2014/15 and each subsequent year. Regional transportation enhancement project priorities will be addressed at a subsequent MPO Board meeting. Committee Recommendations: The PAC, TAC and CAC considered the applications and prioritized the projects based on criteria provided in Attachment C. The following list reflects the composite ranking of the three advisory committees and is the MPO Staffs recommended ranking for the second tier of project priorities: 8. Gulfshore Boulevard North Sidewalk - City of Naples ($227,270: construction) 9. Golden Gate Beautification MSTU for Coronado Pkwy. and Hunter Blvd. - Collier County ($600,000: construction) 10. Linear Park Trail Phase II, from Andalusia Terrace to Winterberry Drive - City of Marco Island ($824,650.40: construction) 11. Mooring Line Drive Sidewalk- City of Naples ($281,750: construction) 12. Bus Stop Bench Improvement Program - Collier County ($110,635: construction) 13. Second Street South Sidewalk - City of Naples ($143,762: construction) 14. Immokalee Beautification MSTU for Hwy 29 - Collier County ($760,000: construction) 15. Third Street Sidewalk- City of Naples ($294,930: construction) 16. Radio Road MSTU - Collier County ($480,000: construction) 17. Radio Road East MSTU - Collier County ($600,000: construction) Starr Recommendations: For the MPO Board to approve the ranking of the second tier of Local Transportation Enhancement projects as indicated in the Committee Recommendations section above. Attachments: A. Project applications (in the numerical order listed above) B. Transportation Enhancement Projects Ranking Sheet C. Transportation Enhancement Criteria D. FDOT Procedure-Topic No. 525-030-300-j Prepared I Approved by: Phillip R. Tindall, MPO Director Date: 16' 1 A8 RADIO ROAD MSTU Anticipated annual MSTU Payment based on 'taxable value' IMillage Calculation - .2521 mill.-CHECK $350,000 Taxable Value 0.0002521 Multiplication by millage rate $88.24 Projected Annual Payment IMlllage Calculation - .2521 mill.-CHECK $300,000 Taxable Value 0.0002521 Multiplication by millage rate $75.63 Projected Annual Payment IMillage Calculation - .2521 mill.-CHECK $200,000 Taxable Value 0.0002521 Multiplication by millage rate $50.42 Projected Annual Payment IMillage Calculation - .2521 mlll.-CHECK $100,000 Taxable Value 0.0002521 Multiplication by millage rate $25.21 Projected Annual Payment 16 L1 A' 16 I 1 AS 8 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 cO N .:; .:; .:; ~ ?i N CI) ~ 0 N ~ N N "'. ...... "'. ~ ~ ~ tl ~ ~ ~ 0 0 j ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... - 0 jl 8 0 j 0 0 0 0 .:; ori g cO ~ co ~ N i I I~ u :I: ::I ::Ie III c ... ... III ::I :I: >= >= cri LL c ::I cri cri ...i ...i CI) CI) ~ 0 N N ~ I- Gl Z ~ W ~~ oj Gl :IE "" :5 :5 W 1 'Iii :5E c '" 'iij 0 ~ E ~~ 1l-g [ w w :3 "'~= l!! 0.. 0.. OlGl ~~ C:s . '" a. 0 It)c:''C~ 'C :I: oj Q. .20l >< :i c: c =0 '" C LnuftJ '" 5l "'~ 'E W .5.2 - :!tGl'C Gl III Gl '" '" '" B"''8lii 'C 8. 'C.e 'C ::>> 0::: E ~ ::J_ c cll ~..5 (.) Q) Ol e u- s l- .- olS'" "'0 a.. ..5: 0 en W t~ .e en co to- - 'C C l!! '" tJ) c g> Gl .- '&lliij'1loolii Z <U E r:n . c: :IE :~ 1] iE! .e""l<' cQ. 8,OE - .... ~. 8" en I - c ~ '" u.. B -I .~ S C~El'E 2l 8:!t-a..9l'iii en lit ~ (U -cC'tJ......ca. Q Z .elll O'Co..~ai:2~ ci. ~.:5 :!t .!:ll!! en.!: D.'- inti) c( - ..1:_ 1Il"'~ "'Ill::> B~i~8:'8 c( 1Il0c lacuo-g'o(jj(l) 0 lU > .- !! j.o~1lI atI.2._ en n:l en :IE u~~ Q Q::: j 0 "0 ~"'O"'O.E="O 0::: ~~~.>< i~g~bcn8-5 C'a>..CUC 8 c III <J C a:::..cc:"Ccu 0 . - ="'0 Q._ 1;j E Q) ,2 c:: CI,) Q 1Il.~ III 40 z - 0 0 ::3 c: 0 ~,gJiii'&l-=~ SOOO()u'!il'" - ~ I&.Gl;>. c!!li=:5~ ~.5._ . Q).5 2 ..8 en Q W OGlm:2 !illl~~~~ Ol C '" 8 . w:5 :5.'" C=E 'CE ~ .... c ~8 oj ~ ~ o c: c Q.) ::I A.tt=_Q) m OO~:5 1Il'iii._w AI "'i a JILin ~ Gl'E [:2 .... C ~ 15.9! :I: '" w o C>._ "C W :z: ril.5'C C II! )( :!t:S '" '" c 'Rj Q. c U a.w '" 'e . 'O'g .I.; - E c:I: E i c 0::: := IL '" "" s.!!! ~ c 0:: o~8.,g III o D.a. .... -N "'0 Q) W C)~__ OJ - III -Bo~ z~iocn"Oc:E ... .1: ca cr.... as :I: .... I:L'O:I:::J ~O:5 8blii8B ii:~~~ .5~ ~ _ ~Ol eE"':2cdolll< .J!l tJ) D:U; >- Z4U~og>>cd7D U'iij e.9l ..1!....E"'eu..>coa. Z ~ 0ccu"ii l!!Jlt..9!gsl!! g'&1Ol~!!Ol'" w8c>> ~ c: c:"O 0 3!ill~~' 5Gl~g C-,gU> :e=' Q e'" C:.!a =U._ '0 .....'&1=:5 a1aoe ._~- 8)( - > E c > Q -;;;~~8'CQ. - '" () 0.. .- U .S'S e a:::.!Q 0 = 0 Q) 0 w :i! w "'$ _ c Q, . . .., 5. c: :8tnt:t::ommm..c g;:o_'llt_Q.}- Q o .- j Q a::"''C g . iD .e e N 0....... (I)...:..... =~ 16 I 1 A8 IIID~ _.~....~.,_...~ ~ I. ... _ I r.....__.'___..... r.o_ =~:;;= ~ -...--.-....-.- ct!f(/'.a"1l'iOQ~~Aaa ~ ;. '- .~n;:>.lN~... .do"."...., '- __ I' ~~ .u ~ "J~~ -.0-.....,.,..........,.,.0 ""..00 .. I "'" P3J~r' "'" .....,......, >Ia1,,"" ''''. _....__ . '- ( I \ \ I . ~p i ..~ I';; Y:;~ :/" ;~-' .,..... ."' 111!~ ..... ,': ~ ,I:(:i '0 fil \ Y( ;f~ ! :: .P".J~., ,n~ "1- ~ ~ "':~j I m I; '\'11 " I Il ..I 10:"'" .. .. I. Ii ~ 1i'll 1!i'1 1111 jl ,I \1'1" I. ,I II III! I ii" i! iii ill!!!! IIIlil ! Ii il1j III II! ill II. "'lid! I 1111"11 oil I II ! .. ,II I! " '"1 I Ii Oil II! II h 1'1 " "lllll'III,,' ! h II " I II I ~ lit ::;- 0;- ::;- It , . I I 'I 'j I' II · illl 1111 ilhl11ln I hi!! hili Iii! hid t . ~ II t ! ',, III III I. i!UI d!.III'IIIi:! $ hlllwh ,lib Ihll Jill!.. 11' I I , I , "1 III .I I- . . I 'I :I.it !i I ! II jl !!III III il. I II 'I I' , II . ~ I !II H ~ !. ill ifi IlIi1 I, , ) !J I atl , II j;I' ,,' ::> I- III en :':&8 O...N "'00... ZN o::::>~ OIL" is .., ~ " :ii... .!!.. ~~ ~ .. e c;.E!; .a is u c 0( " " w ZU? 6"", '" 0 ('.j"'; ....'" "'- Il')OQ)C) MOO'" (CiI()McO ..,.<>>.0 '" ~ N N . EfltltEflEil'J.t1ttlt Sil;'il;"O(7)O) ...- 0 M 0 CUi r-:r--:((:ilriMcO NO'l..,.m'ltO 0)......("')..... r-- cn--N" ce- '" N ~ !::!. - M ~~o::o 6\0 <ri ci N"'~ cri.~ ~8""~~12~r--~~ l:Lu-j vvN" v ii <0- ..... ~ 1l '" ~~',~ ~~~~,'~ ~ ~. CIONOr--..-:tIO..,.COO'l N......a>cn ;:gO:e~~IO~;:~~ .-~~:s '<t-oC"i NN-<riu;)o:i v-.::--g '" ~ N _ N ;.....4- . ~ :.1 I.fl .i~' Z l.; WWWWWWWWWtltWWWtlttlttltWWtlttltWEfltlt~ c 'c '" E ~ 0:: .. N M o '" ~~ cOo "'''' '" N o '" N .... '" ro "00 "'0 (()IOO "'NO C?o:l. ;C'" o o o o '" N ~N"" "''''''' ~""':1Ii M~~ ci .n- '" '" o o o N .. ww~WW~~Wtlt~WWWWWWWWWWWWW~ . a 0- '" o >- "- '" c ~ E .Q ~ "" g ~~ ~ ~ -g:g 50- i ~ c. c ~ .2 a:: ~ ~ ~ E~ (,) ~~~~ i .. CO"""O W'lN W:NMOl lOa; 'tJ~~~~~M iiicD~cDZ(ClcD 000 00 N c o ii: '" ~ ~ o bE :g & H Wf- '" ill "- ~ ~ ~ .~ c ~ 8. g..5 ~ 8 ~ ~ (j) Z:' C -0 -0 (/.l C ~ fa fa ~ 5 ~ ...J-lCl..UE ::f~ zz 0::0::.. o o~~ :O:O"7zz ~d>:=:g '" '" ... ~u o ~ C) 0: g- '" .. ~&3~~~~~~~ :g~~~a...LO~PJffi oooo~~ooQ') 8888.:8888 ~~~~Cl~~~~ a ~ o ~ ~ . u ~ ~ . cO) c: C 5 -8~~H g c ,~::! .!?!? & ::t :v ~!: ~ c ~ EE ~ ~ 1;) 8~ ~~~~ 8 g '" on ;;; OM 0"' Oa) 0'" ....'" gg ~0 WWE,l}U}(,/)~(hU')-U'tWlhW J!l c " E - 'E E o () IfllfllfllflUtU'tUl g- o "- ~ -8 " on c::.g' ~ " " E III 0( g- o o o o Eflll)-U')-U')-U')-U}lhU')-~~ 0::' a:; f-<( u"" ~~-J ~u<( azffi a;UUJz a.X"-w ~;5O(9 :;::;:00 000:0:: 0::0::<< u.u."!:"!: a; a; 0:: 0:: UJUJoo u..u..u..u.. 0000>> zza:::cr <<0::0:: a:::a:::<c{ I--I--UU O)C)C)Cl .S oS oS .S .0 o.o.o.C.ECij ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ "C~"CuO:Q;I iffilij1ijl;)<D -J-J-J....J8:s .!!!.!!!.!!!~nc :3:3::1::1 if) <<J EEEE.:5 <<J I'IJ I'IJ co'C lI.l J:J:J:ICC M"t::' "'''' 0) cO 0", NO c'; ai -~ ~8~~8g NONWoci g:!::!.~g N ~o -~ rn ,_~ C 5v- ~ c: c: ~ O)ofjj ~ (!l(!lJl~ i ~~. ~p~ ~ H~ ~u :E :2u~ ~ i.i .~E j ~ ,d<1n~ ;;;~.. (ij 8. 8. W ill ~ 06 <II 8. 8.l--a 'C c. c..e; Q;I ~ S~~~~~~6~~1-- ~-g-g-g-gt'i)'@a::-g-g !G <'ll t'i) co co ~:3;::: I'IJ co 00-J...J....J...J...Jc......-J...J ~ ~ o ~cO 00 ~~~;~ :g C"')OOOOMM~~::!; J>cbcb.d:<i:zcbz 000~:2 0 66 ~~ f-f- 00 "'"' 00 "'''' cOcO 00 uu QQ o)No)'-- ",MM'<I" OOMI'-N 000",0 0000 0000 0000 00000000 "''''''''<1" M~C;; "'....'" 0.... '" 000 000 000 "''''''' ...... i;'~ ~ c..;!:g ts~~ ~oo 15~~ .... ~ gggg~~ ~~ ~~~~~o.~~U5 0606<(<(~~:::EE C c(I c(I ... en I'IJ I'IJ g~~ai~~gE=6=6 Cllffff~~g.e5.s.5 :;:;:;:;:;zo-","!:"!: NOO ....00 000 000 00'" It'ioi '" "'"' .. "'.. u) ,...:....: .. "'"' ~ ~co " ...... .."'"' ...... ~ N ~ 8;;1) 00 0'" 0'" N 00_ 0"'0 oo)r...: 0",'" 0"''' :::.e ~~~~~~~~~~~w~~~~_~_~w~ 0"''' 0_'" cilrilri 0"'''' ........ M- al cx5 '" N '" ro .... :!~~ r...:<ri<ri "'..'" .. '" ~ oi "' o N =bf:;gg~~~ ~~i~~~~a =~;(rJrJNoocx5 -~ ~~~g: o)""':NN 0",0..... "'.... N-~ ~w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w~~~ 00 "' '" .C"'i "'"' "'_0'1. N '" '" 8888 cigg~ ~I'-Oo It'iM"clM" .. -", 888 000 000 0"' N WW~WWWWWWW~~~~WW~~~W_~M~~~ .. N M o '" .."' -", cc:i<ri "'"' ~"' "':N" '" ~~ o ~C4I!: oQ ~I: :;~ c<l.... ~ fgi '. '" ,- ",16.1 1 A 8 ~~ Ii< ~ r i j > l ~ '" i 8 . t - I ~ > ,2 R ~ 18 ~ t @ . ~ t ~ ~ ! J ~ P w I t ~ o '" '" N g~~8 6000 0000 o,o.qo OOal 888888~:<llil888g8g8 8gggg8"i;.g8g~80Si! It) 0 00 It'l It) ION NR 1'-1'-00;c....8C!S N r-i""': NN-NMMNI'--C-.iotti t:~~NN .. :e $ ~ If - . H ~ 3 . f- '" Z W W U :; ;; a::m a:: UJ!!!;!'\:::' ~ ~;i ~ :::lD::> 0::E~c{ z t::,.:,~(/') (/') - w:::l 00 ~ 81~":":! ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ C:::c6, ;(9<D00~~~ 1--(/).zzOUJZ<D~ "'0::. ',0:: 0:: U c.. 0 -- Ww iUJ UJ I-- c{ U ~ ~ *~ lW W ~ ~ c::: u.. a:: OOZ: ;~ ~ c::: 0 UJ I- tJ ""'1'''''- I'" UJQo'ZZOzI-O~ z~'.~JUJUJ~::SOc..UJ NM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 ~~~~~~~w~WW~~WW~_~~W~~~~W~ U Cl Z W 0:: ~0 :;:00 ~ 0 > UJz UJUJ cr a::tJ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 2 ~~ UJ <- oo-w oo~~ 0: c::: <...J (9 ...J ~~ ~~c g~~wUJ 0 a::0 ~ c:::c{ ~Q OC~:;:0UJ-ooWZ U ~u I-- UJOC UJZ a:::zz~<DZ~ z c..u~Z ~~u..~~ ~~~~~~~~(/')>z ~~~8 UJUJ~>UJ ~oQ~mUJ~~1--5:::l zzOa:: OO<D~OOU ZZ J:o:WZI-~ <<va ~~a::a::~ ~<<~~ocUJ~UJ~~~o::c:::~~(/) c{Z~~Z ~~~9~~~~~~~~l-l-wUJw ~<z~UJI~zOO~a::~a::Ca>C0001-~~>> UJa::o~~u~l--zz~UJ~w~a::~zzlli~~ffiffi 1-:::l-JC:::_...JZ_UJ<DIc:::IW ~c{COOCOO(/) ~~_2",c..$~~C:::~WI--WI-~~ca::~~~~UJw :> ..... ..::::..::::...Jc.....J...JOu..OO~UI-....aJaJ....a:::~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:;~~: f- 0:: '" a W f- xxO::!iiuw < <UJUJUJa::: I-l--l--a::....J:;) ~:;:~UJ5~ UJUJ~~ug 0:: 0:: a-xo:: 9001-<t- c{...Ja::Zl-cn >:;I~~w 9ol-l--w~ -<Iooa::w ~mt~~~ UQU::~~a::: - 00 LJ') ..--l "tJ C ::l u... - :::> l- V) ~ "tJ CO o a:: o .- "tJ CO a:: C> C> C> II! II C. '" o .. l:ll ~ :i ",0> ~f'o..~ > N~- &L.d~ o ~ .9 0> o ~ *' ...... ::J~ ~~ , .. :is ~ .. I- O..N ....N: ~~.,; LLO~ ~ >. :; .., o ~ it m II> cO .. .. M .. "'!. .. e o CD .iii l:lle .!!.! := X :Ew t) .. c. .5 c o :;:; J!I E ::; >C .. I- ~ CD c. e 11. 0> '" '" ai .... ~ ..; ~ N_ ~ CI> ::J "iii > CI> :is ~ .. l- II> II> e Cl o ~ >- LL ;2; "<I" m CD o cD 0"'0> 0>0 0'" a)~ 00 ~'" ,..: o N_ ~ >< CI> e e <( 1ii e o o ~ CI> Z in ::J e ~ ~ .. .... - CI> i ::J E ~ "- CI> i c :c E l! .. <(o~>' ooc.l-iii .. E ....J ~8 ~~ 161 1 A8 ""<I" NO> II>N NN dci .l!! .. ll:: -" $I () .. &l ~..]! () c "0 ~~ ll:: ,,"'0 '0 .!!; 'OE*' ll:: <( CD !! :::. ~ - e;~ ~, ~ ,. ;::~ ~!'l ",if H ,0 !I j; j-". on ~~ N~ ~. -, ~ . g} 9 ~ I" , ~ So. ~~ ~~ ~ R p - ~.~ ~e "" , ~ ~ 2i O' o ~ -, h i> ~ . " 'j:J'Tl"",">,o ~i~~~ ~] t ~ ~ ....~e:~e ~h!" ~~g ~ ~. ~'-q~;,o~ ~! 5.g~ l>>)J":'iI':s: g~r~% ~..,,-, t ~ It!!l.''l ~~~ fJH " l o 1Hi'~"'~ 3~~e;~=: ~~." gO' , ~ "'~->'~ ~~~f~.~ -6l~" e ~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ li' ->' ~ 9 g e !.. f p, ~ f p ~ ~ >-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<r<t-<r<r<r< ?:I ?:I ?:I ?:I ?:I ?:I ?:It.n::j:>.l.>J N...... -....lO\tJT.,f;:;t..WN.......... ~~~~~~~~"O~~~ ~~~~~~~d~::l::l~ >-<>-<f-4f-4f-4>-<"OL,ZZZ~ OOOOOOCllC'lc;'lc;'lc;'lCll ZZZZZZ~CIl"O"O'"d~ til:jtJ"O"O"Om~tttm ~~S1~~~~~~~~~~ r<F l.>JN..... n "0 ~~..... ~ ~ o ~ Z r< CIl >-< ~ LANDSCAPE PLANTING AND IRRIGATION PLANS SHEETNI.l\I~ ~",,"'IM' .....,...'..1~1I (fOIliw..;..) ---,.._------- TITLE RoO';"".,IIIH!l:'I ..........:1lH1HI 'N3:z:-t:'::p J9:" 4:l C 3 ~ ~i.h~, ~2!!~~"-l .. ~~ 2. ~ ~..- ~ ~. ~~ t '8z~tn s1i.sl df" r~ ~t ~j> ~ ~ c ~. tn=~~ ..:9]. 0 <'l ~o- ~~ ~"S-! ~H~ ~R~ -~" -~, ~ z 1 f~~i~ H~~ [~~Jf~ ~,~r~ ~~~~... ~p~ i 6~a ~~ ~~!f$ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ . ....>-:1 t=l~ !if f" I ~ o fi ~' 1 i [ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ~ ~z~" 3 ~f~~ c -- ~ :;! HH8 r~~!.. ~ , :;: ~<i ~ ~ f ij 1 G ji; ~ Ii c !!i :'I'l fll]:l0!"?> Priz ~b'.'...zn...... llf~~[~jH ~ ~b'..~H,W~ ~6';;;-rta&=!l&. ;g f~'frn~ U t'J 8i~~~~ '~a q !~!hU:" c gUrU ~,~~ i5~~~g~!r ~ ~.h h U i ~f::' Ii ~~l Ut l tj ~ ~~ ~! !" !r F ~ g~ ~~ g-~ ;tH g It *5 Ill' s!- f ~ i ~ Z U r/J n > ~ t:d H \O~ o ~~ o ~ "0 r/J 0 ~ C-< n tJ:j tTj ~ ~ ~ o H t:d ~ ~~ Z : ~ t; n o sO 0 -..J 00 Z tNr/J O\~ 6~ --9C n ~ H o Z ~ r/J n I 8 ~ 8 > E tJ z ~~ ~ m n " ~ ~Cl " CIl ~>~ 0 >-< ~ ~z ~~ "0 ~"'~ ~~ c;'l g; Zo5n ~~1l~ Z E'Tl~~fiR'CH'\ h~~ CIl ~~zliit~~g; "0 ~~~~~ "B~ ~~ ~ '- rr:. z p~ SO ~ ~"Bjj~~>c"' ~"'c~ ~D~~ m ~~o~~m; t8~;g~ 6~8~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ i ifj i ~ ~>5.Q~ > ~D o~:tCl> >: ot:::1'l co- f'tJ::i "'~~~ ~~ " .j>. 8 ",,":::1S:::J li:~~::I. ~gq 8 ~ 0 '" - "1 !~ Nl""8 t.n .z~ ('_!Ii'" ~~~ ::::: . .. . i<a ~ ~ ""ff ~ ~. - ~~ E;ei ill i-c ~> ~ ::r: ,. - ~ ~ ~ c ~ -;;: g Cl .m ~~ S1tJ:j tJr mt:d CIl no ~i ~' ~ >-< On Zo Z ~ t:d Z ~ r/J H --1 g I I I i \ \ BEGINNINGOFWORK STA101+00 -----1' l~dlh~lSAD- I I ~ I OON~" I'''"''.....''w "'."'" Ill''''~,^'''Q ~I ""'M'~'~ 'w "Q"'!'2!:!: ~Q.? iL _,~ ~,,-oo_ _ 0 1 f'VINGSTON ROAD \ \ I \ \ \ \ , II \ \ \' 1 " 'tt; , i l I I I 0 I....,~ci . _."';\~'~" 'I . -.. - .~--7-11 -,:0- ....'--_.t I.\;y't' 11- \~,,L-~,J_\o....: -', -------r(\\ :j~ - II i I. 1"'li' I _ ; ? I t'':--~, / {-/7 ?1~C~-~~~ I I_;~~~J J -.kt5:Y i I..J I .I'k-' r ' "~;~c::L~ltr' 0 Ii ' ! III SOLE:U1. :~\, i./l1 ;1"1 ~.-'}AnJ! t. /' I'( I \. 'I \ /i \ I"I 1'!:.,yi.1 \' ,.i/~ll : --n- \ // I I ..,1_ ,:C/III ,I i -I if. I . --I I i_l~ (<C I il, ~I";;"'- 1i ! ! .ld! t i" "1'" P..f oj-H. :..~f ---------- RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (5TA 101+00 TO 5TA 153+00) COLU ER COUNTY P.O. # 4500 I 07444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. I) " " ~ 161 1 A8 s i:> = . - o -g.i:; ~. if' g ....ii!. "-" .." ~'I., ~;;:"' ;f"., ~.....l...!=:; " J-~E~=II:' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ),f; - ~ - () 0 0 r r - - 0 m ;0 ;U () 0 0 C )> Z ~ 0 r ""U )> I z 0 )> en en () )> m '1J m ....-... III en m --I )> c )> -I - ..Ji.. "T1 0 - () )> ..Ji.. -I + - 0 0 Z 0 s: -I )> 0 en -I ..Ji.. m ;0 0'1 '1J W r + )> 0 Z = 0 "-" ~ oC , .....,,< ' 1::.,..