Backup Documents 06/09/2009 Item #16I
..., ..
1 t I'
~''''.~ .l
~J j
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 9, 2009
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of April 6, 2009.
2) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of April 9, 2009.
3) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of March 19,2009; April 2, 2009.
4) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of April 1, 2009.
5) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Agenda of April 6, 2009.
Minutes of April 6, 2009.
6) Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee:
Minutes of March 17,2009.
7) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of March 9,2009.
8) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of May 6,2009; May 13,2009 joint wi Foundation
Landscape Subcommittee.
Minutes of April I , 2009.
A. Budget Committee:
Agenda of April 1, 2009; April 27, 2009; May 11,2009.
Minutes of March 23,2009.
B. Management Review Committee:
Agenda of April 21, 2009.
9) Utility Authority (Water and Wastewater Authority):
Minutes of March 23, 2009.
---~._~ --~~-- -_..--~,_."""_.......,'- ".,~;"" .' .-".--..
RECEIVED ~i:i:s ~~.wL16 I tAl ',I /
2009 Henning Apnl 6, 2009
MAY 1 1 Coyle -P-
Board of County Commissioners Coletta
~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, April 6, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the
Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby
Vice-Chair: James Warnken
John Cowan
Cormac Giblin (Absent)
Brian Goguen
Christine Jones
Kenneth Kelly (Excused)
Sally Masters
Patrick Peck
J ames Pusateri (Excused)
Bradley Schiffer
Chris Spencer-Alternate (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing & Human Services
Frank Ramsey, Housing Manager
Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor
: ';':1 D0/ v9
1 Item .:lill!~ \
-,.."....._~. --....-.--,-..---.-
16 J t~ltOO9
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hruby at 3 :04 PM.
Chairman Hruby read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting.
2. Introduction of Committee Members and Staff
The roll was taken and a quorum was established.
Patrick Peck was welcomed as the newest member to the Advisory Committee.
Commissioner James Coletta also attended.
3. Approval of Minutes
The following corrections were noted:
. Page 4, under Item D, "Community of Care" was changed to "Continuum of
Care"
. Page 5, under Public Speakers, "CDBD" was changed to "CDBG"
John Cowan moved to approve the Minutes of the March 2, 2009 Meeting as amended.
Second by Christine Jones. Carried unanimously, 7-0.
4. Approval of Agenda
James Warnken moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Patrick Peck.
Carried unanimously, 7-0.
5. Information Items
A. Presentation by the Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition - Debra Mahr,
Executive Director and Steve Perkins, HMIS Administrator
Copies of the PowerPoint Presentation and the Point in Time Report were distributed to
the Members and the public.
Points covered:
. Mission: to support the planning, delivery and coordination of services to Collier
County's hungry, homeless, and "at risk" populations
. Vision: to become a well-known, well-funded community force, and to develop
programs linking the community and direct service providers
. Monthly meetings: identify needs, reduce duplication of services, collaborate on
programs and projects, develop programs to address needs
0 "Partnerships for Prevention"
0 "Rapid Re-Housing" - developing an "Affordable Housing Locator"
link on the website
. Goal: to provide housing stability.
"Point-in- Time" Report:
. Homeless count was taken on January 29-30,2009
. Key locations were targeted by member agencies, shelters, and the Sheriffs
. 300+ homeless and "at risk" individuals were serviced at "Get Help" Clinics
in Immokalee and Naples;
. Reports are sent to the State on a yearly basis
2
"''''_..'0''""''_'"',"-''''"- -',~~'
16 , 1 A 1 'I
April 6, 2009
Ms. Mahr introduced Steve Perkins, HMIS ("Homeless Management Information
System") Administrator for Continuum of Care and outlined his duties:
. Responsible for developing the survey tool, extracting data, and ensuring
compliance with HUD' s requirements
. Position is funded by a HUD Grant through Collier County's Department of
Housing and Human Services
Mr. Perkins stated the Homeless Survey was provided by the State of Florida to all local
Continuums. He reviewed both the State's and HUD's guidelines to ensue compliance.
(Sally Masters arrived - 3: 20 PM)
A question was asked concerning the differences between the types of counting, i.e.,
"Point-in- Time," "Collier County School System," and "At Risk."
. "Point-in-Time:" 329 - adhered to strict definitions
. "Collier County School System": has its own definition of homeless which is
different from either the State or the HUD definitions, i.e., children who are
living in motels can be counted as homeless. Children in shelters are counted
by other methods. The School System provides the count.
. "At Risk: " the number was pulled from the data entered - for example, an
individual who stayed in a hotel for only one night
Ms. Mahr stated outreach is provided through St. Matthew's House. She reported the
greatest need is for transitional housing, i.e., Wolfe Apartments, and/or to provide tenant-
based rental assistance to rapidly re-house families who have recently been evicted, then
to provide supportive services to help families become "housing stable." The goal is to
raise funds to commission a study to research the magnitude of demand and develop
potential solutions. HUD has programs that work and is providing information regarding
"best practices" to the Continuums.
B. Report from Subcommittees: Sally Masters and Chairman Hruby
(1) Supply/Demand Subcommittee:
No meeting - no report
(2) Housing Incentives Subcommittee:
. Initial Mission is not relevant - not building
. Suggestion: combine the Supply/Demand Subcommittee with Housing
Incentives Subcommittee while keeping the total number at five
. Focus of new Subcommittee: foreclosures, NPS Program, and Stimulus
funding
. Goals (mandated by BCC):
0 Evaluate mortgage consortium - are mortgages accessible to
Workforce Housing and affordable housing families,
0 Examine Transportation Reservation proposal
. Conduct public hearings:
0 With providers to identifY barriers to housing in the marketplace and
how to help providers/developers bring houses back on line;
,.,
-'
---,---.,- "" q'~ -"'.-"".,.="~.._,~~_._~-_._-~_.~~--~-_.
16 , 1 Al
April 6, 2009
0 With mortgage industry - lenders - what are the trends in mortgages
. Also discussed: scheduling/procedures with BCC Hearings
A suggestion was made to not discard the previous work accomplished by the Housing
Incentives Subcommittee.
Also noted, pursuant to Item #5 of Functions, Powers and Duties ofthe AHAC, was the
responsibility to review rezoning applications prior to submission to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Brad Schiffer moved to merge the two Subcommittees (Supply & Demand Subcommittee
& Housing Incentives Subcommittee) into one Subcommittee. Second by Sally Masters.
Carried unanimously, 8-0.
Chairman Hruby asked Staff to email the full Committee asking for volunteers.
Subcommittee Meetings will be held on the third Wednesday of each month from 3:00 to
5:00 PM in the 3rd floor conference room of Building "H."
C. Presentation on Homeless Prevention Funds - Margo Castorena, Grants Operations
Manager
Homeless Prevention and Ravid Re-Housinz Program (HPRP):
. HUD-funded program
. Provide financial assistance and services to individuals who are "at risk" of
becoming homeless or who have recently become homeless (Foreclosures have
created a new class of homeless)
. Allocation to Collier County: $888,850
. Secondary component of Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP")
. Will provide rental assistance, security deposits, utility deposits, payment of
moving costs and hotel vouchers for individuals or families who have recently
become homeless
. Goal: to help individuals/families become stabilized to prevent homelessness
. Assistance will be provided to renters: housing relocation, case management,
credit counseling, and legal services
. Data collection and evaluation (HMIS Program)
. Administration (up to 5% of Grant allocation)
HP RP does not allow:
. Cash payments to be given to individuals or families
. Payment of mortgages
. Foreclosure counseling
. Construction of buildings or rehabilitation of properties
. Payment of food, medical/dental bills, clothing, auto or transportation
Time line:
. Fast-tracked by HUD
. Application deadline: May 15th - BCC must approve prior to application
. Public comment period has been reduced to 12 days (normally 30 days)
. Agreement will be signed by HUD no later than September 1, 2009
4
_."....~ -,-< ^' -,
16 , AJ11, 21~
. 30 calendar days to obligate funds
. No matching funds are required from Collier County
. 60% of funds must be expended by 09/2010 and funds must be fully spent by
09/2011
. If funds are not drawn down per HUD's schedule, the money will be re-allocated
to another County
Ms. Castorena clarified rent payments are estimated between $600 and $900 per month
and applicants are limited to 18 months of assistance. Applicants are to be income-
eligible and eligibility must be re-confirmed every three months. Income guidelines have
not yet been established by HUD.
D. Update on NSP Project - Marcy Krumbine/Buddy Ramsey
. Administrative Plan and contracts were presented to the BCC on March 24th and
approved
. H&HS has inspected 41 properties
. Purchase offers were accepted on five
. H&HS will buy "in bulk"
. Rehabilitation limit: cap of $50,000
. Bank of America (Countrywide Mortgage Co.) noted Collier County was the first
municipality in the nation to implement the NSP Program
. Goal: to rehab 70+ houses over a three-year period
Public Comment:
John Barlow, H.O.M.E. ("Housing Opportunities Made for Everyone, Inc."), suggested
tapping the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and using the $195,000 to purchase the "ugliest
house on the street." He stated ifH&HS will buy three properties, either H.O.M.E. or he
personally, will rehab the properties and sell them. After payment of carrying costs, he will
return the profits to H&HS - without expenditures of any government funds. He noted over
10,000 foreclosed properties are available for purchase.
Stanard Swihart, M.D., Vice President - Habitat for Humanity, Collier County, stated
Habitat's delinquency rate is approximately one percent (1100+ mortgages outstanding).
Habitat has a support team that chooses potential homeowners, helps the homeowners care
for their properties, and to develop budgets. He recommended judicious use of the funds and
noted Habitat uses $ .96 of every donated dollar to build houses.
6. 2009-2010 Action Plan Presentation - Margo Castorena
Ms. Castorena stated H&HS has not yet received entitlement funds from HUD but the
Action Plan due date has remained the same. The budget and time line are based on last
year's appropriations.
Timeline:
. March 30th: 30-day public comment period
. April 3rd: Public meeting
. April 2ih : end of public comment period
. April 29th: presentation to BCC for approval
. May 15th : deadline for submission to HUD
5
-.-. -- .'.- -,,~ ~-'--'-"-~-- ,..--..-. ~.--_._--~. ---.-- --.---..--
16 I lA 1
April 6, 2009
. Anticipated entitlement amount: $3,089,415
Brad Schiffer moved to approve the Action Plan as presented and forward its recommendation
to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 8-0.
7. 2009 Tax Credit Application - Barry Goldmeier
Mr. Goldmeier stated he is an Affordable Housing developer and has been active in Collier
County for the past ten years. He requested the Committee approve an Impact Fee loan for
his project in Immokalee, "Casino Place Apartments," (140 units) and to forward a
recommendation for approval to the Board of County Commissioners. He has obtained
Zoning approval for the site, and has submitted a Site Plan as part of Zoning's requirement.
He noted the Impact Fee Deferral Loan, as required by the State, in order to apply for a tax
credit from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The deadline for application submittal
is May 26, 2009.
Frank Ramsey stated if the BCC approves, Staff will execute an Impact Fee Deferral for the
development which will be used as "matching funds" in the application for the tax credit.
Brad Schiffer moved to approve the application and forward its recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners. Second by Sally Masters. Carried unanimously, 8-0.
Mr. Goldmeier disclosed his firm is a consultant for the County's Right-of-Way Department
on Affordable Housing issues.
8. Next meeting: May 4, 2009
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chair at 4:50 PM.
sing Commission
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on ~( 0 d L/. ;)u() Cj ,
as presented 1/ ' or as amended ' I
6
,~- ~,"--,-" --------...-- .
/
CAC May 14, 2009 \,/
RECEIVED Fiala VI-1 Approval of Minutes
Halas 1 of 13
MAY 1 4 2009 Henning April 9, 2009
Board of County commissioners Coyle 7c,/ 16 1'1 A2
Coletta
;1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, April 9, 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 (Excused)
Murray Hendel
Jim Burke
Ted Forcht
Victor Rios
Larry Magel
ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney
Gail Hambright, Accountant
Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Misc, Corres:
D~: D~
I Item ;---llo 1 L l ~ d-.J
::c.pies to:
~.~~ _d'..'____._.._._~_...._"__
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
2 of 13
April 9, 2009
I. Call to Order 16tlA2 I
Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at I :00 PM
II. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. Roll Call
Roll Call was taken with a quorum established.
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Mr. Rios moved to approve the agenda subject to the following changes:
Item VilA, 5, 6 be heard after item VII.
Updated plans for items VIII.1.a and b.
Distribution of a letter from Brad Cornell of the Audubon Society Re: Clam Bay
items
Item VII.2 Updated Grant applications
Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 6-0.
V. Public Comments
Ken Humiston, Humiston and Moore Engineers addressed the Committee
regarding past discussion on comparisons of the 2007 Wiggins Pass Study prepared
by his firm and the recent Coastal Planning Engineering, Inc. (CPE) study noting the
following:
. The Humiston and Moore Engineers Study evaluated non structural
alternatives, however the findings were non-structural alternatives (as a
stand alone solution) would not meet the County's goals and objectives.
. As a result of that finding, the County sought a second opinion from
CPE.
. Both studies were completed with "State of the Art". advanced technical
tools.
. The Humiston and Moore study found the problem at the Pass were due
to cumulative effects of past maintenances at the Pass, particularly on
recommendations by CPE with previous dredges activities.
. The CPE study agreed with this finding and has taken steps to correct
the situation.
. CPE believes, with the solution recommended in the study, a 4-year
dredge cycle will be possible, which Humiston and Moore do not agree
with.
. He supports the County moving forward with the recommendation by
CPE, however if it is unsuccessful, the information in the Humiston and
Moore study will continue to provide valuable information in
Management of the inlet.
2
.......~ -..1 . 11 '" ""'.-...."",,. '_'__"_'''~_''~'^~'..'''_'"._''','m__''~_'>_~_M.'_
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
3 of 13
April 9, 2009
16 II 1A21)'
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes ,
1. March 12, 2009
Mr. Magel moved to approve the minutes of the March 12,2009 meeting.
Second by Mr. Forcht. Carried unanimously 6-0.
VII. Staff Reports
1. Revenue Report - Gary McAlpin
The Committee reviewed "Collier County Tourist Tax - YTD Report by Account
Type" updated through March of 2009.
It was noted collections have decreased from the previous year time frame, and
Staff will continue to monitor the budget.
Staff will evaluate additional means to collect Tourist Tax (i.e., condominium
owners renting units without paying the required tax).
The Committee requested Staff place an item on a future agenda on "enforcement
of collections" of the Tourist Tax.
2. Projected Cost Report - Gary McAlpin
The Committee reviewed "FY 2009/2010 TDC Category "A" Beach Maintenance
Projects" dated April 9, 2009.
VIII. New Business
4. Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging (Tidal Flushing) Permit Application
Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director provided the Executive
Summary "Recommend Approval of the Coastal Advisory Committee the Clam
Pass Maintenance Dredging Permit Application that is required to perform tidal
flushing of Clam Bay Estuary and necessary to re-open the pass in the event of
storm closures" dated April 9, 2009. He highlighted the following:
. The existing permit applicable to this activity expired in 2008.
. A I-year renewal of the permit was obtained by the County which
expires in July of2009.
. The new application for a I O-year permit has been prepared on the same
basis as the existing permit (dredging cuts, dredging depth,).
. The basis of the discharge location and contours has been altered due to
new height elevations (to reflect existing dune conditions).
. The application has been modified to identify that the primary focus of
the activity is for tidal flushing and any beach quality sand utilized that
may be obtained from the activity is a byproduct of the operation.
. The Clam Bay Advisory Committee and related Subcommittees input
has been considered in preparation of the application.
. The application is to ensure if the Pass closes due to Storm events or
tidal flushing is required for maintenance, it may be legally conducted
as necessary.
A document from Kathy Worley, Clam Bay Advisory Group Member to Gary
McAlpin regarding the application was submittedfor review. Staff addressed the
concerns as shown in "Bold" in the document.
3
. -_.....<~.. _._~ - .....--.-.-.----.""
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
4 of 13
April 9, 2009 !
16 , 1 A;l "'
Speakers
Rich Y ovanovich, Attorney for Pelican Bay Foundation, noted the following:
. The Pelican Bay Foundation is the Declarant in the deed in which the
Clam Bay parcel was granted to the County.
. The deed clearly states "no dredging is to occur without the Declarant's
approval"
. To date the application has not been submitted to the Foundation for
review and approval.
. He has been told by Collier County Staff that their request for a copy of
the application will be "taken under advisement."
. The Foundation requests a copy of the permit, and if the application
verifies the parameters for the dredging are the same, they will not
object to the application.
He requested the Coastal Advisory Committee direct Staff to provide a "copy of
the application" to the Foundation,
Discussion occurred whether this request has been made through the Clam Bay
Advisory Board.
Gary McAlpin noted the application is a public document, available through an
internet link and any individual may obtain a copy of the application. He made a
presentation to the Foundation on the application.
He requested input from the County Attorney's Office on the status of the County
filing the application.
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney stated the County Attorney's
Office has reviewed the application and determined the County has sufficient
basis to proceed with the application at this time.
Rich Yovanovich noted the request for a copy of the application was filed with
Staff, not the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. He requested clarification if it is
the County's position that the application does not need to be submitted to the
Pelican Bay Foundation for review.
Colleen Greene stated at this point, it is the County Attorney's opinion the
County may go forward with the application.
Steven Feldhaus, Pelican Bay Foundation requested clarification on the basis of
the determination by the County Attorney's Office.
Chairman Sorey stated the request should be made through the County
Attorney's Office.
Ernest Wu, Seagate Resident noted, in his opinion the waterway is the property
of the State of Florida and is for use by all citizens of the State.
Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group noted the following:
. The original permit in 1998 focused on "beach re-nou.rishment", not
tidal flushing. 1 t' ~ [
(
4
---," . _17 ...,."..~". ""...............__,_,_."'_'w_".""__,_"_,__..~.'"^.""~~~.,...,~,_,." ~ _"'_'_~~""'.~'_"_~_'_"'___"""'___ __~_
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
5 of 13
April 9, 2009
,
. The natural accretion of sand occurring is protecting the beaches. 16 I lA2
. The current proposal for dredging is to dredge the Pass wider and
deeper than the original proposal.
. None of the original cuts were deeper than 4 feet or 40 feet in width.
. The current application indicates cut depths of 4 - 5.5 feet and a width
to the maximum and practical extent for sand.
Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident requested the item be removed from the
agenda as the Clam Bay Advisory Group has not taken official action on the item.
Jim Hoppensteadt, Pelican Bay Foundation noted the plans (application) need
to be submitted to the Foundation for review and require their approval
It was noted the Clam Bay Advisory Committee approved submittal of the
application on March 19, 2009,
Discussion occurred on the differences from the original permit and the proposed
permits as reported by Speakers.
Gary McAlpin noted he cannot verify the source of information provided by
speakers.
Discussion occurred on whether the proposed permit is in deviation from the
original permit.
Chairman Sorey noted Gary McAlpin has stated the parameters for dredging
identified in the application are the same as the original permit.
Mr. Burke moved to accept the recommendation of the Clam Bay Advisory
Committee relating to the Clam Pass maintenance dredging application.
Second by Mr. Forcht.
Mr. Rios requested clarification that the current application is the same as before.
Chairman Sorey noted, and Gary McAlpin concurred, there are some minor
modifications to the proposed application, however the "dredge template" is the
same as before.
Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
5. Clam Bay Navigational Markers
a. Backup Material
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Recommend Approval
from the Coastal Advisory Committee to install Navigational Markers in
Outer Clam Bay for USACE permit compliance and recommendation to move
forward with permitting and installation" dated April 9,2009.
He provided an overview of the map, which showed the types, and locations
of proposed navigational markers.
5
"--'._,._.~.^"~_._.._---_...__.._-_.-
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
6 of 13
April 9, 2009
The following backup material was included: 16 , 1 A2
1. Letter from USACE dated March 2, 2009 directed to County to
install Navigational Markers in Clam Bay.
2. February 27, 2009 email and pictures from Pamela Keyes addressing
buoys.
3. Collier County Ordinance 96-16 Establishing Clam Bay for Motorized
Vessel use at idle speed.
4. City of Naples letter dated February 24, 2009 expressing support for
navigational marking of Clam Bay.
5. Quit Claim Deed OR 0966, Page 1841-1862; Declaration of
Restrictions OR 0966, Page 1830-1831; Department of Army, Permit
0966, Page 1824-1829 outlining County restrictions against
Navigational Dredging
6. Proposed Channel Marker locations and signage.
· A map entitled "Clam Pass- Marker Locations" on Page 2 of the
Executive Summary.
Clarification was sought if any references to navigational marking are in the
original deed of the lands transferred to the County.
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney noted to her knowledge
navigational markers are not addressed in the deed. however she would need to
research the documents to provide verification.
S oeakers
Rich Y ovanovich, Attorney for Pelican Bay Foundation noted the following:
. The Foundation does not object to the signage in the Pass and in favor
of the signage proposed by them.
. The Foundation is concerned the type of signage proposed will
encourage boaters unfamiliar with the System, to enter the System.
. They recognize Seagate's rights to utilize the system for boating
purposes.
. Signage may be the next step to navigational dredging.
Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group submitted a document
"Memorandum Florida Department of Environmental Protection" dated June 9,
2008 to Gary McAlpin from Lanie Edwards, Environmental Permitting Section _
Subject "Interpretation of Joint Coastal Permit: Clam Bay Restoration and Long
Term Management Project (0128463-00 1-JC)" and noted the foJ lowing:
. FDEP is the lead Agency in this issue, not the Coast Guard or the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
6
.._..~...__,__ .,._ n__u__
<~"_"~"~>___M_~____ ~....
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
7 of 13
APril128 t 1 A~
. She has spoken to Donald Kinard who told her the Corps is not pushing
for the installation of navigational aids and the Corps would accept an
alternative plan and questions why red and green markers are proposed.
. 1,965 persons have signed a petition who object to the placement of the
markers.
Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident requested support for the proposal, which was
endorsed by the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. The plan is a compromise
compared to the plan proposed a year ago. She requested the CAC move the item
forward for among other things, safety purposes.
Ernest Wu, Seagate Resident stated the waterway markers should be as required
by the US Coast Guard, as the US Coast Guard has a track record of boater safety.
He expressed concern without navigational aids, the County is subject to liability
Issues.
Rick Dykman, Seagate Resident noted the markers were to be placed 10 years
ago and the public should be allowed to access the area as it is a public waterway.
The sign warning of "local knowledge required" before entering the Pass would
serve as deterrence to boaters unfamiliar with the area from entering the Pass.
Mr. Magel sought clarification on the reason for utilizing Coast Guard approved
markers.
Gary McAlpin noted the USACE has indicated the signage be Coast Guard
approved.
Mr. Burke requested clarification on the status of the alternative Plan submitted
by the Pelican Bay Foundation and whether this plan was submitted to the Clam
Bay Advisory Committee or related Subcommittees.
Rich Y ovanovich noted there was a "plan proposed" to Staff, not a plan
"submitted" for consideration. He expressed concern Staff was not forwarding
information regarding the proposal.
Mr. Rios moved to approve (the Executive Summary). Second by Mr. Magel.
Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
6. Clam Bay Water Quality/Flushing Proposal
Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommend Approvaljrom
the Coastal Advisory Committee to contract for Water Quality Monitoring, Data
Collection, Circulation/Sediment Modeling and a Natural Resource
Characterization Study of the Clam Bay Estuary as outlined in the attached
PBS&J proposal dated 4/l/2009for a time and materials not to exceed price of
$265,012" dated April 9, 2009 and noted the following
. The study will assist in developing site-specific water quality standards,
optimizing data collection and analysis, optimize flushing patterns,
7
-----~.~,~~-,.,,,.,- --~.'~-~-,---_.,,,._,_.._,-,._-
-~,,"
""""'-."'--~""~'-"-
GAG May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
8 of 13 ,
April 9. 20091 6 I 1 A ~
develop a circulation model, etc. to improve the overall water quality
and health of the Estuary.
. The funds will be provided from the General Revenue Fund and Coastal
Advisory Committee funds.
. PBS&J has been selected as a "neutral" consultant and nationally
recognized firm in completing the work and registered with the Collier
County Purchasing Department.
. The Clam Bay Advisory Group Water Quality, et al. Subcommittee
approved the proposed Study 4-0.
The Committee expressed concern, that the Clam Bay Advisory Committee has
not taken official action on the proposed Study.
Gary McAlpin noted, for timing purposes, he is requesting the Coastal Advisory
Committee approve the proposed Study, and Staff will submit it to the Clam Bay
Advisory Group for their approval.
Sneakers
Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident noted the following:
. Seagate residents are concerned not only on navigation, but the overall
health of the system.
. The system is not pristine as stated by some individuals and needs
improved water quality to eliminate the stagnant water found adjacent to
the Seagate Community
. She recommends approval of this item by the Coastal Advisory
Committee,
Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group noted the following:
. Questions the Collier County Purchasing Policy regarding the proposed
contract and stated the work should be bid by 3 firms.
. She has raised the issue with Steve Carnell (Purchasing Director).
. She expressed the proposals do not promote conservation of the Estuary.
. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project has indicated the
type of circulation modeling proposed is not sufficient for this type of
Estuary.
Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident noted the item has not been presented to the
Clam Bay Advisory Committee and recommended they review the proposal
before the Coastal Advisory Committee.
Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples stated he is in favor of the study which will
provide factual data and assist in determining the status of the water quality in the
system.
Gary McAlpin noted:
. The proposal is in compliance with Collier County Purchasing Policy.
. He intends to submit the proposal to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee
(CBAC).
8
.' -.,,----.-....--, -....- . ,(,:A ._-""., ,......_""""'-^--~~.._<'-_...._...,--.,._,---"..-._-_..,--"_. ----"-
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
9 of 13
April 9, 2009 1 6 , lA~
. If the CBAC does not approve it, he will return to the Coastal Advisory
Committee (CAC) for direction.
. He is attempting to consolidate Clam Bay items for a Board of County
Commissioners agenda.
Committee discussion ensued on whether the CBAC should review this item
before the CAe.
Gary McAlpin requested the item be removed from the agenda.
Mr. Hendel moved to continue the item to the May meeting of the Coastal
Advisory Committee. Second hy Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 6-0.
VIII. New Business
Continued
1. FY 2010 10-Year Plan Options and Discussion
a. Option A.
Gary McAlpin provided a document "TDC Category "A " 195 Fund
Projections" - Re: lA - FY2010 Ten Year Plan with Fay Re-nourishment.
b. Option B.
Gary McAlpin provided a document "TDC Category "A" 195 Fund
Projections" - Re: 1 B - FY20 I 0 Ten Year Plan with Fay Re-nourishment.
The following was noted during the review of the documents:
. The documents provide estimates on I O-year budgeting cycles for the
Coastal Zone Management Department and are conceptual.
. Consideration should be given to undertaking capital projects in the
same time frame to consolidate mobilization efforts, which provide cost
savmgs.
. Laser Grading or similar activity will continue to be considered for the
Marco Island Beaches.
Discussion occurred on the impact of a I cent increase in the Tourist Tax, and if
any funds from this increase would be awarded to Beach Park Facilities.
Gary McAlpin noted, it is his understanding, under the current funding ratio, 50
percent of the additional revenue generated from the increase would be awarded
to Beaches and Beach Park Facilities.
2. FY 2010 Budget
Gary McAlpin provided an overview of the Executive Summary the "FY09/10-
195 Fund Budget and Analysis" dated April 9, 2009.
Break- 3:30PM
Reconvene - 3:35PM
Jack Wert, Tourism Director appeared before the Committee regarding the
implications of a possible one-cent increase in the Tourist Tax. He noted:
9
-.. .----~--~..,_..-.~."'~--_.." -.~_. ... --"', ___''''''___~"'''__"",_"",''''~_'_,,_~"____'_''e'''''''''~,,,_,__,,__....,,______~__~__.__.~ ._n. "k. .,.__._.,,"
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
10 of 13 lA2
April 9, 20r 6 ,
. The additional one-cent would raise the overall tax rate from 4 percent
to 5 percent.
· According to the Florida Statutes, which govern the Tourist Tax, the "4th
and 5th cent" may only be used for "promotion of tourism or retirement
of bonds on a convention center or professional sports facility."
. By County Ordinance, there is a by-product with increased tax rates as
any excess funds remaining in Fund 194 at the end of the fiscal year are
divided between the Beach Fund and Beach Park Facilities Fund.
. The tax increases indirectly create increased funds available to Coastal
Zone Management.
3. FY 2010 Grant Applications
a. Grant Applications
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Share TDC Category "A"
Grant Applications from the City of Naples, The City of Marco L'iland and
Collier Countyfor FY-09/10" dated April 9, 2009.
Mr. Hendel moved to approve the following Grant Applications:
I. Re!!:ulatorv and Permit Compliance
Sea Turtle Protection Program - Collier County $162,959
Beach Tilling - Collier County $40,000
Clam Pass Inlet Monitoring - Collier County $0
Doctors Pass Inlet Monitoring - Collier County $22,700
Caxambas Pass Inlet & Marco South Beach
Monitoring - Collier county $25,000
Wiggins Pass Inlet Monitoring - Collier County $30,000
Hideaway Beach Groin/Physical Monitor - Collier County $30,000
Physical Monitoring Collier County Beaches $125,000
Biological Hardbottom and Artificial Reef
Monitoring - Collier County $275,000
SUB TOTAL $703,159
Second by Mr. Magel. Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Mr. Rios moved to approve the following Grant Applications:
2. Planned Proiects
Wiggins Pass Master Plan Engineering and Pennitting $160,717
Clam Pass Ebb Shoal Modeling $125,000
Collier Beaches Design/Permitting $50,000
Marco Island Beach/Breakwater Design/Permit $100,000
Hideaway Beach Erosion Control Structures $1,600,000
Small Sand Source Permitting $50,000
Marco Island Beachwater (Breakwater) and
Doctors Pass Jetty Rebuilds $700,000
Naples Conceptual Drainage Design $50,000
10
. -~-"-q-"'''''''''''~-,---,,-----,--- .--.-.--
--"'"~-", .... P-V
.
CAC May 14, 2009 ' .
VI-1 Approval of Minutes (
11 of 13
April 9fOl) I 1 A 2.1
SUB TOTAL $2,835,717
It was noted "Beachwater" should be revised to "Breakwater" and these are
budgeted amounts with exact expenditures to be approved at later dates as
required.
Second by Mr. Hendel. Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Mr. Rios moved to approve the following Grant Applications:
3. Beach Maintenance
Beach Maintenance - Collier County/Marco Island $135,000
Beach Maintenance - City of Naples $73,460
Vegetation Repairs/Exotic Removal- County Wide $75,000
Naples Pier Annualized Repair & Maintenance - City
of Naples $55,000
SUB TOTAL $338,640
Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 6-0.
Mr. Hendel moved to approve the following Grant Applications:
4. Administration Fee's
Fund 195 and 183 Administration - Collier County $500,000
SUB TOTAL $500,000
Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 6-0.
Items 7 and 8 were heard after item #11
7. Collier Beaches Design/Revaluation Proposal
Gary McAlpin provided an overview of the Executive Summary "Recommend
Approval from the Coastal Advisory Committee to contract for a Design Studyfor
Beach Re-nourishment and drainage improvementsfor Collier County Beach Re-
nourishment Program 2009, The Study is to be awarded to Coastal Planning and
Engineering based on an April 1, 2009 proposalfor not to exceed price, time and
materials, price of$50,000" dated April 9, 2009.
Mr. Rios moved to approve the Executive Summary "Recommend Approval
from the Coastal Advisory Committee to contract for a Design Study for Beach
Re-nourishment and drainage improvements for Collier County Beach Re-
nourishment Program 2009. The Study is to be awarded to Coastal Planning
and Engineering based on an April J, 2009 proposal for not to exceed price,
time and materials, price of $50,000" dated April 9, 2009.) Second by Mr.
Magel. Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
11
~.~ "" , -, --"'-'--'~-'-'--" - -", --"~~-'-'."^.~--_..,.~".-.",---
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
12 of 13
April 9, 2009
16 1 1 A2
8. Marco Island Beach Update
Gary McAlpin provided an overview of the Executive Summary "Marco Island
Beach Program - Update" dated April 9,2009.
The Committee reached consensus for Staff's recommendation to study the re-
nourishment of the Beaches in conjunction with the concept of breakwaters for
the area. It was noted the item will be placed on a future agenda for a formal
approval.
9. Biological Monitoring - Update
Gary McAlpin provided an overview of the Executive Summary "Biological
Monitoring Summary" dated April 9, 2009.
10. Gordon River Dredging - Update
Gary McAlpin provided an overview of the Executive Summary "Gordon River
Dredging Funding - Update" dated April 9,2009.
11. Wiggins Pass/Doctors Pass Dredging - Update
Gary McAlpin provided an overview of the Executive Summary "Wiggins
Pass/Doctors Pass Dredging -- Update" dated April 9, 2009. He noted the
dredging Contractor failed to remove 16,000 cubic yards of material at Doctors
Pass and needs to re-mobilize to complete the operation. The County will pay the
costs associated with the cubic yards of sand removed, but not the re-mobilization
costs.
12. Wiggins Pass Modeling Recommendations
Gary McAlpin stated this item was approved at the March meeting of the CAe.
13. CP&E Modeling Performance and Recent Court Judgment - Discussion
Mr. Burke moved to postpone the item. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried
unanimously 6-0.
14. Wiggins Pass Engineering and Permitting
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Recommend Approval from
the Coastal Advisory Committee to contract for the Engineering, Design and
Permitting.for Wiggins Pass Improvements as outlined in the April 6, 2009
Coastal Planning and Engineering Proposalfor $160,717 on a time and
materials, not to exceed price basis" dated April 9, 2009.
Mr. Rios moved to approve the Executive Summary "Recommend Approval
from the Coastal Advisory Committee to contract for the Engineering, Design
and Permitting for Wiggins Pass Improvements as outlined in the April 6, 2009
Coastal Planning and Engineering Proposal for $160, 717 on a time and
materials, not to exceed price basis" dated April 9, 2009.
Second by Mr. Magel. Motion carried 5 'yes" - 1 "no." Mr. Forcht voted
"no. "
12
..<-_.~>_.._, ,"'-.- r ~".. ~. -- "".._--,.,.,,-_.._-----_..~.~-~....._...._-..--_._..,...--,-~---~-
CAC May 14, 2009
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
13 of 13
April 9, 2009
16 I 1 A 2t
15. CAC Applications
The Committee chose the following nominees requesting appointment to the
Coastal Advisory Committee for approval by the BCC:
Anthony P. Pires, Jr. - unanimous vote "yes"
Joseph A. Moreland - (Magel, Rios, Hendel, "no", - Mr. Burke, Chairman Sorey
and Mr. Forcht "yes")
James Hoppensteadt - unanimous vote "yes"
IX. Old Business
None
X. Public Comments
None
XI. Announcements
1. Service Recognition Award
It was noted Chairman Sorey has received a Service Recognition Award from the
County.
XII. Committee Member Discussion
1. Naples Daily News Article 3/1/09
Doug Finlay, former CAC member had submitted a Naples Daily News article
for consideration regarding pending State of Florida legislation on beach access.
Gary McAlpin noted the County has already indicated their position on the
proposal.
XIII. Next Meeting Date
May 14, 2009 - Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 4:08 P.M.
isory Committee
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on 5-/4-0'L
as presented or as amended __V__
13
"~~- '-' . '--"',"'-"---_.'-_."--._-_.'''_. . -.-. ~""---_.,--"---~..__.._-~~."----... .._- ..
16 I lA 3 v'
March 19,2009
RECEIVED
MAY 1 8 2009
i":Oi'rrJ of CountY Commissioners
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, Chairman
Donna Reed-Caron
Karen Homiak
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney (Arrived after lunch)
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Mise, Corres:
,-,'''''--''
to
Page 1
>,_"",,_,_,~-,.~_,,","-'.-.- "-"-'-""'-'""""'~'-"-"""""'''''''''''-~'><''''' .""...""";,--,~,.__.._.,
,.~ f) ( "J) n~ .
. ~
" I },
~1 ' ""
"--
March 19,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone, to the March 19th, 2009 Collier County
Planning Commission meeting. Ifwe're lucky, we'll still finish in 2009.
Please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Present.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent.
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 is absent.
And Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Wolfley called, he is at a business meeting, he couldn't
make it here, at least this morning. He might be here later.
As far as the next meeting that we have, I actually have to look at the calendar to see because I
don't remember when it is. It's two weeks from today.
There's no interim meetings between now and two weeks from now, is there, Ray?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, not that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any of the commission know if they're not going to be here in two
weeks?
(No response.)
Item #5
APPROV AL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19,2009 REGULAR MEETING; FEBRUARY 20, 2009
RLSA MEETING
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of the minutes. First set is February 19th, 2009 regular
meeting. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
Page 2
1 6 ., Jj l~ Ji119
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- what, have we got, seven of us here? 7-0.
We had a February 20th RLSA Meeting. Is there a motion to approve those minutes?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Ray, I know you and I both got an e-mail from the Clerk of Courts. There needs to be a correction
on the March 5th minutes. They're not up for discussion today, but when they do come up, in forget, would
you please remind me?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I'll put a note.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try our best. Some dating errors need to be corrected on that one.
BCC report and recaps. Ray?
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MARCH 10,2009. REGULAR MEETING
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, at the last board meeting, the Board of County Commissioners heard the
conditional use for the Center Point Community Church, That was approved on the summary agenda, so it
was subject to the Planning Commission recommendations.
That's the only item the board heard from the Planning Commission.
Page 3
. '"N__".._~~___""_'~__'_>_'_'_"_'"__'_'_" -,-"_._--_."_.,,..._'"_.._"-,.,"'-----,~..~...._-~-~ ... . ~
. f. rr I" A 3
rl """ '. ,
c,J;.> t::i. } 'March 19, 2009
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Chairman's report. I have two items. First of all, I want to especially thank Cheri Rollins for doing a
fine job. This is the first substantial package she put together and it was done very well, at least from my
perspective. And I like her initiative in regards to the way she handled distributing the packet. Because it
was an extra large -- extraordinarily large packet, it would have doubled the cost to send it out to the
commission members. So those people that could drop by and pick it up, she let us know. And I think quite
a few members were able to get by and pick it up and it did save some money to the taxpayers, so that was a
good move and we appreciate that.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll let her know. Cheri's been doing an outstanding job in light of the change in
responsibilities at the last minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, she has. So that's great.
The next thing I'd like to bring up is an old festering subject. And we have four cases today. Two of
them are rather unique and intense in regards to how much intensity we had to look into our codes and other
aspects.
Trying to deal with Muni-Code is an absolute nightmare. And Ray, would you put that first sheet
up on the overhead projector.
I highlighted -- well, you got to --
MR. BELLOWS: Just want the highlighter?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, what this says is Municode is only updated through April 4th, 2007.
And then if you look at the links below -- if you can slide that up a little bit, Ray -- it says, but not yet
codified. And then it lists all these others that aren't codified.
So what that means is if you go into Municode to try to find out today's codes on a particular
subject or you do a search, none of these come up in the hit. You only get what's in the old code. And so if
you're trying to find something relative today or if you're trying to follow the staff report in regards to, for
example, the conditional uses, you can't tind No. 23 in any of these -- in any of the Municode search, but
they're in one of these ordinances. To find out which one it is, you've got to start from the top and you've
got to open it up. To open it up you have to download it. And some of these are anywhere from a few
hundred kilobytes to five or six megabytes. And so you sit there while the download's occurring and God
help you if you've got a modem.
When you get it downloaded, then you have to manually go through every page to find out if what
you're looking for was modified in that section. And after you find out well, that one didn't have an update,
you've got to go to the next one.
Now, this is what you've got to do for every issue. It is absolutely unfair to this board; it is horribly
unfair to the public of Collier County that this process has to be done this way.
And then if you randomly take a few of these, and I've got two of them. One of them, if you look at
the first highlighted, 2008-45 and the last one.
Ray, could you put the second sheet up.
MR. BELLOWS: Fifty-nine?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-five?
Look at the title on this one, It's 08-45, it's an amendment to the Terafina PUD. It has absolutely
nothing to do with our Land Development Code. But you have to download this and figure that out before
you find out it's junk and shouldn't be there in the first place.
Page 4
16 I 1 Jt.J2.(OO9
Could you put the second one up, Ray.
And this one is for a Habitat for Humanity project in Immokalee. I think it's called -- well, it's the
one where that college was where they used to pick blueberries.
Again, nothing to do with the Land Development Code.
Yet if you go to the Municode site, it's there posted as though we're supposed to review this as part
of the changes to our code.
It's absolutely unfair to this board, it's totally unfair to the public. I don't know how any member of
the public would know if they can be consistent with our codes when they don't even have a clear access to
our codes in any manner or form.
I don't know what to do about this. I've been harping on it for two years. And I realize that when
you hit people in their pocketbook, maybe there's a reaction. And I'm finding out that you can't hit
Municode in their pocketbook, because they don't care.
So why don't we consider suspending all code enforcement activities in Collier County until the
public has a code in which they know what they've got to do to defend themselves in regards to code
infractions? Because right now no member of the public going before the Code Enforcement Board has any
way of knowing how to meet the code, because they don't know how to get the code.
Mr. Klatzkow, Ijust need somebody to offer some assistance here in getting this resolved. I know
it's not your department's responsibility, but someone has to fix this, it's just not right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, Municode's the only game in town. It's -- there is no competitor. It's not
like if you're not happy with your Ford so you go out and buy a Toyota. It's Municode or it's nobody.
With respect to -- and I'm not happy with them either. I mean, I have the same problems as you do.
When I have to look at something, I've got to look at our written code and I've got to go through three or
four amendments ofthe LDC to make sure it hasn't been changed.
And it is a problem, and it's been a problem for a very long time. And the only solution I can have,
and I don't think we have the staff time or money for it, is for us to in essence update our codes ourselves
and put that on line. But it's a staff issue and it's a money issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there an agreement that we have in Municode that talks about how much
they're paid and how many updates we should get a year? Is there something we can sink our teeth into that
we could try to force them to provide the public with what the public needs?
MR. KLATZKOW: We continuously harp on Municode. I don't know what to tell you. I mean, the
solution -- well, there is no solution. I can't simply fire them. I wish I could, and we looked into it. But
they're the only game in town, which is why they're so bad.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not -- I don't know what to do. I am getting no offer. But I
certainly want to bring it up for the record, and we will continue to bring it up for the record until it's
resolved.
Richard?
MR. SCHMITT: We had success in removing many of the PUD's that they simply put on there as
amendments. But they continue to put them on as we send PUD amendments in, as you certainly are seeing
here. And we call them and tell them to remove those, because they are not amendments to the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But if you look at the title to what's up there, you're saying that you're
amending the Land Development Code --
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- so when their clerks look at something, they just see that and they say well,
they're amending the Land Development Code, so they pop it up there. So perhaps part of the problem--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is us.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's not a pro -- it's not our fault, it's just what's happening.
Page 5
. .~~,_""~,___,;",__,.,""""K.,q.._,.~,,,.,..~...,....,..._ . _ _""'~"_',,q",.,~._..~._. ....... ."6'-w""._"""_,_""".,_,_~.,.,,,.,~., ,_
II f. fl 1 A 3 ,
;1 ' \ i:i
" ' " ;] .,!;", March 19,2009
~ it;..,.:
MR. SCHMITT: Now, also included in that are the Code of Laws and Ordinances. They take our
ordinances and then re-codify those into sections -- chapters and sections into the Code of Laws and
Ordinances, which is again another fairly extensive process.
Now, we certainly don't -- the extent of amendments to Code of Laws and Ordinances are nowhere
near probably as voluminous as the LDC amendments, but we still do that eight, nine, 10 times a year we're
amending ordinances.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you have some inspiring words?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, just to add to your confusion, for the public, sometimes for those of
us who do this basically every day. You not only look at the Land Development Code, you have to have a
copy of the old Land Development Code somewhere to really know the rules ofthe game, because as you
know, not everything that was supposed to be carried forward from the 2004 version -- I think that's the
right year -- made it to what's on-line.
So the public truly doesn't know, even if you read through everything that's referenced here and the
Land Development Code on-line. So you've got to find a way to put that old code on-line so the public can
access it as well. Because as you know, there's that provision that says you go back to the pre-2004 version
for things that inadvertently were left out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Thank you.
And I don't know what can be done. I'm just asking somebody to try to bring this to a head.
Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you put up the sheet that you had up there last?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
And just move it up a little bit to where it shows the Harvest for Humanity, which shouldn't be
there.
Is there a way, however, that under -- let's just assume that Ordinance No. 2008-04 should be there.
Is there a way to add a descriptor to that that would -- to all of these to at least know where to look and not
to look?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I found out in going through these, that--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because I've done the same thing. It's hours.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have multiple changes to multiple sections. That becomes a problem.
So if you try to put a descriptor, you're never going to fit all the sections of this change in, so -- there's got to
be a better way.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Back when we were going over this, Patrick and I had a long
conversation about it. Because I think we should have gotten rid of Municode and done it ourselves. He
says we pay money every year for these guys to do this service. So if we're not getting the service -- you
know, we brought this conversation up multiple times and we walk away from it. So let's not walk away
from it today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not going to walk away from it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's figure out what we do --
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got two choices, okay? Use Municode because they're the only game
in town, or we do it ourselves, all right? And we're not set up right now to do it ourselves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why don't we get a copy of -- can this board get a copy of the
Municode contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start there. And it will keep the issue alive. And I want to keep it
Page 6
I A.3
16 I 1 March t 9, 2009
alive until we get to a resolution. And if Municode is getting enough money that might be offset by a staff
member who could do just this, be dedicated to keeping the code current, we might be well and further
ahead. Because this board is one of the groups that are going to suffer from not having the current codes
available to them. I mean, it was difficult to follow some of staffs reasoning in the staff report.
And I think it was for the Ngala one that's coming up. Because they referenced conditional uses by
number that were in an ordinance that we recently passed, but it wasn't in Municode. Unless -- now, I found
out, but it took a long time to do so. And we shouldn't be going through that.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jeff, is there a reason we use Municode, to essentially keep it
arm's length away from the staff or something? Or could the staff post this?
MR. KLA TZKOW: All I can tell you is everybody uses Municode, all right? Now, if the question
is can we get rid of Municode and do it ourselves, the answer is probably yes, all right? But it's something
we'll look into. We will get you a copy of the contract.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And not everybody in the world uses Municode. There's a lot of
communities --
MR. KLATZKOW: If you go through it, pretty much everybody uses it. But again, we will go
through it, and if you want to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that we
consider doing it in-house, we can go that route.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we need to get some data in order to make a
recommendation.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a cheap contract, I'll tell you that right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, and the last time that we brought this up was with Catherine,
and she was supposedly working on trying to get things ftxed and changed. And at that point there were at
least two other sources.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you, we've looked into this. It's really -- I hate saying this, it's
Municode or it's nobody or it's ourselves. And I don't why you keep --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Jeff, do you have a rough idea of what it costs us a year?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's expensive. No, no, I'm telling you, it's expensive. I'll get you the numbers.
My problem is I don't know how it breaks down because we pay for the books as well, the
supplements. So I don't know how it breaks down between the actual annual cost of the update and the
annual cost of the supplements and the annual cost of the books.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, if it's that expensive, it makes it maybe more cost effective
for us to do it ourselves.
MR. KLATZKOW: It may very well be. We'll give you that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And even if it isn't. Even if it's just close, having an internal staff member
who's sharp enough to keep up with this stuff and make it their sole duty, we'd have an asset right there that
we could -- it could be very useful, too. Just like David Weeks is kind of the guru of comprehensive
planning, we need the same person for the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I'll tell you right now, Municode's not 100 percent accurate either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and therein lies my other point. Do we know if all the ordinances
that really went into changing the code over the last two years are listed here? Do we know if one's missing
or not? I don't know who's checking that stuff.
Page 7
~''''''_~____''_''..'.e'~'''''''"''~ N~'"_~^~''''_~_"",,,"%.,.;.."_~",,,,,,,__,,,"<,,"",_,,___,,..._""oft,.,_
1 A f 1 A:3
.} March 19, 2009
But it goes back to what I see happening across the board. We use these ordinances to enforce
codes. If we can't rely on the ordinances to support what we're trying to enforce out there against the public
and the public certainly then can't use them to defend themselves because they don't know what the current
code is.
I don't know how we can continue fining people. I think it's wrong. And this is the start of it.
Next meeting I'll keep it on the agenda, and every meeting we're just going to harp on it until we
get some kind of program put together we can make a recommendation of (sic) the Board of County
Commissioners. Personally, I like the idea of suspending all code enforcement in Collier County until this is
done. That will get the attention real quick.
But anyway -- go ahead, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to make one point, is that we do as staff put on the amendments
on-line on our website while we're trying to deal with Municode to get the correct version shown on
Municode, but the staff is providing those things on our website.
MR. KLATZKOW: But what Municode does that we don't do is that they codify it, okay, so we
have a compilation of ordinances. What Municode then does is it puts it in a form where you can look at it
and find something. We would have to get that in-house somehow.
The LDC is actually the easier one than the Code of Law and Ordinances, because the LDC is a
single unified ordinance anyway, all right? It's the Code of Law and Ordinances that will be a little more
difficult. But look, I'll come back, I'll give you a full report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is -- a code writer that we hired, his name is Mr. White -- it isn't Pat
White, it's some other fellow named Mr. White -- he, in a meeting that I had with him, clearly said that there
were other companies out there.
MR. SCHMITT: There are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I know there is one in Seattle, Washington that does the similar thing
to Municode. And I'll get you the name of it, Jeff, and I'll pass it on to you, try to get their link. Because if
we could just find some alternatives, it might be better.
And I don't want to belabor the point, I think the point's been made, but at each meeting from now
on I think this needs to be discussed until it's resolved. Otherwise it's just going to do what happened last
time, we stopped talking about it and for two years nothing's happened. So I'm getting tired of it. Hopefully
the rest of us are.
Item #8A
PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13664, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
And with that, we'll move on with our agenda. Next consent item -- or the next item is consent
agenda items, and it's Petition SV-2008-AR-13664. It's Port of the Islands Community Development
District. And this actually has three parts. We'll vote on each one individually. But that's the first one up.
Does anybody have any changes to the consent item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve the first petition?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Mr. Schiffer.
Page 8
16 I l'J
March f~, ~ 91
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Item #8B
PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13665, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
Second petition for consent is SV-2008-AR-13665. Again it's the Port of the Islands for a sign
VarIance.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the motion.
Seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #8C
PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13960, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The third petition is SV-2008-AR-13960. Again, the Port of the Islands community sign variance.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion.
Page 9
".'""-,.,._',........._.,_,_'ri',"'".,_!'_.....,'_'''~,~,._~.;_,'_h''''.-~..,"'"__~,.-...""..."
f" ,. ;!1 ~ i
, ~, ; ~... :
1 bM=h\~"2:9
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. You guys are a team this morning.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you.
Item #9 A
PETITION: V A-2008-AR-13977, MCDONALD'S USA, LLC
Now, we'll move on to our first advertised public hearing for today. It's Petition
V A-2008-AR-13977. Tim Chess of McDonald's USA, LLC, for some -- a variance on 2886 Tamiami Trail
East.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess just me then. I had a couple e-mails and a phone conversation with
the attorney representing McDonald's, Ms. Ellen Chadwell. And the items that I discussed with her will be
brought up for discussion here today as well.
Hearing none other, will-- the applicant can proceed.
MR. SATFIELD: Hello. My name is Jeffrey Satfield, I'm the Senior Vice President with CPH
Engineers, and here representing McDonald's today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to talk a little slower. I can tell already, you're going to get her
fingers hurting here in a minute.
MR. SA TFIELD: All right. Let me just take a break here and set up some boards.
Can everybody hear me okay if I don't use the mic?
THE COURT REPORTER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you have to use the mic. There's a portable mic. there.
MR. SA TFIELD: There we go. All right.
Well, for anybody that doesn't know the site, this site's down the road on 41. It's an existing
McDonald's. Tim, how long has this one been here? 1968. So it's a very old site, old McDonald's, that we're
very interested in revitalizing and basically bringing back to life.
This is the existing store here. There's not a whole lot of tree canopy, there's a very minor amount
of building landscape buffering, and the building is dated somewhat.
This is the actual property itself. There's basically a hedge line out on 41 out there. Again, minor
amount of plantings to the rear, minor amount of plantings up here, a couple trees breaking up the property.
Page 10
16 1'1 A3
March 19, 2009
It's adjacent to the other commercial plaza. There's a commercial plaza to the rear of this property.
This site is leased from the property owner, who also owns the parcel to the back, so it's all a leased
area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't mean to interrupt --
MR. SATFIELD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your presentation, but I have to. Ijust realized something. I appreciate
you trying to put it on an easel for us to see it, but it's equally important the public sees it. That can't be
focused on a camera. That board up there, that's a mounting board.
MR. SA TFIELD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could just lean your display up on that.
MR. SATFIELD: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way everybody can see it, including the public and the people
watching on television.
MR. SA TFIELD: Perfect. Thanks for the reminder.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Kady won't be over there trying to turn these cameras in every which
direction to catch it. So thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Just stand over here.
MR. SA TFIELD: Again, this shows the existing site, U.S. 41 here, shopping plaza to the back.
Again, not a whole lot of vegetation on the property. Mostly impervious area; more than 90 percent of
impervious area. Does not meet code in most all areas for the new code.
This board shows the proposed site layout and the proposed landscape buffering. Basically from a
planting perspective this site is being brought up to code. While we are asking for landscape buffer
variances and width, we are planting all the required trees, all the required canopy areas and all of the buffer
areas.
In fact, as you may have read in the staff summary, we actually had to go through a variance
process -- administrative process to reduce the parking -- only by one space though, still ample parking here
-- to allow for the necessary trees on the internal buffer here.
So again, while we are asking for landscape variances today all the plantings, canopy plantings, tree
plantings, within the buffers are all per code. In fact, there's going to be -- we plan on an enhancement along
41.
This site is -- basically because of the odd shape and the constraints ofthe property, this layout is
really the only layout that's plausible for this building, which leads us to having the drive-through window
on the 41 side.
This is typically on the right-of-way required for a D buffer planting. We'll be planting it with a B
buffer planting scheme, increasing the number of trees, a five-foot hedge, minimum height, again to further
buffer this drive-through side of the building from U.S. 41. So within this lO-foot area, all those plants will
be there.
Also, some of the other improvements to the area. There's an existing access point here that will be
closed off, improving the off-site safety points. There's an intersection very close, in close proximity down
here.
There's an increase in throat depth here. There'll be a 50-foot throat depth here, increasing on-site
circulation and safety. And we've got pedestrian connections, bike paths, a bike rack next to the store. And a
200 square foot plaza area adjacent to the McDonald's building with some benches and again shade trees in
that area.
And just all-around internal circulation is improved, pedestrian circulation is improved and greatly
enhanced vegetation and open space.
Page 11
.' "---""-".,~-~-".~--"--",-,--,-;",--,,,,-,,,",--,,,,,,,.,,,,,.."".
/~ l~ /:. ~ n~ ;
, ") "
!( 'j
'. ,/ 'j
j c;:.:;.,
March 19, 2009
The building itself, fresh from Kinko's. This is the proposed architecture that we're going with. This
is a new branding for McDonald's. Greatly enhanced architectural detail. Basically bringing the store up to
code and up to the modern era for architecture. Still have some branding items, but really, they're much
more subtle. No more truss beams, no more red roof. This building will meet the architectural design
standards with a combination of cornices, canopies, glazing, there's going to be some trellis work on there
as well, so there will be vegetation actually on the building itself.
And this gives an idea of what the site might look from (sic) if you're standing right at the
intersection of 41. Showing the buffer trees here, the plantings in front of the building here, and actually
how the building will appear from 41.
One of the areas I do want to bring up, and I apologize for bringing up something new to the board
offhand, is we've had some discussions with staff -- and I want to thank staff so much for working with us
in this staff report.
One of the issues, though, that we were made aware of upon our site development plan submittal
was the fact that there is an issue with having the drive-through adjacent to the right-of-way. The design
standards require an enhanced planting buffer in this area. We can only provide, as you know with a
variance, a I O-foot wide buffer area here. While we are planting a Type B buffer in this area to increase the
buffering of the drive-through, staff believes it's important to have a 15-foot wide buffer here. And this is
definitely, because of the constraints of the property, a deal killer for us.
One of the things that we will be moving forward with and attempt to, and I want to bring to your
attention is that clearly the drive-through will be on this side of the property facing 41, but it will be
mitigated for with again the increased planting areas on 41, the latticework with plantings on the building
itself and the architectural articulations on that site to minimize the impact visually for folks walking and
driving by that area.
This site is in an overlay district that encourages redevelopment, and that's what we're trying to do
today.
And I'm available for any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions?
Mr. Kolftat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, are the requested remaining reduced buffering on the north
and south property boundaries Type D as they are before?
MR. SATFIELD: One more time, sir?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are the requested remaining reduced buffering on the north and
south property boundaries Type D?
MR. SATFIELD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: After the reduction, they will still be Type D?
MR. SA TFIELD: No, actually we're proposing a Type B, as in boy, because of the drive-through.
So we will actually be planting more plants than a Type D.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's both north and south boundaries?
MR. SATFIELD: No, there will be a Type D on the south, a Type B on the north because of the
right-of-way and the drive-through. So we're proposing a 10-foot wide B, as in boy, planting along 41;
five-foot wide on the south, D as is David, planting.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What about the trees that are in that buffer, do they still remain the
same height?
MR. SA TFIELD: The existing trees?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, the new ones. Will they be the same?
MR. SA TFIELD: The trees in this buffer area on the south side, right now we're proposing pigeon
Page 12
16 /1 M~h~"09
plum in that area. They're all going to be the same height per code, space per code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor, J.D. may have something to contribute.
MR. MOSS: Yes. Commissioner Kolflat, if! may make a clarification here.
On the application, the applicant requested a deviation from the buffer requirement to the north. It
is a required Type D buffer adjacent to Tamiami Trail East. But there's another issue that's come up since
they've submitted their SDP. Because the architectural code doesn't allow for a drive-through on the side of
the building that's adjacent to Tamiami Trail unless a Type B buffer is provided in the required buffer
width, they cannot get this design that they're proposing unless a Type B buffer is permitted.
The director has looked at this and feels that the language says that the required buffer width must
be provided. And since they're asking for a deviation -- or excuse me, a variance from the required buffer
width with this application, she feels that they can't get this deviation, this Type D buffer along the north
side in order to get this architectural deviation.
Does that make sense, or have I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me take it a step further. What you're saying is they can't do a
Type D buffer there because of the drive-through. The drive-through requires a Type B buffer. And because
the drive-through is facing 41, the B buffer cannot be reduced in its width, even through a variance.
MR. MOSS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are we here today?
MR. MOSS: Because this application came forward before the SDP was submitted.
If you look at the final staff stipulation, number seven, that's the reason it's been included. It says,
irrespective of that shown on the site dimension plan, included is Exhibit A. The proposed use shall be
required to comply with the architectural and site design standards ofLDC Section 5.05.08, which prohibits
a drive-through adjacent to a right-of-way unless a Type B buffer and the required buffer width is provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let me understand this. The applicant can't use this project if the
full width of the Type B buffer is required. Staffs saying it is required. So now you're basically
recommending denial for this application.
MR. MOSS: Well, initially they had requested just to reduce the buffer width. This issue of
providing for a deviation from the architectural requirements didn't come up until just a few days ago when
the SDP was reviewed,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of buffer is out there on 41 right now; do you know?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not much of anything.
MR. MOSS: Yeah, I don't think there's much of anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the applicant's willing to renovate this project, new building,
new architectural standards, adding -- add landscaping that doesn't even exist today, make all kinds of
improvements, and because they have a window facing 41 that's a drive-through, this whole thing could go
down the tubes.
I don't think that's a practical solution. So I guess then because this is an advertised variance, how
far can we go with this today?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would recommend we continue it at this point in time and then come back
when we can clean it up, because you make a very, very valid point.
MR. SATFIELD: Chairman, may I make--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead.
MR. SATFIELD: -- point?
The code actually states that a Type B, as in boy, plantings must be planted within the required
width. It's our interpretation of that is the required width is a D, like David, 15 feet. However, if this
variance were to be approved the required width would be 10 feet.
Page 13
""~'c_""_r__"',""_,"__,_,.......,""''''''"<",.,,,,,__, ",_._. ........_"..,Ne._'___...".~~_,,____~_,_.___w._.~_..__~__.
16 Ilrch~9~o09
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand what you're saying. From what I'm getting from the staff is saying
that they have to disapprove it at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you need to do is amend your variance request to include a
reduction in Type B buffer under the circumstances you have here to 10 feet and then come back with it
with that clarification to it. Is that a fair way to approach it, J.D.?
MR. MOSS: Ifwe did approach it, I can tell you staff wouldn't be able to recommend approval of
that because --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fme. But at least the guy would have a fair chance in
discussing it with us in regards to the fact it's on the agenda, it's in the issue, it's part of the condition--
variance request and not something we can't discuss because it's not here.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: lfthere were a half wall surrounding the driveway there -- I guess
I'm really asking staff. J.D.?
MR. MOSS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right.
If there were a half wall or a three-quarter wall, whatever, surrounding the driveway as it fronts 41,
would that in any way -- that's not something --
MR. MOSS: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that would help?
MR. MOSS: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If our code is prescriptive, does it proscribe that? I mean, what's the
basis for --
MR. MOSS: Well, as he just told you, the code says that the Type D plantings have to be provided
in the required buffer width. The code says that the required buffer width is 15 feet in the circumstances.
His contention is that the variance reduces it to 10, so it should be 10 foot. So that's where the difference
lies.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The predicate for that is that the driveway is there facing, if you
will, 41.
MR. MOSS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you were to put a wall up, does that not change things?
MR. MOSS: It's just not something that our code allows as a deviation from this requirement. That
is the deviation, the Type B buffer plantings, instead of the Type D.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the problem is the variance that we're supposed to be looking at
today simply says, reduce the minimum 15- foot Type D buffer to a width of 10 feet on the property's
northern boundary.
MR. MOSS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we're hearing is the applicant, after further revealing issues
with staff, however recent that occurred, now needs to be asking for a reduction in a Type B buffer in the
same location with the caveat that the drive-through is on the north side of the building, or the side facing
41.
MR. SA TFIELD: And that's something that we're still not sure about, because the required buffer is
still aD.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Gentlemen, gentlemen.
MR. SATFIELD: It's commercial to right-of-way.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Gentlemen, this issue just came up, all right? Our understanding was staff was
recommending approval. This issue just came up. We haven't looked at this issue.
Page 14
16 1 A3
March 19, 2009
We're going to come back to this board, okay, only if we can give you something that this board
can legally recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, all right?
So my suggestion is come back, whether it's two weeks or four weeks from now, we're going to
continue this thing, you're not going to have to pay for anymore advertising on this, so that we can fix it.
This just popped up at the last meeting.
MR. SA TFIELD: Would it be unreasonable to ask that the nearest hearing, two weeks, if possible
--
MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to rush this one.
MR. SA TFIELD: This is basically as this -- I know this statement's being over-used lately, but we
are shovel ready. We are ready to break ground and build and go under construction and improve this site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you getting some ofthe stimulus package?
MR. SATFIELD: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, everybody else is.
MR. SA TFIELD: No, this is all McDonald's money, investment in the community. So we
definitely want to construct as soon as possible. So --
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not going to sit on it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.--
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I just want to put on record that we can get this on the next agenda. And we'll meet with the
applicant and work out the urban design issue regarding this drive-through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to see ifthere's any final comments.
Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, when I brought this question up initially here on this buffer,
what I was trying to get through was a comparison of what the code requirements are for each of the four
sides and what the new requirement will have, or what the new installation will have.
And you're going back and continuing this; will you prepare that for the next hearing?
MR. MOSS: Yes, sir, Commissioner Kolflat. It's actually on Page 1 of the staff report under
requested action. It has the four different variances that they're asking for, what's required and what they're
proposmg.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right, but the only thing on that page does not show what they're
proposing as a Type D in two cases. It shows Type D to start with but doesn't show Type D afterwards.
MR. MOSS: Oh, it doesn't show Type B, did you say, as in Boy?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: D, as in David.
MR. MOSS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like to get it complete so we look at this and --
MR. MOSS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- compare one with the other --
MR. MOSS: I'll make sure that that's clear.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- and not have to jump around.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what he's trying to say is on number one where you said you
wanted a minimum Type D buffer, but it would still -- make the statement it would still be a Type D buffer
in vegetation or something to the effect.
MR. MOSS: Okay, very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess you're not going to change that to a B. But regardless, that's
where we're getting at.
Mr. Schiffer?
Page 15
^' "'"""~M."'""'.--""> ~-~---- ,"'_..""'""""".,-,'.._---_..._-~,-"~~~,.,.,~_...
/l A3
,t
"I, ;' _
March 19, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and one thing is also look at other things in the architectural
standards. There's supposed to be a front entry feature on the roadside. We've held a lot of people's feet to
that fire. For some reason this one doesn't seem to be -- doesn't have one.
MR. SA TFIELD: Actually we're planning it right -- one of the main doors and where the pedestrian
connection is, there'll be a 200 square foot front patio feature item. We'll clearly identify that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just make sure --
MR. MOSS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- everybody's got everything, okay. All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does that -- do we have a commitment from staff to get this done by
the next meeting?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, J.D. is also our urban design reviewer, so he can tailor in--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Multiple hats.
MR. BELLOWS: -- with the -- yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else want to comment before we have a request to see if they --
make sure the applicant wants a continuance on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you want a continuance?
MR. SA TFIELD: Please do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- approve a continuance to our next regular meeting?
Made by Mr. Murray. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Schiffer.
Discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
MR. SA TFIELD: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #9B
PETITION: CU-2003-AR-3725, CLOSE-UP CREATURES, INC.
I could probably be assured that the next one may not go as fast. The next petition is Petition
CU-2003-AR-3725. It's the Close-Up Creatures, Inc., called -- I know there's a better way to pronounce this
Page 16
16 J ,!1 A3
March 19, 2009
than the way I'm going to say it. I'm going to say Ngala, but I know there's another way to do it.
It's on Inez Road Southwest and Kearney Avenue.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding this petition.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. -- go ahead, Donna.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I did, too. And I think Richard and Bob were present during my
conversation. So -- and everything that we talked about then will most likely be talked about today.
Okay, Richard, it's all yours.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner.
With me today are Bob Mulhere with RW A, who can address planning related questions; Tammy
Lyday, with Earth Balance to answer any environmental related questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, before you go too far, I want to make one thing clear for the record
today. We're here to review this in regards to its application to three uses under a conditional use. All the
other issues are off the table. It's basically conditional use application issues that we're talking about today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. That was my next --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you were going to say that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- paragraph.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But that's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was more worried about you than anybody else, but that's fine.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, well, I'll skip that paragraph that our request is for three conditional
uses to deal with the exotic animals and the exotic fish that are on-site, as well as the conditional use to
basically bring the public to the site to observe the exotic animals and other non-exotic animals that are
currently being kept and cared for on the property.
Donovan and Tammy Smith will be here in a few minutes. They're the actual owners of the
property, if you have questions regarding the specifics. It went a little quicker for the first item than we had
originally anticipated.
The property is on your visualizer; it's 21 acres in size. The yellow area is the excluded portion of
the property that our clients currently own.
The property is currently zoned agricultural. This -- let me just give you a brief history. I was not
involved in this early on. I got involved later on. But there's a question of what is this actual use on the
property? If Donovan were here, we would be very emphatic that he believes that this is in fact an
agricultural use in an agricultural operation. There's a lot of documentation that supports his position. There
are others that don't share that same opinion.
When I finally got involved, I said listen, nobody's objecting to what you're doing on the site,
they're just objecting to how you're classifYing this. The county would prefer that you go through the
conditional use process, because that's what they believe you need to do. What I recommended was look,
the path ofleast resistance is to go through and get the conditional use, because nobody's objecting to it,
you've been doing it for years, you don't have any opposition to it, let's go through and do the conditional
use and just agree to disagree as to what category you fit in or whether you're an ago operation or not.
So we started that -- we re-upped that process. If you went back and looked at the materials, you'll
Page 1 7
,...."^"",,.,_'".~,,~._'""V'"""H..'*'~.....~"'"__"".....,~__,_.___".,_..,~.,.....~............__,,_..,_.,.,,__.~_."~,,~,....,." ,-".,..,-^.~-_. >'---^-'-"~._,,,__,'._---.__...._---"'-'-'-""-,-~-,-
.11; .
!'\
'..It__$ , ~
~.)
March 19,2009
see there was an original application for the conditional use that I believe was in 2003.
Bob and I got retained and we amended the documentation. The description of the project is
essentially the same as it was originally described. So we are here now to address what's going on on-site.
As I've already described, there are some exotic animals on-site, there are some non-exotic animals
on-site. He does have some small areas where he's breeding exotic fish, those are also on-site.
And what he does to fund these operations is he does some not-for-profit non-money-maker work
where he brings school age children to the site through the public school system during the school year and
also during the summer. They come to the site during the day, he teaches them about the animals that he
has, how to properly take care of them and give them an appreciation for nature.
To help subsidize both ofthose ventures and the actual caring and feeding and taking care of the
animals that he has, he does corporate events, usually in coordination with hotels in Collier County. He
does a lot of work with -- the Marriott, right, Marco Marriott -- and as well as Naples Grande and the Ritz.
And so he coordinates these -- it is actually an attractor for these hotels to have these events out on this site.
The good thing about this site is it is a large site. And if you look at the aerial, it's still heavily
wooded. People could come to this site. It's out in the middle of nowhere, essentially. It's totally surrounded
by farms. The farms actually, you know, are basically 24/7 operations with the various things that -- taking
care of the farm stuff at night.
So the good thing about this site is during the season if you're on the beach you all know that the
event has to basically shut down at 9:00 at night because of turtle season.
This is obviously not on the beach, doesn't have the same types of issues, so we could have events
that go a little bit later than 9:00 at night. So this site is actually a good draw and good mix for the
community and a good supplement to what the hotels basically have to offer during the season and the off
season, because they can handle larger events.
In fact, he used to take the animals, if you will, on the road and go to the hotels and set up his show,
if you will. And as part of the experience, he explains to them about panthers and cougars and other things
that he has. He used to take it to the hotels. And then he realized, well, I've got this beautiful piece of land,
why not do it out here in nature where it makes sense.
You can see that he's a good steward of that land by everything's basically pervious, and that he's
got tents that he puts up for a period of time, takes down during the summer and hurricane season. So he
puts on a nice show and at the same time as he's doing these catered events, he's actually educating people
on nature.
I went to one of the events. Ironically it was an event sponsored by the TDC, because it had all of
the event planners around. They brought them out there so they could see what he does and how he does it,
and to hopefully attract events to Collier County.
From a compatibility standpoint, your staffhas determined that we're compatible. Everybody
comes to the site by motor coach or van. There's no individual driving to the site. Bob will get into the
details of the site plan and how we operate, but I just wanted to touch on it quickly.
Your staff is recommending approval.
We went to the EAC, and I believe the EAC unanimously recommended approval as well, thought
it was a good idea.
We've agreed -- we've worked with your staff on the stipulations. There are a couple that we're still
-- we have revised. And one of them is the number of events per week and per year. Your staff is requesting
three events -- maximum of three events per week, but the maximum number per year is unlimited, other
than it would be 156. We would like to cap it at that same number, but we would like to cap the weekly
number of events at five instead of three. And I'll give you an example. He has had four or five events in a
week and then had none or one the following week. So to sit there and say I've got five corporations that
Page 18
16 J larch 11 ;!o9
would like to come in one given week but I can't accommodate that business because it's more than three
really didn't make sense, based on the location. I believe staff is comfortable with saying not to exceed --
150 for the year, not to exceed five in any given week.
And with that, we're requesting that the Planning Commission transmit this petition to the Board of
County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval for the three conditional uses.
And Bob will take you briefly through the details of the request and we'll be able to answer any
questions you may have.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere, with RW A.
I think Rich really went over most of the salient points. As he indicated, we're requesting three
conditional uses. Those conditional uses deal with cultural, ecological and recreational facility, commercial
production, raising and breeding of exotic animals. And what am I missing? One other one. Oh, the
aquaculture, excuse me.
So there was some question -- I think Rich indicated that we started, oh, I want to say in 2007 on
this project. At least I did. However, the original application was submitted February 7th of2003.
I went back and reviewed the files prior to -- I reviewed them originally and then reviewed them
again last night prior to this meeting, just to be sure that the request hadn't changed from the original
submittal till now. The original submittal also asks for those exact same three types of uses.
We looked at other alternatives. It's not a zoo; it doesn't meet the definition of a zoo and is not
licensed as a zoo by U .S.D.A. I believe it's licensed -- and if Donovan gets here he can speak to this issue
more accurately. I know he's on his way. But I believe his license is a wildlife reserve, or preserve.
Again, a zoo would -- there are specific reasons why it wouldn't be licensed that way. And that
discussion was held back in 2003 and again subsequently when we had our meetings with staff.
And that's why -- staffs main concern was how people got to the site and making sure that it was
safe and appropriate for folks to be coming to the site, and that was the gist of the conditional use, in
addition to the raising, breeding of exotic animals in the aquaculture.
So going to the site plan for a moment, as Rich indicated, most of the site is wooded. It's accessed
from Keene down to Inez. And the activities take place generally in this area here, as you can see on your
site plan:
By the way, I have larger site plans. I don't know if you got large site plans. I've brought extras with
me if that's helpful for anybody. No? Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Bob, I would like one.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just you, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'll take one, too. Wouldn't hurt.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If you've got another one there, I'll take one. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Based on the county's requirements, there is a preserve area that's located in this
vicinity up here. That may need to shift a little bit. And the vegetation's pretty much the same. We have
some notations that the site is somewhat flexible because of the 30-foot buffer requirement and fencing. So
it may just shift a little bit, but it would only be a few feet. The exact location would be determined when
we go through a site improvement plan, which we have agreed to do. Well, site development plan or site
improvement plan, we're not sure which. But when we meet with staff we'll determine which is the most
appropriate process to go through.
The site has been provided. There was -- in your packet, there were a number of attachments, one
of which is attachment A, which provides local, state and federal permits, licenses and certificates. It's a,
you know, pretty substantial packet. But within there, there is a certificate of fire compliance.
One of the questions we had was, you know, could fire trucks easily access the site or safely access
Page 19
~,."......____.."__"~";,...^.".. ,-,. ~"'''''''''''''_'''"'''''''''''_>i;''''___'''_t_'__._,_:~_"_'''"'O'".'''',,'''"'~.,".~,'^' "_""="'_'''''.''''-_''''
,'::'1 r.~.;.:. f
d
'::1 , I
il ,
:1 I
~~) !l March 19, 2009
the site in ambulances. And yes, they can. In fact, the motor coaches have no trouble getting in there, the
larger motor coaches.
As Rich stated, all of the guests to the site arrive via motor coach, depending on the event, large or
small. There may be smaller motor coaches or larger, but there are no personal cars brought to the site by
guests.
Day-to-day operations are generally -- generally Donovan has between 10 and 20 employees. I
know he indicated to me that business is quite soft these days, as you can appreciate, since the tourism
business is down and the hotel business is a little bit down. He has fewer employees today than he typically
would. He's had to also reduce his staff numbers.
But during an event, additional staff obviously come out, catering staff, and events staff, and they
generally will arrive also by motor coach or van, depending on the size of the event.
As Rich indicated, they do an awful lot of educational activities for school children, both during the
school year and during the summer with summer camps, both public and private. Really, I mean, as long as
they're not full with some other event, they're going to provide these opportunities to anyone that requests
them. That could be non-profit organizations as well.
And then on occasions, they have either groups from the hotels or other groups coming in for non-
profit. I know recently there was an event that they held for the Center For Missing and Exploited Children,
in which John Walsh was out there. That was a fundraiser.
We've had no opposition to this project. There are, as Rich indicated, 24-hour agricultural
operations surrounding this. There's one home on a nearby piece of property, but the rest is pretty much
undeveloped, with the exception of the farm stuff. I'll go back to the aerial.
These are not, you know, cattle grazing operations, these are specialty farms for ornamentals and
nursery type products. And there's quite a bit of activity that takes place out there.
I did want to mention that the EAC reviewed this petition and unanimously recommended
approval. As Rich indicated, we have a staff recommendation for approval. There are a number of
conditions attached to that, as I'm sure you saw when you looked at the staff report. And they're actually --
stipulation number 11 -- this is Donovan right here. And so I'm sure that you'll have some questions, and
perhaps if we can't answer them, Donovan can. He'll have to be sworn in, he wasn't -- obviously he wasn't
here.
Condition number 11, I actually talked with Kay Deselem with respect to this, and that was the idea
of changing the number from three events per week to five. Their season is about six to eight months long.
There's more activity and demand during that period of time. There's less of course during the summer
months when we don't -- when our visitors and hotel activities is slower. So we can live with the overall
limitation of 150, but want the flexibility of having more than three events in a week.
Also, on condition number 13, I haven't -- I did have some conversation with Kay with respect to
this, but we really never pursued it. I do want to just raise a possibility on condition number 13, which
states, all additions to any existing or new structures or tents shall be set back from all property boundaries a
minimum of 60 feet.
The Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission actually regulates and provides all of the regulations and
licensing that govern the keeping of exotic animals, exotic ""ildlife. Obviously this condition -- we'd like to
modifY this condition number one to say, all additions to any existing or new structures related to this
conditional use.
Because there are other uses that are permitted on the property under agriculture that shouldn't be
subject to this condition. There already are setbacks in the ago district that govern those.
But also, if you look in the ago district, there is already an existing setback of 30 feet for structures
that house animals. And they also can't be located closer than 100 feet to any existing residential structure.
Page 20
16 I ~ch4 J009
And I guess my feeling is that that may be a more appropriate condition if we adopt that condition than the
60 feet.
In particular, in could, I just want to show you that the shape of this parcel down in here is
obviously much narrower than in here. And when you take 60 foot off ofthis entire perimeter here, that
leaves very little usable area in the center.
And so I believe that a -- the staffhas already requested a 30-foot buffer, which is three times what
the ago district requires, and which we're willing to live with. And that it be opaque; and we will also agree
to that condition. But as far as the setback goes, we'd like to offer that the 100 foot from any residential
property, which I believe there's a residential property right here, would be more appropriate.
I know that some of you have an awful lot of questions, so that concludes my presentation, and I
think probably it's better if we just get to your questions and then we'll try to answer those as best we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Bob, being interested in acronyms, what does N-G-A-L-A
stand for?
MR. MULHERE: The place of the lion.
Did I get it right? Swahili.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not an acronym is what it boils down to. It's a word in another
language.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, the original application was to make the existing uses
compliant. Have the existing uses expanded since then?
MR. MULHERE: Not the -- the uses haven't expanded. We haven't asked for more uses. The uses
were always the same. I know there's been some -- for example, there was some -- I think Donovan created
a giraffe pen or a rhinoceros pen that didn't exist. It's basically a wall. There's been some improvements to
the site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was the request for 1,000 patrons at a single event in the original
application?
MR. MULHERE: No, well, there weren't any numbers; there wasn't any cap. I think that actually
came from meeting with staff when they said, well how many people are coming out here?
And what's happened is, yeah, there were -- in 2002, when -- I think it was Vince Cautero with
Coastland Engineering prepared the original application. And I actually talked to Vince, now it's probably a
year ago, about this when I started working on it, over a year ago. When the events were smaller then -- I
mean, that was just because the interest was less. There are no facilities in Collier County within the hotels
to do an event for 1,000 people.
Now, I want you to understand, 95 percent ofthe events are smaller than that. They're mostly three,
four, 500 people, 200 people. Sometimes less. So there are relatively few events that are that large. But
there are a few that are that large.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, I mean, the accommodation of 1,000 people, I mean, just the
health and, you know, the welfare of the site, how would you do that?
MR. MULHERE: He can accommodate -- I've been to the site. He can accommodate them very
well. They bring in the trucks for the port-a-potties when they have that many people. There are facilities.
There are restroom facilities, but obviously when you have a larger amount they bring in those -- I don't
know what they're called but the large truck. Pardon? Crowd pleasers.
And other than that, there's a very, very large tent. That's a good name, huh, crowd pleasers.
Page 21
_".-...,.."_.._;,---<",,>".~,
eil ~ 1 A3
c,.c
March 19,2009
There's a very large tent and it's very, very beautiful. They do a great job. And they can
accommodate without any problem.
And all guests arrive via motor coach. They bring them around, drop them off, the coaches leave,
come back and pick them up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, we can discuss traffic later. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which brings me to the question, the report indicates parking for
two.
MR. MULHERE: No, two parking areas.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two parking areas. But if you look at the plan, there's a gravel
parking. I thought I saw three. Yeah, there are three. Gravel parking, gravel parking and gravel parking.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think this was sort of counted as one when we said two. But yes, there's
parking here, here and here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if you're not going to have personal vehicles, you're just using
these for buses that would arrive suddenly and --
MR. MULHERE: No, these are actually used really more for guests that arrive via motor coach. If
there's a large event, then many of the employees for the caterer arrive via motor coach or van. But these are
used for the employees of Donovan and Tammy Smith that work there every day.
He has employees that manage this facility. But they may also be used for employees during an
event, you know, film crew, something like that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So how many vehicles will that accommodate; do you know? Is
that in --
MR. MULHERE: Twenty.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
Here's a perhaps -- it may be -- if you take a look at this brochure here, it will give you a little better
perspective of what it looks like.
That's the large tent there in the center.
This is a picture of the interior.
Here's some other photos.
There's another one that shows the interior of the tent.
It's an exceptionally well done experience, which is why very discriminating businesses such as the
Ritz-Carlton and the Marco Island Marriott Beach and Golf Resort do use this facility, and their guests
enjoy it. And they come back. These meeting planners come back here.
This is an asset, a very big asset to Collier County. And especially in these very dire economic
times. This is a real asset. No one's questioning really the viability of it. It's just a question of being sure I
think that it goes through the proper permitting process, at least in the perspective of the county.
And by the way, the wildlife sanctuary component is a permitted use. The wildlife preserve or the
wildlife sanctuary doesn't require a conditional use. That's a permitted use. In fact, some other wildlife
sanctuaries and preserves also bring people out to the site, such as The Conservancy or the Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary.
But in this case, I think the decision was made that we would go through this process and make this
a permitted use and address the issues associated with bringing folks out to the site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Um-hum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
Page 22
16 I t.i ~ 2~~9
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just before you go ahead. Did I understand you to say, Mr.
Mulhere, that when the buses come out, they come out and drop off and leave and then come back again
and leave again?
MR. MULHERE: Depending on the size of the event. In some events they can stage there, it's
relatively small. A larger event, they're simply not going to stage there, they do leave. So it's double the
trips, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, what kind of control is there going to be with the sound? I
used to live near a place like this and it was really nice until weddings discovered it. And then somebody
cackling on a microphone at 10:00, 11 :00, 12:00 at night was not that good.
MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, I would say that, yes, what controls. The number one control is
the 11 :00 p.m. everything shuts down. And we've agreed to that. Except on New Year's Eve where it's 1 :00
p.m. (sic).
The location is such that this is surrounded by, for the most part, nonresidential uses, farm
operations. Those operations run sometimes 24 hours. In fact, Donovan was sharing with us that there were
some events where he had to actually call up the farm and ask them to turn off some of these large fans that
they use which are very noisy during an event when a speech was being made. And of course they have a
good relationship so they were willing to do that for him.
So there's a lot of noise generated out in this neighborhood from much other than the music that
might accompany an event.
But I think, you know, we're not bothering anybody, and we're willing to limit the hours. This is --
you know, this is -- again, you know, I don't want to be repetitive. I think it's very well done and I think he's
very respectful of his neighbors. He's a very -- and it's also located really in the center of the site and there's
a lot of vegetation to buffer, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. We'll see.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's the place of the lion. Do we have any?
MR. MULHERE: He died.
We do have large cats. There are some large cats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, and Bob, you both said that this was out in the middle of
nowhere. Could you back out of that picture just a slight amount, like a half an inch? No, no, that one, that
one you had. The one that Richard started with. I want to be able to see the bottom. Okay, right there.
To the north -- Richard, for your lack of direction, that's the top -- there's a building up there. What
is that building?
MR. SMITH: That is a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, if you're going to respond, you're going to have to be on record.
MR. MULHERE: You can come up. You need --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to be sworn in and then identify yourself for the record.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Talking here, Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're going to go around the whole thing. We're going to start there,
though.
(Mr. Smith was duly sworn.)
MR. SMITH: My name's Donovan Smith, for the record. My wife and I are the co-founders and
Page 23
~'-"'-~""''''''~''''"'''''''''''',"~,.."...,,'...,.-
,
(d /1 il ~ i. ~
~ t\\
'."",, ~~,JI t1ar!h 19, 20D9
owners ofNgala Private Reserve.
And in answer to your question, the building to the north is a landscape company by the name of
Buttonwood Landscaping. It was a house that's been converted into a business.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Halfway down your property to the east side there's another
building. What is that?
MR. SMITH: That is a home that's on five acres with a workshop next to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Towards the bottom, it looks like there's two other buildings. Those
two there, what are those?
MR. SMITH: They are nurseries, plant nurseries and residences in the plant nurseries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as we move up around the other side, it looks like some -- there's a
building there and to the south there's some disturbed property. I can't tell if there's a building there. Are
there any residences in that area?
MR. SMITH: The first one that you mentioned is an oak tree farm with a residence, and the bottom
one is a pig farm with a residence. Both of those are trailer residences, but they're residences.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you do have some residential people living out in that area. But
they all seem to be operating a business; is that a fair statement?
MR. SMITH: That's the theme of the area. You know, when you farm, it's a life, it's a lifestyle. And
it doesn't make practical sense to live outside of your farm because, you know, there's so much work to be
doing. Regardless whether you're farming giraffes or oak trees or pigs or whatever it is, it's still -- you're still
up all night in the cold and all that other good stuff, you know, so you have to live there. It's kind of just the
way it works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure who wants to answer this, but --
MR. MULHERE: He does.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maybe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your conditional uses that you've asked for are 25, 23 -- 25, 23 and 5.
Number 25 involves the commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals and other animals
typically used for agricultural purposes or production, subject to the following standards.
One of the standards is any roof structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such animals shall
be located a minimum of 100 feet from any lot line.
Now, did you read that? And are you aware of that? Because you're objecting to staffs condition of
60 feet. I'm just wondering --
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that said any roof structure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Do you have any objection to that?
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your--
MR. MULHERE: No, no. Our concern was that there's a couple of pens that are located closer.
They are not in roof structures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what you're -- now, I've got to look at the wording of the staff
comment, so just give me a minute.
MR. MULHERE: I think we could fix it and make it consistent with that, Mr. Strain. Because I was
trying to incorporate a similar condition in -- which was 100 foot from residents. What you read is even
more restrictive, but it would be okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're going to have to meet what the conditional use requires. You
don't have --
Page 24
16 11 'J~3.
March 19,2009'"
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any objection to that?
MR. MULHERE: No, I understand it, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You also made a statement that I believe you thought that
everything that controlled this property was under the auspices ofthe Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Commission?
MR. MULHERE: No, I didn't say everything, I just said that in terms of keeping exotic animals and
the licensure process, it's U.S.D.A and -- well, I'd better let Donovan answer that question, he certainly
knows more than I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SMITH: In regards to wildlife, Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution vests
exclusively the authority to FWC. And I happened to serve -- I just finished a two-year duty for the state. I
serve on the task force that reports directly to the commission. I was one of 12 animal experts selected to
help provide guidance in that manner.
And every five years this process is done just to see how -- make sure it's working. It's a checks and
balance system. So I'm very familiar with that part of the state law.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any Class I or II animals?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, I do. And I've had -- I was born in this community in Naples, Florida, and
I've had exotic animals since 1979 and have a flawless record.
And just to clarifY, the exhibit the FWC manages, the ownership, the exhibition is regulated by the
U.S.D.A., which I've been licensed in this community since 1985. And the Interstate Commerce in transit is
regulated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
So there's five government agencies that regulate us outside of the county. And once again, we
have a flawless record with that, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you come under the ruling of 68A prior to 2008, or do you come under
the 2008 ruling of 68A?
MR. SMITH: The 68A--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 68A-6.0022(5)(A)(5)(B). FAC, Florida Administrative Code.
MR. SMITH: The -- once again, I'm not exactly familiar with the Florida Administrative Code. I
am familiar with many of the other statutes themselves. But the -- you know, if you want to enlighten me on
what the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I want to make sure that when we get through with this that the
requirements of the zoning actions that are taken here today are applicable and there's no dispute on it.
According to that rule, the Florida Administrative Code, the last line of it says, applicant shall
submit documentation verifYing that the construction of the facility, its cages and enclosures is not
prohibited by county ordinances. And if within the municipality, the municipal ordinance.
Now, part of our ordinances are building codes, setbacks and the other things that we're going to be
discussing today. And that's -- earlier on it seemed like there was an insinuation that you don't fall under
some of our codes. You do. I mean, the fact that you're here today, and if this gets passed, you will. And I
don't see a dispute in that point. And I wanted to make sure from your counsel that there wasn't going to be
any in that regard.
MR. SMITH: We don't have a dispute. You know, I can tell you, there's been some clarity in what
you're talking about, because there was appropriate neighborhoods and some language that we worked on
clarifYing, because it was unclear. And that will be coming out here very soon.
And the question I have is what is the appropriate zoning for animals? And to me agriculture has
always been the most appropriate place to have animals. And, you know, that's for their mental well-being,
Page 25
,~-,---_..~...-._-~.,._~._. ..... - ~-"'"--"-~-,",--,,*-,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,.,----,",,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,""---,,,,,,,,,,-_..,,'-,-,...._,
~ 'I II 4
u ;:,--.... ' --
March 19,2009
the community, the whole nine yards. I mean, it's a no-brainer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your conditional use application will clean up the zoning, and
that's what the objective is here today.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I go back -- I have some documentation that indicated there was a lot of
structures on-site without building permits. There was some reluctance to get building permits. I'm
assuming then if the zoning goes in place, everything will be properly permitted, inspected?
MR. SMITH: Agreed to in accordance with state law.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've agreed to go through the -- we've agreed to follow the rules and
regulations applicable to the individual buildings. There will be -- Mr. Strain, just to -- there are some
buildings that are purely ago related buildings that -- and then those buildings will follow whatever the rules
are for purely ago related buildings.
The building that I'll call that are in dispute, if you will, we're trying to fix those through this
conditional use process, and we agree to be bound by whatever the rules and regulations are applicable to
those buildings. If it requires a building permit, we'll get one. And we've agreed to go through the SDP or
SIP process, whichever staff requires, to take care of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about a large building that maybe a small piece of it's used for a
bathroom, would the whole building then be subject to our codes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it depends what the building is for. If it's a barn that has a bathroom in
it, that's an ag, use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the bathroom is set up for guests?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then yes, we will go through the -- we would have to get the permits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the entire building?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that point, the building code, the tent's an odd one. How did --
I mean, first of all, tent's really only allowed as a temporary structure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're taking care of that through this process. The tents -- that's why
we're going through this. The tent can go up. It's got to come down if there's a hurricane warning, I believe.
And it will come down.
And during the summer they come down anyway because he does that as a routine part of his
operation.
MR. MULHERE: And that's been fully inspected for fire compliance and all of the other public
safety concerns as part of that issuance of the fire compliance.
They've seen the tent. The fire department's been out there and inspected the site. So that's part of
the reason why we're going through this process is yeah, typically, you know, you put up a tent, you only
can put up a tent for a relatively short period of time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. MULHERE: Part of going through this process is that we've identified how long that tent can
be up. We've talked to staff about it. They put some conditions on it during a hurricane, watched it, be able
to take it down within a certain period of time, we've agreed to those conditions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're saying you're keeping it -- the tent is permanently there
unless a hurricane makes you take it down.
Page 26
16 1"1 4i~ ~~7
1;. JJ
It. '
March 19,2009
.:~ q I' .Ii
MR. MULHERE: Actually, it's not. It's taken down anyway for maintenance purposes during the
summer months. But it's up for about eight months, I'd say.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let your building official do that. But 1-- if you read the
code, it will state that a tent that size has to be considered a structure. II ~
MR. MULHERE: Well, it's been inspected. We can have it inspected again, I mean, if that's what
the issue is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- one of the disclosures I failed to make was I got an e-mail from
Elizabeth at Defenders of Wildlife that included some newspaper articles about I guess interactions with
panthers, yet I notice that there were no panthers reported in your EIS, because they weren't observed on the
site at the time.
And I guess I'll ask staff. Is there an environmental staff here today?
MR. D'ARCO: Good morning. For the record, Chris D'Arco, Engineering and Environmental
Services.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Thank you. I didn't recognize you. I don't think I've seen
you here before.
The panther, because it was observed on-site -- or because it's known to be on-site, it says
interaction with the animals on the site.
Should that have been included in the reference in the EIS?
MR. D'ARCO: I believe the panther issue was addressed.
MS. L YDA Y: We never saw it on-site, so I only reported it.
MR. MULHERE: You can come up. You need to tell Mr. Strain.
MS. L YDA Y: Good morning. Tammy Lyday with Earth Balance.
We have been on-site since 2002. I believe October, 2002 was the first environmental survey that
had been conducted on-site. And we had done several, I would say a good six to eight surveys on-site again.
You know, obviously panthers are most active during the evening and, you know, that didn't include our
survey. But so that's why it wasn't included in the EIS.
But just from hearsay from neighbors, there is -- and Donovan himself, you know, there has been a
cat in the area, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were some recommendations from Fish & Wildlife concerning how
to deal with this --
MS. L YDA Y: Right, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- animal.
MS. L YDA Y: And that is included in the EIS, about how to protect his site from panthers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they brought in each night into a secured area?
MR. SMITH: Sorry.
The cat that was a problem wasn't just a problem for us. We didn't have a problem with it, it's part
of farming. But some of our neighbors had a problem. We lost I think it was 11 goats in one week, and
some neighbors lost some pigs, some neighbors lost some donkeys. And we had discussion with the Game
Commission on what the options were. And Roy McBride, who is the trapper for FWC, called us and said
we don't have to worry about it anymore, he was hit by a car. So that animal is dead and we haven't had a
single problem or visit ever since. So it was just the way it worked out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: But the question is, are your animals brought in at night and covered?
Do they have covering?
MR. SMITH: If you're referring to goats, we have a seven-foot chain link fence with barbed wire
Page 27
...-........ ~_...."__...._~._"._'_.,"'~,._.,..,_'w_..,."~_"'__.__""""",__k',""~"'_" "-",,~,_I>i'_fl' ..____"^"""_.....~,'__."....""""""_~.'L__"~ _....~~._-,
IF ,,. ~ .,
~ ,
" -'I;
-ov U " "..;J .~~'
March 19,2009
and a hot wire on the bottom. And the hot wire was added after we lost 11 goats in a week, and we haven't
had any predation since then.
So the answer to your question is no, because the goats are on 10 acres. And it would be quite
difficult, it would probably take you the whole day to go gather all of them up and put them in a pen.
But I do know the structure that you're familiar with, and it has been advised to us if we -- if the
methods for security for our animals don't work, as an option. And it's something we would certainly
consider, you know, if we have anymore problems. But we haven't had any problems in a long time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the -- I have some questions of staff, but the last one I want to
ask is aquaculture. We had one other application recently for aquaculture, and the gentleman actually was
required to do quite a few things to assure us that that's what he was going to do and not excavation.
I understand the nature of your aquaculture is substantially different than his. Yours are in more or
less containers, containers either above or below the ground, and they're small in nature.
Is there any ability or any ideas to expand the aquaculture beyond what is already on site?
MR. SMITH: The law reads if you have -- if you sell fish out of your garage, you need an
aquaculture permit. It doesn't differentiate in size or anything. Bottom line, if you sell it, you need it.
In answer to your question, I mean, we might get a few more tanks or however the case may be, but
we're not n it's a very small part of our operation. But to satisfy the Florida Department of Aquaculture,
which is a whole agency ironically that's doing an inspection at our facility as we speak, we have to be
permitted by them. So we may add a couple more fish tanks or whatever, but it would certainly be under
their guidance and their -- their Best Management Practice is about this thick.
And it's important to me as being a native because, you know, I don't want this stuff in the
environment any more than anybody else does.
The fish that we keep are really subject to the cold. Even with heat they die. They're very, very
temperamental. They're from three lakes in Africa. And they're -- the bass and all that love them, but they're
a long way from any -- by design from any natural occurring pond or canal or any of that kind of stuff, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you anticipating digging a lake in which to raise fish?
MR. SMITH: A natural lake?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wouldn't be natural if you dig it. But I mean, a lake in the ground.
Are you doing any major excavation in which to --
MR. SMITH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- raise fish?
MR. SMITH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any concern if we were to stipulate that there would be no
excavation for aquaculture on this property?
MR. SMITH: Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I think what we talked about was the -- is the concern about the
actual digging of the lake, or was it the digging of the lake and removing the dirt off-site?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's my concern, Everything--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's the removal of the dirt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- changes in this world and the economy makes a lot of people change. If
he got a windfall offer to sell his property and the new owner wanted to dig a lake to sell excavation
material, I don't want them saying they did that in the pretense it's aquaculture. And I'm trying to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. And if you recall on that particular petition, which I have
some familiarity with, you're capped on how much dirt you can remove from the site without having to go
through a conditional use process. So you can't just hide an earth mine through a fish farm application.
But we have no intent -- he's already told you that. He's -- the issue is if he wants to dig a lake
Page 28
16 Ikl AJ
March 19,2009
on-site and keep the fill on-site, I don't think that's an issue, is it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not where I was coming from.
Then you would have no objection prohibition from removing fill from the site?
MR. SMITH: No. No, sir. And I did want to state too that these aquaculture facilities started as
alternative water sources to meet the fire code. And we chose to go that route rather than having a fire -- a
fire hydrant was going to cost $35,000 and it's going to sit and rot away in time. So we have way, way more
than what's required for alternative water source.
And quite frankly, I got tired of looking at water, so we put fish in it and then people wanted to buy
them, so 10 and behold, we evolved once again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions before we go to staffreport?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning.
You have the staff report. It is dated at the bottom last revised 3-11-09. The staff report includes the
zoning map and location map to show the site location. It has a copy of the site plan provided by the
petitioner.
On Page 2 there is a description of the project. Both staffs interpretation and some information
from the petitioner themselves goes into the surrounding land uses in zoning.
The aerial photograph on the next page, similar to the one you saw today. There is an in-depth
Growth Management Plan consistency review, beginning on Page 3. I do have David Weeks here with me
today from comprehensive planning who can address questions if you have questions regarding that
particular portion at the staff report.
And on Page 6 of the staff report, there is a transportation element that discusses the traffic -- the
impact statement. And we do have John Podczerwinsky with transportation here, he can address any
specific questions you have regarding transportation. And you've already met Chris D'Arco, who can
address any CCME concerns you have.
Staffhas included an analysis that begins on Page 7, going into the [mdings that are required for the
approval of a conditional use, in this case three conditional uses.
Staffhas determined in our opinion that this particular project is consistent with the Growth
Management Plan, as conditioned, and it is in compliance with the LDC, again, as conditioned.
Speaking of conditions, on Page 10, the staff report begins with the actual conditions that are
proposed. Condition one identifies the site plan.
Condition one (sic) recognizes the evaluation to this point of 1,000 guests, therefore limiting the
use to that 1,000 guests.
Condition number three addresses how those guests will or will not get there.
Condition number four goes back to some original discussions where they were going to have a
sports and recreation camp, so we wanted to make it clear that you get to come but you can't stay all night.
And then condition number five again goes back to some of those discussions to limit this
particular use so that it is not open to the general public. Those persons who do come to visit do so by
private appointment.
Condition number six was touched on by Rich. This requires the tents or any tents removal for
anything issued for a tropical storm or higher intensity storm watch or warning. That will help ensure the
safety of the tent and everything around it during a storm event, should one unfortunately visit us again.
Condition number seven talks about the limiting to parking on the gravel areas, which are identified
Page 29
--~..~" _....._~-~_._,-"""'.,.""".."""~"..._,."'"""';."'"''''-.;,'".,,-,_..~-..'''' -"-~.".",.-~".,'
1'1 r':.:.~
16 ~ 'j)
,,,,;
March 19, 2009
as parking. And I do believe there are three rather than two gravel areas on-site that are designated for
parking.
Condition number eight talks about the expansion on the site.
Condition number nine talks to the existing single-family home on-site, and what would need to be
done, should that be -- eventually evolve into a portion of the conditional use that's being requested.
Condition number 10 is that condition that will help get all the structures on-site and the uses
on-site in compliance with county regulations by requiring a site improvement plan or SDP plan as
appropriate. And it gives the petitioner a time frame within which that must be done.
Condition number 11 limits the hours and days of operation for the events that are proposed for this
site. And this is evolved over time to what it is now. And then as mentioned, we were told that they now
want five events per week, rather than three events per week, understanding that three events per week
would allow for 156 events per year. They're willing to cap that to 150 events per year with those five that
they're requesting. Understanding that this is a seasonal community and season is when you can make
money, hopefully, and sometimes in the summertime it's too hot, people don't want to go out in the evening,
thunderstorms are there. Again, people just don't want to be there, So I can see some validity to changing it
to five so that they can take advantage of the season.
Number 12 deals with the buffers that are being required by staff to help to ameliorate what effects
could be bothering the neighbors, should that be an issue.
We don't believe as it's operating now there is a problem, but this would address any future
expansions of the use.
Condition number three, as we talked earlier, there is also a limit of 100 feet in the LDC in the
explanation where it talks about the actual use for raising or breeding of exotic animals. And that does talk
about roof structures. This is not that specific. This particular condition says, any addition to any existing or
any new structures or tents. Therefore, they don't have to be just roofed structures. But we do realize that
right now there are some structures that are close to property lines, and that's why we've noted it as
additions or new structures.
Conditions number 14 and 15 relate back to the EAC requirements when this petition was reviewed
by the EAC. As noted in the staff report on a previous page, and by the petitioner, they did receive
unanimous recommendation from the EAC.
That's the staff report. And like I said, I have several persons here that can help address questions if
I can't specifically address them myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get into questions, Kay, we're going to take a I5-minute break.
It's 10:00. We'll give Cherie' a breather and be back here at 10:15.
MS. DESELEM: Okay, thank you.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, back to the meeting. And where we had left off was Kay
had just finished up her presentation from the county staff perspective for Close-Up Creatures. It's easier to
say than trying to pronounce that other word.
With that, let's ask, are there any questions of staff?
Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Kay, why are we restricting this to so many times a year?
MS. DESELEM: As a way to control the conditional use so you have some parameters of what the
conditional use is.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How did you come up with the number of 156?
MS. DESELEM: Multiplied three times 52. Was my math okay?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And the three came from where?
Page 30
16 f 1 A~:h 19,2009
MS. DESELEM: Originally they were talking about three. As you see in the staff report, the
original condition was three times a week.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then it was changed.
MS. DESELEM: Then they're asking today -- they had e-mailed us like yesterday, maybe the day
before, telling us that they wanted to increase it to five times.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So now we're up to 150. Does that include the non-profits
and children's events?
MS. DESELEM: No.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: This is only the events that go late.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, that's fine.
MS. DESELEM: I think it's the ones that -- I have to look at the exact language that--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I just want to get it clear.
And in addition, they can now do five, six, seven a week during season, if necessary, as long as
they -- or as many needed during season or during their times, as long as they don't exceed the 150 a year,
correct? You're okay with that?
MS. DESELEM: Correct. The limitation of the 150 per year is those things that go till 11 :00 p.m.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, any which way they want to do it. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Kay, under recommendation number three it says, visitors
shall be transported to the site using buses or another communal transportation method. What is another
communal transportation method you had in mind there?
MS. DESELEM: They can use limousines, they can use vans. We didn't want to specifY that it has
to be quote, unquote buses.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Swamp buggies or motor homes?
MS. DESELEM: One would think not. It would have to be something that's allowed to be legally
conveyed over the roadways.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it would just be either limousine or buses.
MS. DESELEM: That was the general intent. The more important thing was to keep private
vehicles from going back and forth where you have one person in a car, that type of thing.
They have committed that they will use a more mass transit method to get people there and out.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, to make the restriction clear, wouldn't it be well just to say
buses or limousines period, without another communal transportation?
MS. DESELEM: Sure, if you'd like we can say buses, vans or limousines. I have no problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okay, for brevity and simplicity, I thought that might be more
direct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this time?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, on this item number six about taking down the temporary
structures and tent, could we change that, or would you have a problem if we added disassembled and
secure that site? I don't think we particularly want people driving around with a tent. I mean, shouldn't they
have the ability to secure that on-site at location? They probably do anyway. I mean, here you're making
them take it off the site.
MS. DESELEM: That sounds reasonable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That doesn't make any sense.
Page 31
"'ffl'~"_"_'"__"",_"~""._"___"""._,.,,__,_~""_,,,_,,,,,,_,,~,,,'_<.______"''''''~,...,..,~".... .. ,- ~,.....,' '''~,_''"'____".,._....__''''.,"'__;M.."''N'"'_..,w'''....,.~,_'^,....."~._,'_.""__..,,_"...,,,.~,__,,,._.___;_~.,,"'._~..._"__.._._"'-
16 j r
~; '4
Ji;. .,,,l
March 19, 2009
And then seven, it says parking on the site is limited to two gravel areas unless additional approval
is sought and approved through the SDP or SIP process.
So what's going to control parking then? The concern is that one of the major points of this is
everybody comes in from outside on a chartered vehicle and the way to really control that, the only way, is
the parking. So what would keep number seven where somebody comes in and builds a 50-car parking lot?
MS. DESELEM: They would have to seek approval. There's no -- as far as I know, I'd have to go
back and check, but as far as I know, this conditional use approval, if these are approved, would not give
them any approvals to have multiple parking garage -- a multiple story parking garage. And if they did, they
would have to seek site development plan or SDP approval to do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what would control it? In other words, only the staff at the
time; is that right?
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I missed the question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would control? Number seven is giving the SDP process
and SIP process the ability to alter the parking requirements on the site, correct?
MR. MULHERE: May I? For the record, Bob Mulhere.
Couple things. It's a good question, because when we go through the SIP or SDP, we're not exactly
sure to what extent we might have to make some minor changes to make staff happy in the process, right?
And then -- and my position would be that we don't have any -- what we have there is sufficient.
We don't have any intent on building any additional parking areas. You know, if we were to do that, I mean,
it's not shown on the conditional use master plan. I would think that that would be deemed to be a fairly
substantive addition.
I mean, I don't know if you want to opine, but basically conditional use, if you don't show it on
there and you were expanding or intensifying your facilities, you have to go back through the process to get
them to modify the conditional use to get an amendment to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so you're -- I mean, I'm not worried about this, you know,
but let's say they sell it to Six Flags, you know, I'm worried about them.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're still capped. Don't forget, we're still capped by the fact that
everybody has to arrive by a chartered vehicle. So why would we be doing that? We may have an additional
parking area because we have -- turns out that the groups average eight buses and we can only
accommodate two or three right now on-site and they have to leave. Maybe they want to expand a little bit
to keep the buses on-site. That would be the only reason I could think we might do something like that.
So I think we're -- making this a big sea of parking for a Six Flags doesn't make sense, because
people are still coming by chartered vehicles.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, number three, the concern I have is how do you control
that? I think one way is the site itself can control it by not having parking facilities. Essentially you're
saying you have to come on a bus or other communal transportation. Well, if we car pooled, that's
communal transportation, right?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think with the changes that Mr. Kolflat suggested, that would pretty
much limit it to bus, van --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or limo.
MR. MULHERE: -- limo.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Limo.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's the only way for a patron to arrive. Staff obviously is
--
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think --
Page 32
16 I ;1 Marc~ I ~OO9
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make sure Mr. Schiffer is done first.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one second. I think I am done, but -- go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? l
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, in that regard, you probably need to expand n the van
then to make sure it's commercial van.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, and then it says any arrival by private car is prohibited. So we could
say arrival by private vehicle --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I don't want to --
MR. MULHERE: -- is prohibited.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't want to make it to the nth degree, but --
MR. MULHERE: That would cover that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, so just let me get this straight. Are we changing number seven
to make it clear that if they expand beyond the three they would have to come back through the conditional
use process?
MS. DESELEM: I don't know that we were expanding condition three. That's the understanding
between staff and the applicant, that the LDC would require them to seek additional approvals.
Most likely -- I didn't look it up, but I don't think that a parking garage is an allowable use in
agricultural zoning.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It doesn't necessarily have to be a garage, it can just be expanding
these lots out. I mean, they've got lots of other property here.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
Any change to the conceptual master plan shown or that's approved with a conditional use would
be deemed an intensification and require them to come back through with a conditional use property.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so there's no way that that can just happen just
administratively.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just thought of one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, what can they do? They own neighboring property. So that
property no way can be used for anything on this, or -- essentially with the right to farm they could do
anything they want to with animals within that.
MR. BELLOWS: Farm related.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But are they allowed to for example take an elephant from one site
to bring it on this site for show or something?
MS. DESELEM: That might be a question for the county attorney's office. But to my
understanding the conditional use that allows the animals and the activities surrounding the animals is only
allowed on the subject property that is covered by the conditional use approval.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And any additional uses on properties they own that are zoned ag.,
they can still use the permitted agricultural activities. Anything falling under the conditional use would have
to occur within the boundaries of the CU.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, couple questions.
Page 33
~~~,__"I_'~'_.''''''','''''~"~''''M." '~"""__~"'__'".'''"_',_'.,,,",,y",~,,,;..'~M'''
(, Irq' A3
'J
...\./
March 19,2009
If they did not get approval to be on this site, what kind of a site would they have to find in Collier
County to be approved?
MS. DESELEM: I didn't really evaluate to see what else might be available within the county.
They're going through --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I don't mean what might be available. What zoning would they fall
under in Collier County?
MS. DESELEM: Well, they are seeking the conditional uses that are appropriate in the ago If they
wanted to seek other areas that are zoned ago and seek those conditional approvals, it would be evaluated on
its merit at the time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're basically limited to ag, zoning in which to get the uses that they
want.
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're basically limited to ago zoning to get the uses they want.
MS. DESELEM: There may be other zoning districts that allow them, but maybe perhaps by right
in some other zoning district, I don't know. But they could seek other lands that are zoned ago
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that was my question.
MS. DESELEM: I didn't go through each and every zoning district to see if other zoning districts
did allow the uses, but I would venture to say that the aquaculture itself would probably only be limited to
ago So by that, ago is pretty much where they're going to have to be.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I think -- are you asking in total or ifthis were broken up--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no.
MR. SCHMITT: Certainly other uses could be -- for instance, the entertainment venue could be
done on a commercial property. But if you're talking about in total what exists now--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, part of the documentation I've read was how these uses are all kind
of mixed together, that you really don't have one without the other and they need all three. And I was just
wondering, at another -- if they got turned down here, where could they do this at in Collier County?
MR. SCHMITT: David's probably ready to answer, but the rural fringe mixed use receiving area.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department.
It's perhaps a fine point, but I agree with everything said regarding the agricultural zoning. But
there may be some limitation under the future land use designation, most particularly the rural fringe mixed
use sending lands in which this property is located. Except there is a specific exception carved out in the
Future Land Use Element for this property.
But if they went through some other properties zoned agriculture but within the rural fringe mixed
use district's sending lands designation, we would find this use not consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That excepting out piece that you mentioned, this interim agreement, I've
read it. I've read so many pages of so many things, I'm not sure I'm going to keep them all straight, but I do
have a question.
See the crosshatched area that's on this map right now?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that part of that original application?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay.
Yes. When it was originally submitted, it was 32 acres. It is now 21.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They've taken it out of the CU application?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what will be the status of that property as to how it's looked at in the
future since it's not part of the CU application here in front ofus today? Even though it was part of the one
Page 34
16 I 1 A3
March 19, 2009
originally submitted in 2003 and now it appears to be dropped.
MS. DESELEM: It would have the uses allowed under the ago with the limitations of the sending.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it loses its interim posture, it loses the ability to be considered under
that interim time period because the application is null and void for that piece. And if they go on to that
piece in the future, it has to be regulated by the sending area?
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding. David can probably speak to that.
MR. MULHERE: Well, Commissioner Strain, if! could, I think that's a very good question,
because there was a deadline to have submitted the conditional use application, or any application, rezone,
conditional use, right? And it was July of2003, and we submitted in February of2003, which made us--
and we're complete --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. MULHERE: -- that's how we got vested.
So I think once we've removed this, we would fall out of that condition that otherwise would have
allowed us to -- you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, is that 21 acres, that cross-hatched area?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, the 21 acres is represented -- it's the outlined area in red. But that
crosshatched area is the area that's been removed from the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the cross-hatched area is the 10-acre area then. It's 10.8; is that what
it reads?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what we're in agreement on is that 10.8 acres, after this is
through, no longer falls under the interim rural fringe agreement guidelines, and it strictly goes under the
whatever, sending area, receiving area, whatever it happens to be under the rural fringe; is that right?
MS. DESELEM: I would say that's true today, because they removed it from the conditional use.
So, I mean, that's my thought.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine, I just wanted it clear.
Are there any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody here wanting to speak on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we will ask for any closing comments from the applicant.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Yes, just wanted to perhaps look at stipulation number 13. Because as you
pointed out, the conditional use already has a restriction on roof structures within 100 foot of a property line
for the exotic animals.
And again, if I just -- pointing out on the map here, this piece down here, a 60-foot setback around
the perimeter, there are other types of activities that we can do in here that wouldn't be in a roof structure.
We recognize we've got to meet that 100 foot. But that 60-foot setback is very restrictive in that area. Since
we already have a required indigenous 30-foot landscape buffer that's required to be opaque.
And I would say that you don't even need stipulation 13 because you already have the 100 foot for
roof structures as part of the conditional use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you use the tents for?
MR. MULHERE: The tents are for display and public use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is an animal ever in those tents?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, for display. Brought out, brought back.
Page 35
___._,^__,__~___._._^.._,__._'_____._...__.M_~._......_.__.___.._~ ___
1 l I; it3.,
· 1~)
~ .(. Mtkch 19,2009
..;1"._1 ' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you have no objection then to a tent -- the restriction of the
tents being 100 feet back.
MR. MULHERE: Well, doesn't it say for--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, let me read it to you.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, read it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any roofed structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such animals --
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- shall be located a minimum of 100 feet --
MR. MULHERE: Shelter and feeding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: So don't feed them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or don't put them in there. If you've got a roof over it, they're sheltered.
So is that what you're saying?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I didn't see that as being -- you know, when you bring it -- I'm not
suggesting that we want to put a tent within 100 foot of the property. I'm talking about other types of pens
and things like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the language kind of covers it.
MR. MULHERE: I'm saying it's clear, we don't need 13. We'll live by that stipulation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, do you have any--
MR. MULHERE: We don't have any choice but to live by that stipulation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that language in the conditional use, does that help you with number
13, or do you still feel 13's a --
MS. DESELEM: As I testified earlier, I believe 13 is still appropriate, because that particular
portion of the LDC only deals with roofed structures. And there's a lot of other things. There's pens, there's
all kinds of things that may not be roofed. And I don't know that it's appropriate to put that close to your
neighbor.
MR. MULHERE: That's regulated by the U.S.D.A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you need a microphone if you're going to speak.
MR. MULHERE: And again, we put on the record that that's already regulated and regulated quite
sufficiently. And, you know, I mean, if the issue is visibility or whatever, we have this 30-foot wide opaque
landscaped buffer.
All we're doing here by having a 60-foot separation for any structure, excluding fences and walls
because they're not considered structures, is basically rendering a lot of that property unusable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Inez Road in or outside your property line?
MR. MULHERE: The right-of-way?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, is it a right-of-way? Is it a platted public right-of-way?
MR. SMITH: No, we own the property.
MR. MULHERE: No, they own it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the entire Inez Road is in the right-of-way--
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I mean in your property?
MR. MULHERE: Well, half of it I think is on his, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're set -- and how wide is that road; do you know?
MR. MULHERE: Sixty foot. I think it's 30 foot on each property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're looking at having a setback of 60 foot from the edge of Inez
Road or 60 foot from the property line, which is 30 feet into Inez Road and then you end up with only 30
Page 36
16 I J Uh 19,2009
feet from the road.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, see what he's saying? If you measure it from the property line.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, it does state from the property boundary, so yes, it would go to the middle of
the road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're looking at a 30-foot setback. What are you worried about?
MR. MULHERE: I'm okay.
MS. DESELEM: Now, I could --
MR. MULHERE: Well, no, see, the problem, Mr. Strain, is there's not roads everywhere. Like for
example, in here there's no road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but that's up against--
MR. MULHERE: But it's applied as a property line. And that's where we have the problem is
mainly down in here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we suggest that it stays in place for roads--
property lines where they have roads involved, property fronting the road?
MR. MULHERE: That would work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't think anybody cares what you do internal with your own
internal property line.
MR. MULHERE: That would work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that -- Kay, does that--
MS. DESELEM: If! may, this only applies to new structures or additions. They can still use the
structure. It's not like they're going to lose the use of that structure.
MR. MULHERE: And I agree with Kay, that that's what it says. But look, there's a rhino pen right
here, or there's some sort of a -- I can't read that, it's very small -- right here. Okay? So round, whatever.
You know, anyway, that's for walking animals or training animals, okay? It's got a wall around it.
So under this condition, if I wanted to expand that thing, I've got to take the whole think and move
it back 60 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, listen, if we say any additions to any existing or any new structures
or tents shall be set back from property boundaries a minimum of 60 feet anywhere a property line borders
or includes a right-of-way or a roadway.
MR. MULHERE: A public right-of-way?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't say public right-of-way, just a roadway.
MR. MULHERE: Road right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Access way, let's try that, that's even better.
MR. MULHERE: That works.
MS. DESELEM: Can I get you to say that again, please?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. At the end of the sentence we would add, property boundaries a
minimum of 60 feet where the property line borders or includes an access way.
Richard, you're thinking. That's good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the risk of using directions, that's why I was thinking.
So you're basically saying along the east boundary?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, there's a road to the south too.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's a driveway, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keene.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Keene's along the south? That's the north.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the aerial you had up there looked like there was a road--
MR. MULHERE: Kearney.
Page 37
~--'" -"'~'_._,-,---_...._-",_._~-_._..,---.,---" .~ ....,.,..~--'......'""";._--,._""-_.,..."..._, -"-"""~'"'''''''"''_';'r 15. ..lIllI .. ,',"._"-",;.,....~..'''_. " .-..
,-.,.." ,
;1 i . .
,
;,0 ~ .....;".;1
March 19, 2009
MS. DESELEM: Kearney.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kearney, whatever the name is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I see, Kearney. Gotcha.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you want to change it to simply say Inez Road or Kearney Road,
that's fine too. Does that work better, Kay?
MR. MULHERE: I think it does. It's more clear.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: At least it's specific at that point.
MS. DESELEM: That would probably be clearer because it's more specific.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would be 60 feet from Kearney Road.
MR. MULHERE: Property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kearney Road property line and Inez Road property line.
Okay? We there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good. Did I get my direction right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern is you're keeping the word setback in there. And
if they ever dedicated the property line or dedicated the right-of-way, the definition of setback in our code
would be to that. It's probably to that anyway now.
You see what I'm concerned about? In other words, maybe if we just didn't use the word setback in
that, it would be clear forever. You can't hear, Kay?
MR. MULHERE: Shall not be closer than?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you see what I'm saying? I mean, fast forward 15 years from
now, there's a dedicated right-of-way. The guy says setback means from right-of-way.
MR. MULHERE: I think that's a very good point. If you simply didn't use setback but said shall not
be located closer than.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that mess will now read, all additions to any existing or new structures
or tents shall not be located closer than property -- than a minimum of 60 feet from Kearney Road -- from
the Kearney Road property line and the Inez Road property line.
MR. MULHERE: Perfect.
MR. KLATZKOW: Center line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: Center line.
MR. MULHERE: Which is the property line.
MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if they move the road?
MR. KLATZKOW: Just do it from the center line of the road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the center line of the road could change. I mean, I'm dealing
with an easement now that was 30 feet each side of the section line. And they --
MR. KLATZKOW: But the point of it is--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- put the whole road on the 30-foot side and nothing on the other, so the
center line of the road moved over.
MR. KLATZKOW: The whole point of this is the road. So if they moved -- you want it set back
from the road, right?
MR. MULHERE: No, from the property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the property line.
Page 38
16 I 1 j~ 3
MarcH 19,2009
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is the--
MR. MULHERE: It's not necessarily the center line of the road.
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is the center line of the road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this case it is, yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's what they're telling us.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but it may -- I mean, we haven't surveyed that. It's not -- Mark is right, in
some cases the center line of the road is not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm dealing with one right now on another project that the whole thing's
put on one 30-foot side and it's really messed things up.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, let's say that the property line is the entire --
MR. MULHERE: And it's a dirt road. We've got a survey. We know where the property line is. We
set back from that, we know exactly where it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well -- and if we leave it from the property line, it's a fixed point. I'd
rather suggest we leave it that way, as long as there's no legal objection.
Are there any other objections, comments?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just one thing on that. Why don't you say as shown on the
exhibit. Because, for example, theoretically if there's a dedicated road some day in the future, the property
line would become the edge of that dedication. It would no longer be the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but ifit did, they could take that into consideration when they
dedicated the road. I mean, I certainly think if the road gets dedicated, that means it's more public. Maybe
30 feet is inadequate.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think when you go through that process, you can reduce the setback,
because it's being taken for public purpose.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and we'll have a discussion
first so we can go over the issues that were discussed.
There has been no opposition here today, so let's walk through the staff recommendations first.
On number three, the suggestions, the best I could make notes of, would be changed as follows:
Visitors shall be transported to the site using buses, vans or limousines. Visitor arrival by private vehicle is
prohibited.
Number six, where it talks on the last line where it says -- or second to last line, structures are
disassembled and removed from the site immediately, it's going to read, structures are disassembled and
secured or removed from the site immediately.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Secured on the site, or--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let them give the option to take them off, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So secured or removed from the site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good, that's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 11 --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, one more thing on that. Do we really wants to do it ifthere's
a tropical -- I mean, the limitations there might be too much. I mean, tropical warning -- a warning, which is
the higher ranking, watch or warning?
MR. SCHMITT: Warning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Warning.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So a tropical watch, do we really want them to take it down? I
Page 39
-..^-',."..,,-<-----...._,-_....._~"---_.....~;,_..." "._'_...-'~,--~-,..----;-"'''''",'.''''..'''''"''.__.'''_'''''~_,_,_..,-"'-~....--".,-._..."..,'"".'".._.,-.~~.,",~'""'....,.....~.~ ...._,. .-
Ji () i /1 ~? 1
:j -\ ";' "
, ~ch 19,'200~
mean, unless he takes weeks to take dO\\m.
MR. SCHMITT: Obviously our concern, the structure itself. Now, that's concern certainly up to the
property o\\mer. And Donovan certainly knows he's not going to have an event out there, nor will people be
going out there. Certainly I would not (sic) think he's going to suspend any type of thing if there's going to
be a tropical storm. But it's in his best interest to protect his property when he takes it dO\\m. That's a very --
certainly a valuable tent to him.
But our concern on this naturally is the safety of the surrounding area and flying debris. But also to
make sure that the tent is not used for an event during a storm event or a threatening stormy event. That was
our biggest concern.
Now the other part of this, Brad, you're well aware of, the next piece of this is dealing with the
occupancy issue and fire protection and those other issues. Now this has already been approved by East
Naples Fire District under the Right to Farm. But there are going to be other issues we need to address on
occupancy and --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern is that we do get the watches.
MR. MULHERE: If I could add some--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere.
Just talking to Donovan, a couple of things. Number one, the tent is engineered to withstand winds
of75 miles per hour. Just so that's on the record.
Then he typically takes it dO\\m three days out of, you know, any event, coming event. Now, I don't
know the time frames. I think the -- when is it when it's imminent, do you know the time frames?
MS. DESELEM: If! recall correctly, a watch means it's possible to make landfall within three
days, 72 hours. A warning means it's supposedly imminent, and I believe the time frame is 48 hours.
But we were told in discussions that it takes at least two days to take the tent dO\\m. And this is just
the existing tent. I understand they may have more than one tent on-site. So we wanted to make sure to take
the most conservative approach.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, one thing, when we change it here, will it also change on the
site plan? There's a similar--
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- number on the site plan. You'll make sure that they're
compatible?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item was on Number 11, first line, three events would be
changed to five. But there will be a sentence added that caps the total events per year of 150 per year.
Number 13 --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, wait a minute, Mr.--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was brought up before was, by Commissioner Vigliotti, is
the issue of other children visiting and so forth, not - for-profit events. Is the 150 -- I thought it was said that
the 150 was not included in that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't. And that's only for events that go beyond 8:00 p.m. at night.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But I think what we have to make sure is that the 150
doesn't cap you for everything.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The way I understood it was being read it seemed like it might.
Page 40
16 I 1 A3 1
March 19,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was going to be in paragraph 11, which refers to hours, so the cap
would be referencing how many events you could have to the hours that are stated in Number 11.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you be kind enough to reread what you said about the 150
then, please?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't say -- I just said that there's going to be a sentence added to address
the cap of 150 events per year.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 13 -- go ahead, Mr. --
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I'm not going to expect an annual report on
that, but I'm going to expect a report if there are code cases, then I'm going to demand that information from
the -- from Donovan or from the operator, because that will be applicable and pertinent to any type of code
case for prosecution of a code case.
So that's when that information will be relevant. So it's not that I'm going to be looking for an
annual report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Number 13, we're -- best I can make out of my notes would now read, all additions to any existing
or any new structures or tents shall not be located closer than a minimum of 60 feet from the Kearney Road
property line and the Inez Road property line.
And I think that's it from that page of notes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one -- I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're going to have one more note, there will be no fill removal from
the site. That's it.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing we never discussed, number two, the thousand. It just --
I think it was just pulled out of the air. I mean, it wasn't in the initial application.
MR. MULHERE: No, we revised our traffic analysis to allow for that number, because in fact the
Smiths actually had several events -- several, not a lot, several, that were that large. The great majority are
far smaller than that.
But some of the hotel events are up to 1,000. The staff wanted a cap, that's the cap we put in. We
did the traffic analysis for that number.
I'm telling you, though, that you're probably talking about no more than 10 events per year,
maximum.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you'd have 25 buses bringing everybody out, or 25 trips.
The buses are going back and forth. So it would be 100 --
MR. MULHERE: It's still considered to be relatively few trips with no significant impact on the
roadway, even under that scenario. I just had that conversation with Nick in the back of the room.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just saying we didn't
really discuss it. I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Why don't we discuss it now? Transportation's sitting there, so let's
get their --
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky for the record, Transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want him to spell that?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Can you restate the question for me, please? And was there a specific
question that you wanted to address with respect to 1,000?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, 1,000 is a lot of people. I mean, there is a large sewage load.
Page 41
.~~- ..""~-,,--. . "~",_"",---"",-_,'",,,,,---"-,",, ~--'-"-'"-''"'''''''''.'''"
"I
I~ t} t
Ii t'i
~ ~'~
.;c~ . -- March 19, 2009
And Rich is right, you can get portable equipment to do that. There's the support. I mean, ifthere's going to
be 30 people or something for staff, that's really low support. I mean, that's a lot of people. So it's not just
1,000 people on buses.
But don't you think -- I mean, first of all, we don't have 21 buses, I guess, in town, so it's not like
they're all going to come out in one big flow and then go back in one big flow.
So you're okay with that?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we don't have any objection to it. Essentially what we were
looking at was a peak one-hour load on this for the peak event. So we were looking at basically the one-way
direction traffic -- directional traffic going into the site and/or one-way directional traffic corning out of the
site, what is our peak loading during that one-hour period.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your answer's 25.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Twenty-five. Twenty-five buses.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So that means there's somewhere in town 25 buses.
Because obviously the bus has to go back and get more. So that would be two trips if you're not using the
same buses. They don't have parking for 25 buses.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No. they do not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the trip isn't 25, is it?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, this would actually be the 25 -- it would be 25 drops at the site
for the buses.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And they've got to go back and get more.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. And we're anticipating that that would be about the maximum
loading that they could get within an hour, within that peak hour that we're looking at on the site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I just think bringing it -- within an hour bringing
1,000 people out there is like a convoy maneuver. It's not --
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, we would sort of think that that would be spread out a little bit
more than one peak hour. But we were looking at a maximum worst case scenario, what would we have to
accommodate for that and do the roadways accommodate that loading.
And as far as our analysis goes, yes, they will, all the way out to 951 and Pine Ridge Road, where
we took them all the way out to that intersection.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, a question. You've testified that they've had events out
there that have had 1,000 people and they've handled it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No Woodstock problems or anything.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And keep in mind, the number of employees are related to the day-to-day
operations. When he has the events, the caterers also bring staff out there. So it's not 20 people serving
1,000 people. You have the catering staff that also arrive by communal transportation on buses as well. So
there's more than 30 people there at that time from a staffing standpoint.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we have 30 parking places for staff. I mean --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are for staff employees. The catering staff, as we testified to earlier,
also arrive by bus on the larger events.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If everybody's comfortable with it, I'll go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have a question because of what you just said. You said you
did your study and you brought these buses to 951 and Pine Ridge.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct, we did--
COMMISSIONER CARON: However, all I've heard are about corporate events that include the
Page 42
16 I 1 J1 ~ch'19,2009
Ritz and all of these other things, which are all west of that -- where you took that traffic.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, we did look at--
COMMISSIONER CARON: So what happens to those buses when they reach there?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The distribution that we took a look at at Collier Boulevard and Pine
Ridge -- and if you don't mind, I'll use the visualizer here.
This is the proposed distribution that they show. If you'll take it a little bit further -- okay, you'll see
that rougWy 30 percent of the trips are distributed down Pine Ridge. That would be to and from the Ritz
area, I guess, towards the beach.
Forty percent we're looking at coming from the south, which we anticipate that being some of their
support staff, the catering staff, whoever they're contracted from, coming in that direction.
Not to eliminate buses, there are some hotels down in that direction as well. And there's also an
expressway access down there to 1-75. So that would cover some of the events that are coming in from the
other side of the state.
But we assume most of their support staff is going to be local. So this is all of that traffic all
combined in one. And we're going to be looking at that peak hour loading from all sources that are going to
be accessing this site.
So that's not only the buses, the catering staff, everybody that's there for support staff. And they
took everything, loaded it all into that hour and came up with, I believe it was 71 worst case scenario trips
distributed 30 percent, 30 percent and 40 percent. It works out to be a relatively small number distributed on
each roadway. It's less than one percent impact on each segment of Collier Boulevard and also on Pine
Ridge, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm a little sus -- because what this doesn't take into account, that if
you have an event you're going to one spot to pick people up. The concept of people blending in from the
community doesn't make sense because you're -- all your patrons are coming from one hotel. So 100
percent of the patron trips are heading that way.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no way to split that up.
But anyway, ifthe site can take 100 and no one's complaining about it, we can move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before you do, unfortunately every time someone speaks there's some
more information that need to be addressed.
A thousand guests we just heard doesn't occur very often. Why don't we just look at stipulating how
many times you can have that many people on-site? And that would be assured then we don't break any
barriers with traffic. If you only do a few a year, and I think you said no more than 10, maybe we ought to
look at a consideration of limiting that. Because the way it's open now is they could have 1,000 guests every
hour and we could have a regular old train running out there forever.
MR. MULHERE: Well, they are off-peak hours. And hey, look, we should be so lucky as to have
more than -- or they should be so lucky as to have more than -- it's far and few between. I think a limitation
of 1 0 would be acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was -- I used to live in California, and there's this little farm up the
road called Knott's Berry Farm. Ever heard of it?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, they started out small too. They get now what, 40,000 or
something like that?
MR. MULHERE: They've got an amusement park there now, don't they?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes, they do. Petting zoos and animals, too. We won't go into that,
Page 43
'__'___'_'~"'__'___.'.___",,"_'''V''~ .'...-"....,..,.___._",__w_ MRlt,' ,_ - 'lilIIlllUffl1l_""'. "~;_"'",""..~,....~.;~"~"'" ~"'"-"'-'"-..~...,~.~-~,~.~----",_.......
J A3
--- ~
March 19, 2009
though.
If we limit the 1,000 guests to no more than 10 times per year?
MR. MULHERE: I think you'd want to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what you have to do, Mark, is come up with a minimum. I
mean, no more than 10 times a year can the guests be greater than 500 or some number.
MR. MULHERE: Probably need a little -- more like 600 would be --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We are picking numbers out of the air. We're not looking at what
the site can hold and all the other things planned --
MR. MULHERE: We're not picking numbers out of the air, we're basing it on our experience there,
Mr. Schiffer. We're basing it on what we know over the history of the site generally what size the events are
when they occur.
They are getting a little bit bigger. And that's because the site can accommodate it and the
experience is very desirable to these groups that come in.
I don't know that any of those groups are receiving T ARP funding, by the way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern though is that for example you have a sewage flow of
five gallons per person and there's no restaurant -- you know, there's nothing in the restaurant category that
has that Iowa sewage flow. So, I mean, I'm just --
MR. MULHERE: Because we're not preparing food there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL there's still nothing that low. I mean--
MR. MULHERE: But that has to do with preparation on-site. We're catering -- we're bringing the
food in. So that really isn't germane to the site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, from my experience, ifI'm there all day drinking
beer and all that, I'm good for more than five gallons myself.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, but that's why we're bringing in the -- what were they called, comfort
stations --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Crowd pleasers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've questioned, we're sensitive, it's okay.
So what would be the lower number be, 500?
MR. MULHERE: I think to be safe it should be a little bit higher, 600, I think. We discussed that,
600 would be a better number. It gives us a little more flexibility. And that certainly limits us on the higher
number, above 600 hundred 10 times per year.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you have a 500-person event, do you have crowd pleasers
there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And actually--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the limit that you bring crowd pleasers out?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The crowd pleasers arrive when we hit the 250 to 300-person mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Kay, there's going to be one more change to our staff -- to staff
recommendations that we're probably going to consider, and that will be number two. It will read something
to the effect -- and I've got to ask that you clean it up -- there should be no more than 600 guests on-site at
anyone time, more than 10 times per year.
Basically what it's saying is they can't have over 600 people more than 10 times a year on that site.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually Donovan is saying the number he would be comfortable with
-- and keeping in mind, Naples Grande can only hold 450. So what he's saying is ifhe can get to the 800
number, he'd know he's safe.
Remember, there's 55 people per bus. We're only talking about -- I can't do that in my head.
Twelve? Whatever 55 into that number goes. Somebody just told me 12, but I'm not good at math or
Page 44
"6 rl c~ 3 ~
~. ~
.J',,,, \l .;;..."'<f-
March 19, 2009
directions. The list is getting longer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern isn't just the transportation. Like how big -- what's the
\ square footage of the tent? If you get 1,000 people out there, nobody's in that tent. I mean --
MR. DONOVAN: Let me -- I'm Donovan again. Let me just give you some synopsis of how -- this
facility works almost like a movie set. In other words, we have several components that a client would pick
in a menu of services.
Their method of transportation -- you've got to remember, we've done parties for as little as six and
for as much as 1,000. We've done clientele from 72 billionaires under one roof to 60 Girl Scouts the very
next day. So there's huge flexibility.
And let me remind you that the concessions, if the sewer or whatever didn't work, would be far
greater than anything you could ever impose on us, because they want their money back, they're very
disconcerting (sic) citizens that have experienced and done it all and they get mad real easy.
But the facility grows and, you know, even regardless of what the septic tank can hold, you know,
logistically you can't move more than 300 hundred people through a door anyway. So you have to have -- to
be responsible you have to have more than one restroom facility. And we mitigate that with air conditioned
crowd pleasers; they have working toilets and the whole nine yards. And we go through great pains to
accommodate these people in a manner that they like.
As a matter of fact, we were selected as Offsite Venue of the Year last year by a Meeting South
magazine reader's poll, which was a write-in ballot, a global write-in ballot, which I'm pretty proud of, to be
here in the community.
So I understand your concerns, and I really -- I sincerely appreciate them, because you think of
those things and we do too, and not everybody does. And that's why we charge what we charge, because it
takes a huge amount of resources to pull it off to the level that it needs to be done.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Describe a thousand-event day. What's happening?
MR. DONOV AN: In a thousand-event day -- once again, they're very rare, but they do happen, and
it's a great deal, because it's a shell-out for the community, multiple hotels and that sort of thing. But we
would use these facilities that you have a brochure on and then other temporary structures would be brought
in to facilitate a program like that.
And they're brought in with the fire exit signs and the fire extinguishers and all the requirements.
And then mobile bathrooms are brought in, and additional tenting is brought in for culinary staff. And
usually by the next day it's all gone. I mean, if you go out there, it's like it never was.
And these three structures that are in the brochures, really, we throw the word tent around loosely,
but the structures are made from Sunbrella awning fabrics. It's actually a giant awning, if you really want to
get technical.
They're -- it's much more -- a rental tent is designed to be utilized, quick return on investment and
disposed of. It's not meant to last years and years and years. And the fabrics aren't (sic) the same water
repellent and all that kind of stuff. So just to kind of summarize that part of it as well. So that's walking
through a typical.
Now, on the small end, just to give you a perspective, when we do an event for six people, they go
by -- and that would be a prime example of a limousine, a bus is inappropriate and, you know, why waste
more fuel and all that stuff bringing a bus out when a limousine would work. And they would see the entire
location, but -- as far as the structure goes, but they would be confined into a smaller area.
And it's exclusive, no matter what the experience is. And the reason for that is we don't want six
people swimming in a facility that can accommodate 300. It's just not intimate anymore.
And now our animals are done in a manner where they're housed on-site but a client could literally
say I want a giraffe, no, I don't want a giraffe, I want a leopard, or no, I don't want a leopard. And in each
Page 45
'''''''b'',~_,,,,, "..-,-_.,-_.,"""----"".,..,.,'<,~,-,'---,_...... ~ IS I>ll _,~.___''',,'".,"'~......'".,,)_'u,,_..~...........__........._,,"'____~''',.,,'_.., M._.._,.'__~___,,___._...___'M..__.._.,~_~~,.__,__.__ _
,,~~
:1 1 "0. 1
.' . _',5 f
:1 . ~ ,t' :
i1 ..:L:March 19,2009
..s:... !.l animal exhibit there's -- once again, it's set up -- for 15 years before we built this place we did events at
Disney and all over where we toured with all the foliage and lighting and everything else that went with
them. And we just set that up specific to them and then break it down when it's done and the animals go
back to their enclosures. And that's good for them because it provides mental stimulation enrichment, which
wild animals need. They're nomadic by nature and they need to go and see things.
So anyway, I'm sorry to kind of drag on here, but I just wanted to give you a synopsis from a high
to low end what you could expect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. DONOVAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard or Bob, whoever, the way the language would be proposed, we're
now talking 800. So that means you're going to be limited to no more than 800 people instead of 1,000. And
it would be no more than 10 times per year.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that -- where's everybody sit with that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why bother? 800, 1,000, it's the same. I mean --
MR. KLA TZKOW: You know, unless we can articulate a reason for a number here, I'm starting to
get a little concerned that we're just being arbitrary.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I mean, I haven't heard anything from our own transportation that there's a
problem, I haven't heard anything from Joe's shop that there's a problem --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Leave it alone --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, if you could please --
MR. SCHMITT: The only limitation will be the 1,000 number triggers --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- be recognized before you speak.
MR. SCHMITT: -- requirements for fire suppression and other issues dealing with the Florida
Building Code, so --
MR. KLATZKOW: Then the 1,000 number is just as good as the 800 number.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, so let's let it go.
MR. SCHMITT: And Brad's well aware of the occupancy issues, ingress/egress, all those kind of
things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I was getting at, Mr. Klatzkow, is the applicant is coming in with a
number. If they want to enter a number, why would we want to refuse it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We only did that because it seemed that the Planning Commission was
requesting of us a cap and we wanted to make sure if that is necessary we can do that.
We want approval, obviously, and we want to make sure that we have a good business as well.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, also, from a zoning perspective, we're concerned, because ifit appears to be
more of a commercial operation than what it's professed to be other than a commercial.
So if you get to 1,000 people, five nights a week, let's call it what it is, it's an attraction in Eastern
Collier County. I mean, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's why we're going through this process is to say let's say if you
did that, so what?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just summarize it up. I've heard a lot of input from all of you. Let's
get to the bottom of it on this one issue of guests, the number of guests, where's the Planning Commission's
feelings on this?
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I stay we stick with the 1,000 rather than, as the attorney said,
Page 46
16 I lM!J9,Joo9
pull arbitrary numbers out of the air.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, we have 1,000, let's leave it at 1,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I mean, are you leaving it at 1,000 but not more than 10 times
a year?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the suggestion right now.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that means you could have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, you could have 999 whenever, so -- you need two
numbers. The difference between eight and 1,000 to me is no big difference. I -- just let it go.
What would the fallback be? Let's say that they put a stage up and they really are going crazy out
there, 1,000 people a day. What would be the -- I mean, if they're not violating the noise, what would ever
be the problem?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look-it, you started the issue on the count, Brad -- you know, I'm -- the
key here is we're trying to get on the summary agenda. If we have to meet everybody's concerns -- if you
don't have a concern, then let's just back away from the whole thing, because you started it.
MR. SCHMITT: Brad, it's only a -- it's an occupancy issue, and that's up to Donovan. He has to--
I'm sure he's insured and other issues, and also it's his permit issue in regards to the Health Department and
the facilities he has on-site for public comfort.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I was never against it. Ijust want to make sure we talk
about it. That's a big number, that's a lot of people, it's a lot of ramifications. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have any other comments?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I mean, I think we should remain with the limitation of 10
times a year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, from a Planning Commission perspective, we have to come to a
synopsis on this, because we're going to have to ask for a vote for the stipulations. I think everybody's
expressed themselves.
Is there a motion for this particular issue?
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion with all of the changes that staff and we
discussed, and I'd like to leave it up to 1,000 number as we all discussed here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we all discussed a lot concerning the 1,000 number. Can you be very
specific? You want to leave the language as it was in the staff recommendation or do you want to change it?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As a staff recommendation of 1,000 people, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded it.
Boy, you started all that for nothing. Unbelievable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ijust wanted to make sure we all talked about the number
thousand. And we did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, is there any discussion on the motion? And it was pursuant to all the
changes we discussed with the staff recommendations, with the exception number two will be left as the
staff recommendation initially put it forth.
Page 47
"."-U"~"."^'O"~"'<"'~_"'''''_''''__c_'~_'''_"'~ '~~'~_~~'"~,._~~_"'_.r~~'o~~"~_'"","..~.,.__.",......_~...._..... __"' _"
16 I ~71'1
1 < ,,, '
M~~h ;it, 2009
COMMISSIONER CARON: So Mr. Vigliotti, you are not going to limit it to no more than 10
times a year, the thousand events?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So they can have that every time --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Transportation doesn't have a problem with it --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just asking--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it can be any time.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, as they requested and the staff recommendations approved
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll -- I'm just -- one comment for myself. I will be voting in
favor of the motion, not because I believe we need more commercial activity in the agricultural area, but I'm
trying to under -- I don't see anyplace else where this can go. And based on that I think this is probably the
best solution for a very difficult process that started many years ago. So at this point I'll be voting in favor
of the motion.
With that said, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you all.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't want to hear any complaints later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have two other cases to discuss today. And I know there are
people watching the meeting to determine when Mirasol is going to come up.
Mr. Wiley, you're one of those, and I know you're probably listening to this right now. When I
spoke to you yesterday I thought we'd be after lunch before we got to Mirasol. I still think we will. We've
got one more case and then we're going to take lunch, maybe -- and the earliest would probably be 11 :30.
So that would still put us after lunch for Mirasol.
Does anybody have any problem breaking early for lunch and then starting Mirasol in complete
after lunch?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that said, Mirasol will not be heard until we get done with
lunch. I can't guarantee what time lunch will start right now, though.
Item #9C
PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE FOUNDATION, INe.
Page 48
16 J Uc.3t~, 2009
Okay, the next item up is PUDA-2007-AR-l1546, the Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc. for the
Longshore PUD, for a sign change and some PUD changes at the Immokalee Road and Cypress -- I believe
it's Cypress -- or Logan Boulevard.
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: Okay, disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, the Planning Commission members, on the last item we have
to provide -- actually, we have to provide Mr. Vigliotti with our conditional use forms. You'll see there's a
form that has to be filled out and signed in your packet before lunch. Please make sure Mr. Vigliotti has
that.
Now, disclosures from the Planning Commission on this one. The only thing I have is I haven't had
any changes since the last meeting, so my disclosure would remain the same.
With that said, Bob, it's yours.
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane, representing the Longshore Lake Foundation, and
also G.L. Homes. I have with me Mr. Kevin Ratterree today, who is a senior vice-president of G.L. Homes.
I also have Mr. Bill Bates, who's the former president of the Longshore Lake Foundation. And I have the
new president of the Longshore Lake Foundation, Sally Kirk here also today.
Kevin will be following my brief presentation to make a few remarks to you.
My presentation will be very short today. Most of you know that we were continued at our last
hearing, principally to address some Longshore Lake related issues. We've resolved those, including
incorporating the existing storage building as an accessory use within the PUD. And I think we've resolved
a few other outstanding issues we also discussed at our last hearing.
My client and I sensed, when we were before you before our last hearing, that there may have been
a move afoot amongst some of you that would like to see us reduce the size of our sign and possibly the
elevation of it. So we took it upon ourselves to reduce the size of our sign from what used to be 62 square
feet to 53 square feet. That was about a 20 percent reduction. That's the fascia of the sign.
Staff report notes that it was only reduced from 62 to 59 square feet. That is incorrect. The 53
square feet is what's contained in the ordinance.
We also reduced the proposed wall area around the sign from 270 to 210 feet. And we also reduced
the elevation of the sign by another foot-and-a-half.
I'm going to conclude my presentation with one point that I think perhaps should have been given
more weight in the staff report, and I would request that you do the same.
The sign that is initially going to be an off-site premise sign for Saturnia Lakes is more than likely
ultimately going to revert back to the Longshore Lake Foundation and is going to be an on-site premise sign
for them. That -- the size of the sign we're proposing meets all of the requirements of the Land
Development Code if and when the site reverts back to Longshore Lakes, with the exception of the
elevation, which would still be a foot-and-a-half above the eight foot that is required above the elevation of
the roadway. So if you would give that some thoughtful consideration in your deliberation.
Also the foundation supports this petition, Longshore Lakes. It's been publicly vetted in front of
their board and the community. And we have no opposition from any of our nearby neighbors to this
particular petition.
So I'll be happy to answer any questions, or perhaps if! might suggest, Mr. Chairman, if Mr.
Ratterree can make a few comments and then both of us will address questions, if that's acceptable to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine.
MR. DUANE: Thank you.
Page 49
-'"'>'"'""-''''--,,.,~-_..._~_.__.._.",''-''..'-''- ""~'-"'"""__. 01", ""''0)1;<_.. 'iII:_~". lIl41 _"''''''''~''M'''''"''"''.''''''''''" ,....^~.- '< ...----
16 I .A A3
~
March 19, 2009
MR. RATTERREE: Good morning. For the record, Kevin Ratterree. R-A-T-T-E-R-R-E-E. Double
and triple everything, you're good to go. My wife still can't spell it, 17 years.
Good morning. A little refresher of memory. We were here in I think September oflast year
associated with this petition, as Bob indicated.
As part of this process, where G.L. has entered into a lease agreement with Longshore Lake
associated with us putting up an off-premise sign, several of the PUD documents associated with the
original Longshore Lake PUD came into question.
And it really had nothing to do with the sign, but because staff was raising those issues, we thought
it was more important to make sure that those issues were cleaned up so that the only real issue that was
before the Planning Commission hopefully was the off-premise sign.
Mr. Duane, the residents of Longshore, the Foundation of Longshore had those public meetings.
Those particular issues were addressed relative to the PUD document that's before you. It really wasn't fair
to them associated with our petition to have some of their previous issues that were probably
developer-driven issues kind of muddying up what was going on with the off-premise sign.
Let me be clear with what our goal is, and our goal is very simple. As you know, Logan Boulevard
does not exist north of the entry to Olde Cypress. The two projects that are utilizing Logan Boulevard
would be the Terafina, alk/a Saturnia Falls project, which is a G.L. Homes project, and I will say the prior
Ronto Parklands DRl project. The reason I say prior is that that property was foreclosed on by GMAC,
The developer obligations associated with the construction of that road required G.L. Homes to
build it up to our project entry, which is approximately a mile-and-a-halfnorth of the Immokalee/Logan
Boulevard intersection. And then Parklands Ronto was supposed to build the road all the way up to Bonita
Beach.
Parklands Ronto committed to construct the road and we in turn entered into agreements with three
adjoining associations, being Olde Cypress, Quail Creek and Longshore Lake, associated with either
monetary or landscape improvements adjacent to the roadway.
That is relevant simply because the issue of access and how these projects come on line in terms of
timing was the reason that we explored the opportunity of doing this off-premise sign.
Based on Ronto having been foreclosed, it is very foreseeable that Logan Boulevard will simply
serve as a driveway to the Terafina project for some time to come until that future project north comes on
line.
So we were concerned about our ability to adequately market our project, because we basically had
no visibility from the Irnmokalee Road corridor. And that's why we discussed entering into the lease.
The thought process was that we would come in and do an off-premise sign. And that's why these
variances numbers seem so big, because an off-premise sign was really designed to be a small, I think it was
like 12 square-foot size sign, and that we needed the sign to be basically a project sign for us while we were
marketing and developing the community.
And then through the lease, the association has the right to assume that lease. But my thought
process is once the residents are there, they know where live, they know how they're getting to their
community, that they in turn would cancel that lease, and the option then becomes, to Longshore Lake, to
then take the Saturnia Falls moniker off the sign and put up Longshore Lake.
And at that point it really becomes a corner J.D. sign for their community. As many of you know,
the only real signage for that community is a little sign about this big that sits in the median at Valewood
DrivelImmokalee Road intersection. So it would allow them to have an opportunity to have some project
slgnage.
And I think -- you know, sometimes you say a picture says 1,000 words. This is our concern.
This is Logan Boulevard going north and this is the lmmokalee Road intersection. This is the
Page 50
16 1 lA 3
March 19, 2009
existing project entry sign for Olde Cypress.
This is that same sign, which would be on the east side of the intersection. Olde Cypress owns this
corner as well. So the project J.D. sign or the sign that we're talking about is actually a little farther west.
The concern is that because Olde Cypress has such a large sign here on the corner and they own the
other corner, that in fact when Logan gets built as just a temporary driveway to our project until it
eventually gets built through to Bonita Beach Boulevard, that we have no project identification on this
corner.
So our accessing and addressing to people, go here, they're going to feel like, in my opinion, that
they're going to Olde Cypress when they get to this particular intersection because we don't have snipe
signs, we don't have all those other things that direct people to a project site.
So we were just simply concerned that we were going to have a hard time marketing the
community and directing people there. And that's really the nature of the request.
By the way, there was some discussion back in September. There's a mounding berm here. There's
actually another one that exists a little farther west, which is where this sign was going.
We reduced the size of the sign, we tried to bring it down in scale a little bit from the prior sign, as
Bob mentioned. We tried to really get it into conformance with what would be a corner LD. sign for the
eventual Longshore Lake moniker to go on it.
I understand and I, you know, know that it looks like big numbers when you're looking at this,
because we're really doing this sign as an off-premise sign versus a comer J.D. sign, which is in reality what
eventually this sign is going to be.
So I hope that helps explain it. I don't know that it helps mitigate some of your concerns, but I did
want to explain to you why we brought in the request and we were bringing it forward to you.
Mr. Bates is here to address any questions that come up associated with Longshore. I'm here to
address any questions that come up associated with the sign. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Koltlat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. As I understand it, an off-site sign size is 12 square feet.
Now, that is the sign copy or the size of the sign?
MR. RATTERREE: That's the size of the sign.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Size ofthe sign, not the size of the copy.
MR. RATTERREE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, prior to when we had -- you talked about a sign with copy
that was 62 square feet and a wall size that was 270 square feet. And now you're talking about a 50-square
foot size for copy and 210- feet size for the wall. That means that the copy is only 25 percent the size of this
wall that will be mounted there.
My concern is, to the north there off of Logan Boulevard as you go farther north, there are other
developments farther up there. And if they take the same position that you take that you need identification
at this intersection because the property is located remotely to the north, then we could have many
monument signs there of this large size.
And what bothers me is that the size of the copy is only 25 percent the size of the wall, and if the
wall was reduced to the 25 percent copy size, it might be a more attractive location, rather than have it that
much wall.
MR. RATTERREE: Do you want me address as we go?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can respond to it or -- it's a statement as well, so it's up to you.
MR. RATTERREE: And I understand the nature -- the nature of an off-premise sign is usually
directional. And the problem that we have associated with this is we're trying to accommodate basically
multiple tiers of issues.
Page 51
,. .w",.~~___,__,__-",<<.-<.~,...w.__.,~ ___,'_',_~, .'......_____....___i!!I1"'__.."',___,...__. w , .-^ ---"""---
t I 1 1~
I",," *'I;rr -' ' 19','2009
r",) Number one is the canal is on the north side of the roadway, so you don't have any property. Plus
you have a private owner being Olde Cypress that owns both corners.
And then ultimately the thought process was of G.L. and for Longshore Lakes is that that sign
would then become the corner J.D. sign for Longshore Lake. So we're trying to accommodate what we
would want for purposes of having some identification up on Immokalee and then over time as that
community sold out, Longshore Lakes would then pick up that sign and it would be their comer J.D. sign.
Ifthe comer J.D. sign as 12 square feet became their corner J.D. sign, that sign would not provide
any type of signage for their community at all. And as you saw from the picture before, we're also dealing
with Olde Cypress having a relatively large sign sitting at that corner.
So we wanted to make sure that we had something that people knew, hey, if you're going to
Saturnia Falls, you need to take a left here.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But going north on Logan Boulevard from Immokalee Road, how
many subdivisions or developments are there north up to where you're going?
MR. RATTERREE: To Bonita Beach that have access to that road would be Terafina, which is the
project we're discussing today, and Ronto, which has the obligation to build it and continue it up to Bonita
Beach.
Longshore Lake has the ability of having a back door connection to that roadway, but that's not
their primary entry. And those are the only two communities all the way up to Bonita Beach.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, those are three communities, weren't they?
MR. RATTERREE: Well, Longshore is technically accessing off of Valewood. Their primary
entry is Valewood. They have the ability of making a back door connection to Longshore Lake. But the
only two communities that will have direct connection will be Terafina, which is the project here today, and
then the Ronto Parklands project, which has to extend the road all the way up to Bonita Beach.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So potentially there could be two large wall signs put up at that
same location that your sign is?
MR. RATTERREE: Well, first off, they would have to enter into a lease with a private property
owner to be able to do that. So that would be questionable if they could do that. Longshore Lake was the
only property owner that was willing to do that with us.
And then number two, because Ronto has the obligation to build the road all the way up to Bonita
Beach, my guess is that they're going to have their primary corner J.D. signs up on Bonita Beach, because
that's going to be their public roadway connection.
And I think we're looking at this as it's a temporary sign for us because ultimately it's going to be
their comer J.D. sign. It's not going to be a permanent sign for Saturnia Falls, it's going to be their corner
J.D. sign, And their corner J.D. sign, it actually complies with code, once it becomes their sign.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, but you continually talk about J.D. for identification, and the
copy here is only 25 percent of the wall size. And if the copy is the important thing, you could have the
copy there, the 25 percent that you would like to have it of what the wall size is.
MR. RATTERREE: Well, I mean, that's the sign. I mean, that's a pretty typical sign that you see.
It's a little smaller than what we would do at our project entry, but pretty much that's a standard sign that
you're going to see on any project corner that identifies where a project is.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'm going by what you report said, and your report said that
the wall area was 210 square feet and the copy area is 50 square feet. Now, that's 25 percent.
MR. RATTERREE: Well, remember that that sign area is when you're taking the perimeter of the
overall structure and the sign copy is boxing in just the letters.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I know that. yes. But that's all you're interested in reading is the
copy, you don't read the wall.
Page 52
16 I 1 A 3
'. March 19,2009
MR. RATTERREE: Well, we also want to make it attractive. So just putting up the copy without
putting up the perimeter structure that makes it a little more attractive I think is -- with all due respect, is
defeating a little of the purpose of what the sign is.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is there in the contract you have with Longshore Lakes, any time
period involved there?
MR. RATTERREE: Well, the stipulation is that we are obligated to continue the lease until there's
a turnover of the association. And the association then has the option of continuing that lease.
But as I said before, for purposes of an association, if you think about it and just common sense, I
know sometimes it's hard to do that with some of these things, the commonsense side of it is they're going
to be living there, they're going to know where they live, they're not going to want to continue to pay lease
to have a sign when they're going to have their own project.
And I would think by that time hopefully the Ronto project or the former Ronto project would have
gone through and Bonita Beach, and it would be a public throughfare. Our concern is it's going to be
functioning as a private driveway in the short term.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is for Bob. Bob, I'm trying to figure out some of the
heights ofthings like this. One of the concerns is the height of this, the sign above the center line of the
road. What do you think the answer to that is? What is the height?
Because if I look at Exhibit B-1, it doesn't quite jive with your description before.
MR. DUANE: I think the arterial roadway elevation is 17.5 feet. I'm reading under the support
documentation in Exhibit C, which is the list of deviations. Number three, the arterial roadway has an
elevation of 17.5 feet. The grade of the existing mount upon which it's placed is 18.5 feet.
And I think we worked through these various numbers, which I won't drag you through, and the
result number is that we're requesting a deviation of 1.5 feet above the eight-foot elevation above the
roadway.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at B-1 though and look at your lower left drawing on
B-1, those numbers don't jive with the other numbers then.
Because I think what's missing in the calculation is the two-and-a-half-foot berm you're building.
The --
MR. RATTERREE: The berms there, by the way, are actually lower.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get closer to the mic., please.
MR. RATTERREE: I apologize for that.
The berm is actually existing. We're actually lowering the berm a foot-and-a-halffrom its existing
elevation to place the sign on.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the elevation of the berm going to be? It states 21 feet
in your Exhibit B-1. Is that right?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it says two feet.
MR. RATTERREE: It's two feet six inches above existing grade. And I think what Bob said earlier
is the existing grade is one foot above what the roadway elevation is, when is the measurement standard.
Ray, I'm kind oflooking -- the measurement standard as I recall from the code is the median
elevation of the adjoining roadway.
Page 53
"_"""'~~_~_~__'"._'__"'"__.'~._"""___"'_"'_ Mo_"', .,..__.,_,._____.~.,...O_.,...~~.~,".~__....._,,__'._"_m
(l ~J; "'~.
~~ . j'
I'f ~' J~Ch yg, 2j09
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm looking at note number four on the drawing I
referenced, it states 21 feet.
So, anyway, I think this -- let's just go through it. The height you believe is 17 feet, six.
MR. RATTERREE: Of the roadway, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the existing top of berm is?
MR. RATTERREE: Well, I believe that the elevation at the base of the berm is one foot above the
l7-six, let's just say 18-five, l8-five. And then the berm itself is two-and-a-halffeet. And then the sign is
sitting on the berm.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. so --
MR. RATTERREE: You can get some pretty big headaches going through this,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Seventeen-six and one-six. 19 feet is the existing grade. And
you're saying you're going to build -- that berm's existing --
MR. RATTERREE: The berm's existing. We're actually -- the previous petition when we were here
in September, we were just putting the sign on top of the existing berm. And we had thought that there was
some concern regarding the height. We actually were lowering the berm by a foot-and-a-halfwith the
revised petition.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So with the math we just did, the grade to the top of the
berm is 21- five, even though your note four calls it 21.
So we would essentially -- what ""ill be the top of the sign would be eight-foot-six on that. 30 feet.
And that's kind of what you're saying, grade -- I mean, I don't know what grade is. I think you mean sea
level zero to top of sign is 30 feet. Which the problem I'm having is the math isn't --
MR. RATTERREE: I think the way to think of this is when you go to the top ofthe sign, it's 27 feet
from grade zero, and the road is at 17-and-a-half. So that's the way to look at it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, what about note number two which says it's 30 feet. And
the math you just walked me through comes up with 30 feet.
MR. RATTERREE: We are -- the sign is -- at the end of the day, the sign is nine-and-a-halffeet
above the existing arterial roadway, which is one-and-a-half feet above the eight feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. RATTERREE: It may be that I'm reversed. I think actually the grade that the berm is built on
is one foot below the roadway. So let's just make it real clear here, the sign is going to be 27 feet, which is
nine-and-a-halffeet above the existing arterial roadway grade of 17-and-a-half. I think that's the cleanest
way to say that and have it somewhat make sense.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one little. I don't know if it's important, Bob, but your
scrivener -- well, let it go. The math on this exhibit is all over the place. So I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got two. You -- I think you have a hard -- in fact, I believe you have a
hardship in this situation with the road not being built. Ronto, who knows when they're going to build it.
But I don't like the idea of this going on forever and then having the homeowners association decide they
can leave it there forever as long as they want to keep the lease up.
Your goal I think would be to get your sales initiated and get your community built. And so I would
certainly think it's reasonable that you request this sign for the time -- up until the time which that road is
completed to Bonita Beach Road.
But once that road's completed to Bonita Beach Road you're then on a main roadway, and I don't
Page 54
16 " 1 A3 I
/
March 19, 2009
know why you would need to have a sign go beyond that point.
So I would want to enter a stipulation that this sign would terminate at that point in time.
MR. RATTERREE: Terminate -- just for clarification--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For Saturnia Falls.
MR. RATTERREE: For Saturnia Falls but not for Longshore Lake?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got to clarify one thing on that before I can suggest an answer to
that question.
When Bob was up here a little while ago, he said that this would have -- once this does stop being a
Saturnia Falls off-site sign and it becomes a Longshore Lake sign, then it meets all the criteria of the code
except it's one-and-a-halffeet higher than it should be.
I need to understand that statement, because I didn't know how it -- I can't -- in my understanding
from staff, that's not the case.
And so while Bob, you may want to clarify your statement, I'm certainly going to ask staff to also
address that statement you made.
MR. DUANE: Robert Duane for the record again.
Well, that was the only -- under deviation number six where it has the heading for an off-site
premise sign, that really it notes that we require only really from the maximum height of the sign; therefore,
I assume since you can have entrance signs, it can be 32 -- two 32 square foot signs or one 64 square foot
sign that we met all of the on-site requirements for the on-site premise sign. And that was my logic right
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I need to ask staff, because in my conversations with them,
when this sign reverts back to Longshore Lakes, it may not be consistent with a sign that Longshore Lakes
could have there. Because they have an entrance sign off of Vale wood, I believe, and that they didn't have a
provision for boundary signs in their PUD.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not sure what this sign then becomes to make it legal. And that's
kind of where we'll go next. So thank you, I'll just go back to staff. If nobody else has a question ofthe
applicant, we'll ask for staff report and get into this issue with them.
You're up, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal
Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review.
And if you'd like, I can go right into my staff report, but it sounds like you have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can do your staff report and then just remember, my question is
simply to follow up on Bob's statement at some point at the end of your staff report as to -- he believes that
this sign would meet all the legal criteria to remain as a sign for Longshore Lakes, with the exception of its
height. And I wasn't sure that is the way staff's interpreting it. And I want to get a clarification on it.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, I can do that.
Good morning. Staff is recommending approval of the reinsertion of the previously requested
transportation commitments that were revised since the last hearing in front of the CCPC back on
November 20th of2008.
And we are recommending approval of the insertion of the land use of the landscape maintenance
building as an accessory use into the Longshore Lakes PUD.
This petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. I, however, would like to invite
David Weeks, who's the manager of comprehensive planning, up to make a statement about that
consistency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David doesn't get to comment on sign variances very much. This is
Page 55
~---"-"'^.-'_.~-' " - <'~~""'''-'---'''------~-'-;--''''-'-''~ ".,.'.,-..."...,.".;--.... ....... ..."--
,,!J ./; , t 1 .
'$"", ~arch 1~, 2009
unusual. It's like bringing the -- well, it's like a sledgehammer to kill a gnat. But go ahead.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department.
And Commissioners, the chief reason for my being here to put this on the record is because there is
no written memo from our department, as is usually the case. One will be provided subsequent to this
hearing so that it is officially part of the record. But that's my reason for wanting to get it on the record
today.
Short and simple, the Longshore Lakes PUD has a density of less than two units per acre. It is
eligible for a density of four units per acre, so it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
Both the sign and I think there's a maintenance building involved, those are typical accessory or
integral parts of a residential development and recognized also as being consistent with the Future Land Use
Element. So from our perspective there are no consistency issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, to continue with my staff report. Staff is not recommending approval of
the sign that's proposed. And the reasons for not recommending approval is the fact that this sign, the
off-premise sign, is in excess of the code prescribed size of 12 feet. And as stated previously, it's 53 square
feet. It is 1.5 feet taller. That's 1.5 feet taller than the prescribed height of eight feet.
And the off-premise sign is not within the code prescribed distance of 1,000 linear feet, but instead
this proposed sign is a mile away from the intersection.
And the code does not allow for an off-premise sign such as this in a residential district.
And to answer your question about once this sign becomes an on-premise sign, it does fit within the
code prescribed sign area for an on-premise sign. It's less than the 60 square feet. And it would be -- it is
correct that it would be 1.5 feet taller than the code prescribed height for an on-premise sign.
And in regards to whether or not we can make this an on-premise sign, by the fact that we are
writing it into the Longshore Lakes PUD, that would make it able to happen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a couple of other things.
There were some -- two additional notes here that -- on your staff report. I think that paragraph two
just needs to be rewritten slightly_
MS. GUNDLACH: Could you state what page that's on?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Page I of your supplemental.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's very difficult to read this first sentence because it's rather run-on
and has lots of parenthetical phrases here. But I think it would be better -- is it not true that the traffic signal
has to be acceptable to the state only if it's a state road?
MS. GUNDLACH: I have transportation planning staff here to answer transportation questions.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning.
I wanted to address the stipulation number two maybe before the question is addressed directly.
This has already been completed, this stipulation. So the Longshore Lakes, I believe they've already
completed that commitment.
So this was just to amend and add the old text that was in Ordinance 93-3 back into this document
so that it doesn't get lost forever, okay.
So I guess at some point we could probably amend that to say that they have completed this, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's fine. I just wanted to make it clearer, because this is such
Page 56
16 , 1 A3 !
March 19, 2009
a run-on sentence that, you know -- but if it's already done, then we don't have to worry about it.
Let's move on to number three, though, on Page 2. The next commitment says that the homeowners
association, either direct or emergency access shall be provided.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, if it's a public safety issue, why is it an option? If it's an
emergency access, it's an emergency access. Why wouldn't they be required to do it and --
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: My understanding is that the emergency access is not required. They do
have primary access through Valewood Drive.
There was an allowance at some point to -- this is back in the original ordinance, to have a
connection to the future Logan Boulevard extension.
But it turns out after the turnover of the project to the HOA, we would now have to go in and
amend the HOA documents, I believe, the HOA, you know, their -- what do they call those, the--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Condo docs?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, the condo documents, which I don't think the --I'm not sure if
the PUD can do. I'd have to refer to Heidi for that one.
But in any case we've left it up to their option to choose whether it's going to be primary or
emergency access.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So an emergency access was not provided on their PUD master plan?
MR. PODCZER WINSKY: As I recall, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think the point is here is that their project as it stands already
has the emergency access and needs within the project. This is another option to produce another one if they
so desire. I think that's the way--
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I'm trying to get at.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That is correct. And it only becomes effective for us based on the
extension of Logan Boulevard and when that becomes public.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Could you just show me where on the master plan the emergency exit
is?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay, with north being to the top of the page, along the easterly
boundary of the Longshore Lake PUD is where Logan Boulevard, the future extension of Logan Boulevard
is to be located.
There are quite a few optional places there that they could connect with an emergency access. And
this is again why it would be up to the homeowners association, because --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, John, what I'm asking is you told me that they already had one--
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No,
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on the plan right now.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, they have an interconnection to -- where did they have the
interconnection? Forgive me, it's been a while since I've looked at this.
I want to say they already have their interconnection to a portion on Valewood. Nancy, thank you.
But they do not currently have a connection to Logan, the future Logan. If that answers your question, I
hope. They do not currently --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no, again, that wasn't it. The point is an emergency exit. What
I'm asking is they have a main entrance here.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And do they have an emergency exit out of this development?
Page 57
.'w.,"","'''''''''''.,,___..'''''''_..... ."''''~_.._,.,-_........,_.~...,'~''''~_.,'''_.__,_~;__'L~_',,;,.,."",~.,.._ .".. _.~_..., ,,__";.'"'d.___"._...._.~~~_..
~ 1 ";"1'~
, '
) ,
i.l ;/'
March 19, 2009
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, no, as far as I understand they do not.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So my question to you is: Why is having an emergency exit an
option and not a requirement?
This is a public safety issue, why is it an option and not a requirement?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe there's another way to pose the question. Is there a requirement in
the code for another emergency exit besides the main entrance to this project?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: From the transportation land development code requirements, no, there
is not.
There may be a code requirement from fire or EMT, you know, Emergency Management that there
may be an additional access required. What we're addressing here is the allowance for that and how it
would govern that. So I hope I can clarifY it with that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
MR. DUANE: Robert Duane for the record.
Mr. Bates is here. I introduced him earlier from the Longshore Lakes Foundation.
Would you like to share with the commission the emergency access point that you do have
available?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Mr. Duane.
MR. DUANE: Not a permanent type access. But there is one--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, when you speak, you can't walk away from the mic., and as you sit
down make comments. She's looking at you like, what are you doing? So please don't do that anymore,
okay?
MR. DUANE: I introduce Mr. Bates for the record.
MR. BATES: We do have an emergency access gate now on the west side -- or east side of our
property that connects to -- I believe it's called Olde Cypress Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. It is there?
MR. BATES: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. That's what I'm asking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. RATTERREE: And I wanted to just get on the record that the purpose of the language was to
allow them not only to have the emergency access but also to have a -- what's called a regular access
because there were concerns that the intersection of Valewood and Immokalee would not be a signalized
intersection. The chances are very good; obviously Logan is signalized on the other side where it was built.
So they had the opportunity, should their association decide to do so, to make a permanent point of
ingress/egress, so they'd have the opportunity to get down.
But that would require, you know, affecting people who have bought homes that would be across
from that entrance, so the association thought it appropriate that they deal with that internal to their
organization. The emergency access is one thing, but the permanent access would affect other people in the
community.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of anybody at this time?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll attempt again to close the public hearing. Last time I did it, it
didn't work too well. We'll try it again.
Page 58
16 /'1 A3
arch 19, 2009
Discussion on the issue. I would suggest that the only stipulation besides -- well, staff didn't have
any -- is that the use of this sign by Saturnia Falls shall terminate no later than the opening of the Logan
Boulevard to Bonita Beach Road extension.
Is there anything else anybody else sees a need for?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: One.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't really see where they need the foot-and-a-half extra on the
sign. I think, first of all it does two things: It brings their sign, plus it brings the permanent sign out of
compliance.
If you look at their elevation, I really think they could get the size they want in a much lower wall
rather than putting that thing up on a pedestal in that mound.
So to me the foot-and-a-halfis not necessary to achieve what they want to achieve with that sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do either of you want to react to that? Because here's what could
happen: It could end up being a split vote or some kind of vote that now takes you off the summary and puts
you in a regular agenda.
So you have -- you know, if you want to try to fix this, go right ahead.
MR. DUANE: We want everyone to leave here happy today and we'll reduce the size of the sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down to that -- you'll have no need for a deviation in height, is that what
you're saying?
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
MR. RATTERREE: But for the record, Bob's going to have to remove the berm himself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
(Laughter. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, since you're negotiating here, what about reducing the size of
the sign and just to include the copy of 50 square feet, since that's what you're interested in, and eliminate
that wall sign, which is four times the size of the copy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you respond, Mr. Kolflat, I think some ofthe other -- that takes
away the, let's say, amenity of the sign. I mean, really you're just talking about a poled sign, a bunch of
letters. The wall is probably one of the nicer aspects of the whole thing.
So before we go to try to set that in stone, maybe you might want to hear -- Ms. Caron, do you have
-- anybody else have a comment on that?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think now that we brought it into compliance with what the
on-site monument sign should be when this reverts back, then I have absolutely no issues. It's a beautiful
sign, it's going to be lovely, it's going to help everybody. And I don't think we should--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, have you seen the Olde Cypress sign?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I've seen it too, and it's a very large monument sign. In fact,
it's almost monstrous in size on there.
My concern is not only with the Olde Cypress sign, which is already there, then adding this sign,
which would be a new sign in that area, same size or large size sign. And then having two developments to
the north on Logan Boulevard that could petition for signs at the same location to get the identification, as
well as a possibility of Longshore having another connection that would come in there. And there are going
to be too many big signs in a cluster there at that intersection.
Page 59
<""---~-- "'--~-'""'- ~.,_.._,.._-_.."""..""._"-"--",-~_..--...._-"..;-~,..,._",,,...._..""......,.",...- ---~_......,..-.--~--""."~~-"-,,.~
-f
/' ,
1. ")) "
16 \ c.-.J< ;
J
March 19,201>9
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, the Parklands would not be able to get a sign there without
going through the same process that you see here today. But most likely they wouldn't be able to get
approved because there would be no hardship for them.
The Parklands project, if it were to be built, requires the connection to Bonita Beach Road. Once
that's done it eliminates the hardship for Saturnia Lakes and it eliminates the hardship for Parklands, which
then eliminates the ability possibly to get a variance. So the idea of any more signs there would be limited.
Longshore Lakes already has a number of signs -- or their signage laid out in their PUD. They're
now allowed to use this sign once it's free from Saturnia Lakes. They wouldn't necessarily get another sign
at their entryway on Logan Boulevard, there's no provisions for it.
So I'm not sure you'll see a proliferation of signs other than this one and the one that's already there
with Olde Cypress.
But that's just my thoughts on the matter.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But we have a code, why not use the code?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's your prerogative, Mr. Kolflat, so -- anybody else have any
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the way it stands, it looks like there would probably be two
stipulations: Use of the sign by Saturnia Falls shall terminate no later than the opening of Logan Boulevard
extension to Bonita Beach Road; and the deviation number six would no longer be needed so it would be
removed from the request.
MR. KLATZKOW: And just to clarify, at the time it's removed, does the sign convert to the other
development?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's already in here, yes. The only change was the termination of
the sign copy for Saturnia Lakes. But yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments, questions?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron.
Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 will second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-1.
You're still on the regular agenda. Sorry. With that --
MR. RATTERREE: I'm still going to make Bob remove the berm.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's take a break and come back at 1 :00 from lunch. It's a little
Page 60
1 f: if /-, ~~19, 2009
~l longer but it rounds it out and makes it easy for everybody to remember. So 1 :00 for lunch.
(Luncheon recess.)
(Commissioner Midney is present.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back from our lunch break.
While we were on break, Commissioner Kolflat down at the end broke his computer. So if IT is
monitoring this or anybody in IT hears this, could you come in and please try to get his computer up and
running for this next item.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I promise never to vote again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right, you're the odd man out. That's what happened, see?
Item #9D
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, 1M COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
Okay, the next item up is Petition PUDZA-2007-AR-12046, 1M Collier Joint Venture for the
Mirasol PUD.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start
down at the left side.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich about this petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I met with Nicole Ryan and I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich briefly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No contact.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Nicole Ryan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then Donna?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and to Ms. Ryan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm trying to remember those that I spoke to. It was certainly Richard,
Nicole and Jennifer. And I don't remember any others offhand. But in -- they come to me as we go along,
I'll just interrupt and say so.
With that in mind, we'll turn it over to the applicant for presentation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the
petitioner.
With me today are Don Milarcik and Chris Claussen, both representing the owner; Karen Bishop,
Tim Hall, Rick Barber, Wayne Arnold, Steve Walker and Reed Jarvi, all of which can answer questions
regarding the site plan or the master plan for the pUD' Transportation questions -- yes, sir?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember I said I'd remember things as we went along? I just had one of
those things.
I toured the site with Chris Claussen, it might have been two years ago. So that's another part of my
Page 61
'-"'~"~~---=--'--'-""-"""'-"""'<- _.-.--"...,."--,-_...,,,,-~,-",",>,,~,~ ~--.'" .......~ -~~,-
16 I 1 ,1'
r~
March 19,2009
disclosure. And if! remember any more, sorry.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not a problem.
I'm sure you are all fairly familiar with the Mirasol PUD and its history, but I'll briefly go through
the history of the PUD and where we are and what we're trying to accomplish today.
The Mirasol PUD was approved on April 24, 2001. The approved master plan is the master plan on
the right, this one here. The approval was for 799 units, 36 holes of golf on approximately 1,558 acres.
The project then and now is partly within the urban area and partly within the rural area. There
were 340 acres in the urban area and 1,217 acres in the rural area.
Had we taken full advantage of the maximum densities allowed under the Comprehensive Plan in
effect at the time the PUD was approved, we could have requested 1,606 units.
On May 8th, 2007, the BCC had an agenda item to discuss, the potential extension of the PUD,
because the PUD had sunset for a lot of different reasons, mainly related to permitting for the project.
Also on that same agenda was a developer contribution agreement to address road impacts and to
vest 799 units for transportation concurrency purposes.
The DCA was approved at that meeting. And the petition for the PUD extension was withdrawn. It
was withdrawn because prior to the BCC meetings various environmental groups had been requesting that
the manmade flow-way, which is -- may I borrow this, Ray -- which is this area right here on the old master
plan had requested that that be removed from the project. And also that the PUD go through a review of the
Comprehensive Plan that existed at the time of the sun-setting, because there had been changes to the
Comprehensive Plan prior to -- or subsequent to the original PUD adoption.
Interestingly, one of the requirements of the PUD sun-setting requirement is to review the
Comprehensive Plan aspects of the project.
We agreed to go through the PUD amendment process solely for the purpose of reviewing what
was approved in 2001 for consistency with today's Comprehensive Plan.
We don't expect and do not intend to address whether the original approval was a good idea. We
just are prepared to discuss the consistency of that original approval with today's Comprehensive Plan.
And I believe that is what the Board of County Commissioners agreed to and wanted to see happen
and I believe that's also what the various environmental groups wanted to see happen, was what was
originally approved consistent with today's Comprehensive Plan.
We submitted the amendment. And the master plan on the left is the PUD master plan that's going
through the process right now. As you can see, the impact area is essentially the same. The manmade flow-
way is no longer part of the project.
The PUD amendment is for 799 units. It's for 36 holes of golf.
We removed a few acres from the project that were included in the original amendment.
Inadvertently there was a joint ownership of a parcel of property and that individual had not consented to it
being included in the original PUD, so that has been removed.
That essentially reduces the maximum eligible density from 1,606 to 1,605. So we're still at 799
units and we're still at the same impacts that were originally approved.
And when the original PUD went through the review process, everybody knew that the wetland
impacts were 582 acres. It was part of the application, it was part of all the discussion when the PUD was
approved in 2001.
In reviewing the record, the only objections to the PUD that came about dealt with what
development could or could not happen in Section 10. Section 10 is the most northern section. And I'm
going to -- this is the original master plan. I'm going to slide it down.
This is Section 10 from this line north. The original PUD application included development in
Section 10. There were objections to development being in Section 10, and the request was made that that
Page 62
16 I 1 A J~Ch 19, 2009
development come out of Section 10 and be moved further south into this impact area.
There were no objections to the number of wetland impacts. It was where development would
occur .
We have -- in going through this process under the new Comprehensive Plan, there have been some
-- there are some changes in the designation of the property from what was in effect in 2001.
Section 22, which is this section here, has always been and continues to be urban area.
The middle section, which is Section number 15, was designated rural back in 2001. It's still
designated rural, but it's rural fringe mixed use district, you're all aware of that, and it's rural fringe mixed
use district neutral.
And the most northern section, which is Section 10, was designated rural in 2001. It's still
designated rural, and it's also designated rural fringe mixed use district neutral.
So under today's Comprehensive Plan both Sections 15 and 10 that are in the rural area are eligible
for development under the neutral standards.
And as you all know, and for purposes of the record, there were three designations in the rural
fringe mixed use district. You have receiving lands, which is where you're supposed to transfer TDR's,
which I like to label as areas where development is encouraged to occur.
You have sending lands, which you're not allowed to develop, unless you want to do so at one unit
per 40 acres.
And then you have neutral lands that essential remain the same as what was in effect at the time of
the change. Because when it was originally developed you were allowed one unit per five acres, and that's
what neutral lands allow you to do now. However, you do have the ability to cluster under neutral which
you didn't have when projects like Twin Eagles were going through and they didn't have the clustering
abilities.
So the PUD amendment went through when it was originally -- the PUD when it originally was
adopted kind of went through an avoidance and minimization analysis. From the county's perspective, we
have honored the commitment to stay out of Section 10 in what we're proposing, although under today's
Comprehensive Plan we could go through and put development up in Section 10.
We have decided to use the density blending provisions within the Comprehensive Plan. Under the
density blending provisions there is an increased requirement for native vegetation that didn't apply to the
original PUD.
When the original PUD was approved, there was a native vegetation requirement of 25 percent
basically across the board. And under this analysis, the density blending provisions require a 60 percent
native vegetation requirement not to exceed 45 percent of the site across all of the property.
Had we not done density blending, we would be required to keep 25 percent of the native
vegetation that currently exists in the urban area and we would be exempt from any of the native vegetation
requirements applicable to what was in the rural area, because under the provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan we were approved prior to the adoption of the rural fringe mixed use district. So we would be exempt
from the native vegetation requirements in the rural land and our master plan would be deemed consistent.
So the benefit of the density blending provisions to us is we get to transfer units from the urban area
to the rural area. And the benefit to the community is that we are required to keep more native vegetation
than would otherwise be required.
And I'll give you what those numbers are. And Tim Hall will take you through the environmental
aspects of this petition and the site. And then Rick Barber will take you through the water management
aspects of the site.
But I'll just real briefly tell you what we have on-site.
From a native vegetation perspective on-site we have 853 acres. We're required to retain 60 percent
Page 63
.--.,,- ".-~__l 'lI'l'",,_1lOr -'-'11I'_'---'-""-""- ----
16 J AJ
~arCh 19, 2009
of that 853, which is 511.9 acres. We are providing almost 462 acres of that on-site.
And as you are all aware, the Land Development Code allows properties in the rural fringe mixed
use district to provide some of the required native vegetation off-site. So we'll be providing 50 of those
native vegetation acres off-site in sending lands immediately adjacent to the project, which is Section 11,
which is right here. So we'll be providing those 50 acres up there.
From a wetlands standpoint on-site, we have 1,281 acres of wetlands on-site. Our wetland impacts
are 586 acres. And again, it's consistent with what was going through the process originally.
Although we don't agree with staffs interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan, they believe that
we're required to compensate at a one acre to one acre for mitigation to wetlands, and we are doing so. And
as you've read the materials, we've identified 515 of the required acres to date, and we will identifY the
remaining 71 acres at the time of site development plan. So we are mitigating at a one-to-one ratio for our
impacts to wetlands.
To date, we have both our Army Corps of Engineers permit and our South Florida Water
Management District permit. Both permits have been challenged. Regarding the challenges -- and basically
regarding the South Florida Water Management District permit, that challenge is over with. The
administrative law judge ruled in our favor. So that issue is finally resolved.
The Army Corps of Engineers permit is still being challenged. Everything's been briefed and we're
all waiting for the judge to make a decision. But as you all know, the Corps of Engineers permit is valid
unless and until the challengers prevail.
None of the required water management treatment is occurring within the required preserves.
As I mentioned briefly, you know, avoidance and minimization is part ofthe permitting process,
and that has been done. It has also been done through the history of this project as well.
I want to go over -- very late yesterday afternoon we received copies of a document filed by The
Conservancy. I don't know if you all have had a chance to review that document or not. But we did. We
stayed up late, we went through it, We've prepared a response to that. And since that document from The
Conservancy is in the record, we would like to put our response into the record.
And I'll take you through briefly what our response is and highlight what we saw as the issues
raised by --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before you go too far, how is the document that was distributed to
the Planning Commission by e-mail last night in the record?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You've all received it. I'm assuming it's part of their packet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we all would have had to print it, and I think it was well over 100
pages.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It didn't happen.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't have it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I just want to make sure the record's clean in that regard. Because if it
needs to be put in the record and there's a hard copy available, then someone can put it in the record. But if
it isn't in the record, and you're suggesting it is, I want that clarified.
MR. KLATZKOW: I suggest you put both in the record then. But if you haven't had a chance to
read -- I don't know if any of you have had a chance to read that document.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I haven't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read the first 100 pages.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have not read it as of yet. And I don't know how I can even
think of reading it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no one has to read it. That's not the point. The point was it was
Page 64
16 I 1 A3
, March 19, 2009
distributed. Richard made a comment for the record that he thought it was in the record. I want to make sure
whether it is or is not.
Now whether we read it or not, people can submit things for the record, it doesn't have to be read.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me ask it a different way. Can I ask the eight of you, did any of you
read, at least the first I believe seven or eight pages of the document, which was the summary of the
position?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Midney you read it. Ms. Caron, you read it. Mr. Strain --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I read the first 100 pages.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would have included Nicole's summary?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part of the first 100, yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So you read that.
Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I did.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You did.
Well, if you'll allow me then, since you didn't read it, I think it's appropriate to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was only trying to clarify your comment that it's on the record. I don't
recall seeing it at this meeting it today, so I'm not sure it's on the record.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me rephrase it. It was reviewed by some of you, and I believe it's
appropriate for us to have an opportunity to respond.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But Mark, I didn't have a chance to read it. I don't know how to
react to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have to. There's nothing you have to react to. If you got it and
you wanted to read it and you want to react to it, you're more than welcome to. If you didn't, you don't. It's
not part of our package. It was something submitted by a citizen, or a group in this case, just like everybody
submits things, no different.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm assuming, and maybe it's a bad assumption --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: I want to clarify for the record. And thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Chairman.
This is not something that was submitted by staff, nor was it submitted timely to be part of the staff
package. And it has not been reviewed nor analyzed by staff. And I want to make sure that's on the record.
Because it is something that's been submitted, but it's nothing that has come in for us to even
review and analyze, nor certainly the response now from the applicant.
So at your pleasure, they can go on the record, but they certainly weren't analyzed by staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I mean, we can -- and the people who initiated the e-mail, if
they've got a hard copy they want to submit for the record, they can do that, too.
So let's go just forward. Go ahead, Mr. --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Again, there was a document prepared and some of you reviewed it,
some of you didn't review it. We had Steve Walker and Andy Baumann of Lewis, Longman and Walker go
over the document. And Mr. Walker can get into the details of the response, since he's here.
But essentially The Conservancy, through their representative, made some arguments regarding the
Comprehensive Plan and whether or not this is a natural flow-way. And I think that Tim Hall will get into
that in greater detail, as will Rick Barber. But there's certainly nothing natural about this flow-way.
And it's our position that Objective 2.1.D does not apply because this is not a natural flow-way.
Page 65
! ",
I i !i::':
....
March 19,2009
And we've acknowledged in the EIS that it has become a de-facto flow-way, and we think it's important to
evaluate the conveyance capacity or potential impact ofthe conveyance capacity resulting from the
approval of Mirasol.
But to claim that this is a natural flow-way, wetland or slough as defined in Section 2.1.D is simply
not correct and not supported. And a great deal of our memo response is dedicated to that very issue.
There are also throughout their position paper where citations to their arguments that they made in
the Water Management District administrative hearing. And you need to put that in context. As Paul
Harvey would say, and now the rest of the story.
Those were arguments that they put forth in the administrative law trial. The administrative law
judge weighed their arguments in evidence, our arguments in evidence and issued a final order approving
the Water Management District permit.
The administrative law judge did not buy or support their arguments. Those issues are resolved;
they're finally resolved. There was no appeal taken.
So although they've recited to you what their arguments were, it's important that the Planning
Commission understand that those arguments lost. They were losers, and they are not the conclusion of law
that the administrative law judge determined.
They also made statements about the Harvey Harper analysis and what was or was not done. What
they didn't tell you was that at the trial Harvey Harper himself did the analysis, based upon the current, what
they're citing as should be the appropriate rule or method, Harvey Harper method.
He himself did the method as part of the trial and determined we are okay and consistent with that
method. That's not in their memo.
I think you need to know that, because they're trying to hang their hats a lot on this we failed to
properly apply the Harvey Harper method. And I'm sure that Mr. Harper would have pointed that out, had
we improperly done that.
So we think that there's a lot of statements in their -- their document that they almost represent to
you to be fact, but they're not fact. The administrative law judge didn't agree with that. And there was some
information not provided I think that is important for you all to know.
We have received the Water Management District permit and it is a proper permit and there's no
challenge to that permit.
And again the Corps permit is proper until we -- or a judge determines otherwise.
Your Environmental Advisory Council heard our petition. They included a stipulation that the data
that's collected as part of their permitting process be provided to the county. It's not currently provided to
the county.
They recommended approval 6-2. Your environmental staffhas determined that we're consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. All of our your staffhas determined that what we're requesting is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
One thing that Mr. Strain pointed out. and I'll show it to you later after Tim and Rick speak, the
concern he had was where's the actual location of the golf clubhouse. It's not on our current master plan.
We have that located, and I could show you where that's going to be so we can get into whatever
compatibility issues there may be, or external compatibility issues related to the clubhouse. And I'll get into
that after we deal a little bit more in detail on the wetland and environmental issues as well as the water
management plan.
With that, that's my brief overview of where we were, where we are today. And again, your staff
has determined that we are consistent with today's comprehensive plan.
And with that, I will sit down and let Tim and Rick go through their stuff, unless you want me to
answer questions now. But I think they probably will answer some of the questions that you may have, if
Page 66
161 f . ~jI9,2009
you'll give them the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HALL: Good afternoon. For the record, my name's Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall & Associates.
We've been the environmental consultant on this project since the original PUp application. And, you
know, I personally have been working on the project since 1999, so for tlk last 10 years.
I would say that I have well over 2,000 hours spent out on the site doing the different wildlife
surveys and jurisdictional determinations and ERP permitting and so forth associated, you know, with the
project so far.
I believe Mr. Strain had said he's the only one of the board that's actually been out on the site, so
what I tried to do was bring a bunch of photos in of different places on the property to kind of give you an
overview of what the habitats look like out there, which will kind of go into some of the later discussions.
In terms of location, the property is three miles from north to south or south to north, starting at
Immokalee Road and going up to the county boundary. Bonita Beach Road then would be another mile to
the north. And then it's a mile wide at its widest point.
Rich had given you the acreages associated with the project. There's about 1,280 acres of wetlands
and 260 acres of uplands.
This drawing here is just a representation. The colored areas are the upland areas, the white areas
are the wetland areas, to give you kind of how those layout. You can see that the uplands aren't
concentrated in one spot, they're actually spread out across the entire site.
As you go through the site, you would see that it has been severely impacted in terms of exotic
infestation and hydrological results because of high water levels that occur on the site periodically almost
on an annual basis now.
The melaleuca infestation is widespread. As you go through from south to north on the property,
varying concentrations. But the majority ofthe property is more than 50 percent melaleuca. And if I'm
going through these -- I'm trying to go quick, but if I'm going too fast, slow me down.
There are places where it's actually too thick to even, you know, get through. You end up having to
almost swim through it.
There are some areas that when we first started the project were less infested than they are now.
And you can see those with the younger size classes of melaleuca.
But the entire site has been affected. Even the upland areas show melaleuca growth, and some of
those uplands over the course of time have died off. What you see here is dead Palmetto roots that are left
that have been flooded out.
Some of the less infested areas, as you go through -- I'm sorry, I got this one out of order when I
was talking about those. This is an area up in Section 10 that in 2002, I believe, a fire went through. This
photo was taken in 2005.
The fire was pretty severe. It killed -- the fire either directly killed or stressed a lot of the pine trees
out there. There was a bark beetle infestation and it came in and killed a lot of the remaining ones. But I've
got this in here 'cause you can see that the undergrowth that you see coming up there is all melaleuca
seedlings.
There are still some areas that are more open, have been less invaded. And I wanted to point out
that these higher quality areas are those areas that are incorporated into our preserves. We've tried to design
the preserve areas so that those sites and those locations that are less impacted are still not going to be
impacted by the development.
In terms oflisted species, the two major species that we talked about or that we coordinated with
the Fish & Wildlife Service was the Florida Panther and the Wood Stork.
With the Florida Panther, and actually with both of them, the habitats necessary for them, there are
Page 67
""'''~''_'''''''__''''''''''''__"_'_'',.'''"'_''''~H'' _.....-..,,-,_.._-~'" ,....._".~,._~'>
.~ l' " =,
'J
..
March 19. 2009
no rookeries for Wood Storks on the site. There are no panthers that are utilizing this site, as evidenced by
the telemetry. There could be an un-collared panther that nobody knows about, but we've never seen -- in all
the time I've spent out there we've never seen any evidence of that. So I don't believe that there are any
panthers actively utilizing the site either.
The closest one we know about is in Bird Rookery Swamp and Corkscrew Swamp about
two-and-a-half or three miles to the east. So the deer population and the ability to support prey species for
the panther on this site would be the way that it really contributed to the species. Instead of direct habitat for
the panther, it provides habitat for the prey that then they would eat.
And the same with the Wood Stork. There are no actual Wood Stork rookeries here. The Wood
Storks are over at Corkscrew Swamp. So this site produces fish during the wet season that could be utilized
by the storks.
Given the feeding characteristics or the feeding methodology of the stork, they need fish to become
concentrated in areas that are sufficiently deep so that they can -- you guys, if I'm repeating anything, you
know, let me know.
But Wood Storks feed by putting their bills down in the water and moving it around, and when
something hits the bill, the bill snaps shut. So for that to be effective for them where they can get more food
than they expend in energy to catch it, the fish have to be concentrated so that they can catch stuff rapidly
and easily.
So you need areas that can grow fish and then concentrate it down to the point where that becomes
a cost effective means for them to forage.
And on this site, the only areas that we have that can concentrate fish are these dips that form in the
actual roadways that go through the site and some ponds.
There are four manmade cattle ponds on the site. And these cattle ponds are the only places where
Wood Storks have actually been observed foraging on a couple of occasions. They have been seen there,
but these are very short term. I mean, as you can see, when the water starts drawing down up there, these
areas in terms of the roadways and the little puddles in the roadways dry up very quickly. These ponds do
last longer and can support it further in, but eventually over the course of the dry season they do dry out.
So the Fish & Wildlife Service looked at the property, looked at the exotic infestation and looked at
the restoration mitigation plans that were proposed as part of the project and finally made a final
determination.
We went through four different biological opinions, so they reviewed the project four different
times, writing these biological opinions. And in every case they came to the conclusion that we would not
adversely affect the species, either panthers or Wood Storks.
The mitigation plan, you know, the question has been raised that we have so much melaleuca out
there, can it actually be restored and what will it look like when it's restored.
And so what I did was one of the adjacent properties, Olde Cypress, has been in place for a while.
This picture was taken right after they started their exotic clearing. This was in 2002. You can see on some
of the bigger trees, they girdled them and poisoned them in place. The smaller trees are cut and piled up
kind of in a teepee.
This picture was taken five years later, and you see that those big piles of debris that you see in this
photo have basically rotted down. Most of the bigger trees that were in place have fallen. And you get then
a habitat looking more like this with the appropriate native vegetation, cypress and pine trees, and the
ground cover is coming back.
And in terms of the Mirasol preserve, what had been done was, I showed you, this map shows
some dark green areas which are those higher quality wetland areas on the site.
See, I'm dyslexic with this machine here, but -- it shows some dark green areas over the -- spread
Page 68
16 I 1 A3
March 19,2009
throughout the site, which are those higher quality areas with less exotic infestation, all that I told you
about. And then the crosshatching and the blue lines depict the actual preserve boundaries that we will have.
And you can see that well over 90 percent of those high quality areas are being preserved as part of the site
plan.
The -- I talked earlier about the elevated water levels that have occurred on this site and whether it
is a natural flow-way or is not a natural flow-way.
And when I was doing my analysis of this, I looked to the historical documents first. And I went
and looked at the old -- this is a 1952 soils survey for Collier County. I'm just not having a whole -- well,
I'm just trying to get so they can see it, essentially.
No, that's okay, I think -- what this does -- what it is is the yellow that you see on this is
demarcating -- this is Bird Rookery Strand, the Corkscrew marsh.
The flow-ways, from a historic sense, when I would look at these, you'd look for those areas where
the soil showed depressional type soils supporting that type of wetland vegetation.
And when you're talking about a flow-way, there's not really any legal definition of a flow-way.
But generally it's a vegetated river or a vegetated stream. It's a lower area where you get certain types of
vegetation.
And down here it's usually either cypress or saw grass with the marshes. And they're areas that are
slightly lower than surrounding areas and where water flows. Similar to a stream. But because we don't
have the topography that you have up north, the water moves a lot slower.
And generally looking at these soils, you can see where historically that flow and those vegetation
types occurred. And this black that I have outlined is actually our property, and then this is a blow-up of
that.
The other thing you can see on here is that there was an amalgamation or a collection of small
upland areas or upland soil types going along there, which would indicate that it was possibly a remnant
ridge or some sort of higher area.
But there are also wetland indicators in some of these. So looking at this, my take from an historical
standpoint is that water would come down into these depressional areas and into these sloughs to the point
where it would fill up and then it would fill up to the point where it would then run out to the side
downstream or down-slope.
In looking at the topography, you can see that the topography does go from higher to lower as you
go east to west.
A couple of other --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, just a minute. Ms. Caron had a question.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Tim, can you just turn that so that we're looking at it--
MR. HALL: North to south?
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- north to south. Thank you.
MR. HALL: I was trying to fit it all on there, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Ray, you can back it out for him, right?
MR. HALL: I want to get that -- how would I center that so that they could see it? There you go,
okay.
This is our property. This is Sections 10, 15 and 22. And what you see, you know, off to the side
here where that was is how this little finger of that came down into Section 10.
And if I go back to the upland map that I showed you, those upland areas that you see outlined on
here are pretty well depicted on what's out there now. Those same general shapes and locations are still
there so much longer.
So if this had been a historic flow-way where water was going from north to south on this property
Page 69
_-"',~___"""_""""",___"___'''_.__M,,,_.~,."..,^__,," """""-""",,--~-'. "".....,.."....-.,."
'1 .:71 ,
"1 II . ~
1 h .~t';
J
March 19,2009
or on this project, I wouldn't expect to see these upland areas there. You'd have flow going all the way
through, or that depressional area would have gone through that way.
But looking at those old maps. the depressional area was actually further to the east of this property.
And as it filled up, you know, either during the height of the wet season or with big storm events, that area
would fill up and then that water would spill out of those flow-ways or those sloughs and sheet flow across
this project because this was the downhill direction.
So in terms of trying to qualify or quantify the native or natural aspect of the flow-way here, this is
simply a couple of other flow-ways in the county. This is the Corkscrew marsh coming down.
Over here is the Okaloacoochee Slough. Both of those. And you can see, these are maybe even a
little bit easier to see because you can -- you see both sides of it pretty easily that you've got higher areas
with the depressional, and there's wetland soils going through them.
It's a little harder on our property because I don't have the information for Lee County, but it's the
same --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, Paul had a quick question.
MR. HALL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sure. You talk about slough. What I'm looking at is CCME
Objective 2.1.D. And they talk about natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. So you don't have to establish
that it's a slough. If it's a wetland, it qualifies to CCME 2.1.D.
MR. HALL: But then it goes further on to qualify that the natural wetlands are areas that are a foot
deeper and that -- than the outside edges. And that's not the case on here.
This property is simply part of the downhill gradient from that area. You don't have -- if there was
another higher area over here, you know, if you had a high area here and another higher area here and the
water had to flow through, then I would agree that it was a natural slough or a natural flow-way.
But what's happened is the water flows through there now because historically the agricultural
fields to the north, the Golden Gate Estates being developed and the roads and some of the logging trams
that were built over there, the developments to the west of the project have all created artificial berms, and
the only place left for the water -- Immokalee Road as well was built right through here -- so the only place
for that water left to go, it has to go that way.
So I wouldn't argue that it doesn't act as a flow-way now. But I would argue that it's not a natural
flow-way and it doesn't meet that definition criteria in 2.1 of being natural and having the one-foot
differences as -- I'm sorry, I can't remember right off the top of my head, but one-foot difference on both
boundaries, sides of it.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does natural have some sort ofa time cut-off point? I mean, ifit's
natural now because it's been that way for years, at what year do you say that it has to have been natural?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would argue I think that's more of a legal question.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2007. I would say that this policy
requires that the natural area had to be in place in 2007. And these are not natural in 2007.
At that time you were trying to protect through the Comprehensive Plan the then existing natural,
as it is defined in 2.1.D, flow-way, wetlands or sloughs.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do we have a legal opinion on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd like to hear what Compo Planning has to say about it, quite frankly.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because it doesn't say historical. If it said historical, it might be a different
answer. But it says natural, and you've got to go on the date of what the regulations were at the time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina is looking around for David. He's gone.
MS. VALERA: Good afternoon. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Comprehensive Planning.
Page 70
16 I t~Ch ~: ?o09
Actually, I was looking at Bill from Engineering and Environmental Department.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting a little astray of the applicant's presentation now. And I
understand your question. If we -- Mr. Wiley's got quite an extensive background in how this was put
together. At some point it would be appropriate for him to come up and, after I guess, I think when the
applicant's finished to address the issue, if that's okay, Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be more organized than trying to interrupt any more of
Tim Hall's presentation.
MS. V ALERA: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. HALL: I would just say that letting them deal with when it was declared natural or not, I
would not argue that water flows across this site now. It does. And to compensate for that, the development
had to provide that same conveyance capacity that is there now to ensure that water levels further upstream
were not adversely affected. And that was done. That's been reviewed by both the Water Management
District and the Corps of Engineers.
And the water that's passed through that site now in the before project condition is still passed
through the project after, in the after condition.
So they -- my opinion is that 2.I.D doesn't apply. But even if it did, the further criteria in there is
that those impacts would have to be mitigated for through conveyance -- increased conveyance have been
met by this project.
And then the last item I thought I'd put in here is actually -- was an attachment to Nicole's memo to
you. And it shows the flow-ways. It's like driving a boat, everything's backwards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're still not getting us to the point we need.
MR. HALL: Well, I was going to show you, this one we might need to blow up. The entire county
-- the Mirasol project is located right here off oflmmokalee Road.
And the dark areas being the flow-ways that were identified in the documents she was referencing,
you can see that the project, the bottom two miles of that project are still white. They're not part of the flow-
way. And that's actually where our development is.
The flow-way that they have identified going across the northern piece of it, with Immokalee Road
being up there, is what we're allowing and accounting for with the development.
So if this is the map that gets relied upon, you know, when the EIS was coming out and we were
looking at this, that was also taken into account. And so those flows that are identified in this are still
protected in terms of the way the Mirasol project was designed. I think that was --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Quickly touch on the wetland quality before and the after and the
functi onali ty.
MR. HALL: Okay. I had showed you -- I guess I went through those pretty quickly in terms of the
wetland functional analysis. And Rich had told you that we didn't necessarily agree with the staff's
interpretation. I don't remember what he said about the mitigation requirements.