- ;;,~.,' , ;:1;, ,...=;rJII:,.: I1':i: f ff , -J ! .! . ~g!~ OI"':m 0> :~ ~ (f)~~ o 'C "T1!lHIl ~ * ~ ~. ~~ ~ r ~ " ~ I g" ru .. 0. ~ o c o E<:c;l:m:m~m:ro'OJ {J)!8 \lZ;~:~~S_~,:(IlCl ~:;ii !s,w~:m:mm:~.~ W,Sj ii'<56i:'6~-6~JS lit ~~.3 Jl~j~-~ @" !il6";~:iii':a;':Q;'.~~ - ~.~',g -r;i:ui:~:~[ ~ j~~~:~,:~;j~;f $ -..i:J:. .:..:o;~.i'Ir ~:Ul:Gl :a.:l\l_:~~ ." .~:~ ({>, ,'".'0 ,~" ' :o.Bor ~ iil .~, "'.~"'" ~:. ("l-" .....: ,'-),.....:..... ~.~:~:~:~:~.~.~ "c 9 3 ~~ ,^Z &~ c. o 5 i < ~ :~'!rQ:o:o:t~:~ ~ :~ g!,g~:~;;:g'~ ~ ,;;:. E:/E3 ,03 :~:tlI 0 :f:~!ir~ -~~ 'mS ~: ~-~g,:Q,g,:~:~, 3 '";M t~~ . ".."<; . , iii,.. j : ~oo c~ '0 ru~ ~ ~ VI 0 , ' , f o . ~ :.;,:',:;;-::;.-:;.:--:.:,::-w:<.;-.(;; 00.... U:l1L:I-"l"""''<Cl<><O '! !~~i~!~i~i~!~ i ;; ~~:~ ::;;" ..... = '" "':~:..... <:f1 Q ",""l"l '2. ~?-~{; ~ j:'c.p. . . ; g ~ ~ o ~ o i <,,>"':"""':"'''':''''(,J "l ~c,: "';.:0, 9:Oj q 0'0,0'0:00:0.0 n n."'"",, "J' n Z [ z -< Z:Z:2:Z',Z'Z I KEY MAP SHEET & PLANT LIST Q!J... Hun.__ SttEETNUNlIER L-1 ~_~lf.Ol ____ ......hIo;_...~"(tD'IoWloi~ RoO,. Da NoG'" RoO'IoM:...... ::::?:~~ rv'5:N f;ii~'~ U1! :;c;::rs:: wis::s: ~f ~ii ~ s' ~ ,B-lii' ~. m~i:l Z ~ ~iii'g. ~ ~ 'fJ lij fI> 0.l~ ~'ii:'fJ' [! i (I)!;:,l>() rs-rf3 ~~.~ ~ ~f~.~ ~ ""U:" tu "'."3 3', ~ fI> . rr S g. , .. ;;;-f i;; - <.:; (ii ~ <c>.c<c'" ~it'~ ~ an~Oi g- , ' OJ I --- -,(ii'-' 'I .~ :w 00 :=:U;i:.~i~ ~:r;1:(I)::U (I) o,s::"tl:m :z:,<(I)':;CW ~L~:g.~ i} 'i'i ;0.:-:8' 2. :-:"'~!i6 !tl 0-33='" Z ~~'~!~ 3 ",.0: '''' fI> D,l'3: : <II: : .1 "S::0,::!!() ~,~:g:~ 3 ""~"','" 3 ~n~j61 ~ 3>.<",?;i '" ci'~'~ ~ ~ :!'!. 3 -~;:~f2f~ -W . ~-~g~ [ ~'[gJ ~- er-';:r'<D'~ " [:~'jlt :1t1 Jl'fJ i I~ ~ a~ ~ ~ zz-<H - SCAI.E:N.U. I) " > ~ "'Z;~Cl~ 00 ii~ [c.= (/) o;i;~'c:t':ii:ii g&~~a ~ 0" a,9'iil'" 2. ~'~'3a:~ ~ <>~:o;.<II3. Z ~l] .~.,* 3 g&%':'3, <II ~:~f~ l~. o ':i:~ 1IJ "'.'3 ~ l , . ~ - G)(/)-l!;:(I)0 oO'm.<: '" 0 C:S<ll~:Q' 3 ~ii""o,-3 ~3~ ~~ g 3~C(")'" ~ '"0 >.C ~m 'if 3 ~ [~1i ,""U <D ;t0l~s::!l!, '" 3~~ j .........:......... N N:O>,O""OI :fg.:iif~ ~.~.~.~-Ol ..g....-.;.3: '?-;~ib: N""U3:.JJ!! ~.~.~.~-~ ij?'g.~ --Iii:~.,gGl ~-Gllii~ ~. ;-~ Z t !!!. . .If! i t I'. a't" - I". l. " 'lH. ~ ..11,,2' ~ m m 00 !~.~ ,;;J.e '80 "", o .. ~:~ ~~ 3:t:n ~,m ~,~ ~o f:!: ~.. '" -I '" '" "0 r .. ~ r (jj -I m ^ m -< s:: )> "tl BEGINNiNG OF YiiciR~o AIRPORT ROAD . , s: '" o ;; z '" I i ! i II ~-t> DONNA ST. ( . ;;:: '" o ;; z ~ ESTHER ST. ~ !:!!;. W,,2.RK' RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (STA 101+00 TO STA IS3+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 4S00 I 07414 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. , s: '" o ~ m 1~, ., ~ ~. ~ 1 6 l----.r;rn ---- STA 101+00.00 en :! -1m om "O-i r , '" MATCHLlNE 'A' en Ill:! om -1m d-i s:r , '" MATCHLlNE 'B' en :! -1m om "O-i r , w .:JI'IDIJS]~)l;[B[VD~ MATCHLlNE 'C' en Ill:! 3Hl o-i '!:r , w _._CORPORATE SQ. MATCHLlNE '0' en :! -1m om "O-i r j,.. ---- MA TCHLlNE 'E' _ COMMERCIAL BVD. ;!: '" o ~ ;; ., en r:! ,m ""m -i LIVINGSTON ROAD _S1a.15~OO..gg .- g ~. ~ a _-<l_ . If if ~.::>. S' ....". .... A. f ;"''''.. et:;:B.:~ ~~~;~"" ~~~E~: ~< -,.tC; C...- ....,.. CL..-,.o._::' C .0"::1:. ;;.)> ...,:> ., '-';:11I f h " it ~e ..."'. - c '(f) I!~ I~ o 0) ./>. + ~ o 0> I I " Ii !; Ii . i 8:Sj:-r:~~~~ . " I ~~!:1~8:g 3~ 0 ~r~:51~~ "" 0 ~:cdLt~ , 8~ 0 8~-8:~ . . . " 0 ....O"llrn ~~!;' ~~H !. ~2 ~~~!l bo~i ~8". "".....a..~ (JJ o~' 0 i"~. ~ ~ -F'g S! ~ ~-. ~~o ~~3: ~ ~ ~ ~L~ ~ ']'~ ~., !'~' ~Cf! l~ (f) > 0> 0> + 0) ::: 0) - MATC~f,IINE 'A I' I I, ~ 1"- I I II II I ~\ "i II t I I I 1~) i I I , :~:il Ijl till rY~V il I \ tl: · ~ :~~~I \ I ! I \ I \ I I'~I "I' I i \ ~ I ~ i " ~1:1~:i~~) "'~ I=;Q"j~"'lj)1 , " _ i'~i I~I J~! I ATJ~ - (, ~ I PLANTING PLAN I SHEETNUl/BER L-2 0..:"11-41 ~~~:_I!:~"!,_~loIooOlllI) RoO... Da:..OI4l ~;..Da:"Q.OII I -=::::::..--'--"'] SCAlI: I""'JU' I) ----f z o ~ f':l m )> () :c -0 ~ ~ Z ~ > :s: Z 6; )> en en 1ii ,. 9 d () lIJ r- m ~ en ;C m N -0 o )> Z ~ m ~ )>m I r- ! 0 ,0 '" 'z I G1 ;C I:i! ~ 1m ~ 1 -0 :c m m ~,12 ~ III f) m m ;C z o I~ " -0 )> s;: r- Z r- ~ :s: :s: m )> g en )> en z m en en ~ ~ 3! '-" ("') 61 ~ ~' ""U () )> ~ I EI's' - -ld" '[to} H.fl. P;;'f .Ilf. ~ 'l j{1 IOJ I~, 12. 1.5 I~ I~ , "" ICil > .... co + ./>. o <:> -9 , (f) > 0> 0> + 0) ::: 0) z o ~ m ,: (I ! ~I i'i ~ " f:- ~ I 1 , I 1 , I 1 I I I I I I , I I i( I', /,1 ..LJ -- AIRPORT ROAD L 8 ,~ ~~./ rn ~ l ",is:: !'l o;~ &l-<:m o :~ UJ rn:z " 3~8 , .e I"tll:.oo 00 i'dEi' I ,; ~-: ~ ~, g ~' ~ ~ I E1Al - - RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (5TA 101+ooT05TA 153+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 4500 I 07414 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. .. " ~ / II! II ~~1'~ nl - .\ cDrIl) '. '~~1~"'1 ~ ~ ~~) ~e" . 8 r ~\ ~ ~I ~ I " ~IIY I II II II i I: , ---. - g 1~')' ~\ I ,~, ~ y' I ''f ., I i I II \ ~~\~~ \ II\~ ~)I \ I \~ ~ e)I~~) I ~~)I Gl' ::::::....~~'./>.-~O> ..... :::u! .".'~....:,.~.. ..~.:..~... ..'......~......~......~...o "..g.!.. . , ' . ,z, o " ":"":":.' "'n :~.~.~.~'s:~'~$ (Il:~: L~\i+rii'-m:'mOi':i:ti i:D:~! 5 :tf:;;;.,,,, :"';<: '0 '0 ~:Q), ~':,,:~ @-]-]-~~ 2.. i ;i!J I~U!J f '.11L~ ~i~~';~6'l3'I : <I>,!ll'G)' 'a.:<I>.:::l6" :~:~:~; Ul~IP-l~ '~;a,~i ~ [ ",.",-:[... :I. .. ""'.:'ii"if'G'i:6:6.~~'(j/~i 'n ~ :~,~ :t_t:~!.~,:i ~ o:;:T::>,CH\om."" 3: ;;:-:sm"'~2:0 ",:g' g: :E"~L:>::i:~.IP\E z ::>: ,0.,0:0 :0,0.", "' :-C' :"T1:-;-;-~-' 3 :~' frtttgd!. <P "':.33:.=l,.5lii "':"':Iii",. , , ~ :~:'w:':'::':':.;:;:':':1,;.<;;:<:.,(ij <0<0:"-'.<<:1<0<0<0'<0"0 !!~:~:~~.i~:~ I: ;r~R ~ ~:~ " ai=' ;crj'crj i !X'X > :~ ~. ~ ~ . m ~ ,,.,:,,,, wi"..,.":",."":,,,, "9:""; q:"",;";9Q:Q gg g 'gg .g:=U;; Ii' ~ :z~-< z~z ziz zz ~ " ~ 161 1 A8 ." ,(Il , ;;f~'!:i8:~ . ~ ~~:~ CIl ;;o.:r:::i: '3 'Ul';!!:;:J:llI ".0::'''' 0: g .~~~ [: Ql:= B :.@<a:= ~: '8-,~ . ;ii1i~ ~ :0.l~ ,$""'.0' .....:""Jl> Ii "":-(ij--iijj;O:" ~~5-:~ ~' !cn~~ ~ ''''ii1-::t!", ~g:~ it !!!. :~ 3 3 . m m ~ '5' ~ ""w'-C;;:<:'>"iji"" 1O<CI>D"ji ;~g.l ~ i~'~!~ i :Oi ./>oW:"" :~"l0! '000 (> (>:0 " . , ~ o ~ I! . [^ -'(j-Ci q fi 0= ~ ~: ~ ~ 3: g :~ <P I, ~ ~I ~ I~~" I II fl~::Jl~11 \1 ! II I.,. \, II",. . ,"~' 8 i1~ '11 i1~ ' I. 1,1 z '-<-<-< ~ ~ - .. ; ~.= ? 1-t~ df.~l' 1- - - .. - '","",',',.". EEi'r ,':' j5.;g~ ....=1:1<,:.: ~ ~~ S~ ;)'::- " , ~ -..j...'..... D'''''' ./L:W :~ 'X';;;~~ (I): s:;"'U:m : <-:cn-~::u rn '".":00 ~:[r~ ~ ~'}I! ~: ~s:~ ~: 3 ~ . ....'ii;:.();01Cl ~~~[ ~: 'g!:2- g 3 ('O;::tI::> .$.;.?~ iir ;.v;j:1j ~ ~ :'" :~ ~-.:.;.:::.; (I> 0>'0:0-0 .~- ~~~. ~ ~.~~ ~- ",,,"",f- 0 2:"-:~ " .E at; ~~~ -~~~ g~ 2.:3 [. '." ff g~ l: z z-<'-< ~, ~ i, '::::e :~'I :.';;',~i Ii i ,;;;.)>, if ,n',3: ~t "'....:"'.-/>O.:m -I' "";:0 ~. ~:)> gJ ;;)=0 g:5 ;0 :~ ~.~~ h 3,cn Wm ~:~ .~~ " ~> z '.... Z :G'> '"1l r :)> :z c=J~~C:c:= (J) :~::::~i""F-L'r;ii" :g~ F'.g.~ ~ 'rr:Bi~.. "" :::! ii-G7:3:~:5f [ ~g.~ lr~.!' w ~ c.'O", '<11 ~ gg;~~':~,3 :~jiI:~:~:~ ~i:o 2ci . '0 <11 ,0 00' <11.:3 r ~ ~. "'. <3,: i.... "'i'6'Ui:':.:"-~'(ji6'-" o O:ii1!ii"" 0 '~~,m^~ 3 ~ <'ii,J1.8:<- g -i ~:3lC,~ ~ ~"':c():n <<i- l~lf.g,iil" $ -i'=:i:"~ iil"': '3:',,", .. ~ ~,o <'ii'.~ CJl J: ,m ,m -I \" ~ ... ~J _._._'_.N {f} N.(ll:O'(ll,<.n ~.i~-f; ~ ~-.\~:~:<lJ ~ ....~~a:.f!: <5 j~""'~Q. ~p: ~ t",;g:~:.;o'~ ~~'Y-~~ i~:.~_Q;g --lii:~1lG"l ~ -:Gllii:Q Gl 0.-'.<11 Q ~ ~ { ~ ~ -- - Ef - - - MAT , , tll I I '/ , i' ". I "-.. '-, .... . \ ,,>, '. \1' "=*s~l~ ij~lf~~)1 I I~ '< I~ J - '" "r I I' ! II i "I I r------ ~m__1 A8 161[ I ~l' en ~ en ~ ~ o .... ... + co :.. '" ~ o ~ + ~ o '" s~ en ~ . en ~ ~ o ~ + !" ~ '" ~ o '" w + '" '" ~ ~ \ \ \ \ " ~ m d-~I , \-:t/ ~[- I: " !I c; , I I I I I I ('-' .~, ,-,::8 c"D ;;t; fTl:r' ~ ~ J o -l m &~ - !-. Ii " z o -l !l:1 m f) I -0 ~ ~ Z -l > s: - )> Z en I )> en I 0>1- _ en , o -l , 0 ~ lD m m )> en ;;0 m, ~ ~, ffi ~ )> m ,.... 0 o "Tl Z ;;0 ~ Gl 0 -l s: I -l m I -0 m m ~ )> o c... )> o m Z -l ,-0 s;: Iz -l s: )> en en m ,en 'lD -< W ,- C1 ~ -0 o )> .s ",-ri: :;;~-~ ","",m c :~ (J) (Il'Z " 3 ~2:: '':;'--ii:i~' o 0 , . ~ ~.: ~ ~: ~ ~~ ~ . ~ . i g m . a ,....,"".'..T___'_.__.....,.____...,' """... .'.': .'::. :(;) :.....,::.'..'.' :JJ ;~~::;~:aI~i!f~ gg , .:.........:..........'... :.............,0 !::: <::G)mimmiro,QJ wig ;"'0 z:"'~~E~~(J):Gl :< -:-<'::--ifT:!i';i-ii"tiii:iii:iii:ro'ii;:~ 5>< in ~ i€i :ij '0 '0 0 ~U'l On. ,0 o'~~;o;o . !([I3 :3';3-,00 ,Ill 'Ill 2. 5i6':~ .ji;:~~:~:~: !!l ~~.~ -9:ui~:~:[ ~: "..2'3.. -~:.iS~:.~. - 3: :~..:t,..,:~;u'lS'if '", jih.Bi.Gi i~~ ~li~ .' :~~@ :C/l -~iU> :~.a~~ ,~ ' ~ :.!!""_:['~ g. ~:~ j\J~C g!C . . C . ':t: ~~"'t ~I~ 3'tI: (J)'IT '[:c.: ,0;'" ~:"'t <>:, . . 2 ;; ~ .~ ,~ 'Z N '" :t IT IT ~ r ~ . 00 ,I t:lt;~~ D:~ ./>. ~ <0 OJ 00 " .....'.....:: :~ ""<ll:....~a> g~ ~1~:cn~;lJ d; o:3::"1J,m ~~<~U;;ji: iDe o ,!P,~~~ 2 ~,~:~:o ~, ~:"']:iil 2 <:d!~~,lll z ~~ _~ri ~ ~:~ ~ :~ ~ . ~ m,;{",DHJ 00 ~ (ill) C'11 [J DI I' ,(Il:3::;J:Ul g:r~i~ '3 :ir--~':i ~". iil::::r,3lli '.""..'.' , ;g,~:;, 1,1" ~~:[ ~ .~ '&ii~ ~ :~l~ .:;;,'":~ .~. :~ ::I '0, ~~c:;s, Ul $':j;':k'~ <a~:a 0; :~:~ii R' "':0' !!!. ~:~:~ ~ i3.~o;-F 3 8i ~ S::3. '" iili~:m g~ ~bi Q;!:....~ Ill: .", ,~ ft . ";:,~t p' -. o --~~ o o Q :J'r~o;6i~'o i{' :;;1 Ul:'" :{:'{_.:i5,~ 3 g~:'" ()~() ()~16:'"' 3 ::::;;:~~ ,~a ~ifg' g ;"'.'Ii! :a:l'''',~ :O~ l- ~ :..,,2.:2. g,i!, !!1. 3 '~ .,,-,tttad.... ~~ :~~ ~Bi . . ~. 'f "'3:::()'''() i~g:~ ~ -:0'''''''' 3 ;,n.':il:;:og 3~_;;?~ iif "1J3"::O 3 ~: ~!!!.... 3 "" 9 ~ m 3: ~ g ,"' ~. (;j ~ " o [ l' ~ :Ul:s:;:'~ () f}:~ ~ Ul'G):'" 5 l~~~i " ~ :l'l' '" o , Ul::s:;:Ul() s:!ii] ~ ~i:~5 ~jg::3' ~ "':O't> III "':ii:~ 3 13"",,,'" .~.,'.. ,"'- o ; '-I : ,(i '. .... ,.:n...'.... Ul rg~~ ~ 8':8':15' Q. :"~::' go "1,-I>:~O;: g- " , m ~':'::':'~,::' Ul 0.:0.,0'0 &f~~ t '~~:(., g ~i-.....:q <II: '01:.,. !il @ie: 1 .~~ ~ [i~~ g: ."'--:rr ~ a~ [ Noo o~ , 0 m> ~ ~ !I' 0 ~ ::l , ~ o ~ , I r~~.~/"'i: I ~~ ~~j(.1 ?~).;~:J 19. ~ . ''\. '''-, -~. i ~ T 8 or CO~j~TE sa' )> J/'~-~ ~ {f'; ~ illl ~ , 0 I ~ ;; I " I I , ~~I'l I~~' :~:, I ! ~! 'II ...."":.....",:,,. ....:........ 9 ~~9:-l>;:"l 9.~q:g 'gg:g :?Ul g:g:g , : ~ ~ z .z -<;z:z:z z~zz ~_ :-,..,:'" ~<l1:"'l gg:g J~ 'v! I 1/ !j'~ ~/a~~~ _D_ONNA S~=t~ ' .. I( -"l. 1J~- bl c .p,. aI '''..' I( i ~) " [ , -< -<:-< ~. ~ ~8l:::g:g;~~i>liU:l ~ . ! ~.t~'~.~::g~.~ " 8"",_ ~:2i~.~ " " ~:@:~ g:~ 8 . " 8*:jg:~.g~ Ii " " , ..--,-=,--,,~ / ),1 /1 II J i ~II~" ~) t ~)~~) I' I I ~ I! \ ~~ ,,) \ I'll :,.,' " . I '" -, - _, ",.1 I'" ~~) 1.1.'lli', i I \ -t - '\\1 I E'D" ~I I L Il.~ '" -l II " ~~j~ (IIi! 0., ~. ~ ! '" !II ::l ---j~ <&I ~~~~ g ~~~ ~~f.i i~' .. !!.Jl-J::l./>. -"'::l0'1; ~'" :i! I~. s,lI!:;; a"a .'" ~ll U~ l!!i?~ .~li~ g:.ui l' .' " I, Ii I i c '" '" \~ ,M,AT.2!,LlN ta " -~ -j~ >> ~~ , - . ~< ';;4:",<-...., :"'i"'.J .....'1.", '..... "". ,- ..r !iiIiio;. .Jl!!l ,;)>, '01 ".:> ,!J ,'::;!"n"I;,;::,,' """;:! RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (5TA 101+00T05TA 153+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 4500 I 07444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. _ l<, . = - ::; jii.: , ~-!.i .:Ff.i!ll r~--' [i:i:h i5'~~~~ ~ ~ ~~;::; ii' WJI: 1-'" 10.0' .1'1! . 1'- n,," {1~ll .1H~ !illflf PLANTING PLAN 2 I) " ,. l :;~~::"'...""=-~=-::~~ AriMohio; SHEETNUI.lIlER ~ L-3 " g_<'''''-'';,Io.:,",:", I <1'.'0 ""O~"': 0 i ~~or'" ~'~:~:~ " 0-08 ~'!U~ . .0:. " -"--- ------.-- ~.~ ~~::;:~n~-gj " i i " .......,..'.... " ~i3o'~ .~~~ .~p ~:J ~ ~ 1';91 :> -1!!l <lil m ~ III II> if _[::-. gO" :::I ~8i:~, "'-lc.~ gl ~~. ~ l,ri"~.;, ~'o, (n~i Ug lIlUl~ .g.~[lt ~n ><I,T~ -~~~ ~ui [i ~ o <0 '" + CJ< OJ Co o , !cn 'II;;;! I~ '~ o + OJ !" ~ o '! - I' en ;;;! ~-'>l1i~:> ~TC8'L1N,,-;:'C' \ "~i'lI I ~ ,,\\. ,~ \ \ /? , r.' m) 1;1! /_~' ~c:.1 1 I, ~ iii, ~[) <\~I"c'~..,'..."..,:,. l, " t II' ! ~~_-c.. - t> I @~ t ~) iC';~! I : 't' 1 ' '., 0 I I',--~', ~,_ I I , 5>' I I, \"T 8 Ii \~ 'I II i I 8 j I I 'I '\ . :~ ~. + ~~ I: jt I ~ I~ J> '.' I~ ;.; ~ ,T l C ',I ~ g. II , I I Il \ _I ~ I I \ ,I I I \ 1 \ '\i I . ~ ~II\' I! ~ ! Ii Ii II ~ II 1';~= q ,: I i('1 END OF PROJE T ,(' 1"- - - - -i.... _ I' II II nJ - ~.!I-~ _____ ~~.:..~:'~J!O%~IIIII ~lIart:lII-" !n;"",EIlb:"_ I '~~- '3 I) PLANTING PLAN 3 SCAl1: 1-" JO.O' SHEETNUIJQER; L-4 Z o -l m m )> () :c 'U ~I~ Z -l ~ ~ Z en )> en (j) 1ii " ~ -l () 0 r !II m m )> en ;u m N 'U o )> Z ~ m -l )> m r CJ o .,., Z ;U G) 0 -l s:: :c -l m :c 'U m m 21 )> s:: ~ m )> -l () m m ;u Z o -l .,., 'U r )> )>: r Z' r -l ~s:: CJ /I:i :> en Z m en en ~ ~ i:] Wi r () .- i I)> ,~' r '~ .,....i~ 'U () )> .c .Ill: I". t:; " jHti .1H. ~"If:t en ;;;! ~ 0 OJ '" + '" CJ< N "" en ;;;! " z ~ i' 0 ~ <0 ~ '" " + " g) r ~ Co :~o t 0 8~ : II ; I I II I II I 'I I II I I I ~f lPI INE'r.Q. Z o -l m ~ , ; I I I . ~ ~~ ;: \~ \~ , / (5 I \"; I'I~I ST 4 ;~J[\ ' J 1 II 1 I I \ II ,\ )d' ,.il $) ~, ~), ~j ~~,;,,(';,j,,~,',',',.'.' '~~,~i(;, k,:tl; , l~~ ~ ~\~~~\) q~) ~'~I ~ \~ r~,'~,~".,.,.,'.,. l jt ~ \ dJ!J " /1 \~ 1Ir~~ i I (;;h~~) ~.~) li\,'(~('"".. t.. ~i!~1 <~ igi\ ,))'1 }, \ ~r(~l \j ';;;" . I I', ~ li/' Ii III mJ!;i 10 ~,~; i '~ . ~.1111. ~C~Ei. , - ~ -1.!i 'j i ~ " " " RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (5TA 101+00 TO 5TA 153+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 4500107444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. ~ 161 1 .... 's::, ~ o~1 ,..,'<m' o ~; > Ul cnz ""'~::l o ci' ~Ul: iilil" . !!!.O!. R lil ~~ g ~ .~ " , . "8 ~ g 00 . . :: ,lV . :....: :;u ~::1si~jj~~fS S:g : ,0>: :z ;".___.,'_____._ __,0 ;.:r""":mm~ ,'" 'won ~i~~~!5:~:ffl:~ 1:~ c..:i:"';'-'i1!ni'm\riiiiciZB 5:!f.j'r:<: ,<:: :0:0 0;1/1 ~':s.lpl}!2~ ~i ;~:lJ i~il~~ ~~ ~,!r~}t:8':~$ /p: "'.,'"0: 'l;:li-~ ~:~'~: -:~g: oe Dr' ~ ~,,,. lIT' 0 =".B, ". "0 ~~ fi ~ ,^z gi ~ ~ ~ ~ r.:Jcn o~ , 0 00' J:: ~ ~ g , ~ . o . ~ ~:Ww~o'~:~~~: ":{fJn :!.'--:B"'" 3 o';;r'::J;()'():<::.:l,3 ::J_;=:I/I"'.~'~ :!nUl 0 "';8' m-::!!i9 ::fo ", 2:", R. :!!i:gJ5 z: :.ij: ..,,~2.~~;s,~. 3 !I::;:;.::ttCD~. <D & ~.9.=l iEffi' iillii:w l ~ " U~~~iU I crj'- :1iiiai x:",,,,' $;]'RX 3 ~ ~ l , t i W',.,.0);0)'0) 9~.I>; 9:"l9 g g~g g!gg Ii ~ z Z-< Z~Z'Z~Z Z ~_ . - .. ~ i';: <II. ~i--g.~ '. .~... ~ ~ ; g> i';:'->', ! ~ ~ g:i" 'n:';:!:: ~?~.... - ;:1'[: 5~~s~::':: ",.N:~ c:~u~ .~ 'j! :ffi (>>:;:;;,o:"'8:~ :(Q iiU~-~ (Q ;o::n:~ Ci:i:~~i:C:i ;:i~ ~; g:&:~ 5< iil ~ ~5 ~: -m :~"~ 3 ~ '" :W:W <D. cn:'2.:,,; ~:g:9: .....:"'.:2 ~ , I [ , ~'~:~\~T~m Cl~:t':-om: :;f<:(Q;o co' 8.:~'~~ ~ ;'<li:2)!-~o ;;! ~n;~~:il ~: g:0:3;1I> i' :~a~~im. 3: @:o o:lii <D' .r:~ " , i:iJT:;:'j;.-c, ~<: '9: 0 ~~:~ ~ ~:~ ~$l ~: -0:"':0. w r .:~ ~ . rr ff ~ ~::!:'O~"" 0 l::\.:o ~<I>i5" 0 ~~:g::g: ~. :~:~~~ ~: 3><\11 ';5 <I> ~:r:u~ ~ '," ~ W,W:"'IJ)' ~<o.",'t> ~i~:~ ~ :.:~::. gi OJ ~ ...., <jl> g- : -C1" .ai:ai:g~g g>! .~L~~~ ~: %:~:~'2 ~ >;ff'..':!:' 0 :*~~:~ ": 2 ..':!:~ i ;:~ ~ g? .~ ii'3 ~ F'-,[f 8:2: ~. rB .ww 0;99 000 000 <<< ::E :'z,... i: _.C,..i .O:::J: Ii: ,_......', . (::f~T;";":::;i:, '; ;t ,r> 3: ".! A8 " ~ 0):"'(>>O:~ ~ :~ ~ 'i'J C ~gc . c . ~c :,3."t .~ :3:b '1J)(f. _IT .~ r~) . 2 ~:c:= ~j 5:','----{lI: ~~':~~ ',';; '"0, i!. ~ ~:3 ~i" ~ ;~'i ~ aJg~3 _,;i!.,,<D ~:~:~ d r5 o 0 00' 3 lii"= '"0 fr! ~ . ~ " ~ . 2 " '" ~ m m .., ~ ~ 1J):-;UlO 0:<<; '"00 ~:~,Q' ~ ,,-0'- 0 5::3~ =.j <1>,,'0 ar' ~~'~ ~ ~~,' " , 0 ~ ~,~:,., (/I "':0:'" ~i~~t lJ~_;r g :--:o.'s::" ~:j::~ ~,~~ i.~:~ !ii:-00 -~G')~ 9.2 2lii ~- ~ !in! mIl Ij HI UI ni tlil ill HI flit ftl I !tj!, lit,i t~ h'f t1.1 H~ ~lh III fff ~t U 'H t;~_.~1 III r1 !~ [(i. if. p~ 1'''J [~ -': ~l II ~'i' ~lill1iHg if lr~ hl Ji.j Uf. 'Ii m 'I rt n irfl~H ltl~tf r~ If HI i~ mJ {lift l ~ n ;,~r I l'[ H ~ ~ t> "'t h ,li - I il '[~h fair rj fl Ii at ~th ~1 h i ~ h ,"Or 3~r, h Jf f[ I[ I !l ", .' ... , h f!}I ilti rt it t~ {l JIll i{ ~i I i ~1 8 ~ B'. tl ~ ~ ~ !',UW f.}~i1 H l' t!llt~HH.1 i I':~" ~h~ 'i "J " ,il(_ 11I( fa , t~ll~flltil'l ,l ~ 'Iul-rf t.~, ~ >t1}lfli' Ii ~ Jt'f 1 'J'~ I ' ~tlh' t,ts '~ i .. il't fUt h f t~':n fi II hhi'i lIt, It I l~'t,! [ [I 'j I fiHJl ~J~ I, i I PLANTING SPECIFICATONS ~HE.ETm.wBEItll1"'Il-tHt L 5 1NiIi.,_.Jlf-OljlO%lRi..) - &ooii.Ilul:IIl-tI.. ..........-. :Q ;: :::; p ;:;: ;;:: ;:; [~ fl ij i(l~ ii l~~ 'l~[ '" o[ ii I~ fa li, hUh r r ~u J II .~ h J lilP I. i~ l~ tl [~ ~ Ii ~i 1"~ U ~l ...i Ji fh .~ J~ ltn~ ft ~ ~~ jilt ~! i j r~ 1 'I I -I 1 ~ t: II I t~l Is t ~ ~ 'r r I ~~ ~ .. ~l J ,'n I l '! If r 1 .. ~ 'U 1 ~j~ fr l~~ UU1H~; ~ fl. : Ifi Ii ~-lf JI~ltl~ll 8 ftp W rl ji llHlltd "J ! in h I~l ~ .1.[ Ifi ~ ~t j ,~!" w' f~ 'iml.~~ ~ ,[1[' II lr .~, iH-ihtl ~ 1 . ~ · If" 1,0, ii.}'il f~r i. II. 'II~~ ~..~i.1i ~. ".. ~~[l~" -h il Ii ~,d~ j~f![~~! 'i! ~[~. ~i~ "~~'iir! i. i~ I [" ~":~'~I.' "8 So 8 sa g'l'.l Ii'!g ill ~ '. If" .~ . .~I, "II_~lt I., -. ~ t~.t ~. n"1 " If = I'. -~ ."~t 'r ~ _', fl'" ",0 , a . 1 .., a._ !'" :-' ?- ~ !>!-> !" r ~ ~ to "~ 'S ."\' I ;.. Hi' ~ i f..q'l~ 11 In 'i w~1 ~ , ~'. J' "K ' i' hi ~ hi ~i I!~, I Jf. t~ ~ ~ I to S i.r lJ i ;,~ =l.j ~ I H}, jl h 1 H 1...1 ~ f hi ~ n pi Hi; [ ~ "t ! -I' l~ ~~ i ~ ... 1_ ~ . "i l~' i ~ f [li ~.. tE 1 h ~[~ g , l [ Ii-" [i. ] h ~ i lit ~ H i If !li . I J~ ! 'i. f ~I I'. " e - I, 'h ~ ... ~ 8" 1; g. !l' ~ i H f ~. t f i. ~ r SCAU: N.U w{ f.'"t' prf ol:!" ..-!fit ~ "tl ~ r en ::r ::0 c OJ "tl S; Z -I Z G) o m );! r= s: ~ m 0 :!1 5> S; z r "tl en S; ~ z ::! r r Z en G) ::r 0 ::0 m c );! OJ Qo r= G) ::0 0 C Z 0 (') 0 < m ::0 " 1. ,~, ~I' I c' I H~ () ;0... ~ i ~ci ~ m m-n 0 . 0 z Z . r o c . ~.2 6 ~ . o c . . ~ I ~ m . ~ "tl ~ r s: m o 5> z m x (') ~ I~ml )> ~ml :j ~FI OWl Z I ~m -~- :0 ~ ~ ~.U. l.iI~ffilliF.1 ~ ~ ;0 g ~ jt~ _~~~W::__ ca ! ~ i:~r. f~\f " ,.., ~ '1I'l:" o ~rg ,A-" m ~;= :;:! ,,~ .... o. j= Z ~ . m m . Z o l 1-'1 ~~~ ~m oi~g ~~~ ~-l ~~ ~sq: \!1~ Oil ~ril~~!1l ~ll: .~~~ ~~ ~~ m"V!il-t ;:;10 g~ ~~ ~i ~~ ~ ~2 !:l~ -:: m o~ i~ ~F i~ " ro~ 0~ ~o ~J ~~~ ". 000 ... f;iljq ~~~ non U~ ~og ~.- c:::j~ ....:;5 ~;;;:z: ~Ii~ :to:;: ~~~ m.o ~g~ l5 ~ill~ ~~ ~-" ("J"" m;r: o:t~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~m;=-" ;r:-" CC CIl~ Z:~ ~~~~ ~.'~I ,~~o '" . o' ~;;Icg '0 ~,.~~ ~m ~8 ,~ ~~ nz iB~ "'- nC)>m i!{/J ~~~o~ ~~ ,. iii m i3i5~~ -t x !!: _i!!2 ~~ ~~%~ ;ii~ ~ ~Oid <!!~ ~~~ffi ~~ oo~el ~(;) ~~)!i3 !!: S! %-"0;0 !'!:l f;u....::j ~::E !;<!!gc - ~~1ll~ ~~ ~g~d . a ":Zi==" ~ m!IEO<:rJ: ~~~o q ~~~~ ~ Iil. FJI 5 ~"V:;:;u om o;O"{/J C Q~"V d ~~~~ F ~~S ~~- ~~~ RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (STA 101 +00 TO STA IS3+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 4S00 I 07444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. 1l " ~ 16'~ ClEAR TRU!'!15_ . r. t 0_ .Z 1" Q~ ) ..... :;! "tl ~ r ~ OJ )> r ~ r s: "tl S; Z -I Z G) o m ~ r " ~ "tl o ~ OVERALL HEIGHT ~ "tl ~ 0" ~ r -o::lAn__ en ~~Ii,' ~ ~~ cl ~ 0 _ c ~- /ll;:lIlTIllm III ~ m ~~~~ 11I]lllllllw '1J ~~i: r ~~~~ ~~ 2 Q~ ~ ~~ .l> o:;u!!: [] ,...fi m 1:1. Z '''o~~d~~' ~ ~~,.; ~m :;u ~j:: -t j;;ilil Z ~~~ ~~ m ~~ ~ ~ '-(o~ f:/ll C <n"V 0 c G) m-l" ~ rn ;!!~ ,... ,... o ~ffirn ,. ~ ('j~ ~ Q m g~-" ~ I'll ~ m~~ fi C m ~ ~m~ 5 ~ . r t;:; rn :z . i::1' :::; ....... ~ -g.-5l;; ~. g S'::::I. "-ffp.~'i" '" f~~~i- ~ee~~ i ~:;;:: S:~ ,:;'; -c ~~. oZ. -')> .' ".', ~ (',;: ij I mj ri'~~ ~U ...!I!...~.:: (/J~ ~""m q8<~ Z 0; ~'. ~ ./l;'-( ~- Z:z: ;r"q..; m~~~ ~i~!l! ~~;a ;~>:a~ ~ ~~ ~8~. E;c>< lD ~ Q C' 5l .~~~. ~. \ ) , ~~~ ~dfJ~8 ~~~ ~'~<. "Vn'-( -~~d~ ~.~ ~~- ~ ~"~ o~~~h mo ~:t",... h.'~ ~~~~ o ...Rl"V-n lIIJe:;U ~m:;ur ~~m ~~~;g ffi;i"!:ll 2ifi~~ rn 0 m. . . ~ I J I I ~d~:: Sl~ ~dG)~n a~~~ ~;g ~~ ~;r; z:;u'"l>< lD~ z-" -1~ je:-l >~ (JIm (;):;U?=~;:l "~~q ~~ ~~~~. ~ Fii>< G1~ 6 ~,... ~~~~ ~~ m~~iil~ !1:~~ n ,.m;g~ ~~~ 'i"Vo"V m~rn i'iiEril~ cnmo ~;r:~z . z:;U m_m m ~ ~ Kl Z ; . . f Ii if ~E ,"- -- - -- r, ,., "'.,~"""" _ w - ~ .-. - -- _. -, _. ~ e. 0 cO '" ," " -'- ~ ~ ,< ~ t i,~: t,8.~,~~s~~.~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ,,- - - .f,2_ 9 ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ :3 ~ $ g :i( ~ ,~~~~~~ - - - - - - -- - "' ,'" -, ", ,~ ~ ~ ,. - ," ~ -.------- ~ ~~; ': .~E ~ ~' riii; ; ~~ ~ ~ 8 .--; ;: ;:; ~ .~ ~ i ,~ o g ~ ; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ , o > ~ ':,; ~ ': ~ I' "":' ":,: :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 ~0~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~; ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 g ? /1 ~ "' '~ ~: ~ ~ 0 C -,-,,-, '" ~.~~: ""'W' ,,' "" T'" - .Ti', - ~! $ c; ~ ::,';: () o z .... '" o ~ ~ m '" '" " '" 7, . C g S ;, ~;; ':i~ " '" () :I: m o c ~ \. , C - z Gl -U )> '" )> " m .... m '" '" ~ Ui~~MAP SHEET & lR:pJGATION . i I 1~:11 :::";:'~~.Lu ,-- ~"''':''H :; ~; ~.. "" " 8 ;: ;:; ;:; - - 8 '" " > ' z ~ ~ ;: ;:; i-; ." ."",; -b c: ,-",', '-'."w ':' c":'';''-'':,.:,cc,.:_c c.s~~~~~~~,j~~~~~~~~ ~ ;,~ ~ - , - ;~ 'D ~! ,i:c! C 'J <',' " ~ , o \ ~ >, - " :'-; :i. f ~ SCAlI:K.T..l. ill. ~lE..I h'il P;'l .ltf. !'l~i' I) ~1 ; ':; ~ '" '" Gl )> .... o Z l> "tl "tl ~ o l> .... o Z o o Z .... '" o r "tl l> '" l> " m .... m '" en M,-!: ,., ~;) ,,--. '.~: ~' : :~;. ;, , E~ (, n ~ ':; ;;a- m'" r'l 0 ~ OGl "l> ".... mo Zz o mO 00 enZ 0.... :I:'" mO 0;: em ~'" ....0 l>~ "'0 ~(") en (") o '" "tl o ^ m -< s:: )> iJ 1 i' 161 1 ."'" A8 ," o " "'- m'" '" 0 ~ OGl "l> ~ !:-i 5i m 0. Zz o .m m C') .00 enZ " 0.... ~ ::I:;:O ':;; m 0 '" 0:: o e m r'l ~;:o ....0 l>'" ." me;; '" r 0 < m 0 '" "tl o , AIRPORT ROAD - _II~ - - - __ BEGINN . F WORK STA 101+00.00 en I -1m om ""0-1 ~ ~ 0> en .... l> .... o Z en DONNA ST. ESTHER ST. END OF WORK . --~ i --- - --- RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (STA 101+00 TO STA 153+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 4500107444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. " ~ " 6 '" ... (f) .... l> .... o Z en '::-" '" - e '" 0:: Gl Gl m l> .... .... Z 0 Gl Z " en " ~ m-< l> en .... .... em '" " men l> m o l> Len eo en Z ::! l> z r r;; Gl::E .... l> l> .... '" m r '" m " ~ c o " ..; I " CO ,7: ~~ o ,,; - M --- HLlNE 'A' en OJI Om -1m ~ -1-1 0- ::::;;0 I\.) ~ o o ;0 o }> o - M --- HLlNE '8' i i en I I I-Im 10m i""O -I i - -- -;0 - - - __ __ _ _ _ ~ - --b - -INDUS"fRIAL BLVD. - --- M en OJI Om -1m ~ _ ---l~ CORPORATE SQ. ::::;;0 w - --- MA LINE 'D' 'I I en . I -1m om ""0-1 ;0 , ~ J.~ i I ! . L COMMERCIAL BVD. - --- MA LfNE 'E' OJ en a-I =l;;o m ~~ ~ LIVINGSTON ROAD STA 153+00.00 --- n' I': I - ". ~ ~.;;; @ -g.4;:: :I. g~';;:P, ..ff.'l'l. .. - -... it ~i: i=!f; i-~;8"":;j< ~ ~~H~H~ ~ ;' :::~ ~::Z'H":? ," 0" 'ot ::E: , ';;')>" .......~ f :f( if ~e ! ",> I ttil.," U. ~nt5~~~ ~:~ 0. 8chl~~~ 8 ~ D. 8~:~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "- MATC en > ex> ex> + en ,... ~ en , en > ~ o '" ... + ~ '" ex> I II ; GJill]]' l' - " ft - ~,:..-; '~ '-': ,~E " ;~."~I_>> I "',' >>, , I '0 ;"_. I! . w I mill, ':;i':<ii"'. " ,.11"'" '; ";::" ','" I:TiFTIl '~ -0 ~I r c Iii I ~, :;v,' , 1 'lli[IJ"" I : '"",,''' ,':' ,i~: ::;[\:r i '[[ill'" " ';;' ".:-'"ii '., ': i ,': n I ' ~ '[ffi]' ,,' I '"'' ,,"'i -, ~: ,~: i,' 'n i "'~, -- IRRIGATION PLAN ~ SHEETNUNBER IR-2 hll:N-IUI ","...Da''''U"_(ft%loM_~_ ItIiliooho,II-'''' ...,-'..,..... ~,l i '8 ! I j T" I ~ 'I"R\,' C '" \8.:J 0' ; II me c-') -;.- r~: ~,~ .':c: ~i i , 'I I' ! I, "CD ~ I iCAl!: 1-= In.D' I) D w-~- ~ =:.=:~.~.-< "',\,,- S. S. ee a '" ,. r < ,. " ( '" ~ " '" ,. " ~ .tii; h~i' P"l "l:lJ. .."'lfi" :E Sl '" en > .... co + ... o '" .9 en > ex> ex> + '" ,... ~ '" -------'1 ,I ( 1 , 1 ! 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I" 10 ,,,, ,:;; I'" ," II'- , , " 1 1 1 1 1 I JrnIDJ]:jl.1 ft -r"',:'"i! ~ ;: ~ ~ '1 I '''mijc, " '" '"~, " ~ .'. ~ ,~ ;:; 1 ;'-","il "i d_',"" ""-'>"<>i1 I ~ ;~, ~;i ''1 I I , I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , , I / 1 'nm:"',' H- __':'_"",',' "''''. " ,~-.J "_,,, I e.1[1]] ,00:1",.,1 " ._".,:-,' '",' " ','- . -- J " 1 , : AIRPORT ROAD I , ,___J I , , 1:'1(" l! . ~ " ~ > "'~ "",-", :~ x ~ r g I /1 I I I I I I , , I I " " II ~ ~ f; ~TC o ~ ~ o 0, '" ,. Z ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 t '" c G~ z'" " . " ~ .1 "[ II , " " f.l- RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (5TA 101+00T05TA 153+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 4500 I 07444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. ~ ~8 c, , ; ~~ , ill, ;, !~ 1 . I 1 t I ~ I ';:," i ' I ( ~' 'I Ii :h 17:',~ -U:.\ {r c; I t 1 ~ '~~: p,~: >.' 1J I :>> en m ~ i~id ~,;~~ ~ 11112@@1iJ '-' .,," ,^", ,,'co " ~'ri - ~ i) "'i; ~,~~, e~ " i:i ~ ~~ ~ f-l: o~~~S ij --' ~ ~ ~ ;;, ,;; ~!ij i~ g ~ c ,~:,~, !~ R ~..:, <5 ''b '" i: V;:-~ ~,~ ~ ~ C; S - ~~ OJ ffl ~ c'i ~~ " ~ '3 OJ ~ C' g ~~6=;.' ""'2 ;.:;- --" C' m ~, ~ ";' " CO' ~ "1 CO' ~ '" '2 () <:> ;Ii ;U 15 ::; o z ;U m " m ;U m z (") m r m Gl m z CJ ,~ --- >" ~ S~ :-~ ~,:" ~" 'F~~ ' n!; '5 t ~ n _ OJ , o 8 co ! I t !~ ~ I~ I" . Z @ ",~ ~ ~," :'\ ~" ~) ~ () l1 i: ~ : 8~ ~ ~ o tn ~ ~ C) ('; ('; ~ ~ - , , 'i'~' ~ '-i z::i ' i= ~ ~ ~ o '" r'i.' "'- ~ ~ ~ iii iii ?i ~ ~ I ,--, I " ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ " ~] ~ ~ ? ,t,~, '~~, 1J 0 " , ~ M " ? () : .;, ~,,'\,: ~,,) ; ~ ~ ,":2 ,,- . r ",ii, ~ ~ '" ~ - ~. ~ '" , c, , < , 0" o ;=: ~ " o ~ , '" '" X ~ . ~,.., -.'\I " ~ ~ 8 ~,', 1\1 0 ~ ~ C', . Ci ~?~"i;:~~ 'i; '";;-, Pi , '" " ,., ~ ~ 2i q '; ~ " . & .". '" ,-, ffl '"' 1J ;;: " 0 , R ," o " F ~ r'ill'illH 5 . ~ ::c ::c G:l )> -; " ~o,,~:8:~, ~ ~ ] :!' jC, :r :r I 3~ ;:" I t t " :;'1 f1) y , :1: :~ , -~ ,; ~ ~ ) " fm fr ~;W dJ ~ G:l )> -; "'J ']) -" -0 n -" ~:~,~~;>~ ~~~ " ,-Cq ".., '-' ~ " ,,-' - :..' ~ '-". 'i' ii, '" ',~ ,f: '" , "., c",=" ':''-'. ' ~l ~ :~: "~ 0',." ,::-,1 """ ii, ',.,,, ~1Wi "e' ,::'- c;" -,I '~ ~ c:-Fo" '( ~ ;f: -': ~' ,..,. '," ~,.;;; ~ :~ ": R~ ~ ~ ,~ ,;, ~ "'-'.' , '" ~ -::, ~i";" . "" c=, ,"p',I ... ,- e ir- ; ~-C;;; :li'Ir'!il'::!, """'l"1" f~--' ' d~hi f' . -", M~~H~iS, ;'-:~i'~ ' :,:.Z':::' ;;i~ ".;,;;.> .",,3: ,>en," ~~~ !;~;u ~~~ m nc'" z;gV' 0~; ~<;:;: li :i! ::c ::c G:l )> -; o Z r m G:l m z Cl '2 G:l )> -; o Z r m G:l m Z Cl ~ " c 8 , ::c ::c G:l )> -; c; o Z r m G:l m z Cl , iii in o Z r m G:l m z Cl ;: "1 ,.,., " .~ ,-, :~ ,~ o Z r m G:l m z Cl , t 'Ii :.. !I 'el , I' ,a ~. r; il~ 1""+ , 10 (fl > MAT I ~ o CD '" + '" on " "" 'lm""'. '.' 1m., 1,- " _r"'C., , '0 "-'J,:g,',,- ..~.,. ~. " ". '" " r; ~ ; 3~ ~ "'," I, .~""I ""'.'.'1":,.'.11 :~ ~',: :; i: 'C', ,~ , I, , f0ff:T:l.".: ie, I' ,~8i0Jj "~:'"',:, ",""." I '.";.,,,!:,: '0 I ] I " ~D o~ c'O ~~ ~> ;oj ~ ~ 'II o ,; ~.!8i\ o II ~"P' ~~' ~ , " ",- I "'[[I]::::"';; :', "."," "1 ." ," .' I "[[0' 'I' "...')':'.....,.',: I", '[lli[].'I' II '-'-".,'''''' "', :; ," ",.-,.:',' .:; '": ~ ','- - ~ 8 ~ ;~~ ." ,~ CORPORATE sa, ! i " o ~~ 0'0 cO >~ ~> ~;;I ''',:.) \~ I 1 III . -"."" "i'" ;',? ~ATC~YI E'D' IRRIGATION PLAN 2 S1iEETNUNBER IR-3 IIoD;M.It.ol ~'''lQo:_,!:~~!,_~Wnilla'J ...-,..Dolo: Ilt:a... 1.ni...IoIo,"11IolIO . ---SCALE: I-=-:-;~ ul ~ ill. .h..1 1it'I"l p.h -1:11' ..../fit (fl > I r------ '" L_____ ~ o '" "" + ~ o '" (fl > ~ o :;;! + !" ~ '" .~. '" ~, " '-"' n 0'" '" __ ~ 0: ~ ~ o. ~ I c'~""'" ~, ",!ij "'- ': C;; "'- 8 '" . ~ ~[IEB' p , G .. "f;;" 0 I ~ ;> c:: ~ '" 'mill""-:; ~.. '.- c' , r "'.0: ~ - c_, " ',-, ~ I DONNA ST. I 1- MATCHLlN -- ~ > o o ~ o c > ~ ~ I 1 I', 1 ~~ :" j~""'S! ,.... i,.,_ '1,,- ..~!! '. ',,: ,'" I", ,- {; ,l ~1 I I ~~jl ~~:~~-c __ _ _ __ c~ [-3 ;; 8 j ~ ~ ET I ~ C ~ Z ~ C ~ ~ \ , INDUSTRIAL BLVD, M z > ~ ~~ >~ r~ ~ <D > Z ^ r,_"' i'~ il , . I,," ~ :ii 4" j>~ ,"'. B ;:: ~ RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (STA 10]+00TO STA ]53+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 45001 07444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. " ,. " ~ "tJ ~ m I I I~ I~ 1" 1= 1 ] ~~iP~~ I g@@ ~ H I'.''''' ....,", 'd ~ 8 z 'il 8~ ~g0 ~~'"'"' r~~ gc ~6 '" ~ ',~ 8;~~ =,5j~ uc>~_~~cr'jj~p ~E ,~E_ Br I" i3 ,~, ,., 1: ('; ;; '" ;::" ~ g Ci'i; a~~~ ~~~5 ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ ,,<> ~ ~ ~ CO? ~~~ ~ ~,"" ~" '" 1 L p,; ~ - - E ~ "C ,''' ij,:, ~ ~ r, ~ ~ ~~ " ~ ~ Ci l^ ". " ~~'2 o"',^ ",;:::::, ~~~ ~~] O"lJ~ ::JC:::' ~;; ::J~: ~ c: ,'> m '"~' r Xl ~;:: ~ :i! r- ,-. l: ~ ;c ;U 15 ::; o z ;U m "T1 m ;U m z () m r m G1 m 115 " - 2 Q ~ ~ ~ :; . Z [,:'1 :,' II" I f: i~ ~ I~ I" (j) :t> --l ~ Vi ~, ~ 3 " '" ~: i'i S,' ;~ ~;~ 8 ~;. i." ~~ ~c': . '" '" 'U ~; ~: 'J ~~ c;, m " "- e~8]o,,~~ -;:," B v> v. en ~~ in _ en ~ ", ~ \2 ~' ~ ~ c '" ~, :;i ;::! F "., '" 2'; '" ~ '6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ '" c ~ !" '-' ;PC' ,~ ": _~ .t,.,: a~,;:~~~: :~ ~.~~i:, ~ :;: ,I " " c c. " , -< 9 j ~: <ll (J) X ~ , . 11:1 <SI1 " ~ ~ " " ~ ," ~ Q fi C' '" ~ ~ ;~,~~I~;;' , '" "',,'" . "'0" "0".- ) ,,' -- : ~~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i'i :: '" " D c ~ F'i <m'" m ,. '" m m . ,7, "' oc _ ,~ -, ~ k ,~ " " ~ ;0: ':;: co ; c' ~, ~ ,:; ii1 c :;; 9 ~ ,~ ~ f 8 I~~~~~.~ s.~ ;0 ;0 (j) :t> --l " c' ~ t ~ 'ij ('. c " TJ '" 8 8 .~ ~ ~ j\ ~.; c' , " :r ',;' \'; m ,~ " ~ 'J ,., '" -" ~ 0 ",'" '" " ~ :;! i :~ ,~! TIC , ''::c ,., " '0'" io ~w 1HI m~' ~ '" .... ... I ;0 .':' ., 0 ;0 I (j) :t> --l " .