The part that we had a problem with was that they had said that none of the areas that we used to
meet our native vegetation requirements could be used in that acre-for-acre accounting for the wetland
mitigation.
And my -- you know, my opinion is that there is enhancement activities and functional
improvements being done in those areas, and that should count, those acres should count for the wetland
mitigation as well. But I'm not going to get too much into that.
In terms of the functional analysis, what we had to do was look at the project in its existing
condition and determine what kind of functional benefit or functional use was existing on the property. And
Page 71
-".~--_. ~ "'" ""~""""-""'~'-"-'___">I___"__'_i'l/i_~<<;l ... lli.lOl~ ......-.:__.__..""'..... -.v- ---.---,'""--
,1 .:? 1 ~..
~ ~
,,;
.~'.J,;;l ~~t
March 19,2009
then using the -- at the time that this project was originally submitted and all, UMAM wasn't approved, so
we used the WRAP analysis, which is the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure.
And basically what it does is assign numerical values to different categories of wetland function.
And based on those values, you get an overall score. And then they look at your proposed mitigation
activities and the improvements that are being done, and as well as the time and the risk -- or the risk of
failure, I guess you would say, to doing those activities are all taken into account. And you generate a
post-project score.
And for the -- to meet the ERP criteria, as well as the county Land Development Code criteria, the
functional analysis has to show that your post-functional value is equal to or greater than your
pre-functional value. And that was done for the property.
The Water Management District looked at that and approved it. The Corps of Engineers also
looked at it and approved it. And part of that Corps of Engineers process, the Fish & Wildlife Service, as
well as EP A also reviewed the projects.
EP A had some initial concerns and wrote some letters to the Corps initially, but by the end of the
project and as we were finishing up with the coordination and all, they withdrew their objections.
So the project we believe meets all of the criteria in the CCME and the Land Development Code.
And, you know, we've worked long and hard at trying to make sure that everything was met and, you know,
will provide a good project in the end.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want -- Tim, do you want questions from us now or what was--
MR. HALL: It's up to you. If you want to ask me questions now, I'd be happy to take them. If you'd
like to hear Rick talking about the water management and the water quality and then ask them of us all at
once, that would be fine also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the more questions we get answered by your presentation the less
we'll have to ask. So if everybody else doesn't mind, let's just go ahead and continue with your presentation
then.
MR. BARBER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Rick Barber, Agnoli, Barber &
Brundage.
I can talk about water management for days, but I'll be kind and try and run through this quickly.
This is a LIDAR map of the site. The pink is the outline of the project. Basically the natural
drainage occurs through the top of Section 10, from Section 11 to the east. And that drains part of the
Corkscrew Swamp down through this project as overland flow or sheet flow. And it concentrates over here
on the western side, or blue over here, and makes its way out to a thousand-foot weir that's on the
Cocohatchee Canal right below the Olde Cypress development.
And -- okay, here's the area of concentrated flow. And it makes its way out here to a thousand-foot
weir that's on the Cocohatchee Canal.
So that when you talk about the Cocohatchee flow-way, it's really this section that's been
constrained by development and really directed towards this thousand-foot weir that Big Cypress basin
built.
The on-site drainage system, this is a fairly standard drainage system that's -- it's bermed off-site, if
you will, with the exception that we have what we call a pass-through system. And our obligation was to
keep the water levels the same in a 25-year storm.
So when a 25-year storm occurs, there's a functioning pass-through system that's not part of the
water treatment system in the project that allows water to flow through down to the Cocohatchee Canal so
that the water levels outside the project stay the same.
The water management system's divided into five basins, as we show here in the small diagram.
And how that functions is there's a system of lakes with control structures that discharge into that
Page 72
16 I ~arcfll JOO9
pass-through system.
None of the water quality that was calculated for the site utilizes the pass-through system. It just
uses the upstream parts of that water management system with dry retention and wet detention in the lake
systems.
The pass-through type system or flow-ways within -- and I'll get north going to the top again -- has
been utilized in a lot of projects out in this region, starting at the east. And there's Twin Eagles and Bonita
Bay East. They all have these flow-through systems or pass-through systems. And Heritage Bay. And of
course the one down here at Mirasol now. And still keeping the flow-way that goes out to the thousand-foot
weir. So we're not impacting the regional drainage.
This is the bottom end of the flow-way that's out there now. Here's the thousand-foot weir out here
on Immokalee Road. And you can see that there's not much natural left about this system. That's why you
had to put in manmade conveyance.
There's a -- and I can run through numbers. I don't know if you're interested in numbers, but there's
a hundred-foot weir at the north end of the project that picks up that collector swale. There's two
three-and-a-half foot slots in that weir that allow natural annual type drainage to pass through the
pass-through system. That's down at elevation 14.
The pass-through system flows through the lakes down to a 175-foot weir at the Cocohatchee
Canal. And that keeps the -- that weir keeps the water table up over the project. It's set at 13.4.
Are there any questions that I can answer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, how are you going to keep the nutrients that you use from
fertilizer and from runoff from getting into the Cocohatchee Canal?
MR. BARBER: That's a good question. The golf course will utilize a system of dry retention prior
to the discharge from the golf course going into the wet detention system. So we've done calculations with
the Harper methodology most. We started with the 2003 when the project started, and we've done the 2006
and 2007 calculations.
But they take into account the treatment methods, dry retention and wet detention, and the
treatment afforded to those nutrients. And based on what is coming to the site in natural conditions, we feel
we can treat the water to have a post-development discharge that's less than predevelopment.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Where are the nutrients going to go?
MR. BARBER: They're taken up biologically in the lake system in the wet detention and they're
put into the ground in the dry retention system.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How are they put into the ground?
MR. BARBER: Through percolation.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All of that nutrient is going to percolate into the ground, none of it is
going to run off?
MR. BARBER: What does run off goes into the wet detention system and it's treated in the wet
detention system.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And none of that's going to run off?
MR. BARBER: A very small part of it will. But it will be less than pre-development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rick, those lakes, what's the cfs you're expecting to take from off-site?
MR. BARBER: In a 25-year storm, the pass-through system is designed to pass 200 cfs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 200.
MR. BARBER: The discharge from our site from our project is about 29 cfs.
Page 73
'"'-"",,"'-"-'-"""'~-"---~-"">" "....._...,.~._"- - "",,__.'M',"'""~_^'_""' . "".,.".,--.
< i' l' "., ~
I tl'" 11, ,
d:... 'j. ' n -~
w..j
March 19,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the discharge needed for that flow-way; do you know?
MR. BARBER: The --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Cocohatchee -- the flow-way that takes it --
MR. BARBER: The thousand-foot weir?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes.
MR. BARBER: I think during our 200 cfs, there's about another three or 400 that goes out that side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're -- I had gotten some numbers from Mr. Wiley about the cfs you
expected to take through the project, and he's under the belief you got 286 through the flow-way, through
the chain of lakes you're putting in the middle of the project. That's not true?
MR. BARBER: I believe it's closer to 195 or 200.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If those lakes were connected by open channels instead of box culverts,
wouldn't you be able to have a greater capacity?
MR. BARBER: Yeah, but we have to have road crossings. And that's where the box culverts are, at
road crossings and those types of things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got awfully wide road crossings. Look at your top lake to begin
with. You had a whole distance from the north boundary line of where the pink is down to the first lake.
That's wider than a road. And some of those other lake connections throughout there are much wider as
well.
MR. BARBER: Believe me, Mr. Milarcik isn't going to spend the money for box culverts where he
doesn't have to.
And that would be an open channel at the top. Like I say, the box culverts will only be at road
crossings, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you kind of put that up, Ray?
MR. BARBER: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay.
So they are going to be open channels between the lakes?
MR. BARBER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BARBER: Where that's possible, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The collection swale on the north end, your structure there was going to be
how wide?
MR. BARBER: A hundred feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In a lot of the paperwork I've read, there was a discussion that it was going
to be 1,500 feet, but it was possibly needed to be up to 4,000 feet. Can you explain what that discussion is
about?
MR. BARBER: Yes, sir. When we modeled the whole system and we modeled this all the way out
to Lake Trafford, a fellow named Dick Tomasello did that modeling for us. He has a grid system that allows
him to put certain dimensions of facilities in it. He used somewhere around 3,000 feet for that collector
swale. Our actual design is about 1,500 feet.
But the only time that collector swale will really function is at the low flow conditions. It's really
there to get the water into those slots. Because once the water builds up, up to the 1,495, there's a foot,
foot-and-a-half of water through the whole system out there.
So the collector swale really functions to provide the water to that low flow situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so how do you justify going down to 150 feet? Didn't you just --
when I asked you originally what size structure you're going to have there, you said 150 feet. Did you mean
1,500 feet?
Page 74
16 I 1 A.3 ~
March 19,2009
MR. BARBER: No, the intake weir is 100 feet wide. The intake weir is 100 feet wide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me read a portion of -- and this is one ofthe documents that I
read last night.
Furthermore, the modeling assumed that the two-foot deep collector swale at the north end of the
developed area for collecting water to pass into the pass-through lake system was about 3,000 to 4,000 feet
long, when according to the engineering design it would be about 1,000 to 1,500 feet long.
What is the difference in what they're referring to there from what you're trying to answer my
questions?
MR. BARBER: Okay, we designed the 1,500-foot collector swale. The function of the collector
swale is to provide water at low flow conditions to the slots in the weir. There's two three-and-a-half-foot
slots that are down a foot from the top of the weir. That allows water into the project at low flow conditions.
That's really the function of the collector swale.
Once it gets up to 1,495, which is the top of the real weir, there's enough water out there naturally
to have the water enter the 100- foot weir.
The 3,000 foot that you're referring to was in Tomasello's model. But that was only to provide
water to that intake weir. The intake weir is really the limit in the hydraulics. The collector swale is a -- just
a way to get water to the top of the weir.
Dick went back and looked at that, and it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the intake of the
pass-through system.
Does that answer your question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it does, but I mean, I'm not as up on your issues as you are, so I'm
not sure I got the answer I needed. Maybe we'll work it out as the afternoon goes on.
In your responses the RFI -- RAI's that were issued to staff, under concerning the historic basin
storage, you had a response that said, it is noteworthy that these high upstream stages occur, despite the fact
that the conveyance part of the system was complete.
I know it's taken out of context, but you're talking about the Big Cypress basin improved
Cocohatchee Canal system.
My concern, and I've reviewed the site. I didn't see -- I mean, the wetlands are severely impacted,
they're degraded, I have no doubt about that. You've got a vested right to some density, you have a reason to
move the density to the southwest side of the site. But I'm real concerned about blockage of any water that's
going to further flood the Bonita Springs area.
There are some projects north of this property that -- in Lee County -- that I've got some submittals
on from South Florida that clearly show them counting on this flow-way to get the water off of their project
and down through the county as it's supposed to.
My concern is that your filling of that southern area -- and if you could put the LIDAR map that
you had, because I had a similar one. Yours is just as good and shows it just as clearly.
If you'd go to the bottom of it. See where the word Immokalee is in front of Immokalee Road?
Right there, that looks like it's taking some water from a section of that flow-way down that way as well as
to the west where you had indicated most of it was going to go, and I think most of it is. But how are you
addressing that water that's coming in through that area there in your plan?
MR. BARBER: Well, right now there's about a six to eight-foot berm on the north bank of the
Immokalee Road canal, or Cocohatchee Canal. The only water that enters the canal from our site right now
is through I think four or five 24-inch RCP's through that berm.
So that was really the design of the three-and-a-half, the double three-and-a-half-foot intake weirs
or low flow weirs at the top of the system was to maintain that low flow through those 24-inch pipes.
So it's a good question, but the only water that enters the canal from this site right now is through
Page 75
~,-,~,.~--------""",~""-".",, ,- ,,~".' ..._-_..,---,""'-_.._.",""""......._-_.~.".".~.-",..-_._~-~,~"'"~~_.._-".~.~"'>~."_.."<.~~-_._--_.~-~._."--~------_._,-_...._---_.__._----
if' \ II A ~ 1
, k1ar~ , 009
those 24-inch pipes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could those pipes be opened up? Could they be expanded and take more
water through that area? Because it's obvious that's a lower area and something is -- or would want to
normally flow through that direction.
MR. BARBER: I believe the pass-through system's doing that. That's what we've designed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that's taking it from the north to the south, not from the west
through the south through that corner there.
So the water -- you're collecting the water way up north. What happens to the water that stacks up
down here?
MR. BARBER: Within the drainage system of the project itself, that will be collected and directed
towards the pass-through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I hear you, I've just got to figure it out. So we'll just go on
with any questions. And before this is over Mr. Wiley is going to enlighten us as well.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. BARBER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you have anymore parts of your presentation? How did you
want to go forward at this point with your side?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wanted to show on the master plan where the clubhouse would be
located.
Mr. Strain, and members of the Planning Commission, the master plan did not identify the location
of the golf course clubhouse. It talked about setbacks on the table. And Mr. Strain asked me if we could
identify where the clubhouse tract actually would be located so you can identify it for purposes of external
impacts.
And this is the location of the golf course and clubhouse.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many acres is that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's approximately 10 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not consistent with what you told one of those other agencies that
you were permitting through, you told them it would be 22 acres. I'll find the exact reference, if you want to
wait a minute.
That's kind of what we talked about. You were able to give the other agencies all kinds of
information, but you didn't seem to want to give it to Collier County. And I think that we ought to be getting
the same information they had.
Here's what you told in the report that's part of your -- it's the United States Department of Interior.
The residential acres would be 234, the lakes would be 148, the road right-of-way 52, the clubhouse
maintenance sales buildings, 22 acres, the golf course 222, open space from the development 95, and
preserves 941.
So clubhouse maintenance sales buildings, that's 10 acres. Where are the rest of it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the maintenance facility, Mr. Strain, is actually still on the visualizer
to the right. And the sales facility, is it depicted on there? I don't think we have it depicted on the master
plan, but it is on the southern end of the -- near the entry to the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let me understand what uses you believe are going to be going in
that box. Is that going to take care of the clubhouse and recreation centers for the residential areas? I'm
looking at in your permitted uses, item I-B u
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hold on.
Page 76
16 I 1 JL~19,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have a series of them that you and I talked about that needed to be
defined. Some ofthem I agree were in villages, you can't define those, but the common area ones, the big
ones for the project wide ones are the ones I was concerned about.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, which I understood to be the golf course clubhouse, not the
individual community clubhouses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. And then the pro shop, practice area and ranges.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would all be part of the golf course clubhouse area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Retail establishments, accessory to the permitted uses.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again would be part of the clubhouse.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and others to
the extent they are community-wide?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do we have any proposed community-wide? Not. We don't have any of
those intended to be community-wide shuffleboard courts, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Restaurants, cocktail lounges and similar uses to serve the club members
and club guests would all be in that--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the clubhouse, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that answers one of the questions.
I don't know how we're going to articulate this in the consent agenda, but before the day's over we'll
figure that out.
Anybody have any questions overall of the applicant? I guess we'll hit all the applicant questions
now before we go into staff. Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me make sure I don't have any others, Rich.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Y ovanovich? Someone stated, I'm not sure, maybe it was Tim,
said that the Environmental Protection Agency had withdrawn their objections. Do we have a letter stating
that? They issue a letter for everything, so do we have a letter for that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll let Mr. Walker answer that.
MR. WALKER: In the federal permitting process, the -- I'm Steve Walker for the record, Lewis,
Longman and Walker.
The federal permitting process, the EP A is one of the coordinating agencies with the Corps of
Engineers. When the initial notice is published, the Corps -- the EP A responds to that notice and they write
letters to the Corps.
One of the letters you're seeing there is in response to the Corps' letter to the EP A. What the Corps'
letter views a parlance, a 3-C letter.
At that point in time the EP A is given the option of elevating the decision or withdrawing their
concerns or further commenting.
The letter that was provided to you was their further comment. But they did not take the
opportunity to attempt to raise or elevate the decision beyond that point. They just voiced their ongoing
concerns.
The Corps of Engineers considered those in their fmal decision and essentially went ahead and
issued the permit. So they did not --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but they did not withdraw their --
MR. WALKER: They did not withdraw it directly, but they did not choose to elevate it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I wanted to know.
Page 77
..,,,....,~-~, ......._......____k____.',~"'"'" ...._..._._..~.~--'--_...___l..."~R ,-'".._~...,-
, . A3
j r
.,
.;...
March 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Rich, back on your PUD. On Page 2, the conservation preserve
tracts, A, principal uses. You had -- actually that's where it begins. On Page 3 it continues. Some of the
things that are allowed, one is a wildlife sanctuary. Does that mean Ngala can be located there?
I probably pronounced it wrong too.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ngala.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ngala, okay.
What is the wildlife sanctuary that you think you might put there? You brought it up this morning
so I need you to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I brought this up this morning?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you brought a wildlife sanctuary in here.
How many tents you going to have, CEO's and other people dining inside this preserve?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we're willing to cap ourselves at an appropriate number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1,000 people?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't know. That might be a little bit much for this location.
Is that a serious question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the wildlife -- I'm sorry, you opened the door this morning. I'd like
to know, now that you've put it here, either you strike it or you tell us how it's going to be limited, because
I'm not sure what it means anymore.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, it's for use in preserves. Tim, you want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got him tongue-tied for the first time.
MR. HALL: There was some conversations with the -- well, with CREW, but also with the Fish &
Wildlife Service that the preserve associated with this project would be big enough to harbor a colony of
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers.
So it's possible that once all of the restoration activities are done that a pair of woodpeckers or more
than a pair could be trans-located into the location, and then it would -- you know, it would be not really a
safe harbor program, but you could have a colony become established there as a -- you know, in a preserve
area specified for them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be a native wildlife sanctuary?
MR. HALL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mind if we use native? At least that keeps us out of giraffes and
rhinoceroses and other things.
Seven, inclement weather shelters in preserve upland areas only unless constructed as part of the
permitted boardwalk system. Then it says, the shelter shall be a maximum of 150 square feet.
You're plural in the beginning and singular in the end. How many shelters are you going to have?
MR. HALL: Again, the intent is to give the property to the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Trust,
the CREW Trust program. And we were trying to allow for their ability to have some public use of that site.
So I couldn't give you a number, but if you want to specify a number, everybody would have to --
it's 150 each was the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then the last sentence should word plural, the shelter shall be
maximum of 150 square feet each.
MR. HALL: Okay, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your Exhibit B -- go ahead Ms. --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we go on, can we just talk about the rest of that list--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- there, the boardwalks and pedestrian bridges and the favorite of the
year, equestrian trails and pervious nature trails, is what you're intending for the perimeter of the site?
Page 78
16 f
J 11:3
March 19,2009
Because my conception, and certainly the preserve that I back up to is not meant for humans to be
traversing through, because that's where the wildlife live. That's where the fox and the raccoons and they get
to fmally live. And so we don't interrupt them.
Around the perimeter you can walk so that you can look, but what's the -- I mean, what's the
meaning here?
MR. HALL: Well, again, because the big preserve, the main preserve area was going to be given to
in essence a public entity, this CREW Trust, and their -- I guess Steve could probably talk to this, you
know, better than I. But public lands are generally open to public use. They're not prohibited from that.
So that's why trying to give the ability for when this property is given to CREW that it can be used
according to the management plan and the operations plans that they have, which does allow for public use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all these preserve uses are only to the extent that CREW would need
them?
MR. HALL: Well, some of the boardwalks may be internal, the internal preserves as well. But in
terms of the -- like the structures, there were no structures going to be proposed within the internal
preserves. Those were all for the external area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But your boardwalks even on your internal preserves.
MR. HALL: On the internal preserves, some ofthe preserve areas are adjacent to or within the golf
course. So the ability to put those bridges and those trails across or through those areas was being left in.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It loses--
MR. WALKER: Just to further clarify, all these preserves--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your name for the record?
MR. WALKER: Steve Walker.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. WALKER: All of these preserves are encumbered by a conservation easement. In other
words, that -- in favor of the Water Management District. So -- and they're passive recreational conservation
easements, which limit the amount of activity that can go on in these preserve areas. And anything like
construction of a future boardwalk would require review by the South Florida Water Management District
in order to be authorized.
So that would I think help deal with the concern that these lands would become overrun with
boardwalks and other human uses, when it would not be appropriate in some areas for that kind of activity.
But as Tim said, ultimately these lands will be transferred in fee to the CREW Trust, subject to this
conservation easement, to be added to the overall CREW program which it will connect up to in Section 10
ultimately. So we felt that that would be the appropriate management agency for the long term for the
property .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not of Tim, actually.
On the matter of community and neighborhood parks, do we have any objection to neighborhood
parks? Why not? You're the guy. You're the man.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought we specifically allowed those as uses, community and
neighborhood parks.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we've had at various meetings questions regarding
neighborhood parks being appropriate in certain areas. I just want to get it clear that there's no problem for
neighborhood parks being located in this project. Is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We specifically have requested that as an allowed use.
Page 79
'''""~''~~''~-''''-'--' ----~~..,...., "..."_.T"'"".",.""...."'_'__";;<,;1_~-'_',,.,,...__._,__....."'"'''''''''' ..----------.,---.-..-
'1 :r' "'"'9 ,
, ~ :1,
J. J. " !
~..'
March 19,2009
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all. Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, if we can move into your Exhibit B, your development standards
table.
Under multi-family dwellings for zoned, maximum zoned height, you have 50 feet, parenthetical
five stories. And then under the clubhouse you have 50 feet, parenthetical two stories over parking. Under
both of those I would assume it's five stories, not to exceed 50 feet and two stories over parking not to
exceed 50 feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know for sure on the multi-family it's five stories not to exceed 50 feet,
right? And then on the clubhouse recreational buildings it's two stories over parking not to exceed 50 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have to make that correction.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, does that allow you the -- if you put the parking under
the multi-family building to not count those stories, up to stories, a/kIa Moraya Bay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know, does it? I hear them say no, it doesn't let me do that. We can
make that clear, if you need to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, because it's silent, then you would revert to the LDC and the
LDC would let you, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the -- so Brad, let's get the language straight so when we do a
stipulation, we have it right.
What do you -- don't push your mic. away. You opened your -- you brought it up this time again,
you come back with some idea.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was actually going to turn the paper, but it's on -- but I
would say no -- I mean, we could reference that particular clause and say not subject to that clause.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or we could put a -- I'm not a big fan of more footnotes, but maybe we
could put another footnote that says this is inclusive of parking; the 50 feet in inclusive of parking.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that would do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
On the next page under your accessory structures, asterisk number five, building distance may be
reduced at garages to half the sum of the height of garages.
The only place that asterisk appears is distance between principal structures under clubhouse
recreation buildings. How does it fit?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's a typo, Mr. Strain. I believe that that number five is actually
supposed to go under multi-family, where it says six. And that six is supposed to go away, will become a
five.
And that's actually on the previous page, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because you have that asterisk five up on side yard setback under
multi-family.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now you want it down there between distance between principal
structures?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how does that fit a minimum distance? Does that change any?
Because we've got to have a minimum distance between the structures. Are you trying to get less than the
minimum?
Page 80
16 I 1 A3
March 19,2009
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The garage. Just for the garage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the garages then can be how close together? Less than 10 feet?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Would somebody do the math for me, please.
Okay, so how tall is the garage?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say you have a 12-foot-high garage, it's six feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, so it's six feet. Six feet between garages. Right, is that what you're
asking --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm asking, yeah. So that's where you were going, okay. Well,
then that's where there's a problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't say sum, it says half the height.
MS. BISHOP: It says half the sum of the height for garages.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, so it would be 12 feet. Mr. Strain, she's right, that's the sum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in no case will you have any structures less than 10 feet together,
close to one another?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I believe that's correct. I can't imagine we'd have something less than
1 0 feet tall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When staff reads this after this meeting today, in whatever form it comes
back in, would you make sure that that is the way it reads?
And Kay, I'm assuming you will do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, would you have a problem on the accessory structures for
multi-family to make it the same as the principal structure?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The which, the side setback you said, or --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The distance between accessory and -- for -- in accessory
structures, the distance between them. Accessory structures in the same lot.
In other words, if you -- my concern is that if you have an accessory structure that's attached to
your principal structure, that would be your distance from the -- again, I'm just trying to keep you out of a
fire code issue.
You can leave it in there, but what's the advantage to not having an accessory structure? Because
essentially in a multi-family, other than maybe a cabana building, you're going to be within the building
itself.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we could protect ourselves at building permit stage, correct, by making
sure the distance is far enough away?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the way it comes on, you have to defend yourself, not
protect yourself, so -- but go ahead, that's --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe could just leave it, we'll--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, in your TIS, you have a statement in the introductory part. I didn't
find this in the PUD, so I think it needs to be in the PUD, that you -- the project will be 423 single-family
and 376 multi-family dwelling units.
Since the TIS is based on that mix, I don't know why the PUD should be any different.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mr. Strain, what we need to have is the ability to pay the difference in
impact fees. If we convert a multi-family unit to a single-family unit, we would evaluate the impact for
concurrency purposes. And I understand what you're saying, you could say you're approving it, but we need
to have the flexibility to change between those numbers as long as concurrency is met.
Page 81
.-....,-'.,,,----- ~ _......."_.","",-",,. . . ..--."'......-...".,.. ~~-~. --("""_.",.,,~-_,,,,'-'-''''''''''''-
~ ~d1A}.
..' \"... ch 19, 9
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or as long as the TIS that's submitted with this PUD is met.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As far as -- but the DCA didn't get into the specifics.
We just need to have the ability to deal with the swapping back and forth as long as there's
concurrency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as the TIS that was provided with this PUD is consistent. I
mean, if you exceed the thresholds in this TIS, then you've got a problem. Until then you don't. So you
could mix back and forth all you want, as long as it reduces less to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I'm missing, and I'm trying to remember when we've had a residential
PUD that we've gotten into that level of detail on the mix of the units within the PUD document itself. I
don't remember one. But --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in this one you all provided the information. You went out and
vested your transportation element. And if transportation is here, and I notice Nick is here, maybe he can
tell us then what he based his vesting on as far as intensity goes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what I'm suggesting, Commissioner Strain, is the vesting is based on
that number. And what I'm saying is if we decide to go higher on the single-family, because that's the higher
trip generator, we would have to do an analysis to make there's adequate capacity on the transportation
system to make that switch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And pay the difference in impact fees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Nick. Thank you for -- were they vested by--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation.
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were they vested by units or were they vested by trip counts?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you didn't care about the mix of the units?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: At the time we went with the worst case scenario in the DCA, 799
single-family units in the DCA for vesting purposes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that clears it up.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Oh, while you're up here -- I won't let you go that easy.
While you're up here, in the TIS, there are five intersections negatively impacted by this project
above the threshold. Yet I notice that the DCA only paid attention to the one. Why did we not -- why did
the other ones get away with it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All those other intersections were improved with our capital project that
we did, Immokalee Road, Collier and Immokalee Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're considered okay now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're considered okay now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's too simple for you today, but thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try to get worse.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, before you go on, can we go back to Page 4 here in Exhibit B.
Back to the development standards table.
Under your side yard setback for principal structures, under the zero lot line it says zero or 10. Why
isn't it zero or 15 like everything else?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Zero lot lines --
Page 82
16 I 1 A 3,
March 19,2009
COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand the zero part. I'm asking you why it isn't 15 between
those.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because the product type and has -- and frankly, the last I don't know how
many residential PUD's have gone through, the standard for zero lot line product type has been a zero or 10.
I mean, that's pretty customary for that product type.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The next question has to do with your setbacks from the golf course.
Why would it be zero for multi-family and duplexes and -- I mean, why is everything a zero?
I'm sorry, I was thinking there was seven feet, but that's an asterisk. Beg your pardon.
Why would you not want any setback from the golf course? I mean, I understand being on a golf
course, but on the golf course?
MR. ARNOLD: Hi. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. I'll try to address that.
I think the question here is one of are we going to put a building on the golf course. And I think you
have to keep in mind you're thinking of tracts. When you plat this property the golf course most likely will
be platted as a separate tract. So you could have a tract line that would abut the same tract line of your
condominium or multi-family building tract.
You may have structures associated with your condominium project, for instance in this case, that
would push it back to that tract line, but you're probably going to have rough or unplayable area that's part
of the golf course tract.
So I don't think you're going to end up with a structure that's on the edge of the fairway or
something. And hopefully we'll site those in a manner that we're not going to --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- follow-up on that.
So ifl understood that correctly, that means if you have a condominium building and you have a
lanai, screened entry and exit, person opens up the gate and they're right on the golf course?
MR. ARNOLD: Theoretically I guess that situation could occur, but--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words, the building is the legal line for drive? Well, I'm
serious about this question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: AND I was jokingly saying my golf ball doesn't recognize any of those tract
lines.
BUT I think what Wayne was saying is theoretically the structure could be on what is the golf
course tract line, but there's going to be a significant distance between that building and the playable area of
the golf course.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you may be correct, but I happen to live right on a golf
course, and I will tell you that their territory, their line, is about 10 feet from my home, from my lanai
outside. So it's not significant.
And so that's what I was wondering, if you're not going to have any, if you're saying they go right at
-- zero lot line is what I'm interpreting that. Am I wrong?
In other words, I can walk right out of this lanai door that we're envisioning and I'm right on the
golf course --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you would technically be --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: --I'm on somebody else's property?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. I guess technically the answer to that question is yes, you would be
on someone else's property.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How can you do that?
Page 83
'~",~, ",-- "_"",-._,",,,'-._-,,. ... ---",.,-.-,",=",;..,.,,,,,....-. -'~._,~._"..._...-......_"","'-----"'--
. i 1 A 3 ,
.Match , 2009
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what, why don't you dwell on it for about 12 minutes and
we'll come back here at 2:45. Time for a break for Cherie', so --
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from break. As we had left, we left so
Richard can contemplate his zero set-back on a golf course and provide a reasonable answer, since he was
tongue-tied twice in one day.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure it won't be the last time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what we would propose is to have the minimum setback for the
building be 10 feet from the property line on the golf course lots.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would go into that table --
MR. BELLOWS: Principal and accessory?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that principal and accessory, as Ray just pointed out?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. I'm looking real quick on the accessory table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't look like it separately defines it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: \Vhere is that on accessory?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say. Well, yeah, number one, asterisk number one might be it.
Setbacks from lakes for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet. Rear yards are --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Rear yard, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's doesn't say it has to be anything. But it's already--
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's already --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already 10.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's already lOon accessory, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can build an accessory at 10 feet back but the building can go back
to the golf course.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll add that line to the table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to be sure, that's fine.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The accessory table, so we don't have any ambiguity there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go to staff report, are there any other questions at this
time of -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer -- of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's the deviations. It's deviation two, which is reducing the
cul-de-sac length. Somehow somebody feels that there's no public safety issue arising from that. Then that's
why we established setback -- or cul-de-sac lengths.
Deviation one is to reduce the right-of-way width. And deviation two is to let these roads go. If you
look at -- the site plan is up there, but it's blown up, you would have essentially the potential of a mile long
one -- roadway till you get to a cul-de-sac.
So Rich, what is the problem? I mean, if you want to make a long road like that, what's the problem
with putting a couple of circles along the way so people could turn around?
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold again.
Mr. Schiffer, is the question one of putting in areas for service safety -- safety service vehicles to
make they can turn around or something? Because that could be part of our traffic calming condition that's
also a component of this. And that is that not only would we accommodate traffic calming for pedestrian
issues, but also make sure that there are provisions for safety service vehicles.
Page 84
16 l1h#J9 I
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the reason we eliminate cul-de-sacs, at least I believe, is to
-- because it's coming out of fire codes and stuff is to limit the length an emergency vehicle could go
without the potential to turn around. Especially if you narrow the right-of-way, you're pinching it even
tighter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, you've got to have a turnaround at the end of all your roads, don't
you? Either a hammer or some kind of cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Zoom out on this one, let me show you something.
MR. ARNOLD: What I think I'm hearing, Mr. Schiffer, is that not in the situation where we would
have a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac, but if we designed something that was an extremely long, lengthy
cul-de-sac and an ambulance for instance is driving down that road, they don't have any provision until they
got to the terminus ofthe cul-de-sac to turn around.
And I think what I -- I don't know the appropriate distance but I don't think it's difficult to design
your project so that you can accommodate a turnaround in interim locations other than the terminus of the
cul-de-sac. I don't know what that distance should be, but we can certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the people that established, you know, our LDC
thought it was 1,000 feet.
MR. ARNOLD: But that standard has been in there for years, and I don't--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that comes out of some fire codes, too. I mean, that's not a --
they didn't pick it out of the air.
But the concern is when you say, oh, let's have a traffic calming device, first of all, traffic calming
devices aren't good for emergency vehicles, so I hope you don't mean humping the road or something.
MR. ARNOLD: That's why it's written broadly, because it will allow us to work with transportation
staff to design the appropriate one. It could be a series of signage, it could be raised tables, could be varying
pavement types. It could be many things.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the problem though in putting a circle? Working in
other communities, they don't have trouble with it. It doesn't look particularly unsightly. I mean, it actually
--
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think there's a problem with putting these interim turnaround opportunities.
I think we got into the situation, I think it was Buttonwood Preserve PUD, for instance, that had a lengthy
cul-de-sac, and that came up where we had a bend in the road. We made it wider, an eyebrow type turn so
that a vehicle could make a turnaround there.
So that's what I'm saying, I know this can be done, I just don't know if the interim standard should
be every 1,000 feet you have that opportunity or do we deal with that at platting or can we come back at,
you know, during our consent and deal with that issue? I don't know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you're requesting though is to waive the requirement for --
and essentially it's not the cul-de-sac we're looking for, it's the ability to turn around. That could be a circle.
And if it's a circle, essentially it's the same radius as a cul-de-sac anyway at that point.
But if you -- Ray, can you zoom out on this thing here?
Okay. If you look at that kind of just a little bit to the right of the clubhouse. If you start taking that
road -- I mean, going up to that first cul-de-sac that they show there, that's quite a distance. If the width of
this thing is a mile, it's almost a mile.
So first of all, we have a requirement in the LDC, Ray, for 1,000 feet. Is that a guess or is that
people putting together something that made sense?
And nothing's happened in the design of vehicles that would, I think, change that, do you?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
Yeah, that was established based on the number of homes that could be built along a 1,000-foot
Page 85
-,-_.,,----~_. ",--- y ~ ~ .....",-"''''''',--~'''-,"''."...._,-'"'''',-"....."''''_''''"'I---.'''-~-",,.,.,.."~ .' "- -..~-,.",---" -~----
" .J: <:::;"i:;)'
"
.; I e:J ~
2
March 19,2009
distance.
I think the concern can be addressed with -- as shown on the master plan, they have locations of
various turnarounds throughout the project. I think where that comes into, is if they sell off tracts to a
different developer who builds a cul-de-sac that may be slightly longer than 1,000 feet, gives them that
flexibility.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, flexibility sounds good, but also creating a
dangerous situation for emergency vehicles doesn't --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's not a -- county's reviewed that before, and there are many
developments that have cul-de-sacs that are longer. It's more of a -- as long as there's adequate turnaround at
some point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding, the reason for the 1,000-foot length, and you kind of
alluded to it when you said that's the number of homes. Part of it was so that there's proper use of the water
line, so you don't get a lot of dead-end --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, looping.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, right. Because if your water line gets too long and you don't have
enough users on the end of the line, you get a bacterial count that goes up in the end of the line and your
chlorination doesn't reach it. So they put that 1,000 foot in.
In fact, they've come out now with people who go longer to use these hydro-guards, I think they're
called, where they can actually self flush the lines so there's constant chlorination going into the line. I
thought that was the purpose of it.
I understand where you're coming from --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, now we have three reasons for it.
But the problem here is they want to deviate from that. So maybe there's -- while I'm focusing on
the fire code issues, there's maybe other issues. And obviously you could loop a line, you can loop the road
and not have to worry about it.
MR. ARNOLD: If the Planning Commission would allow us, maybe instead of crafting some
language on the fly, if we could agree that that's one of the items we'll bring back on the consent for you to
review. But I think it would -- something would be structured that for any cul-de-sac exceeding 1,000 feet,
we would provide these interim tumaround or --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Traffic circles is what everybody --
MR. ARNOLD: I hate to get to the design aspect of requiring a traffic circle because, like you said,
Brad, a hammerhead design for turnarounds or just stabilized grass with signage sometimes is acceptable to
them.
I'd like to be able to decide that at the design stage of the project, rather than now to decide that
every road that exceeded 1,000 feet had to have a traffic circle in an interim.
Because ifl ended up with a 1 ,200-foot long cul-de-sac, does that mean now that I do really need
one? I don't know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We all live with regulations and we all have that problem, I mean.
But I would look -- I think the circle -- first of all, in developments I'm sure you've seen the circle I
think is a nice thing, because even people who miss an address, they're not whipping around in people's
driveways, they can go and come back and stuff, so -- anyway, you can word it, but I'm just against the
deviation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they come back with some wording that works, is that a problem
then?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but how does that mean -- here we're going to vote yes or no
on this thing and then it's going to come back, what, in the consent, or what does come back mean?
Page 86
16 I f'f A3
March 19,2009
MR. ARNOLD: Why don't we try to write that language before you close the hearing today and we
can run it by staff and then --
MR. BELLOWS: I think I would like that better. It wouldn't be right I think to have the board at a
consent item try to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree.
MR. BELLOWS: -- approve language at a later date.
MR. ARNOLD: We'll work on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as far as staff goes, Kay, I know you've got a lot to say, but I'd like
to ask Robert Wiley to come up and address the flooding issues first and then -- or the flow-way issues first.
Little slip of the words there.
MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley with the County Engineering and Environmental
Services Department.
Oh, boy, where do we start?
What you see on the screen in front of you is an aerial map shot from satellite. Now, this map is
color enhanced through a product through the Water Management District. The color enhancements were
used to identify based upon vegetation signatures, things of that nature. So that obviously we know we don't
have pink trees. So when you start seeing pinks and things, understand there's some colors out of these
pixels to identify what's on the ground.
What you're looking at here is Lake Trafford is off to the east. You see just to the west and a little
bit to the northwest, you start seeing a real dark coloration area. And that is a huge regional wetland
flowage system coming out of the north end of the county, working down. Where the curser is located now
is about to point where you start leaving Corkscrew Swamp and heading into the Flint Pen Strand, which
then takes off in a westerly direction over into Lee County.
And if you want to zoom on out just a little bit further there, Ray, or move the picture, whatever.
Actually, you're doing good there, just to slide it around.
That gets you out a little bit closer to the coastline. You can then begin to see where all the water
backs up.
Now, the issue that is coming into play here today has been talked about by various people. The
link between Lee and Collier counties just happens to be right in that area. What we know is that we have --
we know we have for Collier County, the line runs right along this area through here. That's where your
county line runs, you see it zigzags and gets around up through there.
And actually, I think I might have missed the county line by one Section, didn't I? I thought, wait a
minute, I'm on the north side of the farm fields, the county line is the south side of the farm fields. But we're
within a mile, that's close enough for this scale's purpose right now.
But what we're looking at is the flooding that occurred back in '92 and in '95, and is actually able to
occur any year that we have big rainfall events, the water builds up in the system and it creates problems in
the north end of Collier County as well as in the south end of Lee County.
In particular, Bonita Springs really gets socked by the water coming in, with all the outfalls they
have up through there, and through the years they've been restricted, lack of maintenance. And we all know
the history of how many times out along Bonita Beach Road, in that area the houses have been flooded out
for weeks and weeks at a time.
They did a study called the South Lee County Watershed Study. That's what I called it. I hope that's
Page 87
,--'".,.....-."'-..,....-..... .........---""..""~...."....,_. "",., -'--"-"',.'"."__,.,_~,._,..".,....;_."'""~""'_"',,,"'''''''';;,''''..,,'''',,____ ... -q '\Ill ~ "l'_""_~'"..____~_..".~..~
/~ ,~ '\ 1. A 3 I
.~, \/ March 19, 2009
the official name for it. But that's the study that was done to try to address this problem.
And in so addressing it, there was recognition that there needed to be a certain amount of flow that
comes down into Collier County.
So where I show the red arrow on the map -- and don't laugh, but I didn't want to mark my map so I
just used a red sign it here sticker and cut the sign it off, so this is a removable sticker. But that shows where
the Mirasol project is located.
Now, coming off from the northeast of that and flowing towards that in a southwesterly, almost a
due west and then turning south direction, there's a path of water that comes through there. I know there's
been a lot of discussion today over is this a flow-way, is this a natural flow-way? What is this?
As you look at that policy that we put into the Growth Management Plan, the whole purpose of that
policy was to begin to regulate watershed type analyses. We had to put interim regulations in until we could
complete these watershed management plans that, as we all know, we were years in arrears and not getting
done but which are now started in that process.
The purpose of writing that particular policy was to address the conditions so that development
does not come in and block off flow.
Now, there's been a lot of discussion on is it natural, is it unnatural? If you look at that definition,
don't get carried away with what some people think it says. Let's go to what -- the first documentation.
As we look at what it says -- and I had put a v.Tite-up in the staffs report on how I use it, and since I
wrote the thing, I guess maybe I'm supposed to know what it says.
But as we're looking at that under D it says, all development located within areas identified on
Figure 1, and we had provided that figure. shall be evaluated to determine impacts to natural wetlands,
flow-ways or sloughs.
First of all, this on Figure 1, we all know, it shows up on that Figure 1. Those were -- that's the
figure that came out ofthe early concepts of the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study. So that's the
background of where we got this Figure 1 identifying areas for regional flow considerations.
Then we go to determine impacts to natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. We were looking at
wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. And then in the process of the policy getting put through all the
committees and reviews, it was determined, well, we want you to really be addressing natural wetlands.
I didn't say natural flow-ways, didn't say natural sloughs, this is natural wetlands is what the policy
says here.
Whether or not we have to rely upon that natural adjective being a precursor to the word wetlands,
flow-ways and sloughs, I'll let the attorneys decide that. I'm telling you how it was implemented and how
we set the thing up to be considered by staff.
Because our evaluation was concerned about we don't want regional impacts on flow from the
development of projects. With that in mind, going then through what the policy says, that going to be
tentatively identified as continuous wetlands, we had to come up with a definition. So we made up a
definition to help people understand we're not concerned about every single little bitty issue, but where the
major water is flowing.
And so we came up with the concept that we're going to have the wetland vegetation through there,
facultative, all these other terms that were put in there. We want it to be about a foot in depth through the
center of it to identify it so that somebody couldn't come up and say well, because I've got a two-foot wide
by six-inch deep depression on my property, that's a flow -- no, don't use those terminologies. Try and get
the broad picture of what was meant by this policy to be used.
Using that as the background of it, it goes on then to go down, and it makes the statement that says
in here that we're going to require applicants to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or
sloughs, or when not possible to ensure any direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing
Page 88
16 ~ A3
I .. ch 19,2009
the same conveyance capacity as lost by the direct impact.
This was never intended to be used as a wetland impact minimization policy. That's other parts of
the law, other agencies do that. The purpose here was to -- if you're going to go and you're going to be in a
region where you know reasonable flow is coming through, you're going to avoid it if at all possible. But if
you can't avoid it, then you're going to provide a way to compensate for it.
So let's look at this property. As you look into it, and we can zoom into it, we can look at other
aerials. But basically that whole region through there was a very broad area of flow.
Now, through the years, with all the agricultural operations and development that's gone in north of
it, east of it and west of it, it's pretty well boxed in now. Whether you call it natural, you call it artificially
created, the flow wants to come through there.
And I've been with the county for 22 years. Longshore Lake, if you talk to people who have lived
there for years, they will clearly acknowledge there's flow comes down through there. It has gone right
through Longshore Lake, back in I think it was '92. We had water everywhere. Water, when it hits
Immokalee, the big rains on the weekend, by Thursday you've got water pouring through that section of that
flowage area. It pours through there. I can remember seeing water actually on the edge of the asphalt on
Immokalee Road back when it was two-lane.
So that's the concept we were looking at here when we began to evaluate this project for the impact
by this policy.
In looking at their footprint, what they have done is they have put a development in which accounts
for the water coming to it. They provided me with a big notebook of engineering design that they had
submitted as part ofthe application to the Water Management District on how they were addressing from
the flow that's going to come down through that portion of the county at the peak stages from the various
storms, even running multiple storm scenarios, what was able to pass through there today. Not what passed
through there 50 years ago, but what could pass through under today's condition.
Now, today being with Olde Cypress in place, without Terafina being constructed, without
Parklands being constructed, what could pass through today.
Then with the footprint that Mirasol proposed to put in play, what would be the impact of the
off-site flows.
They then evaluated what would it take to bring that flow through their project so that they
essentially had no impact to raise water levels nor lower water levels by the Mirasol development coming
m.
As we all know, the background of Mirasol, there was at one point the consideration in the PUD for
the construction of an excavated, channelized flow-way, whatever you want to call it, to wrap around
through the preserve area, come down through parts of Terafina and head towards Immokalee Road.
But this one is removing that because of the Corps permitting issues that we've heard talked about
before. Now you've got to address it with just the natural ground there.
And for them to account for their floodplain compensation, for the volume of water they have
displaced by putting their fill on-site, and by the removal of any potential for flow that would want to flow
due south, because that's right through their project, they put a weir in at the north end. That weir is
designed so that during normal conditions, with just regular wet season conditions, it can receive flow and
allow it to pass through their core lake system and come out the south side into Immokalee Road, much as
you'd have it today, through those 24-inch culverts that are in the big berm that was built by the Water
Management District.
But when you go to the peak storm event, the weir then is, being 100 feet long on the north end, is
able to take that flow and pass it over the weir and get it to go through that same central lake system passing
out -- I think the weir on the south end was like 175 feet long in the conceptual modeling that was done.
Page 89
^ .~-".<~~----..."-,.._-- ...._"--,.,"""..,--,-------_.,'''','''-,._. _.","-""-'" ",-"-~~""""",,,",.~'-""". -.. .. ,-,_.- --
,.,
, ' ~ ~~ ) 3
,I 11 f
":'~
March 19, 2009
And again, there's a difference here between conceptual modeling and what will actually get
constructed. They all find nitty-gritty details to be all worked out when they come in for their final
development order via plat, an SDP, whatsoever is the phase you're going through.
So we get to look at it all again at that point to make sure the numbers do match up. We're
conceptual at this point with the zoning.
They put all the information in. I looked at it. Now, I'm not saying that as an engineer I agree with
everything that their engineer did. If we all agreed, we wouldn't need but one engineer. And so we all have
our opinions. They train us to have opinions and to evaluate things that way. But what was proposed meets
criteria as I evaluate it.
Now, they have a collector swale on the north end. That's been talked about today. And the purpose
of that is to allow water at that low normal flow conditions to be drawn towards the notches, and the
100-foot long weir on the north end, to allow it to keep going through to imitate the current patterns going
through.
That's -- once you reach certain stages, though, and the whole area upstream of that is inundated
with water, the collector swale becomes moot. It serves no further purpose because the whole weir crest is
at that point receiving the flow and not just the water going through the notches.
So with that being said, that's the bulk of the regional evaluation that I did on it to determine the
flow-way concept.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you hear the question I asked of Mr. Barber concerning the cfs he was
taking through there? Because that contradicts -- his response contradicted the one you had given me last
night.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. And we're talking two different storm events.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WILEY: He is talking a 25-year storm event, as he stated here on the record today. The event I
was describing to you, since I deal with floodplain issues, was the 100-year storm event, hence the much
greater water flow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the size of the box culverts that will feed the north lake at the top
end; do you know?
MR. WILEY: Double eight by tens, ifl recall correctly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought you had said. But now they're all going to funnel on
down through that project until they hit a 24-inch culvert on the south side.
MR. WILEY: No, no, no, no--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what's coming out the south--
MR. WILEY: There's a big difference here. What he's describing right now is, under existing
conditions you've got an earthen berm that the Water Management District constructed on the north bank of
the canal so that they could regulate flow in points, because they were having tremendous erosion problems.
So they regulated it down to a series of 24-inch culverts, okay. That's what's coming through the area ofthe
berm right now that will be along their southern property line.
Then off to the west of them is where they have that 1,000-foot long constructed concrete weir. The
Water Management District has it right now.
Those 24-inch pipes he's talking about, when Mirasol is constructed, you've got a 100-foot weir at
the north end. It goes through all these box culverts and open channels connecting lake to lake to lake on the
pass-through lake system.
Then at the south end you've got another weir. That weir is, from my memory, and I hope I don't
quote the numbers wrong here, but in this evaluation I think it was 175 feet long. Rick, is that right, 175?
So that is able to take the water which comes across the 100-foot weir, plus it takes the water out of
Page 90
16 I 1 A3
March 19, 2009
all of the individual water management lake system components of the five basins within Mirasol. Those
are all coming in somewhat consecutive, somewhat simultaneous, depending upon the timing of the
duration of the water coming through. That it is able to pass over the weir.
And the reason you have the weir crest so much longer than the first one deals with passing flow
over and achieving certain stage. You can throttle it down, but your stage variation is much greater. So he's
going to pass over the weir.
Meeting his requirement for his water quality is in his separate water management lake systems.
Meeting his discharge rate for the .04 cfs per acre is in his separate water management systems. That all
comes into the big master flow-through system, which is just designed to pass regional flow. At that point
he's handling his flow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The flow-way that he is -- there's a portion ofthe flow-way that seems to
go through the southwestern corner of the Mirasol property. I think it was up on the screen earlier today
during that UDAR map that Mr. Barker (sic) put up.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do you feel that the Mirasol project is taking a sufficient amount of
water through the project to offset the water that is currently going through that portion ofthe project in the,
say, natural or unnatural flow-way that goes across the southwestern comer of it?
MR. WILEY: I do, because it picks it up on the north boundary, versus allowing it to come on
through their property and then try to swing down that west side. He already picks it up at the north end.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said something else in the beginning of your statement.
You said that there -- what they're doing is making sure there's no -- something to this effect, that there's no
further detriment to the stacking of the area, or the water in the area, but they could do -- nothing was being
done to improve it, something to that effect.
Do you re -- can they -- is there something they could do with this project that would actually
improve the problems that are being experienced by flooding in Bonita Springs and other places?
MR. WILEY: Could you do more than they're required to? Yes. But are they required to, in their
analysis to us, is no. They only have to address the impact of existing condition that they're facing right
now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is it that they could do that would be beyond the requirement?
MR. WILEY: Well, obviously if you're able to show that you can get more water to pass through
the flow-way system off to the northeast of them, it would be at the eastern end of the farm fields that you
see on the screen in front of you. If you can demonstrate an ability to pass more flow through there and the
desire of the Water Management District to receive that flow into the canal on the north side of Immokalee
Road is also there, is it always possible to make the weir length longer, to make the culvert connections
bigger? That is possible.
But do you want to do that? Well, you have a lot of other issues outside the purview of their
requirements for their development to be addressed there. At that point you're beginning to talk regional
design, which is outside the requirements they have to address, as I looked at the application.
Do we all have desires? Yeah. But can I require them to do that? No, I really am somewhat limited
in the ability to require certain things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other questions?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: As I interpret what you're saying, you're saying that CCME
Objective 2.1.D does apply, but not in the sense that this is a natural wetland but in the sense that it's a flow-
way, so that it's not something that -- we're not worried about impacts to the wetlands, we're worried only
about impacts to the flow of water?
Page 91
,..,.,,-..'....."K."......."-__ '-'_.,"-~. ',_..'-"'''~ ,. ".,........_.~,_ .....,.._...IN ".IiII__~___"~""""". ._~,~>,~"".-.... -
ft" ,
~A3
March 19,2009
MR. WILEY: No, what I'm saying is there seemed to be a big discussion today that it only applies
ifit is a natural flow-way.
And what I'm trying to explain to you is that was not the intention of limiting the verbiage in that
statement to something that had to be only a natural flow-way.
Let's use an example of what everyone would think of as a natural flow-way, meaning man's not
disturbed it, would be the Facahatchee Strand area, right?
Yet if I take you to an aerial such as this one here and I had him zoom down and go to Facahatchee,
you're going to see all of the old cypress logging tram roads, okay. Under the legal, technical super fine
microscope defInition of natural, is that now affected by man?
That's why I don't even want to go that route. The verbiage was never intended to go that route for
this policy.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you think that with the plan that the applicant has submitted that
the direct impact to this wetland flow-way or slough is sufficiently avoided or mitigated?
MR. WILEY: Well, this is not intended to mitigate for wetland impacts from that particular item
that you describe as wetland impacts. That is an evaluation done through the Army Corps of Engineers type
permitting. Does it affect the flowage capacity through the wetlands? I think it does, which is the purpose of
this policy.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So what you're saying is that the conveyance capacity of the
wetlands in terms of the wetlands sort of acting like a sponge and soaking up some of the extra water will
be compensated for by this system of lakes and weirs?
MR. WILEY: Well, once you reach the point of saturation where water's standing on the surface of
the wetlands, the sponge is full. At that point it's simply passing it through.
This allows the water to stay in the area. And keep in mind, even within their own development
they still have all kinds of lake area. They have a huge storage area within the internal lake system within
the development. But they already are maintaining that.
This allows once the off-site wetlands -- by off-site, I mean off developed site, obviously it's in
their preserve area. It's still full, it's still saturated.
But once the water reaches a certain stage, better than backing up, because it can't pass on around
the project, it can't get through the neck down area to the west of them where you have Olde Cypress and
Terafina, all that stuff coming in through there. It is designed to take that volume of water and pass it
internally down through this pass-through lake system. So I think it addresses what it's supposed to.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do wetlands have any conveyance function, or are they just
something that when you reach a certain level they don't help with water conveyance?
MR. WILEY: They can be both, depending upon their location. In this case here they are able to
convey. And I say that because you could have an isolated pocket wetland which doesn't really convey, just
holds water.
In this area through here, they actually allow the sheet flow to pass through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Wiley, thank you very much for that detailed explanation. I
can't say I understood each and every detail of it.
MR. WILEY: We could go through it again.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No thank you.
Just for the big picture and something for me to walk away with, you feel that what the petitioner is
suggesting they're going to do meets all the requirements of the county and any other -- for instance, your
Page 92
16 _"r
l~ ;~; 3
March 19, 2009
SWIFTMUD and all the other required projects and permitting procedures?
MR. WILEY: Well, now, you're asking a very broad question there, sir. There are a lot of
requirements of the Water Management District. This policy was not intended to address all Water
Management District permitting issues.
The policy that we're talking about here dealt with the issue of regional flow being maintained. It
does meet that. It also meets as far as the Water Management District is concerned for that issue, and it
addresses the issue of floodplain compensation or mitigation for it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
MR. WILEY: So those are the two issues that are Water District related, although they have a lot of
other issues. So I just wanted to make it clarified --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: From the county point of view, you're okay with it?
MR. WILEY: I'm fine with it, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the point of the arrow and in those areas that are dark, those are
all inundated areas, I presume. That's water or watershed area, or whatever you describe it as for me, please.
MR. WILEY: The darker coloration was a signature code that was put in indicating wetter type
vegetation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And the point ofthe arrow and going down is the property
that's in question at the moment, correct?
MR. WILEY: Going north as well as south. I sort of put it a little bit south of the midpoint of the
property .
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To the west and a little higher than the point, you have actually a
darker area over some other development that's there. That's a wet area too. What my question is going to
attempt to get an answer to is whether or not the future, by doing this, assuming this went forward, whether
or not we would have an additional accumulation as a result of this.
Now, I recognize what you've said, that the water that is coming down from a 100-year storm you
believe will be okay, it will just pass over it. And you believe that the culvert system and the rest will handle
it.
But once that's developed, that area, in the event of a very strong storm, wouldn't that area that I've
been referring to, and I wish I could point at it for you, but that darker area -- yeah, that area right there, will
that not grow, so to speak? Will that not become more hydrated as a result of this?
I mean, I know we're charging the responsibility of keeping it as it was today. That's right, correct?
It's got to take care of their water and any excess water, based on today.
But by changing the land, would we not effectively preclude any development within that area
where the pen tip is now?
MR. WILEY: Well, that's an interesting question you should ask, because that's Terafina. This map
is pre Terafina. It's already been dug up.
Now, this does bring up an issue, and I appreciate the question was asked a while ago. In the same
report it is made very clear that this Mirasol project only addresses the impact from Mirasol.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
MR. WILEY: Let's back up a minute. The original concept had part of Park lands, part of Terafina
and part of Mirasol jointly working together to construct an increased conveyance capacity channel, or the
flow-way channel, whatever you want to call the term, but it was to go through there. And they were jointly
working together on that concept.
Well, with the constructed portion now being taken away but yet Terafina is still going forward
Page 93
-- '__,"",......_~.,._"._~..<___.__~IlI____."~.,,',." ."...,,,..,.,,,,,,,,,~,-,,,______,",,,,,,,,,",,,~~ -~..~___.......
161)i:31
-" M'ardll ,'2009 .
with construction, they bring up a real interesting point in their analysis. They only analyze for the footprint
of Mirasol. They did not have to account for the impact of other properties. They went through the effort to
show the analysis. And with Parklands and Terafina proposing to construct, there will be an increase in the
upstream water elevation.
Does Mirasol have to address a Terafina impact? I don't think so. This is where you asked the
question could they do more? Well, yes, you can. But do I have the ability to require them? I do not have
the ability to require it.
This is where it gets to be a bit dicey, and I'm glad you guys get to make the decision and I don't.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it would appear like it's eventually going to be a plug in a
bathtub, so to speak.
MR. WILEY: This is the issue of why the policy was written. It would have been very nice had
Terafina have been coming in from scratch right now to have also had to have addressed this policy. But
they predated it. They're already in place. So now what do we do?
This is the issue what I -- personally, what I would like to see would be so that when all is said and
done there is no increase in the water elevations and the conveyance capacity is maintained.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me too.
MR. WILEY: But their report clearly identifies they're addressing their footprint, but they really
haven't addressed the footprint of neighboring properties that are going to be able to build.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know where the--
MR. WILEY: He says yes, they did. So, Rick, please clarify me on that, because I'm reading your
report where you indicate that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to do it from the podium, Rick, you can't do it from the seat.
MR. WILEY: And I'm glad to hear this, because when I read the report I did not see where they
addressed other impacts from adjacent properties. So I hope you did.
Come on up, Rick.
MR. BARBER: I don't want to interrupt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead.
MR. BARBER: We had the same -- Rick Barber for the record.
We had the same concerns. And the predevelopment conditions were run without the other projects
involved. But post-development we did include their footprints. So their impact to that flow-way was
accounted for, Parklands and Terafina. And that was a requirement of the Water Management District
because they had permits that were being reviewed at the same time. So we did account for that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, you took into consideration their -- trying to think of the word
-- their mitigation, if you will. You didn't allow extra in your mitigation in anticipation of additional
hydration up north, did you?
Did you understand my question?
MR. BARBER: I don't, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize, let me try again.
The way you're phrasing it, I want to be absolutely clear, because it sounded like you're saying that
they took into consideration your issue, you took in consideration their issue, and that would adequately
handle all of the potential water coming down for the foreseeable future, for some considerable future? No?
Yes?
MR. BARBER: We were charged with the obligation of when we put our development in and
Terafina was there and Parklands was there, that we did not change the water levels that exist out there
Page 94
J.6 rrt (, A 3
'1
March 19, 2009
today.
But that's not an improvement, okay. That's keeping things status quo. But we did account for those
other projects being in the flow-way.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hate to belabor it, but I have to be clear, because I could -- you
could increase it one percent and that's an improvement. That's not what you're referencing, of course, but
that's a question that I have in my mind.
And you keep on referring to you take into account, but that in my mind is also, unless you tell me
differently, you could be looking over at what they're doing and take that into account and say okay, that
plus this will be enough to take care of what we have here, what we anticipate, and we're not particularly
concerned with what's going to happen up north over time.
MR. BARBER: Where is up north?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See where that pen tip is there on the UDAR?
MR. BARBER: I think perhaps --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Up in that area. Right where he's going, eventually if you're all
building on there and you're all putting in what is adequate 100 percent of your need plus whatever
percentage is adequate for or required to bring water down, and you all do that, Terafina and you, still over
time with all of this water, it's going to back up. It's going to continue to hydrate.
That's what the gentleman said, Mr. Wiley said, I believe, that it will eventually even further
hydrate those areas north of there.
MR. BARBER: Please understand --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm trying to.
MR. BARBER: -- this is a 314 square mile watershed. The models that we ran went all the way out
to Lake Trafford. We took into account all the upstream flow that we could identify, okay?
So in looking at what's the predevelopment condition, all that land area was included. The area that
you were pointing to used to operate as ago that pumped water directly over the side.
As those projects are developed up there today, they have water management systems similar to
ours that limit their discharge back to predevelopment rates.
So it's actually that it will improve up there. But still, the local development that's there is
minuscule compared to the size of the watershed that goes all the way up into the Corkscrew.
Now, we were given the obligation not to lower water levels so we don't affect protected species
upstream. So the original flow-way that we brought before and was approved had a design criteria of trying
to lower stages in the 25-year storm by a foot.
We agreed with that, we took that on, we coordinated with all the other developments that that
wasn't acceptable to the environmental organizations or the Army Corps of Engineers. They said that was a
public project, take it out of your permit, and if the Water Management District wants to come in and
eventually permit that, they can.
So we had to take that improvement out. And I think that's what you're talking about --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
MR. BARBER: -- is an improvement. We had to take it out of our permit. And that is a travesty, in
my opinion, because you had all those property owners up there willing to contribute money, and the
project was going to be done for free. Now it's going to be on the public's back.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you've answered my question, much to my frustration, but
thank you for your direct answer.
MR. BARBER: Much to mine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rick, before you leave, another way of phrasing maybe Mr. Murray's
question that I might understand it better, you have a -- during a 25-year storm event, you're taking 200 cfs
Page 95
"~,--"",--,,,, . __'___. tr a''''__'>''_'''''''''~'''''''''<''r-'''" "'e<""""-"""~""""""'''_-nl'i'''___",_.O!l''''''''''_''''______.~_'___'_"'._"_
,? ~ .~
~ A3
,."i. March 19,2009
through your project.
MR. BARBER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much is required for just your project alone?
MR. BARBER: 29 cfs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in essence to address Mr. Murray's question possibly, you're
taking 171 additional cfs through your project that isn't attributed to your project, it's attributed to maybe
Parklands, Terafina or some other development. Is that a fair statement?
MR. BARBER: That's really coming from the 3l4-square mile watershed upstream.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somewhere it's coming from.
MR. BARBER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I'm trying to understand. I don't know if that helps your
question, but that was another way of phrasing I think the same question.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But what he revealed is also sad. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, I have a question for you. I've listened to everything you've said,
and I asked you this question before, but I'd like it clear for the record.
The statement that we're dwelling on, the county shall require the applicant to avoid direct impacts
to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs, or when not possible to ensure any direct impact is
minimized and compensated for by providing the same conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact.
First of all, this is a flow-way in your mind; is that right?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they have a direct impact on that flow-way; is that correct?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You found them -- I don't know if you, but somebody in the county
through the process has found it and determined that they are consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
Now, based on that statement, you must have been relying on the words when not possible. So how
did you determine that it was not possible to avoid the direct impacts to these natural wetlands and then
make that decision -- or natural flow-ways or -- I'm sorry, I shouldn't use the word natural, I know. The
flow-way. How did you make the determination that it was not possible to avoid that direct impact and thus
allow mitigation?
MR. WILEY: When you look at the layout of the land and they show you where all the wetlands
are, you look at the vegetation, the flatness of the slope, all the stuff put in place there. As soon as you try to
develop that size of a piece of property, you are going to have an impact on where the water wants to flow,
if you're going to have a fiscally possible development.
Now the question has been asked, and don't take me \\-TOng here, I'm not trying to sound stupid, but
could you possibly develop to what they're allowed to do in the Growth Management Plan with the number
of units and not affect any conveyance capacity?
Well, we don't really have the ability to build the superhero type futuristic cartoon-looking
buildings that are real tall and real skinny at the base. That's not reality. We build low to the ground for
other design purposes.
Once you hit that threshold of you've got to build low to the ground around here, you've got to
spread out to make it economically doable, so that there is not the issue of the takings consideration that we
don't even want to talk about today.
So there has to be a determination made at that point how much is acceptable. I don't make that
call.
Page 96
16 llh4J91
But as soon as I look at this property, knowing that in the I OO-year event water covers everything,
then you have, as soon as you put the first building pad on there, even if you only build one building, you
have technically had some impact.
Now, this policy is not the policy to be regulating the percentage of impact that is deemed
allowable. That's where decisions are made on your-all's level, on the Board of County Commissioner level,
as to what is allowable.
The issue came up in developing the policy where you had a clear distinction of a property that had
a big percentage of upland areas with a depressional area going through it and waters flowing through there,
and to intentionally go ahead and fill in that low area, to go ahead and maximize the full footprint of
development.
U sing this development as an example, had there been the intentional berming of the entire
property line, that would have been totally unacceptable to us. Because at that point you are diking off and
stopping any flow from coming through.
So to look at it and say that you're going to follow what this says here, when not possible, you look
at the reality of the property, what it is allowed to have on it from other aspects within the regulations of the
county, and you balance that with the fact that is it possible to obtain what they're allowed to have on the
land that would not affect any conveyance capacity.
In this particular case, you cannot say that. As soon as you start trying to develop what the land is
allowed to develop, you have to impact it. So it is not possible. At that point you provide your mitigation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Are there any other questions of Mr. Wiley while he's up here?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you good at stuff in terms of nutrients and getting rid of the
nutrients through the wet and dry?
MR. WILEY: That's not me.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's environmental.
MR. WILEY: That's not me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, thank you very much. It's certainly been educational. I appreciate
it.
Okay, Kay, I guess we can go back to your presentation where we kind of left off. Got you a little
sidetracked.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning.
You do have the 25-page staff report with the revision date of 3/4 on it.
I won't belabor the issues, since we've had a considerably detailed presentation by both staff
members and the applicant, other than to say that we have recommended approval. You do have the PUD
document in front of you as part of an ordinance.
The ordinance first few pages, that is the text of the ordinance, not the PUD document itself, was an
outdated document. I do have the updated one for you. I can give it to you. It's dated 1/7 at the bottom. But
the PUD document itselfhas not changed.
But the -- we do offer our recommendations on the application. We have given you the overview of
what's proposed, as you've already heard from the applicants. The staff report on Page 2 tells you what the
surrounding land use and zoning is. There's a rather involved Growth Management Plan consistency that
deals with the FLUE and the coastal management portion. And there is a large portion that has already been
discussed by Robert Wiley about the water management areas and issues.
The analysis of the application itself begins on Page 13. And in that you'll find environmental
review comments, and that has to do with the EAC that did hear this petition and, as already stated, voted
Page 97
"h"""._' '_. __'_~T'_"""''''''''"___'___'"'_'''''''_'"~_''' ~-""~..,,,-~~--- -.-
11
c'o
...
March 19, 2009 ; <-t.
>-
6-2 to approve it.
You have the transportation review comments, and transportation is also recommending that this
petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
You have the zoning review on Page 14 that tells you some general idea of what the proposed
development parameters are. There is a deviation discussion with deviations one, two, three and four, all
being recommended for approval.
On Page 17 you see the beginning of the rezone findings. Those continue to Page 20 where you
will see the PUD findings. And again, staff has provided to you supporting documentation or analysis that
supports our recommendation of approval.
The recommendation from staff is on Page 24. And as I said, we are recommending approval,
finding that the petition is both consistent with the Growth Management Plan and is in compliance with the
LDC applications as applicable.
And if you have any questions, we also have Carolina Valera with Compo Planning that can discuss
compo planning issues. And Summer Araque is also here for environmental issues.
You've already heard from Robert Wiley.
You had a brief discussion from Transportation with Nick Casalanguida. I believe he has been
excused now that his issues have been addressed.
So we're here at your disposal, should you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, Nick ran off. That's not excused.
MS. DESELEM: That isn't the way he told us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions of staff? Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust want a--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: IfI may, a confirmation that the storm we're talking about is a
25-year storm, correct? 25-year storm?
MS. DESELEM: You're talking about Robert Wiley's testimony?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. No, no, what the -- that the developer would be mitigating for,
25-year storm?
MS. DESELEM: I'll go back to Robert Wiley, if I may. I don't want to misstate anything.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: All right, whoever will qualify it for me. I think Mr. Barber
actually was able to -- I think he said 25 year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they had two calculations.
You'll need to come to the podium. I think it was 200 cfs for a 25-year storm and 286 cfs for a
100-year storm.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So he did cite two. See, I wasn't sure.
MR. BARBER: That's correct. We ran calculations for both 25-year--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And how many cubic feet again for the 100-year storm?
MR. BARBER: How many what?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How many cfs, cubic feet per second?
MR. BARBER: It's near 300; 285 and some change. But it's near 300 cfs.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I tried listening hard, but these things don't always work as
well as I'd like. That was important to me, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you had some pollution questions you want to ask the
environmental -- might be a good time, if you still want to.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the environmental representative, if she could come forward.
Page 98
16 Jll March 19,2009
Aj
COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we let Kay go?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we weren't going to let her gO;L
COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 5 of25, Policy 7.2. ' ck to the issue ofthese internal access
or loop roads. The only thing I saw in this plan was a possible future interconnection. Is that what you're
relying on for this policy?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. The -- in the PUD document and in the DCA, they have addressed
mitigation that has satisfied transportation element, and transportation staff is therefore recommending
approval based on the fact that they can find it consistent with that Policy, 5.1.
But yeah, there is a proposed alignment for 951, but exactly where it's going to go, it's uncertain at
this time.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, what I was talking about was the proposed connection to the
activity center, not to 951.
MS. DESELEM: There is a proposed connection. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. It does show as a
proposed connection.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It shows it as a proposed future connection.
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's what you're relying on for this policy.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Because it's not what you keep saying. And I had this
discussion with you one other time, and I can't even remember what the petitioner was at the time. But just
having roads within your PUD doesn't get you to this policy.
So that interconnection on there is critically important to say that you are conforming to this policy.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. Normally on a conceptual master plan you show possible future connections
because you don't know exactly where it's going to be. So they don't really --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand that.
MS. DESELEM: That's why it's written that way.
MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, it allows staff to force the developer of the adjacent property
when they come in to line up, and allows us that flexibility to get it lined up.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly.
And on Page 7, Policy 6.1.7 says, the county shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into
landscape designs.
MS. DESELEM: Again, I'm going to refer this one back to Summer, because this is within the
coastal management element.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, before you -- before Summer gets up here, this particular master plan
and any like it are very problematic for us to review. The lack of detail is the old style that we try to get
away from in this county and -- oh, it's your next one, I'm sorry --
COMMISSIONER CARON: That was my next comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm listening to Ms. Caron's questions, and I went through the same
frustration trying to tie the site development standards table to the plan.
This isn't the kind of plan that we -- the detail that we like to see. It might be better through any
future plans coming through from any PUD's that we get more of the detail showing the elements that
impact off-site uses in particular.
This one, with just its RG, neighboring properties won't know whether it's golf course or 50-foot
multi- family buildings going next to them. And I think they have the opportunity in a public meeting to
express themselves if they think that may be near them.
Page 99
, "~'-," - - ,..~---"-,,._.-.. .-"~-,----,.,;,.~-~-,","-,.^~-,.""",.._"""--......_"".._---_..,,,,.- -- -.-.-
~: F " ...... ~
;! , )J
II' \~ H -~ :""., ~
",':'
March 19,2009
So maybe in the future, just as a word of caution to staff, we could look for a little more detail on
the master plans that go with these, so -- I'm sorry, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I will reiterate what you said. I couldn't believe that this was the
master plan we were getting with this proposal that's been around since 2000. I mean, I find it just shocking.
But at any rate, I'll speak to Summer now about my next issue.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you for your concerns. And we will keep those in mind when we review
our projects as they come in.
MS. ARAQUE: Hello. Summer Araque, Environmental Specialist in Engineering Environmental
Services.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Summer, you heard the portion that I read of 6.1.7, which is fine. I
understand that we shall require this native vegetation. But then in staff comments it says native vegetation
and restoration will be encouraged.
Are we requiring this? Is this a shall, or are we just going to encourage them?
MS. ARAQUE: Well, my understanding is that the LDC provides the specifications for how much
native vegetation is required to go into landscape design. So that will be reviewed at site development plan
and plat and plan stage.
So that should answer your question on Policy 6.1.7, because that is now specified in the LDC, so
--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so we're not just encouraging them, they must do this?
MS. ARAQUE: I didn't write this staff report, so where are you referring to on -- are you referring
in that same area?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, right underneath in italics.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer, let me suggest something. When -- the requirement in the GMP
or the LDC requires a certain number of plants to be native. But developers can plant more than the
mlrumum.
MS. ARAQUE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they get past the minimum, they're not required to be native. And
that may be why the word encourage is there, because they're encouraging them to use as much as possible.
But it doesn't have to be, once they get past the minimum requirement.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, but if that's the case, then that's what it should say here.
Because right now it just says we're going to encourage them to meet the requirement. It doesn't say they
must meet the minimum requirement and then anything else we'll just encourage you guys to do more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good point.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, that's not what it says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just trying to help clarify it.
MS. ARAQUE: We can change that verbiage in the future, if that's an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Little more clarity, that's all.
MS. ARAQUE: Yeah, it's required by the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else for Summer?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not right now, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, did you want to ask Summer the questions you had?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm concerned a little bit about the nutrients going off-site.
What is the county's policy regarding the discharge of nutrients? Is it 80 percent retention of the nutrients
on-site, or 95 percent, or--
MS. ARAQUE: I'm going to have to defer to Bill on that.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, Engineering and Environmental Services Director.
Page 100
I
16 JJ19,1i
As I understand the question, you asked whether nutrients are required -- what is the county's
requirement. The county's requirement simply is that the post-analysis be performed so that nutrients in the
post-development condition do not exceed the predevelopment condition.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there any numerical? It's not 100 percent. What percentage is
allowed to be leached out? Or what deterioration is allowed?
MR. LORENZ: Well, it's no deterioration. Pre -- post-development has to be less than
predevelopment through a modeling analysis.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And do you think that the system of the wet ponds and the -- the wet
retention and the -- no, wet and the dry was going to be adequate to prevent all of that stuff from leaching
out?
MR. LORENZ: We're relying upon the analysis that was performed to do that, to analyze that. And
then that analysis indicated that the post-development was going to be less than predevelopment. So yes,
we're accepting that analysis from the applicant.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That post was going to be less than pre?
MR. LORENZ: Correct. Post cannot be greater than pre. I'm not sure -- I don't have the analysis in
front of me in terms of where they came in at, but that's the requirement.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because Bill, this is a real concern. Because anything that goes into
that canal ends up in outstanding Florida waters at Wiggins Pass in that estuary system. And so I'm very
concerned about making sure that this project does not further degrade the system. We're already not
conforming.
MR. LORENZ: Well, you threw a little bit of a nuance in there. Weare allowing -- we're looking at
the project so that the post-development conditions do not exceed the predevelopment conditions. That's the
analysis that we're holding the applicant to. There's been no assessment of what that actual discharge would
do downstream. That's not part of the analysis.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't it be part of the analysis?
MR. LORENZ: That's not a requirement for our analysis. And we're relying on the Water
Management District and the Department of Environmental Protection to perform those types of analyses.
We've adopted the pre versus post as the county's condition, the county's requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My only comment would be it should be. Because I think Donna's
right on, if you have 100 percent of nutrient going down post-development, you still have 100 percent
nutrient going down. And that doesn't make for a good situation ultimately. That's probably a bigger job
than we have right at the moment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, is it an issue for the county whether these wetlands are, quote,
natural or not natural? Do you treat them the same in terms of amount of impact that are allowed to those
wetlands?
MR. LORENZ: When the county looks at wetlands, the definition for wetland is going to be
whatever works out to be the jurisdictional wetland by the state agencies.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it doesn't matter whether these have been like created in the last
30 years because of the sheet flow being directed in from other places?
MR. LORENZ: I don't think that there's any -- in this particular situation there would be any
recreated or created wetlands on-site.
Page 101
""'..__,,"'~._~. '0 ~,...,._,~~..,"..__._._ -",.^.'.~,-._-,_.._---_..,._,.._._"--_.._-~,-_...__._,_.---_..._-
""f'j ~ 1 1 "5'..
t'i
, . ') .
,-, "" \~
"'"'"
March 19,2009
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is wetlands is wetlands.
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what about if they're infested with melaleuca, does that have
any impact on what the applicant is allowed to develop or not develop?
MR. LORENZ: We have -- the requirement that we have in the rural fringe mixed use district is
that wetlands that type out at a UMAM score of. 7 or above need to be incorporated in our vegetation
retention requirements.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the melaleuca lowers the score if they're in there?
MR. LORENZ: Melaleuca would lower the score, correct. But there are wetlands that are on-site
that are higher quality wetlands and are being preserved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! may, just so I can qualify, because I may have caused people to
raise their brows.
Maybe nutrients is the wrong word in the sense. Maybe pollutants is what I think of, and perhaps
what Paul was thinking of. With 100-year or 25-year storm or whatever it takes to flood an area and bring
whatever's going to be brought down, that was my concern. If you had 100 percent of that happening, you
still have 100 percent based on what you've told us, that post-development does not exceed what
predevelopment would.
So I think what I was trying to express was the concern about what we do to our waterways with
pollutants, not nutrients, okay. If you understand me now.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, our current regulations are pre versus post. The watershed management
planning efforts, we'll be looking at total maximum daily loads. Total maximum daily loads will then be
established for waterways in the future that would address that particular concern. But that's off in the
future, that's not one of our current requirements.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A shame.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of county staff at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two speakers. The first speaker is Brad Cornell, to be followed by
Nicole Ryan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, I know some of you came in late. Were all of you
sworn in? Why don't we take care ofthat right now.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', how are you doing for time? Are you okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, whoever wants to come first.
Ladies should always go first, Brad.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of The Conservancy of
Southwest Florida.
I do have extra copies of not the entirety of the packet of information that I sent you, but simply the
memo, if any of you would like to have a copy of that.
I also do have a copy for the court reporter and I will hand that to her at the end of my presentation.
I would also like to hand out what was Exhibit 4, the letters from the environmental protection
agency, in case you did not print those off for this meeting, because I will be referring to that letter.
The Conservancy does not believe that the Mirasol PUD amendment is consistent with the Growth
Page 102
fi, '" " ,. 16fitA~
March 19,2009 -
Management Plan, and we're requesting that you recommend denial and direct the applicant to reconfigure
the development footprint requiring a decrease in the amount of wetland impacts and providing for
additional protection for the integrity of the Cocohatchee Slough.
I think we need to keep in mind just what the project is proposing. They're proposing impacting
directly 586 acres of wetlands, placing 799 dwelling units and 36 holes of golf at the southern end of the
Cocohatchee Slough west branch.
In addition, this dredging and filling of almost two sections ofland in the already constricted
Cocohatchee natural flow-way may well trigger flooding and ultimately the need to dig a manmade
drainage system likely to alter the hydro-period and partially drain hundreds of additional acres of wetlands.
In other words, there's the concern that this development, along with other developments in the
area, are going to require in the future a massive drainage project.
We just recently had a ribbon cutting for the LASIP project, $62 million. If we can do a better job
to prevent the need for those projects in the future, we really should.
The project is currently classified as a sun-setted PUD, which must be in compliance with the
current GMP in order to receive approval. And yes, this is a PUD, and The Conservancy is not asking that
you recommend denial of anything on this site, we're simply asking that you require the developer to
minimize the direct impacts to the wetlands in conformance with the requirements of the GMP.
New county policies have been put in place since this project was initially approved. And when we
talk about the difference between the initial project and the current project, essentially it is the removal of a
massive regional drainage ditch.
So now that we have new watershed management plan guidelines under Policy Objective 2.1 and
its subsequent policies, this is what this project is going to have to meet the standard to.
We believe that the project is inconsistent with the conservation and coastal management element
Objective 2.1 and the policies that it contains. And we've had a lot of back and forth on is this a natural
wetland area, is it a flow-way, is it a slough.
I believe that Mr. Wiley's testimony has solidified the fact that this policy does apply. But because
there could be some contradictory statements to that fact, I do want to get on the record The Conservancy
believes that this policy does apply. They're wetlands, they're jurisdictional. We don't have to go any farther
than to know these are natural wetlands.
It is part of the Cocohatchee Slough system, which at one point was 20 miles wide as it started from
Lake Trafford and flowed slowly out to the Wiggins Pass estuary system and the Gulf of Mexico. It
certainly is part of that slough system. And we believe, of course, that the policy does apply.
It was pointed out in the Southwest Florida Environmental Impact Statement that I had as Exhibit 1
that the natural flow-way actually ended at the Mirasol project. I think if you go back and you look at that,
unfortunately the label, the white label they put on that said Immokalee Road covered the southern portion
of that project. And I believe that if you looked at it, it would show, as the UDAR map has shown, the flow
goes across the project and then circles back and exits at that very southern portion of the project site.
And it is true that during the past 40 years the Cocohatchee Slough has been significantly narrowed
road by development, which makes protecting and restoring the remaining portions extremely important for
both flood protection and wetland preservation, instead of permitting away and further narrowing the
slough system.
In assessing the compliance with Objective 2.1.D, I would like to point out in your county staff
report on Page 12, staff misquotes the wording in the policy. The language used in the staff report reads, the
requirements of sub-paragraph D require the proposed development to avoid direct impacts to these natural
wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs or ensure any direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing
the same conveyance capacity lost by a direct impact.
Page 103
^,..._"-,--....--,,_._-<-"-,..."--"".,~_..,_. .--...._..__'~."<f' ,." 1l1ll,,,.,___';;Iii<__''',,,,,-c.;''',,-,,,,,,,,''',,,,,,-,-, '_"'",'""".._"_.~..""~,,~w~,.~___~,_..;._,,,~_._~_"____~".__,_.~_~,
~
/", .' ,: ,:-'",
:.. l i.i,\ ~'~ I" 'j '."1;>
II ;( I, r1 I .. :':~;t
iii> ..
..;J "- ,;) "
,,-
March 19,2009
The actual language in Objective 2.1.D states, the county shall require the applicant to avoid direct
impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs, or when not possible, to ensure any direct impact
is minimized and compensated. And that is a very, very key part of that policy, when not possible.
There's been no showing that avoidance of direct impacts to the Cocohatchee Slough wetland is not
possible on this site.
Weare requesting that the Planning Commission apply the clear language of Objective 2.1.D and
require true avoidance of at least part of the Cocohatchee Slough wetlands on the Mirasol property.
One way to avoid significant amount of wetland loss, eliminate the 36-hole golf course, which is at
least 211 acres. And I believe in the ERP it said that it was 300 acres. So that would take a significant
impact away from the project's proposed 718-acre footprint.
This could allow for consolidation of the residential development areas further and go into the
eastern portion of the property with less intrusion into the Cocohatchee Slough wetlands.
In cooperation with the Big Cypress Basin, it would also be possible to restore some of the slough's
flow across the southern end of the Mirasol property in that southern portion of Section 22 that is directly
adjacent to the Cocohatchee Canal, preserving more of the slough wetlands, providing for a larger outlet
than currently exists for conveyance into the canal.
And isn't this the intent of what watershed management planning was supposed to be about? It isn't
about no development, it's about smart planning.
And remember, if you avoid impacts to wetlands, this benefits your conveyance capacity. If you
don't lose conveyance capacity, then you don't have to worry about mitigating elsewhere.
And the storm water conveyance issue and the floodplain compensation is something that the
county really does need to look at seriously. The staff report discussed it a little bit. But the current design
of the Mirasol project in what the county reviewed and what was submitted, we don't believe really takes
into account all the cumulative impacts. And therefore we don't believe it meets the intent of Objective
2.1.D.
You heard Mr. Barber say in all likelihood with this project and with the other projects in the area,
you're going to need some sort of regional drainage ditch in the future. Well, again, here's an idea. If you
don't impact all of the Mirasol site, you may not need that manmade ditch at some point out in the future.
When we look at the faimess of it, keep in mind that the property owner purchased this property
seeing on a map that it was within this Cocohatchee Slough area. Again, it isn't that they can't do anything,
but avoiding impacts, taking out some of the development could be very important.
You've heard that the agencies have issued their permits. That's true, though the Corps permit is
still under review for its challenge with the judge.
I do want to point out, because it was stated that in the Corps challenge, the administrative law
judge took a look at all of the issues and ruled in Mirasol's favor. But I do want to point out, and again, this
was in the packet of information that I submitted to you, Exhibit 3, the recommended order states that the
2002 permit is not the subject of review in this case.
In other words, the judge did not opine or rule on the impacts of the entire project or the flooding
issues, just ruled on the removal of the drainage ditch and how that would impact the project.
And as was pointed out by Ms. Caron, not all the agencies felt that these projects were suitable. The
Environmental Protection Agency in fact did raise significant comments and they did not withdraw their
concerns. And I would like to just quote two portions ofthe EP A letter, and that is what I handed out to
you, and that was in your packet of information.
On Page 2, EP A states, a development of this magnitude within the historic Cocohatchee Slough
has the potential for significant degradation with serious alteration to the distribution and timing of flows in
these downstream waters.
Page 104
16 I 1 ,f~ 1~, 2009
The secondary and cumulative impacts from the proposed project, in concert with adjacent
development, may adversely affect water quality, flood storage, watershed sheet flow and wildlife habitat.
And just one more paragraph that I want to read from this letter, because again, I think this is
extremely important. On Page 3, the letter states, the applicant should avoid and minimize impacts to
on-site wetlands and as feasible enhance them for water quality and habitat mitigation. For example, the
applicant could modify the design of its golf course and cluster development to take maximum advantage of
the upland portions of the parcel.
Reducing the size and footprint of the overall development could also lessen the adverse impacts
attendant to construction of the proposed lakes. Experience demonstrates that excavated lakes tend to lower
local groundwater levels and exacerbate evaporation rates. This in turn can change the hydrology of and
adversely affect adjacent wetlands.
Reducing the overall development footprint provides more on-site mitigation and preserving
interspersed cypress areas are all measures which will help ensure that the integrity of the Cocohatchee
Slough and its downstream environment is maintained.
So what we're asking you to require is just what EP A was asking the Corps to require. They did it
in connection with the Clean Water Act. We're asking you to do it in connection with the CCME Objective
2.1.D.
Wetland impacts can be avoided, resulting in more wetland preservation, assisting in maintaining
the integrity of the Cocohatchee Slough, protecting upstream areas of the system from increased flooding,
and this would result in the proper application of the watershed management plan interim guidelines.
Remember, this is really the first test ofthose policies.
So to conclude, we would ask that you deny the application as proposed. It is inconsistent with
CCME Objective 2.1.D, request that the applicant reduce the footprint and then bring it back at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nicole, did you get a chance to discuss any of this with the staff
or the EAC before this?
MS. RYAN: We did bring our comments to the EAC and presented them, and it was a very brief
part of their ultimate discussion and deliberation. We had hoped that they would really delve into that a
little bit more.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, but you went through this with them. Did you go through
any of this before this with staff?
MS. RYAN: With staff, we had talked with them early on, and then through our comments at the
EAC, we were certainly hoping that they would take a look at that.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, the EAC. We know that now. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nicole, recognizing your desire to achieve but at the same time Mr.
Wiley's testimony indicated that all of the lake systems would in fact take away all of the water that was
necessary .
Now, you heard my comments and questions. And I'd like more, if you can, more clarity, because
your position is, you know, can we do better, which is fine. But remember, Mr. Wiley said he can only talk
about what we're limited to. So can you square that with us a little bit more? Is it possible for you to --
MS. RYAN: Well, we believe that what you're limited to is the application of that specific objective
that allows the county, requires the county, actually, to make sure that the developer avoids direct impacts
to wetlands, and when not possible. So it's really determining what possible is.
Page 105
'.....--".---. '_."^_."""''''~ <"' _"_w.,, "~....'~~,.,.~,_.......,___,_".,'_.,..,,",,""""'...~,,....;_~,
&1 " ~..,. A 3
JL ~~:::: ;1 ~;,
March 19, 2009
And we believe that if certain changes were made to the project, it certainly would be a tremendous
improvement, making sure that the connectivity of the slough, especially at that south end, were maintained.
It certainly -- the watershed management planning provisions were put in place not only as an
engineering exercise, as a stormwater plan, as floodplain compensation, but really to allow the county to
take a look at the footprint of a project in connection with how it applies to the watershed system. And in
this case it applies to the watershed system because it's that final outlet of that portion of the Cocohatchee
Slough before it hits the Cocohatchee Canal.
So we believe that you certainly are within your right to make a recommendation based on that
objective that provisions and changes being made to the project that reduce the footprint, shift development
to a more appropriate location and reduce -- and have some of that hydrologic connectivity and restoration
be maintained.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just following up just quickly, you mentioned elimination of a
36-hole golf course. So that area then would be in your mind used for water retention or --
MS. RYAN: Well, if the 211,300 acres of the golf course were removed, that would allow the
project to be redesigned so that you could compress the footprint down and that area then could be part of a
preserve of the natural hydrologic flow-way.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've given me clarity, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before the next speaker we're going to give Cherie' a lO-minute
break.
I need to go across the hall and find out what time we can stay here till, because previously it was
around 5:00. So I don't know if we'll finish ifthat happens. So right now let's break until 4:20, that will be
11 minutes, and we'll be back.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our break. There is no time limit
today. Kady said we can go till midnight, so we will go till midnight.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not a goal, is it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind, next speaker was Brad Cornell. Brad?
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of
Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida, which owns Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
And I'm here to recommend denial on this project, this PUD rezone amendment application. And
we base this denial on three facts.
And the first is that it is inconsistent with Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy
2.1, sub-paragraph D in particular. And you've already heard that, we've been discussing that today. Nicole
Ryan brought that up at some length.
I do want to point out the fact that when you're determining the natural wetlands flow-ways or
sloughs, that they shall be tentatively identified. And then it goes on to describe that methodology,
including that one-foot lower elevation.
However, a more final way to determine that is through a jurisdictional determination by the state
or the federal or both agencies. And that's already been done. We know that this site is 90 percent wetlands,
so that's not a question. We know that these are wetlands and that there are 586 acres of wetlands being
proposed for destruction. So this one-foot lower elevation is not an issue.
So we know we've got wetlands that come under the Policy 2.1, sub-paragraph D. And we also
know that, as it says here, the county shall require, that's pretty strong language, the county shall require the
applicant to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. That's pretty clear. I don't
Page 1 06
16 I ~119' 2009
think there's any ambiguity in those words.
And I would suggest to you that that is a very strong basis for denial ofthis project as it is
submitted. The county shall require to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs.
Or when not possible, to ensure any direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the same
conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact. Or when not possible.
That issue of what is possible and what is not possible now is something to consider in conjunction
with this requirement to avoid wetland and flow-way impacts.
And you heard testimony from Mr. Y ovanovich that originally this project contained development
proposed in Section 10. And I would submit to you that the fact that, as Mr. Wiley had testified, that this
project appears to be able to pass enough water through it to satisfy the pre versus post in terms of flood
attenuation and overland flow and those sorts of issues, the hydrologic issues, you could have done that if
you put development in Section 10 as well, as well as Section 22 or Section 15.
You can basically engineer any amount of -- just about any amount of impact to satisfy that
requirement that Mr. Wiley spoke to. So that's not really the test. The test is have they minimized their
impacts. Have they maximized the avoidance and minimization. That's the question that you are here to
answer. And the requirement under the policy is that it be maximal avoidance and minimization. And have
they done that?
I submit to you that with two golf courses on this project that they have not. It is not really
acceptable in an important slough that there are two golf courses being built to destroy hundreds of acres of
wetlands. I don't see how that is avoidance and minimization.
And again, I'm not here to say that they can't build anything. This is not a takings question. This is a
question of scale and of degree, if you can put it in those terms.
Now, I also want to point out that -- a couple of other issues. A second point that we believe this
should be denied upon is that it is in conflict with the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.
The final comprehensive watershed master plan that has been issued as of February, 2009, last
month, shows clearly that this project is part of that restoration master plan. Yeah, this -- that's good.
So if you look at the project Group 5, that's the Mirasol project right there. This is the Corkscrew
watershed. And all this gray is part of that Corkscrew watershed. Includes Camp Keais Strand, includes the
Corkscrew Marsh -- excuse me, Bird Rookery Swamp and Corkscrew Marsh, and it goes up into southeast
Lee County. It is one of the 13 highest ranked projects in the entire 4,300 square mile study boundary.
So out of a 4,300 square mile study boundary, this is one of 13 highest ranked restoration projects,
including this Mirasol project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, before you take that map off, that portion ofMirasol that you
pointed to, that is the northern portion of Mirasol, not the southern portion. I have a bigger map of what
you've got that shows that.
MR. CORNELL: That's in --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not the whole section of Mirasol, it's the top part of Mirasol, the part
they're not going to develop.
MR. CORNELL: Right. They are also -- there's another map that goes with this, the tentative
selected plan map that does show Section 22 as part of the -- if you look at this, you'll see right here, I
believe that's Section 22 and Section 15 and 10, and Section 11 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a color key on there?
MR. CORNELL: Sorry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a color key on there so we know where--
MR. CORNELL: No, there's not, I'm sorry, so I can't interpret this in terms of -- the color is
essentially the functional groups that they've packaged a number of what are called not mitigation measures
Page 107
_,'",_m ,__ ~"""______"""_"'_>""'"<"__'A ,~.^._,,,,.,,..o_,__ .. ~ _"_'1_ -- ".... ~ . ---'--'"
.-'l )~ "
(, I
t!,
,~,<J. _
March 19,2009
but the measures that they're going to employ to effect restoration. Some of them are structural, some of
them are just operational. But they're going to be employed in all those different color-coded projects in
functional groups that are associated with each other.
And this is the Corkscrew watershed functional group, which includes the Mirasol project. Sections
11, 10, 15, and in this case 22.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't know by color coding if22 is included with number five.
You just know it's shown on this map for some reason.
MR. CORNELL: I acknowledge I don't know what the management measures are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I approached this the same way you have. I've gone and pulled all kinds of
these maps down, I've got a whole stack of them here, and they all say the same thing. They stopped after
the northern portion, and I couldn't find any that address that southern portion. So that's the only reason I'm
trying to make sure that I at least clarify that with you while you're up here.
MR. CORNELL: That's a good question. And I would submit to you that the development in the
very southern portion in Section 22 does affect those portions of the flow-way that are above it in some very
important ways in terms of the capacity for the entire slough to attenuate and pass flows, as well as the
wetland functions for habitat, growing fish, as Mr. Hall had spoken of some hours ago now. That they're --
the wetlands, whether or not the birds are foraging on-site, the wetlands are growing fish and crawfish and
forage material for an endangered species, in particular the Wood Stork that nests less than five miles away
at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
So there is an effect, even if it's not directly on-site.
The third reason that we believe, Audubon believes that this project as it's submitted to you should
be denied and sent back to the drawing board is that it's counter to the public's interest in protecting
imperiled species and their habitats, particularly Wood Stork and the shallow seasonal short hydro-period
wetlands that are contained in this project site and the surrounding project sites, and providing flood and
watershed protection and all the existing functions, all of these which are existing functions on this site.
I want to show you that these wetlands in particular are unique in the landscape. This is a
predevelopment map that again comes from the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study effort, developed by
Dr. Mike Duever from the South Florida Water Management District. And in it he has -- this was helped--
developed to help estimate how much lift there would be, what effect are we going to go for in terms of
restoration throughout the landscape. Remember, this is a huge effort.
This is only looking at the Corkscrew Marsh watershed. Also, it shows the Estero Bay watershed in
a great proportion. The colors on this are meaningful to one extent.
I want to show you how prevalent in this landscape, in this watershed are the seasonal shallow
wetlands. Those are all the magenta colored areas on the map. And if! may point out, the Mirasol site is
right here going up to the county boundary, if you can see that.
That green there is cypress surrounded by areas of short seasonal -- short hydro-period seasonal
shallow wetlands. And obviously they're very predominant in the landscape.
The browns are uplands. The greens are deeper wetlands, marshes and swamp forest, cypress
sloughs, et cetera, those sorts of more traditionally recognized wetlands that are there pretty much year
round.
Short hydro-period wetlands are those which are wet six months of the year or less, so they may not
be wet all year round, and that's the Mirasol site.
This is the same area shown with 2004 South Florida Water Management District land use cover
data by FLUCCS code. And it's been color coordinated by Jason Lauritsen, the science coordinator at
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary with the same colors.
Now, obviously there are added colors for development and agriculture and some things that
Page 108
f
16 I 1 J~9,2009
weren't here predevelopment. But you can see the dearth of short hydro-period wetlands in the landscape
now. They're pretty much gone.
And this is an important factor for lots of different reasons. The short hydro-period wetlands, the
shallow wetlands play an important biological role in the landscape. When they're gone, we have problems.
And one of those problems is that the Wood Stork is an endangered species, and a major reason for
its peril is the loss of these early season foraging wetlands. They become available to feed in early in the
season. That would be November, December time frame. Those are the wetlands that dry up first as the dry
season progresses. If you don't have those wetlands, there's a consequence.
The consequences that, in the case of the endangered Wood Stork, of which the largest rookery in
the United States is at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. So the species, the recovery of the species is very
dependent in particular on the success of that rookery at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, as well as other
rookeries, but that's the largest rookery in the nation.
And we know a lot. Audubon has been collecting data on Wood Storks for pretty near 50 years, and
so we know a lot about Wood Storks.
And the data that we have now tell us that when Wood Storks begin nesting in November or
December, they have great nesting success. They fledge on average over 3,000 chicks, if they start nesting
in November, and over 4,600 chicks if they start nesting in December.
However, if they're delayed in their nest initiation to January or later, you can see the precipitous
drop in productivity. It's a big hit on Wood Storks not to be able to start nesting early in the season. And the
cue to nest is availability of forage. If you don't have those short seasonal wetlands then you do not have
early season nesting.
And let me go back to this map. You will see in this map that the largest concentration in the
Corkscrew Marsh watershed is in the Mirasol area. Right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you need to kind of wrap it up. It's been about 15 minutes, so kind of
get to the end, if you could.
MR. CORNELL: Okay, sure. Thanks. I'm sorry.
The bottom line is that we're not asking that this project be denied entirely of any development
potential. They obviously can develop a project on this site that could be very financially feasible and
rewarding. But they don't need to impact almost 600 acres of wetland.
I submit to you that under Policy 2.1, sub-paragraph D, that that is a very strong grounds for you all
to recommend denial and ask that this project to be redesigned without the golf courses, that would be one
suggested redesign feature, in order to better minimize their wetland impacts. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions?
Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, the first map that you put up that showed like in sections,
what was that map?
MR. CORNELL: This map?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. What is that?
MR. CORNELL: That map is the final watershed master -- watershed restoration master plan from
the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study. It's going to be -- it was just published in the Federal Register in
February. It's going to be submitted as part ofthe tentative TSP, the tentatively selected plan. This is under
the federal process for funding and design of restoration projects.
It's parallel to the CERP process, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Planning process. It's
how you go through getting money. You have to show what your restoration plans are. And this is basically
the result of the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study. They've been studying for eight years. This is the
result.
Page 109
""~""-",---~,--___,,_~,,,___,_,~,,___,____t__".",."" ....,'-,.~,'~_.'~-""'----~_.........--- ,.-.-
A "
j 11 ,,'
arch/19ho09
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The county is not under any obligation to abide by this.
MR. CORNELL: No, I'm just showing you that we would be wise to acknowledge and try and
avoid impacts to these flow-ways. And in fact, as Mr. Wiley pointed out in Figure 1 in our CCME in the
compo plan, we reference an earlier version of this map as a way of -- these are places that we want to
protect and include in our watershed management planning process.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My second question is, the environmentalist for the applicant said
that the only place where there was foraging for Wood Storks now was on the roads that go through the site
and a couple of cow ponds. Do you agree with that?
MR. CORNELL: I don't agree on that, because it's been documented in increasing frequency that--
the foraging of Wood Storks in forested wetlands. This was not acknowledged in even recent years. But
Wood Storks do forage in forested wetlands. Now, whether they're foraging, I personally have not seen
them on this site. You would have to ask somebody like Jason who is doing a research project right now.
He's been flying for three years regularly during nesting season taking pictures of where these Wood Storks
from Corkscrew Swamp are actually foraging. And he has been taking pictures of them in forested wetlands
like at the Mirasol site.
But the more important thing is that the hydrology of the wetlands still remains at the base of the
trees. Whether or not the birds are actually foraging in there, they're growing crawfish and forage fish that
actually draw down to other sites for foraging off-site even.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I asked Nicole this question. Did you get a chance to bring
this up and any other opinions you had before staff and EAC at any time?
MR. CORNELL: This is -- a lot of the data and rationale for our arguments here we have presented
numerous times to staff, to the Board of County Commissioners, even to this board and to the EAC, and I
presented pretty much the same presentation to the EAC when they had their deliberations.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. And this is an environmental issue, and I need to rely on
EAC and their opinion for this, because I'm a little confused by all the details.
MR. CORNELL: If I were you, I would concentrate on the ability to protect wetlands in that Policy
2.1 sub D.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, are you familiar with the Terafma site?
MR. CORNELL: I am, I have seen it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They have a preserve that's running down their eastern, which is
the adjoining property line of this thing. Does that preserve go all the way into the Immokalee Road canal?
In other words, is that a natural flow-way prior to hitting the engineered canal?
MR. CORNELL: That is part of the existing Cocohatchee west slough, yes. And it connects to -- if
I'm not mistaken, it does connect to that canal. All the water coming down through here does end up
through one means or another in that canal.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what you're suggesting is it would be best ifthere
was more preserve along the western boundary of this tied to that and maybe also joining up to the
engineered canal?
MR. CORNELL: Yes. In fact, the county bought a piece of land, a 19-acre parcel called the Milano
parcel for that express purpose. Also to allow for public access and having some schools across the street.