~ 1'1 ~l p, <" """" ,., H? , ,,-'-< "J '''' : '~;. 1'1 " ~;~ i' , TI '" '~' A ':' ~ ~: " " l' ~' ~1Effi ,..,'", ,-. ~.';, ~, ': " :~ 1'1 ~. r" r; G ;' f:!f ~~ t' '-, 8 ~~: - :<. ~ ~.= , ~~,~ ~R"ii!~l Hi,"":' '1 ~ "'... i" " ~~~::;;::;., : ~ ~H.~ 51 ~ ~"I ::::E c.....- ~Z., , '-'0 Ox ;.~ ., ...,~ ;0 ;0 (j) :t> --l o Z r m (j) m z o " o Z r m (j) m z o ;0 ..... ;0 (j) :t> --l o Z c' o . c'';? r m (j) m z o 'ijc r"" " " " ~~ ;0:,-, . ~ " o Z r m (j) m z o nl ,-, "' ;i~ o Z r m (j) m z o f .. fr if ~e ~'MJ ~- ~il[ o~ f~ CHLlNIii'E' I ~ i ____u - k~~~- -t-- ~~/ ~ I', . I~ !,:"~ 1+ '~ ~- i~ II"" : I ., :;:! I ; I ~ I + I ~ I,! II I I :1 ~!I tl.ITIJ I, :11 [lID] II! I ." i'l ~I' m18i I I, ,II : II : Ii : III ,I: I ,: I : I :11 :11 ~:' I, '" ~, 61 el ~. [;li , I ~ o I. ;11 -Ji ','I , " 'I ~ II I", . i,1 II; 'I :'1 I - IRRIGATION PLAN 3 "I I. .\ , . 8 T I I r i i {j t' f 'l ! ~ ! I" I I : I I I J. I ,,~ I :..: LI' , I 2iP.<gRo,..lll :~ \ ~~ ! Uj , SCAlf: I~ = lD.O' I) SHEETNl,JOIlER --1 o..:M.IWI ! ':."":.~~:u.l~"_~~;"'--~ Aoi...o.,-.a... Rti..Dro..._ IR-4 lid. Hi',. rl..1 prh 'l:tJ, ..ilK" en ~ ~ o (Xl '" + '" '" ~ en ~ ~ o '" '" + '" (Xl Co o -- J ! > ~ - I !~ ,~~ :~ INE'D' , I \ ! " -!it., ." II I . 8 ",m, 8\tP i I \ I \ ';1 I I COM: ~dt-(L1NE..!i , ESTHERST, I , __J_~ I ~n-- , I I ;1 ~ ~~ <D<D o~ -" "r "'> 0" Z~ ~ -- OJ " ~ RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (5TA 101+00T05TA 153+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 4500107444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. " ~ ~'i C!) "go-g.;: 01 Ff" .. -. "r' .. ~l "" ... E!: i:~ i:!f ~~~:.o:;' ~:::;;;;;::; "U :I: &; m I I I~ t:: I? :" I I ~ ~~' ~,. ~- I': 1: I ~ J: ~ d~ -"1J -0 :un '" '" .~ ,." 8:~~g~Z~8g ~8 2i " 8 ~~ ~,' co" "'. ~ ~ ;g ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ;1 ~ ~ ;g ;~ Jl:!J ~~~'~\;~<;: ;: " c' ~g ~ ~ ? ~ '" ~ ~~- d '" <:' ~ ;;:u Ol i'i ii(~ 2_0: --> ~ ~ 3 c'e:_' c, - ~ ~_.:: ,.,- :~; :jI ~ n~ ;u ;U Gi ::; 6 z ;U m "I1 m ;U m z Cl m r m G> m z o ,,, ' 8 ~ ~B ;:; r,,:;:: 5~ ~~ ",'Ii ~~ o iii~ "0 ji<j ~g !~~ o ~ ~ ~ ,0, . Z (01 I I I> I f~ :~ ~ I~ ,0 (i) )> -i ~ 8 ~ " '='" '" -"" :3~~~?~~ CJ~~~-'88CJo " "''" li:'" " ~ 0. - :': ~ := g; !. ~.~!; ~ ~~ ~~ c. "8 ~ ~ c; C) \i < < z" c i'i '" ,;; r, !'= ~ ~ "CJ :u '" ~~_3~~~~~; ,,'" "TI ", B "' ~ ~ ~ < (C. ~ ~ c: '5 " c ~;: 2 (', "''i'>:: .e .;'~'."~ ~ S 0 g r, '=' ,>' ~ '; Vl '" ~ F ~ ~ '( '" 'i; ~, ~ ,-::; ::: (n "c > " '" > ~ o' , ill III X ~ . ~.., , ~,l-"'~~~~ :: 8 8 '=' c-. ~ ~ ~ 9 ;, '" ~ F ;;, ~ ; :jj c-, :~ C) ,., _ , T ~ ;c " in ,,", '7 i' f m ~ ,- ,- ;:; , ~ ~ ;;; ~ -'c.,' q f '" o r: '" l' ,.-, !', > ~ ~ ,., c ," ;;:: m ~ F:2 :: c r'~cf~'H"~~ "' ~~ ." ." -ll 'P il i', " c, 8 8 ,', 8 ~ "'[j , l c, ~ ~ """, "t, "r.' , " , . ~ c 0> ::: :~' :~ ~ DC: r:1~ :';' 'ii -. ~ c' ". ... fITlrl ~8~ (i) )> -i "''''-OJ L'''''''O " ~, :Z:' T, '" f:: ~ !~ ~:~ ,_,r',,-, ,., ", ::"-'r' ",'-,--'" "" .,~ "~ ".,,~ . ". ~~6IDIC Ie" :1 n r: ",'.. --, ~~ ~ ~; ~ m ~ ","" , 0 .,,' ~ c:,;:;;, ,;; ~ 1 .~<. ......'-c;; c::.,.- ~Z,. -'0 0':1;: " _...... ;:::J' " ,"- .1 _,:> """I,",,> f fr if ~e II! ,=<co i~~ 00> '" ' ~"1", " >m :~F ~~~ ::c ::c (i) )> -i o Z r m (i) m z o ~ o Z r m (i) m z o < , .... ::c ::c (i) )> -i , o z ~ r- m (i) m Z o ~ (i) )> -i o Z r m (i) m z o " , ,~ n'" o Z r m (i) m z o " , ",,, ~ '" m- 161 1 A8 z ril illlll:I' II.~ ~'1 1!1111!li'j'i !IIII Ili!1 - o IiI! ~ 00 Ilh! z , <s: I ~ 1 II' i ~ ~ 1'11111111 c i~" I ! I lllll "11111, III 1"11 'II 00 )> )> , ~ i I' "'I' -l~ III I!ll .... n I!! 1 , - ~ , !;I ~ ~ > II, !' II I II! ,11,11111" - ,. III )> " ~~~ < z i ~ 1 I ,,! ~ il. i 11111 Ili'ji , m , " ! 6 Il!I!!!II!lil lilil " i.j , a . - - ~ ! ,!I z i J,' )> o i' z z I , IsI 0 C il I II. III~ "i"i IllI ".. " .... ~ I 00 m , i ~ m z I ' hi - ! ! Ii' rri I I I ! II 0 .... .... , .1 00 l,l 0)> o Ii I ! II ~ z Z .~ )> ~ I . ~r= , 0 I a , .!. II 0 G) is , , ! ~!lj I I m )> )> i . . .... < .... .... ,)> )> ~ ii' ::;:: , 0 0 ~ 18 , < Z z m os: ;a I m)> ....Z ,)> C ~ ~ )> , . !I!l~1I Gl lii!!I: )> .... 'IW m C - ;a Inn I: II :1 ~! z ;a . ~ II I I ~ ~ ~ ;q! Gl m " , " . . . IH :J:; , HI !'~ II! i! ~~l II!!" jl~! ~llmlln II - - ,j . I .i i !. m 00 i I! Ill! !I .... I . , ~ , ,~ a ~" l.j ;a I Gl '~l~ jl q -i al !~ m ;. ;llu;; m - i " ,1 ~ ,g Ii .... ;a Ii z )> " "", , ~ ,- ~ ~ < ;a ~!I'~i I!' i Ii ! ;i~l ~I", )> ! ~ ~ I" .... !;;5 l~ , I , { ...Ii ~ ! ,< ~ Ci I .1 i'~: , Gl III !, ~ 00 - ~ , , ~ . il . ~ '!" .' I~ , If - ~ h ~al'" 1 i 'Il~ .... I : , i ! ~ , 00 lu 1:1 ill ~I ,11' z )> i: 0 , ~ I " lp~ m 0 I ! g )> !I" !l I J ~ .1 ~ Ii! r 'II II! G)::' II ! z -I j . . i ~ ! 'I Z m , . I ' I · , I "j I, f; ~ ~ € ~ , <oj ~ " 00 z 00 i ' s: I' i " . e " i I " ~ 0 ' I ' ! )> )> Ii i, II . m mz IH l e / 0 ....00 .... - !i ~ l - z &l!l , , ~ .~ r 0 "'i' . ~ I~ P' " < ~r m z' ~ , 6 I! I : z m m o z 0 ::; Ii < m m , m =< m .... "U ! 0> :r I . :": ;a :~ r= s: I )> , m z 00 C 00 /!!- ~ C ;a m a m! :r m a " " o . ..J... 1111111....1 ~'V'~. '-)>,>: :: .~, z ~ ','-'" I _~.! ~~ 00""0 '..--......-.'; :l~~ t::l ., ffi: -1- ~.... J?>'i<I ~~ "'''"'-I!~~''~ I~ "I~ r> " ",.... _, ~ ~ I II! 0 I )>.... "I~_' ::':r "....-- I · 'l I " ~ ~ ,,,,...- i ~'" IIII ri~~ 00 m r;'" iii ...., I o ...,..... '" f" _ 0 I II ~ ~ ~/:i!'8l"'I' I'B ~: II ~ : I~- , )> ~ il'ii~II~! ~ ~h Il I ~ 'E ilil; i'i'li!; !WI~ 1(,1 I.i 'f ~; IIp,l I llq 1JJ; I~ pi 1 10 .-. Hili Ii !~III! ~f!l II~ a I j'.(1 ~ " . !.j, '" o. ~h ~ . 00 z ~~ I IRRIGATION DETAILS ~HEETNlJNBER:lbooo:ll'IHI I" "R-S' --" lM_Dl_~~~icu.lII~~~1 _11I"'_11 _Da",__ ] KAlI:N.T.i ., ! .ld" . ... n.;:" P"l 'ltJ, ..~~i" "'.... m;Il ,m Om ::;- ;a Gl;Il ;a- >Gl 0> m.... _0 Zz 00." -<, )>0 ;::0 )>0 ....'" C;c z'" '" 0, mm -<;a )> ,-:, .... Ii I ~I II ~I ~ -< .1 I'; II ""0 I; I ~ ~I - a ~II !! 'I )> , i ! :111 !, .... Ii' : i: ;a II Hd I ;1 m z I' 'Ii j i r i a :I: m I , I ! I - Ip In I l I z Gl ld Iii: i 0 III I, m ,P 'i P " .... ~ )> Ii I I! - , m , I I .. 5'~11 '5 II ~Ik!~ I: l~'i " i'I~I' I ! Ii'; " a ~~ Ii :1 'B~l I !i !il " IS ~ !~~P m I ii!1 j! li!l i I aN i !l!ii 0'" z< I ~F zO . m' ",j a.... ." ::'::; O- J z;a m 0 m .... )> ."r " " RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (5TA 101+00 TO 5TA 153+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 4500 I 07444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLUER COUNTY D.O.T. L i .-.~ a ::" = ..... .'~'< ~ ."..;;:;.-- ~- i ~'Ffg ii".,i.- CL. j r~~H.' IIfFr I';&~:' . I! a ;::;~!: I !l ~:;;::' ~i::i ~e ~ -- 161 1 A8 -;os:: !'g! 'I r " 'I I!' 'I I - s:: I'll '-II I j j r. l!~ ~I: ! ,~ , ~~ii!1 ! z Hi I I illlW H m I z ;0 l!,-~!1 I . . ~ ~~ ii -, Z m)> Ip . 1 S II I ! I )> I I ~; ~, I~ o I! ~ !...Il !il! ill! !.,,!~ ! 00 i I IpS II 00 ;0. I~l"~ 00'-_11 ! Iii ! I~!i ~n ! ! ~ . :0 1l; I Is . III X!lifi I! ., '" II -I ~ I I! ~. ~! IU -I - " ~i 'I 'I ~ ~~~ii: -I m Z 'r Ie ~ ~j ~jI! ~ ft: Z '! . ~ )> Gl I l .s ! ~. )>)> ill )> i ~'I' h n. i ., ! ~ l! jli:;! I! . i'!'~1 -I n " I. '. ~ ,- ~,! i I i II ~l U )> Illi ' , ~ I Ii II I' " ,- I ,- ,- .' ;::~Z I II! d .. ,- -I !~ ~ 1= l 5;:a~~ 'i!Uli! !I' ,- Z I '! II " !I )> - iil i ; i II !p~ 1 1!i~16 )> m I ~ )> m l~l I i~ li II -I 0 M ~ iii;!I II Ii 'fl -1< ll~ !~. . I -I - Z I ' ~~ Ii ' ;ir o~~ I P Ii - -c II ~. "e i 0 ;0 I Ii I 0 i'j i ~~ 'I II 'i:~ i , Z s:: ! z<;oi I z m i , ~ l '";~ )> "i . II CJm< CJ 00 CJ , I, , m )> 00 m z I .~ ~ m -I !, -I (") -I C )> CD , )> C z)> ;0 ,- i c ;-.- m , 0 ,,- ~,- ,,- s:: ;0 :?: m , ,- 0 ." m ." ." . < I )> i ,- < m - N Ji'" j ~ GJ:> :IIII!I iIl'I"'l II i I I ' I - rlmi z , ,I ~I ",e l' < ;lJ Ii 'r 'I I en ~ ' !! I,ll mll~l! q 0 p. '~!. III i :: !l! ~ :>.... ,I ; I "Il '" .... ! <0 'Ill Ii ~I 'j II: !iI I; ~ :> G> ~I; 'a m;:; 11m, !q m G> r Ii" ~ r:> d iiil Ill! !li:! -I I I 0 > II :,11 r "Il r' ji "'.... :, i I 0 .... > II Ii II .... ~ IU;~ em II i I: :!'l !1~11 I . I z 0 :1 l;h ;:;'" I" I ! z 0 """ i :11 'II" 11111 I m Z i '. 1 ., z c '1.1 - III 1'1 II oS: j. ~ ! I. "Il I I' -r I! II: ....> I~ i r '" z.... m en ,I.! "'m III I'i I 1) .... " 'I ji ....'" II iii I I. oz > ~ :i 1 :> ! II Z"Il I 1-' r'" , ! 0< 'r Z a ~i iil ii~ r.... I" , :>:> mO . . '" " " I r ........ -i.... , ! m " 00 >0 1 , '" '. zz ,- , 1 ,r I 0"" m " '. mr > ....e 0 :>'" __ r ~r- - Z GJ HlIl' "H Iili t~ 'lI,llll! i , ,1 i!H:I t~! iI!l li li~I!! ''If Jii! .: !1~~!1 !!il Ilf, ;1 ,1>-.. I'" ~ill , li!}l! HlI i;'~! t! .j'.! c~! I,'! ~I :il:! I~I: j.!1 j, aHi I11I !lj:, ! . .I!I I,ll ll,j , I~llo~ ~~'if f If ~ ,ilol"1 !f. 1 "n- "I' "11 . !~ f~ d",i' slg ;- !"h: }I'l,;11 , il'll: 1!1~ H~i I i~;!J ,1'1 . .i; l i~'i}I' Ill!' Il, ! ,I ~ II' .. I 1~'11 I,ll !Il I tHJi . i:1 !!! 'I :hll "I' a. "', Iii ~'i i f" ,. '" f" f" :- I" fI' !" I" t" ,.:", t" :'" f'l f" ,.!" ." '" f' .. I" f" .- p ... '" l" ,..,., :: a ~ II' ,.. '" !-" I'" . . > " - " '" ; ~ ;0 - 0 G> z z :> '1 .... c: - 0 " Z 0 z Z ~ ~ 0 z ~ .... m en I' " i ~ ., ..1 . n,l f" I ~ ~ I ~ ,I I il . !l It H II Ill. I.. 'i , Ii I, I '1 Ii!: ~ il" 1" I ,I 3: H lJ 1I'll" ~r i l il II !' Ii -I "'ll. 11 h ,I , J~ 5 l~ ! H , lll~m ~ 'IU!~ !I~ I !!!! Ii I! i I ~ : Ii ~ !i!i l~ji!!W il il! ~ ~1~11!W. ~1~1 ~ !~lm H;:'-ti!l:! 1 flU 1111, j!ll, nlll ~ !I! IHI: l liP !!I H ill I' i l~ll!! i n! 11 Ii it! ill"!! 1d ,IIJI'~ h!j1UJ 111"~~!I' · 'I ff. . .'1 ' ,. .,'1" I,! i' f! ." J' I J Il!l n I ., 'II! 'I! -, II. i' 'I I ' i! I ~ll! II ! lOin U~ i ~ III ~ nll!i!1 m! i:,!~l ! m Ii m !in Ii W!'IUlf~l~ ~ ~iJ!l ! ';H 1 ! ti' Of II' Ii"! 3:' .1 I' I' ! 'i 'i ('il .j'll l!r Ii h II '!i Ii' ',!! 'I t: b J 'rill ~ int!! i il!! j! ji: HU~ f Ii Ii if l' ! 1; I ihll:i.! i i H 1 11 i ~! ~!} J!! I! Ii! ill j!afH If Il!li, i iim! ! i~! !i ~: !ii1n If! 11 ~ iI i H ! 1m !t!! f"H 11i Ii Hi :l.ij!!~ ~ np!,t !!!;~ if iilli,', ,1.H' i 'hi II ill I! ' ''r l' .1 i ' IlU ini . i' < '1'1 1'1 It} . Iii II ,f~jJ ! "d I un; I ! ~ii H I~ il!!i1 i:, i~ iH ll'! Ilf'!f ;i~i 1 Ii It I. ii j!11 ji! Ii hI Ili 1I:1i1 i !ill.~l . !pj! I "Ill it H,!W i Ii Ii : i ; il ;11 hil ! II if! h ; : l I H ! i, il hi nH II: I I l';t !f}, I f I IRRIGATION DETAILS ~__.... _, __m. __ SliEET_BEfI: i _Ila;--'_J.I"*I,__ ____ I R-6 ~"._IIl"=-Il8::..tf(ml'''';~l~'~- R8i1i..lII.tl:mQ._ w........... SCAL.E;N.T.i ~1~1 { l ~!ih ,.-:d'4. ~ '1IJ, ~ ....If~ i Ir if lie RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (STA 101+00TOSTA 153+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. #4500107444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. ~ ~ . y,~~~; ~ '1@lWcn !,'!i, ii, l~i, I' ~'!!i Iii Iii !i i i !i 'II ~ ~ r ~ ~~ 81~~~ q~~ g~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 1.0 II!! i! ill i! I .g! ; ! !I! 11 " " :1 :jl ~ i.~i Ii I :i ~!i II' I!"' " I I ;1 'Ii m ,ill il !I "II J 'I ',! " I ll, II i r "li " !' , .~, '" I",,! , ! m ""1 'I ';.' I' S,: ',"" I' !i ~ I". " ~, ! .!! ,', ""'! ' " jll, ! II II 1,"lli,' !.,I !l 1,1 I ; ~'I 'Ii ~ ;I~ , Ii" ',., , I' ". ~ Iii ' ,! '; II" Ii 'Ii a I ~ i ~ ,,' , ,,!, I'" ., I'! ~~ i i >F m II' I I' l' ,l!~ I' .'o!' I '1 ~ ,~I I II i! li!li I! li!i I I ! ;: ~ ~;l ! !i , 81, 'i ,~Ie - Ii m ", .., -'i' " i I' , z ;1', o~:. 1'1 ! hi U I' i II C'> " , 8 , " . b I ! 0 m .,:I!. ' !i ! !!i! II ;j i: I!: ~ i!! I Ii ! ir~ 11 :ql ! II ~ , l . , o o o o z ~ El r r m ~ ~ rrl pll ~ .111 ~ !!,i ~ I:~I ~ ,I!ll ~ i 'I _ RCih: Z !i'1 ~ '. > !l' r ;p ~ Iii ~ !i~ ~ hi' ~ ' c~ h l! r , . " '!i) &f mil i~; ill i! !!.d :tjlj II I i I: ' ii," 'Ill ., III iii, Hlji" 'Il ,I! hIli!,! " ! 'I al ", ! II I !If !, , 'I fI: II II! ! :qs- I I!' J i II I ; 'I i H: . .' I , I . ~ i o j ~ ~ a ~ . o ~ o :i ~ , ~ ~ ~ " , , ~~ II 1'1 !' " II! 'i li III ! d I , , I '! ii II ili ill .1 II II! il I I'! Ii U' Ii , I ", .; mill 00 ii' . . 0 0 i @ X (m,t '1~ """1 "I !, ' .. '! .'1 ... , , ! II I I' ,'I " 'I '! 1 !! iV7Ih!H~~HHhHf!~ i I Iii I" [I !I! i i ii ,i'! ~ !! t I i ~ , f! I'; l . 'nl f ~, '~, I I i , '; ! HI i Pni ; ~ H: ! j' ?\~ I ! li:,' n fH: U ! I ! ! I JU! ~: ~ k k.. I, l!: ! i HH f! ~!, f! t,f,. !! ! I : ; I WI ; il i ~ ~ H H I; J ; j j{<!'! ii II I J IIlI II 11 J . ,I . ' P I ~ I 1 I I I,! { ; '" p I I I I I I I I a a a a a a a a a ~ ~ " , .. , . I I ~ I! I ~ !! ~ !! ~ ~ I IRRIGATION DETAILS SHEETNUIIlIIEIt IR-7 l --'1 5CAII:N.T.i .ld" <.1'. ".i" JI'-I,f .1tJ, !"If~ ~H ~~g ~~8 'ri"Sl ~~~ 0'1:-< 19~ [;)~,!i --<"'2 o , ,,"< ~~,] 5\oI~ ~:~ ,', ~Gg ,,'20 ".-'" '"-<'" O. z"'" if~~ ~~; ~ 0 ;,~! m !;'i;~ - .. ~ ;t '< ~ Q~~ Gl-;'~' m ;;;-<5 @ @ . Ii ;, ! ~l i! l!! ~~ ~... I; if ~i Jt Ii jl }I '! .' , JI t I ! 1 ! I s . , 2 i , I . I I I >-<IlZ" :go1:5 ;;1~f~ m~ "''''''0 01:",0::; :lla II!I Ci ._, ~ '" ~~~g ':2~~", ~~ffi~ ~~~! ~~~: ~l~~ o'li~~ : ,j ~ ~ ~:=:~f;i :s:~ ~ ,;; ~~~~ o 0" ~~ ~ ~ ~ ;;:: ~ ~, oo~ r;' '" r- ~ 2i c; ~i S!s ~ ~ '" ~ ~ 0 '" ~ ~ fil ~ ~ -" -n 2 s ~, ~,. 1"0 ~'~ ~ ,., ~ '0 , ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ i~ ~ ",,,,, "'''' ~~,.,,., 0 :0-, ~ ,,~S ~ ,. ~, .. <; ~ en" ~ ,.., ~ ~,~ 0 or ~ ; ~ ,:" ~'o~ ~ ~ is;;1 ~ ~ c: "' >; ~ @ 'i' 0 > " - ;;:3 ~ ~ ; ~o~ <; ~ ~ ,':; ~~ a:c <:: ~ i: Z e Z ~ ~ ~,:~:~ ~ '''' ~,;.~ ,.., c; ,~ ~ ~ ~ '" " ~ ~ ~,~, ~e '; " .. ~ ill ~ t:~ ~~ ~ " f+- I ~,., ~ ,~~ ~~ ~,' ~ ,., ,., ~ g ~ : 0 ~~ ~~ ~ '~'" ~ Vi ~ ~ I E" ~ ;0; ~. Ii ,I ~ it I ~ I '! ,I i II 1 ~ I II I' 1 '! !" , :, ! I. If; J ~I ! ill! i : II ! h II I ! ii : H ~l 1 ! I' i H II ! , !l' l II If : ! i! H , " I; ! !I r!l ! 'I J.I, i 1 1 i j?l' , . . l' Ii i' ~ &" t I , I I ~I I ! I >! 1i 1i 1i a l!l l!l ~ l!l ! ! i ! I I I I 1i a 0 0 l!l l!l ~ ~ I I I I ! !! ! . . , , c" " "'1'111 I'~ I I ! 1!1m i HPlf f l~ I i I f ! ;;q i . 'Ii l'! . I.-Ii f i: !i'~' " Ii! It , iH'a ! HI!:! ! I ~ j' : : ! . !h!jl HI!:Ji ... ai' IE . G> ~ m 2i Z o m o ~ o )> r < Z ;;J 0 o ~ ~ ~ .. , H ~ " II 0; i~ 1~ ft .~ ~ o u If ~~ rJ " .~ , if oil g ~. 'f I. 'j I" ~ ~ , 6 ~ o ? ij - - i g ~ 0" h -, .' " ill' .~ " . =[ ~. , f . i j ! t I " , . i [ . Ii Ii i ~ I'll i II if ! i i l ~ i ~ i ~ I ~i Ii I ii' !P ~ ,l ~ I l i . i ! ; I I i r , , @ I I II Ii', 10 Ii ~, llj " II! 'j; 11'1 I.! J! II! i!l h I:J :!! "I ij' Ih r ii! I!! ! jJ~ Ii I hI 1i ~ if";' :1 ; ~i f! , .J! I' ~ n , i , , ! i , , i , i , , I , RADIO ROAD PHASE 3 (STA 101+00TOSTA 153+00) COLLIER COUNTY P.O. # 45001 07444 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. " " li tf@ .... <II \II'" "'..::;; '" co.... '" \II....... -r-$ ::0 1-, ;0 G> )> ---l ~ccccccc ccc~~c i liiiiill~lil~~I~~ ~ ~~~~~~8~~~~~~~~~~ S *f+-~~ *~ f+-****~ ~ 0 r z ~ CIJ r- . m 1 m < m CIJ ~....z........... ~ "'...,..,.........,.,... ilfli~ll~il~llfff rIrllrr!!!!~~~~~~ '. ~~~~~~~~J~~~~QQJQtf ~~~~~f~~..~f~f~~..~ ,. tiI"'''''''...~''1.''':; ."l"'...."'...."l '''I m o ;0 m CIJ II<> r. :I: I' 0 -0 r m :;:: f )> Z iiiiiiii~iiiiiiii i If ", o QQQQ!QQ!;QQQQ~Q;~ iiii~ii~~iiii~i~i 0 Z ~~~~~_~~~_... .~~ '" m mmm;~mm~~mmmm m~~ ~ <~ () ---l .~ I i i co lIoa;l).IHI ~_~~1~1lf(1I%~~__ ......Dolo:IIl*III .........,11HI-tII '; '; 1:1 ~fl :1 !! I! !. p~ il~ ~ '! I , ! I I ! i - - I i , , i i ! i S :3 I I , , i i i i - I , i ! - - I i , , i i ! i ! I . I a . l ! , I . I , . l ! , I . I a ! I . I , ! ! ! ! ! ! , , l , l I , ! ! i ibii ~jl i ~ l'~." i!~i;i !~ H !TI" . +,1'1 !'i '! jlil rl ~ fJ~:~.j, ~ 11 If ~~as '_~! i~~; Iii 11 jU11i1 '1 'r..M'~ Ii' !f jll.II, Ii l,EII~ ll~ i 1:!lt! ! I!~I" ,11 II 'l'! I. i 1l1'11 fl" !! hl',i ! ;llii !i $, '1 h. , ~ .',' III n I!i"; ! In!!;l! ~f !I,l~i ; IJR( !j! rl' iiJip i ~;lfi :'; f' :11,'11:1: , '!'Itl .11 If I I i III ,I III "! . 1", ! l>ij 'I L I,'ill ,.~q" I' ~ ~ .. I a , I . , i , ~ ~ . ~ ~ t " i.=~:el~ i..iH'~~ i "-."~... ~;;:;;:[. if ~:::o:::! . ~.J s ::;;::;;~:!! I !5 ::::'~ ~;::; ~e , , ! ! + r- o ~ Z ---l )> m r- m ~ '" ~ ::: c il '" ~ '" ~ ,... m ~ :>' 0 lii m r;; ~ ~ - " G> ~ Z ~ " )> " ~ o Z r- oo m lii G> 00 m , ~ Z o 0 c ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ;0 1J ~ , Gl Ii: )> ~ ~ ~ - ~ 0 ~ z ,... m Gl m Z o , '" I,; m '" o ~ ~ ~ o ~ 1611 A9 """.,""~. At.B.7Jt. ,4dll'sory Oo",,,,lIt.. 2705 Horseshoe Drive SOUdl Naples, FL 34104 May 7,2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: April 2, 2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM VII. Old Business A. Ficus White Fly B. Refurbishment Project - Quotes by CLM and Hannula VIII. Working Group Update's A. Utilities - Charles Arthur B. Maintenance - Bruce Forman C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin D. Liaison - Dick Lydon IX. New Business X. Public Comment XI. Adjournment The next meeting is at 2:00 PM on June 4, 2009 ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625111TH Ave. Naples, FL. CopIes to: ..... r.. ["1\ q_.j,...., ~",._ .,,"." r'- I 'I R'I...,. ,;,'" ,. ,.,"",,,..1 NO\! 0 ~ 2~D9 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 'J 0./ 'c;-!) M.S.7.". 16 I 1 A 9 lIalcd.,,'ItBtltlell Adl'lsory (]o".".lttoo 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 ,1 October 15,2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: June 4, 2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report VII. Old Business VIII. Working Group Update's A. Utilities - Charles Arthur B. Maintenance - Bruce Forman C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin D. Liaison - Dick Lydon IX. New Business X. Public Comment XI. Adjournment The next meeting is at 2:00 P.M. on November 5~L. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER . . 625 111TH Ave. OatIl: Naples, FL. Item *: C~r!es to: RECEl NOV 0 9 2009 eoardOlcoun\,/Com'J!ffMn, 2009 16/ 1 A9 /~ II..Ii_"""... JK~l..k Of~ AlMSOIY eo".".lIt.. Halas. 2705 Horseshoe Drive South ~en~tng Naples, FL :14104 c~Ye~a MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Dick Lydon at 2:01 P.M. II. Attendance Members: Bud Martin, Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman (Excused), Bill Gonnering County: Darryl Richard-MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery-Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst Others: Jim Fritchey-CLM, Chris Tilman-Malcome Pimie Lloyd Bowein-Public, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan Ill. Approval of Agenda Add: IV. Approval of Minutes - March 9, 2009 Charles Arthur moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - March 5, 2009 Change: Pg. 2, VI. Bullet 4, should read - Recommended treating with chemicals guaranteed to keep bugs out for "6 - 12" months. Pg. 2, Bullet 5, should read - Cost of chemicals is approximately "$2.50" a linear foot. Charles Arthur moved to approve the minutes of March 5, 2009 as amended. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Approval of Minutes - March 9, 2009 Change: Pg. 1, I. should read - Dick Lydon welcomed the Board and members of the public that attended and made introductions at "7:05" PM. Pg. 1, A TTENDANCE, should read - Chris "Tilman" Pg. 2, C. Bullet 3, should read - Phase I estimated costs are "$1,900,000.00" Pg. 2, E. Bullet 5, remove "Wherever there is a pole, a switch box will be installed Mise. Cones: Pg.2, Bullet 3, should read - "Our present" Ordinance does not allow the MSTU to pay for work performed on private p~ 1 nemt: C~pies to: 16111 A9 Pg. 3, IV. Line 6 Answer, should read - "It is estimated that" 5- Switch Cabinets will be installed on Gulf Shore Dr. Charles Arthur moved to approve the minutes of March 9, 2009. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed. (See attached) ~ Ad Valorem Tax $869,353,85 (Collected ~ Operating Expense Commitments $70,601.76 ~ Available Improvements General $4,172,350.82 The Water and Sewer Line Item exceeded the $12,000.00 Budgeted due to dry conditions and installation of new plant material. B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed: ~ (V A-27) Execution of Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - 1 change was recommended by County Legal and was forwarded to FPL ~ (V A-23) Ballparl< Estimate & Committee Approval for payment to FPL - Complete ~ (VA-18) Maintenance Contract-Irrigation heads were damaged during construction of the Home at 496 Germain. Estimate for repairs $474.75 It was perceived that the Homeowner was responsible for repairs. Darryl Richard distributed Proposals by CLM. (See attached) It was determined that Staff would process with the Proposal for Connors and Seabee in the amount of $401.04. Additionally quotes were submitted by CLM and Hannula for a Refurbishment Project. (See attachments) It was agreed to table the Proposals for the Refurbishment Project until the May 7,2009 meeting. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM - Jim Fritchey reported: * Regular maintenance is being performed * Hedges are being be trimmed to 6 ft. A. Ficus White Fly - Preventative Spray treatment estimate - $2,000.00. It was requested by Dick Lydon to delay the treatment for 1 month. Dick Lydon announced effective April 13, 2009 the Bridge will not be accessible via Vanderbilt Dr. B. Replacement Shrubs - None VII. Old Business -None 2 161 1 A9 VIII. Project Update A. Utilities - Charles Arthur A Proposed Ordinance change to allow MSTU Funds to be used for providing Burial Lines within the MSTU was distributed and reviewed. (See attached) The estimated cost is $60,000.00 (3% of total expenditures.) Charles Arthur moved to approve the Proposed Ordinance to allow MSTU Funds to be used for burial of lines from the Street to the Residence within the MSTU. Second by Bud Martin. Discussions ensued and it was requested to remove the underline from MSTU on Pg. 2, paragraph 1 within the Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously -uJ. Charles Arthur stated that a Contractor was under new home construction and preferred to save dollars by installing underground utilities at the present time. Dick Lydon moved to authorize the procedure of undergrounding in lieu of new poles on Channel Dr. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard requested approval to utilize Line Item 24 ($500.00) for Legal Advertisement. Charles Arthur moved to use the Fund from the (Legal Advertisement) account for a Legal Advertisement purpose. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. B. Maintenance - Bruce Forman - None C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin - None D. Liaison - Dick Lydon - None IX. New Business A. New Budget FY 2009-2010 - Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the following changes: (See attached) >> Improvements General - $2,500,000.00 >> Reserves - $7,380,700.00 Discussions ensued concerning a reduction in the number of meetings. It was concluded that a total of 10 meetings will be conducted in FY10. >> Water and Sewer - $14,000.00 Bud Martin moved to approve the FY10 Budget as amended and promised. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 3 161 1 A9 4-0. Darryl Richard noted the County Wide-23,5% Estimated Property Value Adjustment. X. Public Comment - None XI. There beIng no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned lilt 3:28 P.M. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory mmi ") Di These minutes approved by the Committee 011 as presented or amended ' \. 5"7'O~ The next regular meeting is scheduled at 2:00 P.M., May 7, 2009 ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625111TH Ave. Naples, FL. 4 1.6' '1 J. "MIl""" s... At.s.7Jt A9 AtlvlSOlY eo",,,,1I11I1I 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL :34104 April 2, 2009 Summary of Minutes & Motions III. Approval of Agenda Add: IV. Approval of Minutes - March 9, 2009 Charles Arthur moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - March 5, 2009 Change: Pg. 2, VI. Bullet 4, should read - Recommended treating with chemicals guaranteed to keep bugs out for "6 - 12" months. Pg. 2, Bullet 5, should read - Cost of chemicals is approximately "$2.50" a linear foot. Charles Arthur moved to approve the minutes of March 5, 2009 as amended. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Approval of Minutes - March 9, 2009 Change: Pg. 1, I. should read - Dick Lydon welcomed the Board and members of the public that attended and made introductions at '7:05" PM. Pg. 1, A TTENDANCE, should read - Chris "Tilman" Pg. 2, C. Bullet 3, should read - Phase I estimated costs are "$1,900,000.00" Pg. 2, E. Bullet 5, remove "Wherever there is a pole, a switch box will be installed Pg.2, Bullet 3, should read - "Our presenf' Ordinance does not allow the MSTU to pay for worl< perfonned on private property Pg. 3, IV. Line 6 Answer; should read - "It is estimated that" 5- Switch Cabinets will be installed on Gulf Shore Dr. Charles Arthur moved to approve the minutes of March 9, 2009. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VIII. Project Update A. Utilities - Charles Arthur A Proposed Ordinance change to allow MSTU Funds to be used for providing Burial Lines within the MSTU was discussed (estimated cost is $60,000.00.) 161 1 A9 Charles Arthur moved to approve the Proposed Ordinance to allow MSTU Funds to be used for burial of lines from the Street to the Residence within the MSTU. Second by Bud Martin. Discussions ensued and it was requested to remove the underline from MSTU on Pg. 2, paragraph 1 within the Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously~. Charles Arthur stated that a Contractor was under new home construction and preferred to save dollars by installing underground utilities at the present time. Dick Lydon moved to authorize the procedure of undergrounding in lieu of new poles on Channel Dr. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard requested approval to utilize Line Item 24 ($500.00) for Legal Advertisement. Charles Arthur moved to use the Fund from the (Legal Advertisement) account for a Legal Advertisement purpose. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IX. New Business A. New Budget FY 2009-2010 - Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the following changes: (See attached) >> Improvements General- $2,500,000.00 >> Reserves - $7,380,700.00 >> Water and Sewer - $14,000.00 Bud Martin moved to approve the FY10 Budget as amended and promised. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 161~1 A9 Report for: April 2, 2009 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie SilIery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Proiect Status (V A-28)- ACTIVE - Ordinance Modification -Installation of power on private properties 03-06-09: County Legal provides 'draft' of new ordinance to modify existing Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Ordinance 2001-43; to modify under Purpose (4) as follows: (4) providing for the Burial of Power Lines within the MSTU. including Droviding underground trenching and burial of utility lines from the street or transformer to orivate residences but excludine: the exnenditure of MSTU funds for anvadditional wirine or installation of imoTOvements or uoe:rades to connect service to residences reauired bv current code or resultinl! from any other hardware nonconformity. 3-31-09: Staffconfmns that schedule for BCC Approval (earliest date) would be April 28, 2009 (V A-27)- ACTIVE - Execution of "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" between Collier County and FPL 01-29-09: Correspondence sent to FPL to confirm 'template' for "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement"; County Legal Assistance requested from Liaison Staff to coordinate with FPL Legal to prepare agreement for BCC Approval. 03-06-09: Scott Teach response to RLS 09-TRN-00122 regarding the GAF Agreement Language indicates that County Legal has no recommended changes other than paragraph 10. Assignment. "propose that paragraph be revised as follows: Neither the Local Government Applicant nor FPL shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of one another." Otherwise no change to agreement is recommended by County Legal. (V A-26)- ACTIVE -Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL for relocatiug existing aerial utilities underground witbin Phase One area of the MSTU; Fiscal: $44,700 initial contract; Time to complete: initial: 180 days 01-19-09: Scope of Services received from Malcolm Pimie for Phase One Design Review. 02-04-09: Staff recommends approval of proposal for total of $44,700.00; Staff will coordinate with Consultant on completion of task items listed. 3-4-09: Notice to Proceed issued to Malcolm Pimie for Design Review (V A-25)- ACTIVE - Public Meeting - March 9, 2009 01-08-09: Date/Time scheduled for meeting: March 9, 2009; Time: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. 01-27-09: Confmnation that sheriffs office will provide message board at no cost to MSTU! 01-29-09: FPL; Line; Burialj IYanderbilt; MSTU; Meetingl I March 9; 7 - 9 pm; StJohnsl 1111 AVE; For info; 252-8192 02-04-09: Invoice received for meeting room in the amount of$500.00 payment to St. Johns pending. 3-3-09: Confirmation of final PowerPoint template and agenda for meeting (in coordination with Charlie Arthur and Jackie Bammel); Charlotte Miller contacted regarding FPL portion of presentation. 