But if you look on the map, you'll see that there -- well, not that map, but if you had an aerial, you
could see that the Milano parcel is attached to the -- is contiguous to the flow-way. And if you engineered
Page 110
16 /1 MtJ9JOO9
perhaps a weir with an operable gate on the north bank of the berm that the South Florida Water
Management District has built, you could have a restored flow going through that parcel as well.
As you could do, and we had made that suggestion -- Jason Lauritsen had made that suggestion for
the Mirasol site, you could have weirs with operable gates that would increase the ability for pass flows and
peak storm events.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, do me a favor, put the second page, which is the location
map. And Brad, could you point to that parcel?
MR. CORNELL: It's a different -- here's a UDAR map of the same area. And this would suffice.
This is the Milano parcel right here. Can you see that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can. I got it.
MR. CORNELL: Here's Mirasol, Milano. And the flows come down through here through the top
part of Milano. Remember that berm goes along the north bank of the canal.
There are opportunities for restoration. In fact, that site has been restored by the county, since they
bought it. But not hydrologically.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that site is actually the access from the Terafina site to the
canal that's flowing through there, which is good --
MR. CORNELL: No, that's Olde Cypress directly above there. This is Olde Cypress.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right --
MR. CORNELL: And their preserve area is over here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they have a preserve and Terafina connects to that and
Parklands connects to that.
MR. CORNELL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, thank you.
Ray, do we have any further public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any remaining questions by the Planning Commission of
anybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's to Rich or maybe Wayne.
When I look at -- it's in the packet. It's Turrell and Hall's adjacent development and preserves
sketch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you pull your mic. a little closer to you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at the Turrell and Hall adjacent development and
preserve sketch. Maybe Ray, could you put that up on the -- it's the third page of the application, or our
package.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's under eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second page back.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, kind of what Brad is saying, doesn't that make sense? Isn't
there a way that this could be designed, redesigned so that you could actually take the water through a
wetland and bring it into the engineering, rather than pick up the engineering at the -- where the -- where the
project starts, where 10 and 15?
I mean, it seems like something is setting up there that looks good.
Page 111
'~'.,"".~''''"-- _...~ ~ ___~"'_""""",,,,",,,,,".',-""'..;"_r~'_""'_"'__~~"'-i .. -~--
!l": 1 .' '3 .,~
J
II
March 19,2009
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't understand the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What do you mean?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is that could -- have you looked at, you know, in the
design of the site where you went dO\\<l1 the western boundary line with preserves, like Terafma, Parklands
and Cypress went down their eastern, why couldn't you have gone down your western and connected that to
the canal?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess the answer to your question is, we went through an extensive review
and permitting process by the Water Management District, the Army Corps of Engineers, and they all
believe that we have adequately addressed the listed species issues and the water management issues
through the permitting process.
Could there be other designs? Possibly. But they've all signed off from a scientific standpoint for
this particular project and our requested development.
Nothing that's been said today by the two public speakers, who by the way I continually request
that they actually bring the experts that they're quoting and relying upon, because neither one of those two
individuals, and I have a lot of respect for them, they're no different than me, they're advocates and
lobbyists. I bring my experts to back up everything we say and everything we present. They don't.
Everything that they've said has been raised and discussed through the permitting process, and been
rejected.
What we're -- what we've proposed is a project that's permittable and addresses all of the concerns
raised by the various agencies.
I wrote down some quick notes, and if this is appropriate, I'd like to address those or I'll wait--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you focus on the question of Mr. Schiffer's first.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The concern is, is we've designed this where it's appropriate to address.
What the question is is flooding. And we have addressed the flooding issue through our design of the
system. We are not exacerbating any flooding, we are accommodating our impact to the flow-way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're doing it by picking up the natural flow and then --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And taking it through our system.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Via engineering.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not against engineering, you know that. Via engineering you're
going to bring it through the property.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other people are bringing it down through a flow-way. I
mean, the fear I have is that if that engineering isn't perfect or it doesn't work, it would actually put more
pressure on the other.
But the question was -- the best answer would have been yes, we really looked at that and we felt
that the engineering process was a better way to go.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It accomplishes the same goal. The engineering process accomplishes the
same goal.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sooner or later it's engineering on Immokalee, sooner or later it's
got to hit engineering. So it's a matter of arguing where it is.
I'm done. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I hate to let it go so easily, so I've got a question.
Based on the green cross slatches on this, how much land that's going to have the flow-way
involved in it is actually getting down to the canal? Because it looks like below the words Olde Cypress it
Page 112
16 J A3
I 1 March 19, 2009
stops.
And Rick, or Mr. Bob, Robert or somebody who knows more about this area, how is that flow-way
continuing to the canal if it stops on this plan as shown?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, that was the plug that Brad said the county bought to do --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it doesn't show that, it shows it as existing proposed
development. That's what I'm trying to get a verification on. I thought that too, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe I'm wrong, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, but it's crosshatched in black, which means it's supposed to
be development by this map's legend.
MR. HALL: I created that map. And basically what I had hatched in green were those areas that
were known to be dedicated as preserve areas. So it stops right there because that property was still in
private ownership and there was actually a development plan under review for that when I created this map.
I didn't know where the boundaries oftheir preserve or how they were passing the flow through
there, so that's not shown on here, just that the property was slated for some kind of a development activity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put that map back up for just a minute.
I understand now. So the map that you created with the crosshatches showing the flow-way
basically or the green hatched area stopping, that doesn't necessarily mean it stops there because of the land
that was bought by the county.
MR. HALL: The water still flows through there. The water still flows into the land bought by the
county. Because of the berm right there, it doesn't flow all the way through into the canal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See where the number 22 is?
MR. HALL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the green rectangle right next to the 22?
MR. HALL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way to connect that green rectangle to the Immokalee Road
canal ?
MR. HALL: There's an upland in the way. There's actually -- if you remember my uplands map.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have any definitive maps from you all in regards to the project
layout so I don't know what was planning to go in there. And my suggestion is that would help a lot to
retain some flow-way connection from that side of the project down to Immokalee Road. And it may not be
that big of a deal for you guys to accomplish that.
MR. HALL: But what I'm saying is that the flow -- there's an upland area or a ridge area at the very
southern end of the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That stops the flow?
MR. HALL: That stops the floor currently. Water only flows that way when it is high enough to go
over that upland.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's the UDAR map then? Because that map didn't seem to show that.
Ifwe could put that back up here now.
What increments are these colors in? So green to blue is a foot?
MR. HALL: Green to blue is a foot. So if you --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you go over to the area that's in question, it's a little bit more to the
right of that map. You've got one-foot difference all the way down to that Immokalee canal; is that right?
MR. HALL: You see how the blue comes down and then there's green right above the Immokalee
Road? There's like a green kind of half circle there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So the water only has to get a foot higher, which in that area isn't
unusual.
Page 113
. "-,- "'~..."""'""_...............__.""...._,-,_.._-~~.....-.~.,..,..".-
ff~ Ii':?"
~ Mirr .'J
..;;,;;;~, :ti ch19,2009
MR. HALL: That's the upland. It's not unusual, no. But I mean, in terms of just flow right there,
there would be a -- the water would still stack up there before it would flow through. It's not a -- it wouldn't
be a free-flow system until the water got up to those higher stages.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the water got up one foot higher it would start flowing across there
and get to that canal.
MR. HALL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of what I was getting at. Is there a way to do that through your
project? I don't know what you have on your project in that area. Is there is a way you couldn't
accommodate that?
MR. HALL: By -- I mean, redesigning the project. I mean, that would entail re-permitting and
redesigning.
No, they're talking about running it through the development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just leave the natural area right through that one area. It doesn't seem to be
restricted all the way to the canal except by one-foot elevation.
MR. HALL: And the berm. You'd have to take the berm down out of the canal as well, along the
canal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the berm put there by --
MR. HALL: By the South Florida Water Management District.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What brain in the South Florida decided that was a good thing to do?
MR. HALL: I don't know. I wouldn't answer that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they dam up all the water so you can't get to the canal that drains the
area.
I don't have any other questions. Anybody else?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: There are outfalls there.
MR. HALL: Yes, there are four two-foot pipes that go through the berm. And I don't know if we
have the map that shows where they're actually located or not. But I mean, a two-foot pipe isn't going to
pass enough water through there to do --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here we sit in the smart growth position. Wouldn't it be better if
these were six-story, seven-story, eight-story buildings and then the flow-way, the wetlands were kept? If
we increase the density. And the benefit of that would be the fact that we could keep these wetlands
together and create a natural flow-way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just -- I think it goes -- and I was heading in that direction but
now I'm concerned if there's this big berm along Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a manmade berm to obviously keep sheet flow from going in
in order to control what does go in.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is that, you know, Brad says take away the golf
course. That's one option. I don't know if! favor that. I say give them more height, increase the density,
that's another option. But the reward for both of those options or any other ones that everybody here could
come up with is a much better site plan is terms of wetlands.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the real life ramification is you send us through the permitting process
again. And in fairness, in 2001, this project, same master plan, came through, same impact areas came
through and there wasn't an environmental group here to say 586 acres of wetlands impacts was a bad thing.
Page 114
16 tJ,1~J9
They weren't here to say that.
Now all of a sudden it's a bad thing, yet it's the same footprint as we had before. And there's this,
quote, control about flood -- this concern about flooding, yet the previous plan had a flow-way that was
supposed to be a regional solution to this and they tell us to take the flow-way out. And then we get here
today to find out that now they're concerned that there's going to be flooding by that footprint.
It's -- I don't know how to even respond to some of the comments that they're saying about this
flooding and making it better when we've engineered a solution.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Rich, you know, we do get smarter. And maybe by giving you
all this aggravation we kept you out of a terrible real estate market. So maybe a thank you --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or you put us into it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or maybe a thank you would be appropriate.
I'm just saying is that, you know, talking to Brad, talking to everybody, and even the question Bob
Vigliotti asked is how come we haven't got together, maybe there's a much better solution than this. And
we're just keeping the legacy solution -- I'm sure the reasons they're here is because they've learned a lot
since that time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I'd like to believe that. I really would. But I don't think that's the case.
Look, their own exhibits that they've shown you today show you that the flow-way is in Section 10, okay?
And we're leaving Section lOin a preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of anybody before we go into final
comments from the applicant?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just in terms of tossing out ideas that may help preserve more
wetlands, what's the necessity of having 36 holes of golf? Why not 18 holes of golf?
I mean, I've heard Mr. Y ovanovich tell us a number of times that there is no market for golf course
communities anymore.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, but why overextend it? Why not 18 holes of golf? You've only
got 799 units here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, and in the future we'll have 799 homes and we'll have the opportunity
to have 36 holes of golf, and I don't think that's an inappropriate ratio to the homes to golf in the future, if
that pans out to what it needs to be as far as the golf course community goes.
We're looking for flexibility. And the question becomes are we harming in any way any listed
species in doing what we're doing? And the analysis has been, contrary to what Brad's saying, Brad Cornell,
the analysis has been there's been no harm to listed species in what we're proposing.
We're not asking for a bad form or potential form of development in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think the cry that it would be so awful if we had to go back for
reviews, if you're going back telling agencies that your impacts are going to be even less is hardly going to
cause some big uproar that's going to take you 10 years to get through the process.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've been 10 years through the process at this point.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But I'm saying if we're talking about lessening impacts, not
. .
IncreasIng --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But keep in mind -- right, in 2001 when this thing was approved, there were
no objectors, other than get out of Section 10, which we did.
We got a Water Management District permit issued in 2002. There were no objectors to that Water
Management District permit in 2002.
Now, Nicole will tell you that their most recent challenge didn't let them challenge the 2002 permit.
Page 115
<.....""'.---.~.......,.._"'""""'".".".<,..~..,-;;__"'._""""___.t_.,.'~'"'_~_-.'"":.,.",,,......,, '''',"',",,,-...,,,".,,,,.-.,.,,,,---. "' .....,-----"""'----_.-..'
eo,,, ...
. \ ".,
'1 ~ karch "i~~', 2~'09
Where were they in 2002? They had every opportunity in 2002 to challenge that permit if they thought it
was a bad thing for the environment. They didn't do it. They didn't do it.
And you know, there's -- to put us through this process with the hope, the hope that there's going to
be cooperation is unfair.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But Richard, our Growth Management Plan changed between then
and now, so there are other issues.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know what? And I like a phrase that Nicole used. She used the intent
word about 2.1.D. She said the intent. Mr. Wiley wrote it. Who better to tell you what the intent of that rule
was than Mr. Wiley. It was not a wetland preservation or mitigation rule, it was a water flow rule. He tells
you of the intent of that rule.
You have very detailed wetland impact rules in Policy 6.2. And it requires mitigation for those
impacts. And we have complied with all of those wetland impact rules.
You have native preservation rules. We've complied with all of those things. Those are your
wetland protection rules. This is a water flow rule, and we've complied with that water flow rule.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further questions or comments before we wrap this up?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, you have any closing comments? You do have to
address the deviation number two issue that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll do that. But I would like to have Steve Walker talk about some ofthe
comments of Brad's map, because he's familiar with that, in commenting on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a wrap-up now, remember.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. But we do get to response, don't we, to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty seconds.
MR. WALKER: My name is Steve Walker, again for the record. Just two seconds. The -- I wanted
to speak just briefly about the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study map that Brad put up.
The Southwest Florida Feasibility Study was a study by the federal government to determine
federal interest in terms of building a federal project in this area. It wasn't for any other purpose. And what
Brad showed you was an overall plan that came out of that process.
What he didn't point out to you was the red areas on that plan. Those red areas, out of all those
projects on that map, the red areas are the tentatively selected plan. That is the plan that's going to be
presented to Congress. That is the plan that the only part of that plan that has any federal interest in terms of
actually being implemented. It's important to understand that distinction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want to belabor the point. I think we've presented the evidence in our
packet of information that you've all received to prove to you that we're 100 percent consistent with your
Comprehensive Plan.
Your staff, who's charged with reviewing this, has agreed that we're 100 percent consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
We've done everything we're supposed to do for this project. We've gone through with the review
as we promised for our review of consistency.
We're asking that you forward this petition with a recommendation of approval of the Mirasol PUD
in its current configuration with the flow-way out, as we promised to take it out, the manmade flow-way
out.
And again, if you've got any further questions of me or the team of experts that I brought to address
any of these questions, we'll be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
Page 116
16 I lA .J1arch 19,2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Deviation two is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, the deviation number two. I'll read it in the record, thank you.
What we would propose is for any cul-de-sac exceeding 1,200 feet in length, the roadway must
include at approximately 1,200 feet intervals design features which provide the ability of vehicles to turn
around. Traffic roundabouts, eyebrows, hammerheads or similar design features shall be allowed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think -- could you put the emergency vehicles? In other
words, they have a standard for hammerheads and all those other things different than an --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Emergency vehicles to turn around.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If that works, everybody else will be happy, including moving
vans and everything else. That sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll generalize it, ifit gets to a stipulation, and then staff can get
the language directly from you and we can review it later.
Ms. Homiak, you were next.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, Rich, did you -- was it ever considered to move that
development over from the west, move it over a little so that that would widen the flow-way there with the
other properties, other developments instead of -- and using that as the avoidance to impact --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure there were many, many iterations of a plan that went through the
process to determine the avoidance and minimization impacts through the permitting process. And this is
the plan that the agencies can support regarding impacts to wetlands, impacts to listed species and impacts
to --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you don't know what different things went through?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And as pointed out, that in 2001 when they were going through the process,
you have to remember, there was development up in Section 10 that was forced south into 15,22. So, you
know, that gave a little bit less flexibility.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Was that from the BCC?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was from the environmental groups, and the BCC agreed that that needed
to happen and we agreed to move the development out of Section 10.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, I thought you wanted to say something.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, if you do go ahead with this plan as it's written, would that
require you to get rid of all the melaleuca within your whole project?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we have to clean it up, to the tune of about $5 million.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and we'll go for discussion
before a motion. Does anybody have anything they want to say?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciated every bit oftestimony that's been given here today.
But I find I cannot support this project based on CCME 2.1.D. I can't ignore the fact that this would destroy
wetlands and watershed excessively. I believe the master plan needs to be more effective for us to be able to
qualify.
And while it may be very desirable to have two golf courses, somewhere along the line we have to
take note of the water needs that we have for the critters that live among us. So I cannot support it.
Page 117
'-'."'--,,->-<, -, .."'..-""'.,,........-,-"
> f J 1 1 7
,,~'";) , ''::1!
\~'-/ 'arc 19, 20~9
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, this is discussion, yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ifit's discussion, I will be supporting this motion. I'll probably
even make the motion for approval. They've went through every possible environmental. They've been
jumping through hoops with the environment and every permitting process there is. And I haven't heard
anything from staff, who we rely on, to give us any reason not to approve this. So I will be voting for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll say something, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm going to be -- if this was a new application, the points I
made earlier, I would really be staying stronger with, but I think because it's the legacy of this, the respect
for the fact that a PUD is a zoning and this site did have prior zoning, that it's really not fair to bring it back
as if it's a virgin application. So I'll probably be seconding your motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I don't support the proposal. I don't support it based on 2.1.D.
Also 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.3.6, and 6.2.5.
I'm also very -- I don't think we should be approving plans with master plans that look like they
were drawn on the back of a napkin. I don't think that gives us enough good information on which to make
decisions.
I'm still concerned, very concerned about what happens when their outflow reaches the
Cocohatchee Canal and what happens downstream, which was testified that nobody has to pay attention to
that right now.
This canal empties into the Wiggins Pass Estuary System and outstanding Florida waters, and we
need to show more respect for that, number one.
Number two, this is already an impaired situation, and we do nothing to help that by adding to the
situation. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, believe it or not, I'm going to be supporting this project.
Because even though I don't like it, to me it seems as though it does comply with all the rules. Even though
I dislike the way the rules are set that you can take out all those wetlands and still have a project, and that
you can re-engineer things so that by a system of lakes and canals that you can control pollution and
outflow in terms of leaving things in a more natural state. But I don't see where they're not complying with
the rules the way that they are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we have had a lot of discussion today on CCME 2.1.D. And I
personally started last week as soon as I got these documents and pulled down six inches of data, many,
many maps, trying to understand 6.1.0 (sic).
And what I found out was there is no definition of flow-ways. There are a lot ofthings that aren't
really defined when it comes to this particular application.
So I met with staff, and in particular, Mr. Wiley was very helpful. I found out he is the author, just
like we have found out other people who have authored documents that we have reviewed. When actually
you get to the author, you find how the document should be interpreted, based on what the author feels it
has. And we had that example a few weeks ago.
Mr. Wiley stood before us today and says that the interpretation of 2.1.D as he wrote it and as he
intended it was in line with the way this project was designed. And for that reason, and for the simple
reason that I cannot find a logical way to deny it, I will have to support the motion in favor of it.
And with that in mind, I want to ask that the following considerations be in any stipulation to
approve.
Page 118
16 F" A 3
I lMarch 19,2009
Number one, that the referenced site location for the clubhouse and the restaurant and the
community-wide uses be added to the master plan. That the word native be put in front of wildlife
sanctuaries. That the references to stories in the development standards table be -- list the stories but not to
exceed the 50 foot that's referenced. That the multi-family height be inclusive of the parking garages if there
are any underneath the buildings. That the golf course lot setback shall be 10 feet for all structures. And that
the deviation number two will be modified with the language read into the record that conceptually it's just
that anything greater than 1,200 feet and every 1,200 feet thereafter, some form of turnaround be provided
for emergency vehicles.
And that's the only stipulations that I've made notes of since this started. I don't know if anybody
else has any others they think are needed.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think -- I would like the EAC recommendations included.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. That would go--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. Yes to both.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as that goes, is there a motion then?
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved what?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved for approval with the changes and staffs
recommendations and the EAC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the motion will be by acknowledgment and hand-raising. All in favor
of the motion, signify by saying aye and raise your hand.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
One, two, three, four, five in favor.
All those against, same sign.
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three against. Motion carries 5-3.
And with that, we have finished a painstakingly long day. I hope.
Is there any old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any new business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
Page 119
, "^"h"~,",~~__"~_~~__.~~~~_~_",~_.,,,,__ .. .. ,.', "_.,~",_~..~_,.."__.".__.___..__.~..,'._,'.~..__._____ - _. _._ no.. _._.,_,______.
\ 1
~". . '"'Y .~
~
:;
March 19, 2009
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
We're adjourned. Thank you.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County. the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 5: 12 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
.il
,
'k
These minutes approved by the Board on rv~ ltLl '7 'lOCe) , as presented
,
L./ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY
CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM
Page 120
16 (P1iJ, 2009 ./
/ ,
'1@l11I --
t=t~I~i TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE RECEIVED
t=\@tming COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
~~ Naples, Florida MAY 1 8 2009
Co~ April 2, 2009
J/ Board ot County Commissioners
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
,
-1
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: f
CHAIRMAN : Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Karen Homiak
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti (Absent)
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Misc. Corres:
Date:
item#:
Page 1 to
",- "-"~""'~..'."'^,,"'-""" JI ""I "'IV ~""__""",~";,_~_,,,,,''''.O',,_~ "_'''" <_~'_""o
", ,I ~ .{! j tt;
{-;;:~ Ii ", ~.
.:. ~::J L,;.,:.lO "'"
April 2, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 2nd meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti won't be here today, so will the assistant vice-chair
take roll call, please.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Eastman is absent.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And who's this person in the yellow? I'm -- oh, Mr. Wolfley.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's a ghost.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present today.
CHAIRMAN STRAlN: And Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
And Mr. Eastman also had other business, he couldn't make it today either. So both him and Mr.
Vigliotti are absent for that reason.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. 1 don't believe there are any changes.
Ray, do you have any?
MR. BELLOWS: Were you going to move the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's -- thank you, yes.
Is David Weeks in the audience? Oh, he's hiding behind the podium. Okay, yes, we'll move David
up till right after Chairman's report before the consent agenda items.
Item #4,
Page 2
1611A3;
April 2, 2009
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is April 16th. Is
anybody not going to be able to make it on April 16th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley, you're going to make it?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I believe I an1, yes.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2009, RLSA MEETING; MARCH 2, 2009, SIGN CODE
MEETING; MARCH 5, 2009 . REGULAR MEETING
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, approval of minutes. The -- we had three sets. The
first one is February 26th, 2009, for the RLSA. Is there a recommendation to approve?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make the motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron made the motion, Ms. Homiak seconded. You
get another chance.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
March 2nd, 2009.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Homiak made the motion. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wasn't here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
Page 3
.,.,., ,.~.~"_.._"._..- "~-,-,".".""'- WI ~,".,'-"""""-" .--.-..'" _~"__o''"..~
'" AI ! 1 l L~ t..~
",: \ ,. i
l "
,
Aprfl 2, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
The March 5th minutes have a couple of small problems. And I credit the clerk's recording office
for catching this. On Page 3 of the minutes under item five, it says approval of minutes, and the first one
reads January 28th, 2009 RLSA. The second one reads January 30th, 2008 RLSA. That should be 2009.
And the third one reads February 5th, 2008, and that should read 2009.
So with those corrections, if there are none other, is there a motion to recommend approval?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Ms. Caron, seconded by Ms. Homiak.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MARCH 24. 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any BCC report?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On March 24th, the Board of County Commissioners heard on their
regular agenda the PUD rezone for the Heavenly CFPUD. That was approved 5-0, subject to Planning
Commission recommendations. And they made an additional change or modification and that was to Tract
B, to reduce the square footage from 20,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have been nice if they had done that here. Maybe they could
have gotten a better vote, so hopefully next time that will happen. Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: And \ve had one other item on the summary agenda, that was a sign variance for
Spring Hill. That was approved on the summary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Chairman's report. Just to follow up on what I started talking
about a couple weeks ago, and that's the issue ofMuni. Code, I think it was either last night or the night
before, the county attorney's ot1ice sent us all bye-mail the Municode contract. I have -- with today's
agenda. I did not have time to read that, but I certainly will read it between now and the next meeting.
Page 4
10 1ft AJ.
. April 2, 2009
Mr. Klatzkow, is there anything else you want to add?
MR. KLA TZKOW: We expect to have everything cleared up with Municode within two or three
weeks, and we expect not to have any problems after that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, good.
Item #l1A
NEW BUSINESS: SCHEDULE HEARING DATES FOR GMP AMENDMENTS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that would be relief. Thank you.
Okay, David, let's get into your item of scheduling. The issue is the GMP amendments.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice you've got some down here for 2010. We don't really have to
look at 2010 right now, do we? I mean--
MR. WEEKS: Ifwe want to lock in the board room, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? Wow.
MR. WEEKS: The longer we wait to schedule these, the less availability there is in the board
room. That's why we've looked out so far.
For the record, I'm David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department.
In preparing this schedule, there's a few things that we as staffhave to keep in mind. We have
limitations on the availability of the board room, limitations on the availability of the BCC members, we
have spacing requirements we need to maintain between one hearing and the next. For example, roughly a
month between your final regular hearing and then your consent agenda.
We also, as you know, are asking for hearing dates on two sets of amendments, the 2007 and 2008
combined cycle, and the Immokalee Master Plan amendment. And we need a certain separation between
those two from critical points, points where staff is devoting a tremendous amount of time on one cycle,
preparing for your first hearing. We would not want to have a critical time point on the Immokalee Master
Plan. It would be too much for staff to handle at one time.
And of course we also have many other major work projects in our department which we have to
take into account as well and to schedule.
Specifically in the memo sent to you for the 2007 and '08 cycle for which there are a total of 10
private sector petitions and a minimum of one county-initiated amendment, we are asking for you to set
two transmittal hearing dates: Tuesday, October 20th and Thursday, October 29th of this year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, could we take those one at a time?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, when we read this stuff in these packages, it's sometimes all
read collectively. I'm wondering if, the pleasure of this board, if the 19th and 20th would be better where
we do the 19th and have a carryover on the 20th. Might be simpler to handle than trying to spread it out
over two weeks.
MR. WEEKS: The reason that we've suggested some separation is, as you know, we hope to avoid
this but it seems inevitable that one or more petitioners may want a continuance or, based upon discussion
-- prior to the meeting, or during deliberations here there may -- it may be apparent that a petitioner wants a
continuance or you yourselves are identifying issues that you might think it's best to delay an item. One day
doesn't allow an adequate time for either the applicant or staff or whoever needs to make changes or
respond to issues enough time. We are hoping that by providing about a week or so in between that that
would accommodate that circumstance.
Page 5
....-..... .".......0.,._"'__ _ ,. -"-"-_'."'_T .~ If.. 1 ,c;._,.....,..., ~...,-"..,-_.,_.~. '--""
n 1
h ""f~
; ~
~ \.' :1"
.../1
April 2, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only comment I'd like to make is that if you leave it like it's
scheduled, from our experience with staff so far, when we have continuances, it's awful hard to get them
done in two weeks, you're talking less time than that, including weekends, probably seven days. So why
would you think this would work for that scenario when you -- I don't know how you guys -- you can't get it
done, do public notice and get our package to us within the time frames you've got here between the two
dates. So if we had a continuance that close together, what good would it do?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. WEEKS: For any major changes. you're right, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL if they're minor, we should work them out here on the floor, to be
honest with you.
I mean, I don't know what the rest of you think, but I would just as soon the two days back-to-back.
What do you think, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL this may be self-serving. The 29th I couldn't make it. But
the two days back-to-back is really good to start and then wait a week and then finish. I would rather just
hammer something and get it done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the general consensus of the committee?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have an opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, could we try that?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 19th and 20th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. sir. 19th and 20th of October.
Yes, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, if you want to keep that open, there may be
something that you could pull into the 29th, in case that ever happens.
MR. WEEKS: We'll do that. We'll keep that in reserve as a possible carryover.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Let's, yeah, make the 29th the alternative. That would be better,
so --
MR. WEEKS: And then jumping ahead to the adoption hearing, which admittedly is far out in
time, but we're suggesting Tuesday. July 20th and Friday, July 23rd of201O.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, looking again -- we're 15 months from now. We don't even know if
this country's going to be here in 15 months, well enough this planning commission.
But why don't we again do them back-to-back? Because honestly. on an adoption hearing, we're
supposed to have all the issues resolved except for the cleanup from DCA.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those meetings should go quicker. I would expect we could get it
done in one day if you use the alternative date as the first time we meet and then the 20th as a cleanup, and
leave a second alternative for the 23rd, I think you'd be safe that way.
MR. WEEKS: That's fIne by me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the rest of us?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's the 2012 dates on here? I'm sure they're somewhere.
(Laughter. )
MR. WEEKS: Okay. Next -- and let me interject something that I did mention in the memo, and
that is that we realize that looking this far out it's certainly possible that circumstances could change, and
Page 6
. 16 'A~I{ 2009
we may have to scrap these dates and start over.
Most particularly, ifthere hasto ~e c~tinuances, if for some reason this body is not able to get
through all ofthese petitions on these dates we've just set forth here, then we may have to push this
schedule out. And if this schedule moves, then the Immokalee Master Plan schedule in all likelihood
would have to move again, because there's a certain correlation again between those.
The other thing of course is we have to see if the Board of County Commissioners might change
priorities. We hope not, we don't think so, but it's always possible that when they discuss the RLSA
five-year review later this month, that they could change priorities of the plan amendments and give that set
of RLSA amendments a higher priority, which would then disrupt these schedules.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as the Immokalee area master plan, David, all your dates are in
2010.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any objection on this panel whether any of those
dates are to be used? None of them are close together, they're all scattered.
So David, I don't know -- unless someone knows one of those dates is bad for them right now --
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know if we're still thinking in terms of the availability of the
board room, but I'd like to see some of those meetings in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. That's a real good point. Thank you for reminding
us of that. We did that before with one or two subjects. And if I remember, our enabling ordinance allows
that to occur. Why don't we look at moving those to lmmokalee?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, we can take a look.
One of the -- I would say the main reason we didn't even look over in Immokalee is because of
cost. There is an additional cost. I'm not going to suggest to you that it's significant, but as you're aware,
we've already had a series of staff cuts and we anticipate -- or I'll speak personally, because I don't know
that there's any official word out there -- but moving beyond our division, knowing the budget constraints
that the county as a whole is under, I would anticipate that we may have additional staffing cuts.
And that's one perspective, and a rather selfish one, perhaps. But I'm just thinking that if staff is
being cut, if other cutbacks are being made, yet we're saying let's don't meet here, let's go somewhere else to
meet, that's going to cost additional funds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a year, almost two years off. Why don't we just schedule those
dates here like they are, but we can always ask the commissioner from the district to explore the idea with
his commission. Between now and then I'll certainly bring it up to him, because he's the same district I am,
and Mr. Midney as well.
We can suggest the idea to him and see if he wants to bring it up to his other board members and
see if they wanted to move it like that. Okay, does that work?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, David. Is that all you need?
MR. WEEKS: That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we do have one public speaker on this item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: Tim Hancock.
MR. HANCOCK: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's shaking his head no.
Page 7
"-"'~'~ -, ---.-.., ,.._ "~"'~M'--"*_'''_ . -~~,",'.~y""'" '" .... .~ ~.~~-
.~ /'1 ~?~ 'f
~
~...;.j . c-;~;/ I
April 2, 2009
I didn't know this was even controversial, so you caught me off-guard there.
Okay, well, that ends that issue. Now we'll go on to the -- and by the way, for the record, that was
number lI.A, moved up to after 7, for the convenience of staff.
And any time a staff item like that is on the agenda, if we move it up to the front, it's a lot better
than having stalf sit here all day and wait for it. Right now with as few as there are, the more productivity
can be at their offices than be here, so -
Item #8A
PETITION: CU-2003-AR-3725. CLOSE UP CREATURES. INe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent agenda items. The first one is Petition CU-2003-AR-3725,
Close-Up Creatures, Inc., otherwise known as Ngala.
Does anybody have any changes or corrections or modifications to that particular item?
Mr. W oltley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't think I'll be able to vote on any -- either -- any three of --
let me try that again. I won't be voting on any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Y ou're going to abstaining because you weren't here when they were
discussed.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That is correct. If I can spit that one out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I saw in the changes on Exhibit D, it's on item three, it says
visitors shall be transported to the site using buses. van or limousine. Then the next word, it says, arrival by
private vehicle is prohibited.
I think one of the Planning Commission members, I think it might have been Mr. Schiffer,
suggested we put the word visitor in front of the word arrival. so that the workers can show up in private
vehicle.
I had a note to that effect, so why don't we make sure that word's in there. There's no cloudiness as
to what they can and cannot do then.
Is that okay with everybody?
(Nods of heads.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that one change in mind, are there any other corrections?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to recommend approval?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Homiak.
Good. A couple of times we heard you today. That's great.
Any comment, any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 8
16 I 1A31
. April , 2009
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I abstain. I wasn't here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, two abstentions. Six to zero, Mr. Midney and Mr. Wolfley
abstaining.
I guess you guys, you're going to be the same for all -- except you were here for Mirasol, were you
not?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nodding head affirmatively).
Item #8B
PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE FOUNDATION, INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next consent item is Petition PUDA-2007-AR-11546. It's the Longshore
Lake Foundation, Inc. for the Longshore PUD. And it's a signage issue that was discussed two weeks ago.
Anybody have any corrections or changes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak.
Discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, except for the two abstentions, so it will be 6-0, Mr.
Midney and Mr. Wolfley abstaining.
Item #8C
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, 1M COLLIER JOINT VENTURE
CHAIRMAN STRAIN; Next petition is PUDZA-2007-AR-12046. It's the I.M. Collier Joint
Venture, Mirasol PUD.
Page 9
.,.- _",..__"OM." -_.--,-","-- _ "-"""""""'~""_H,.,.~~"_"'d,<"..._." .,.......,.,'_.......,...._.,.., ."__~'~' -'--."-'
f ~l .~ ":? ~
'j I ' ~ >> .
I
_b !
April 2, 2009
We were all passed out one correction that was provided to us. And if you recall, under the
maximum zoned height there were two inserts about stories. The words not to exceed the 50-foot mark
were supposed to be inserted into that. That now has gotten done.
Mr. Schiffer, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, they've also removed footnote nine, which I think we
were pretty clear on that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, footnote nine was supposed to stay in. So the only change to the
maximum zoned height was supposed to have the words "not to exceed" be added. And I think footnote
nine was under the multi-family dwelling one, and that was supposed to stay in.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing is, is the word in it they changed. It's 50 feet. So they
give us that. Five stories. That's fine.
I mean, the way it is as it was handed out is fine. The meeting tent where somebody tried to bury
the removal 01'9, and not a good move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 9 was under the multi-family dwelling under maximum zoned
height, and that needs to go back in. Is that the consensus?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And they've also removed it from the actual footnote, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, they did?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think one thing we should do, let's -- any time anybody puts an
exhibit, especially on the day we're supposed to review it, they should really in red or something really
explain what they did. Because I guess had I not discovered that, this thing would have gone through
without it, and what is that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1-- if number nine wasn't there, the 50-foot, I don't believe -- well,
not to exceed 50 feet. I'm not sure they could override that with the exemption for the parking decks, but
it's better to have it there for clarity.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because there is a thing in the LDC that allows parking under a
building, and that wouldn't count as a story. They could essentially have built a seven-story building.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We've been there,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so number 9 goes back in, and then n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it should stay as it was handed off to us over the weekend.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, do you?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the maximum zoned height, it says 50 feet. That means
something. And it says five stories, that's okay. And then it has footnote number 9. Why say 50 feet, five
stories not to exceed 50 feet? The 50-foot's redundant in that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem is we at the meeting, I know I made the notation, I
brought it up at the meeting that we needed to add that language. It was agreed to. It didn't get in the
document. I don't know if we can change it at a consent hearing.
Mr. Klatzkow is shaking his head no.
I don't know if it hurts anything, Brad, to have that clarity in there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. But number 9's got to go back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree, number 9 was always intended to be in. So staffwill put that
back in. We'll leave the underlined changes "not to exceed" in there as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And can I ask staff a question? Did they know that number 9 was
removed, or is this n
Page 10
16 J AJ .
, 1 APril'12oo9
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, number 9 -- this all happened last night, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, somebody physically removed it, so what's happening
here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay? How did the number 9 get taken out; do you know?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem.
In speaking with the petitioner last evening, she said that she thought that number 9 was what she
had put in there and what we had understood that you wanted for that limitation, and that would suffice.
And she took it out because once the 50 foot got put in yesterday, she thought that made it clear, so
you didn't need that footnote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'd concur with Mr. Schiffer, he's exactly right, any little thing that's
missed for clarity becomes a real problem. So I think putting the new language in and adding number 9
sure doesn't hurt, doesn't let it -- removes any question in the future, and that's what I think this board
recommended and voted on last time. So I think that's the way it's got to stay.
MS. DESELEM: I will make sure that footnote 9 goes back in and the 50-foot limitation that was
added on this Exhibit B remains.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think in the future, should something like that be brought to
your attention, it should not come out until you've come to this commission, and then we can determine
whether or not it should come out. It should not be the petitioner's representative who thinks something
should happen.
MS. DESELEM: I apologize for that. I should have jumped on that right away yesterday, and
stopped that right then --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Been there too.
MS.DESELEM: -- and I do apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Kay, would you send us -- when that's corrected, would you
send us what is going to go to the commission?
MS. DESELEM: Certainly. Is e-mail acceptable?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: PDF is perfect. And all it has to be is Exhibit B.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. And the footnote will probably reflect today's date. That way you'll know
that it's the changed document.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whatever, but okay. That was dangerous.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, very.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Considering it's happened in the past, it was a good catch.
Okay, are there any other comments on this one?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a recommendation -- or is there a motion to approve the
consent item?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion.
Ms. Homiak? Karen? It's your turn.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But I voted against it last time, I can make the motion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, on the consent item, yes. Consent just means it's consistent with what
Page 11
'~''-''--"",", ~,,-,~.~,_.-_...,."-. '-~-~ _."~.,.,_.~_...""",,,,, _.._-
,', r,; f'\ )
i~ 3
U 4: " !
~ >,
't. p~~
..-
April 2, 2009
the vote was --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So do we have to vote yes for this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have to vote yes for this unless you believe it's inconsistent
with what the majority vote was last time. Is that n Mr. Klatzkow, is that a fair --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The consent item has been made and seconded.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how many abstained?
Mr. Wolfley, did you abstain?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it's 7-0. one abstention.
Item #9 A
PETITION: V A-2008-AR-13977, MCDONALDS USA, LLC (CONTINUED)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we can move into our regular advertised hearings. We have
coming back to us today Petition V A-2008-AR-13977. Tim Chess of McDonald's USA, LLC. It's for the
McDonald's on the East Trail, so it was continued from last meeting.
And J.D. is looking around like uh-oh.
Those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly swom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The attomey for McDonald's had e-mailed me and just to apparently let
us know they had made the changes, and I told them at this point I didn't know of any concerns, we'll just
have to see what comes out at the meeting.
And J.D., you can represent both yourself and the applicant today.
MR. MOSS: Good moming, Commissioners. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go into this, Mr. Klatzkow, without an applicant here, can we
proceed?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's their application. If they're not here, it doesn't go forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. WelL now we know they're not here.
Page 12
, 16 , 1 A 3
April 2, 2009
Have you any communication with them to tell them that today was their date?
MR. MOSS: Right, they were aware of that, and they told me yesterday that they would be here
this morning. They are coming from out of town and so I wonder if that has something to do with it. They
were coming down from Tampa.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with the board's permission, why don't we delay this till later today.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Thank you, J.D.
With that we'll move on to Petition V A --
MR. MOSS: I don't know where they are either.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You can quickly disapprove it.
Item #9B
PETITION: V A-2008-AR-14017, MERIT PETROLEUM CO.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, wait a minute. You mean Metro Petroleum Company is not here?
Oh, yes, they are. Okay. Boy, times are getting tough out there. People don't even show up for petitions
anymore.
Petition V A-2008-AR-140 17, the Merit Petroleum Company, represented by Bert Thomas. It's on
617 West Main Street in Immokalee.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant may proceed.
MR. THOMAS: By name is Bert Thomas. I'm an architect from Tampa, Florida. We made it
down.
And we are representing --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That hurt.
MR. THOMAS: As an architect, I've got to get in every dig I can at attorneys.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I want to commend you and
your staff here in Collier County for the great job that they've done in assisting us, somebody from out of
town not familiar with your procedures. It has been a pleasure to deal with the people over at Horseshoe
Drive. And I'd like for you guys to send some people to Hillsboro County and do a quick seminar on how
to assist the public. As you --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the first time we've --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe's head should be pretty swelled.
MR. SCHMITT: Wow, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's nice to hear, thank you. We usually hear a lot of different things
from local people, so --
MR. THOMAS: Well, they should come up to my neck ofthe woods.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. THOMAS: At any rate, as you have seen in your staff report, this property was developed
back in 1960; remained pretty much the same condition as it has all these years.
This process started because my client wanted to upgrade their fueling capacities according to
Page 13
-~'''"'''' " ~-~_..._."~,,-,~-,,~,-" ... ".""',.....,.,..,._"~.._....""<M_' ~__.,_,___.____.,_"_,~__,_,_.._'"M...._____..._.,_.~__..___.___._____
~) I '01 .J ~
"":\ I'" ')
.1 --:J ~
April 2, 2009
code. They have underground fuel storage tanks and they wanted to upgrade those per code, and the
dispensers as well.
As we began to look at it, it became obvious that we wanted to upgrade the site, update the site.
That would relieve some traffic issues on-site. There are some places where delivery trucks come in
around the back of the store, as you've seen the site plan. Sometimes they get trapped in there because of
people coming in to fuel their vehicles, the personal vehicles. And so there's some on-site traffic issues that
we wanted to relieve.
They wanted to get the fueling vehicles. personal vehicles further away from the driveway. Right
now people are practically sitting in the driveway off of Main Street as they fuel their vehicles.
And I already mentioned about the loading and delivery vehicles being trapped.
As our initial plan started to be reviewed by your people on the planning commission (sic), they
wanted us to also bring the on-site parking up to current parking code, which makes a lot of sense. They
wanted us to upgrade on-site traffic markings, directional arrows. stop signage, that type of thing.
We also want to upgrade the landscaping, which does not comply at this time. And also we're
going to increase the pervious area slightly by removing some paving, which will give us more landscaping
areas.
The building itself will be painted during this project, which will bring it more into line with the
CRA of Immokalee. And there will be a new overhead canopy as the canopy and the dispenser pumps both
move to a much more conducive area. for the reasons I stated earlier.
And we will be upgrading the handicapped accessibility from the public right-of-way into the
building by means of pavement markings and handicap ramps, that type of thing.
As you will notice on our zoning application, our initial zoning application, we had asked for two
variances. It became obvious during the review process that we actually needed five, because that's a
corner -- it was determined it's a comer lot. So some of the initial variances we had requested were
reviewed and they need five now.
What I have is an addendum letter that was sent to us late yesterday by the Immokalee Community
Redevelopment Agency and signed by Mr. Fred Thomas, who is the chair of that advisory board. And I got
this yesterday from Bradley Muckel at Collier County Government, and it lists that they do support all five
variances. I can provide that to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll need it for the record.
MR. THOMAS: And so who do I give that to?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This young lady here. And at least -- how many copies do you have?
MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry, I got it late yesterday as I was running out of the office. Can I give this
one to her?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., is it short enough to read into the record?
MR. MOSS: Sure. It is.
CI-IAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you or the stat1~ someone needs just read it into the record, then
give a copy of it to the court reporter. That way we'd hear it instead of having it passed out to us, that
should work.
MR. THOMAS: Okay, I'll beg your indulgence then.
From the Collier County Building Review and Permitting Department -- or that's to the Building
Review and Permitting Department, Mrs. Susan Istenes, Director of Zoning and Land Development,
concerning this property at 617 West Main Street in Immokalee.
Dear Mrs. Istenes. This letter has been drafted as an addendum to the letter sent to you on
September 18th, 2008 for the above referenced project.
The Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board would like to take this
Page 14
16 I 1 A3
April 2, 2009
opportunity to address the permitting issues surrounding the above referenced project.
This parcel has been engineered for redesign by the owner, Merit Petroleum, to ultimately be
operated as a Shell gas station. However, the owner's representative, Mr. Jack Milholland, of Merit
Petroleum and his engineer have had written and verbal correspondence with your staff regarding six points
of concern with the redesign, which have halted both zoning and building department approvals.
Please let this letter represent the Immokalee CRA Advisory Board's support ofMr. Milholland in
the following variance items:
A 12-foot variance from the SO-foot front yard setback along West Main Street, State Road 29, to
permit a 38-foot setback for the dispenser island canopy.
A nine-foot variance from the SO-foot front yard setback along Seventh Street South to permit a
41-foot setback for the dispenser island canopy.
A 19- foot variance from the SO-foot front yard setback along West Main Street to permit a 31- foot
setback for the easternmost fuel pump dispenser island.
A two-foot variance from the SO-foot front yard setback along West Main Street to permit a
48-foot setback for the westernmost fuel pump dispenser island.
And a 17-foot variance from the SO-foot front yard setback along Seventh Street South to permit a
33-foot setback for the westernmost fuel pump dispenser island.
Acceptance of the proposed color of the planned fuel pump canopy. The color scheme ofthis
pump canopy has been proposed as yellow and red, which is the standard color scheme for Shell
Corporation's pump canopies.
Feedback from the Collier County Building Department is that this does not correspond with the
county earth tone regulations.
The CRA Advisory Board supports Mr. Milholland in his efforts to revitalize downtown
Immokalee, and has advised Mr. Milholland to seek a variance for the items outlined above.
Please feel free to contact me for clarification, should it be required. Sincerely, Fred N. Thomas,
Jr, Chair, CRA Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you very much. And we need to make sure a copy of that
gets to the court reporter, because you talked pretty fast, but I didn't think it would be a problem, because
she'll have the original document to refer to anyway, so --
MR. THOMAS: Should I give this letter to her now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would be fine, if you don't mind.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions that I can answer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, as soon as you give that letter to her, we'll entertain questions.
And Mr. Wolfley, it looks like you're first up.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If I can speak this morning.
You had mentioned CRA, and I'm sure you're aware of along Main Street, 1 st and 7th, they call the
bookends, creating the -- you know, the CRA for the --
MR. THOMAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- for Immokalee.
Are you going to be consistent with that on 7th, since you're going to be right across the street from
that -- oh, let me just call it a park or public facility that's going to be there and with landscaping and --
well, and I was going to get into the colors, but you've already brought it up. They're going to be quite -- I
don't know whether it would be Mexican or Aztec or that type of design.
Are you pretty much in synch with what's going on there across the street?
MR. THOMAS: Mr. Wolfley, I'm not prepared to answer that question. I might ask Mr. Moss for
some help on that.
Page 15
-, -,._-_._.._..,_.._~--_._---"--"",~..._"--,---;,,,.--..,,-,,-_..-..,,"..~~,,~.,--,..".,-"'_.._,."'--",;.~-"~,,-,.._..,~"~~-",- -.,.-
~ ~p~112d6;3 ..
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're referring to the CRA's work going on in Jmmok -- they're the ones
that just wrote the approval letter.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't they have looked at that, do you think?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I would have thought. But, I mean, it just seem -- they've
gone through extensive research, even down to pots, that there are going to be certain pots and colorations
that they're going to be using, and I just think it would be -- I see Mr. Midney shaking his head. It would be
a shame to not have that be in concert.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure what codes we have that -- beyond our architectural
code that allows us to enforce private rules that they have in Immokalee for Main Street. But this
gentleman having the cooperation of the CRA in this letter he read to us most likely has reviewed this with
them. Otherwise--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, it was just a suggestion.
MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir, they have seen the site plan. We've had conversation with Mr. Thomas
and of course planning staff.
What was our final determination on the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to talk into the mic.. sir.
MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, she has to wTite down everything you say, so--
MR. MOSS: If! may, for the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review.
The applicant was just asking me about the colors. Mr. Thomas in his letter said that the
Immokalee community would be supportive of a pump canopy that is yellow and red. But that does
contradict our architectural review criteria and so that would not be permitted. We would require earth
tones, except for 10 percent of the canopy facade could be in a primary or secondary color.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and when you just said -- in the letter he said that the lmmokalee
community. I thought he was speaking as a member of the CRA Advisory Board. So he's not really talking
for the community, he's talking for the advisory board.
MR. MOSS: Absolutely. Thank you for the correction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, we're talking about setbacks for fuel pumps and variances to
shorten them. Is there any kind of a safety issue behind these? By shortening the distance from the road to
the fuel pumps, is that a potential safety issue?
MR. THOMAS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schifter?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think, Paul, to follow up, you'll see that they're closing.
Right now it's wide open into the street which is really a nightmare.
You reference a sheet S-l. Does anybody have a copy of that here?
MR. THOMAS: S-1 would be the existing site plan?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. THOMAS: You should have had it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question; did you exhaust the variance
remedies of the architectural standards? Have you applied for a variance through those? No?
MR. THOMAS: No. sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is a procedure to obtain a variance, but -- all right, thank
Page 16
16 f A3
~
April 2, 2009
you.
Does anybody have an S-I, John, in the file?
MR. THOMAS: If you have a question about what the existing site plan is, I can explain it to you
probably by using this proposed site plan. Is that what your question is, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: I just really wanted to see the existing canopy.
MR. THOMAS: Oh, okay. If you look at this site plan, the existing canopy exists right just due
south of where the driveway shows coming in from Main Street. It sits on an angle pretty much like the
existing building does, and it encompasses that entire comer. I mean, you're almost sitting on the property
line when you're fueling your vehicles.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the aerial map help?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The aerial might help. But it doesn't have any --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No dimensions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFPER: Yeah. I mean, it's in a different location.
MR. THOMAS: Can you see now where the exit -- oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, this is Collier County, we have all the modem
convemences.
MR. THOMAS: That's great.
This is where the existing canopy is. And you see people are pulling in like this. And if you get
two cars stacked up here, they're almost to the property line. And that's what blocks delivery trucks as they
come in like this. It's right close to the north property line.
And of course this parking doesn't even come close to meeting code with the distances that are
there right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the dimension to Main Street from that existing?
MR. THOMAS: What is the distance to the canopy or to the gas pumps?
COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: The canopy.
MR. THOMAS: Currently it's 22 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report, please.
Thank you, sir.
MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review.
The use is consistent with the commerce center mixed use district of the Immokalee Area Master
Plan. And as proposed, it is also consistent with the C-4, and Main Street overlay zoning districts of the
LDC, subject to the conditions provided by staff and the final exhibit to the resolution.
And I'll be happy to answer any other questions you might have about the project.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions -- Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to the signage, I think I heard Shell, I'm not sure of
the --
MR. MOSS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're not trying to prevent them from using the Shell sign, are
we?
MR. MOSS: No, no, this has nothing to do with signage. This is just the canopy that we were
discussing earlier.
Page 1 7
~.~-~--~. .,~---- fl._'-"". .._~ "'~"'-~-~"--"_"'"""'''''';'__''__;_'''' -,,--
1 f:., ~ ,AI ".: J~
April 2, 2009
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, which I can understand. That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll ask for any public speakers.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other final questions from the Planning Commission before we
close the public hearing?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a comment to make about the statI report. On Page 2 and
3 of 9, staff goes on to reiterate a bunch of other variances that have taken place in this district.
First of all, what might have been appropriate for those variances mayor may not be appropriate
for this one. They shouldn't be used in this manner.
Also, there's a real combination here of residential variances mixed in with commercial variances,
mixed in with conditional use variances. and I don't see where that's appropriate for the future. That's just a
comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that. we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
Does anybody have a motion?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would like to move that we forward Petition
V A-2008-AR-14017 to the BCC with the recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second,
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Subject to staff recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney made the motion. Mr. Murray, I believe you were the
quickest with the second.
Do both of you accept them as finally stated?
COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray too.
With that, is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your expedious (sic) trip down here from Tampa. We'll
have to find out where the McDonald's folks come from.
Page 18
-
.Lo , 1 AJ .
. Apn 2, 2009
J.D., so you can get back to your productive desk, we will entertain--
MR. MOSS: Well, the McDonald's folks are here.
Item #9 A
PETITION: V A-2008-AR-13977. MCDONALD'S USA, LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw them. So with that, we will go right into petition -- back into
Petition V A-2008-AR-13977, Tim Chess of McDonald's, USA, LLC for the McDonald's on the East Trail.
All those wishing to participate in this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Disclosures? I have the one disclosure I had earlier, so I'll leave it at that.
And with that, we'll move into the applicant's presentation then.
MR. SATFIELD: Jeffrey Satfield, CPH Engineers.
Miami, but that's no excuse. So I apologize for the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is a longer distance, so--
MR. SA TFIELD: But thank you so much for hearing us.
My presentation will be brief. Not a whole lot has changed since the last couple weeks as far as the
variance that we're requesting.
I want to first of all thank staff again for meeting with us so quickly and for their time and effort in
making this project work.
The variance that we're requesting is basically very similar ifnot exactly the same, I think, J.D., as
before. What we have done is worked with staff to make a few minor site changes to allow for the layout
that we needed.
And primarily what you'll see up there is the drive-through that is facing 41, we've added in a
five-foot additional landscape buffer with Type B, like boy, hedges, the five-foot tall hedges and some
palms flanking that area to further buffer the drive-through facility.
And so now as we're proposing -- the 41 buffer actually exceeds a minimum B buffer in planting
material. We've got the tree spacing of a B buffer along 41, we have the dual hedge of a D, like David,
buffer along 41 with ground cover.
In addition to that, closer to the building to again assist buffering of the drive-through facility we
have a five-foot buffer there with a Type B, like boy, hedge line flanked by palms to give some vertical
breakup to that building.
Other minor -- there's been some minor shifts in the building to make this accommodation. Other
than that, the plan remains largely the same.
And I'll leave it at that for questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The drawing we're looking at shows that you're going to put a
five-foot buffer along the drive aisle?
MR. SA TFIELD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would the dimension then be for the backup of those angle
parking? It really looks like you might not have the geometry you need.
MR. SA TFIELD: No, we actually have -- what we did to accomplish this over the plan that you
had two weeks ago was there used to be parking on the south side of the building. There was about three
parking spaces over there.
Page 19
.- --~" _."'"-~---" '''lRn_''_d_~"'_='''__., ----.. -.----.-.
-"1 r[ ,1 /1 1:
1.; I ;j !"; ')
i u J ~,,,.~
, ,
April 2, 2009
And basically to accommodate this extra five foot and the geometry that we need for parking and
drive aisles, fire lanes, et cetera, we had to eliminate those parking spaces, shift the building further away
from 41 and slightly down. And then we were able to accommodate the additional planting and still
maintain the fire lane and parking geometry that we need.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, now I'm really con -- the plan that I'm looking at in your
thing is exactly the same plan you had last time, only you've written the word five-foot buffer required in
there.
MR. MOSS: Yeah, i[J may, Commissioner. for the record, John-David Moss, Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review.
Because we had to return this back to you so quickly, what we did is we went ahead and just
depicted the five-foot buffer that's going to be required, but as noted in the staff report, those three parking
spaces, two of them are handicapped on the southern side of the building, they're going to be eliminated
and the building's going to be shift downward. So they will be able to accommodate both the five-foot
bufIer and the parking adjacent to U.S. 41.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're not making up that parking anyplace else?
MR. MOSS: No. They amended the parking variance at -- or the parking administrative deviation
that was part of this application. Initially they were only asking that one space be eliminated from the
requirement, and now I think we're up to eight. And staff didn't have a problem with that because of the sea
of parking that surrounds this site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And what is -- what's going to be in this five-foot buffer?
I mean, what is that really going to achieve putting up alongside the cars?
MR. MOSS: Right, exactly. ln order -- according to the architectural criteria, in order to have a
drive-through adjacent to a roadway, you need to have a 15- foot buffer, and it has to be a Type B. And
because they're only having a 10-foot buffer adjacent to U.S. 4], we wanted them to make up that five feet
somewhere else. And so they're going to put the five feet adjacent to the drive-through so that it will
further screen cars from the roadway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, if they could put the five feet where you're showing it, that means
they could have also put it up by the road. If you run a dimension perpendicular to the face of the building
than the road, I mean, why wouldn't they --
MR. MOSS: That's true. Then they would have had to shift the parking down. But because
they're working with this site, they're redeveloping the site. we just wanted them to put the buffer adjacent
to the drive-through lane rather than adjacent to the roadway.
There's a beautiful buffer of sea grape already existing there, if you've ever driven by this site,
adjacent to U.S. 41, and so we just wanted them to enhance that buffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'd be adding five feet to it. You wouldn't hurt it at all.
MR. MOSS: Well, the -- it's a double hedge row that's required with a Type B, so they have one
single hedge row of sea grape. We're going to have them add another hedge row adjacent to the parking lot
and then the trees that are required, 30 feet on center for a Type B buffer.
So that was the design that we came up with. Are you suggesting that you would rather have them
redesign the site to move the five-foot buffer adjacent to the roadway?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: ('mjust curious, if you could tit it where you show it, you could
tit it on the road and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. So I'm trying to figure out the
advantage of this.
MR. SA TFIELD: The area to the rear of the site -- and I'll walk and point. But if you see the
striping up on the board here where we've got the five foot adjacent to the drive-through. And then as the
striping tapers, it gets smaller.
Page 20
-
. 16 I ~ril1, ~O9
It gets -- there's a small conflict there. We cannot get a full five feet for the entire length of the site
because of the building and the angle that we've got it on here. So we attempted to get it on there.
But basically the striped area is where we can accommodate the extra space. But then as you get to
the rear it becomes less than five feet, slightly. I think we could get it three foot in the back, but that was
about as small. We couldn't get the five foot all the way because of the building. We'd have to basically
camphor (phonetic) that side of the building as it angled around for the drive-through.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And this isn't going to -- so everything on this site -- I
mean, it really would be nice to have the final site plan. I mean --
MR. SA TFIELD: That's the board shown up here for your review here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't see from here, so --
MR. SA TFIELD: And that's basically, though, it's what you're looking at with the parking adjacent
to the building eliminated and the five-foot planter directly adjacent to the drive-through area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do me a favor, slide the rendering to the side, and then maybe
Kady in the camera can get a good close-up of that.
MR. SATFIELD: Then what's on the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that Kady's good, isn't she?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Brad, actually having the trees closer to the building might
actually be more aesthetic than having them all out by the road and breaking up that asphalt.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I agree.
MR. SA TFIELD: That was our thought as well. The closer that you're -- you know, the closer you
can put a buffer to what you're trying to buffer, the more effective it is from a visual standpoint.
So we felt as well, if we're trying to buffer the drive-through itself, putting it closer with that
five-foot hedge line would actually enhance the buffering of the drive-through, if that's what we're trying to
hide.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then -- and this kind of shows it, I'm fine with that.
The only other question is up at the road where the parking is, there's a way in which you could
have the curb follow essentially the bumper, which would put landscaping under the front of the car.
MR. SATFIELD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would make that area better. Would you be able to do
that? I mean, that would --
MR. SATFIELD: We could, but those areas typically don't thrive well because of the overhang.
They typically end up dying off and become little dirt areas, if you will.
You know, we can put Bahia down there or something of that nature, or even -- you know, if we
were going to do that, I probably would want to see maybe a mulch or something of that -- because
eventually because of the overhang, they usually don't thrive very much, so that's why we don't have it
shown here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray, did you still have a question?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, because I think it's now resolved. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know, we're here to review your site plan. The package that
we have is deficient in the fact that a site plan hasn't been provided.
Before you leave today, could you get this copied and at least distribute it to us in the format you
have here so we have something to go by? It may not be as otlicial in the dimensioning, but that, combined
with testimony, J think it completes the record. And we need to make sure one's provided to the court
Page 21
~~"""",,"''''''-' "'_,._""_..-,__.<',-.,_ -"-"e-.._.,,..,",^_o ._~_ ._'. "._0" __..____~_"_~..0._,,.._~"_~__.M__
16 /c .
'f ~.
~
April 2, 2009
reporter as well.
MR. SA TFIELD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it only has to -- it doesn't have to be that full size but, you know, I
don't know how you can shrink it dO\\-TI any, but before you leave today, we need to have that for the
record.
J.D., would you make sure that happens?
MR. MOSS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then just to follow, when we have the consent agenda, we
will have the final site plan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is that a n
MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were acknowledging something about the consent agenda.
MR. BELLOWS: No, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you'll have to come back in two weeks for a consent -- you
don't have to come back, we will just make sure the consent agenda reads consistent with the testimony
here today. At that time we could have a final black-and-white site plan that you've shown here distributed
to us n
MR. SA TFIELD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n so that we understand it to be consistent with the colored rendering that
you're going to provide to us.
MR. SATFIELD: This layout that J.D. has here is a draft of what we submitted in before we
colored and landscaped it as well. It's very -- it's conceptual in nature, not dimension, but that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just use that? If you can -- you can make
black-and-white copies ofthat in lieu of the colored one quicker. can't you, J.D.?
MR. MOSS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's perfect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't we just make copies of that for distribution today for our
packets and one for the court reporter, so we have a reference to what we talked about. And then the
cleanup of this will happen when it comes back to us --
MR. MOSS: Sure, I'll be happy to do that.
Normally with a variance we just submit a conceptual plan. And that's what this was. It's just a
little unusual in this instance that they happen to be submitting an SOP at the same time that they were
going through this variance process. So that's why you have something that's more definitive there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While you're up there, you want to do staff report?
MR. MOSS: I'll be glad to.
I just wanted to add that the project is consistent with the sub-district in which it's located. And
subject to the conditions included by stafT in the resolution, staff is recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- remember the conditions of approval for staff.
Page 22
, 1, 6 f 1 A ~
April 2, 200
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would recommend that Petition V A-2008-AR-13977, known as
McDonald's Gulfgate Plaza, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation of approval?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMlAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Thank you. All the way over from Miami for 15 minutes. You did great.
MR. SATFIELD: Well worth it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, make sure, though, we get that copy of that black-and-white before
we leave today.
MR. SA TFIELD: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting close to 10:30. I'd rather not start the next one until we
come back from our --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, it's 9:30.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's only 9:30.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That never got changed, apparently.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, I thought I was --
MR. SCHMITT: Time flies when you're having fun, huh?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought something was wrong, but that's okay.
So we don't know what time it is. I understand.
Okay, with that, we'll go into the next one, then. I was considering Cherie's fingers.
Item #9C
PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-13951, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, the Olde Florida Golf
Club, Inc., represented by John Passidomo. It's on the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
Page 23
- --.,.--.._...._,..__.. '_"-_',.._._"..,~. . . ~_.. .'-. - ,.~.
l'~ t ,~
I \ '
1 (~ ' ')
.t 'j .: ~.,....
~ ~ '
April 2, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had one or two conversations with John Passidomo regarding the issues
today on the agreement from the past. And we will certainly be discussing all those today.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move forward.
John, it's all yours.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821
Fifth A venue South, in the City of Naples.
Our firm represents Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. in agenda Item 9.C before you for consideration
this morning.
Our project team is comprised of Project Planner Margaret Perry, Transportation Engineering Jeff
Perry and Senior Ecologist Tom Trettis of Wilson-Miller. All are available to respond to any technical
questions in their respective fields of expertise.
Olde Florida Golf Club member, corporate secretary and owner's representative, Bill Barton, and
Olde Florida Golf Club General Manager Tom Wildenhaus, are also available to address any operational,
historical or practical questions you may have concerning the property.
The subject property is comprised of approximately 554 acres ofland located on the north side of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, two miles east of Collier Boulevard.
It is designated rural fringe mixed use district neutral land by the Future Land Use Element of the
Growth Management Plan, and contains an 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, supporting facilities and open
space.
Permitted uses as of right within the rural fringe neutral land designation include agriculture,
single-family homes and golf courses.
Back in 1991, prior to the creation of the rural fringe, at a time when Collier County's appetite for
golf courses and golfers seemed insatiable, the property was rezoned from agricultural to golf course, and
the existing golf course was thereafter built in what was then assumed to be the first of two golf courses on
the property.
Today of course two golf courses no longer make sense, as changing conditions render the golf
course zoning, which only allows golf course. clubhouse, maintenance facilities and a caretaker's residence
archaic.
The petition before you therefore proposes to rezone the property from golf course to rural fringe,
neutral land agriculture to achieve three principal objectives: First, to align the zoning of a land with
pern1itted uses as of right under the future land use designation for the property.
Second, to ensure compatibility with adjacent agriculturally zoned land.
And third, while continuing use of the part of the property for the existing golf course, to provide
flexibility for a broad range of permitted uses to be able to respond to market conditions as they emerge for
the balance of the property.
No development plans are proposed because at this stage none are being considered. A standard
rezone application that does not require a master plan is therefore presented to you for consideration this
mornmg.
We appreciate staff's recommendation of approval and respectfully request your recommendation
to the Board of County Commissioners of approval.
I'll be happy to try to respond to any questions you may have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was short, John. Thank you.
Page 24
16 I 1 A3;J
April 2, 2009
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, sir.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Good morning, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you be kind enough to illustrate there -- we have that on
the computer screen. Would you show us where the houses would be built, if you know?
MR. PASSIDOMO: We don't know.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you know whether or not the golf course will be impacted as a
result of this building?
MR. PASSIDOMO: We assume not, but we don't know.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it is possible that the golf course can be reconfigured, or it
could be -- I think there are two golf courses there, right?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: There is one existing golf course. There were two originally contemplated.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I see.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: But there's one existing. And there's no market for a second golf course.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Well, I was concerned whether or not you were going to
reconfigure the golf course and move it around in anticipation of putting housing in.
MR. PASSIDOMO: No, Mr. Murray. The likelihood of that is extraordinarily remote.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. And let me see if! had one more question.
Oh, yes. In utilities review, I noted that -- okay, the county may not be in a position yet to move
out there with sewer and water and so forth. I think they have water, they don't have sewer.
How will the -- what is it, one to five acres? Will they put in a septic system now or can they
facilitate by also introducing sewer, piping? Is that part of the plan?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: There is no plan. There's nothing on the radar screen. And they'll abide by
the regulations as they're in place at the time when they're prepared to move forward.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would become an additional expense at a later time.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably considerable as well. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question. It's probably my own ignorance, but why
are you going to agricultural zoning as opposed to a PUD? It's not that you're contemplating farming the
area. Could you explain that to me, please?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Midney.
Well, we wanted to do three things, as we indicated: Most importantly to align the uses in the
zoning with the uses as contemplated for neutral lands under the Growth Management Plan. And those
permitted uses as of right include not only agriculture but also the single-family dwelling units and the golf
courses.
The existing zoning land only permits golf courses as a permitted use. We want to be able at the
appropriate time, when the market can accommodate it, be able to respond to a demand for any of the uses
within the rural lands agricultural zoning designation.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I had another question, too.
Under maximum density, it's one dwelling unit per five gross acres, but for maximum lot sizes
only one acre. Could you explain that discrepancy.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: You may want to ask staff. That's what the code says.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant?
Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer.
Page 25
.------ --""-'-~"'"'~---"'~~'-"""""-"-; ... .._."v.."..,u."'.4."....,., _-..__._.__.____u____._,_,
I ,-~;'" 1
tJ . . f<J
,I 1
j . .....,-
~ ' '
April 2, 2009
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What is the tax burden on that property at the moment, and how
will that be affected with a change of zoning?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Kolf1at, I don't know what the tax burden is. I think I may have the
property appraiser's record somewhere. But unlike the typical kind of situation where you can eventually
expect to see when you down-zone -- when the property's zoned agriculture, the amount of uses are
reduced. Here the amount of uses would actually be increased. So we have no way of knowing how the
property appraiser will look at this piece of property.
But the appraisal will not n the appraised value will not go down because the amount of uses that
actually are permitted will go up.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the taxes would go down, would they not, with this change?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir. No, sir. Because right now the property can be used for only golf
course and related facilities. Upon the standard rezone, the property could be used for golf course but could
also be used for agriculture and for single-family dwelling units. So there's no reason to believe the taxes
would go down.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Access to the site right now is through an extension of essentially
lining up with Vanderbilt Beach Road; is that right?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's right, Mr. Schiffer. There's I think an Existing Conditions Access
Management Plan that Mr. Perry may have submitted. I'd be happy to display it, if you'd like to see it.
But there's a series of publicly dedicated right-of-ways and private easements that lead in that two
miles from Collier Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And does this property have -- in the extension of Vanderbilt,
where will this property be located, on the other side of the canal or on -- in other words, where does the
Vanderbilt extension go in relation to this property?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: There is also a Future Conditions Access Management Plan that's in this
submittal. And I'll be happy to display that, if you'd like to see it.
You can see that. I think what you see there is the future condition with the realigned Vanderbilt
Beach Road extension, and then a connector illustrated in the yellow highlight, connecting that to the
existing right-of-way pattern that runs east/west.
And again. that's in the materials I think that were circulated to you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's in the packet? Anybody else find it?
You said it's in here somewhere?
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's attached, Commissioner Schiffer, to a sheet that is labeled
excerpt from January 28th, 2009, letter from the agent responding to county questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what's going to happen, the extension is going to
hop across the canal, and you'll be on the other side of it, as opposed to running -- why wouldn't it be --
well, I think that's a -- never mind. Logic long gone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, can you put that thing that was back up here up there? Ray, or
whoever had the overhead on there, could you leave the one that was on the overhead on? I don't know
who had it. No, not that one, the original one you started with. Okay.
Page 26
16 I ALi~,~OO~
That piece of property is owned by -- how is that -- I think I read the disclosure, 275 different
people?
MR. PASSIDOMO: 275 different people are the shareholders in the corporate entity ofOlde
Florida Golf Club that's the lot holder.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And are they divided up into lots so you know what they own, or
they just own a piece of that whole thing?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: The corporation owns --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the corporation.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: The shareholders own the corporation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, Mr. Murray, I know the answer, I wanted it for the record from
Mr. Passidomo.
Thank you.
Through their ownership process, when did that corporation -- when was that corporation formed
as the owner of this property?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: I frankly don't know. I think the property was acquired in two different parts,
one in 1993 and one in 1997. But beyond that, I don't know.
Mr. Barton's here and he could give you some historical perspective, if you'd like him to testify.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know when the corporation was formed?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the agreement that was signed by this group for the Ordinance
91-16, it says the -- it's on Page 3 of the recorded instrument. On the top on number four, last item said -- it
said, the applicant should be advised that future land development activities in the area may be subject to
future land use control, consistent with the above regulations.
I've heard you talk, and you keep referring to this as going back to ago land. Well, this is a neutral
area in the rural fringe. I'm sure you mean neutral area, is that -- it's going back to neutral lands
designation?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, it is. It is clearly designated neutral lands right now. I didn't mean to
suggest it's going back to the same agricultural zoning it enjoyed in 1991. It's going back to a newly created
land use zoning category which is neutral land agriculture.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a series of other questions, but I've certainly got to get
transportation up in a minute.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant shall grant a maintenance easement to South Florida Water
Management District/Big Cypress Basin over that portion of this property which lies within the needed
20-foot maintenance easement along the Cypress Canal, measured from the top of bank.
Do you know if that's been done?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, I don't. I assume it has been done, but I have no reason to believe it
has not been done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a paragraph in this agreement concerning the roadway, and
it concerns Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I notice from one of the aerials provided in the package that
Vanderbilt Beach Road extends from 951 straight over until it hits your property, and then it has to cross
the canal.
And I'm not sure after that where it goes, because my maps don't go that far. But based on a
reduced aerial, I notice that the other properties to the east have land to the south of them, it looks like
enough to fit the road. Yours seem to be the only problem in that extension.
And that extension, by going across the canal, has created additional cost for bridges and taken out
Page 27
"~",.." ""_r_',",,,~"__.'~> '~'M_"~, '...-.-- ~.....,. _-,_ "",__"."_.,._u,..."..,""+.~_.~,,.......>,,~,,._....,,,__,___,,.~,,,...".,._,'wo',_, " U.'__.." --
I i-'Y' 1
~ .
."\, . ....})
April~, 2609
people's homes. Yet in your agreement that was signed -- and this is more of a question for staff, I don't
know how it's going to affect you yet, but I want to make sure I state it for the record so staff can explain it
when I get transportation up here. The petitioner shall extend the Vanderbilt Beach Road from its terminus
to the project's west property line. Such construction shall be in accordance with county standards as set
forth in Ordinance 82-91, in the subdivision regulation's ordinance 76.6.
The roadway shall parallel the southern boundaries of Sections 35 and 36, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East and positioned adjacent to the Cypress Canal to the south.
And it looks like that's what was done.
So transportation will have to explain this, but it's apparent that the road was intended to go straight
through, but for some reason they didn't go through your property. I think that's convenient for you. I'm
not saying it's wrong or right, but I want to understand staffs reasoning on that. So that's why I belabored
this point a little bit, to explain to you where I'm going to go next with them.
I see Mike Green back there, he's going to have fun with that.
The staff report says you intend to preserve the 18-hole golf course and permit the addition of up to
110 single-family homes. Do you know how that 110 was arrived at? How did you come up with that
number?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: It's a function of the zoning under the proposed zoning district, one unit per
five acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you figure that's five acres for that? Because according to the
neutral lands LDC requirements under density, maximWll gross density: The maximum gross density in
neutral lands shall not exceed one dwelling unit per five gross acres (.2 dwelling units per acres), except
that the maximum gross density for those legal nonconforming lots or parcels in existence as of June 22nd,
1999 shall be one dwelling unit per lot or parcel.
Now, your testimony was that that was one parcel by a corporation prior to '99. So that means you
get one unit. I'm just wondering how you get around that.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, I don't think we get one unit. The parcel is 554 acres. One unit per
five acres is 110 units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well maybe J -- or somebody at staff can explain that to me.
Because if you get more units, I think you'd have to go into some kind ofTDR process or whatever to
increase the density through the clustering provisions. But if this was one parcel prior to '99 and that
language says that, I don't know how you'd qualify for 110 units.
And by the way, John, 1 didn't mention this to you when I talked to you yesterday, because as I told
you when you and I talked, I would have to look at this language last night, and so that's when I read the
language.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I didn't have a chance to even bring it up to staff either.
But I certainly, from Kay or staffs perspective, I'd like an explanation of that sentence and how it
applies to this parcel.
And if this isn't considered a parcel that's practical for that application, then where's the limitation
that does say a parcel of such size doesn't apply to that application? Because I don't see it.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I might respectfully suggest that that's a question of
interpretation of the code. We're very comfortable with our own interpretation of the code. And the
question before the commission this morning is simply whether the property is appropriate to be rezoned
from the golf course zoning district to the fringe neutral lands agricultural zoning district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the -- unfortunately the staff report is replete with references to
110 single-family homes. And I think you had a TIS or something provided in other documents that
Page 28
16 , 1 A 3 ,
. A:pril 2, 2009
referenced 110.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're in the record. Now I want to make sure that the record's
correct. And if it takes an interpretation from staff to do that, I certainly want that interpretation before this
-- before I can understand what this means, so --
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a comment I have to make to you on that one. And when staff gets
up here, we can get into that.
Another thing, since you -- one of the items in your agreement concerning the future land use -- or
future land use regulations that you agreed to abide by, I know you cannot do the Audubon Signature
Program, but is there a commitment that the Audubon's Cooperative Sanctuary Program will be followed?
MR. PASSIDOMO: It has in fact been designated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
And there was an item, I guess this is a staff issue, on density blending. Because I now find out
that you're not qualified for density blending, so I'll get that clarification from staff. Because that's
inconsistent apparently with the report.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Don't need density blending.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last thing I think during the NIM, one resident wanted
clarification there be no commercial uses. I didn't find an answer in this write-up that we received. Is there
any commercial uses being planned for this property?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No uses are being planned for this property, Mr. Chairman. The -- no
commercial uses are permitted in the zoning district to which we make application, so the simple answer is
that none are contemplated and none will be permitted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, if! could respond to the first question about the 1991
agreement --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: -- for part of that rezone?
You may want to make -- what I've done is taken the liberty of showing you the existing
conditions. And this is in your packet, so I hope you've had an opportunity to peruse this before.
But what you can see is this is the two-mile stretch running east on Vanderbilt Beach Road
extension as it exists today from Collier Boulevard. And what you can see from this is that there were a
series of publicly dedicated right-of-ways and private easements that led right up to the Golf Club of the
Everglades.
And what happened upon submission of this, the prior application in 1989 to rezone the property
from ago to golf course is there was not legal access all the way to Olde Florida. And those proceedings
were suspended until Olde Florida was able to actually acquire that last leg that you see designated there in
this kind of yellow color. You see the reference to easement and the recording information to that
easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I read all the testimony from November of 1990, I believe, and then
the final on February 21st of'91. And that's consistent with everything that reads there.
But that also strengthens my argument that the intention of Vanderbilt Beach Road extension was
to continue on. How it didn't go through your property but yet they made every other property prior to
yours provide that extension distance is a little puzzling to me. And that's another issue we'll get into in a
minute or two.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chair, you're going to want to pose that to staff, but let me suggest to you
Page 29
""'_~_,. . '_'__'_..~______~",.M'~_,'~'_ -'.,.... "'''",'"'>C "~~""'_.'__~~.O"___~~~~~__~~_',"_._.m.,~,___.,_".'M'~~_.__.".,_._.____."..._.~,.".__,___,___..__ __
01 6 1'1 r.'Y ~~
l r~
-:'''J '".:'",." At>ril 2, ;bo~
that in 1991 no one thought Vanderbilt Beach Road was going to go beyond this terminus. And Mr. Barton
was here at that time, he can testify to that effect. It certainly wasn't in the contemplation of the Board of
County Commissioners in 1991 that they were designating an alignment for a road that wouldn't come to
fruition until 15 years thereafter. It was not any plans, it wasn't within contemplation by anybody.
The simple references in the agreement to which we refer are an absolute insurance that access was
acquired to the property so it didn't -- it wouldn't alter the means of access through the residential lots in
Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ironically there's some parcels to the east that have a section or
portions of their property stopping shy of that canal, which to me they would have only done that so a road
was coming through. How it was missed on your propert -- and it's not -- I'm not saying it's through any
fault of yours. I just want to find out from transportation where their mindset was and how that, if anything,
be corrected through any process here today. So thank you.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to truly understand.
I gather that this was -- this is forward planning now. In other words, you made a statement that
you're not going to do anything with the propelty, you just want to rezone.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So any change in taxation would only occur on the occasion of the
first structure being introduced; in other words, a house. Would that be a correct statement?
MR. PASSIDOMO: WelL you want to talk to the property appraiser about that, but I'm not sure
that is a correct statement. The fact is the property appraiser assessed value of land and improvements, and
one of the things they consider when they assess the value of the land is what you can do with the land.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. I understand that part.
ln other words, the moment you would get the rezoning. the value of the land increases, effectively,
because the taxation rate would be applied; wouldn't that be correct?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: I'm not going to acknowledge it's going to increase or decrease, but
somebody could come to that reasonable conclusion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I too share the concern that I hear expressed, and I
didn't express mine as strongly as I would like to have with regard to the changes that were made with
regard that road and how others have been impacted by it.
And I appreciate that the corporation sees a future, but I see a juxtaposition there that doesn't seem
very fair to me. But that's just --
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Murray, with all due respect, the only issue in front of the Planning
Commission today--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: -- is the proposed rezone. The Board of County Commissioners made their
determination a couple of years ago as to the appropriate alignment of that road. Presumably there was a
rational basis for their decision, and we respectfully request it's not appropriate to retry that now when the
only issue before the Planning Commission is the rezoning request.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. In my heart, though, I had to make my
comment.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time before we go to stafT?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, John.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chainnan.
Page 30
16 J 1 AJ ~
. April 2, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning again. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with
Zoning.
You do have the staff report, which is revised 3/17 of '09. And you have the -- on Page 1, the
requested action explains the geographic location.
And on Page 2 is the description of the project that coincides with what the petitioner has
explained as well. It shows you the surrounding land use at the bottom of that page.
And on Page 3 it goes into the Growth Management Plan consistency review, and that's already
been hit on to some extent already. It does identify that it's in the neutral lands. Talks about the maximum
density and allowable uses within that, and specifically addresses the golf course or the driving range
within that also. And it does talk about some of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary programs that were
identified for this parcel. Talks about the native vegetation and preservation requirements.
And there was a question, it talks about the density blending, and no density blending is proposed
for the subject site.
There was a question posed to staff from Mark Strain, and it has been explained by David Weeks
that this parcel is not applicable to have these density bonus units. So that even though it says they're not --
blending is not proposed, they don't qualify for it anyway, so they would not be doing that.
There is a transportation element discussion on Page 7 wherein transportation staff finds that the
roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the maximum density that could be allowed by
the compo planning. Explains the Vanderbilt Beach Road impacts and the County 951 impacts.
Also explains that there are no environmental issues on this particular project as part of the
rezoning. Any issues that would arise would be addressed later in the development order process.
Staff does provide an analysis beginning on Page 7. And it touches on the transportation review,
environmental review, utilities review, and goes into more depth as far as zoning and development review.
You have rezone findings beginning on Page 9 and going through to the end of the report that
support staffs recommendation that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan,
and we are recommending approval of the petition.
And as you've already discussed, Michael Green from transportation is also here to address specific
transportation concerns you may have.
With that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to address them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Kay, I have one, and it goes back to the question. I read
the report where it said the maximum density one per five gross acres, but the italicized reference from the
LDC that was put in our report was not the complete paragraph that's in the LDC when it talks about
maximum gross density. Besides saying it's one to five, it goes on and provides the exception that I read
earlier.
Do you have any -- do you know why that exception wouldn't apply to this case?
MS. DESELEM: This particular portion of the staff report was prepared by compo planning. But
I'm not saying that I don't know, I'mjust saying that that's where it came from. And I don't know why it
wasn't put in.
But my understanding is that this particular site would be reviewed as an overall site. I don't know
that it would be limited to one unit for the overall size of the project. In fact, in the staff report it does say
that they would be allowed that maximum density of 110 dwelling units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they derive the density from this simple calculation of the first few
words in the -- under the neutral land designation, which simply said one dwelling unit per five gross acres,
Page 31
<,.,...',..'o________"_~_,..~.~,.,.., ,-- """'e'_=---~ "'__....,.~"._,~ ,.'__>..~L.w.'.~,.___,......~__<.'"'
r:',' C:.~,n ~f:' Yl:
<..) I 1 ')
April 2, 2009
and it didn't tell us if they took into consideration the exception that's there involving the date.
And I remember when that happened when -- I was in this county when the Governor put that
moratorium in place. And because they were changing a lot of things, they were concerned about the size
of some of the lots out there. And I think there was another property to the south called Hobschmits
(phonetic) or some -- there was a big lawsuit to the south around a large piece of property over their
calculation of density. And I don't remember the name of the owner. It started with an H, Hubsman or
something like that.
But if that's -- if this is applicable, then that 110 is in question. And since that's on the table here in
this staff report, I certainly would like to get an answer for it.
And I know David was here. At the time I didn't have the question, because I thought it would be
answered by you all, so I should have asked him when he was here this morning, but I failed to do that. If
he's listening and could either e-mail Ray or call in or something, I'd appreciate it, so --
MS. DESELEM: Well, I can state that this is information and it talks about a maximum density
that could be sought, but in no case does this rezoning approval grant any density. That would all be
addressed through the development order process. This is just general guidelines as to what the maximum
could be. But in no case are we approving that density for this rezoning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. WelL then maybe a solution without a further clarification would
simply be that there's no density provided through this rezone process, it will have to come out of any
application in the future.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right.
MS. DESELEM: Right, that would be -- this is just general information as to maximums that
could be allowed. Density isn't by right anyway. You know, you're eligible to seek it, but there are no
givens. You don't know what the configuration of the site might be, you don't know how they might design
it. It might turn out that they can get, you know, some other number, 52,47, 75. We don't know. We're
just evaluating what the maximum that could be allowed as a general information. But the rezoning is not
conditioned upon any density number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your staff report on Page 10, number five. In the future it's just
a reference I'd like to mention to you. The second sentence of that answer says, the proposed zoning
change is appropriate because its relationship to the FLUE is positive.
Well, I think you mean is consistent in what you -- I don't know why you would be the judge of it
being positive or not being positive under the material provided here today.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, the term positive is to mean that it's consistent rather than inconsistent.
With the understanding that inconsistent would be negative, consistent would be positive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. consistent also -- I mean positive also means there's a plus side to
approving this. I haven't seen that yet other than -- I haven't seen it, other than someone's going to make
some money somewhere. I don't know, the tax -- county may increase taxes ifhomes are developed. But I
just would think consistent is a better word in the future.
Under number seven, the text of number seven reads differently than what your answer I think
says. It says, in the first sentence, whether the change will create, and then the word or, or excessively
increase traffic congestion.
So if you take out the word "or excessively", because it's saying create or excessively increase, your
answer is, the proposed change will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion.
Well, we know it will create traffic con -- more -- increase traffic if they put anything on there
besides the golf course. And I guess that's the premise under the 110 or any kind of additional housing that
they could possibly change with their zoning application. Which if we stipulate they don't get any density, I
guess that question goes away, so I've just answered my own question.
Page 32
16 I A At'
~pn 2, ~OO9
MS. DESELEM: That was easy for me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't know you were going to -- I didn't know my first answer
was going to be what it was, so that created no need for the second answer.
Okay, that's all -- unless there's more questions of staff, transportation needs to address some
issues. Thank you.
MR. GREEN: Michael Green, Transportation Planning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, I mentioned to you yesterday my question for today concerning
the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, and you were going to try to do some research.
Why was -- if Vanderbilt Beach Road was such an issue, and I read the minutes of the meetings
back in '90 and '91, they really -- the board at the time was insistent that this project make sure that road got
to the west side their project.
And I notice some properties to the east of this project have spacing above the canal on the north
side narrow enough to make it appear as though it's a road alignment spacing or something of that nature.
Why was this project not considered to have Vanderbilt Beach Road extension run through it?
MR. GREEN: I couldn't find in the LRTP at the time that the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension
was planned to go beyond. So much like we're doing today with the LDC 1 0.02.05(E), we require that the
project extend public access to their site. To their site. Not like we did with the school or the church on
Canon and Molder off oflmmokalee, the same conditions. They're having to improve those roads down to
their site, show us that they have easements and legal rights. But that doesn't mean that there's an intent to
continue those through their site to the extent of the rest of the network.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying when this project came in for approval in 1991, there
was no plan that showed the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension going further east than the western terminus
of this project?
MR. GREEN: I did not see one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go right ahead. I've still got more, but--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you go on, though, and leave that point.
Then why in their agreement is there under a transportation commitment number one should the
developer or other property owners wish to extend Vanderbilt Beach Road, they have to do it according to
your specs.
So obviously there was some consideration at the time of extending that road by these people. And
at the time they would have to have been using their own property, unless they were going to go out and
buy, like you all have, and I doubt that seriously.
MR. GREEN: You see the condition under planning in the section above transportation?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. GREEN: It's strictly a requirement that they extend the road to their property.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that.
MR. GREEN: The section under transportation is worded if they choose to.
Like I said, today -- and I don't know that this was necessarily in our LDC in '91, but what we use
today is lO.02.05(E). It's in our LDC. We request that they show that they have legal access to their
property and that they improve to county standards roads that they use to access it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: There was intent here, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to my discussion with you yesterday, were you aware of this
agreement?
Page 33
'.,--."---- .,....__.~,-'"_.,~~ o_....__,._...,"_~<_~
~'~y I
v\, '
" ~pril ;:2009
.
\
'-,
MR. GREEN: I hadn't read it personally. I pulled it after our discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a lot of study on the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension,
there's been a lot of conflict on that issue. And some of the people involved in this, I being at time to time
one, I don't remember ever seeing this agreement before until it happened to come to us today as a result of
the change that the petitioner is requesting.
I think it's interesting that the language in the agreement -- and I wish that language had been
introduced to the BCC at the time they made the decision to move this road south of the canal and the cost
that's incurring to taxpayers of the hundreds of millions of dollars to do this route the way it is now when
we had language that may have helped with a different argument back then.
MR. GREEN: May have. But this language doesn't undo the eight or so well sites that public
utilities has along the north side of the canal that would also -- are an immense cost to relocate, if you were
to put the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension across there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have well sites all over the county.
Under the transportation element on Page 7, the reference write-up, it says it's got a 6.8 percent
significant impact on the roadway. And it says, this segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road is currently in the
right-of-way acquisition process to accommodate a plan expansion outside the five-year capital
improvement plan. The remaining capacity and level of service are not currently reflected into the adopted
2008 AUIR.
What are you trying to say by that sentence?
MR. GREEN: Vanderbilt Beach Road east of 951 is not a concurrency segment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning?
MR. GREEN: There is -- when this project came forward, we had -- we were approaching 60
percent design plans for the BCC adopted alignment And that is what the right-of-way acquisition is
working on this first segment of the new corridor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they have a 6.8 percent significant impact on the roadway but they're
not in the concurrency management plan, it doesn't mean anything. Is that what it boils down to?
MR. GREEN: Basically. Their 6.8 percent impact is on the surface volume of only a two-lane
road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How bad of an impact will the addition -- would those trips -- well, those
are existing trips.
Any new trips, how would they have to justify them, should they come in with the more uses if
they get this rezoned today?
MR. GREEN: There's a commitment that I have in part of the application from Olde Florida that
basically says that any additional traffic impact statements would be required to analyze any proposed
change in uses, and they'd have to come back in with another TIS with their plat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is that commitment found? What page of what paperwork?
MR. GREEN: I'm not sure that it's in your sta1Treport. It was in the documentation that has been
provided during our review process. If I could put this up on the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do.
So it's the purple language in the second -- the second set of purple language you've got highlighted
there?
MR. GREEN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a commitment, you're saying. Is it a code requirement?
MR. GREEN: Yes. Any time they come in, they're required to provide -- any application is
required to have a TIS accompanying it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if you got a -- if they put a house up in there, they'd have to have
Page 34
16 l"AP~l ?, 2009
a new TIS for the house?
MR. GREEN: Not for a single-family home.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about if they put up 110 single-family homes?
MR. GREEN: If -- when they come in with the plat, once the plat and TIS that goes with that is
approved, then they can build each of those single-family homes without further transportation
applications.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only way you catch them is if they come in with a plat. Are they
required to come in with a plat? This property's owned by a corporation, the corporation wants to go in and
build 110 homes for their 275 people to use on, say, an interim basis. Do they need a plat?
MR. GREEN: I don't know if they need one through our process or not.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's an interesting question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, I'm a little puzzled as to what's going on here with this whole
application today. I'm concerned about what was missed apparently. And it wasn't the applicant that
missed it. I think apparently there's some opportunity here that seems to have been missed by that
agreement that was in place that seems to be newly discovered.
But I would like any commitments that you need to make sure you get a TIS and you get the traffic
addressed, that they're stipulated during this rezone process, instead of just relying on platting, if they chose
not to plat.
So I'll ask the applicant before this is over if they have any objection to platting any future uses that
may go in there. And we could require platting as part of the rezone stipulation.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let me just ask: While they have to provide a TIS, what will
happen? You just said that they were not part of the concurrency system. So if they're not, it doesn't matter
that they prove that they're going to highly impact the road if we can't do anything with that information.
MR. GREEN: They're not going to have a negative impact. They have 68 total trips on their -- net
new. I'm sorry, they have 68 net new trips that are utilizing under the existing two-lane version of
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
It's not a concurrency segment. The first concurrency segment is 951. They have a less than one
percent impact on 951. So it's safe to assume that when Vanderbilt Beach Road is extended as a six-lane
road, they will have also less than one percent impact on that road also.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The intersection improvements that you're making at 951 are
intended to solve any issues there. They're not just, this is the best fix we can have, correct?
MR. GREEN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They are actual solutions.
The reason I ask that is going back to when we were doing Growth Management Plan amendments
at Orange Blossom and Airport. Whatever fixes were involved there, commitments were made to -- but
they were not solutions, they were just --
MR. GREEN: Unlike Airport--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the best we can do.
MR. GREEN: That's correct.
Unlike Airport and Orange Blossom, which the proposal is an interim fix and then an ultimate
solution, Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951 is an ultimate solution that's designed for the traffic assumed to
be utilized at that intersection in 2030.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Vanderbilt Beach Road went through this project instead of going--
crossing the canal, taking out homes and I guess assuming then go back up on the north side of the canal, I
don't know where it goes after that, would going through this project have been a less expensive process for
Page 35
plf' 'T ..- iI' . ~ lUf.. iii ~ t ~'T '"-~~., ~"~_. .,
'''"''''' ,
"A.,t ~~
'~ IAtil 2, 206~n#
~. ,
';:,;.,,~
the public?
MR. GREEN: I don't know the answer to that. I know that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean by buying out the golf course or destroying the golf course,
I'm just saying had the process ran straight along that canal and not had this effort to go take out homes, it
seems to me it would be a no-brainer, it would be less expensive.
MR. GREEN: It eliminates some of the conflicts to homes in this section. There are still conflicts,
there are still displacements in other areas of this corridor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The process we're asking to approve today for this project is going to
open it up for more uses. And they're talking about one of the uses in here was 110 potential residential
uses.
No doubt in a club of this nature or a property of this nature that those uses would be very valuable.
So the project stands to make a potential windfall of millions of dollars through a process of rezoning
when they originally right now are just a golf club. They can't sell anything else, they can only sell the golf
club.
It seems to me that if transportation may have been in a position to consider some use of that
southern tier property, because they're going to have to do a lot of work on that property anyway, and
realigning a golf club when they're going to build homes, especially realign it so it's better amenitized (sic)
for the homes they might build may not be a bad thing overall for the project.
Did anybody from transportation attempt to explore that avenue with the applicant?
MR. GREEN: We did. Actually it was explained to us that the existing golf course was going to
be left untouched and the new homes were going to be isolated to the areas that were undeveloped that
surround that golf course. So there weren't any new roads internal to the project for homes planned
between the existing golf course and the canal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't look at the layout of the course, but every course is changeable.
MR. GREEN: I'm not sure, it may be hole number two that runs almost parallel to the canal.
There's a tee box in the fairway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see that, but 1 also see that north of the -- what looks like the tee boxes
for hole number two are some vegetated areas, and it would only be able to swing hole number two up to
the north in order to leave some space to the south in which a road could go through.
Just a thought. I didn't know how far you guys explored it. But I'm trying to understand how this
is a benefit.
MR. GREEN: Through the -- there was I believe three public meetings during the corridor and
alignment study process for Vanderbilt Beach Road. And there were conflict matrices that were put
together that identified habitat impact. environmental impacts, public and private residential impacts,
socioeconomic impacts. And the board I believe chose the alignment that had the less amount of the -- you
know, the fewest amount of impacts to all of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe the board would have done so based on the information it
had at the time. So I'm not sure that all this information was on the table, but thank you.
Any other questions?
Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just a quick question. And I'm sure this dye is cast, but at
public hearing, did this landowner ever express the fact that they weren't going to build the second golf
course?
MR. GREEN: During the public meetings for the corridor study?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. GREEN: I didn't personally have any contact, and I don't know that any information was
Page 36
16 /!It.
. 11p~112oo9
provided from this property owner.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they never expressed the intent to come in at this date with
an agricultural rezone? All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me just run down -- you did a rundown of a list of
considerations during that study, impacts to habitat, impacts to individual homeowners. Can you just
reiterate that list?
MR. GREEN: It was including but not limited to environmental impacts, habitat, public and
private properties, businesses, residential impacts, impacts to utilities, both public and private, and
. .
SOCIoeconomIC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions oftransportation while they're up here?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I am not sure what time it is, but I think it might be 10:10. But
why don't we take a -- Mr. Murray, before we take a break then?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just help me, what was the socioeconomic issue that you
evaluated?
MR. GREEN: It looks at the land uses and the potential for change in zoning and businesses and
the businesses and residences that may be along that and what impact it may have, if it would increase or
decrease property values and --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And what did you conclude?
MR. GREEN: I don't know. I didn't run that study.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take a break till -- well, that silly clock says it's 11: 11, so that
would be 11 :25, but I think it's really 10: 11 and it would be 10:25, so let's come back here at 10:25 from a
break. Thank you.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you'll all come back to your seats. At some point the break
ended. We don't know yet, because from 10:11, it is now 10:49. And we were supposed to have only
taken 15 minutes. That's a result of our electronic technician, Kady, and our architect, Brad Schiffer, and
our engineer, Mr. Schmitt, who's Corps of Army, all trying to fix a digital clock. I'm real worried about
this.
MR. SCHMITT: Electronically challenged.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy. Okay, let's move on.
We had just finished up talking with transportation on the issues concerning this action.
Are there any other issues of staff at this time before we ask for public speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do we have any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one registered speaker. Peter Gaddy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. GADDY: For the record, Peter Paul Gaddy. Morning, Mr. Chairman; morning, members of
the Planning Commission. I'll be real brief.
I agree with counsel that the issue before us here or before this Planning Commission is the
rezoning of this property. However, the implications of the original ordinance is that the county
commission in 1991 set the alignment for the Vanderbilt Beach extension.
I think this is one of those situations where more questions have been raised than answers. Ifwe
don't ask some of these questions, we'll never know the answer.
Page 37
-"'."''',,",'' _,_^__"-;""___"'~""_"""H".""'~,,,,~, ......... """"""'--"'--''''--''''-"''"^'~''-~'..'+'- '--'.-.
J'1
f\ i\ '
" jA~il 2,";009
I want to point out that the original ordinance called for a road with arterial specifications.
I would recommend that the county archives be searched and this Planning Commission obtain
additional information prior to acting on the rezoning request. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Are there any other speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Tim Moore.
MR. MOORE: I was wondering if we could pull that map back up here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to get to the speaker, first, identify yourself for the record, and
then we can go forward.
MR. MOORE: My name is Tim Moore. [live at 1821 Richards Street. Which is -- if you pull up
the map, I can show you where I am.
Simplest way is for me to walk over. I'm--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, but -- yeah, you're that road to the north, we understand. You
have to be on speaker with everything, unfortunately, sir. Sorry.
MR. MOORE: Okay. I'm A at the top of your paper--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MOORE: -- at the end of Richards Road. Okay?
I'm not objecting to the rezoning. What I've asked, and I sent a letter to Jim Coletta, which was
sent to this lady.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay.
MR. MOORE: Kay. And also to transportation, was that while you're doing this rezoning, why
don't we ask for an easement to -- original maps show Richards Road going all the way to Vanderbilt. So if
we had an easement all the way through, then some of that transportation that you're worried about would
be alleviated. Number one.
Number two, where I am all the way to Krape floods every year.
Do we have something that we can walk with?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. MOORE: I'm going to point -- on an average --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to turn it on. There you go. One of those buttons.
MR. MOORE: It's on. Can we try another one?
MR. BELLOWS: You want to try a laser thing? Come to this one.
MR. MOORE: Here, let's do this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Ray.
MR. MOORE: Okay, at the end of Krape Road, this land right here, during the summer months
usually holds about two and a half~ three foot of water, okay? Now, if we're going to put 110 houses in that
area, then we're going to have to fill all that in, okay? Then we create another barrier here, and all this land
floods even worse.
My proposal is, and I'm not an engineer, and I don't claim to be, but if we had road ditches all the
way to the canal at Vanderbilt, then we would eliminate all of this catch basin that you all -- I don't mean
you guys. But what has happened is there was a cypress head that ran through here and a cypress head that
ran through there that took the drainage out of this area. We don't have that now.
Everglades has got a berm that goes across here and this is all full, okay? So what are you going to
do with the two and a half, three foot of water here when you put all these houses in? You're going to have
to raise that land up so that it will accommodate, and when you do that, then we're going to be in a fish
bowl.
So I don't have a problem with the rezoning, I have a problem with not making sure that we get an
Page 38
16 J 1 A3
. April 2, 2009
easement through there with road ditches all the way through to take it to that canal so that we eliminate all
these folks being under water every summer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it.
Are there any other speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. John -- oh, go ahead, Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you asked a question of Dave, and I have an e-mail and hopefully this may
answer your question.
Maximum density in neutral is one dwelling unit per five acres, both in the FLUE and in the LDC.
So it's Future Land Use Element and Land Development Code.
The exception is for legally nonconforming lots. The exception provision at the end of the
RMFUD and the FLUE wouldn't apply since there is no prior zoning action or other development order
approved that allows greater density. Maximum density using clustering is the same, just allows smaller lot
sizes within total project.
With or without clustering, this 554-acre site is eligible for 110 dwelling units. Max lot size using
clustering is one acre both in the FLUE and LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that does answer it. David probably knows better than anybody, so
--
Okay, with that, John, did you have any comments?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Concluding remarks, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. PASSIDOMO: We'd be happy to stipulate in the question of traffic impact statement at the
time of a plat or a site development plan to ensure that the county does in fact have a site development plan
in place at the time we know the future development of the property, so that you're assured you have a new
traffic impact statement to reflect conditions as they may exist at that time.
Appreciate the staffs comments for elaboration purposes, of course. The provision on density
applies as an exception for non-conforming lots of record. It's not intended as an exception, it's intended to
in no way detract from the underlining zoning on the property.
The thought that the best thing to address questions of -- from a historical perspective and
especially the questions that Mr. Moore most recently raised about Richards Street drainage, what may
have happened in 1991 and what may have happened before the Board of County Commissioners and the
testimony in evidence and professional counsel that was in front of them when they made their
determination as the alignment of the road, we'd ask Bill Barton to testify before you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton was here in 1991 in a professional capacity, he was here as a member of the Olde
Florida Golf Club, and he has been throughout. He has personal knowledge and he has professional
expertise. And with your indulgence, I'd like to ask him to testify, because I think there are a lot of good
questions that were raised, and Mr. Barton can respond to them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bill?
MR. BARTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission.
The -- let me start with a couple of things. I made some notes here as discussion was occurring.
On one of the first ones, the Chairman asked whether or not the easement that was required to be
granted to South Florida Water Management District was indeed granted. And the answer to that is yes, it
was.
In addition to that, although it has nothing -- no bearing on this, Olde Florida also granted to
Page 39
....... ~~,.__<~"~.' ".,"". H,"....,
.'"'" f I'~
; ":;:y .
-- < "')J
..,'
April 2, 2009
Collier County I think four different easements for well sites along that same canal corridor. It was either
three or four, I'm not sure, I don't recall exactly.
The discussion that we've had some elaboration on was the agreement between Olde Florida and
Collier County regarding the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I -- although it's some nearly 20
years ago, I do have some fairly good recollection of that.
And that entire agreement was -- became necessary because at the time Olde Florida began its
process of entitlement for the golf course areas. it had not yet acquired the legal right to extend Vanderbilt
Beach down to its western property line. And that of course was a concern of the county, because
obviously you don't want to grant entitlements to a piece of property that cannot be accessed legally. So
that agreement came out of that.
Obviously at that point in time there was no road constructed. And what we're talking about right
now is the property predominantly that runs along the south side of Golf Club of the Everglades, which is
immediately west of Olde Florida.
We consequently did gain a legal access there through an easement, and the road had to be built to
gain access to our property. And Collier County in that agreement required that that road be built to county
standards, which we agreed to do.
So that agreement had absolutely nothing to do with the extension of Vanderbilt Beach eastward of
Olde Florida's west property line.
And I can tell you that I was part of those conversations back in those days, and here we sit almost
20 years later saying goodness gracious, why didn't those people anticipate that Vanderbilt Beach Road will
be extended to the east?
That question I can't answer, but I can tell you we didn't. That issue was never discussed.
Everybody that was involved in the process at that point in time presumed that the eastern terminus of
Vanderbilt Beach Road was going to be at Olde Florida. None of us contemplated that it would be at some
point in time extended eastward from them.
As I say, looking back now, one would say gosh. that was not very forward thinking. But how
many of us at that point in time expected Golden Gate Estates to begin to build out like it did? How many
of us at that time expected advents like Ave Maria? So there were a whole lot of things that occurred
afterwards that changed our perspective.
But I reiterate, in 1991 there was absolutely no discussion about Vanderbilt Beach Road being
extended eastward of our west property line.
In today's world, Collier County had some very difficult processes to go through, and now that we
know that road must indeed be extended eastward, what alignment to take. And I assure you, and I know
you know this, that Collier County looked at that very, very carefully.
Olde Florida actually was not the major part of the problem. And the reason I say that is that
although two holes, and it's actually not hole number two, it's actually holes number eight and nine that
would be impacted by that roadway, ifit were to go along the north side of the canal.
But Olde Florida, fortunately as we're discussing today, had other properties. So in the long term,
if that decision had been made, Olde Florida could have cured that problem. It would have been expensive,
but they could have cured the problem.
The real problem was really Golf Club of the Everglades next door. That property doesn't have any
excess property. And Vanderbilt Beach Road, coming through the southern portion of Golf Club of the
Everglades, would have taken all of their hole number nine, a significant part of the required parking, and
the entire green for hole number eight. And there was no cure. Because Golf Club of the Everglades has
virtually used all of its land.
So what the county was looking at is the potential of having to buy the entire golf course, since
Page 40
16 V~
)pri l2009
.'>
there was not a cure to repairing the damage that would be caused. And in today's world, there simply is no
market for a 16-hole golf course. So that's the real expense there was not Olde Florida, it was Golf Club of
the Everglades.
And I will tell you that the county staff determined that keeping the roadway on the north side of
the canal, their estimate was that the cost to the county taxpayers would have been $45 million greater than
putting it on the south side.
We actually contended that number was probably too low. It probably would have been closer to a
$60 million number. And that's basically what drove the issue.
I would also add to that that if the roadway had been kept on the north side of the canal, in all
likelihood they would have also had to take some homes that are existing in the Vanderbilt Country Club.
There's a tier of lots and homes immediately adjacent to what is currently Vanderbilt Beach Road that
likely would have been injeopardy. So yes, they would have reduced the number of homes required to be
taken on the south side, but then they probably would have had to increase the number of homes taken on
the north side.
With regard to Mr. Moore's discussion of Richards Road, that road is aligned immediately north of
Olde Florida's west property line. And although this hasn't been discussed today, the rezone that we're
asking for continues to keep us as a neutral property in the district. And that will require any development
to preserve 60 percent of the natural vegetation that exists within the property.
We certainly would have no reason not to go on record stating that any easement requirement along
our west property line, we would be sure to be included in that property to be preserved, so that that
easement would always be available if and when at some point in the future Richards Road is something
that the county contemplates building.
I will tell you, though, that with regard to using that as -- to facilitate drainage for those properties
to the north -- and I'll preface this remark by telling you that I am a registered professional engineer in the
State of Florida. And one of my expertises is stormwater management.
And I will tell you, that won't work. The flood waters in the canal reach an elevation that currently
Olde Florida is directly tied to the Cypress Canal. We have a direct out fall. When we designed it, we
anticipated that in the event of a 25-year frequency storm event that Olde Florida would indeed have
flooding occur on their golf course. As it's turned out, we have had three of those 25-year plus events in the
last 15 years. And each time it flooded, as we knew it would, as did the property to the north of us, those
floods have cost Olde Florida something in excess of $400,000, the collective amount. The one that
occurred two years ago, we actually had to shut the golf course down for 30 days because the damage was
so severe that -- and we had to resod so much of the property that the golf course was not playable.
And fact of the matter is, one should be very, very cautious before making connections to Cypress
Canal, for properties to the north of it, because there are rainfall events that could in fact flood properties to
the north that would have not otherwise be flooded if the ditches were not in place.
One might say, how can that occur?
The way that occurs is when the primary rainstorm fall, heaviest rainfall is to the east, which is in
the collection basin of the Cypress Canal. When that then comes down the canal and begins to cause flood
waters in the canal, those elevations will climb to a point in the canal where they would begin to back up
into properties surrounding that canal. Not unlike precisely what we're seeing in North Dakota right now.
The Red River that's been threatening Fargo is not because of rainfall that fell on Fargo, it's because of the
rainfall that fell upstream from Fargo and is now causing flood events to occur in Fargo.
So one needs to be very cautious in starting to make connections, like roadside swales, to
properties to the north, because they could cause more problems than they might solve.
So those are just some historical events that I wanted to share with you. And if there are any
Page 41
,._~........, "-<.........--..-,,'...,
/J
~~ It. , 1 AP;i(2, 2009
questions, I'd be more than happy to try to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: If flooding is such an issue out there right now, Mr. Barton, and
you've had at least three events here that all surpassed the 25-year storm event, does it make sense then to
be rezoning this property so you can put 110 homes with septic systems out there?
MR. BAR TON: Well, let me answer that question in two parts: First, the issue of how 110
dwelling units might fit on the property or how they would be designed is a question for another day. And
most certainly that process would have to be reviewed under whatever criteria and guidelines we have.
What we're asking for here today in the rezone is simply taking a piece of property that currently
has virtually zero value, because golf course property in today's world, not only can you not sell it, I'm not
sure you could give it away, if the only use for it was golf course.
We're trying to simply take an asset that has no value and cause it to be an asset that does have
some value.
With regard to whether or not septic tanks would be an appropriate use in that location, I don't
know the answer to that. However, my -- pardon me, Florida allergies -- my anticipation is that by the time
the single-family housing market turns around in Collier County to the point that this property would
become attractive, the availability of central sanitary sewer is going to be there. It's already to the comer of
951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. In fact, the new church that was just built there is on central sewer. So
we're not that far away.
And my expectation is that at that point in time Collier County would require any developer to
make that connection, and highly doubtful in my mind that any septic tanks would ever be used on this
property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schifler?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the interchange map, there's a road called Douglas Road. Is
that Richards Road? Do they line up together?
MR. BARTON: No, sir, I don't think so. I think Richards -- now, Richards does not come down
to this property. In fact, there's another out-parcel, it's either 20 acres or 40 acres, north of Olde Florida that
currently does not have Richards Road on it. In other words. it comes down and terminates at some parcel
north of our property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it help, I think the Richards Road aligns -- see the red line on the
west side of the Olde Florida Golf Club on this map? That's where Richards Road will align with.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And where is -- then looking at this map showing the
canal on Vanderbilt Road coming down and then coming back up, they show a road called Douglas Road.
So the reason I bring it up, wouldn't that be a logical place for that intersection, such that if they
ever did connect that would be a good north-south corridor between Vanderbilt and Immokalee?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you would take Richards Road -- how would you get there
from the -- the terminus of Richards from the south over to Douglas in the north, how would you get there?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the same way we wish -- they were thinking about, you
know, back when this originally -- you know, we had the east-west access that we didn't take. This would
just be at this point in time trying to establish the north-south.
But where is Douglas Road is really the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's right -- look on your left. On the left side of the screen down towards
the bottom.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. then n
Page 42
16 II! p.';;., A 3
April 2, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See Richards up on top?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this map we're showing is that this thing is going to transfer --
okay, this is going to transfer well before this property then.
MR. BARTON: Yeah, Douglas Road is actually on the west property line of Golf Club ofthe
Everglades. So it's a half mile west of Olde Florida's property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if Douglas Road ever did -- or Richards Road ever did come
down, it would come down onto your access drive?
MR. BARTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And would they have the ability to access that?
MR. BARTON: Yes, they would. The easement there is a public easement. However, there
would not be the ability at that intersection to access Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They would have to come down to this Douglas Road then.
MR. BARTON: That's correct. Then they'd have to turn westward and go to Douglas Road in
order to access Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate your time.
MR. BAR TON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, John, I think we have a few issues that were discussed I'd like to
run by with you before we go into deliberations.
You have no problem with the stipulation concerning the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary
Program, that you'll retain that at all times for the golf course subject -- and that the property would be
subject to the rules of the neutral lands for golf courses.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no density being provided as a result of this process today,
whatever the outcome is. And you agree with that?
MR. PASSIDOMO: There's no density being provided?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We're not giving you density today. We're not providing density.
This is strictly you're requesting a rezone to neutral.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Whatever we're entitled to in the proposed zoning district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm going next. This whole thing has been somewhat of a
mystery. You've got a golf course zoned piece of property, it can function as a golf course. You've got a
clubhouse; you've got all the amenities that the golf course has. You want to go to neutral lands and still
retain the golf course use, obviously. But at some time in the future you're going to do something else.
The difference between '91 and now are some of the benefits that you can derive under neutral
lands that maybe you couldn't have done under the agricultural zoning as it was in 199]. So the golf course
has been kind of like a holding pattern until this change has been suggested here today.
It leaves a lot of unknowns in regards to what you're going to do with the property and how the
density of that property and how the impacts on that property will affect others. Where you put your
houses, how many, the road coming in, how you'll connect to Vanderbilt, all the issues that the county
generally is worried about.
You have by rights in the neutral area an extensive amount of new uses, including single-family
residential, mobile home overlays, dormitories, duplexes, group housing, family care facilities, group care
facilities, staff housing, sporting and recreational camps, golf courses and driving ranges. It goes on and on
for quite a few uses. And that's -- they're all by right.
Page 43
",.._'."-~.",.~,, ",-,.-, ..._-"".._,..,',-"-.......,.,..,"~-,-~.~-~-_._-_._.~"._-_._._----_.."-------_.._~_.._..
16 I 1 j~ ~
"
\iiio~
April 2, 2009
So I don't -- by right you wouldn't necessarily have to come before a public process. And when
Mr. Barton spoke he, you know, said you guys would go by whatever process is in place for -- as you
proceeded. Well, there is no process in place except going through staff.
Would you have any objection that any changes to your property in regards to uses come back
before this Planning Commission for review?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: After the zoning is in place, sir?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you receive the zoning today to go from golf course to neutral, any
further increases in changes or density on that property, whether it be through any type of use come back
through the public process through the Planning Commission.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Any changes, Mr. Chairman, that increased the density or changed the use,
other than what is prescribed in the Land Development Code right now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, other than what is being done today on that property. So if you take
advantage of the new uses and the neutral land that you seemingly want to, and since you're not providing
us with that scenario today, I'm suggesting that you come back through this process and provide that now--
provide that then at the time you do it. If you want to come back in and put homes and parcels and break it
up and subdivide it into parcels, you come back in for the public process in front of this board.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, we do have to come back obviously administratively to
address site development plans or platting. But you're suggesting that rather than have that handled
administratively, it be handled by the Planning Commission?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL the staff would still have to review it, but the Planning Commission
would have to see it, and you'd have to go through a public process for approval.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, would it have anything to do with the -- if the question, if the
scope of that review relates to platting or site development plan issues, that's one question. If the scope of
that review deals with uses, heights, densities and intensities, I think that's another question. Because those
are prescribed by the Land Development Code, and they seem to be outside the proper scope of review for
the Planning Commission or for the Board of County Commissioners after the zoning is in place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You just said the magic words, after the zoning's in place. Is in
place. So in order to get it in place -- Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. For clarification, if any plat comes in, a final plat, as you well know, has
to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. That's on an agenda item and it's approved by the
Board of County Commissioners, so it is a public process. Normally it's on a consent agenda. However, in
this case if it involves a consent issue or involves an issue that is of interest to the public, certainly we can
be directed or the board can pull that item and put it on the regular agenda. Or they can certainly remand
that back to the Planning Commission.
So I just want to clarify the process so the public understands: It is a public process and it is
approved before the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there are -- they are done routinely every week; is that right?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many have ever been pulled, changed, modified, sent back to this
Planning Commission?
MR. SCHMITT: None sent back to the Planning Commission. Probably in my time frame here,
which is almost seven years, I believe twice we pulled plats onto the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem I have here is I don't think anybody would go into the
process that this applicant's here for today without having some idea what they might want to do in the
future. We're not being provided with any of that information. We're basically saying we're going to do
whatever our rights are allowed for us to do.
Page 44
16 if 1 ~Jil 2, 2009
The rights that come under the standard zoning, if you were to allow -- and zoning is by the way
not -- you can't get a rezone, I don't believe, by right. You get a rezone by process. And if there's reasons
why this board feels the process isn't appropriate, it may not succeed.
But it would help I think a lot of us to get in if we knew that we had some additional review
opportunity down the road when you finally wanted to tell us what you intend to do with this property.
And that's my concern with that issue, and that's why I requested of you, do you have any objection
if we were to stipulate that any changes to the uses on this property -- and whether those changes are
density, intensity, height or whatever, but use changes on this property beyond the golf course uses come
back to this panel for review.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I want to be cooperative. I don't want to be elusive, I don't
want to be responsive.
If the question is rather than through an administrative process we go back to the Planning
Commission for site development plan or platting review, that's one question. If that's the question, I'd be
happy to consult with my client concerning that issue. Is that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you did -- any change you make on this property -- and staffs
going to have to help me here. Is there any way they can make a change without coming in for a plat or a
site -- or a site development plan?
MR. BELLOWS: If you mean can they build a single-family home in there without--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can they build 110 single-family homes in there?
MR. BELLOWS: You have to go through the platting process to do more than --
MR. SCHMITT: You would have to plat to develop a tract, and then you'd have to come in and
probably subdivide that, ifhe's going to build individual homes, single-family homes on one home per five
acres or demonstrate that he's in compliance with the code. Ifhe's going to build some kind of multi-family,
of course the tract would then come in with a subsequent site development plan, again, demonstrating that
he meets the requirements as defined in the rural fringe mixed use development overlay, RMFU, and he
would be subject to those review criteria that exist in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Joe, if they had come in today with a request to go from golf course
to PUD with a site plan laying out the intensities, densities, setbacks, heights, everything else that would
affect the surrounding properties, it would have been more complete for us to review.
MR. SCHMITT: And I understand that. Certainly understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically they want to go into an opportunity to make a lot of changes
that may not have been anticipated at the time this was even given its neutral land designation, well enough
its conditional -- its whatever, golf course designation back in '91.
That all happened years ago. So there's some kind of vesting issue or grandfathering issue already
in place.
I'm suggesting -- well, first of all, how did this become neutral? Do we even know that? Would it
have become a neutral land had they not had the golf course zoning already in place for this property?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you want to talk to him?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the neutral lands are designated as part of the study that -- and all the
background and the data and analysis as was performed as part of the fUrallands process, in this case the
rural fringe mixed use district. And that was determined based on existing conditions on the land at that
time when it went through the public hearings.
Any more than that, you probably have to bring that catcher in, and David and some others to give
you some history as to why or how they designated this neutral. But the -- and understanding also, before
they go through the platting process, they're going to have to go through the permitting process, meaning
through District permitting, South Florida Water Management District, demonstrate water -- all the other
Page 45
.-.- _...... ~ '.1.. Ill.... ... '" ._."'._....H".." .n <..__~,.,._.,.,._~" --,
16 I r
, :w ~ '
'J' '7.';"
;:1 '::'1 ,4
",~' '
April 2;2009
districts permitting processes associated with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust --I'm trying to make sure that what happens here in the future we
have a better handle on than we have had in the past. And that's why I've asked the applicant if they would
accept a public process through the Planning Commission for approval or denial of any uses or changes
regarding this property beyond those involving the golf course or the amenities to the golf course.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I think it may confuse the purpose of these proceedings.
These proceedings are to establish zoning on the land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, when you go through a criteria, Mr. Chairman, there are certain
things you have to look at, including does the proposed change adversely influence living conditions. You
have no idea what -- the information in front of you to make a decision.
You've got another one, will the proposed change create a drainage problem. And we've had some
testimony on that, and you have no idea.
And there are a number of other criteria here that it's very difficult, given the lack of information
you have as to what they intend to do with this. But you can make an educated recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners.
This is a very unusual request. I don't think I've ever seen a zoning request where they're going
from existing golf course use to down-zone, or up-zone, depending on how you look at it, to an agricultural
zoning with 110 acres.
I don't have an issue if you just make this a condition. And if they don't like it, they can take it with
the Board of County Commissioners when -- that (sic) the board wants to keep that as a condition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't know whether I should wait until the discussion, but I
might just as well say it now. When I was reviewing this, I thought the whole thing was brilliant. What a
move. And being on the RLSA committee for a year and a half and then again reviewing it here, if this
should become neutral land, they do have the right to just automatically build the homes as they want to,
110. And that's the way I read through this whole thing. That's the way it looked and that's the way it
smelled.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think Mr. Wolfley's really hit the nail
right on the head. This is really a process. It's intended to provide some flexibility so we can respond to
market conditions, but it's simply intended to align the zoning of the land with the permitted uses as of right
under the future land use designation tor rural fringe neutral lands. That's all it does.
There's no triggering event here that creates anything that the change in the designation to this land
as rural fringe neutral lands didn't anticipate.
We know what we're going to do. We'll come back to staft~ we'll come back if you'd like to the
Planning Commission and we'll come back to the Board of County Commissioners. But at that point in
time the only thing we're going to come back with is what we don't have now and that is a site plan or a
plat. But at that point in time -- and we'll have to go through permitting. And you don't customarily look at
that. But you can look at that. And I think that the process will be well served by the Planning Commission
looking at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I agree with the County Attorney's recommendation. His counsel
is that we can make it a condition, and so I think that's a good move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
And the next question I have for you, John, is the easement along the west property line. Mr.
Barton didn't think that would be a problem, that you would provide through that west property line an
Page 46
16 I 1 AJ,
pril 2, 2009
easement. I mean, up to the county to make sure they can get the easement materialized, assumingly. But
that for the -- along the west property line for the Richards Street extension down to Vanderbilt Beach --
down to your public access to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: I think Mr. Barton's going to want to respond to that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because that's not what he said.
MR. PASSIDOMO: It's not designated in the future land use transportation plan. If the county
wants to buy it, they can buy it. There's a 60 percent native vegetation requirement. We don't want to do
anything to impugn that. But with those introductory remarks, let me just let Mr. Barton respond to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I misheard him then. I thought that's -- I thought you said
something to that effect.
MR. BARTON: Let me touch on two points.
Interestingly, the reason we are here today is that when we initially zoned this property to golf
course, the mixed use development district did not exist. That came after us. Next door, in Golf Club of
the Everglades, which developed shortly after we did, but after the District was in place. By seeing the
District, they did not rezone their property to golf course; they left it agricultural and simply got a
conditional use to put a golf course on it.
Had we done this golf course in 1995 instead of 1991, we wouldn't be here today, because we
would not have rezoned the property to golf course. We would have left: it agriculture, asked for a
provisional use, conditional use for golf course, just as Golf Course (sic) of the Everglades did.
So really all we're trying to do is get ourselves in about the same position as Golf Club of the
Everglades is today. Because they didn't have to have the advantage of knowing the District was going to
be formed after they went through the rezoning process.
That's one thing I wanted to point out to you.
The other is what I said on the road easement for Richards Road is that we would simply agree not
to build anything within that corridor, that that would become part ofthe 60 percent natural vegetation area.
So that in the future, if that road -- it makes little sense to me to impose an easement in a location that the
county has no plan to build a road, it's not in one single part of the county's plans right now.
By the same token, I understand the advantage of leaving the corridor there. We're willing to do
that. We're willing not -- to stipulate that that would be part of the -- the other concern I have is that if we
grant the easement, all of a sudden there's roughly four acres ofland taken out of our property. Now the 60
percent preservation requirement even takes more of the land than it would otherwise.
So what I'd like to do is assure you that we won't put anything in that corridor, and then if at some
point in the future an easement is needed there, it can be dealt with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the clarification.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think we should do that. I mean, they've discussed how
when they were building their property they had to negotiate with the people to the west and then never
imagined that the owner to the east would ever want to do that with them. So I don't think that showed the
forethought necessary.
So I think if we do that, let's do that in such a way that it is the width of a good collector road, or
whatever maximum road we think, plus some sizeable setbacks so that we don't find them developing in
that area again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And I think something that's changed between 1991 and if you
had done this as a conditional use to agriculture in 1995, in '95 if you had done it we may have been further
along in some of our master planning of roads in the county, and the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road
Page 47
. __...._..,,_'~.~.,,_^..,_'_....."_,.._~..___,.._~,_""_""""',. ..,. '.._"'..'.;'_'"'.'.~'~~,"~~M.~._'-=.~___.""""""_,_",,"_~_~__,.._',,,__"._^_'"."~"_____"_____'____.'_.~M.'_
,;\1 .~ ~ 1 "'-y 1
,/ ):
i' ii',\
~.-. ' ..
.- April 2, 2009
would have been left alone on this property.
The fact you're coming in today is like a second bite at the apple. Although the Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension may be too far down the road to bring into this rezoning issue here today, it's still--I don't
put a lot of argument in the fact that it would have been the same if you had done it in '95. I think in '95 we
were getting out of some problems we had politically. We might have been a little more sophisticated to a
point where we realized that road extension was needed and we might have requested that road alignment
or that area be left alone on the south side of this property and save that alignment to go straight across.
So I'm not -- I don't still believe we need to make a second mistake in 2009 by letting this go to a
free-for-all from golf course to just open neutral and anything goes. I can't -- that I can't go to.
So my intention is to make sure that this is -- any uses or changes to this property, other than those
involving strictly the golf course and its facilities, would have to come back to the public process to be
approved.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Can I ask for clarification? And from a stand -- we have no process to do that.
And I just want to discuss to make sure we understand how to proceed with that, if in fact the board
concurs with your recommendation. We have no fees for that, and we would have to -- we could identifY
what that would cost. It would be similar to undergo this process.
Do you want to have the required public notice in regards to advertisement, neighborhood
information meeting, those --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, I would treat it just -- we can't call it a PUD, but I would treat it
like a PUD, because that's honestly what this property should be coming in here for today is a PUD.
MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make sure we understand so that we proceed and we notice,
advertise and do all the other required processes prior to bringing it here so we have clear understanding
what your intent is.
So I understand what you're saying, it would be treated almost like a rezone again but coming in to
review the plat. And I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it would be in the form of a PUD process I believe is what's
being suggested. And I'm not sure that's what everybody's suggesting, but that's what --
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, I just want to make sure so we understand and we can note that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are you referring to every home at a time?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, because they could build these over 10, 15 years by right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They'd still have to put in infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what? There's a lot to be said for coming in with a master plan
well planned out with densities, heights, restrictions and setbacks. If they want to come in 110 times for a
PUD process, then let them come in. I think the county would benefit from it because it gets more staff
hired because we have plenty of funds then.
But anyway, that's kind of what my thought is.
Anybody else have any comments during this discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay--
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chaimmn--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you have anything, Jolm, you want to add?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: If I can just close.
Page 48
161 1 -\Jil 2, 2009
If! can propose that on three stipulations, and for your considerations, Mr. Chairman.
The first is, as we indicated earlier, we will come in with a new traffic impact statement at the time
of the SDP or plat, whatever it may happen to be.
Following up on Mr. Barton's comments, we'll provide a setback along that western property so
that you know that there's sufficient land there to accommodate a public right-of-way if the county wants to
have a public right-of-way in that area.
And then finally, our proposal for your consideration, Commissioners, is that in order to give some
direction to the Planning Commission at a future time, to your staff and ultimately to the Board of County
Commissioners, when we come back in for a site development plan or a site plan, or before we build the
first house on the property, we have to come back before the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners to have that site plan and that -- and/or that plat approved -- recommended for
approval and approved ultimately by the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that gets us the coverage that we're looking for. You
said if the plat or the SDP.
Ray, is there anything they can do without a plat or an SDP on this property?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: Other than a single-family home one at a time. They don't have to come in for a
plat. But once you do three or more units, you have to plat.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I'll stipulate that we won't come in for one home without
coming through the platting or SDP process. Before we build the first home on the property, we'll come in
with an SDP or a plat, and the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission will have
the ability to see that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt, in reference to the process that would be utilized to
make this come through, we would implement the PUD process in regards to advertising fees for whatever
else was in place for the review process to come before the boards, and then through the board analysis we
could adjust setbacks, heights or anything else that would seem inappropriate. Is that clear?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And from here it would go to the board, but it would go to the board. Most
likely it will also include the final approval process, similar to any plat approval, which certainly you're
familiar with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: It would be part ofthat final approval plat process with a report from the
Planning Commission noting what we'd done. So it would be a combination between -- almost like a
rezoning and a final plat approval when it goes to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and if it went to the board under this new process and it had a
dissenting vote from the Planning Commission, it would not be on summary agenda then; would it not?
MR. SCHMITT: Certainly not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because all your plats are generally on summary agenda.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. They would not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would be an exception in this case.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. We'd put it on the regular agenda, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think it fairly checks out, subject to staffs figuring it out
when they come back with a consent agenda.
Does anybody else have any comments, questions?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron first, then Mr. Murray.
Page 49
---, -"'.- ...---- _.~_...-~----=---~.~--~--,-~-----_._.._._-_.__._.~._._._..-._-_._.~_._._--
-';'
, , .L:,) I'
~i; /'. ) ~~'/
!~J'~-Aprir 2, 2009
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Was it also your testimony, Mr. Passidomo, that the golf course
would not move?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: There's certainly no contemplation that it will ever move. Did I make a
comment as a stipulation that the golf course will never move?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. PASSIDOMO: And frankly, 1 don't even know really what that could mean or why the public
would have an interest in that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it was just a statement that had been made and so I wanted to
make sure it shouldn't be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: John, just in clarification, I'm sure you meant this, but when you
said we'll provide an easement of sufficient space to make a road there, Richard Road, Richard Street, or
whatever it is, right, that's what you said?
MR. PASSIDOMO: No, sir. Thank you for asking tor clarification, Mr. Murray.
What I suggested is that we'll have a setback in that area. The assurance is given that there won't
be any structures there. So if the county wants to come in at some later time and actually acquire that
property and create a road there, there won't be an impediment to their ability to do so in the form of a
setback.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I appreciate that. What I thought I heard, though, Mr.
Barton saying he was concerned that he would, by taking what is legitimately I think a standard for a road,
you're going to reduce it 60 percent, et cetera, et cetera. But that's okay, you're good with that?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: If it's a setback then we're not reducing the native vegetation requirement. I
think that's the sensitivity we have.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else want to comment at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, are you finished?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, I am. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't close it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not doing it yet. That's why I was asking.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to ask transportation one last question here.
MR. GREEN: Michael Green, Transportation Planning.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Looking in your crystal ball, do you see, can you anticipate the need
for this north-south Richards Street to become a corridor, an actual road?
MR. GREEN: You're digging a trap for me.
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes, I am.
MR. GREEN: We always try and get interconnections and create a grid. Yes, that would be a
benefit.
I don't have any tools available to me today in place to provide me the nexus to ask for this under
this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you had a stipulation that provided you the ability for that easement
Page 50
16 '1 1 A 3 April 2, 2009
and you wanted to use it in the future, that would be more advantageous than not.
MR. GREEN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was going to say, the best thing we can do is keep them
from building a golf hole where we need it, as the past has given us.
MR. GREEN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Or a house.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else?
Anything before I close the public hearing?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a
motion. But let's have discussion first.
There's a lot ofthings that this project entails, and one of them is the extension of Vanderbilt Beach
Road.
As much as I hate what we've done with that extension, I don't believe we can find that as a reason
to deny this project. However, I think it's good that we had the discussion today and some more
information got on the table concerning that.
So that set aside, I also, as this whole board has expressed, this has not been a real clear
understanding of what they're trying to do here. The information we got is limited and doesn't provide a lot
of clarity. So based on that, I suggest that we consider the following stipulations: one is that the golf course
always will retain the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. And once it's rezoned into the neutral
land categories, it will come under the rules within the neutral lands for the golf course operations.
Number two: There will be no density awarded as a result of to day's process. Meaning they may
go into the neutral land category, but they don't have any other uses allocated them through today's process,
nor are they entitled to them until they come back through the third stipulation, which is: That any uses or
changes come back to the Planning Commission and the BCC under this process similar to that of the PUD
process for review and approval for all categories that we would look at as though it were a PUD.
And number four: That the applicant will not build within the Richards Road corridor or allow --
and allow the county to acquire an easement if needed therefore in the future.
And those are the four stipulations I think that we talked out here today.
Does anybody have anything that they would like to consider adding to it, elaborate on?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is staff clear on the stipulations?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem.
I need to know how big of an area you don't want them to build in. The talk was a setback, what --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the Richards Road corridor. Whatever corridor width
transportation can provide you with between now and the time we get consent. Unless they know now.
MS. DESELEM: I heard John Podczerwinsky say the term 60 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds logical, because that's I think the minimum standard for the
county anyway. So let's leave 60 feet as a minimum corridor.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Plus I would like a setback for a building. So why don't we just
say 100 feet and make it easy, that they can't build within 100 feet of that property line. That would give
them the full right-of-way. It may be set up where they can only have half the right-of-way.
And at the time of the review of the public hearing we'd be able to make a smarter decision.
Page 51
.~.".<-~-~ ,_._,_-_,_,_--'.',"~". _.-
~ 1 ~ ~
" ...... :~ 1
. ?~
l..;," . ..'h..'
April "2, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have no problem with that.
MS. DESELEM: So you--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't build within 100 feet of the western property line. And the
intent of that stipulation is for the future provision to Collier County to acquire that as an easement.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other clarifications you need, Kay?
MS. DESELEM: I think I've got it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission forward
Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, known as Olde Florida Golf Club, Incorporated, with a recommendation of
approval, based on the stipulations as offered by the Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I certainly would not have even considered voting for this
unless the commitment was made that it come back to us --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a lot closely -- a lot more closely aligned with a PUD process.
This is a huge piece of property out there and shouldn't be done to standard zoning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree with you, I would not have voted for it without that
stipulation being in place.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I too.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Neither would 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor of the vote, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. It's now 11 :30.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have two to go through.
Page 52
16 I A3 ,
lApril 2: 2009
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 11 :20.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever time it is. It's so hard with that clock. ...
I'd just as soon, if it's okay with you, we'll keep pushing. We might be able to finish these two up
in short order and not have to take a break for lunch. Is that -- we'll just have to see how it goes for the next
half hour or so.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay, move to approve.
Item #9D
PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-13792, NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDEN, INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is Petition PUDA-2008-AR-13792, and it's the Naples
Botanical Garden, Inc., and the Florida Gulf Coast University, represented by Bruce Anderson.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a discussion with Bruce Anderson and I told him that this is like
mom and apple pie, I'm not sure what I can do with it. So we'll go forward.
Bruce, it's all yours.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson
from the Law Firm of Roetzel and Andress, and I'm pleased to represent this community asset today.
I was privileged to represent Naples Botanical Garden when this PUD was first approved in 2003.
With me today are members of the project team: Brian Holley, the executive director of Naples
Botanical Garden, and from WilsonMiller we have Margaret Perry, the project planner, Jeffrey Perry, the
transportation planner, and Jared Brown, who is the project engineer.
The Botanical Garden PUD was first approved in June, 2003, and it includes 171 acres.
This application is for an amendment of that PUD and the following changes are requested: The
Garden is requesting the ability to have interim or temporary structures to house the already approved
permitted principal and accessory uses. These interim structures would be allowed for an initial period of
three years, and if extensions were needed because of the state of the economy, they could be -- an
extension could be approved administratively, using the site development plan approval process.
There is one correction that I do need to make on the next text of the PUD. It's in Section 6.4. And
you'll see that I have struck the phrase described above in one through six.
My reason for doing that is that paragraph refers to these interim and temporary structures being
provided for both principal and accessory uses. However, one through six above are only the principal uses.
So it's merely clerical cleanup.
The amendment language that we're asking you to approve today provides that these interim
structures and the maintenance building do not require architectural and design standard review. The
Garden has agreed to provide foundation plantings around these structures.
There have also -- we're also requesting revisions to the transportation conditions. These changes
have been agreed to by the applicant and the staff. These revisions will help assure that the Botanical
Garden does not pay any more than its fair share for improvements at the intersection of Bayshore Drive
and Thomasson Drive.
The transportation amendments also address with specificity the obligations of the Garden for
Page 53
. ."~.- ._.._.~.~.~ "'-.~~__""'_______"""'''.''"~_~''-'__~~_~_'''_'''''''''''''~ ".'_.,,_'_e --,'"~",-
~ 1 .
,; ,.'>~ ...
""5;
..~
'>011;:
April 2, 2009 .~
construction of sidewalks and payment in lieu for other sidewalks.
Yesterday the transportation department staff reworded paragraph I of the transportation conditions
to now read, quote, the developer, his successors or assigns shall provide a fair share contribution toward
the capital cost of traffic signal and turn lanes (or alternative intersection roundabout design) at the
intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive at such time that the improvements are constructed.
Pavement shall be provided to the applicable public agencies responsible for designing and constructing the
improvements, end of quote.
My client has agreed to this change.
And lastly, the amendment authorizes deviations from the Land Development Code as previously
discussed for the interim structures, and deviations are also requested for the fencing in order to provide
security to the Garden.
The Garden is on a tight timeline to get this PUD amendment approved in order to open up more
of the Garden to the public by fall of this year, and we respectfully request your recommendation of
approval for these changes.
I and the other members of the team will be pleased to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning Commission?
Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONl::R CARON: Yeah, I made my notes and stuff on the copy of the ordinance, if you
just want to follow along.
Under 4.41.B (sic).
MR. ANDERSON: B?
COMMISSIONER CARON: B, as in boy.
You are striking the words overflow parking and adding potential future expansion.
I don't mind that you use the words potential future expansion, but I think you need to also include
overflow parking. I don't want anybody to be misled about what potentially might be going on that little
piece -- that piece of property.
The -- you know, these euphemisms, those potential future development, just sort of leave it broad
and open-ended. And I understand why you want that in it but I think parking, while to you it might seem
logical that if you do any expansion there'd have to be parking involved in it, I just want the neighbors to
understand. So I think you can use --
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, J don't think the intention is to limit it to just overflow parking.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, that's what 1 said. So you can --
MR. ANDERSON: Overflow--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- state it overflow parking and/or potential development.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
Then on the next page, on two, in that paragraph that you have right up there --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you just struck. I'm a little concerned about the open-endedness
of these reviews that can be done by staff I think everybody understands the fact that things may not move
as quickly as we'd all like to see them move in this day and age. However, there's got to be some end to
these three-year reviews that can just be done by staff and no other consideration has to be given to either
the rest of the neighborhood or any commissioners.
Can we come up with something reasonable, Mr. Anderson, to -- as opposed to leaving it just
open-ended that you can come back for the rest of -- you know, the next 25 years every three years you can
come back and get staff to --
Page 54
16 ,. A3
I '1
April 2, 2009
MR. ANDERSON: We had originally proposed that extensions would need to come to the Board
of County Commissioners through the public petition process. And staffwas not comfortable with that
approach, and they were the ones that changed it and wanted to put it through the site development plan
approval process. We would be happy either way.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I'll leave that question then to staff. 'fhalks for that
explanation.
I think maybe the rest of mine may be staff questions. Anyway -- other than to note to you, Mr.
Anderson, that on Page 4 under M, it will be that same change of overflow parking and/or potential future
expanSIOns.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I didn't have anything more for
Bruce.
No, I think the rest of them are staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, mine are in that same area. It's kind ofword-smithing.
But if you go to Section 1, 4.14.A. The first thing in there is you have this last sentence that says, the
applicant shall comply with section such and such. Foundation plantings for the interim and temporary
structures as well as maintenance structures. Then you add this, which to me doesn't make sense: To
compensate for deviating from the architecture and design. I mean, they would have to comply with
foundation plantings anyway, correct? So what's this compensation concept? I would just think after
maintenance structure you could --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like that may be a staff change. Yeah, it's a staff change. We'll
wait till staff comes up here then on that one. I just noticed --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All of these things will be staff?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that one is, the one that you referred to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right.
Second thing is number two is kind of a good thing. That was a major part of the first hearing, that
they really wanted to do some innovative structures. So my thought is up in the middle of the paragraph
that you're adding, it gives the proper sections for the architectural standards of the LDC as amended. And
I think it would be smart to insert back in there part of number two, at least the sentence that says to allow
for innovative design of structures ofthe Naples Garden. That section doesn't guarantee that. So I think
let's carry forth the intent that they would have innovative structures.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is on 6.2, as it carries over to Page 2.
This concept of discussing, you know, the different codes and stuff. First of all, you've left some out.
Secondly, there's no way you could ever not do that. And thirdly, the impression might be is that these are
going to be considered temporary structures within those codes, which they will not, they will be permanent
buildings.
So why do we have that in there really?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you have here, a temporary use permit is not required, and
the interim and temporary -- or temporary structures shall be approved through the site development plan
process -- that's good. Interim or temporary structures will comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act -- they essentially comply with the Florida Statute now -- and the Collier County Building Code. But
there's also fire codes.
Page 55
-~_.. ..... . ._~ __""'_"''''''__''_'''''_''"'''"~'''~''_''''___w_'''''''~_ --.-
r " d:y
,;, i ;l
,I 1 n ""'....:,
;].; ~
April 2, 2009 ,~
In other words, so why are we saying that last sentence? I mean, first of all --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there's nothing you could say that you wouldn't. I mean, these
things have to comply with that. And they would not be considered temporary structures because of the
length of time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do that, Bruce, or did staff?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I will let staff answer that question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think that's it.
Oh, one other question for Bruce, though. Bruce, there's a roundabout in the Bayshore plan. Does
this property give the right-of-way so they could build that?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not sure about that.
No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you think that's a good idea?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Try again.
Anyway, we'll discuss it later, I guess.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I did have one more --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that would actually be Mr. Anderson, and that's on the very final
page under deviation. The chain link fence.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Saying that it shall be pennitted at five feet in height. But didn't
staff also say it has to be black? And should that be in there at that point?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And it's just not in there. So we can just make that correction, okay,
that it's not somewhere in there.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, we'll put -- we'll begin the sentence, black chain link fence shall be
permitted --
COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go.
MR. ANDERSON: -- at a height of five feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce.
MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the
Department of Zoning and Land Development. It's been a few months so I'm happy to be back here in front
of you again.
Ijust want to read into the record on the Naples Botanical Garden and the location, that the planned
unit development is in -- the subject property is in the urban designated mixed use district. And it's also
part of the urban coastal fringe sub-district, as well as the Bayshore/Gateway triangle redevelopment
overlay. And the overlay allows for unique projects similar to this.
And I just wanted that to be read into the record. Most of it has to do with of course amendments to
this PUD document, which I'd like to address for our commissioners.
Might as well start with Section 4.14, design guidelines of the proposed amendment.
Part of the -- what they're requesting with these interim structures is very -- interim or temporary
Page 56
16 1'1 A.3
~ April 2, 2009
structures is a unique structure that there is no allowance for it in the LDC. And they could essentially just
bring in a trailer, if we just say interim structure, and it could be strapped down. But you want to make sure
that the structures -- because what they're being used for are uses that are listed such as restrooms, a gift
shop, possibly a restaurant.
So what you're wanting to do, though, because these structures are not really listed in the -- well,
they aren't -- there isn't any provisions in the LDC to make sure that they would be for the safety of those
who are coming to the Gardens, and not to say that the -- those who are managing the gardens would put up
a structure that isn't safe. We want a guarantee that there is something there that not only are they going
through the site design process or the site development process, and the fact that they have agreed to do and
staffhas agreed that the architectural review standards are going -- they don't have to follow them. We
wanted to ensure that these structures still meet the wind code, they still have to be strapped down if there's
restrooms. You know, you have to provide running water.
And the site development process you would go through would make sure where the structures are
located. But you still want to make sure the building code, that these are built to those standards, as well as
the AD -- American Disabilities Act for the residents, as well as those who will be the patrons.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you trying to address a particular concern we had?
MS. ZONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't we focus on that. I think you were trying to address the
section two, 6.2, the last sentence that Brad brought up about why we have that last sentence in there.
MS. ZONE: Well, you're right, I'm sorry, Commissioner. But A brings in the temporary
structures. And so I was kind of giving an overview of why we're doing everything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we understand why you all do it. We can get more to the point, if
you'd like.
MS. ZONE: Very sorry.
The foundation plantings are not really also part of alternative designs, and they don't really --
would not, because the structures aren't provided for in the LDC, Commissioner Schiffer. That we wanted
to let them know that at least to mask these walls along there. And the applicants had -- actually were the
ones who when we said if you're going to include these, could you provide something. And the foundation
plantings -- though it wasn't us who said they had to be, that was what they brought forward as
compensating for. And so we said well, then let's put it into the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and why don't -- and Brad, since some of these are your questions,
why don't you just interact directly with Melissa.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Melissa, first of all, they would have to do the foundation
plantings anyway, they're a building, correct? I mean, remember, this is the Botanical Gardens. These guys
aren't going to try to get away with gravel here.
MS. ZONE: Correct. And we understand that. But again, that you could have -- their structures
are going to be -- there's no question that they're going to be building the structures.
But these are not really permanent structures for that. It could, as I stated before, could become a
trailer on blocks. And so how do you mask that? We could eliminate it in good faith, but then if they don't
and someone says oh, this awful structure, well, now we have nothing other than that staff did record it on
the record and it was then removed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but what if they're behind a fence and it's a maintenance--
and it actually is a trailer on blocks. You really want them to -- where the public doesn't see it, nobody sees
it?
MS. ZONE: If the Planning Commission would like this removed, I will be happy to present it to
the Board of County Commissioners. We're just ensuring because this is not provided for in the LDC.
Page 57
, '~'---"-"" ---,,~...__.....,.., .... . . ~'-"<." .- .~~---
!1 C=;7
. "i j,"
__ "Ap~il", 200~ 1 ~.-"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what you should do is just remove after the word
maintenance building to compensate. I mean, there's no need to prove why you're doing it.
MS. ZONE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To kill that I think makes sense.
Do you have a problem moving what was stricken in B up to where it mentions the architectural
standards using the alternate compliance method and making sure we note what was there in the original
PUD is to allow for innovative design? I think that's important.
MS. ZONE: So what you're saying is to include the second part of number two under A and
include it in 2-B, is that -- do I understand that correctly?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, what I'm saying is take the words from 2 --
MS. ZONE: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- where it starts to allow for innovative design within the
Botanical Gardens, and include that after the words up in the middle of the sentence, section -- the
architectural standards of the LDC as amended. And right there say, to encourage.
Because one of the major -- we don't -- you know, the ultimate compliance doesn't -- necessarily
isn't there to allow for imlovative design, it's to allow for ultimate compliance.
MS. ZONE: And so you're wanting that to be included so that you know what their intent is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Those were important words in the original PUD. Let's keep
them.
MS. ZONE: No problem.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, the second thing is up on the top of 2, that last sentence,
these are not going to be temporary structures in the building code. There's nothing anybody can build that
would -- you know, in other words, you don't have to put that in there. I'm sure if the building official
discussed it with you and the fire code official. Fire code 30 days, that's all you're going to get, building
code's going to reference the fire code. So what's going to happen is that there's no such thing as a
temporary structure, at least in the length of times you're describing. A circus tent is, but --
MS. ZONE: And we've had long discussions. We said what you're proposing are permanent
structures. And they said well, they would like to remove them at some point. So if they are calling these
interim structures and the LDC does not, as I stated before, provide for interim structures, we wanted to
make sure there was something for them to comply with.
You're calling them permanent. I understand. And stafl agreed with you there. But if they're
wanting to have these in the PUD document to be included as interim or temporary structures, then we
want to make sure, because the LDC does not have regulations for those types of structures, they have to
comply.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the LDC isn't what governs whether a building complies with
building code.
MS. ZONE: The building code does. But during site development plan it starts the process. And
it is -- it's a conflict, and staff isn't disagreeing with you. Again, it's assurance.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The concern -- then let's pretend that needs to be in there.
And I don't believe that yet. The way you're describing it doesn't make any sense. First of all, how would
you build a building -- it's a civil rights law, the ADA. How would you build a building to violate that?
You know, you can't.
MS. ZONE: Well, I will say that that's something that you might want to go back and then address
to the applicants --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just strike that last sentence.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let's strike it.
Page 58
t~ll40if13
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just -- you know, we can drag this on for an hour here--
MS. ZONE: Right, and I've already struck through it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine, then let's go on to the next one. Brad, what--
MR. SCHMITT: ADA compatibility is a check through the Florida Building Code, so it's
redundant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you guys --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- proof this stuff -- this shouldn't even be in here to begin with.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just stop being redundant with laws and rules that we have
to reference that are already part oflaws and rules we have to abide by.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And I'd just like to also point out for the record that while we're dealing
with permanent structures, whether -- the purpose of providing some additional clarification is the amount
of deviations that would be applied to these so-called interim structures from an architectural standpoint.
And we just want to make sure architecturally that we're not approving something below standards without
some deadline for them to be removed.
MR. SCHMITT: It's no difference than a sales trailer. You come in for a sales trailer --
MR. BELLOWS: But I agree --
MR. SCHMITT: -- those type of things.
MR. BELLOWS: -- with what you're saying, they're permanent structures for the purposes of the
building department.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it does sound different, Joe, than the trailer. Because the
trailer's governed by a different set of laws than a building would be.
So the point -- the only thing I want to make sure is you don't in any way consider these temporary
in the building codes. They're not, and --
MR. SCHMITT: They're not.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you can't do it with the LDC anyway.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. There's no argument there. They have to come in, they have to go
through the permitting process, through the building code process, fire review process. They're not
temporary. It's --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The sentence is killed.
MS. ZONE: It's also to remind the applicant that they are not really a trailer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you want to go on to your next issue?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I'll continue on to the paragraph that's up there now and let's
discuss why the open-ended review, staff reviews.
MS. ZONE: Actually, we had put in there that it was originally the Board of County
Commissioners. This was a last minute change. And it was based on Commissioner Coyle's comments at
the last BCC hearing where they feel that bringing -- asking for a continuance for a use or some type of
structure to go through the public petition process, because they believe that is not a forum for it and they
would rather have it either go through staff administratively or through a public petition process.
So to not have them to come back in to amend the PUD document, we put it through
Page 59
,.. .~_-..-_"~___,_"__..__.._~~_."._._....,,..__,".,_w._._..,,,,,~~.., -~ , .......,,,,, ,.,_..._._~."_.......,~-_...,,,,,_....,-.,_..- ........~, ,'.....,..~.~~"'^
1;', , J. !o ~ ~'i
I " ',' ,r ,~
Ii ~ . ;,..,.:/
Ap" ,2 9'-'
administratively. They would come in, request through the zoning department if they --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it.
MS. ZONE: -- could extend--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it.
MS. ZONE: -- the three years.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it, Melissa.
MS. ZONE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So this is what I want you to do. I think it's fine that they
get their three years, and then they can ask you for a three-year and you can grant that administratively. I
have no problem with that.
But when does it end? When do they finally have to do something else besides go back to you?
Meaning staff. Because right now they can make this a 25-year plan and they can come back to you every
three years.
MS. ZONE: Right. Well, if you continue, the last sentence says that when they come in through
the site development plan amendment process to include temporary restrooms --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm going to make a suggestion here.
MS. ZONE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That you get two three-year extensions administratively. After that,
Mr. Anderson, your clients would have to come back in. So you'd have nine years to get the project
completed and --
MR. SCHMITT: Fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of stan'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's just one thing, Mark --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that seems odd, is they're going to be building these buildings
per the codes as if they're permanent buildings.
So all of a sudden -- I mean, what is this really giving these people, other than the ability to build a
essentially permanent structure for six years without architectural review, right? You want innovative
buildings in there anyway. What are we gaining here?
MR. SCHMITT: The intent was to try and -- and you'd have to ask the applicant, but the intent--
this is going to be a -- it's a non-profit. It's a long process. It's raising revenue to build the permanent
facilities. But they want to begin to open portions of it to the public, but they need the public facilities there
to support the opening to the public. Restrooms --
MR. BELLOWS: Food.
MR. SCHMITT: -- restaurant or food service, those types of things. And so it is a long process.
It's not like a PUD or a development.
So that's kind of what this was written as saying, yeah, you can have these interim facilities as you
evolve and raise revenue and whatever to build your permanent facilities. That's sort of what they wanted.
MS. ZONE: It is. And they -- to prevent them from keeping those structures there once the
permanent structures are built, it would then be tied to the certificate of occupancy and that those structures
would have to be removed.
So when they come in for the SDP amendment for public restrooms when the structure for the
public restroom is built, then the interim one is then removed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're not going to be allowed like six years of Porta-Lets. I
mean, there's no such thing as a six-year Porta-Let. I mean. anyway, if they want to do it, let them do it. I
just haven't got it.
Page 60
16 I 1 A 3 "
,
April 2, 2009
MS. ZONE: It was their request and we're trying to find an avenue to permit it.
MR. SCHMITT: Wait a minute, you can. If they have purchased a trailer, that's a comfort station
--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they can have it there as long as they want.
MR. SCHMITT: -- and it's fully equipped and it meets all the tie-down code for the building code,
it could sit there --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Forever.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, forever.
MR. SCHMITT: -- forever.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like the Seminoles have midway on 75.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's right.
MR. SCHMITT: So this was trying to--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But those all meet codes.
MR. SCHMITT: What Ms. Caron did is added a limit to it, which I think is great. Because it says
wait a minute, we're not going to let this happen for 10 years. And so -- but it does allow a process for
them to at least have facilities in a temporary basis as they raise revenue to build the permanent facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, can I close the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, you may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's close the public hearing and --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to -- well, Mark, before we do, I'd like to just ask Bruce
one thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we are here, we are discussing this PUD. Why can't we
discuss the turnaround, what the county needs to create that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can discuss it. I'm not saying we can't discuss it. I asked if there was
any more questions, nobody said anything. So go ahead. What do you want to know about the turn --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, why can't we start setting that up? What's the reason we
can't start putting the radius in the property line right now?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, the roundabout, you mean?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll let transportation address that. But it's my understanding that the CRA has
pretty much decided they can't accommodate a roundabout there because the boat trailers can't get around
it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's a good reason.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning.
Bruce is correct. I've got communication from David Jackson over at the CRA stating that
basically the radius for the roundabout design wouldn't accommodate some of the boat trailers that they
would anticipate going down to Bayview Park. So it would require additional right-of-way.
Three of the four corners right now -- actually, all four corners are occupied. But one of those is
about to undergo redeveloped. Three of the four comers, southwest quadrant, would be -- Naples Botanical
Gardens would require additional right-of-way to accommodate that roundabout design. And the larger the
radius, the more right-of-way you need.
Page 61
""............,.~- .......''''',,''<''._---..,--,.. ---
April i,~iJosl l
The current design alternative that they were discussing were turn lanes, would accommodate what
they need and a possible future signalization at the intersection.
So that's sort of the direction that the CRA is leaning in communications towards -- you know,
back and forth to transportation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me say, Bruce, what you said then is with the existing,
the given right-of-ways, they can't build a roundabout large enough. I'm talking about maybe we should be
starting to carve out the roundabout they need then.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That would also require right-of-way on the other three quadrants,
which would cost over and above what I think the Bayshore CRA and MSTU are willing to accommodate.
And it still creates a problem with the turning radius for boat trailers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so nobody knows what right-of-way would be required for
a proper turnaround at that location?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe it's been evaluated, but I don't have the exact numbers with
me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, when you said the turnaround wouldn't accommodate boat trailers,
you said because the CRA said it wouldn't.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the CRA an engineering firm?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, they are not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have an engineering firm confirm that statement?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Myself, no, I have not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we don't know if it will accommodate a boat or trailer or not. We just
heard that somebody said it wouldn't, so therefore we believe that.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's not the only statement. I can -- but if you want my--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't ever say that.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: All right, this is a conceptual plan that they've included in their study.
This is the conceptual design.
And as you can see, you can notice on the northeast quadrant of Thomasson and Bayshore Drive,
there'd be an impact there, which I believe is affordable housing at this point. The southeast corner, which
is Del's Party Store, there would be problems there. There'd also be access management problems there.
And you can also see on the Naples Botanical Gardens where there would be issues pretty much
with their signage and their parking lot.
So the larger the radius would go to accommodate boat trailers -- and I'd have to ask probably our
PE --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But John, my point was I don't care if this runabout (sic) is there or
whatever you want to do there, it doesn't matter to me. But your reasons for saying no, we can't have a
runabout is because someone just told you it wouldn't work for boat trailers and you don't have an
engineering credential to tell me that's true or not n not you but whoever told you that. I don't know why
you guys would dismiss the idea for that reason. That was my only point.
If you're dismissing it for other reasons, it's not practical, fine, then just say that. But to dismiss it
because someone didn't think it would work for boat trailers, well, that doesn't fly. A professional's got to
say that, meaning an engineer or someone who's a transportation authority or someone of that nature.
Anyway, anybody else have any questions on the runabout?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know, that was a roundabout discussion.
Page 62
16 " 1 II
April 2, 2009 ..
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure was.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Many times.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, here's the thing, is you've got four corners you've got to
get. Here's a chance to bite at this one. I mean, if you want to walk away from it, walk away, but--
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, sir, we're trying to stay in line with the Bayshore CRA,
this recommendation from the study that they've done that I'm showing you here. And their
recommendation was for the roundabout, but for the alternative design was for a signalization at the
intersection.
And like I said, we've received communication from the CRA from Mr. Jackson that indicates that
the CRA and the MSTU are not supportive at this point of the roundabout design.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the CRA has abandoned the roundabout.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, enough said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, can I close the public --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You sure can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing deliberations --
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're opened up again.
Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: I have one clarification question.
Ms. Caron, after the second three-year extension, what procedure can we avail ourselves of, if
necessary? Can we go the public petition route?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, the process like, you know, like would be normal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, can I close the public hearing now?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Thank you, I just needed to know what to add there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I already added that. I figured that's what she meant so that's what I
put down.
Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a -- well, before we go to a motion, I'll
read the notes I made, and if we want to elaborate on them, go from there.
Number one: Change 6.4, number seven, to strike out the reference to the -- as we show on the
screen, one through six.
Number two: Accept the new transportation language as read to us on the record.
Number three: Accept staff recommendations.
Number four: Change 4.14.B, and 7.5.M to address the -- to include the overflow park parking in
the and/or language.
Number five: Add the innovative structures language back into 4.14.A.
Number six: Under 7.63 put the word black in front of chain link.
Number seven: Under 4.14, remove the last sentence words -- the words where they start to
compensate, remove the rest of that sentence after those words and the rest of the sentence.
Number eight: 6.2, remove reference to the ADA and the codes, that entire sentence.
And the last one, 6.4.7, allow only two three-year administrative approvals for extension and then
require public process after that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd make a motion, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would motion that PUDA-2008-AR-13792, known Naples
Botanical Gardens planned unit development, as presented here today and incorporating all of the Chair's
Page 63
. ',w_." ~,,"-,~~ I!'___~,_''''~''''~"'''',~''''M"_H~._"".""..",......",, -..-
/1 f .
."J '.. tl
. I. .
F ft.:'>) . I
,\~ :/
April 2: 2009
recommended changes, and according to staff recommendations, be forwarded to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Caron.
Any comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
By the real clock, or by the close clock, it's a few minutes before noon. We have two choices. We
can take a IS-minute break or we can take an hour lunch and come back. I think the next one's rather
simple.
So what's the preference of the board?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Break.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Short one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll take a 15-minute break, we'll come back at 12:15, which who
knows what time it will be by the clock on the wall.
(Recess. )
Item #9E
PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-13048, NADESHA RANASINGHE
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from break.
We have one petition left. It's Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-13048. It's Nadesha Ranasinghe -- I can't
say the last name, but the people are represented by Richard Y ovanovich, and it's for a Singer Park CPUD.
And with that, is there any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Besides me, I did speak with Richard. We had a brief conversation, and I
have one issue that I'll be bringing up today.
Other than that -- oh, yeah, swearing in. Thank you. The attorney had to remind me to swear
Page 64
16 I Fi AI
-
tl April 2, 2009
,
people in. Now there's a different twist.
Anybody wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I see the big guns from compo planning are here, so
something's up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, no. I hope not.
I think it's good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the applicant.
With me today also is Ron Nino with Vanasse and Daylor to answer any questions that I can't
answer regarding the petition.
The petition involves a 5 . 15-acre parcel at the northwest quadrant of Everglades Boulevard and
Immokalee Road. And if you look up on the -- whatever that's called, the bulletin board, you'll see the
property outlined and you'll see Immokalee Road in the east-west direction, and then Everglades Boulevard
in the north-south direction. And that's the property.
The property is within what's identified in the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan as neighborhood
center. And as a neighborhood center, that is where the master plan currently allocates commercial
development.
The request is for up to 45,000 square feet ofC-l through C-3 residential uses, which is currently
what's allowed under the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan.
We've identified in the PUD a few uses that are within the C-l through C-3 category. We've also
included the prohibited uses as prohibited uses that are also specifically prohibited under the
comprehensive plan.
We've basically taken what's in the comprehensive plan and put it into the PUD document to make
it clear what we can and can't do on the property.
Your staffhas reviewed the petition and has found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and is
recommending approval of the petition.
We had a neighborhood information meeting. There were no objections to the petition that I noted
-- that we noted at the neighborhood information meeting. And I don't think there are any objections that
have been submitted since or prior to the neighborhood information meeting.
The petition is very straightforward. Your staff report goes into great detail, and I'll be happy to
answer any questions you may have regarding the petition --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- if you have any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have only one here.
But I noted for 35 feet zoned and 40 feet actual height. And I'm just wondering, that's -- for one
story that's quite a lot. What do you intend to have, storage over one --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we simply did was take what's in the Land Development -- yeah, the
comprehensive plan and put it in the -- we don't know what the architecture of the buildings are going to
look like, so we just mirrored what is currently authorized.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. Because it would seem 40 feet is a lot of building.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you don't have to build to 40 feet, though.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Theoretically we could get to an actual height of 40 feet. Theoretically.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, there's a GMP requirement for buildings to be essentially
Page 65
,~--~-,.-,"",...-..".._^.".,. "W 'W Alli.~ ~"""_""'''__'' ~il!fw;I.t\ijJ1.lIIlfl''1T. __, . ___OR" ...
,AI /J "; ,,'1
: :'\
it . ~, .
\
April 2, 2009
5,000 feet. There is an exception that if they're submitted in the form ofa PUD. Now, that to me means
that because in a PUD you'd get to see the size of the buildings. So this has no restriction whatsoever on
the square footage of the buildings themselves, correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. But it does currently keep the square footage limitations on
the uses that are in the PUD -- that are in the Land Development Code in the compo plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is there any way we could discuss how big these buildings
are going to be? I mean, there's nothing to prevent you from building a 45,000 square foot building in one
big lump.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's true. But the master plan does depict for you the building envelope,
if you will, of where that building could be located. We've got the preserves outlined on the master plan,
and to our north is a fire station. And as you know, we'll have the 75-foot bound -- let me put it up on the
visualizer, if you need me to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you've done everything in the compo plan that you should
do to that site. That's not the question. The question is this is also in the compo plan, and -- I guess I can
wait and ask comprehensive planning at staff time what the intent of that is.
I have a question for transportation later, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I've got on your development standards table, Exhibit B, under
minimum yards you have from Everglades Boulevard right-of-way and then you have from other CPUD
boundaries you have 25 feet, and accessory same as principal structure. But yet on your site plan you've got
to have 75 feet for the buffer requirements.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you really have 75 feet then?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you do on two of the boundaries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, and they would trump the 25 feet, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I understand. But for clarification, I think it ought to be added to
this table.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, if we want to put it 75 feet from the south and west--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then maximum height you have listed as 35 feet, 40 feet and
20 feet and one story.
Back to like we did last time, I'd suggest we add the words 35 feet -- or one story not to exceed 35
feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we do that in each case, the not to exceed be added in there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I had.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one question on that height situation.
Page 66
16 / 1 A3
April 2, 2009
There is a direct quote from the neighborhood information meeting that says here, however, the
buildings will be one story not to exceed 35 feet in height when built. That's what was stated at the
neighborhood information meeting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was at the neighborhood information meeting. We talked about zoned
height at the neighborhood information meeting. The 35 feet was in the context of zoned height.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right, I'm reading what is in--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand what's in the staff report, but--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- quotes here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- I mean, we talked about zoned height at the neighborhood information
meeting.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. And so we should have some reference from staff on that
issue so that we can get that confirmed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. And just so you know, at the neighborhood information meeting we
actually did hand out the PUD document with all the uses in it identified. So we went through that with a
few people that did take the time to attend.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll ask for staff report then.
Thank you, Rich.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner
with Zoning and Land Development Review.
And as the -- staff is representing approval of this CPUD. As the applicant previously stated, it is
consistent with the neighborhood sub-district of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
And at this time, if you'd like to go right into questions, I'm happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, yeah.
Nancy, the 5,000 square foot building footprint, what do you think that means in this case?
MS. GUNDLACH: If we turn to table -- it's actually on Exhibit A. The 5,000 square feet is a limit
for retail uses located within principal structures within this PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Yet the GMP calls it a building footprint?
MS. GUNDLACH: The GMP calls it a building footprint?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, look on Page 7.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Third dot -- third bullet up from the bottom.
And I guess if you want, we can wait for comprehensive planning, since that's theirs. Maybe let
them describe it.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. I think they're on their way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right behind you.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department.
The specific language in the Golden Gate Master Plan we're speaking of provides that if -- that the
building permit -- building footprint cannot exceed 5,000 square feet unless the project is submitted in the
form of a PUD.
If this were not a PUD, this were conventional C-l 2 or 3 zoning, those zoning districts would cap
the square footage at the 5,000 square feet for some uses, and even smaller for others.
To exceed that would require a conditional use. So they would have to -- if they were just coming
in for conventional rezoning and they wanted a building to be larger, they would have to come in for
conditional use and have that specific review considered. This allows through the PUD approval process
Page 67
.--'..---~, ~..~~~...,,_."<.~-- ,--~-~~,~...,--" ~._------~---_._..__.....-
I? 1
:/~) J.;.~ ..
,;
April 2, 2009 ;' :r-~"':'
for the size of the structures to be part of this consideration.
Does that answer it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: WelL that's what -- I think Rich thinks it does too.
But here's the concern, is that a PUD is essentially a way to do creative zoning, you know creative
design, stuff like that. We have no design, we have no zoning, we just have a flat piece of land with stuff
outlined where we're not going to build parking and buildings.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So do you think that when they wrote that in there, unless it's
submitted in the form of a PUD, they really meant at the time you'd be reviewing the PUD you'd understand
how they're going to build this thing? Why would you have that requirement any other reason? I mean, the
intent is not to -- in other words, I understand what you're saying, a conventional. But are we falling short
on what a PUD would normally show us to give us the ability to, you know, approve or accept that layout?
MR. WEEKS: I cannot factually answer that. I can say that I think it's reasonable to assume and
perhaps even to ask an applicant to either restrict the building sizes or to provide some type of renderings of
what the buildings might look at as part of the consideration to allow a building to be greater than 5,000
sq uare feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. WEEKS: But I cannot say for certain.
Going back in history, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a time when through the
PUD zoning process it was an outright requirement to submit building footprints on a master plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because, you know, it seems odd that this is essentially a
discussion ofthe scale of buildings why it would matter in the legal format in which it's presented. You
would think that there has to be a reason why the PUD -- and I think because this doesn't have -- we have
no knowledge of the building, everybody's accepting the fact you could build one large building, that I
think we may be missing the intent of that, the wording there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is it appropriate if! comment?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's fine with the Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. Go ahead, Richard.
Just so you know, I was chairman of the group that wrote the intent of this language.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I'll defer to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your interpretation of it is the same one that I believe we intended. Our
concern was that if we had massive buildings we wanted them to be reviewed under the PUD format so we
could look at heights, densities and setbacks, buffers and things like that, which are all addressed in the
development standards table.
If they were going to come in with 5,000 square foot buildings or smaller, in like a business park
format, that didn't bother us too much. But it's when they'd come in with buildings that were larger than
that that we had the issue with, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what's allowed here. The reason --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But that's why they're in the PUD, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the PUD is not describing the footprint of the scale. They
could build a 45,000 square foot building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but it would be 35 feet high and have the buffers involved in it that
are --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And listening to your earlier discussion about another petition, you all
seemed to be uncomfortable with straight rezone. And I think what you were trying to get to was you can
only have a 5,000 square foot building, unless you're willing to go through the PUD review process, have
Page 68
-- 16
I .1
April 2, 2009 A:
-
your development standards table in one document, a master plan that depicts your building envelope, if
you will, to give certainty to the neighbors.
And you can evaluate, based upon this, if you were to do one building, is it okay based upon the
development standards table and everything being on the master plan. I don't think it was to get to the
specifics of the buildings themselves on the master plan, because there is no master plan with a straight
rezone, as we talked about a little earlier. Now you have the master plan and you'll know where the
envelope is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't particularly agree. I mean, there's discussions in
the GMP about courtyards, about a whole bunch of things that we have no idea whether you're going to do
that or not.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have to do that through -- the SDP process will review all of that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it will capture it, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, since you were there and know the intent, I'll back off.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're covered by what we've got in regards to what we intended,
so --
Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more of staff. And it's transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, I think it's a transportation question, sir. You're in charge of this
one.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, the way they have this designed, they have three lanes of
traffic, a pretty wide paved area coming out. Would that be better if they had an island between the
incoming and outcoming (sic) traffic? Do you see -- from transportation is that safe or less safe?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Actually, it's something that we would review at site development
plan. We do have aRight -of- Way Handbook requirement of a maximum width of 24 feet for a two-way
driveway.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this doesn't meet it. If you turn around and you could see--
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Actually in the PUD process we don't measure that. That's something
that's looked at specifically at SDP. If there's an additional lane that's required for outbound left-turn or
outbound right-turn traffic, it would be something that we would evaluate basically on an operational basis.
It's not something specifically we look at during PUD, though.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But this would obviously be greater than 24 feet. So there
would be probably an island somewhere in this design, so don't worry about it, right?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? Any questions of the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody, do we have any reason not to close the public hearing?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll--
Page 69
-- _.~. '..._-.." y ____- ~.AI. ~,'~"..~--~
c\ . 1
' 1,1
April 2~ ~009 ~ A 2
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's think of one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's think of one.
Okay, Richard, Bruce isn't here, so I'm covered. We'll close the public hearing.
I think there are only two comments, and that is number one, the height limitations, we'll have the
words not to exceed added to them.
And that the reference to the setbacks of the perimeter of the PUD will relate that the south and
west side will have a 75-foot setback.
By the way, that's just for the required native vegetation. Any other setbacks required by code,
they're obligated to, but that's to be added.
Okay, anybody else have anything?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Caron. Subject to the stipulations?
COMMISSIONER CARON: To the stipulations you just read--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff recommen --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and staff recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Homiak.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Thank you all.
Richard, that was probably the shortest one you've had in a while.
Number 10, old business, do we have any old business?
(No response.)
Item # 11
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any new business?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was -- Ijust want to bring this up again, because I was really
disturbed that staff was once again taking a petitioner's agent's word tor the intent of the CCPC. And I
really -- we have got to watch that. We have gotten in trouble in this county on numerous other occasions
Page 70
16JJ
April 2, 2 0
over this, and it's really very, very disturbing.
So I just wanted to reiterate that we need to watch that like a hawk, because it's a serious issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't quite follow that, Karen (sic), could you explain it a little
bit?
COMMISSIONER CARON: WelL what happened earlier was in PUD -- what was the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was the Mirasol one concerning the asterisk number nine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The petitioner's agent took out something from the consent without
interpreting what she thought the intent of this commission was.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Was this on his document or was it on our document?
COMMISSIONER CARON: On what was presented to us today. And that's why we had to have
it put back in. Brad brought the issue up and got them to put it back in.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I understand,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing. Maybe if that ever happens again, it should be
done, strike-through, underlined in red. I mean, something that really says we took this out. Because if we
hadn't have caught it, we wouldn't have caught it. So, you know, there's nothing in there to give us a hint
that somebody -- not even staff decided something should be a better way.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I just want to point out, I did talk to the planner assigned to that
project to find out a little more of what happened.
The condition footnote number nine was something that she added and has been shown on the
copy sent to you as an underlined. That was her interpretation of the CCPC's motion made at the last
meeting.
In discussing that with the applicant, Kay was in agreement that she thought that that was
redundant, that condition number nine that she had proposed, and therefore was taking it out in favor of this
other language that was placed in the footnote. And since it was coming to this board for approval for
consent where you would rcview that, she thought that her bases were covered.
But I understand the perception in this case was that you got a document that showed a change and
then there was a last second change. I don't think it was presented to you clearly as to the facts of what
happened. But it wasn't like it was existing language in the PUD that was removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think in the future, though, Brad's got a good comment, so has
Donna, if you highlight those changes --
MR. BELLOWS: Definitely will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it will make it a little easier for us to understand.
MR. BELLOWS: And we'll make it explain why you got a document different than what was
being handed out or explained.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely.
Is there anything else under old business, new business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi, are you here for public comment? Okay, then there is none.
There is no public left.
So let's motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioncr Caron.
Page 71
. APri~,~oJ91 A ~
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order
of the Chair at 12:48 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
tv/~L PAk~
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on t['I)6.~ ? 100 1 as V".. presented or as
corrected .
Page 72
~<_'m. -,.,,,,,~,~,,',.,-,-,-,,,,,,, - ,.^__",.__._.,..._,.._.__"._._____~________._.m.._
t .-
~:::~ ~~ R;;~I~jI:6 IAP!ll'~O: 1 v~
Henning
I flf.llll'Cl nl County Comtlusslonel'!'
g~re~ = ;t~s OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, April 1, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference
Room #610 in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental
Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Varian
Charles Abbott
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon Dejohn
Dalas Disney
David Dunnavant
Marco Espinar
Blair Foley
George Hermanson
Reed Jarvi
Thomas Masters
Robert Mulhere
Reid Schermer (Excused)
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES
Bob Dunn, Director, Building Review and Permitting
Susan Istenes, Director, Zoning & Land Development
Nick Casalanguida, Director, Transportation and Planning
Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities
James French, Operations Manager, Operations SuppaHlSc. Corres: ~
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official Date: D~ DC) D9
Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager - lL -
Robert Wiley, Principal Project Manager, CDES !'em t.: .1JQJ.__ \ .
Catherine Fabacher, LDC Control Manager
.~. Die:; fc
_.-,-",._----~,."-,,-_.-.- -"'- ._"_...._,....,_..__._.._.~._~~_"'___~__ "_""__""'_'_'_'_'_'__'~;_~______""O__"_"_____'__,.>._..,_
16' I 1 A 4 A~rill, 2009
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3 :08PM by Chairman William Varian and a
quorum was established.
Chairman Varian read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting.
II. Approval of Agenda
Thomas Masters moved to approve the Agenda. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried
unanimously, 10-0.
III. Approval of Minutes - March 4, 2009 Meeting
Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the March 4, 2009 Meeting. Second by
Thomas Masters.
Correction:
On Page 4, the first sentence following the Motion will read as follows:
Mr. Schmitt asked for clarification regarding the items listed in the
"Subcommittee's" Minutes of "February 25,2009."
Dalas Disney amended his motion to reflect the modification of the Minutes. Second
by Thomas Masters. Carried unanimously, 10-0.
IV. Public Speakers
Kathleen Adams, Village Walk of Naples Homeowners' Association, stated references
to the Sewer Inspection Clause appeared to have been eliminated from the Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance (~f 2009, She asked if it will be discussed during the DSAC
Meeting.
Robert Wiley, Principal Project Manager, CDES, stated the topic had been removed
from the Ordinance and was not part of his presentation. The HOA Sewer Inspection
Clause will be brought to DSAC, as a separate Ordinance, in the future. He could not
specify a definite date.
(Robert Mulhere arrived - 3: 12 PM)
V. Staff Announcements/Updates
A. Public Utilities Division - Phil Gramatges
. Water sales rose to the 2007 level, resulting in a modest increase in user fee
revenues
. An interval review of the Capital Budget has been completed
. There are no growth-related projects to be completed
(Marco Espinar arrived - 3: 14 PM)
B. Fire Review - Ed Riley
. The Monthly Report was distributed to the Members
. 535 reviews were conducted in February (slightly higher than in January, 2009)
2
o~_. ....^..~.- ----,,---......--,--...--..-.., ""-",.""..."'~-, "-'"''-''''''___0'-''''''' ...,.-...., -'-"""'-'-~~'-'"'------'-'''--'-'-'.."-
16 t A~ ,
1
April I, 2009
Mr. Riley distributed a comparison chart of the current fee versus the proposed fees
for various applications. Committee members questioned Mr. Riley to ascertain there
will not be duplication of fees which were already paid (part of the SDP/SDPI
process).
In regard to the sign placement and address issue, Mr. Riley stated public safety
concerns mandate specific placement for quick recognition by law enforcement, Fire
Department and EMS.
It was suggested, while Collier County's Addressing Ordinance must be consistent with
Statutory regulations, only one pair of eyes is necessary to review Site Development Plans
and Permits for compliance.
(George Hermanson arrived ~ 3:20 PM)
C. Transportation Division - Nick Casalanguida
. Budget review is in process
. Golden Gate Blvd. project (east of Wilson) will not be included in the current
Five- Year Plan
. Oilwell Road project remains on schedule and bidding on the Core Permit will
commence in approximately 3 months
. No other Capital Projects are slated for completion until after the Fiscal Year
begins in September, i.e., Collier Blvd. and Davis Blvd.
. 951 Project (from Golden Gate to Green) - will not be completed until 2013
A question was asked regarding the paving project on Oilwell Road (east of
Everglades Blvd.) and why there was no "road alert" on the County's website to state
the duration of the activity.
Mr. Casalanguida stated he will research the issue. [He later stated it was a simple
repaving of a limited area and not a new project.]
Discussion followed regarding the status of the U. S. 41/951 Consortium, and if Staff
would embrace a public/private partnership to further improvements.
Mr. Casalanguida stated there is only $8M available which is not enough money to
complete the intersection.
Additional discussion topics included ornate pedestrian bridges, medallions and
landscaping, Community MSTU's, and potential pavement failures due to lack of
Staff (presently at pre-2000 employment level) to resurface roadway.
It was suggested constructing sidewalks that were not in a project's initial plans
should be "rethought" to consider actual need versus simply demanding off-site
improvements for cosmetic reasons.
(.James Boughton arrived- 3:45 PM)
It was pointed out Collier County's standards supersede FDOT's minimums and add
50% more to construction costs. It was suggested the LDC Amendment concerning
sidewalks and pathways should be reviewed and revised.
3
,,~- ._"--,,,,-- -, ,-,....~~
16 I~~ A4
April 1,2009
It was suggested each DSAC Member devise a list of issues/concerns and include
Code issues, cost issues, and procedural problems.
Chairman Varian suggested DSAC consider holding a Workshop with the Board of
County Commissioners and the Pathway Committee.
A suggestion was made to handle the items through DSAC's LDR Subcommittee and
prioritize in order of importance before scheduling a Workshop.
D. CDES Division - Joe Schmitt
. The 8-week furlough cycle has begun
. Building Department/Engineering Review/Zoning Department Staffs are
taking a one-week hiatus on a rotating basis
. The rotating schedule will be posted on the County's website
(2) Review ofMr. Schmitt's Responses to the Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
(Added Item)
. Dumpster issue (3 reviews are required): Joe Schmitt stated a dumpster
enclosure is an accessory structure and a separate permit is required.
Chairman Varian suggested submitting two applications, i.e., Building
Permit and Accessory Structure Permit, with both utilizing one set of
drawings.
. Pre-application meetings: Joe Schmitt clarified the terminology used
. Software issue: "Webxtender" - Jamie French stated the program was
originally purchased to serve only one division, not the entire County, and
does not have capability to provide external access to the public.
0 Another vendor is being sought to provide a solution
. Square Footage: vents and shafts can be excluded and specific information
should not be placed on the cover sheet
Chairman Varian suggested continuing the discussion to the next meeting.
Members' comments will be emailed to Judy Puig who will circulate to the Members.
(3) Presentation of proposed LDR Subcommittee Meeting Schedule - Catherine
Fabacher (Added Item)
Copies of a letter to DSAC Members from Ms. Fabacher with attached LDC
Amendment (2008) were distributed.
. During the 2008 LDC Cycle, Staff proposed allowing unenclosed pool
equipment and well pumps to be located in the side yard of a property and
DSAC approved the revision.
. The BCC stated pool and all A/C equipment should be located in the rear of
the yard and directed DSAC to review the proposed change and make
recommendations.
. The deadline for LDC Amendment requests is Monday, June 1,2009.
Discussion ensued concerning where mechanical equipment should be located. The
determining factor was the size of the setback which is a COllnty issue.
Mr. Schmitt asked for a fiscal impact to be done. The BCC wants equipment either
located in the rear yard or indented into the side of the hOllse. DSAC must show this
is an additional financial burden for the homeowner via a basic cost assessment.
4
~ '~''''.", -_....,..,.. ~-~..~-_.~ ""._~- . .~~.~". <.-.;<--
16 , 1 A4 ~
April I, 2009
Ms. Fabacher proposed the following changes to DSAC's schedule:
. July 1 at 1 :00 PM - full DSAC meeting
. July 15th from 2:00 to 5:00 PM - LDR Subcommittee meeting
. August 5th at I :00 PM - full DSAC meeting
. August 19th from 2:00 to 5:00 PM - LCR Subcommittee meeting
. September 2nd at 1 :00 - full DSAC meeting
LDC Amendment packets will be distributed to DSAC on July 1 st to determine what
issues will be examined by the LDR Subcommittee.
The consensus was the July 1 st meeting would remain at 3:00 PM, and only the
August and September meetings would commence at 1 :00 PM.
VI. Old Business
A. Review and Approval of Floodplain Management Ordinance - Robert Wiley
The Committee asked Mr. Wiley to provide the working document (i.e., strike-
through version) for comparison. Judy Puig will email copies to the Members.
(Continued to next meeting)
(Blair Foley lefi - 4:05 PM)
VIII. Committee Member Comments
A. Review and approval of letter to BCC to include Redevelopment Standards in
the upcoming LDC Cycle and requesting direction to Staff (Clay Brooker
drafted the letter)
Dalas Disney moved to approve the letter to the BCC drafted by Clay Brooker for
signature by Chairman Varian.
Second by Bob Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 13-0.
VII. New Business
A. Impact Fee Study Updates (presented to the BCC on March 24, 2009) - Amy
Patterson, Impact Fee Manager/Joe Schmitt
. On March 24,2009, a presentation was made to the BCC by the Productivity
Committee recommending a change in methodology by adopting a 2-year
average model in place of the H)-year regression analysis model currently
used, which was approved by the BCC. (A chart was distributed to the
Members.)
B. Impact Fee Indexing - Amy Patterson
. Six Impact Fees (EMS, Fire, Government, Law Enforcement, Library and
Educational) were slated for full study in 2009
. Staff recommended suspending the studies until the end of the calendar year
in order to analyze whether or not the downward economic trend will continue
. Staff will return to the BCC in November/December for direction regarding
re-setting the study schedule
. The BCC directed Staff to return to DSAC tor additional input regarding the
nine month delay
5
.-- .._---,'~..>._.., .-.~_..~--~-"' ._-^,-.~-",,,, .",--~"-_...^"."~..",,,.,..._-,_.._"~-~_.._,~".,^
, A 4'
16 I 1 i
, .
April I, 2009
. Two studies begun last year (Correctional Facilities and Parks & Recreation)
will not be suspended
Thomas Masters moved to support the Impact Fee two-year averaging model and
the Fee Indexing delay. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 13-0.
C. "City View" Update - Mike Levy, Management and Budget Analyst
. Program is slated to "go live" on April 27, 2009
. Staff (Environmental, Comprehensive Planning, Zoning and Engineering) has
been attending training classes for the past two weeks
. External port will be available in April
D. Initial Discussion of the FY2010 Proposed Budget - Joe Schmitt
. Budget for 2010 is in process
. A full "Budget Brief' will be presented to DSAC
. Preparing two budgets with (3% and 25% reduction) in Fund 111
. If BCC does not increase the current Millage Rate, there will be a 25%
reduction in revenue
. If the BCC chooses "Revenue Neutral" (taxes remain the same but the Millage
Rate is increased), there will be a 3% reduction in revenue
. Will review projected revenue based on projected workload - some
departments may be combined
Regarding allocations, Dalas Disney asked for information concerning rental rates,
square footage, and how it is determined.
Joe Schmitt stated non-Ill activities pay rent to Fund 113.
E. Proposed Fee Schedule Maintenance - Joe Schmitt
Copies of Attachment "D" - Listing of Fee Schedule Changes was distributed to the
Members.
. Change #3 - Accessory Use - Public Utility Systems
Accessory use is a building, i.e., pump house and may not apply to private
use utilities
. Change # 4 - Town Home Site Plan Review
Town Home review for individual lot was combined and will review for
Plat issues (to grant "fee simple" title to land under unit)
(Robert Mulhere left - 5:00 PM)
Copies of the "strike-through" version ofCDES Fee Schedule were distributed.
. On Page 8, Item # 15 - addition of an additional fee for 5th and subsequent
reviews
Will apply to projects that were kept in-house for 3 to 4 years
There was discussion concerning the "5th Review" and cost (20% of the original
fee).
6
. ~_,~--------,~.._~~_'_-~~-,."-----,,--,-----,,-
t~~ 1 A4t
16 , Aprill,2009
. Change # 17 - Time Extension (Engineering Dept.)
Confusion concerning Change #17 and Change #5 - appears to be a
duplicative charge of $150.00.
. Change #5 refers to an SDP Extension for $150.00 - Staff will return with
an explanation
(James Boughton left - 5: lOP M)
Joe Schmitt stated he will present three items to the Board of County Commissioners:
at the next meeting: Outdoor Amplified Sound Permit, a fee for Lien Searches, and
options to toll active PUDs. He stated he will bring DSAC's vote to the Board
Clay Brooker moved to approve the Fee Schedule Changes subject to clarification of
the Time Extension (Change #17) and subject to the understanding that 5th reviews
(Page 8, Item #15) will not to be arbitrarily demanded by Staff.
Second by George Hermanson.
Mr. Schmitt outlined the history of the noise ordinance and that the Outdoor Serving
Area Permit was void.
Motion carried unanimously, 11 - O.
Charles Abbott asked about fees for mold inspections done by Code Enforcement.
Mr. Schmitt responded there is a Property Maintenance Inspection, under the
Property Maintenance Ordinance, for example, to check for unpermitted structures.
Code Enforcement does not check for mold.
DSAC Meeting Dates: May 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM
June 3, 2009 at 3:00 PM
July 1,2009 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: 17 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
~(::rman
The Minutes we~d by the Board/Committee 00 o~~__,
as presented , or as amended _~_____'
7
,-, '~'.,-"'. _~...,_,_....o>__.' ...._.,-~--- '> ._-. .."",- -,_""'-""~~",-_.,,,,"",,,-,-._.- .,',",,,-.-'-.,,--
16 I 1 AS ~
I
COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBIC SERVICES
Parks and Recreation Department
15000 Livingston Road - Naples, Florida 34109 - Phone (239) 252-4000 - Fax (239) 514-8657
Website: coliiergov.net
RECEIVED ~=i=s -:;,~
MAY 1 4 2009 AGENDA
Henning
Coyle ~
Board of County Commissionecs Coletta /'
April 6, 2009
1.1/
1/
I. Call to Order
II. Attendance - Establish a Quorum
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes - March 2, 2009
V. Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights - Vickie Wilson
B. Band Shell
VI. New Business
A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez
VII. Member Comments
VIII. Public Comments
IX. Adjournment
The next meeting will be on May 4,2009 at 6:00 PM
Collier County Golden Gate Community Center
4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C"
Naples, Florida
Misc. Corres:
c .. I~~ " , c " .. " ,
~ ~r
,,- o,__..___~___ .-. ~-~~.,~-~~~-._-,,,....._. _..._,~_._'_._.._._._.._".__._~~_._._.._._'._._----
1611A'
April 6, 2009
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, April 6, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier,
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a
REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "C" of the Golden Gate
Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Jim Klug
VICE CHAIR: Ellen Shaw
Kaydee Tuff
Bill Arthur
Darrin Brooks
ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director
Annie Alvarez, Regional ManagerlRegion III
Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor
Shari Ferguson, Regional Manager II
1
~.""-""- -,~,~,---,-",-~~'-~"~'-'-" "' -~-,._.~,~--_._-_._'-,."._"".
16 /"'1 A5
April 6, 2009
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6: 10 PM by Chairman, Jim Klug III.
II. Attendance - Establish a Quorum
A quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: IV. Approval of Minutes - March 30, 2009
Jim Klug moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Bill Arthur.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Approval of March 2, 2009 and March 30, 2009 Budget Workshop Minutes
Jim Klug moved to approve the March 2, 2009 Minutes as submitted. Second
by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Darrin Brooks moved to approve the March 30, 2009 Budget Workshop
Minutes as submitted. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
V. Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights - Vickie Wilson reported as follows:
. Frontier Days held March 26-27 were successful.
. Yard Sale attracted 36 registered vendors to participate.
. "Open House" held on March 21, 2009 for public awareness was a
success.
Christina Apkarian, Program Leader gave a slide presentation on the
"Open House" held on March 21, 2009 and stated the following:
. It will be an Annual Event.
. Demonstrations were made by Program Leaders and others
. Food, Arts and Crafts were available.
. DJ Music and a BMX Demonstration
. Raffle Prizes were donated.
B. Band Shell- None.
VI. New Business
A. Monthly Budget
Barry Williams presented 2-Budget Scenarios' FY 2010. (See attached)
3% Budget Cuts and 25% Budget Reductions for Fund 111 and Fund 130
Staff reviewed and discussed Expenses and Revenue items as shown on the
Budget.
. Reserves/Contingency is mandatory - $57,800.
2
'......~,..~'"'----""...-'""' ,.~,.".~~..,,, ,..... ._...._._'~.~,,-_.... ,"~",._,,_. ,-.-.--", " u____.._
16 A!riJ do?
. Reserves/Capital can only be spent for roof repair or air conditioner
repairs - $78,400.
. Carry Forward/General and Capital can be spent only if approved by
the BCC. General- $288,700 and Capital - $78,400.
. Reserves/Contingency can be used to cover personal salaries -
$57,800.
. The taxable value is adjusted to June 1,2008 value per Tax Collector's
office.
. The millage cap for GGCC is .9
. The rolled back rate for 2010 is 0.18941303
. 25% reduction will affect the After School Program.
Committee questioned the Millage Rate. Staff will check Ordinance to verifY
the Millage Rate.
Discussion ensued on identifying ticket items as a Capital Expense and
associating with the Carry Forward Funds as safety issues and prioritizing those
items. Bleachers and Band Stand Lighting could be considered safety issues.
Barry Williams suggested the Committee add the lighting project into the
Budget for this year with the 40/60 split.
Jim Klug stated he had no problem using the Carry Forward Funds for the
lighting. He also expressed concern on using the Carry Forward Funds on a
general County Project that would be covered by the Ad Valorem Taxes.
Barry Williams recommended the Committee direct Staff on how to proceed
with the Budget.
It was noted salaries were adjusted in the Budget as follows:
. Greg Torres as a Program Leader
. I-Full Time Recreational Assistant
. 2-Child Care Workers
Ellen Shaw moved to approve the 2-different (Budget) scenarios' with 3% and
25% Reductions as presented to the Committee tonight and (the Staff) make
(the Committee) aware of any changes. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
Jim Klug commended and thanked the Staff for a tremendous job along with
their cooperation and responsiveness the Committee has received in striving to
improve the Golden Gate Center.
The Staff presented a Budget Without funding from the MSTU FY 2010 as
follows. (See attached)
. Without 130 Account the Total Operating would be $509,544.
With a 3% Reduction:
3
~-"-'----"","'-'--~-"-"'"""'-'"'~ ..~.. . ~.-.~-~' . "_'.~__k,"'_._._._~__.__._,_
1 (J) ~ 1 AS
.I -"),.
April 6, 2009
. Total Operating Expense would be $329,136.
. Staff positions would be cut to I-Park Supervisor, 2-Program Leaders
and a Maintenance Worker at $229,524
With a 25% Reduction:
. Total Operating Expense would be $213,600.
. Staff positions would be cut to I-Program Leader at $180,000.
. Reduced Staffing hours to 40 hours a week.
VII. Member Comments
Darrin Brooks thanked Vickie Wilson for the "Guided Tour of the Center."
Kaydee Tuff stated the Staff and the Committee has made accomplishments in
the Budget Process.
VIII. Public Comments - None.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was moved
and seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:25 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
BOARD
.. i
;lei kfttti.)
W. James K1ug III, Chairman
(3 I II Al'ih.tA(
These Minutes were approved by the Advisory Board Chair on !i - 4 ' (}q ,
as presented or as amended ;>-;
4
,.-~....... . ~___".___,___.......^_."~'~M,,"'_'_ w_.....,.,".._o......" '-"'~""""-"_. ---~---~---_.._---~.__._-_.-
'1 /J I lA5
i !0 :
&.::~ ':".
~~ ~ ,
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
FY2010 BUDGET
Fund 111 Fund 130 TOTAL
EXPENSES
Personal Services $ 333,100 $ 222,100 $ 555,200 All Personnel Split 60/40
Operating Expenses 269,700 179,800 449,500 Split 60140
Indirect Costs 116,000 77,400 77,400 40% indirect
Capital Outlay 43,800 29,200 73,000 Split 60/40
Replace Roof 0 0 0
Reserves - Contingency 34,700 23,100 57,800 Split 60/40
Reserves - Merit 0 0 o Split 60/40
Reserves" Capital 0 78,400 78,400 Roof and AC Replacement
Transfer to Prop. App, 0 3,000 3,000
Transfer to Tax Coli, 0 9,100 9,100
TOTAL EXPENSES $ 797,300 $ 622,100 $ 1,303,400
REVENUES
Fees & Chargesl Mise Rev. 127,400 84,900 212,300 Split 60/40
Interest 4,800 3,200 8,000 Split 60/40
Carryforward - General 173,200 115,500 288,700 Split 60/40
CarryfolWard - Capital Reserve 0 78,400 78,400
Revenue Reserve (Negative 5%) (6,400) (4,200) (10,600) Split 60/40
Ad Valorem Revenue (Neg 5%) 0 (18.100) (18,100)
Sub total revenue 299,000 259,700 558,700
Indirect costs paid by 111 116,000 0
Transfer from 111 382,300 0 382,300
130 Ad Valorem needed 0 362,400 362,400
TOTAL REVENUE 797,300 622,100 1,303,400
MILLAGE RATES
2009 Est. Gross Taxable Value @2/2009 $2,015,551,565 (3)
(divided by) Ad Valorem Revenue 362,400
FY 10 Estimated Millage Rate 0.1798
FY 10 Estimated Millage Rate 0,1798
FY 09 Millage Rate 0.1449
I ncrease/(Decrease) 0.0349
1. Some of the above numbers are estimates and could change significantly before the budget is officially
adopted.
2. The expense and revenue numbers (other than Ad Valorem and reserves) are as submitted by
GGCC staff.
3. The taxable value is adjusted to the 6/1/08 value per Tax Collector's office,
4. The millage cap is.9 for GGCC
5. The rolledback rate for 2010 is 0.18941303
4/6/2009
10 391:i'd ~OSS3:JO~d 0LL9891:>LL81 91:61 600<::/1;>1/1:>0
,..~" 0'_"""". . ...'"~ ~._-_.<
16 I lA5
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
FY 2010 BUDGET -75% Presentation
Fund 111 Fund 130 TOTAL
EXPENSES
Personal Services $ 333,100 $ 222,100 $ 555,200 All Personnel Split 60/40
Operating Expenses . 158,400 105,600 264,000 Spilt 60/40
Indirect Costs 116,000 77,400 77,400 40% Indirect
Capital Outlay 43,800 29,200 73.000 Split 60/40
Replace Roof 0 0 0
Reserves - Contingency 29,100 19,400 48,500 Split 60/40
Reserves - Merit 0 0 o Split 60/40
Reserves - Capital 0 78,400 78,400 Roof and AC Replacement
Transfer to Prop. App. 0 3,000 3,000
Transfer to Tax CoiL 0 7,200 7,200
TOTAL EXPENSES $ 680,400 $ 542,300 $ 1,106,700
REVENUES
Fees & Charges/ Mise Rev. 114,800 76,500 191,300 Split 60/40
Interest 4,800 3,200 8,000 Split 60/40
Carryforward - General 173,200 115,500 288,700 Split 60/40
Carryforward - Capital Reserve 0 78,400 78,400
Revenue Reserve (Negative 5%) (5,700) (3,800) (9,500) Split 60/40
Ad Valorem Revenue (Neg 5%) 0 (14,300) (14,300)
Sub total revenue 287,100 255,500 542,600
Indirect costs paid by 111 116,000 0
Transfer from 111 277,300 0 277,300
130 Ad Valorem needed 0 286,800 286,800
TOTAL REVENUE 680,400 542,300 1,106,700
MILLAGE RATES $ -
2009 Est. Gross Taxable Value @ 2/2009 $2,015,551,565 (3)
(divided by) Ad Valorem Revenue 286,800
FY 10 Estimated Millage Rate 0.1423
FY 10 Estimated Millage Rate O. 1423
FY 09 Millage Rate 0.1449
I ncrease/(Decrease) (0.0026)
1. Some of the above numbers are 8stfrnates and could chang@ significantly before the budget is officially
adopted.
2. The expense and revenue numbers (other than Ad Valorem and reserves) are as submitted by
GGCC staff.
3, The taxable value is adjusted to the 6/1/08 value per Tax Collector's office,
4. The millage cap is .9 for GGCC
5, The rolledbacl<: rate for 2010 is 0.18941303
2;0 3Si\1d tlOSS380tld ~ 10/..., nnn .A.A~ raJ....
0LL 9S9t>LLS1 91:51 500Ut> 1/t>0
..~.._--,-~"- . ^._-,----_.~_..,,,.- '.- ~--"..-
1 6 1'1 AS
Account M.vor I;xpenditure FY 2010 ServIce Level Analysis grouped by Business Unit, Org Code
Callier CountV' Government Fiscal Year 2010
FY 20119
FY ~OQ~ FY zoo~ I'y ~OU5 FY 20'10 FY 2010 I"Y 2"10 A;loptl1d
Obj",,! Cod. ~rl(:I Aocount Name Actusl Adopted Anl1utl:lized Gl,.lrrent E"Pil1d,.d Toto I % ChaflQe
0807 Parks & Recreation Department
157710-130 Golden GilIte Commun~ Center
60 DDBratina EXDBnS&
646710 omce I:qulpment R Ana M t5e 2,350 100 0 0 0 .100.00
646970 Other Equip RePilire And Maintenance 7,238 4,000 4,000 3,000 0 3,000 -25.00
647110 Printing And Or Binding Ou~idll Vendors 2,896 7,200 7,200 10,000 0 10,000 38.89
a4U170 Marketing And promOtional 12,592 8,$00 6,500 10,000 0 10,000 17.85
64901 a licenses And Permits 765 2,000 1,C1l0 1,200 0 1,200 -40,1l0
649100 Legal Advertising 350 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
641H1:10 Credit Card Discount Fee 44 C 2,500 3,000 0 3,000 100.00
849000 Reimbun;ement Prior Y"",r Revenues 12 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
849990 other Mi6Cellarmous Services 10,214 1I,:lOO 5.000 9,400 0 9,400 1,08
651110 Offtce supplies General 4,859 5,200 3,600 5.200 0 5,200 0.00
661210 copying Charges 989 1,000 1,000 :',600 0 3,600 260.00
651910 Minor Office Equipment 500 600 500 MO 0 500 0.00
661930 MlnOc'omea FumitlJl'll 1,S80 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0,00
651650 Minor bata processlng Equipment :18 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
652110 Clothing And Uniferm "W'C~ge8 :/,4:'0 2.100 600 1 ,SOD 0 1,500 ,26, $7
662130 Clothing And UnIform Rental 377 500 500 500 0 500 0.00
652140 Personal Safety Equipment 536 500 600 200 0 200 -60,00
652210 Food Operating Supplies 6,llas 5.800 3.600 6,000 0 5,000 -13,79
1;52310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals 3.367 1.500 1,500 2,000 0 2,000 33.33
652490 Fuel And lubricants 1st Billings 3,B82 2,600 2,500 3,600 0 3.900 52,00
852510 HeuBehold And Institutional Supplies 1,641 2,400 2.400 2,400 0 2,400 0,00
6:;2720 MedIcal SuPplieS 2.021 500 500 1.500 0 1,000 200,00
652910 Minor Operating Equipment 111,1311 10,000 10,000 16,000 0 16,000 60,00
652920 Campu1Br Software 293 0 a 0 0 0 0.00
652940 Ml!lI'Chand/$1!I Rt!lSal.. 19,583 HI,OOO 16.000 16,000 0 16.000 0.00
852\1"0 Other Operating SUPPlieS 19,556 14,000 14,000 24.500 0 24.500 75.00
852991 6e(:(rK;.a1 &,Jpplier 736 2.000 2,000 10,000 0 10,000 400.00
652992 Electrical CQnuactors 1179 2.!iOO 2,SOO 10,000 0 10,000 300,00
652999 Painting Supplietil 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0,00
854110 Books Publications And Subtilcriptlons 0 200 200 400 0 400 100.00
864210 Dues And Memberships 316 600 600 600 0 600 0,00
654360 otner Training EaucaUonal ExpenbBe 1,066 1,500 1,:;00 2,300 0 2,300 53,33
60 Operating E;:.:pense Sell,1I96 623,800 61::1,600 529,450 0 521l,4:;0 -15,13
10 Call1tal Outlay
763100 Impl'\)veml!ltlt!i General 21,450 0 0 :;:;,000 0 55,000 100,00
764150 Heavy Equipment And Trailers 0 0 0 21,000 0 21,000 100.00
164370 AJ.idio Vlsulill equipment 0 0 0 5.000 0 5,000 100.00
764900 DliW Prn<;li!ll9ing Equipment 0 2.800 2,llOO 0 0 0 -100.00
70 capital OutlpY 21,450 2,800 2,eoo 81.000 0 61,000 2,192,66
157710.130 Golden Gate Community Center 1,1;;,no 1.207,300 1,096,800 1,181,880 0 1,181,150 4.45
r919010-130 Reserves J
99 Res&1'Y1Il5
991000 Retilerve For Contingencies 0 6e,OOO 0 57,800 0 67,800 -12.42
993000 Reserve For Cepital Outlay 0 68,Goo 0 78,400 0 78,400 1429
e9 Reserves 0 134.600 0 136,200 0 136,200 1.19
919010-130 Reserves 0 1 M,GOO 0 136,200 D 136,20D 1.1s
~6~010-130 Transfers - EIQCt~ Officers -J
$3 Tran~fer.f to Constitutional Officers
1130600 Buaget Transl'el'$ Prop"rty Appraiser 3,300 3.200 3,200 3.000 0 3,000 -6.26
930700 Budget Trentil~ Till( Collector 8,376 9,500 1,400 9,100 0 9.100 -4.21
O.,_MlIJl 2 4/6/ll009
t>0 38t1d ~OSS3::)O~d 0LL989t>LL81 91 :51 500G/t>1/t>0
"->. ,-,",,,,",,,,,,~"_...~,^,_.",
^k.......~_._,.~__.,,"__~_
1 6 "1 AS
Account Major Expenditure FY 2010 Service Level Allillysj!j grouped by Business Unit, Org Code
CRl/ier ~ountv Government Fiscal Year 2010
FY 2009
;::Y 20Q6 FY ,,009 I"y 200ll FY 20'10 FY 2010 ;:Y 10" 0 Adopted
Obj",,! Code .nd Acoc>unt Name Actu.1 A c:lo pted Anl1~alized ClJrrwnt "<j.1"nd.,d r"ial % CIlsrlge
0807 Parks & Recreation Department
1151710..130 Golden Gate Community Center
50 Per1!lanal Services
512100 Regular Salarie, 297.242 832,797 261,100 302.566 0 302,SBe -9.08
612600 Er 4S1 Oef",rred Camp :;Iao 1,000 1.000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00
612700 Cell Phone Allowance 160 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
513100 Other Salaries And wages 35,596 50,000 :;0,000 7:l,900 0 72,1/00 4$,00
6141000vertlme 0 17,800 17,800 0 0 0 -100.00
516100 Termination Pay 10,152 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
518200 Voluntary separation Incentive Program 18,600 0 0 10,'!;54 0 10,654 100.00
519100 Resel1le f'or Sslary AdJu:stment 0 14,090 0 96 0 66 -ea.eo
l:i21100 Social Security Melching 26,476 30,406 23,300 27,02" 0 27,024 -11,12
522100 Retirement Regular 33,053 37,1illj6 29,200 37,eeO 0 37.680 -0.73
523150 Healln Insurance 87.689 92,403 92,500 64,432 0 54,432 oll.e3
523160 LIfe Insurance SMrtAnd Long Term 1,893 1,946 ~,OQo 9SB 0 1;166 -4a.28
524100 """rkers compensation Rel;lular 11.400 20.100 20,100 18,000 () 1 B,OOO .10.45
527200 AlIOWllnc;e for Cell Phone -11;10 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
5aOOoO Attrition Reserve 0 -11,1l00 -17,600 0 0 0 .100,00
50 Perlj,Ql1el Services 522,384 560,700 479,200 566,200 0 665,200 -4.39
80 Orleratlna EXDense
63..204 It Direct ClIent Support 9,859 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
634210 Into Technology AulDmliltion Allocation 0 0 0 20.000 0 20,000 100,00
e:;l4970 lndire<;t Cost Reimbursement :le7,aOO 2119,200 299,200 77.400 0 77.400 -73,24
634999 other Contractual SlitVices 32,635 40,000 40,000 (14,600 0 64,800 e2.00
6391165 l.ocl<l;mitns Ser'VicQs And SUpplim; 0 1,000 $00 1,000 0 1,000 0,00
6399116 Pest COntrol 0 500 500 500 0 500 0.00
640200 Mileage Reimbursement Regular eoo 900 900 600 0 600 -:;1:;1,33
640300 Out Of County Travel Professional Deve! 1,266 2,BOO 2,000 :;1,400 0 3,400 21.43
640410 Motor Pool Rental Charge 54 300 300 100 0 100 -66.61
641700 Ce.ular Telept10ne BElO 700 700 700 0 700 0,00
(141 eoo Telephone Svliltsm Support AlIO<;:l!tiOll 5,1/76 3,750 5,800 5,950 0 5,1I50 56.00
641950 PQBtage Freight And Ups 106 :;100 200 200 0 200 -33,33
641951 Postage 38 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
642100 Benk Fees 0 0 100 0 0 0 0.00
643100 Electricity 65.723 84,000 84,000 84,000 0 84,000 0,00
643300 Trash And Garbage Oi'llOllal 5,008 6,400 6,500 6,500 0 6,500 1,$6
64:;1400 'Nater And Sewer 10,374 10,6<00 10,aoO 11,000 0 11,000 1.lIS
B44170 Rent Temporary Storage 570 0 0 Q 0 0 0,00
544600 Rent EqLllpment 2,746 4,000 3,400 16,100 0 16,10t;! 302.50
644620 Lease Equipment 1,166 0 2,400 2,400 0 2,400 100.00
646100 jnsurance General 6,800 6.600 6,800 6.900 0 6,900 4,55
645200 Property Insurance 34,100 36,400 39,400 30,100 0 30,100 -21,61
6461 10 BUilding RAm;! M Oub5ide Vendors 1,741 5,000 2,600 5,000 0 5.000 0.00
6461 eo Building RAnd M IsI Bllllng$ 2,002 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,OOt;! 0.00
646311 Sprinkle' system Maintenance 0 500 300 1,000 0 1.000 100,00
646315 Athletic Coort And aaH f'leld Mal'll 1,61;1:;1 2,000 2,000 4,600 0 4,600 12:;,00
646:;116 Meln! BleacherB Picn;" Tables Elc 0 2,000 2,000 4,000 0 4,000 100.00
6046317 FencIng Mal'ltenance 1.436 2,000 2.000 2.000 0 2,000 0,00
646318 Mulch 2,$81 3,000 3,000 4,000 0 4,000 3:;1,3:J
646319 Tree Trimming 1,260 2,000 2,000 6,000 0 8,000 300,00
646320 Landscspe Materials 2,390 2,000 2,QQO $,000 0 5,000 150.00
646430 Fleet Malnt IsI Labor And Overhead 2,004 1,200 1,200 900 0 900 -25,00
(146440 ",Ieet Maint IElf Perts And Sublet 993 ',300 1,300 400 0 400 -69.23
646452 Playground Equipment Malnlllnanca 2,082 2.000 2.000 12.000 0 12. 000 500,00
646510 Ma<:t1lne Tools RAnd M Outside VendQrs 251 1 , 50(1 1.500 ',500 0 1,500 0.00
(;l)vMBl< 1 41G1200!l
E0 39\;;1d tlOSS380tld 0LL989t>LL81 91 :61 500G1t> 1/t>0
-~-~, _~"__'.____.'_'W _. --''''-',-..,---...---. '-~'''~''.'''"~'---'''--
1 6 I 1 AS
Account Major Expenditure FY 2010 Service Level Analysis grouped by BUBin... Unit, Org Code
Co/h'6r Countll GOlIsmmR{Jt Fiscal Year 2010
,.y ~UU!;f
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 I'y 2010 F'r 2010 Adopted
Object Cod.. and Account Namll Actual Adap~ A"n..,.liz.<;I Cllmmt Iixpandlld Total % Change
0807 Parka & Recreation Deparlment
93 Tran~fers to Cone1itutionlll Officers 11,676 12,700 10,500 12,100 0 12,100 -4.72
959010-130 TranBfera - Elected Officere 11,676 12,'100 10,600 12, 100 0 12,100 -4.72
0907 I"arke. & R"c~ation DeplIftment 1,14&,006 1,364,600 1.106,200 1,313.860 0 1,313,910 -.3.00
ft.p<lft T'" 1,141,101 1,3N,I00 1,108,200 1,313,910 0 1,313.800 -<1-00
GovMax 3 4N~OO9
90 39l;;id tlOSS380tld 0LL 9S9PLLS '[ 9'[:5'[ 500G!P 1/P0
- ~..._.,_.,,-~._" .~~.