3-4-09: Confirmation of audio visual equipment reservation; ballroom is available on 3-5-09 for test of system. (V A-24)-INITIAL PROJECT COMPLETE- RW A Survey for FPL Powerline Underground Installation Project - Phase One; RW A-FT-3944-08-08; PO 4500092247 01-08-09: R W A Finalizes Survey and submits to FPL 01-28-09: Meeting to review project activity: Charlie Arthur, Chris Tilman, Jackie Bammel, Michelle Arnold in attendance. Items reviewed: Final Survey Data; Preparation for Public Meeting; Discussion regarding" 02-04-09: FPL Approves R W A Survey as per revisions requested. 1 161'1 A9 1 02-04-09: John Lehr confirms FPL will invoice County (MSTU) for $13,027.00; preliminary draft design work to begin immediately upon receipt of payment. 02-26-09: Due to non-receipt of 'original' invoice; staff contact to John Lehr and request for copy of original invoice be sent as soon as possible. 03-03-09: Kate Donofrio, FPL Government Services Coordinator intercedes on behalf of MSTU Liaison Staff to obtain 'original' copy of invoice. Kate request 'overnight' (express mail) of invoice to County. (V A-23)- ACTIVE - Ballpark Estimate & Committee Approval for payment(s) to FPL for Engineering Deposit(s).; And final Engineering Cost Estimate 02-04-09: FPL notifies county of approval of survey for project Phase One. FPL to invoice county for $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit for Phase One Design; Ball-Park Estimate indicated Phase One Project Cost as: $1,943,200; Cost of Underground Conduit installed "By County" will be assessed in final "Engineering Cost Estimate" 3-12-09: Budget office confirms payment processed (funds encumbered) for $13,027.00 3-26-09: Project Meeting is scheduled for April 20, 2009 to review progress towards draft design (V A-19) - ACTIVE-ONGOING - On Call Services - Malcolm Pirnie Engineering MP-FT-3657-08-03; PO 4500098566; On-going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. Original Contract amount: $40,000 (V A-18) - ACTIVE-ONGOING - Maintenance Contract - Contract #05-3687 "Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance"; Original BCC Award amount: $34,697.00. 01-23-09: Collier County Waste Water Repairs Backflow at no charge to MSTU; Installation of new 2" backflow preventer completed. 02-02-09: Maintenance Drive-Through and inspection; Lew Schmidt and staff. 02-04-09: Commercial Land Contract expires June 13,2009; Draft copy of new Maintenance Contract reviewed by Staff. 02-04-09: Investigation into Property on Comer of Vanderbilt Drive and Tradewinds indicates shrub hedge is within County ROW (per County Surveyor - Markings placed onsite verify location of ROW Line) 3-2-09: Staff reports damage to landscaping by 'unknown' vehicle; Sheriff Corporal indicates that we should check with Lewis Tree Service, Inc. to investigate. 3-4-09: Investigation into damage to shrubs indicates that Lewis Tree Service is not responsible for the damage to shrubs (coordination with Lew Schmidt; onsite meeting with Lewis Tree Crew Leader Nick Moore; consultation with FPL staft) 3-25-09: Meeting with resident at 496 Germain Ave. to review irrigation near residence. The palms appear to be drying out and existing irrigation appears inadequate. Staff request CLM to review. 3-26-09: CLM provides estimate 1002442 for installation of new irrigation at 496 Germain. Total estimate is for $474.75 2 161 1 A9 ORDINANCE NO. 2009- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2001-43, AS AMENDED (THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT); AMENDING SECTION THREE, PURPOSE AND GOVERNING BODY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on July 31, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2001-43, establishing the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit; and WHEREAS, the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit Advisory Committee requested that the Board of County Commissioners amend and revise Section Three of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-43; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit approved the amendment to Ordinance No. 2001-43. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-43, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: SECTION ONE: Amendment to Section Three Purpose and Governing Body Section Three, Purpose and Governing Body of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-43 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION THREE. Purpose and Governing Body 1 Underlined words are added; Struck Through words are deleted. 161 1 A91 The MSTU is created for the purpose of: (1) Providing curbing, watering facilities, plantings and maintenance of the median strips and right-of-way edges of roadways within the MSTU; (2) Providing traffic calming improvements, street lighting, and sidewalks within the MSTU; (3) Beautification and maintenance of other public areas within the MSTU as determined by the Advisory Committee; and (4) providing for the Burial of Power Lines within the MSTU. including providing underground trenching and burial of utility lines from the street or transformer to private residences but excluding the expenditure of MSTU funds for any additional wiring or installation of improvements or upgrades to connect service to residences required by current code or resulting from any other hardware nonconformity. The governing body of the MSTU shall be the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. SECTION TWO: Conflict and Severability In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: Inclusion in The Code of Laws and Ordinances The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FOUR: Effective Date This Ordinance shall be effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. 2 Underlined words are added; Struck Through words are deleted. 16 IlIA 9 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this 21st day of April, 2009. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and Legal sufficiency: ~ Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney 3 Underlined words are added; Struck Through words are deleted. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~:~~~~~m~m~~WN_ ~;>J;>J-l~~-l-lo-o~oor~r~~CJ)-<morzm-l-lZO-l-l;>J--~O ~rnrn~ss~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~I~~~o~l~m~~~~~I~i ~mmzQQzz~~~~mm>~~o~z~~~m~~~~z~~zzm~m~> ~~mmmmm>2>~~~r- ~m~>~~~ mm:I:~#<~~~m~~c 8m ;i; ~ ;;: ~ ~ ;H d ~ m i ~ ~ 3: ~ t5 ~ ~ fii ~ > (5 8 ~ ~ ~ ....-. !!! rn d ~ ~ m ~ m ~ ~ CJ)~0~~;>JCJ);>J ~G>~ 0<>~ z;>JmZ~ ~o ~-l~~~CJ)~Z~~ - 'I > ~Cm mom m c<zmoO,m ~~~~~~oro m ;>JO Z ~~zmo~m;>J~~ ~~G>CJ) ~-CJ)~ ~;>J<;>J;>J;>JX_O ... 0 z m en c;po c;J ~ ffi -I r ::f 0 )10 en ~ m > ti -I m ' -- 0 ~ ~ 0 0 c 0 ~ z ~ >CJ)-l> z~G>m~zi~;>J~ i~m~ ~6~;>J 0 o~~~Om-~ ~-lo~ Z m~ G>m~~~ O~~;>J ~m_ ~ G>~>~F;>J~-l ~ 8~ 8 Zm ~Q ~~ ~~r ~~~ ~ ~x~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~-~~~-~~~~--~~~~~~~~-~~-.~.~~~~ W -:; ~ ~ 'in 0 o...f~~ ~ "8 .. ~'8'g ~ g ~ g~ ~ ...... ~ ~ ~ '" '" '" ~~ l!l ... .... '" '" 0"" '" .~.~ ~ ..... '8"8 "8 "8 "8"8~~ 8 , 88 g g gg g g gggg --., ~O~(h N ~~W ~8!U~~"8gj"88~~~ ggggggggggggg 8 8 o ~ ~lDi !'> " ~s! o 8 -. '" '" "'''' '" '" "'''' '" '" w on U. <..1'1 en ,n on ,0 'n ,n en on (f') ,n '" _. ~..f.9,~ '" ~.f.9,__ 0 0 ... " ... t t .... '" ~ " i 0 ~ ~ ... " ~ m " ..... ..... '" on ~ m m m 0' '" g g i: s: ": m 0' 00 on 0' 0 ., , (~, " 0 0 .. t ... '" '-' on ., ,,' m en 0 , , , , , , , , , " 0 .. .. m m 0' m m ~ ., 0 lit 161 1 A9 ... ... ~ '" ~ '" '" 51 - ... '" ....'" '" '" '" '" '" .. .. '" ..... g::.. 0 8 It b.... -.. ~ '" <D ..... ~~m -... .. 0 .. .... - ... -0 ... 8 i .. "'~ 0 0 0"'" co co , , mOWN(hCO 2 Coo, '" '" gg: i::~i8!::l '" ~8~h:it~ g ....'" 0 0 0 ...'" '" '" "'''' '" '" .f.9,__~~~~~~___~~~_~~ -$~~$$~~-~-~$~~~~~~$~$~-~-~._$_.~~~~$~m " "i> .. > ~ --"-O):::In ~ _$..J~.....~coQ.2' :gNj:j~~e:!!. !D"'~:"~;a ......NO)....oo. ~.....~~~ , ~~....'" .'"oo'"oo<o~~ B8S:::f:;; ill. . . . . ...g8~g~ ~~ --.,--.,....,. N ..... NNm ....... O(h(hN (,.)W<OW_.(h~200~ ~g~:j<D~goo8go GoCo:"":"'CoO,O,O,o:""oo,' "''''.....o..!!oooo'''oo :;: '&..... ~~~~ :""i;DO,o .::::!U1go OOOO~~~~~~j~~~~~~OO< c" <<mmmm~~~~05~oo. ~~~~~~88~~~~i~~~~i ~~SS~~33x~ ~~~mn~ ~_oo ~~~n ~ ~aoz ~i. __~o m .~C.. mm ~~m~ m m-_a3 < ~~~~ 0 gl~~ m ~ CD 5i::J ~ ,... L2 !!!.3. lil a.~ ~ m = ~ ~j ~ .. o ~ l".'" ~8 :'Co ..... ...'" lD'CD lll~ ~~~~~~~o~~m~~~~Q~ ~n'~-onjg~=~<~o~l~aa .~< ~~mm~~~m -.~CCD o-~<~~ccm~I~::J~~~::J~ < - mm~=~o 0 CD~~~ ~::JCD~j-=O "CD ~~ -- ~m~~~~aamo m ;~m~ j ~--~~ c ~mCD3 2m lil mmmm ~.~ !!!.5.::e ~- _CD CD CD CD ~ ~ j~CD m ~~~~~ 0 ~ ~ lillil IJ!i m m 15 ~.... !ill ~~~ i::: !alli.......[ 'i:!~~ .,. 14 ill ~ Ei '" If ~- ~~::!~~. ~ ~:il Ii ~ :;; OJ ,.f:I.,.f:I.,.f:I.A,.f:I.,.f:I.,.f:I. ,.f:I.,.f:I.,.f:I.,.f:I.,.f:I. tn0101~010101 U1U1U1tnU1 ~~~~~~~g zz~~~~~z~ ~~~8~g~~~>>~~~gg>~ ~:::l~~g:s;!~ ll:t;~~'" "''''~''''''a;c" O~"'O~ -< o ~ r ~ " ;, 0 om !jloOQO-l -.2020-.- . ~y.V'Y"wzz~ z'"(lf{JVJ9'i a. "'t.....~~~m5>);~);~~~~n ~O' .....-.....1-.....101-.....1 '" -Io-tnCON"'U N ->. -'" -.....I ~ ~ N c.n 0 Q)~ :. '" S. ,.,::, ..,.... + .. !!! zz 5>); '" on <fl '" on 'n en ffi ,n tn Ul on tn en ffi '" (f> ,n ~ ;u ~ '" " " " '" ~ '" N ~ N N N 3 m " '" 0 0 ., en en w en '" ., 0 0 m >D 0 0 w en en en ~ '" " 0 >D en 0 0 '" ~ w '" ". :.. m 0 on ~ 0 0 w w en OJ ~ ... '" 0 '" >D 0 0 en en en -, _~QQ~QQQQQQMQQQQQ$ ~ ~ ~N ~ .;!H~~ ~ oeooing" ~c>>' w<ooo 0)....... ~ '" <0 (.0) (.0)(.0) I\J......"U ~CD~ OW-.....lWO~w II ogg"'~~~m~~C: OO'gt:o<o",,,,,,,t; 00 (hOO,.f:l.NCO--., - > - - ...........:i W N 00_. ~N !>>~"""-"""&rii -.....NOC'j2'-c- ~~~~~ CD ooNW~"'" &~.::::!(.0,12.! ~ o .. ~ ~ o <D ~ Z ~"TIC ::I_.em z::ll .N c!!! N...r- o~-l ow!!: ... UI -l e ~ " " o o ~ '" ~ > '" Q. N :" ~ en -i e N o o ~ ); '" en -i e " . , ~ o a- " '" w -i e '" '" o ~ m () -i r en 6 ~ 6 N 6 ~ if !P- 5. ~ 'O . ." E -S ~ W 0; N 't. W -i [ .. C , ~ ~~ ",en ~~ S:S: 00 ~~ i!lW ~g 88 -i '"'' qee .00 - 'H' mm -i-i -i-i ~~ zz en en ~~ mm "'''' en en ~~ ;: W m . . , . . . ~ ~ 10 N "' N~ """ "' "....la.<c i!i;:8l ~ N '" ~ '" W W N~ "''''~ ~~~ ww~ lZ ~ .. o WN -~~ .......w 000 000 lZ ~ o o WN -~~ "....l4>.W 8g8 !: ~ ., ;l; 000 ~ ;;; "' g "' N_ O" w :"'~J>. "'N", ~~"' t '" w o o NN ",w.. n~ ~ ~ ~ W ... o o NN "'-~ ill"'''' csg8 ~ o 000 ~ ~ ;;: ... g NN "'-~ (nww 8g8 ~ :: ~ ... o o N~ g~~ 000 '" o " *" en.::;: wiob *"*"*" !: N ..... o o .w~ g80 " W .. *" "'NO eo:..,d:> *"*"'" tt ww "'~ N N ~~ 00 ~~ -0 00 -1-i-i "~<' izz en en ..~ mm "'''' -i-i 00 "'''' eno ,~~ '::l; -0 " ~~ Ho ~~ iDiD ggo NN ww '00 880 N N ww gg 000 000 NN ww bo 00 000 NN ww 88 000 NN ww 88 000 000 NN ww no en . " en . " . . 000 00 coZ tt.'if!.> 000 00 bbZ ~*> tt ww ;: w ~ 8 .. :8 w 8 -1", ~m -m ~ m ~ o '" () > 'O i! r o e 00 00 1;:1;: l~ 1;:1;: CoCo 00 00 00 00 00 i!;i!; wi:.> 88 o ~~ "'.. ww 00 00 1;:1;: '"cab;. 88 88 i:lo *"'" -::1::: - ~ 11'10. 00 00 ww ww bo *"'" () " ill () . , l;" , -1 " !! 0;0; NN 't.'t. ww ~~ .... ww w_ ..8 o's;:~ Itz'O -0'" "en 0 . ,,< s:~~ -zm OGlZ S. Cil . g ... ~ '" - N L~ ~ o g o ~ ~ 1n U. "' '" _0_ ~ .. :i g o ~ ., N ~ .. :i ~ ~ ~ ., ., I:l I:l ~o~ - ~ ~ .t t ~ ..... o 0 "'0"' '" N .. ~ If 'f "'0"' W '" W ~ N N o 0 .0 0 o " 808 "' 10 ~ "' '" o o ~ ~ ~ ~ lo~ o 00 "' 10 ~ "' '" o o .. .. ~ ~ g gg 000 " c .. 10 ~ '" 10 o o .. .. b b N N N N L~ ~ " *" '" '" "' '" wZ~ ~>'if!. i!: .. w o o "' "' '" '" N N ~o~ - W '" *" " W w GIZa, ~>"#. tt: ww Gl m z m ~ r .... NN 't.'t. ww .... ",en NN [lJ~ -10~ .-im It"", -m-1 O;;or= ON ; 'O m "m" ,. ~." m::l!B "z" ~ ~ Q . eO .'Om .'Ow ffil~ ;;; '" ~ .N ~ .. VI 0:;: W "' :" 1:: .... "'O~ N .. .~ W go~ o tt w W ......................... ...""./:10.;0. """"""WWW tttt w w we..:> ~ "j:: 08~ w '" ..., o8::j N........ ..... W 0 OOlC,/l N o~88~o"g~~o8~ N .. .'" w i!: '" 008 .............................. mmOlOlOlm NNNNNt\) !" '" UlN io co o~;;jooo~o~ Ol to>....... -.... f.n.... "' -"' 0....0000....0(0 N........... ..... W 0 OUlOl N o~88~o~~~o8~ ~ .'" N to~ !! ~ ..... ....o;;j - '" .w ~ gag: o N ~ ~ .w o "' 008 "' _ N N i;Il 8:: o~OOOO~OlD w ~ ", o~oooomo .... ....0. In $Z! klbb 080000088 000 ~ ~ ~~ ....oom N ~" 088 VI oc.n{)l N OOlOl 80g <Dg 0888000800815 0000000 N j .w :. "' g08 5. " . ~ 5. o . .~ I" o " o 0 00,9 N N .. .Zw if:$:* ~ ~ "goo .. 0 ~Zb if:5>"#. 000000 c.n Oc.nOl gg:g: b~g 0000008150 ~ " o o N ~ .. '" *" N "' b " -:: '" o o o J,. N '" *" o b *" N ~" 088 8 o N o b '" o o b *" o o b " o o b " ;: w ~ ~ .. "' w 8 w o o o w '" w 8 w 8 o w 8 o o b *" o o b *" ~ iO i'; 'O o '!l ~ " m Gi " -i e 'O w o o o o o o o o o o ..~ ww .... NN ",en .... ww "'.. 1;:1;: ~~ ~ ~ o~ i~ Om en", ~8 mZ --1 z~ "" C-., me :!j> ~.~ " -.. .'" ~ 8~ :;:1;: ... -~ ~"' .. -~~ 0- 88 ~..... .~~ o. 88 ..I;: '"....l-co l:1;: ~ ~'" 'N-...... -.. "'.. _en ",0 bb 00 00 -~ g: 0- 88 ~"' ",0 bb 88 161 1 A 9 . ;: ~ w 0: .. N N ~ 't. " w o .. $ ; , 0 o w m Z Gl Z m m " Z Gl o -1 " m " ~ r'~ O',~ ~; 0.;' -i " o en -i " m !< " e ~ "Tl . ..... o o 0 "' ~ w m 8 8 N W 0 ~ "8 o 0 N W 0 -.j>. b o 0 o 0 N N l'l o 0 ~ '"....l m o 0 o 0 ~ w "' g ~ "' w 0 -.j>. '0 8 8 o o 0 "' w 0 ~ ~ if 5. .. , . , o . Q. r . , ~ @ 1l ~ " o o ~ '" " ~ " o o ~ '" *" .. c , ~ " " o I'- -1 '" .. ~~it -g i: , .. e, .. il ~ iilll'1: H ..- '" c il o " :H ~.g !Ii O~ ~ Ir ~a :i& W"/r ~~c 103!. ~ , Iii Wm~ -.1> !3'i I: 1O;:J!. ~ '" c il . ~ . il o . ~ o '" "" C . 0.0 . C , . - . ~l;" 01' ~! ~ Ii ~. . - ~. _I' o -1 . !! ~ -< - o om~ c , c <S.~. ~ , 0 3; ~~~ m (') -. '8 g g ~ ~ :. g. ~.~ . H~ 00:1. W"Q . -nli::! Q Q. l;: ...... ~ . -< . . 0 _ W *" o ;:ii ~;o::! It ~ 00 ::I. I: .,.. 'a III l: Ii.. 5 l;" . CI. if~ . 0 W *" o ;;i < . , ~ o a- " " ~ ~ -n:TCf -<",~ ogRj c "' 3ie ~ 8" , '" en -1 e ~ " " o o ~ " <0 " " ~ " ~ ~!1il"" aeilfg a.a.-a ;;C" iflJ:' 2,.Ollllll .. ' n c...!!. ;01'" '" . n ~ ?1 .. 00 c.n1.r. ~~ ~~ ~~ c< ;;: en .., c: ~ 8 ~ ~ " en .., c: " . , ~ . ~ " en .., c: '6 " o L m () .., r en :J 'i: 6 ~ 6 w if "- 5 ~ " "' ~ " ,; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w g~<~~ r-. n lD III . .., ~ ' .. <. .. ~ ~ ~ 2:"8 :s . , ~ e:a~ o . '" '" ~ w:" ~~ ~~ OlW ~~ ~"'o g~~~ i7l c: Ill.... ....CI>l;To ~z(jj"(j) :l ~ ~ 51 ~ ~ U> ii; " 8 " o o " o ~ ~ ~ w ij; .. - il -g ~ .., = .... 3" '" & o , -- 3" " . !l -- - Ir~ . . ,~ . . ~' CXlO.,.. 0 U1. -< m ~l!!:.... I III ~gc~3 - '. ~il: 1;:'" .,.. ~ <Do Sit ~~~6'~ ~g:ioi !!i f " . " " i!: a a .. " ~ w W en en ~ ~ w w o 0 1-1-8~P ~ " a ~ :.. ~ ~ w ij; ::1 en " " .., .' o '" ~ '" ~ '" '" ~ .