16 I 1 AS ,
,
Account Major Revel'\ue FY 2010 Service Level Analysis grouped by Business Unit, Org Code
Collier Countv Government Fiscal Year 2010
FYzooe
F't ZCQ8 FY 2 COg F,( 2009 FY ZO'I 0 FY 2010 FY 20'10 Adopted
Obj~.:~ Code- ftt'ld AtCot.m t N;)m(" Ac,ual Adopted ,~nJ'u8il.2.ed Cufr'ent =_~p.nded Totel % Ct'tlli'lg.
0807 Parks & Recreation Departmen1
157710"130 Golden ~w Community Center
SO Revenlln
311100 CUfTeI1t Ad valorem Tax&$ 415.086 381.700 381,"00 362,400 0 362,400 -5,oB
311200 Delinquent Ad Valorem Taxa 1,750 0 fOO 0 0 0 0_00
341446 SALES OF XEROX COPlas. tAXABLE 42 100 50 100 0 100 1;1.00
:l47230 PERMIT MEMBERSHIP SALES PARKS AND RI:':C 6,023 1;1,600 12,aoO 12,700 0 12,700 Q,7!:l
34"270 ATHLETIC PROGRAMS PARKS AND REC 378 0 0 10,500 0 10,500 100.00
347290 RECREATION CAMPS PARKS AND REC 18,7651 12,~00 12.500 11,800 0 11,600 -5.aO
~7400 SPECIAL EVENTS 21,146 17,$00 15,100 20,300 0 20,300 16,00
347903 Merchandise Sales Taxable 8,381 22,400 22,400 22,400 0 22,400 0_00
347906 ADMISSION 1.658 2.000 1,000 2,000 0 2,000 0,00
341\los CONCESSION FEES 17,410 4>000 4,000 4,000 1;1 4,000 0,00
3471111 FACILITY RENTALS TAXABLE 1!:l 0 0 0 0 0 a,w
J478:Z0 COURT USER FEES 11,849 0 0 0 a 0 0.00
347940 FACILITY RENTALS CULTURE REC 23,196 14.000 14,000 21,000 0 21,000 60,00
3471190 INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES CULTURE REC 69,692 102,300 76,400 101,600 0 101,600 -0,78
361320 Interest iax Collector 333 0 0 0 0 0 0_00
366900 Corllfibutloos PriVlilte Source 11,956 6,000 a,OOI;1 a,ooo Q 6,000 0_00
3Bll300 Reimbu",emant For Prior Year Expenditure 10,832 Q 0 Q 0 0 0.00
30 Revenue!; 616,601/ 675,100 545,850 574.700 0 574,700 -0.07
157710-130 GOIc2en Gale Community CeCller 616,50t 515,100 646,860 674,7011 II 614,700 -&.07
1919010-130 Reserves ~
40 TransfeR; & Contribution\!;
46lnOO Canvforward 271,216 :lBB,100 26a,100 3a1,100 0 367,100 36_93
4a91100 Negative 5% Estimeted Revenues 0 -28,800 0 -28,700 0 -2a,700 -0,35
40 Tr'ansfl!l", & Contributioros 271.216 239.300 268,100 338.400 0 338,400 41,41
919010-130 Reserves 271,216 239,300 2&8,100 338,400 0 338,4Ol1 41.41
1~~a10.130 lnterfund Transfers. bce j
.0 Tran\!;fens & Contributions
461111 Transfer FlQrn Uninc; Area MlJld General 111 5lil4,31;10 526.200 525.200 382.300 0 382.300 -21. 21
40 Transfers & Contributions 594,300 525,200 625,201;1 362,300 0 362,300 -27,21
929010-130 lntertund Tl'8osters - Bce 694,~00 625,%00 525,200 382,300 0 31l2,300 -27_21
1959010-130 Transfe~~~ Elected omce~
40 Tran.lelS & Contributions
486600 Transfl!lr FlOm Property Appraiser 623 0 0 0 0 0 0_00
486700 Transfer F'rom Tax Collector 4.165 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
40 Trsnl$fw8 & Contr1butJolls 4,aao 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
959010.130Tl'8n~~w Elected omcers 4,611 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
1989010-130 Interest Incoma Bee ~
30 Revenues
381170 Interest Sba 1.762 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
:101160 Investment lnte~st 11,626 15,000 11.000 8,000 0 8,000 -4a,67
30 Revenues 13,388 115,000 11,000 8,000 0 8,000 -46.67
089010.130 Interest InCQrne E10c t 3,388 16,OQO 11 ,000 8,000 0 8,000 -46_67
0607 Parks & Recreation Department 1,600,101 1,354.600 1,360.160 1,303,400 0 1 ,~O:S,400 -3.78
R9port'rOta! 1,600,101 1,354,1100 1,350,150 1.303,400 0 1,303,400 .3.78
"-
Go.Max 1 41612009
90 39\;;1d ~OSS3JO~d laLL989t>LL81 91:61 600C:/t>1/t>0
-,...._,-~_.,"......_.- ~ "-"~-"~--""'--- -. ~-""~~""
16 II 1 AS
Org Code Fund Detail Proforma Summary Report
Collier County Gov~rnm9nt Fiscsl Year 2010
FY 2~~6 r'Y ZOQO FY ~Oll~ fy 20 J 0 r"( Z010 FY 2Q'I~ FY ZQ I v Aaop'~(J
Actu.' A<iopt~d Amended Forecast Current Expanded eUd9~t ~/... Chili 11St
I 130 Golden Gate Community Center I
EXDMlditures
15n1O-130 GoldOln Gate Community 1, 1 ~~,e~o 1,207,300 1,207,300 1,095,600 1,166,650 0 1,165.660 -3,45
Center
a19010.1~C Reserves 0 134,600 134,600 0 136,200 0 136,200 1.19
950010.130 Transfers - Elected 11.676 12,700 12,700 10,600 12,100 0 12,100 -4,72
Offk:ars
It'1v....ues
151710.130 Golden Gala Community 616.509 576.100 575,100 545,850 574,700 0 674,700 -0.07
Cante,
919010.130 Reserves 271,216 239,300 239,3CO 26B,1CO 3:38,<100 0 338,400 41,41
92B01 0.130 Int<1rlund Transfers - Bee 594,300 525,200 525,llOO $25,200 382,300 0 362,300 -27,21
ar;;ac1 C.l ~c Tran~ferlil - Elected 4,688 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00
Officers
989010-130 Interest Income 8co 13,3BB 15,000 15,000 11,000 a,occ 0 8,000 -46,67
Ftlnd lotal ExpendIture: 1,146,606 1,:11;4,600 1 ,~64,GOQ 1,100,2\10 1,:l13,9Sll 0 1.313,91iD 4.00
Fund Total Rev""ue: 1,1100,101 1.3&,4,600 1,364,600 1.350,110 1,303,4Q0 0 1,:J0~,400 . .3.78
Fund 8alance~ ~64, Ii!'!i 0 0 243,950 .10,660 Q .10,660 0.00
1 17T ,
(;;QvMax 1 41612009
L0 39t'd eJOSS3JOeJd 0LL989t>LL81 91 :61 6000/t>1/t>0
,-~.,..,
16/1 AS
~ ~~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~:r ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
! ~ I~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~
il ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
~ g g g 0 ~ ~ ::g ~ ~ g g 8 0 g
" 0 0 co 0 o::t en o::t en .-I CO" N
N ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ N ~ 0 ~ 0 m
0"1"0 m Ln.-l.-l m m en N.-I co co
o ~ m '1I'l N
o 0-
N 0
>- "0
u.. <(
.-I 0 0 0 0 " u) Ln CO moo (;) 0 0
o 0 CO .-I .-I CO en 0 (;) 0 0
Ln 0 en CO U) Ln CO o::t CO "m
m ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~
00"0 o::t .-I N m CO .-I N U)
o ~ m II'l N
o 0-
N 0
>- "0
u.. <(
.-I r--h
~ (/)
, CII
~' -:i'~
0-
o::t :Jl
CO o::t...
o ,Vl-,E
q i...: '"
" CII E
00 ... ~ OJ
Vl-Q;O~
;,;o~3:~
6 .:; ~ ~ ::
.- L C -
.t: QJ E <U <U
(SO-<uC(/)
0..~:;O2~
~ ..>< e .S -=:!
roroa..mu
(j1 a.. ~ ..s:
E
'-
~ ~ ~
c IlO 'S ....
CII c IlO c
III S .9 & E
QJ III IlO "0
0- ~ .:!. C C 6 t ~
E 3: "0 .c. <(.- III 0 5
<( u... t -:a 21 a..c
8 "0 ~ -:a.!!! 0 III - a. E
C "'" ::J CII .c. C CII ~ ::J
III "0 <( >-.!!! "'" IlO u V) CII ,. ~ V)'w
CII CII <U <U >- CII c: a. ,-... .... ex:
'i: ... III 0.. V) .... ex: <U CII E QJ'" c:
"' L. OJ C "i:: L. U U\ - CJJ +-'
- CII'i: 0 0 ::J .... ::J c: 0 Q) ns .- (S
~ Qj ~ QJ ''::; u.. :rl ~ ~ E ~ ex: 5 U u
... 0 V) E <U Q) V) E - ~ ... c: ~ t)....
o .!!! " ... ''::; .S C: - Q) .c. c: Q) .2 l\I CII lil
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ .~ ~ ~ 0; t: .E D. .:.:
(;) QJ ... .... > l\I CII 0 Q) Q) "- g :::: 15 0 "0
f'It ex: wOO I- ex: V) ex: J: :::; :> <( ~ E
" -
. ns
00 00000000000'0 o::t 0
" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln U) 0 0 I- 0"
::::: ;::j ~ ~ =; CC; ~ ::: ;::j ~ ~ =; g.h ~ ~
II'l .-I .-I .-I .-I .-I .-I N N N N N en:s m m
" Ln Ln Ln Ln '" '" '" Ln '" '" Ln '" II'l U) U)
~_,,,,. ___,~__.,._",__~_,.".,-~ _<u .. ~4 I.~....",.....;,.._,"._,
16 1'1 A5
I IDDDDDDD~D
I~ IDDLJDDLJD~~
I~- IDDLJDDLJD~~
I~ IDLJLJDDLJD~~
o 0 000 000 00
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lfl 0 0
o 0 Lfl O'l 00 m"""" m 0
o ~ N m ~
~ 00
o 0 000 000 00
o 0 000 000 00
00 0 Lfl Lfl Lfl Lfl 00 ~ ~ O'l
~ ~ ~ m ~ ~
,... 00
_ VI "'0 0 ~ Q) "-
~ t ... =0- U C Ql
Ql &.VI VI ro .E .co-g 2 0 OQl- C.
- LflQl Ql 0"0 - - umQl _ .c o-Ql *-
...~ ..:~ ~ g-~ ~ :i3 ..;<I'>t:: 0 0.. mE~ Lfl
o C ....,.!!!.!!! "0 Ql ~ ~ E -g C b ra z -~ <1'>._ :J X
-jg -;;;'u U Ql:Jo 0 Ql raQlo~ ~ 0 X~.e -
1:: _ tQl u tlJl"OU E VI tlJlE:J VI VI Vll3LU... ~
QlE a ~ &. g.!!! ~ ~ ~ Ql :J .s ~ 0 E g .~ g C Ql ~ :rl
- .- rc E ~ ..c .- c: '- ..0 ..... '- '+- -,p OJ ",p == u '- VI
cVI"O Lflo... u::!:!o Ql E Ql,5t1llg U C. uo~~ Oc
.it; 1:: III ~ _ .!!! g Ql '5 C .~ 'Qj QlE E .S ,... 2 :J 2 .-I - >- - .Q
t Ql 'i:: Ql :> 0 c:( 0 .e .e:;- v .c -t:... ._ E <I'> 'l: ~ ~ ~ ~.!!! 0 ~ ti
Ql>Ql->>-t,... OCQl'" Qlra 0 OQlEVlQ. C> Ql cuoCi :J
-QlQl~Ql-ra<l'> -'-:J C Qlo.. 0 0'" VlG: .-- _ ._UtlJlE- >-...
Cx.craQl.~ tlJl "Ora VI c.eN M Ql~~'+= _:= C _l.7c v u.._
LU""'U:..:o.....~C QlEVI 'l: tlJl- <I'> SUtIlltlJl<-' Qlu Ql Qll.7oQlE II~
II ~ 0 0 II ltl> '"' 'C Ql C':: c c:J x'" <I'> C 0 C c till ra U till II ...J ... .- 0 .-
lXl .... 0 C ~ .- ...J ltl Ql ... 0 n: "0 - "0 Ql +- _
g ........ g goo 0 _ ';;!:::'- t C :t: Ql .. t c. U v :J VI II :J 0 II c.!:: g Ql
Ql _ _ 0 0 0 'c ~ ... :J Vi')C :J 0 ra >- c:( _ Ql C .e::c 0 .e 0 0 Lfl ;: _ tl.ll
LI'!.'l;lOOLflOOo uOu>-C u... ~Ql o..C"'~Q. ..._ 0 ...OLfl,...t; ~"O
~~~~m~~:::!: 3~~J~ ~~ m~ ~8azJ ~'l;l ~ ~m~~~ ~,5
C
o
- ".;j
VI '- m rc
~ .!!! g l5
c. :J._ -
C. till VI c:(
:J Ql l3 -
l3 VI a:: 4- Ql ...
.~ "0 ~ e ~ &. ~
c: C Ql 0.. ra C. ::J
Ql c:( E - .c :J
VI VI Ql U VI "0
Ql Ql > - Ql E C
co u ~ ~ ~ c <(
:J .~ :J I- C o.l!:! _
tJ Ql .eE ~ Ql -a!:Z. ~
ra VI _ C a:: Ql VI .-
~ VI e"Qj::J (5 W QJ ~
g -:5 1:: a:: 0 0 I- C u.. ~
U Ql U 0..... 0 Ql .-
E 0 tlJl - ... ra.c tlJl .!:!
... VI U ltl 0- 0 - C. ltl'"
Q) ~ +-' Q) +""'~ ......:l QJ +-' tJ
..co- l5 l3:;;; 0:J .9:1 ..g OJ OJ (3 .!!
-' 0.. ~ .... ~ U I- 0.. LU
O'l Lfl ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O'l ~ ~ 0 0 .-I 0 0 Lfl 0
O'l O'l O'l N M ~,... O'l O'l .-I
~ O'l O'l 0 0 0.-1.-1 .-I M
m m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~""--,~_.."'. ~-- ",.,-.,. --.---------..----"--- .
16 11 A5
~I I~I I~~~~~~~D~
~ I~ I ~ I~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~
~ I~ I ~ I~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~
~ I~ I ~ I~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00 00 000000000
00 0 000000000
"'" 00 0 ~ "'" 0 0 LI'l 0 0 0 0
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N M
~ m
00 00 000000000
00 00 000000000
NOON 0 00 LI'l 0 00 0 0 0 0 m
~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ N ~ N M
LI'l ~
o ' . Q) ~ 0
Q,)~g ~ "i:"U c: QJ
~..... .0"'00 ::J Q)e: ::J U
~Olll O~. 0 l;::::J 0 .!!! '0
~ > .- ... ... ;:: ..c: =,g -0 e a. e: ..c:
~LL.~ ~O-v"). (1) ~-CV1b.O b.O ~ ~ ~
-;:1Il~ l3~-:5 ~ C-~~'C;.!:v;- e: ~ 8...... ~ ::J
-e:'"'! -o~~.::;; ::Jo XO"'Q)Cl... ~ U Ill..... III e: ~
ro 0 ~ e: 0 '" ~ :J: ..c: ... t:lIl e: .- ... V} Q) Q) '0
::J +' x ro .... '0 III .0 00 e: .!!!l -0 e: Q) ~ 2: 'iij . . ...::0.... e:
tJ u +" IJ1 00 CI) ::J v1 _ OJ -:. - .- -+-: U Q) Q. ~ on; co bO ::J
ro ;: ro -;;:; 0 ~ Q) "'0 III Q) III .~ 3 III Q) Q) III Q) ro a. I- e: 0
...c: ..... 0 - +-' ~ OJ '+- Q) U L.. - L.. L. QJ u'p ....
.....o~... ::JNroE ... o "'E'" t:lIlE iE ::J.~ _ I-a::'- III t:lIl
~ >.!: II ~ '0 e: 8 ~ CL. g ::J ..E .~ ::J 0 ~ a:: ro x... 5'x ~
~ u.....LI'lo. CL.~~O ~ .Oro~~o.~ ... ~ a. ~ ~~c: Q) a.
+ 1I~001ll <(ro"'_ Q)u-e:J:OOVlO ~ CL. Vl ... OOroQ) B Q)
'" 0'0""'" VlOOm t:lIl~OIlU...IIU '0 II 0 ...CL.", III III
- O::JOO~ 0.00 . CL.oQ)'rooQ)' ::J 00.... ooro... ro
ro N.oV}LI'l ]rol"!.o tlvlOOIll~O'" .0 0 0 '" ""o..c: 'iijlll..c:
.a ""'..."'Dq, ","'ON ..c:'C;OLl'l::Je:LI'l::J ... LI'l q -e >-m~ o.~ ~
u ~ Q) ro m ::J)( ~ > , .!!!l Q) "'" ~ 0 Q) ~ 0 Q) N LI'l ro .!!! ~::J Q) ro ::J
<( V}0.~V} _Q)V}u... -l...V}V}..r::t:lIlV}..r:: CL. V} V} CL. UV}CL. a::ll.lI CL.
'" ...
o .~ ~
-0 Q) "'" LU
c: u.,,:; VI
- ~ III e: '0 ~
~ t:lIl ro W .0
o Q) e: e: .- ro
a. Q) -0 Q) u.. I-
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~
Cl 0 ::J .... ro 00 e: u
~ ... t;i ro ~ 0 ~ 2 '0 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 'C; ~ ~ 2 2 E ~ ~ li}
... Q) ro Q) e: '- '0 '0 Q) -e Q) ...
~ Vl 0 E & ~ ~ ~ i ::J ti ~
'0 '0 a. a. = a:: a:: Vl 0 ro "'"
e: E '5 Q) >- '- U Q) ""
Ji <( Q) C- ~ -e ~ ~ ~ .!::! C5 t:lIl
~ Qj ': ~ ~ ~ :.c :c ~ OJ 't="5 -5
~ ~ e: e: ::J 0 .- .- .;:: :c 'iij e: :5
~ 3 ~ ~ E ti: ~ ~ .5} :! 2.f. ~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ LI'l ~..... 00
o 0 ..... 0 0 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
m "'" ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ m m m m m
m m "'" "'" LI'l LI'l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..~.~>~"-_.~.._~.",,.~--_.. ---~.., e_.............. "17 II......." "--"_'_ 'I'Ii'l " rUT '1_ WI.
161 ~ A5
~D~~DDDDDDD~
~D~~~LJDDDD ~ ~
~D~~~LJDD~D ~ ~
~LJ~~LJLJDDLJD ~ ~
0000000 0 00 0 0
000000 LI') 0 00 0
00 N l'I"l 0 LI') l'I"l 0 N LI') 0
N N ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ 00 N
0000000 0 00 0 0
0000000 0 00 0
LI') '<t 0 NOLI') NO"" 0"1 '<t
N N N ~ ~ N ~ 00 m ~
....
I.C -0>
...0 Q.l.o ...
X Q.l 0 III ::J Q.l-
~ ~ '5. q _ ::J ex: '';:; 3:
-0 CS CD 0Q.l ro Q.lll.O C:OO (l
III c: U Ull.O -:S .oQ.l eOJ: OJ
Q.l ::J Q.l ell ...ro Q.l 00. LLNc: C
Q) 0 VI II) U "" J?Q. ~ +-'s.... L/1-(/).Q) ~
l:; ~ c: c c: C. +JW ~ ::::-OJ .......UQ) ::
c: -0 .Q.Q ~ E ~ a. CD ~ ~ l'I"l 'Vi 3:
3: c: tJ tJ Q.l ~ "'Q.l 0 Q.l Q.l~ ~::J.2 Q.l'l:
o '" ::J::J t: Q.l t:U ~E -0 5:j0. >ERi ~(l
~ ~ ~ t; 'n; ~ 8 ~ .~ >- ~ bO ~ ~ ~ .!.. :::- ~ c:
(jj lij -= -= EIIl -" >5:j ~(!) U ex:ll.O :O~~:::i-:E
~~ K ~ ~ ]i ~! it: ~~ ~ ~~ ~l~~bl
~o. Q.lll.O ll.O ll.O ::JO- Oro l~ "... "~~OW~O~
::J::J 1Ilc: -0 -0 0Q.l IIlll.O E Q.l ... ll.O'<t-
"'" ro._::J::J... U ...... 0 0 ~ 0 0 '" .- ~ ro > " "
~ c: ~ (jj CD CD ll.O '" 'm Q.l 0 0 0 U 0 0 E ex:'u == 0 C
-0'" 1:> ... ... >- 0.- NO oro ~ u:. LI')>Q.lEoU'
Q.l~ ::JO Q.l Q.l .!!!li} Q.l2....N '<t~ ,.., 00> ,..,roo.ro.......
ex:U o.u a. a. 0.... ex:~ ~~ ~lXl ~ ~.c ~O~LL~V
Q.l
-0 ~ 2!
ro c: '"
Q.l ro c:
1: ~ 5:j ~ ! ~
Q.l - ~._ c:._
> .0 c: ~ 'n; ~ _ \on
o 3:'m ::J ~ ~ ::J ~ ~
-0 -0 ~ 0 -0 0 0 0
c: "'" -0 ll.O'- U
<( c: ~ ~ c: c: c: ~ -0
III ... <( 5:j -0 <( <( .- 0 III c:
- 0 III E c: ex: III -0 E.~ <(
.~ {l i a. <( ~ .~ J5 e E III
! --' 0.'5 ex: 5:j a. ... 0. Q.l ~
ll.O ro 't; 't; C' J!l E ~ 0 -0 0. ;.;::
c: ~ _ _ w 0 c: -0 ......
'E ~ ~ -0 0 .9- .9- -0 <( c: ~
Q.l .~ c: c: I- ::J ::J ~ ll.O <( c:
E a. ro ro::J Q.l III C' C' 1Il.~ III Q.l
.= ~ ~ ~ e .~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 Q) ~ E
Q.l -0 Q) Q) ~ ~] ~ ~ ~] ~ ~ ~
Q.l c: Q.l Q.l '" '" Q.l::::: ~ ._ Q.l ro u -0
~ ~ ~ ~ K ~> 0 0 ~> ~:::i ~
0"1000 NO 0 0 00 0 LI')
.... N l'I"l '<t LI') .... .... ,.., .... ,..,.... l'I"l
l'I"l l'I"l '<t '<t '<t LI') ,.., 0"1 .... .... 0 0
I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C ,.., 00 0"1 0"1
'<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t
I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C I.C
--_.-~.- "'''.-_.''~ "---~_.,.,-,~-,---_...._~--" ~.__.._-------_..._--_.__._-
AS
I IDD~DDDD ~
o DD~DDDDI~ I~
s D~~D~~DI~ I~
~ D LJ ~ LJ LJ D D I~ I ~
o 0 000000 0 0
o 0 000000 0 0
M NO...... 0 .... ...... ...... 00 ......
m ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~
o 0 000000 0 0
o 0 000000 0 0
..... C'\ M...... 0 C'\ q- 00 00 00
N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~
....
VI . c: >-
00 ClIg,o g '1:J .?:: ~ 8
> V) ~rn '- c QJ c: \to- m en
<t ClI '- - ClI '" .!:! 0 .-:: :Jl <I). @J 0 tlO '1:J
.. ~.f. 0 1fJ a. VI lj:: tlO ~ N - II <.0 'c'~ c:
~ <I). ~ .......!:! lii ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ 1fJ - ClI a. a. 15
:c @J 0 ClI 1:) .c g- l;o .~ ClI ::l ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ - E l;o
~ g.::cu~::6 ...... '- 0 '- t; E -C ....'- <Il~ ~~ g '" c:
ClI ~ a: u c: a. ClI N ClI '- ClI._ '" '- <I). ClI 0._ c: 0 .c a. U 0
-C ",'" <I). a. a. c: x Z ClI _a. ClIZ ClI uEtlO E
E ~ ClI ClI :; 0 0 r.>. lii <Il '- c: ClI a. VI '0 '1:J ClI >::c VI '" c:
ClI' ::6VlVlVlC! ~o.a. .E ~ ClI ro lj:: oc: "'... LUc: ~U:.:: E
~"'a:NE'-::"" :::;"''1:J VI VI::6 ClI '" o<ll '-J:l (ijCll a.>-u.. 0
a. .... <1)..... ~ <I). '" a. ClI '- ~ <Il - 3: t; -c VI ~ VI .- ClI ....... '" tlO u
.... ClI ee ClI r.>. ... >- '- ClI c: a. ClI .c u 3: <t '0 c: '-
ee VI ee @J '1:J ~ VI a. 0 >- Q) '0 Q) '1:J .... VI >- VI... ... ClI Q) 0 ~ VI :.:: .- 0
Z .c Z Z.;: ~ 00 0 (5 u:: > '- :; x g ~ ~ c: Vl ~ .5r = tlO <t 0 a. .....
1It:1I1fJ1I0~ IIUU IlLU ~.s~ 0 O'+:; '1iitiOClI M.... 1I""~II::CVl lii
OOOUOMClI 01111 0'" '" o::l 3: ~u VI>-E XII~O::COOIIII N
o E ~ ~ 8 00:g 0 0 0 O'u -5 o'E:::; Vl 2 ,~.9 0 0 0 0 0 tlO 0 0 0 ~
~ Ci' ....- 0 N' > 0 ~ :il ~ ~ 2i :; ~ '- ~ ~ t; ~ '1ii 5 ~ 5:l ~ ~ e-.~ ~ ~ ~ Q)
<I). .... <I). ~ <I). ~ .... <I). <I). <I). <I). VI a. <1)...2 VI <I). .~ a. VI ClI <I). <I). <I). <I). LU 3: <I). <I). <I). u..
VI
(ij
VI U
ClI .-
VI E
1fJ ~ (ij ~
.~ ~ c c u
C: ... ::l Q) ClI VI '1:J
ClI (ij c: a. a: E Q) c:
Vl '- ClI ~ E EO.:':: <t
VI ClI E ::l .- a.
::l c: a.... 0 0 ::l a. 1fJ
o ClI .- c: ..... ..... CT ~ '0
ClI ~ VI::l '- c: 'c LU .-
c: VI ClI CT::l ::J ::J >- tlO .!:!
t'tI Q) ~ UJ LL.. 1iJ.S ~
(ij a. <Il ~ ~ -g -g '1ii 'li) ClI
.~ a. 6 iE iE <t <t ~ lii ::
~ ~ tlO 0 0 tlO tlO '" a. Q)
'- OJ.= '- '- .S c: c: 0 N
Q) U >- 0 0 .c: .c g '1:J .-
.c: .- a. c: c: ... ... '- 0 t:
... :::; 0 "";;:; ..Q ..Q Q) 0 Q)
o 0 U.e;..e;. U U a. u.. u..
o 0 000000 0 0
C'\ ........ .... M .... M q-.... ....
C'\ .... N C'\ C'\ .... .... .... N M
C'\ ........ ........ N N N N N
q- Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl
<.0 <.0 <.0 <.0 <.0 <.0 <.0 <.0 <.0 <.0
_,___,.......__ ~ ,.,_.~-,""",,____..,. ,...,,,'.._._"-H....
16 , 1 A 5~
~ D D ~ D [] D ~ D D D D ~ D
~ LJ LJ ~ LJ 0 D ~ D D LJ D ~ ~
0
N
....
~ ~ LJ ~ ~ 0 [] ~ D D LJ D ~ i
0
0
00
~ [] LJ ~ ~ 0 [] ~ ~ LJ LJ [] ~ ~
0
0
"" ~
....
""
~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LI'l "" LI'l 0 0 0 0 LI'l 0 N \0 LI'l
N N 0 vi ~ N' N .-i .-i ..;
.... .... .... N
\D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LI'l " "" 0 0 LI'l 0 "" 0 N \0 LI'l
....' N ....' N' vi .-i ....' N .-i ..:
N .... N ~
'0 0
QJ 0 0
N QJ '0 till LI'l m
<ii .... '" 'S: c: '" .... <Jl.
till 10 .~ ~ o '" 'Ow <Jl.
X '" ..c: +:i II
....... .... .... > ::J .!!lex:
..c: .!!:! U a. 0 '" @I
0 .... - .... '0 .- " QJ'O .x o c: lOa..
LI'l c: a. ::J c:'O 0. QJ 10 '" ~ u
o a. a. 10 c: U c: -g E ....
<:t ..c: 10 C .- QJ "- QJ QJo
<Jl. E ::J '0 u..c: Q) ~ E !: c: > 0 10 ..c: .0 c: 0
.......VI c: .... u QJ QJ .... en .~ E QJ....
@I ~IIII 10 QJ .... -+-'==Ou "''0 .iij - c: ex:<Jl.
till c: ~~ 0Jj! 0.0 11 10 10 QJ
> .- '" .... .- a. E 00
..: 10 c: .... OVlo.ex:C o ~ QJ '" ::J a.
... - 10 :i2 x QJ -5)(~QJ:C "- ::J .... QJ :iiVl ....0
'" o QJ ~.... '" 0 '0 ~ N ULl'l
c: '0 ;;;~~1::E~ 1::- E .... ~<Jl.
.- ~D 10 CDJj! C:'t <(
... <(~CD<(~a: 1010- '" ex: '0 a.. C
II VI ... 10 ::J II
QJ <Jl. '0 ... Co. .~ B '" a.. c: ex:
till c: '" II II II II II II .::; CU 0 a.'" u 10 .... N N II(
II .... '" 0 II II
'0 10 ii= .~ u ::J'O
::J o .... 00 oooooc o u '" ..c: QJ II -s; II X X c:
..>t!...>t!. 00 OOOOOC o ~ Q .... o Q.. 'c
.0 o QJ u ~ ' 0 OOOLl'lLl'lC 0 u .... \0 = o ~
.... "" a. .... , ",,' N m .-i ....' ('0 o QJ E .0 ::J .= .... 11II o llII LI'l ex: .-
QJ N 10 S QJ .... LI'l N >10 10 o 10 N c: m > "" Q.. ~
a.. <Jl. Q.. VI c: <Jl. <Jl. <Jl. <Jl. <Jl. <Jl. <Jl. <J <Jl. .0 :::::; ..... I- C. <Jl. w <Jl...!!. <Jl.ZI-
'" '" '"
.!!:! c: QJ
a. 0 '"
.+:; c:
a. c. QJ
'" ::J .;:: a.
till VI u x
c: <ii .... '" w ....
c: .0 c:
c: QJ '" ::J <ii QJ
iii 0 E QJ VI c: E
.+:; '" 0
"- a. '0 a. a.
'" ::J '5 a. '" c: :c .+:; 0 I
- .... a. .... <( 10 W
'" +:i 0- Q) ::J 0 '" u
... '" w <ii '" Qj ::J >
c: c: VI .~ t> c: QJ
10 - '" llII '" '" .0 '0
.!!:! QJ llIl 10 QI 0 w 0
u '0 c: ex: c: a. .... .+:; E
.;:: c: a. .+:; .+:; ... a. llIl <ii
.0 <( 10 QI a. c: 10 QI c: Ie
::J a. .... '" 10 ::J 0 a. u ~ c: C
.... c: 0
..... '0 ::J QJ =0 QJ VI U ::J ::0 !
-0 VI a. c. VI '0 'iij .+:;
'0 c: <ii <ii ::J .... 10
<ii 0 0 llIl c:
l:: ..c: 10 u u c: Q.. <( l- .!::! I
<( QJ u .... ..c: .... .;:: .;:: '" .... c:
'" =0 0 u Q) tJ ... .+:; ..>t!. '" Q) 10 0
W ::J c: .... ..c: u c: 0 Q) ..c:
0 Q) Q) Q) Q) ~ '0
::J ~ ~ ~ .... 10 0 ::J ....
.... :x: 0 i:ij i:ij Q.. CD 0 0 0
. ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 .... N m 0 0 0 0
m .... N .... "" m m m m .... .... \0 "
"" LI'l " m m m m m m .... N m m
N N N N N N N N N "" "" "" ""
LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l LI'l a
\0 <D \0 \0 \0 <D <D <D <D <D <D <D \0
-"',.~..,~.. --- r "'".. '1 ~ r .." .... __w"._..
~D~~ 16 J lA 5
~D~~
~D~~
~D~~
o 0
o 0
00 0
, ClCI
N '
N
o 0 0
>-
+-'
.:;:
.;::;
u
:J
-c
e
0.
-c
QJ
'"
'"
QJ
I-
U
.~
l-
e
...
c.
e
+-'
c.
'"
...J
+-'
c:
QJ
- E
~ C.
QJ .-
c: :J
QJ 0-
(,::l u.J >-
'" tlO III
t:'~ ~
QJ '" 0
E fl -
~ e ~
e ,a. a.
c. '" III
E ,+-' U
'" -
_ 9 0
o 0 iii
o 0 '0
.-l C't ?-
m '<t I
.0.0 .c
r--. r--. ~
"....------.-.,.-.."..,..-. ..
..._~,~-
- -----
------
,~I~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ mrl rlNrlrl~ ~ ~O 000 ~ON ~'" '~6" or~~A
t) LOlf)~~CO N(Yl~(Yl 0 m~ 1.0~~~ (Yl (Yl~ 000 ~OO m 1.0 ~ "11" 5
~ rl rlrlrl rlrl r
~ ~ '
Z
U dP
:E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
:E ~~oocoo~~coCO~O~~l.0rl~OO~rl~OO~~OOCOrl~ 001.0 moooooco~~~I.0(Ylmoo
o ~~I.0I.0I.0~~N(Yl(Yl~O~(Yl~rlrlrlONrloo~m~OO~l.0m ~Orl OOO~O~I.0~I.0N(Yl(Yl~OO
U
m OOCOOO~(YlNI.0~rl(YlmCO~(Yl~~oom(YJ(YJo~~mool.0(Yl~ ~01.0 00000N~~1.00mco~00
W M mmcococol.0mO~l.0com~m~m~ o~~~~mo~om(YJ~o mo(YJ mOO~ONI.0~rll.0~~rlI.00
~ ~ ~~~~~rl ~~~~~N ~ ~~~~N (YJ~~~~~(YJ ~~ ~~~CO~ ~~N coo~ ~
o M ~(Yl~~rl m~~~rl m ~~N~ rl~~mN ~N rlrl N rl m(YJ1.0 rl
~ ~~~~~ rl ~ ~C:Om (YlrlrlrlN rl~ ~
Z m NNrlrl ~Nrl rl
~ ~
m >-=1
o 0
Orl 0
N(Yl
'-- ."
1.0 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
00 ~~00N0I.0~NNI.00~~~m~00I.0m(YJ00~~ Nm~oooo ~ON 0 ON~(YJ~~rlrl(YJ~
,--.. OOCO~~(YlI.0~~I.0I.0~o~(YJ~COrlrlONCOmo~mN (YJ(Y)mooo~ (YJ0(Yl 1.0 (y)(y)N(YJNI.0I.0NCO~
~co .
Orl Mrlmm~(Yl~(YJ~C:Ol.0rlCO~I.0~~OOrll.0(y)o~~o mN~(YJC:OO~ ~o~ m ~NN(YlOO(YJNrlO
~~rlrlrll.0 m~(YJrlo~mNO~ OI.0~~l.0mON I.0rlOo~om OON (YJ ~(YJmCOI.0NrlC:Orlm
M ~~~~(Ylrl rll.0NCOrlN mco rlrlCO~~ (YJ(Y) (YlN(Yl~mrl (y)NN NN~ rlNrlmm
ill ill ~ m ..... ....... ... . .. ... ... . ....
~S Z ~ ~1.0000 (Y)~(YJ~ ~ (YlN ~~~ co rl~ NrlO mm~ N ~(YJ~rl
~.~ U ~ OOOOrl rl rl~ om(YJ rl rlrl m N OCON (YJ
08 0 ~(Yl~~(Yl ~Nrl ~N
:E .(
:E
o
U
W
~
~
o ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1.0 ~1.0
~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 rl~
Z
W ~ mm m m ~ c:o c:om
o C i LO~ ~ LO 1.0 0 NO
>-=1 CDI NN N N c:o rl ON
8 .fi I N~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ .r! LO~ LO LO rl
\.l 0 0 l:l
o ~ ~ l:l
0.. Ul 0
ill rl U
p:: 0:: l1l
W+J
~ ~ 0
:;: Z~
OWl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~ U~ 00000 0000000 00 00000 00000 000 000000000000 0000
rl ~ ~ 00000 0000000 00 00000 00000 000 000000000000 0000
rl ~m CD .
m~ ~~ ~ 00000 0000000 00 ooo~o 0001.01.0 (YlCOO 000000000000 0000
~\.l ZHW ~ 00000 0000000 00 ooomo oomoLO o~o oooooooooo~o 0000
~Q UZUl ~ NNrlrl~ rll.0~LO~OO O(Y) 0(Yl~~0 oc:oo~m ~mrl COCONoo~mc:o(YJ~~(YJ o~coo
J.-i DC III ..... ........ ..... ..... ... ..... . . ....
om :E:EW NN~LOrl NN~NN~ ~N W~ONrl o~~o~ NrlO ~(YJmOrl N (YJ ~WO~
rlO :E:E~ ~ ~(Yl~~C:O rlrlrlN rlO OC:O(YJ ~rlrl(YJ(YJ m N rlNCO~ c:o rl
~~ OOX CD ~1.0~LO(YJ rl N~(YJ I.0N
UUW ~ .
'C C rl
>,<0 WW1:l CD
+l (/) ~~ C l:l i
C .~ ~ ~ l1l < !
;::lJ.-i 00
o ill (I)
U 0.. ZZ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
S WWC 00000 0000000 00 00000 00000 000 000000000000 0000
HO 00(1) ~ 00000 0000000 00 00000 00000 000 000000000000 0000
<JJU HH:> CD
~ 00(1) ~ 00000 0000000 00 ooo~o 0001.01.0 (YlCOO 000000000000 0000
rlrl 000:: ~ 00000 0000000 00 ooomo oomoLO o~o OOOOOOOOOOLOO 0000
rl~ ~ NNrlrl~ rlI.0LO~~OO 0(Yl O(YJ~~O oc:oo~m ~mrl COC:ONOOLOmc:o(Yl~~(YJ o~coo
O::J III ..... ........ ..... ..... ... ..... . .
U~ NNLO~rl NN~NN~ ~N I.0~ONrl o~~o~ NrlO ~(Y)mOrl N (YJ ~1.00~
U ~ ~(YJ~~CO rlrlrlN rlO OCO(YJ ~rlrl(Yl(YJ m N rlNCO~ co rl
~ CD ~1.0~~(Yl rl N~(Y) I.0N
~ .
o ~ rl
~ 0
~
+l .(
OJ
tn
~ ~ ~~~.(~<8~ ~88~ 8~ ~ H~~ ~H~~~U~~'( 8U~ ~Q~~~ <~z~
;::l Z m~~8~OZ UZZ ~HZ <IH ~~Q ~~~ ~i~H ~H~8 U~~
~ W 00 ~ Z <HO ~ ~O ~ 0 ~ ~~ ~ ~
(Yl U 0HH~lz~~ 0f;1f;108HH ~N~ OU~a~ HO U ~~~QH~ ~ 8 H
rl Z~~~ O~HZU H Q8 ~ Z ~~Z Z UH~ ~8~~ ~H~H HO
:E H~~O H 0 ~~88~0 O~ m Hm W808Z ~ Z ~U 00
~ :Erl~ U 8~~H~88um~lIIrlW~ ~~~~~ I z~[j~mUUHO~ 2~O~~H~~O~
o 00:: Ol1l~QQ 8m ~HHHP~ Hl1lU ~~Q ~>'H =H~I Z~ !U~H =~~~ ~
~ rl~ HU+l~<<~H ~ HH~~~ +JH ~ ~8~< 8 W~~ ~ ~ 8~~ ~
m ~:E U ow 0 UUH HH8~ 0> ~ ~~HH ~~H 8 OH 8 U m
00 o~:E a 'W~~BH~iu~~~~yym8~~~0:: ~~~gmu8~a~B;m~Q~Sm~~~8H~~~~~~~.(
o (YJ~D CD U~ 0 ~~~~~~Q~~~ZZ~o W~~~~8 ~o~ HO ~WZ8 ~~ Q~~O H~~~~
N rlrlm~ +l ~~~ Qx~~m~<8~~HHHU~m~~U80 ~~~ H~ ~ HO ~~ ~U8~ ~8~~H
H H 10~1 ~ 0
~ .-\ Ul Ul>-=1 Z
~ l:l ro0 woo~OOO~~OOMOOOOO ~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHO~~~OOOOOOOOOOOO
8 ~ S a +l WDOO~~~OOOOM~~N~OWZOOOOOOOOOO~~OOO~~~~~OO.-\OO~OOOOON
U C illS 0 0 DZ.-\N~NN~~~~~~~~M~UlO.-\~~OO.-\MMM.-\mMM.-\NO~~~~~N~~~~~.-\M~~~~
< H ~ro U 80ZWMMM~~~~~~~~~.-\N~zmNNNN~~~.-\NN~~~~0~~~~~000MMMN~~~~~
i HH rlW>MM~~~~~~~~~~~~~WO::M.-\M.-\.-\MMNNNNNNN~W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o H rl H tn, ~~>W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W~~LOLOLOLOLOLOLO~~~LO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<:-; ,11 m Q)~ 0 i::~WO:: ~o.. 0
I i!J U +lCJ.-i 1-1 ro~O:: r,J
Q ><~ C WP< +l I-Irl
D ~ i!JS U U
~ r-I~ (;1 U+':''U
i nJO'rl rl(l) ~ i<
r.fJ U,.,+l~'US~ !:: i<~
U ~HmCCEC ~.i<~~ ~
en ,,-JGJ+lclclO;::l ~Ii<~~~ ~.. ~
.'_"'~~;c'_...."",,_,.,c_ ~"""~, ,",-"."""~_.,.,, ~.",,_.,."~~__.~_____"___
0 I1l 011100 0 COI1lNO I1l '!:>r-- 0001110 Nrl rlr--1No;;::j1r-- O(Y) ""
~ rl 00.100 '!:> 0.10.10 "" '-0 III CO CO LS1 0.1 0 (Y)r-- COOr--N (Y)r--ffi 1 6
rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl I 1 A 5
----~~-_.-
I I I I I I I
000000 0 OffiOOOOOIllNOO '!:>OOOOOOO'!:> ",,1ll0rlO(Y)00000000
000000 LS1 OffiOOOOOcoooco 00000000"<t' O"<t'OOOCOIllOO'!:>ffiOOO
. .
000000 0.1 OffiOOOOr--NrlOrl 00000"<t'00(y) N(y)OffiONN"<t'OrlONOO
000000 '-0 OrlOOLr1001ll or-- (Y)OOOOrlOlllrl ffiffiO'-OONrlOO'!:>'!:>COoo
"<t'001ll(Y)0 r-- NUlOUlrlO'-O rl rl rlNOUlO""rlN(Y) '-O'!:>UlrlO(y)Ul(DO rl roro
, ~ ~ , ~ .... ... .... .... .... , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ , ~
CO Ul Ul 0.1 rl NrlN(y)Lr1 rl rl (y)Nrl rl "<t' rl O(Y) rl rl 0.10.1
(Y) rl
~----
I
0 0 000 rl "<t' rlONOO ffi ffi ""OUlO '!:>r-- rl(Y)ffiffiO 000
0 0 0Lr10 0 0.1 (Y)Lr100CO LS1 "<t' o Ul 0 r-- ffi co Or--"<t''-OO '!:>rlO
. .
0 0 00.10 0 (Y) r-- rl rl 0 rl "<t'1ll (Y)ffiffiO r-- co ffirlQ)N'!:> rlmco
0 0 O'!:>O CO (Y) Ul (Y) or-- CO r-- r-- "" r-- r- oo '!:>r--Ulrlm '-.O("')r-l
'-0 (Y) or-o r-- rl mN ffi rl "<t'0 rl rl 0 rorl rlro"<t'(Y)'-O N"<t''!:>
, , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~
'!:> rl NrlN Ul rl (Y) rl rl rl CO Ul rl
0 0 0 '!:> 0 m Ul LS1 rl '!:>OUl"<t'O co r- "<t' rl 0
0 0 0 r--0'lJ(Y) (y)Lr1 mlllmcoo 'lJ 0.1 (Y) CO 0
0 0 0 '!:>OUlrl Ul "" NOOUlO r- CO(Y)"<t' 0
0 0 0 'lJO(Y)N CON rl Lr1 r-- rl 0 m N'lJr-- 0
0 0 0 0'lJ(Y) '-Om Lr1 0.1 rl "<t' Lr1 Ul rlrorl ro
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
rl 0.1 0.1 rl (Y) Nrl rl rl "<t'ro
0000000000000000000 0 0000000000 00000000000000
0000000000000000000 0 0000000000 00000000000000
.
0000000000000000000 0 0000000000 00000000000000
000000000000000Lr1000 0 0000000000 00000000000000
'-O"<t'00Lr1000000N(Y)01ll(Y)ONUl 0 (Y)NOLr10rlLr1Lr1COUl Lr1"<t'1ll00001ll0N'-Olllroro
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ .... ... ... .... .... .... , ~ ~
;",C.(DL.Oli) 0.1 (''>I 0.1 (Y) N (',J rl rl('lrl 0.1 "" r- ro (''>I ffi li) rl ,-iN til .-4 ('-I ('-I o \.0 7 l',J (''>I rl r--j(\.JC"\J
(Y) rl rl rl
0000000000000000000 0 0000000000 00000000000000
0000000000000000000 0 0000000000 00000000000000
0000000000000000000 0 0000000000 00000000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUlOOO 0 0000000000 00000000000000
'-0700Lr1000000N(Y)0Lr1(Y)ONUl 0 (Y)NO Lr10rlUlIll rolll Ul"<t'1ll00001ll0N'!:>IllCOCO
... .... ... .... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... ... .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ... .... ... ... .... ... , ~ ~
'lJCOIllIll NNN(Y)NNrlrlNrlN""r--ro N mlllrl rlN III rl NN O'lJ"<t'NNrl rlNN
(Y) rl rl rl
ZPOHoo~~8 08H~Ooo!~ ~~ ~8~H0 8aZ~5 OOMH~HPO~~IZ H
~oo ~ Z Z ~M Z M ~ Z H Z~8 8ooU~ H 00
0~~~008~H ~~~~ 8~~~ M~~~~~~S~~~ ~U SH~~~~ ~oo ~ :
~ ~~ ~~ ~HH~80P0~~ ~ooPU~~~~ m~ ~00~HM55 ~ ~ g
~~~Z~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ZH~: !~oo~OOZZ~~~ ~ 5~~~H~~ ~ ~
HH ~ Z 8 ~ H8 OO~ ~ HH 0 U ~ H ~
~ 8H= 00~8 HU~~ mZH ~UH~~==O ~ ~ ~ 8 ~~
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~I~~Qm~E~g~~~~Q~~~~H~~~oo~~m~~~
Z~PP~~~~ ~ 22 ~~8~ H~~8 o~ SS~2~~~O~ ~~~~~8~8~~
H~~~oo~ 8 ~ OO~ mMU OOU UU~ = O~~~~QODQ
0
OOOOn~~~mmOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOnOOOOOOnNmOOO~O
OOnmnnnnnnNM~~nn~n~OnMmmnnnMnM~nnnmnNn~mmmmnn~~O
nNnnMMMMMMM~~~~~mnnOOmmmnNmmnnnNMM~~~mmmmmmnNM~m
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mmmmmmnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~~~H~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U
'"
---- ------ -~-~-- ----------
_"""_"'_"""~' "___~__~_'__""'~'"'_W'."'__'_'"~~"~~"~_'.~_."._._"._'~' ~--'--'- -~._,.,~--~--,,_._-_.__..,_.
'Fiala ~~/-W- 16 I 1 A 6 RECEIVED
Ha\aS }.{
Henning: 11 ':: March 17, 200~AY 0 7 2009
Coy\e
Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER CO~Mmofc",m~c'mm..,""
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, March 17, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Habitat Conservation Plan
Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at North
Horseshoe Drive, Conference Room 610, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
Chairman: Dr. Judith Hushon
Vice Chairman: Amber Crooks
Tad Bartareau (Excused)
Jeffrey A. Carter
Roslyn (Roz) Katz
Adoni Kokkinos (Excused)
Dr. Christian Mogelvang
ALSO PRESENT: Laura Roys, Sr. Environmental Specialist Misc. Cones:
Date: 00 o~ 09
I item #: 1,10 T.L \ Alo
";,-..,,,
_'__,_..m" __ "..-...-., ~~"'"",.' ,-,,~,.,.._,.- ...._~,.. " ------~-------_.._-
16 I 1 A6
March 17, 2009
I. Call to Order
Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at I: 15 PM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Hushon amended the Agenda as follows:
. Under Item VI, "New Business," the following category was added:
a. Review of Draft of Habitat Conservation Plan for Red-Cockaded
Woodpeckers
Roslyn Katz moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Amber Crooks.
Carried unanimously, 5-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: February 25, 2009
The spelling of Ms. Katz's name was changed from Rosalyn to "Roslyn."
Amber Crooks moved to approve the Minutes of February 25, 2009 as amended.
Second by Jeff Carter. Carried unanimously, 5-0.
(The order of the Agenda Items was changed.)
VII. Subcommittee Reports
a. RCW Subcommittee
Copies of Minutes of the Subcommittee Meeting, held on March 11,2009, were
distributed.
Amber Crooks gave a PowerPoint Presentation. She outlined the following:
. The RCW Regional Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Atlanta,
was contacted
. Strategy was discussed concerning the content to be included in Section 5 of
the HCP per the USF&W:
0 HCP should establish "no net loss" to North Belle Meade's RCW
population, and
0 Meet mitigation to the maximum extent practicable
0 If one cluster is impacted, one equal cluster must be created
0 Impacted cavity trees should be created in an area and birds
trans-located to the new area
0 If RCWs remain on private lands, clusters may become "doomed" due
to isolation from other clusters - RCWs may not survive, regardless of
development
0 Best option may be to move RCWs to public lands (i.e., Picayune)
. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will not approve a single-species HCP
. BCC has requested HCPAC prepare an HCP that focuses solely on RCWs
. In the alternative, prepare a second, multi-species HCP (panther, gopher
tortoise, eastern indigo snake) which USF&G will approve:
0 RCWs and panthers share the same habitat
2
16 , lA6 (
March 17, 2009
0 Mitigation strategy for RCWs may conflict with mitigation strategy
0 for panthers
0 Panther Mitigation Strategy options: (1) establish fund to create a
panther crossing; (2) donate funds to purchase additional land; or
(3) donate land to Conservation Collier for panther habitat
. Reviewed GIS data provided by the County for cluster habitat, foraging
habitat and cavity habitat
. Known clusters are limited in number (from 2003 data)
0 Relocation of RCWs to Picayune - availability for clusters
0 Clusters in Nancy Peyton Preserve
0 Creation of artificial cavities
A suggestion was made to conduct ground-truthing before finalizing HCP. An issue
is how to obtain permission from private landowners to survey their property.
. Alternative recommendations (if an HCP is not feasible):
0 Safe Harbor Agreement
0 Create a technical review committee to assist Staff with work
load - Site Plan review
0 Close loopholes - implementation of existing regulations
Discussion ensued concerning the Safe Harbor Agreement - content and intent,
responsibilities of land owners, education of landowners, establishing an RCW
baseline, and adaptive management. Also discussed was the option of purchasing
property and compensating shareholders.
. Landowner participation is critical. Landowners in HCP will be required to
submit additional mitigation. Determine how to attract and obtain their
support.
x. Next Meeting Date
The next meeting of the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee will be on
Friday, May 1,2009 at 1 :00 PM.
The Immokalee Master Plan Vision Committee will meet on March 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM.
and attendance was encouraged. The published Meeting Notice stated members from
HCPAC will be present.
VI. New Business
a. Review of Draft of Habitat Conservation Plan for Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers
Copies were distributed.
Chairman Hushon stated the draft was a "skeleton" and the management portions in
Sections 4 and 5 were left blank when she modified the original outline:
. Under "5.3 - "Strategies to Achieve Biological Goals, " she added
"5,3.3 - Restore and Maintain Corridors" and "5.3.5 - Movement of RCWs"
The definition of "moving" versus "translocation" was discussed.
3
____._~_.___.__.....m_.__._~..
16 , 1 A6
March 17,2009
The Committee is to decide how to structure the Plan and it was suggested to change
the term, "Movement" to "Translocation" to avoid confusion.
Chairman Uushon pointed out the items that she created or completed
. On Page 1, "1.2 - Purpose of HCP Effort" (created)
. On Page 1, "1.3 - Permit Duration"
0 "Duration" - period to review the Plan, She recommended stating a
specific timeframe, i.e., every 10 years
Roz Katz asked if information was available concerning property owners in the
area who may have proposed short-range plans for development.
Discussion ensued regarding a landowner in Section 24 in North Belle Meade who
proposed building single-family homes on 20-acre plots in the center of Section 24.
Other landowners in the northern section applied for permits to completely clear
land to build nursery businesses under "Ag."
Jeff Carter asked if data was available regarding whether or not RCWs could live
in close proximity with humans without negative affects
(Jeff Carter left at 2:13 PM.)
(Quorum was lost.)
HCP Subcommittee Meetinl!
Chairman Uushon stated a quorum was not required to hold a Subcommittee Meeting and
convened as a Subcommittee Meeting at 2:13 PM.
Discussion continued concerning "Hideout" land, mitigation offset land, cavity trees,
and foraging land.
Chairman Uushon resumed the review:
. Under "1.4 - Regulatory Frameworkfor the HCP," Chairman Hushon stated
the HCP language may need to be added to the LDC ("Land Development
Code"). The Code references "Listed and Protected Species.'"
. Under "1.5 - Plan Area, " she added the last two paragraphs in the Section
and suggested adding more information concerning habitat to the south ofI-
75, Picayune State Forest, Big Cypress Basin and the management ofthe
areas.
. Information concerning topography and geology is to be added to "2.2"
. Under "2.3 - Vegetation Important to the RCW," she added information
concerning pine trees and slash pines (which are not in other locations), and
that other species take over nests hollowed out by RCWs.
. Under "2.4.3 -Implicationsfor Management," Chairman Hushon stated the
dilemma: Since few colonies are left, can they be managed in place or should
the colonies be moved to Picayune as part of mitigation? (Birds are brought
in from other areas to ensure an active gene pool.)
4
---, '-_.~~^-""~~-'~~ ---------~_._---,---~---_.,_._._-_._~_._-_._--
. 16 J lA6
March 17, 2009
Chairman Hushon stated she would continue to revise Sections 2 and 3.
Amber Crooks and Tad Bartareau will complete Sections 4 and 5.
Dates for a Subcommittee Meeting were suggested. Members will email Laura Roys
with their availability for either April 14th or April I ih The Subcommittee Meeting
will be noticed.
Chairman Hushon asked Laura to contact Tad Bartareau via email.
It was suggested that a Public Meeting should be scheduled as quickly as possible.
Discussion ensued regarding how to publicize the meeting
Laura Roys stated Staff is not available and she would verifY if funds were available
for a bulk mailing.
V. Old Business
(Not heard)
VIII. Public Comments
(None)
IX. Staff Comments
(None)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
along with the Subcommittee meeting by order of the Chair at 3:00 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY BABITA T CONSERVATION PLAN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
~~ it.J rfLL<,J, f>-/
~th/ ushon, Chairman
, /
~/
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on (YJ~ J ,2009,
as presented /' , or as amended .
5
- ~'''''''_''''~'''''",...~_._"''A~,''.'' ------------~_..._---"-----_._._._-
O Fiala j
RECE\VE Hala~
v 1 9 2009 Henning
MAl Coyle ~
. r{ commissioners Coletta
Bo"dO'C,"" THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT 1 6 111 ,.,
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING ,., I'
HELD ON MARCH 9, 2009
In attendance were the following:
Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman Copeland
John Pennell, Plantation Island, Advisory Board Member
Darcy Kidder, Everglades City, Advisory Board Member
James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member
The meeting came to order at approximately 6:06PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Darcy Kidder made a motion to approve the minutes for January 12, 2009 it was seconded by
John Pennell and the motion was passed.
OLD BUSINESS:
DOT REPLY LETTER
Mitchell Roberts - He read the letter a loud see attached,
He went on to say that he spoke to Commissioner Colletta in regards to this letter and was told
to place a resolution on the Board of County Commissioners agenda.
Chief McLaughlin - The Advisory Board would have to submit a resolution to put on the agenda
for the Board of County Commissioners to agree to support it.
Mitchell Roberts - The Commissioner said anything like that especially if there is going to be
funding from another source they would support it.
John Pennell- He asked would they need residents to give input.
Page 1
"_.._-,...,,,.,,....._..._.,,,.,,~."---"._- --~......_" -~_. -,-_..._._-_._.,._._~-_._....".__.__._------ .~
16 , 1 A~
---~
u ---I
"~....
v \_r
florida Departnlent 0." TrtUI::'1JOttation
CHAIH.IE CRISI" 605 Suwannee street STEPIIANIE c. KOPEUWSOS
GOVERNOR TallahClSsee, FL 32399.0450 SCCltRTARY
January 14,2009
1v1r. Mitchell Roberts
Chairman, Ochopee Fire Disttict
Post Office Box 70
Everglades City, Florida 34139
Sub,ject: Recent Correspondence - Alligator Alley Toll Rate
Dear IVIr. Roberts:
Thank YOll for your recent letter expressing support for the raising oflhe toll rate along Alligator
Alley and for a portion of the proceeds to be used to cover the fire and emergencies services for
the area. As you know, the department has postponed the proposal to lease the facility until May
2009, and I will be glad to review this option with you as we get closer to that date.
In the meantime, I would suggest getting support from the Collier County Commission, the
Collier County fvlPO and others in the community as they will be our partners in ultimately
deciding how these funds should be spent. Should we receive a favorable determination that
legally we can spend these proceeds on the fire and rescue services for the community, their
support and understanding of where the funds have been spent is extreme1yimportant in the
overall scheme of things.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any additional questions.
Sincerely, .../,/)
Jf f) 1//
(.., ,..,. ....l
(t:,{:t/'-~'" "\ .rc..~w;;c;c:::'
1,,7.' / r.'~"'" ,,'" .,' (.. ..)
K~Vil<j. Tl~bault, r.E:' ,.' '.
Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Operations
KJT/cci
w\vw.dot.state.tlus
^. .,,-,...'.~ ...,--,.,..,..~._~-,,,, ~._,,- "'_-"","',>..._,,,..~.._,-~._...'-~-"-'_,,~,,,_-~,,,_,_------~--~_.__...._----_.._.._~-_.._.-
16 , 1 A7
Mitchell Roberts - There is potentially a lot of issues with this he would like to see what the
Chief has before pursuing this now we might want to wait.
Chief Mclaughlin - He was informed in a meeting with Dan Summers that there is legislation
seeking the State to provide funding to the County for providing continued Fire/Rescue
Services. The Chief has not heard anything back yet so he feels they should wait on pursuing
the State on this issue until he knows the outcome of the legislative action.
Mitchell Roberts - He asked that the letter be kept filed away for now.
PORT OF THE ISLANDS UPDATE
Chief Mclaughlin - In the process of cutting the PO for Architectural Services and the Budget
Amendment in the Board of County Commissioners Agenda to cover those fees.
Coastal Engineering reduced their price from $33,000 to $24,000 so we will move forward
with this after the Architectural Services have been processed. He was able to get the
engineers to reduce a lot of the code restrictions that do not apply to this project to keep down
the costs, One of the examples he gave was a side walk that wouldn't go anywhere and
retention swales both unnecessary items. During the interim period we will be moving
into the hotel so he is waiting for the lease agreement to corne back from llC Sun Stream
once it is signed by the Board of County Commissioners we will be up and running. He feels
it will take 60 days after the Board approves the lease. Readying the Fire Station is going
to take 8 to 9 months to complete. The only way to give the residents insurance relief
is to rent temporarily. The insurance companies will be informed that the station is up and
running. The Department is seeking an ISO re-rating as of October 2009,
James Simmons - He asked jf the ISO re-rat would be by May 1st.
Chief Mclaughlin - He said no probably not until October or November 2009.
James Simmons - He asked if it would be this year.
Chief Mclaughlin - He said he thinks the re-rate would be this year but later this year.
It is a complicated process and takes several people to do it.
Mitchell Roberts - Will some insurance companies accept the potential of an actual station up
and running in four months.
Chief Mclaughlin - Even operating out of the Hotel they will credit that,
Page 2
-~----,-~-_._--_.,,-_.,..
16 , 1 A?
NEW SUPPORT 60
Chief - The new support truck is here, We still have not received the grill guard Elite is waiting
for it to come in. The old Expedition is going to auction next week. The old military 6x6 is
going to auction as well. The new support vehicle is replacing the old Expedition that was
Paul's.
NEW BUSINESS:
Chief McLaughlin - The trailer has been assigned to the Bureau of Emergency Services to take
it off our Fleet Management Account this will reduce our budget expenses because we are
charged per vehicle and if he needs it he can borrow it. The old 1955 Mack Truck is going
away. About two to three weeks ago we received two 1994 6 X 6 duce and a half military
trucks from DOF. The vehicles are in good shape and the Fire Personnel are working on the
trucks by getting them painted, they have stripped one of them down, and traded the skid load
over for the purpose of putting them in service. This is also going to be a considerable savings
to the Department by having our personnel perform this preliminary work.
James Simmons - Do we man those trucks or does Forestry.
Chief McLaughlin - No, we man those trucks they loan them to us so we don't have to buy
them. This is a program that loans rural Departments vehicles this is a savings of up to
$150,000.
Mitchell Roberts - He asked what the drought index was in this area.
Chief Mclaughlin - We are in bad shape it is up to 700 right now. He went on to explain there
is an index that measures fuel moister content that tells us how the large fuels are going to
burn. The moisture in the large fuels is drying up very rapidly this is an indication that the
potential for large very fast moving fires is high. Most of the State will be in drought by next
month and if we cia not have any significant rain we will probably meet the 1917 drought
conditions in Florida which were the worst reported. The prediction is for La Nina is that we
don't see any rain until July all predictions show the fire conditions are going to get worse.
Page 3
,..,......-... --_.~~'""--'-';'>--" -----~-~-
16 {.1 A?
TAKING IN DISTRICT I
Chief Mclaughlin - He made a proposal that due to our budget constraints since we already
cover 72% of District I and get paid a third of that why don't we take it into our District and
raise it to our millage rate. Actually he wanted to take in 83% because of the station at Port of
the Islands we will be able to cover a little more in that area from the Miller Road Extension.
The first projection on that was $820,000. He submitted his proposal to the County Attorney's
Office as a request for legal services and it was pulled by the County Manager.
Chief Mclaughlin - It didn't fly because it would look like a land or cash grab, We are in
desperate times and we are taking desperate measures. We are protecting District I any way
but it is at 1.8 mills there might be some people upset if the millage rate is increased. All of
District I brings in $500,000. It would be money back into our District for covering it. He feels it
would offset the Pilt money we no longer receive. There is currently a contract with East
Naples Fire District, Golden Gate Fire District, Isles of Capri Fire District and Ochopee Fire
Control District. The monies are divided anlong those Fire Departments for the protection of
District I. There are no set boundaries, the contract does not say how much money anyone will
get, and the monies are just divided as to what is collected. The District I contract is in effect
until September 2010. If they allow the Department to take over District I we would just be
backing out of the contract and the monies left would be divided amongst the other
Departments. They would have less area to protect. He is trying to get more money back into
the District to supplement the cost of building the station and man power and that money is in
District I. He is totally in favor of pursuing the absorption of District I into our Fire District since
we are already covering it.
Darcy Kidder - We cover it but we don't get paid for it?
Chief McLaughlin - We get paid $142,000 a year to cover it.
Mitchell Roberts - He said a small percentage of it. If we were to take in District I would that be
a good incentive for a Station on 1-75.
Chief McLaughlin - Part of the land 1-75 runs through is District r. Yes that would fund some of
the personnel for that facility no all of them but some of them and monies also for the facility.
It would put some monies back into the budget it would be a tremendous shot in the arm to
the budget.
Page 4
__Ill -,_._--
-
16 I 1A? ,
DOFGRANT
Chief McLaughlin - It goes to the Board of County Commissioners tomorrow it is a 50/50
matching Grant for $11,000 for the purpose of outfitting the brush trucks on loan from
Forestry.
FEMA} SAFER & NEW FiRE STATiON GRANTS
Chief McLaughlin - The Department is re-applying for a tanker through the FEMA Grant we did
not get it last year but we are using some different language in the application this year. In the
stimulus package there is a brand new grant for new and existing stations. The Department is
going to apply for the Port of the Islands renovations and an 1-75 Station at Mile Marker 72, He
has also given the information to the Mayor of Everglades City for the purpose of building a
new Station in Everglades City. Through the grant a new Everglades City Station could be built
and leased back to the Department. There is a three million dollar cap for this grant.
The new SAFER Grant is for man power it has always been a matching grant over five years.
The matches for the Fire Departments were first year 20%, second year 30%, third year 50%,
fourth year 70% and the fifth year 100%. After the fifth year the Department had to hire the
Firefighters. There was also a limit of $100,000 per person so with benefits you could go up to
$100,000 per person. We held off on this because we didn't think it was a good deal. The
Stimulus Package with the economy the program was changed there is no longer a match for
anyone who applies in 2009. The five years is fully funded, it now includes benefits, and
retirement. The cap is up to $120,000 so that is well within our means to hire three Firefighters
after five years we have to hire them. Hopefully the economy will improve and we could hire
them. Certainly with District I we could put three people on, He suggested instead of full time
Firefighters we could hire contracted personnel this way the Department would not have to pay
benefits so their salaries would be at $42,000.
James Simmons - He asked who pays for their benefits.
Chief Mclaughlin - Contract Firefighters do not get paid for benefits.
Mitchell Roberts - He asked if the SAFER Grant has the stipulation of retirement and benefits
which is good.
Chief McLaughlin - They are trying to put people on it is very similar to the SETA Act Program of
1974 when they paid your salary but not your retirement. He has not yet decided whether he is
going to go full time or contract. We would have to put six on either way.
Page 5
,.n<_,~,.~..'_=,",~"_"~'.""~"~'~_'._'~'~___'_'_'"~_"__.,_._, ....... -~"_._, ~...~ -,.,,--.~
16 I lA 7
Mitchell Roberts - Are you checking into a three to five year plan to get some more personnel
into place, a Fire Station, and then they would have to put District I into the budget within the
five years to cover it.
Chief McLaughlin - He wants to put District I into the budget this year for next year but he
thinks it won't happen.
Mitchell Roberts - It's taking money away from the other Departments which hurts unless you
have something viable for it to go into.
Chief McLaughlin - He is concerned about Ochopee Fire Control District not the other
Departments everybody has money problems. It is not guaranteed money it is a contract the
money could go away at any time they could give the money to EMS.
Mitchell Roberts - They could say they are going to keep it because they are in dire straits in
010 and just keep it.
Chief McLaughlin - They don't have to give that money away.
James Simmons - He asked if we had to apply directly to FEMA for the Grants.
Chief McLaughlin - He said yes.
Mitchell Roberts - He asked what kind of time link on the SAFER and the Fire Station Grants.
Chief McLaughlin - The SAFER Grant opens in the summer. He is not sure when the Fire Station
Grant opens up. The FEMA AFG Grant opens 4-15-09 they are usually a 30 day window to
apply. We don't usually get to the Board because it takes two weeks to get the item on the
agenda then you have to wait for approval it could be a six week process. The County Manager
has given the green light on any Grants that have time constraints to go ahead and apply.
Last year we applied prior to Board approval because of the time constraint. It's good news for
anyone applying for a grant it gives us some lee way.
CHAIRMAN TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BCC 3-24-09 AT HAM REGARDING REPORT
Chief McLaughlin - He will accompany the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
Chairman to appear before the Board of County Commissioners on 3-24-09,
Page 6
. ",~,_.",~~".'~'''~~'--~~--------'~~ _. ~_',.~.."'H~"'__'~'_'____~'__~__.__.._.____._..~__.._....~'.__.,..__.___.__._._......_~__.__,.___.____ _ __ _--....__m..._...._
#f!; , 1 A7
,,->, ''':,oJ
BUDGET
Chief Mclaughlin - The budget has been all over the board this year. We were told to take 15%
out of our budget. He had to freeze the Assistant Chief position for this year plus there was still
an additional $40,000 that needed to be cut he didn't know where to get it from. He thought
he might have to lay somebody off and he was told he would have to go to reserves to make
payroll next year. Linda and I kept looking at the budget and we just don't see that kind of
money reduction. But maybe they are seeing something we don't this has been going on for a
month. We have been working hard on the budget as to where we are going to find money
they just took $600,000 OLlt of our Reserves. District I even at 2,1 mills is easy money it is still
$400,000.
James Simmons - He asked if he cut 15%.
Chief McLaughlin - As of last Friday there are two budgets in Gov Max for General Fund which is
a Flat Budget and a 25% reduction. Apparently the MSTDUs will not be affected as badly. So
we were to do a flat budget. We may not be as bad off as they think we're going to be which is
what we thought. He feels it will be more like 7% to 8% which puts us in a better position
because we were looking at $220,000 reduction of the budget and now it will be closer to
$100}000 he feels he can do that. That was done OLlt of Capital projects there are none for next
year. A lot of other spending was also reduced. The Assistant Chief Position was $103}000 with
benefits so if he only has to lose $110,000 he can comply with their reduction policy. He
desperately needs that day person but because he has not been able to fill that position then
some of the other projects will not get done, He is seeing the philosophy of do more with less
and it can't be done people get burned out. If YOLl keep reducing there is only so mLlch work
that can be done. The State is predicting that it will take 18 months for things to turn around.
He is looking at any method we can use Grants, State funding, or the absorption of some land
to try and supplement the budget to keep on an even keel with what we have. In order to
improve a service it has to be funded from outside. He would like to hire one more person to
cut down on the overtime. He is short $40,000 at 4 mills if the Board moves the millage rate
back to 3.68 mills then we would be short $60,000. The only other option he would have is to
shut down an engine and not respond to 1-75. The Department won}t go past Jerome. 1-75
would be on its own,
Mitchell Roberts - You have to be able to protect your District.
Chief MClaughlin - He met with another billing company last week they were extremely
favorable in working with EMS and the County with their billing cycle. We are working on a
resolution with them for Ochopee, Isles of Capri and the Bureau of Emergency Services
regarding a rate for fires, The Company will take into consideration the miles traveled in finding
a rate for our Department.
Page 7
. -.._-- ,-"-~""""'-'- --__.~.m -",,,,,"",""".~-~-'"~ .'--,_. ,._,...,.-_.~ -...'.."""'.--
16 I 1 A7
James Simmons - When you mention a rate does that mean you are going to charge.
Chief Mclaughlin - Yes.
Darcy Kidder - She thought it was a good option.
Chief McLaughlin - There are nine counties and several Cities doing this in Florida. Out of
District people would be billed and the company would take 15% to 20% for their cut. We just
fax the reports with the information and they take care of everything, Good report writing is
essential because of the way they bill. He feels it could bring in $54,000 to $60,000 a year that
would pay our entire fuel bill and maintenance budget for the entire year or a Firefighter,
James Simmons -Is anyone in Collier County doing this.
Chief Mclaughlin - Not yet but we are rapidly pursuing it, Golden Gate is looking at it now we
were the first to look at it two years ago but it did not meet with much enthusiasm but now
there is no money so it is a priority, The Board gave direction to pursue it. Our County
Attorney has been a little gun shy on it. Davie just jumped on board and Miarni Dade is now
looking at the same company once we get legal backing it won't be a problem for the
Comrnissioners to approve it because it was their recommendation,
James Simmons -It would be a flat rate charge and they would get 20%.
Chief McLaughlin - They will build the rate based on each individual Department according to
size, vehicles distance to calls etc... The insurance companies are lobbying the State to keep
this from happening, however, the inside line is the Governor will veto because this is a back
door for the MSTDUs to get their money back because of what is happening. He went on to say
that District I is a source of revenue that is already out there.
Mitchell Roberts - Confirmed that he would see Chief Mclaughlin on 3-24-09 for the Ochopee
Fire Control District Advisory Board Report in front of the Board of County COInrnissioners.
John Pennell made a motion to adjourn the meeting it was seconded by Mitchell Roberts the
motion was passed and the meeting ended,
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
Page 8
~ - . ---"-",.,.,.,,-,.......,..~,,..,-
-
~:::s ~~~/ a 16 t 1 A ~R'ECEIVED
Henning- .-,- ':> / PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION MAY 1 3 2009
Coyle = 4 = Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit
Board of County Commissioners
Coletta I' ~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD AT THE HAMMOCK OAK CENTER, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES,
FLORIDA, 34108 ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 6,2009 AT 1:00 P.M,
1. RollCall
2. Presentation on Storm Water Collection by Daniel J. Acquaviva, Vice President, RMA
Geologic Consultants
3. Approval of April 1 , 2009 Meeting Minutes
4. Approval of January 27,2009 Ordinance Review Committee Meeting Minutes
5. Administrator's Report
Financial Report
6. Chairwoman's Report
a) Management Review Committee's New Administrator Recommendation and
full Board Vote
b) Update on Strategic Planning
c) Update on Landscape Committee
7. Committee Reports
Budget Committee
a) Update by Co-Chairmen Michael Levy and Jerry Moffatt
b) Discussion of options for disseminating community information
c) Discussion of approach to capital expenditures & obtaining professional
advice
Safety Committee
First Meeting scheduled for May 15, 2009 @ 1:00 p.m.
8. Capital Projects
Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard Crosswalk Construction Update
9. Community Issues
Update on Clam Bay
10. Plan Reviews
None
11. Committee Requests
None
12. Audience Comments
13. Adjourn
SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY
DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO
ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED, ANY PERSON
REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY
OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597-1749.
Mise, Corres:
to
.-"'"'.'-'-<<-_'lIIlIl"" mUI\ .....1.. 'J;,.,. j,. -",,,,,,,,p",~ <_._--~_.....
Fiala ~' 16 I lR~&I~ED
Halas .. / - PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Henning '" / Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit MA Y 1 3 2009
-r- ~-_.
Coyle . ~POfCounIyCommis:il
~~ ~
NOTI OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 13,2009
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD AND THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION LANDSCAPE
SUBCOMMITTEE AT THE
il,i ON
1. Roll Call
2. Discussion and presentation by the Pelican Bay Foundation Landscape Subcommittee
3. Audience Comments
4. Adjourn
SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY
DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO
ANY MA TIER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON
REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY
OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT (239) 597-1749 AT
LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item#:
::cpies to
~ 1 ". " . ,...."'..___"", J7 T ""0""""""'__'0'0"'".___"".", _ ~""~,,._~.", ,"_'^'.._m'
A~q:IVI=D v
16 I 1
~y 1 3 2OD9
aJ
Fia\a "- 6aar.aOfCOUQ(y C '
Halas TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE omm/SSioners
Henning PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION
Coyle n / = Naples. Florida, Aprill, 2009
LE~MJlWBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on April 1, 2009 at 1 :00 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Hammock Oak Community
Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108, with the following members present:
Mary Anne Womble, Madam Chair Hunter Hansen, Absent
Tom Cravens John laizzo
Keith Dallas Michael Levy
Geoffrey Gibson Jerry Moffatt
Ted Gravenhorst Ted Raia
Also Present: John Petty, District Administrator; Janice Lamed, District Offices, LLC; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations
Manager, Pelican Bay Services, Division; Timothy Hall, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.; Jim Hoppensteadt, President, The
Foundation of Pelican Bay; Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Lisa Resnick,
Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division.
AGENDA
l. Roll Call
2. Introduction and Welcome of New Members by Madam Chair, Mary Anne Womble
Tom Cravens
Keith Dallas
3. Presentation of Service Awards to Outgoing Board Members by Madam Chair, Mary Anne Womble
John Boland
M. James Burke
4. Approval of Minutes of February 23, 2009 Special Meeting
5. Approval of Minutes of March 4,2009 Meeting
6. Annual Election of Officers
7. Audience Participation
8. Community Issues
Update on Strategic Planning - Madam Chair, Mary Anne Womble
9. Administrator's Report
Water Management System Improvements
Financial Report
10. Committee Reports
Clam Bay
Update on Canoe Markers
Government Relations
No Report
Budget Committee
Update by Co-Chairs Mike Levy and Jerry Moffutt
Management Review Committee
Update by Geoffrey Gibson
II. Capital Projects
Update on Crosswalk (Myra Janco Daniels Blvd.)
12. Plan Reviews
None
13. Committee Requests
None
14. Audience Comments
15. Adjourn Misc. Cones:
Date:
7879
Item#'
to
,.,-..,.~.."._, e'_"_"'"~,,.H'. __.._._-_. .,~~ --~,--_....~.-
16 I 1 AS I
I
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
ADrilt, 2009
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Let's get this meeting started. Welcome, everyone. Mary, would you please
take a roll call for us?
MS. McCAUGHTRY: Madam Chair, all members are present except for Mr. Hanson. He did E-mail me and tell me he
wouldn't be able to make it, and Mr. Iaizzo, I haven't heard from, so he should be along any time.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Starting right along, we have the pleasure, as our Board to offer a welcome to our
brand new members. We have at the my far left, your far right, Keith Dallas. And skip over GeoffGibson, not really, but in
between the two. Then we have Tom Cravens, who is brand new to our Board. And we would very much like to welcome both
of you. And we know that you're going to be a very beneficial asset to our Board and we thank you very much, as I thank
everyone on the Board, because we all are finding that this is a lot of time and effort, and it's a concern. So, for volunteering, we
thank you very much. And that leads me right into another situation. We have some past Board members here also, whom we
really would like to recognize. And I would like for Mr. Boland and Mr. Burke to come forward. And we also have Annette
Alvarez, who we're not sure if she's still Board or not at this point. Have you resigned?
MS. ALVAREZ: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You have. All right. You're going to have to come back to another meeting. Fellows,
come on up, please. Mr. John Boland and Mr. Jim Burke have served us very, very well, and we have a beautiful plaque for Mr.
Burke. There you go. And, Jim, how long have you been on this Board?
MR BURKE: Eight years.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Eight years. And, John?
MR BOLAND: Four years.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Four years. And your plaque.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: These fellows have done a whole lot of work for our community. And Mr. Burke has
gone on to be a district fire Commissioner. He's also on a very important Clam Bay Board, well, actually, ifs the coastal
committee. And in those areas he's going to be helping us all, all of the communities of Collier County. Mr. Boland is taking a
little time off, and I think I almost have him talked into coming back on the Board sometime in the future. And so we want to
wish them well and thank you very, very much for your many years together of very kind and generous service to our community.
That saying, now we need to move on to the approval of the minutes of February 23rd, special meeting. And I believe Mr. Levy
7880
~......."......~ "...-..---..... _.",-_..--.,,"-~~- ,-
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 AS
Annll. 2009
and I fmUld something that we would like to discuss.
MR. LEVY: Page 7853.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. That will be the March 4th meeting.
MR LEVY: Sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's all right. Let's just go to that one first. 7853.
MR LEVY: In the middle of the page for Mr. Petty, it says he spent about $15 million a year to date on the water
management system. Fifteen million dollars a year?
MR. PETIY: No, sir. To date. So the year should be stricken.
MR. MOFFA IT: The year to date.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: $15 million to date, $50 million to date.
MRPETIY: Yes. We did strike the word year.
MR LEVY: A year should be taken out?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's right. Thank you.
I had my budget committee folks and an actuary person down there grimacing pretty badly. Okay. Anything else from
that particular meeting? Regrettably, I was not here for that so rm leaving it to up you all.
MR MOFFA IT: I don't have a correction I just have a question as where something showed up. On 7855, there was a
motion made that we defer until the next meeting, which would be this meeting, any decision regarding engineering work for the
water management system.
And I just want to know, is that under the water management system improvements under Item 9 on the agenda? Is that what is
intended there? I can't tell.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: John, I defer to you on that one.
MR PETIY: I'm reading right before the sentence, and what's got me is, I don't see that it was voted on.
MR LEVY: It wasn't voted on. We never voted on it.
MR PETIY: The discussion just stopped.
MR LEVY: That's right
MR. PETIY: So I'm not sure that there is anything on the agenda pertaining to this particular motion, although we do
have for discussion the water management system, which does include what the engineer brought to your attention at the last
7881
_',_w"_" -,,-- .,..~. ffi _._"~~"""'.~",," , --
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A,tJ
ADn.!. 2009
meeting, which is harvesting the swnmer rain.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So it would be under [tern 9.
MR PETTY: If that needs further discussion, [ do have that on Item No.9. Madam Chair, I don't have a specific
motion approved, voted on, that I responded to. It seemed like it was still up in the air.
MR MOFFA IT: What's the vote that takes place right above the motion? It says: "Chairman Boland, would you like
to vote on it? Mr. Burke: Yes. I made a motion and have a second. I need a vote. All of those voting on it. ayes. And we have
the ayes," If anything, it just looks like the motion is in the wrong place. It should come before the ayes.
MR PETTY: What I do have is Item Number 9, Madam Chair, as I stated, to discuss the harvesting ofswnmer excess
rains for use in the water management system, if that answers the question appropriately, which I hope it does.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, it looks to me like this is -- this is more pertaining to who is going to pay to
maintain the system once it's in place. I believe that was the whole crux of the problem, and it was to be deferred to this meeting.
Or at least not to be considered at that meeting, at that point in time. Am I correct, Jerry? Is that how you read it?
MR MOFFA IT: Yes. If I'm in the right place.
MR GRA VENHORST: Excuse me. I wasn't at this meeting, but, in reading this, it appears to me that the motion was
made to deter it to the next meeting. That was seconded. And then Chairman Boland talked about, you want to do the financials
in between that. So it appeared to me that there was some discussion but the motion that was voted on and passed was to defer it
to the next meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's correct.
MR LEVY: Where do you see that? I'm looking through and I don't see where the motion was made.
MR PETTY: 7585.
MR LEVY: I looked before. [don't see anybody saying made.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Sorry. Let me clear this up. It says, Mr. Burke, speaking: "Mr. Chair, I move that
we defer this to the next meeting, and they are talking about who is going to maintain the system once it's in place. And then Dr.
Raia said: I second that. Chairman Boland said: Okay. John, do you want to do the financials. And someone said we need to
vote on it." So then Mr. Burke repeated that he said, "yes, I made a motion and we have a second and now we need a vote." So
the vote was to defer to this meeting, on discussion about maintaining the totality and maybe the payments.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, [ would like to state that I tmderstood that completely, but I got lucky. It's on the agenda as
7882
,.~_._.,~~" -~-~---~- -,-~----",......,- -""--'
16 I -1 A~8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Aorill. 2009
Item Number 9. I can't say I was following it directly, I wish I could.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Does that clear it up for you, Jerry?
MR MOFFA IT: Yes. That's what I was asking. I thought it was in Item 9 but I couldn't tell for sure. I've got another
similar question on the very last page. 7864. I believe that's it. Yes. Ted had made a motion to approve this management plan,
this draft. And I had a note in my files that that was going to be put on this agenda for this meeting. I think part of the problem
was that that meeting that we just had on March 4th, everyone did not have the draft of the management plan. It hadn't been
distributed to everyone. Everyone was supposed to make sure they had a copy of it, following that meeting so we could then vote
on it at this one. And I didn't see that on the agenda, which maybe it's in there somewhere.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I didn't read that, Jerry. I looked. I didn't find it. If you can find it, come back to it.
Does anyone have anything further on March 4th? Can we approve the minutes? I'll need a motion.
DR. RAIA: So moved.
MR ORA VENHORST: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? Aye.
DR. RAIA: Aye.
MR. IAIZZO: Aye.
MR LEVY: Aye.
MR MOFF AIT: Aye.
MR. DALLAS: Aye.
MR ORA VENHORST: Aye.
MR CRAVENS: Aye.
Dr. Ted RaitI mtJl'ed, seconded by Mr. Ted Gravellhorst IlMllpproved
u1IIInimously the MilUltes of the Mllrch 4, 2009 meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. And let's move on to the special session for the Board that was held on
February 23rd. We'll go backwards a little bit. All right. We found a couple of things. Mr. Levy, would you like to comment?
MR. LEVY: On Page 7814, next to the bottom of the page, Chairman Womble, there is $133,000 to...
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Could you move your microphone closer, Mr. Levy? I can't hear you. Thank
you.
7883
.,~._.__."" ~~.-,,-
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 1 1 iA 8
Aorill. 2009
MR LEVY: Is this better?
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you very much.
MR. LEVY: I think 133,000 is an incorrect number. It's something like 33,000, closer.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: 7814, two lines up from the bottom.
MR LEVY: Something like 33.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Let's hope it's an error.
MR IAIZZO: 133 was making reference to what we paid the County in tenus of human relations, possibly.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It could be. Yes, it could be.
MR PETrY: Madam Chair, if the question is what we pay for our leased office space in the Sun Bank. building, then
no, the amount is not correct for the lease of the Sun Bank. building. Is it correct for the fees charged to us by Collier County for
other services? No. It would be wrong for that one, too. I think it was just a typo. I think you were saying around $30-$33,000,
and then somebody put a one in there.
MR LEVY: If we take the one away, it's close.
MR PETrY: Yes, sir. That would be our office. And that was, I remember, during the budget, an item to be
considered.
MR LEVY: And on Page 7818, the second paragraph, Mr. Boland, the last sentence where he is giving the history of
our administrator. And then we have Jim Petty from the east coast. That should be John Petty.
MR PETrY: It all depends on who you like best, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is that your evil twin or the good one?
MR LEVY: You are from the east, right, anyhow, east coast?
MR PETrY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do we have any other corrections, changes? May I have a motion to approve the
minutes for February 23?
MR. IAIZZO: So moved.
MR GRA VENHORST: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? Aye.
DR RAIA: Aye.
7884
......._-- ,~_,,<,_,_~,,~..._'o__" - ~w_.."""_""..
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 Aa ,
ADril!. 2009
MR IAIZZO: Aye.
MR LEVY: Aye.
MR. MOFFA IT: Aye.
MR DALLAS: Aye.
MR GRA VENHORST: Aye.
MR. CRAVENS: Aye.
Mr. John laizzo moved, seconded by Mr. Ted Gravenhorst and approved unanimously the Minutes of the February 23,2009
meeting.
Mr. John lllizzo moved. seconded by Mr. Ted Gl'tIVt!Ifhorst and IIJIProl1ed IllUlllimously the
Minutes of the FebruaI'V 13,1009 meednll.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: And I got out of order just a little bit, but I do want to acknowledge that Geoff Gibson is
back on our Board for a second term of four years. And I am also on the Board for another four years and looking forward to
working for the community as much as possible and I'm thrilled. So for all of us on the Board, thank you for all of your help in
the past. J really appreciate everything that everyone has done to make this an easy situation, after you railroaded me into the
chairmanship. And I believe that at this point we need to go on to the annual election of officers. And I would like to open the
floor for anyone on the Board who would like to be chair to nominate himself or herself or someone else on the Board. Well, just
don't all jump in at once.
MR. LEVY: I think it's a rather trying time and I think Mary Anne Womble is in the middle of things and doing quite
well. And I would like to nominate her as chairman.
CHAJR WOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. PETIY: Madam Chair, in could, you would nonnally look for a second for a nomination.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Do I have a second?
MR. GIBSON: I would second that.
MR PETIY: Thank you. Geoff.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you. Geoff. Do we have anyone else who would like to propose a chair?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Would anyone like to step forward and be chair?
(No response.)
7885
-_""---~'-" ..",.---, ,,""" -.-
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16' I lAB f
ADnll. 2009
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Come on, fellows.
MR. PETTY: I think you're stuck.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think so. Okay. All right Then I will accept, if that is the Board's approval, and so we
need to vote on that, do we need a motion for this?
MR PETTY: You have a motion.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We've got the motion and we're in place.
MR GRA VENHORST: Do we have to move the nominations be closed before we vote?
MR PETTY: That would be perfunctory, yes sir.
MR GRA VENHORST: So moved.
DR. RAIA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And seconded by Dr. Raia. All in mvor? Aye.
DR RAJA: Aye.
MR IAlZZO: Aye.
MR LEVY: Aye.
MR MOFFA1T: Aye.
MR DALLAS: Aye.
MR GRA VENHORST: Aye.
MR. CRAVENS: Aye.
M,. Levy 1IU1Ved, seconded by M,. Gibson, IIOIIIintIIed MIIIkurt Chai, Wonrbkfor II second tenn /IS CIuIiT.
MIIIkurt Chair Womble accepted tire nomination. M,. GTflVenhorst IIU1Ved to close tire nontinations. seconded
by Dr. Raia and " d MIIIkurt CIuIiI' Womble fo, second tenn as Chair.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, if! could. The other positions are typically appointed by the chair. Any request of the
Board to consider it is something that you can do, but it is your responsibility as chair to handle all of the other committees.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That, I'm well aware of. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Petty. And I think I would like to
quietly ask members of the Board what they're interested in going for this year. At this point we do have a standing budget
committee that needs to be in place, and that is Mr. Gibson, Mr. Moffatt, Mr. Levy, Mr. laizzo and Mr. Boland is now off and I
would like to know if Mr. Dallas would be interested in serving on the budget committee, because you are awfully good with
numbers.
7886
.~""_.~...- ..-.--. -.,-""_.
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 t 1 A 8f
ADnl 1. 2009
MR DALLAS: I would be, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Plus he has been coming to all of the meetings, too. I don't know if this is reward or not,
but I'm going to give it to him anyway. Keith, I would like you to be on that, too. Thank you. The management review
committee is finishing up their tasks. and we will be looking for a special meeting of this Board. Have you had a chance, Mary, to
set that up?
MS. McCAUGHTRY: Not yet Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We are looking at the 21st. That would be a Tuesday morning at 9:00, here in this room
or the other large room, for proposals to be set forth by two of the management companies who have requested a proposal, and a
chance to present their proposal. So at this time you may want to check your calendars. Mary will probably be polling the Board
to see if that date will work:, but it would be 9:00 in the morning and what we're hoping to do is have two presentations in the
morning and then have a chance to discuss before lunch. The Board will adjourn and the committee will compile the discussion
and the votes. And, if we can, we are going to get, no we're waiting until May, the May meeting.
DR. RAIA: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes.
DR. RAIA: Tuesday mornings at 9:00 is the men's club in here. And the entire, many, many attendees are there.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We've always had the afternoon. That's how we did that, you know. I'm just not a guy.
MR. lAIZZO: We could use the 21 st. It will have to be later in the day.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The problem we're having is that we're giving presentations 45 minutes to an hour, and
that there are two of them. And then we have to discuss, as a Board. And then we have to get together as a committee afterward,
in order to get our presentation ready. Weare looking at quite a long afternoon.
MR. IAIZZO: I :oo?
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: 1:00 is fine for us, but for Mr. Curran, whose day ends at 4 for 4:30, it's not so great.
MR MOFFA IT: Why don't we just go to the 20th.
MR GIBSON: The 20th was our backup date.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mary, do you have a clue about the 20th?
MS. McCAUGHTRY: I have to check with Margaret here. I haven't checked with her yet because we hadjust left. I
will check with her. ] will check with her for Monday.
7887
,-,"--.. ~,,-,~ " _,_~"",,_,,"..",,"'W''''...
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 J /1 A8
ADril 1. 2009
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We're in luck. Ronnie, do we have anything on the 20th for the women's league? It's a
Monday morning.
And we're even more in luck because we have the Foundation chair. Bob what about the 20th, do you have anything going on the
20th? No. Those are two of the other big ones.
MR PETrY: Madam Chair, ifI could ask permission to be flexible on the date. We will poll the Board, availability of
space and the availability of the presenters to come.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Perfect.
MR. PETIY: And also, per Jack, to be available as well. And we may need that flexibility.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Good. We're now to the audience participation. Mr. Hoppensteadt, please come
up to the microphone. This is Mr. Hoppensteadt, President of the Foundation of Pelican Bay.
MR HOPPENSTEADT: Thank: you, Madam Chair. There are four items that I would like the Board's consideration
on. The first item would be or the first three items, maybe four items, are as a result of the completion of the strategic plan. The
first item is the berm, as the Board knows, the land on which the berm is built it is the Foundation's and the improvement to the
land is the Services Division, and there is a lot of work that needs to be done out on the berm right now. And I've talked to John
Petty about concerns he has with the weir system out there. The Foundation has concerns about the cart path and the degradation
of that. Strategic planning has also looked at it for safety reasons, the ability, or the possibility to widen the berm, which would
involve creating another structure on top of Foundation land, on top of services division improvements. So I would like this
Board's consideration of maybe forming ajoint task force with the Foundation to see if we can look at that. The second issue
would be if the Board would consider doing the same thing with landscaping. One of the big issues that came out on strategic
planning was landscaping. It's all public right of way, so ifs Services Division. There is a number. There is a lot of Foundation
land that is also involved with the landscaping issue where the monuments are. So if we could try and form some type of joint
committee, again recognizing that, when there are joint committees, they have to be publicly noticed. And, really, by necessity
the Services Division needs to take the lead on it for the noticing of those meetings.
The third item would be the utility site. The 12-acre site came up in the strategic plan as one ofa strategic importance. It would
seem like the intention of that site was always for some form of public service utilities. And one of the issues that I know has
been talked about at great length is our need, the community's current need for water, reclaimed water. And, as we talked about,
and this committee has talked about before, when the County took over PBID's position, that was with the expectation, and John
7888
~'>'-" """,---~~,..--~ ~ . llwr-
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I l' A8
Amill. 2009
can correct me if I'm wrong. that the current 4.5 million-gallon use a day of reclaimed water be continued. But we also lose about
a million gallons a day out into the mangrove system. So if it were possible to consider uses of the 12-acre site for water
reclamation and storage, I would ask that this Board consider that.
And the last item was crosswalks. We have kind of two safety issues, since you guys love to hear about crosswalks. One is at the
north parking lot area. You'll notice that the lights are on the north side of Pelican Bay Boulevard. That actually casts shadows
into the crosswalk so that at night when people are in that crosswalk you can't see them. So if you could get lighting on the south
side of that, so that drivers could see people in the crosswalk at night. And then the last crosswalk area is Hyde Park, from Hyde
Park: to the Commons office. There is no delineation, so people who are crossing at that point kind of get hung up in the middle
of the road there. They get hung up in the middle of the drive of the Commons. They get hung up between traffic going both
ways on Pelican Bay Boulevard, and it seems like a crosswalk there would delineate where they could go.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jim, is that across Pelican Bay Boulevard from Gulf Park: Drive? Is that where you
mean?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: No. It would be across Pelican Bay Boulevard, by the Commons driveway.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. And I agree. It's really easy to miss people coming on that sidewalk and walking
across.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, and people, you know, are accessing the berm at that point. People are coming into the
tennis parking lot at that point. So there is a lot of activity. The Commons parking lot is not laid out very well either, so people
are coming both ways. We have to address that as well, but...
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Are you talking about the north side parking lot area?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, there are two parking lot areas I'm talking about.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Both the FoWldation; one, is the Commons, and one is the north parking lot, for the
restaurants and the berm.
MR. GRA VENHORST: Jim, the intersection of North Point Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard is the exact same
situation. The crosswalk going across Pelican Bay Boulevard is on the opposite side of the lights. And the lights are if you are
coming from North Point Drive into Pelican Bay Boulevard the lights are on the left-hand side and the crosswalk is on the right.
It's totally dark. And the part that is lit, you can see very well and very much down the road, you can see the people in the lights,
7889
---- "--_._~-
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A8 I
,
ADri) 1. 2009
at the crosswalk. To change it would take stripes and a curb cut. That's the same situation. I think there is another one that way,
too, and rm trying to remember where I saw it. Because I drove through here one night, just to do this, about two weeks ago, just
to see where the dark areas were, because 1 know we've been concentrating on safety. And you are certainly right about the north
parking. Same thing there.
MR HOPPENSTEADT: The purpose ofme brining these now is that you are preparing your budget and these are
obviously all budget items.
MR. CRAVENS: Jim, I have a question regarding the 12 acres. Could you please elaborate a little bit about what you
would like to see done there.
MR HOPPENSTEADT: Well, that area, and I would defer to your administrator, who probably has more knowledge
on this than anybody, but that area is a central water distribution point. And so if there was a way to get water back to that
location, either in any type of storage fucility, and I understand that there is a number of them, and now rm venturing into an area
where my technical expertise is not very good, but I understood you can do either an open air system or contained system. We do
have an above ground-contained system there. There is also Wlderground containment systems, which would be ASR wells, but
that, if the water was stored there, it could be distributed back through the community to the various points that needed the water
at different times. So it seems like that area is strategically perfect for enhancing our water capturing capabilities. But again, I
think it would take some capital to either sink some wells, construct a lagoon, I think the piping is already there, the delivery
system is already there. We just need the storage system.
MR IAIZZO: Can you add to that, Geoff? I think you are fumiliar with that area.
MR GIBSON: Yes. And I think that Jim is very accurate to that and The Club has an ASR that is half finished. We
have all ofthe underground drilling done and we have an underground pump. We have close to $400,000 involved in it right
now. We did get a hundred thousand back from the State to encourage us to finish it. However, we have not finished it and have
no immediate plans to do that because the quality of the water that the County committed to give to us is high in chlorine
trihalomethanes and so the Florida EPA will not permit us to store that water WldergroWld presently. There are people that are in
the loop that believe this water is just fine to store and, as water becomes more and more critical to the County, and Florida in
general, that we will be allowed to store that water. And at that point, I think The Club will happily finish the project, in other
words, put in the surface fucilities, I call it, the pump house. So basically, that's it in a nutshell. And we have offered John, as a
Club, strictly verbally, to share that water with the community. We have the ability to store a million gallons a day during the
7890
.'---_._.~-'".'",_.._.-"'-<..
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A8 I
AnriI 1. 2009
rainy season and we don't need all of that water for the golf course and so we could enter into perhaps some kind of a trial or a
period of time where we shared that with the community of Pelican Bay, and that might be the, if you will, test well, to see how
the whole system works. And then that would be enough to keep the whole development going. And then you move perhaps to
the common land over there, that 12-acre parcel. You don't need to reinvent the wheel if we already have om~-half finished.
MR. lAIZZO: It was functional at one time.
MR GIBSON: No. It was never functional. We can move water in and out. It's very tricky. And, as the months tick
by and the technology improves, you do have to test the water before it goes in and then you have to test the water as it comes out
to make sure you're in compliance. And you have to have acid taps there and chlorine there to treat the water, to make sure it's
within those specifications. As Technology improves, there are now cartridge units that require a technician, a less trained
technician, if you will, to run it for that, expenses of weekly and daily monitoring of that well. And there are 1154 ASRs currently
functioning in the State of Florida, so it is a proven technology. This is not some crazy dream that we know about.
I have been to a well in Lee County and watched it run. And here in Collier County we have one on Henderson Creek that is
storing in excess, I think three or 4 million gallons. And they are using it for potable water. And so, County manager, Jim Mudd,
was telling me that the water that each of us drinks in the Pelican Bay potable water, probably came out of that ASR well. That's
a long answer to your question but it's a hot topic for me.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: And it's also a possibility that we will have something happen beneficially because there
is an ASR on Marco that is up and running and working. And Mr. Mudd is working toward utilizing that as a prototype to prove
that the rest of us should be getting our own wells, if we want them. So we will be moving forward, I hope.
MR GIBSON: Once again, the beauty that Pelican Bay offers is we already have an irrigation watering system in place.
Many of these 140 communities and golf courses that are begging for reused water or water that's been treated, the water plan,
when they find out the expense of putting in the secondary irrigation system throughout their whole community, that kills it right
there. So we are blessed in Pelican Bay to already have our irrigation in place. The purple pipes anything you see purple or
pinkish, it is irrigation piping.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Hoppensteadt, thank you for your comments. And, as you know, I'm thrilled that
you brought that up.
MR. SEIDEL: My name is Steve Seidel from San Marino. I want to go back to this crosswalk situation. That
crosswalk at the north station is a death trap. I think that we should look into the possibility of getting one of those flashing signs
7891
O','~'~~_n_~~__~_"""'"'"_T_"'."'_'_ ___,_~_.._____,.._._"...."___"______,.._.__~_____.____._'_'0-
16 I 1 A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
ADm.. 2009
on either side of it, you know, half a block, block, whatever is required, to warn people that there is some kind of a cross or
dangerous situation ahead of them. I don't know how long that will take, but I would like to see it done before somebody gets
killed. The other situation as fur as that traffic is concerned, I haven't seen the sheriff's department up and down that street all
season long. I haven't seen one car. And I know that we got away from them. and they are not doing our security, and so forth.
We gave them the police cars and now they are not coming arOlmd any more, but I know they don't put out those speed signs,
which they claim several times over, and say that really controls the speed of the traffic when you show them that the speed limit
is 30 and they are going 42. So I would like to get into that subject when you can and it's very important and it's very dangerous
right now.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thanks, Steve. Ronnie BaIone.
MR GIBSON: I would like to just, as a Board member, support exactly what you are saying. I walk a lot and that's one
of my routes right there at that crosswalk, and it's unbelievable the rudeness of the drivers that don't even slow down when people
are trying to cross there with the baby carriages and loaded with stuff from the beach. It is horrible. And, even more so, if you go
to the stop sign further down the road I don't know if they are residents or people using Pelican Bay Boulevard as a shortcut, they
sort of slow down. I am not sure where that responsibility lies. We need more controls, more tickets issued to get these people to
obey the traffic signs. I don't know if they feel like they are entitled, but it is also a very hot button for me.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Gooff. I'm going to add into the record that, when that comment was made
that Mr. Seidel had not seen any real security offered by the police going through, I saw nodding from almost every head, and
even our Board members. So something must be occurring that isn't as good as we had in the past. And we need to look into that.
MR GRA VENHORST: Madam Chair? I think, as we all observed at our meeting on Monday morning, the
homeowners and the Foundation officers and Board of directors, that strategic planning committee has elevated safety and
security to the number two spot, right behind the beach benn Boardwalk and res1aurants. And I don't know what the protocols are
for developing what Steve has mentioned and Jim has mentioned, but certainly, I think that the focus has been put on safety and
security and I don't know if it is up to this Board of directors or the Foundation Board to identity the areas that need to be worked
on. But certainly some of them have come out today. I don't know. Is it our responsibility to identity these or does the Board tell
us? Does the Foundation Board identity them?
MR PErrY: Madam Chair, I may be able to help in that regard.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
7892
,-.,"-,,. -;--';-'~"^ ,- .'-~<'~"~,,,,..",,,,,,.,,-,- ._____.__.,___.__.M_~___.._
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 'f 1 A~
ADrill. 2009
MR. PETrY: The security issues that you've raised would be brought up by this Board. Issues concerning the common
grOlmd areas. such as the Commons or this facility or the beach facility, of course, would be the Foundation.
MR. GRA VENHORST: Crosswalks.
MR. PETrY: That is public area and that would be this Board.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's us.
MR. GRA VENHORST: So we don't need any direction.
MR. PETrY: From the Foundation? We would love to have their cooperation, but we don't need any direction.
MR. GRA VENHORST: That's what I wanted to hear.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: What's been happening is we waited for our budget. We needed to see what we had.
We have had some shortfalls because of the economy, and we have to be prioritizing things to a lot greater degree than we have in
the past. Plus we were waiting for the strategic planning committee to decide what the priorities were. And I will go into that
later. That's part of our agenda, and it may clear things up a little bit.
MR. CRA YENS: Madam Chair, may I suggest that the items of crosswalk and traffic safety continually come before
this Board. It's hard to come to a meeting where this doesn't come up. May I suggest that you consider appointing an ad hoc
committee to take a look at all of the crosswalks and where we need to make some changes?
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes.
MR. PETTY: If staff could be so bold as to suggest the same. We're going to be bringing up, in our budget meeting
after this, some financial crises in Collier County. We don't think the situation with the sheriff is going to get any better. We don't
suspect that, even if we get squeakier, that we will get more grease on our wheel. We don't think they are going to be able to help
us. There are more and more responsibilities being put on communities and special tax districts, as a necessity. So staff would
also recommend such a consideration, Madam Chair.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I think that's an excellent suggestion. Tom, would you be interested?
MR. CRAVENS: I'll be glad to serve in that chair.
MR. GRA VENHORST: I would as well.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Ted Gravenhorst also. Anyone else care to do that? I may step in with you just because
I'm on the strategic planning committee and I may be able to clear some things up in both directions, if that would be all right with
7893
- -'-.________,...'~,o>,.~".,~,.,.,...,..... .,------_._~------~_._--_._-~----_.-
16 I A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 1
Anril 1. 2009
you two gentlemen.
MR. CRAVENS: Perfect.
MR. MOFFA IT: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, sir.
MR. MOFFA IT: Along those same lines, I would like to make a suggestion with respect to the landscaping issue.
We heard a couple of meetings ago from a couple of residents who had some serious concerns about the landscaping in
Pelican Bay. I would suggest we form a committee of not just Board members. I don't know ifanyone on the Board has that
much interest. Certainly I think we can grab some residents to serve on a committee to work with our Board and the Foundation
on approving the look in Pelican Bay.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would like to do that, Jerry, but I would like to defer that for a month while I talk to
people and see who is interested and whether or not, may we have a committee made up of people other than our Board or do we
have to stay within the Board.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair? You can have participants but you can't have voting members who are not a member. So,
in other words, you can't have residents.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: They are consulting.
MR. PETTY: But, yes. They are coming to you and you have to then go to the County Commissioner. So the protocol
on this was asked before and, of course, residents can participate. You can't have them as members. They can't vote as an
appointed Board by the County Commissioners. You can't extend that authority.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: But as residents they would have the right to give us some ideas?
MR. PETTY: Yes, ma'am. And we are working for that on budget as well. And we may have some material for you to
consider such a committee. And, again, statfwould be so bold as to suggest that in the future it is something we would like to see.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: As I've said, we have been stepping back, waiting for the strategic plan to come in. And
landscaping is one of those areas that we really have been careful about because we didn't know where we were headed. So,
Jerry, I really appreciate your suggestion. I would like to do exactly what you're suggesting. I would like to talk to some of the
members of the community. And I'm going to say on record, ifsomeone is interested in serving on that, please contact the Pelican
Bay Services Division Board office and give Mary, our hard working, ever-diligent Mary, their name. And ifany of you know of
someone other than Molly Moffirtt and Fritz Mayhew who would like to serve on that committee, please advise us of that also.
7894
--~"'"~..--~. "'."..."'--....,.. "'.- --- --
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 1'1 AS
Annll.2009
MR. MOFFA IT: I would like to direct a question to Jim, if I might, on the benn widening. The sketches that I've seen
of the options to widen it are taking it up straighter, either on one or both sides. And I had raised the question at the last meeting
about how our critter population gets over that benn, once you do that. And Mr. Petty advised that the people that built 1-75 had a
problem with that and it was a very expensive fix, put critter crossings in. So I didn't know if that had been considered by the
committee and the consultants or if you have a suggestion now as to how that may happen?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Well, I think Mr. Moffutt, that's one of the issues that would be addressed. That's why I'm
heartened to hear you are going to do a crosswalk subcommittee. I think a landscaping subcommittee would be perfect. That way
we could get joint collaborative efforts, as I indicated and, as John reinforced. You guys have to be the lead on it because you
have to publicly notice it and because you have got to make the recommendations. Certainly the Foundation would bring to the
table volunteers, get everybody copies of the strategic plan. I know staff has it. And so we can do that. But there are a number of
issues obviously. We cited the plan. cited the safety issues with the traffic and the congestion. And one of the possible
suggestions was cantilevering a wooden deck offofthat, get rid of the asphalt, get something that is wood. It does a couple of
things. Aesthetically it's a little more attractive. It's permeable, which is probably a fuctor. But there may be some, you know,
detracting aspects of it. Certainly, you know, the creatures don't pass through the pipes, I don't think all of the pipes have grates
on them. Some of them gators can get through them.
MR. PErrY: They go up and down.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yes. And again. the utility site. If you wanted to form an ad hoc committee on the utility site,
I'm sure the Foundation would be happy to do whatever we can to participate in that too.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Ronnie, and I do apologize, Ronnie. And I know that three minutes is general our
cut-off, but when the President of the Foundation speaks, we listen.
MS. BALONE: I'm Ronnie Balone. I live at St. Kitts, and I'm a new Pelican Bay Foundation Board member, as of
Monday.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Congratulations.
MS. BALONE: Thank you. I am also a member of the Foundation Strategic Planning Committee with Mary Anne.
And just a couple of comments. In my new role and my current role as member of strategic planning and also in my new role, as I
understand, as chair of the beach berm Boardwalk advisory committee.
MR. PErrY: Board liaison.
7895
,~_._-, -----. <~_. __.,-_....;o~.._,_'" ______._._n_____
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I' 1 A8 I
Annll.2009
MS. BAWNE: Board liaison for that wonderful committee, so a couple of comments. I absolutely agree that working
with the Foundation, with strategic planning and also I would like to recommend, perhaps if Mr. Cravens would like to participate
in that joint workshop on that berm extension, whatever we want to call it, representing his advisory Board, I think that would be
awesome. As I told Bob, the chair of the Foundation, I said, my mantra for the next three years, rather than hand..offil, if we can
work together rather than somebody do a piece of work, they hand it to somebody, they make a comment, next month it has to
come back, they say no, no, you can't, go to someone else.
MR PETTY: Hold on. We need to change our tape, for the record.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ronnie, you may feel better about this. We really are in touch with each other quite a lot
more than we ever have been before.
MR PETTY: We're good, Madam Chair.
MS. BALONE: Thank you.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, we would take Mr. Cravens' experience on anything affecting the benn. He's always been
a resource to staff and has sent us to go see counsel, and we know that you have other plans for Mr. Cravens as well. I know we
have been waiting for him for quite sometime.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We're thrilled that we have both of our new members. We're sony to see the others go,
but we have some very good ones coming on. Mr. Cravens, I will allow you to decide on that one. Thank you. I think we've got
a yes on that.
MS. BALONE: The other one was the landscaping and with the strategic plan and how important that was. There are
lots of considerations that the consultants had recommended, including a roundabout, don't anybody put their heads down, but a
roundabout and other traffic control items. So if those could also be included.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: They are in there but they are not in budget You won't believe what we're going to go
through soon.
MS. BALONE: Yes, I do.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And roundabouts would be the least.
MS. BALONE: But remember, strategic planning is looking at a minimum of five years, if not ten, 15, or 20.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
MS. BALONE: So something like that can be thought about, not in tenus of the near tenn financial, because all ofus
7896
" ,,~~- ,~'"-" ~.~- _~_'.h._",",~",_",,_,~___,'__~__..____'m_._.__.~..._.__'_
16 I 1 A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrift. 2009
are cutting our losses, I think including the Foundation, including you guys, but that doesn't say we can't have some foresight,
looking out, you know, well beyond three, four, five, six years.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, ifI could suggest, I think Mr. Cravens working on the benn widening is the perfect choice.
But let me suggest this. [t has been staffwho has been working with the staff of the Foundation on these issues until it goes to the
choice considerations for color, size, and our level of service. We're sticking with the fundamentals, as good managers would.
And then, when it goes to the residents for discussion, that's typically where we would go out to a larger committee. So if I may
suggest that whoever you wish to go on those discussions, that stafftypica1ly go there with them because we need to discuss
things like footprints and permits and the other criteria that we're concerned with in maintenance mode.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Ronnie, you would not believe how much more we're working together.
MS. BALONE: Oh, I do.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Happily, too, which is very nice. Anyone else in the audience care to participate?
Marcia Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon. Marcia Cravens, President of the Mangrove Action Group, resident of Pelican Bay.
I'm going to be presenting for the record a letter of a petition drive that is ongoing. Greetings. The Mangrove Action Group is a
community organization dedicated to the protection of the significant mangrove ecosystem in Clam Bay. In the last several years
we have developed a concern that elements in the government of Collier County are seeking to significantly alter the Clam Bay
wetlands. Projects have been proposed that may result in significant alteration. The Mangrove Action Group launched a petition
drive to show strong community support to keep the Clam Bay wetlands in its natural state. This petition reads as follows: Save
Clam Bay wetlands. Keep it natural. We the undersigned support the County goal to support more beach access at Clam Pass
Park. We oppose the current plans that would degrade this serene natural resource protection area with significant construction
in undisturbed mangrove habitat, dredging out the up-shoal, installing channel markers or otherwise altering its shallow three-bay
system. In the last several weeks volunteers easily collected over] 900 signatures. We urge you to consider the strong
community support demonstrated by the signing of this petition. We urge you to take steps to uphold the principles of
conservation that the highest and best use of this area is to maintain it in its natural condition that supports its many critical
functions. Thank you for your consideration. I have been attending all of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee meetings and
subcommittees, and there is a disturbing trend for that committee to essentially rubber stamp recommendations that are proposed
to it by the Coastal Zone Management Department. They were handed a list of objectives, which they adopted. It was not their
7897
, """_~'_~'M --.~,-~"~.- . ~~--.._--
16 I Ii A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 1
.,"~'
ADrill. 2009
objectives. They did not create them. They have been repeatedly given recommendations by staff of the Coastal Zone
Management Department, which they have been approving. We feel there is a problem with this process, that the liaison is
overstepping what should be appropriate for a liaison to do. And, in that respect, we are asking for the Pelican Bay Services
Division, Pelican Bay Foundation, and environmental groups to step in and have their voices heard. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia, is your main concern that the advisory committee is being advised? That's what
it sounds like.
MS. CRA YENS: No. Not just advised. The advisory committee groups have been persuaded, not just advised. Thank
you.
MR. ORA YENHORST: Madam Chair, who would we complain to?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, we are an advisory group, an advisory Board to the Collier County
Commissioners.
MR. ORA VENHORST: Who do we complain to about it?
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: To the Commissioners. Weare directly. . .
MR. ORA VENHORST: So we would have to file a complaint with the Commissioners?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We would discuss this with the Commissioners. We don't file a complaint about
something that doesn't have anything to do with our Board, per se. But we can discuss it, definitely, and we can offer infunnation
to them.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, if! could? What it says on what was submitted for public record is what we have in your
chart for Clam Bay. This is no different than what you have been supporting and paying for for ten years, it just says that they are
inviting you. There is no problem at all with this Board considering supporting such a program that you have stood behind for ten
years. The issue may be and the other part, which is, if there is another agency in Collier County that we will see on the other side
from Pelican Bay it would be appropriate for this body to speak about their actions, because they are governed by the County
manager, as I am, and they are directed by the County Commission, as you are. So certainly, supporting the statement of save
Clam Bay and we support these items, these are well within our current ordinance readings. I would caution to you stay away
from putting blame on any other agency.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And I agree with that, and I believe that's what I meant by discussion. As Mr. Burke
brought up several months ago, it's generally better to discuss rather than jump on people, especially the Commissioners. And we
7898
.~--,~-_..,.~."-^-"--_._"----,- .....- -----~--"'-_._~---_._-~
16 I 1 A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
AoriJ 1. 2009
have found, amazingly enough. that that's true. So I think that was a good question. Ted, because I think it's necessary for us to
remember that we are an advisory Board that is governmental, hence the sunshine laws, and we may only advise. And we
definitely can support that. And, Marcia. we will, but we will also let it be known that this is a little strange.
MS. CRA YENS: WelI, as you recall, all of this came about because of allegations that this Board was not only not
doing its job but in the manner that it was doing its job, that it was not being compliant with the conditions of the permit and the
management plan. Those alIegations are unfounded. I believe this Board has been maligned unfairly and the Mangrove Action
Group stands solidly behind the work that Pelican Bay Services Division has done and the intent that is clearly evident in the
Clam Bay restoration management plan and the permits. It's unfortunate that it seems as if the Pelican Bay Services Division
Board has not been able to defend itself against these types of allegations, and is very much in jeopardy for much of what it stands
for. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don't think the word compliance is a word that is being bandied about anymore. I think:
they have realized that that was a falIacy and they are far more complementary now than they used to be. I am not going to do
anything to jeopardize that because we are getting farther along. However, I will support Clam Bay in any way I can, as a
resident, and I think our Board wilI too, because that's what we're here for. So, Marcia. thank you for the comments and
keep us apprised of what is going on, please.
MS. CRA YENS: We are working on an alternate plan to mark Clam Bay, not with channel markers but with hazard
markers. We expect to have that completed, hopefully, by the end of this week.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Are you going to Mr. McAlpin with your request?
MS. CRA YENS: Yes. We'll be going to Mr. McAlpin. We'll go to CAC, we'll go to BCe, and we'll go to you. We'll
go everywhere that would be an appropriate place to present it.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Perfect.
MR. MOFFA1T: Madam Chainnan, may I make a suggestion?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Absolutely, Jerry.
MR. MOFFA 1T: Marcia talked about the main committee meeting the Clam Bay advisory committee, and there are
three or four subcommittees. They just recently combined two of them. I think it now makes three. I have been to most of the
meetings. I have missed two, I believe. I saw you at one. I have not seen anybody else from this Board.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: More than one.
7899
-,'.'""-'-- - M__~-...";_~.",~"~_"",c...,,.,,_._,",.."o""__"" ~ _,_ '~".'''_' ----~
16 I 1 A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
ADriI!. 2009
MR. MOFFATT: So we can be supportive by attending. Keith was there but he wasn't on the Board yet.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He's been doing his homework. Jeny.
MR. MOFFATT: So I would suggest this Board take advantage of these open meetings. The meetings are noticed. To
say that two or more members of this Board may be present, so we've gotten around the sunshine laws, I would just encourage
you to attend.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Do you have the date of the next one?
MR. MOFFATT: To learn something and to speak up when there is something we need to object to.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You must have missed when I had got up and had a little fit.
MR. MOFF AIT: I think I was there for that one. There is a subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, April 15th, at 2:00.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: By subcommittee, which one do you mean?
MR. MOFFA IT: It's the Mangrove Maintenance and Estuary Habitat Subcommittee. There was one the other day on
Monday that I attended. I don't know when the main committee meets this month. Generally, it's been the third Thursday.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We've got Jim Burke and we have Tim Hall here. Either one of you happen to know?
MR. BURKE: The 16th.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: The 16th. Is it at the library again?
MR. BURKE: No. It's at the regional park.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Off Santa Barbara.
MR. BURKE: No.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair if I may suggest, for the issues affecting Clam Bay, one of the items on our to-do list is the
re-establishment of the Clam Bay committee. I think we have been waiting for the selection issue to get over with. And, while
everyone should be encouraged to participate in matters that affect what happens in your backyard, particularly Clam Bay, which
is valued so highly by the residents, let me suggest that reestablishment of that committee would be probably the more direct way
for this Board to interface with any other advisory Board that Collier County may have.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don't know about great minds, John, but I was looking at the agenda and reminding
myself that that's exactly what I was going to do, when I saw Clam Bay on the top of the list for the committees, so hello. Yes.
Any more audience participation?
MR. MOFFA IT: Another issue that Marcia reminded me of by appearing. I recently received from her a letter that I
7900
'~'~"" ,_...,._._.._----"~~--,-~'^~ _._.__.,._---_.._-_._.._~
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 J 1 A8
Aoril!. 2009 had actually seen somewhere else in one of the meetings I attended. I didn't really look to see who all got it, but it was a letter
from Kinard of the Anny Corps. of Engineers dated March 2nd, addressed to us, the Services Division. And I didn't get it from
this group, the administrator, or the secretary. I was wondering what our procedure is to make sure that we, as Board members,
get to see correspondence that comes in addressed to this Board. Do we have a procedure employed?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The procedure is that anything coming to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board
comes before the Board. But this went to you, Marcia, right?
MS. CRA YENS: It was part ofa public records request.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: How did the PBSD get involved in your request for public records?
MS. CRA YENS: It was a letter.
THE AUDIENCE: Use the microphone, please.
MS. CRA YENS: You know, I'm also asking them for public records of anything that has anything to do with Clam Bay.
And I had already had a public records request with Mary McCaughtry that this letter then became a part of. I don't know why it
was not also distributed to the Board members. I can't answer that at the time, because the letter is dated March 2nd.
MR MOFFA IT: I wasn't directing my question to you.
MS. CRA YENS: Thank you.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Well, it needed to be because it didn't come to our Board, it went to Marcia.
MS. CRAVENS: No, it went...
MR. MOFFA IT: It was addressed to our office.
MR. WZZO: It went to the office.
MR. CRA YENS: And it was never distributed to the Board members; is that correct?
MR. PEITY: That is correct. If I could, Madam Chair, this letter came to us from a request from Gary McAlpin to the
regulatory agency. The regulatory agency's response to the question placed by Gary McAlpin, to the permit holder, which is
Collier County. And then. as you can see, the permit name as our name and address. Mr. McAlpin was copied on the letter.
Staff did note the letter, saw that it required no additional action. We have on record, the County Manager is taking care of the
permit and has said so publicly. The County Commission has backed up that play by appointing a new group, which is studying
the matter. This is not new infonnation to this staff. And if you would like, I can give you quotes in the minutes where I and
others have said, we are not in non-compliance within our existing permit Everyone on this Board should be familiar with that
7901
."_..__._--_.,,_._-_.~ .._-.. .- --------..---
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A8 ,
ADri.!. 2009
statement. You should also be familiar that the pennit requires regular and routine tasks to be done, and that there were plenty of
to-dos left on that permit when Collier County Coastal Zone Management took over our old permit. So, Madam Chair, this
required no action by staff. If this Board would like every piece of cotTespondence that comes into our office brought to its
attention, or specific wise, we can do so. But this one did not make it past my desk because I saw no action required, nor did I see
new infonnation being brought to our attention.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Perhaps when you take a look at the Donald Kinard letter, that had to be part of this, or
at least understood, from what I'm reading; is that correct?
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, we have been in discussions, I, Tim Hall and others, with these regulatory agencies over a
year ago. These issues were well known. well understood, and well discussed at the Clam Bay subcommittee meeting and at the
regular Board meetings, and they are all part of the public record. Now, we appreciate that we were copied on it. It shows that
the regulatory agencies still think ofus kindly, and we like that. But we have been told by the County manager not to do any
further work in regards to the permit.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes, you have.
MR. PETTY: And we have brought in the County attorney to substantiate his position in being able to tell staff that.
So, Madam Chair, what is the Board's discretion on what you would like to see delivered to you from our office? We
will be glad to comply.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jerry, you are the one that brought this up.
MR MOFFA IT: I think any correspondence delivered to Pelican Bay Services Division ought to come before the
Board. We ought to be copied on it.
MR CRAVENS: In a timely fashion.
MR MOFFAIT: Yes.
MR CRAVENS: Would you so move?
MR MOFFA IT: Yes. I will make that as a motion that any correspondence coming into the office of the Pelican Bay
Services Division be timely presented to the Board members, not necessarily at a Board meeting but as it comes in.
MR CRAVENS: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? Aye.
DR RAIA: Aye.
7902
- -~_.~_._---_._.._...._- -
16 I 1 A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Aorill. 2009
MR IAIZZO: Aye.
MR. LEVY: Aye.
MR MOFFATT: Aye.
MR. DALLAS: Aye.
MR ORA VENHORST: Aye.
MR. CRAVENS: Aye.
Mr. Raia moved, seconded by Mr. Cravens, tIuIt all conespondence rect!ivetl by the Services
Division, be forwtll'ded to the Board by e1IUIi/.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do you have a request for the best way to communicate? Would it be E-mail?
MR. MOFFATT: You're getting beyond my area of expertise. If it could be scanned in as an E-mail, that would be
great.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: John, is there a way we could reword that so we're not getting all of the different things
that make up a pile of about a foot and a half of things that we really don't need to see because staffhas already taken care of it,
and I mean the nitty-gritty daily work grind?
MR PETTY: No, Madam Chair, I don't think you can. I think you've indicated that this Board. as a body, wishes to
handle the day to day. And, as such, you need to see the correspondence. And. as such. I don't believe we're very comfortable in
trying to say what is not considered material and what is because evidently we have run afoul of that examination because we
didn't see any action here. Because, as a matter of fact, we were asked by Mrs. Cravens to make it an agenda item, and staff said,
no, we do not wish to make it an agenda item. There is no action that needs to be done. So, understanding that we don't quite
perceive the issue here, I don't think I can give you a shorter route.
DR. RAIA: Point of order, Madam Chair. We had a motion and it was seconded and there was no discussion. May I
have an opportunity?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Sure.
DR. RAIA: You know, I really regret this taking place here. We don't want a lot of inertia coming in unnecessarily. I
think the significance of this letter reflects, on its own merit, why it should have been distributed to us. It's not a question of what
we're going to do with this. Even if we're not going to do anything with it, it's infonnation that we should have received, and I
hope we don't use this as some threatening excuse that we are going to be inundated with the next bill we get for buying fertilizer.
7903
o. '~_" ~ ---------~-,-,._.__._.._-
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I I A8
Annll. 2009
This is significant and it is important, and it's a current issue. So let's not take it any further than that. Let's use a little common
sense. Anything that is referring, that is referring to any of the problems that are taking place right now, in Pelican Bay,
regardless of the position of the County, we should at least, as Board members, be informed of it. If we want to take any action
on it, that's for us to decide and that's not staff. I've said my piece. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Anyone else?
MR GRA YENHORST: ] want to respond to this letter. I missed the last meeting. This letter is March 2nd. I don't
think we had this letter. But I just whispered something to Tom, that this paragraph, has come to the attention of the U.S.
Department, Army Corps of Engineers, that navigational markers have not been installed, and so has been a violation ofa
requirement of the Department of the Army, so they are putting the County on notice, if I understand. What does this mean?
What are they saying to the County?
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, ] made eye contact with Mr. Gravenhorst before he finished. If! may address what the
letter is asking for. This came up at Mr. McAlpin's Clam Bay group of whether or not we were out of compliance with the permit
and had we been noticed as out of compliance by the regulatory agencies. Out of compliance means you're not in conformance
with the permit. You have a problem that you need to fix. And then you discuss how you are going fix it. And the question was,
are we, or are we not out of compliance in the permit? And staff said that they would contact the Corps and DEP and veri(y the
current status. This letter is veri(ying the current status, which is, there is the to-do but does not say that we are out of compliance.
MR. GRA VENHORST: I was not saying we were out of compliance. Who answers this?
MR. PETTY: Collier County Coastal Zone Management.
MR. GRA VENHORST: And what is their answer going to be?
MR. PETTY: I have no idea, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia?
MR. GRA VENHORST: We're going to wake up some morning and the markers are going to be there.
MS. CRA YENS: This letter was not addressed to Coastal Zone Management Department. It was addressed to Pelican
Bay Services Division for the permit holder. You are the permit holder. The administrator of Pelican Bay Services Division was
the signatory authority on the permit. And, in many conversations that I have had with the Corps and DEP, they still recognize
Pelican Bay Services Division as the permit holder. They cannot understand why this Board is not doing anything else on the
permit. That letter to you and the reason I wanted it on the agenda, is you have every ability to respond to it. That letter that says
7904
.-...,. ,.,~~. ,
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A8 ,
Anrill. 2009
that some sort of navigational markers need to be installed in 1he Clam Bay waterway is certainly something that you may address,
not as red and green aides to navigation that turn it into a motor boating corridor, but as a way to assist any motor boats that may
be allowed into the system, to be able to navigate it in their limited ability and avoid 1he hazards that exist in it because it's in a
natural condition. Myself, Dr. Raia, participated in a teleconference about a week ago with Donald Kinard. Lanie Edwards and
Martin Seeling also participated from the Department of Environmental Protection. Dr. Raia was not there to represent the
Pelican Bay Services Division Board. He did not make any recommendations. He was there at my request to be a witness and to
gather infonnation. Donald Kinard responded that the Corps has not been pushing 1he issue of channel markers. The County has,
in the person of Mr. McAlpin, has been pushing the issue for installation of a particular type of marker in the system that Donald
Kinard said he doesn't understand why anybody would want to put those kind of signs in Clam Bay because he has seen the
aerials of it and he knows how shallow it is. So, you know, the reason why there is a new Clam Bay Advisory Committee is
because Mr. McAlpin went before the Board of County Commissioners and he had an executive recommendation that he wanted
them to address potential permit compliance issues. That is what was used to create that committee. So do you need to address
this? If I was sitting up there, I certainly would want to. It is the very action of allegations that you are not being compliant with
the permit that has brought you to the situation that we have today. Thank you.
DR. RAIA: Madam Chair, I have drafted a few motions that would deal with this, and I was delaying that for when we
come up on the agenda with Clam Pass, but, since this is being discussed right now.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: We'll jump to that. Let's go ahead.
DR. RAIA: First of all, I would like to have the opinion of all of the members. I notice on the website there are no
means to contact us. We have no phone numbers, no E-mail addresses. And I personally feel any elected official should be able
to be contacted by their constituents. And, unless anybody here objects to it, I suggest that, Madam Chair that we post that on the
website.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I believe probably in the updating process that's ongoing, that was eliminated, am I
correct, because we did have it there at one point.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, the office contacts and emails are there. I think what Dr. Raia is talking about is each
Board member's phone number or E-mail.. .
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I am, too. My address and phone number were on there a year ago.
MR. PETTY: No, ma'am.
7905
-....- ~ J -'<IT .
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 At8
Anrill. 2009
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. They were.
MR. CRAVENS: They were.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Absolutely. lbat's how I got everybody's information, so that I knew who was on the
Board two years ago when I first got on.
MR PETIY: Madam Chair, I think what you are looking at, the information that you have is off of Mary's contact
sheet, where she has your phone number and address for sending you packages. That is not on the website.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Nope. I took it off the website.
MR CRAVENS: It was on the website in the past and it has, at some point in time, been removed.
DR. RAlA: Let's not argue that. Let'sjust see if we can put it on now. Is that possible, to put on the website now?
MR. PETIY: It's the choice and the selection of each Board member, Madam Chair.
MR. CRAVENS: Is that a motion?
DR. RAlA: Yes.
MR. GRA VENHORST: I'll second.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor?
MR. CRAVENS: Let's have discussion first. lbat's illegal.
MR. PETrY: Madam Chair, the only thing staff can bring to your attention is all correspondence that doesn't go
through the office is subject to the same strict public records law that we are, so Board members should understand that. But,
other than that, we can put the information on the website.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I would like to poll the Board members. Is there'anyone on the Board that would care
not to have their information, address phone number?
MR. GIBSON: I don't have a problem putting the information on there, but my name must be appearing somewhere it
didn't used to because the junk stuff that rm getting, you can't compare before I got on this Board versus now. My name appears
somewhere. I don't know where it's coming from. I don't think there is any way to filter that. But that would be my only concern,
is ifit's posted, fine. I think that's the right thing to do, clearly. But ifit turns out to be a dumping ground for, you know,
certificates for a halfpriced lunch somewhere, that's not what rm after.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You want the jokes?
MR. GIBSON: No. I don't want the jokes either.
7906
"'-,---,-
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 J 1 AS
,
Anril!. 2009
MR CRAVENS: The Collier County Commissioners, E-mail contacts are on the website, County website. Pelican Bay
Foundation Board members' contact infonnation is on their website. I believe Pelican Bay Property Owners' infonnation is on
their website. Madam Chair, I would like to call for a question on the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Anyone here have a question about anything that we're discussing? Does
anyone have a desire not to be posted as we're speaking? (No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. I think we have a motion, a vote and we can just finish it up. All in mvor? Aye.
DR. RAlA: Aye.
MR. IAIZZO: Aye.
MR LEVY: Aye.
MR MOFFATT: Aye.
MR DALLAS: Aye.
MR. ORA VENHORST: Aye.
MR CRAVENS: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. So there you go.
Dr. Raia moved, seconded by Mr. G1'tlvenhorst and unanimously approved to publish
the Board's contact information on the Pelican /lay Semces Division webs;te.
DR. RAIA: Can we move along?
MR CRAVENS: While we're on the topic of the website, I have some questions I want to raise. Keith and I both were
going onto the website, attempting to access information, historical information, so we could get ourselves up to speed, so to
speak. And the minutes of the February 4th, meeting, which had been approved at the last meeting, are not accessible on the
website. I think things need to be updated in a much more timely fushion on the website. There is no reason why minutes that we
approve today shouldn't be on that website, at the very latest, 24, 48 hours after this meeting, rather than wait a month or so to do
it.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I think that's reasonable. And at this point it's unreasonable because Mary is working on
her own. However, we are in the process now of picking up another person to help in the office. And at that point I think we can
get this all pretty weIl taken care of. But at this moment in time Mary is prioritizing everything she does because her time is
7907
-
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 111 A8
Aorill. 2009
limited, unless we feel like paying her for time and a half on overtime and weekends and holidays.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, if I could. The minutes are one thing, and that's, of course, what Mary and may I
introduce Lisa Resnick. who is taking over for Mary's old position. which Barbara had, which is as a receptionist. So you will be
getting your phone calls and packages from Lisa now.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Welcome aBoard, Lisa. Nice to meet you.
MR IAlZZO: John, who puts the infonnation out on the Internet?
MR PETTY: Right now it's staff. Currently you've asked me to do it as a special project two years ago, the current
design, if you recall. So the minutes take a while, once they are approved and then they come out to my office where we end up
trying to update it, because staff doesn't have that capability currently. Madam Chair, we can certainly look into doing that on a
more punctual basis or putting it up to the contract and taking it away, or whatever you prefer to do. Staff doesn't have any
particular preference.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Anyone have a question. suggestion. some guidance? Maybe we need to have some time
for Lisa to get up to speed.
MR. PETTY: Lisa wouldn't do the updates, per se. Keep in mind that websites for example, the Foundation has a firm
that they use for their website updates. And they do so because it isn't that simple. Yes, anybody can put up a website but if
you're doing it for an entity such as this, it gets a little bit more than just what you would do for your friends and fumily to see
photographs, and especially when it comes to the timeliness of it, the compatibility of it and whether or not we could have audio
minutes and who would do the conversions on it, and the things of that nature, which is why typically you end up going to a
professional firm for that accountability issue. Now, if you want to direct staff to do it, it will take a while because we will have to
get staff trained in that particular aspect, whether it be an application that publishes the website, Dreamweaver, from Adobe or
whoever, or whether HTML, it gets complicated when you want that type of precision. And staff doesn't have a dog in this fight.
We would just as soon let you all do what you would like to do based on the timetables that you think are appropriate, and we'l1
make sure the records get there ASAP.
MR. MOFFATT: Who is doing the updating now?
MR PETTY: Staff is.
MR. CRAVENS: What staff, John. Are you doing it or is Mary doing it?
MR PETTY: All of the staffis doing it, sir. It involves the minutes, which are done by Mary, which have to be
7908
.'N_..,""'__' ~ .,. ...." ,
Pelican Bay Services Divisioo Meeting 16 I 1 AS
Anrilt. 2009 converted into a PDF, and then they are typically mailed to my office where I would update the website. Or they come from Kyle
who has done a presentation who converts it into a pdf or some similar fonnat or an image and he sends it to me and I'm able to
put it up there. The only one that is currently trained in that ability to publish has been my firm. So all staffhas been involved,
sir.
MR IAlZZO: What's the reasonable turnaround time currently?
MR. PETTY: For minutes, it has been more than 30 days. And that's been an issue. And we did talk about that, as
possibly, going to audio minutes, which we can record and get on quicker.
MR. ORA VENHORST: Question for Mr. Petty. We approved the minutes at the subsequent meeting, and then they are
posted, is that what I understand? They are posted after we have approved them at the next meeting?
MR PETTY: That's the decision this Board can make. You can put up drafts.
MR ORA VENHORST: Okay. What would the time constraints be if we posted a draft for the time being?
MR IAIZZO: Before it is approved?
MR. ORA VENHORST: Before it is approved. A draft only, not approved, a draft subsequent to approval. And that
way there could be something up a little faster, even though it might not be accurate as changed, as we changed some today.
MR. PETTY: Yes.
MR ORA VENHORST: Could we do that?
MR. PETTY: Yes. A draft would be taster than waiting for finals, yes, sir.
MR IAlZZO: I think people need to make a decision as to how soon do they want it up on the internet, do they want it
up in seven days?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think we can just advise the staff. We don't have to vote on it.
MR. IAIZZO: Ifwe can live with 30 days or whatever it takes.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Well, let's just put it that we would like to have sooner rather than later and a draft would
be fine, with the indication that that is exactly what it is, a draft and not approved.
MR CRAVENS: What is the Foundation's turnaround time? I think that they have 15 days.
MR IAlZZO: They have got more of a staff.
MR CRAVENS: Well, it's not that difficult. I e-mail copies of electronic minutes to Suzanne and it's up there the next
day.
7909
'" - .,. ,~ ....
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A8
Anrill. 2009 MR IAlZZO: I think if it's a draft, it can be put up sooner.
DR. RAIA: Does our stenographer type up the final minutes, the minutes of this meeting? I mean, what happens?
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, if I could remind the Board that we used to have Barbara Smith do our minutes in near
verbatim, which had been a longstanding practice of some 28 years. When Jean Smith left us and Barbara was doing the job
alone, the Board allowed us to go outside to a contractor. We hired a contractor who was on the County's bid list, which is the
court reporter not the person you see before you but the firm she works for before you, and they type verbatim minutes.
Now, in verbatim minutes, it is difficult to tell sentence structure. And the Board wasn't happy with that fonnat. So we take those
minutes that come from the court reporting company that we contract with, and staff, as they can put it in time, goes through and
reformats the entire set of minutes to match our historical public record fonnat. So we spend almost as much time formatting as
they spend in transcription. The hope is, now that we have Lisa Resnick. the intention of staff is to take this back in-house and do
the near verbatim. Not that we don't like the court reporter but that we can save that expense. And that was the intent of our
two-person staff, that the receptionist did the minutes. So I think we're in the process of getting things done taster. I think the
audio minutes are the best that staff can do to get you your minutes as quickly after a meeting as we do them for reference. Other
than that, it would be drafts. Then you would have approved minutes. And, of course, we can always go to the option of
contracting this outside or including it in staffs responsibilities. Currently it is a pickup being done by my office and the existing
staff. It is not part of our normal duties. I should say the conversion of the PDF, which is part of our duties.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Would be it be appropriate to say that you would like to find out how much the
Foundation well, no, not how much they are paying, but what it would cost to have a website firm work on it?
MR. CRAVENS: I don't think it's that big of a leap. I can take a PDF file and put it up on the Internet in a minute. I
mean, it's not a big technologically complex issue to post something on the Internet.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, if I could. I don't want to try and make the act itself seem like it is such a great
technological jump. But we literally have hundreds of documents. So the document has to go up there in a very specific fonnat.
It has to go into a special folder. It must be on a special page. And the link must be updated. As you recall, you have 12 months
in our current list of minutes or else you go to the archive list. So you have a very long list and it's basically being scrolled. It is a
matter of minutes to get done, if you know what you're doing. Currently staffhas not been trained do that. And our firm is the
only one that is capable of doing that. So it does go through our firm and you have used our firm for the design of the website in
the past. It certainly is something that you asked the administrator to look at, I think it was three meetings ago, and we have been
7910
.~-".'--' ""-" ._""--~~--_..._----~
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 J lAa ;
,
Anrill. 2009 I
looking at alternative designs for the website. And we have shown that to the chair and to staff to get their opinions. If you would
like us to continue, it is certainly something that we can consider. It is currently not on your RFP for services required of the
administrator. Certainly we can consider it or we can train staff or we can consider a firm or we can consider all of the above,
where we can try and speed up the process to the best of our ability by using the draft minutes instead of a final, and we can also
go out there and get a couple of quotes for you if you would like to consider an outside group.
MR. IAIZZO: I think this Board needs to decide what is critical. I mean, if it's 30 days...
MR. LEVY: I agree.
MR. IAIZZO: Ifwe think it's good to have it as soon as possible, then we'll pay the extra dollar. But we don't need to
put more layers of dollars on our over budgeted programming.
MR LEVY: I don't know if anybody, how many people can't wait for the minutes until they come? I don't think it's a
problem.
MR IAlZZO: I don't think it's that critical.
DR. RAlA: For example, the minutes being taken right now, when will we see a draft version of that?
MR PETTY: You wiIl see a draft version of that at your next meeting for approval.
DR. RAlA: And at that time they will be placed on the Internet?
MR. PETTY: Subject to the changes and modifications.
DR. RAIA: Let's say we're going to post draft minutes. When will these draft minutes be placed on the website as draft
minutes?
MR IAIZZO: Forget about sentence structure.
MR PETTY: I would think it would be probably within two weeks of the meeting. It usually comes from the court
reporter's office within about two weeks.
MS. McCAUOHTRY: Ten business days.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Would that be a difficulty, to go ahead and put a draft up and indicate it is a draft and not
approved?
MR PETTY: Not a problem at all, Madam Chair.
MR ORA VENHORST: Do we need a motion for this?
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: No. I'm going to direct we do that.
7911
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 118
Anrill. 2009
MR. PETTY: If you need further time updates or improvements, I'll consider that.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. So be it. Let's move on. Ted?
DR. RAlA: At the last meeting I had suggested and made a motion to approve this draft of the 2008 Mangrove
Management Plan, because right now it's sitting in limbo, and we're not making this motion to approve to do anything else with it,
it's just that somebody put a lot of work in this, we paid for it and we ought to make it at least official, if only for our own
knowledge and reading. So again, I don't know, did everybody receive a copy of this yet? Anybody didn't get a copy? Keith,
we'll have to make an excuse for you, since you just joined us, but I suggest you do get a copy of it.
MR CRAVENS: There are three of us that don't have copies.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: When was it distributed?
MS. McCAUOHTRY: At the last meeting, Dr. Raia, you were asked about that. I told everyone, we have copies. I
have stacks of those made. Just stop in and ask.
DR. RAlA: I will delay the motion on this because I really think you should fumiliarize yourself with this before we go
for approval.
MR. GIBSON: Excellent report.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You are rolling it up. Is it Tim Hall's report?
DR. RAlA: Yes, it is.
MR CRAVENS: Well, I have no problem if you want to vote on it now.
DR. RAIA: Fine with me. I'll make a motion and then we'll second it and then we'll discuss it. I make a motion that we
approve the Clam Bay Mangrove Management Plan draft prepared by Tim Hall on May 21 st, 2008.
MR. LEVY: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Discussion? Jerry, you look like you were going to jump into the light.
MR. MOFFATT: I was going to second the motion on that because I wanted to get it done within the year that it was
prepared. It was prepared back in May of2oo8.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Tim, do you have anything that you would like to add or discuss, since you wrote this?
Do you remember?
MR. HALL: I do remember. I think the only thing that I would add is that some of the items that are addressed in there
are being discussed by this other committee. So what you have in front of you, it says draft. What we've done is a guidance
7912
.- <--..--".--
16 I 1 A8 ,
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
ADrill. 2009
document for us to be able to start discussions with all of the people that were involved. There are still sections that need to be
flushed out and all. But in terms of, I guess, your approval, is that it could then be used by this Board to give to these other
groups or other interested parties and say, here is what we think needs to be done. That's the way I see that document being used.
DR. RAlA: Absolutely. Because when others go to pick that up they say, oh, it's only a draft. I'm trying to get rid of the
word draft on it so it could be utilized.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I have read that. Keith, I think you are probably out on a limb here, aren't you? Are you
uncomfortable voting.
MR. DALLAS: No.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Do I have a motion? We've already done that. I've got that. All in mvor? Aye.
DR. RAIA: Aye.
MR IAIZZO: Aye.
MR. LEVY: Aye.
MR MOFFATT: Aye.
MR. DALLAS: Aye.
MR. ORA VENHORST: Aye.
MR. CRAVENS: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed? (No response.)
Dr. Raia moved, seco1UletJ by Mr. Levy ami unanimously tlpJ1f'OlWl to cIossify the CImtt Btly M""Kf'OVt!
Management Plan draft prepared by Tim Hall on May 21st, 2008 as an informational guide available to
other or intensted
DR. RAlA: In may go on...
MR. PETTY: Hold on. Okay.
DR. RAIA: We have been getting poor press about our interest in Clam Bay, and I just want to change that image a
little bit. I think significant progress has been made on beach access, I believe that Oary McAlpin has made significant changes to
his approach. It looks like we might even get rid of the dog leg and I, for one, think it looks favorable. I think we all felt that the
County should get better utilization of the beach that they own there. We just were concerned about the mangroves. I want to
make a motion that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board votes to advise the Commissioners and the County manager that we
support dredging of Clam Pass for the needed tidal flushing of the mangroves. I don't want to add anything else to it. That's it.
7913
.-~..,_..-
Ii 6 , 1 48 ~
1
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anri11. 2009
These words have specific meaning. And again, we have the image that we are against everything and that's not true. We are for
dredging and actually, this should be saved for the discussion. I made that motion.
MR MOFFA IT: I would like to amend with one addition, and that is the word only.
MR CRAVENS: Has it been seconded?
DR. RAIA: It hasn't been seconded, no.
MR. CRAVENS: I'll second it.
MR MOFFATT: Support dredging of Clam Pass only for the needed tidal flushing.
DR. RAlA: I had that word there. I took it out but I would gladly put it back again without any -
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: May it stand amended then. the dredging of Clam Pass only for the needed tidal flushing
of the mangroves.
MR. OmSON: Meaning that you don't want to have a five foot channel going through there so a big boat goes through
there.
DR. RAIA: The permit they are asking for is an SO-foot wide channel.
MR GIBSON: Nonna1ly at the channel you have to have 5 feet of depth.
MR PETTY: The discussion currently going on is something that you may want to consider with the motion. Tidal
flushing does not define big or little, and it could be either. If you are trying to control the cut, then.. .
DR. RAIA: I want our consultant I'm not able to declare when that needed tidal flushing is needed. And I would
assume that we would get professional advice to say when it is needed and how much should be done, and that's what we should
do.
MR ORA VENHORST: Madam Chair? Historically we've dredged this in the past, am I correct?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes.
MR ORA VENHORST: What is the nonnal? What has history provide us with ?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's never the same twice.
MR ORA VENHORST: It's never the same twice.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No.
MR ORA VENHORST: So we can't rely on history.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. History shows it is inconsistent.
7914
',<~,.~ . ",_.~....._H_,.~.~_' ._,_.~._ _ , " --- '~^--_._"'-"-"-'-'-- --
16 , 1 A8 f
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Aorill. 2009
MR. MOFFATT: The footprint of the dredging is the same footprint that was used the last time we dredged. That is not
the existing channel today because the existing channel has moved from when it was dredged last. But they are proposing to
dredge on the same footprint. Width, I don't know. They are talking 80 foot width. I don't know what they did the last time.
MR. IAIZZO: Can this Board control dredging?
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: No. All we can do is advise. That's what we're here for. And Mr. Petty...
DR. RAIA: This would need a permit and obviously it would be covered in this permit but if the County is going to
move ahead to try to do their own permit, we want to be on record as having been the custodians, successful custodians of Clam
Bay, that this is the indication for the dredging.
MR. CRA YENS: The County is also seeking a permit to dredge for sand and not. ..
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: The re-nourishment.
MR. CRAVENS: Absolutely. That's why they wanted our permit.
DR. RAlA: And this is an area where we hope we get the cooperation of the Foundation because it's clearly stated in the
deeded covenants that they need written permission from the declarant, who will be the Foundation, to do any dredging. Even if
we're going to dredge for tidal flushing, we have to get the permission of the Foundation, written permission. Now, a lot of times
this has been ignored but I think it's time that we follow to the letter the procedures for doing these things.
MR OlBSON: I don't see that it can hurt anything. I like the word, only.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The question I have for Mr. Petty and Mr. Hall is, would that limit us from or limit some
other type of need for dredging, something different other than just the tidal flushing? Is that any other reason that could be found
so that we need to get that, only, out of there. The only is good in. I understand, in an order that they not make a channel for a
steamboat or something.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, I wish I could give you more security in the choice. I understand the concept here is to
limit the cut to that that is necessary to maintain the mangroves. And I believe that is, if you'll excuse the expression, already
done by this Board, asked and answered, and doing it again is certainly not a problem. Ijust don't know if tidal flushing is a legal
enough definition to prevent any other type of maintenance dredging being done in our name. I don't know.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Hall, would this put you in an adverse situation to come up with some kind of a
terminology here for us?
MR HALL: Like John had said, the term tidal flushing, I don't know, if you got into an argument with somebody, if you
7915
- ----------
16 I lA 8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
AnriI 1. 2009 would get a good enough definition to support it legally. You might change the terminology to something that would say maybe,
provide adequate flushing to maintain the mangrove ecosystem in a healthy state. That might be a little bit more to the point.
MR PETIT: Madam Chair, if! may suggest to you, in our existing permit, we do talk about the dredging as being, and
Tim. help me on this. The original permit application says you may dredge to minimal depths associated with the hydraulic
flushing for mangrove restoration only, and if you adopt that as part of your language of your motion. I believe then you've got all
of the protection that we've ever thought we had in trying to prevent that cut from becoming too big. Tim. are you comfortable
with that?
MR HALL: Yes.
MR PETTY: As long as it mirrors the permits?
MR. CRAVENS: I like that, too. Can we page a friendly...
DR. RAlA: So can we...
MR. CRAVENS: Does the motion and second...
DR. RAlA: I would like to amend my motion to read: I move that the Pelican Bay Services Board advise the
Commission and County manager that we support dredging of Clam Pass for the restoration...
MR PETTY: Madam Chair? Only in conformance with our ten-year permit.
DR. RAlA: What?
MR PETTY: Only within the conformance limits of our ten-year permit
MR CRAVENS: I would prefer the wording be in there rather than the reference to the permit, the wording you just
gave us.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Provide adequate flushing to maintain the ecosystem, to maintain...
MR. CRA YENS: Minimal. The word minimal needs to be in there.
DR. RAlA: Would you write that down for me? And why don't we move on to the next one. Can we hold this in the
bank?
MR. ORA VENHORST: Well, I had a sentence I thought we might add, if this continued to be a problem, we could add,
any other type of dredging would be expressly prohibited without the prior approval of the Pelican Bay Foundation. Is that too
restrictive?
DR. RAIA: Actually, that already exists. In fuct, even if you want good dredging, it is supposed to get approval.
7916
0_.." . .w*M ,
16 I tQ
-< l ",
"'",J'
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
ADrift. 2009
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: That's true. You just want to advise it.
DR. RAlA: The other thing is, I could have said you can't do any dredging except we want to do dredging but that this
is what you are doing the dredging for. Why don't we move on to the next thing and I'll write it down.
MR. PETTY: We can't we have...
MR. CRAVENS: We really shouldn't do that. We have a motion on the floor.
MR PETTY: Do you have a copy of the permit? Not the proposal but the old existing ten-year permit, do you have a
copy?
MR CRAVENS: Ted, we called the question. We can't go on to discussing another topic with a motion on the floor. It
has to be dealt with.
DR. RAIA: I was going to temporarily table it. Ifwe may. Okay. I want to get the exact wording, so that's what the
delay is. And I don't want to vote on something that we...
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I understand, but I believe Robert's rules kind of holds us up here.
DR. RAlA: You can table.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, if you would like to take a five minute recess.
DR. RAlA: Okay.
MR. CRAVENS: Yes. Let's take a break.
MR PETTY: Only the chair can call it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ouess what? Let's take a five minute recess. <A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Do we have a new rendition to submit to the Commissioners for our mangrove
request and dredging request?
DR. RAlA: Ready. Once more, I move that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board votes to advise the
Commissioners and the County manager that we support dredging of Clam Pass, to the minimum dimensions needed to maintain
flushing capacities capable of supporting a healthy mangrove ecosystem only.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Do we have a second?
MR MOFFATT: Has the first motion been withdrawn?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. Ted amended it.
MR MOFFATT: fll second.
7917
-"~,- ",~~_..,,-" --
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A8
ADm 1. 2009
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, if there was a motion that was amended, it would be whoever seconded that one.
MR. ORA VENHORST: I think Tom seconded the first one.
MR. CRAVENS: I accept the amendment.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? Aye.
DR. RAlA:
MR. IAlZZO: Aye.
MR LEVY: Aye.
MR. MOFFATT: Aye.
MR. DALLAS: Aye.
MR ORA VENHORST: Aye..
MR CRAVENS: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The motion carries.
Dr. Raia moved to amend his prior motion, seconded tI1Id IIIIIeIUled c1umges accepted by Mr.
Cravens and unanimously approved the revised stIItement regarding the 1IIIIIIgrtWt!S and
dredging of CIIIm Pass to: 17Ie Pe/icon Bay Services Division Board votes to advise the
Commissioners and the COIInty Manager that we support dredging of Clam Pass, to the
minimum dimensions needed to ItUlintain jlMshing capacities capable of supporting a healthy
ve ecosystem only.
DR. RAlA: I would like to move onto another motion. I move that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board votes to
advise the Commissioners and the County manager that interpretation ofthe phrase, finally the main channel will be marked in
accordance with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast Ouard to ensure that those who use the system clearly know
where the channel is and the prohibition against operating their watercraft outside the same, unquote, refers to navigation
information and warning signs, and that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board votes to install all necessary navigational
warning and infonnation signs as required by the permit issued in 1998.
If that's seconded, we can have a discussion.
MR LEVY: l'I1 second it.
MR MOFFATT: I have a problem with that amendment, in that that's the core of the new committee that was formed to
resolve the pissing contest between Naples and Pelican Bay. And that is something that that committee has dealt with already,
7918
0___ -.. ..~_.__._--"-------
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 , 1 A~
Anrill. 2009 and I don't know if they finally came up with a conclusion. but I don't see that this motion is helpful in doing anything other than
extending a disagreement that we've already got our hands on.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, actually, not the actuality of the sentence and the phrase, per se but anyway, we
have discussed this with our District 2 Commissioner, Mr. Halas, and Mr. Mudd. And they have indicated, as Jerry suggested, the
new Clam Bay Advisory Oroup is in charge of going through the issue of signage of any kind. And I think it's really out of our
hands. They have pretty much stated that over and over and over again. We can advise them in discussions, but I wouldn't do a
formal advisement, but in discussions we can make it clear that this is how we feel. This is a Board request. But I would not
recommend at this point telling them anything that has really clearly been given to another of their advisory Boards. Does that
make sense?
MR. MOFFATT: I agree. I don't think we're helping ourselves in any way by passing this kind of motion.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: They pretty much know our position and I don't mind repeating it over and over and over
again. and I'm sure I will. However, this is clearly not our issue. It is our issue but it is clearly not up to us.
MR. ORA VENHORST: Ted, question. What's the purpose? What do you hope to accomplish with this motion?
DR. RAlA: Well, I'm looking for points here. The problem is this phrase is the phrase that is being interpreted or being
used by the Seagate residents to have the County put lateral navigation signs in. Now, lateral navigation signs and I reviewed all
of the minutes in 1997 - 1998, when this permit was being discussed. At no time did they ever discuss lateral navigation signs.
The discussion was always about information signs. There are navigation signs but some are information and warning type signs
and they did advise the Board at that time, Seagate advised the Board, they were concerned that we were going to sacrifice their
boating rights to save our mangroves. And we made it very clear that is not the case. And at that point they instituted ordinance
96-16 or something, which has to do with boating, guaranteeing navigation in all of Collier County waters. So that sort of
dropped the issue. You know, it's important to understand that that phrase, the wording of that phrase is such that you have to use
a big stretch of your imagination to use that to mean lateral navigation signs. If you are writing a permit and you want to put
lateral navigation signs in, you say you want to install lateral navigation signs, because there are a whole slew of navigation signs.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ted, can I recommend something? Because I know where your head is and I
understand, and we need to move this meeting along. Would it be comfortable for you to present this information to that
committee, get on their agenda and present it to them so that they have a better understanding? They are flying around out there
trying to get education.
7919
,--.
16 J 1 A8 i
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Aorill.2009
DR. RAIA: Mary Anne, I have. I have been to the meetings. I know you may not have been at that meeting.
MR. MOFFATT: You were there.
DR. RAIA: I have been at the meetings. I wrote a letter explaining all of this. I pointed out that the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. the federal agency that prepared our nautical charts, clearly state on them that Clam Pass is un-
navigable and that the Coast Pilot, the Bible for the charts, describes Clam Pass as a shore drainage area used only in good
weather by outBoard motor boats.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Ted?
DR. RAIA: This is important. The definition of a shoal is a hazard for navigation. It's been described as an ephernal
that passed by Mr. Oary McAlpin. Ephernal, that means here today, gone tomorrow. It is not a place to put official navigational
signs. So why are we letting them do this?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We are not letting them do this, Ted.
DR. RAIA: If somebody doesn't take action, they are going to go there.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Now, in my recollection, you have stated this to the Commissioners, and I've watched
you and listened to you tell the Commissioners this very thing. You have told our Board this very thing several times. You have
told the new advisory committee this infurmation. Have you gone to the coastal zone and also talked to them? I know you have
been at those meetings and I have seen you there, but [don't recall if you also informed them of this information. They have this,
too.
DR. RAlA: Every meeting I have gone to I have.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: So, in order to make this reasonable, can anyone come up with a suggestion?
MR. ORA VENHORST: We have a motion and a second and we are in the discussion phase. Ted, you never answered
my question. You gave me a great history, but you didn't tell me what you hope to accomplish with this motion.
DR. RAIA: Okay. One way or the other, infonnational signs do have to be placed, okay? They have to be placed.
lbat was always the understanding before and during the permit. So let's get those signs in. Then ifmy position is right, if the
County really wants to put the lateral navigational markers in. they file this application like anyone else has to file to put lateral
navigation signs in. And let's see where they go with that. If the public wants to stop them, the public, at this point, would
probably have to go to court, and that's not our position. And I'm not saying that we are going to take any legal action. Our
position should be, we are an advisory Board. I feel I am projecting the infonnation I am receiving from our constituents bringing
7920
-..,_.
16 1 1 A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
ADrill. 2009
this to your attention. of the Board I want to be in compliance with the informational and warning signs that should be up there,
and I stop short of putting the green and red signs in that stretch of water. It's unconscionable. I don't understand it
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ted, that's why they are in place. That was the basic, initial reason. There is more. But
that is one of the major reasons why that new Clam Bay advisory group was formed, initially to go ahead and start looking into
the signage. They have listened to you, they have listened to Marcia, they have been doing their own follow-through, and we
have all advised, I as Board chair, John Petty, you, our residents, have all advised the Commissioners and the different Clam Bay
groups. Whatever level of government issue they are, have all heard this information. so my point is, at this juncture, what can we
do to do better? We are just doing the same old, same old, same old. That's not getting us anywhere.
MR ORA VENHORST: I would suggest to Ted this paragraph ought to be the one that goes back to the department of
the Army. They are asking for an answer. This is what we ought to send them.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Even more so, they are asking that markers must meet U.S. Coast Guard standards for
signs. It is requested you supply the Corps with drawings showing the placement of these markers and a time frame when you
expect the signs to be in place.
MR. LEVY: And they want to modifY any. . .
MR. ORA VENHORST: It gives them the opportunity to modifY.
DR. RAIA: He's not saying they have to be lateral navigation.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. Just, if you should like to modifY.
DR. RAlA: At this point he'll take any signs. It is the County that is insisting on putting lateral navigation signs.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Petty?
MR PETTY: Thank you. This is great and I agree with everything, almost everything you said, Dr. Raia. Let me try
and get more to the point. We are under a directive from the County manager, which we are forced to abide by, which is not to do
any further action concerning the permit. Be that as it may, the County manager has then come to us and said, now, you do
understand whatever signs that other group approves, Pelican Bay will have to pay for. And we've said that we've always
understood that our permit, which Pelican Bay has permitted to funding, has the requirement for some signs. May I suggest that
you consider a motion that would limit Pelican Bay funding of only those signs that you find to be in conformance with your
interpretation of the permit. And I think that's the most you can do as an action today, other than writing a letter saying you don't
7921
"-,-","- .'."-'~ <._----~---,-~_._._~...~~..._--
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 f 1 fA 8
Aorill.2009
like what is being discussed.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I feel that that's really appropriate because it's a step out of what we've been doing. It's
out of the box a little bit
MR PETTY: It's telling them that these types of signs are not what we anticipated paying for at all.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And we don't need to pay for something that we don't think is correct.
MR. PETTY: You may suggest, if that's the signs Collier County wants, that Collier County, not our division of Collier
County, but the coastal zone management division of Collier County, can go out and do so from general funds or other such funds
that are at their discretion.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, I would recommend, then, that staff indicate from this paragraph, you've seen this
letter from Mr. Kinard.
MR. CRAVENS: Madam Chair, we have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We still have a discussion.
MR CRAVENS: Well, you are recommending, though.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Tom. I'm going to say perhaps it would be in our best interest and that of
our community that we make a letter and direct it to Mr. McAlpin suggesting that we have these concerns.
MR. CRAVENS: And also copy Mr. Kinard and wait until we get whatever this new committee comes up with.
MR MOFFATT: Can I suggest that you have a discussion with Jim Carroll, who is the chairman of the new committee,
and get his view on where he sees that moving and what he would recommend? I mean, we've got a very bad reputation,
apparently, because of our staunch opposition to anything. That's why they formed the new committee.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Well, there is more to it than that, Jerry.
MR. MOFFATT: I don't see that we gain anything by continually fighting with the County on this. They have got a
committee. We have representation on it, in the form of three people. I wouldn't do anything until you get their input and their
recommendation. No sense putting more gasoline on it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Anyone else?
MR. ORA VENHORST: I agree with Jerry that this motion does not serve any purpose, other than to, again, cast
shadows on this Board.
Answering this letter from the Department of the Army, I think somebody, thafs why I asked earlier, who answers this? But Dr.
7922
^ .~~~~ .~",~_.,- ._~---------------_.__.__.__._._._._-_.-
16 I 1 A8 J
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Aorill. 2009
Raia's paragraph is a really good answer for that, for that letter, but we have a motion on the floor that needs to be voted up or
down.
DR. RAlA: Madam Chair, we...
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia?
MS. CRAVENS: Yes. I brought up that letter and maybe I just wasn't enough to the point. Donald Kinard is waiting
for a diagram of some sort of markers in the system. He has indicated that marking the hazards with the infonnational regulatory
signs that are approved by U.S. Coast Ouard would meet the requirements of the management plan. Tim Hall is quite capable of
doing it. He's already under contract with you. It would not be a conflict of interest He could do it a lot easier than the
Mangrove Action Oroup because it was the software of his firm that created the map in the first place. This Board could easily
deal with that letter by instructing Tim Hall to create a map of markers in the channel that mark the hazards of the shoals and it
would be acceptable to the Corps. That is one way to answer that letter. You've got two choices there.
MR PETTY: We have more than two, and before you say what is acceptable by the Corps. and what isn't, Marcia,
make sure that you say at the end, this is what you understand it to be.
MS. CRAVENS: Yes. It is what I understand to be and I believe it's also what Dr. Raia may understand to be, from the
teleconference that we had. But my understanding with Donald Kinard is that, if Pelican Bay Services Division submits a
diagram of markers for the channel that uses U.S. Coast Ouard approved signage that marks the hazards, which is the shoals, it
will be acceptable to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That's one thing that that letter addresses. The second thing is, you can
request a reevaluation of the permit for modification to take that ridiculous, poorly phrased, ambiguous statement right out of the
management plan.
MR MOFFA IT: I was going to say as an alternative, and along the lines of Marcia's comment, I would be more in
fuvor of submitting the warning signs that Tim would come up with back to this committee, the Clam Bay Advisory Committee,
as an alternative to what they now have. They have a plan with eight or nine buoy channel markers and two navigational signs.
This might be another alternative that they can consider and get us something closer to what we're looking for but still not put too
much gasoline in the fire. I think we have a committee that has been charged by the County to resolve this and I don't see going
around them is going to help us in any way. We keep working with them, give them some more ammunition and maybe we can
convince them to go our way.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, iff could speak from a staff perspective? We have a lot of cooks here in our kitchen. And
7923
l ..
16 I 1 A 8~ '1
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
I can tell you from direct contact and working very closely with our engineer, who has been working on this for ten years, and
with staff who has been working on it for ten years, and I will take no one else's experience as being superior to theirs, that we
have the position, or had the position a year ago, to work with regulatory agencies so that the existing signs that were put up by
this division may actually be acceptable, with no additional signs going in. We have also looked at options that were a
compromise to some degree on the informational issues that some may have asked for environmental concerns i.e. for manatee
protection. And we looked at that. And that may have been five or six more signs. We also looked at some additional
navigational markings of the channel itself. Whether it be for boating or for historical purposes, we looked at that. Staff is fully
aware and so is the Clam Bay subcommittee and, by reference, this Board, should also be aware that staff has reviewed all of
these items. This is not new information. What is being asked of you is in direct conflict with what Collier County and their
attorney have told you was then within your purview to consider. I'm not saying don't do it, folks. I'm saying there may be
repercussions that you should know about. The sign issue and our permit has been relegated to another division of Collier
County. Yes, I know our name and address is on the letter and I think that's nice. But we are not a legal entity. We do not have a
legal position. You have heard that not only from me but you've heard that from the attorney for Collier County. Weare an
advisory committee and we're trying to work to the best effurts that we can in that regard. I'm telling you that the best that I can
offer you as staff, if you wish to send the message that you do not like the signs, is to say you will not pay them. Or, as the letter
says, Pelican Bay Services Division wishes the Board of County Commissioners to understand and know that we as a body
continue to be in disagreement on this issue and wish to voice that disagreement again today.
MS. CRAVENS: I'm not asking for this Board to send anything to the Collier County Board of Commissioners. I'm
asking to respond to a letter that was written to the Pelican Bay Services Division that is looking for the permit holder, which is
Pelican Bay Services Division. to respond and to submit a diagram of some sort of markers. That is not in conflict with anything
the Board of County Commissioners have charged this Board to do. It is exactly what you are charged to do, to do everything to
the greatest extent the law allows for you to perform your function and role. The determination by the County manager in his
instructing this Board is only supposed to happen if there is some overwhelming governmental reason to do that. That's the only
time that he is actually supposed to tell you to do something other than what you are choosing to do. And, you know, I just don't
think that it's a conflict. I think that you would be responding to a letter. You could also jointly provide that alternative of
marking hazards to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee, but it seems, from attending those meetings, that they are being persuaded
by a small special interest group that strongly desires to place red and green aides to navigation into the Clam Pass system that
7924
"'.__.~---"---"._.,'_. -,~ ........ _"____,._u__.___.__.__..__
i 6 J A8 1
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting ,S, .
Anrill. 2009
will turn it into a maintained navigable waterway. So when you don't respond to this letter and you don't provide what you
believe is consistent with conservation and preservation, you are not performing your duty. It's not a conflict, it's performing your
duty.
MR. ORA VENHORST: Mr. Petty, question. You are saying we should not respond to this letter in any way?
MR. PETTY: No, sir. That's not what rm saying. rm saying that if you get involved in the permit process.
MR. ORA VENHORST: I do not want to get involved in the permitting, and Marcia is not asking that.
MR. PETTY: This is the permit process.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: This is the permit process.
MR PETTY: This is in compliance with an existing ten-year-old permit, sir, in June, I believe, or July. This is permit
business, sir.
MR ORA VENHORST: I understand that. They are asking us something that we can't get, you are saying, we can't get
involved with. Don't you think that some sort of response is necessary?
MR. PETTY: I did not say do not get involved in it.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: He did offer an involvement, to the point of saying, we will not pay for any signage that
we don't feel is appropriate or correct for that locality.
MR ORA VENHORST: I think we should respond to it.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: And that's pretty much all we can do, since they have requested us to pay for it.
DR. RAlA: Madam Chair, is there anybody on this Board or in the room, for that matter, who lives in the southern
portion of Pelican Bay adjacent to outer Clam Pass? Is there anybody? Well, I don't either. And I think we have to look at this
situation as if we lived on outer Clam Pass and not fractionate ourselves. We have to be the bad guys. Those are the people who
are really concerned about it because it impacts them. Now, when something happens up in upper Clam Bay, are we going to
have everybody ignore it and let the people in upper Clam Bay fend for themselves? This is an issue that we should all be
concerned about. The reason why these navigation signs are going to be placed there is because the County is insisting on putting
them there. Really, I don't see anything we can do to stop that because they want to do it. The subcommittee of the Pelican Bay
advisory committee has recommended putting signs in. so it's on the way. If we don't do anything at all, those signs are going to
go in there.
7925
~_.
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 , 1 A:~
Anril 1. 2009
MR CRAVENS: That's assuming the Foundation does not step in and exercise their declarant rights.
DR. RAIA: Well, that might be a little bit more difficult position for them than the dredging part. I think we are still an
advisory committee. We are representing the people in Pelican Bay. I see that we are doing our duty and I would change my
motion. but I think we should advise the Commissioners and the County manager that we oppose the instalIation oflateral
navigation signs and support the installation of infonnation signs. You know, we're advising. That's our position. They can do
what they want. But I don't think we should acquiesce and not do anything. That would be wrong.
MR CRAVENS: We've got two different things going here. I think advising the Commissioners and the County
manager and what Ted is talking about, responding to this letter.
DR. RAIA: What I would add with that, I would submit a chart showing the placement of the infonnational and warning
signs and offering to install them, if the County wants us to. Unless they offer to install them. And then I would take it upon
myself to draft a response to that. And I agree with you, and submit it to John Petty, because I cannot communicate, and let him
decide about how it gets distributed to everybody, short of waiting until next month and everybody try to rewrite it or try to draft
something. I don't think this issue should be ignored. I don't think it's termed throwing gasoline on a fire. You know, it is
something that, once it happens, it's going to be almost impossible to change. And everybody is clear though, we are not going to
dredge for navigation. But when you have the navigation markers there and this gets approved, especially without anybody
saying anything, it's going to be a navigation channel.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Tim, is it possible for you, without overstepping your role in several areas, to actually
design places where hazard signs should be placed? Would that be something you would be comfortable with?
MR. HALL: I mean, I think in terms of designing things for the Board to look at, I can make a drawing for the Board to
look at and comment upon. That's within the scope of services that you guys have hired us to do. I couldn't send that to the
Corps. Or to any other agency.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
MR HALL: That would be something that you as a Board would have to decide to do.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: We would.
MR. HALL: I don't see why I could not come up with a drawing.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don't see why we couldn't recommend something, too, since they are asking for an
answer, I don't see why we couldn't offer, as requested, some markers and placement for them, for hazard. I'm more concerned
7926
".~
16 I 1 A 811
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Aorill. 2009
about hazards than I am anything else because I've seen people go in or try to get into Clam Bay with boats that shouldn't even be
thinking about it. And I'mjust waiting for something dreadful to happen. So I'm very concerned about the hazard. And, of
course, the dredging and everything else that goes along with it. But I'm trying to figure out a way to do what Ted is offering as a
real necessity, and that is to not just sit back. And I don't want to upset anyone because we have been advised that we are no
longer advising anyone about the dredging or that area of Clam Bay, because there is another committee in place. However, we
do have some special concerns, and one of them would be the signage and where it would be placed. And perhaps if you could
give us something fuirly quickly, we could respond to this letter and state that this is what we were concerned with and this is
something that we're offering as a possibility and we can copy it to the Coastal Zone and the Clam Bay Advisory Oroup, as well
as the Commissioners. Then we're just advising.
MR. CRAVENS: And Mr. Kinard.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And Mr. Kinard, yes.
MR. ORA VENHORST: We need to call the question on Ted Raia's motion and then deal with your motion.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Tim, would you be willing to do that for us? Sorry. Quickly?
MR HALL: I can come up with different alternatives for marking the channel out there, marking hazards within the
channel, and then the Board can review it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We're looking at a special Board meeting for management review on the 20th or the
2 I st. Could - of this month. Could you possibly have something available for us to look at by that time?
MR. HALL: I think I can have something done by the end of next week.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Terrific. If you would do that.
As chair, may I direct him to do that for us, is that --
MR PETTY: As the Board sees fit.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR OmSON: Just a suggestion, Mary Anne.
This letter has been floating around for a month now from Mr. Kinard. Perhaps a one sentence response, we are in
receipt of your letter of March 2nd and we are reviewing it in depth and you wiIl be hearing from us before too long, so something
doesn't happen in between because he thinks that -- that we stuck it in a filing cabinet somewhere?
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Perfect.
7927
"_. _.._~,.. -,,_._-------_._,~..__.-
16,/ lAB
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
I would like to direct staff to do that for us, send a letter of acceptance, of recognition, that we received it and that we are
working on --
MR. CRAVENS: Madam Chair, we still have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I'm working on it, Tom.
MR. CRAVENS: I know. But there is another motion on the floor that Ted made, and that we have not yet voted upon.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: No, we haven't. I was getting to it.
MR CRAVENS: We need to deal with this. You are off doing another thing. And, Ted, would you like to withdraw
your motion?
DR. RAlA: I would definitely -. I would like to amend that motion, if} may. And then I still feel that - I'll say this.
I move that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board votes to advise the Commissioners and the County manager that we
oppose the instaUation oflateraI navigation signs and submit to you a plan for the installation of informational warning signs.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. That is a better motion. Do I have a second?
MR CRAVENS: Mr. Levy seconded.
MR LEVY: I accept the modification.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor? Aye.
MR. GIBSON: Aye.
MR LEVY: Aye.
DR. RAIA: Aye.
MR CRAVENS: Aye.
MR ORA VENHORST: Aye.
MR. IAIZZO: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Opposed?
MR MOFFATT: No.
MR. DALLAS: No.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right. Two. Motion carries.
Dr. RaJa motio"ed. seronded IIIItllflOdijictltion accqted by Dr. Levy to tldvise tie CollUllissJoners
and the County Manlltfer titd the PBSD Advisory Board opposes the insttIlImiOll of I4teraI
navigatiolUll sbtns a1UI submit till aItertudive DIaII. Vote 7-1. modo" CIU1'ied.
7928
.."~,. --.'. ..LL .....-
16 I 1 A8 1
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
ADriI 1. 2009
DR. RAIA: Now, I assume I should draft a letter. You want a fonnal response to Mr. Kinard's letter, is that what I
understand, the Board directing me to do that? Then I will submit it to John.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actually, I directed staff to write a quick note stating that we received the letter, that we
are working on the possibilities and we will get back to them soon.
DR. RAlA: So nothing else has to be done with that?
MR. LEVY: We have been told this was given to Oary McAlpin and he responded to Mr. Kinard.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We were told that he has responded?
MR. LEVY: I don't know. Has he responded?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Marcia, do you even know?
DR. RAlA: I don't think he would respond to that. I think that letter is in response to a request from Mr. McAlpin, and
he copied it to show him that he sent that letter out to us.
MS. CRAVENS: That was in response to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee subcommittee on navigation that Tom
Crumb was on. Tom Crumb indicated to Mr. McAlpin that they did not feel that the E-mail that had previously been supplied to
them from another Corps individual that stated that the Corps thought that navigational - that channel markers needed to be
placed, the subcommittee on navigation -
MR PETTY: Excuse me. Marcia Hold on.
MS. CRAVENS: The subcommittee of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee that was addressing navigation did not feel
that an E-mail from someone in the Corps constituted non-compliance because Mr. McAlpin kept telling them that the County
was not in compliance with the management plan, that ambiguous phrase that is in there.
So that subcommittee said they wanted a letter of non-compliance. That's what prompted McAlpin to raise the issue
with Donald Kinard, and this letter that you have is the response. And, I might add, it still is not a letter of non-compliance. It is
simply stating that there was some signage that was supposed to be installed and they are still waiting for it to be done.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Marcia.
MR MOFFATT: May I make a correction to what Marcia said? In every case, it's not a committee on navigation, it's
the Clam Bay Permits subcommittee. No discussion on navigation whatsoever, so we're not confused.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right..
7929
-----.--...-----... ,-
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A8
ADriI 1. 2009
DR. RAlA: My final motion, if I may?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Quickly.
DR. RAIA: I move that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board votes to install a new set of canoe markers to best
proximate where the new channel may be and to extend the marker in an additional direction into Clam Pass, ending at the last
curve before the Gulf.
Those markers are in terrible shape. They should have been replaced a long time ago. It's our obligation to take care of
them. So let's get that job done.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ted, I haven't gone back through all over back in there recently. How many markers are
we talking about?
Kyle?
MR. LUKASZ: Thirty-two.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I thought there were quite a few.
DR. RAIA: And I thought --
MR. CRAVENS: I'll second your motion so we can have discussion.
DR. RAIA: Okay. Thank you.
I'm fumiliar with the channel. I go there frequently enough and I know how to get out to the pass, but there are a lot of
people not fumiliar. It would be nice to a dog leg going out to the pass, but ending where you would see the pass, so canoers
would know where the Oulf is and it's up to them, if they want to take their canoe out into the Oulf or not, they can turn around
and go back. But I would like to extend the markers and a dog leg in that direction.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do we have anything on our books for updating the markers, those particular markers?
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, staffhas been working on the maintenance program since the issue was first brought up by
Dr. Raia, I think two meetings ago. And the parts have been ordered for same, but we have no program in place for a dog leg.
So additional markers - I'll refer to Tim, but I would think that would need another permit to go after.
But certainly we can consider such matters.
MR. CRAVENS: Ted, are you suggesting we put all new signs in or just replace the ones that are missing or
deteriorating?
DR. RAIA: Well, not one to waste money, if a sign is good, we would definitely want to keep it. But there are some bad
7930
,'_.._'___.....____~_"""',.~.'u~,._._._ ._ . "N"_.."~,". . '";''''''''' - ._.._~~
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I, 1 A81
ADm I. 2009
looking signs there.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: That's our job, and it sounds like we're doing it.
MR CRAVENS: Question on the motion?
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: What motion is before us?
MR. CRAVENS: Ted's motion that he just made to replace --
MR MOFFATT: Call the question.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, I think you have a motion with an added. You have a motion to replace the signs and a
motion to add a dog leg.
Am I correct, Dr. Raia?
DR. RAIA: All in one motion. correct.
MR CRAVENS: That is a problem. He just said we need to get a new permit if we put a dog leg on there. Maybe that
dog leg should be removed, like the dog leg that is in the new Clam Pass Park.
DR. RAIA: If people don't want to put the signs down there, we will remove that from the motion. But if people are
interested in putting signs down there, the longest journeys start with the first step. You would then have to apply for the permit
It's not that difficult to do that, put new markers in. And it would take about another four, at most, canoe signs to direct people to
where the pass would be.
MR CRAVENS: Could we have two motions, one to replace the bad signs and then one to do the dog?
DR. RAlA: If that makes you happy, Tom, I will gladly--
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think we need to hear from our engineer.
Tim?
MR. HALL: If I could, I don't believe that you need -- the signs have already been ordered for the existing canoe trail. I
don't believe that you actually would need a motion --
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I don't either.
MR. HALL: - to replace those. That is something that staff is already doing.
If you want to put in new markers or you want to relocate some of the existing ones that are out there, both of those
actions would require permits and so forth.
7931
-,..".. .... ---
16 J 1 A8 f
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
So if your motion is you want to consider putting in the dog leg, that is something that we can do. I would suggest the
first step be to ask the Foundation if they are okay with it. And then go forward with all of the agencies and, you know, the
locations and so forth. The designs would have to be put together. This Board would have to approve where they are actually -
the locations are and then to go from there, if that is something that you want to move forward with.
But in terms of the existing signs out there, I don't think just - they are being replaced and that's in process now.
DR. RAIA: In that case, I will remove from the table my motion and [ would substitute this, that we ask Tim to provide
us the information necessary for us to make a decision to extend signs into the pass, you know, how many signs, what it costs, the
permits and aU, so we can vote on that and get some useful information.
And thank you for moving ahead and getting those signs. I wasn't aware of it. Thank you.
MR. CRAVENS: That's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR. CRAVENS: I was the seconder, so I agree and withdraw.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All right.
MR MOFFATT: CaU the question?
MR CRAVENS: The motion has been withdrawn.
DR. RAlA: I made a new one.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: He didn't say, I made a motion. He said in that case-
DR. RAlA: I said -- I asked that we can request Tim -- I make a motion that we request Tim to look into what has to be
done to install additional signs into the direction of Clam Pass.
MR CRAVENS: Do we need a motion for that? Can't we just make the request?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, ifI may?
You were talking about a Clam Bay committee earlier. And I would suggest that this would be Clam Bay business. It
may be difficult for staff or the Board to decide on an issue without having the proper time and the discretion to go over it. I don't
think it's a big deal. I think we can handle it.. But I think it's routine matters you may want to assign to the Clam Bay Board for
consideration.
DR. RAIA: How do we direct --
7932
""".- . IT.RlII-' - "'.- ~-~-
16 I '1 AS
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
AnriI 1. 2009
MR PE1TY: We don't know what it's going to cost. We don't know what Tim is going to have to do. Staff has to look
at the issue. We haven't looked at the issue. We don't know what we're going to have to do. Collier County wiU be the signatory
authority. We would have to ask permission to be the representatives, as we always have, and we need a little time to go through
the process. TypicaUy that's been through the Clam Bay committee, unless you need it done today.
DR. RAIA: No. I'm just asking that we direct Tim to look into this for us and come back. at his convenience, I don't see
an emergency about this, to provide us infunnation so that when a motion is made to do it or not to do it, that vote is taken with
the proper information..
MR. PETTY: The entire Board not the Clam Bay --
DR. RAIA: This Board. 1bere is no need to --
MR PETTY: Madam Chair? I thought I was giving you a piece of information for the Clam Bay Board. It appears he
would prefer that this motion be considered by this Board.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Fine by me. I think at one point we were concerned that we were meeting for Clam Bay
an inordinate amount and then coming back to the Board and having to explain everything back to them. And I think that one of
the reasons why we sunset the Clam Bay committee for a while, for whatever period being necessary, was simply because the
whole Board needed to be up to speed, rather than just a few people and then come back and do the whole thing aU over again.
So maybe just as well.
So your motion is just that we are going to ask -- it's not a motion. We don't need a motion.
MR. RAlA: If the chair can just direct staff to do that and it's done, that's fine.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, we can take direction from the Board, the staff, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. There you go. All right.
Update on strategic planning. I'm going to go very quickly.
MR. MOFFATT: I want to avoid some confusion. Any letters that are written are going to come back to the Board for
approval?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: If you so deem.
MR. MOFFA IT: I think we agreed earlier that we were going to put something together and send it out to several
people. Are we going to run that back by the Board when we see what the final product is?
MR ORA VENHORST: What we I agreed to was to have Mr. Petty draft a letter to the department of Army saying we
7933
'~~.~.' . .....,,-..,---"._, -
16 I 1 AiB
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
had received a letter and that appropriate action will respond. That's the only thing --
MR CRAVENS: The other thing we did was we asked Tim to put together a response, and that will come before us.
MR MOFFATT: That's coming back here. That's what] wanted to make sure of.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: For the strategic planning, we're in the process of breaking out from the committee into
separate, smaller groups, going over the infonnation that was provided to us by the survey, going through the priorities that were
met and figuring what are the priorities, what's the time span that we need, economics, looking into the feasibility of different
aspects of the plan and what comes first, what comes second. We're just trying to prioritize at this point and then take it back to
the Foundation so that they can take a look at it.
It's been kind ofa revelation to a number of the people on the strategic planning committee of how thoroughly involved
Pelican Bay Services Division Board is involved with the money and taxing and lighting, beIlTl. cart paths. It's been an eye
opener, and so they are a little more knowledgeable now and we're getting along better and more smoothly, going forward with
priorities that maybe we can help them with.
So - if anyone has a question. I'll be glad to try and answer it, otherwise let's move on.
I will bring you the infonnation as we continue meeting and let you know what we're coming up with, but it will
probably be on the Foundation website also.
Administrator's report on the water management report system improvements.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, at the last meeting we brought to the Board's attention a continuation of discussion on
improvements to our water management system. We had an engineer appear before you and give his opinion of the feasibility of
such a project, of improvement to that water management system through the harvesting of excess stormwater in the summer
months, the storage and use during the dry season. winter months, by Pelican Bay, the advantages, disadvantages, could it be
done, is it done.
And I think at that time we had additional discussion, which this Board deferred to this meeting, so we bring it back to
you as an agenda item for your consideration.
Do you wish staff to go forward with this item or would you prefer this item be taken?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Any discussion?
MR MOFFATT: I recall from the last meeting the discussion was that we had some cost estimates for the different
phases. We didn't know what the deliverables were on any of those phases and we were not very specific on the process.
7934
-~, -- ,.--"
l6 I 1 AS f
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
ADrift.2009
So if you have a proposal from the engineer, I think we probably would like to look at it. If you don't, we can table it.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, we were looking for direction from the Board to solicit proposals. When it comes to
deliverables, there are unknowns, since this isn't a normal process. Typically local government, and this MSTBU, has not in the
past gotten permits from the regulatory agencies to harvest rainwater. It is not a usual situation. There is not a form for this.
We can talk about a proposal from an engineering firm that we can bring back to you at a later date, if that's something
you would like us to go forward with.
As I have stated to you in the past, staff does not have a position here. This is a discussion that comes from the Clam
Bay permit, which mandates that we will look at improvements to the water management system. And to date we have come up
with trying to lower our irrigation usage. We have come up with bubblers and now we come up with rainwater harvesting.
Now, we've given you all of the infonnation. The golf course is currently looking for water. Pelican Bay is usually
looking for water during the winter. This is an option that we can consider. But, trust me, this is not your administrator's project,
it is Pelican Bay's. If you wish to continue, tell me and I will continue, otherwise I don't have a dog in the fight, folks. I'mjust
trying to comply with the permit.
MR. CRAVENS: Mr. Petty, could you give us an idea, if we say we want to go ahead on this, exactly how much is it
going to cost us to go ahead?
MR. PETTY: That's the exact part that's going to be a problem. You asked that question of an engineer with some 40
years experience at the last meeting, and he explained to you, in as best terms as he could, what that would entail. It would be in
phases. You would ask for a proposal to get to a certain leg of the system because no one entity can tell you with precise
exactness how much it's going to cost because it hasn't been done.
We are one of the best water management systems out there and we do not harvest rainwater. We can. It is something
that you can consider. It is something that is being discussed, but it is not set to a fee level or form level at this time.
So again. folks, I don't want to be real defensive of this but I don't want to act like I'm trying to push you either. There is
no immediacy to this. If you don't see any benefit to it or if you don't like the sound of it or the smell of it, or whatever it is, we
can bring this back a year from now or five years from now.
I'm starting to get too defensive about this and it's bugging me. Ouys, this isn't my project. It's okay with me if you don't
do it.
MR ORA VENHORST: Mr. Petty, could you provide us with some communities - [ think this is very similar to what
7935
16 " 1A 8f
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
Geoffwas talking about in terms of - and Jim Hoppensteadt mentioned, water is an ongoing study within Pelican Bay. Are there
any major communities in southwest or southern Florida with harvesting systems that we could investigate and get some costs on?
MR PETTY: I'm aware of none, sir, and I am talking with specialists on the east coast who deal with South Florida
water permit systems. I know of none, sir.
MR. OmSON: There are a couple that are looking at it, that have not done it yet. Naples - the golf course off of951.
Naples - the fancy one.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Naples National.
MR. GIBSON: Naples National. Excuse me, thanks. A memory gap.
They are taking a look right now at harvesting rainwater there and installing an ASR. The only suggestion I would have,
ifit's of any benefit, the club has spent 400,000 so fur, roughly, on this project. We have an engineer that is very fumiliar with
Pelican Bay, and he's actually monitored all of the pipes that go underneath the berm and has a number.
So I know you have a fuvorite over there on the east coast and he's been very helpful on the original set-up of the
community, but perhaps this guy we have been paying money to could give as a brief presentation on what he could envision.
And he's very free with estimated costs, and we find him very reasonable.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Is this Dan?
MR. OIBSON: Dan Aquaviva (phonetic). I can't speak for the man. Just a suggestion because I know where John is
coming from, I think. He's fumiliar with one engineering firm and me another over the last three years, and countless meetings
with Dan Aquaviva.
He works in Collier County. I have been up to well sites in Lee COWlty with him where they do have ASRs, and I don't
know ifTirn is fumiliar with him at all. But he doesn't have the personality of a dog and pony show, but he's a pretty doggone
good engineer, as fur as we can tell.
So that's just another possibility that I can suggest to work in conjunction with John as an alternate engineering firm.
MR CRA YENS: Oeoff. do you think he would come before the Board and talk to us?
MR OIBSON: Sure. Just like the other engineer did, but only that he has got a well here and he has studied, he knows
the land underneath, and he knows where all the aquifers are and he understands the principle of it. And, with our willingness to
share our knowledge and our willingness to share the expenses we've got in so far, what have you got to lose but half an hour if
we can get him up here. And he lives in the Fort Myers area.
7936
. "._.",---".<- "~.n. ,- .' -~--,...~ , "
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A8
AnriI 1. 2009
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Would you see ifhe could corne before the Board for the May, early May meeting,
whatever date it is?
MR OIBSON: Sure. But I want that in conjunction and in harmony with John Petty, because, you know, the Board
member brings on one of the guys I'm fumiliar with, isn't going to work unless our administrator --
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We're doing an educational situation here. We don't know enough about it to reaIly
make a decision.
MR GIBSON: That's the way I would look at it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So I think the more information the better, and if we can have-
MR. OIBSON: I will talk to Dan to see ifhe is willing to make a presentation that would encompass not just a golf
course but where he could envision the community working together with rain run-off water collection.
MR. MOFFATT: Oreat suggestion.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Makes better sense. It's a whole community, it's not just a little bitty part.
MR. OIBSON: That's the way we feel.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: John?
MR PETTY: The next item is the financial report, which is part of your package. You will see no material red flags
different from the prior month. If you have any questions, we stand ready to discuss it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you for amending the way you presented this for us. I appreciate that.
MR MOFFATT: There is still an amendment in progress, right, Janice?
I do have a question. if I might ask. I noticed that the amount of actual ad valorem and non-ad valorem assessments
collected have not changed very much. Does that mean that no one has paid any of their tax bill in the past month or you have not
updated it, or do we have a problem with property values declining and we're not going to get our full assessment?
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, the answer to all three questions-
MR. MOFFATT: Madam Chair didn't ask the question. I asked the question.
You and this Madam Chair stuff drives me crazy.
Sorry. 00 ahead. Answer as Madam Chair.
MR. PETTY: Maybe I should explain this, Madam Chair.
Robert's rules say that I can only speak to the chair and I can only take direction from the chair and only people that are
7937
- ~-'~"'-~"-"._-----'
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 A8
Anrill. 2009
recognized by the chair can speak.
So, Madam Chair, if! could get direction from you, I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Please go right ahead.
MR. PETTY: I think the answer to the questions that were asked were basically going to be yes. Does it mean the taxes
aren't coming in like they used to before defuulting, the answer is yes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR. PETTY: The answer, too, does this mean that the County hasn't updated it? And the answer is, well, they haven't
shown any money coming in, when we checked the fund. That has been updated, as far as we know, on a daily basis. So I don't
think anybody missed their assignment. We certainly looked for it. So I think that you have that. I don't know ifit means that
they are never going to payor if the tax certificates aren't going to sell, I can't teIl you that. But this is the current status of that --
of those two revenue sources.
MR MOFFATT: Madam Chair, may I ask a question?
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Sure. This is the only way he can answer it here. it really is part of Robert's Rules.
00 ahead.
MR. MOFFA IT: I can understand on the ad valorem, that you could have a slow down in the payment for the property
values, and that we might not get that full amount. But the non-ad valorem, which is based on a per unit basis, I don't understand
why that hasn't changed.
MR. LEVY: We have got to pay by the end of May, is that when they have to pay, the end of May, June?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes.
MR. LEVY: Madam Chair, I'm asking -- John, is it the end of May or June that they have to pay by?
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, ifI may?
Both of these are on the same tax bill, which is why they should exactly mirror each other.
MR LEVY: But they have to pay by -
MR. PETTY: They cannot pay a partial bill. And when they have to pay it is the same for everyone. And, ifI recall, it's
long before May. By May your tax certificate sailed.
MR. LEVY: Anybody know when the--
MR. PETTY: I know the discount runs out in December.
7938
-""-~ ~ ~ "'=_.,_.__.~_>n "'" '^" ~'_".'_ '~__",._.
16 I 1 A~8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Aorill. 2009
MS. McCAUOHTRY: March is the final time for your regular bill.
MR PETTY: March. March.. March 31st.
MR LEVY: So hopefully in April, what are you, going to get a rush of payments?
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, we have also always had some late payments in very small amounts. We have not done an
analysis to see how fur this number changed from prior years, although we suspect, during the current economic conditions, that it
is probably a larger amount than in prior years.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: More than likely.
Anyone else have something to discuss?
MR CRAVENS: Madam Chair, 1 have a question, and I guess it relates to the financial report because it has to do with
the expenditures of funds.
1 guess about a month ago I was walking down the berm and I noticed a crew of video folks and they weren't on the
berm, they were in the water on the east side of the berm.
And I said, hey guys, what are you up to? And they said, we're making a video. And I said, oh, really. What's it about?
And they said it's about how water flows through Pelican Bay. And I've been a regular attendee of these meetings, and I don't
really ever recall this Board discussing producing a video on water flowing through Pelican Bay. But apparently that's taking
place, and I wonder--
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's our educational expenditure. For a lot-
MR CRAVENS: Did the Board discuss this? I don't recall.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I believe we did. And for a long time we were sending out a very nice newsletter to
inform the public.
MR CRAVENS: It has not been out since 2007.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: And the reason for it was the video that we prepared last year, that you were in and Ross
and.
MR.. CRAVENS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: And a group of the citizens that have been here for a while, John Domenie and Coleman
Connell, and that was that budget. And this is this budget.
We are finding different ways to go about educating the members of Pelican Bay. And yes, it was discussed and voted
7939
--""-"----
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 I 1 At 8."
Anrill. 2009
on.
MR CRAVENS: The Board discussed and voted on making a second video? I don't -- how many Board members --
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, if the item is discussed and approved by the Board in the budget process, it was discussed
by the Board last year when we were making it up and their satisfuction with the Clam Bay movie of last year and the Board did
direct staff to continue in such a vein. We did, in our budget process. We have $65,000 in your communication line item for
such actions. We also have money in our Clam Bay line item for such actions.
In a prior Board meeting I addressed this body and said it was the intent of staff to begin that process until they would
direct staff otherwise.
There was no other direction from this Board and we started the process as approved in the budget.
I guess that gives you the history as I know it. Did the Board discuss the status of it? We haven't brought even the draft
back for discussion yet. We're still looking at the spring plate, if you wiIl.
MR. CRAVENS: Well, I would think that it would be appropriate for the Board to at least know that a video is in
production and what it's about.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The Board that was here did know. Our Board has not had two separate -- two
consistent months with the same people on this Board for a year or more. And what you are asking is probably due to that very
situation.
But I do recaIl it now. How fur in depth did we discuss it? I don't recall, but I do remember feeling very comfortable
with the fuct that, once I knew that it was in progress, that that was something that we had discussed.
I may be one of the only people here who has been at more meetings for the past year and a half to two years than
anyone else on this Board. John Iaizzo had some health problems and wasn't here for a while. Ted Raia was out of town a few
times. I really think if you went back and checked it, you could say that I was definitely here more than anyone else, and I do
recaIl it. Could I tell you when? No. But I do remember being very comfortable with it and knowing that the general population
of Pelican Bay was very unhappy with that newsletter. They felt like it was a waste of money. So we wanted to do something
that was educational and bring it out to the public.
But I agree, I think we should definitely see progress and see what's happening and kind of get a feel for how we're
spending our money.
Is that an issue?
7940
_~_~__________~______~'__________n'._'_ _.,__.______~_._. ._______ . _~_.___~.___~__~_______
- - - -_.~ -~
16 I 1 A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
MR CRAVENS: I guess the issue is that I feel that the Board should be involved in a decision to make a video and
what content this video is about..
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It was.
MR CRAVENS: This Board?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No. This Board is just brand new. This is the first time we've all been together.
MR. CRAVENS: No. I'm saying the previous Boards.
The people with whom I've spoke on this Board had no idea that this video was in production.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: This Board is not the same people who would have been here last year. Tom, I'm
serious. You've been here at the meetings.
MR. CRAVENS: I know. I've been here at the meetings. I didn't see this brought up at any meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Well, it was. It was definitely discussed.
MR. CRAVENS: Okay. Nevermind.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It was definitely discussed.
MR. CRAVENS: Okay. I'm wrong then.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Not necessarily. It may be that - you may have been talking to someone or out in the
hall or something. I just can't explain why but I do know that it was discussed in an open Board meeting. If I can find it in the
minutes, I'll bring it back to you.
MR CRAVENS: I would like that very much.
MR. MOFFATT: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes.
MR MOFFATT: May I ask a follow-up question of Mr. Cravens?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Sure.
MR. MOFFATI: You said the photographers were in the water on the other side of the berm.
MR CRAVENS: Yes.
MR MOFFATT: Is there any problem with that? I mean, really, it's not the mangrove site.
MR CRAVENS: No. I didn't see that there was any problem with that. I was just -- it's pretty unusual when I'm
walking down the berm to see people with video cameras down in the water taking pictures. That's why I stopped and asked.