~ ~ -'" o o o I " . ~ , o . m ~ . . .. w " w ~ '" ~ ~ .. w '" ~ o " o en ~ o ~ o ~ ~ '" ~ '" .. ~ en ~ " ~ '" l'l l'l ~ o .., o !!: ." o , .. ~~ "'''' :g:g 00 w w ~~ ~ - "'~ 00 -Izz ~~rr1 -en" O"'m "en ,m'" . z ' i~~ ;u~> . m ~ " , m o en . .., ~ ~ I.!:! " . ~ , o . . .. w :.. ~ ~ ~ m ~~ t~5: ~"'~ ~ ~ :.. a '" '" w ~ ~ - w__ w~'" CuoCo ~"'w ~-'" .. ~ ~ a S 00 00 '0.0 00 000 r u. !l j =0 00 bb 00 .,goo ~ a 000 M '" '" '" w ~ m", ~-- ':...,""alo ~~t; r ~ -" a a -;;'" ~!'J."" ~o_ 000 "g 0 0 ~ ~ :.. ~ w ;. a S 000 M a 000 M !: ~ w ;. a S 000 f;:; ~ a ~ ~~.... '88'0 000 ~ " ~ '.;,- g:~8 e",wo ~~* -;; ;;: " a a 88 8" 080 '" ~ zzz ji);); ~~ w w w w ~~ ~~ 00 ~~ g:g: ~m 88 .., ."" !ace . 0 0 -GlGl "'mm ...,.., , .., .., :l-5i!1' . z Z ",en en 0"'''' 3mm "" "en en o ' , IIt--l"'O ~l(~ O~~ even:"" ~~~ ~();I'" ~ - O~_ .."r-.>..... ~ ~ ~~~ 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 zzz ji:t;)i; 000 z zlz ;');:1); ~~ ww ;;- : . w '"a w " ~ w ~ ~o w .. \::1:: ~~ so w &;~ ~w n w ;. ~ a '"' a 00 " w ~~ ~~ ~~ so ~ w ~~ ~~ ......en s80 ~~ "'w g~ 80 '" ,"z ~j; ~b "'- 'Or..:. 00 So ~~ ~'" :..w ~,p. Ep ~i5. ~ :g~ :g ~~ ~ o~o ~~ ~ ~l!:~ w~ ~ ~8 -l200 ~ 3 ~ 55 -) ;:0;0 2-1-<-< i~6d , "" ;:aVl~~ . * <" ~ 0 b::O 2 ~:l 0 . en .., <i ~ I 00 00 000 161 1 ...................... ,flo....",. WWWWWW ...................... mO'lC7lmO'lal Nt\Jt<.lNNI\,) \:\:\:\:\:\: wwwwww <;.lWWWWW ~?6?6~~::: WW....NN... t>i8iS588 ;1z~,f~~1?g S' rri 3' :"'\"'05'::tI -;tICTQ!:-t ::tl Orne ;3~o15 m ~ ~ i',,;a ~ ~ , 3 =:J' ~"" =-IlD'< 00 'l('il' < ;Un~~.(Il~j; ~ oa';!~05 ~ ~-(~.;u~~ c m IV .,..-13:'" (II n!!! ,f.:,::; "'" -I mr-i'5I>I~ ~ )( ;;~, ~I~I~ 7D ~ ~- ~ ~_...... 0) cor.n W "'~ w .$(000000) " ~ ~ .<0 ..............r.n co ......0:>0 N ....N..,.OOO<O ~ <0 ~ ~ '" m ~ '~ a 0 ~oooooo ~ <0 ~ ~ '" m ~ .~ a 0 ~oooooo 0000000 C; m ~ ~ ~ ~ "0'1..... tJ, ~~ 0 ~NOOOO-' 7D <D ~ ~ CDN i::n 00 0 ~oooooo I;;; ~ :0 "0 0000000 0000000 '" ~ ........ -..... a 0 000000..8 N '" ~ '" o o ~ g~ 090 ~ .. * b.8 io.Jbz f1.*~ m ~ '" '" o 8 ~ ~ ~ .. a 000 0; '" * '" ~ ~ZZ ~:s:s ~ Iz' l:s ~ ." o , ~ " " o rsr. .., '" .. ~~~ "Ii ~ , !!. ~ '" o . a '/' :;~1: -g " , !!. ~ '" c . a ,. g'~ ~o " . - - . o~ ~ ~r ~a. gZ- W,,/t ~~e ID 3 !!, ~ c ~ ~tri':' ~'i E' ID=:J!!, ., ~ . . ." . . n . !'. a ~ m ~ "'" o . ~.g , . - . ~. "'I' m" . . .0 . C , . ~. Z-S' 0'9- 0; ~ .., o !!: ." -< ;; L C !'. ~ !!. 0. , ~ '" o~ ::!i::~ 00 ::I, ~j ~ ~ ~ g g :: ~ ~CIIw ~ C ;Ii ~ Zw j;* ~ ~ o~ 1~::11;: ~ ra g.g i" lD S'=:J !Il Q,l;! & ii'Tl . -< . a W ~ o ?i A9 'j , < . , ~ ~ g '" ~~ ,,::T~ ~Wm o~~ 3iW ~ :; , " en .., c: 16 I ~1 II.."."", "... At.s.7..... A,c",8OIY eo".".,tttul 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 A9 j May 7,2009 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Dick Lydon at 2:00 P.M. II. Attendance Members: Bud Martin, Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman (Excused), Bill Gonnering (Excused) County: Darryl Richard-MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery-Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Michelle Amold-Director ATM Others: Jim Fritchey-CLM, Chris Tilman-Malcome Pirnie, Jackie Bammel- Resident, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan III. Approval of Agenda Remove: VII. A Ficus White Fly Bud Martin moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - April 2, 2009 Change: Pg. 3, VIII. A, paragraph4, should read-Charles Arthur stated that 'a new home under construction requires new transformers." "Both the MSTU and FPL" prefer to save money by installing underground utilities at the present time. Pg. 3, IX A Bullet 1, should read "Requested Current10"- Improvements General "decreased to" $2,500,000.00 "and the transfer of the remaining balance to Reserves" Pg. 3, IX A Bullet 2, removed Pg. 3, IX A Bullet 3, should read Water and Sewer- "increased to" $14,000.00 Charles Arthur moved to approve the minutes of April 2, 2009 as amended. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Utilities-Charles Arthur An Executive Summary to amend Ordinance No. 2001-43 (Underground Trenching and Utility Line burial) was distributed. (See attached) 1 161: 1 A9 ~ Charles Arthur announced that the Ordinance Amendment was approved by the BCC. He stated that a meeting was conducted with FPL and reviewed the following: >> Preliminary Design layout-complete within 1-2 weeks >> Preliminary Box layout-complete during May-June 2009 >> FPL requested incorporating the installation of Underground Cable into Phase II >> A "new" submergible switch may be installed at an increased cost, total $75,000.00 per switch (original switch $25,000.00) >> Cable and Electric may not be combined in the same conduit >> Summarized the process for removal and installation of meter cans Chris Tilman recommended installing the conventional switch at this time. Discussions ensued concerning summer meetings. It was agreed to cancel the July, August, and September meetings. Additionally the October meeting was rescheduled to 9:00 a.m. on October 15, 2009. Dick Lydon announced that Charles Arthur was leaving the meeting and discussions would continue. Charles Arthur left at 2:26 p.m. Quorum was lost. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed. (See attached) ~ Ad Valorem Tax $68,949.29 (Uncollected) ~ Available Operating Expense $72,790.95 B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard distributed. (See attached) VI. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM-Jim Fritchey reported: * General maintenance is being performed * Ongoing trimming is being conducted * Irrigation is being maintained Darryl Richard requested flushing of the irrigation lines VII. Old Business A. Refurbishment Project-Quotes by CLM and Hannula-Darryl Richard stated that refurbishment was not needed at this time. Jim Fritchey noted that CLM was at an unfair advantage as they were not given the opportunity to rebid the Project outside of Contract rates. Michelle Arnold affirmed that CLM should have had the option to rebid an open Contract and will be available to CLM in the future. VIII. Project Update A. Utilities-Charles Arthur-Previously discussed IV. 2 B. Maintenance-Bruce Forman-None 1611 A9 C. Tax Analysis-Bud Martin-None D. Liaison-Dick Lydon-None IX. New Business-None X. Public Comment-None XI. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 2:39 P.M. I ) Vanderbilt Beach MSTU /J I J. , -..J;1Jr Advisory Committee C, tudt-1 7jfU \------ ~ho_r l-t~ /J rl(~v ~. Dick Lydon, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee o~ as presented or amended {,,-l(.oq The next meeting is at 2:00 P.M. on June 4,2009 ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625111TH Ave. Naples, FL. 3 16/'1 A9 11..11.,"" B... M.s.7 Jc. A",,'BOI)' Oo".".ltl.. 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 May 7, 2009 Summary of Minutes & Motions III. Approval of Agenda Remove: VII. A Ficus White Fly Bud Martin moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - April 2, 2009 Change: Pg. 3, VIII. A, paragraph4, should read-Charles Arthur stated that 'a new home under construction requires new transformers." "Both the MSTU and FPL" prefer to save money by installing underground utilities at the present time. Pg. 3, IX A Bullet 1, should read "Requested Current10"- Improvements General "decreased to" $2,500,000.00 "and the transfer of the remaining balance to Reserves" Pg. 3, IX A Bullet 2, removed Pg. 3, IX A Bullet 3, should read Water and Sewer-"increased to" $14,000.00 Charles Arthur moved to approve the minutes of April 2, 2009 as amended. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Utilities-Charles Arthur An Executive Summary to amend Ordinance No. 2001-43 (Underground Trenching and Utility Line burial) was distributed. (See attached) Charles Arthur announced that the Ordinance No. 2001-43 Amendment was approved by the BCC. Discussions ensued concerning summer meetings. It was agreed to cancel the July, August, and September meetings. Additionally the October meeting was rescheduled to 9:00 a.m. on October 15, 2009. :::J l- I/) :;;~~ ~-~ iiie,.: 0:: Z,., w:::J", elL:;; z ~ 6)COPOO........ N.....ONCJ) .2 ~g~~~ ,Q-(J)NCO....C\I .!!~<o...:o~ a:i l....~ ~ e < '" o > 11. .. o 0.. 1611 ~~~ aOcO<O 'Cro~M 0; r--: v- o..~N ~;g~g~g ;!::::~~gr::g (")('1')0 .<0<0 r.f (rf M M Gl~ ~ ..,'" "'... ~~ "":co,j 000000)0 ""O~OCO(J)N gg"'gai~N ....oCJ)V) ~ ~ iii' ~ ~ w~~~~ww~WWWW"~WWWWWW '" .~ .~ ~ E ~ 0: "tCOOCl... (()(,!)0JCO C"10"ico (') ro 0 ('J '<;t(()CO(O o 0J 'w N ..., o .; "' "' o ;:: oor'~"<fOO<D ooo...')C")C)CD DC.) "0 OJ 0' 0 "l ~~:CDcn~ N ~ wwwwm~wwww~oooooooooowwoo~ '" o '" ti1t;COOION lo..i;im ;!t::;::::- . D.. ~ m ~ O)!=C <:( <:( 10 ..~ ,- <:( ~ U(O)(")iO(f)Z-U.....-.;(D~~~- C ... I I _l' m Z Z (") , I ,Z "CI ~~~WtD i:: ~:g:g:g me 00 0 u. d. ::;: 0;- N + ~~~~~~. b~ - -' '" .... o .... ~~ o..Z ;:\0 co;\!; 00 00 ~~ 00 00 "'''' ...... :!;~ ZZ ~M~ $!!R~~re~ 'IIt'lltC') ~OQ)Q)(f)..... oo:g~~~m:gg~~a 0002ZZ800000 000 000000 iOlOlO IOLOiOlOlO1t) 'litvv v'lt'O;fvvv "'''' ~~ ~... 00 00 00 "'''' ...... s .~ (I) 0 :!: ~~!Lge 1l.. ". -~ I:> 22:2:2:.5.2 :J.:Jt:. E;~~ I~e rtJ"rtJw~~~~ iD...~ S ".ij .. e" _." " .g e ~ 0 -W~~ WI2owEI~~~>~I~wS~ ~~w~ BI~OgEE~j~~C~0> ~c~~~cg~~:J:Jww__II~~c Cb :J C = U (U U ;: :J ~ ~ U 01 ~ ~. 2: 13 ~ tD ~~1~~~~~8~88~~'~5~~8~ ~ N => C C _ I>> :> j.2 5 E c -,1012 .. dI:::I m CD ZO'OE a: tC:~;:ii~ 'E~E:g~~_L..J G) 0 o.Q.Q oc..c.. >uUu...u...u...u...u... ]! a; ~ g> " .. I~ . . ~ >.~ >.~ ~uu-_ ccen.E.E,Een1;) g gl"* < <C ~ ~ ~ m(lJliiS:S:"';:::I:::I ::;:::;:za:a:rtJrtJrtJ E"ii 'CP Gi a:: c.!!!.!!! _ Q) C C ~ " .!::: .!::: Ofjo..o.. (leEE CD ~ 0 0 .!::::::I.Y.Y ~ en m co .E.E::!::::i!: 8g~~~8g~8g cicir-.:cOcOciciciod 00'Vr--C\l00000 00C"\l1OC\l00001O "':cci &r) N&r)&r)O ~ - .... C\I 8~~~ Moir-.:d O)("),....cn v_-(") r-- N ,... NN ",co od "'''' ..,.., NN ,...r- ...... ,~~C!i~~li :::Pl15gSO!: ....OT""OOcc. N<O';~~R ., ~~~~~~~~~~.~~~wwww~ww~w~~~~~~~w~~~w~~. .. l! ...:I ,,- (l'g < --- - ....(()It)....(") r--....0)C"\l0 ciMr-.:N"'= 10 Ottl C'\l"'" vC\l(")....T"" r---~ai cci 0-"'" 0) e - e "00 qoo i!~g ..-<0 v NM N N~'" "'....., NMN "'-", N ..., 0)"0 "' "'~N r-",.., a::i""':o:ri ro~;;; ,.: ~ ... ,.: r- .., M 0"'''' ,.....,r- aNa) 00.., ...'" ... NO <or- .,.:,...; 0;: N :.~ ~ fil:il H: 00", 000 dciN gg~ ttittilO NN ;;;8 r-.:oi ~;:r; ccitti _ N ~WWWW~W~WWW.WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW_W_WWWW~WW. .WWWW~WWWWWWWWWWWW l!l e .. Jj E E o UWWW~"fAofAo""fAotl')"'if.lV) s o I.~ C'1:ScO ..",... E (II e < g ggg8gg g gggggg 'V IOO),.....O'V ~ gf fi t.,.. ~ M q It)... ,- ~ ~ ~ www~..www~~ 8 g o o o ~ >- -' en 0 ~~~ a::U @ ~LUCI)w~a.><ffi c::: I-~~...J:::>~<C!) I- :E~W51- 1-0 z ~E:!Zug~~~Gj8!f oo;:~~o:o:;;:a:"1 ...JOZ~Cf.)LL..LLO::l-en ~g;:LU~wO::C:::oeno:: ::C~C/):::>~~LLLU~ . 9 ~ ~ W z en en >- *' en :.... ....IenO::wzzO::IOZ!lt ~!!;~i!!~~~~"~l) ULL~~a:::l-~U~I-"" o o o o ro N N v,J UJ 0'0 1--" (:) " ro i~ (i) cO Cl '" I.U '"' ." ro C MW Jj "<j 0) ..- CO 1.0 0) GO 0.lC'1<OtD :g;:;~3 0)0),........ g:;; ('-) w CD c, '"' ", ," U) V) UJ U) V.Wif.lUJV'if.lif.lUlif.lW0fAo_fAotl')WWWW..... 00 00 gg qo NM N.., gggggg88gg siocidciocicidci t;Sgg88g&~:5:5 N Iri..oo"o ,....- ~ _ N 888g ggg~ 10<000 rittia:icci "'~~ NNN v" "'Ii ~W~fAo 00 00 dci gg ttitti NN ggggga gggggg (")..,.,....0000.. ,...-t~icti .. wwwww. '" lD :; ijj 0:0: w>- "en >-0 0,-, rtJ>- W'-' Ww 11.0: ~6 w~ ~...J ~ ffi~ o::~~ Qu ~~~ ~~ wwg? ->->en"rtJ WZ/-OWO:: ~8Q~~~ '-'0:0:0:"'''' enw~wa:::z o:::r:UI-:::>ir z~w<en ::5ouJ~~3; - ::; D.. en ~a. t) ...JO ......::J ~ ~~C!)@en z O::a1zzC!) <t: wO:-<t:z:; ..J !;(o!!1..J;::w w :;0>--'<" U zo::wa:::u ~ ~<~~~m z (S~~~offi ~J:Cf.li=...JO::O::I ZCJClz<(WLU~ <5~a:C!)~~ffi ~~...JD...~OOLL -' -' g: 8 ~ a.u~C: <~en< enenz'-' ... z zoo:: &II gg~fZeng ~ tu ~ ~ ~. l!J"rtJo:o:.;t g g ~ f3 ~f6 CDm~o::o::~ 0: Wz 0 ~W ~ WC)>-z o..rtJ::5'" 1Ii!Z>-~ C!)w::>....en z~ooo:: i=g!...J~~ ~~~~~ ~~5gg ~NM.~tD~Gm~~~~:.~~~:~~N~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~= A9 '" ~ i;'Q) CD~~ ::.2 (J) ~..,.~- Il)~Ou.oU) :!~~ (J) ""'0 .= ~ . Je.mv "'....'" 0-",- it:!~ Q)!'''''= ~,- ~ l! GO!: "'''' So ....a: l!l~~ ~ciE - .. '" N "'.. N- ..~ _N "'- g~ -. "l. NN is ~ .- :i~ ~~ ~ . . .. 'j . . 16' 1 A9 Report for: May 7, 2009 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie SiIlery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Proiect Status (V A-28)- ACTIVE - Ordinance Modification - Installation of power on private properties 03-06-09: County Legal provides 'draft' of new ordinance to modify existing Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Ordinance 2001-43; to modify under Purpose (4) as follows: (4) providing for the Burial of Power Lines within the MSTU. including providing underground trenching and burial of utili tv lines from the street or transformer to private residences but excluding the expenditure ofMSTU funds for anv additional wiring or installation of improvements or upgrades to connect service to residences reuuired bv current code or resulting from anv other hardware nonconformitv. 3-31-09: Staff confirms that schedule for BCC Approval (earliest date) would be April 28, 2009 4-24-09: Executive Summary with Ordinance Modification is pending BCC Action on April 28th (V A-27)- ACTIVE - Execution of "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" between Collier County and FPL 01-29-09: Correspondence sent to FPL to confirm 'template' for "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement"; County Legal Assistance requested from Liaison Staff to coordinate with FPL Legal to prepare agreement for BCC Approval. 03-06-09: Scott Teach response to RLS 09-TRN-00122 regarding the GAF Agreement Language indicates that County Legal has no recommended changes other than paragraph 10. Assignment. "Propose that paragraph be revised as follows: Neither the Local Government Applicant nor FPL shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of one another." Otherwise no change to agreement is recommended by County Legal. 