7941
__. __m"~'__",,___,_, __,b_,..._.___._______~__._,,____...._._____ ____.~_".._._......_.,._ _...._._ "_,, __......_.____.._.__.___...._......_____.__._.._____..__..__.__
16 I 1 A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
ADriJ 1.2009
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Did they pat their shoes when they left? It's pretty mucky.
MR. MOFFA IT: I would be more concerned about any damage that they may be doing.
MR CRAVENS: I don't think they were.
MR MOFFATT: Madam Chairman, may I ask another question?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Hurry.
MR. MOFFATT: You talked about education. Is this part of education? This was in our packet that we got for today's
meeting.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: That is something that you should know. Did you read it through?
MR. MOFFA IT: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Yes. It is part of your education. We're sunshine laws..
MR MOFFA IT: Are we going to send them out because I didn't think it was very well done.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: No.
Mr. Petty, would you like to advise on this?
MR. MOFFATT: This was done in a not very well order.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's opinionated but would you like to have an idea of why it's there?
MR. MOFFATT: Yes. That's what I was asking.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Ask nicely. Ask nicely. I'm serious.
MR. MOFFATT: Why is this part of our education program?
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Petty, is this part of our education program?
MR PETTY: No, ma'am. This is not part of your education program.
MR ORA VENHORST: I didn't get one.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: You didn't get one?
I think maybe we need a follow-up to that, John. Could you explain why we have it?
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, this was inter-office memorandum between the administrator's office of Pelican Bay
Services Division and the manager's office of Collier County discussing the last two meetings that we have had to date, which
have been fully vetted with this body and the public, and put that in writing into what our understandings were to see if the County
would veriJy that our understandings were correct, because, at our last Board meeting, you may recall that there were comments
7942
,-"~,.,-,-- ~---~... . '.' -.-.--, ---~-
- "
^\ 8
16 I it.. .~ I
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
made by members of the public, including Mr. Carroll, as the chairman of the new Clam Bay group, that were contrary to the
understanding that staff and the chair had in their discussions with Mr. Mudd and Commissioner Halas.
This was written to set that framework for that and to give us some indication of whether or not we were on the right
path.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Vb-huh. Well, I want copies for the strategic planning committee so they have an idea of
what's what.
MR ORA VENHORST: Three members of the Board don't have copies.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, until today's decision by the Board, that was nonnal, that interoffice memorandum
between our office and the manager, unless you all specifically asked for it, we normally didn't bring that before your attention.
But we will do so in the future.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Mine was underneath this. It was the bottom part of the packet.
MR. ORA VENHORST: Mine was in the envelope that you gave me.
MS. McCAUOHTRY: Actually, someone at one of the subcommittees asked specifically for what John gave to the
County and I prepared it. I thought everyone's packet had it. I apologize if you didn't get it.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Actually, I think Jerry asked for it in the budget meeting. That's it.
DR. RAIA: There were two letters I received.
MR. PETTY: This is different from that. We never got the Foundation's back yet.
Unfortunately, those representatives have left. We will press on that. That letter came from Mr. Naegele. We gave our
copy to the manager's office. The manager right now, as you know, is coming offofsome surgery, so I don't know that I'll get a
copy from him sooner. Let me call the Foundation again and see if we can get a copy of that.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay.
MR. GIBSON: I would like to make a comment. I read it and now, the context, John, that this is an inter department
kind of a summary memorandum, on that basis, I think this is a very well written letter with pictures and is very friendly and
would be received by me very positively iff were in the County offices somewhere.
If it's not supposed to be an educational piece but rather just a communication confirming what this Board has agreed to
with the County management, I think it was a very nice piece.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Geoff.
7943
.._-_.-.-_...,.
A , 1 A8
\,)
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
MR MOFFATT: Sony. Did the County manager opine on this, agree with that?
MR. OIBSON: He got sick.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, we have not gotten a reply from the manager's office.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Mr. Mudd isjust coming offofbrain surgery.
MR PETTY: We did talk to Leo Ochs, his assistant, a little over a week ago for status. He said that he knows that Mr.
Mudd had read it and as soon as he had an opportunity he would try to get a determination. Evidently because of recent
experiences, that we all know about, it hasn't come up yet.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think we can go on through the Clam Bay update on canoe markers.
Public Relations, no report.
Budget committee, that's up to Mike and Jeny.
MR. LEVY: The budget committee passed a motion at our last meeting on March 23rd, a motion asking staff to, as an
objective, to hold the total fiscal year '10 budget expenditures to the fiscal year '09 level.
The services division. fiscal year 2010 budget is due for discussion with the County manager in early June, and be ready
for that.
Additional meeting was scheduled to review a first pass of a budget, is actually scheduled for today after the meeting
today, with our next scheduled meeting on April 27th.
I don't know if we're going to have time to do that, John. I mean, I can stay. I don't know if you have time.
MR MOFFATT: I can stay.
MR CRAVENS: I can stay.
MR. PETTY: Until they kick us out, we'll give it a shot.
MR. LEVY: Jeny, did you want to add to that?
MR. MOFFATT: No.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Okay. Oeoff, would you please give us an update on the management review
committee?
MR GIBSON: Well, this is an awesome little project.
John's contract is finished, I think at the end of May, and we were charged with -- Mary Anne Womble being the
chairperson. with Mr. Moffatt and myself. to review other potential- in other words, open it up for bid. And with the aide of
7944
"""""'"
/,' .,
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting n ,'~ 9
,~'l /'
Anrill. 2009 ,,~ .'t.....
Jack Curran, purchasing deparbnent at Collier County.
This book represents all of the paperwork so fur. Probably about five pounds. We've received four very good
proposals, including John's, thankfully. And we have spent a couple hours this morning, once again reviewing these proposals.
We've given some challenges back to the purchasing department at Collier County. And Mr. Curran is going to review those
questions and challenges that we gave him. We've pretty much narrowed it down to two viable, potential sources. And we have
another meeting scheduled potentially on April 21 st to bring in the potential management services recruits and make some
presentation and also put out some questions.
It's moving along and it's on schedule, and I think it's being handled very professionally.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Geoff.
All right. Capital projects. Kyle, I'm going to put you at the front of the list one of these days, I guarantee you.
MR LUKASZ: The crosswalk on Myra Janco Daniels, that work has started. They are out there today doing some
work on the sidewalks. There was a modification that had to be made to the signalization of the crosswalk. The lights that were
mounted in the roadway, similar to what is on over on Ridgewood Drive, they have been there for over three years. And since
that time - when they were installed, those type of lights were not considered traffic control devices. Since that time they are now
considered traffic control devices, but there are no lights that mount in the pavement that have FOOT approval, therefore Collier
County won't aIlow those lights to go into the pavement.
We switched to a -like a traffic signal that will be mounted on our decorative posts and then have a crosswalk sign
underneath it. So, as a pedestrian. as he trips, the lights come on as he is approaching the crosswalk. There will be a light that
will come on. It will actually be a red light that will signifY that they have to stop. And you have to stop a regular stop like you
have at a regular stop sign, and that will be in both directions and it will be quite visible.
The other type of -- like I said, other lights approved. We did have the permit from the go-in. and they were notified 72
hours before construction would start, traffic operations stepped in. I guess somehow it slipped through the cracks.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Seventy-two hours before?
MR. LUKASZ: We have to notifY them 72 hours prior to beginning construction and that's when traffic operations
stepped in and said they had not seen the plans.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: So is there a price?
MR LUKASZ: It's come down a little bit. The solar power and the cabinet equipment is the same. And, you know, we
7945
."~".... ~.._'" - --~
16 I 1 Aia
Peliean Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
have the addition of a couple of signs and also the stock signal light itself. So it will actually probably be a savings of
approximately $4,000.
MR LEVY: Is that solar powered?
MR LUKASZ: Yes. That's what the Board elected.
MR. LEVY: The red stop light is going to be solar powered?
MR. LUKASZ: Right. Just one light mounted on the post and the cabinet control cabinet. The whole system will be
solar powered.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Do you feel it will offer enough security?
MR LUKASZ: There is one actually over on Bayshore Drive, if you turn off of 41, as you go down. the first
intersection you come to, they have the decorative posts, although not the same ones we use, but they have that system down
there. And I think it would work pretty well.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, to your question, this is considered one of the highest levels of security that you would do
in a crosswalk.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Fantastic.
MR LUKASZ: This will be red. A car will have to stop.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I like that idea. When you see those blinking white lines, you are not sure what is going
on if you're not from this area.
MR. LUKASZ: This is an actual stop.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Terrific. Maybe that was a good thing.
MR. LUKASZ: The sidewalk construction and the median have to be moved. That should be completed by the end of
the week. We had to order the additional signs required, so it will probably be two weeks before the whole system is in and
operational.
MR. OmSON: Could this conceivably be the type of installation you are looking at in the north parking lot and down
there by Hyde Park? It's expensive.
MR LUKASZ: My personal opinion, I think it would work well.
MR. OmSON: The system we have now isn't working particularly well.
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, you more or less went - by putting it in here at Bay Villas, you've adopted it as a policy.
7946
-----. ~ ....._-~-_._,..__._,_.'"".
16 i ' ~ A8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 0
--
AnriJ 1. 2009
So, based on your decision in the future, should another subdivision or area need it, this would be your base for your policy.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: It's a precedent?
MR PETTY: Yes, ma'am.
MR. GIBSON: That's a good deal.
MR CRAVENS: Kyle, what does this system run in terms of cost?
MR.. LUKASZ: Between 35 and $40,000.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That is less.
MR. GIBSON: 0000.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's good. That's something we need to look at.
MR. CRAVENS: Absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Kyle.
MR MOFFATT: Can I ask Kyle a question, please?
Have you ever looked at - instead of just painting the crosswalk. putting in brick pavers or something that really
distinguishes it?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Jerry, before you got on the Board, we discussed this pretty thoroughly.
John, you recall, it was price?
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, pavers are expensive and don't wear well. They tend to move on you. But there is a new
product out that looks just like pavers and is a consideration. And staff -- Kyle and [just met with Jack Lieber and his firm in
trying to get the landscape base and asked them about the pathway, which they also designed, and asked them what materials were
currently out there, either for pavers or whatever decorative material to be used similar to that to denote intersection crosswalks.
Is that what you were looking for?
MR. MOFFATT: Yes.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, staff is looking into what is available, and as soon as we have it we'll bring it back to the
Board for consideration. discussion. FYI.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Wonderful.
MR. LUKASZ: If you are down in south Naples, they do have that massive brick paver. That's how they sit, in front of
the crosswalk. The one by Bayshore is a circle heading into the --
7947
. - -,."~_.-
16 I 1 A't8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I've seen that. is that the newer material or the older?
MR. LUKASZ: There are a few of them along Crayton Road in the City of Naples. I think that carne up at the Board
and the Board wasn't too receptive.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: We had some budget issues, as I recall.
Do you recall that, Mike? I think you were on the Board for that
MR. LEVY: Which?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The pavers.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, we discussed pavers. They were very costly. As fur as plastic material, we didn't go and
get and we don't have a sealed price out. The white lines, as a thermal plastic, is what this Board selected, the standard versus
anything else.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Right.
MR PETTY: But this other material, if I understand, is a thennal plastic which has a lifespan of over ten years, and it is
being used across Florida as the standard instead of doing pavers because pavers really don't hold up very well.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Here we go.
You know what? I do remember something about that, too. You know why we went to the lines, aside from the
budgetary problem? It was also because we were in the process of trying to decide about bicycle paths. And we were concerned
about making new lines that we couldn't cover up well and pavers could be a problem, so we tabled it at that point
But, Jerry, if you want to bring that up some other time, after we get the budget going for next year, maybe we could
discuss a priority on that. I think. too, that we should be -- Kyle, I'm sorry. I don't want to make you stand there.
Do you have anything more?
MR LUKASZ: No.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Perhaps we could keep in mind that there is a strategic plan for our community and make
sure that we are meeting with members of that committee and with the Foundation and the property owners association. I think
it's best if we get everybody involved and have some ideas of where we want to go and just not piecemeal it.
But that's an excellent idea, because it is attractive. And if it isn't cost prohibitive as it might be for the next couple of
years, maybe, but somewhere down the line it would be interesting to think about that.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Except they don't work.
7948
16 I -A8
c..:
Pelican Bay Servrees Division Meeting
Aoril.. 2009
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The pavers don't?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: You can drive right over them.
MR. PETTY: Staff agrees. The pavers are problematic. I think what we're looking at is options that may have the same
decorative element but greater durability, such as thermal plastic over asphalt.
MR. ORA VENHORST: I think the issue -- pavers look nice during the daylight hours but at midnight or 11 :00, coming
home from a movie, you don't see the pavers very well and they won't illuminate the crosswalk.
We're confusing beauty with security.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: That's true. Thank you.
All right. Moving to plan reviews, none.
Committee requests; none on the agenda.
Any audience comments? You have to speak fust.
Marcia?
MS. CRAVENS: This has been a busy meeting. Excuse me..
There was one other issue regarding Clam Bay that I did mean to bring up and I had discussed it with your consultant
previously, speaking for the Mangrove Action Oroup. Seagrass mapping, which is something that actually is a component of your
current permit, and which has been done by transect by your consultant, does not give a real good evaluation and assessment of all
of the seagrass that is present. And seagrass is a really important issue that impacts on everything else that we're discussing about
Clam Bay.
So I would like the PBSD Board to consider having their consultant do a complete mapping of sea grasses in Clam Pass
and outer Clam Bay. If you don't do it, the Mangrove Action Group is likely to go ahead and do it. But since it's already in your
purview, I'm asking Pelican Bay Services Division to consider that, and whether or not you can have your consultant go ahead
and do it. He said it would only take, ~at, three or four days.
I will have it on the agenda for the Mangrove Action Group again, but I do think it is something that is actually in your
purview.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Is that true, John? Is that something that we can ask Tim or Kyle or a combination
thereof to work on?
MR PETTY: Madam Chair, I don't think there is any limitations on anybody doing a study ofa public water body. We
7949
-,--
16 I lA8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anrill. 2009
have received nothing from our consultant. I have no knowledge of the issue.. I don't know if the Mangrove Action Group wishes
to do this at their cost, if that's more applicable.. I don't know what the Services Division would do with the information. I am not
fumiliar with the program that Marcia is suggesting.
I can tell you that I don't think there is a problem with any entity doing it, I just can't tell you that it's in our permit. I
can't tell you ifs in our agreement with him. I think Tim is capable of doing such studies. I mean, we've paid him to do some, he
had better be.
MR HALL: What I had told Marcia was that I couldn't do it for the Mangrove Action Group unless this Board gave me
permission because of the potential for conflict ofinterest, if their agenda or the way they wanted to use the materials differed
from the Board's. I didn't want to be put in that position.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: So if the Board acknowledges that concern and votes to allow you to go ahead and do
that for the Mangrove Action Group, that would be fine by you?
MR. HALL: That would be fine by me.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Thank you, Tim.
Marcia, is that fine by you?
MS. CRAVENS: It is, but I prefer to have Pelican Bay Services Division to go ahead and do it under his contract with
you.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Tim, does your contract include this?
No. That's what I was afraid of.
MS. CRAVENS: He's currently doing transect monitoring, so he is monitoring the sea grasses. All we're talking about is
a more thorough evaluation and mapping of the sea grasses.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Maybe the Mangrove Action Oroup could combine the information that Tim already has
with what Tim supplies you?
MR MOFFATT: The issue is fimding.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I know it is. I have got that same issue myself.
MS. CRAVENS: So do I take it, then, that this Board, has just indicated that there is no conflict with Tim's firm doing a
complete and thorough mapping of sea grasses for the Mangrove Action Oroup?
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I wouldn't feel comfortable speaking for the entire Board for this but we could take a
7950
,-.-.... ,----,,-_.~._~,---"_.- ~..-- ______________.._.__._ ".0__ __n__...__..._
16 I 1 AiS i
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting I
Aoril 1. 2009
vote on it.
Could anyone make a motion?
DR. RAlA: I move.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Second?
MR CRAVENS: Second. Discussion?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Discussion.
MR ORA VENHORST: What, if any, additional costs to Tim's contract will there be?
MR. CRAVENS: The motion, as I understand it, is to vote to allow the Mangrove Action Oroup to fund --
MR ORA VENHORST: Was that the motion?
DR. RAIA: Yes.
MR. ORA VENHORST: Oh, I'm sorry. Then my question is withdrawn. It's not appropriate.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: I would like to know. I'm a member of the Mangrove Action Oroup.
MR. HALL: I'm not sure which question was being asked.
MR. CRAVENS: How much?
MR HALL: To do this survey?
DR. RAlA: How much are you charging the Mangrove Action Oroup to do it?
MR.. HALL: When I spoke to Marcia I said it would probably be between 7,000 and $7,500 to do it and it would take
likely about four days.
MR.IAIZZO: I need ajob. That's a good job.
MR. PETTY: Madam Chair, for discussion purposes, I'm a little bit confused. The number doesn't sound too bad. Tim
gets to put on scuba gear and go allover the bay, and he loves doing that.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I don't know if you saw his face when we first started discussing this. He lit up.
MR. PETTY: Like a river otter. He loves it out there.
I'm wondering, if Mangrove is looking to fund it, I don't know why the Board is involved.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Because Tim feels that there may be a conflict if some kind of other entity is paying him,
in the same area that we are already.
MR PETTY: That's a standard clause that we have in our contract with this Board as an outside contractor. We tell
7951
."~>.,,- "
.. u . ..L.
16 I lAB
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Aorill. 2009
you in our agreements with the Collier County, that, if we get other clients that may be in conflict with Pelican Bay, that we must
come to you first.
If you recall Cap D'Antibes had an issue because the manager at the time had a relationship with Fiddler's Creek and had
not submitted to this Board in writing that he was working with Fiddler's Creek and there was an issue there.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: One of those issues.
MR PETTY: So the Foundation came to me two years ago and said, can you help me with the utility site background,
and before I did anything for them, I came here and said, is it okay with you guys?
Tim is asking if it is okay with you guys.
MR CRAVENS: And that's what Tim's motion was.
MR PETIY: You're not making it part of your process.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: In other words, we don't need to vote on it?
MR GRA VENHORST: No, we do. We do need to vote on it. It's been moved and seconded.. Let'sjust vote on it.
CHAIRPERSON WOMBLE: All in favor? Aye.
DR. RAlA: Aye.
MR IAIZZO: Aye.
MR. LEVY: Aye.
MR MOFFATT: Aye.
MR DALLAS: Aye.
MR ORA VENHORST: Aye.
MR CRAVENS: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Motion carries. Tim, you get to get out there and get your feet wet, or not, depending on
what you are wearing.
Dr. RaitI motionetI. seoonded by Mr. Cravens to vote, tuUlulUlllimously tIJ1Proved to
allow the Mangrove Action Group to use Tim HfIll's services for a thorough evalIu1tion
tuUI of the sea
DR. RAIA: Madam Chair?
The water management, John, the annual meeting of the Foundation brought to light that we can see a lot of
redevelopment in the second 30 years of Pelican Bay, tear-downs and what have you.
7952
17""- ...,"'-_.., , 'T.w r "Ill.... -
1 A I 1A 8
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting
Anril 1. 2009
I think part of the water management, is it time that we do a review of a water management system to see how we have
met those parameters.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Ted, I think that's an ongoing thing, isn't it? Isn't it something we continually do?
DR. RAIA: Not really, at least it isn't clear to me, because apparently, if one carrier development doesn't have enough
permeable land, they can borrow it from someplace else. And I don't know if there are records showing that they have borrowed
it from someplace else. And I think it -- we should just look at the whole picture to see if there is permeable land available to
support additional development
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Why do I have the feeling you already know this stuff?
DR. RAIA: I don't. I don't, and I think - I think it's important because WCI, in surrendering the covenants, is going to
retain the 800 units and also control of development of those units.
So we will not have any control over that. And the only thing that we may still have is our water management system.
So let's - what rm asking is, we don't have to vote on this now, but can we put it on the agenda of next meeting because
I think it's important to know where we stand with our water management system.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: Absolutely.
Mary, could you make a note of that, as you're doing it already?
MR. OIBSON: Who will make that presentation, Ted?
DR. RAIA: I don't know. Maybe-
MR. ORA VENHORST: John Petty.
DR. RAIA: John Petty can. because he knows more about it than anyone else.
MR OIBSON: That's fine. I want to make sure that we give somebody the assignment.
DR. RAlA: We have a 12 million dollar system here and our budget has $800,000 a year to maintain it. And we want
to see where we stand. I think we should just see where we stand today.
I would make one comment with this, and I notice on the side it says Pelican Bay Services Division draft letter of
understanding. And I - personally I don't agree that this is a memorandum letter of understanding between the Pelican Bay
Services Division and the County manager. This is a far cry to the ones negotiated by Jim Carroll when he was chairman"and
that gives - really spelled out a lot of rights. Obviously it ended with the County could always override anything we do. But in
this, it claims that - letting us take care of the mangroves and then it goes on that other divisions of Collier County are to be
7953
"'<".-- ~.._,.. ,-- ----,-."
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting 16 J lAa.;
Anrill.2009
responsible for the maintenance and dredging of Clam Pass.
You know, I think we are the division of Collier County that should be responsible for the dredging of Clam Pass. And
I, you know -- you know, I think the whole Board ought to be able to vote on a memorandum of understanding, especially if that's
contained in it.
You can't take care of mangroves without taking care of the dredging.
MR. CRAVENS: Conversely, too, I think that an agreement between the County manager and one Commissioner does
not really reflect the whole Commission's feelings. It's just an administrative memorandum.
DR. RAlA: Usually - there were two letters of memorandum of understanding that Jim had negotiated. One was with
the County manager and the second one was with the Commissioners. This is, obviously, right now with the County manager.
And it doesn't mean that the County Commissioners are not going to have anything to say on this. We would probably have to
reinforce this a little more.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: So, Ted, what do you want us to do?
DR. RAlA: You know, I don't know how we got here. I mean, really, this meeting that was had -- that you had with the
Commissioner and the County manager should reflect the position of the Board. That's all I'm saying. And, you know, we took
one vote today, which is quite - I hadn't read this before. We took one vote today, which is quite different than this memorandum
of understanding that's being drafted.
This is just a draft. I would tell them right now that, you know, I would not go along with that as the memorandum of
understanding.
MR CRAVENS: Can we put that on the agenda for the next meeting?
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: I think that's probably wise at this point because not everyone has a copy of what you are
talking about. I don't have a copy in front ofme and I don't think Keith and Tom and Ted have one.
DR. RAIA: That was Jerry's. I didn't get one myself. I happened to read it now. I was next to Jerry. And I'm
concerned about it.
CHAIR WOMAN WOMBLE: Let's put that on the agenda for the May Board meeting.
MR. CRAVENS: I would like to move to adjourn. But, before I do, I want to make one comment. I would suggest that
John purchase a battery operated digital recorder for 50 bucks or so that wiIl record up to 60 hours of stuff so that Mary doesn't
have to fumble with cassettes.
7954
,-, ~ .... --_.,--
-~ f t .! A8
J.,O i .~
Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting r.!I",
Aorill. 2009
I mean, we can make that leap in technology pretty easily.
DR. RAIA: Does that need a motion?
MR. ORA YENHORST: I'H second that motion.
MR. CRA YENS: I move to adjourn.
MR. ORA YENHORST: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: All in favor?
Aye.
DR. RAIA: Aye.
MR. IAIZZO: Aye.
MR. LEVY: Aye.
MR. MOFFATI: Aye..
MR. DALLAS: Aye.
MR. ORA VENHORST: Aye.
MR. CRA YENS: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN WOMBLE: The meeting is adjourned.
(Meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.)
~fF.~f.{{~
Transcript prepared on behalf of Oregory Reporting Services, Inc. by Elizabeth Brooks; and edited and formatted by Lisa
Resnick, Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division.
7955
-_.~_.~_.._.~-_...-"". . '-~~-'_.__.' 'I' ' ,-"_.~.. , "-^.........,..~"., __~_____,..__~..,,,~_~,.."m. .
. ~d.J'1V 1 A 8 I
6 1R1cEIVED
FIala _ 't!~/');;J.-
Halas. '"l / MAY 1 3 2009
Hennln9- v
COYI~a - ~ -PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Boam Of C
Dun tv C
Cole 7 Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit . ommiSSj
OlIeTS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY..APRIL 1, 2009
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AT
HAMMOCK OAK CENTER, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE. NAPLES,
FLORIDA 34108 ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1,2009 at 3:30 P.M.
1. Roll Call
2. Audience Participation
3. Review of Preliminary FY 2010 Budget
4. Audience Comments
5. Adjourn
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES
TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MA TIER CONSIDERED AT
THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND
THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL
ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR
PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT
(239) 597-1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING.
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item#'
",C:piCS to
-_._---,.~' - ".,~,~"'~-,,,.^._,--~-,,,,.. "'-"~~'~"-~" . -,-,.."._.,.~._-,- ~-"'-". ..,-,.._,~,
FI.I. 161 1 A~1
t4~IA' . CE/VED
Htnfllng ~ PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION MAY 1 3 2009
=~ =; .r -...Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit Board o~ C
., oUnty
CommiSSj
onsrs
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2009
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AT
HAMMOCK ER 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES,
FLORIDA 34108 ON N { APRI at : fv'!
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of March 23,2009 Meeting
3. Approval of Minutes of April 1, 2009 Meeting
4. Audience Participation
5. Review of Preliminary FY 2010 Budget
6. Audience Comments
7. Adjourn
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES
TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT
THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND
THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL
ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR
PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT
(239) 597-1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING.
Mise Corres:
Oate:__.___-
'tern #_.._.._--~.-
- . ~_,..._.__c..._,,__
Fia1a 161 1 A8
Halas RECEIVED
Henning
coyle PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION MAY 1 3 2009
Coletta Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit
Board of Cou
nty CommisSioners
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, MAY 11, 2009
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD AT
HAMMOCK OAK, CENTER, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES,
FLORIDA 34108 ON MONDAY. MAY 11. 2009 at 1:00 P.M.
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of April 1 , 2009 Meeting
3. Audience Participation
4. Review of FY 2010 Budget
5. Audience Comments
6. Adjourn
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES
TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT
THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND
THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL
ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR
PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT
(239) 597 -17 49 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING.
Misc, Corres:
Date:
Item #' ..
',:p!es to.
'-~--"-~-"-~' .,., -~ _.~,._,",_ "~""_,-,..~,,,,,,,,___,~~w,_. .,.... ...,..~ "O'<'__~_~W"'__~"_.
A8 /
Fiala.~ 16 I 1 i
RECEIVED
Hala~ . ,11j MAY 1 3 2009
Henning 'i J1 r. . TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
Coyle if - OF THE BUDGET COMMITfEE Board of County CommissIoners
Colella /. OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Naples, Florida, March 23, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 p.m. at the Hammock Oak Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Michael Levy, Chairman Jerry Moffatt
Oeoff Gibson Keith Dallas (left at 5:30 p.m.)
Also Present: John Petty, Administrator, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Kyle Lukasz, Manager, Field
Operations Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division; Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman, Pelican Bay Services Division;
and Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division.
AGENDA:
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of January 26, 2009 meeting minutes
3. Approval of February 23,2009 workshop minutes
4. Audience Participation
5. PBSD Budget Philosophy in today's economy
6. FY 2010 Budget
a. a) Reserve Policy - Review Each Reserve Category
b. b) Efficiencies and Savings - Identify and Discuss Specific Suggestions
c. c) Service Levels and/or New Service Considerations - Identify and Discuss Specific
Suggestions
7. Final Consideration for Capital Projects for FY 2010
8. Monthly Financial Reports - Discuss Changes (if any)
9. Budget Calendar
10. Adjourn
ROLL CALL
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Call the meeting to order and note that three members are present. John laizzo, is he
still expected?
MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Boland asked that I inform you that he is traveling today and most
likely will not make the meeting. I have not heard from Mr. laizzo so I believe he is expected.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF JANUARY 26.2009 MEETING MINUTES
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is to approve the January 26,2009 meeting
minutes. I have a comment on page 833, the second paragraph from the top, first line down. Mr. Petty is speaking.
On the fourth line down, it says Oakmont irrigation, hardscape improvements, "vehicles in Clam Bay". I think that
should be "and vehicles and Clam Bay". That's the only change I have. Does anyone have comments on the January
26, 2009 minutes? MiSC. Corres:
MR. MOFFA IT: I have a question on page 850. The fourth line down, Mr. Petty i~~g. TlK. Miutence
Item #:_ -
933 ~Jvpies to:
~.- -.... -"t'lA -<-"-~_.,~.._",._---
Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 A~ 8
March 23. 2009 reads we should be meeting with the transition group, which is basically the county manager's office. It will be a staff
level meeting, where we will go over how Clam Bay responsibilities are to be shared and delegated and the conditions
for these responsibilities. What were the results of that meeting?
MR. PETrY: Mr. Chairman, we can discuss that after you've considered the minutes. That's the normal
procedure. We did meet with them and we can go over that a little bit later.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Is that okay?
MR. MOFFA Tr: Okay. That's the only comment I had.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: May we have a motion to approve these minutes?
MR. MOFFATT: So moved.
MR. GillSON: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: AU in favor? Aye.
MR. MOFFA Tr: Aye
MR. GIBSON: Aye.
Mr. Jerry Moffatt moved, seconded by Mr. GeoffGlbson and
approved unanimollSly the Minutes of the January 26, 1009 meeting.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 23.2009 WORKSHOP MINUTES
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Next item on the agenda is to approve the February 23,2009 workshop minutes. Again,
following the same procedure, are there any comments or questions for these minutes? I have a few while everyone is
looking it over. On page 877, Mr. laizzo is speaking and on page 16 is "fuel service". I believe that should be "field
service". On page 903, ninth speaker down, Mr. Levy speaking, it reads "that was a little bit ofa slip off, the county
slipped it off on us". I would just suggest the fIrst part of that be removed to read that, "the county slipped it off on
us."
MR. PETrY: Mr. Chairman, that's one of the things that we've had a problem with ever since we went
with a court reporter, is that they give exact verbatim, instead of near verbatim, which is what we would like to do.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Thank you. In the middle of page 922, we start with the new heading, "Cost Estimate,
Fiscal Year 2008" on creating walkways and bike paths. Mr. Petty is speaking and the last sentence reads, "if you did
one fourth of each project, next year's funding would be a problem". Should that be would be or would not be?
MR. PETTY: Would not be a problem.
934
,
~.._-,,- __,,,."."~'.M"_"'_"' .... ,-,-.,--.,
Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 A8
March 23. 2009
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. MOFFATT: No.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: May we have a motion to approve the minutes as amended?
MR. GillSON: So move.
MR. MOFFATT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: All in favor? Aye.
MR. MOFFATT: Aye.
MR. OlliSON: Aye.
Mr. GeoffGibson moved, seconded by Mr. Jerry Moffatt and
approved unanimously the Minutes oftbe Februllry 23,2009 Workshop
meeting.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
CHAIRMAN LEVY: The next item is audience participation. Does anyone in the audience have any
comments or questions at this time? John, can we discuss Jerry's question?
MR. PETIY: Yes, sir, that would be just fine. Without restating the question, I believe it is did PBSD and
county staffmeet regarding maintenance of the mangroves in Clam Bay. Yes. Following the meeting with Leo Ochs,
Leo requested a summary memorandum of PBSD staff observations and understanding reached from the meeting and to
submit that information to Mr. Mudd for review. I submitted that summary to Mr. Mudd and it is still being
evaluated by the county staff for conversion from a summary to a memorandum of understanding for consideration
by the full board of Pelican Bay Services Division.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Did you say we received a copy?
MR. PETTY: No, sir, I provided a memorandum to the county manager.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: All right.
MR. PETTY: Once we come up with the specifics memorandum of understanding, that's what I would
normally submit to the board. If anybody's interested, of course, I can copy them.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Is that going to be available in time for our budgeting process?
MR. PETTY: Sir, I believe that we can cover the budgeting process, concerns over Clam Bay, and we have
a little presentation later on to give you an idea of that without getting into the specific responsibilities of what the
day to day routine would be. We think we can do that from an overall aspect.
935
,,- _."""""-,-_..~""~,--- ,,__~___.~__,<.._._.__.....~,. - "0
Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 A8 ,
March 23. 2009
PBSD BUDGET PHILOSOPHY IN TODA Y'S ECONOMY
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Today's discussion is essentially of the budget because in early June, we're supposed to
review our budget with the county manager. So we are, at this time, left with just two more scheduled budget meetings
in addition to the meeting we're having today, and I was advised that we may have to schedule another meeting, a special
meeting. In tenns of the philosophy in developing the fiscal year 2010 budget, please take a moment to reflect on the
current economic environment. The residents of Pelican Bay have all been affected by the recession. The question is
should the budget committee, strive for a predetermined or post-determined assessment? The tasks performed by the
Services Division are important to all of the residents' property values, and an arbitrary cut in expenditures would save
each resident a modest sum, but could have a negative impact on property values. With this in mind, it is suggested that
we proceed carefully, budgeting for what needs to be done, while finding savings where we can. And, of course, the
prudent use of reserves can be considered as we go along in this process, if necessary, to moderate the assessment. That's
my opinion; I don't know if anybody else wishes to comment.
MR. MOFFATT: Another alternative would be to hold the assessment at the same level as last year.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Or reduce it by X percent or something like that. Y ou're absolutely right.
MR. MOFFA IT: Even if we don't reduce the assessment, just hold it at the same level we will probably
send a message that we're concerned about what's going on.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: That's right.
MR. MOFFATT: What's the county going to do? Well, they're not really giving us that money; they're just
giving us money for Clam Bay and we'll have to see where that comes out?
MR. PETTY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: As a matter offact, Jerry, for the last two years, the assessment has not gone up. In
fiscal year 2008, it went down. Last year, I think it was held the same. I believe that would be a noble thing to do.
But, again, we're using these one-time adjustments to get there. And I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, because if
we don't need the money, it should go back to the taxpayers. But at some point, we're going to run out of one-time
adjustments. Then the assessment will increase.
MR. OmSON: We had a meeting fuirly recently with the county management regarding an issue of Club
Pelican Bay, and had a very good dialogue. And because of the overall rmancial downturn in Collier County, and
the State of Florida, we were cautioned that many services will be cut, however, it's still under discussion. I don't
936
-- . r . .......~... ---
16 I 1 A8 ,
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
know how that interfaces with Pelican Bay; we all spend more on our taxes than we probably actually receive back.
That's been the case of every neighborhood I've lived in since I was in my twenties. If you live in a nice place, that's
the reality. I've got to believe there's going to be less money coming from the county ifthey have less money to
spend. They were talking about cutting services in libraries, fire departments, road improvements and storm sewers
and general maintenance, painting and median maintenance. I don't know if we have a benchmark. are we going to
receive less money from the County, or the same? What's our starting point here?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: My understanding is the only money we get from the county right now is the fund
1 I 1, 200 some odd thousand towards Clam Bay.
MR. PETTY: You're right, Mr. Chairman. Those are the funds we get from the county from fund 111 and
they are for compatible uses, and currently, Clam Bay maintenance qualifies. The fund III monies, $250,000, are
at risk. Last year's budget created some efficiencies and we set aside those funds. We put a hard tag on those funds
coming forward, because we anticipated Collier County to redirect the funds that we usually receive to other
agencies. And fund 111 is not coming to us this year. Prior it was tagged monthly, now it's tagged for possibly year
end. We're pretty sure that Collier County is looking for other uses for those funds, and we're hopeful that we'll get
a fuir amount. But as you said, sir, Pelican Bay is a donor community. The taxes for that fund that come out of
Pelican Bay are approximately $6 million per year, and we were lucky to get $250,000 back.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: When you are talking about Clam Bay with the county and coming to some kind of
agreement as to what our responsibility is going to be, fund 11 I will come up in the discussion?
MR. PETTY: Oh, absolutely, sir. To my knowledge, there's no intention by staff or from any direction to
the Board where Pelican Bay residents are committed to additional assessments, should the county redirect the
funds. It has always been the county's position to subsidize the Clam Bay effort with appropriate dollars from the
fund 111.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: That's good I thank you for that.
MR. MOFFATT: John, from your discussions with the county regarding the memorandum of
understanding, what do you suspect is going to be the outcome? Are we going to have any funds coming back?
Will we lose responsibilities commensurate with the funding, or are we going to maintain or retain responsibility
with the possibility of no funding from the county?
MR. PETTY: Those are very good questions. What we are striving for is a workable maintenance
937
. ~-""-'"'---"--- .."" - -,~-
16 ~
I 1 1-18 j
Budget Committee Meeting !
March 23. 2009
program that Pelican Bay can commit to at the same levels that they have done in the past, and to put it in dollars,
that's basically with an assessment on Pelican Bay in the $115,000 to $125,000 per year range. The other end of the
package is funded from the MSTBU overlay, fund Ill. All monies come from Pelican Bay residents. We're just
trying to get a little bit of that back. If there are no funds available from fund Ill, then the only program that we are
discussing at a staff level is one that would be supported by that $115,000 to $125,000 assessment currently paid by
Pelican Bay residents. We are not anticipating raising that one percentage point. We're trying to maintain, as a
matter of fact, we hope it comes down. We're going to a maintenance program versus a capital and maintenance
program.
MR. GIBSON: But do you expect that would be enough funding to do the maintenance that we have to do,
including paying for Tim Hall and irrigation?
MR. PETIY: No, sir, it would not. We don't expect that the $115,000 to $125,000 to be capable of paying
for everything that we have been discussing at staff level for maintenance purposes.
MR GIBSON: If you had to put a number on what the increase might be from a funding standpoint, what
would that be?
MR. PETTY: At this time, I don't have enough ~formation from the county to provide a true dollar
amount, but I can give you a guestimate of about $250,000 total. We're looking for the county to give at least
$125,000, or in other words a matching of funds.
MR. OlliSON: Yes.
MR PETIY: We know that the county is hoping to have a revenue neutral acceptance and if they do, we
expect that our share of fund 11 I will stay. If they do not have acceptance for their revenue neutral, and they have
to make deeper cuts than what they're talking about, I couldn't say what happens to the money then.
MR. OlliSON: Assuming that the county doesn't provide fund 11 I monies of$125,000, and Pelican Bay
would like to sustain the same levels of service as in the past, and then we will need to provide for $250,000?
MR. PETTY: The new maintenance program that we're discussing, sir, is in that ballpark. At several Clam
Bay meetings, there have been some discussion that includes a new scope of responsibilities, but we're hoping to
maintain current responsibilities at this time.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I don't think that it's feasible for the County to reduce taxes. If the taxes could be
expressed in dollars, not percentages, the tax basis could possibly hold the same amount.
938
._-"--~."",,--,_.._,,..."-_.._._.-._~---," ~..,.'~ '""__'_"__"'''~~_''''''''H'.. ~-,_-....._---.~
Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 A 8.i
March 23. 2009
MR. PETTY: It's a valid point and holding the status quo may be the best possible position.
FY 2010 BUDGET - RESERVE POLICY
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Oetting back to the agenda. The next item is the fiscal year 2010 budget, and the first
subcategory is reserve policy and to review each reserve category.
MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, in may suggest and subject to your consideration, we've tried to put together
something that from a staff perspective, would give us enough direction that we could put together a draft budget
based on your review of what we've got here, which does include the reserve policy. It does include efficiencies and
savings, and it does include service levels as well as capital. It's a fairly quick presentation. If the Chair wouldn't
mind, maybe we could present that?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yes, please.
MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, we've got the whole picture here. You may recognize some of the pictures.
In the middle is Ross Obley, Mr. Cox, Oary Moyer. This was one of the first capital projects done by your
predecessors, the Pelican Bay Improvement District. I do believe this is the utility site, the 14 acre utility site in the
middle of the golf course. You may recognize this as being a part of your monthly financial statement. And what
we're trying to do is use this as a basis for our discussion. Please keep in mind we're going to be talking about four
different categories: efficiencies, service levels, capital and reserve policies. So we're going to go in and out of all
four categories as we go over the next couple of pages. This is an identical monthly fmancial statement that you
received for the month of February. These are the budgets that we currently live with. At the top, you see that we
have water management capital of $250,000. We have beautification capital of$158,000. We've got Clam Bay, the
whole thing is considered capital, even though it is operations and capital base, and we are working on getting that
changed this year so it's a double line, one's operations, and one's capital of $331 ,000. And then you have last year's
projects: east of the berm, lake bank enhancements, Oakmont irrigation, hardscape improvements, vehicles and
Clam Bay. Then we have our restricted reserves that we've discussed, and most of that $232,000 is in streetlights
and the budget committee had hard locked last year. Then there's unrestricted reserve. Because there are literally 10
or 20 different capital projects out there that we can be discussing, let's look at this from the dollar perspective and
what we do have available for capital. For the capital, what we would like to do as staff is figure out what is the size
of the box that we've got to fit our program into and in this capital plan, what we would do is, out of cash flow,
figure out how much money is available, which if you recall last year, we went from three and a half month cash
939
~,~,,"~ _.~-_...... .......4h.... ~... _.,~--_..
16 I 1 A8 f
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
flow to three month. And as we saw from this year's financials, we go to two and a half months. Now, last year, we
thought so as well. We just wanted to make sure and take our time and not do it too quickly. We see that we can,
after two years, with close scrutiny. So the recommendation is that you would go to two and a half months cash
flow, which would make available $140,000 and you can consider it for any expense, in this case, we're showing it
in capital.
Next item is east of the berm. This project was put on hold two and a half years ago. We had already done
the work in a lot of different places. We had done a little pilot test. And the residents said they were very happy
with what they had and weren't desirous of any additional change. So the money sat there until we could find a
proper use for it. So you have $376,200 available from that area if you reapportion it today.
The next item is lake bank enhancement. We pulled $100,000 out oflast year's carry forward. Kyle is
currently working with that, and has a contract out. I believe all the erosion issues that staff is concerned with will
be addressed in that amount ($100,000) and the rest is strictly for beautification. So the money is subject to
reapportionment.
MR. OlliSON: John, is this using any bank socks? That worked very well.
MR. PETTY: Yes, it does. And we have some areas, we were concerned about. And then the rest are
basically in the single family and multi-family areas, and it goes to aesthetics. That's subject to what your capital
project priorities are. We believe that with this year's $140,000, we could finish everything that we have on our list.
Though we can certainly continue it if you like, but that's $100,000 we think that you can reapportion this year, right
now in this capital consideration.
Next item: Clam Bay. We typically spend about $150,000 a year in capital. Even though Clam Bay is
listed as a capital project, the rest goes for maintenance. It pays for our engineer. It pays for their studies and
annual report. We do remove exotic plants, a project under contract. We do several other items, which includes
cleaning main channels, and a few other odds and ends. So we estimate that $ I 50,000 a year is what you would
normally spend. And that money, that category, Clam Bay, is a carry forward from last year. That was that hard tag
we just got done talking about.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: $393,000 was the number there before you pulled that $150,000 out?
MR. PETTY: Yes. The $393,000 is what we carried forward from last year into this year. Out of that
$393,000, we have at least $150,000 available to us right now.
940
-.. _<H._",___,,- . -"",."._."-,~,",.",--- --, -....-
Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 A 84
March 23. 2009
MR. MOFFATT: Why do you have $393,000 left over from last year?
MR. PETTY: Well, it was left over from last year and a carry forward from the prior year, if I remember
correctly. Basically, we took whatever funds have been carried forward from prior years. We hard tagged those
carried over funds to make sure it came forward this year, not knowing what fund 111 was going to be. And since
we haven't received any money from fund Ill, we suspect that the majority of that money that we have in there of
the $393,000, about $200,000 to $243,000 may go toward operations this year, because we don't have or we may not
receive any monies from fund Ill. So if you leave that money in there, how much can go for capital? Well, that
would be the $150,000.
The next one we're going to look at is restricted revenues currently in the street lighting fund and we would
pull $200,000 out of there. The reason that money is there is because it's savings from when the security contract
with the sheriff was canceled mid-year, post assessment. We didn't do an ad valorem assessment for streetlights for
two years because there was still money left in there. And we had a partial year left. Now, we didn't want to go out
with a partial ad valorem. We were trying to reestablish our previous levels. So we went out with a standard ad
valorem to support streetlights, and we hard tagged this for whatever capital program may be associated with the
landscaping that we may want to consider because everything we've heard of today is that the lighting canopy is
being affected by the tree canopy, which has grown up too close to some of these lights. So you have $200,000
there. You're now up to almost a million dollars in this year's budget if you reapportion for capital, and we haven't
gotten into the unrestricted reserves, which you can pull, let's say, the majority, leave a small amount in there, you'd
have your cash flow. This is all for comfort level and for assignment during the year. So if you come up with a
capital program, you may wish to look at the entire amount, which is about $300,000. You're now at a million two
plus. Then you have to look at this year's capital program. $250,000 for lake bank enhancements, beautification
and water management has not been spent this year. We're still working on last year's. So that money is available to
you. On beautification, you have $150,000, approximately, available to you. And on Clam Bay, you have
approximately $ I 50,000 available to you out of this year, again, if we spend about $150,000 a year in capital. All
told, you've got $1.8 million available to you today for a capital program for this year while you are considering the
capital programs that have your priority this year.
MR. MOFFATT: John, I'm confused. You have a million eight. When you said this year, you mean
2010?
941
- -..,. . . 4.~
16 I 1 A.
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
MR. PETTY: No, sir. This year right now, 2009, we have $1,800,000 for capital programs that you may
wish to continue with their existing tag and project, or you may wish to reapportion. This is for your capital
program, whether it be starting in fiscal year 2009 or starting in fiscal year 2010, your pleasure. We're trying to
work with a very broad array of topics.
FY 2010 BUDGET - EFFICIENCIES AND SAVINGS
MR. PETTY: We're trying to build not just a one year capital plan, but a five year capital plan. They're far
more flexible. And going longer term gives you a better picture of where your money is being spent. So we'd like
you to consider a long term plan. We've been talking with the Foundation and their strategic planning group and
their staff, and we have looked through the survey they just bound and sent out. And it appears that our maintenance
services, which are the berm, the lake banks and the landscaping, are very much appreciated by the residents of
Pelican Bay. It seems that we're pretty high up there on their satisfaction levels. As such, from a staff level, we're
looking to support those priorities in a repairs and maintenance mode, not an enhancement mode. Now, the strategic
planning group is looking for not only repairs and maintenance, but also enhancements. They may evaluate their
plan with the public through their town hall meetings, but our responsibilities are fairly set for repairs and
maintenance of the existing facilities. Now, when we go through there, if we can make it look a little bit prettier or
we can make a pathway a little bit wider, I don't know why we couldn't consider that, but we've been directed, in the
past, to basically repair and maintain. But that's subject to the full board's direction as well.
MR. MOFFATT: John, what is the capital program for 2009? What's been approved?
MR. PETTY: Everything that you see up there, the million eight, has been approved.
MR. MOFFATT: For2009?
MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. Let's take it from the top. You've got water management capital, $250,000. Now,
that's for lake bank improvements on an annual basis. Now, we had a carry forward from last year, but we still did
an assessment this year at that same level, $250,000.
MR. MOFFATT: And how much of that do we plan to spend before the end of fiscal year 2009?
MR. PETTY: Right now, Kyle has a contract out, and expects to spend approximately $150,000 out of it
for erosion control that we have targeted as staff. If you wish to do beautification of lake banks, we could do the
entire amount.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: So we really don't have $250,000 available there, because $150,000 of that is going
942
~ "~,", ""..,,,-,-~,__",,, lJlI . ~ -_.,-_..~"---,-'"".~.'--,. "._-,"--
1 6 , 1 A r
.L- ;1 ,,1, 8f
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
to be spent this year.
MR. PETTY: Well, the $150,000 that we have so far, a contract comes out of the $240,000.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yes.
MR. MOFFATT: So what would happen is we're paying for that out of last year's budget from 2008?
MR. PETTY: We're starting with that money frrst and spending that amount under the contract. And we
have some areas where we have quite a bit of concern over erosion. The beautification issue is something that we'd
also like to address. But when we have structural issues like berms and pathways that are being deteriorated by the
trees because of their location, and we're starting to hear issues of landscaping at a higher level than lake banks ever
received, that is why we bring that to your consideration in a budgeting process. Do you wish to maintain the
category, or would you like to be able to reapportion? It is always within your ability to do so.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Who decides how the lake banks are going to be landscaped?
MR. PETTY: Ultimately, the full board of Pelican Bay Services Division.
MR. PETTY: We're not talking about landscaping around the lakes. We're talking about landscaping
around Pelican Bay. And we have heard some issues that were less than complimentary, but mostly we've heard
that the residents are very satisfied with it. We can ten you, from our professional opinions of maintaining this, that
it could be better. There are parts of Pelican Bay's landscaping that very much need a facelift. There are other areas
that are doing very nicely, but the job is never done. And you can always improve when it comes to landscaping.
MR. OIBSON: We heard two meetings ago from a couple of residents who were concerned about the look
of the landscaping within Pelican Bay.
MR. MOFFATT: Fritz Mayhew.
MR.OIBSON: Yes.
MR. LEVY: Yes, I remember that.
MR. PETTY: So in this year's budget, we have 1.8 million, which does include unrestricted and restricted
reserve.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Those are all monies that currently are not committed in any way?
MR. PETTY: Well, they are committed with a soft tag, but none of them that I've listed here cannot be
reapportioned by this body.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: When you say a soft tag, I mean, they're in the pot?
943
"","'" --.,.-.,.,.---.....- ._~. , "...-- -.... -.... ..~.~-"--~-,,-
16 I ..i
1 A})
~}
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
MR. PETTY: A soft tag would be like east of the berm, where we wanted to spend the money somewhere
near the berm.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Right.
MR. PETTY: But the residents are happy with the way it is, so it's a soft tag.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: So the money that's available doesn't go anywhere or get taken away.
MR. PETTY: Absolutely. The money never disappears. Ifwe don't spend it, if we're able to save it; it
comes back to the residents. And in this case, we're considering capital programs from a strategic planning point of
view, from a staffing concern point of view, and, of course, from a wish list. Where do we want to be?
MR. MOFFATT: But as of now, Kyle doesn't have a list of projects that need to be done and have been
approved that would come out of capital? Other than some lake bank enhancements?
MR. PETTY: Lake bank enhancements, we could do for about $140,000 0 $150,000 and finish up with
what we already have available. Now, on the other ones, you notice hardscape improvements? That stayed.
Oakmont irrigation stayed. Vehicles stayed. And at Clam Bay, the operating budget, $243,000 stayed. But the
issue here that we're trying to get in this year's budget, we wanted to get a five year capital plan to give you that
depth for your consideration at this time. So that means that all of this money approved this year, that I've listed on
the right, is also subject to be reapportioned if it meets your capital program. And that's what I'd like to go into next,
is a possible five year program.
MR. omSON: One category that is of interest to me is tree trimming. I noticed you had a crew out there
today, coincidentally. I was going to bring that up today at the right time, because so many of our trees are very
mature and they really need a haircut desperately, not just for appearances sake, but also, heaven forbid if we get a
tropical storm through here next summer, trees that are pruned correctly survive. Trees that are overgrown and not
pruned tip over. Is that under beautification ops?
MR. PETTY: No. Kyle will speak to that, but he has a program for trimming the trees in Pelican Bay.
MR.OmSON: You don't really see it because it grows so slowly. But all ofa sudden, whammy, you got a
forest out there.
MR. PETTY: And that is something that we could incorporate into beautification operations.
MR. OIBSON: Okay. I just want to make sure that we're not depriving anyone category, because, to me,
just as an interested board member, it's very important to keep the trees pruned.
944
~-.._...",,-,..~. .- t1 vT -
16 I 1 A 84 !
,
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
MR. PETIY: That's a good point, because we are not taking from any operational department for the
capital progrnm This is all money that's in the budget. This doesn't include any new assessments of any kind. This
is existing funds.
MR. GillSON: Frankly, the trees near the north parking lot that you're working on today look terrific.
They look wonderful. So something's really going well there.
MR. LUKASZ: Pruning also opens them up.
MR. GillSON: Opens them up and gets fewer leaves on the tree. It makes it grass grow better, and it's just
a good thing all the way around. It makes the neighborhood look pristine.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: If we were to get hit by a stonn, a bad summer stonn, what is the range of money
we're looking at for cleanup?
MR. PETTY: The good point about a capital program is. a five year capital plan like we're going to be
talking about here in a second, is its vel)' flexible. Should you have a tropical storm come through in the middle of
the surruner and cause severe damage, you can reapportion immediately. And all funds that are in that capital
program can be reallocated to whatever the new priority is. lbat's the beauty of a five year capital plan versus a one
year capital plan that may go out under a single contract. This is going to go out over several contracts. You
approve a five year capital plan in general terms, and then you also approve it before each contract goes out.
Currently, Wlder an annual contract, if you approve capital in the budget, Kyle takes it out, bids it, awards it and it
doesn't come back to you for approval. Under a five year capital plan, you're giving general approval, but you want
each contract to come back to you before it's awarded. So Kyle would get bids and would bring to you for approval
to go forward So in that way, you know at all times how much money you have left in the kitty should something
bappen in the surruner. But we think you're going to be in good shape under the plan that we're going to show you,
the five year capital plan. and you'll have regular funds available to you at all times. Keep in mind that nine months
out of the year, you have that number available to you. which is your cart)' forward You only use that for three
months out of the year, October, November, December.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: But it's got to be there by the beginning of next year.
MR. PETrY: Yes, sir. lbat gives you that ability to respond immediately to need, and then go out and get
that bridge note or that bridge fund brought to you. And don't forget,. we're part of Collier County, which has a huge
debt when it comes to that type of financial bridge money. Even though they're having a hard time this year.
945
.".__._~-_.
Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 A8 I
Marcb 23. 2009
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Is there a county policy on how much? Like when we had three and a half months,
and now we're down to three, we're talking two and a half, is there a county policy on that?
MR. PETTY: There is by department, depending on their sources of revenue. But the three month is not
unusual at all. In our particular case, based on our needs, we're very good with two and a half. We don't see a
problem. And keep in mind that the capital program you're looking at, you may wish to apportion $100,000,
$200,000 out of here for that safety mechanism, that what if scenario. This is, again, just a box so that staff can go
ahead and put together a draft budget for your next meeting. Let me go on with that next scenario. So you've got
about a million eight that you can do this year. What about next year and for the four years after, to complete a five
year program? We're looking at committing the same level of capital that you're committing to water management,
which is $250,000 a year, and you've been doing it for four or five years. You've got beautification at $150,000 and
that's a low range capital for beautification. You were spending quite a bit more when you were putting in the
irrigation system. And we feel that the $150,000 is the proper number for what capital should be committed to
landscaping at a minimum per year. Clam Bay capital should again be $150,000. It's within your budget. This is
about what you've been spending on capital for the last ten years. And a cash flow capital contribution, well, that's
your savings. That's your difference between three months and two and a half months. This is the money you
would pick up that would be available for capital or any other use. In this case, we're applying all savings to capital,
subject to your direction.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yes, but that's available once, right, that 140,000?
MR. PETTY: No, that would be every year if you went from three months to two and a half months and
you stayed at the same assessment level. So let's say we were charging $400 per person per year. Then, yes, that's
available to you every year as long as you keep charging everybody $400. It was a cost to us.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yes. I don't know how you assess people for something that you don't have an
expense for in your budget.
MR. PETTY: Oh, Republicans have been doing it for years, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Okay.
MR. PETTY: The total five year capital program would be just over four and a half million dollars. And it
would look a little something like this. Now, these names are just general. We're not fixed to them at all. But we
have to talk about pathways, and from a staff level, this is a fairly high priority with us. When we talk about the
946
...----'.^ "' ."",~ .- "'c..___._.____'._
Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 A8 1
March 23. 2009
berm in Clam Bay, it has a fairly high priority with us. And the landscaping, well, the landscaping, you can go after
almost anytime you want. Landscaping is a bottomless pit. You can spend as much money or as little money as you
like and you're never going to make everybody happy.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Hey, John. Getting back, if you don't mind, to that 140,000, going from four months
to three and a half. You don't have to change the slide.
MR. PEITY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Right now, that's just carrying forward from one year to another year. We've got that
four months in there, and it just carries forward. We don't assess for that, we just carry it forward. And what we
were talking about if we cut it to two and a half months, we've got $140,000 that we can take out of there. So we're
not raising that three months every year. The three months just keeps coming from one year to the next year. If we
don't do anything with it, it just keeps carrying. There's no assessment.
MR. PETTY: We'll be glad to run the numbers, but as you recall, we've been using our carry forward to
support our budget. Two years ago, I think it was over $600,000. Last year, does anybody remember the number?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I'm talking about the three and a half months to three months to two and a half
months. I know we've been using carry forward from under spending and what's left in all these capital budgets and
everything you're showing us here.
MR. PEITY: It all falls to carry forward balance, sir. And carry forward balance is what you use to offset
the assessment. Now, you're saying that three months rolls over. Well, that's if 100 percent of it does roll over. But
since we've have been spending our carry forward, a percentage of that dollar has been spent each and every year.
So I'll be glad to run the numbers and I understand the point, that it isn't a dollar to dollar ratio, but I think, since we
have been bleeding out our carry forward, that it does represent a value. There may not be $140,000, which is what
we pulled out of the budget.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I think it's really for one time. But go ahead. I don't want to...-
MR. MOFFA IT: Yes, I agree with Mike. I don't see why it's not just a one-time item.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yes, it's a one-time thing, exactly.
MR. MOFFATT: Yes, but let's go ahead.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Let's go, because we're not being fair to you. You got this whole thing.
MR. PETTY: I understand the point and we'll be glad to do the calculation. If you've got three projects,
947
-, .~,---,.," ".._~~ ..,. .~. ""'...... -- - """,-
;." f: ."\1
~) ~;
!'! 'j A8
''''' "
r''>'
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
you can have more, there's no real limit here, but if you want to highlight three, this is a possible scenario on how it
would work: This year, 2009, you would spend $500,000 on pathways, $500,000 on the berm and Clam Bay, and
$816,000 and change on landscape. In the budget year that we are currently considering, which is 2010, you would
spend $230,000 for each of the three. 2011, you would do a similar amount, $230,000. In 2012, a similar amount,
$230,000. And your final year, you would finish up the projects, $230,000, giving you a grand total of a little bit
over four and a half million, and it would break out this way; a million four for pathways, a million four for berm
and Clam Bay and a million seven for landscaping. Now, these are the boxes. If there is some direction that you
can give us at this time, staff can then come up with the draft budget with these boxes in mind.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: John, the numbers you gave for pathways was over two million, as I recall.
MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. And that contract, those prices were when paving was fairly high. Prices for this
type of work have come down considerably during the hard times.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: This is the eight foot path?
MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. And the $2 million plus was for the option ofa maximum pathway width. There
were three options on the table: maintaining the existing, I think go to six feet, and then go to eight.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: The highest one, I think was two million plus in three or four years.-
MR. PETTY: This takes the middle of the road approach. And, of course, again, there's no magic to this
number. We can put whatever number you think is applicable. But under our existing assessments, with our
existing dollars, without raising assessments, we think that you would have the capability of doing a five year capital
plan in this ballpark range of four, four and a half million.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: And when you showed what you were going to spend in fiscal year 2009, which was
the biggest amount, I assume you're talking about contracts, issuing contracts?
MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. Depending on how fast the board wishes to act, it's up to the board's discretion.
For staff to go out and do contracts, it's fairly straightforward. A lot of these contracts are done before we need
them. So, in other words, there is a paver out there that we have access to. There is a contractor out there that we
may be able to have access to. And if we don't, then Kyle is fully versed in the process of getting out the criteria so
that we can do an RFP and get a contract in.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: But you've got the boxes up there. I mean, we saw a detail of all the monies for the
pathway, albeit a different total.
948
- --. ~-_.__._-,----_._._--_._--~.__..----_._--,_..__.__.._----,
Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 A8 1
March 23. 2009
MR. PETTY: You saw last year's estimate?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yes.
MR. PETrY: So you know what the ballpark is. This tells you, from a revenue standpoint, what you have
available to you. And if you give staff the direction, we can put together that ballpark in the budget. It does not lock
you in. It just sets broad parameters that a capital program of X is to follow. Now, we're not proposing to you that
you have a new program for capital. As you saw, the dollar amounts are the exact same as they are now. All we're
doing is putting it into a five year plan versus an annual plan. Now, we come back to you then with contract
amounts, asking for acceptance for award versus if it is in the adopted budget, doing the award.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: John, the million four twenty from berms, slash, Clam Bay, that is the lion's share
for the berm?
MR. PETrY: Well, we put the berm in the Clam Bay side because, of course, half the berm is in the
saltwater side. And we haven't taken from that fund, that capital source, for redoing that berm, and of course, half of
it is, so we just put those two together because they are so closely related.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Is the $150,000 a year to maintain Clam Bay in that capital program?
MR. PETrY: No, sir, that's under operations, and it's separate.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: So there's no capital we would be spending in Clam Bay. I mean, what would we do
in Clam Bay?
MR. PETrY: For this, what you're talking about doing is trying to reshape, restructure the berms, starting
with berm one, working through berm two. Berms three and four are not showing that much erosion yet.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: When you said reshape, you're talking about stripping the blacktop off and the sod.
MR. PETrY: Yes, You strip the blacktop and the sod and you would reshape the berm to specifications.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: You're making them wider? Is that what you're doing?
MR. PETrY: No, sir. We're just putting it back to original specification. And then we go back to the
holder of the permit for the recreational use, which is the Foundation, at which time they can come back and put in
asphalt, if they wish, or pavers, if they wish, whatever, really, is suitable material that we could accept.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: And suppose they want a wider berm?
MR. PETrY: That's something the board could consider.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: That would cost more money for us, too, if they wanted to widen the berm?
949
---_...,,",-- -, r
Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 A8 ;{
March 23. 2009
MR. PErry: Not unless you agree to fund it with them, sir, no. The recreational usage of the berm,
anything besides what it was built for, the recreational use is by permit in perpetuity with the Foundation. We have
done work on the pathways. We have resealed. I think we've even repaved some areas, but that's because we use it
as well with our vehicles when we go out. So for us to spend that kind of money to maintain the existing roadway
system on the berm is appropriate. And if you all decide it is appropriate to do other things with the Foundation,
then we can consider those one by one. But right now, our responsibilities stop with the structure itself and
maintaining its integrity.
MR. MOFFATT: John, one of the things, I know the Foundation has talked about is widening the berm by
taking the sides up straight and giving you a wider top to it. The only problem I see with that is I don't know how
the animals go from side to side, alligators, turtles, what have you. They can't climb up a four foot straight wall, I
don't think.
MR. PErry: You're absolutely correct. And you get points for that one, because that one was a tricky one
to fund.
MR.OmSON: You'd need retainers, too, right? I mean, some kind of mechanical retainers to hold the sod
in.
MR. PErry: Mr. Moffatt brought up an issue that was considered on Highway 75, going across the Alley.
And they put in critter crossings, if you recall.
MR. MOFFATT: Right.
MR. PErry: Because they forgot about that issue. And each critter crossing cost over $5 million. You've
seen what I've seen, too, sir, and we do not want to get involved in retaining walls. We do not want to get involved
where the entire face of the berm is restrictive to animals, nor do we want it to be harmful to humans. If a child falls
through the boards, how do they get out? That area does have a couple feet of water at certain times ofthe day.
How would they get out? Right now, we're required to have a four to one slope. That's what they call a walk-out
slope so that people can walk out on their hands and knees. 00 their hands and knees, but you can walk out. Of
course, we can consider some widening. Of course, we can consider lookout areas or some type of boardwalk for
short spaces, whether it be for trams coming down the road or for people to get out of the way or whatever the traffic
requires. But we certainly couldn't do it the length of the berm. There are limitations. And our initial talks with the
Foundation, they understand that. I think the drawings that they had in their strategic plan may have been overly
950
"__A . < -. -'"~-
Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 A8 f
March 23. 2009
optimistic in that regard.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Let me ask you, on the pathways, since we seem to be passed that already, but the
numbers we got at the last meeting for just repaving or redoing the walkways at five foot, which is what they now
are, is a million six, and I can see if you're assuming some savings because ofthe current economy, it will bring you
down to a million four, but that's all you're doing, is you're filling in smooth walkways as they now exist.
MR. PErry: Within the criteria of that proposal, sir, that you have in front of you there is some money in
there for repairing irrigation, which, of course, we're going to damage. And there is some money in there for
repairing some sod and some landscaping, which we know we're going to damage as well. So the improvements
that you would make on this relocation ofthe pathway, that money would come from the landscape budget over
here. If you take the pathways and you've got to move them six feet, five feet, eight feet away from where they
currently are, you may be redesigning some of the landscape.
MR.omSON: Yes, but you're still going to end up with a five foot walkway.
MR. PErry: Subject to the Board's direction, yes, we can go any way you want. We can go five foot, six
foot, eight foot. It depends on what you think the service levels are. The only survey we know of is one that the
Foundation did, and it seems the residents are very satisfied with the current level of service. We just know, from a
maintenance standpoint, that we can't maintain the existing system while it stays over the roots of the trees as they've
matured.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: John, our budget for fiscal year 2009 had something like a 400 odd thousand dollar
carry forward.
MR. PErry: Yes, sir. To offset.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: The way you've set this up, have you used up, essentially, all of the carry forward?
MR. PErry: Yes sir, possibly.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: You know, right away, you've got a significant increase. If you take that $400,000
carry forward away, you've got a significant assessment increase.
MR. PErry: That's why we want to run the numbers. And, again, these are general terms, with the first
year having a million eight ballpark, the following years, having about $700,000, ballpark. Now, as you said earlier
in the meeting, these were one-time offsets. They're going to go away. The issue is are they going to go away in a
capital plan or are they going to go away in next year's budget.
951
"-, ... .... - - _. --~~
16 , ~o 1
1 Ad'
I ~ f,~,!
Budget Committee Meeting
Marcb 23. 2009
MR. MOFFATT: That's a good way to do it, because you're using one-time offsets for one-time expenses.
MR. PETTY: There's no doubt that Pelican Bay Services Division responsibilities have far exceeded its
existing revenue capability.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I'm sorry, John. I didn't follow you.
MR. PETTY: There's no doubt that our responsibilities exceed our revenue capabilities. The water
management system is very large and complicated. Our pathways and right of ways have upscale landscaping
which takes a great deal of money to maintain. You can ask the golf course; I believe that they maintain
approximately 150 to 175 acres. We also have Clam Bay, which is a tricky little fish on our line that has cost us a
considerable amount of money, not to mention the streetlights. Plus all the other community projects we do, like
you saw a simple crosswalk costs well above $75,000.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Oh, that was huge. Unbelievable.
MR. PETTY: So our responsibilities are such that we really could never have too much money. This is
just a way of trying to put the money to the best use we can, while still maintaining the flexibility to change in case
there's a storm, or a new priority that the residents need.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: And if we set this up, it can be redone at any time, so to speak.
MR. PETTY: Absolutely. You're not locked in. All it takes is the board to set the vote again and they can
reapportion the money. If approved, the money is reapportioned. At the next meeting, if you wish to reapportion
the money to something else, you can. We're just trying to work this into a longer term strategic plan, so that staff
can address some of the larger projects that we've been putting off. The berm, and of course, the pathways have
been put off for a couple of years.
MR. MOFFATT: John, where does street lighting fit in this?
MR. PETTY: Right now, the streetlights are pretty functional, with the old streetlight issue being
addressed. If you recall at some prior meetings, we've had our electrical engineers and others come before us and
say that the landscape canopy has grown to the point where it's getting closer to the light source, so it's cutting off
more light. Now, it's a major concern to move some of the trees, but it's far more complicated to move the pole
that's a conduit and it has a zillion pieces of spaghetti connected to it. Moving the tree has got to be easier. So the
landscape is something that we would address for the streetlights. And they are functional. Then there's the issue of
aesthetics.
952
"'''~-''--''''''''''-"""~"-,,,~,,,"~,,''''''..~,------",- ,. "~''''m...__'._..''_''~,_ ~~~~-~~~~- ---~-~-_._._-_._---_._--
16 , 1 ~8 f
Budget Committee Meeting
Marcb 23. 2009
MR. MOFFATT: Yes. They're ugly.
MR. PETTY: I don't disagree.
MR.OIBSON: It's not an upscale community type streetlight.
MR. PETTY: I personally would not call them architecturally designed streetlights, although they were
listed in the catalog as such. Maybe they are above the FPL standard, but they are fairly plain. But I can't tell you
why the decision was made to purchase these streetlights in approximately 2000.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: But they got them I think in about 2000. They've got another 40 years to go.
MR. PETTY: Sir, you do make a good, strong point. We have looked into some designs to try to make
them look more upscale, but I don't know if Pelican Bay wants to do that. Also, if you recall, there's welcome
banners that you've seen in university communities that talk about certain events? Certainly, we can do something
like that in Pelican Bay to dress them up for special events, and at the beginning of season, or the end of season, to
say hello and good-bye. That might make the streetlights a little bit less "plain Jane".
MR. MOFFATT: I personally like the Bay Colony streetlights.
MR. PETIY: There's a lot of things that I like in Bay Colony. But that's our big plan. We want to bring
that to you. And if it is something that we can work on, staff would love to put together a draft budget with these
very broad boxes built in.
FY 2010 BUDGET - SERVICE LEVELS AND NEW SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS
MR. PETTY: Keep in mind that staff, Kyle and I have already talked, and staffis going to try to control
operations at existing levels. As a matter of fact, we're going to try and cut back as much as we can. So, our
objective is to be able to meet the current assessments and have a very small reserve.
MIt MOFFATT: Do you have this in hard copy?
MR. PETTY: I can print this out or I can send it to you in e-mail, whatever you'd prefer.
MR. MOFFATT: I'd prefer a hard copy.
MR. PETTY: I can do a print and send it by email
CHAIRMAN LEVY: However, you can send me an e-mail if you can or send a hard copy.
MR. PETTY: We'll do both.
MR. MOFFATT: Send a hard copy.
MR. PETTY: Since I'm committing Mary to do it, I don't mind.
953
,.,. .._-~ --,...--",.--.. -
1l:J A8 I
I
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
CHAIRMAN LEVY: That will work.
MR. PETTY: Mary would love to do it.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: How do you do that? What software is that you're running this stuff on?
MR. PETTY: It's called Key Note. It's a Unix based system. It's very similar to PowerPoint, just with a
few more bells and whistles.
MR. OmSON: I believe that it may have been discussed earlier, but at the Club at Pelican Bay, we're
looking to use the mulch when we chew up our trees. There's a service out there now, and I think you're familiar
with it, and we're going to go after that. We spend $61,000 a year on pine straw, and I can't imagine what the budget
is there. It's that much or more.
MR. LUKASZ: More.
MR GIBSON: And it goes to virtually nothing. The machine is rented, and I understand from Kyle that
we've got space for it. The residents may not find it quite as attractive, but when they realize it might be saving
them 80 grand a year or 80 grand as opposed to other applications, it's pretty neat. And it goes back to that green
practice. So I would encourage us to continue looking at that. We are going to at the Club. It doesn't need water
and you don't have the fee to carry it to some dump either. So it's really a win win. I've seen it. We were shown a
sample at one of our last meetings and it looks fine.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: What are you grinding up, Geoff?
MR. omSON: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: What are you grinding up?
MR. GIBSON: The palm fronds, the limbs. For example, all of the limbs that we're cutting today at the
north parking lot they're going to haul to the dump.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Right.
MR. GIBSON: Rather than do that and spend over 60 grand a year on pine straw or mulch, take it to a
common area, like where the services division property is, put it in a big pile, bring in this machine, and you grind it
up. It doesn't make chips like you're familiar with out of a chipper. It takes it to a much more fine material that
looks more like straw, I guess, is the way I can describe it. The palm fronds mixed in with the oak limbs, are ground
up. And it doesn't cost anything. Then you take this in your truck and you spread it around your bushes to keep the
weeds down rather than going to Oeorgia and bringing down pine straw or going to who knows where that we get
954
--. "'.'-'-"'>-"--- 17 n -~-,'-- r!'<:!l"'." ... . .---..
16 , 1A 8 J
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
our cedar bark from, and that's a huge bill.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: And does it last about the same length of time?
MR. GIBSON: Oh, it lasts the same or longer. It may not be quite as red if it's the cedar bark, but once you
explain to the residents what we're doing, I think most people in today's world will say, hey, these guys know what
they're doing, they're saving us money, and we don't have to haul this junk to the dump. And it's a small thing, but,
you know, 60 grand here, 80 grand there, it adds up.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: It's something that could be tried?
MR. GIBSON: Oh, you could do it in an area. This guy is looking for business right now at $150 an hour
to run his machine. We want to do it at the Club if we had a central collection area and there's no reason why the
Services Division shouldn't be doing it in the community. We could try a small area and see if it works.
MR. PErry: As you all have mentioned, it's all subject to the residents' acceptability. More than
anything else, it's a change in color. And if the residents are happy, it is a success.
MR. GIBSON: Yes. I think their degree of happiness will increase dramatically when you explain the
savings.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: It's a significant amount of money. It's over $60,000.
MR. GIBSON: That's what it is at the Club.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: And that's what's in our budget right here.
MR.OIBSON: Is it 60 grand here, too?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: It's over 60.
MR. GIBSON: Did that include pine straw and mulch?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: It's just called mulch.
MR. PErry: We'll be glad to look at that. That is part of our objective, to try to lower cost. We have
already started looking at offices at the site and our recommendation to you on that is that you ask the Chair for a
small committee, because the issue is going to be what will the residents accept for a public place, where will they
feel comfortable coming. That tells us how much we have to spend more than anything else, because there is room.
There's plenty of room.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Do residents come to the current office other than members of the board?
MR. PETTY: No.
955
-- ',.-- ..---- -. _.-
Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 A'8 f
March 23. 2009
MR. OmSON: Nobody even knows it's there.
MR. MOFFATT: Well, then it doesn't matter what it looks like, does it?
MR. PETrY: Well, if you're going to have your administrative offices there, and now we do have other
people coming in, and we also talked about possibly having a smaU meeting, such as for this committee we have
room to hold meetings in the current facility. That's one of the reasons why we'd like to have the committee, so they
can answer those questions, make those decisions, come back to you all and tell you what their thoughts are.
MR. GIBSON: I think we need a field trip.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Maybe the whole board should go.
MR. PETrY: The first thing we're going to have to build is new bathrooms, because they just have guys.
Mary won't put up with that. No way.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I'm glad to hear that. Are there other efficiencies inside the current offices?
Jean Smith has not been with us for quite some time and that position is in the budget for fiscal year 2009
somewhere to the tune of$65,000, plus benefits, which probably brings it up to close to $100,000?
MR. PETrY: I use a multiplier of two for the county, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Thank you. And I guess the question is how are we doing? In other words, we've
had probably over a year now that Jean hasn't been with us. How are we doing and is this something we should be
talking about?
MR. PETrY: Well, we're strained. We've had Kyle spend a great deal of his time not in the field but up in
the office. And we spend a lot of Mary's time, instead of doing the document management system and some of the
other work that she's been trying to get to, she's been in training and learning the operation's analyst responsibilities.
We have been interviewing just lately for that position. Our intention was to get a temporary in there, because we're
hoping to start offwith very new people, low-level, low cost. The idea was that we trained Mary, we spent the time.
She's come in. She doesn't have 25 years worth of accrued salary increases, so she is a jewel for us, financially
speaking.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Is Mary doing that work now?
MR. PETrY: Mary is just now starting to do the duties of operations analyst, and this will be her first
budget that she will be working on.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: So the temporary person would be coming in with the secretarial work?
956
"_>c".., -,-,._,-_.,._~" , "" ~.. .. -- '-
16 I 1 A8 I
Budget Committee Meeting
Marcb 23. 2009
MR. PETTY: That was the intent. And that would be an entry level position, and an entry level position
on the county scale right now for that type of work is around 27,000. That's what we had anticipated. Now, the
county, HR just sent us a very good candidate who has a great deal of experience, but their pay scale is around 47.
They've been working for county commissioners. And as you know, that office is being restructured. So one of the
commissioner's executive aides is available. The skill set is wonderful, but it's about 20 grand above what we had
anticipated. And I believe that we can get by with a starter, a receptionist, even though the person is qualified but I
believe, for budgeting purposes, we had 27, not 47.
MR. MOFFATT: The county doesn't have a hiring freeze?
MR. PETTY: The county has a very specific program that I believe is not in a hiring freeze, but actually
lowering the county base.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: So will they approve hiring someone?
MR. PETTY: Pelican Bay is a separate entity, so to speak, since we're on a special assessment. We're not
really part of that official head count of Collier County, because we're paid for solely by Pelican Bay. So I think it's
one of the reasons why they are now offering such good material employees to us. It's because, as they have to
make their changes, they first offer it to all satellites and we appreciate that they did.
MR. MOFFATT: Have you considered the county's position on reducing costs with respect to median
maintenance? I've heard the commissioners say that the libraries and median maintenance are two things high on
the list of options to cut back on. Are we going to lose the maintenance of the median on 41 in front of Pelican Bay
from a county standpoint that we might have to look at from a Pelican Bay standpoint of picking up that cost?
MR. PETTY: I think those are all very real concerns. I know that staff has discussed the possibility of the
library having lower hours or possibly even shutting down, and was there anything that the services division could
put in the budget for them. And the first thing that came to mind is, of course, we could maintain the structure and
the landscape with our existing personnel and equipment. That would probably be the best use that we have. So we
have talked with the county manager in our discussions saying that that was very important to the people of Pelican
Bay, and if there was something that we could do, please don't be shy about knocking on our door, and staffwill
take it to your board for your consideration. But right now, on our budget, we don't see anything. We have a very
strong commitment from Commissioner Halas and from County Manager Mudd that the Vanderbilt library would
stay open. They were going to do everything within their power to keep it open. So regarding the landscape issues
957
--,- ~-~~._-~-~. , -, _......lIIIl. . --~-~-,._"~..._--,,,_.
Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 AS /
March 23. 2009
on 41, from what I understand, that's a county-wide issue and we'll see how that goes. They're talking about
possibly looking at additional special taxing districts being created to pay for that. Since we exist as a special taxing
district, we may want to consider it sometime in the future.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Talking about capital again, the bubblers are on hold and that we should evaluate the
work that's been done before putting any more money into it.
MR. PETTY: Stan Chrzanowski recommends that until we obtain the data from the water quality report,
we'd like to have about a year's worth before we move forward. And, again, that's a program that we can move at a
pace of $20,000 a year to as much as what you saw in the budget if we did it in every lake.
MR. GIBSON: We ought to update that so we have the right count on bubblers, though. Really, we talked
about there were more bubblers in existence than were assumed.
MR. PETTY: I know, sir. The division has the proper number of our bubblers. It was just that the golf
course has already installed some of those in our lakes at their cost and they're maintaining it, similar to the way a
lot of the homeowners have fountains in some of the lakes and they pay for the electricity.
MR.OIBSON: I didn't know either when I checked it out.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: OeofI, do they have any opinion as to whether those bubblers have helped.
MR.OIBSON: Oh, I think so, yes. We still have to go, as Kyle will note, he does a good job with the
algaecides, but when it really gets bad, we send out crews out with nets to fish out the algae by hand to make it look
better for the players. We have a tournament coming up. So it's ongoing maintenance, which it really needs a lot of
rain to flush out. And when that happens, they're nice and clear. You can fish your golf ball out easier, too.
MR. MOFFATT: Did we get to 6C yet?
MR. PETTY: We've talked about a few items, such as mulch, and staff.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Do you have something specific?
MR. MOFFATT: No. I was just trying to figure out where we are on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: No, I think we've probably covered that one. On item seven, I guess you can strike
the word, final, since we had the capital project presentation, but that's not final. That was...
MR. PETTY: We like to set it up so that it never really is final.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I understand. But this was, again, trying to tie it in with the calendar. So are we
finished with item six? Does anybody else have anything they want to discuss? Item six and seven, those are the
958
"-' ...-- .. -. .- "'.....,-,-_._----~-_._._-----_.,--,.,--,.-
Budget Committee Meeting 16 J 1 A8 ,
March 23. 2009
two that deal with the budget calendar.
MR. OIBSON: I guess one thing I'd like to also highlight, drawing from my greens experience, and once
again, Kyle is the expert, but we use a lot of water at Pelican Bay and we pay the county for it. We don't have
enough water at the Club. According to the contract with Pelican Bay Services Division, we're using wetting agents.
And I don't know where that fits in, but we may be able to save water by the use of it. The wetting agent is simply
like a detergent. You spray it on the lawns wherever you need it. So instead of when you get a natural rainstorm,
where you use the sprinkler system, the water doesn't run off into the gutter quite so quickly because of the chemical
treatment, and it doesn't hurt anything, supposedly, but we've had great success with it. The water goes into the soil
and it stays in the root structure rather than running off into the storm sewer system. So it's just a suggestion that I
wanted to make sure we're looking at anyway, because it saved us. It kept us in green grass where, otherwise, we
would have brown grass.
MR. LUKASZ: It's really for more when you don't have enough water.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Is it cost effective?
MR. LUKASZ: Very cost effective.
MR.OIBSON: In our case, it's a little more desperate because we didn't sign as good a water contract. We
only have half a million gallons for a lot of acres and then the community uses four million. But if the available
water is reduced, then we may not have four million gallons.
MR. PETIY: That's a very good point, and we've heard that from the county manager's office that the
effluent reuse quantity is limited. The amount that they can deliver in the dry season is limited by whatever the
potable intake is. And as these monthly bills go up and people conserve more and more, we're actually going to be
seeing less water available to us for the same number of people.
MR. GIBSON: The average Collier County household used to use like 189 gallons a day. Now it's down
to like 143. So it's a dramatic reduction in use.
MR. PETIY: Well, when the bill gets up to about 200 bucks, you start paying attention.
MR.OIBSON: Yes, you stop taking water for granted.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: People are so aware of the water shortage down here that they probably are using
less water.
MR.OIBSON: One thing you can be thankful for as a community, and I'm not sure anybody in this room
959
-~<."--,-~-",,,.._., ,. '~"--,~.. . ,.'."'-'-~- . .=,..->-.....
Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 A8 .1
March 23. 2009
made that decision, is the fact that we do have two water piping systems. There are 140 entities on the list of Collier
County, asking, begging, kissing rings for more water, for more reuse water, what they call IQ water or irrigation
quality. And as soon as one of those communities or entities is approved to use reuse water, and they realize that
they don't have the dual system, one for drinking potable water and the other for the IQ water and they realize how
many millions that extra water system is going to cost them, they say, okay, no, thank you, we'll continue to use the
potable water, which is not the right thing to do. Our community has a system. We keep it up to date, and we can
be very grateful that we have it. Somebody made a good decision early on here.
MR. PErry: It's the only time that you can consider, after the driveways are in and the sidewalks are in
and all the cable and electric, it's too late. It is a good point, and we have talked about that a little bit on other
occasions as a capital consideration. I think those are some of the things that you can talk about during the year if
you accept a five year program like this. That would be well within one of those allocations that you may wish to
do. The issue here is irrigation water does have a limit. Last year, I think it was the first time we were able to use
irrigation water without having restrictions put on. I think we had a voluntary restriction of Friday. After all the
millions of dollars Pelican Bay has put in a dual distribution center and in bringing water from off site and using
reclaimed water, and every other thing that they've done, they were fmally able to reap the benefits just last year.
Unfortunately, it appears that that may have been our peak year, because this next dry season that we go into, in the
budget year we're considering, it is possible that we would hit the restriction.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Are we under restriction now?
MR. PErry: No, sir, we are not.
MR.. OIBSON: We have received a letter saying get ready, and we hit the restriction for the community,
because the golf course is considered expendable, and the community has never really had an official cutback. So
we got an official letter saying here's what's going to happen.
FINANCIAL REPORT
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Item eight, our financial reports. I don't know if there is a new report at this time.
John?
MR. PErry: Mr. Chairman, we brought the last draft to you with the red flag descriptions of what was
going on and we got the last comments from Mr. Moffatt on the descriptive changes. They're bringing more sets,
but we haven't heard anything in a while. If this is the model that you like, then it would be appropriate for you all
960
~ "____.,____~_~_...____,__'h_._..___.__.________u.___"__~_'"'_._~_._~_._~_~_~_. . _~u _,.,.___.___.__...__.__.,..._.._..__,____~___._ _
16 I 1 A8 1
Budget Committee Meeting
March 23. 2009
to consider it by vote and give it to the board for their consideration by vote so that we have a strong foundation for
what we're representing to both the board and the public.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: What do you want to do, Jerry?
MR. MOFFATT: You're not going to fmd me challenge a CPA.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I must agree with Jerry.
MR. MOFFATT: No. I'm trying to shorten up the line item descriptions into a column. And, you know,
down at the bottom there, you have six or eight subject to construction activities in a row. My thought was to label
one column as construction activity. That would free up more space on the schedule to give a better description of
the red flag. If you go up above, there you have just summer month, winter month, the allocation basis, and they're
attached here. Some were equal. So, if you could get by with a two word explanation in a two inch wide column, it
would give you a lot more space for red flag descriptions. Thankfully, we only have a couple of red flags. At this
point, we don't need them, but I think at some time in the future, it would give you the opportunity to use it.
MR. PETTY: I think it makes sense to make this as easy to understand as possible. The only thing that I
would throw in as a counter-point is that some of the length may be necessary to get the point across to the public.
Of course, the board will understand it with less text. Otherwise, we'll be glad to change it to two words, three
words, whatever you think is appropriate.
MR. MOFFATT: It might be interesting to take a crack at it to see if you could convey the message in its
longer form with two to three words. You may find that some of them, you just can't do it, and then that sort of
invalidates the whole concept. But if you could do it, I think it would be worthwhile.
MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, we'lI be glad to take that direction and give it a shot.
MR. GIBSON: Think the two of you ought to sit down together?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: That's a pretty good idea.
MR.OIBSON: That's permitted, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Maybe talk with Janice.
MR. PETTY: She's the boss.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: What do you think, Jerry?
MR. MOFFATT: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Would you want to do that?
961
-------..,"'"'"' , '9_*", --""~ . " --~---,.-
Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 A8 j
March 23. 2009
MR. MOFFATT: Oh, yes, yes. The last time I talked to her, we made great progress. It was very useful.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: So we'll put off taking a vote on this until you can meet.
MR. MOFFATT: Yes. Based on your earlier comments, are we going to try to schedule another meeting?
BUDGET CALENDAR
CHAIRMAN LEVY: We have two meetings to schedule. The next meeting has to be rescheduled, right,
because it's on Memorial Day.
MS. McCAUOHTRY: That's in May.
MR. PETTY: We'd like to schedule. an early meeting in April, in the first or second week.
In other words, I'd like to have another meeting in about two weeks.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: That would also be a Monday, I :00 meeting?
MR. PETTY: Well, subject to availability of the rooms. We have to be a little bit flexible for these guys.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Because I think, at least of the people sitting here, Monday at I :00 is okay?
MR. PETTY: We will definitely poll the board to make sure that you're all available, make sure we can
have a quorum.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I mean, because otherwise, you're going to run into scheduling problems.
MR. PETTY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: And as of next month, I don't know what will happen, but we will have a new board.
Some people come off, some people go on, so I'm not quite sure how that all works.
MR. PETTY: Let me help you out a little bit. Your current duties stick, no matter what, until you're
relieved. So until the Chair restructures any committees, you're required to still fulfill your obligation. Mr.
Chairman, staff would like to schedule, approximately two weeks from today, a special meeting of the budget
committee. Because of the time constraints, we think we're going to need the time, subject to the availability of the
board.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Can we go one week further to the 13th?
MR. PETTY: Well, here's something for you to consider. We could do it the morning of our regularly
scheduled board meeting or after our regularly scheduled board meeting, the same day.
MR. OIBSON: I would vote for that. It just means you don't have another day tied down.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I'd rather do it after the regular board meeting.
962
_._."~...- ........- --...- ..,,, --- ....".,-~^~"~
---"
Budget Committee Meeting 16 I 1 A8 i
Marcb 23. 2009
MR. PETTY: We're okay doing that.
MS. McCAUOHTRY: Yes, we can have the room tillS.
MR. MOFFA TEE: So you're looking at April 1 st.
MR. PETTY: Yes, April Fool's Day, very appropriate for a budget meeting.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I prefer after the board meeting.
MR. OIBSON: After the board meeting?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yes.
MR. OIBSON: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Which would mean either three or four o'clock. Four o'clock at the latest.
MR. PETTY: We've been trying to schedule those afternoon meetings for 3:30. There is one today for the
management contract considerations that I believe is scheduled for 3:30. lfit runs a little bit late, as long as it's in
the same room, we're okay.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Should we reschedule the May meeting at this time? Or do you want to wait?
MR. PETTY: Let's see what Mary can do subject to room availability. We know we can make it April 1st.
We just don't know which dates are available here at this facility.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I would think that in May, it's got to be more available 'than it would be in season.
MS. McCAUOHTRY: At this point, we still have Tuesdays reserved from the other committee, I believe it
was Ordinance. We could just go right to Tuesday from Monday for that day.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I think that presents a conflict for Oeoff on Tuesday.
MR.OIBSON: Ifit's late May and if it's important that I be here, I may fly back down. We're going home
on the 14th or 15th.
MR. PETTY: Keep in mind if we have a quorum, we can do this by teleconference.
MR. OIBSON: I thought that was illegal for some reason.
MR. PETTY: No, sir, it is legaL As long as the quorum exists here, you can participate.
MR. OIBSON: Because they couldn't prove it's me.
MR. PETTY: Well, I can't prove it's you now.
MR. GIBSON: Touche.
MR. MOFFATT: So you're leaving May 14th?
963
"_.q~ TT_'''-"'''''''''''' "._AAlt . . -""...- ,'--'""'~~-~--~'".-''''''" -<,"".-,... ,~--,,~,- -",-'"'.-
Budget Committee Meeting 16 ( 1 AB
March 23. 2009
MR. GIBSON: Yes, but I'll be back in the summer.
MR. PEITY: We will get back to you on that May schedule.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Right. Is there any other discussion regarding the budget calendar? What's going to
be discussed at our special meeting?
MR. PErry: Mr. Chairman, based on what we discussed today, staff is prepared to bring to you a draft
budget for discussion at the next meeting with your directions for cuts in operation, at minimum, to be in the mulch,
offices, staff and water use areas. The capital plan will be set up in boxes so that we maintain our flexibility based
on priorities, and the board then will direct on a project by project basis throughout the year. But we'll bring you
that information and show you impact of the carry forward and reserves, etc.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I understand it's not going to be firm and there are going to be questions, but we're
going to have the total so we know what we're looking at in terms of assessment?
MR. PErry: Sir, we're looking at giving you a draft line item budget. And if Kyle is rolling his eyes out
there, that's because he'll have to do most of the input on the machine, but he's very good at doing it.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Are you going to be able to follow the modified format we discussed adding a few
boxes?
MR. PErry: The columns for last year?
MR. MOFFATT: Will the draft we get look like this book? This level of detail?
MR. PErry: Yes, sir, just in loose form. We won't go through the binding, tabbing process. But, yes, sir.
That's what the board has asked for in the past before they make their fmal decision and before we go into that June
meeting.
MR. GIBSON: Now, did we clarify, under item five, the budget philosophy, are we going to try and hold
the budget to the same as it was last year?
MR. PEITY: I think that is a good point for you to consider taking up as a vote. I think you got a
consensus on it earlier, but it may be a nice thing to vote on to make it a nice, strong statement because I think it is
going to be hard to do.
MR. GffiSON: And let me clarify, I don't mean keeping the assessment the same because we use up more
reserves. I'm talking about keeping the expenses the same, the zero percent increase in expenses, which I think is
the same direction the Pelican Bay Foundation is going to get from their board.
964
,-..~ . ""'.-. -""._,-~-~._"~,_._-,-"-,-------_..~----
Budget Committee Meeting 16 I j AS 1
March 23. 2009
MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, subject to your direction.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Is that something we can work with?
MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. We don't deal with ad valorem other than that little bit for streetlights. All of our
revenue is based on benefit.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: No, he's talking about the whole overall expense.
MR. PETTY: When he's talking about expenses, in our case, that also has to do with revenue, because our
revenue isn't based on sales tax or property value. So it is directly relational to cost. So, yes, sir, that's exactly what
we discussed earlier, and staff is very comfortable should the board wish to vote on that.
MR. MOFFATT: Do you want a motion from this committee?
MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, I think that would be appropriate.
MR. MOFFATT: I would move that the staffbe directed to develop the budget, keeping the expenses to a
zero increase. Keep them the same as last year.
CHAIRMAM. LEVY: Total, we're talking total?
MR. MOFFATT: Total, yes, total.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: I would second that. All in favor?
MR. MOFFATT: Aye.
MR. GIBSON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Aye.
Mr. Jerry Moffatt nwved, seconded by Mr. Mike Levy and approved
unanimously to direct staff to develop the budget keeping the totlll expenses at
the same as last year, zero increase.
MR. PETTY: Thank you, sir. We will have your draft at the next meeting.
MR. MOFFATT: It may be our legacy.
MR.OIBSON: I think we're going that way at the Foundation.
MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, staffhas nothing more to bring to your attention at this time. We are a little
bit antsy about the work that we have to do by April 1st, but at this time, I think we're done.
ADJOURN
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Is there any comments from the audience? Any other issues for the board? Do I
965
--- ---.....-- ~ .- .",.,.~.'"'"~
, Budget Committee Meeting 16 , 1 A8 .~
March 23. 2009
have a motion to adjourn?
MR. MOFFATT: This document that was here in front of us, it's just for our review?
MR. PETTY: It is for your information, sir. We have in-house procedures with checks and balances and.
of course, we also have it from the county's finance department. You go through two very stringent processes.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: May I have a motion to adjourn?
MR. OmSON: I move.
A MALE VOICE: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: All in favor? Aye.
MR. MOFFATT: Aye.
MR.OmSON: Aye.
Mr. Gooff Gibson moved, seconded by Mr. Jerry Moffatt tIIId
approved URtlllinwusly to adjourn the meeting.
MR. PETrY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Thank you.
MR. MOFFATT: We still have a meeting scheduled for the 27th of April, correct? A budget meeting?
CHAIRMAN LEVY: Yes.
MR. PETrY: Yes, and we have to get an extra one in?
MR.OIBSON: Youjust want the extra one. That may be by teleconference for me.
MR. PETrY: It should be for final touchup. We hope we can get most of our hard direction at the next
meeting.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 6:30 p.m.
~~
. ichael Levy, Chairman
Transcript prepared on behalf of Ore gory Reporting Services, Inc. by Joyce B. Howell, Notary Public and formatted
by Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division.
966
,,',._x - . _._=--_..~><>^....,..._."w,,"'__~~__4'__'~__"_" _..,.--
~:i:". ~13tq.d 16 I 1 A 8 RE:CE:/~
Henning MAY 1 3 ED
Coyle ifi B. 2009
Coletta J . PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION rJarrJOfCou/JlyCornrnisSiO
Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit ne~;
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2009
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD AT It~M K 1\1>( C: E N [Fi 8960 HAMMOCK OAK
DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ON IUESL1A Pit.
12.30PM
1. Roll Call
2. Approve Minutes of 3-23-09 Meeting
3. Scoring of Bids with Jack Curran Collier County Purchasing
Dep!.
4. Audience Comments
5. Adjourn
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES
TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT
THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND
THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL
ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR
PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT
(239) 597-1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING.
Misc. Corres:
Oate:
Item #:_
to:
. .. ~- _._.__.._,--------_.~..~".._~._-----_...._... - ....,.,,-'-'-~'-
.--- v/I
RECEIVED ~:I=s a:;;;L 16' 1 A 9
1 8 2009 Henning March 23, 2009
MAY , Coyle
~~;;;";~E MEETI~:~F ~OILIER COUNTY
WATER AND W ASTEW A TER AUTHORITY
Naples, Florida, March 23, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Water and Wastewater
Authority in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier
County Community Development Services Conference Room #609/610,
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Fay Biles
Lowell Lam
Jerry Morgan
Dr. Sherwin Ritter
Jack Markel
ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Executive Director, CCWW A
Ken Kovensky, Sr. ManagementIBudget Analyst
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Mi~~. CO",.;
!JEitt;~
1 .e~lL{PSL l)A 3'
-_.,.~-_._--
~ "'-....,-...-....----
16'~ A9 !
March 2 , 2009
I. Call to Order
Chairman Biles called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM.
Roll call was taken and a quorum established.
It was noted Craig Woodward of North Marco Utility Company and Kim Retallick of
Orange Tree Utility attended.
II. Approval of Agenda - Meeting of March 23, 2009
Mr. Lam moved to approve the agenda. Second by Dr. Ritter.
Carried unanimously 5-0.
III. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of January 26, 2009
Dr. Ritter moved to approve the minutes of the January 26,2009 meeting. Second
by Mr. Lam. Carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Items Requiring Action by Authority
A. Orange Tree Utilities Company, Inc. Limited Proceeding
Jamie French, Executive Director of the Collier County Water and
Wastewater Authority presented the item noting it begins on page 7 of the
meeting packet. The application is for an increase in water and wastewater rates
due to pass-through costs for electricity. The original application for the increase
was requested by the Utility in a letter dated November 19,2008. In the request,
Staff found discrepancies between purchased power amounts within the
application and the Utilities 2007 annual financial report. Staff requested
clarification from the Utility on the discrepancies and upon review ofthe
documentation provided by the Utility on January 27, 2009, Staff recommends
"That the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority ("Authority ") adopt
Final Order No. 2009-02 to replace Oranfe Tree Utility Company ("OTU")
Water tariff sheets asfollows: replace 2n Revised Sheet No. 17.0 with 3rd
Revised Sheet No 17.0; and replace 2nd Revised Sheet No. 18.0 with 3rd Revised
Sheet No. 18.0. Also replace Wastewater tariffsheets asfollows: replace 2nd
Revised Sheet No.1 7.0 with 3rd Revised Sheet No. 17.0; and replace 2nd Revised
Sheet No. 18.0 with 3rd Revised Sheet No. 18.0."
It was noted the application requests a 0.59% increase in water rates and a 0.57%
increase in wastewater rates based on the increase in amortized pass-through
costs.
Mr. Lam moved to approve Staffs recommendation UThat the Collier County
Water and Wastewater Authority (''Authority'') adopt Final Order No. 2009-02
to replace Orange Tree Utility Company ("OTU") Water tariffsheets as
follows: replace 2nd Revised Sheet No. 17.0 with 3rd Revised Sheet No 17.0,. and
replace 2nd Revised Sheet No. 18.0 with 3rd Revised Sheet No. 18.0. Also replace
Wastewater tariffsheets asfollows: replace 2"d Revised Sheet No. 17.0 with 3rd
Revised Sheet No. 17.0; and replace 2"d Revised Sheet No. 18.0 with 3rd Revised
Sheet No. 18.0." Second by Mr. MarkeL Carried unanimously 5-0.
2
-_._~---"~
-,--
1611 A"1
March 23, 2009 9
B. North Marco Utility Company, Inc. Limited Partnership
Jamie French presented the item noting it begins on page 63 of the meeting
packet. The application is for a 3.30% rate increase in wastewater rates due to the
2008 Price Index Factor, pass- through costs associated with increases in
electricity rates, purchases of wastewater services from the City of Marco Island
(the North Marco Utility Company utilizes City of Marco Island wastewater
services for its Company's customers) and increases in the regulatory assessment
fee. Staff has reviewed the application and recommends "That the Authority
adopt the attached Final Order No. 2009-03, adjusting the wastewater rates of
North Marco Utility Co., Inc. (NMU) by applying the 2008 Price Index Factor to
the allowable 2007 operation and maintenance expenses and thereby its
amortized pass-through costs for wastewater and electricity. "
Craig Woodward, North Marco Utility Company provided an update on the
status of the Utility and related improvements that are being undertaken.
Dr. Ritter moved to approve Staff's recommendation ~~That the Authority adopt
the attached Final Order No. 2009-03, adjusting the wastewater rates of North
Marco Utility Co., Inc. (NMU) by applying the 2008 Price Index Factor to the
allowable 2007 operation and maintenance expenses and thereby its amortized
pass-through costs for wastewater and electricity." Second by Mr. Morgan.
Carried unanimously 5-0.
V. Staff Discussion
Jamie French highlighted the following:
. The issue of North Marco Utility Company (NMU) and the City of
Marco Island "double billing" some of the NMU customers has been
resolved.
. NMU caps billable wastewater at 6000 gallons per month/per customer.
. The Authority's proposed adoption of the annual CPI (to be adopted by
May 15, 2009) will be advertised as required and placed on a future
meeting agenda.
. Staff is in the process of reviewing the budget for the next fiscal year
and will be providing an update to the Authority at a future meeting.
It was noted a NMU customer has requested confirmation from the Authority
regarding the appropriateness of NMU charging customers for connection to its
system.
Mr. Markel moved to authorize Staff to prepare a letter for a North Marco Utility
Company customer regarding the appropriateness of the Utility charging
connections fees (impactfees). Second by Mr. Lam. Carried unanimously 5-0.
Ken Kovensky, Sr. Management/Budget Analyst provided the following
documents regarding the Sunshine Law of which the Authority is subject to:
. "CMA #5311 - Code of Ethics" last revised October 1, 2003
. Collier County Ordinance 2004-05.
3
-- _._..._.~_._~-_._.__.-
-',-
16 I 1 A9
March 23, 2009
. A publication on the Sunshine LawlEthics for Public Servants and Staff.
. Memorandum from Amy Lyberg - Human Resources Director for
Collier County - Re: "Annual Ethics Coverage"
Jamie French provided an update on House Bill #691 which is still in Committee.
VI. Open to Public
None
VII. Authority Member Discussion
None
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:07 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
~~.
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on 5"ps-/o 1 ,
X . ,
as presented , or as amended
4
- -- -~...._---,-,_.^ ."--"'~
-_...~ - ...-._a_ ......,-""