4-20-09: Information required for Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement may become available in August/September 2009; Final Engineering Cost Estimate is rcouired for execution of tbe GAF _ Underl!round Facilities Conversion Al!reement which will indicate the amount of benefit based on 25% cost reduction (GAF) Teleconference with FPL and County Staff (V A-26)- ACTIVE -Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL for relocating existing aerial utilities nnderground within Phase One area of the MSTU; Fiscal: $44,700 initial contract; Time to complete: initial: 180 days 01-19-09: Scope of Services received from Malcolm Pimie for Phase One Design Review. 02-04-09: Staff recommends approval of proposal for total of $44,700.00; Staff will coordinate with Consultant on completion of task items listed. 3-4-09: Notice to Proceed issued to Malcolm Pimie for Design Review 4-20-09: Malcom Pimie present during teleconference. (V A-24)-FPL RECIEPT OF ENGINEERING DEPOSIT; INITIAL SURVEY FOR PROJECT COMPLETE- RW A Survey for FPL Powerline Underground Installation Project - Phase One; RW A-FT-3944-08-08; PO 4500092247 01-08-09: RWA Finalizes Survey and submits to FPL 01-28-09: Meeting to review project activity: Charlie Arthur, Chris Tilman, Jackie Bammel, and Michelle Arnold in attendance. Items reviewed: Final Survey Data; Preparation for Public Meeting; Discussion regarding" 02-04-09: FPL Approves R W A Survey as per revisions requested. 02-04-09: Jolm Lehr confirms FPL will invoice County (MSTU) for $13,027.00; preliminary draft design work to begin immediately upon receipt of payment. 02-26-09: Due to non-receipt of 'original' invoice; staff contact to Jolm Lehr and request for copy of original invoice to be sent as soon as possible. 1 161 1 A9 03-03-09: Kate Donofrio, FPL Government Services Coordinator intercedes on behalf of MSTU Liaison Staff to obtain 'original' copy of invoice. Kate request 'overnight' (express mail) of invoice to County. 4-20-09: FPL confIrms receipt of payment for $13,027.00 Phase One Deposit; Design to begin within I to 2 weeks. (VA-23)- ACTIVE -PHASE ONE PRELIMINARY DESIGN; 4-20-09: Official' Kick-Orr meeting held with FPL, County Staff, County Legal, and MSTU Engineer Consultant; (teleconference) Major points reviewed during meeting: o FPL Preliminary Design (PO) will be delivered May/June 2009 o PO will indicate proposed locations for transformer boxes o Malcolm Pimie (MSTU Engineer) will review the PO to detennine if any easements are required (June/July 2009) o Final Draft Design anticipated delivery August/September 2009 given suffIcient easement exist. o The "Canal Crossing" (at Illth Ave. Bridge) will be pennitted by FPL; FPL to file for pennit o FPL request past pennit docwnents trom previous bridge crossings in Collier County (Staff) o FPL request any relevant infonnation pertaining to "flooding" within the project area (Staff) o Immediately following meeting: Staff follow-up with David Engelhart Electrical Inspector Collier County; David indicates that existing electrical within homes and even the 'aluminum' wiring in existing instal/ations wil/ not be required to be upgraded by Collier County Inspectors. He did mention, however, that all electrical needs to meet FPL 's requirements. Also, the removal afthe overhead weather 'head' conduit will not be required by Collier County; however, if the weather-head is removed a roofing contractor will have to repair the roof; a/so, if remaining the lI'cathe"wad overhead conduit wil/ have to be 'eg-:e,-ed' Effectivelv closed at the conduit entrv to the meter enclosure ver code and to not aI/ow rain to enter conduit (will confirm in writing with David Engelhart/CDES Division) o All permit fees required will be paid to Collier County Electrical Inspector Community Development Service Department. Buildin2 Review and permittin2; An inspection ofthe 'lIII<Ief .'.grounding' (update. as required) of each individual private service feed is required. An Electrician is not required to _ be present during inspection. o Channel Drive - Pilot Project; There are several upgrades to existing utilites on Channel Drive; the idea is to have a colaboritive effort between MSTU and FPL to work through the details of the 'undergrounding of private residential power feeds' on Channel Drive. o Immediately following meeting on 4-21-09: County Staff, FPL Project Managers (Ryan Drumm and Troy Todd) and MSTU Committee Member Charlie Arthur; Field Meeting to review Channel Drive Pilot Project; various aspects of project were reviewed; recommended coordination with John Hart {Hart's Electrical)for details and cost estimationfor each individual resident; There are approximately 5 poles which can go underground in this Pilot Project. o Inquiry trom Malcom Pimie pertaining to conduit requirements: FPL (John Lehr) reports that all conduit for "cable" must be in a separate casing trom FPL lines. There is a 12 inch minimum separation requirement. At no time can both cable and FPL line be within the same casing (or conduit) even if the lines are cased separately and meet the 12 inch off-set requirement. o FPL (John Lehr) noted that FPL has a new type oftransfonner which has a 'waterproof switch. This unit is $65,000-$75,000 per unit; while the regular unit is $50,000 per unit. (there is about $25,000 increase in cost per unit - if 'waterproof switch type is selected) o FPL confirmed required easement for the transformers is approximately 20 ft. x 20ft. with 8 ft. mandatory clearance trom vegetation on the panel side. o FPL inquired if any lift stations were in Phase One Project? (Staff). These overhead to undenrround conversions will reauire a Dermit and an electrical contractor. if this work is within the SCOD< of this oroiecl. o Review of "Implied Easement" on individual private property; FPL was infonned that Collier County BCC was modi tying MSTU Ordinance on April 28th to address the private easement aspect of the project. 2 161 1 A9 (V A-19) - ACTIVE-ONGOlNG - On Call Services - Malcolm Pirnie Engineering MP-FT -3657-08-03; PO 4500098566; On-going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. Original Contract amount: $40,000 (V A-18) - ACTIVE-ONGOING - Maintenance Contract - Contract #05-3687 "Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance"; Original BCC Award amount: $34,697.00. 01-23-09: Collier County Waste Water Repairs Backflow at no charge to MSTU; Installation of new 2" backflow preventer completed. 02-02-09: Maintenance Drive-Through and inspection; Lew Schmidt and staff. 02-04-09: Commercial Land Contract expires June 13,2009; Draft copy of new Maintenance Contract reviewed by Staff. 02-04-09: Investigation into Property on Comer of Vanderbilt Drive and Tradewinds indicates shrub hedge is within County ROW (per County Surveyor - Markings placed onsite verify location of ROW Line) 3-2-09: Staff reports damage to landscaping by 'unknown' vehicle; Sheriff Corporal indicates that we should check with Lewis Tree Service, Inc. to investigate. 3-4-09: Investigation into damage to shrubs indicates that Lewis Tree Service is not responsible for the damage to shrubs (coordination with Lew Schmidt; onsite meeting with Lewis Tree Crew Leader Nick Moore; consultation with FPL staft) 3-25-09: Meeting with resident at 496 Germain Ave. to review irrigation near residence. The palms appear to be drying out and existing irrigation appears inadequate. Staff request CLM to review. 3-26-09: CLM provides estimate 1002442 for installation of new irrigation at 496 Germain. Total estimate is for $474.75 4-23-09: Per Committee request staff will coordinate with property owner at 496 Germain for the repair of damaged irrigation by private property owner in coordination with the MSTU Contractor (CLM); Staff has requested property owner to bring back plans for the irrigation system installation and notify staff of a date/time upon which the project may be reviewed by all parties. 3 16 / 1 A9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2001-43 as amended, which created the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), to include providing underground trenching and burial of utility lines from the street or transformer to private residences and, as needed, arranging to locate the burial of such power lines alongside any existing utility easements but excluding the expenditure of MSTU funds for any additional wiring or installation of improvements or upgrades to connect service to residences required by current code or resulting from any other hardware nonconformity. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt an amendment to Ordinance No. 2001-43, which created the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), to include providing underground trenching and burial of utility lines from the street or transformer to private residences and, as needed, arranging to locate the burial of such power lines alongside any existing utility easements but excluding the expenditure of MSTU funds for any additional wiring or installation of improvements or upgrades to connect service to residences required by current code or resulting from any other hardware nonconformity. CONSIDERATIONS: On March 10, 2009, Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee Chairman Dick Lydon, Advisory Committee Report (Item lOA County Manager's Report), requested direction from Board of County Commissioners regarding modification to the existing Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Ordinance. Subsequently, Collier County Board of County Commissioners directed staff to coordinate with County Legal on a proposed amendment to the Ordinance of Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU. The proposed Ordinance is attached to this Executive Summary and has been advertised in accordance with Section 125.66 FS. Staff considers the modification necessary in order to enable the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU to expend funds on private properties within the MSTU boundary for the purposes of the Powerline Underground Conversion Project. FISCAL IMP ACT: Modification to the Ordinance will allow for expenditure of MSTU Fund 143 monies on individual private properties for individual 'connection' to complete the underground utilities conversion project. 100% participation of each individual resident (or property owner) is required in order to receive a 25% "cost benefit" (cost reduction) per the Public Service Commission Approved 'GAF' Waiver with Florida Power & Light Company. Exact cost for individual 'connection' is not known at this time. Staff estimates that there will be installation of connection by private property owners in conjunction with that performed by the MSTU. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Consistent with the Public Facilities Element of the Growth Management Plan. 161 1 A9 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is not quasi-judicial and requires no ex parte disclosure, requires only a majority vote for approval, and is otherwise legally sufficient for Board action.-SRT RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Ordinance Amendment. Prepared By: Darryl Richard, MSTU Project Manager, Alternative Transportation Modes Department Attachments: I) Amending Ordinance 2009 2 16' 1 A9 ORDINANCE NO. 2009- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2001-43, AS AMENDED (THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNI1); AMENDING SECfJON THREE, PURPOSE AND GOVERNING BODY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on July 31, 2001, the Board of County COmmissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2001-43, establishing the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit; and WHEREAS, the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit Advisory Committee reqnested that the Board of County Commissioners amend and revise Section Three of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-43; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2009, the Board of County Commissionelll as the governing body of the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit approved the amendment to Ordinance No. 2001-43. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-43, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: SECfJON ONE: Amendment to Sedion Tbne Purpose ud Govemin& Body Section Three, Pmpose and Governing Body of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-43 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION TRREE Purpose ud Goveniag Body The MSTU is created fur the purpose of. (I) Providing curbing, watering facilities, plantings and maintenance of the median strips and risht-of-way edges of roadways within the MSTU; (2) Providing traffic calming improvements, street lighting, and sidewalks within the MSTU; (3) Beautificalion and main1enance of other public areas within the MSTU as determined by the Advisory Committee; and (4) providing fur the Buria1 of Power Lines within the MSTU. includina nrovidmg 1~1.M ~hino and bmial of utilitv lillP..'Cl :&om the street or transfonner to nrivate rea~ AIVI as ~ 8I'1'RIlaino to locate the burial of alCh DOwer 1i1V"!!l aJnnCNide any evimno ntilitv .oI!IIoh! but exc1udino the ~_ of MSTIJ fund!lil for any -Slldditinn!lll) wirin2 01' iruttRJJAtinn of i~ or ~ to ~ service to UtvlP.rlinNI words are added; Struck 1'hrrMmh words are deleted. 161 1 A9 resitil'!nt".- reauired bv CUl"fent code or remltina &om any other hardware nonconformity. The governing body of the MSTU shall be the Board of County COmmissioners of Collier County, Florida. SEcrJON TWO: Conmet and Severability In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phmse or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shaIl be deemed a sepamte, distinct and independent provision and such holding shal1 not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SEcrJON THREE: Inelusion in The Code of Laws and OnIinan... The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renwnbered 01' re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SEcrJON FOUR: Effective Date This Ordinance shall be effective upon filing with the Florida Department of Slate. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County CommissiOlIeIS of Collier County, Florida this day of .2009. A lTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CleIk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Deputy CleIk By: DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and Legal sufficiency: Scolt R. Teach Deputy County Attorney @) 2 Und....;.w! words are added; Struck Throwrh words are deleted.